Difference between revisions of "Can we prove the exogenous origin of some UAP"

Un article de U-Sphere.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "This text represents the synthesis of more than 10 years of work carried out in a rather discontinuous manner, depending on the times available. It draws the strategy carried...")
 
Ligne 1: Ligne 1:
 
This text represents the synthesis of more than 10 years of work carried out in a rather discontinuous manner, depending on the times available. It draws the strategy carried out since 2004, to try to bring elements of proof (the most convincing possible) on the activity of the UFO phenomena: it is not a question of a classic analysis of testimonies, as you will see it.
 
This text represents the synthesis of more than 10 years of work carried out in a rather discontinuous manner, depending on the times available. It draws the strategy carried out since 2004, to try to bring elements of proof (the most convincing possible) on the activity of the UFO phenomena: it is not a question of a classic analysis of testimonies, as you will see it.
 
   
 
   
  The text, presented here in the form of questions and answers, is loosely based on an interview with Marie-Thérèse de Brosses at the end of August 2015, for Radio Here and Now. It also sheds light on the context of the mathematical article that I co-wrote and distributed on Arxiv as well as on the GEIPAN site.
+
  The text, presented here in the form of questions and answers, is loosely based on an interview with Marie-Thérèse de Brosses at the end of August 2015, for a French Radio "Ici & Maintenant" ("Here & Now"). It also sheds light on the context of the mathematical article that I co-wrote and distributed on Arxiv as well as on the GEIPAN site.
 
   
 
   
 
  It is important to note that it does not represent a strong opinion but a series of hypotheses variously consolidated by scientific or philosophical arguments.
 
  It is important to note that it does not represent a strong opinion but a series of hypotheses variously consolidated by scientific or philosophical arguments.

Version du 10:43, 14 juin 2021

This text represents the synthesis of more than 10 years of work carried out in a rather discontinuous manner, depending on the times available. It draws the strategy carried out since 2004, to try to bring elements of proof (the most convincing possible) on the activity of the UFO phenomena: it is not a question of a classic analysis of testimonies, as you will see it.

The text, presented here in the form of questions and answers, is loosely based on an interview with Marie-Thérèse de Brosses at the end of August 2015, for a French Radio "Ici & Maintenant" ("Here & Now"). It also sheds light on the context of the mathematical article that I co-wrote and distributed on Arxiv as well as on the GEIPAN site.

It is important to note that it does not represent a strong opinion but a series of hypotheses variously consolidated by scientific or philosophical arguments.

Finally, it is also important to specify that this work was developed independently of CNES / GEIPAN, because some people are aware that I also work within this small team of 4 people, in Toulouse.


Could we demonstrate that some UFO (s) have an "Extra-Terrestrial" origin?

Classic but difficult question ... This type of question combines presuppositions: objects (material), flying (dynamic, piloted), coming from other planets than the earth. It also conveys a certain number of clichés: flying saucers, extraterrestrial beings, little grays (!) ...

> Okay, but then can we simplify the problem and simply PROVE the existence of an INTELLIGENCE at work behind some UFOs?

It's already easier. But it would already be necessary to define what founds the PROOF, which does not interest many people. Between scientific proof and legal proof, it's not the same type of story. Usually in UFO matters we tend to approach the second type of proof, "to bring the intimate conviction of ...", but is that enough?

> In this case, what could constitute reliable and sufficient proof?

In terms of individual documents, not much.

With the development of information technology, documents reported as evidence are more and more easily falsified.

Today, even a sincere witness with objective evidence can be called into question. As I sometimes say: tomorrow you could take a picture of a flying saucer that lands in your garden (sic!), This will not serve as proof and will not upset opinions. You will need a lot more!

In reality, an individual testimony, sincere and objective, does not have sufficient value to serve as proof, to bring this intimate conviction to the public.

So how to prove the existence of an intelligence?

By searching for a hidden order within the immense mass of available UFO testimonies, unexplained phenomena, belonging to the category of "PAN D" according to the CNES classification.

Then by measuring the probability that this order cannot be due to chance and finally, that this order denotes an intention.

If, individually, testimonies generally contain only a very small amount of useful information, collectively they represent, after more than 60 years of archival accumulation, a colossal mass of information.

It is a question of looking for a proof which does not depend on a single witness - which one could always question - but a proof which emerges from the mass of data, which one cannot suspect of hoax: a diagram drawn by the behavior of over several generations on the scale of the planet.

> In this case, what data to analyze and extract from this mass of testimonies?

I have chosen to rely on two types of elementary data, the most common, so as to have an independent, transversal and as comprehensive point of comparison as possible.

> That is to say?

In general, on most testimonies, we have a place and a date. That is to say "space" data, connected to the environment, and "time" data. Historically, I have treated the two types of data separately, starting with environmental data (everything we can see around us, people, infrastructure, forests, rivers, etc.).

How would unexplained phenomena be related to the environment?

UFOs are a very small subset of unexplained phenomena. If "UFOs" are technologically advanced objects, we can do foresight and attempt to extrapolate the concerns of a man from the future, a man who will see farther in time and space. Based on our underlying motivations as a species, we can try to identify what may be of interest to an advanced civilization. We will see that, probably, within these concerns, the question of long-term environmental balances or ecosystems, is central since these make it possible to guarantee the evolution of life, intelligence and cultures.

It will be all about Identifying the factors that constrain the destiny of civilizations, which may call into question the survival of the species and the evolution of life on habitable planets. But I will come back to that.

In addition, from a logical point of view, it is possible to include all the unexplained phenomena, UFO or PAN D, observed in the following three categories:

  • (a) There are phenomena produced by the environment. Favorable local conditions produce the phenomenon. For example, wisps (natural emanation of methane) or Thai lanterns (produced by man) belong to the environment and are "endogenous".
  • (b1) There are phenomena coming from outside and entering the local environment to interact, transmit or collect information. Ex: drone with camera ("active exogenous")
  • (b2) There are phenomena passively passing through the local environment (that of the observer) with no direct relation to the environment. Ex: shooting star, plane ("passive exogenous")
Fig. 1 - Origin of phenomena and their connection with the environment. (a) endogenous (b1 / b2) exogenous active / passive


What is interesting to note here is that in two out of three cases the phenomena, whatever they are, have something to do with the environment.

> So the spatial data ...

Yes, it will serve us to study the existence of a relationship between phenomena and the environment. For example if there are environmental peculiarities at the place where the phenomena are observed.

Is that why in 2004 you built the U-Sphere website?

Exactly. U-Sphere initially aimed to develop mapping tools and set up databases to analyze the relationships between environmental spheres and UFOs. In particular, if there could be links with major environmental risks (called "systemic", because they are likely to seriously disrupt ecosystems).

Between 2004 and 2008, I devoted myself to developing the cartographic part to represent environmental data, and to perform correlation calculations with observations.

The idea was to identify the major environmental risks, which could decisively condition the planetary future. When I started this work the discipline called "[Earth System Science]" did not yet exist, it is a subject that is starting to gain ground.

Fig. 2 - Ecosystemology. Mains environmental risks for the Humanity at the scale of the planet (Asteroids & Comets are missing on this schema!)

The risks selected are of two types: natural and artificial (anthropogenic, these are mainly Nuclear, Bacteriological and Chemical risks). A diagram I have called "Ecosystemology" identifies them. Ufologists have often observed certain strange correlations between UFO (S) appearances and certain places, without making any connection, except for nuclear power.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has also gradually taken an interest in the issue. It is not surprising: when the interests of men are established on a global scale, it is normal that they do everything to seek to preserve them. It now publishes annually the "Global Risk Report", a report detailing and measuring the main risks to humanity.

> On the other hand, there was the temporal data?

Yes, and they are easier to understand: the time data corresponds to the simple reading of a signal, the number of "UFO" sightings on a scale. They make it possible to hang up events on a chronology.

What is the distribution of phenomena over time?

Globally, observations are reported every day by witnesses, on a roughly constant level. But, exceptionally, what are called "waves of sightings" occur. Suddenly, over large geographic areas across a country or continent, dozens, if not hundreds, of sightings are reported.

Fig. 3 - the 10 most important waves of observations, testimonials per day, smoothed out per week. L. Hatch data, 2000.
Fig. 4 - The 10 most important waves of observations, number of testimonials per day, smoothed by quarter. L. Hatch data, 2000.

By retaining only the 12 strongest waves on each of the preceding diagrams, here are some "key" dates: 1947, 1952, 1954, 1965, 1974, ...

Some of these years are well known to "Ufologists". Precisely:

+ Table 1 - 12 most important waves of observations since the explosion of the phenomenon in 1947 [2] - wave Year (dec.) Date (DD / MM / YYYY) - v0 1,947.51 07/06/1947 - v1 1,950.24 03/29/1950 - v2 1,952.57 07/28/1952 - v3 1,954.78 10/14/1954 - v4 1,957.84 05/11/1957 - v5 1,965.63 08/20/1965 - v6 1,966.30 04/22/1966 - v8 1,967.72 09/19/1967 - v9 1,968.56 07/23/1968 - v10 1,973.79 10/17/1973 - v11 1,974.16 02/28/1974 - v12 1,990.84 05/11/1990
> What is the characteristic of these waves of observations?

There is no academic definition, but let's say over a period of a week the usual number of sightings is multiplied by 10.

Fig. 4 - Average number of sightings during a wave.

A wave of observations usually starts a month before reaching its maximum and continues for about a month afterwards.

Why and how could observation waves occur?

To this day, no one knows. These waves have not given any particular warning signs, and no one has yet come up with a convincing explanation.

> Aren't there at least some assumptions though?

Of course. I am thinking of at least three types of possible hypotheses:

   The “supervised learning” hypothesis:  'active exogenous hypothesis, cf. Fig 1. (b1.)  '

It was suggested by Fred Beckman and Pr. Price-Williams of the University of Los Angeles: these two scientists would have come up with this idea when they saw the graphics coming out of Jacques Vallée's computer. A difficult result to obtain at the time, since it required Jacques Vallée a little more than 4 years of work to build the necessary databases. It is an idea that the latter made known under the name of "Theory of control".

> Hmm. "Control theory" or "supervised learning", but more?

This is a term used by artificial intelligence researchers:

The regular repetition of information by a teacher (here the "supervisor") to allow the recording of information by the learning system. The supervisor observes and monitors the student's progress and chooses an appropriate educational program so as to optimize the progress made.

> As I understand it ... applied to "UFOs" what would that mean? What exactly would we learn?

Well, by dint of being subjected to testimonies, and therefore to reported information about UFOs, we would gradually become familiar with the concepts and ideas related to "UFOs". In bulk: extraterrestrial intelligences, extraterrestrial life, spaceships, exo-planets, interstellar travel ... These subjects have been taken up by literature and cinema and have resonated with popular culture, to the point that sometimes the ins and outs (ie “who creates the information?”), have become inextricable.

At the level of society, it is a form of acculturation or social engineering that disrupts our way of seeing things. Roswell is a pure archetype: the head of the gray alien with the big almond eyes has been hugely popularized.

Be that as it may, this hypothesis had been put forward at the time without a solid theoretical foundation. But we will come back to that.

   The hypothesis of a production of human collective consciousness which would generate visions:  'endogenous hypothesis, cf. Fig 1. (a.)  '

This production reappears in certain fragile or sensitive individuals, in the form of dreams, hallucinations, flashes and various forms of attacks, possibly of a psychiatric nature. This is a hypothesis evoked by psychoanalyst C. Jung in his book “Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies” (1958).

> But are there any examples of such psychosocial phenomena which would lead to the synchronization of individual events, to form these waves of observation?

We have very little scientific data, except on subjects which are unfortunately quite morbid. Suicides would be contagious (behavioral contagion - Gould, 1990) and more recently it was found that mass killings would also follow this kind of pattern, psychosocial contagion lasting 13 days (“Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings”, Sherry Towers , 2015). These contagion patterns, generally propagated by the media, seem to be linked to the strong emotional component of the phenomena. However, it is true that in the case of UFO sightings this is also a very important factor: it happens regularly that the phenomena change the conceptions of individuals, if not significantly reinforce them.

This being the case, C. Jung wanted to specify the limits of the approach consisting in wanting to relate everything to psycho-social considerations: physical effects external to individuals cannot be regarded as a psychosocial effect.

   These waves would be the result of an environmental activity not specifically linked to man:  'passive exogenous hypothesis, cf. Fig 1. (b2.)  '

Hypothesis that I proposed to verify on U-Sphere.

> But what environmental phenomena sufficiently influential and occurring at intervals of several years can one imagine?

It is difficult to imagine such phenomena. However, it is possible to restrict the research field to phenomena with long activity cycles - since the waves of UFO sightings are located on these time scales - AND which can have an influence on humans.

> What are you thinking?

Some scientists like Jacques Vallée had already thought of correlations with the cycles of the planets. For my part, I wanted to check the effect of solar activity, the only one in my opinion that could have such a massive influence.

The effects of the sun

The sun has cycles of approximately 11 years, accompanied by solar flares that are not completely predictable. Beyond this 11-year cycle, a series of other cycles are superimposed on the first following a rhythm in "powers of two", that is to say doubled each time: 22 years, 44 years, etc.

On these timescales, we know at least two types of effects of the sun:

  • a psychosocial influence observed by various studies, for example suicide rates (Dood, Henry and Berk, 2006 "Do ambient electromagnetic fields affect behavior? A demonstration of the relationship between geomagnetic storm activity and suicide") or stock market activity ( Theodore Modis “Sunspots, GDP and the stock market”, 2007)
  • More directly, an influence on plants, at the level of the polar circles, has also been observed: cellular degeneration caused by radiation.
> But what relationship can there be between suicide rates (again!) and solar or stock market activity? It sounds crazy!

Less than it seems: the effect is caused in our body by low wavelength electric currents (ELF) flowing in the earth and caused by solar activity. In general, these currents would have an influence on the nervous system and human emotions, although this is only very poorly understood to date. And the stock market is, almost by nature, very sensitive to the emotional reactions of individuals.

The first two hypotheses lacking data (1 and 2), it is on the last hypothesis (3) that I committed myself, in search of a possible relationship between solar activity and UFOs. Subject that I sought to explore on my site in 2010 by writing various articles on solar activity.

> What did you find?

Well, nothing significant! But there was a surprise at the end.

I relied on observational data from around the globe between 1946 and 2000, testimonies collected by Larry Hatch, one of the most comprehensive literature reviews to my knowledge to date, which has the advantage of 'be relatively homogeneous over time. Within this data, I looked for frequency repeats that were identical, whether for solar activity or UFOs.

The distribution of observation waves

For this, I used different methods of analysis (the most classic being the “Fourier transform”), but also I found an algorithm developed by Jacques Vallée in the 1980s: it had the advantage of be more sensitive than a Fourier transform, retaining all the information initially contained in the data [3]. [[image: Historical UFO waves - strongest periods.png | frame | center | Fig. 5 - To measure the most significant frequencies, a program was used to identify the number of intervals (in weeks) between any two observations

+ Table 2 - Only the 10 most frequently occurring time intervals, denoted by [Xi], have been indicated below - Δ Week Xi Power rank Δ Waves - 116 X1 3 v3-v2 - 161 X2 8 v3-v4 - 264 X3 2 v0-v2 - 379 X4 1 v0-v3 - 539 X5 5 v0-v4 - 992 X8 7 v3-v10 - 1099 X9 6 v0-v9 - 1372 X10 4 v0-v10 - 1882 X11 10 v3-v12 - 2261 X12 9 v0-v12


  • Δ Week: time interval in weeks between two waves,
  • Xi: Name given to the interval,
  • Power rank: ranking by rank of intensity,
  • Δ Waves: Waves concerned.

The above intervals generally correspond to the elapsed time (here measured in weeks, Δ Week) between the two strongest waves of observations (v0 and v3) and the other waves.

However, if there is indeed a certain synchronization on some peaks with the half-period of solar activity, this was insufficiently significant. Yet then I noticed something unexpected!

> What was it?

While working on the most significant time intervals, I found that the time between certain waves of observations was steadily increasing AND increasing. Roughly, the gap between certain waves doubled each time, going from 2.5 years to 5 years, then 10 years, then 20, then 40: we are talking about a "power of 2" law. Precisely, four of the six deviations concerning with the first wave (v0 of July 1947) were linked by an extremely precise mathematical law:

+ Table 3 - the 4 significant deviations (in weeks) and the corresponding dates. The so-called “exponential” regression law which connects them is written: Δ Week = 128.9.2.045x (difference in weeks). - x Xn v0-vi Δ Week Δ Years vi (Year) - 1947.51 - 1 X3 v0-v2 264 5.05954825 1952.57 - 2 X5 v0-v4 539 10.329911 1957.84 - 3 X9 v0-v9 1099 21.0622861 1968.55 - 4 X12 v0-v12 2261 43.3319644 1990.84

This entry is equivalent to: Δ Year = 2.0452x (difference in years). Coefficient of determination R² = 0.999992. p-value <2.10-6, a subject mentioned in 2010 on u-sphere

> Maybe it was due to chance?

That was the whole point.

First of all, the correlation coefficient itself was extremely strong. You should know that with a value of "1" we have a perfect correlation. Here, this coefficient is accurate to within 7.10 -6 representing a pattern that is likely to occur less than once in 50,000 [4].

But in addition, there were three other surprising points:

   This distribution allows us to find v1 for x = 0. We then find with v1, an adjusted equation even closer to a power of two: 2.005x. The probability that a random distribution will also follow a progression so close to the power of two becomes infinitesimal. This is important, we'll see why.
   This law also makes it possible to determine v3 for x = 1.5. The best approximation then found is as follows:


Fig. 6 - Best function found to calculate v0, (v1), v2, v3, v4, v9, v12. On the Y axis the difference in years.


   Finally, by shifting this same equation in time, we connect the waves of v3 (cf. Table 2). Nevertheless, less significant because on less regular values ​​of "x":
Fig. 7 - Strictly the same function allowing to determine v2, v3, v4, v8, v10, v12, with an offset in x.


> Over 54 years of observations, to notice a synchronous organization on a global scale is astonishing! But what interpretations can we give?

Review of the proposed hypotheses

According to the hypotheses mentioned above:

  • for the search for a relation with solar activity '(passive exogenous hypothesis, cf. Fig 1.b2.)' , although there are certain disturbing parallels which do not exclude it, this seemed too insignificant [5],
  • On the psychosocial hypothesis '(endogenous hypothesis, cf. Fig 1.a.)' , We have seen that if it began to be admitted that there are indeed effects of crystallization and psycho contamination -social during events with a strong emotional resonance, the question that emerges from these results is totally new: is the human collective consciousness capable of generating not only joint events at certain times, but also ordered events in time according to a power law? To my knowledge, there is no study on psychosocial phenomena which would thus reproduce such ordered patterns. It’s totally new.
  • But it is above all the supervised learning hypothesis that is reinforced '(active exogenous hypothesis, see Fig 1.b1.)' . Indeed, the repetition of an event with a period of spacing increasing in a regular way in time, as we observe it for the waves of UFOs, coincides precisely with a method of supervised learning: this method is called by some connoisseurs "spaced retrieval", or recalls spaced in time.
> What is this "spaced retrieval" method?

This is a method of learning (retaining) as effectively as possible.

Usually, we know that in order to retain a piece of information, a lesson, it should be repeated several times, until it comes in.

But, what is the optimal wait time between lessons? This is fairly empirical so far, but one of the defended methods is our own propensity to forget. Empirically, by measuring our speed of forgetting, we measure precisely how often the information needs to be refreshed. It appears that the ideal way to do this is to double the time between each revision, which is precisely a power of two law (2x x, being the xth revision):

Fig. 8 - Certain computer programs that help you remember information, such as "SuperMemo". This software calculates the ideal repetition time between two courses, according to your own abilities and the degree of difficulty of the knowledge to be acquired. Indeed, the more a subject is abstract for the individual, (cannot be connected to other elements), the more quickly it is forgotten [6]

The important thing to remember here is that this method is valid for both individual and collective learning. However, the more you widen the base of your learning population, with a communication channel of the same width, the more the time between the repetitions will be important: this must take into account the time for the information to disseminate in the social network then to to be absorbed, that is to say of its inertia. Individual-level repeats are counted in days, organization-wide weeks, and country-level years. But, it is still the same power law, with a factor k: k.2x

> Finally, supervised learning is still difficult to accept! Would that suppose an external agent, an intelligence, which would organize the demonstrations, which would manipulate the individuals?

This is the principle of supervised learning: it is led by an outside supervisor who gives the "La". Anyway, in 2010 when I had approached these aspects, I had to admit that it was useless to expand further into conjectures: even if this hypothesis could be supported by a law of distribution organized in time, she remained fragile.

But I will find that a few years later a radically different way of crossing and checking this information.

Study on spatial data

> What did you do as of 2010?

I focused on spatial data. As I indicated to you, by logical deduction we assume that in many cases "something must tie the phenomena to the environment". The objective was then to verify it mathematically: "Could a relationship between the location of phenomena of unknown origin (type D) and certain environmental characteristics emerge? "

I had made good progress in previous years, having developed a mapping program to cross-reference environmental data and was getting results with respect to population density. However, I was not satisfied with the mathematical method I was using at the time: it consisted of dividing the territory into small rectangular surface elements. However, depending on the level of observation scale, the results varied. I had to use smoothing methods, which I had started to do.

But, rather than reinventing the wheel, I turned to a mathematics laboratory specializing in the processing of spatial data in Toulouse (TSE) with the support of CNES / GEIPAN, which had kindly taken up this challenge.

> What data did you use for this study? The environment is wide!

Yes ! I was thinking of several types of data (which we call "variables"):

  • firstly, those which could constitute factors of known, even supposed testimony:
    • Population density: more observers a priori means more testimonies. But how many? It was interesting to try to measure the exact level of correspondence between the population density and the intensity of the testimonies,
    • Sunshine: a clear, sunny sky is also likely to encourage going outside and therefore opportunities for observation,
    • Airports: more activity in the sky, with passages of lights can they cause "false positives", that is to say which should not be classified PAN D? We also wanted to measure it.
  • second, there were the fairly general variables, concerning the nature of the environment, in particular two that seemed to come up at times in PAN D's observations:
    • Freshwater or marshy areas,
    • Forests,
  • lastly and recently, following the approach defended all these years on u-sphere, those relating to environmental risks, likely to cause significant and lasting disturbances to the environment and have a serious impact on the future of the planet. These variables are mapped and tracked globally by some international organizations [7]. For mainland France (subject of the study), we have retained risks of essentially human origin (risks of serious natural origin such as volcanoes or seismic zones being only too poorly representative). Is :
    • Polluted sites,
    • Nuclear activity as a whole (not just nuclear power plants)

For the data on PAN D, the cases of the National Center for Space Studies, GEIPAN, were retained: 380 phenomena classified "D" over a period of 40 years. These data have the advantage of being homogeneous in space, as GEIPAN is intended as a one-stop-shop at the national level, it does not favor any region over another.

> In two words, based on these data, what was the methodology used?

These environmental variables had to be compared to the distribution of UAP D to measure their degree of "correlation": to see if they were likely to correspond to the distribution of type D phenomena.

Furthermore, the objective was not to compare these variables one by one, but to observe them all together, so as to bring out their intrinsic ability to explain the PAN D distribution.

Indeed, if one variable was completely explained by the distribution of another, the latter should not appear to be significant.

> So, these results?

Astonishing!

For the first time we have obtained an objective measure of the relationship between PAN D and the environment, in particular with nuclear sites, so dear to ufologists.

It was all the more interesting since it was based on a demonstration.

And above all, it was not just nuclear sites: polluted sites were also concerned. This reinforced the "environmentalist" hypothesis that I had sought to demonstrate for years. The contribution of each variable to the distribution of PAN D is indicated in the table below by its p-value [8].

+ Table 4 - List of variables and their level of correlation with NAP D - Variable p-value Interpretation - Population <10 ^ -16% Very highly significant - Nuclear <0.01% Highly significant - Pollution <0.4% Very significant - Water <6.9% Insignificant - Forests <15% Not significant - Airports <17% Not significant - Sun <31% Absolutely not significant - PAN A <43% Absolutely not significant

Of course the method can always be criticized, but we were able to lay the foundations for an analysis methodology, and today there is a concrete working basis to discuss the validity of these results.

> At the same time, you know that correlation does not necessarily mean "cause and effect" relationship: there may be hidden variables that you have not identified. For example, maybe there are real effects on people in the environment of polluted or nuclear sites, linked to the effect of chemicals?

Perhaps.

But note that, even if they are not perfect, CNES surveys have never demonstrated such a link: UAPs are classified "D" after exhausting all known hypotheses.

On the other hand, at the scientific level, there is currently no known information which would suggest that in the environment of sites linked to the nuclear industry, people are likely to have more hallucinatory delusions than elsewhere. This does not mean that this avenue should not be explored, but at this point it seems even more fragile than the one, for example, concerning people declaring themselves radiosensitive.

> And why not more simply psychosocial causes? Perhaps these are regions where individuals are sensitized by the presence of infrastructures or sites generating concern, thereby creating a ripple effect? How to determine if the manifestations are not provoked by an over-reaction of the populations?

This is the reason why we decided to check whether the explained phenomena, the AAPs, could not also constitute an explanatory variable of the distribution of the DAPs.

Let me explain: when a witness decides to report his observation he does not know, a priori, how it will be classified by the CNES investigator. However, if there were to be regions where populations are "psychologically more sensitive", favoring testimonies, there should be not only more PAN D, but also more explainable PAN A / B / C, especially if the reports are based on an ambient form of paranoia. This is why we wanted to check whether the distribution of PAN A followed that of PAN D.

The result, reported in the previous table is eloquent: there is absolutely no correlation between the distribution of PAN A and PAN D (p <43%). This allows us to rule out psychosocial factors endogenous to the observations, that is to say from the population.

Astonishing!

For the first time we have obtained an objective measure of the relationship between PAN D and the environment, in particular with nuclear sites, so dear to ufologists.

It was all the more interesting since it was based on a demonstration.

And above all, it was not just nuclear sites: polluted sites were also concerned. This reinforced the "environmentalist" hypothesis that I had sought to demonstrate for years. The contribution of each variable to the distribution of PAN D is indicated in the table below by its p-value [8].

+ Table 4 - List of variables and their level of correlation with NAP D - Variable p-value Interpretation - Population <10 ^ -16% Very highly significant - Nuclear <0.01% Highly significant - Pollution <0.4% Very significant - Water <6.9% Insignificant - Forests <15% Not significant - Airports <17% Not significant - Sun <31% Absolutely not significant - PAN A <43% Absolutely not significant

Of course the method can always be criticized, but we were able to lay the foundations for an analysis methodology, and today there is a concrete working basis to discuss the validity of these results.

> At the same time, you know that correlation does not necessarily mean "cause and effect" relationship: there may be hidden variables that you have not identified. For example, maybe there are real effects on people in the environment of polluted or nuclear sites, linked to the effect of chemicals?

Perhaps.

But note that, even if they are not perfect, CNES surveys have never demonstrated such a link: UAPs are classified "D" after exhausting all known hypotheses.

On the other hand, at the scientific level, there is currently no known information which would suggest that in the environment of sites linked to the nuclear industry, people are likely to have more hallucinatory delusions than elsewhere. This does not mean that this avenue should not be explored, but at this point it seems even more fragile than the one, for example, concerning people declaring themselves radiosensitive.

> And why not more simply psychosocial causes? Perhaps these are regions where individuals are sensitized by the presence of infrastructures or sites generating concern, thereby creating a ripple effect? How to determine if the manifestations are not provoked by an over-reaction of the populations?

This is the reason why we decided to check whether the explained phenomena, the AAPs, could not also constitute an explanatory variable of the distribution of the DAPs.

Let me explain: when a witness decides to report his observation he does not know, a priori, how it will be classified by the CNES investigator. However, if there were to be regions where populations are "psychologically more sensitive", favoring testimonies, there should be not only more PAN D, but also more explainable PAN A / B / C, especially if the reports are based on an ambient form of paranoia. This is why we wanted to check whether the distribution of PAN A followed that of PAN D.

The result, reported in the previous table is eloquent: there is absolutely no correlation between the distribution of PAN A and PAN D (p <43%). This allows us to rule out psychosocial factors endogenous to the observations, that is to say from the population.

Yes of course. I am thinking of two categories of people:

Those from popular and traditionalist circles - more religious - which constitute about 25% of the French population. These are populations resistant to foreigners, not used to being in contact with other ideas. The subject "UFO" is rather frowned upon. Among the people whose testimonies are collected at GEIPAN, it is those from these circles who are most afraid of ridicule and rejection by their peers and who generally ask us for absolute anonymity. They do not like to testify, contrary to what we imagine.

Paradoxically, while the level of education increases the degree of openness, there is also a notable exception among some scientists in experimental / hard sciences, who are supposed to explain the workings of the world and the universe. Faced with the UFO phenomenon, some of these so-called "rationalists" individuals will want to seek an answer at all costs. Their explanatory power over the world is Science, even if it means forgetting its limits and those of reason. It is about a dogmatic drift of science and the diversion of the critical method in favor of rampant skepticism that destroys any information that does not fit into their framework of thought [9]. Note that this population is not statistically significant because it only represents less than 1.4% of the total population.

> Okay. But finally, what social variable do you identify? Does all this seem quite varied after all?

Well not that much. If we forget the last category, which is not very representative, it turns out that the Front National vote covers all of these categories quite well!

> Are you kidding? Already the UFO subject is controversial, if in addition you add political considerations, you will not calm the debate!

It's just about staying factual. It turns out that the Front National vote is indeed a cultural marker associated with working-class circles (B), moreover, studies in electoral sociology show that it is very strongly correlated with a low level of education (A), a subject which for reasons of sensitivity is little known to the public [10].

Ultimately, with precise data for the entire territory, verification made, the p-value found was even better than that of nuclear power! It will, moreover, be the subject of a future study.

Fig. 11 - Comparison of the distribution of the FN vote with the distribution of the residuals of the model.
> I'm left off. It is still shocking and difficult for a subject already in search of credibility ...

Be careful though: this is not a value judgment! The FN vote is also a protest vote, reflecting the failure of education and integration policies. It is measured as averages over the territory, which should never be interpreted individually: you can always find me an individual close to the ideas of the FN who likes to talk about UFOs!

And then, the "National Front" variable is not ideal either: it is certain determinants within the FN population that are interesting: cultural fundamentals can be read in nationalisms. Moreover, we find this characteristic in the witnesses of Marian apparitions: generally people from extremely modest and rural backgrounds.

> Indeed, I see on your maps that there is a gap with Brittany and the Basque country?

Yes, because their traditions do not bind them to the National Front.

> Why?

The Front National is also the result of a popular defense reaction of local cultures in the face of the waves of immigration at the start of the 20th century which affected the Mediterranean basin and northern France. There were phenomena of diffusion and bringing together of different cultures which spanned several generations.

Brittany and the Basque country have been relatively preserved and moreover vote less FN: they are strong cultures but not connected to national identity.

In fact, there is no ideal variable to represent the identity of traditionalist cultures in France associated with a low level of education! The variable FN is a good approximation, and it meets the need for supervised learning well.

> And you have come full circle, finding structured and targeted learning in the spatial dimension?

Absolutely! Which was fascinating. What is more, this learning appeared to be carried out externally (supervision) independently of the will of the individuals given the lack of relationship with the distribution of NAP A. There would be a maximization of the effects and actions carried out, both in the space - on the territory - than in time, revealed by two completely independent modes of calculations.


Implications

> What are the possible consequences and interpretations of these results? Under the supervised learning hypothesis, how do you try to understand the purpose of potential "supervisors"?

As we have seen, this is based on targeting VALUES with the aim of advancing certain subjects within the population.

It sounds like an education program, even psychosocial manipulation (we could dare that any form of education is a form of manipulation). The supervising system "injects" information gradually into the territory, while remaining below a "detectability" threshold, thanks to communication in "peer-to-peer" mode. That is, by addressing only small numbers of people and letting information flow from them.

This program resembles in a way a form of "vaccination" of the human social body: so that the immune system is able to accept these values ​​/ subjects / notions.

For its part, society does not naturally accept this "information", perceived as aberrations and develops resistance. These resistances manifest themselves in various ways at the individual and collective level: "intellectual blindness", mockery, rejection. We find exactly the same symptoms as in change management.

Once UFO testimonies are disseminated and integrated by the human social body, they are finally appropriated and taken up in the culture in different forms of concepts and ideas.

> But taking into account what you said previously, there is also a targeting of an environmentalist nature, or even ecological by the phenomenon?

Yes, as I said in the introduction it could be understood through the following questioning: "What could interest the man of the future? "

After millions of years of evolution, we have come to what we are today as a conscious human species: sapiens-sapiens.

However, we remain a "fragile" product on a universe scale, subject to the risks we help create.

The survival of our evolutionary path, at least in the short term, continues to depend on the protection of the ecosystems that have allowed this wonderful emergence. This subject is reflected in the monitoring of environmental risks: we ourselves seek, at the planetary level, to monitor in order to be able to control and control hazards. And, this surveillance, progress making, extends to increasingly vast scales in time and space.

> Us and… the others?

Indeed, it is also the question of the development of collective intelligence, in a network.

Protecting intelligence and environmental wealth, but also why not arouse it everywhere around us are and will probably always be part of our challenges as a species.

The stake for future progress will likely lie in our ability to bring together the diverse peoples of the Earth to collectively resolve the global challenges that lie ahead. As progress is made, peoples are mastering increasingly vast scales of time and space, which overlap, necessarily interconnected, and encounter shared problems.

With other humans, if we sometimes inhabit the same territory, we necessarily inhabit the same planet. By extension we cohabit in the galaxy perhaps also with other intelligences, and we will then have to share this space in "good understanding".

> So one of the objectives of these supervisors would be to develop this collective intelligence?

Yes. If we resonate beyond the individual, developing collective intelligence means creating wealth, by linking societies and more broadly civilizations so that they can share the best of them. same. In systems, we sometimes say that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Generally speaking, the civilizations of the future will become what I call "Gardeners of the Universe". Intervening on increasingly vast scales of time and space, they will help develop collective intelligence, seeking to plant seeds and stimulate evolution all around them.

> How do you see these "gardeners" operating on Earth?

Where appropriate, pursuing two types of objectives:

   Objective 1: by protecting intelligence on the planets, by alerting it to risks, without violating the self-determinism of societies. Prioritizing alert to intervention, by simply sending relatively ostentatious messages to the decision-makers of these companies (those with the capacity to act). Making sure that they are questioned about their responsibilities. But without going against Objective 2.
   Objective 2: by developing this collective intelligence, by gradually preparing contact with other civilizations before even considering cooperating with them.
> Practically speaking?

By creating communication bridges between civilizations. Neither too wide nor too narrow in order to preserve the cultural specificities of each one. Work that is carried out over several human generations in order to put in place the tools so that everyone can represent themselves and address the other without having to import symbols or concepts.

> Why focus on preserving our cultural specificities? Is our cultural identity so important?

To tell the truth, this is our only wealth. Culture is everything we have to share with other civilizations: our way of understanding nature, of perceiving the environment and the universe. On Earth, each culture has uniquely appropriated the environment, shaped objects and created words, languages, ideas, which only have meaning in the places and times that correspond to them.

This is not the case with our technique or our science, which are inevitably (re) discovered by other civilizations. Technology and science rather constitute risks for societies which do not have the ethical or moral structures to be able to circumvent the dangers.

Ultimately, each culture is the result of a construction, a balance, patiently developed between man and nature, the fruit of hundreds or even thousands of years of trial and error and research. This makes a culture non-transposable: it is born, flourishes and lives in a given social and environmental space.

And that is, it seems to me, regardless of our degree of evolution, all that we have to contribute to other civilizations: the look that our culture gives us on the world, the universe.

Cultures can be seen as ecosystems that must be preserved. Respecting the development of these cultures means respecting the development of their art, their way of life, but also their symbolic tools.

This brings us to the notion of "cultural ethnocide" developed by sociologist Robert Jaulin in the 1970s.

> That is to say?

A culture that is too fragile, which is not prepared for the shock of meeting another culture, could be destroyed. Without even imagining a conflict, an unprepared culture could be seduced by the technological advance of another and would then import cultural objects that would totally destabilize its art of living, its traditions and more broadly its relationship to the environment.

However, with the objective of developing a greater collective intelligence, it is essential that each civilization retains its specificities, its cultural identity, if it wants to be able to share its gaze with others.

> To sum up, objective 2 would be to develop collective intelligence, by bringing different cultures into contact. This contact would go through a phase of preparation, cultural awareness, through supervised learning.

Absolutely. And still in the search for energy savings, Objective 2 would be linked to Objective 1 as soon as possible.

> Brought back to UFOs, how would this phase of preparation go?

In this context, the appearances of UFOs are pretexts to introduce concepts about extraterrestrial intelligences, to think "the other" with our own words.

Moreover, UFO testimonies sometimes resemble a play, describing absurd scenarios, set up for the sole purpose of being seen by single witnesses.

For example, in the context of the Valensole affair, to imagine two extraterrestrials from the depths of the universe getting off their ship, crouching down to observe a foot of lavender, before leaving seems completely absurd [11] .

This makes sense if we understand, that in the hypothesis of supervised learning, the images that it is necessary to send back are purely imaginary, they are only fictitious scenarios which do not represent the reality of the "supervisors". , but just a “pasteboard” reality credible enough to impress the witnesses.

UFO appearances, in general, remain based on the human archetypes of the target culture: they are projections from human fantasies and elements of human collective consciousness. In theory, if they are successful, they can even be maintained and extended by the latter.

The objective then is not to show what the other (for example, the extraterrestrial) really IS but to awaken consciousness, to learn to think of the other by extension of our own symbols. And each new symbolic tool created by humans from these observations will eventually be reused in the observations that follow.

Note that this work on consciousness is also achieved by the progress of scientific thought in relation to philosophers. We see it with the new notions manipulated by scientists: exo-planets, habitable zone, panspermia, index of similarity with the earth, exobiology, extraterrestrial life, etc., etc. [12]

> If the apparitions are to remain based on archetypes, it is difficult to untie that from the psychosocial hypothesis! It's inextricable, isn't it?

Indeed, if this integration of concepts is carried out in an optimal way then it becomes close to an activity of the human collective consciousness which would arise in the form of delusions or hallucinations.

If this is not the precaution taken for PAN A, the reaction of human collective consciousness could be mistaken for material "UFO" activity, real (PAN D).

> How would these resurgences of human collective consciousness occur?

These modes of expression of collective consciousness remain to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, one can think, that they would be crystallized by and around psychologically sensitive individuals [13]. Phenomena can be individually and / or collectively experienced by witnesses in the form of hypnotic trances.

Whether they are resonance phenomena (as we have seen, they can occur for suicides or mass crimes), they can manifest themselves in the form of testimonies of neutral or positive “appearances” (observations of enlightenment, etc. .) taking up the classic UFO theme.

Or, conversely, phenomena of dissonance (neuroses / rejections): testimonies of appearances of a negative nature, traumatic. Like sleep paralysis or "abductions" (abductions by aliens). Local cultures will crystallize phenomena based on elements of their traditions.

It is agreed that these phenomena originate in trauma or in people with particular sensitivity. It results in a mental hold on the subject (s): altered states of consciousness: trance, hypnotic or semi-hypnotic, hallucinatory sleep which can extend to those around them.

However, not all phenomena are reducible to the socio-psychological thesis given the material aspects in some UFO sightings. To this we could now add the time-ordered structure of phenomena: to our knowledge there is no socio-psychological phenomenon capable of being ordered in this way.

> Finally, back to our hypothesis of a supervising intelligence: the contact with it, since it is about that, for when would it be?

In spaced learning theory, it is considered that after 5 learnings a "normal" knowledge is stabilized. According to previous models, the next wave (the fifth) belonging to the initial cycle, would occur between the end of October and November 2035 [14]

Under the theory of supervised learning, the learning period would then be over: there would be the actual "contact" and the start of regular communication with our supervisors, whoever they are.

> A word to conclude?

I would like to thank all those who have helped me and contributed directly or indirectly to decipher this data, and more broadly all those who have supported me over the past few years.

References

   ↑ The advantage of this data source is its very large scope (nearly 18,000 testimonies), as well as its relative good homogeneity over time, since it is based on the extraction of nearly a hundred sources bibliographic. Note that even being one of the most comprehensive, this database is not ideal either. In particular, it is less well followed over its last ten years (1990-2000):
       the French demonstration of November 5, 1990 (v12) is over-represented with all the controversy that surrounds it whereas a priori it is the same phenomenon (reports from the review "Lumières dans la nuit" having been taken up by L. Hatch),
       conversely, the Belgian wave of 1989 is hardly referenced.
   Correcting these two points would further improve the following results. Unfortunately, L. Hatch suffered a serious stroke which prevented him from continuing with his data collection.
   ↑ Initially, v7 was retained, then discarded because not significant enough.
   ↑ Frequency calculation program: Course of all observation weeks and sum x <inf> n </inf> = nb evts with a difference of i weeks)
   ↑ Use of a Monte-Carlo method: selection of 4 out of 6 waves drawn at random, between 1947 and 2000, and search for the coefficient of determination R². Approximation of the distribution density of the coefficients of determination by a law of Gumbel, applicable to phenomena which follow an exponential distribution. Note over thousands of prints, a regression law close to a power of 2 has never been obtained: this constraint would have made the result even more improbable.
   ↑ The sun is made up of a set of rhythms of activity that overlap. The best known of these lasts approximately 11 years and is called the Schwabe cycle. Hale's 22-year cycle is also fairly well known. There are others less well known, like the 88-year-old Gleissberg. The set of cycles seems to follow a power distribution law of two which was noticed by two scientists Charles Perry and Kenneth Hsu (Perry, CA, Hsu, KJ, 2000, Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change: Proceedings of National Academy of Science, v. 97, no. 23, p. 1244-12438.). These cycles, are close to the periods of activity observed for the waves, are gathered here in a table
   ↑ This function depends on the forgetting curve developed by psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting_curve: the information we acquire is always destroyed in proportion to what it we remember it. In order to learn effectively, it is advisable to insist on what we forget the fastest (what does not stick in our memory), and therefore to wait until we have forgotten enough. For details on calculations: http://www.supermemo.com/articles/stability.htm. Over the repetitions, the information stabilizes.

↑ It is interesting to see that this is the level of scale that it happens.

       UNESCO (UN) Natural Hazards maps, risk assessment & risk policy
       World Economic Forum publishes a thick annual report entitled "Global Risks 201X"
   ↑ p-value = function that returns a score to test the null hypothesis. It is generally considered that if the p-value is less than threshold, generally 5%, then the test of the null hypothesis is not significant. Or, in other words, that the correlation we seek to measure may be meaningful.
   ↑ On a UFO testimony, to convince or convince oneself of the conclusions to be drawn, two types of approach are mainly used: amplifying or reducing. If we take the classic example, of a gray triangle with white triangle lights and a central red light:
       The amplifying approach is to add information. For example, indicating that this is not only a triangle but also an alien vessel, when nothing suggests. Perhaps also used to discredit a subject: “there were little green men! ".
       The reductive approach is to take away information - usually those who want to negate disturbing observational elements and fit them into their frame of thought. Here, the gray triangle is removed from the conclusions, only the 3 lights are retained to become an airplane.
   Generally speaking, it is very difficult to remain objective, by not removing or adding information to testimonials. Naturally, we seek to conform to our frameworks of thought. I have never seen surveys being honest enough to indicate the reduction or amplification operations carried out by tabulating the results.
   ↑ Some examples of studies of the correlation between the Front National vote and the level of education:
       2015 departmental results: "The level of education of voters according to their candidate" (Les echos)
       Public Action Study and Research Laboratory: "The less you are educated, the more you vote FN" (L’express)
       "Unemployment, diplomas, immigration: the robot portrait of the 12 FN cities" (slate.fr)
       Triélec 2012 program - Specialized research on elections. Science Po with the Center for European Studies: "Ethnocentric and security attitudes are linked to the level of education"
   In general, the mapping of the FN vote at the municipal level is not well known to the public. Yet she is admirable. When I had the "happiness" to calculate it in 2012 (with the data from the elections), I realized to what extent it followed the geographical contours, real cultural borders: along the Garonne valley, the along the Rhône valley and extends over large areas of plains and permanent fruit crops. Conversely, large cities act as shields, well beyond their administrative limits, as do mountain ranges, to a lesser extent
   ↑ An increasingly large information and data bubble will surround future technological objects: the presence of individuals and biological beings in a given radius around a vehicle clad with advanced sensors will be automatically detected and considered sufficiently in advance so that there is no possible “surprise”. In addition, all the imaginable information on a lavender plant could be accessible to a very advanced civilization if only by using space means, or even terrestrial means based on nanotechnologies and / or robot-insects. which do not require any reason to show themselves ostensibly, and if not to feign interest and then surprise in front of the witness
   ↑ According to recent projections, NASA plans to discover (simple) extraterrestrial life by 2035
   ↑ Sleep paralysis and its relationship to hallucinatory behaviors is notably studied in France by T. Rabeyron
   ↑ Obviously, like the weather, a forecast from a model can in no way take the place of certainty about reality!

Synoptic diagram Logical diagram describing the article and the research framework (click to zoom)