Science, UFOs, skepticism:


This is my 12.22.2001 answer to an article titled "UFOs: Are we visited by Extra-terrestrials?" by Claude Lafleur, written in 1997 and published in "Le Québec Sceptique" un autumn 1997.

The original text is in French and available in the French section of this site, the trnslation to English is by the author of this site and non autorized and should be reviewed.

This spring is the 50th birthday of the UFO phenomenon. The idea that we are visited by extraterrestrial beings is so attractive that nobody can remain insensitive about it. Since millenia indeed, we wonder whether we are alone in the universe and we seek our place by imagining a range of beliefs. And now that we live through "the space era," the possibility that other civilizations more advanced than ours can visit us imposes naturally. It is not a coincidence if the UFO phenomenon was born days after the end of World War II, when we finally had the means to reach Space...

A number of ideas that I challenge are hidden in this first paragraph. First of all, to claim that nobody can remain insensitive with the idea of a visit by extraterrestrial being is a lure. For example, I have not been impassioned for such an idea at all before the age of 37. On the contrary, my starting idea which brought me to the point where I now stand, was the following one: I enjoy creating web designs, I had had a nice "web design" ready, I liked it but had no contents, I found a UFO photograph on the Internet, and it was obviously a fake so I came to the idea of filling this empty web design with the topic of faked UFO photographs, exposing frauds. If I had some sort of a passion then, it was for web authoring, and if I had a conviction, it was that UFOs are only faked photograps and nonsense stories, and that we are not at all visited extraterrestrial beings. Only when I looked for more UFO pictures and the related information did I slowly realize, to my very great surprise, that UFOs are not only faked pictures and nonsense stories.

I have to note that within the people I know, there is almost nobody who has any interest or passion for the idea of extraterrestrial visits. With the noteable exception of two people I personally know who have witnessed such visits themsleves - beyond a doubt, I would say, contrary to Claude Lafleur, that a negligible minority of people is sensitive to such an idea, and that a majority of people finds it ridiculous and is not at all interested, or even shows utter hostility at the simple evocation of such an idea. I let my readers challenge that by starting UFO talks with their friends and relatives...

Second, it is not very considered to claim that space era brought the "idea" of UFOs. First of all, the idea of extraterrestrial visita existed long before the space era started. This idea accompanied the progress if our knowledge on the nature of our universe, the concept of the "plurality of the inhabited worlds" defended at his great misfortune by Giordano Bruno is an example. One could almost say on the contrary that the idea to venture out of our planet has something to do with the idea of meeting non-terrestrial beings. It is also advisable to recall that old accounts have similarities to descriptions of UFO phenomena, except for the difference in the cultural context of the times (Latin texts have sightings reports of unidentified "flying shields" for example).

It is already understood that it is completely false to say that the UFO phenomenon was born at the end of World War II. It should be recalled that shortly after World War II, there was no space flights and the notion was still highly questionable. It should be reminded that the foo fighters and other "scandinavian ghost rockets" for example were observed before, during and after World War II and so on (I cannot copy contents of my site in connection with this point here and thus I only give some possibly and hopefully well known examples here.)

However, after fifty years of investigations and impassioned debates, the UFO phenomenon reached such a degree of complexity that it is impossible to circle it to analyze it. Even a bulky work would not cover the entire subject. So we propose an overflight of the principal aspects of the phenomenon in order to determine certain facts.

The phenomenon UFO did not become more complex than it was. It is simply better documented; facts such as observations of occupants that were rejected as nonsense 50 years ago are now considered, because these facts happened over and over. It is very clear that the phenomenon did not "disappear" as a simple fashion would have. It is still possible to have doubts of the existence of the problem, but that does not make the problem disapear.

There is to it on behalf of Lafleur an absolutely stunning proposal: after aknowledging that a bulk study could not completely describe the phenomenon's characterisitics, he proposes all the same to determine the facts by a simple overflight, and to draw a conclusion from it which will not be at all "I did not present enough elements to dare a conclusion," as it should be. I think that Claude Lafleur goes into building up a mere listing of objections, and then pretend they are the "main characteristics" of the phenomenon in order to present as conclusion some abusive generalizations.

In order to give an estimate to the reader, let me say that there are about 400 hundred books covering the UFO phenomenon, counting only the books that have been published in the French market, and without counting any other document (police reports, documents of military origin, databases, studies published in magazines etc.)

Let's avoid the confusion

The question of the UFOs fascinates so much that it inevitably raises extreme passion which scramble many minds. However, it is of extreme importance, when this topic is approached, that what one speaks about is well defined. The question of the UFOs fascinates so much that it inevitably raises extreme passion which scramble many minds. However, it is of extreme importance, when this topic is approached, that what one speaks butt is well defined.

This point is almost a litany sung by those who do not want to deal seriously with the phenomenon: once again the idea that those which are interested in it are victim of some sort of passion" is proponed. I propose that the reader take some time to check if the "opponents" to any idea of UFOs, such as for example Philip J. Klass or Dr. Mentzel, would not be - a little bit, to be ironical - victims of a kind of "anti-saucer passion." I ask at the same time that characters, acts of scientists of the stature of J. Allen Hynek, Peter Sturrock, Gordon Thayers, Jacques Vallée, James McDonald and tens of others, or engineer Jean Jacques Vélasco are checked and evaluated so that it can be established if there are "scrambled minds" of "confused by a UFO passion." I propose that it is morally despiseable and insulting to claim that people dealing with the matter of UFOs are "impassioned," "scrambled minds" without a single evidence or name to support such a claim.

Thus, the word "UFO" is the acronym for Unidentified Flying Object. In a strict sense, UFOs obviously exist since it is always possible to see a "flying object" whose nature is unidentified. However, is it a terrestrial machine, an atmospheric phenomenon or some astronomical misperception, something of a natural or even of human origin which escapes our knowledge? It is not known. But from there, to claim that the UFO necessarily come from an extraterrestrial civilization is consequently of another kind. On what base is this extraordinary assertion made? But as in practice, UFO is generally confused with "extraterrestrial machine," one must regard these two terms as being synonyms.

Another old traditional lullaby is sung to us here. What are the? Captain Ruppelt of Project Blue Book, the USAF UFOS study, quickly realized that when speaking about "flying saucers," US newspapers did not account for the very varied real appearances of the objects that were widely sighted. They were not necessarily saucer shaped, some descriptions mentionned only lights without any visible shape. In order to restore a certain accuracy, he created the acronym UFO, and our readers are probably intelligent enough to determine without help if some UFO document uses the acronym UFO is this or that meaning. The vocabulary lesson does not bring anything new, we all know that the use of the word must be checked against the context in which it is used, and this paragraph is just an attempt to make believe that ufologists are abusing the word.

In addition, speaking about UFO does not mean that that one discusses the possibilities of life in the universe, but the possibilities of being visited, here on Earth, by extraterrestrial beings. The question of life elsewhere than on Earth is the subject of a completely different debate... which has nothing to do with UFOs. For, almost everyone agrees that we are probably not alone in the universe, it is a very different thing with the idea that we are visited by extraterrestrial beings.

In short, the question which fascinates everyone is: are we or are we not visited by extraterrestrial beings?

On the contrary, any speech of UFO implies obviously that one tackles the question of life in the universe, if the proposed explanation of a UFO case is that it is a display of an extraterrestrial technology. The debate is absolutely not "very different," but on the contrary inextricably dependent. If I easily agree that the discovery of non terrestrial lifeforms or even intelligent lifeforms having a technology on some other planet is not enough to prove than certain UFO cases are of the nature of extraterrestrial visits, I affirm that research on the existence of non-terrestrial intelligences, if it succeeds, will have at a certain point an obvious impact on the question of the evidence of the extraterrestrial nature of certain UFO display.

The "forced separation" suggested here with at least a certain moderation is hammered by a certain number of scientists with an hidden aim of promoting the notion that there is a "true science" which deals with the search for life in the universe, as opposed to a "pseudo science" which would confabulate on "those UFO stories."

Where is the hard evidence?

Since 1950, hundreds of impassioned ufologists — these flying saucers lovers— seek with eagerness, everywhere on Earth, an indisputable proof of visits by extraterrestrial beings. By proof, I mean a tangible and undeniable part which can be subjected in analyses by qualified specialists. However, though the ufological mythology abounds in accounts of remains of flying saucers, corpses of creatures from other worlds, implants, etc, these artifacts are never available.

Once again, the adjective "impassioned" is used to qualify ufologists. It would be advisable, should this be reapeated in the article, to qualify us ufologists with another adjective: "irritated."

I did not need for much eagerness in my research, I easily found what I was looking for. So let us tackle the question of the proof. I propose all sorts of proof including hard proof.

I did not find an hard proof of the infamous alien implants. It is also of my impression that these alleged implants are rather ellusive. But I confess that I did not dig this question enough. I affirm that very few holders of the extraterrestrial explanation for some UFOs claim that evidence of such implants is acquired yet.

I wish to point out that Claude Lafleur has strangely omitted to deny all sorts of other types of hard proofs:

It is not practicable here to enumerate all the contributions of scientists, I cannot help to note the very disturbing fact that in his article, Claude Lafleur does not quote ONE SINGLE scientist who dealt with the phenomenon.

The absence of evidence is the key of the UFO problem. For scientific disciplines like paleontology and biology, one finds abundance of traces of creatures who disappeared from the terrestrial surface million or billion years ago. For their part, the archaeologists found the traces of the first Indians who came to America thousands of years ago. However, despite everything in the alleged cases of landing (and crash) of UFOs, the many accounts of encounters and abductions, nobody ever found a single undeniable trace of an extraterrestrial presence. This is very significant for, in spite of the passion which animates the ufologists since decades, they did not find anything solid.

Compared to what I proposed above, this paragraph is simply a succession of unfounded claims.

The difference between paleontology and the ufology is not a matter of absence or presence of evidence. The difference is that in paleontology, the evidence is exposed, re-examined, discussed and published largely beyond the circles of paleontology. In ufology, the evidence is quite simply ignored, ridiculed and sometimes destroyed.

But it is completely false to claim that evidence does not exist.

My irritation grows whereas "impassionate" is once used to qualify ufologists.

They concede it anyway, against their own will, since they are constrained to propose assumptions of this sort: "the extraterrestrial are among us, but in other dimensions", "We are observed by beings who do not leave any traces behind," "the evidence exists, but is is hidden away from us", etc. Could it be that we did not find anything quite simply because we never received extraterrestrial visit? Unfortunately, no one will ever be able to prove the inexistence of UFOs, even if in thousand years we would hardly be more advanced than today.

In no way neither myself nor any scientist or respected ufologist ever professed naive tales of "other dimensions" as alleged here. This is simply an attempt to mock the subject by associating it with the naive dreams of the "new age" movement.

The concept that extraterrestrial beings would not leave anything behind them is laughable and I do not endorse it at all. It is quite clear that it is precisely because they "leave something behind them," that is: they are seen, they leave traces on the ground and on the vegetation, radar tracks, physical effects and wounds, remains, photographic impressions, etc that there is indeed a UFO phenomenon to deal with in the first place.

The concept that evidence would never be hidden is also laughable. It is not necessary to call up some conspiracy here, the simple normal reflexes of military organization and procedure of all nations impose that any information on unidentified flying machines which would not be simply mistakes fall under laws against espionnage and are covert by normal military secret. In France for example, only the Gendarmerie is entitled to perform any UFO preliminary investigation in UFO cases in order to escalate the result only to the SEPRA, which does not publish any precise results to the public because of a whole range of perfectly justified reasons (interest for Defense, espionnage, respect of the private life of witnesses etc.) In the United States, the same applies, except that a very intersting paradox becomes useful to ufologists: under FOIA laws, old records of secret documents must be available on request, and these are in fact a highly interesting source of ufologic data. But in addition, of course, very strict laws and procedures prohibit any diffusion of UFO information by military personal. It is not conspiracy, it is absolutely normal military secret. And this is simply true.

It is completely false to say that "one will not be able to prove the inexistence of the UFOs even in a thousand years." It is an unworthy proposal there, a trick played against our intelligence. On the contrary, through work, study, investigation, research, similar both to police investigation as much as scientific investigation, it is possible to reinforce some assumptions and to eliminate some other. Exactly as in paleontology. It is totally conceivable that in a certain future new facts would allow us to understand that the cases for which the better explanation is of an extraterrestrial intelligent origin might get a different explanation. This is exactly what science is about. But if someone were to propose a new explanation concerning the UFO phenomenon when the only present explanation is of an extraterrestrial nature, he will have to provide the arguments and the evidence. Until then, I can only note that all attempts of "alternative" explanation to cases with extraterrestrial explanation as only credible explanations are merely suggesting a "higher mystery," sufficiently unverifiable by nature so that it can neither be proved nor disproved. Claude Lafleur does worse: he does not care to offer the alternative explanation at all. I What I have in mind here are those propositions that UFOs are "physical illusions created by a higher intelligence coming from who knows where that manipulates our whole reality." This kind of proposals are neither demonstrable nor refutable, while the proposal (let's say it is only a proposal, this is sufficient for the sake of this discussion) that an extraterrestrial intelligence has a share of responsibility in certain UFO phenomena can be challenged. In science, a good hypothesis is an a hypothesis out of which tests can be devised to prove or disprove it, while self-demonstrating hypothesis are of little worth.

Claude Lafleur adopts a non-scientific policy: "no matter what one says, the ufologists will never be convinced that UFOS..." Which UFOs... what? What should these UFOs be? Claude Lafleur gives up a positive attitude here, an attitude which would consist in examination of the evidence, research, propositions, and instead wants to go back to a process of faith and beliefs. If Claude Lafleur thinks that UFOs do not exist at all, he should try to show it in a positive manner, not by giving up any reasoning with the motive that reasoning would be useless, suggesting that those that do believe UFOs are real will never agree with his opposite view.

Claude Lafleur simplifies in few statements an extremely rich set of topics. My site in its entirety is an opportunity for everyone to make his own mind. Let me note the abundance of traditionnal debunking tricks at works: no name is given. No case is cited. No information. No data. We have "the ufologists". Which ufologists? We have "ufological myths." Which myth? All is general information, all is fuzzy. This fuzzy haze of unfounded generalities is certainly misleading fot the naive reader. But this is no ufology. Claude Lafleur would be perfectly founded to state that he is "not believing," "not convinced," but if he has something to prove or demonstrate then it is not legitimate to do it with zero data and zero references.

The big lessons of the testimonies

Ufologists unceasingly quote the abundance of testimonys by witnesses as being the proof of an extraterrestrial presence. According to them, they are accounts so astonishing there that they cannot be explained in any other way than as demonstrations of another "intelligence." The number of cases amounting per thousands, it becomes impossible to explain all of them. And even if they were all explained, somebody will always come up with some new case anyway...

I agree that it is legitimate to claim that some ufologists call upon the number of testimony as an argument, which it is not.

But it is absolutely not true of all ufologists, and not at all true as far as I am concerned. My word on this is: even if there were one and only one testimony, if this testimony were to be accompanied by physical evidence, this would be enough. Wether there are 10, 100, or million proven case of alien presence does not matter that much. What matters is to treat each case as if it was unique, as if it was the first and only case, with no prejudice. Each case must be investigated in its unicity. If after that some sort of general rule is revealing from a large number of cases, it is of course interesting but it should not serve as prejudice in further studies of newer cases.

Conversely, it is not legitimate to consider that "as the majority of UFO cases are, for example, misinterpretation of natural phenomena, then all other cases would be of the same nature," which is what Claude Lafleur does.

I already quoted a "case so astonishing that it cannot be explained explain in any other way than by a display of another intelligence," the case of Tananarive of 1954. If Claude Lafleur or whoever is able to propose any other explanation, let's hear it. If not, let's accept that this case is indeed only explainable in terms of a non terrestrial craft piloted by some none terrestrial intelligence.

To put forth that "somebody could always come up with a new case to explain" is an intellectual dishonesty. Indeed, I propose, like others, that there are UFO cases such as the one mentionned above which can be explained reasonably only as visit by machines of a nonhuman and nonterrestrial origin. I do not need to find any new case not yet explained, because I claim that I have already a sufficient number of bulletproof cases. Lafleur just tried to imply that at the present time there are no such cases. But there are.

Finally, for information only, the number of cases does not necessarily amount in thousands, because nobody undertook a true and well defined count, and certainly no skeptic did that. The reader might however be interested to learn that Claude Poher, former director of the GEPAN, wrote that in the GEPAN estimates, the number of observations of UFOS - not the number of cases - in the world is likely to be in the order of ten milion. This estimate dates back to the 70s, possibly this figure should be doubled now. If anyone tells me that this figure is not proof that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin, I totally agree.

At the beginning of the 90s, I confronted myself with this problem: with which case of UFOS should I become more interested? I then consulted the main ufologists in Québéc to ask each one of them what case they consider as being the most significant case. I then discovered that each ufologist presented a different case, each of them had his "favorite story." I thus obtained a beautiful collection... one case for each ufologist.

I then visited again each of them to ask what they thought of the cases subjected by their colleagues. Well, what a surprise, each one of these "better cases" could be demolished by the other ufologists, and in a very convincing way! In short, I did not have anything any more to look at. In fact, there is not any single UFO case that makes a consensus within the ufologist community. At best, there are strange or unexplained cases, but none the thousands of accounts collected since 1947 constitutes a serious proof of the extraterrestrial visit... as ufologists themselves said.

It is precisely the abundance of these accounts which undermines the extraterrestrial assumption. If the visits were as frequent as it is said, some would inevitably leave traces of their passage which one could for sure identify thanks to the range of techniques which enable us to discover microbial lifeforms disappeared since ages. On the other hand, if only some rare extraterrestrial visits were received, is it not logical that they were unnoticed. But before this idea is taken taken seriously, ufologists must do the housework in their files and establish, at the very least, the scarcity of the visits.

Claude Lafleur does not study UFOs. He studies ufologists. His study is curious: he asks for one case, then by the choice of the words he seems to imply that each ufologist would have... only one case.

I propose that these ufologists each spoke about one case they personnally investigated. It is then only logical that each fellow-ufologist is critical about the cases he did not investigate.

Actually, the whole plot makes no sense. If Lafleur's ufology consists in quoting facts without any information on these facts, nothing will come out of there. A discussion on this point will not be possible if Claude Lafleur does not tell us the names of these Québec ufologists, and the cases they proposed. What Claude Lafleur does there, is strictly of the same order as if I wrote "I interviewed hundreds of witnesses who gave me pieces of flying saucers, it is proof that flying saucers exist." We ufologists obviously do not do this, and of course it would, with reason, not be accepted if we did.

There is so much to say about this paragraph. For example what does the sentence "as the UFO phenomenon widely demonstrates, testimonys do not constitute valid evidence at all?" Who says that the visits are "so frequent?" Do I have to recall that I proposed one of the only occasions of a decent ground trace analysis with the means of science as proof? (SEPRA, case of Trans-In-Provence) That this study is almost the only ground trace study that has been performermed, which precisely is a scandal in itself?

Claude Lafleur is on the other hand absolutely right when he says that ufologists should establish the the rarity of the visits. This is exactly my own point: the proven visits are rare. Much rarer than mere unproven overflights. I only have one absolutely unquestionable ground trace case in mind, for it is the only case correctly studied with decent means that I consider valid.

When Claude Lafleur says there is clean up to do in the files, he actually describes the main work of the ufologist: the ufologist has to behave as a skeptic extremist, and it is exactly what, for example, J. Allen Hynek did when he was engaged in Project Blue Book as scientist consultant with the mission to find which natural phenomena explains cases gathered by the US Air Force. It is exclusively the hard factual evidence he gathered doing so that made him change his opinion about UFOs. Any person familiarized with the history of ufology knows that he maintained his disbelief up to the point where he was laughed at by the entire USA while still trying to reject a case, so powerful was his desire to dismiss UFOs (the case of the "swamp gas".) If Claude Lafleur had been able to follow my effort, he would have known that I intended to create this site as a "denunciation of the UFO mythology." In fact, from LaPaz to McDonald and Lagrange to Vélasco, the history of serious ufology is also the history of die hard skeptics who did true work on the UFO problem and little by little had to change their initial disbelief, almost unwillingly.

