The 1954 French flap:
The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this website is here.
Explanation of the columns in the cases tables:
The "Date" column:
Indicates the most probable date or the best known date for the observation.
The "City/place, department" column:
Indicates the commune or city nearest to the place of observation, and the department.
Note: some well-known cases are "traditionally" associated with a place which is not a commune or city but a location; some well-known cases are associated with a commune which is not really the nearest to the place of observation. In such cases, I sometimes preserve the place given traditionally in the ufological literature with an aim of facilitating the search for a case to my readers.
The "Hour" column:
There are, expectedly, only a negligible minority of cases if the French 1954 flap comprising a reliable indication of the hour. Hours for examples are frequently noted as "15:30", "22:00", "04:30", the "rounded" minutes suggest obviously that these are approximate hours.
The hours given by an interval, "between xx:xx and yy:yy", are noted xx:xx/yy:yy. A tilde (~) marks hours explicitly given as approximate. "Night," "Day", "Evening", are indicated when the acceptable sources do not give an hour but specify at least that.
Some late sources, particularlly on the Internet, just invent hours; thus a case whose contemporary sources, a newspaper for example, indicate that it occurred "early the morning", are granted by certains a "precise" hour like "06:00". I obviously do not care for such invented hours.
The only goals of the "hour" column in the cases tables are to allow me an easy way to sort the cases chronologically, and to facilite time countings (counting nocturnal, daylight case, etc).
The "W"column:
Displays information about the number of witnesses when possible and/or their anonymous or named nature:
- x: Multiple, numerous... expression of that kind, used without more details in the report(s).
- ?: The number of witness is unknown.
- 1: Single witness; 2: two witnesses, etc.
- 0: Case without witness, invented witness, photo "anomalies" without visual sighting.
- >: Indicates that the number of witness may be greater than the number following this symbol.
- (): Indicates that the witnesses numbered between these brackets is the number of anonymous witnesses.
- (: Indicates that only the name, without firstname, of the witness(es) whose number follows this parenthesis, is known.
The only goals of this column are to facilitate calculations of the cases relative to the number of witnesses, and to propose lists of case by witness number, and their anonymous or named nature.
The "CL" column:
- NL "Nocturnal Light(s)", by night, one or more witness reportedly saw one or more lights, without feeling any physiological effect, without seeing what caused it, at any distance, and the light(s) seem to them for one or more good or erroneous reason not to be anything ordinary such as a balloon, plane, meteor...
- DD "Daylight Disc", one or more witnesses see, or think they see, an object, of any shape, in the sky or on the ground and at a distance, in broad daylight. The object(s) seems to them for one or more good or erroneous reason not to be anything ordinary such as ballon, terresrial aircraft, bird, meteor...
- RV "Radar-Visual", something was spotted both on radar and visually or through optical instruments, and for one or more good or bad reason, it is thought it is nothing ordinary.
- CE1 "Close Encounter of the 1st Kind", the witness(es) said they saw something out of the ordinary, and the conditions are such as the observation distance is likely less than 150 meters.
- CE2 "Close Encounter of the 2nd Kind", what was observed is rightly or wrongly stated to have been the cause of physical traces, such as debris, materials, gournd traces, scorched vegetation, physiological effects on the witness(es) etc.
- CE3 "Close Encounter of the 3rd Kind", not just a craft is seen, but also one or more ot its occupants, or, figures are seen, without craft, but these figures are rightly or wrongly thought not to be humans or earthly animals.
- N/A "Non-event or negative", something was reported, it does not fit in the above categories, and entered the ufology literature as being related to the UFO questions although there is no reason for toat, or, the cas was explianed by the witnesses themselves and publicized to make a point or provide an example of UFO sighting explanation.
Note: The Hynek classification does not comprise same the categories exactly, their definitions are not exactly the same ones, and according to its author's terms, it does not apply simply to UFO sightings, but only to those of them for which a search, an an investigation, really showed that the cause of the report is nothing commonplace. Thus, for Hynek, a "CE3" story which proves to be a hoax or a confusion should not be classified "CE3", while in my classification for the French reports of 1954, I classify it a CE3. Of course the commonplace explanation of such a case is then noted next to the case.
Some cases suffer such a lack of information that they cannot be classified. For example, a case can mention the observation of a phenomenon without specifying if the observation was by day or night, and it is consequently not possible to classify it as "NL, Nocturnal Light" or "DD, Daylight Disc". The cell is then left empty.
The "JV" column:
En 1990, dans son livre "Confrontations", Jacques Vallée a proposé un nouveau système de classification, voulu complet que la classification Hynek, tout en la prenant en compte. Par ailleurs, ce nouveau système est sensé permettre de classer non seulement les "OVNIS", mais aussi les "phénomènes paranormaux":
Anomaly (AN)
- AN1: Observation: light or mysterious explosion.
- AN2: Physical effets: "poltergeists", crop circles.
- AN3: Entities of "ghost" type, extra-terrestrial beeing(s), cryptozoological animal (Yeti, Loch Ness monster, etc).
- AN4: "Distortion of reality": NDE, OBE, vision or hallucination of the religious kind.
- AN5: "Abnormal" wound or death: spontaneous human combustion, stigmata, etc.
Fly by (FB)
- FB1: Observation: continuous UFO trajectory.
- FB2: FB1 plus physical effects: UFO leaves a physical trace.
- FB3: FB1 plus entities: observation of beings (CE3).
- FB4: FB1 plus "transformation of reality": the witness(es) have a feeling of distorted reality.
- FB5: FB1 plus wound or death: wound or death caused by a UFO (CE6).
Manoeuvers (MA)
- MA1: Observation: discontinuous UFO trajectory.
- MA2: MA1 plus physical effects: UFO leaving a physical trace.
- MA3: MA1 plus entities: observation of beings (CE3).
- MA4: MA1 plus "transformation of reality": the witness(es) have a feeling of distorted reality.
- MA5: MA1 plus Wound or death: wound or death caused by a UFO (CE6).
Close Encounter (CE)
- CE1: The UFO is close.
- CE2: Physical effect: UFO leaving a physical trace.
- CE3: Entities: observation of entities.
- CE4: Transformation of reality: Abductions (RR4).
- CE5: Wound or death: wound or death caused by a UFO (CE6).
Some cases suffer a lack of information such as they cannot be classified. For example, a case can mention an observation without indicating if there was a discontinuous or continuous trajectory, and it is consequently not possible to choose between a "FB1" or "MA1" classification. The box is then left empty. Also, some categories overlap, some case can well be called "CE3" just as well as "MA3" for example.
The fact that I display cases Vallée classifications does not mean I endorse this classification.
The "T" column
- A: Case having a commonplace or obvious explanation whithout valid refutation, "explained" cases.
- B: Case for which one or more commonplace explanations are possible, without good refutation "grey zone" cases.
- C: Case for which any attempt at commonplace explanation meets difficulties, "good" cases.
This classification is not the "PAN A, B, C or D" of the GEPAN/SEPRA/GEIPAN, although its function is obviously similar.
The "Ex"column:
For the cases for which the category "T" is A or B, the proven explanation or the most plausible explanation of these cases is noted. The indication of possible or plausible but not proven explanations is followed of a question mark.
