French National Assembly to host UAP seminar with true believers

[RobertBillyBob]

Titled 'Research on Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Beyond the Fantasies', the seminar is organized by the two deputies Arnaud Saint-Martin (LFI, left wing) and Pierre Henriet (Horizons, right wing).

Scheduled for June 29, 2026, it will consist of three round tables.
It's an informal discussion of the UAP topic, but the setting will give credibility to what is discussed. As far as I know, the seminar hasn't attracted a lot of media attention in the french mainstream news yet, but it could change after the seminar takes place. Like in the US, a small dedicated group of true believers may end up with significant political influence if the topic gets visibility in the media.

Round Table #1 : UAP research : history and contemporary stakes
Pierre Lagrange, anthropologist (EHESS)
Dominique Pinsolle, historian (Université de Bordeaux)
Luc Dini, engineer, SIGMA2 3AF president
Jérôme Lamy, sociologist (CNRS)

Round Table #2 : Official UAP studies by GEIPAN and French Air and Space Force
Frédéric Courtade, engineer, GEIPAN director
Mathieu Courtaban, CAPCODA TN director (Operation and Aerial Defense Command Center, French Air and Space Force)
Jérémy Moyal, French Air and Space Force
Gilles Munsch, expert (GEIPAN)
Michaël Vaillant, UAP Check

Round Table #3 : From GEIPAN to Pentagon : News and responses from public authorities
Philippe Ailleris, UAP Observations Reporting Scheme
Sylvain Maisonneuve, former ministerial advisor, author
Baptiste Friscourt, "The Debrief", Sentinel News correspondent

https://bsky.app/profile/arnaudsaint-martin.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3mmynwcif2k27

A significant subset of the participants (5 out of 12) form a group of true believers that seems to know each other well.
- Dini
- Vaillant
- Ailleris
- Friscourt
- Maisonneuve

They participated together to several events :
- New Science of UAP papers (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/)
- UAP Check : ufology organization
- Dossier Ovni : true believer UAP talk show, Dini and Friscourt are regular participants
- Paris défense and strategy forum 2025 UAP round table (PDSF25)

Dini (Sigma2 director) is also linked to the usual ufo groups :
- New Science of UAP co-author
- Sol Foundation conference speaker : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBvRlWhlTOg
- SCU cooperation agreement : https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link.php?news_link=2023104228_1143533338_3af-sigma2-communique-on-3af-sig-ma2-cooperation-agreement-vf.pdf&fg=1
- Sigma2 seminar with Vallée, Mellon and Villaroel (Vaillant was also there) https://www.3af.fr/fr/news/reunion-sigma2-avec-christopher-mellon-colloque-echo-event-cnews-et-france-2-2389?id_details_groupe=43

Vaillant seems to be to one with the most exotic beliefs. He openly believes in paranormal, in consciousness explanation for UAPs, and in apparitions at Skinwalker ranch (french interview : https://youtu.be/ThDhAacwmcY?t=3496 ). He has written a research paper that could deserve a dedicated thread : "Spatial Point Pattern Analysis of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in France" (arxiv.org)

Most of them have given extensive interviews to the very non critical "ET PAN!" french UAP youtube channel ( https://www.youtube.com/@ET_PAN/videos ). Their beliefs are very in line with the usual claims. They believe Elizondo and Grush without reserve. They have no doubt about the existence of an anomalous phenomenon with unexplanable cases.

The 3rd round table will probably be an uncritical regurgitation of what Corbell, Elizondo and Grush have claimed so far.

A few words on the other participants :
- Lagrange : very knowledgeable in ufology history, seems skeptical even if the truth behind the individual cases is not what interest him.
- Courtade : GEIPAN director, skeptic. He is in contact with AARO but I don't know if he knows the high profile US cases well enough to debunk them live when they'll get brought up by the true believers.
- Gilles Munsch : crop circle expert, published a book about detecting signs that crop circles are man made
Not much is available concerning the remaining participants related to UAPs.

 

[Nourali]

I'm going to attend the seminar. But I really disagree with this characterization of Baptiste Friscourt. He is clearly more on the convinced / pro-anomalous side, sure, but he is not someone who treats every claim as established fact. From what I've seen, he usually makes a pretty clear distinction between what is proven, what is reasonably supported, and what remains an unproven allegation. He also follow discussions on Metabunk, so I don't think it's fair to portray him as someone who just repeats claims uncritically.

I don't see the usefulness of attacking people personally before they have even spoken...

 

[RobertBillyBob]

But I really disagree with this characterization of Baptiste Friscourt. He is clearly more on the convinced / pro-anomalous side, sure, but he is not someone who treats every claim as established fact.

That's not the impression I got from watching interviews, but he maybe more nuanced in his own content than interviews can lead to think.

I don't see the usefulness of attacking people personally before they have even spoken...

I'm not attacking anyone, if something feel like a personal attack please point it to me so I can reformulate. I was curious about who the participants were, I researched them, noticed they were linked and it made me think of what we've already noticed in the US. You're welcome to nuance what I said if you know them better than I do.
The usefulness of researching them before they spoke at the seminar was to know if I had to be ready to debunk a lot of things in french media after the seminar.

 

[FatPhil]

I don't see the usefulness of attacking people personally before they have even spoken...

Why is the medium of communication important? He's published: we've read what he's put his name to, and, to quote @Ann K '"science" is not being applied here.' (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/post-338049 ), or, to quote me: "This "new science" paper had *no* science.".

 

[JMartJr]

I'm going to attend the seminar.

Nice, please report back to us!

.... From what I've seen, he usually makes a pretty clear distinction between what is proven, what is reasonably supported, and what remains an unproven allegation.

Can you (or he, if he's reading this and would like to comment) cite examples of things that he is accepting as proven, or reasonably supported, or unproven allegations? I am most interested in the first category, but I'm sufficiently interested in the other two to include them in my ask!

 

[Baptiste Fr]

That's not the impression I got from watching interviews, but he maybe more nuanced in his own content than interviews can lead to think.


I'm not attacking anyone, if something feel like a personal attack please point it to me so I can reformulate. I was curious about who the participants were, I researched them, noticed they were linked and it made me think of what we've already noticed in the US. You're welcome to nuance what I said if you know them better than I do.
The usefulness of researching them before they spoke at the seminar was to know if I had to be ready to debunk a lot of things in french media after the seminar.

Hello, indeed, I use Metabunk quite a lot, which is in itself considered an heresy by true believers. I find the debates here very useful, and all who follow my work know that my first advice when a "groundbreaking" UFO video arises is to check the debate on metabunk. It doesn't mean that I agree with all that is being said here either, but I do my due diligence in gathering every piece of data and interpretation I can before giving an educated summary, and I have my own network of experts I can rely on regarding specific tech questions.
That being said, I also know that investigators in UAP cases can have their own biases, both pro and con, I had to both debunk cases and unbunk cases.
I'm also involved in academic research, more will be made public soon as we have a lot of paperwork to go through first.
I'm very open to debate, and foster no ill intent, I'm available if you have any question, and please excuse my broken English.
All the best,
Baptiste

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Can you (or he, if he's reading this and would like to comment) cite examples of things that he is accepting as proven, or reasonably supported, or unproven allegations? I am most interested in the first category, but I'm sufficiently interested in the other two to include them in my ask!

He claims UAPs exhibit :

• very high speed
• instantaneous acceleration/deceleration
• transmedium capabilities
• intelligent control

So while we can replicate, for example, a speed of Mach 35 with an Ariane booster […] the problem is that these objects achieve the same speed but are able to stop instantaneously.
...
we also have what's called transmedium movement, meaning these objects are capable
of moving from one medium to another without loss of performance, meaning they move at the same speed in water as in air and in space
...
from what we can see, they actually "fly" in the water, that is, we don't perceive any interaction between the water and the object
...
Since we know they react to their environment, interpret the movements around them and move based on this data, we know that there is some form of intelligence behind this. We know that this intelligence is not human because if a human being were to pilot them it would be pulverized by the g-forces

From (translation from french mine) :
Source: https://youtu.be/jXQQ3tVHysA?t=1048


He seems pretty definitive about this, nothing in this passages indicates he's explaining what others think but doesn't fully agree with it.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

He claims UAPs exhibit :

• very high speed
• instantaneous acceleration/deceleration
• transmedium capabilities
• intelligent control

So while we can replicate, for example, a speed of Mach 35 with an Ariane booster […] the problem is that these objects achieve the same speed but are able to stop instantaneously.
...
we also have what's called transmedium movement, meaning these objects are capable
of moving from one medium to another without loss of performance, meaning they move at the same speed in water as in air and in space
...
from what we can see, they actually "fly" in the water, that is, we don't perceive any interaction between the water and the object
...
Since we know they react to their environment, interpret the movements around them and move based on this data, we know that there is some form of intelligence behind this. We know that this intelligence is not human because if a human being were to pilot them it would be pulverized by the g-forces

From (translation from french mine) :
Source: https://youtu.be/jXQQ3tVHysA?t=1048


He seems pretty definitive about this, nothing in this passages indicates he's explaining what others think but doesn't fully agree with it.

Hello,
It is based on description given to me by fighter pilots, read in reliable sources (for example UFOs and government, Sword / Powell, 3AF Sigma 2 2021 progress report), defined by US law and categorized as such by the Department of War since 2020, recorded in investigated cases with radar tracks (Stephenville, SCU, F16 intercept, Belgium wave).

 

[Nourali]

Nice, please report back to us!


Can you (or he, if he's reading this and would like to comment) cite examples of things that he is accepting as proven, or reasonably supported, or unproven allegations? I am most interested in the first category, but I'm sufficiently interested in the other two to include them in my ask!

For example, in his recent Grusch-related coverage he explicitly notes the absence of tangible evidence; in the Burchett case, he says the claim lacks tangible evidence or direct testimony; and in his article on Karl Nell, he questions Nell's evidentiary basis when Nell relies on figures like Paul Hellyer and Haim Eshed rather than tangible documents.

 

[Ravi]

I always wonder what is to discuss if everything has been discussed over and over and over for 75 years. Until they invite aliens to the seminars, I stay away from those meetings.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

He claims UAPs exhibit :

• very high speed
• instantaneous acceleration/deceleration
• transmedium capabilities
• intelligent control

So while we can replicate, for example, a speed of Mach 35 with an Ariane booster […] the problem is that these objects achieve the same speed but are able to stop instantaneously.
...
we also have what's called transmedium movement, meaning these objects are capable
of moving from one medium to another without loss of performance, meaning they move at the same speed in water as in air and in space
...
from what we can see, they actually "fly" in the water, that is, we don't perceive any interaction between the water and the object
...
Since we know they react to their environment, interpret the movements around them and move based on this data, we know that there is some form of intelligence behind this. We know that this intelligence is not human because if a human being were to pilot them it would be pulverized by the g-forces

From (translation from french mine) :
Source: https://youtu.be/jXQQ3tVHysA?t=1048


He seems pretty definitive about this, nothing in this passages indicates he's explaining what others think but doesn't fully agree with it.

So the 5 observables just shrunk to 4?

 

[JMartJr]

So the 5 observables just shrunk to 4?

But note the difference between "observable" and "observed."

He seems pretty definitive about this, nothing in this passages indicates he's explaining what others think but doesn't fully agree with it.

For example, in his recent Grusch-related coverage he explicitly notes...

Thanks, this is helpful.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Hello, indeed, I use Metabunk quite a lot, which is in itself considered an heresy by true believers. I find the debates here very useful, and all who follow my work know that my first advice when a "groundbreaking" UFO video arises is to check the debate on metabunk. It doesn't mean that I agree with all that is being said here either, but I do my due diligence in gathering every piece of data and interpretation I can before giving an educated summary, and I have my own network of experts I can rely on regarding specific tech questions.
That being said, I also know that investigators in UAP cases can have their own biases, both pro and con, I had to both debunk cases and unbunk cases.
I'm also involved in academic research, more will be made public soon as we have a lot of paperwork to go through first.
I'm very open to debate, and foster no ill intent, I'm available if you have any question, and please excuse my broken English.
All the best,
Baptiste

Hi, thank you for taking the time to create an account and post. No ill intent nor offense meant on my part. I'm only worried about the impact this seminar will have on disinformation, government distrust and conspiracy theories in France.
Can you give us some information about how the seminar was created? Whose idea it was, who chose the participants, this kind of things.