Moreover, as the UFO phenomenon clearly shows, testimonys do not at all constitute a valid evidence for an extraordinary phenomenon. The fact that the ufologists do not get along on the "best cases" also illustrates the poverty of testimonys. One can illustrate these statements with the following example: Imagine a hundred people who attend a magic show. These people are witness of astonishing demonstrations, in which the magician is able to "cut a body in two" and then "stick it back together" (without leaving a scar, in addition!). Ehen they leave the show, you interview these witnesses and you get a certain number of similar accounts; all recorded from tens of reliable people (of which some could be doctors, investigators, scientists or skeptics). All would testify to have seen an unexplainable phenomenon. Which it is. But was it really something supernatural? Obviously not, since the magician employs a trick which creates an extraordinary illusion. (Otherwise, he would be the largest surgeon of all times.) Thus when confronted with an unexplained phenomenon, even observed by tens of credible witnesses, you do not have a proof that something supernatural happened.

Claude Lafleur uses a traditional debunking trick here, and as in magic, the trick is obvious to the trained eye, the strings are visible.

It is a matter of comparing two situations which are absolutely not of the same kind. It is necessary to give up scepticism in armchair here and to return in the real world. The witnesses of the magic shows are perfectly reliable: all will say that they attended a magic show, i.e. a skilful illusion of which they do not know the precise trick. It would extremely difficult to find a witness of such a show who would claim that the person was really cut in two and then glued back together. Indeed people are not stupid, they are not stupid when they attend a magic show... and they are also not stupid when they witness a UFO.

Using biaised comparison, you can try to make a point, but you will not succeed. UFO witness are not just cameras, they do have a brain.

Let's also note that the accounts of UFOS cases often contain incredible details. It is so, in particular, when the witness gives dimension, altitude or the speed of the UFO he sighted. The next time that you see a plane crossing the sky, ask yourself what the size of the plane is and at which distance it from you. Better: you probably already were on board of a "Boeing?" In this case, can you roughly say what the measurement of the aircraft are? (Ten, twenty, fifty, hundred or two hundred meters?). Imagine now that you see a "flying saucer" crossing the sky! Can you give its measurements? (the fact is that nobody can evaluate dimensions the altitude or the speed of a plane with the eye. One can know the answer after having consulted a book or because of a specialized training) However, strangely, the ufologists take at face value serious the accounts of a witness, in good faith undoubtedly, who quantifies the parameters of his observation.

Again a general assumption of little interest. Lafleur lets the reader believe that ufologists are so stupid that they take at face value so called precise "measurements" taken by similarly stupid witnesses, believing that they have made these precise measurements when it is not possible. Which is thus the case considered as convincing by the ufologists in which it was found out that it was not of an UFO but about a Boeing? As for the boeing example, I do not believe that any person except a particularly ignorant minority would consider that a Boeing 727 for example may be over 100 meters or under 20 meters. And those who know exactly what the dimension of the 727 are - pilots, for example - do report UFOs.

He forgets that in certain cases, the UFO passes in front of a hill or a tree or is landed at a certain place or leaves grouns traces, and there too, there is a possibility to know exactly the distance or the size.

He forgets the existence of radar cases, or radar visual/cases, where at least distance, and localization, and sometimes also the altitude, and speed, or even all of these parameters is known and recorded.

He forgets in the same order of idea the theodolites, triangulation, and all the photographic techniques of analyses which allow under certain condition the calculatiion of an estimate of distance.

He omits to tell us that in certain case, the important fact is not to know if the UFO is at 10.000 or 12.000 or 8.000 feet high, because the estimate is sufficiently tightened to deduce from some of the parameters that the commonplace explanations need to be abandonned.

He forgets that among the people reporting UFO sightings, there are people are who are precisely particularly trained with such evaluations, and which "consulted a book," pilots, let it be said again, but also military personal, intelligence personal, meteorologists, astronomers etc.

Another frequent mistake is to consider as particularly veracious the accounts collected under hypnosis. Because it was demonstrated since the 70s that hypnosis generates accounts and imaginary memories, and does not constitute especially a truth drug. Quite to the contrary. It is necessary without hesitatiion to reject the testimonys collected under hypnosis. Unfortunately, there is no method at all to ensure the veracity of a testimony (as frequently illustrated in courts).

I will be very emphatic: I think that anything collected under hypnosis should be eliminated.

But here again, Claude Lafleur is simplistic. I propose the case of Pascagoula. The witnesses reported the facts without hypnosis, in full consciousness. The facts were consigned by police officers and a conversation between the witnesses was recorded by the police without their knowledge, it has been then possible to hear them discuss together of what happened to them, and it clearly established that there was not one single indication obteined this way of any hoax or lie, which is what the police officers hoped for when they used this method. The two witnesses, days afterwards, agreed to undergo a seance of hypnotic regression. The goal of this meeting was not at all to get their testimony, but to check if once hypnotized, it would be possible to collect some indication of a lie or a fraud. This attempt only confirmed the initial account made in full consciousness.

La remarque sur les tribunaux qui n'ont pas de méthodes pour vérifier la véracité d'un témoignage est risible. La méthode est la suivante, en admettant que nulle autre information ne soit disponible que le témoignage: un jury évalue ce témoignage en son âme et conscience. Un témoignage, pour un ufologue, n'est rien de plus qu'un témoignage qu'il peut évaluer en son âme et conscience. Aucun ufologue ne serait en action, si l'intégralité du phénomène n'était constitué que de témoignages sans aucune autre forme de confirmation. Lafleur omet aussi d'expliquer comment il peut se produire qu'un événement ait de nombreux témoins indépendant dont les récits concordent. En justice, un témoin unique d'un meurtre, cela constitue un cas délicat et le jugement en sera affecté, mais si un meurtrier est vu par des centaines de témoins sans rapport entre eux, le jugement risque d'être plus facilement défini par le jury. J'ai cité dans ces pages un cas pour lequel le nombre de témoins visuels dépasse très largement les 10.000 personnes. The remark about courts which do not have methods to check the veracity of a testimony is laughable. The method is the following one, when there is nothing else at hand than verbal testimonies: a jury evaluates this testimony in his heart and conscience. A testimony, for a ufologist, is nothing more than a testimony which he can evaluate in his heart and conscience. No ufologist would be in action, if the entirety of the phenomenon were made up only of testimonys without any other kind of confirmation. Lafleur also omits to explain how it can occur that an event has many witnesses independent whose accounts agree. In justice, a single witness of a murder, that constitutes a delicate case and the judgement will be affected, but if a murderer is seen by hundreds of witnesses without relationship between them, the judgement is likely to be more easily defined by the jury. I quoted in these pages a case for which the number of visual witnesses very largely exceeds the 10.000 people.

