Signaler

"Signaler" d�signe le processus de la transmission d'une observation - de l'observateur � un journaliste, un enqu�teur de l'Air Force, la police, etc., et de l� au public. Le signalement, avons-nous trouv�, est un des facteurs les plus cruciaux du probl�me des ovnis. Ma propre conclusion a �t� que l'on ne doit former aucun jugement sur aucun cas � partir de la litt�rature populaire.

Supposez, par exemple, que le pilote de mon avion de ligne had not banked the plane wing, et que je n'ai pas appris l'explication de l'objet elliptique gris et n�buleux. J'aurai soumis mon signalement, pas d'une "soucoupe volante," mais d'un objet que je n'ai pu identifier. En supposant que l'histoire sorte, il est hautement probable qu'un raisons de sa valeur claire en terme de nouvelle (Un enqu�teur du Projet Colorado voit un disque), il aurait �t� publi� avant que quiconque ait �tabli que l'�chappement du r�acteur ait produit le ph�nom�ne. Une telle histoire, port�e � l'attention du public par les journaux et les magazines, would stir plus de pression sur les responsables publics et contribuerait au sentiment illogique mais r�pandu que l� o� il y a tant de fum�e il doit y avoir du feu. Une solution ult�rieure ne recevrait pas une publicit� aussi large.

Ruppelt s1[1956] discute d'un autre exemple qui eut lieu lors d'un fait authentique. Le fameux canular de l'Ile Maury, qui m�me aujourd'hui stirs l'int�r�t, a re�u une large publicit�. L'histoire �tait sensationnelle, en ce qu'elle impliquait des fragments suppos�s d'une soucoupe qui avait �t� vue exploser. 2 enqu�teurs de l'Air Force sur le cas furent tu�s dans un crash d'avion accidentel. Le cas fut par la suite clairement identifi� comme un canular. Ruppelt remarque :

La majorit� of writers of saucer lore have played this sighting to the hilt, pointing out as their main premise ... that the story must be true because the government never openly exposed or prosecuted either of the two hoaxers... the government had thought seriously of prosecuting the men, (but) it was decided, after talking to the two men, that the hoax was a harmless joke that had mushroomed... By the time the facts were released they were yesterday's news. And nothing is deader than yesterday's news. (WKH emphasis).

Many writers in our culture, from fanatics and hypocrites to sincere reporters, are not, after all, committed to complete investigation and understanding of the subject, but to telling and selling a good story. Unfortunately there is a selection effect: if a "flying saucer" story is investigated too completely, and is found to be a misperception or a hoax, its interest and sales value are reduced.

Des exemples de d�formation et slanting de journalistes, conscients ou inconscients, abondent : amateurs mal inform�s cit�s comme des autorit�s, r�p�tition d'�l�ments entendus et s�lection na�ve de donn�es sont des exemples de tels signalements douteux. La litt�rature ovni est pleine de la following sort of ill-advised criticism of non-believers : Edwards (1966) d�crit un cas dans lequel un astronome de renomm�e mondiale et autorit� sur la structure galactique, et 2 coll�gues, signal�rent avoir vu une lumi�re circulaire, lumineuse, de couleur orange passer au-dessus d'eaux trop lentement pour �tre un m�t�ore. Remarquant que le jour suivant l'Air Force, rev�rifiant leurs fichiers, trouva que le cas �tait expliqu� par 2 jets Vampire et un jet trainer sur un vol d'entra�nement de routine � 20 000 pieds, Edwards conclut alors avec la remarque, Si un astronome professionnel �tait vraiment incapable de diff�rencier un objet circulaire de 3 avions � r�action � 20000 pieds, quelle fiabilit� peut-on accorder � son travail concernant un objet � 40 millions miles de distance ? Aside from the facts that the "explanation" was not the astronomer's responsibility and that the latter figure misrepresents the scale of that astronomer's work by a factor of a billion, this concluding statement certainly shed no real light on the UFO problem, but rather creates a state of mind that may aid acceptance of the author's later remarks.

Jones (1968) illustre bien le probl�me de former un jugement fiable � partir de divers signalements d'individus sur un ph�nom�ne donn�. Pendant la guerre, un britannique et un physicien am�ricain eurent pour t�che d'�tablir � partir de rapports de marins le German pattern of mine-laying at sea. Un d'entre eux partit pour en voyage sur le terrain et d�couvrit que les distances et orientations rapport�es n'�taient pas fiables ; only the question of whether the mine was to the port or starboard was reliably answered. With this discovery, he solved the problem while his counterpart became bogged in a mire of meaningless data. The point is that by actual field interviews one may get some idea of what happened, but under no circumstances, simply because a witness says (or is reported to have said) that he saw a cigar-shaped object, should one assume that a cigar-shaped object was really there

This well known rule applies in many other fields of investigation. Jones states: "I have made this discursion into some of my war experiences because it is relevant to the flying saucer story in that it illustrates the difficulty of establishing the truth from eyewitness reports, particularly when events have been witnessed under stress. I do not, of course, conclude that eyewitness reports must be discarded; on the contrary, excluding hoaxers and liars, most witnesses have genuinely seen something, although it may be difficult to decide from their descriptions what they really had seen."

There is still another problem: even if reliable reports are prepared, communication among investigators is so poor that the reports may not be read. Scientific journals have rejected careful analyses of UFO cases (apparently in fear of initiating fruitless controversy) in spite of earlier criticism (in the journals' own pages!) that the problem is not discussed in the scientific literature. Even at the most responsible levels, communication is poor. The House Committee on Science and Astronautics, in its 29 July 1968 hearings, received accounts of allegedly mysterious cases that already were among the best-explained of those studied by the Colorado UFO Project.

In order finally to demonstrate the very poor manner in which the UFO problem has been presented in the past, primarily in the popular literature, consider two imaginary accounts that could be written of the Zond IV re-entry, one by a sensationalizing, but perhaps sincere reporter, and one by a more sober investigator. Of course each reporter can back up his story with taped interviews and sketches.