1981 11 00 Science et Vie No 770 (2)

Magazine Overview

This article, titled "STATISTIQUE LES OVNI PILOTÉS DES TERRESTRES?" (Statistics: Piloted UFOs of Terrestrial Origin?), published in the magazine Science & Vie (issue 62), critically examines the "isosceles triangle" theory concerning UFO landing sites. The theory, proposed by ufologists, suggests that UFO landing points form isosceles triangles, implying intelligent, non-human guidance. The article presents the scientific critique of this hypothesis, focusing on statistical analysis and data reliability.

The Isosceles Triangle Theory

The theory posits that by plotting UFO landing sites, geometric figures, specifically isosceles triangles, can be identified. The proponents, including J.-Ch. Fumoux, claimed that by analyzing 76 landing points in France, they found 1877 isosceles triangles, a number significantly higher than what would be expected from random distribution (1625.5). This excess was interpreted as evidence of intelligent, extraterrestrial planning.

Scientific Critique by Dominique Caudron

Dominique Caudron, a researcher with a background in statistics and an interest in ufology, took on the challenge of verifying this hypothesis. He first examined the original methodology, noting that the initial work involved manually testing various combinations of points and then using computers for larger samples. Caudron points out that the initial sample of 78 points yielded 1911 isosceles triangles, and a larger sample of 125 points yielded 8278, which seemed to far exceed random chance.

However, Caudron's rigorous analysis revealed significant flaws in the data and methodology.

Data Reliability Issues

Caudron emphasizes the fragility of the data base itself. The UFO landing reports are often based on newspaper clippings, police reports, or ufological reviews, which are subject to deformation, errors in dates or locations, and even hoaxes. He notes that when verifying cases, many are reduced to confusions or hoaxes. Furthermore, the criteria for including a case in the sample were often not respected, leading to the inclusion of questionable data.

Statistical Methodological Flaws

Caudron's statistical simulations, using computers and more robust methodologies, showed that the excess of isosceles triangles was not statistically significant. He conducted 30 simulations with 76 random points, using different contour methods (Franval and SAGACITÉ) to approximate the French territory. These simulations consistently yielded numbers of isosceles triangles close to the expected random average (around 1600-1650), with standard deviations that indicated the observed results from the UFO data were not exceptional.

The Problem of Pseudo-Isosceles Triangles

A key finding by Caudron was the failure to eliminate "pseudo-isosceles triangles." These occur when points are too close together, creating an artificial excess of isosceles triangles. By eliminating 8 points that were too close in the sample, Caudron found the number of isosceles triangles dropped to 1153, which was well within the range expected from random distribution.

GEPAN's Conclusions

The GEPAN (Groupement d'étude des phénomènes aériens non identifiés), a French agency for studying unidentified aerial phenomena, also studied the case and arrived at similar conclusions, finding no statistical evidence to support the isosceles triangle theory.

Other Related Theories and Observations

The article briefly touches upon other aspects of ufology, including the "orthoteny" theory by Aimé Michel, which also sought geometric patterns in UFO sightings. It also mentions the "Bermuda Triangle" and its association with triangles, suggesting that triangles have become a fashionable shape in current popular beliefs, sometimes linked to astronomical phenomena or cosmic warnings.

Conclusion

The article concludes that the isosceles triangle theory, while an attempt to scientifically support the belief in UFOs, collapses under reasonable verification. The excess of isosceles triangles found in the original research is attributed to methodological errors, particularly the failure to eliminate pseudo-isosceles triangles and the unreliability of the source data. The author, Michel Rouzé, suggests that while this doesn't disprove the existence of UFOs, it highlights how statistical methods can be misused to create illusory correlations, and that more rigorous evidence is needed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of pseudoscientific theories, particularly those related to UFOs, through the lens of rigorous statistical analysis and data verification. The editorial stance is clearly skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, advocating for scientific methodology and evidence-based conclusions. The article champions the work of researchers like Dominique Caudron who apply scientific rigor to debunk popular but unfounded theories, while acknowledging the potential for genuine scientific inquiry in fields like exobiology and the psychological/sociological study of UFO myths.