Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Space Science

France Opens Secret UFO Files 379

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the mulder-and-scully dept.
Radon360 notes that France has become the first country to open its files on UFOs. A new website lists over 1600 sightings dating back to the 1950s. "The online archives, which will be updated as new cases are reported, catalogues in minute detail cases ranging from the easily dismissed to a handful that continue to perplex even hard-nosed scientists. Known as OVNIs in French, UFOs have always generated intense interest along with countless conspiracy theories about secretive government cover-ups of findings deemed too sensitive or alarming for public consumption."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

France Opens Secret UFO Files

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Moi (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:20AM (#18456157)
    pour commencer, c'est un OVNI (objet volant non identifié)
    ou tu peux aussi utiliser "une secoupe volante" (flying saucer)

    et le verbe est "acceuillir"

    comment traduiser le phrase, je ne sais pas, je ne suis francophone non plus donc...
  • by BlueTrin (683373) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:35AM (#18456241) Homepage Journal
    You might want to look at the Drake equation [ufoevidence.org]
  • by teslar (706653) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:57AM (#18456349)

    I will never believe that an advanced race can travel all the way across the inconceivable distance between stars, and be dumb enough to crash.
    I'm with you on the entire alien-free-planet-to-date argument, but you may want to reconsider that particular belief. Travelling distances between stars is a completely different thing from landing on a planet and this includes the mechanics involved. You may be incredibly fast in a vacuum but perhaps you've never encountered Earth-like gravity before or this Nitrogen floating around in the atmosphere so much. Looks harmless enough, but what do you know, it just happens to set the primary coil reactor on fire and corrode the entire fusion circuitboard in a matter of seconds, what an awkward time to find this out. Or maybe you just have no idea to compensate for 10 times the gravitational pull of your own home planet, maybe simply because your landing thrusters have nto been designed with that in mind. Either way, crash boom.

    Basically you assume two things in your belief: (1) familiarity with the Earth environment and experience therein and (2) total absence of mechanical/electrical/whatever failures. Neither is a given.
  • Re:Moi (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kestasjk (933987) * on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:55AM (#18456627) Homepage
    French fries are long and thin, chips (in England) are thicker and shorter.
    Here in Australia you get a strange crossover between British and American English, and so chips can mean either crisps or fries depending on context.
  • by qazsedcft (911254) on Friday March 23, 2007 @07:57AM (#18456639)
    Surprised by the bad translations in the comments, here's a more appropriate one (no, online translation tools are not as good as humans): Je, quant à moi, souhaite la bienvenue à nos nouveaux maîtres OVNIs.

    Yeah, except that in French a subordinate clause right after a personal pronoun is not very grammatical. Quant à moi, je souhaite la bienvenue ... would be more correct. Also, I think O.V.N.I. requires proper punctuation and can't be made plural.
  • by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Friday March 23, 2007 @08:40AM (#18456961) Homepage

    Yeah, except that in French a subordinate clause right after a personal pronoun is not very grammatical. Quant à moi, je souhaite la bienvenue ... would be more correct. Also, I think O.V.N.I. requires proper punctuation and can't be made plural.
    Yeah, except that "quant à moi" is not a subordinate clause, which consists of a subject and a predicate. Also, in English, "grammatical" is an adjective, which usually requires a noun or a pronoun to modify. I do not know the grammatical rules for acronyms, but for what it is worth, the French wikipedia page does not include punctuation and has several instances of OVNI in the plural:

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OVNI/ [wikipedia.org]

    Personally, I would just go for "Pour ma part, je souhaite la bienvenue à nos nouveaux maîtres OVNIs", but I am not a native francophone and my English sucks too.

    Take care,

    -mat

  • Disclosure Project (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23, 2007 @09:45AM (#18457673)
    http://www.disclosureproject.com/ [disclosureproject.com]
  • by mpe (36238) on Friday March 23, 2007 @10:41AM (#18458463)
    And (3) sanity. What you're describing is the equivalent of trying to land on Jupiter in a Cessna. And we have a lot less experience with the Jovian atmosphere than any people capable of intersteller travel would have with rocky planets like the Earth.

    Even if such a species evolved in an environment very different from Earth they'd still know about rocky planets with gas atmospheres because such planets are common.
    Of course any alien from an environment unlike the Earth's surface would probably have to wear some kind of "hostile environment suit" in order to leave their craft. Any alien which could "walk" on the surface of the Earth with minimal or no artifical life support must have originated from a planet similar to the Earth...
  • Gee, Thanks. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Radon360 (951529) on Friday March 23, 2007 @11:22AM (#18459121)

    I didn't realize that submitting a story made me a "twat".

    That's great that you brought the fact that the UK government has released some similar information to the public, long before France had done so. Perhaps the reporter of this article should be labelled a "twat" for not researching the topic further and bringing up that point, or at least not make the bold comment about France being the first.

    Which brings up another point. If you ever have submitted a story to Slashdot, you'd recognize that the editors tend to take quite a bit of liberty on rewriting the story summaries (for better or worse). I didn't "note" anything...the summary was just rewritten to say I did.

  • Re:French Response (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WinterSolstice (223271) on Friday March 23, 2007 @02:13PM (#18461697)
    I would say the chief factor was Russia switching to the Allied side, but that just my opinion :)
  • Re:French Response (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Castar (67188) on Friday March 23, 2007 @02:13PM (#18461717)
    Yeah, OK. So France in WWII brings up a couple immediate thoughts. First, of course, is the stunningly ineffective defense of the Maginot line - they were fighting the last war. Due to that, there's also the incredibly rapid invasion of the German forces and the subsequent surrender by the French government - an understandable move, when their main defense had just been subverted so entirely.

    However, then there's the second thing that springs to mind: the famous La Resistance movement, that continued fighting an entrenched occupying German force. In some ways, that's a lot more courageous than standing up to an invading enemy toe-to-toe. It's also recognized as a major contributor to the eventual defeat of the Germans - without the French resistance, Hitler would have had a strong base in France when D-Day came about.

    So it's very strange that the first part is the only part that's remembered on the Internet today. Especially since the Resistance was much more an expression of the French national character and less simply a reaction to strategic failure. I'm sure that the French commanders were spoken of unflatteringly, and the Vichy collaborators even more so, but the rest of the world absolutely recognized the French sacrifice and contribution to victory - at least, until relatively modern times.
  • Re:Moi (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jythie (914043) on Friday March 23, 2007 @04:05PM (#18463763)
    Heh. Actually I have heard that British English has actually diverged further then American English... so maybe America needs to take English back to England?
  • Re:French Response (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23, 2007 @05:44PM (#18465219)
    France didn't avoid the war in Iraq because they were afraid to fight, they avoided the war in Iraq because they had spent 20 years supplying Saddam with weapons in exchange for oil rights, and getting rid of Saddam was not in their economic interests.

    Actually, France stopped selling weapons to Saddam way before the US. It is the US (Rumsfeld, in fact) that sold Saddam his chemical weapons to fight the Iranians in the 80's. France had a tiny business with Iraq before this latest war (way, way, way smaller than the US). In fact, they stopped selling them stuff partly because Iraq stopped paying. Iraq owed France loads of money before the invasion (they officially gave up on it since then).
  • As above. . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Friday March 23, 2007 @06:02PM (#18465445)
    Anyone advanced enough to develop interstellar travel would probably be smart enough to come up with better plans than our politicians; if anything the Earth would be much better regulated than it is now. Then again they would also probably be smart enough not to bother ruling a backward planet filled with suicidal primates bent on taking the world with them.

    You are thinking too human-centric.

    Consider the following possibility. . .

    Aliens exist in a higher state of reality than we can perceive; that is, they are with us right now, all the time. They function and exist in a state where time does not exist for them in the same way it does for us. That is, the thousands of UFO reports are not of nuts and bolts technology, but of bits of reality poking through into ours.

    Second. . . What if these aliens are to us what we are to cows. That they are here to eat us. What if they consume the energy from negative emotions such as fear and pain. This would explain our high population, our constant state of screwed up religion, war and general suffering around the globe. It also explains our media's and our education system's aversion of looking at sciences which would help explain the alien presence. That of being living on the "spirit plane", (so to speak). Of chi and magic in general.

    This explanation, as distasteful as it sounds, nonetheless answers all the puzzles presented to us be the short-sighted Carl Sagans of the world. Sci-fi wants us to think in terms of other humans from space. It doesn't look at the idea that aliens are far more intelligent and have no interest in communicating with us beyond manipulation and control.

    Look at our cattle industry. --We breed an entire race of animals totally controlled for our consumption. Aliens need to eat too.

    As above, so below.


    -FL

  • Intent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad (198284) on Tuesday March 27, 2007 @12:04AM (#18497321)
    Right, first you accuse the parent of being too human centric and then you go and spill your heart out about how suffering and negative emotions are something more than just mechanisms that help humans interact with their environment.

    Negative emotions are certainly tied to behavioral mechanisms, but they nonetheless have an energetic quality. This is not human-centric. It's life-centric. Since aliens are also alive, it's a common denominator which we share with them. Our technology and perceived limits of physical reality are not. The original poster was making a false assumption with regard to this.

    And then you go on to complain about how media and schools have an aversion to science while posting gibberish which flies in the face of every even slightly credible scientific worldview.

    You only think I'm talking gibberish because you happen to be ignorant. Your concept of a 'credible scientific worldview' is limited by the media you watch and the education you received. Circular logic, I know, however it also happens to be correct.

    I could go an and refute every single one of your points in detail, but I bet you are not in it for discussion, judging by your casual dismissal of Carl Sagan.

    You could try, but seeing as you still believe in the orthodox explanation of reality, it means you probably don't know how to challenge conventional thinking and thus have little in the arsenal of your mind beyond the regular canned nonsense most sleepers come pre-installed with. For instance. . . Carl Sagan is an astrophysicist. Why do you believe this gives him any authority in the matter of UFOs? What does stellar chemistry and gravity modeling have to do with understanding alien intent?


    -FL

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...