French National Assembly to host UAP seminar with true believers

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

According to what he reported, some pilots told him that there may be around four or five (if he can confirm or correct me about the exact number) encounters with anomalous objects per year.

One could surmise that it is not anomalous for humans to see things that appear anomalous.

 

[Nourali]

There were also Raëlians outside the National Assembly, they were handing out leaflets, and it got a laugh in the room when Sylvain Maisonneuve mentioned it.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

French National Assembly - first notes

A few notes from the French parliamentary colloquium on UAPs/PANs, based only on my memory. I did not take detailed notes, so there may be omissions or minor inaccuracies.

The event was recorded, but it was not livestreamed. It may be published within about a week, although I am not sure.

The first part was not necessarily the most relevant for this forum. It was mostly about historical, sociological and institutional approaches to the UAP question. Also, two of the announced speakers did not really speak, and I did not fully understand why.

One point I found interesting was made by Pierre Lagrange. As I understood it, he argued that the UFO debate has often been "psychologized", (I am not sure this was the exact word used), by people who were not necessarily specialists in that field. His point seemed to be that the issue is not simply "irrational people believing irrational things", but also the belief that other people are irrational believers. This was compared to a kind of hierarchical or colonial way of thinking, where some groups, "the people", peasants, lower classes, etc., are treated as naive, superstitious or irrational. So there was a whole sociological and historical critique of how UFO witnesses and UFO belief have been framed.

The second panel was more directly relevant. There was a presentation of GEIPAN: how they investigate cases, what kinds of data they take into account, how some cases are solved, and how they classify reports.

Mathieu Courtaban, from CAPCODA, and Jérémy Moyal, from the French Air and Space Force, said, as far as I understood, that they do not detect truly anomalous objects in their operational data. The objects that remain unidentified are generally moving at wind speed and are probably balloons or other airborne debris that were not directly identified.

Michaël Vaillant (i think) then spoke more specifically about what should be done with cases that remain unexplained after a serious investigation. His point, as I understood it, was that GEIPAN collects and processes reports, and acts as a kind of filter, but it is not really a research body. It provides a database that could be exploited scientifically, but it does not itself carry out deep research on the unexplained cases. There were also discussions about the possibility of extending a GEIPAN-like model to the European level.

The third part was probably the most interesting and is the one to watch when the recording is released.

In particular, @Baptiste Fr said he had collected testimonies from French military personnel, including pilots. According to what he reported, some pilots told him that there may be around four or five (if he can confirm or correct me about the exact number) encounters with anomalous objects per year. He also said that these pilots were reluctant to testify because of concerns about their careers, and that it would be easier for them to report such observations if the request came from the high command or the general staff.

There was also discussion of what is being done internationally, both in academic and governmental settings, and in France. It was mentionned that Japan was ready to work with any nation (including France) on the topic.

The general conclusion seemed to be that the collection and processing of data should be improved. The MPs present appeared open to the idea that this colloquium could be a first step, rather than a one-off event, and that further action on the topic could follow.

Again, this is only a first memory-based summary, not a transcript or a precise report. I may have missed details or slightly misremembered some formulations.

From what I am understanding, GEIPAN sort of acts like AARO, if they retain some information about "anomalous" cases, then it's probably classified for national security reasons (foreign aircrafts? Drones?).
They don't deny having possible info on those cases (see category D from GEIPAN, or "2%-5% anomalous" by AARO's directors, or any other study on UAPs that's ever been done), but it's not like they have a mandate to release it to the public, nor are they obliged to find explanations when there's a lack of info.
The difference being, AARO does not explicitly have a "Category D" equivalent that we know of, so it's hard to really grasp if they mean the same thing.
My hypothesis is that when you have weird multiple radar returns and multiple observers that depict strange accelerations and movements, then that's probably what gets categorized as "anomalous".
But I'm just guessing here, if there is such information, it's really not here for us to see.
GEIPAN is a part of CNES, just like AARO is the DOW.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

There were also Raëlians outside the National Assembly, they were handing out leaflets, and it got a laugh in the room when Sylvain Maisonneuve mentioned it.

Creepy!

 

[Nourali]

One could surmise that it is not anomalous for humans to see things that appear anomalous.

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

The number mentioned roughly matches the GEIPAN cases that stay unexplained after investigation. Not to jump to wild conclusions, but thats the thing. We need to see whether these cases can be explained, or to find undeniable evidence that they involve something genuinely anomalous.

