The Roswell Slide Saga: The Epilogue & Identification...

Humour...

*
***
*****

One of the two "famous" Roswell Slides

*

**

****

The Epilogue

Slide credit: Frank Hadl & "Frances"

Slide credit: Frank Hadl & "Frances". Idem, with the mount, annotated 12 December 1956 and being a mummy...

Isaac koi comment: Frank Hadl took a photo of that "alien"/mummy in December 1956 when he was in the Air Force - and annotated it as being a "mummy, at Montezuma Castle" and recorded the date of his photo as well ("12/56"). Label your slides people...  

Following up on Anthony Bragalia's post mentioned above giving a link to a Picasa web album, I contacted the owner of that web album today. Her husband (Frank Hadl) emailed promptly emailed me and confirmed that he took the relevant photo in December 1956. 

Note: It seems the Picassa album have been removed by the owners.

Add-on 10 June 2015: A photograph of the mummy have been found.
Add-on 11 June 2015: New Confirmation for Photograph of the Roswell "Alien"
Add-on 13 June 2015: Shepherd Johnson obtained by FOIA several pages of our mummy documentation, including a photograph (around p.176) from 1939.

In our previous articles (first, second, third + 4th ones) we have seen the so-called Roswell slides are images that a group of UFO promoters – including Anthony Bragalia, Jaime Maussan, Adam Dew, Donald Schmitt, Tom Carey, and Richard Dolan – put forward at an event held on May 5, 2015, in Mexico City, as proof positive of an extraterrestrial crash at Roswell in 1947 and the recovery and cover-up by the US government of alien bodies. These are claims that most of the aforementioned group have been making for over two years now. They have repeatedly said that the best experts they could find were examining the slides, and that they had determined the slides were of unearthly origin.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As many skeptics have been saying since the first rough image of one of the slides was procured several months ago as a screen capture from a promotional video released by Dew, the figure photographed and shown in the slides is almost certainly a mummified body.

We can now remove the word “almost” from the aforementioned sentence. The key to solving the mystery was in the placard seen in the slides in front of the body, a placard that the slides promoters assured everyone could not be deciphered despite extensive examination. Here is what Don Schmitt said on April 12, 2015:

This will be part of the event, part of the program in May, that all of these analytical reports, all of the analyses, all of the main experts as well as the photographic experts who examined- there’s a placard, very fuzzy, that can not be legibly read by the naked eye, yet we’ve had everyone from Dr. David Rudiak, to Studio MacBeth, even the Photo Interpretation Department of the Pentagon, as well as Adobe have all told us that it’s beyond the pale, that it cannot be read, it is totally up to interpretation.So, we truly feel we have performed due diligence; we have done everything we can to substantiate and prove what is contained within these slides, whether it is something of a human malady or something truly extraordinary.

Tom Carey was interviewed about the Roswell Slides on the March 22, 2015 episode of Jaime Maussan’s Contacto on Tercer Milenio TV. Carey said that experts have been able to read some words on the placard on the case and that, “debunkers will be disappointed.”

During May the 5th conference, it was announced their team unable to decipher the placard, despite Carey previous announce against "skeptics"...

 It took us just a few hours to prove otherwise, once we received a high resolution copy of one of the slides (note: while our copy came from an inside source within the promoters’ group, slides promoter Adam Dew has now released it as well).

By using the commercially available SmartDeblur, a member of our group (Nab Lator), was able to significantly clear up the blurred text. Other members of the group helped narrow down the actual words.The first line was the most clearly resolved:

MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY

There is no reasonable doubt that this is the true and correct text.

The other three lines of the text are more difficult to decipher, but seem to say something like:

MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY

At the time of burial the body was clothed in a xxx-xxx cotton

shirt. Burial wrappings consisted of these small cotton blankets.

Loaned by the MR. Xxxxxx, San Francisco, California

Chris Spitzer Isbert created an animated GIF to display the text.

http://s263.photobucket.com/user/europa73/media/macmini_1_zpsib9x40yc.gif.html

The entire effort only took hours, quite a difference from the “years” of research claimed by the slides promoters. The fact that the promoters did not release proper high resolution scans of the slides made our work more difficult, but in the end it was still relatively easy to decipher the key parts of the image.

The mystery of the placard is solved, and so is the nature of the body.

It was a boy, from Earth.

The question that remains is whether or not the Slides promoters have been deliberately deceiving the public in order to profit financially, or whether they were simply incompetent. Perhaps it was a mixture of both. Either way, their credibility as investigators and researchers has been destroyed.

More lecture in Curt Collins excellent site: The Placard of the Roswell Slides: The Final Cutain. a special rush report of the Roswell slides Research Group.

See this new add-on (May the 10th) of our RSG team, including videos: How to Decipher the Roswell Slides Placard.

APOLOGY by Roswell "DreamTeam" Members, Anthony Bragalia & Don Schmitt:

THE “ROSWELL ALIEN SLIDES” AND MY APOLOGY TO A DEAD CHILD OF THE MESA VERDE by Anthony Bragalia & followed by Don Schmitt, May the 14th.

ID Confirmations by "Roswell Slide Research Group" and All...

"The body is well mummified, but small patches of skin are missing and the lower part of the right leg has disappeared."
we read in Region III Quarterly Volume 2 - No. 1   January, 1940;  HUMAN PRUNES By Don Watson,Park Naturalist, Mesa Verde National Park.

Compare as I did now with one the slide presented by one the forensic sciences "experts" during May the 5th conference:

We read also in the scientific paper: "Part of a small slip-over cotton shirt still hangs around the shoulders." Compare again:

Credit: Roger Glassel & Curt Collins, see this article listed after.

Our group found a publication, dated 3 october 1958 and titled "Montezuma Castle, National Monument" and the following excerpt:

Mortem Foray shared the following video in a blog, video titled Mesa Verde Archaeology Colorado - Early 20th Century - Montezuma Castle Dig - Silent.
Looking at some artefacts exhumed in the video, we can compare with some artefacts visible in the slide. Such artefacts are probably samples of native "objects made of Yucca fibre or cotton":

Screenshoot from the video.

Cotton and yucca fibre artefacts have been exhumed in the past, not only in Mesa Verde (Colorado), but in the vicinity of Aztec (Arizona) too:

PLATE 29—Fiber artifacts A — twilled yucca head-ring; B — ring made of yucca strips; C — ring of juniper bark tied with yucca strips; D — cotton cloth, plain weave; E — bundle of yucca fibers tied with small yucca cord; F — corncob on stick. All from upper Room 11.

http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/wnpa/tech/4/sec4.htm

PLATE 35—Fiber and cordage. A and B — juniper bark pot rests; C — yucca cordage; D — strand of feather cloth; E — reed stems laced with twined strips of yucca leaves; F — ring of yucca cordage; G — yucca strand netting. All from upper Room 11.

(Ibid.)

PLATE 36—Yucca cordage and strips. A through C — yucca cordage; D — small bundle of yucca leaves tied with strips of yucca; E — bundle or burden strap of yucca; F — coil of yucca strip. All from upper Room 11.

(Ibid.)

Comparison.

French investigator Flo78 provided us a photograph of some preserved samples of those sandals made of Yucca fibre (Mesa Verde N. P. Museum, Colorado).

A capture from the book The land of the cliff-dwellers (1892) by Frederick H. Chapin, p.169.

Illustration by Nippa Downey. What the Roswell Slides promoters projected and believed as an army blanket (see our previous entries) and as we guessed, was small cotton blankets so typical for mummies...

Comparison (credit Cristian Contini, Italy).

Displays, Mesa Verde National Park (Colorado). Thanks to P. Hernandez.

Some placards of the Mesa Verde National Park Museum (Colorado). Motem Foray in a blog noted  the similarity of font and border style with the placard visible in the slide.

Comparison between a Mesa Verde museum bench and the bench visible in the slide. Source: Cuartio Milenio TV Show.

Same but I added the narrows to indicate "the point of view" you must adopt/imagine for a good match.

Same & zoom.

Soil comparison: Mesa Verde Museum (below) and the one visible on the slide (above) - Credit Cuatro Milenio TV Show -.

Shelves comparison between the one in the slide (left) and Mesa Verde Museum (Credit Cuatro Milenio TV Show).

