REFUTATION OF TWO NIHILIST CRITICISM
By Yann Vadnais
This article responds to the criticisms expressed by Patrice SERAY and Raoul ROBE on the blog UFO-THE KNOWLEDGE about my lecture presented at the international symposium entitled Workshop « CAIPAN 2 », organized by the National Center for Space Studies (CNES/GEIPAN), which took place in Toulouse (France) the 13-14 October 2022. These criticisms are frankly misplaced, because non objectives (none of the main points of my lecture are adequately picked up) and entirely depreciative (which shows that we are not dealing with impartial researchers, neither respectful).
To give you an overall idea of my communication and the original contributions that I made to this prestigious meeting of international ovniologists, consult this article which explains some of the content presented.
The title is : “The next steps to consolidate rigorous research in ovniology” :
“There was the intervention of GARPAN, Canadian organization represented by Yann VADNAIS. It is in my opinion, this intervention which seemed to me unclear. I and others, did not fully understand the relevance of his presentation. I had the impression of attending a self-congratulationn a rrule with repeated publicity stunts. Curiosity was with me to hear that at Garpan more than 90% cases remain unexplained ! Let's move on... »
I specify that I was invited to the CAIPAN 2 as president of the learned societySIÉTO (which represents 25 members from five countries) and that I felt a responsibility to represent Canadian UFO science as a whole.
As I was the youngest participant (40 years) and that I came from abroad, it was quite normal that I begin by briefly summarizing my achievements in ovniology, because I had to justify the ambitious proposals that I was about to state in the rest of my conference. To avoid self-promotion, I took the trouble to showin parallel— based on the example of my background — aunique design, namely the“six levels of activity” in ovniology :
But Patrice SERAY prefers to ignore all the significant ideas of my communication to limit himself to imprecise axiological judgments.
It is improper to imply : "I had the impression of attending a self-congratulation in good standing with repeated publicity stunts. » En effet, I specifically said, following the highlighting of my work : "Don't think I'm summarizing my accomplishments to brag : none of what I have accomplished would have been possible without my predecessors in the Canadian tradition ».
However, Patrice SERAY delights in being smart and ironic :
«Curiosity was with me to hear that at Garpan more than 90% cases remain unexplained ! » (?)
It's wrong. Once again, how can you be so mean ? — Allow me to respond to this serious inaccuracy :
During the question period, I was askedhow many cases of UFOs and humanoids treated by the GARPAN have been resolved ? I answered : « Environ 1 case on 8 or 9 have been resolved in GARPAN. ». Which means 11.1-12.5 % cases of GARPAN are classified"A = Identified" according to the evaluation method in use at GEIPAN/CNES.
(In the aftermath, I realized that I should have declined any questions that stray from the main points of my presentation (15 minutes) in order to benefit from the question period (five minutes) to reiterate my contributions to the symposium.)
Second, I made it very clear that : “However, it must be taken into account that many UFO cases received do not have enough precise data to be investigated exhaustively or to reach a convincing conclusion. : so they are classified« C = Cas inanalysable », according to the evaluation in use at GEIPAN”. I estimate that approximately 35% reports received at GARPAN must unfortunately be placed in the category« C = Cas inanalysable » (lack of data).
The length of the question period did not allow me to elaborate extensively, but it is obvious that it is especially necessary to take into account the category« B = Phenomenon probably identified». I assess that 20% cases treated by the GARPAN fall under this category. Thus, if I estimate that a case on 8-9 are “A = Identified”, it's that I'm not pretentious but realistic : I consider a case« A = Identified must beperfectly demonstrated, and not simply subjectively solved… Many UFO cases — which I put in the category “B = Probably identified” — could possibly be moved to the category« A = Identified », with many additional investigative efforts in order to deploy sufficient arguments and write the investigation file... But, what's the point ? When an investigator is confident that a case is “B = Probably identified”, why would he waste time wanting to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the case is solved ? (if he is a volunteer). As a researcher in ovniology, I am interested in the anthropological phenomena associated with UFO sightings (as professed in my lecture), but when it comes time to get interested in the most off-putting UFO cases, the most enigmatic, rather these are the cases« D = Unexplained » that motivate us in our research and that we try to explain, or to explain the mystery that remains despite investigations and explanatory hypotheses.
In sum, I consider that the450 reports of UFOs of GARPAN are distributed (approximately) so :
- Cas A = I explained 12 %
- Case B = Probably explained 20 %
- Cas C = Inanalysable 35 %
- Case D = Unexplained 33%
While Patrice SERAY insinuates that I would have said that« 90 % » cases treated by the GARPAN were"unexplained" (?), — which would be absurd… —, the proportion is rather of the order of 1/3. Note that the cases« D = Unexplained » are subdivided into two :
- Case D1 = Unexplained with auxiliary evidence(s) weak(s) 28-30 %
- Case D2 = Unexplained with strong auxiliary evidence 3-5 %.
Thus the proportion of unexplained cases of first quality treated with GARPAN is approximately 1 on 20, either less than 5 %.
1b) The comment added by Patrice Seray on 30 October 2022 :
« (Attention, These are personal opinions below.. In no case the speakers who express themselves do so in the name of an associative structure. I specify this point because I was obliged to modify this post which was intended to be informative. This follows the remarks of a speaker at CAIPAN. II who did not appreciate a slight criticism about hisintervention.The fact that the author of the service concerned makes a donation to an association should not, however, weigh in any way on a personal opinion and even less cause the latter to be withdrawn.. Ufology drains curious people with implausible anti-democratic behavior. So please take note of what I have just written here in green and do not mix things up and stop all drama). »
The speaker in question is of course myself. (Yann VADNAIS). I therefore feeljustified in responding publicly to this kind of tortuous maneuvers far below the professionalism commonly found in academic spheres. First, because it is aberrant to insinuate : «The fact that the author of the service concerned makes a donation to an association should not, however, weigh in any way on a personal opinion and even less cause the latter to be withdrawn.» (?)
I specify that I did not ask to withdraw the criticism of Raoul ROBE.
Patrice SERAY describes Raoul ROBE's post as"light criticism" (?) ; I let you judge for yourselves :
« Presentation by Y.Vadnais Quebec: very disappointing, anything, years of ufology 70, his table of the types of phenomena is to be reviewed (ex: the VCC sont class in the NAP AND, while it has a hypnopompic dream section below !) »
Do you agree with Patrice SERAY in qualifying this criticism as"light criticism" ? Especially considering that I have traveled 12 000 km (round trip) at my expense to participate in the symposium« Atelier CAIPAN 2» with the objective of presenting several contributions worthy of interest for the development of ovniological studies and which my most rigorous colleagues encouraged me to present.
On the contrary, this criticism of Raoul ROBE is not objective since it does not adequately identify any of the substantial elements of my contribution (read the article summarizing my presentation) in addition to being entirely derogatory.
Patrice SERAY finally adds insult to injury by caricaturing me in this grotesque way :
«Ufology drains curious people with implausible anti-democratic behavior. » (?)
definitely, some listeners simply took nothing away from my lecture : I defended that it is essential to put an end to the dissensions conditioned by divergent approaches and that it is urgent to raise the standards of interdisciplinary collaboration in order to subscribe to the imperatives of the third stage of the development of ovniology.which will eventually allowadequate recognition of the concrete results and heuristic interests of UFO studies by knowledge institutions.
In conclusion, I invite Messrs. Patrice SERAY and Raoul ROBE to reformulate their criticisms (so that they are intelligible and respectful) for a frank and constructive discussion in which I will willingly agree to bow on the faulty aspects of my work (whose part of it is available for free on Academia.edu). I invite them beforehand to contact me to formulate their questions if they have any in order to avoid incorrectly characterizing the achievements and the objectives of the GARPAN (which is a registered company, and not a association), of the SIÉTO (which is a completely separate association of which I am only one of the elected members) or the different approaches that I practice as a researcher in ovniology (human sciences and narratology of testimonies), whether in investigations, or else in my prosaic works, theoretical or historical.