En réalité, une ufologie sérieuse ne doit pas souffrir d'a priori de cette sorte: un cas avec 10.000 témoins visuels, même sans trace radar car il n'y avait pas de radar sur le secteur, est éventuellement tout de même un cas déterminant, par ce nombre de témoins et pour des raisons particulières à ce cas. Je le répète, l'étude du phénomène OVNI doit se faire d'abord au cas par cas, de façon concrète, et non pas en rédigeant un "listing" abstrait d'objections préétablies, sans confronter ces objections à des cas précis. Actually, a serious ufology should not suffer from a priori from this kind: a case with 10.000 visual witnesses, even without trace radar for it there did not have a radar on the sector, is possibly all the same a case determining, by this number of witnesses and for reasons particular to this case. I repeat it, the study of the phenomenon UFO must be done initially with individually, in a concrete way, and not by writing an abstract " listing " of preestablished objections, without confronting these objections with precise cases.

Is a picture worth a thousand words?

Que penser maintenant des photographies et des films d'ovni? N'y a-t-il pas là quelques preuves? What to think now of the photographs and films of UFO? There is not there some evidence?

Malheureusement non, car un très grand nombre d'entre eux ont été reconnus comme étant des fabrications ou des méprises, alors qu'on n'a jamais pu déterminer avec certitude l'authenticité des quelques autres. Au mieux, on pourrait dire qu'une photo ou un film nous fait voir un objet non identifié, mais il ne prouverait en rien qu'il s'agit d'un engin extraterrestre. Unfortunately not, for a very great number of them were recognized as being manufacture or mistakes, whereas one never could determine with certainty the authenticity of the some others. At best, one could say that a photograph or a film shows to us an object not identified, but it would not prove in only it acts of an extraterrestrial machine.

Tout cela est complètement faux. Le plus grand nombre de photographies et de films d'OVNIS n'ont absolument pas été démontrés comme étant des fabrications ou des méprises, ils n'ont simplement jamais été étudiés. All that is completely false. The greatest number of photographs and films of UFOS were absolutely not shown as being manufacture or mistakes, they were simply never studied.

Un nombre suffisant de cas ayant bénéficié de photographies accompagnantes ont été étudiés, y compris la ou les photographies accompagnantes. Un nombre suffisant de photographies indiscutables existe. Une photographie est indiscutable sous certaines conditions, et ces conditions sont à évaluer de manière unique pour chaque photographie ou film. Je propose ici trois cas certains: Lago de Cote, Barauna, lac Chauvet, et un cas très fort, Petit Réchain. Que Claude Lafleur ou tout autre m'explique en quoi ces cas ne seraient pas aussi indiscutables qu'une photographie peut l'être. Si ce n'est pas un engin volant non terrestre que l'on voit sur les quatre photographies du lac Chauvet, que l'on m'indique de quoi il s'agirait alors. A sufficient number of cases having profited from accompanying photographs were studied, including the accompanying photographs. A sufficient number of indisputable photographs exists. A photograph is indisputable under certain conditions, and these conditions are to evaluate in a single way for each photography or film. I propose three unquestionable cases here: Lago de Cote, Barauna, lac Chauvet, and a very strong case, Petit Réchain. That Claude Lafleur or very other explains me in what these cases would not be as indisputable as a photograph can be it. If it is not a nonterrestrial machine flying which one sees on the four photographs of the lake Chauvet, that one indicates to me about what it would be then.

En outre, la plupart des photos et films sujets à controverse sont de piètre qualité, c'est-à-dire qu'ils montrent un objet quelconque, flou et sans grand détail. Peut-être s'agit-il d'une mauvaise prise de vue d'un objet ou phénomène connu, ou même de quelque chose de non identifié... mais rien ne prouve une présence extraterrestre sur Terre. Moreover, the majority of the photographs and films prone to controversy are of poor quality, i.e. they show an unspecified object, fuzzy and without much detail. Perhaps it about a bad catch of sight of an object or known phenomenon is, or even of something of not identified... but nothing does not prove an extraterrestrial presence on Earth.

Je propose à titre d'exemple, que l'on se penche sur les Polaroids de Filiberto Caponi: ils montrent une créature extra-terrestre selon leur auteur. Ces clichés ne sont aucunement flous, l'être allégué remplit tout le champ. Je pourrais admettre que Claude Lafleur écrive "je ne suis pas convaincu," mais je suis en total désaccord avec lui car il écrit "rien ne prouve une présence extra-terrestre sur Terre." I propose as an example, that one leans on the Polaroids of Filiberto Caponi: they show an extraterrestrial creature according to their author. These stereotypes are not at all fuzzy, it to be pled fills all the field. I could admit that Claude Lafleur writes " I am not convinced, " but I am in total disagreement with him for he writes " anything does not prove an extraterrestrial presence on Earth. "

Il est notable que Lafleur parle de "la plupart" des photos et films "sujets à controverse." C'est très juste. La plupart, mais pas tous. Et certain ne sont pas soumis à controverses, car des analyses ont conclut qu'il n'y a aucune raison pour justifier que ces documents là ne montrent pas ce que leurs auteurs ont vu. It is notable that Lafleur speaks about " the majority " about the photographs and films " prone to controversy. " It is very right. Majority, but not all. And some are not subjected to controversies, for analyses have concludes that there is no reason to justify that these documents there do not show what their authors saw.

Toujours à titre d'exemple, illustrant la carrière d'un film montrant deux OVNIS, voir mon dossier sur le film de Nick Mariana et ses quatre analyses techniques positives par quatre laboratoires ou expert différents, y compris l'analyse positive du rapport Condon. Always as an example, illustrating the career of a film showing two UFOS, to see my file on le film of Nick Mariana and its four positive technical analyses by four different laboratories or expert, including the positive analysis of the Condon report/ratio.

De plus, depuis une quinzaine d'années, il ne se passe pratiquement pas une semaine sans qu'un événement inattendu soit photographié ou filmé peu importe où il survient sur Terre. Qu'il s'agisse de tremblements de terre, d'écrasements d'avion, de tornades, des incidents les plus inattendus, etc., il semble y avoir toujours quelqu'un de prêt, sur place avec sa caméra. Comme par exemple, en novembre 1996, un Boeing a été contraint d'amerrir au large d'une petite île de l'océan Indien... en même temps qu'un couple en vacances se trouvait là, témoin privilégié, caméra vidéo en main. Ils ont parfaitement tout filmé. Des émissions comme "Drôle de vidéo" ou les nombreuses équivalences américaines, nous montrent régulièrement des événements des plus étonnants qui sont filmés avec soin et qualité. Moreover, since about fifteen years, it practically does not occur a week without an unexpected event being photographed or filmed it does not matter where it occurs on Earth. That they are, crushing earthquakes of plane, tornadoes, the most unexpected incidents, etc, it seems y to have always somebody of loan, on the spot with its camera. Such as for example, in November 1996, a Boeing was constrained to land on sea off a small island of the Indian Ocean... at the same time as a couple on holiday was there, privileged witness, video camera in hand. They perfectly very filmed. Emissions like " Funny of video " or many American equivalences, regularly show us events of most astonishing which are filmed with care and quality.

Il y a quelques années, des pilotes d'hélicoptère ont croqué sur le vif la naissance d'une tornade, son parcours dévastateur et sa dissipation; le drame n'ayant duré que quelques minutes. Or, il n'existe aucun document comparable montrant un ovni. Au contraire même, il semble que plus il y a de bonnes caméras vidéo, moins on voit de soucoupes volantes... A few years ago, of the pilots of helicopter crunched on sharp the birth of a tornado, its course devastator and his dissipation; the drama having lasted only a few minutes. However, there is not any comparable document showing an UFO. On the contrary even, it seems that the more there are good video cameras, the less one sees flying saucers...

Claude Lafleur ne se rend pas compte que n'importe quel bout de film montrant une tornade est diffusé et rediffusé inlassablement sur les télévisions du monde entier, tandis qu'il n'y a quasiment aucun réseau de télévision qui acceptera de montrer quelque film d'OVNI ou même évoquer le sujet autrement que dans un contexte de ridiculisation. Claude Lafleur does not realize that any film end showing a tornado is diffused and repeated inlassablement on televisions of the whole world, while there is almost no network of television which will accept to show some film of UFO or to even evoke the subject differently than in a context of ridiculisation.

Il y a une timide tendance à montrer films et photographies OVNIS ou à aborder le thème sur certain réseau câblés payants ces dernières années. Il y a également, mais essentiellement aux Etats-Unis, un certain nombre de chaînes, tels les chaînes documentaires du groupe Disney, qui montrent de tels documents. There is a shy person tendency to show films and photographs cabled UFOS or to approach the topic on certain network paying these last years. There is also, but primarily with the United States, a certain number of chains, the such documentary chains of the Disney group, which show such documents.

En France, il arrive une ou deux fois par an que nos grandes chaînes montrent de tels documents, mais généralement dans le contexte d'émission du type "débat social distrayant," entre une séquence de "voyance" et une séquence sur les "fantômes" (pour lesquels fantômes les films et enregistrement radar manquent cruellement.) In France, it arrives one or twice per annum that our large chains show such documents, but generally in the context of emission of the type " discusses social distracting, " between a sequence of " clairvoyance " and a sequence on the " phantoms " (for which phantom the films and recording radar miss cruelly.)

Decadent ufology?

On constate que le phénomène ovni tourne en rond, particulièrement depuis vingt ans. Si la première génération d'ufologues se questionnait franchement sur la nature du phénomène, ceux d'aujourd'hui semblent s'embourber dans des débats stériles. Contrairement aux autres domaines de la recherche (scientifique), qui ont fait des progrès remarquables depuis cinquante ans, on n'est pas plus avancé aujourd'hui en matière d'ovni qu'on l'était en 1950. One has noted that the phenomenon UFO turns in round, particularly for twenty years. If the first generation of ufologists were questioned frankly on the nature of the phenomenon, those of today seem embourber in sterile debates. Contrary to the other fields of research (scientific), which has made remarkable progress for fifty years, one is not more advanced today as regards UFO than one was it in 1950.

Voilà une déclaration parfaitement honteuse, car la réalité est toute autre. En 1969, l'US Air Force voulant se débarrasser du problème des interrogations et de la curiosité du public Américain a fait réaliser à grand peine une étude "scientifique indépendante" (en réalité une validation des données choisies par cette même Air Force). Cette étude aboutit après démission d'une partie des scientifiques choisis pour en faire partie et qui ont estimé que l'étude ne sera pas neutre, au fameux rapport Condon, lequel n'a pas conclut que les OVNIS n'existent pas ou ne seraient jamais extra-terrestre, au contraire, mais a conclut en dépit des évidences recueillies, qu'il ne fallait pas y consacrer le moindre effort scientifique, qu'il fallait au contraire, dès l'école, décourager tout intérêt pour le sujet. Here is a perfectly ashamed declaration, for reality is very different. In 1969, the US Air Force wanting to get rid of the problem of the interrogations and curiosity of the American public made realize with large pains an independent " scientific " study (actually a validation of the data chosen by this same Air Force). This study succeeds after resignation of part of scientists chosen of to form part and which estimated that the study will not be neutral, with the famous Condon report/ratio, which does not have concludes that the UFOS do not exist or would be never extraterrestrial, on the contrary, but A concludes in spite from the obviousnesses collected, that one did not have to devote the least scientific effort to it, that it was necessary on the contrary, as of the school, to discourage any interest for the subject.

Claude Lafleur ne comprend pas que les "débats stériles" auquel on peut assister sont le résultat de cette décision de "fermer les yeux" de la science sur le phénomène, sur des années de ridiculisation, sur les ennuis, moqueries, tracas que doivent affronter les quelques scientifiques qui travaillent sur le sujet. Claude Lafleur does not include/understand only the " sterile debates " to which one can assist are the result of this decision " closing the eyes " of science on the phenomenon, over years of ridiculisation, on the troubles, mockeries, worry that the few scientists must face who work on the subject.

Claude Lafleur est en réalité très ennuyé: malgré toutes les opérations de négation de phénomène, celui-ci se produit toujours. Claude Lafleur actually is very annoyed: despite everything the operations of negation of phenomenon, this one always occurs.

Pire encore, il n'est pas au courant des avancées considérables de l'ufologie, des constations du SEPRA, des archives militaires qui s'ouvrent timidement au public, des nombreux pays comme la Belgique, le Chili ou l'Espagne qui finalement admettent, même discrètement, la réalité du phénomène. Les archives s'ouvrent, les pilotes se mettent à parler, les organismes gouvernementaux travaillent, les ufologues travaillent, de plus en plus de scientifiques se posent des questions, des magazines antérieurement totalement hostile se mettent, timidement, à aborder le sujet, des conférences s'organisent. Worse still, it does not know about the considerable projections of the ufology, of noted SEPRA, files military which open timidly with the public, of the many countries like Belgium, Chile or Spain which finally admit, even discreetly, the reality of the phenomenon. The files open, the pilots start to speaking, the government agencies work, the ufologists work, more and more of scientists raise questions, magazines before completely hostile are put, timidly, to tackle the subject, of the conferences are organized.

J'affirme que c'est Lafleur qui n'est pas plus avancé "que dans les années 50," et non pas les scientifiques et organismes qui travaillent sur le sujet. C'est Jacques Lafleur qui nous assène des vieux clichés sceptiques qui n'ont pas varié depuis les années 50. Au contraire, dans un climat totalement hostile, les ufologues ont émis des hypothèses, en ont conforté certaines et éliminé d'autres, ont répondu à des objections sérieuses (Jean-Claude Petit montrant que le vol supersonique fluide sans bang sonique n'est aucunement impossible, pour ne citer qu'un exemple), ont récolté des données dans des conditions de plus en plus correctes, et ainsi de suite. Si le public peut croire que l'ufologie fait du sur place, c'est uniquement par le silence médiatique qui a été de mise dans les années 80 et qui commence tout juste à se rompre, c'est parce que la grande partie de la communauté scientifique qui ne s'occupe pas d'OVNIS parce que ce n'est pas son domaine à montré une hostilité frisant la névrose envers la petite partie des scientifiques s'occupant de ce sujet. I affirm that it is Lafleur which is not more advanced " than in the Fifties, " and not the scientists and organizations which work on the subject. It is Jacques Lafleur who us assene of the old stereotypes skeptics which did not vary since the Fifties. On the contrary, in a completely hostile climate, the ufologists put forth assumptions, of consolidated some and eliminated from others, answered serious objections (Jean-Claude Petit showing that the fluid supersonic flight without sonic boom is not at all impossible, to quote only one example), collected data under increasingly correct conditions, and so on. If the public can believe that the ufology makes on the spot, it is only by the media silence which was of setting in the Eighties and which just starts to break, it is because most of the scientific community which does not deal with UFOS because it is not its field with shown a hostility curling the neurosis towards the small part of the scientists dealing with this subject.

Claude Lafleur pratique en fait le scepticisme actif ordinaire que les ufologues connaissent bien, le raisonnement en est: Claude Lafleur practises in fact ordinary active scepticism that the ufologists know well, the reasoning in is: Les OVNIS sont des nuages lenticulaires et des hallucinations d'ivrognes, il n'y a pas d'OVNIS, les témoins son idiots, il n'y a pas de preuves, les ufologues sont des charlatans; donc, il est stupide de vouloir étudier scientifiquement les OVNIS; donc, aucune étude scientifique sérieuse n'a indiqué une quelconque réalité des OVNIS; donc, puisqu'il n'y a aucune étude montrant une réalité OVNI, les OVNIS n'ont aucun intérêt, ce sont des nuages lenticulaires et des hallucinations d'ivrognes, il n'y a pas d'OVNIS, les témoins son idiots, il n'y a pas de preuves, les ufologues sont des charlatans; The UFOS are lenticular clouds and hallucinations of drunkards, there are no UFOS, the witnesses his idiots, it is no evidence, the ufologists are charlatans; thus, it is stupid to want to study the UFOS scientifically; thus, no serious scientific study indicated an unspecified reality of the UFOS; thus, since there is no study showing a reality UFO, the UFOS do not have any interest, they are lenticular clouds and hallucinations of drunkards, there are no UFOS, the witnesses his idiots, it is no evidence, the ufologists are charlatans;

Je propose ici au lecteur de prendre connaissance de ce que le chef du Projet Blue Book rapporte en ce qui concerne les conditions dans lesquelles les scientifiques qui s'intéressent aux OVNIS et en trouvent les preuves physiques sont contraint d'ouvrer. Prenez connaissance de l'affaire des radiations des OVNIS étudiées par des scientifiques se cachant en "club de minéralogistes." L'expression qui me vient à l'esprit en y pendant est: "c'est à se taper la tête contre les murs." I propose here to the reader to take note of what the chief of the Project Blue Book reports with regard to the conditions in which of them the scientists who are interested in the UFOS and find the evidence physical are constrained of ouvrer. Take note of the business of radiations of the UFOS studied by scientists hiding in " club of mineralogists. " The expression which comes me to mind in there during is: " is to be typed the head against the walls. "

Si cela ne devait pas suffire - mais je ne peux pas ici reprendre l'intégralité de la documentation présente dans ce site - lisez ces deux textes: "la sience et le problème des OVNIS" de Joachim Kuttner, de la World Meteorological Organization, un papier présenté au meeting de l'American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), et "Du Pseudo-Scepticisme" par Marcello Truzzi, un des fondateurs du CSICOP (eh bien oui!). If that were not to be enough - but I cannot take again the entirety of documentation present here in this site - read these two texts: "la sience and the problem of the OVNIS" of Joachim Kuttner, World Meteorological Organization, a paper presented to the meeting of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and HREF="truzzi01f.htm">"Du by Marcello Truzzi, one of the founders of the CSICOP (eh well yes!).

De fait, les ufologues font fausse route, et ce, de plusieurs façons. D'abord, ils accordent trop d'importance aux témoignages de toutes sortes. De plus, ils errent en rassemblant tous les récits bizarres pour tenter de trouver une seule et grande explication. Qui y a-t-il de commun entre de mystérieuses lumières dans le ciel, des figures géométriques dans le blé, les récits d'enlèvements et de gens contactés, les carcasses d'animaux mutilés, les disparitions apparemment inexpliquées, les manifestations "électromagnétiques" et les histoires les plus bizarres? In fact, the ufologists take a wrong turning, and this, in several ways. Initially, they grant too much importance to testimonys of all kinds. Moreover, they wander by gathering all the odd accounts to try to find only one and great explanation. Who is there of commun run between mysterious lights in the sky, of the geometrical figures in corn, the accounts of removals and people contacted, the carcasses of mutilated animals, disappearances apparently unexplained, the " electromagnetic " demonstrations and the oddest stories?

C'est comme si en médecine, on cherchait une cause unique aux cancers et maladies cardiaques, à la dépression et autres troubles mentaux, aux blessures de tout genre survenues à la suite d'accident, ainsi qu'à tous les autres maux qu'on puisse imaginer. S'il est vrai que tous ont un point commun — ils affligent l'être humain —, ils n'ont pas pour autant la même cause. Dans le cas des ovnis, il est vrai que les cas sont apparemment mystérieux, mais ont-ils pour autant une origine commune? Sûrement pas. Certains cas sont probablement des phénomènes naturels mal connus, d'autres peuvent être des méprises dues à l'ignorance de l'observateur ou à des mises en scène (parfois savamment élaborées), quelques-uns peuvent concerner la psychologie humaine et le besoin de croire, ainsi de suite. Et peut-être y a-t-il dans le lot quelques véritables cas d'ovnis? It is like if in medicine, one sought a single cause with cancers and cardiac diseases, with the depression and others disturb mental, with the wounds of any kind which have occurred following accident, as with all the other evils which one can imagine. If it is true that all have a common point — they afflict the human being —, they do not have therefore the same cause. In do the case of the UFOS, it is true that the cases are apparently mysterious, but have for as much a common origin? Surely not. Certain cases are probably natural phenomena evil known, others can be mistakes due to the ignorance of the observer or with settings in scene (sometimes learnedly elaborate), some can relate to human psychology and the need to believe, so on. And perhaps are there in the batch some true cases of UFOS?

Je n'accorde aucunement trop d'importance aux témoignages de toutes sorte. Je ne leur accorderait aucune importance s'il n'y avait jamais pour les conforter de preuves physiques (traces au sol, effets physiologiques sur les témoins, enregistrement radar et ainsi de suite). I at all do not grant too much importance to testimonys of all kind. I no importance would grant to them if there were never to consolidate them physical evidence (traces on the ground, effects physiological on the witnesses, recording radar and so on).

Il se trouve effectivement un nombre non négligeables d'ufologues qui s'attachent à vouloir prouver leur hypothèse unique explicative de l'ensemble du phénomène. Ce n'est pas mon cas, je conviens parfaitement que l'ensemble du phénomène a bel et bien plusieurs explications dont: hallucinations, confusions, fraudes, désinformation, phénomènes naturels rares, avions non conventionnels mal connus, ET engins volants extra-terrestres. Un grand nombre d'ufologue donnent l'impression de penser que tous les OVNIS s'expliquent par une seule explication, mais ce n'est souvent pas le fond de leur pensée et les lecteurs ne sont pas si primaires et comprennent bien que dans le cas général, un ufologue affirmant qu'il y a un aspect extra-terrestre à l'ouvre derrière le phénomène ne prétend pas par la que toute observation est ainsi causée. It is indeed a number considerable ufologists who endeavour to want to prove their explanatory single assumption of the whole of the phenomenon. It is not my case, I am appropriate perfectly that the whole of the phenomenon indeed has several explanations of which: rare hallucinations, confusions, frauds, misinformation, natural phenomena, nonconventional planes evil known, AND extraterrestrial flying machines. A great number of ufologist give the impression to think that all the UFOS are explained by only one explanation, but it is often not the bottom of their thought and the readers are not so primary and include/understand well that in the general case, a ufologist affirming that there is an extraterrestrial aspect with opens behind the phenomenon does not claim by that any observation is thus caused.

Il y a au contraire bien souvent, mais en effet pas toujours, des liens entre le phénomène OVNI au sens propre d'objets volants et notamment des lumières dans le ciel, les affaires de mutilations animales, les marques dans la végétation, des disparitions inexpliquées, des phénomènes électromagnétiques et d'autres phénomènes dits bizarres. Encore une fois, tenir des propos généraux dans le vagues sans aucune donnée pour les conforter ou les infirmer est une stratégie de debunking classique et non un travail scientifique. There is on the contrary very often, but indeed not always, of the bonds between the phenomenon UFO with the literal meaning of flying objects and in particular of the lights in the sky, the businesses of animal mutilations, the marks in the vegetation, of unexplained disappearances, the electromagnetic phenomena and other phenomena known as odd. Once again, to belong to the general remarks in vaguenesses without any data to consolidate them or cancel them is a traditional strategy of debunking and not a scientific work.

Enfin, oui, il y a dans le lot quelques véritables cas d'OVNIS. C'est là le fond de l'affaire. Lastly, yes, there are in the batch some true cases of UFOS. It is the bottom of the business there.

In hope to advance as regards ufology, and to perhaps even solve the enigma, it would initially be necessary to put aside one's personal beliefs, to admit that one does not know all the natural and human phenomena, and to avoid shouting about the Extraterrestrials.

© Claude Lafleur, 1999

I do not have any personal belief. I am completely agnostic, I am not a member of any sect, religious movement, political party or any kind of movement. As regards UFO, my personal beliefs were that UFOs do not exist. It is by work that I had to note at my great astonishment the reality of the phenomenon and its extraterrestrial components. I do not shout about it. I do promote it, it brings me no money, at all, and I decided that I will never accept financialy benefit for my ufology work.

It is a not scientific to suggest that UFOs are explained by natural or human phenomena which would not be yet known. Indeed, in science, the minimum of deontology is that when one wants to deny the results of a work, one must propose an alternative. It is not allowed simply to deny a result by suggesting that an alternative exists, without saying a word about the aforementioned alternative. To deny an astonishing result by the possibility of another result even more astonishing that it cannot even be described is not science, it is irrational thinking. So tomorrow, Claude Lafleur can propose a concrete assumption to explain better such or such real fact, that will deserve taken into account, study, discussion. As long as scepticism will be limited to rhetoric in armchair, we will not be on the ground of science and it will bring no result.

The whole of the serious ufologists community will be laid out to listen to any explanatory proposal concerning such or such fact UFO. But the ufologists are right not to give up an explanation which they would have proposed following a work, with the reason that somebody, some share, one day, could make another proposal. If it were the case, there would be no there science with work. Science indeed never consists in establishing immutable truths, it consists in proposing assumptions the best possible ones to explain facts best the checked possible one, and has to examine all new assumption always suggested compared to the facts or of new facts. Science should not be this " renouncement " which Jacques Lafleur in a badly disguised form proposes to us here. Scientific research is a concrete labour, not a wind of speculations on the possible imaginary ones. Science should not give up taking into account still strange facts with the reason that some mystery even larger on which one can nothing say for the moment could one day take direction.

It is typical scepticism to suggest that because sometimes a "light in the night sky" could be a meteor, then unexplained cases could have a commonplace explanation of a comparable order. This is illegitimate. When one treats for example a precise case such that of Pascagoula, it is absolutely clear that no meteor or natural or human phenomenon nonknown could generate this account of the kidnapping of two people on board a flying machine whose owners are clearly not from our planet as we know it. If an alternative explanation is proposed there, it can only be by an in-depth new study with better data or new data, and I note that the opponents of the "extraterrestrial" explanation take a great care not to propose anything new about cases of this type, given here as an example, and that all that could come to mind in alternative explanation to a case from this type would be far more out of the ordinary than the "extraterrestrial" interpretation.

The work I do is available in my web site, it is not intended "to convert" some skeptic, but to offer to people curious or interested by this topic what I find relevant to form one's opinion, mainly data, studies, documents.

The problem of the UFO phenomenon, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a majority of scientist that seriously spent years learning and studying it, is the most important scientific problem with which we are confronted in this century. I maintain that there is evidence in very precise cases, evidence of an extraterrestrial kind, which means in my view that a certain precise case is not is not explained at all by any other explanation and that any alternative is so costly that the extratrestrial nature of the event can hardly be questionned. It is an extremely complex problem which does not allow oversimplistic undocumented statements, generalizations, allegations, approximations and omissions such as those inflicted here by Claude Lafleur upon his readers. I affirm that UFOs are there, and they are there for a long time, and I am willing continue my efforts to comprehend the phenomenon.

Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home

This page was last updated on 03.23.2002