ufo - UFOS at close sight: the 1954 French flap, October, La Feuillade, Creuse

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

Summary:

On October 9, 1972, ufologist Jean Giraud was conducting an investigation with another ufologist (J.G. Dohmen?) on a case of "close encounter of the third kind" of the summer of 1954 in Bête in the Creuse department. They also knew that in the same area and at the same time, a peasant had met weird strangers in the countryside, and so they searched for confirmation. Consumers of a café in Chanon then directed them to a resident of La Feuillade, 2 km from Bête, who they said, had "seen things"... But this witness turned out to be the witness of still another case.

This witness was Mr. Julien "L." 67 in 1972, 49 at the time of his observation. He gave them a very favorable impression, appearing to them to be very balanced and perfectly healthy man. It was he himself who had suggested to the investigators to go to the location to better explain what he had seen. He had first told them what occurred at his home in La Feuillade near Gouzon, and then, on the locations, the ufologists found that everything did fit with his story, that there was no contradiction or unclear detail.

When they met this witness, he was surprised and even irritated that he was found, and it took a long time to convince him that it was not a matter of making fun of him, that his request for anonymity would be respected, that he could speak without fear and that he would not be bothered thereafter.

He told his story in a continuous manner, and the only questions he was asked were to get clarification of the description and some details.

As his story progressed, the witness was relieved to finally be able to talk to someone about it.

That morning, around 8 a.m., he had left "La Feuillade" to feed his hens in a field on the other side of the road. He had his bag of wheat under his arm and was in the middle of the end of the meadow, halfway to a coppice.

On the spot, the investigators noted that the meadow was partly occupied by a grove extended in depth, about twenty meters wide and starting 30 meters from the edge of the road. The henhouse being at the end of the meadow, the first part of the journey of the witness had to be oblique to enable him to circumvent the grove without making a useless detour.

The witness lnew clearly how it looked, but the investigators obviously had a hard time representing it to themselves; it was after several questions that they came up with the following description:

It was a set of about fifty dull spheres, of a uniform color, gray as wood ash, all of the same size, each with a diameter of 30 to 40 cm. They were arranged in a T formation, transverse bar forward. On this bar at the front, there were at least three rows of spheres on a width of 2 to 3 meters, behind there were several rows of spheres on a length of 3 to 4 meters. These spheres perhaps touched each other, or were separated by only a very small gap of perhaps 5 to 10 cm.

He answered the questions of the investigators about a possible lightning flash explaining that there had not been any, that there was no light emitted by the balls, he had simply been no longer able to see, his eyes being filled with shining "stars", regardless of the direction in which he looked. So he did not see the "thing" again, he did not see if the balls had gone in the same formation or dispersing.

He went to the henhouse anyway, did not find anything unusual with the hens (the interviewers questioned him about this because they thought the thing had to fly over the henhouse). He explains that the hens' cages were closed because of the foxes.

Returning from the henhouse five to ten minutes later, he still had bright spots in his eyes; at another time in the interview, he said that half an hour later he still had "stars in his eyes", and that he may have suffered from mild conjunctivitis in the following days, but that he does not remember that well anymore, and that he could not be affirmative about that.

He aswered he was certain that the dazzle was different from that causes a car headlight or the sun; it was not the same thing, it was "stars in the eyes... but not light..."

At the end of these 5 to 10 minutes, he saw in the direction of Bête, alone in the sky, a "cloud", black, diamond-shaped, vertical, with straight edges, cleacut; which was not "not normal". This "cloud" began to "swell, swell and grow to become lighter colored... There was only it in the sky..."

He does not know whether there was a connection between this "cloud" and the balls, because he located the cloud 2 km away to the northwest and the balls did not go in that direction but west-southwest.

The witness had told neighbors about this experience, but they laughed saying he had "drunk too much". The witness admits that if it had been in the evening it would have been possible, but he swears he had no drink at 8 o'clock that morning.

He was not afraid, but he never understood what had happened to him. A few years before 1972, he had discovered a weather balloon in a field and had notified the Gendarmerie who had come to recover it; his vision of 1954 was completely different, he saw that there was no connection between the balls and this balloon.

Jean Giraud published the investigation report several times, in 1973, 1978, 2014.

He was struck by the observation: he noted in particular that in this case, the witness homself told them that at that time he would have liked to see, "like everyone else", a saucer, but that precisely, what he described was nothing like what the stories then told, his "craft" did not look like a "saucer" or a "flying cigar", it did not even look like a "craft".

In 2007, the first and only "skeptical" explanation of this case appeared on the Web, by the Belgian ufologist Wim van Utrecht. After summarizing the investigators' report, he explained the observation as mammatus-type clouds, which are "like dull gray spheres, crowded together, rolling across the sky in parallel lines or bands in formations."

He recognized that the formation in "T" seems odd but proposes that the sketches and numbers are unreliable because "the investigator who made them" was a "believer in extraterrestrials", that it is also because of this belief in extraterrestrials that the investigator did not verify that the witness was really able to give a reliable observation distance of 10 meters. I allotted the dazzle to a lightning bolt or "shock" caused by the vision or a problem of blood pressure.

Reports:

../10/1954. La Feuillade.

It was approximately eight hours of the morning and Mr. Julien L... went to his hen house located at the bottom of a meadow quite far from his farm. He entered the meadow and started to cross it in diagonal in order to circumvent the thicket which occupies a part of it. He was within about fifteen meters of the trees when suddenly, he saw a curious assembly of spheres emerging above them. The set affected the shape of one capital T letter, horizontal, the bar forwards, and it flew slowly at the level of the treetops, giving the impression that it intended to land. The bar of the T was made at least of three lines of nine spheres and it was followed of at least three lines of eight to ten spheres.

Each sphere had a diameter of 30 to 40 cm and was separated from its neighbor by a space of 5 to 10 cm. All these balls were of a dull light gray, as wood ashes. And all HEAVILY rolled ones against the othres like balls rolling on a slope.

The appearance was absolutely silent. The amazed witness turned himself towards the road in order to see whether there would not be by chance a providential cyclist able to confirm his amazing vision. The road was deserted.

The witness looked again at the spheres that were at less than 10 meters of his head.

But even before he could direct his eyes onto them, he was blinded by an intense luminous sensation BUT THERE HAD NOT BEEN THE LEAST EMISSION OF LIGHT. The dazzling had occurred in his eyes and he could not see anything anymore.

"It was as if I had looked at the sun... I went to carry the grain to my hens but at least five minutes later, because at the beginning, I did not see anything at all anymore... I turned my eyes to all directions in vain, it was similar everywhere, I saw only large luminous stars which danced in front of me. Half an hour later, I still had luminous dots in the eyes... I never saw anything like that... And then when I returned from the hen house (to 150 m of the place of the incident and 1/2 hour later), I noticed above Bête a curious dark and low cloud, in the shape of a rhombus and which appeared solid. There was only this in the blue sky. That appeared odd to me but I do not know if it had any relation or not with the balls... And then it dissipated on the spot..."

We carried out an investigation on the premises, followed of a reconstitution of the facts. A geometrical study and complete mathematics of the description of the witness, estimates of size, speed and distance were carried out. All matched. It is absolutely not possible to doubt this testimony. Let's add that Mr. L... did practically not speak about it with anybody, not even to its wife who discovered with amazement this astonishing account at the same time than we did. It is by an extraordinary chance that the nephew of the witness, very vaguely aware of the affair, tipped us about his uncle. To conclude, let us specify that the witness did not suffer from any physiological or ocular disorder.

The observation was of short duration, approximately three seconds, but it was made at very short distance.

THE "PARA-LUMINOUS" RADIATION

Before studying its characteristics and properties, we would like to cite two testimonies that are particularly representative of its existence.

.. -10-1954 The Feuillade (Creuse)

That morning, around 8 o'clock, Mr. Julien L... (anonymity required), was able to observe at about ten meters from him a curious assembly of spheres which flew slowly about 8 m from the ground. He turned to the road he had just left to see if another potential witness would not be there to confirm his own observation. There was no one. The witness wanted to look at the thing again. He started to turn his head, but even before he could rest his eyes on the object, he was instantly and totally dazzled. Hundreds of bright spots danced in his eyes. And the witness was categorical: HE HAD BEEN DAZZLED... BUT THERE WAS NO EMISSION OF LIGHT. He said, "It was not like looking at the sunlight or a car headlight... There was nothing, it was in my eyes, and I could turn the head in all directions I did not see better on one side than on the other..."

This glare without light blinded the witness for several minutes and half an hour later, small bright spots still danced in his eyes.

Excerpt from a personal investigation

10 .. 1954 la feuillade

10 / .. / 1954. La Feuillade.

It was about eight o'clock in the morning and Mr. Julien L. went to his henhouse at the bottom of a meadow far from his farm. He entered the meadow and began crossing it diagonally to bypass the grove that occupies part of it. He was about fifteen meters from the trees when suddenly he saw a curious assemblage of spheres rising above them. The set affected the shape of a horizontal capital T, the bar at the front, and it slowly flew over the trees giving the impression of wanting to land. the T-bar was formed of at least three rows of nine spheres and followed by at least three rows of eight to ten spheres.

Each sphere had a diameter of 30 to 40 cm and was separated from its neighbor by a space of 5 to 10 cm. All these balls were light dull gray, like ashes of wood. And they all rolled into each other like balls rolling on a slope.

The apparition was absolutely silent.

The surprised witness turned back to the road to see if there would not be a providential cyclist able to confirm his amazing vision. The road was deserted.

The witness looked back at the spheres that were within 10 m of his head.

But even before he could look at them, he was blinded by intense luminus sensations WITHOUT THE LEAST AMOUNT OF LIGHT BEING EMITTED BY IT. The glare had occurred in his eyes and he did not see anything again. "It was as if I had looked at the sun... I went to bring the grain to my hens but five minutes later, because at first I did not see anything at all..." I was looking in all direction, it was the same everywhere, I only saw big bright stars dancing in front of me, half an hour later I still had bright spots in my eyes... I had never

[Sketch caption:] 10 .. 1954 the Feuillade according to a photo of the places

seen that... And then when I came back from the hen house (150 m from the scene of the incident and a half hour later), I noticed a big cloud above Bette, dark and low, diamond-shaped and solid. There was only it in the blue sky. It seemed weird but I do not know if it had a relationship or not with the balls... And then it dissipated on the spot...

We conducted an on-site investigation, followed by a re-enactment. A complete geometric and mathematical study of the description of the witness, estimates of size, speed and distance was made. Everything matched. It is absolutely not possible to doubt this testimony. Let us add that Mr. L... did not tell anyone about it, not even his wife, who discovered with astonishment this amazing story at the same time as us. It was by an extraordinary chance that the nephew of the witness, very vaguely aware of the thing, directed us towards his uncle. Finally, let's say again that the witness did not suffer from any physiological or ocular disorder.

This testimony has several particularly interesting aspects.

The observation was short-lived, about three seconds, but it was done at very short distance.

While France was in a "saucer" psychosis with craft shaped like discs or cigars, Mr. L... saw a phenomenon to this day still unique in the world.

Note. - On 3 or 4 November 1970, J. Dalloz observed in Lavans (Jura) and at 06:45 p.m. a curious regular formation of luminous dots in the shape of a capital T slightly tilted and advancing bar forward. LDLN No. 123, p. 16. Press release by J. Tyrode. Can this fact be compared to that of La Feuillade?

Moreover, it would seem that Mr. L... saw something he should not have seen. Indeed, if he was surprised by this brutal appearance, it is possible to think that the "others" were just as much, certainly not expecting to meet an observer in these places. Thus perhaps their immediate "camouflage" reaction shown by the instantaneous blindness of the witness.

We will not know whether the spheres disappeared keeping their formation or by splitting. Regretably.

It only remains to add this observation to the file of "Mini Saucers" which strangely all fly in very regular formations (when they are in number).

A STRANGE VISION

We knew that in 1954, during the summer, a worker from the Gibard factory of Bouste was pedaling on the Bête road near Gouzon. It was around 9 p.m. when he saw a luminous disk land in a field at the edge of the road. Two "men" wearing helmets with antennas emerged... The distraught witness pedaled even more but he had the impression to force in the void as if he had been irresistibly attracted to the craft... Finally, he managed to go home, where he remained like stunned for several days.

We also knew that at the same place and at the same time a peasant had met weird strangers in the countryside... This information required confirmation for investigation. Consumers of a Chanon cafe pointed us to a resident of La Feuillade (2km of Bête) who "saw things"... This witness was neither the cyclist nor the farmer, he was "not on the list". And yet he had a unique adventure!

The investigation of 08/09/1972 in Gouzon (23) Witness: Mr. Julien L. 67 years old.

The thing or... things?

When we met the witness, his first reaction was, "How did you know, who told you?" He seemed upset and irritated very much, and it took us a long time to make him admit that we were not trying to make fun of him and that he could speak without fear and without risk of being hassled afterwards. He told us his story at once and the only questions we asked him were to get some clarification. It was a real confession and, as the story progressed, the narrator was relieved to finally be able to talk about "that" to someone.

"It was the year when everyone saw "Flying Saucers" land and "Martians" coming out of them, they all said: I saw this... I saw that... To be honest, I personally did not see anything at all, but I would have liked to see it, it was at the time beetroot (October 1954) and that morning, around 8 a.m. - we were not there, I was going to take some grain to my hens in a field on the other side of the road, I had my bag of wheat under my arm and I was in the middle of the end of the meadow, halfway of the bushes..."

We went to the place. The meadow is partially occupied by a grove rendered in depth, about twenty meters wide and which begins at 30m from the edge of the road. The henhouse being at the end of the meadow, the first part of the journey of the witness was to

227

.. 10.1954 La Feuillade d'après photo des lieux

thus oblique to allow him to bypass the grove without making a useless detour. "... Suddenly, what do I see coming out of the coppice... balls... lots of balls that followed each other... they were big like that (30 to 40 cm) Diameter)... They were gray like ashes and they moved by rolling into each other... like that... Heavily... But then like something heavy... (the witness came back over ten times on this idea of heaviness) And they went down... I said to myself, something so heavy is not possible... It will land on the other side of the road..."

The witness was really thinking about it, but we had some difficulty in representing it. As a result of several questions, we succeeded in establishing the following description: it was a set of about fifty dull spheres, gray as wood ash, with a diameter of 30 to 40 cm. They were in a T formation, transverse bar forward. In front, there were at least three rows of spheres on a width of 2 to 3m, behind there were several rows of spheres over a length of 3 to 4m. These spheres touched perhaps, or they were separated by a very small space (5 to 10cm). They all rolled in the same direction, like balls tumbling down a slope. All were the same size. The apparition was silent and lasted 2 to 3 seconds.

"It happened to me... Like that, less than 10 meters from my head... Not fast... A little faster than a man who walks but slower than a bike (6 to 8km / h)... The arms fell to me... Something like that, it shocks you! I turn to the road to see if someone passed... To tell him: look, this is going to land... There was nobody... I looked up... And that's when "that" must have seen me because I was dazzled, I did not saw [sic] nothing... Nowhere, I had a lot of stars dancing in front of my eyes...

