Ufologie Contact - Special - No 05 - 1 ufologue contre 3, oct 1980

Magazine Overview

Title: UFOLOGIE CONTACT
Issue: N°5
Volume: 3
Date: October 1980
Price: 5 F.
Publisher: SPEPSE
Type: Special Issue

Editorial Introduction

The editorial, attributed to R. BONNAVENTURE, addresses potential criticisms of SPEPSE's approach to ufology, asserting that the organization does not hold a 'curious conception of democracy in Ufology' nor does it intend to discredit the phenomenon, witnesses, or ufologists. It emphasizes a consistent line of conduct over two years of publication. The editorial highlights a quote from Michel MONNERIE, suggesting that the coexistence of varied and even opposing opinions within SPEPSE guarantees objectivity, as members remain vigilant and critical while respecting each other. The current issue is dedicated to a critique of the former president's work, aiming to demonstrate a commitment to avoiding easy concessions and upholding the principle of questioning ideas. The editorial anticipates that some ufologists may find the critique by T. PINVIDIC particularly satisfying as it challenges cherished certainties.

Subscription and Administration Details

SPEPSE offers two subscription formulas: UFOLOGIE CONTACT (4 issues per year) and UFOLOGIE CONTACT SPECIAL (3 issues per year). Both have an annual subscription cost of 15.00 F, payable by bank check to SPEPSE, with subscriptions beginning on January 1st of the current year. The editorial and administrative details are provided: Director of Publication is R. BONNAVENTURE at Domaine de Montval, 6, allée Sisley - MARLY-LE-ROI (78160). The editorial committee consists of J. LE BRAS and J. SCORNAUX. The legal deposit date is the publication date, and the commission number is 62518. The publication is printed and edited by SPEPSE. The bulletin states that published articles are the sole responsibility of their authors. Specimen issues are available upon request, and letters to the editor must include a stamp for a reply. Associations and review editors are invited to send their publications for exchange.

Critique of Michel Monnerie's "Le Naufrage des Extra-terrestres"

This special issue features a detailed critique by T. PINVIDIC of Michel MONNERIE's book, "Le Naufrage des Extra-terrestres" (published by Les Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes). The critique, presented as a 'pensum' written immediately after reading Monnerie's work, aims to dissect Monnerie's arguments without engaging in polemics.

Monnerie's Thesis and Pinvidic's Counterarguments

Monnerie's central thesis, as summarized by Pinvidic, posits that the extraterrestrial myth is credible and technologically possible, serving as a universally accepted framework that explains certain OVNI observations as manifestations of this belief. He argues that this myth creates a resonance effect, leading to new observations that further amplify it in a cyclical manner.

Pinvidic acknowledges the validity of Monnerie's initial propositions (A) 1 and A) 2) regarding the existence of the extraterrestrial myth and its role in explaining observations. However, he strongly disputes proposition A) 3, which suggests that the myth induces new observations. Pinvidic argues that this does not account for all OVNI cases, particularly those involving hoaxes, rumors without physical evidence, or cases where the OVNI myth is not prevalent.

He also critiques Monnerie's proposition B) 1, which states that an observation describes a real, often unrecognized object. While agreeing that witness honesty is generally high, Pinvidic rejects the idea that the OVNI phenomenon is solely the domain of the deluded or marginal, citing studies that found no higher percentage of marginal individuals among witnesses than in the general population.

Proposition B) 2, suggesting witnesses transpose their observations based on their knowledge of the OVNI myth, is deemed applicable only to some cases. Pinvidic points to observations in non-Western countries, where the OVNI myth is not culturally ingrained, yet descriptions match those found in Western reports. He cites studies from Gabon (Project MAGONIA) as evidence of this phenomenon.

Proposition B) 3, which posits that at a certain level of strangeness, the observer enters a state where the unconscious elaborates an OVNI scene, is dismissed by Pinvidic as lacking scientific basis. He argues that while some visions might align with ufological patterns or mythological bestiaries, there is no defined psychopathology or neuropathology strictly related to OVNI experiences. Even if such a pathology existed, it would be impossible to extrapolate it to explain the entirety of the OVNI manifestation.

The Principle of Amalgamation

Pinvidic accuses Monnerie of using the principle of 'Amalgamation' and making hazardous extrapolations. He criticizes Monnerie for declaring himself 'cured' of a 'paranoid universe' and an 'illusory study' where the material lacked value because 'we wanted to believe.' Pinvidic counters that many individuals, including himself, approach the OVNI phenomenon with detachment and that the issue is not about wanting to believe but about insufficient rigor in selecting hypotheses.

Monnerie's work is criticized for generalizing from specific cases, such as those involving hoaxes or highly emotional individuals, to explain the entire OVNI phenomenon. Pinvidic argues that Monnerie ignores scientific work by researchers like Vallée, Heaton, Campbell, and others, and falls into the trap of creating a simplistic model. He points out that Monnerie acknowledges two valid hypotheses: that we are subjects of something beyond our comprehension, or that we are subjects of our own illusions. Pinvidic suggests that Jacques Vallée's concept of an invisible college encompasses both possibilities.

Pinvidic asserts that Monnerie's chosen explanation (socio-psychological) is not generalizable and favors the hypothesis of external influence, while acknowledging the paranoid aspect of such an explanation. He concludes that ufology is not as simple as Monnerie presents it.

Specific Criticisms of Monnerie's Arguments

Pinvidic details several examples of Monnerie's alleged amalgamation and hazardous extrapolations:

• Ignoring existing research: Monnerie dismisses cases that are no longer considered valid by serious ufologists and ignores extensive scientific work by various researchers.
• Misinterpreting witness accounts: Monnerie uses the example of interpreting forest noises as a threat to suggest that OVNI witnesses are overly emotional. Pinvidic argues that while some individuals may be highly emotional, this does not apply to all OVNI witnesses, and simple psychological tests could verify this.
• Press distortion: Monnerie claims the press distorts UFO reports. Pinvidic, referencing an interview with Commandant Kervendal, states that gendarmerie reports are generally accurately reported, with the main issue being the publication of personal details from investigations.
• Confusing evocation with certainty: Monnerie infers that because highly strange cases evoke possibilities of delirium, psychosis, or fakes, they *are* such. Pinvidic argues this is a hasty amalgamation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme in this issue is a critical examination of explanations for the OVNI phenomenon, specifically challenging the reductionist approach of attributing all sightings to myth or psychological factors. The editorial stance, as articulated by R. BONNAVENTURE, is one of rigorous, objective, and critical research, emphasizing the importance of respecting diverse opinions while maintaining vigilance. The publication positions itself as a platform for in-depth study and debate within the field of ufology, prioritizing constructive inquiry over simplistic conclusions.

This issue of "L'ÉCHO DES MYSTÈRES" (Issue 15) presents a critical analysis of the work of researcher Michel Monnerie concerning Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs).

Critique of Michel Monnerie's "Amalgame" Theory

The article begins by dissecting Monnerie's concept of "Amalgame" (Amalgamation). It posits that when individuals cannot identify an object, they may resort to the UFO myth, using its associated descriptions and comparisons, whether consciously or unconsciously. The author questions how a peasant, for instance, who doesn't read science fiction, would describe a UFO by comparing it to a tractor, suggesting this is an "amalgamation" of existing knowledge.

Monnerie's process of explaining belief in "Ufomania" is also critiqued, suggesting it lumps together various types of believers. His interpretation of a "civilizing X phenomenon" is compared to the idea of God, and the "biblical historical framework" is seen as evoking a "civilizing contact." The author notes that when stripped of its divine aspect, the "X phenomenon" is also seen as a "civilizer," but rarely attributed mystical or religious connotations, leading to another "amalgamation."

Monnerie's inference that the "Canular de l'Ile Maury" (Hoax of Ile Maury) contains essential elements found in other cases, leading him to conclude that these cases are inventions or illusions, is also labeled as "amalgamation."

The article highlights Monnerie's description of witness estimation errors, noting that some people struggle to express themselves, leading to size discrepancies. While Monnerie provides an example, the author suggests that using witness inconsistencies as a weapon against them, through the principle of "amalgamation," is clumsy.

Monnerie's presentation of photographic evidence is also scrutinized. The author questions whether photos from the "Ile de la Trinité" are explicable, implying that Monnerie's approach aims to suggest all such photos are either explainable or taken by fakers or incapable individuals.

Further Criticisms and Contradictions

The article points out a case of "manifest Ovni-delirium" cited by Monnerie, which is based on a single case from 1954. The author feels Monnerie uses this isolated case to build a "Symptomatology" and applies the "amalgamation" principle to it.

Monnerie is accused of presenting far-fetched explanations as common beliefs to support his arguments for credulity. He is also criticized for suggesting that witnesses of an observation are always "chosen," which is seen as an abuse that supports his thesis.

Monnerie's explanation involving "plasmoids" is called a universal panacea. While the existence of plasmoids is accepted, the author argues they cannot explain UFOs several meters in diameter. This leads to the conclusion that Monnerie has a "facile Amalgame."

Contradictions and Errors

The article identifies a contradiction in Monnerie's statements regarding "modeling." He states that "modeling" is a "serious Ufological disease" (P.16) but later argues that the only way to work is to "envisage, from the testimonies, one or more models that can account for them" (P.42).

Another contradiction arises from Monnerie's stance on the existence of UFOs. He states that "one is entitled to try to verify other models, and if the UFOs did not exist" (P.45), and that a model "must be verifiable" (P.182). Yet, he seems to promote his "sociopsychological model" despite the author's claim that modeling is useless in its current state.

Monnerie's argument that the lack of photographs and universally admitted physical models, despite numerous fantastical accounts, is accepted due to a "certain coherence" is also questioned. The author contrasts this with the statement that "no physicist today doubts its existence" (P.174).

The Plasmoid Argument

The article questions whether Monnerie is truly discussing UFOs or plasmoids. It notes that the arguments used to support the existence of plasmoids (which are recognized) are the same as those used by ufologists for UFOs. The author suggests Monnerie accepts plasmoids but not UFOs, attributing this to an "affective influence" or "anti-belief."

Last Contradiction

Monnerie is criticized for stating that UFOs and E.T.s are unrelated, then dismantling the "HET" (Hypothèse Extraterrestre - Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) and claiming UFOs are explained.

Errors in Statistical Interpretation

Monnerie's parallel between the "gravity/number" ratio in psychology and the "strangeness/number" ratio in UFO reports is analyzed. He deduces that fewer highly strange cases exist because severe psychoses are rare. The author argues this is a misinterpretation of correlation. Correlation between two variables (X and Y) does not automatically imply causation (X causes Y) or a direct relationship. It could be due to a third, undetermined variable (Z).

The article illustrates this with graphs showing probable distributions for "gravity/number" and "strangeness/number." It argues that these curves are naturally decreasing or Gaussian due to probability, not necessarily indicating a cause-and-effect relationship. The author quotes Rémi Chauvin, stating, "The layman uses statistics like a drunk uses lampposts, to hang on to, not to light his way."

Figures 5 and 6 further illustrate this point with examples of "chair caners" in Portugal and "Tyrolean cows," questioning if a correlation between their production levels implies a causal link.

External Influences and Dogma

Monnerie's statement about the "disarray of saucerophiles" leading them to attribute divine attributes to "apparatuses of the gods" is discussed. The author notes that KUIPER and MORRIS examine the HET without it being religious, but suggests Monnerie might be the only one who is correct.

Monnerie's view on the "plurality of inhabited worlds" is described as "ultra-positivism" and a "dogma supported by science." The article traces this idea back to ancient Greece.

Regarding the development of intelligent life on other planets, Monnerie's argument that it's "not automatic or probable" is countered by the law of large numbers and the fact that searches have focused on life as we know it. The author mentions Mars exploration failures but notes that "it" (life) "eats" and "breathes."

Monnerie's assertion that "no one can prove that it is a rigged file, because only aggressive believers... have the pieces" is challenged. The author points out that researchers like MENZEL and KLASS have accessed the files and still cannot fully explain them, and that the Air Force rejects MENZEL's explanations. The claim that detractors lack access to the file is refuted.

The Migueres Affair

The Migueres affair is presented by Monnerie as a naive but sincere testimony. However, the article refers to a special bulletin from AESV where Pétrackis allegedly proved it was a setup. The author notes that Monnerie's model, when applied to the Migueres case, also works for "pure inventions," indicating its potential to explain almost anything if analysis is limited to literature.

Form and Tone of Monnerie's Work

The article criticizes the form and tone of Monnerie's exposé. He is accused of adopting a "pioneer" stance, presenting himself as a "healed ufologist" guiding others. His tone is described as sarcastic, with quotes like "The 'for' have acquired a certain notoriety, they have become ufologists, which makes them seem more serious" (P.39) and "Let's recognize the talent of authors of Ufological books who succeed in making their readers take a pile of rubble for a monument" (P.83).

Monnerie's personal experience of a "dream" for ten years is mentioned, and his description of a "myth whose dogmas are imposed by 'specialists,' in reality, the high priests of an ambiguous neo-religion, half-science, half-belief" is compared to SCHATZMAN.

The author questions the "grating tone," suggesting Monnerie might be resentful of being misled by ufology for ten years, leading to "invectives" similar to those of KLASS or SCHATZMAN.

Other Astonishing Statements

Monnerie's statement that a hypothetical official contact where "a flotilla of Aircraft would land in the gardens of the Elysée" is so naive that "even S-F authors would no longer dare to write it" (P. 42) is presented. The author wonders who among serious ufologists would imagine such a scenario, suggesting only "anti-myth emotion" could lead Monnerie to argue this way.

The article implies that Monnerie's arguments might be unknown to his "detractor Moyen," who allegedly hasn't bothered to inform himself. However, it acknowledges Monnerie has ten years of ufology experience and has likely encountered these arguments in numerous publications.

Conclusion (or Presque)

The author concedes several positive points in Monnerie's study:

1. Demonstrating that extraterrestrials (ETs) are not necessary or logical to explain UFOs.
2. Analyzing the origin of the idea of extraterrestrial life and how space exploration invigorated the myth.
3. Showing that an unconcretized idea retains its symbolic content and evolves with technology and societal changes.
4. Denouncing the role of astronautical ideas in triggering the Ufological myth.
5. Illustrating the media's role as "logistical support" in promoting belief and diffusion.
6. Clarifying the structure of wave phenomena from journalistic and sociopsychological angles.

However (CUPENDANT):

The author points out that Monnerie's hypothesis also works for "Canulars" (hoaxes), like the MIGUERES case, which is problematic. Furthermore, the hypothesis is not generalizable because it is incompatible with "Occam's Razor."

The sociopsychological model is deemed valid for most cases of limited strangeness but would require a "miracle" to explain the most extraordinary accounts.

What Should Have Been Done

The author expresses disappointment that Monnerie did not consult psychologists or provide a rich bibliography of sociopsychological references.

Monnerie's book offers some indications supporting the existence of a myth, based on historical analysis and bibliographical references to astronomy. However, extrapolating the "HSY" (Hypothèse Sociopsychologique) to the entire UFO phenomenon is considered abusive and curious, especially given the lack of references.

The author suggests Monnerie should have investigated by surveying genuine specialists, asking them to identify the 20-30 most resistant cases for further investigation. This could involve field research and compiling existing dossiers.

If Monnerie could convincingly explain the most difficult cases, it would provide quantitative indications of the HSY's validity, even if absolute proof remains elusive due to the lack of recurrence.

While the specificity might be illustrated globally by invariants, non-existence could only be deduced from precise case-by-case studies, not the other way around. Believing (P.104) would be contrary to a scientific approach.

The author states he is not trying to defend his own beliefs but argues that Monnerie should not promote the HSY as a universal panacea. While Ufological models may be based on belief, the HSY is also a belief. The author quotes Jean Rostand: "A belief, I am led to judge it quite differently depending on whether it claims the right to exist or whether it demands to be the only one!"

With UFOs, the interest is in "fringe effects," and the author reiterates that it's not simple. Monnerie's claim to have sufficient elements to resolve the issue is considered premature. While dreaming of HSY or other explanations is not forbidden, one must remain aware that it is currently just a dream and not be fooled by one's own conclusions about the phenomenon's origin.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this critique are the limitations of sociopsychological explanations for UFO phenomena, the dangers of "amalgamation" and misinterpreting statistical correlations, and the need for rigorous, quantitative scientific methodology. The editorial stance is one of critical skepticism towards overly simplistic or universal explanations, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based analysis and cautioning against premature conclusions or the promotion of any single hypothesis as a panacea.

This issue of INFORESPACE, identified as a "Special" edition focusing on "Nouveaux Ufologues" (New Ufologists), was published on November 26, 1979. The primary content consists of critical analyses and discussions within the field of ufology, with a strong emphasis on research methodology and the interpretation of evidence. The magazine is published by SPEPSE (Société Parisienne d'Etude des Phénoménes Spatiaux et Etranges), a French amateur research organization.

Articles and Contributions

Thierry Pinvidic's Reflections on Ufology

Thierry Pinvidic opens the issue with a philosophical reflection on ufology, drawing a parallel to Pascal's dilemma between the "spirit of geometry" and the "spirit of finesse." He identifies himself with the "spirit of geometry," believing that while poets may describe the world, their theories gain value only when they convince logicians. Pinvidic references Michel Monnerie, who reportedly left ufology, likening it to being on a "raft of the medusa." Pinvidic, however, states he does not feel lost, but rather emphasizes the need for careful steps in the "darkness" of research, hoping to witness the "dawn" of new horizons.

Pinvidic then critiques the work of Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, particularly their book "La grande peur Martienne" (The Great Martian Fear), published by Les Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes. He acknowledges their effort in demanding that ufologists retrace their steps and confront the "disaster" of their field, suggesting their work is a salutary purge. However, he regrets the lack of references in their use of italicized passages from ufological works or old newspapers, which hinders verification. Pinvidic also addresses an objection raised against Michel Monnerie's book, which Barthel and Brucker also seem to echo: that ufological cases are all explainable, distorted by the press, or used in unfounded compilations. Pinvidic argues that to prove no case is valid, one must examine and explain all of them. He states that his own approach, and that of other serious ufologists, is to identify an "invariance" in the literature that distinguishes it from conventional explanations, forming a specific phenomenology. He notes that statistical studies, particularly from the USA, suggest a certain specificity, though not yet proven. He contends that the problem is one of competence, and while discarding false interpretations is valid, it is not a recurring method and extrapolating from it is an act of faith. Pinvidic concludes by stating that Barthel and Brucker have done good work but should exhaust the subject before drawing conclusions.

Addendum: Critique of "Nouveaux Ufologues"

In an addendum, Pinvidic shares his thoughts on a special issue of INFORESPACE dedicated to "Nouveaux Ufologues." He finds the first part by M. Monnerie pertinent, though he criticizes the tendency to lump everything together. He discusses D. Caudron's critique of the GEPAN investigation, finding some interesting issues but disagreeing with the tone that labels "new ufologists" and GEPAN as mere "clowns." While acknowledging Caudron's competence, Pinvidic finds some of his statements shameful. He particularly criticizes Barthel and Brucker, describing their contempt for the ufological "plebs" as characteristic of the "newly rich." He states they resort to pointing out spelling and printing errors to illustrate the incoherence of narratives, examining a few cases and extrapolating broadly. Pinvidic challenges them to take the FIGUET catalog from A to Z and explain it, rather than offering vague allusions to witness alcoholism years later. He provides an example of the Vuillien affair in Jura, where his parents, who knew Georges Vuillien, were impressed by his account. He recounts how a hairdresser, Madame Moureau, dismissed the case as a "joke," and suggests that Barthel and Brucker might classify the entire affair based on such an opinion. Pinvidic asserts that his conception of "science" differs from theirs and that if they need to equate him with believers or the naive to be right, they may do so, but he will not allow them to speak nonsense when the time comes.

Errata

An errata section corrects several typographical errors in previous pages, including changes to words like "s'installe," "explicable," "atterrir," and "acquis," and notes the deletion of "pour."

R. Bonnaventure's Commentary

Following Pinvidic's piece, R. Bonnaventure comments on Pinvidic's prolific writing, noting that he has taken the opportunity to share his personal reflections on the book by Barthel and Brucker. Bonnaventure states that this debate adds a democratic aspect to SPEPSE's work, which they are proud of.

SPEPSE Organization Information

Mission and Aspirations

The SPEPSE (Société Parisienne d'Etude des Phénoménes Spatiaux et Etranges) is presented as a non-profit, apolitical, and non-denominational amateur research organization, established under the French law of July 1, 1901. Its aspirations include developing and enriching intellectual faculties through the study and practice of experimental and applied sciences, particularly those related to space. SPEPSE aims to study the manifestation of spatial and strange phenomena and to prove their reality or non-existence.

Social Seat and Bureau

The organization's headquarters are located at Domaine de Montval, 6, allée Sisley, 78160 MARLY LE ROI, with a telephone number provided for contact after 8 PM. The bureau consists of Gilles RICHARD as President, Raymond BONNAVENTURE as Secretary, and Chantal BONNAVENTURE as Treasurer.

Activities

SPEPSE's activities involve analyzing current knowledge in contemporary science, developing research projects, holding reflection meetings, organizing presentations, debates, and sky observation vigils. They also maintain a documentary and library service. The research is team-based, with two working groups or study sections operating in constant liaison with technical consultants or associations pursuing similar goals.

Contact Information

• Specific contact points are provided for different sections:
• Section UFO: R. BONNAVENTURE, Domaine de Montval, 78160 MARLY LE ROI.
• Section ASTRO: J. LE BRAS, 120 boulevard de Clichy, 75018 PARIS.
• Service BIBLIOTHEQUE: J.P. FRAMBOURG, 22 rue d'Estienne d'Orves, 94240 L'HAY LES ROSES.

Requests for information in writing will be honored if a stamped, self-addressed envelope is included.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of ufological research methodologies, the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry, and the debate between different approaches to studying unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance, as represented by Thierry Pinvidic and supported by R. Bonnaventure, favors a methodical, evidence-based approach, cautioning against hasty conclusions and dismissive attitudes. There is a clear emphasis on intellectual honesty and the pursuit of verifiable knowledge within the field of ufology. The issue also serves to promote the SPEPSE organization and its structured approach to research.