“Best UFO Cases” by Isaac Koi
PART 25: Quantitative criteria : Figuet’s hardest cases
Michel Figuet prepared a paper for the “European Congress on AAP” in November 1988 entitled “Criteria for selecting the hardest cases and other recent works on French and Belgium sighting catalogues” (see Footnote 25.01). That paper was presented to the “European Congress on AAP” by Jacques Scornaux, as Figuet did not speak English (see Footnote 25.06).
Very similar papers by Figuet have been made available in French (see Footnote 25.02) and Italian (see Footnote 25.03). Incidentally, the Italian version of that paper includes some information and references that are omitted from the copy of the English version provided to me (although I understand that a more complete copy of the English version did exist – see Footnote 25.06).
Michel Figuet’s paper began by acknowledging that “at least some of the criticisms addressed to ufology” in previous years had been “well-founded” (see Footnote 25.04). He suggested that “we can long afford the risk of working on valueless cases” because “it is of no use, and iti is like offering a present to debunkers, who will eagerly and easily destroy them”.
He suggested that other methods for selecting the hardest cases were “not severe enough”. Consequently “an informal group of French and Belgian ufologist” found it necessary to “establish a new set of extremely strict criteria”. He acknowledged that this selection method would “surely” result in “a great many cases” being eliminated as “waste” or “noise” and that this may include some case being “unduly rejected”. However, he considered that “it is better to wrongly exclude potentially hard cases than to wrongly include explainable cases. What really matters is that what will remain will be very solid”.
The suggested critera seek to isolate cases “even if their number is very small, that would testify with a high degree of certainty to the existence of at least one original phenomenon (whatever it may be) having a physical component.
The relevant criteria relate to the features of the phenomenon (B to D), the sighting conditions (E to J), the witnesses (K and L) and the investigation (M to Q).
The criteria were intended to be multiplied together, with the product being multiplied by 100 to obtain a total mark with a maximum of 100.
The highest mark for each criteria is 1, with lessor values being assigned in relation to some of the criteria if certain factors are present.
Factor A : Value = 1 if no explanation based on serious objective data can be proposed for the phenomenon. Otherwise value = 0.
Factor B : Value = 1 if the phenomena is not a point phenomena (i.e. apparent size remained lower than the one of Jupiter of Venus during the whole sighting, except the value). Value = 0.9 if the phenomenon remains point-like but follows a complex trajectory. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor C : Value = 1 if the phenomena’s angular coordinates change during the sighting, or where the movement consists in apparently nearer or moving away. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor D : Value = 1 if the phenomenon does not have a steady movement (straight line or simple curve, even if broken with stops) or it it leaves the ground level or its close proximity or where the phenomenon has a sharp outline or does not consist only in light blobs. Value = 0.7 if the phenomenon consists in light blobs having a sharp outline or arranged in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor E : Value = 1 if the phenomena are not night-time phenomena or are lit, at least partially, during some part of the sighting. Value = 0.7 if the phenomenon is self-luminous. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor F : Value = 1 if the sighting duaration is more than 30 seconds. Value = 0.9 if there are physical effects (with a duration of at least 10 seconds). Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor G : Value = 1 where the sighting duration is less than 15 minutes or if the sighting duration is longer but the behaviour of the phenomenon is not constant or repetitive during the whole sighting. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor H : Value = 1 where there is a landmark in the environment making it possible to know the angular coordinates of the phenomenon or its exact position on the ground. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor I : Value = 1 where the witnesses are not all in a continually moving vehicle. Value = 0.9 where the witnesses are all in a ship. Value = 0.5 where the witnesses are all in a continually moving vehicle but the phenomenon is close and diurnal. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor J : Value = 1 where there is an obstacle present during the whole sighting that is likely to distort the phenomenon’s image or to limit perception of it. Value = 0.9 where the phenomenon occurs during the daytime and the only obstacle is a window. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor K : Value = 1 if there are two or more witnesses (at least one of them being more than 18 years old) who have no physical or mental disability impairing their perceptive powers or their capacity to testify. Value = 0.7 if there are not two or more witnesses, but there are physical effects. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor L : Value = 1 where the witnesses constitute at least two independent groups (each group may consist in only one witness) who give reasonably similar descriptions. Value = 0.7 if the witnesses are not independent (e.g. form a single group) but give similar descriptions. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor M : Value = 1 where the first field investigation was performed less than one year after the sighting. Value = 0.9 if the first investigation was performed between one and three years after the sighting. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor N : Value = 1 where the investigation report includes all the following (otherwise value = 0):
1, The precise date and time (to within 30 minutes)
2. The precise place of the sighting
3. The weather conditions
4. Age, sex and occupation of the witnesses
5. The way the sighting began and ended
6. Some data enabling assessment of the witnesses’ reliability.
Factor O : Value = 1 where the witnesses were interviewed separately. (Witnesses who are not acquainted with each other are considered to have been interviewed separately if the way they were interviewed is not known). Value = 0.7 if the witnesses were not interviewed separately.
