REALITE OU FICTION

Magazine Overview

Title: REALITE OU FICTION
Issue: N° 4
Date: 1980
Publisher: Groupe Privé Ufologique Nancéien
Country: France
Language: French

This issue of 'Realite ou Fiction' explores the intricate relationship between UFO phenomena and science fiction, questioning the originality of reported sightings and the subjective nature of witness interpretation. It features a cover that juxtaposes different artistic renditions of UFOs, highlighting the theme of 'Dangerous Extrapolation'.

Editorial and Cover Story

The editorial section, under the heading 'NOTRE COUVERTURE....', discusses the cover's montage of sketches. One sketch is from LDLN n°191, presented as a 'montage sketch', while another is from a GPUN investigation, labeled as a 'witness sketch'. The article points out that the artist extrapolated from the witness's sketch, adding details like a dome, headlights, and a classic 'flying saucer' shape, which aligns with common public perception of UFOs. The editorial stresses the importance of reproducing witness sketches as faithfully as possible, even if they are crude, to avoid introducing subjective interpretations and falling into the trap of pre-conceived notions, particularly the 'extraterrestrial alien' archetype. It urges caution and restraint for illustrators.

Latest News

Under 'DERNIERES NOUVELLES....', the GPUN (a regional delegation of CUFOS) informs its colleagues about developments concerning the 'J.-L. Brochard affair'. Following articles questioning Brochard's legal representation of CUFOS in France, he provided a response, including a photocopy of documents signed by Dr. Hynek, which he claims demonstrate his intention to collaborate with France through a CUFOS delegation led by him. The article notes that both sides have been heard and that the public can draw their own conclusions. It concludes that such regrettable disputes indicate a long road ahead for ufology to gain credibility with the scientific community.

Editorial (1980 Greetings)

The 'EDITORIAL' section offers New Year's greetings for 1980 from GPUN. It emphasizes the growing solidarity among local and regional ufological groups, such as CLEU, Groupe 5255, CVLBLN, and GPUN, and calls for concrete actions rather than just discussions. The editorial highlights the increasing number of ufologists, suggesting that they are now numerous enough to conduct serious work that could be taken seriously by scientists and provide the public with objective information. It laments the prevalence of charlatans and sensationalists who overshadow local research groups in public perception and calls for concerted actions to change this paradox. The GPUN also thanks other ufological journals for their publicity but clarifies that their bulletin is distributed only as a press service and is not available for subscription or sale.

UFO Sightings in Thiaucourt

A significant portion of the magazine is dedicated to UFO sightings in the Thiaucourt region, under the headline 'A Thiaucourt, un ciel accueillant pour les OVNI' by Jean Knauf. The article notes that while many people claim to have observed UFOs, official reports are rare, possibly due to fear of ridicule. It presents several testimonies from the Thiaucourt area:

• January 1975: A resident reported seeing a luminous object, described as a flying saucer, moving silently and at low altitude, which then disappeared.
• A month later (February 1975): Another Thiaucourtoise witnessed a luminous object crossing the sky, making an abrupt right-angle turn, and moving at airplane speed in complete silence. The object was described as the size of a 5-centime coin held at arm's length.
• January 15, 1970: An inhabitant of Rembercourt-sur-Mad reported seeing a luminous sphere that stopped abruptly and then disappeared. This event was investigated by an international ufological research group.
• September 1978: An account from 'Lumières dans la Nuit' details an observation by M. B. C. between Jaulny and Thiaucourt-Regneville. The witness saw a large, immobile, red-orange luminous sphere a few meters from the ground. The object later moved and disappeared.
• December 1975: An identical phenomenon was observed by M. Reger near Les Dames.
• Recent observation (December 1979/January 1980): A Thiaucourtois driving near Xammes observed an object moving silently, emitting a bright light, and hovering a few meters from the ground. The object was described as potentially being a 'flying machine' but unlike any known aircraft.

The article notes that investigations in the area have included soil analysis, which yielded no significant results.

Critique of Bertrand Meheust's Work

An article titled 'OBJECTION MONSIEUR!' by J.C. Beglais critically examines Bertrand Meheust's work, which suggests that UFO reports often mirror existing science fiction narratives. Beglais argues that Meheust, influenced by his friend Pierre Versins (a science fiction specialist), concludes that UFO phenomena might be induced by a single cause, possibly linked to SF. Beglais contends that Meheust's approach is heavily influenced by an unconscious bias, as science fiction, by its nature, has explored almost every conceivable concept. He refutes Meheust's points:

• Shape of UFOs: Beglais states that the common descriptions of UFOs (discs, cigars, spheres) are aerodynamically logical and have long been present in SF.
• Small occupants with large heads: This is also a common trope in SF, but Beglais points out that Meheust overlooks the fact that SF also describes a vast array of other alien forms, which are not reported in UFO sightings.
• Anthropocentrism: Beglais dismisses the accusation of anthropocentrism, arguing that humans can only imagine and describe things through their own cultural lens.
• SF vs. UFOs: Beglais agrees with Jacques Vallée's perspective that UFO phenomena have likely always existed and have been explained within the cultural context of each era. He finds the idea of a non-coincidence in time between SF and UFO reports extraordinary. He suggests that different descriptions of objects from the late 19th century might be due to the limited ways witnesses could describe phenomena compared to modern SF writers.

Beglais concludes that Meheust's arguments are refutable and that his book does not offer new insights, calling it a 'dommage'.

The Interpretation of Phenomena

A diagram illustrates a process: 'Luminous Phenomenon or Material Object' is interpreted by the 'WITNESS' according to their 'CULTURE' as an 'AERIAL OR SPATIAL VESSEL'. This interpretation is then further processed by the 'INVESTIGATOR' according to their 'CULTURE' when interpreting the 'WITNESS'S ACCOUNT'.

The text elaborates on this, explaining how a witness's cultural background (e.g., knowledge of the Bible, science fiction like 'Robur the Conqueror', or the space age) influences their description of an object. The example of 'Tintin's observation' is used to show how a witness might describe an 'extraordinary airplane' by attributing it characteristics like silence, vertical takeoff, and mysterious lights, which are common SF elements. The author questions whether we can truly describe phenomena that are incomprehensible to us, suggesting that this is a danger in large-scale surveys like the 'Magonia' operation, which might lead to biased interpretations of 'imagined' cases.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently explores the intersection of observed phenomena and human perception, particularly through the lens of science fiction. There's a strong emphasis on critical analysis, urging researchers and witnesses to be wary of subjective interpretations and cultural biases. The editorial stance appears to favor rigorous, evidence-based investigation while acknowledging the limitations of human perception and the pervasive influence of cultural narratives, including science fiction, on how UFO events are reported and understood. The issue advocates for concrete actions and objective reporting to legitimize ufology as a serious field of study.