For further reading, I recommand the following article: ID Confirmed: the Roswell Slides Mummy of Mesa Verde, by Curt Collins. As Anaysis of the "Roswell Slides" FAQ by my good friend Nab Lator.

Hear this interview of Donald Schmitt (and Richard Dolan) before the show of May the 5th, and compare to what we know few hours or days after :

And an ironic wink to investigator Tony Bragalia, one the mummies exhumed in Mesa Verde vicinity was nicknamed by the scientifics... "Tony".

On a side note: It was a team effort and more, by team including anomalists, skeptics, amateurs from several fields not really concerned by "UFO" and people not totally sharing the same opinions about the UFO phenomenon, but able to share all and work together. A sort of real DreamTeam, then?!

The Roswell Slides Research Group are:

José Antonio Caravaca, Spain.

Isaac Koi, Great Britain.

Nab Lator, France.

Lance Moody, USA.

Tim Printy, USA.

Curt Collins, USA.

Tim Hebert, USA.

Paul Kimball, Canada.

Gilles Fernandez, France.

Chris Rutkowski, Canada.

Roger Glassel, Sweden.

S. Miles Lewis, USA.

Thanks to our colleagues and associates Alejandro Espino, “Trained Observer”, Philippe Hernandez, Aaron J Gulyas, Irna France, Nick Redfern, and Fin Handley, as well as many, many more who offered help.

"Roswell Slides" Research Group, May 2015.

Roswell Slides Saga: The Mexico City Conference "BeWitness" or The Day the Earth stood still... Part 1.

How do you determine from only a photograph which are mammals?

*

**

****

Claims in Media the Two days before the Conference by the Participants: Shyness, Speech Adjustments & Disappointment?

R. Dolan in His Facebook page posted this photograph with the following comment:

On my way to Mexico City to be present at the unveiling of the so-called Roswell slides. I have not seen the slides, nor offered a public position on their authenticity, but there has been some interesting analysis done already on them, which I have discussed with a few of the principal researchers involved. While there has been some hype promoting the slides, there has been much more hype and invective in the attempt to discredit them. I find it fascinating, since none of the critics have seen the slides.

Richard Dolan claimed after seeing the slides two days before the Conference (or good screen copies of the slides):

I have been in Mexico City for the past day, meeting with Jaime Maussan, Tom Carey, and Adam Dew. Don Schmitt will arrive soon. I was able to see directly the two so-called Roswell slides. In addition, I became further acquainted with several fairly detailed analyses of them by technically proficient professionals. All of this has made me glad that I have decided to participate in the event this coming Tuesday. My opinion is that these slides are compelling. There will always be the possibility or glimmer of uncertainty about them, no question about it. But when you put the entire story together about these slides, and when everyone has the opportunity to look at them and examine them in detail after Tuesday, my feeling is that they will not easily be debunked. Not legitimately, anyway. My feeling at this point is that these slides will be here to stay.

Did it really sound like an "admission of weakness"? Yes, the conference should focus (and was advertised or teased as such for months) on the slides as a scientific evidence to prove the existence of aliens having visited our planet (probably from a crash at Roswell).
Reading R. Dolan describing the slides (as after some exchanges with the participants), the only evidence in fact would come from the Story around the slides, and not by the slides themselves. The problem will be to examine if the story around the slides is compelling, and not projective elaborations of some sort, ie such researchers who had projected their own UFOlogical and crashologist belief and expectation from the other photographs, some investigations they made about the Ray family, and mainly from the inside cultural background they are the main mythtellers and packmen(don’t understand your meaning for this word), to concoct a story confirming such belief and expectation (a sort of circular reasoning). 

Don Schmitt:

Can we prove it’s an alien? Well, a picture unfortunately can’t do that. We don’t have the DNA, we don’t have a tissue sample. We can’t do that. But, for those who are open-minded, objective in their reasoning as to if they can accept that we are not alone, that we are being visited, there had to have been pictures taken, there had to have been people who were availed an opportunity to see what was recovered, and possibly at Roswell in 1947. And we’re not going to be the group of individuals who always live by the model anything but extraterrestrial, anything but ET.

In our previous article, I stated: "I" must point that there is no scientific way or method to prove from a simple slide that an "artificial artifact" is "alien" (isotopic analysis must be done, for example), same regarding a biological being (DNA analysis must be done for example). And this whatever "forensic ufology" will claim or academical. You need the physical sample."
I'm glad to see that Mister Schmitt has "awakened" or is at least more careful (here).

Jaime Maussan:

Scientific analysis of the photographs, by researchers and physical anthropologists from Mexico and Canada, it was determined that being is not a mammal, a mummy or child, is probably foreign to the earth, which has very similar characteristics reptiles.

Again, any academic or ufologist claiming foreign to Earth or Alien from only a single photograph for something looking as a biological being (same if looking as an artificial artifact) is only speculating or worst, imagining: there exists no scientific methodology able to drive to such a scientific evidence or conclusion from a slide.  In the same way, a close friend "admitted" to us:

I've taken advance courses in anatomy and physiology over the years and I can't distinguish whether the images depict something biological or a prop manufactured.

Wax anatomical model of thorax, by Joseph Towne, London, England, 1825-1879 (Credits: Science Museum London).

And it is even more difficult if a picture is blurred, out of focus, etc. Model or not?

Anthropology, as you probably well know is a vast field where many individuals study or have studied social anthropology or cultural anthropology as specialization, and not physical or biological anthropology - reciprocals are true - (or as "general surveys" in the race for graduation, as I do). As when a "specialist" says "not human", it doesn't mean "alien". 

And if she or he have an "ufological background", the specialist is not the "neutral" and "agnostic" one we are expecting for a "conclusion" of such a magnitude: his cultural backgroung can biase him.

But, in the past (see my previous article) when such UFO cases where an "alien being" was claimed and when or if the case is reaching mainstreams and going out the strict ufological microcosm, some real agnostics (I mean with no ufological backgrounds, interest, hobby) are consulted by journalists. I hope it will be the case here, in the sense it will be not the own "Roswell slides promoters" who will have selected the "specialists" giving feed-back, opinions, "analysis" and so on (and possible cherry-picking).

In a previous article devoted to the Roswell slides (in French), we emphasized the famous quote Sagan popularized, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In few words, I wrote in my 2010 book:

An extraordinary claim requires more than ordinary proof facing a likely or very likely ordinary explanation: extraordinary explanation requires solid evidence. An extraordinary explanation must present higher level of guarantees against the risk of higher error. Indeed, if an extraordinary explanation is proposed, it must be accompanied by evidence and sitting securely over ordinary explanations, to make it plausible. From an epistemological point of view, the requirement of proof is not the same when a claim calls into question all the scientific consensus: go against this consensus, validated by experiments, therefore asks to present scientific or solid proofs.

*

**

*** 

For a long time and for those who have followed this Saga, Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and Anthony Bragalia argued that they had the support of several scientists to ensure that the slide depicts a "Roswell alien being" or something not from Earth, nor a mummy, a dummy... However, they never offered any documents to prove their claims and we must had to wait the conference. A few days before the public presentation of the images, we were able to know the identities of some the experts as we will see. But Jaime Maussan confessed that the first was added at the last minute, and the second, the Canadian expert, is/should be a former classmate of ufologist Tom Carey in the University of Toronto* (then, again not the neutral experts with no links with the Roswell "mythtellers" we are expecting for a "discovery" of this magnitude)...

So, in the two days before the conference, several names of "independent" specialists circulated in the media. Jaime Maussan stated: 

Luis Antonio de Alba, anatomist and physiologist at the UNAM [Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México] although it does on behalf of the Máxima Casa de Estudios, a man well qualified. We all put our careers at risk, is an unprecedented investigation. 

A second name circulating was the one of a Canadian (physical?) anthropologist, Richard Doble. At this stage, we found that the first specialist published something about hormones and menopause, and the second maybe an article circa 1976/1980 titled A study of Variation in African Populations. Following our indirect sources (but individuals in Mexico City), and for a second he is mentioned (see after) R. Doble claimed:

It's nothing like us, we can see that his feet, his legs appear to be a reptile could have evolved from something like a gecko, not theirs because geckos are of the earth, but some similar animal became larger and developing a large brain, turned binocular vision, he decreased his nose, his mouth turns out to be different from ours, but there are parts that could have been removed at autopsy seem to have no teeth but an inner structure guess some kind of bone, would have that eat, we have no proof of something like that ...

