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.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

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.

As far as I'm aware, the Representatives (In France Representatives have more power than Senators) were the ones wanting to do one, and specifically to talk about the subject outside of conspiracy theories (that's why you have "beyond fantasies" in the title). They also published a video recently showing a based approach to the subject. They chose the speakers, most are representatives from administrations and agencies, or their contractors, Luc Dini and myself represent a non profit association under law 1901, the equivalent of the AIAA UAP committee for Luc, and Sentinel Center for myself. I'm not sure you have an equivalent in the US, as we are much more neutral that US counterparts like Disclosure Foundation or Sol, maybe a very small SCU more focused on information coverage. I'm also correspondent in France of The Debrief regarding Defense and UAP related information.

Source: https://x.com/ArSaint_Martin/status/2066908896145367351?s=20

 

[jumbobob]

Will this seminar be live streamed?
And it seems like it'll only be in French?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Will this seminar be live streamed?
And it seems like it'll only be in French?

It will be in live streamed and in french. I'll try to do a summary here after the event.

 

[John J.]

Luc Dini and myself represent a non profit association under law 1901, the equivalent of the AIAA UAP committee for Luc,

Luc Dini is chairman of SIGMA2, a subgroup of French aerospace interest group 3AF (https://www.3af.fr/en/) that is concerned with UAP reports.

Chairman's name : Luc Dini
Mail contact : sigma@3af.fr

SIGMA2 is a Technical Commission of 3AF (Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France) comprised of 25 experts in aeronautics and astronautics on physical observables, as well as the effects of unknown aerospace phenomena. 3AF (http://www.3af.fr) is a technical society registered under the French legislation (France, Loi 1901, non-profit organization), which gathers about 1500 individual members as well as aerospace industrial, academic and institutional partners including CNES (French Space National Agency), DGAC (French Civil Aviation Directorate), DGA (French MoD Directorate for armament programs and exports), ISAE (French aerospace school of engineers), Airbus, Dassault Aviation, MBDA, SAFRAN, THALES and many other groups.

3AF website, "SIGMA2 (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena)" https://www.3af.fr/en/groupe/sigma2-unidentified-aerospace-phenomena-43

Beatrix Villarroel was quoted by @Andreas in post #779, Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey thread, as saying

If you want to investigate UFO cases using the scientific method, I highly recommend reading analyses produced by 3AF-Sigma2 in Paris.

Dini is co-author, along with Jacques Vallee and fellow SIGMA2 member Geoffrey Mestchersky of the paper "Estimates of radiative energy values in ground-level observations of an unidentified aerial phenomenon: New physical data", 2025, Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 156, briefly discussed in post #780 of the Transients thread.
The authors do not consider the possibility of a hoax at any point. Many of their results depend on the witness account being reliable and accurate.
It is not clear if any new analysis of sample material has been done by the authors (though I was probably too sceptical of this in post #780);

The samples were returned [from a "US atomic facility"] without any disclosure of findings and were recovered (by JV) on August 27, 1979. No further analysis was done after that date. The samples are shown on Fig. 5 above, as they stood when our team submitted them to a series of tests in France.

It is unclear how provenance was established or what happened to the samples at the unnamed "atomic facility"- August '79 is twelve-and-a-half years after the claimed incident. (We know the claimant was a nuclear physicist, though working in a modest-sized college in 1966).

The "...when our team submitted them to a series of tests in France" strongly implies the spectroscopy was undertaken by the current authors collectively; this might be the case but the authors had earlier written

Following our communication with him, Dr. Condon concurred and his group undertook extensive follow-up studies...

...but Condon died in 1974. The "Our" here refers to Vallee and possible associates in the 1970s. Maybe "our team" does too.

Later in the paper, they write

Given the time elapsed since the 1966 Haynesville incident, it is uncertain whether physical samples from the affected trees are still available. However, if any preserved samples exist, they could provide valuable data for refining our energy estimates of the anomalous light source. Should such samples be accessible, a detailed re-examination using modern analytical techniques is recommended.

-But didn't the 2025 authors have physical samples from the affected trees, which had been in JV's possession?
It is possible the authors conducted the spectrographic analysis recently with the samples shown in fig. 5 of the paper, but if so the paper is really badly written (there is a similar apparent contradiction concerning depth of charring in the samples).

A 3AF webpage about the paper (which usefully links to an "article in press" copy) states Luc Dini is also a member of GEIPAN,

An article co-published by Jacques Vallee, Luc Dini (CNES-GEIPAN / 3AF Sigma2) and Geoffrey Mestchersky (3AF Sigma2)

https://www.3af.fr/en/news/estimate...fied-aerial-phenomenon-new-physical-data-2466
From the 2025 paper, I wouldn't describe him as being sceptical of extraordinary claims.
At no point does the paper even mention the possibility of the main witness account being inaccurate in any way.

 

[NorCal Dave]

recorded in investigated cases with radar tracks (Stephenville, SCU, F16 intercept, Belgium wave).

Thanks for coming aboard and participating Mr. Baptiste! Looking forward to some of your thoughts.

Speaking for myself, I find that much of what passes for UFO stories are often bits of real events, mixed with witness statements and other bits until it adds up to something where the whole is greater than the parts. You mention Stephenville TX as a case that demonstrates some flight characteristics beyond human capabilities, that lead you to say:

we know that there is some form of intelligence behind this.

However, the Stephenville case is a prime example of a real event being misinterpreted and then hyped up into something it isn't. It is usually presented as a UFO bigger than a WalMart (or even bigger), being chased by fighter jets that was witnessed by 200+ people and was confirmed with radar and video evidence. But when dug into, it was explained and debunked:

1. The claim of a UFO bigger than a WalMart, or larger, was an anecdote from 1 witness.
2. The claim of 200+ witnesses was a similar anecdote from the same witness.
3. The same above mentioned witness was first to the newspaper and TV and is still a primary witness for later TV shows, so his anecdotes become over-represented.
4. MUFON received around 17 reports, of which they only found 8 usefully. Not 200.
5. There was indeed an unusually large amount of F16s on a training flight, with flares, in a known MOD on the evening in question. Explaining much of what was seen.
6. The supposed radar returns were 187 bits selected form 2.5M bits of noise and clutter, that vaguely cosponsored to where some witnesses may have been looking.
7. The video evidence was shown to be a video of a star or celestial body at night.

In the end there wasn't much to the case. There were F16 conducting training runs in a designated MOD near Stephenville and some people saw them. Some people missinterpreted this, but there is little to suggest a 1 mile by 1/2 mile sized UFO was traveling at Mach 2 at the time. We have thread on this case linked below.

Why would this case still be considered evidence of UFOs demonstrating physics defying flight? And if this case is not what it appears to be, what about the others?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stephenville-texas-ufo-2008.13446/

 

[Baptiste Fr]

Luc Dini is chairman of SIGMA2, a subgroup of French aerospace interest group 3AF (https://www.3af.fr/en/) that is concerned with UAP reports.

Chairman's name : Luc Dini
Mail contact : sigma@3af.fr

SIGMA2 is a Technical Commission of 3AF (Association Aéronautique et Astronautique de France) comprised of 25 experts in aeronautics and astronautics on physical observables, as well as the effects of unknown aerospace phenomena. 3AF (http://www.3af.fr) is a technical society registered under the French legislation (France, Loi 1901, non-profit organization), which gathers about 1500 individual members as well as aerospace industrial, academic and institutional partners including CNES (French Space National Agency), DGAC (French Civil Aviation Directorate), DGA (French MoD Directorate for armament programs and exports), ISAE (French aerospace school of engineers), Airbus, Dassault Aviation, MBDA, SAFRAN, THALES and many other groups.

3AF website, "SIGMA2 (Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena)" https://www.3af.fr/en/groupe/sigma2-unidentified-aerospace-phenomena-43

Beatrix Villarroel was quoted by @Andreas in post #779, Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey thread, as saying

If you want to investigate UFO cases using the scientific method, I highly recommend reading analyses produced by 3AF-Sigma2 in Paris.

Dini is co-author, along with Jacques Vallee and fellow SIGMA2 member Geoffrey Mestchersky of the paper "Estimates of radiative energy values in ground-level observations of an unidentified aerial phenomenon: New physical data", 2025, Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 156, briefly discussed in post #780 of the Transients thread.
The authors do not consider the possibility of a hoax at any point. Many of their results depend on the witness account being reliable and accurate.
It is not clear if any new analysis of sample material has been done by the authors (though I was probably too sceptical of this in post #780);

The samples were returned [from a "US atomic facility"] without any disclosure of findings and were recovered (by JV) on August 27, 1979. No further analysis was done after that date. The samples are shown on Fig. 5 above, as they stood when our team submitted them to a series of tests in France.

It is unclear how provenance was established or what happened to the samples at the unnamed "atomic facility"- August '79 is twelve-and-a-half years after the claimed incident. (We know the claimant was a nuclear physicist, though working in a modest-sized college in 1966).

The "...when our team submitted them to a series of tests in France" strongly implies the spectroscopy was undertaken by the current authors collectively; this might be the case but the authors had earlier written

Following our communication with him, Dr. Condon concurred and his group undertook extensive follow-up studies...

...but Condon died in 1974. The "Our" here refers to Vallee and possible associates in the 1970s. Maybe "our team" does too.

Later in the paper, they write

Given the time elapsed since the 1966 Haynesville incident, it is uncertain whether physical samples from the affected trees are still available. However, if any preserved samples exist, they could provide valuable data for refining our energy estimates of the anomalous light source. Should such samples be accessible, a detailed re-examination using modern analytical techniques is recommended.

-But didn't the 2025 authors have physical samples from the affected trees, which had been in JV's possession?
It is possible the authors conducted the spectrographic analysis recently with the samples shown in fig. 5 of the paper, but if so the paper is really badly written (there is a similar apparent contradiction concerning depth of charring in the samples).

A 3AF webpage about the paper (which usefully links to an "article in press" copy) states Luc Dini is also a member of GEIPAN,

An article co-published by Jacques Vallee, Luc Dini (CNES-GEIPAN / 3AF Sigma2) and Geoffrey Mestchersky (3AF Sigma2)

https://www.3af.fr/en/news/estimate...fied-aerial-phenomenon-new-physical-data-2466
From the 2025 paper, I wouldn't describe him as being sceptical of extraordinary claims.
At no point does the paper even mention the possibility of the main witness account being inaccurate in any way.

Hello, that might be helpful; the authors gave a conference in English regarding their work, I think it answers most of your questions. The hoax part is unlikely as the radiation burn on the trees was extensive, but it could have been a weapon test IMHO. The problem for the latter is, why do it here and not in a protected test site. Maybe a DEW weapon malfunction?

Source: https://youtu.be/lv8sccO7FSg?si=GA_eDA_EbJlUlPab&t=4063

 

[Baptiste Fr]

Thanks for coming aboard and participating Mr. Baptiste! Looking forward to some of your thoughts.

Speaking for myself, I find that much of what passes for UFO stories are often bits of real events, mixed with witness statements and other bits until it adds up to something where the whole is greater than the parts. You mention Stephenville TX as a case that demonstrates some flight characteristics beyond human capabilities, that lead you to say:

we know that there is some form of intelligence behind this.

However, the Stephenville case is a prime example of a real event being misinterpreted and then hyped up into something it isn't. It is usually presented as a UFO bigger than a WalMart (or even bigger), being chased by fighter jets that was witnessed by 200+ people and was confirmed with radar and video evidence. But when dug into, it was explained and debunked:

1. The claim of a UFO bigger than a WalMart, or larger, was an anecdote from 1 witness.
2. The claim of 200+ witnesses was a similar anecdote from the same witness.
3. The same above mentioned witness was first to the newspaper and TV and is still a primary witness for later TV shows, so his anecdotes become over-represented.
4. MUFON received around 17 reports, of which they only found 8 usefully. Not 200.
5. There was indeed an unusually large amount of F16s on a training flight, with flares, in a known MOD on the evening in question. Explaining much of what was seen.
6. The supposed radar returns were 187 bits selected form 2.5M bits of noise and clutter, that vaguely cosponsored to where some witnesses may have been looking.
7. The video evidence was shown to be a video of a star or celestial body at night.

In the end there wasn't much to the case. There were F16 conducting training runs in a designated MOD near Stephenville and some people saw them. Some people missinterpreted this, but there is little to suggest a 1 mile by 1/2 mile sized UFO was traveling at Mach 2 at the time. We have thread on this case linked below.

Why would this case still be considered evidence of UFOs demonstrating physics defying flight? And if this case is not what it appears to be, what about the others?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stephenville-texas-ufo-2008.13446/

I think you are misunderstanding some facts, I would forward you to the study published by the SCU on it, Robert Powell, a co author, was the ground investigator at the time : https://www.explorescu.org/post/stephenville-lights-a-comprehensive-radar-and-witness-report-study
He also gave a presentation of his investigation here :
Source: https://youtu.be/ga5U5b-TCmQ?si=8AwnFDXIT5p7Mh_C&t=3873

 

[Eburacum]

I think you are misunderstanding some facts, I would forward you to the study published by the SCU on it, Robert Powell, a co author, was the ground investigator at the time :

I would refer you to Tim Printy's analysis of the Stephenville phenomenon;
https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/svilletx.htm

1) This black line is the apparent path that UFOlogists derived from the sighting reports they collected concerning the Steve Allen sighting and found in their report on the Stephenville-Dublin sightings.​

2) This red line shows the apparent path that UFOlogists state the UFO and chase jets took sometime around 6:25-6:35 PM according to the same report.

3) This is the approximate path shown by the two spurious radar contacts, which demonstrated the UFO was traveling at 2100 mph.

4) This is the path that four F-16s took between 6 and 6:20PM.

5) This is the path that four more F-16s took between 6:20 and 6:40PM.

6) This is the path that two F-16s took between 6:50 and 7:00 PM when they left the Military operating area.​

There seems to be a recurring theme in these plots. That being that a lot of jets were flying through the same airspace that the UFO supposedly traveled through about the same time. The UFOlogists who wrote the radar report make a great deal about how each individual jet would have been very small and impossible to see but what they fail to mention that the formation, with all their associated lights could have looked like one large object. Remember Hendry's description of how people like to play connect the dots with lights to produce a shape. The formation was spread out over a large area in the Radar report. Perhaps a mile or more. This would cover at least several degrees of the sky. Even more interesting is that none of the witnesses report the jets for the 6:15 PM sighting (which is an approximate time) but they do report seeing lights flying through the same airspace!

All these witnesses and no photos!
We need much better evidence than a tangled mess of F16 radar tracks and inconsistent eyewitnesses.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

I would refer you to Tim Printy's analysis of the Stephenville phenomenon;
https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/svilletx.htm

All these witnesses and no photos!
We need much better evidence than a tangled mess of F16 radar tracks and inconsistent eyewitnesses.

I see many opinions and few facts, critics can be directly forwarded to the SCU, they are very open to dialogue. I would advise to assemble the remarks in a report first, for ease of communication, I'm not sure forum posts or webpages are the most efficient way of communicating.

Edit: regarding your "remark", please try to take a picture of a bird mid flight next time you see one, but take a 15 seconds delay to simulate the shock of witnesses trying to understand what they see, and a 5 seconds delay to simulate the actual time of finding your phone while in a state of panic, and remember, it was 2008 phones. Then factor in peer pressure, do you really want to be exposed as someone who has the picture of a UFO, considering that whatever the quality of the picture you took some will always call you a hoaxer, and your job will surely be affected as you'll become "the guy that photographed a UFO". The best pictures of UFOs I've authentified and seen were sent by private citizens whom I verified the identity and they didn't want their pictures to go public, because many people are very agressive regarding that subject, an agressiveness and an irony, it seems to me, that shows through your message.

 

[Eburacum]

Well, if people won't release their evidence in public then the truth will never get out.

It is no good hiding evidence from the rest of the world, especially if there is a chance that someone else will be able to identify the true nature of the phenomenon. Submit your best evidence to Metabunk, and let us see what we can come up with.

 

[Eburacum]

Our thread on Stephenville is here
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stephenville-texas-ufo-2008.13446/page-2#post-371988
There were several F16 planes flying around on that night; one likely explanation is that the witnesses saw some, or several of these planes at various times and moving in various directions.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

Well, if people won't release their evidence in public then the truth will never get out.

It is no good hiding evidence from the rest of the world, especially if there is a chance that someone else will be able to identify the true nature of the phenomenon. Submit your best evidence to Metabunk, and let us see what we can come up with.

As you may know, we have a French public office inside our space agency tasked with that and able to guarantee witness anonymity, and even that they don't trust it. It would be illegal for me to divulge private documents.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

Our thread on Stephenville is here
https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/4637f66107930
There were several F16 planes flying around on that night; one likely explanation is that the witnesses saw some, or several of these planes at various times and moving in various directions.

As I said before, I refer you to the SCU report, which has specific chapters on these questions https://www.explorescu.org/post/stephenville-lights-a-comprehensive-radar-and-witness-report-study

 

[John J.]

...but take a 15 seconds delay to simulate the shock of witnesses trying to understand what they see, and a 5 seconds delay to simulate the actual time of finding your phone while in a state of panic

People do sometimes take photographs/ video of unexpected scary or shocking events at very short notice, sometimes in situations where they might be in real danger. Not always, of course, and it's understandable that many people's first reaction might not be to photograph/ film what was going on.
But I think @NorCal Dave and @Eburacum's concerns are valid, if there were approx. 200 witnesses to something extraordinary, it's strange no-one took a photo/ video, that they were all stunned into inaction throughout the time the thing was visible.

If the UFO was large and highly visible, it must have been seen by others some distance away from its flightpath where its apparent size might not have been so intimidating or awe-inspiring, but where nonetheless it could be seen as something unusual. But no photos, no video.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

People do sometimes take photographs/ video of unexpected scary or shocking events at very short notice, sometimes in situations where they might be in real danger. Not always, of course, and it's understandable that many people's first reaction might not be to photograph/ film what was going on.
But I think @NorCal Dave and @Eburacum's concerns are valid, if there were approx. 200 witnesses to something extraordinary, it's strange no-one took a photo/ video, that they were all stunned into inaction throughout the time the thing was visible.

If the UFO was large and highly visible, it must have been seen by others some distance away from its flightpath where its apparent size might not have been so intimidating or awe-inspiring, but where nonetheless it could be seen as something unusual. But no photos, no video.

If I saw a strange light in the sky that I could not identify, I would surely bring my phone up and film it right away, I'd post it here or anywhere and have it full analyzed.
Problem is, nothing I ever saw was weird enough.
If I were to see something VERY weird, would I do the same thing? I don't know, if I'm in shock and awe, maybe there are chances I would't think about it?
This doesn't disprove the fact that it's "very convenient" that the best UFO cases have almost always little to no photo evidence substantiating the weirdest claims.
But I think it's something to be considered.

 

[Eburacum]

As I said before, I refer you to the SCU report, which has specific chapters on these questions https://www.explorescu.org/post/stephenville-lights-a-comprehensive-radar-and-witness-report-study

Thanks; it seems to have no significant differences from the MUFON report, and seems to show that the witnesses were looking directly towards the F16 planes, so there seems little reason to suppose they were looking at exotic aircraft.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I think you are misunderstanding some facts, I would forward you to the study published by the SCU on it, Robert Powell, a co author, was the ground investigator at the time

Thank you sir. It appears that the SCU report is just a reprint of the MUFON report. The same report from 2 different UFO organizations. I posted the link to it on our Stephenville thread as noted by @Eburacum above. While this is not the place to get into a detailed discussion of that specific case, I find the report, whether from SCU or MUFON suffers from the same "sum is greater than the parts" problem. We discussed much of it in the Stephenville thread.

The gist of the report is that while there was a large amount of military air traffic in the area on that evening and it was seen by many people, the authors felt that few witness statements could be lined up with bits of radar clutter and noise to draw out a UFO of some sort.

The authors were well aware that the data they were often looking at and using what would normally be considered noise, clutter and spurious radar returns. It's only by attempting to link these unrelated returns with vague witness statements that create, what I would argue, is the illusion of a UFO. From the report (my bold):

If there wasn't witness testimony, then these two radar data return points would normally be considered an unusual coincidence of points in time and location, and not likely to be real.

However, in this case the radar hits are in the same direction that all four witnesses were looking when they saw the object. See Image #3 on the next page. It shows the radar track in bright yellow just northeast of Stephenville, and the positions of all the witnesses as well as the direction in which they saw the object.

The curved arrow, that begins to the east of Stephenville and ends to the west, represents the path of the object as described by the witnesses in Selden. Bear in mind that the radar track only represents two locations from radar, separated by 20 seconds, and with an arbitrary straight line
drawn between them. It doesn't tell you where the object was before or after the two radar hits, even that it traveled in a straight line.

With witness testimony from different directions from the object's location and that corresponds to what was seen on radar, these radar
points have to be considered as potentially linked. And if they are linked...they represent an object that traveled at a minimum of 2,100 mph

pg.35-36

It's a lot of "IFs" that "potentially" link up separate radar hits that IF an "arbitrary" line is used indicates a moment of high speed. This all assumes perfect recall and accuracy from 4 witnesses who are all 30+ miles from this supposed UFO. Even then, the authors are forced to use what appears to be a bit of circular reasoning with witness (my bold):

Now let's examine the radar information in relation to the first of the two sightings that occurred near Selden. As mentioned earlier, it is not clear whether from the primary witness's direct testimony as to whether he saw the object at 5:45pm, 6:00pm, or 6:15pm. Travel time tends to indicate it was after 6:00pm. Based on how closely his testimony ties into the radar data, the 6:15pm time is likely.

pg: 36

They don't know when the witness saw some lights, but IF he saw them at 6:15, it would coincide with the radar data. But the authors already told us the radar data is likely noise, unless it coincides with the witness testimony, which in this case it may not.

If this is the type of evidence that suggests UFOs defying physics while under intelligent control, it seems awfully weak.

 

[Baptiste Fr]

People do sometimes take photographs/ video of unexpected scary or shocking events at very short notice, sometimes in situations where they might be in real danger. Not always, of course, and it's understandable that many people's first reaction might not be to photograph/ film what was going on.
But I think @NorCal Dave and @Eburacum's concerns are valid, if there were approx. 200 witnesses to something extraordinary, it's strange no-one took a photo/ video, that they were all stunned into inaction throughout the time the thing was visible.

If the UFO was large and highly visible, it must have been seen by others some distance away from its flightpath where its apparent size might not have been so intimidating or awe-inspiring, but where nonetheless it could be seen as something unusual. But no photos, no video.

No photos of video that we know of, you can't deduce a truth from a lack of information. What efforts were deployed to collect such photos? Most of my witnesses only report what they saw a decade after the fact, with their pictures, because they need psychological time to digest the sighting. A study made the French military police decades ago shown than even when something absolutely major happens, only 30 % of the witnesses reports it. Imagine how low that number goes for something like a UFO. In the Canadian report, 27% of the population states to have observed something unexplained in the sky, even with a conservative 3% true anomalous reports (based on GEIPAN estimations), it's still tens of thousands of very reliable, very anomalous reports. People, most of the times, take only pictures and speak of what they really know, of what is already categorized in their mind. When facing something knew, the brain tries to first identify what he is seeing. Some of the best photographic evidence I saw comes from witnesses that had a first sighting, so at the second, they already knew what to do and were much quicker.
It is something well known, the more the case is anomalous, the less the witness reports it, because the likeliness of him being considered crazy rises.