Info OVNI - Series Hors - Journees de Montlucon 1978

Magazine Overview

This issue of 'INFO OVNI HORS SERIE', dated April 18, 1978, is a special report from the French publication 'Centre-matin' detailing the 'Journées ufologiques 1978' (Ufological Days 1978) held in Montluçon. The magazine focuses on the provisional findings and discussions that emerged from this gathering of ufologists.

The Montluçon Ufological Days 1978

The main article, "Les Journées ufologiques 1978 ont permis d'établir un bilan provisoire sur les ovnis" (The 1978 Ufological Days have allowed the establishment of a provisional assessment of UFOs), describes the event held the previous weekend at the Maison des Jeunes et du Centre aéré de Brignat. The gathering brought together dozens of researchers from across France to individually present the provisional results of their work. The atmosphere was described as cordial and the discussions dense, making it difficult to summarize complex and specific work in a few lines.

To address this, a decision was made at the end of the colloquium to compile a summary of the research findings so the public could understand the current state of ufological research. The article emphasizes the prudence of serious ufologists, who avoid making gratuitous or imprudent hypotheses. Instead, they focus on observing evidence and have identified several key points:

• There exists a specific set of original phenomena.
• The UFO phenomenon is a particular case included within this set.
• Other original phenomena within the specific set can interfere with the UFO phenomenon.

Personal Account and Organization

An accompanying piece, likely an editorial or personal reflection by Jean GIRAUD, the organizer, details the challenges and motivations behind the event. Giraud expresses his personal aversion to administrative tasks but acknowledges their necessity for advancing ufological research. He thanks the Maison des Jeunes et de la Culture (M.J.C.) for their support. He explains that due to the administrative burden, he had to undertake the writing of the report himself, rather than relying on the secretary. He notes the participants' strong desire for a detailed report to help them structure the vast amount of information presented.

Giraud admits to taking a subjective but honest approach to the report, allowing himself to add personal comments and judgments. He frames this as a way to be transparent and open to criticism.

He then breaks down the organization of the event by answering the questions 'Where?', 'When?', 'How?', 'Why?', and 'Who?':

• Where? Montluçon was chosen for its central location, which facilitated attendance from across France, including a delegation from Switzerland.
• When? The event took place during the spring break, allowing Giraud, who works in education, to manage the organization. Despite expecting mild weather, a snowstorm occurred on the Friday evening.
• How? The event was hosted at the M.J.C., providing material and financial advantages for meals and accommodation. Some participants, who registered late, had to stay in hotels, while others enjoyed the facilities at the 'chateau de Brignat'. The meals were described as irreproachable in quantity and quality, offered at competitive prices.
• Why? A previous Montluçon event in 1976 was not a complete success, leading to hesitation about a repeat. However, Giraud decided to try again due to the expressed desire of many ufologists to meet and discuss. He considered Montluçon '78 as a potential 'last chance' if it failed again.
• Who? The invitation was extended to all known ufology groups and individuals, with the exception of those known for defamatory or polemical activities. Giraud mentions a few regrettable omissions due to circumstances, such as Jacques Scornaux.

He expresses relief that the event was a success, stating that "Montluçon 78" was a success on all levels, proving that ufologists can meet and conduct positive work under good material conditions. He announces plans for "Montluçon 80" with the aim of improving the quality of research presented.

Participants and Presentations

The report lists numerous participants and their affiliations, indicating a strong representation from various ufological groups and independent researchers across France. The event spanned three days: Friday, April 14th; Saturday, April 15th; and Sunday, April 16th.

Friday, April 14th: The day began with informal introductions and dialogues among the early arrivals. As more participants arrived, the meeting took on a more organized structure. This afternoon was intentionally kept less formal to facilitate human contact. Various groups presented their organizations and regional issues. The GLRU of Langeac was highlighted as facing significant problems. In the evening, participants were taken to their accommodation, followed by dinner. A relaxation activity included a screening of the film 'MONDWEST' and a debate on 'Robots' in Science Fiction.

Saturday, April 15th: The main work sessions began at 9:00 AM. Presentations included:

• Orthoteny and conditioning of the researcher (D. Caudron)
• A new form of hypnosis utilization (M. Dufourny)
• An analysis of the ufologist (F. Crebely)
• A catalog of close encounters (M. Figuet)

After lunch, the afternoon sessions covered:

• The myth of the dwarf and the giant (J.J. Jaillat)
• A basic methodology (Finvidic)
• UFOs and triangulation (Renaux)
• A presentation of the history of the UFO phenomenon reconstructed with 100 slides of models (03100)
• A personal case (F. Sagnès)
• An attempt to reconcile various hypotheses (P. Viéroudy)

The evening included dinner and a debate. A notable presentation was an inédit case of abduction (J. Giraud) with a critical analysis by R. Catinat. Jean d'Aigure presented a non-extraterrestrial hypothesis, acting as a 'devil's advocate' for Monnerie's ideas, which were deemed indefensible.

Sunday, April 16th: Work resumed at 10:00 AM due to fatigue. The agenda included discussing public information dissemination and summarizing ufological research achievements. The attempt to formulate a consensus on a bilan (assessment) proved challenging, requiring two hours to produce a text that was considered worthy of interest but needing further refinement. The text, which received near-unanimous approval (except from SVEPS and D. Caudron), included the points mentioned earlier about the nature of original phenomena and UFOs.

Remarks and Conclusion

Jean Giraud notes that the program was established and, incredibly, was adhered to. He attributes this to his 'quasi-dictatorial' authority in keeping speakers on schedule and limiting interruptions. He acknowledges that this strictness was necessary for everyone to benefit from their allocated speaking time. He thanks the participants for their obedience to his 'violent interventions'.

He also mentions the opportunity to visit their Maison des Jeunes and explain the functioning of Groupe 03100. He highlights the youthfulness of the attendees, noting that they are more competent than he was at their age, suggesting that ufology is in good hands.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the organization and outcomes of ufological conferences, the importance of a scientific and empirical approach to studying UFO phenomena, the challenges of synthesizing research findings, and the need for prudence and objectivity. The editorial stance, as presented by Jean Giraud, is one of dedication to advancing ufological research, a commitment to transparency, and a belief in the future of the field due to the involvement of a new, competent generation of researchers. There is a clear emphasis on collaboration and the sharing of knowledge, despite the difficulties inherent in such a complex and often controversial subject.

This document is an issue of the French ufology publication LDLN, specifically issue 78, which appears to be a report on the "Montluçon 78" conference. The content focuses on the various participants, their presentations, and the overall atmosphere of the event. The publication is in French, and the content is primarily focused on ufological research, theories, and personal experiences within the field.

Participants and Presentations

The issue details the contributions of numerous ufologists who attended the Montluçon 78 event. Each participant is briefly described, often with a personal anecdote or a summary of their presentation.

• Michel DUFOURNY (03100) is described as a "consultant" for the group, no longer actively investigating UFOs but constantly seeking information. He presented an original method of hypnotic regression on-site to gather witness testimony without influencing the subject.
• Bernard DUFI (FALDOS) is noted for his impressive dedication, traveling to Montluçon for the event. His presence was highly appreciated.
• Michel FIGUET (AAMT LDLN Drôme Ardèche) is highlighted as an indispensable element for ufological events. He is praised for his spontaneity, kindness, and joie de vivre. He presented a unique file on UFO cases in France, generously making it available to all.
• Jean Jacques JAILLAT (LDLN Loiret) is described as an ufologist who rarely leaves his home in Montargis but made the trip to present a detailed and passionate talk on the myth of dwarfs and giants and their connection to the UFO phenomenon. His presentation was slated for future publication in LDLN.
• JARDILLIER (LDLN Moulins) is mentioned as a new investigator for LDLN, seeking information and surprised by the diverse research directions in ufology.
• Daniel LAROCHE (ADERS Atlantique) attended with friends, regretting that Jean Louis Brochard could not join them. They arrived late and slept in their car before being accommodated.
• Marc MARINELLO (SLEPS), from Switzerland, discussed research coordination and detection. He was a key figure in the "Hardy Marinello" station project. The SLEPS group managed to simulate a UFO appearance on a computer, an achievement praised for its technical complexity given the current lack of knowledge about UFOs.
• Taoufik MEGADEMINI (SLEPSE) did not give a presentation but stood out for his pertinent questions and his role as an indispensable regulator.
• Michel MONNERIE was absent physically but his "astral double" was felt to be present. The author humorously notes that he would not repeat the invitation due to the lack of security personnel available to manage potential over-enthusiastic participants. Monnerie is credited with surpassing Bergier.
• François PAROT (LDLN Vichy et Corrèze) is described as a promising young ufologist who took advantage of the days.
• Gilbert PEYRET (LDLN Haute Loire) presented his "problems" and shared humorous anecdotes about his misfortunes, amusing the attendees.
• Thierry PINVIDIC (SLEPSE) presented an exposition that received no criticism, noted for its coherent and evident hypotheses. He proposed a test for ufologists to report on a specific sequence from a Spielberg film as if they had witnessed a real UFO, to analyze information recall.
• Réni RENAUX (CAU) courageously presented the work of another, overcoming significant difficulties.
• Frédérique SAGNES (PHOBOS) shared a significant personal experience that deeply marked her, considered an excellent subject for study.
• Pierre VIEROUDY (LDLN) attempted to reconcile the extraterrestrial theory with the theories of collective unconscious creation of the UFO phenomenon. He argued that these theories are not as incompatible as they seem, with conflicts arising more from definitions than from substance. His ideas were to be published in LDLN.
• JAN D'AIGURE (Eleveur de paradoxes) defended Monnerie, humorously stating he played the "devil's advocate." He presented a case of abduction and argued that ufology is "demountable" yet irrefutable as a whole, proposing a synthetic theory of a "psychism of the species" rather than an extraterrestrial one.

Conclusions and Critiques

The conference concluded with a general sense of satisfaction, with participants finding the days enjoyable and profitable. There is hope for a larger attendance in 1980. The issue also includes a section for "Critiques et Réponses" (Critiques and Responses), where one participant criticized the author's "taste for cultivating paradox." The author defends this approach, suggesting that paradox cultivation is excellent for the intellect and that those who dislike it may struggle with "exercises of style." The author also notes that even the critic acknowledged the excellence of their ideas, seeing it as progress.

The author concludes by stating that it is better to have many ideas and express them imperfectly than to have few or bad ideas. The Montluçon 78 event was intended as an idea-exchange hub, which it successfully achieved, with hopes for Montluçon 80.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the diverse approaches to ufological research, the presentation of various theoretical frameworks (extraterrestrial, collective unconscious, psychological), and the importance of critical thinking and open discussion within the ufology community. The editorial stance appears to be one of encouraging open debate, valuing diverse perspectives, and promoting the advancement of ufological understanding through shared experiences and theoretical exploration. The publication also seems to value personal commitment and dedication within the field, as evidenced by the descriptions of the participants.