Wow, an evolved gecko! If this quote is real, I'm a little astonished that a specialist is able to deduce from the size of a head the size of the brain and this, from a single slide (you need dissection, MRI, etc. for this)... Binocular vision only means that an animal is using their two eyes together. Some animals (mainly predatory animals) then have their two eyes positioned on the front of their heads, thereby allowing for binocular vision and able of stereopsis. Humans, but eagles, wolves, and snakes (and snakes are reptiles) have binocular vision. 

An old article where R. Doble is mentioned.

Anoter name of such "experts" came monday the 4th, Ricardo Rangel Martinez (a biologist but "well immersed" in the UFO Culture). Concerning his "immersion" in the UFO culture, read for example the following on-line "article" and presented on TV by... Jaime Maussan: Sky worm over Mexico. Again, I have nothing against UFO "sighters", only pointing he is not the agnostic, not linked with the Roswell slides promoters and neutral we are expecting here for an "expertise".

In a second and longer part (here or in another post or in a collective Roswell Slides Group article), and because I spent the dollars to watch the show, I will focus on the conference itself, examine strange claims of the participants, how they had "lied" regarding previous claims and what they teased and announced about the famous slide(s) themselves.
The only thing I can say to you is that the title of the conference "BeWitness" was a very good choice: I assisted and was then the witness of the last episode of a contemporary myth called Roswell. For this, I don’t regret the expense!

One the two famous Roswell slide. Credits: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/slide-image-roswell-alien-body

* https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/4365/1/CAPA%20Newsletter%20July%201976%20%28n2%29.pdf
&
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/4364/1/CAPA%20Newsletter%20January%201976%20%28n1%29.pdf

Gilles Fernandez, May 2015.

What if? The Roswell Slides Saga as a Social Experiment or a Hoax of some sort?

*

**

****

In our previous article adressing the Roswell Slides Saga, we mainly focused on conventional leads from Child Mummy to an anatomical curiosity of some sort. But do the hypothesis of a social experiment or hoax something a true agnostic must take into account as a possibility regarding this saga? Our answer is yes, it is a possibility.

Does this new Adam Dew Team teaser look like a Social Experiment?

Like for "witness" E. Benjamin (see my previous article), "Adam Dew team" only present to individuals their slide, but a better methodology had been to present the slide between a larger sample including mummies, fakes, anatomical "curiosities", etc. and to collect individual reactions. What would be the lambda reactions if A. Dew have presented the following picture to street individuals? Some individuals will pronounce the word "alien"? Probably. The solution of what is depicted here at the end of this article:

*

**

****

First, at least two the protagonists and promoters of this saga have a "shady past" (to remain civil and respectful). So, Donald Schmitt have been the center of a scandal in the 90's as I summarized in French in my book "Roswell : Rencontre du Premier Mythe". In English and using your favorite search engine, there are several sources where the curious reader can find an overview of this scandal. For example, this section in Roswell Files web site.

Even worse, Jaime Maussan endorsed and publicized many hoaxes including CGI generated UFO videos presented as genuine or endorsed previous extraterrestrial creatures saga which have been proven as hoaxes. For example, the "famous" 2009 video from P. Hernandez & A. Quarillo of an UFO releasing spheres is for sure a CGI. People immersed in ufology still now have in mind the Jaime Maussan Metepec creature saga which was proven as another hoax.

Pedro Hernandez'video: 

Versus

A CGI video realized by a Mexican CGI compagny held by a Josué Hernandez.

The Metepec creature saga, an example of a video promoting it as a genuine alien:

The Jaime Maussan Metepec creature (squirrel-monkey).

"It’s just the corpse of a skinned squirrel-monkey. I took its ears out and involved it with all the hair and fluids of all animals I could find, then I dried it. All samples they take of it will come out as being of different animals." (confessed Urso Ruíz).

Jaime Maussan promoted this another picture as depicting a genuine alien -sic- when it is in fact the picture of a mummy altered with a graphic software. Reader will find a "debunk" in Isaac Koi excellent site at this section.

Well, the list of previous stories where Jaime Maussan endorsed and promoted hoaxes (consciously or not) is very long and not the object of this article.

*

**

****

The Hypothesis of a social Experiment or an Hoax of some sort...

In our previous article dedicated to the "Roswell slides" Saga, we pointed out how it is is relatively easy to obtain via merchant websites (like E-bay, Etsy and so on) vintage slides collections in their original mounts. In France as in Europe various places, it is possible to acquire such materials, not only via the net, but in physical places or markets like the "Marché aux Puces" or specialized boutiques. The owner of this blog, for the anecdote, is a retired "bouquiniste".

Marché aux Puces (Bruxelles, Belgium).

Some vintage slides acquired by one member of our team via a famous e-buyer compagny...

The "Adam Dew' collection"

Kodak vintage slides (40's or 50's) sold at several places on the web.

A slide from Adam Dew's Collection (left) and a vintage Kodak slide (40's) sold online.

In other words, it is quite possible that the set of the 400 slides was put together from various sources, maybe even from eBuyers or physical markets, and a story was concocted, and the two slides were inserted?

*

**

****

Let's now take a look at three of the 400 slides alleged coming from Ray's collection. Remember Adam Drew, one of the promoter of the Roswell Slides, claimed the slides are "over a ten year period starting in the mid-1940".

Readers must take into account that it is often claimed in various places consacred to this saga that the following type of Kodakchrome mount is from 1941 to 1949. 

But can a slide mounted with this type of mount depicting after 1949 physical things? Yes, it is possible. 

Roll sellers sometimes sell "old" rolls because not all their stock have been passed and if rolls are well conserved (in refrigerators and dark rooms for example), they will working well for years or decades in the sens they will be not altered by time, as you can acquire old rolls in various places. In other words, old rolls of film can still be used if well preserved. As the only mount is not a sufficiant forensic evidence to establish that what is depicted in such slides with this type of mount is from 1941 to 1949.

The following slide is alleged to depict Hilda Ray. She was born in 1895, so in 1947, she must be 52. Does this lady look more like a 50-year-old or a 70- or 80-year-old?

The same can be questioned regarding this time Mister Ray (other members of our team have compared this slide with Mister Ray other pictures). Bernerd Ray (born in 1899) also looks older than he was in the 40's:

Among the 400 slides, there is one we have called the Paris Slide. "I" have several times asked Adam Dew and other promoters of the saga to show our humble research group the mount of this slide.

Yes, As pointed out in our previous article devoted to the Roswell Slides, a close examination by members of our team revealed that this special model of "SIMCA Ariane" car was not built before 1958.
So, if this slide had the mount expected from a 1941 to 1949 scene, it would prove that the type of mount with only "Kodachrome" printed two times is NOT a forensic evidence to establish that what is depicted is from the 1941-1949 period expected for this type of mount.

A video realised by Lance Moody:

Our team have analysed several the other slides among the 400 and have found very interesting things, but it will be presented in other medias cause not "my" work or not the good time. Stay Tuned!

"I" must point that there is no scientific way or method to proove from a simple slide that an "artificial artefact" is "alien" (isotopic analysis must be done, for example), same regarding a biological being (DNA analysis must be done for example). And this whatever "forensic ufology" will claim or academical. You need the physical sample.

La Trahison des Images by René Magritte

Add-ons 2 May 2015: Two articles by Robert Sheaffer and one by Kevin Randle.

Are the "Roswell Slides" a 20th Anniversary Commemoration of the Santilli "Alien Autopsy" Hoax? by Robert Sheaffer.

Guest Post: The "Roswell Slides" depict Alien MATILDA by George Wingfield

Not the Roswell Slides by Kevin Randle.

It was also released this 2 May 2015 Tim Printy Webzine SUNlite 7-3. A large part of the issue is devoted to the "Roswell Slides Saga".

*

**

****

Previous Videos or Photographs claimed as genuine Alien depicted where it was hoaxe... (not completed)

The Filiperto Caponi close encounter of the 3rd kind, 1993:

The video of the small alien in snow in Siberia:

... demystified for example in this Isaac Koi site section.

I particulary recommand to our readers to explore the two following sections of the previous site: Alien Photos

In French, there exists this "forum" data base titled "True or false Extra-Terrestrials", but many links are now dead.

Alien? Hum no, a sloth:

Alien? No, same, a sloth:

Gilles Fernandez, April 2015

Est-il pertinent d'injecter une Variable locale ou géographique dans les Statistiques consacrées aux OVNI / OVI ?

Source: http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/?id=196&hc_location=ufi

Il existe en ufologie quelques études statistiques consacrées aux Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-Identifiés (PAN) ou bien OVNI où sont injectés régions, départements, comtés, etc. C'est à dire une composante locale ou géographique qui se voudrait comme caractérisant le stimulus, alors que ce n'est pas vraiment le cas. Au fur-et-à-mesure de mon immersion sur le sujet et ses thématiques connexes, j'en suis venu à douter de leur pertinence. Ce doute, je le résumerai brièvement par les quelques points suivants et donc ce billet.

Tout d'abord, une variable locale ou géographique, comme le département, la région ou même le comté présente une nature sous-jacente arbitraire et artificielle, "mouvante" à travers le temps et l'Histoire des Hommes. Par exemple ou pour l'anecdote, il fait débat en France à regrouper certaines régions administratives ou non, si bien qu'il faudra revoir ces statistiques par régions si les régions changent ou se regroupent/dégroupent, se re-créent... 

Quand on injecte une variable "géographique ou locale" concernant un PAN ou un stimulus observé, rappelons qu'un individu n'est pas un instrument de mesure fiable pour évaluer les distances. Aussi, et par exemple, un stimulus lumineux peut très bien se trouver "au-dessus" d'un département x ou une région X, alors que le témoin l'observe dans le département y ou la région Y (pire encore quand on injecte "communes" ou des variables locales de petites échelles spatiales). Pourtant, on classera l'observation, voire le stimulus, ayant comme caractéristique propre et locale y ou Y. 

On pense alors ou même on déclare faire des statistiques sur la "position" du "PAN" ou du stimulus physique, alors qu'on en fait en réalité sur celle du témoin.

Ceci prend encore plus de (mauvais) sens quand on tente des statistiques afin d'évaluer une tendance ou non "OVNI et sites nucléarisés" - sujet fort prisé en ufologie - : c'est le témoin qui se trouve proche ou non de ceci ou cela, pas forcément le "PAN" ou plutôt le stimulus observé... Voir par exemple la fin de ce billet.

Aussi, il ne faudrait pas perdre de vue que l'on fait ici et uniquement des statistiques sur les témoins alors que l'on croit, ou bien, on fait passer son étude comme traitant de PAN ou de stimuli "physiques" et de leurs caractéristiques propres (et donc "locales", la localisation du stimulus, ici).

Pour exemple/illustration, de nombreuses études tentent de discriminer (ou non) PAN A (c'est à dire cas où le stimulus réel a été identifié comme prosaïque) et PAN D (le cas est non résolu, inexpliqué - ce qui ne veut pas dire inexplicable -) selon un critère, une caractéristique, géographique et local(e).
Or, si un ou des PAN devenus "A" étaient en réalité célestes, le stimulus est pourtant considéré comme ayant pour caractéristiques physique et ici locale propres ce qui est en réalité et uniquement l'endroit où se trouvait le témoin, où a eu lieu l'observation !
Mais en réalité le stimulus physique (par exemple la Lune, Vénus, etc), n'était en aucun cas ou pas à proprement parler "dans" ce département, "dans" cette commune, etc.

Pourtant, on va faire de la statistique en vue de trouver ou non comme critère discriminant entre catégories "A" et "D" la commune, le département, bref le lieu (et sous-entendu la position propre du "PAN" ou du stimulus).

Ceci est valable aussi pour des stimuli responsables d'autres méprises, mais artificiels cette fois (satellites, ISS, avions).

Par exemple ici et ce graphique (Rospars, 2014) : dans les "événements" - bravo pour la précaution - A + B et ce même si je n'ai pas les détails, il y a vraisemblablement des "IFO" comme la Lune, Vénus, un satellite, un avion (peu importe). 

Certes, l'observation a eu lieu dans telle commune ou telle région ayant telle ou telle densité. Mais en quoi ce stimulus aurait-il quelque caractéristique physique propre et locale, communale ou bien régionale ? La Lune (par exemple), n'était pas plus, ni moins dans cette commune ou région qu'elle ne l'était dans d'autres... "Seul", le témoin a cette caractéristique propre et locale, pas vraiment le stimulus. Il est non-pertinent alors de dire ou d'injecter que la Lune (par exemple) a pour caractéristiques propres physique et locale tel département, commune ou région.

Quelle est la pertinence alors d'injecter de telles variables locales dans de telles analyses, puisqu'elles restent celles des témoins et non celles des stimuli ? Nous penserions faire une étude sur les stimuli (identifiés ou non) et leurs caractéristiques propres et locales, alors que ce n'est pas du tout le cas.

D'ailleurs, il en est ou serait de même pour d'autres des caractéristiques injectées dans de telles études, et pas uniquement pour la caractéristique "géographique", "locale". Ainsi, prenons la "durée", puisqu'elle est l'une des caractéristiques qui a fait couler pas mal d'encre (études Poher/Vallée, par exemple). 

Quand vous injectez une base OVI (c'est à dire objets volants identifiés) que vous comparez à une base OVNI, et bien dans la première, il va y avoir par exemple la Lune ou Vénus (mais des avions, des satellites, des météores, également). Or, en quoi la durée d'observation de ces stimuli célestes (ou artificiels) est-elle une caractéristique PROPRE et physique de ces stimuli - sous-entendu la durée réelle de "vol" par exemple - ?

Au plus ou au mieux, ces stimuli ont été observés x ou y temps (et donc il s'agit ou s'agirait ici de quelque chose de nature "subjective" et concernant l'observateur, plus que - nullement en fait - le stimulus), mais ces stimuli n'ont pas à proprement parler une caractéristique propre et physique x ou y.

Au total, je me suis interrogé sur la pertinence d'injecter la caractéristique locale ou géographique dans les statistiques consacrées aux OVNI ou aux OVI et je crois avoir alerté sur le fait qu'il ne faut pas perdre de vue que l'on fait plutôt alors une analyse sur le témoin, plutôt que sur le stimulus observé et ses caractéristiques propres et locales.

Ajout mineur, 14 octobre 2015 : Il y aurait d'autres choses à dire à propos de possibles choix "arbitraires" dans les bases de données OVNI/OVI (un classique) pour de telles études et les possibles artefacts qui en découleraient, que cela va engendrer.
Par exemple, prenons un cas de 1979 (je ne sais pas s'il est dans l'échantillon de l'étude de JP Rospars, il était classé C avant une vérification double-SAROS, mais peu importe, c'est à titre d'illustration), comme celui dit de Boulay (57).
L'observation a lieu sur la route départementale D25 et plutôt dans le lieu-dit Hohwaeldchenberg. En dehors du fait qu'il s'agit vraisemblablement d'une méprise Lune - donc peu de sens à entrer comme paramètre de la Lune/IFO qu'elle se situait dans telle commune -, on entre quoi ou qu'a t-on choisi d'entrer dans la base pour ce cas ou type de cas similaires ? La commune proche, alors qu'en réalité on est plutôt dans le lieu-dit et la route départementale ? En vertu de quoi qui ne soit pas "subjectif" ?

Combien de cas "similaires", en ce sens que le choix d'entrer telle commune (à défaut du canton), plutôt que l'autre ou les autres à proximité se fait de manière plutôt "arbitraire", "discutable" ou sujette à caution ? Il y en a ou en aurait sans doute pas mal. Citons par exemple et encore un cas de 1979 dit de Villefranche de Lauragais (31). Là encore, l'observation a lieu sur une route départementale (D16). Si le cas est listé "Villefrance de Lauragais", il semble bien que c'est parce que c'est la Gendarmerie de cette commune qui a recueilli le témoignage. A nouveau, qu'injecte-t-on comme commune pour ce cas ou type de cas similaires ? Pareillement pour un cas comme celui dit de Sellières (39), PAN A de 1979. pour lequel l'observation a lieu sur la route et plusieurs départementales. Ce type de cas où le ou les témoins circulent en voiture pose un problème quant à leur assigner telle commune plutôt que telle autre. Si on écarte ce genre de cas, alors l'étude se retrouve avec un "biais" supplémentaire (on a éliminé des observations).

Source : forum ATS.

Gilles Fernandez, April 2015.