 

[Mauro]

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

I guess there are exceptions...

Fourteen passengers and two flight attendants were injured.

https://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I guess there are exceptions...

View attachment 91821



https://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot

This incident (AFAIK the only documented incident like this) only proves that one pilot can make a mistake, not that all pilots are incapable of recognizing what is in front of them.

 

[Andreas]

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? To me, this sounds very similar to the "trained observers" argument often used by the UFO community when there's no real evidence to back up a claim.

This incident (AFAIK the only documented incident like this) only proves that one pilot can make a mistake, not that all pilots are incapable of recognizing what is in front of them.

I could give you a long list of examples where pilots have misidentified mundane objects, sometimes even causing accidents because of their mistakes. No one is claiming that pilots are "incapable of recognizing what's in front of them". But you seem to agree that pilots do make mistakes, misidentifying things like Venus and satellites, believing they are other aircraft—or even giant hovering motherships.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

How long do you reckon identifying balloon training is?

 

[Ann K]

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

Bear in mind that while pilots may be more familiar with airplanes than most people, there ARE no individuals who are trained to identify alien craft.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

But you seem to agree that pilots do make mistakes, misidentifying things like Venus and satellites, believing they are other aircraft—or even giant hovering motherships.

I agree, but for "weird enough" cases, this has to be true every time.

 

[Nourali]

I guess there are exceptions...

View attachment 91821



https://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/17/travel/canada-disoriented-pilot

Commercial pilots ≠ fighter pilots tho

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Bear in mind that while pilots may be more familiar with airplanes than most people, there ARE no individuals who are trained to identify alien craft.

Yes but sometimes they just report weird objects, they don't always jump to the "aliens" conclusion.

 

[Eburacum]

Scott Kelly, astronaut and 'trained pilot', observed an unidentified object which his back seat observer was convinced was a UFO. Kelly circled back and found it was a Bart Simpson Balloon.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65771398

 

[JMartJr]

Sounds extremely interesting, makes me wish I'd learned some French!

 

[Andreas]

Commercial pilots ≠ fighter pilots tho

Well, the pilot seemed quite impressed by what was probably just a balloon in the GoFast video.

 

[John J.]

Yep but here we're talking about trained pilots, their job is to identify things in the sky, so their reports carry a bit more weight than random sightings.

Military pilots are trained to identify other aircraft by their known visual characteristics (also ground or maritime targets, depending on their role).
It's a fair assumption they have good eyesight, are in good health, are bright, pay attention to detail and are reliable in the workplace, so I agree with you to some extent.
Equally, pilots flying combat aircraft are in a demanding environment.

Mistakes are made. Pilots have shot down friendly or neutral aircraft. Sadly naval aviators have crashed into the stern or onto the deck of carriers they were attempting to land on. These are in situations that they have trained for, and in which lives are at risk (sometimes their own).
In other threads here it seems (civil) pilots still sometimes misidentify Starlink flares.

There's a thread How Can Highly Trained Military Pilots Possibly Misinterpret Things They See?. I think post #9 is relevant,

Former Navy Fighter pilot, 777 Airline Captain here.
... ...
My problem has been with the description that Naval Aviators are "trained observers".
Observe what? Yes, we can estimate ranges to a known object like another F18. Based on thousands of hours of experience I can usually make a fairly accurate estimate of another fighter aircraft's energy state, speed, from a few miles away with just my eyes.

What we are trained NOT to do is make assumptions on size, speed and distance based on an unknown object. It's simply not possible. We are trained in many different types of optical illusions and how our senses can be easily fooled. Lots of aircraft and aviators have been lost because of different sensory phenomenon. Our aviators are mostly sharp folks that exist in a bell curve. All over the map. Some are super religious, some are superstitious, some are total math nerds and others are art majors. They are not all Neil Armstrong. Pilots are a diverse group of humans with their own unique biases.

@Leekster's other posts in the thread are highly informative.

Same thread post #59, in Iraq on 28 March 2003 A-10 pilots, in conditions of good visibility, made a number of significant identification errors and attacked friendly armour. There is a recording of the pilot's comms, we know how they described the targets and came to their decision.

Although a different era in many ways, there's also the tragic1948 loss of Capt. Thomas Mantell as he pursued an unidentified circular object, almost certainly a balloon (Wikipedia, Mantell UFO Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident).