Ufologie Contact - Series Nouvelle - No 05 - oct 1980

Magazine Overview

This document is the fifth issue of the French ufology magazine "UFOLOGIE CONTACT," published in October 1980 as part of a "nouvelle serie" (new series). It is a "Trimestriel" (quarterly) publication with a cover price of 5 French Francs. The magazine is published by SPEPSE, with R. BONNAVENTURE serving as the Director of Publication and J. LE BRAS and J. SCORNAUX on the editorial committee. The legal deposit date is the publication date, and the issue has a Paritary Commission number of 62518. The ISSN is not provided.

Editorial and Organizational Information

The magazine outlines two subscription formulas: "UFOLOGIE CONTACT" offers 4 issues per year for 15.00 F, and "UFOLOGIE CONTACT SPECIAL" offers 3 issues per year for the same price. Both subscriptions begin on January 1st of the current year. The editorial and administration details are provided, including the address for the Director of Publication in MARLY-LE-ROI.

The "DIVERS" (Miscellaneous) section states that published articles engage only their authors. Readers can request a specimen issue, and letters to the editor must include postage for a reply. Associations and review editors are invited to exchange publications with UFOLOGIE CONTACT.

The Genesis and Philosophy of SPEPSE

Page 3 begins with a reflection on "Le Dernier Menage... peut-être" (The Last Housekeeping... perhaps), introducing the idea of a "Grande Idée dans un Vaste Domaine de Recherche pour une Region Importante" (A Great Idea in a Vast Field of Research for an Important Region). The text explains that the project for the creation of the organization, SPEPSE, germinated in 1916 from personal contacts, was elaborated in 1977 through various exchanges, and was finalized in early 1978. SPEPSE officially came into being in April 1978, dedicating itself to amateur research in all disciplines related to "phénomènes spirituels" (spiritual phenomena). This research is conducted within various working groups (investigation, astronomy, parapsychology, detection, rohelique, documentation, thematic research) and coordinated through a central committee. SPEPSE seeks interactions between all UFO witnesses, rejecting "l'esprit de système" (systematic thinking).

Page 4 elaborates on SPEPSE's functioning, which embraces reality in its diverse aspects. Its operational mode implies perpetual questioning and free engagement, allowing for personal intuition, proposition, and invention. The text asserts that SPEPSE's ideology is not a system to be entered like religion, but rather the sole value. It acknowledges past internal tensions and reactions but emphasizes that the current SPEPSE is a group of friends whose bonds are reinforced by shared experiences, forming a core group for projects like MARINUTO and MAGONIA. Many have retreated into individualism, but the author expresses hope for more engagement in ufology and elsewhere, recognizing that some can give, some can give themselves, and some give nothing.

Future of the Bulletin and Subscription Rates

Page 5 discusses the author's personal decision to reduce administrative activities to focus on other matters, expressing a degree of weariness with certain interactions. The bulletin "UFOLOGIE-CONTACT" will continue for another year, but subscription rates have increased. The new rates are 20.00 F per year for 4 quarterly issues and 25.00 F per year for 3 special issues. The note is dated January 10, 1981, and signed by "Le Secrétaire" (The Secretary).

Call for Engagement and Support

Page 6 invites readers interested in the history of SPEPSE to inquire about the availability of old issues from the Secretariat. For those wishing to continue reading "UFOLOGIE-CONTACT," the bulletin's columns are open. The organization also accepts donations to help perpetuate its work. Finally, it encourages readers to join SPEPSE for an annual contribution of 20.00 F, fostering a sense of belonging to a large family and sharing experiences.

A Debate on Intellectual Honesty and Objectivity

Page 7 features a section titled "LE MESSAGE... POUR CONVAINCRE ?" (The Message... To Convince?). It includes a quote attributed to Georges CLEMENCEAU about traitors and converts. The main text, likely an editorial or a significant contribution, discusses SPEPSE's unique approach to ufology, where all hypotheses are considered, even the possibility that UFOs do not exist. The cohabitation of diverse opinions is presented as a guarantee of objectivity, with members remaining vigilant and critical, studying and dissecting each other's work. This intellectual honesty, described as "obliged," is contrasted with dogmatism and regrettable theories like Michourinism. The author, identified as Monsieur MONNERIE (not the president), seeks space in the publication to address a specific issue.

Critique of an Analysis and Defense of a Case

Page 8 delves into a controversy. Monsieur MONNERIE explains that three pages of his book were attacked in "L.D.L.N." by F. LAGARDE. The critique, he states, does not address the facts of the "enquéte de Franois" (Franois investigation) but aims to discredit him and his analysis. MONNERIE refuses to drag "UFOLOGIE-CONTACT" into a polemic with "L.D.L.N." or F. LAGARDE, whom he respects. However, he poses the question: was he too hasty in questioning the Franois affair, or is LAGARDE mistaken in defending it? He suggests reconsidering the report published in LDLN N° 99-100-101 and transcribed in "Mystérieuses soucoupes volantes" to understand the ongoing analysis.

The "Vénus Hypothesis" and Witness Testimony Analysis

Pages 9 and 10 present a detailed analysis, likely by MONNERIE, exploring the "Vénus hypothesis" as an explanation for the FRANOIS observation. The author argues that the hypothesis is not gratuitous, supported by witness testimony and the direction indicated by the main witnesses. Meteorological conditions are considered, suggesting that light diffusion through clouds could explain the observed phenomenon. The logical progression of the investigation is traced, starting with witness N°5, who, being interested in ufology and possessing a detector, likely reported the event first.

Calculations of Vénus's position (azimuth 215°, height 13°) are presented, aligning with the reported location of the object. The analysis acknowledges imprecisions in the plan and measurements, describing them as "artisanal." The report notes that the witnesses estimated the object was "seemingly on the ground" while Vénus would be at a theoretical 13° altitude. The witnesses' uncertainty about the object's height is highlighted, as is the difficulty of observing in near-total darkness. The analysis suggests that the perceived horizon might have been influenced by the witnesses' assumptions.

Further points of analysis include the angular measurement ("15 mm at arm's length"), deemed excessive for Vénus, and the possibility of diffusion by clouds. The "response illusion" to car headlights is attributed to a known contrast phenomenon, leading to a subjective sense of approach or growth. The witness's choice of describing a "tripling of volume" while his wife described it as "coming at us" is cited as evidence of subjective impressions. The location noted on the plan ("S-pommier") is described as an arbitrary discovery. The author speculates on the witness's car stopping point and the possibility of Vénus being obscured by the terrain or clouds. The conditions for objective testimony are questioned due to cold (-5°), the presence of a UFO, and the family head's departure to pursue the object, leading to anxiety. The analysis concludes that the object's drift might be illusory or due to relative movements. The episode of the car being stopped by the UFO is also questioned, with alternative explanations like the car's speed or the need to downshift being proposed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the nature of ufological research, the importance of objectivity, intellectual honesty, and the critical examination of evidence and hypotheses. SPEPSE positions itself as an open forum for diverse viewpoints, encouraging rigorous analysis and discouraging dogmatism. The issue also highlights the practical aspects of the organization, including subscription details, calls for support, and the ongoing debate within the ufological community, exemplified by the discussion surrounding the Franois investigation and the critique by F. LAGARDE.

This issue, titled "Ufologie et Ufologues," published on January 1, 1980, by SPEPSE, is a critical analysis of a UFO investigation conducted in France, likely near Chemaudin and FRANOIS. The publication delves into the methodology, witness testimonies, and the broader context of ufology and its scientific credibility.

Critique of the FRANOIS Investigation

The core of the issue is a detailed critique of an investigation reported in LDLN 99. The author, M. MONNERIE, argues that the investigation into the FRANOIS incident is not scientifically sound. He points out that the investigator built a scenario based on an initial 'strangeness' without providing the necessary data for verification or refutation. This approach is labeled a "non-method."

Several specific criticisms are raised:

• Arbitrary Scenario Construction: The proposed path of the object on a diagram is deemed arbitrary, suggesting that different investigators might have constructed entirely different scenarios based on the same witness accounts.
• Witness Testimony Issues: The article highlights inconsistencies and vagueness in witness testimonies regarding time, location, and object characteristics. For instance, the direction "Chemaudin" is noted as not being visible from FRANOIS, and the village itself is too large to indicate a precise direction.
• Investigator Bias: The author suggests the investigator may have been biased, forcing data to fit a pre-established UFO model rather than objectively analyzing the evidence. This is exemplified by the investigator's decision to place the object at specific locations without clear justification.
• Photographic Evidence: The analysis of a photograph is also scrutinized. The article questions the camera's specifications, the focal length derived from the image, and the placement of the object at the edge of the frame. It argues that visual observations and binocular views should reveal more detail than the photograph, especially when the object is described as large and bright.
• Lack of Detail and Incoherence: The investigation is criticized for its lack of detailed study of observations, particularly those made with binoculars. The author notes that the object's position and movement descriptions are often vague, and the overall coherence of the evidence is lacking.

The Nature of Ufology and Credibility

Beyond the specific investigation, the issue addresses the broader challenges facing ufology. MONNERIE argues that the primary reason for the scientific community's skepticism towards ufology is the lack of credibility attributed to ufologists themselves.

• Ufologists' Reputation: The author acknowledges that the reputation of ufologists is often poor, with some being seen as individuals on the fringes of society, more interested in sensationalism than rigorous science. This negative perception, even if not universally deserved, colors how scientific findings are received.
• Science vs. Belief: The article contrasts scientific inquiry, which requires control and verification, with the approach of some ufologists who may treat existing reports as dogma. It suggests that a scientist needs to trust the experiences of colleagues, but this trust is contingent on the experiences being verifiable.
• Challenges to Scientific Acceptance: The author notes that even serious ufological groups struggle to gain the attention of the scientific community. This is attributed to the personality of the leaders, the lack of scientific knowledge among some members, and the publication of "academic coffee" (low-quality scientific content) in specialized reviews. Scientists are more likely to trust peers with a similar critical mindset and approach.
• Dispersion and Internal Conflicts: The efforts within ufology are described as dispersed and plagued by internal quarrels, which skeptics attribute to the unstable or unsociable personalities of those involved. While acknowledging that research in a new field naturally involves disagreements, the author points to the unofficial nature of many ufological investigations as a contributing factor.

Conclusion and Editorial Stance

MONNERIE concludes that without rigorous, neutral, and objective investigations into each witness and observation, the truth about UFO phenomena cannot be uncovered. He criticizes the tendency to prove a pre-existing hypothesis, stating that "He who embraces too much, grasps poorly." The author expresses a wish for 1980 that researchers, including those in SPEPSE, would critically re-examine their ideas daily, much like their president, despite any external criticism.

The issue ends with a call for humility and a recognition that in the absence of better data, any conclusion about the FRANOIS photo or similar cases should be reserved. The author laments that LDLN, by refusing to publish this critical study, treats ufology as a non-science, hindering objective opinion formation among readers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are the critique of flawed investigative methodologies in ufology, the challenge of establishing credibility for ufologists and their findings within the scientific community, and the importance of objective, verifiable evidence. The editorial stance is one of critical skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims and a strong advocacy for rigorous scientific methods in the study of UFO phenomena, while also acknowledging the potential significance of the subject if approached correctly.

This issue of Inforespace, published in 1974, features a critical analysis of the field of ufology by Jacques SCORNAUX. The magazine explores the challenges and shortcomings within ufology, advocating for a more scientific and collaborative approach to gain credibility.

The Structural Deficiencies of Ufology

SCORNAUX begins by contrasting official structures like universities and research centers with the often disorganized nature of ufology. He notes that while official institutions may have inefficiencies, they possess a guiding structure. Ufology, however, is characterized by individualism, with practitioners acting in a disordered manner without a superior framework to guide their efforts. The absence of state-funded or corporate research centers means ufology is largely relegated to a leisure activity, leading to a dual lack of time and resources. This creates a vicious cycle: lack of support due to a lack of credibility, which in turn prevents ufologists from achieving that credibility.

He argues that while evidence for the "OVNI phenomenon" may exist, it is not presented in a way that is universally convincing within the short timeframes often granted by skeptical scientists. SCORNAUX expresses conviction that more substantial proof would exist if sufficient time and resources were dedicated to its study.

The Importance of Communication and Trust

A significant point raised is the lack of communication and basic trust among ufologists themselves. SCORNAUX criticizes the "conspiratorial" attitude of some who claim to possess secret knowledge but refuse to share it, hoarding discoveries for an "Invisible College." He deems this approach "totally unscientific" and suggests that such behavior often masks a lack of substance.

He emphasizes that scientific progress is inseparable from the free circulation of information. Comparing ufology to established science, he notes that science operates openly, with researchers aware of each other's work through publications, conferences, and professional networks. Secrets in science can be bought, but the general process is transparent. In contrast, ufology suffers from a lack of structured information exchange.

Examples of Disconnection

Two anecdotes illustrate the disconnect within ufology: two well-known ufologists living only 800 meters apart were unaware of each other's existence. Another prominent ufologist struggled to identify a colleague who used a pseudonym. These situations are described as "properly astounding" from a scientific perspective. A major issue identified is the gap between study groups and prominent authors, with rare contact and collaboration between these two categories of ufologists.

Shared Responsibilities and the Role of Groups

SCORNAUX asserts that responsibility for this situation is shared. Many groups, he observes, tend to dismiss the opinions of isolated researchers, questioning whether ufology has so many valuable individual contributors that it can afford to ignore potential help. Some authors, he notes, view private circles as mere "game beaters" whose sole purpose is to collect observations for "qualified researchers" – implying themselves.

