inforespace hors serie - No 08 - 1984

Magazine Overview

Title: Inforespace
Issue: n° 8 hors série
Volume: 13° année
Date: December 1984
Publisher: SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux)
Country: Belgium
Language: French

This special issue of Inforespace, titled "Le leurre de l'indiscernabilité" (The Lure of Indiscernibility), delves into the epistemological foundations and methodological challenges of ufology. The editorial by Pascal Deboodt, the editor-in-chief, announces significant changes to the magazine's format and content for the upcoming year (1985), aiming to balance the budget while maintaining scientific and informational value. He notes a shift towards a more pragmatic approach, incorporating more observation reports and ensuring articles are accessible while maintaining scientific rigor. The editorial also highlights a perceived overemphasis on European ufology and a need to incorporate international perspectives.

Articles and Content

Editorial by P. Deboodt

The editorial reflects on the transition from the analog format of Inforespace to a new formula in 1985. Deboodt explains that the changes are driven by the need to maintain a balanced budget while preserving the magazine's specific character and scientific value. He reassures readers that the new format will not drastically differ from the current one, and while print characters might appear slightly smaller, readability will be maintained. A slight price increase is planned for 1986. The content will be modified to include more practical observation reports and fewer purely polemical or literary debates, which have led some members to not renew their subscriptions. The structure for 1985 will prioritize presenting UFO cases (Belgian and foreign) first, followed by scientific articles. Authors are encouraged to ensure their work is understandable and clearly linked to the ufological problem. The editorial also acknowledges a past neglect of non-European ufology and announces a new section, "En parcourant les rayons d'une bibliothèque..." (Browsing the shelves of a library...). Deboodt expresses hope that these changes will maintain the review's quality and interest, justifying the continued trust of its readership. He concludes by wishing readers the best for the upcoming year 1985.

Avant-propos by Michel Bougard

Michel Bougard's "Avant-propos" (Foreword) introduces three texts that explore the scientific approach to ufology. He acknowledges the undeniable reality of UFO phenomena from a sociological standpoint but notes the difficulty in proving it is more than just a sociological fact. Bougard expresses a personal feeling that since 1977, a truly scientific approach to ufology has been lacking, hindering the presentation of convincing evidence to scientists. He criticizes the tendency for ufologists to resort to "escalade des hypothèses" (escalation of hypotheses) when definitive answers are elusive. He points out that while much has been written, it often rests on shaky ground. Bougard critiques attempts to replace faith in "flying saucers and bolts" with faith in "UFOs: reflection of the human psyche," both of which he believes should be avoided. He considers his text, "Fragments d'Epistemologie pour une Ufologie morcelée" (Fragments of Epistemology for a Fragmented Ufology), as a starting point for a critical awareness of ufology's current state. He emphasizes humility in approaching the UFO problem and advocates for a method that, despite past errors, has proven its worth. He stresses the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and respects all hypotheses as long as they are not imposed. Bougard also highlights the need to be cautious with concepts like "paradigm" and to avoid rationalizing uncertain phenomena too quickly. He believes that simply recalling the fact that a witness perceives something as unusual justifies the publication of such texts.

Fragments d'épistémologie pour une ufologie morcelée (Fragments of Epistemology for a Fragmented Ufology) by Michel Bougard

Bougard begins this article with a quote from Goethe about not getting lost by not starting a journey. He reflects on his 15 years in ufology, balancing the need for serious information with the necessity of objective research. He admits to sometimes getting lost in the unusual or being swayed by critical ufologists. He states he has no definitive truths or secrets to reveal and no pretension to clarify the debate. He argues that research into UFO phenomena is still in its "pre-history" and that drawing definitive conclusions is naive, whether based on faith in extraterrestrials or in sociopsychological explanations. He expresses disappointment with the impression that everything has been explained, whether by proponents of the "HET" (Hypothèse Extraterrestre Temporelle) or "HSP" (Hypothèse Sociologique-Psychologique). He suggests that this stems from a "diversion" from scientific practices and a misunderstanding of scientific reflection. Bougard criticizes the tendency to engage in ideological critique rather than focusing on actual research reports, leading to confusion over terminology. He uses the analogy of a man searching for a lost key under a streetlight, even if he lost it in the dark, to illustrate how people search where there is light, not necessarily where the answer lies. He emphasizes that "truth is like trains: one truth can hide another." Bougard discusses his four-year immersion in works on epistemology and the history of science, seeking ideas applicable to ufology. He finds the field of epistemology to be complex and often ambiguous, with different authors having varying definitions and approaches. He notes that ufologists, like some epistemologists, tend to impose their views as universal laws. He highlights Thierry Pindivic's work in applying Popper's ideas to ufology, emphasizing the concept of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theory. He discusses the challenges of defining "paradigm" and the nature of scientific revolutions, referencing Kuhn's work. Bougard points out that while scientific progress can be slow and confusing, it eventually leads to clarity. He contrasts this with the ufological situation, which he likens to a state of despair where the ground seems to be slipping away.

