Ingrédients du mythe OVNI

I've been examining why some UFO cases are forgotten, while others attain legendary status. Some of it lies in the novelty of the event, or the credibility of the witness. For a story to become legend, I believe it needs a minimum of the following elements:

Characters
The UFO- the unknown, something strange, perhaps threatening
The Witness- the "victim", helpless innocent trying to tell the truth
The Officials- the "villain" hiding the truth
The UFO investigator- the "hero" fighting for the truth

Plot
1) A reputable person reports a sighting of something with an unusual appearance, characteristics or behavior, and a distinguishing feature that sets it apart from other cases ( sometimes evidence).
2) An official investigation is launched (sometimes military, often clandestinely)
3) There is a Cover-Up, which may involve:
Witnesses are discouraged from speaking about it (if they do they are discredited)
Cover story or officials explain the sighting has an ordinary cause
Evidence is withheld (or stolen, hidden confiscated, destroyed etc.)
4) UFO investigators heroically produce new information that contests the official denial and cover-up.

This general framework fits most famous UFO stories. Have I left out any necessary ingredients?

Google thinks I said:

J'ai examine pourquoi certains cas d'ovnis sont oubliées, tandis que d'autres obtiennent le statut légendaire. Certaines d'entre elles réside dans la nouveauté de l'événement, ou la crédibilité du témoin. Pour une histoire de devenir la légende, je crois qu'il a besoin d'un minimum les éléments suivants:

caractères
L'OVNI de l'inconnu, quelque chose d'étrange, peut-être menaçant
Essayant Le témoin-la «victime», impuissant innocent de dire la vérité
Les fonctionnaires-le "méchant" cacher la vérité
L'enquêteur l'OVNI combats "héros" de la vérité

terrain
1) Une personne de bonne réputation rapporte une observation de quelque chose avec un aspect peu, les caractéristiques ou le comportement, et une caractéristique qui le distingue des autres cas (parfois preuve).
2) Une enquête officielle est lancée (parfois militaires, souvent clandestinement)
3) Il ya un cover-up, ce qui peut impliquer:
Les témoins sont dissuadés d'en parler (si elles le font, ils sont discrédités)
Couvrir histoire ou fonctionnaires expliquer l'observation a une cause ordinaire
La preuve est retenu (ou volé, caché confisqués, détruits, etc)
4) ufologues produisent héroïquement nouvelles informations qui conteste le refus officiel et cover-up.

Ce cadre général s'inscrit plus célèbres histoires d'OVNIS. Ai-je oublié des ingrédients nécessaires?

Hello Sentry,

This general framework fits most famous UFO stories. Have I left out any necessary ingredients?

Dunno, maybe the mediatization or not of some cases, but well.
You say:

The UFO investigator- the "hero" fighting for the truth

J'aime beaucoup ce passage de l'ouvrage de Saler, Ziegler & Moore, qui me vient suite à ta remarque :

The central motif of the Roswell Myth is that a malevolent monster (The Government) has sequestered an item essential to humankind (wisdom of transcendental nature,i.e., evidence-based knowledge that we are not alone in the Universe). The culture hero (the ufologist) circumvents the monster and (by investigatory prowess) releases the essential item (wisdom) for Humankind.

Charles Ziegler (Analysis Of The Roswell Myth).
Gilles

Gilles, je vous remercie pour vos commentaires. Vous êtes tout à fait raison sur les médias, aucun cas devient célèbre sans un soupçon de publicité.

J'ai lu la "Crash OVNI" livre, et mon souvenir sans doute aidé à façonner mes pensées actuelles. J'étais plus intéressé à savoir comment ils ont analysé comment la légende Roswell changé, semblant s'adapter aux besoins de l'auditoire.

Mon idée derrière ce complot mythe, c'est que quand un événement, devient une «histoire d'OVNI" il est grevée d'éléments mythologiques qui peuvent ne pas être factuel-ce qui empêche la résolution de l'affaire. Je suis certain que ce qui s'est passé dans le cas Cash-Landrum 1980. Une fois qu'il est devenu un cas d'OVNI, tout ce bagage était attaché sur, écrasant tout ce que la vérité dessous.

"Yes" and in my opinion, Sentry. Pardon my English, but :

Concerning the "mediatization", I like to remember people that the "famous" Mansfield UFO case or the "Coyne-Helicopter/UFO Incident" becomed an iconic case (only?) because the panel of the National Enquirer newspaper (tabloid ? ^^) rewarded it and the crew, as then promotionned it (they gained a reward, 5000 dollars in my memories). Isaac Koi have well documented this saga in a topic in "Above TOP Secret" forum, dont find the link for the moment (But I have a discussion about in French in this forum).

Philip Klass interviewed Coyne BEFORE the mediatization and Robert Sheaffer released the archives of P. Klass. The interview is available here:
http://www.debunker.com/historical/PJK_Coyne1976.pdf (as others too directly in Robert's blog : http://badufos.blogspot.fr/2011/12/new-historical-ufo-documents-klass.html

That's interresting imho, because in this interview, done before the mediatization and the "prize", Major Coyne seems to agree with the meteor explanation :
COYNE:
"Well,that would sound like a logical explanation.
KLASS:
"I'm not trying to convince you or deprive you of your sighting.".
COYNE:
"No,it sounds good."

After the mediatization, I dont remember Coyne stating/presenting/agreeing about the meteor. It remains among the strong "evidences" of an strange encounter (for the Public and in the UFO microcosm) a "green illumination of the cokpit" (which imho doesn't minimize the meteor explanation, because the glass of the cockpit was... green tainted), the radio failure (but in my knowledge, a flight to test the radio was made after, and it was demonstrated the radio aboard CANT operate at such low altitude to contact airport(s)), the compass incident (but in my knowledge, the compass was already and before the incident noticed as sometimes "bad" or "mad" fonctionning and it was not possible to examine it), and so on.

Professor Meessen used the compass episode in one document he made to "proove" or "to promote" the MHD propulsion of UFO BTW... But never mention the previous malfonction(s) of the compass testimoned by some...

So, I think when ufologists "interact" with witness, the witness is implicated in a sort of "game", "Roman à deux" like "folie à deux" mecanisms, (contamination, suggestibility) which it is very difficult to come back from, as, the "agnostic" or skeptic investigators have difficulties to obtain the good dataes, or not available, or absent in the pro HET community. The embelissements gain the tale.

//ly, what we are discussing is maybe closed to the notion of retrospective falsification cued by D. H. Rawcliffe, which, in my "speciality" - Roswell - seems important, or a variable to examine or to take into account in the equation of several UFO cases. But ufologists dont care about such possible "cognitive" factors imho, and without offense to them:

the process of telling a story that is factual to some extent, but which gets distorted and falsified over time by retelling it with embellishments. The embellishments may include speculations, conflating events that occurred at different times or in different places, and the incorporation of material without regard for accuracy or plausibility. The overriding force that drives the story is to find or invent details that fit with a desired outcome. The process can be conscious or unconscious. The original story gets remodeled with favorable points being emphasized and unfavorable ones being dropped. The distorted and false version becomes a memory and record of a remarkable tale.

http://skepdic.com/retfalse.html

I like it! Or at least, I find it "pertinent" for our matter, ufology.
Gilles

I found your framework of a typical "good" UFO story very well defined, Sentry.

Gilles, thank you for your excellent comments. I can think of many examples of this memory falsification in my own experience. The brain hates a vacuum- when there is information missing, it fills in the details as best it can.

Your comments about investigators influencing the witnesses is an important factor. This morning,I was looking at UFO reporting forms from MUFON and others for ideas on my UFO myth ingredient list. The reporting forms ask for information that might cause a witness to "reach" and describe more than they actually saw.

I once gave chase to a man I assumed was a purse snatcher in a shopping center parking lot. He jumped into a car and sped away. It turns out, he'd robbed the bank around the corner, and I was questioned by the FBI. They asked me questions about matters I had no certainty of. Apparently, he was carrying a knife, the car was damaged, and what made me give chase, etc. In the excitement I couldn't describe the man or the vehicle very well, and I felt pressure to provide them with details I just didn't have. The man was caught almost immediately and there was a follow-up interview with me. I was shown a picture of the vehicle to identify, but I couldn't say for sure that it was the one. The investigators seemed satisfied that it was the one, and my not eliminating it was enough for them. The robber confessed, so luckily, I didn't have to testify in a trial- my bad eyewitness report might have helped him go free! With continued questioning, I really don't know what I might have said to fill in the gaps, especially after seeing the picture of the car, which even now is more vivid than my memory of the car.

sentry579 a écrit:
The UFO- the unknown, something strange, perhaps threatening
The Witness- the "victim", helpless innocent trying to tell the truth
The Officials- the "villain" hiding the truth
The UFO investigator- the "hero" fighting for the truth


Ce cadre général s'inscrit plus célèbres histoires d'OVNIS. Ai-je oublié des ingrédients nécessaires?

Hello Sentry,

My 2 cents for your frames: when I am thinking about roswell, all the components, you're mentionning, are there. If Friedman and Berlitz had not written their book, the Roswell myth would not have been the same. Perhaps, the historical context:exempli gratia, Roswell is in 1947, the beginning of modern ufology. 1978, Friedman's and Berlitz' book.

Mon avis: vous n'avez rien oublié. Ça me fait penser à Roswell. Si Friedman et Berlitz n'avaient pas écrit leur livre, le mythe de Roswell n'aurait pas été celui que nous aurions maintenant. On pourrait y ajouter le contexte historique: exempli gratia, Roswell se déroule en 1947, au début de l'âge d'or de l'ufologie et en 1978, la publication du livre de Friedman et de Berlitz.

J'appuis sentry 579 avec mon témoignage récent posté ici:
https://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t841p105-sceptiques-vs-temoins#68309

Ça vient de se passer à l'instant :
On sonne:
"Bonjour on est des orphelins de pompiers et on vend des billets de tombola"

Comme un con je donne accès à l'immeuble (comme quoi certaines choses marchent toujours). D'emblée j'entends une porte claquer, ok il fait beau tout le monde à ouvert partout, puis une seconde...

Le temps que je sorte sur le pallier je vois deux gamins qui ne présentent ni carte ni rien, ok, je referme: de nouveau une porte qui claque !
Là je me dis c'est des coups de pieds dans les portes pour les ouvrir, j’appelle les flics ils choppent les gamins.

Le truc c'st que je les ais vus plusieurs secondes sur le pallier, je fais une description très bonne puisqu'ils les choppent dans le bloc d'à coté et que du balcon je vois tout, sauf que celui que j'ai décris en sweet-shirt gris est en fait en sweet-shirt vert et un bon vert ça ne laisse pas de doute, et que je dis au flic "sweet-shirt gris j'en suis sur", et il n'a pas de rechange avec lui ni rien ...
Il s'est passé environ 8 minutes entre les deux.

Personne n'est infaïble, même si on se pense entrainné.

Your comments about investigators influencing the witnesses is an important factor. This morning,I was looking at UFO reporting forms from MUFON and others for ideas on my UFO myth ingredient list. The reporting forms ask for information that might cause a witness to "reach" and describe more than they actually saw.

Hoo yes. I'm a militant for a moment of the cognitive interview to be used in the field of ufology (i.e. in my humble 2010 book).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_interview
There is a thread in French here too : https://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t2932-l-entretien-cognitif

Forced choice questions, verbal reinforcement(s)/reward(s) by the investigator (consciously or not) is a "misery" for the search of the "true" regarding UFO cases imho (or in another fields, like "criminology")...
We are mixting several ufology aspects/topics regarding ufology (or I'm in a brainstorming!), but here, in this little forum, we have pointed possible or evident "bias" and "artefacts" in famous J. Mack method of witness interviews and more, with children. That's awesome how J. Mack is processing and how he could influence the witnesses by " very bad" interview methodology/protocole.
https://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t1121-ariel-school-zimbabwe-1994-que-pensez-vous-de-cette-video

Concerning your own experience you shared, and regarding testimony in general, as Nemrod said below, even if such thematics are interresting me/us, I would be probably the badest witness of the world, because I "know" and I'm immersed with such memory problem and know how a little detail the "police" will take, as true, could decide for the destiny of one my contemporan...
If a day, I will be part of a Jury, in a Penal court (or like), as witness, erf...

This may not belong here, but...

I just watched an interesting documentary last night, The Woman who Wasn't There. Here's a news story on the book and movie
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-20/entertainment/35451891_1_wtc-survivors-true-story-fellow-survivors#

This woman's fabrication not only fooled a lot of people, she touched them emotionally with her tragic story, her heroism and her activism for survivors. Many people are perplexed when a "victim" has their story exposed, and they ask "why would someone lie about that?". In this case, which is so well documented, it seems to be for the attention received.

Phil Klass may have been right, a hoax is a way for an insignificant person to enter the spotlight. Watching this film, I couldn't help but think of a number of UFO cases involving "victims".

Find this film, just to watch a master hoaxer at work.

Un peu plus près du sujet,
J'ai remarqué deux manières que «biais de confirmation» peut avoir une incidence sur les cas d'OVNI.
D'abord, il peut provoquer un enquêteur pour mettre confiance, même dans le plus fragile des preuves à l'appui. Lorsqu'il est couplé avec les détails de l'affaire, un enquêteur convaincante peut faire ce château de cartes semble comme l'acier.

Deuxièmement, il peut presque fonctionner en sens inverse. Quand l'affaire a pris de détail et de complexité au fil du temps, une personne qui examine les premiers comptes a une période très difficile dépouiller les embellissements ultérieurs. Cela provoque les données doivent être interprétées intégrant les apocryphes et de ne pas être en mesure de juger les données originales sur son mérite sur.

Yep.
I think imho, some UFO researchers could be biased in the search processing itself (or not) for information, before to discover/study a case itself and to see then confirmation bias interpretation (this time) processing (or not).

I mean by that or want to enlight that, before any information really at disposal, they could ask oriented/phrased questions to witness that are, in fact, already connoted with their own belief.
"Still" expecting a positive answer then. We call such questions "positive test" in cognitive psychology.
I noticed it, at least, in one "recent" interview protocole done by a member of the Roswell DreamTeam.

Cognitive Psychology have demonstrated (among others numerous results) how the phrased/phrasing of a question can influence the answer.

So, confirmation bias must be controled, at least, a) in searching the information, b) in interpretating the information. But not only.

Despite you success or you trie to control/standardize your interview protocole to minimize such "artefacts" in your methodology, another stage could happen where "confirmation bias" processings could interfere: c) In memory processing: to remember only the informations/dataes supporting your belief (sort of selective memory here).
That's why it is important (imho) to have the interview in extenso, and not some or only quotes, etc.).

Interview is a serious business...

Gilles

Je signale un texte de S. Novella qui appuie sans doute notre discussion. Il m'avait, entre autres, inspiré, pour l'introduction de mon livre et son "sac à dos".

(Sentry, you will find in this text from S. Novella some "cues" supporting (imho) our discussion. It inspired, among others, the introduction of my book, where "I" proposed or summerized some "tips" I used in my own approach/methodology when I decided to "examine" the Roswell affair, and more generaly, "tips" intended to minimize some biases. I think it is a pertinent article, a little short (but they are others).

Extract:

First, the confuse unexplained with unexplainable. This leads them to prematurely declare something a true anomaly, without first exhaustively trying to explain it with conventional means. Second they use the argument from ignorance, saying that because we cannot explain an anomaly that means their specific pet theory must be true. I don’t know what that fuzzy obect in the sky is – therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting/

Gilles

Gilles F. a écrit:Je signale un texte de S. Novella qui appuie sans doute notre discussion. Il m'avait, entre autres, inspiré, pour l'introduction de mon livre et son "sac à dos".

Ah ces aphorismes lapidaires:
Antiquité: ce que je sais, c'est que je ne sais rien
17ème siècle: je pense donc je suis
(raisonnement complet:
Je ne sais pas, je sais que je ne sais pas donc je pense, je pense donc je suis.
Donc les terriens existent)
21ème siècle: I don't know, therefore aliens
(raisonnement moderne:
Je ne sais pas, donc les ET existent)
C'est beau le progrès! :(MRDgreen):

Peut-être le mythe n'est pas le mot. Merriam Webster définit parabole:
"a généralement court récit fictif qui illustre une attitude morale ou d'un principe religieux"

Quand certaines histoires d'OVNIS sont exposés comme des faux, le "principe religieux" sélectionnée dans le conte peut encore être incorporé dans le système de croyance, becuse il se sent vrai.

sentry579 a écrit: becuse il se sent vrai.

Because it feels right?

Sometimes Google mangles the translation so much that it is harder for us to understand what you meant, so please post the English version.

One important factor to the acceptance of a UFO story is how much it conforms to the expectations of the believers.

Quite often the narrative includes "must have" elements even when actually they are interpretations and deformations, not present in the original testimony.

Most importantly:
- the witness is "credible" (anyone who does not seem to be totally insane is "credible")
- the object resembles a classic UFO shape or is perceived as a craft (saucer with dome or cigar with windows, 3 lights = triangle, more = mothership, etc.)
- there are occupants or the behavior is "intelligent" (anything perceived as unusual may be deemed to be intelligent).

Optionally:
- physical effects : EM, car stalls, or radioactive traces (include normal background radiation)
- missing time or "Oz factor" (Jenny Randles)
etc.

---

Un facteur important dans l'acceptation d'une histoire d'ovni est le degré de conformité aux attentes des croyants.

Très souvent le narratif inclut des éléments incontournables même si ce ne sont que des interprétation et déformations, et on ne les trouve pas dans le témoignage initial.

Les éléments les plus importants :
- le témoin est "crédible" (n'importe qui, qui ne semble pas complètement cinglé est "crédible")
- l'objet ressemble à une forme classique d'ovni ou est perçu comme un engin (soucoupe à dôme ou cigare avec fenêtres, 3 lumières = triangle, plus = vaisseau-mère, etc.)
- il y a des occupants ou le comportement est "intelligent" (tout ce qui est inhabituel peut être interprété comme étant intelligent).

Optionnel :
- effets physiques : EM, voiture qui cale, ou traces de radiation (ce qui inclut le rayonnement de fond normal)
- temps manquant ou "facteur Oz" (Jenny Randles)
etc.

"feels right" accurately translated. You hit it right, I was describing a believer's acceptance of a story that reaffirmed their dogma.

Curtis Peebles does a great job of describing the construction of the myth and its evolution in his book "Watch the Skies!". All the building blocks are meticulously listed at the end of each chapter.

--

Curtis Peebles fait un excellent travail de description de l'élaboration du mythe et de son évolution dans son livre "Watch the Skies!". Tous les éléments de construction sont listés méticuleusement à la fin de chaque chapitre.

"Watch the Skies!" is a favorite, and one I must re-examine.
Somewhere (probably Peebles) I read a statement to the effect that if something is proven to be a hoax, the idea is introduced and spread through the network, when the vehicle that introduced the concept crumbles, it is no longer important. The concept is cemented in the canon and other anecdotal evidence can be found to support it.

Do you recall such a specific comment?

Thanks you for your comments.
---
"Watch the Skies!" est un favori, et que je dois revoir.
Quelque part (probablement Peebles) J'ai lu une déclaration à l'effet que si quelque chose est avéré être un canular, l'idée est introduit et se propage à travers le réseau, lorsque le véhicule qui a introduit le concept s'écroule, il n'a plus d'importance. Le concept est cimenté dans le canon et d'autres preuves anecdotiques peuvent être trouvées à l'appui.

Vous souvenez-vous d'un tel commentaire spécifique?

Merci à vous pour vos commentaires.

sentry579 a écrit:Do you recall such a specific comment?

No but it is true that discredited elements tend to re-surface later: for example UFO crashes and telepathic aliens were recycled long after the first crash stories and contactee yarns were forgotten.

---

Non mais il est vrai que des éléments discrédités ont tendance à refaire surface plus tard, par exemple les crashs d'ovnis et les ET télépathes ont été recyclés longtemps après que les premières histoires de crashs et de contactés ont été oubliées.

Do you recall such a specific comment?

I read it a long times ago, don't remember But I think there was a chapter in the Peebles's book, titled "network" or "networks" (?). Maybe inside?

Regarding Peebles, I liked in the past a Magonia article where he discussed "an analogy" statement made by S. Friedman between crashed saucers and captured aircrafts by the USAF.
He pointed too in this article, UFO, myth and reality, with a particular example (MIG-21 recovery) in the "MiG History vs. Roswell Mythology" section of this article.
http://magonia.haaan.com/2010/the-roswell-incident-yf110-and-constant-peg-curtis-peebles/

After scouring the Peebles book, I've come up dry on the quote- maybe it was another skeptical volume instead. The Peebles article Gilles cited is a good one- here's another, relating to investigating crashes with Peter Merlin:
http://magonia.haaan.com/2010/zel/

Getting back to myths, I've been examining just how stories such as UFO legends are born. Usually they seem to have some tiny core of truth deep within. One thing that plays a big factor is the witness relates how events made him feel, rather than what literally happened. The original event is just not much of a story on its own. Often that core of truth is just a tiny ember and cannot thrive without the addition of some hot air.
--------

Après avoir écumé le livre Peebles, je suis venu à sec sur le devis, c'était peut-être un autre volume sceptique place. Le Peebles article Gilles cité est une bonne chose-là est une autre, relative à l'enquête des accidents avec Peter Merlin:
http://magonia.haaan.com/2010/zel/

Pour en revenir aux mythes, j'ai examine à quel point les histoires telles que les légendes d'ovnis sont nées. Habituellement, ils semblent y avoir un certain petit noyau de vérité au plus profond. Une chose qui joue un grand facteur est le témoin raconte comment les événements firent sentir, plutôt que ce qui s'est passé littéralement. L'événement d'origine n'est tout simplement pas une bonne histoire en soi. Souvent le noyau de vérité est une petite braise qui ne peut pas prospérer sans l'ajout d'air chaud.

sentry579 a écrit:Getting back to myths, I've been examining just how stories such as UFO legends are born. Usually they seem to have some tiny core of truth deep within.

Yes, also a huge mythical construction does not exclude real physical and psychological phenomena. Some believers take exception to the "myth" term, they should not. A myth is a sociocultural construct, the psychological and physical aspects are linked but separate.

--

Oui, aussi une énorme fabrication de mythes n'exclut pas des phénomènes physiques et psychologiques réels. Certains croyants s'offusquent du terme "mythe", ils ne devraient pas. Un mythe est une construction socioculturelle, les aspects psychologiques et physiques sont liés mais distincts.

Il ne faut pas s'offusquer du terme "mythe" ici, en effet.
J'aime beaucoup une définition de mythe quand cela s'adresse à l'ufologie ou un cas ufologique "marquant", que l'on trouve dans le livre de Saler, Ziegler & Moore (UFO Crash at Roswell: The genesis of a modern myth), p.34:

A tale that is not treated as factual in the annals of our society but is avowedly believed to be true by many of its members (the UFO community) and that's deal with a transcendantal issue (the knowledge that, as intelligent beeings, we are not alone in the universe).

That's reductionnism by me, because Ziegler develops/defines more than this, the Myth term.

I put up a chart at my blog examining how a mysterious event (anything from crime to UFO) can be transformed into a distorted, exaggerated story with inaccurate or fictional elements.
I've tried to include some of the suggestions given in this discussion- thank you!
How an Unexplained Event Can Evolve into a Myth

----

J'ai mis en place un tableau sur mon blog examinant comment un événement mystérieux (que ce soit un crime ou un cas OVNI) peut être transformé en une histoire exagérée, déformée avec des éléments inexacts ou fictifs.
J'ai essayé d'inclure certaines des suggestions faites dans cette discussion - merci !
Comment un événement inexpliqué peut se transformer en un mythe