- There was a flash of light?

- Nothing... All of a sudden I did not see anything anymore... I did not even have time to see the stuff again... Later, I could look anywhere, I could not see anything anymore... I still went to the henhouse...

- Did you notice anything abnormal in your chickens? (the thing had to fly over the hen house)

- Nothing... They were closed because of the foxes... And when I came back, I still had bright dots in my eyes (5 to 10 minutes later)... It is at this moment that I saw the cloud towards Bête.

- The cloud?

- Yes, there was only that in the sky... It was black... Black and had a shape like that, with straight edges... Clear-cut... (vertical lozange shape [sic]) It was not normal... It started to swell, to swell and to grow in becoming clearer... There was only it in the sky...

- And you think there is a connection between the cloud and the balls?

- No! I do not know... It was not normal... Anyway, the cloud was 2km away (north-west) and the balls did not go that side (west-southwest)...

- And you're sure of what you saw?

- Necessarily: I was in the middle of the meadow... If I had passed near the trees as I do sometimes, I might not have been spotted it... Ah, I just had time to realize...

- And you talked about your adventure?

To some neighbors... Yes, a little... They laughed saying that I had drunk too much... It would have been the evening, I do not say... But in the morning at 8 a.m... Eh?... That I can swear I did not drink anything...

- And how long did your dazzle last?

- At least half an hour.

- And you're sure you have not been dazzled like when you look at a car headlight or the sun?

- Oh no, it was not the same... It was stars in the eyes... But not light..."

229

The witness

At the time, he was 49-year-old. How was he? We do not know, but he certainly gave us a very favorable impression. He himself offered to accompany us on the site to show us better. He was not afraid, but he never understood what had happened to him. A few years ago, he discovered a balloon in a field and notified the Gendarmerie who came to pick it up. His vision was completely different: he saw that there was no resemblance between the balls and the balloon. He seemed very balanced and perfectly healthy.

This observation is unique, no similar one has ever been made. It does not fit into what is known about the phenomenon. The witness himself acknowledged that he was conditioned ("At the time, everyone saw them and I would have liked to see too.").

The witness first told his story at his home. His story exactly matched the site. He did it a second time on the field. Not once did he hesitate or give a contradictory detail. He was convinced that no one was aware of what he had seen (he had never spoken to his wife who discovered this story at the same time as us). If he had had a "hallucination" caused by his conditioning, he would have observed something very classic (ball or saucer), just as if he had wanted to invent a story, he would have described something known. We have already pointed out that certain contradictions were for us a criterion of authenticity, there is a blatant one in this story: it is dazzling without light. However, if one refers to our hypothesis concerning an unknown radiation emitted by the "flying saucers", having on our sight the same action as the light, this apparent contradiction is perfectly "explained". It should be noted that we had formulated this working hypothesis well before having known of this case and that the witness could not invent it to please us, not being aware of our work!

This case made us think of the famous metal balls discovered in Australia: would there be a relationship between the two? [*]

CRITICAL STUDY

We are convinced that the witness saw something exceptional that he should not have seen! Hence the brutal reaction of "those" who directed the thing as soon as they realized that they were discovered. It is true that the "Flying Saucers" are extremely discreet craft that cannot be observed at length, but there are no other cases of such a complete and rapid concealment reaction.

Our opinion is that the witness was fortunate enough to briefly observe an exceptional and perhaps unique event for the approach to understanding the phenomenon. We are convinced that this "thing" was for once as it was, that is, without camouflage!

All the investigations we have done have always made us rage. The facts are always incomplete: either because the witness showed the most perfect indifference for what he had before the eyes, or because the circumstances prevented him from perfecting his observation. In this case, there was the curious dazzling. The witness had nothing to do with it, but we would have liked to know what had become of the "thing", how it had disappeared (bursting, dispersion...). In addition, because of his position, the witness saw the "thing" from below, he told us that he had the impression that there was only one layer of balls, but was it well the case? Was there nothing else above? Our investigations tell us a hundred times more than just a Press clipping, but they deliver us only one hundredth of all that it would have been possible to know...

230

[*] No: these later case of "metallic balls" found on the ground were just rocket drop tanks.

Geometrical analysis

Not only do we not accept a testimony without checking it, but we submit to a systematic study all those whose authenticity is certain. This is to check if a "perception error" or a "reporting error" crept in. The testimony of La Feuillade lends itself perfectly to this kind of study.

Let an unknown device (a) 4m long moving at a speed (V) between 6 and 8km / h (we will choose a speed of 7.2 km / h to simplify our calculations by obtaining a speed of 2 m / s). This craft rising above a wood (b), in a slightly descending trajectory, what distance does it travel in 2 seconds in 3 seconds?

Answer: E = V x T (distance traveled equals speed multiplied by time) 2m / s x 2s = 4m - 2m / s x 3s = 6m

In either case, the apparatus had ample time to get out from behind the wood and to appear in full to the witness. The geometry and the simplest calculations therefore confirm the statements of Mr. L.

The witness stated that he did not realize whether the spheres that made up the craft were touching or were slightly distant from each other. It seemed to them that they were 5 to 10 cm apart and 30 to 40 cm wide.

At first, we assumed spheres of 30cm diameter spaced between Sem (1) and 10cm (2). Then spheres 40cm in diameter distant from 5cm (3) and 10cm (4). The sketch is 1/10 scale.

So as to be seen separated from each other, it would have been necessary that it was under an angle superior to that of the tangent common to two consecutive spheres with the line of their center (trajectory). In the most favorable case (2) 48 °, it would have been necessary for the craft to have traveled a minimum distance of 7, 60m which gives us a travel time of 3s 8/10. In the worst case (3) 64 °, it would have had to have traveled a minimum distance of 11m which gives us a travel time of 5s 5/10. The witness is categorical: his observation did not last more than three seconds. Under these conditions, verified by agreement in the preceding problem, it was impossible for him to see the space between the spheres. Therefore, all statements of the witness are confirmed, they make a logical and coherent whole.

This testimony is therefore entirely true in its approximations. We proceed in this way whenever possible. In principle, invented stories and far-fetched estimates cannot escape us.

231

The "special shapes"!

[... other cases...]

No 4. 10/../1954 La Feuillade (Creuse) 8 a.m.; width 2 to 3m, length 3 to 4m.

[... other cases...]

These crucial and remarkable observations unfortunately remain unclassifiable for the moment. All that can be said is that they are "Structured Saucers" and the triangular shape is quite common.

023 10/../1954, 08:00° GOUZON (La Feuillade)

Witness Mr. JULIEN L.

The Witness was going to his henhouse at the bottom of a meadow quite far from his farm. Suddenly he saw a spherical assemblage of 30-40 cm spheres in the shape of a horizontal T-shaped spire rising above the trees. The bar ahead, this formation was flying slowly over the trees, seemingly wanting to land. The bar of the T was formed of 3 rows of 9 spheres and followed by at least 3 rows of 8 to 10 spheres, all separated from each other by a space of 5 to 10 cm. They were light dull gray in color, like wood ash, and all rolled heavily like logs rolling down a slope. This silent apparition passed less than 10 meters from the head of the Witness. Even before he could look more closely he was blinded by an intense luminous sensation "without any light emission... as if I had looked at the sun..." 1/2 h. later he still had bright spots in his eyes.

When the witness returned from the henhouse 150 m from the scene of the incident, and half an hour later, he saw above "Bette" a strange, dark, low, diamond-shaped cloud that seemed solid. It was alone in the blue sky and dissipated on the spot.

(L.D.L.N. #131, Jan. 1974 "Pleins Feux sur la Creuse")

- same observation: formation of luminous dots in the shape of a T, 3 or 4 Nov. 1970 in Lavans (JURA).

3880: 1954/10/00 08:00 1 1:54:00 E 45:45:00 N 3313 WEU FRN CRS 9:6

La FEUILLADE,FR:~50 40cm SPHERES/TIGHT T-FORMATION ROLL >WNW JUST OVR WOODS!

Ref#194 LUMIERES dans la NUIT.(LDLN France) Issue No. 131 : FOREST

The Belgian skeptical ufologist indicates that a near landing case occurred at small French village called La Feuillade in the department of Dordogne, witnessed by J.L., a farmer who was in his late forties.

Van Utrecht provides his translation of an interview conducted in 1972 by the now defunct French UFO group G.A.B.R.I.E.L., which has the witness state that it occurred in the year that everybody said they'd seen a 'flying saucer' in their backyard and one or two 'Martians' stepping out of it. The witness says all said they had seen a Martian but he saw something else.

- G.A.B.R.I.E.L., "Les Soucoupes Volantes: LE GRAND REFUS ?", Michel Moutet Editeur, Régusse, 1978, pp. 226-231.

- D'AIGURE, Jan, "Pleins feux sur la Creuse" in Lumières Dans La Nuit, No. 131, January 1974.

After a snip in the interview, it continues with the witness stating it was the time of the beetroots "(October 1954)", and that in the morning, at about 8 o'clock in La Feuillade he was going to feed grain to his chickens in a field on the other side of the road, with his corn sack under the arm, and he was midway down the pasture, halfway the thicket.

All of a sudden, he saw lots of spheres, coming one after the other from above the thicket, big "like this (30 to 40 cm in diameter)", grey like ashes, and moving forward, one turning inside the other, looking like something heavy, and descending. The witness wonders how something that heavy [Interview is snipped again].

The witness told to himself this can't be happening, something with that weight, and expected it to land on the other side of the road. It came towards him, at no more than 10 meters from his head, not fast, a bit faster than a pedestrian, but slower than a bicycle (6 to 8 km/h).

The witness was taken aback and amazed, he turned round towards the road to see if there was someone passing, to ask him to look how it was going to land, but there was nobody.

He looked up again and he thought that at this moment "it must have spotted" him because he got blinded, and could not see anything anymore, nowhere, although he did see lots of stars dancing before his eyes.

After a snip in the interview, the witness explains that he then could not see it again anywhere. He went to the chickens' house and when he got back 5 to 10 minutes later, he still had bright spots in front of his eyes.

At that moment he saw a cloud in the direction of Bête. [Snip in the interview]. He said it was completely black and had a shape like a vertical diamond, with straight sharp edges; which was not normal. It began to swell and swell, getting bigger and brighter, there was only this cloud in the sky.

After snips, the interviewed witness tells that the cloud was at 2 km in the northwest direction and the spheres went another way, west-southwest.

Van Utrecht indicates that the investigators asked several more questions about the aspect of the spheres and came up with the following description: a whole of about fifty dull spheres, grey like the ashes of wood, each with a diameter of 30 to 40 cm; they took the shape of a T-formation, with the horizontal crossbar first. In front there were at least three rows of spheres, each row measuring 2 to 3 m in length. Behind there were several bands with more spheres over a length of 3 to 4 m. and these spheres may have touched one another, or they were separated by a very small space of 5 to 10 cm.

They all moved in the same direction, like marbles rolling down a slope, they were all where of the same size. The display was silent and lasted 2 to 3 seconds.

The witness said the black diamond-shaped cloud was "close to the ground" and "dissipated at the spot".

Van Utrech indicates that the sources are G.A.B.R.I.E.L., "Les Soucoupes Volantes: LE GRAND REFUS ?", Michel Moutet Editeur, Régusse, 1978, pp. 226-231; D'Aigure, Jan, in "Pleins feux sur la Creuse" in Lumières Dans La Nuit, No. 131, January 1974.

He then explains the sighting as clouds of the mammatus type, that are like dull grey spheres, tight together, rolling through the sky in parallel strokes or bands formation.

He acknowledges that the "T" shape seems odd but suggests that perhaps one should not rely too heavily on the drawings because the investigator who drew them is a "believer" in alien visitors.

He adds that the description given by the witness is less categorical than the drawing as he is not sure how many rows constituted the crossbar since he said "at least three", and does not recall precisely how many bands were trailing behind, saying they were "several". He adds that the account was recorded nearly 8 years after the sighting and thus it cannot be excluded that the witness "subconsciously attributed a more structured and solid appearance to the phenomenon in the course of those years."

He says that the fact that the sighting lasted only 2 or 3 seconds before the witness was "blinded" [in quotes] is important too the explanation by mammatus clouds. He proposes that the witness was blinded by the rising sun piercing through the clouds or by a lightning flash, as they are often observed when mammatus is present. He acknowledges that the witness however insists that he did not see any light nor hear any sound, so a third possibility is that the temporary blindness a physiological condition of the witness.

He adds that it is "conceivable that the emotional shock" caused by the sudden confrontation with the unknown phenomenon resulted in an elevation in blood pressure causing blurred vision and spots before the eyes; which are common side effects of abrupt fluctuations in blood pressure. He says that "we know nothing" about the physical condition of the witness.

Van Utrecht explains the vertical diamond-shaped cloud as a whirlwind or tornado, with its expanding motion and sudden dissipation close to the ground, and the fact that tornados require similar weather conditions as mammatus, i.e. hot air close to the ground and significantly cooler low pressure air above.

Van Utrecht says the witness claimed that he saw the black cloud in the northwest and that the spheres were traveling in a west-southwestern trajectory, but the map shows a different situation that implies that the spheres had moved more or less in the direction where the black cloud was spotted.

Van Utrecht says that the biggest problem with the cloud explanation is the estimated distance of no more than 10 meters from the witness, but says it is due to the investigators who possibly did "not verify the witness' ability to accurately gauge distances."

He however adds that because the small trees which were only about 15 meters from him should have made good reference points, so "it seems unlikely that an observer would describe a large cloud as a formation of spheres no bigger in size than a small van."

He notes that the "rolling" motion of the sphere is typical for mammatiform clouds but "rarely" perceptible in a time frame of 2 or 3 seconds.

He concludes that all the data except the estimated size and distance, point to a "a rare, miniature version" of mammatiform cloud formation as the explanation of the sighting.

The website indicates that in October 1954 08:00 in La Feuillade, France, "About 50 .4m spheres in tight T-formation, roll to the west northwest just over woods."

And: "Unusual objects were sighted, that had unconventional appearance and performance. 50 spheres, about 1 foot across, were observed in a forest for over one minute."

The sources are indicated as Lumieres dans la Nuit, Lumieres dans la Nuit; Hatch, Larry, *U* computer database, Author, Redwood City, 2002.

Whatever the reality and / or the nature of the phenomenon underlying a UFO sighting, the report we collect from it is necessarily polluted / altered by the psyche and / or the experience of the witness.

So what to do? How can the method to sort the wheat of the chaff be found?

I suggest a "possibility": Take a closer look at "out of the ordinary" evidence - if standards exist in the UFO phenomenon. Thus, if we manage to get our hands on a testimony that hardly corresponds (or better, does not correspond at all) to the imagery of the public (or the witness) of the phenomenon and which, moreover, does not correspond any more with the "life experience" of the witness, may we be entitled to tell us that we have something that is little polluted.

I have a few cases that fit beautifully into this category. I'm giving you a "nice" one.

Investigation of 10/09/1972 in Gouzon (23)

Witness: Mr. Julien L. 67-year-old.

The thing or... things?

When we met the witness, his first reaction was, "How did you know, who told you?" He seemed upset and worried, and it took us a long time to make him admit that we were not trying to make fun of him and that he could speak without fear and without risk of being bothered later. He told us his story at once and the only questions we asked him were to get some clarification. It was a real confession and, as the story progressed, the narrator was relieved to finally be able to talk about "that" to someone.

"It was the year everyone saw "Flying Saucers" land and "Martians" come out and they all said, "I saw this... I saw that..." To be honest, personally I had not seen anything at all but I would have liked to see it, it was at the time of the beets (October 1954) and this morning around 8 a.m. - we did not live not there, we were at "La Feuillade" - I was going to bring grain to my chickens in a field on the other side of the road I had my bag of wheat under my arm and I was in the middle of the end of the meadow, halfway through the coppice.

We went to the place. The meadow is partly occupied by a grove extended in depth, about twenty meters wide and starting at 30m from the edge of the road. The henhouse being at the end of the meadow, the first part of the witness's journey had to be oblique in order to allow him to circumvent the grove without making an unnecessary detour.

"Suddenly, what do I see coming out of the coppice?... Balls... Plenty of balls that followed each other... They were big like that (30 to 40 cm). They were gray like ashes and they moved by turning into each other, like that... Heavily... But then like something heavy... (The witness came back more than ten times on this idea of heaviness). And they were going down, I said to myself, it's not possible something so heavy... It's going to land on the other side of the road."

The witness was thinking about it, but we had some difficulty representing it. As a result of several questions, we succeeded in establishing the following description: It was a set of about fifty dull spheres, of a uniform color, gray as wood ash, of a diameter of 30 to 40 cm. They were in a T-formation, transverse bar forward. In the front, there were at least three rows of spheres on a width of 2 to 3m, behind there were several

files of spheres over a length of 3 to 4m. These spheres touched perhaps, or they were separated only by a very small space (5 to 10 cm). They all rolled in the same direction, like balls tumbling down a slope. They were the same size. The apparition was silent and lasted 2 to 3 seconds.

"It arrived on me... like that, less than 10m from my head... Not fast... A little faster than a man who walks but slower than a bike (6 to 8km / h). My arms fell to me... Something like that, it nails you! I turn to the road to see if someone passed... To tell him: Look, it is going to land. There was nobody... I look up head and that's when "it" must have seen me because I was dazzled, I could not see anything... anywhere! I had lots of stars dancing in front of me...

- Was there a flash of light?

- Nothing... All of a sudden I did not see anything anymore...

I did not even have time to see it again... Afterwards, I could look anywhere, I could not see anything... I still went to the hen house...

- Did you notice anything abnormal in your chickens? (the thing had to fly over the hen house)

- Nothing... They were closed because of the foxes... And when I came back, I still had bright spots in my eyes (5 to 10 minutes later). (At another time in the investigation, the witness said that he may have suffered from mild conjunctivitis in the following days, but that he does not remember it well, and that he could not be certain of that). That's when I saw the cloud on Bête.

- The cloud?

- Yes, there was only it in the sky... It was black... black and had a shape like that, with straight edges... sharp... (vertical diamond shape) It was not normal... It began to swell, to swell and to grow in becoming lighter colored... There was only it in the sky...

- And you think there is a connection between the cloud and the balls?

- No! I do not know... it was not normal... Anyway, the cloud was 2km away (northwest) and the balls did not go that way (west - southwest).

- And you're sure of you've seen?

- Necessarily: I was in the middle of the meadow... If I had passed near the trees as I do sometimes, I might not have spotted it... Ah, I just had time to realize...

- And you talked about your adventure?

- To neighbors... Yes, a little... They laughed saying that I had drunk too much... It would have been in the evening, I do not say... But the morning at 8 a.m... Eh?... That I can swear I did not drink anything...

- And how long did your dazzling last?

- At least half an hour.

- And you're sure you have not been dazzled like when you look at a car headlight or the sun?

- Oh no, it was not the same thing... it was stars in the eyes... But not light..."

The witness

At the time, he was 49-year-old. How was he? We do not know, but he certainly gave us a very favorable impression. He himself offered to accompany us on the site to show us better. He was not afraid, but he never understood what had happened to him. A few years ago, he discovered a balloon in a field and notified the Gendarmerie who came to pick it up. His vision of 1954 was completely different: he saw that there was no resemblance between the balloon and the ball. He seemed very balanced and perfectly healthy.

This observation is unique, no similar one has ever been made. It does not fit in

what we know about the phenomenon. The witness himself admitted that he was conditioned. "At the time, everyone saw "Saucers" and I would have liked to see it too."

The witness first told his story at home. His story exactly matched the location. He did it a second time in the field. Not once did he hesitate or give a contradictory detail. He was convinced that hardly anyone was aware of what he had seen (he had never spoken to his wife who discovered this story at the same time as we did during the investigation). If he had had a "hallucination" caused by his conditioning, he would have observed something very classic (saucer, ball or cigar), and the same if he had wanted to invent a story, he would have described something known. I have already pointed out that some contradictions or "improbabilities" were for me a criterion of authenticity, there are some obvious ones in this story: the dazzle without light and the independent rotation of the balls excluding the possibility of a single "craft" for example.

Admit that this case has something to worry about. If Mr. L. had been the victim of a "Monnerian" [1] dysfunction or if the phenomenon had used a "Meheustian" [2] technique by drawing in the unconscious of the witness the model of its manifestation, we certainly would not have collected the description of this more than improbable craft. And when I say "craft" in the singular, I am far from sure that I use the correct word.

Indeed, for these "balls" to rotate together, in the same direction, at the same speed, they had to be both independent and united. Independent, they certainly were, since the witness thinks he saw that they were separated from each other by a small space (5 to 10cm), but for the rest?...

What could unite them so that they maintain such a precise structure? One could consider a formation flight of mini-UFOs. Yes, but, the rotation of each element does not plead in this direction. Honestly, I'm losing my French there.

I also want to emphasize that the case is not understandable if we consider the possibility of a hoax. Let's not forget, we were in the fall of '54. Everyone was seeing "flying SAUCERS" and sometimes "CIGARS", but nothing like that had been reported. If the witness had wanted to invent a "credible" story, he would necessarily have used the standard stories of the time.

The most amusing thing is that Mr. L. "wanted to see one (saucer) like everyone else". And there, not so!

When he saw it, he told us: "I had never seen anything like it and besides, I never saw it again." Personally, I do not not see what "object" or "craft" of human origin could match the vision of the witness. If anyone has an idea, I take it.

And that's it! So if some enthusiasts have in their files a few cases of this kind, it might be good to gather them. And when we get enough, perhaps it will be possible to draw something out of it? I am convinced that Didier [Gomez, publisher] will want to collect and share all this.

Explanations:

I think the place shown with the 2014 photo in UFOmania is not correct. The correct would be:

The T-shaped balls formation was in the southeast (~130°) of the witness; the "cloud" in black rhombus towards Bête is in the North-West (~344°). That's the opposite direction, and it makes sense: the witness sees the "balls" in front of him moving towards him as he was going to the henhouse, and he sees the "black cloud" in front of him when he comes back from the henhouse about 10 minutes later. The indicated directions are therefore logical.

Wim van Utrech asserts that "the map shows a different situation which implies that the spheres had moved more or less in the direction towards which the black cloud was spotted", this is correct.

Wim van Utrech assured that "the witness said that the black diamond-shaped cloud was 'near the ground' and 'dissipated on the spot'.

That's not correct. The witness never said that this "cloud" was close to the ground. Nor is it obvious that it has dissipated on the spot, this is an interpretation made by Wim Van Utrecht. The witness said that it became bigger and bigger and took a lighter color; which is not necessarily the same thing. Wim van Utrecht makes this interpretation because he wants to show that it was a whirlwind or a tornado.

There is a problem with the tornado explanation: the witness said there was only this black "cloud" in the sky, nothing else ("There was only it in the sky ). But any tornado is always under a cloud cover, this way:

The tornado is not exactly diamond-shaped either. It is a "tube" narrowing towards the base.

However, a "dust devil" (whilrwind) is much better, it does not require a cloud ceiling above it:

Picture below: "Mammatus Clouds Over Mexico", Credit & Copyright: Raymundo Aguirre
Web site "Astronomy Picture of the Day"
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040607.html

There is no "proof" that the scenario proposed by Wim van Utrecht is the correct explanation, and it certainly has some weaknesses. But it is certainly the "least worse" and the only potential prosaic explanation, and I think that even if one does not subscribe to the idea that the explanation is "certain", the find should be applauded, as it was not an obvious one to find.

Keywords:

La Feuillade, Creuse, morning, farm, field, hen house, spheres, ball, group, cluster, formation, grey, dazzling, blinded, rotation, silent, duration, investigation, anonymous, cloud, dark, rhombus, meadow, low

Version:	Created/Changed by:	Date:	Change Description:
0.1	Patrick Gross	October 14, 2007	First published.
1.0	Patrick Gross	March 1, 2010	Conversion from HTML to XHTML Strict. First formal version.
1.1	Patrick Gross	November 20, 2019	Additions [ous1], [ioi1], [gab1], [lhh1], Summary. Explabnations changed, were "Not looked for yet."
1.2	Patrick Gross	April 4, 2022	Addition [gep1].
1.3	Patrick Gross	July 7, 2022	Addition [gab2].

The 1954 French flap:

October 1954, La Feuillade, Creuse:

Summary:

Reports:

../10/1954. La Feuillade.

THE "PARA-LUMINOUS" RADIATION

A STRANGE VISION

The witness

CRITICAL STUDY

The witness

Explanations:

Keywords:

Sources:

Document history: