08 October 2018


It is a wonderful experience to get the opinion of a very selective group of people at an international level and get them together giving answers to just 8 questions referred to the Unusual Aerial Phenomena.

We give a big thanks to all those colleagues who are answering our survey and we are very pleased to present to you their ideas. We hope that what they say would be useful to you in your own work with the UAP and that their criteria would help to shape your own one.

We continue today the publication of the answers of these colleagues, and we are doing so in the order they were received.


Born 1946, teacher in maths and physics in a vocational school (retired); studies in physics and (because of UFOs) in psychology. 

Interested in UFOs since 1974, virtually in all aspects of the problem. 

Some 35 contributions in various UFO medias. Currently preparing a catalogue of abductions in France and an annotated bibliography of UFO books in French.

1) Do you use the acronym UFO or another designation, and if so, why?
Use of acronym UFO (and ovni in French): Yes; because both it's now a common term and it can have a rather broad meaning. But whenever it's necessary to be more precise, I distinguish: 1° pre-ovni (pre-UFO) = any stimulus, objective or not, which someone labels "UFO"; 2° quasi-ovni (quasi-UFO) = unidentified after close scrutiny; 3° vrai-ovni (true-UFO) = the still hypothetical stimulus (stimuli) which is (are) not only not yet acknowledged by our science but which would revolutionize it (e.g. extraterrestrial spacecraft).

2) Have your idea about UFOs changed along the time?

Change of idea about UFO: yes, around 1980/82, from a reasonable conviction in the existence of true-UFOs (E.T. craft) to a strong skepticism.

3) Should the UFO investigator become an expert in IFOs?
UFO investigator expert in IFOs: "Expert" is probably a term a little too strong, but he/she indeed needs a serious knowledge of them. In the contrary, mundane stimuli will be labeled "UFOs", as the literature (old or current) shows in profusion.

4) If there were still some unexplained phenomena, what could they be?
Nature of possible unexplained phenomena: Possibly various, but my opinion is that the ETH is the best way to account rather "economically" for an hypothetical fully abnormal phenomenon (most alternative hypotheses are far less economical -- e.g. see 8 -- or event totally irrational).

5) How do you consider this issue in general? What do you think about the whole subject?
The whole subject of UFOs: An intellectually formidable puzzle, and in any case an important sociological matter. And of course a major problem for mankind if the ETH would be the right one.

6) Is it possible to do something effective to bring the truth to the public and to change the mind of those who still proclaim or believe that extraterrestrial beings are living with us on Earth?

Possibility of education of "believers": For those for whom UFOs = $$$, no; for conspirationnists, no more; for reasonable people, probably for a part of them, by a progressive personal process.

7) Do you think SETI and similar searches are valid activities?

SETI as a valid activity: A priori, yes; the question is: after several decades of unsuccessful results, when will it be reasonable to stop the quest? [But this applies too to pro-ETH ufologists...].

8) What is your idea about multiple universes?

Multiple universes: Basically, a concept valid in mathematics; but in the physical world, nobody knows. As a possible explanation for true-UFOs: apart the problem of their mere existence, another big question arises: how can they interact with our own spatio-temporal continuum?

Next publication: answers from Edoardo Russo, Italian investigator.

No comments: