The Limits of a Phenomenon, or Reflections of the Absurd Applied to Ufology

As time goes by and the list of sightings grows longer, it becomes clear to aspiring ufologists that the hopes entertained a few years ago were quite naïve. The main result of research has been to gradually reveal the UFO phenomenon in all its complexity. This has two main consequences. The first, a positive one, is that it has given us a glimpse of the innumerable “epistemological obstacles,” or rather the epistemological gap, that we have to overcome to gain an understanding of the problem. In fact, it hardly seems possible to achieve this understanding without a profound technical and intellectual transformation. The other harmful consequence is that many people get the impression that the phenomenon is capable of all shapes and forms because it is no more than a vast phantasmagoria linked in some imprecise way to our psyche. This view, which is admittedly supported by certain facts, seems to be particularly fashionable among Anglo-Saxon researchers. It risks leading to discouragement and paranoia.

If the phenomenon violates the laws of nature as we know them, it does so within a sufficiently narrow margin to fit into the space-time framework that constitutes our private universe.

Unknown

I’d like to develop a few extremely simple thoughts here. I make no claim to originality. Their only merit seems to me to be the method of thought that underlies them. Referring to Bachelard’s principle that knowledge is built up only by eliminating error,^[1] I shall use this principle in a hyperbolic way, and I shall not be interested, as is usually the case, in the forms that the phenomenon takes, but in those that it does not take. Since the object is by nature ungraspable, I believe it is useful to study the mold that conceals its imprint.

As this short article does not cover the entire phenomenon, I will confine myself to a few fundamental aspects in the following schematic form:

Manifestation

This term, borrowed from metaphysics, seems to reflect the fact that metaphysical argumentation and ufological argumentation are condemned to follow parallel paths insofar as the phenomenon is, or seems to be, the emanation into our physical universe of a source that could remain hidden. Indeed, everything we know about UFOs tends to prove that they have the capacity to disappear at any moment. Just as the basic metaphysical problem is to know God through his manifestations, the basic ufological problem is to know why and how a source X manifests itself in our environment when it has the possibility of not doing so.

Elusiveness

This English word seems to me the only one capable of expressing the inevitable counterpart of manifestation, which lies in its ungraspable characteristic, and which makes it a problem. In fact, it’s the only certainty, the only stumbling block to our thinking, comparable to Descartes’ “cogito,” with the difference that here it’s a negative certainty: a UFO cannot fall into our hands, nor allow itself to be observed in conditions akin to capture. This is the nature of the phenomenon. The UFO must, always and everywhere, slip through our fingers like ice melts in a furnace.

Let me now turn to the balance of the elusiveness-manifestation pair.

The Rarity of “Urban Flying Saucers”

Another certainty directly implied by elusiveness: if UFOs like to frequent suburbs, parks, public gardens, stadiums, airports, vacant lots, if they like to fly over urban agglomerations from above, they radically avoid the center of big cities at peak times. All “ufologists” agree on this point: the presence of a UFO on the Place de la Concorde^[2] at six o’clock in the evening is rigorously impossible.

The Showcase Effect

A look at the statistics (Vallée, 1966, Challenge to Science) shows that a large, even unexpected percentage of sightings take place on the bangs of towns, villages and transport routes. An unexpectedly high number of sightings for a phenomenon that seems to prefer an ambiguous discretion. But common sense dictates that the phenomenon can only be observed where there is a human observer. And the progression is logical: ice caps, deserts, high mountains and tropical forests are all close to zero. The proportion is higher where people are at work at certain times of the day: cultivated fields, hedged farmland, etc. It increases still further near roads. It increases further in the vicinity of roads.

Let’s assume, since we have no idea of the actual distribution of the exact number of UFOs manifested at any given time on a given territory, and even if the problem thus posed is not a false one, that the number of UFOs observed tells us more about the population density and types of activity in a given region (outdoor work, gardens, number of investigators, “witness ridicule rate” (to use McDonald’s expression^[3]), public interest, etc.) than on the “real” distribution of UFOs in that region. According to this hypothesis, the number of UFO sightings should peak in major urban centers. Since this is not the case, we need to see the opposite trend, which we have described as the elusiveness-manifestation pair. The resultant of these two trends is an optimum of information. The most informative observations will be made where there are enough potential observers in a context where elusiveness is preserved. In other words, too many manifestations would be detrimental to elusiveness, and vice versa.

If these speculations are correct, they suggest that the sacrosanct statistics merely inform us about the point of equilibrium of the manifestation-elusiveness couple. If they’re right, they also shed some light on a constant aspect of UFOs that I called the showcase effect. There are countless cases in which a UFO appears in a witness’s field of vision, as if it wanted to make a spectacle of itself in the garden, in the yard, at the side of the road… Since the presence of the observer is the prerequisite for an observation, the objection that “it’s a pure question of statistical distribution” leads to the fantastic, since it assumes a staggering density of UFOs. Is a potentially fabulous technology – elusiveness is the proof of its omnipotence – no more capable of planning the places where it chooses to manifest its activities than the parachutists of June 1944 who fell in the gardens could choose their drop-off points? If we opt for the absolute control that elusiveness implies, we must conclude that these are not blunders (for what becomes of elusiveness if there is no control over the tiniest of blunders), but demonstrations carried out with absolute precision in the small, private universe of a witness, which for this purpose takes on the appearance of a stage.

If we opt for the absolute control that elusiveness implies, we must conclude that these are not blunders (for what becomes of elusiveness if there is no control over the tiniest of blunders), but demonstrations carried out with absolute precision in the small, private universe of a witness, which for this purpose takes on the appearance of a stage.

Unknown

UFO Size Limits

The preceding remarks bring us to the size of UFOs. Sometimes, they seem to abandon discretion and show themselves in the heart of big cities, villages, gardens, etc., but they are then, so to speak, models adapted to the place, both in size and behavior. When they venture into a room, they are room models. We’ve never heard of a UFO getting stuck in a window embrasure. And when they land on a terrace or venture into a hospital courtyard, they are always the right size. Moreover, the dimensions of the limits are very instructive. Whether it’s the size of a ping-pong ball or the size of a flying aircraft carrier, the reported phenomenon, all things considered, wisely conforms to the dimensions implied by, among other things, the structuring of space by the human body and technique. Curiously, this is never discussed. Indeed, the way we structure our space is something we take for granted. In fact, since we know nothing a priori about the phenomenon, there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be testimonials reporting the appearance of UFOs some ten kilometers long. In this respect, the phenomenon lags far behind UFOs. Whether we refer to A. C. Clarke’s hypothesis that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, or the hypothesis of unbridled phantasmagoria, we can only be amazed by the relative wisdom of the phenomenon. Finally, when very large UFOs are observed, they have the modesty to be where they belong: in the sky. To my knowledge, no saucer the size of an ocean liner has ever been seen on the ground.

Observation Time Limits

Of course, the length of time a UFO can be observed varies enormously, from a few moments to several hours. Without wishing to prejudge the motivations of the possible occupants, it must be recognized that a sighting on the ground or nearby could hardly be prolonged any further without causing an indescribable mess. Which is precisely what never happens. Note that if there are exceptions, they do indeed confirm the rule: in fact, when sightings exceed this duration, they always take place in conditions that make it possible: high in the sky, in isolated places, etc. There’s a whole saga, in science fiction, of planet-vessels, civilization-vessels, etc. (cf. among others Childhood’s End, Space Odyssey by A. C. Clarke). By this I mean that science-fiction fantasy, often based on the necessarily inadequate extrapolation of knowledge, is a fantasy of phantasmagoria linked to the uncontrolled human psyche: the proof is in the fact that all possible forms are taken by the various stories.

On the contrary, the fantasy of UFOs, i.e. “reality” fantasy and a mimetic fantasy. The proof is in the fact that all UFO manifestations are strictly controlled, respecting certain norms. But if UFOs were, as some claim, a “creation” of the human mind, we’d have to expect it to manifest itself under control, as it does in science.

The Limits of Behavior

This problem is too complex to cover in this article. Let’s just say that at the level of material behavior, there seems to be a host of possibilities within the limits of elusiveness.

Humanoid Appearance and Behavior

Humanoids have been seen in the most unexpected positions. The most common seems to be inactivity. One often gets the impression that they are performing, especially as they have often been seen neither getting out of their machines, nor returning. But then, sometimes they “act”: they are busy with plants, minerals, appear to be playing, handling objects whose function is not obvious. The emphasis is precisely on the absurdity of their behavior: we’ve seen them ask for water, talk about rain and shine, make speeches that Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t disavow, even repair machines whose first characteristic is precisely that they can’t break down. They can fly, run without touching the ground, and so on. But we’ve never seen them (and why not?): engaging in the kind of sexual frolics we’ve come to expect from mixed crews: cooking, eating, arguing, even indulging their natural needs. It’s as if, of human appearance and behavior, we only retain signs that are sufficiently schematic to enable our minds to reconstruct, from memory, a silhouette and behavior that are close to human behavior. The purely biological aspect would be erased.

In fact, their invulnerability goes hand in hand with these speculations. Elusiveness applies not only to the machines themselves, but also to their occupants: it’s as if a single force controlled the entire manifestation. For even if we assume, from a human point of view, the total reliability of the technology responsible for the phenomenon, what happens to the occupants when they move away from their machines? Sometimes, they find themselves cut off. Fights and chases are not uncommon, and when they come under fire, although in some cases they may seem to survive the impact, the end result is always the same: they slip through our fingers. But we have to admit that, no matter how wide the gap between us and insects, we can be their victims as well as their predators, because we can’t control the multiplicity of possible events. Let the cosmonaut step on a cobra as he leaves his capsule, and NASA can do nothing for him if there’s no serum nearby. It’s this miracle that seems to realize the mysterious source of the phenomenon: the absolute control, old dreams of cyberneticians, of what we call chance.

Some Related Phenomena

Engine Failure

It is not necessary to give examples of engine failure. However, it should be pointed out that for a long time, they were thought to be due to the action of an intense magnetic field on the engine’s ignition system. A recent case of a diesel engine stalling has invalidated this hypothesis. However, UFO escorts of aircraft are very common, and in these cases the engines don’t stall. That’s what I call the law of least damage.

Luminous Phenomena

René Fouéré was the first to study the luminous phenomena of UFOs, phenomena that give an impression of omnipotence and magic. Consider, however, that the length of these beams, however spectacular they may sometimes have been, never greatly exceeds the visual environment of a witness. This is contrary to science fiction, which insists on the cataclysmic aspect of the phenomenon.

At any given moment, the phenomenon seems to behave according to several “laws.” One of these (elusiveness) is common to all manifestations without exception. Secondly, each sighting can be seen as a combination of some of these other laws, namely: discretion, ostentation, least damage.

These laws may seem contradictory: discretion-ostentation, violation of physical laws and appropriateness to our spatio-temporal framework; absolute safety and least damage, and so on. In fact, this is only an apparent contradiction, since a perfect match with the particular conditions in which the manifestation takes place means that elusiveness can be reserved in all circumstances. Of this phenomenon, of which everything else is radically unknown, we can at least say:

That it is “programmed” to be inaccessible to us;
That it conforms, or is conforming, to our spatio-temporal framework, to the reference scale of our body and our technique. This is the fundamental paradox of the problem, and behind the movement of appearances, the constants.

We could write that the maximum duration of an observation is always slightly less than the time required for collective human activity, in the precise setting and circumstances where the observations take place, to organize a coherent response. You’ll never hear a report on the radio one morning along the lines of “A huge cigar-shaped craft has landed in the Villeneuve-St-Georges marshaling yard, bringing rail traffic to a halt. Beams of light from the craft are flooding nearby buildings, while small humanoid beings can be seen nearby. The army has surrounded the station, etc.” All this has been observed separately time and again, it’s simply this precise conjunction (and many others) that is impossible. The phenomenon models itself on the conditions surrounding its appearance with the perfect precision of a chemical reaction.

If the phenomenon violates the laws of nature as we know them, it does so within a sufficiently narrow margin to fit into the space-time framework that constitutes our private universe.

Unknown

The Threshold for Switching to Science Fiction^[4]

This method of thinking in terms of the limit still seems to apply successfully to the study of a significant threshold, which I’ll call “the threshold for switching to science fiction.” For example, a UFO lands in front of the White House, is surrounded by a crowd, or is destroyed by the U.S. military. In many of these science fiction stories (particularly American films from the 1950s), the intrusion of UFOs is presented as a monstrous and spectacular break with our frames of reference, our technology, not to mention their generally aggressive attitude. In other words, it’s perceived as utterly fantastic… In other words, the “transition to science fiction” occurs when there is a brutal and symbolic acceleration in the process of global awareness of the phenomenon. For science fiction (and this makes storytelling possible), the interminable process known as UFOs must be condensed in time and action; this interminable process must be brutally embodied in humanly perceptible events.

However, if you think about it, given the immense inertia at all levels of human psychology, the phenomenon’s “daring” manifestations are always at the limit of what it would take to trigger the chain reaction of collective awareness – but never cross it, still respecting the elusiveness of this domain. The ballet around the White House in 1952 played a role in raising awareness in the USA. What would happen now that public opinion has been alerted? Twice, it seems, there have been fatalities, but these were in remote regions of Brazil, where, as René Fouéré has pointed out, little is known about the health of the population and news travels slowly. What would it be like today in the Paris region? The UFOs on the road have caused several car and moped accidents, but never the derailment of a rapid on the PLM^[5]. A regiment may have been taken from Gallipoli in 1915, at a time when 500 men were not far behind. But what would happen if a regiment disappeared today during maneuvers at Camp Mourmelon? Flying saucers would have flitted past cosmonaut McDavitt; imagine if they had flown into camera range during the first lunar landing, or during the Soyuz-Apollo mating, while millions of people watched the event on TV. Just as the time it takes to observe a UFO never allows for coherent human intervention, the psychological shock provoked by a sighting always falls short of what’s needed to bring about a more rapid awareness. Wright Peterson may have been overflown – but a case like Trancas^[6] will not take place on its runways.

Taken case by case, the phenomenon seems to us a web of inconsistencies and absurdities, but the result of these absurdities is a law of inflexible rigor (it’s not a statistical law that gives the general tendency of a behavior – gas distribution laws, for example). The law doesn’t say: A large percentage of UFOs obey elusiveness; it’s the whole phenomenon, in all its manifestations (invulnerability, inaccessibility, damage caused, psychological shocks, etc.) that obeys this law absolutely. In other words, each case, to an extent that is beyond our reach, contributes to the development of a general “plan.” Freedom and fantasy are only apparent. Finally, let us note that these conceptions are common to all possible hypotheses, whether there is one or more agents responsible for the phenomenon; whether the phenomenon is induced or “real,” it always obeys the same fundamental point.

If the phenomenon violates the laws of nature as we know them, it does so within a sufficiently narrow margin to fit into the space-time framework that constitutes our private universe. And if saucers can intrude into our private universe with such precision, then, as Aimé Michel (1966) writes, they know it better than we do. The implication of this last observation is gigantic: on the one hand, the phenomenon is mimetic; on the other, possessing absolute control over its manifestation, it emanates from an “intelligence”. On this point, the predictions of science fiction have most often failed (even if they have seen precisely the theoretical aspect of the problem). Where science fiction depicts a brutal, rapid and spectacular intrusion, we are in fact confronted with a repetitive, evanescent and interminable phenomenon.

^[1] Note of the translator (NT): Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) is a French philosopher and epistemologist who published on the development of the scientific mind.

^[2] NT: The Place de la Concorde is a famous and central place in Paris.

^[3] NT: James E. McDonald (1920-1971) was an American physicist, best known for his research regarding UFOs.

^[4] NT: I’m adding this subtitle for clarity.

^[5] Fast train put into service by Compagnie du chemin de fer Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée (PLM) in 1937.

^[6] NT: On the Trancas case, see : https://rr0.org/science/crypto/ufo/enquete/dossier/Trancas/