France 1954 ▶ Home ☰

Cette page en français

The 1954 French flap:

The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this website is here.

◀ Previous  All  Next ▶

October 2, 1954, Jonches, Yonne:

Reference for this case: 2-Oct-54-Jonches.
Please cite this reference in any correspondence with me regarding this case.

Summary:

The regional newspaper L'yonne Républicaine reported on page 3 for October 4, 1954, that "Saturday", therefore October 2, 1954, at 06:45 p.m. - 7 p.m., Mr. Robert Cuffaut, son of the special assistant of Jonches Mr. Emile Cuffaut, who worked with his tractor at a place called "Croix-aux-Moines", between Jonches and Egriseilles, had seen two individuals a few hundred meters away, dressed in a light color, almost white, who looked in his direction, that is to say, that of the airfield, from where Auxerre is very visible.

Mr. Cuffaut continued to turn with his tractor and after three rounds of the field without leaving the sight of the individuals, they continued to look in the same direction. After that, having probably assumed that this tractor driver might have seen them, the individuals went behind a hedge to continue their likely inspection.

Mr. Cuffaut continued to work:

"He was alone, he has both feet on the ground and did not alarm the whole hamlet for so little." Leaving his field at 07:15 p.m. - 07:30 p.m., he continued to work with his headlights on until about nine o'clock."

"It was not until exactly 8:45 p.m., Mr. Cuffaut noted the hour, that he saw passing, coming from the very direction where the individuals had been, a craft of ember color that was spinning at a more and more prodigious speed towards Ligny-le-Chatel, to the north-east approximately.

"In 4 or 5 seconds, it had already disappeared," he said.

Mr. Cuffaut cannot say anything about a noise or lack of noise because his tractor was producing noise. He thought the craft was 4 to 5 meters long: "But that's just an impression I'm giving, it was going so fast."

The newspaper indicates that the field was belonging to Mr. Girard, of Auxerre, it was surrounded by scrub on all sides or almost, easy to spot because there was a pond. The field was two hectares and was in a deserted location, with excellent panoramic views.

The newspaper adds that several inhabitants of Jonches, including Mr. Thomasain, guard-forrester, had gone to the area of "La-Croix-des-Moines" and had seen no trace in the field.

Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, there will be the usual short summaries without the source (Guy Quincy, Jacques Vallée, Michel Figuet, etc.) in the ufological literature where the "individuals" became "creatures".

In 1979, the two "skeptical" ufologists Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker gave much corroborating evidence to the original report, but with new or really unreliable elements.

They say, with no doubt aptly, that the cause of this observation is to be found at the nearby airport: an airplane or a helicopter.

They complain about the brevity of Jacques Vallée's account and note that he "mixed what were probably two different events into one", which is not exactly right since the witness is the same for the individuals then for the craft, and that if it was a helicopter, the individuals were probably its crew.

They say they spoke to the witness who told them that the "creatures" were "normal beings, maybe a little taller than a man, they were dressed in light clothes"; which is very correct, since as we saw, it was Vallée who invented "creatures" while "individuals" had been reported.

The witness told them that there were traces on the ground that were like a ladder with bars four meters apart; which in my opinion could have been caused by a helicopter landing several times perhaps due to some problems the crew tried to fix.

He told them that his observation must be believed because the gendarmes investigated. In this regard, Barthel and Brucker say that the gendarmes refuted to have conducted an investigation, but that they remembered the case and that the trace was "ordinary".

Then, Barthel and Brucker, who seem to have forgotten that they themselves explained the matter by a plane or a helicopter, quite stupidly note that "the trace cannot be associated with an object because no object was seen", and that "M. C.", the witness, "admitted that the distance between him and the object was 300 to 400 meters."

So, in his catalog, Michel Figuet would indicate in 1985, that it was a "possible" helicopter, according to Barthel and Brucker, then in 1986, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that it was a "priven" helicopter, according to Barthel and Brucker.

In 1989, the LDLN investigation group explained that while Barthel and Brucker complained of having to conduct "tedious searches" to find "witnesses", two of their investigators who were in the region had found the witness's widow in 10 minutes. They add that the airfield is "very far" from the observation site, and make fun about Barthel and Brucker quoting gendarmes finding the trace as witnesses that the gendarmerie had not investigated.

In 1997, Jean Sider revisited the case by quoting the newspaper. He also noted that in 1988, ufologist Joël Mesnard was able to find the witness's widow in ten minutes without knowing his name, and that Mrs. Cuffaut informed him that her husband had been dead for more than 10 years, and that Barthel and Brucker therefore claimed to have spoken to a dead person, unless they had talked to him before his death.

Then we have CNEGU ufologist Renaud Leclet, who suggests - I am with him on this - that this UFO was a helicopter, but adding this obviously false information: "a noise is heard." As we have seen, Mr. Cuffaut had said that he could not tell whether the craft was noisy or silent because his tractor engine was on and could have covered a noise from the craft.

The case will continue to be published in the form given by Vallée in the 1960s; then around 2016 the British ufologist Peter Rogerson, claiming to rely on my file, gave, on the Web, a too partial summary of the article of the Yonne Républicaine, without any of my comments or explanations, nor any of the many other sources that I published.

Reports:

[Ref. lyr1:] NEWSPAPER "L'YONNE REPUBLICAINE":

Note: the other cases mentioned in the newspaper article are dealt with in their appropriate case files.

[Ref. gqy1:] GUY QUINCY:

[Ref. gqy2:] GUY QUINCY:

[Ref. jve8:] JACQUES VALLEE:

[Ref. jve5:] JACQUES VALLEE:

[Ref. jve2:] JACQUES VALLEE:

The author indicates that on October 2, 1954, in Jonches, close to Auxerre, two humanoids were seen on the ground and two hours later a red luminous object was observed at the same place at very low altitude.

[Ref. jve3:] JACQUES VALLEE:

[Ref. prn1:] PETER ROGERSON:

[Ref. agd1:] ALAIN GAMARD:

[Ref. jve7:] JACQUES VALLEE - MAGAZINE "HISTORIA":

[Ref. tbw1:] TED BLOECHER ET DAVID WEBB:

[Ref. fru1:] MICHEL FIGUET AND JEAN-LOUIS RUCHON:

The two authors indicate that on October 2, 1954 at an unspecified time, in Auxerre, in the department of the Yonne, at the place known as "Jonches", two creatures were seen on the ground. Two hours later, a luminous red object was observed at the same place at very low altitude.

The sources are indicated to be case 178 of the Vallée catalogue, and "Quincy".

[Ref. bbr1:] GERARD BARTHEL ET JACQUES BRUCKER:

According to these two ufologists, the object was an helicopter or an aircraft related to the nearby airfield.

They complain about the brevity of Jacques Vallée's account and note that he mixed what were probably two different events into one.

They say they talked to the witness who told them that the "creatures" were normal beings, maybe a little taller than a man, they were dressed in light colored clothes, that there were traces on the ground which were like a sort of scale with bars distant of four meters and that his sighting is to be believed since the gendarmes investigated it.

The authors say that the gendarmes denied that there has been an investigation but that they remembered the case and that the trace was "ordinary". The authors note that the trace cannot be associated to an object because none was seen, and that Mr. C., the witness, "admitted that the distance between him and the object was of 300 to 400 meters."

They finally note that the area was near to an airfield, and thus conclude that the case has nothing to do in a flying saucers listing.

[Ref. mft1:] MICHEL FIGUET:

[Ref. mft2:] MICHEL FIGUET:

[Ref. ldl1:] "LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT" UFOLOGY MAGAZINE:

[Ref. psi1:] PIER LUIGI SANI:

This Italian ufologist wrote an article to refute the claims by ufologists Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker in their book "La Grande Peur Martienne" on the French wave of 1954, and provides examples of what he denounces as fraudulent or unjustified explanations they gave for cases, such as:

[Ref. lgs1:] LOREN GROSS:

[Ref. jsr1:] JEAN SIDER:

Jean Sider indicates that according to L'Yonne Republicaine newspaper, of Auxerres, for October 4, 1954, on page 3, Robert Cuffaut plowed his field with his tractor on October 2, 1954, at 06:45 p.m. in Jonches in the Yonne, when he noticed two normal individuals in light clothes who looked in his direction while following his tractor with the eyes, during three tours of the field.

That lasted long minutes and the witness considered that it was weird as his field was in a isolated sector and surrounded by high hedges.

At 08:45 p.m., he observed an apparatus color of ember which seemed to take off behind a hedge of his field, precisely where the individuals came from. The craft went towards Ligny-le-Châtel and was lost from sight in 4 or 5 seconds.

Jean Sider points out that it is not obvious that the individuals and the craft are connected, that Michel Figuet does not give the hours and calls these individuals "beings", which lends to many interpretations.

He notes that the version by Jacques Vallée simply states that two creatures are seen on the ground and that two hours later a luminous object is seen at the same place, flying very low. Jean Sider indicates that this too concise and erroneous version was used as a basis by debunkers Barthel and Brucker to make the incident ordinary, starting by claiming that the main witness is "Mr C...", this indicating that they did not know his identity, not more than Michel Figuet gave it on his page 106.

They make then a boob by talking of their "tiresome research" of which they "spare" their readers, to find the witnesses (plural) of the incident, whereas there was only one witness.

Jean Sider also notes that Mr. Cuffaut did not say it was two "creatures" like Barthel and Brucker do, but spoke about two individuals, and that it was enough to read the journalistic source to realize that and to find the identity of the witness.

Jean Sider notes that Barthel and Brucker claim to have spoken to the witness, who allegedly told them to have found traces on the ground, and that the Gendarmerie made an investigation. Barthel and Brucker refute this then, with the reason that the Gendarmes allegedly told them they did no investigation but remember the case, and according to them the trace was of no interest.

Jean Sider does not believe that the allegations of tiresome investigation of Barthel and Brucker is true. On the one hand they do not seem to know the witness' name, on the other hand, if there were no Gendarmerie investigation, the change of career make improbable that Gendarmes have memories of the case more than 20 years later. Lastly, the Gendarmerie file being centralized in Leblanc in the Indre after ten years, it was not possible to find traces of their investigation locally if there were one.

Jean Sider also notes that in 1988, Joel Mesnard managed to locate the witness' widow in ten minutes although he did not know his name, and that Mrs. Cuffaut informed that her husband had died more than 10 years ago, and that Barthel and Brucker thus claimed to have spoken to a dead man, unless they talked to him before his death.

Lastly, Jean Sider indicates elsewhere in his book that the counter-investigation by Barthel and Brucker on the case is "imaginary."

[Ref. rlt1:] RENAUD LECLET - "LES MYSTERES DE L'EST":

Renaud Leclet lists cases that he thinks have "similarities with helicopters", including this one:

[Ref. lhh1:] LARRY HATCH - "*U* COMPUTER DATABASE":

[Ref. ars1:] ALBERT ROSALES:

[Ref. djn1:] UFOCAT'S "ON THIS DAY":

[Ref. jbu1:] JEROME BEAU:

Jerôme Beau indicates that on Saturday, October 2, 1954 in Jonches in France, two humanoids were seen on the ground and two hours later, a luminous red object was observed at the same place, at very low altitude.

Jérome Beau indicates that his sources are Quincy, and Vallée, J., case #40, "Rapport sur l'analyse de 200 observations documentées faites en 1954".

[Ref. frt1:] "CA MANQUE PAS D'AIR":

A web page of the TV show "Ca manque pas d'air" on the TV channel France 3 about the UFO topic indicates:

"Case of the observation in Jonches (in the Yonne) on October 2, 1954, with the presence of 2 humanoids."

A link forwards to the present web page on my web site.

[Ref. lcn1:] LUC CHASTAN:

Luc Chastan indicates in his database that in the Yonne in Auxerre on October 2, 1954 at an unknown hour, at the place known as 'Jonches', two creatures are seen on the ground, two hours later, a luminous red object is observed at the same place at very low altitude.

The source is indicated as "Ovni, Premier dossier complet... by Figuet M./ Ruchon J.L. ** Alain Lefeuvre pub. 1979".

[Ref. uda1:] "UFODNA" WEBSITE:

The website indicates that on 2 October 1954 at 18:50 in Jonches, France, "Close encounter with an unidentified craft and its occupants. One red object was observed for 120 minutes. Two beings were seen. Explanation: Re-entry."

"Two humanoid creatures were seen on the ground, and 2 hours later a luminous red object at very low altitude was observed at the same spot. No other information."

The sources are indicated as "Webb, David, HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports; Bowen, Charles, The Humanoids: FSR Special Edition No. 1, FSR, London, 1966; Vallee, Jacques, Computerized Catalog (N = 3073); Vallee, Jacques, Challenge to Science: The UFO Enigma, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1966; Vallee, Jacques, Preliminary Catalog (N = 500), (in JVallee01); Vallee, Jacques, A Century of Landings (N = 923), (in JVallee04), Chicago, 1969; Schoenherr, Luis, Computerized Catalog (N = 3173); Delaire, J. Bernard, UFO Register Volume 7 (1976), Data Research, Oxford, 1976; Hatch, Larry, *U* computer database, Author, Redwood City, 2002; Rosales, Albert, Humanoid Sighting Reports Database".

[Ref. uda2:] "UFODNA" WEBSITE:

The website indicates that on 2 October 1954 in Jonches, France, "Two creatures were seen on the ground, and two hours later a luminous red object was observed at the same spot, at very low altitude. Explanation: Re-entry."

"Two creatures were seen on the ground in Jonches, France. Two hours later a luminous red object was observed at the same spot, at a very low altitude."

"Close encounter with an unidentified craft and its occupants. One red ball was observed for 120 minutes. Two beings were seen."

The sources are indicated as "Michel, Aime, Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, S. G. Phillips, New York, 1958; Vallee, Jacques, Computerized Catalog (N = 3073); Vallee, Jacques, Challenge to Science: The UFO Enigma, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1966; Vallee, Jacques, Preliminary Catalog (N = 500), (in JVallee01)".

[Ref. prn2:] PETER ROGERSON:

[Ref. jgz1:] JULIEN GONZALEZ:

The author indicates that there was a close encounter of the third kind in Auxerre with the hamlet to Jonches, in the Yonne, on October 2, 1954, at 06:45 p.m. and 08:45 p.m.

Robert Cuffaut was working with his tractor at the locality "Croix-aux-Moines" between Jonches and Egriselles at 06:45 p.m., when he saw at a few hundreds of meters two individuals dressed of almost white color, who were looking in his direction.

He continued his work and noted that the individuals continued to look towards him; which the witness considered odd since his field is surrounded by high hedges and located in an isolated sector.

Suddenly, the two individuals left behind a hedge and disappeared from the sight of the witness who continued to work.

At 08:45 p.m., he saw passing, coming from the direction where the individuals were, an apparatus of ember color which seemed to take off from behind a hedge of its field.

Julien Gonzalez adds that in 1979, in "La Grande Peur Martienne" published by the Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes, Barthel and Brucker had claimed to have found the witness after tiresome research, and he would have told them to have found traces on the ground and that the Gendarmerie investigated.

Then, Barthel and Brucker refute that, affirming to have contacted the gendarmes who told them not to have made an investigation but to have had heard of the affair. According to them, the trace was uninteresting. Barthel and Brucker conclude that "the framework of this observation is located near an airfield, the conditions are met so that these events do not have anything any more to do in the flying saucers file".

Julien Gonzalez adds that in 1988, Joel Mesnard and Roger Chéreau carried out a counter-investigation without knowing the name of the witness, and found his widow in ten minutes. She confirmed to them the statement of her husband, deceased for more than ten years. They managed to note that the observation had proceeded on a hill very far away from the airfield.

He indicates in the end that the article of Yonne Républicaine for October 4, 1954, specified that the field where Mr. Cuffaut worked is a wasteland belonging to Mr. Girard of Auxerre, surrounded by undergrowth on all the sides, large of 2 hectares and located in a deserted place, hence the astonishment of the witness at the sight of the two individuals dressed in white. Moreover the article announced that several inhabitants of Jonches, including a guard forester, Mr. Thomassin, had gone on the spot where the two individuals disappeared and did not find any trace.

The sources are indicated as L'Yonne Républicaine for October 4, 1954; Jean Sider, Le dossier 1954 et l'imposture rationaliste, page 32-34 and 180.

[Ref. nip1:] "THE NICAP WEBSITE":

[Ref. tai1:] "THINK ABOUT IT" WEBSITE:

[Ref. ubk1:] "UFO-DATENBANK":

This database recorded this case 7 times instead of one:

[Ref. prn3:] PETER ROGERSON - "INTCAT":

[My file was certainly not just "citing Jacques Delindry L'Yonne Republicaine 4 October 1954. p3".]

Explanations:

Possible helicopter.

About the critic of Barthel and Brucker by Jean Sider:

Jean Sider's arguments are not at all convincing, and give the impression that, on this case, he was just as manipulator as Barthel and Brucker supposedly were.

