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 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).

 

[Harabeck]

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.

I feel like this case deserves real emphasis when we talk about pilots being reliable witnesses. This was not an object in the air with no references. They knew the approximate distance and speed (on the ground at road speeds at most), and they had been briefed on what friendly vehicles should look like. Somehow they still thought an armored vehicle with a bright placard meant to identify them as friendly was a missile truck with brightly painted missiles (for some reason).

Piloting is hard and mentally taxing. Just staying safely in the air is a full time job. Then add to that actually carrying out a mission.

I have previously discussed this an other examples in a Fravor related thread here. I want to quote my opening bullet points for emphasis:

• Pilots are not "trained observers".
• Pilots are distracted observers. They are operating their aircraft first and foremost.
• Pilots are not objective observers. They are keenly aware that anything else in the sky with them is a threat to their aircraft, and thus their lives.
• Pilots are not informed observers. They have no particular scientific knowledge that would allow them to analyze exotic, new, unusual, or even usual but rarely noticed, phenomena.

I believe that we must view any testimony from pilots not with less skepticism, but more. Not because they are inherently stupid or dishonest, but because the very nature of piloting works against accurate analysis when something unusual is encountered.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I feel like this case deserves real emphasis when we talk about pilots being reliable witnesses. This was not an object in the air with no references. They knew the approximate distance and speed (on the ground at road speeds at most), and they had been briefed on what friendly vehicles should look like. Somehow they still thought an armored vehicle with a bright placard meant to identify them as friendly was a missile truck with brightly painted missiles (for some reason).

Piloting is hard and mentally taxing. Just staying safely in the air is a full time job. Then add to that actually carrying out a mission.

I have previously discussed this an other examples in a Fravor related thread here. I want to quote my opening bullet points for emphasis:



I believe that we must view any testimony from pilots not with less skepticism, but more. Not because they are inherently stupid or dishonest, but because the very nature of piloting works against accurate analysis when something unusual is encountered.

What you say makes perfect sense, but it can also be interpreted the other way around. Precisely because pilots view any anomaly as a potential threat to their aircraft, they are forced to pay hyper-focused attention to every unusual detail. And also, spending thousands of hours in flight gives them a deep familiarity with the "normalcy" of the sky, such as reflections, weather patterns, and other aircraft, that an average observer generally does not experience.
Surely they are human, can make a lot of mistakes like everyone else, and the sky is surely a stressful environment, but I wouldn't dismiss every single "difficult" case as a mistake by default, if there is indeed a pattern among pilots reporting weird stuff in the sky.
I ultimately think it's a good thing some of this is investigated.

 

[flarkey]

Surely they are human, can make a lot of mistakes like everyone else, and the sky is surely a stressful environment, but I wouldn't dismiss every single "difficult" case as a mistake by default, if there is indeed a pattern among pilots reporting weird stuff in the sky.

There is indeed a pattern of pilots seeing stuff they either can't identify, or that they attribute to something erroneously. However, on further post-flight analysis the things that can be identified have turned out to be entirely prosaic albeit unusual (Starlink flares or rocket launches or Batman balloons for example). Going on this, it is right that a prosaic misidentification should be the default position, until the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Mauro]

Commercial pilots ≠ fighter pilots tho

I don't know what the career of that pilot was, but, for what I know, most civilian pilots are ex-military.

 

[Mauro]

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.

It proves pilots too are subject to perceptual errors, as any other human being. Many references to pilots misjudging what they saw (and to a dedicated thread), have already been posted above. I suggest you read them.

 

[FatPhil]

There is indeed a pattern of pilots seeing stuff they either can't identify, or that they attribute to something erroneously. However, on further post-flight analysis the things that can be identified have turned out to be entirely prosaic albeit unusual (Starlink flares or rocket launches or Batman balloons for example). Going on this, it is right that a prosaic misidentification should be the default position, until the evidence suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure rocket launches should be considered unusual, there was almost *one per day* last year. And starlink flares definitely can't be considered unusual, as they're happening somewhere constantly.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

There is indeed a pattern of pilots seeing stuff they either can't identify, or that they attribute to something erroneously. However, on further post-flight analysis the things that can be identified have turned out to be entirely prosaic albeit unusual (Starlink flares or rocket launches or Batman balloons for example). Going on this, it is right that a prosaic misidentification should be the default position, until the evidence suggests otherwise.

I agree that a prosaic explanation should always be the default position. That's just good science.
My point about the "pattern" is slightly different. When we look at cases that remain unexplained even after rigorous post-flight analysis by intelligence or scientific groups, we often see recurring physical descriptions (like specific geometric shapes or precise radar/visual correlations).
Saying that "pilots make errors just like any other human being" is true in a general sense, but it overlooks context. An astronomer has a statistically lower probability of misidentifying a celestial phenomenon in their working environment compared to a backyard observer. Similarly, a pilot's baseline for what constitutes normalcy in the sky is different. I'm not saying they are infallible, but when a pattern persists specifically within the subset of unresolved cases, default misidentification shouldn't become a blanket explanation to close the file without further look.

It proves pilots too are subject to perceptual errors, as any other human being. Many references to pilots misjudging what they saw (and to a dedicated thread), have already been posted above. I suggest you read them.

I'm not ignoring these cases, I just think they don't automatically prove that there is nothing to look at.

 

[Mauro]

I'm not ignoring these cases, I just think they don't automatically prove that there is nothing to look at.

Of course they don't, but surely they automatically prove that, from the evidence given by pilots who witnessed those 'residual unexplained phenomena', there is very probably nothing substantial to look at. Morale: I personally would not choose 'residual unexplained phenomena witnessed by pilots' as a study topic, the chances to hit on something are essentialy as zero as they can be.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Of course they don't, but surely they automatically prove that, from the evidence given by pilots who witnessed those 'residual unexplained phenomena', there is very probably nothing substantial to look at. Morale: I personally would not choose 'residual unexplained phenomena witnessed by pilots' as a study topic, the chances to hit on something are essentialy as zero as they can be.

Yeah this is just where I honestly disagree, but we've had this discussion already on whether it's worth studying UFOs scientifically or if there is even something to look at. I think if governmental agencies find that there are cases worth studying, I would be ok with that.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

We do know it's FAR more common than we hear about because we are told again and again, and it's repeated in this assembly too, that pilots are reluctant to talk about it for fear of their jobs.

How common, who knows. Well, pilots know.

I'm not even sure if the stigma of not talking about it is aliens either, and is more to do with eye sight.

 

[NorCal Dave]

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.

Forgive me for replying to whole quote instead of selected parts, but I find trying to do this on a phone exceedingly frustrating.

It would seem the guys from CAPCODA and the French Air Force Sid there are NO anomalous UAP beyond likely explanation

Mr. Babtiste said there are in fact anomalous sightings, but only a few and reported anonymously to him. So, a "trust me bro" situation.

GIEPAN just collects cases, explains what they can but aren't really a research organization.

The conclusion was we need more data. Seems like UFOlogy of the last 50-75 years. No real evidence, some 2nd hand supposedly reliable accounts, and the age-old call for "more data".

What was the point?

 

[MapperGuy]

we often see recurring physical descriptions (like specific geometric shapes

I just did a internet search for "geometric shapes". It brought up a bunch of images showing a host of geometric shapes along with their 'technical' names.

The issue with using a witnesses description of the shape of an unknown object is the question of how many of those potential "geometric shapes" will they be selecting from? All of the many different names, or only a subset of the most frequently used terms?
Equilateral triangle, or obtuse triangle or concave quadrilateral or just plain triangle?

There are a lot of options, and I would suspect that most witnesses are only considering a subset of those many options. And when that happens how many different terms are actually being considered? I would suspect that question can be answered by looking at the mass of reports that MUFON or other groups have collected and seeing what the most commonly used witness descriptions are.

In other words, those recurring terms are those terms which 'spring to mind' when a witness is asked "What shape was it?"

Then there is the question of how their description is recorded, and how the questioner (if there is one) takes down their statement. Is the recorder asking for clarification and using a different term than the one the witness originally used, and is the witness then agreeing with the questioner and using that different term? Witnesses can be coached (influenced) to use particular terms if the questioner appears to be more knowledgeable or informed than the witness.

Or if the recorder has a sheet with little check boxes labeled "round", "square", "triangle" that they must select from when filing their report.

 

[Harabeck]

Saying that "pilots make errors just like any other human being" is true in a general sense, but it overlooks context. An astronomer has a statistically lower probability of misidentifying a celestial phenomenon in their working environment compared to a backyard observer. Similarly, a pilot's baseline for what constitutes normalcy in the sky is different.

As noted in the old comment I linked to, there have been reports that looked into this, including Hynek's 1978 report. His conclusion, which seems consistent with the many examples we have discussed here and elsewhere, is that pilots are good at identifying known aircraft, but not other kinds of objects. He actually goes further and says they're worse than his "technical person" category generally.

I would anticipate that a pilot is less likely to report the common "cigar" UFOs that are actually planes whose wings are less visible than their fuselage. But if the object we're talking about isn't a plane, all bets are off. Again, as noted in previously linked threads, pilots don't seem to be great at identifying balloons, rocket launches, or celestial bodies, despite these all being well known, understood, and common phenomena.

We even have examples of astronauts, who actually are certainly more scientifically minded and educated than most pilots making such mistakes.

Scott Kelly discusses his RIO mistaking a balloon for a UFO, astronauts on the shuttle misidentifying the ISS, and other examples:



I will always protest any notion that their testimony carries additional weight over any other witness merely because they are pilots. They are more likely to see things that non-pilots will not, but we must treat that testimony with the same scrutiny we'd give to any layman on the ground reporting something strange in the skies.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

As noted in the old comment I linked to, there have been reports that looked into this, including Hynek's 1978 report. His conclusion, which seems consistent with the many examples we have discussed here and elsewhere, is that pilots are good at identifying known aircraft, but not other kinds of objects. He actually goes further and says they're worse than his "technical person" category generally.

I would anticipate that a pilot is less likely to report the common "cigar" UFOs that are actually planes whose wings are less visible than their fuselage. But if the object we're talking about isn't a plane, all bets are off. Again, as noted in previously linked threads, pilots don't seem to be great at identifying balloons, rocket launches, or celestial bodies, despite these all being well known, understood, and common phenomena.

We even have examples of astronauts, who actually are certainly more scientifically minded and educated than most pilots making such mistakes.

Scott Kelly discusses his RIO mistaking a balloon for a UFO, astronauts on the shuttle misidentifying the ISS, and other examples:



I will always protest any notion that their testimony carries additional weight over any other witness merely because they are pilots. They are more likely to see things that non-pilots will not, but we must treat that testimony with the same scrutiny we'd give to any layman on the ground reporting something strange in the skies.

I wouldn't have cited Hynek.

 

[flarkey]

The key point that we can take from @Harabeck 's post is that both pilots and non-pilots find it difficult to identify and describe airborne things that they have never seen before. Clearly the pilots will be more familiar with things in the sky, but there are many normal, prosaic things that are also uncommon or unusual to the effect that a particular pilot may not have seen that thing before - such as starlink flares, a rocket launch, batman balloon or even an inflatable radar reflecting calibration sphere.

"Looks weird" does not equal "is weird".

 

[JMartJr]

And starlink flares definitely can't be considered unusual, as they're happening somewhere constantly.

But there was a time when they were a new, puzzling phenomenon, and we got the whole "racetrack UFO" thing.

 

[Ann K]

What you say makes perfect sense, but it can also be interpreted the other way around. Precisely because pilots view any anomaly as a potential threat to their aircraft, they are forced to pay hyper-focused attention to every unusual detail.

I guess you missed the essential point in @Harabeck's post: "Just staying safely in the air is a full time job."

They don't have the ability to "pay hyper-focused attention" to the details of an unknown object while they are doing the same to the plane they're flying.