A 1965 Socorro-like UFO encounter: what can be extrapolated from this report, that might explain what UFOs are?

Copyright 2023, InterAmerica, Inc.

This 1965 UFO event in Valensole, France is one of my favorite (and exciting) UFO accounts, but is it rife for a more intensive scrutiny, in order to find out or explain what UFOs might be?

Two web (internet) sources of the story:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/valensole-ufo.htm 

https://ufoac.com/the-1965-valensole-ufo-encounter.html

The UFOac.com account includes mention of two child-size entities (like that at Socorro) and a craft like the Zamora witnessed ship: egg-shaped.

But the "action" that transpired is considerably different from that experienced by Police Officer Zamora:

After reading the account, as collected by UFO "investigators" and the ensuing reports, what further do you archival proponents suggest can be culled from the data (information) provided that will explain or lead "researchers" to a UFO explanation or, at least, push investigation further along to that end?

Reading about the incident is interesting, surely, but as a vehicle for further examination, we are left with little to go on.

Yes, the encounter is similar to others -- Jose Caravaca has examined it as such -- but what hard-core information is contained within that allows for a deeper (forensic) invitation? None.

To insist that old UFO accounts are grist for a scientific examination is fallacious, and foolish,  intellectual madness.

Next, some of you will insist that the 1957 Levelland UFO event and its alleged E-M effects is a good case to continue ruminating about. Again, a case that takes us nowhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelland_UFO_case

RR

Roswell: Nothing more can be obtained from a review of that Ufological mess

Copyright 2023, InterAmerica, Inc.

Even Anthony Bragalia, an ongoing Roswell enthusiast, knows that the Roswell incident is pretty much drained of vital, useful information (that could help us know what UFOs may be or are).
 
Part of a recent e-mail to me from Tony – I don’t think he’ll be upset with my inclusion of it here:
 
“Between you and I, the well is running dry. Socorro is old news even with new information I could release, all the original witnesses to Roswell and their children are dead, and we have no real leads on debris- from Roswell or otherwise. It’s always been about the physical evidence. That is the Holy Grail. Otherwise, it is always going to be an endless cycle of the latest unsatisfying UFO video, more reports of lights in the sky and more opining.” [2/2/2023]
 
Moreover, I received from my Academica.edu colleagues a vast parcel of papers about how false information is accrued by persons over periods of time.

(Image from Mind Help)

 
This goes to my observation that Roswell old-timers who were part of (indirectly mostly) to the alleged Roswell debris that Mac Brazel had gathered and shown to them or what they heard from Jesse Marcel in 1978 about how the material he gathered reacted to stress or observation.
 
The relatives and friends of each man insisted that the flimsy metal held by Brazel or Marcel (and some of the people remembering their introduction to the debris by Brazel mostly) found it to be unbendable or dented by (sledge) hammer blows.
 
These people were sincere in their remembrance but it didn’t happen as they recalled it.
 
(I’ll provide, to anyone interested, the many papers about false recall and memory addition to events that actually were attended but, importantly, added to or remembered incorrectly long afterward, for many reasons, some psychological, neurological, or otherwise.)
 
The long-after “witnesses” to some Roswell events accumulated, not for a desire to be part of the hokum, information that they really felt that had observed or were part of.
 
To continue to review such events and recall in the hope of extracting anything worthwhile is more than a fool’s errand, it’s madness, of another kind, more serious than that of those witnesses who thought they saw what they say they saw.
 
This goes to my position that looking back at old UFO sightings can produce nothing of value about UFOs, but may, only, clarify the misbegotten information in archives that many feel are accumulators of important facts about the phenomenon itself.
 
An ongoing retrospective Jim Easton (at Facebook) of the Rendlesham episode doesn’t provide anything about the alleged “UFO” spotted there, but it does determine that the participants have added to and enlarged their part in the incident or, outright, continue to lie or embellish about what really happened in 1980.

(I’ll provide some of James’ incisive material here, if allowable.)
 
RR