He then addresses the tendency to rationalize uncertain phenomena too quickly, citing examples from Monnerie and HET proponents. He warns against the seductive ease of generalization, which can be intellectually risky. Citing Bachelard, he notes that recognizing a phenomenon does not equate to understanding or explaining it. He criticizes the "new ufologists" who use "demolition" techniques in counter-investigations, sometimes employing scientific methods superficially. He stresses that true scientists have the right to neglect and to err, and that the impression of never being wrong might indicate a deeper error. Bougard argues against a purely empirical and positivist approach, stating that all observation is influenced by preconceptions and that selection of data is inevitable. He criticizes the overemphasis on quantitative data in ufology, comparing it to the flawed attempt to quantify intelligence through IQ scores. He concludes that ufology needs to adopt inductive methods, moving from the particular (observation reports) to the general, while acknowledging the limitations and potential pitfalls of this approach.

"Vous avez dit confusion... ?" (Did you say confusion...?) by Pascal Deboodt

This section, though not fully transcribed in the provided OCR, is likely a continuation or commentary on the themes of confusion and methodology in ufology, possibly offering specific examples or further reflections on the points raised by Bougard.

Other Sections

Cotisations (Subscriptions): This section details the subscription rates for 1984 (Inforespace nº 65 to 67 and hors série nº 8) for Belgium, France, and other countries. It outlines different membership levels (Membre d'Honneur, soutien, ordinaire) and the benefits associated with each, including a choice of books or a full year of Inforespace. Payment methods are specified, with international postal orders or bank transfers required for France and Canada.

Secretariat - Bibliothèque: Information is provided about the SOBEPS secretariat and library, which is accessible to members on Saturdays between 10 AM and 6 PM. Appointments are necessary for visits outside these hours or during July and August, with contact information for the Secretary General, M. L. Clerebaut.

Les Diapositives de la SOBEPS (SOBEPS Slides): The magazine offers a collection of slides dedicated to UFO phenomena, allowing members to create their own illustrated presentations. The collection comprises 336 slides in 28 series, each with accompanying commentary.

Service Librairie de la SOBEPS (SOBEPS Bookstore Service): This section lists books available for purchase through SOBEPS, including "Des Soucoupes Volantes aux OVNI" by Michel Bougard, described as a collective work directed by the president, aiming to summarize ufological research.

List of Books for Subscription Bonus: A list of 18 books is provided as a choice for members opting for the "Cotisation de soutien" which includes a book or a full year of Inforespace. Authors like J. A. Hynek, M. Bougard, and others are listed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of ufological research methodologies, the philosophy of science as applied to UFO studies, and the importance of rigorous, objective, and multidisciplinary approaches. The editorial stance, as articulated by Deboodt and Bougard, is one of advocating for a more scientific and less polemical ufology, emphasizing the need for clear definitions, empirical evidence, and a cautious, humble approach to understanding the phenomenon. There is a clear call for a shift from speculative debate to systematic investigation and a critical self-reflection within the ufological community. The issue also highlights the organizational aspects of SOBEPS, including membership, services, and publications, underscoring its role as a Belgian center for UFO research.

This issue of La Recherche, dated January 1984 (Issue 151), is a dense exploration of epistemological and philosophical issues as they relate to scientific inquiry, with a particular focus on the challenges posed by ufology and parapsychology. The articles critically examine the nature of scientific knowledge, the methods of validation, and the role of perception and interpretation in understanding phenomena.

The Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Theories

The issue begins by discussing the philosophical underpinnings of scientific theories, contrasting the approaches of realism and positivism. It highlights that the choice of a scientific system often hinges on simplicity, a principle exemplified by Occam's razor. The text critiques "conventionalist" approaches, such as those proposed by Poincaré, which prioritize simplicity over empirical verification. The concept of "refutability," central to Popper's philosophy, is examined, with questions raised about its practical application and definition.

Key figures like Bachelard, Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos, and Kuhn are referenced to discuss the evolution of scientific thought, the concept of scientific revolutions, and the role of paradigms. The distinction between hypothesis and theory is clarified, with a suggestion to use terms like "extraterrestrial model" or "socio-psychological model" instead of "E.T. hypothesis." The criteria for validating a theory are discussed, including the importance of scientific consensus and the potential for theories to be "pseudo-scientific" if they appear too well-verified.

Lévy-Leblond's classification of "false theories" (adherent, different, aberrant, and sidérant) is presented as a way to categorize flawed scientific or pseudo-scientific ideas.

Scientific Method and Its Application

The issue delves into various models of scientific inquiry. Francis Bacon's emphasis on facts and empirical observation is contrasted with Descartes' and Newton's deductive approaches based on principles. The modern "hypothetico-deductive" style is presented as a synthesis of hypothesis and validation. The dangers of "triviality by excess of generality" are warned against, using the example of how theories can become overly broad and lose their explanatory power.

Perception and Interpretation

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to the complex nature of perception and its influence on scientific observation. Drawing on Rudolf Arnheim's work, the text explains how perception is not a passive reception of stimuli but an active process of interpretation shaped by memory, expectations, and cognitive frameworks. The concept of "Gestalt psychology" is invoked to explain how the mind organizes visual information. The article emphasizes that "seeing is theory-laden" and that different theoretical backgrounds can lead to different observations, even when looking at the same phenomenon.

The influence of psychological factors, such as fatigue, distraction, and prior beliefs, on perception is discussed. The idea that "reality is not objective but a multiplicity of versions" is presented, highlighting the role of communication in constructing our understanding of reality. This perspective is applied to the challenges of interpreting data in fields like meteorology and cancer research, where identifying relevant variables is crucial.

Ufology and Parapsychology: Proto-Sciences or Pseudo-Sciences?

The issue critically examines ufology and parapsychology, questioning their status as scientific disciplines. The text argues that these fields often suffer from a lack of rigorous methodology, relying on anecdotal evidence and "analogical reasoning" that can lead to "ideological mystification." The "indiscernability" hypothesis between unidentified aerial phenomena (OVNI) and unidentified aerial objects (OVI) is questioned for its lack of empirical testing.

The article discusses the sociological aspects of scientific fields, drawing parallels between the debates in parapsychology and ufology. It highlights how "sociological factors" can influence the acceptance or rejection of ideas, and how "little frauds" and "influence struggles" can occur even within established scientific communities. The concept of "scientific community" and its internal criteria for recognition is explored, suggesting that fields like ufology may be stuck in a "proto-science" phase or risk becoming "pseudo-sciences" if they fail to establish robust internal standards and external validation.

The example of the "Project Alpha" in parapsychology, which was revealed to be a hoax orchestrated by illusionists, is used to illustrate the potential for deception and the importance of scientific skepticism. The text suggests that the tendency to marginalize "inexplicable" cases in ufology might be a way to maintain the status quo or avoid confronting challenging phenomena.

Conclusion and Editorial Stance

The issue concludes by urging for a more critical and rigorous approach to understanding phenomena, whether in established sciences or emerging fields like ufology. It emphasizes the need to avoid simplistic explanations, "ideological mystification," and the "permanent mime of scientific gestures." The underlying stance appears to be one of advocating for a cautious, evidence-based, and philosophically grounded approach to scientific inquiry, while acknowledging the inherent complexities and subjective elements involved in the process of knowledge acquisition.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the philosophy of science, epistemology, the scientific method, the nature of perception and reality, and the critical evaluation of fields like ufology and parapsychology. The editorial stance is clearly one of advocating for rigorous scientific methodology, critical thinking, and a healthy skepticism towards claims that lack empirical support or are based on flawed reasoning. The magazine promotes a nuanced understanding of science, acknowledging its limitations and the influence of social and psychological factors, while firmly distinguishing it from pseudo-scientific endeavors. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of clear definitions, testable hypotheses, and the avoidance of ideological biases in the pursuit of knowledge.

This issue of the magazine, with the cover headline "Vous avez dit confusion...?" and dated October 1984, focuses on the challenges and potential pitfalls in ufological research, particularly concerning the 'indiscernability' between Unidentified Flying Objects (OVNI) and other aerial phenomena (OVI). The primary author, Michel Bougard, along with contributions from other researchers, explores how scientific methodologies, statistical analyses, and even basic observations can lead to confusion and misidentification.

The Illusion of Indiscernability: OVNI vs. OVI

The central theme is the difficulty in distinguishing genuine OVNI from conventional objects or phenomena. The article critiques the reliance on analogies in scientific propositions, citing Jean-Claude Pecker and André Lichnerowicz, who warn against imposing mental structures onto unknown phenomena. Michel Maffesoli's work on the integration of the mythical and the real is also discussed, suggesting that the fictional can make the real more attractive.

The author argues that many ufological models, like the HSP and HET, suffer from oversimplification or reductionism. He points out the tendency for ufologists to be overly credulous and aggressive towards dissent, while simultaneously acknowledging that much remains to be discovered. The concept of 'myth' is explored, drawing on Mircea Eliade and A. H. Krappe, to understand how modern societies create 'modern myths' that, while secularized, still serve to provide orientation and explain reality.

A significant portion of the issue is dedicated to statistical analysis and its limitations in ufology. The article discusses the work of researchers like Claude Mauge, Eric Gregor, Henri Tickx, and Daniel Schwartz, highlighting the dangers of extrapolating from precise conditions and the common error of jumping to causal interpretations. The concept of 'indiscernability' is examined in relation to OVNI and OVI, with reference to studies by Claude Poher and Denis Breysse. Poher's work on observation duration curves is presented, and Breysse's analysis comparing SOBEPS, GEPAN, and Hendry files is discussed. While Breysse found some similarities, the author of this article suggests that the 'indiscernability' might stem from the very nature of the data collection, witness psychology, and the investigative process, rather than an inherent identity between OVNI and OVI.

Case Studies: Misidentifying Astronomical Objects

To illustrate the problem of confusion, the article presents several case studies where astronomical objects were mistaken for OVNI:

• Jupiter: Several observations in Belgium during the summer and fall of 1974 are analyzed. Initially reported as OVNI, these sightings are attributed to the planet Jupiter, particularly its bright appearance during that period. The article notes how local media coverage and witness enthusiasm can amplify such misidentifications.
• Venus: The planet Venus is highlighted as another common source of misidentification. Cases from Dison (October 1972), Jalhay (July 1974), and Anderlecht (January 1977) are detailed, where the bright appearance of Venus, especially near sunrise or sunset, led witnesses to report it as an OVNI. The role of exceptional visibility conditions and the observer's passion for OVNI are emphasized.
• Optical Illusions and Instruments: The article also touches upon how optical instruments, like binoculars, and inherent flaws in observation conditions (e.g., atmospheric disturbances, poor lighting) can lead to distorted perceptions and further misidentifications, as seen in the Habay-la-Neuve case.

Methodological Critiques and Future Directions

The author criticizes the tendency within ufology towards rigid adherence to specific theories (like HET or HSP) and the radicalization of certain viewpoints. He advocates for a 'critical rationalism,' akin to Bachelardian skepticism, as the only viable scientific approach. This involves a willingness to admit ignorance, to conduct interdisciplinary research, and to confront diverse approaches rather than dismissing them.

The article concludes by posing further questions about the nature of 'indiscernability' and the need to identify external and internal physical criteria to differentiate between OVNI and OVI. It acknowledges that the field of ufology is complex, involving epistemological debates, ideological confrontations, and methodological challenges. The author suggests that ufologists, like historical figures such as Newton, Kepler, and even alchemists, sometimes blend scientific and metaphysical considerations, highlighting the ongoing struggle to maintain a purely scientific perspective.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of ufological methodologies, the psychological and sociological factors influencing witness testimony and interpretation, and the importance of rigorous scientific skepticism. The editorial stance is one of caution against hasty conclusions and oversimplification, advocating for a more nuanced, interdisciplinary, and critical approach to the study of unexplained aerial phenomena. The article stresses that many apparent OVNI sightings are likely misidentifications of known objects or phenomena, and that the 'indiscernability' often arises from the limitations of the data and the observer rather than the nature of the phenomenon itself.

This issue of "OVNI PRESENCE" (issue 31) delves into the complex world of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), with a strong emphasis on identifying potential misidentifications and natural explanations for sightings. The magazine, published by the "Association d'Etude sur les Soucoupes Volantes" and based in Belgium, features a collection of articles and witness accounts from the 1970s and 1980s, primarily from Belgium.

Analysis of Sightings and Misidentifications

The core of the magazine revolves around detailed case studies and analyses of reported UFO sightings. A significant portion is dedicated to explaining how celestial bodies, particularly the moon, can be mistaken for UFOs. The article "La lune est sans conteste une des explications favorites de Michel Monnerie" highlights how the moon, especially when low on the horizon or partially obscured, can appear distorted, taking on unusual shapes and colors due to atmospheric refractions and optical illusions. Several witness accounts are presented, including that of M. and Mme Michel Noë in Haut-Ittre on December 17, 1982, who observed a large, orange, luminous ball that seemed to move with their car, later identified as likely the setting moon.

Another key theme is the misidentification of artificial satellites. The article discusses how satellites, especially during re-entry into the atmosphere, can produce luminous effects that are misinterpreted as UFOs. A specific example is given of a US military satellite re-entering over Germany on April 25, 1975, with a table of compiled witness testimonies illustrating the consistency in observations regarding time and duration, despite variations in descriptions.

The magazine also presents a table detailing numerous luminous phenomena observed in Belgium between 1974 and 1975. These include reports from various locations such as Tarcienne, Laneffe, Thuillies, Angre, Sint-Martens-Latem, Grune, Framont, Sinsin, Ans, and St-Denys. The descriptions vary, involving luminous spheres, elongated objects, and objects with trails, often observed around 21h. The analyses provided often link these sightings to astronomical events or optical phenomena.

Specific Case Studies

Several specific cases are examined in detail:

• Gosselies (April 24, 1974): Mr. and Mrs. X reported observing a bright white light resembling a half-moon, which approached and then receded. The article suggests this was likely a lunar phenomenon.
• Bellaire (April 27, 1974): Mr. A. Bastin described a thin, pale border sliding along the moon's crescent, which is explained as a possible optical effect.
• Bissegem (August 27/28, 1977): Mr. and Mrs. Vervisch reported an oval object with luminous points and beams of light, which moved rapidly and disappeared, leaving a white cloud. The article posits this was the setting moon, with its apparent diameter estimated at 5mm at arm's length, consistent with the moon's size.
• Dolembreux (June 26, 1976): A group of friends observed a yellowish-white luminous object with a halo, moving erratically. The explanation offered is a satellite, with the object's apparent size and altitude being key factors.

Book Reviews and Publications

The issue also includes a comprehensive list of UFO-related books, providing titles, authors, publishers, and prices in Belgian Francs (FB). These reviews cover a wide range of topics, from historical UFO accounts and specific cases (like the Adamski case) to fictional works and scientific analyses of phenomena. Notable authors featured include Jean-Claude Bourret, Michel Monnerie, Bertrand Méheust, Aimé Michel, Jacques Vallée, and J. Allen Hynek. The list highlights books exploring the military's involvement with UFOs, the psychological aspects of sightings, and international UFO reports.

Additionally, the magazine promotes "Kadath," a review focused on archaeological enigmas, which serves as the basis for an anthology. It also advertises a subscription to "OVNI PRESENCE" itself, positioning it as "the alternative ufological." The contact information for the "Association d'Etude sur les Soucoupes Volantes" is provided.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the critical examination of UFO reports, the prevalence of misidentifications, and the application of scientific and astronomical principles to explain sightings. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards sensationalist claims, favoring a grounded, evidence-based approach to ufology. The magazine aims to educate readers on how natural phenomena and optical illusions can mimic UFOs, thereby encouraging a more discerning perspective on aerial anomalies. The author, Michel Bougard, concludes by questioning the confusion surrounding the topic and emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis of UFO cases, particularly by distinguishing between genuine unknowns and misidentified known objects.