He outlines three reasons why this conception is fundamentally flawed:

1. Material Reason: For a group to produce serious reports, it must invest time in building trust with the public and organizing events like publishing a journal or holding meetings. This requires publicity and a commercial sense. Furthermore, analyzing reports requires scientific measurement apparatus, which cannot be sustained by leisure activities alone.
2. Public Information Desire: The public's desire for information is legitimate and stems from natural human curiosity, which drives scientific inquiry. Humanity has always sought to understand nature's mysteries, regardless of potential risks.
3. Desire for Personal Research: Group members legitimately wish to move beyond mere data collection to personal research. However, this can lead to unsubstantiated theories, underscoring the need for ufologists to critically examine even ideas from those with similar convictions.

Overcoming Antagonism and Fostering Complementarity

SCORNAUX acknowledges that the micro-society of ufologists has developed human antagonisms, mirroring those in broader society, such as the "insiders" protecting their privileges and generational conflicts. The reluctance of ufology "pontiffs" to share their findings with younger researchers, while sometimes justified, creates a detrimental and abnormal situation for science. He finds it particularly regrettable to see such attitudes among those who claim to reject conformity and dogmatism.

He concludes that the actions of ufological groups should be guided by principles of complementarity rather than competition. The subject matter is broad enough for multiple study groups to pursue different paths while remaining scientifically oriented. This should lead to a specialization of groups, with each focusing on specific research areas and freely sharing their work with more competent colleagues.

The Need for Scientific Rigor and Openness

He stresses that genuine scientific progress requires a degree of specialization and cooperation. International cooperation is possible only on a basis of strict equality, and nationalistic sentiments exist. He uses the example of small European states to illustrate how artificial unions lack the impact of organically grown entities.

A crucial element for ufology's credibility would be the acceptance by researchers and authors of having their work pre-screened by genuine scientists. These scientists should be open to studying the phenomenon, ensuring their critiques are constructive rather than dismissive. SCORNAUX clarifies that this does not diminish the immense value of contributions from those with non-scientific backgrounds; rather, it emphasizes the need for scientific validation. He views science not as an enemy but as a collaborator that can assist in various aspects of ufology, a multidisciplinary field.

The Importance of Documentation and Accessibility

SCORNAUX warns against creating a divide between scientific ufologists and non-scientific ones who are willing to consider their input. For ufology to be credible, the scientific method must be applied, and information must circulate freely and be easily accessible to researchers. He highlights the necessity of clear and complete references, explaining that citing sources proves seriousness, allows for verification, and aids research progress by directing interested parties to further information.

A thorough bibliography is indispensable, requiring details like journal volume, year, issue, page number, author, and publisher's address. Similarly, citing specific passages from books should include page numbers to save researchers time. He laments that many do not seem to grasp the importance of this, especially given the limited time available for unofficial research.

He also advocates for detailed indexes in scientific works, listing key places, characters, effects, and theories related to UFOs, along with the pages where they are discussed. He mentions that SOBEPS published such an index for the first three years of Inforespace, a valuable tool that is unfortunately little known.

The Problem of Dilettantism

SCORNAUX reiterates his conviction that the lack of communication and rigor among ufologists stems not just from financial or moral constraints but from a "deplorable dilettantism." He argues that if ufologists strongly assert that the OVNI phenomenon warrants serious study, they must act accordingly. He questions how their discourse can be taken seriously if their actions do not align with their words. He notes that scientists remain skeptical partly because many ufologists behave as if the problem is not as important as they claim.

He concludes that ufology demands significant mental and physical courage, far beyond that required for a traditional hobby. He believes that the way many ufologists proceed – their lack of cooperation and critical thinking – constitutes poor propaganda for ufology. He questions whether ufology has attracted the right people and suggests that before criticizing "official" science, ufologists should first address the shortcomings within their own ranks.

Editorial Note

A note from the editors indicates that despite being written in 1973, the text remains relevant. They express hope that readers will draw conclusions and act accordingly.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical need for professionalism, scientific rigor, and open communication within the field of ufology. The editorial stance is one of advocating for ufology to mature from a hobby into a serious scientific discipline by adopting established scientific practices and fostering a collaborative environment. The author and editors clearly believe that ufology has the potential to be a significant area of study but is currently hampered by internal issues that prevent it from gaining wider acceptance and credibility.

This issue of SPEPSE, dated August 1, 1980, is a French-language publication from the Société Parisienne d'Etude des Phénomènes Spatiaux et Etranges (SPEPSE). The organization is described as a non-profit, apolitical, and non-denominational amateur research entity focused on space and strange phenomena.

Activities and Meetings

The magazine details SPEPSE's activities throughout 1980. Key events include:

• April 26, 1980: The 3rd General Assembly of SPEPSE, attended by 16 members and 7 guests, including representatives from the Groupe de Recherches Cosmographiques du MANS and the Groupe l'Etude du Phénomène OVNI de St SYMPHORIEN en LAYE. The meeting focused on reviewing activity reports, financial statements, and modifying the organization's statutes and internal regulations. An election for the new bureau was also held.
• May 17-18, 1980: SPEPSE was absent from the 2nd CECRU Session, organized by A.D.R.U.P.
• May 31, 1980: A meeting of the new bureau resulted in the definitive adoption of the new statutes and internal regulations.
• June 15, 1980: An exhibition on Astronomy, Astronautics, and UFOs was held at the Marly-le-Roi fair. Hundreds of people visited the SPEPSE stand, which featured a tent for 40 people, panels, tables, a projector, and a screen. Posters on astronomy and astronautics, along with UFO documents, were displayed. NASSIS set up an equatorial telescope for viewing, and the tent was arranged for projections.
• September 13, 1980: A bureau meeting took place.
• September 14, 1980: Colleague Gilles RICHARD organized a car rally, but low participation led to its postponement to 1981.
• October 5, 1980: SPEPSE participated in an exhibition on astronautics and ufology at the Marly-le-Roi fair. Visitors could view 12 panels and audio-visual materials related to ufology and space exploration techniques.
• October 11-12, 1980: A general session of CECRU was organized by the Cercle Lyonnais L.D.L.N.
• November 29, 1980: An Extraordinary General Assembly was held, where Yvon CAYREL presented a panorama of his works themed 'Space - Astro - Surreal - Extra - Infinite'.

Marly-le-Roi Exhibition Details

The exhibition at Marly-le-Roi on June 15, 1980, is described in detail. Despite overcast weather initially, visitor interest grew, especially after announcements invited them to the stand. Two series of slides were presented: one on astronomy, commented by Joël LE BRAS, and another on the UFO phenomenon, with commentary by Madame LACHERE. The event also featured a telescope, where visitors could observe celestial objects like the moon. A group of young students engaged in discussions about SPEPSE's activities and the passion for ufology.

Library and Publications

The issue includes a comprehensive list of books available in the SPEPSE library as of August 1, 1980. The library is categorized into Astronomy, Cosmology, Sciences-Divers, Sciences-Connexes, Ufology, and Divers. Notable titles include works on popular astronomy, the universe, extraterrestrial life, UFO reports, and historical accounts of phenomena. The magazine also lists numerous bulletins and reviews received periodically, such as AESV, APPROCHE, COSMOS MAGAZINE, CERPI, ESPACE INFORMATIONS, LES EXTRA-TERRESTRES, LA LIGNE BLEUE SURVOLEE, FACETTES, G.U.B. Bulletin, GEPO INFORMATIONS, INFO-OVNI, INFORESPACE, L'INSOLITE, KRUPTOS, LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT, NEANT, NOSTRA MAGAZINE, OVNI 43, OVNI INFO 34, LE PHENOMENE OVNI, REALITE OU FICTION, RECHERCHES UFOLOGIQUES, UFOLOGIA, UFO BULLETIN, U.F.C-INFORMATIONS, UFO QUEBEC, and VALICLISE UFOLOGIE. These publications cover a wide geographical scope, including France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Canada.

Avis (Notice)

A notice is included regarding corrections for a bulletin titled "Considérations statistiques sur l'Orthoténie" published by AAMT-SPEPSE. Specific line corrections are provided for pages 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 27, 29, 30, and 31 of the document.

SPEPSE Organization Details

The final pages provide details about SPEPSE itself, including its legal status as a non-profit organization declared under the law of July 1, 1901. Its aspirations are to develop intellectual faculties through the study of experimental sciences, particularly space, and to investigate the manifestation of spatial and strange phenomena. The social headquarters is located in Marly-le-Roi. The bureau consists of G. RICHARD (President), R. BONNAVENTURE (Secretary), and C. BONNAVENTURE (Treasurer). SPEPSE's activities include analyzing current knowledge, conducting research projects, organizing reflection meetings, debates, sky observation vigils, maintaining a documentary and library fund, and publishing a bulletin. The organization has two working groups: Section UFO and Section ASTRO.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are ufology, astronomy, and the scientific study of unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of active research, information sharing, and public engagement through exhibitions and publications. The organization aims to rigorously investigate and present findings on space and strange phenomena, encouraging intellectual development and critical thinking among its members and the public.