In my experiences of discussions relating to the case of Cussac in 1967, it occurred several times that when I discussed a particular point, it was argued that I should discuss some other point(s). I want to specify that what follows is neither a demonstration that the object allegedly seen was or was not an helicopter or an alien spaceship or whatever else, and that the following is not an act allegiance to any work or writings of anybody, neither a study of the exactitude of the distances between some stone wall and some UFO, neither an investigation into the case, nor a statement on the value or solidity of the case.
The items discussed here are in no manner a declaration infallibility of my share, they are not claimed to be "scientific", I never introduced myself as "a scientist" nor an "expert" about anything, I am not the puppet of anybody. I do not claim objectivity, I only claim I try to be. I will make note of any remark, correction, addition, comment, under the sine qua non condition that it contains no insults, nothing discourteous, nothing irrelevant, and no questioning of my intents.
This page cannot be understood without first reading that one.
The claim is:
"In August 2004, no known and accessible image indicated the alleged location of the sphere and the figures compared to the line of trees."
Source:
This claim is made by David Rossoni, (in French), under the pseudonym "DAR", on a web forum, it is dated April 23 2008, and is readable as of April 26, 2008 at http://ufo-logic.xooit.com/t462-CUSSAC.htm?start=60
David Rossoni is the co-author, with Eric Déguillaume and Eric Maillot, of a book entitled "Les OVNI du CNES", which can be bought at
http://www.book-e-book.com/index.asp?fx=2&p_id=125
abd can be read online freely as a preliminary version at
http://www.observatoire-zetetique.org/page/dossier.php?ecrit=2&ecritId=37&PHPSESSID=036209dc3069574053f1829e580ce635
Before debunking the claim, a certain number of manipulations appearing in this message with the claim, I want to shortly comment on those:
The violence of the remarks, the incivility, the attack of intentions, all this is useless, this is only diversion these people use when they run out of decent arguments...
David Rossoni thus claims that at the time of his visit of the site, "no known and accessible image indicated the alleged location of the sphere and the characters compared to the line of trees."
But right after, in the same text he declares that: "When we visited the site, Claude Poher had just published online the previous month certain data which he said to be directly from the 1978 report: he gave a hedge at 80 m of the observers, characters 'from 80 to 82 meters' but also a variation between the latter and the hedge supposedly from 8 to 10 meters, which logically pushed back them to 90 m approximately... Hard to position precisely with such data..."
so everyone can see the admission. It is not any more that no data was not available, but something else: the admission that the visitors of the site had the data, but considered them incomprehensible, unusable.
But they were not unusable at all. The distance witness-object was given, and object-road outdistances was given, David Rossoni recognizes it itself in its message!
"He [Claude Poher] gave a hedge apart 80 m of the observers, characters " with 80 to 82 m " but also a variation between the latter and the hedge supposedly from 8 to 10 meters, which logically pushed back them to 90 m approximately... "
David Rossoni thus himself indicates that it knew perfectly at the time of the visit that neither the pled characters nor the pled object were at 50 meters of the witnesses but "at 90 meters approximately", and for the distance to the road, David Rossoni also himself indicates that the character photographed had initially placed himself at the distance indicated by Claude Poher, which he knew:
"The experimenter initially placed himself at about thirty meters of the road, as indicated by Claude Poher..."
This is enough to ruin the claim that the data were not available, and to ruin the claim that the "unavailable" data were not "useable".
So David Rossoni thus declares - thus admitting that it was not the good location - that if the photograph on which the reader is supposed to note that the distance of 50 meters (false, as I proved) does not make it possible to see details of the character, without counting to the image of alleged reconstitution of the helicopter as seen 50 meters, which is obviously false as I had shown, if this photo were taken there rather than here, it was because there, one did not see between the trees.
This is again an error of methodology. It is not because an effective site is no more usable that it becomes excusable to allegedly make a "telling" reconstitution on the case with an indication of distance that becomes misleading. It is enough to take another site, to specify to the reader that it is not the actual site but and equivalent, and not to tell the reader about 50 meters when it is not really 50 meters!
The first error was to let the reader think that the occupants and the object were where their photography claimed to show. It was not true and it still is not true.
The second error was to induce the reader to assume then think, by an unfortunate formulation, as explained in my article, that the distance between the camera and the silhouette is 50 meters. It was not true and it still is not true.
The third error is to believe valid to challenge readers "to see details" on an image drawn from a photograph, as "demonstration" that it is not possible in reality, to mislead the reader on the case with these images. That error will be shown and explained in one of my next articles, and a methodology will be proposed. David Rossoni might want to claim then that I "recuscitate again the Cussac case". How clever: if I answer, I am wrong, if I don't answer, I am wrong too. It was not true and it still is not true!
The fourth error is to claim that the data were not available at the time of the visit, whereas they were, visitors had them, they even used them; this I proved here thanks to David Rossoni contradicting himself.
The fifth error is to try to make believe that the data which were thus available after all were unusable, by claiming "Difficult to position precisely with such data...", while recognizing simultaneously that: "the experimenter initially placed himself at about thirty meters of the road, as reported by Claude Poher", in other words, this positioning was perfectly possible, it was even carried out, and it is not because this positioning could not be made that it was given up, but because at this correct place, vegetation had grown!
I see that none of these errors was admitted so far.
| Version: | Created/changed by: | Date: | Description: |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Patrick Gross | April 24, 2008 | Creation. |
| 1.0 | Patrick Gross | April 24, 2008 | First publication. |
| Date: | From: | Content: | Response: |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 24, 2008 | First publication. | ||
| - | - | - | - |