Factor P : Value = 1 where the investigation was performed at the place of the sighting, in the presence of the witnesses and under the same environmental conditions (light and, as far as possible, weather). Value = 0.7 if the investigation was performed at the place of the sighting and in the presence of the witnesses, but under different light conditions. Otherwise, value = 0.
Factor Q : Value = 1 where the investigator’s name and address are known, as well as his/her possible membership of a private group. Otherwise, value = 0.
The Italian version of the paper includes a section that includes the following comments: “Ideally, the score of cases should be made by people who have access to the original investigation report or, better still, by the same investigator. But as we know, alas, the world of ufology is far from ideal ... Often the investigators are no longer active, or the group in possession of the report was lost, or reports are not available to researchers rivals, or are lost, or perhaps never existed ... Thus, for many cases a score accurately is impossible.”
It may be that the criteria are too idealist for the real world of ufology, where records of investigation are all too often incomplete or (even more commonly) not readily accessible to other researchers.
The relevant factors were generated following discussion between a small group of ufologists, including Claude Maugé, Thierry Pinvidic, Jacques Scornaux, Franck Boitte and Denis Breysse (see Footnote 25.05).
Several members of that group of ufologists (Claude Maugé, Jacques Scornaux and Denis Breysse) have been kind enough to supply me with some further information and reflections upon the above criteria.
Claude Mauge has commented to me that many of the values used by various authors in such schemes to assess the importance/credibility of UFO reports “are based more on good sense than on ‘scientific’ data” (see Footnote 25.07). He said: “For instance, Figuet’s criteria state that the ‘best’ cases must have a duration of more than 30 seconds. Why? Because when a little team (in which I was) discussed about that matter, such a minimal duration seemed to us necessary so that the witness had perceived enough data. But the reading of psychological literature convinced me later that we had badly overestimated that duration: in most cases, 10 seconds are enough for the brain to record many, many facts”.
Denis Breysse mentioned that the minutes of the group’s discussions about the relevant criteria “fill more than one hundred pages…” (see Footnote 25.05). He said that:
“The criteria were discussed extensively on several occasions and the final version was fixed in February 1984.
Our basic ideas were :
- to define criteria which are external to the source (without postulating any idea about its nature),
- to eliminate all main sources of confusions/misperceptions,
- to give some weight to each criterion (which would allow to select more or less hard cases, depending on the chosen threshold on the final ranking”.
He also commented that “perhaps some discussion can also be fruitful more than 20 years later” and that if “some courageous ufologist” wants to select the ‘best’ of their files, “these criteria will probably be a good basis” (see Footnote 25.05).
Denis Breysse has also noted that one researcher has argued against such criteria, “since the best criterion is (according to him) the truthfulness of the witness, that the investigator can guarantee!”. I have not read the relevant article (see Footnote 25.08), but would be interested to know how an investigator is supposed to be able to determine with any confidence that a witness is being truthful and, probably even more importantly, accurate (both in terms of recollection and the original perception).
Another of the relevant group of ufologists, Jacques Scornaux, also kindly provided some information to me in 2007 about the above proposal (see Footnote 25.06). He made the following comments:
“Our criteria obviously lacked reliability indexes for witnesses and investigators ! But estimating the witness' reliability and the investigator's objectivity is inevitably somewhat... subjective ! And is moreover psychologically and "politically" difficult : a poor investigator (or a poor witness) can be a good friend, and there are already so many disputes and conflicts within ufology... So I confess I somewhat lost interest in these criteria. They are at least to be complemented.”
Actual applications of Figuet’s criteria
The Italian version of the paper by Miguel Figuet putting forward his proposed criteria contains a section applying the scoring system to at least a few sightings (see Footnote 25.03). It mentions that Jacques Scornaux applied the criteria to some cases significant sightings and published them in his magazine and that “at least one case achieved the maximum score of 100. This is a classic of IR2 Vins sur Caramy (April 14, 1957) … [see Footnote 25.11]”. That section of the paper stated that “some other cases have received a score of 70”, mentioning the Valensole incident, the Lezay incident (May 1, 1975) [see Footnote 25.09], and the case of Villiers en Morvan (August 21, 1968) [see Footnote 25.10].
Jacques Scornaux has expressed some concerns about the actual score achieved by certain cases as a result of applying Figuet’s system (see Footnote 25.06). Jacques Scornaux has stated that he must “confess the fact that, among the tested cases, the Vins-sur-Caramy CE2 was the only one to obtain a maximum score left me rather uncomfortable with the criteria”. He said that “Vins looks like a perfect case, except that it was investigated by the late Jimmy Guieu, who was not, to say the least, a model of rigorous and objective investigator. So can we be assured that every apparently unexplainable detail of this case has been exactly reported, without exaggeration?”. He also commented that “Perhaps still worse, the Dr X case had the honourable score of 70. The problem is that it is now known this case is a hoax...”.
Given that Figuet himself kept a database of certain UFO reports in France (FRANCAT), I was interested in learning whether Figuet applied his criteria to that database and whether there had been any analysis of any such application. Unfortunately, one member of the group of ufologists that developed these criteria, Denis Breysse, has told me that he is “not aware of any extensive application of these criteria to the FRANCAT cases” (see Footnote 25.05). Another member of that group, Jacques Scornaux, provided some further information (see Footnote 25.06): “To my knowledge, there were not many applications of these criteria and, to answer Isaac's question, I know of no catalogue or database routinely applying ths kind of scores. I can confirm that it was not even systematically applied by Figuet to FRANCAT, his French CE catalogue. As, after his death, SCEAU association made a detailed inventory of Figuet's archives, I am able to assure that we found no trace of such a score on FRANCAT index cards”.
Jacques Scornaux has also provided some further observations on the absence of any wider adoption of Figuet’s criteria: “Why were these selection criteria not more widely applied ? Well, it would be useful to have the opinon of other members of the team who developed them (and comprised, as Denys rightly remembers, Denys himself, Franck Boitte, Michel Figuet, Claude Maugé, Thierry Pinvidic and me). One of the reasons is probably that the core members of the team (Denys, Claude, Thierry and me), who all lived in
I note that the additional material in the Italian version of the paper refers to a further catalogue which was being developed in
FOOTNOTES
[25.01] Michel Figuet, “Criteria for selecting the hardest cases and other recent works on french and
[25.02] Michel Figuet, "Catalogue Francat des rencontres rapprochées en
[25.03] Michel Figuet, “Ufo Forum”, n. 8 (October 1997). Available online at:
http://www.arpnet.it/ufo/f8figuet.htm
[25.04] The Italian version of Michel Figuet’s paper includes references in relation to this point which do not appear to have been included in the English version of that paper. The material cited by Michel Figuet includes the following articles in English : (a) Claude Mauge, “Questioning the ‘real’ Phenomenon, Magonia No 13th, 1983; (b) Michel Monnerie, The Case for Skepticism, in Hilary Evans e J. Evans and JohnSpencer, UFOs: 1947-1987 , Fortean Tomes 1987; Spencer’s book “UFOs: 1947-1987”, Fortean Tomes 1987- Michel Monnerie, The case for skepticism ,; (c) - Jacques Scornaux, The rising and limits of a doubt , Magonia n.Jacques Scornaux, The Rising and limits of a doubt, Magonia No 15, 1984; 15, 1984.
[25.05] Email from Denis Breysse to Isaac Koi,
[25.06] Email from Jacques Scornaux to Isaac Koi,
[25.07] Email from Claude Mauge to Isaac Koi,
[25.08] TO BE OBTAINED AND TRANSLATED - D. De Tarragon, LDLN 271-72 (P. 4).
[25.09] NOT OBTAINED - Blay, Bosch, Dupuy and Chasseigne, LDLN No 148, 1975; M. 148, 1975
[25.10] NOT OBTAINED - Joël Mesnard and Rene Fouéré, Phénomènes spatiaux No 18, 1968; Fernand Lagarde e il gruppo LDLN, Mystérieuses Soucoupes Volantes , Albatros 1973; M. 18, 1968.5Joël Mesnard e René Fouéré, Phénomènes Spatiaux ,