The first point is that Sider claims Barthel and Brucker did not know the name of the witness because they call him "Mr C..." without giving his full name, which he suggested being the same with Michel Figuet on page 106. However, Figuet on page 106 does not even give "Mr. C", but "Mr. XX." From this emerges that in fact, Barthel and Brucker probably knew the full name of the witness and indicated only "Mr. C" probably quite simply not to reveal an identity which they noted Figuet did not publish at all. By calling the witness "Mr. C", they prove by no means that they did not know the full name and thus could not have spoken to him, they prove on the contrary that they knew his name - although that does not prove that they spoke to him. Besides, they explicitly wrote in their text about the case that when the name of a witness was silenced in the ufological sources, they refrain from providing it.

A second point raised by Jean Sider is that there is a lie by Barthel and Brucker since there was one witness only whereas they claim to have had a hard time finding the witnesses (plural). But the argument is rather specious if one considers that several residents of Jonches, among those Mr. Thomasain, rural policeman, went to search for traces in the fields, and thus can also be regarded as witnesses that Barthel and Brucker were right to look for, if only to have their testimonies about these traces or the reputation of Mr. Cuffaut in the village.

A third point is that Jean Sider evokes that Barthel and Brucker claimed to have spoken with a man who was dead since the witness died on a given date as 10 years before Joel Mesnard learned it from the widow in 1988. But thus brings back the year of the death to 1978, and Barthel and Brucker having published their book in 1979, there is really nothing extraordinary with the idea that they would have spoken to Mr. Cuffaut in 1978 or before. Admittedly, after having scoffed about the interview of a dead man, Jean Sider moderates his remark by suggesting that maybe they talked to him before he died. But in the event, it was all the same a useless argument.

Jean Sider criticizes on several occasions Barthel and Brucker for having carried out their investigations by phone instead of going on locations. He does not put out this criticism here; perhaps because Joel Mesnard's conversation with Mrs. Cuffaut was also by phone and the remark would have been ill-placed this time? And why was Mrs Cuffaut, on this occasion, not just asked if her husband actually had met or talked on the phone with Barthel and Brucker, which would have put the a simple answer to the matter of the "invented investigation" of the latter, if such was the case?

Lastly, why does Jean Sider completely conceal the explanation given by Barthel and Brucker, that of a helicopter or plane from the nearby airfield? Is this to have the reader think that Barthel and Brucker's approach would have been to claim the case was a hoax? If there was good sense in recalling that the "beings" were in fact "individuals", was it not just as relevant to recall that Barthel and Brucker confirmed the report but allotted it to a possible aircraft from the nearby airfield?

About the Barthel and Brucker discussion of the case:

The two authors indeed complain about the insufficient data on the case; they reproduce the summary by Jacques Vallée and are ironical by calling it "very precise". The criticism is actually deserved, briefly cataloguing such cases on short sources (Quincy) and without any concern for checking into them was bad ufology.

One can notice that according to Barthel and Brucker, the observation is not a pure fabrication since they write that "one remembers the 'obs' in the country", and that the Gendarmes told them they remembered it.

It is however clear that, as in the whole of their work, their say is rather obscure, badly documented, badly supported. By no means do we get to know with whom exactly they spoke, neither when, neither if they were on the spot or not, nor what the gendarmes exactly said. With regard to the trace for example, the Gendarmes allegedly told them that it was "ordinary", but by no means do we get to know what this meant for the Gendarmes. Was the trace described by Mr. Cuffaut according to Barthel and Brucker invented by Mr. Cuffaut or not? We will not know. But we can note that it does not match helicopter traces.

Barthel and Brucker find that the witness is contradicted by the fact that there was no Gendarmerie investigation. But how would Mr. Cuffaut have differentiated the fact that the gendarmes spoke to him and saw the trace, from an investigation per se? There is nothing astonishing that, telling what he saw to the Gendarmes, and the latter hearing him out and looking at a trace, he deduced that they were investigating and not just merely making the conversation. The Gendarmes possibly did not log anything, but it is useless to suggest that it really contradicts Mr. Cuffaut.

Lastly, it is obvious that while Barthel and Brucker suggests that the explanation lies in the proximity of an airport, they do not seem to have proposed this type of possibility to the witness - by fear of seeing it contradicted? As the newspaper wrote it at the time, "we will probably never learn anything more", quite simply because neither at the time nor since, nobody thought to carry out the least decent ufological investigation of this case.

The case:

The individuals, according to Mr. Cuffaut, were at 400 or 500 meters, well beyond a distance where humans and humanoids can be differentiated - any human looks humanoid and vice versa if it does not have a really strange morphology. It is thus logical that Mr. Cuffaut was hardly moved at the time by these two characters and did not give more detail about them. This by no means excuses the transformations into "beings" or "creatures" found in ufological sources, since it leads readers to think they were actually not human.

In fact, from the little being said, it arises that Mr. Cuffaut was probably not carried to sensationalistic claims or exaggeration. He points out that he cannot claim an absence of noise from the craft since his tractor could have covered it. He makes a remark of prudence about his size estimate of the craft. It precisely notes the hour of its passage in the sky. All this makes very regrettable that there was nobody to correctly approach his testimony, whereas the opportunity was there, instead of putting out misleading "summaries" and criticisms of ufologists by ufologists exclu^sively on their general failure.

The place:

Jonches is a hamlet just north of Auxerre. The pond evoked seems to no longer exist near Jonches, I could not locate the locality "La Croix-aux-Moines". The airfiled is indeed quite far: 7.1 km from the hamlet of Jonches to the east-north-east.

As for Egriselles, the only similar place I could find is Egriselles-le-Bocage, 44 km north-east of Jonches.

Keywords:

(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)

Jonches, Yonne, object, luminous, red, low, occupants, helicopter, gendarmes, trace, humans, clothes, light

Sources:

[----] indicates sources that are not yet available to me.

• [lyr1] Article in the regional newspaper L'Yonne Républicaine, France, page 3, October 4, 1954.
• [gqy1] "Observations 1954", monograph by Guy Quincy, France - Algeria, private publication, page 10, the 1950's.
• [gqy2] "Observations 1954", monograph by Guy Quincy, France - Algeria, private publication, page 10, the 1950's.
• [jve8] "A Descriptive Study of the Entites Associated with the Type 1 Sighting", article by Jacques Vallée, in the ufology magazine Flying Saucer Review (FSR), U-K., Volume 10, #1, page 8, January / February 1964.
• [jve5] "Catalogue préliminaire de 500 observations", listing in "Les Phénomènes Insolites de l'Espace", book by Jacques and Jannine Vallée, Table Ronde publisher, France, 1966.
• [jve1] "The Pattern Behind the UFO Landings - Report on the Analysis of 200 Documented observations made in 1954", article by Jacques Vallée in "The Humanoids: a survey of world-wide reports of landings of unconventional aerial objects and their alleged occupants", book by Charles Bowen, Neville Spearman publisher, USA, 1969.
• [jve3] "Un Siècle d'Atterrissages", catalogue by Jacques Vallée, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans la Nuit (LDLN), France, #102, page 7, October 1969.
• [jve3] "Passport to Magonia - On Ufos, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds", book by Jacques Vallée, Contemporary Books publisher, USA, 1969.
• [jve3] "Chronique des Apparitions Extra-terrestres", French translation of "Passport to Magonia", book by Jacques Vallée, Denoël publisher, France, page 288, 1972.
• [jve3] "Chronique des Apparitions Extra-terrestres", French translation of "Passport to Magonia", book by Jacques Vallée, J'Ai Lu publisher, France, page 265, 1974.
• [jve2] Summary by Jacques Vallée in "En Quête des Humanoïdes", book by Charles Bowen, French translation of "The Humanoids", J'ai Lu publisher, France, page 40, 1974.
• [prn1] "The Catalogue", by Peter Rogerson, MUFOB New Series 2, U-K., #36, page 7, March 1976.
• [agd1] "A Provisional Checklist of French Himanoid Cases", compilé par Alain Gamard, dans "UFO Register", J. Bernard Delaire, Data Research, Oxford, R-U., page 43, 1976.
• [jve7] "1954: 7 jours, 40 observations", article by Jacques Vallée, in "Les Soucoupes Volantes", History magazine Historia, France, Special Issue #46, page 43, 1976.
• [tbw1] "HUMCAT", catalog by Ted Bloecher and David Webb, USA, circa 1979.
• [jve5] "Catalogue préliminaire de 500 observations", listing in "Les Phénomènes Insolites de l'Espace", book by Jacques and Jannine Vallée, Robert Laffont publisher, France, page 249, 1978.
• [fru1] "OVNI, Premier Dossier Complet des Rencontres Rapprochées en France", book by Michel Figuet and Jean Louis Ruchon, Alain Lefeuvre publisher, France, pp 106-107, 1979.
• [bbr1] "La Grande Peur Martienne", book by Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes publisher, France, pp 67-68, 1979.
• [mft1] "Catalogue Francat des rencontres rapprochées en France (Listing 800 1982) (2 - Suite)", list compiled by Michel Figuet, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit (LDLN), France, #257-258, page 17, November / December 1985.
• [mft2] "Catalogue Francat des rencontres rapprochées en France (listing 800 - 1982) (6 - Suite et fin) - RR3 élucidées", list by Michel Figuet, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit (LDLN), France, #265-266, page 18, July / August 1986.
• [ldl1] "La Grande Peur Martienne Canular après enquête!", article by the "Groupe d'Enquête sur 1954 de Lumières Dans La Nuit", in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit, (LDLN), France, #299, page 31, September / October 1989.
• [psi1] Article by Pier Luigi Sani, in Il Giornale dei Misteri, Firenze, Italy, #166 and 167, June and July / August 1986.
• [jsr1] "Le Dossier 1954 et l'Imposture Rationaliste", book by Jean Sider, Ramuel publisher, France, page 19, pp 32-33, page 180, 1997.
• [psi1] "The 'Great Martian Scare'.. of two French ufologists who 'now think better' and have changed thei minds!", article by Pier Luigi Sani, in the ufology magazine Flying Saucer Review (FSR), U-K., Volume 34, #3, 1989.
• [----] "Computerized Catalog", compiled by Luis Schoenherr.
• [lgs1] "The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse - UFOs: A History - 1954 October", monography by Loren E. Gross, USA, page 3, 1991.
• [rlt1] "Evolution du vol de nuit dans l'ALAT et similitudes avec les observations en ufologie?", article par Renaud Leclet, in the annual ufology magazine Les Mystères de l'Est CNEGU, France, #, page 51, 1999.
• [lhh1] "*U* Computer Database", database by Larry Hatch, USA, circa 2002.
• [ars1] "1954 Humanoid Reports", compiled by Albert Rosales, circa 2001, at www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1954.shtml
• [djn1] "Encounters With Aliens On This Day", web page compiled by Donald A. Johnson, Ph.D., from the UFOCAT 2003 computer database, USA, circa 2004, www.ufoinfo.com/onthisday/October02.html
• [jbu1] "Samedi 2 octobre 1954", web page compiled by Jérôme Beau, France, circa 2005, at rr0.org/data/1/9/5/4/10/02/index.html
• [uda1] "Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1954", web page at the website UFODNA, circa 2007, at www.ufodna.com/chrono/ce3/1954.htm
• [frt1] "Ca Manque Pas d'Air", web page of the TV channel France 3, France, December 12, 2007, at forums.france3.fr/france3/Camanquepasdair/quand-ovnis-rever-sujet_51_1.htm
• [lcn1] Base OVNI France, website by Luc Chastan, France, circa 2005, at baseovnifrance.free.fr/detobs.php?numobs=475
• [uda2] "2 Oct 1954 - Jonches, France", web page by the website UFOdna, circa 2008, at www.ufodna.com/uf00/uf3/003421.htm
• [uda3] "2 Oct 1954 - Jonches, France", web page by the website UFOdna, circa 2008, at www.ufodna.com/uf18/uf9/189052.htm
• [prn2] "Intcat 1954 - International Catalogue of Entity Reports", compiled by Peter Rogerson, U-K., circa 2012, at intcat.blogspot.fr/search/label/1954
• [jgz1] "RR3 - Le Dossier des Rencontres du Troisième Type en France", book by Julien Gonzalez, Le Temps Présent publishers, France, pp 104-105, 2014.
• [nip1] List on The NICAP Website, USA, found in 2014, at http://www.nicap.org/reports/1954_ufocat.htm
• [tai1] "1954: October Sightings", catalog on the UFO website Think About It, USA, not dated, found 2014, at http://www.thinkaboutitdocs.com/8-1954-october-sightings
• [ubk1] Online database UFO-Datenbank, Germany, found in 2016, at ufodatenbank.de
• [prn3] "INTCAT 1954", catalogue compiled by Peter Rogerson, U-K., circa 2016, at https://intcat.blogspot.com/search?q=1954

Document history:

Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home

This page was last updated on June 26, 2022.