ALSACAT ▶ Home ☰

Cette page en français

ALSACAT:

◀ Previous case Next case ▶

Case of Staffelfelden or Jungholtz, in 1956 or 1957 or 1960:

Case number:

ALSACAT-1956-00-00-STAFFELFELDEN-1

Summary:

In a catalog of close encounters of the third kind compiled by ufologist Raoul Robé in the 1980's, it is stated that in Staffelfelden in 1956, a "Blessed Virgin apparition" occurred to "a miner, Fernand Lhakkay", according to "L. Blaise, Alonso."

I found some poor traces of the alleged occurrence in the literature on the "apparitions of the Blessed Virgin" and it turns out that the man was a so-called "stigmatized", that his name was probably rather "Llakay" than "Lhakkay"; the place is given more often as Jungholtz than Staffelfelden, and the year changes from one version to the other from 1956 to 1957 or 1960.

Data:

Temporal data:

Geographical data:

Witnesses data:

Ufology data:

Classifications:

Sources:

[Ref. rre1:] RAOUL ROBE:

The catalogue compiled by Raoul Robé is described as publishing the "humanoids" appearances - in a broad sense - that occurred since 1900 on the action area of the 'ufology group CNEGU, comprizing Haut-Rhin and Bas-Rhin. It is said the work has been done thanks to the collaboration of associations members of CNEGU, and people from "Lumières Dans La Nuit", including Alain Gamard.

There is a "List of the Humanoid cases in the N.E.", where this appears, inter alia:

Further on, the following information is given:

[Ref. rln1:] RENE LAURENTIN AND PATRICK SBALCHIERO:

[Ref. mi1:] "THE MARIAN LIBRARY":

Discussion:

One may wonder why an alleged "appearance of the Blessed Virgin" appears in a ufology catalog.

I wonder about that myself. But since at least one source believes that this story is part of ufology, whatever the reason is, I also have to deal with it, to assess the meaning this "appearance the Blessed Virgin" case might have in connection with ufology, I need to see what this is all about before I can deny or accept the relevance of the story to ufology.

A part of the ufologists, usually those who consider the idea of extraterrestrial visitors false or stupid, blame others who do not agree to "ignore" or "silence" a range of "phenomena", such as the "apparitions of the Blessed Virgin." They consider that such events teach something to ufologists and that ignoring them is a methodological error, or a form of "closed mindedness" or even "stupidity".

So, they are wrong here, as I did not "reject" the matter without consideration, on the contrary, I looked for the best possible documentation on the case so that I can make a thoughtful assessment about it; and it is only after doing this that I state whether this case teaches something useful in ufology.

I should explain briefly to the possibly ufologically "novice" reader, the reasoning that some ufologists give to justify that a "Blessed Virgin appearance" would indeed be relevant to ufology. Many reasons are put forth, some of which are contradictory with the others. But they exist:

• There are "UFO skeptics" ufologists who say all UFO sightings are nothing but misinterpretations and hoaxes, who believe that contemporary UFO sightings are of the same nature as, for example, the "Blessed Virgin appearances" reported in the past. "UFOs and aliens" would be the "modern" versions, using the imagery of technology and space exploration replacing the religious themes of yesteryear, the whole having no other reality than hoaxes or misinterpretations of all kinds.
• Some ufologists argue that any "abnormal" event, thus "paranormal" event, is one particular aspect of a single phenomenon, that of "the paranormal" , Ufology should be a "sub-discipline" of the study of the "paranormal". Ufologists who do not recognize this are said to be "close-minded". This idea is often unjustified, we are not told what the explanation of the whole "paranormal" would be, we are not told what "theory of everything" would link all the "paranormal" together. The "trademark" of this school of thought seems to be the refusal of both the notion of UFOs being extraterrestrial craft and the denial that they would all be "explained" as misinterpretations and hoaxes. Sometimes, however, justifications have been proposed; such as the following ones.
• Some ufologists believe that all paranormal phenomena including UFOs and extraterrestrials encounters would have a single cause - except for the hoaxes and misunderstandings - : some "intelligence" coexists with us in some "other dimension" - whose nature is rarely specified - and this intelligence is not from another planet at all, although it conceals itself. It "creates" the paranormal phenomena in order to "deceive" us, to manipulate humanity to some end. They call it an "intraterrestrial", "ultraterrestrial", "paraterrestrial" intelligence, some claiming that it is a "giant thinking crystal at the center of the Earth" causing all this hassle "for the purpose of having us believe in aliens" - who knows what the ultimate goal of that should be - or "to make us more environmentalists" or whatever other goal...
• Some ufologists share exactly the foregoing views, except that they claim this "deceptive intelligence" which they claim to be the cause of paranormal phenomena in general would be an extraterrestrial intelligence. That is, "real aliens" would "show us" "fake aliens" but also the "Virgin Mary" , ghosts, poltergeists etc.
• Some ufologists defending the idea that aliens visit us claim systematically or occasionally, that all, or this or that "Blessed Virgin" case, had been misinterpreted in the context of religiosity, as it was actually an extraterrestrial encounter. The existence of a very small number of case where some sort of "Blessed Virgin" is seen with some sort of "UFO" - from a classical flying saucer from which the "Blessed Virgin" emerges, to some vague light in the sky seen more or less in the same area and more or less at the same - is used as argument.
• Other "ideas" exist. I was told of "random quantum phenomena" of the "reality" of the Blessed Virgin, I read two French authors who claim all the paranormal can be explained by a "germ" that would make people's infected brain "see things", etc. etc.

These are, in short, why "Blessed Virgin visions" are sometimes found in UFO literature.

Now, what do we have regarding this case in the Ile-Napoléon in 1948?

Almost nothing from the point of view of the UFO investigator. There is no exact date, no hour, no exact location, no distance, no duration, no description, no trace of any primary source, no investigation, no research, nothing. Here we are at level zero on the quality of the "case".

The witness is supposed to be named "Lhakkay". But strangely enough, or may be significantly, this surname seems to have been worn by nobody in any country. A google search on "Lhakkay" gives only 1 result, source [rre1]. I though it was misspelled and found that the correct spell was probably "Llakay".

The witness described as "ouvrier mineur" in French - which may mean "aged under 18" or "miner". "Miner" was probably meant as Staffelfelden was in a mining area.

It is thus possible that the two different locations could be explained like this: it occurred in Jungholtz to a resident of Staffelfelden.

Imagine a case of an "encounter with an alien" for which all the information would be: "In 1956 or 1957 or 1960, at Staffelfelden or Jungholtz, Fernand Lhakkay, or Llakay, miner, saw an alien." Who, then, would proclaim that it is a proven extraterrestrial visitation? Or that any other explanation would be reliable?

It seems we have no UFO, and the "entity" allegedly seen seems to have had the looks of the "Blessed Mary" instead of looking like a being from another planet.

So many explanations are possible, which are all more or less of identical certainty, none can be "proven" as the story stands so far.

Maybe the man mistook an alien for the "Blessed Virgin." Maybe "real aliens" had fun making up a "fake Blessed Virgin." Maybe this was a misinterpretation of some kind. Maybe it had not happened at all, it was all invented, by the children perhaps - and this is the thesis that has my preference in the absence of other information. I think any sensible ufologist would find it hard to claim this is a reliable and credible report.

We know nothing of the context. What did the man, where was he? It is perfectly possible that he experienced a classic hypnagogic hallucination in his half-sleep, in all "good faith". Perhaps the man had eaten some bread contaminated with ergot and it caused some hallucinations?

Who knows? Not me. If someone "knows", please share your knowledge, with the facts and arguments to support it.

For now, all I can conclude is that this case does not enlighten me at all when it comes to give an explanation either to this case or to "UFOs in general." And nothing shows me that this must be associated with the question of UFO sightings reports or UFO occupants.

Evaluation:

Totally insufficient information, no credibility, not related to UFO sightings.

Sources references:

* = Source is available to me.
? = Source I am told about but could not get so far. Help needed.

• [lbe1] ? L. Blaise.
• [alo1] ? Alonso.
• [rre1] * "Catalogue régional des Observations d'Humanoïdes du Nord-Est de la France et du Luxembourg", compiled by Raoul Robé, France, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit (LDLN), France, #267-268, pages 39,43, September / October 1986.
• [ert1] ? Ernst, page 176, 1989.
• [bby1] ? Bouflet-Boutry, page 384, 1997.
• [gaa1] ? Gamba, page 492, 1999.
• [hir1] ? Hierzenberger, page 398, 1993.
• [rln1] * "Dictionnaire des "Apparitions" de la Vierge Marie", book by René Laurentin and Patrick Sbalchiero, Fayard publisher, France, 2007.
• [mly1] * "Marian Apparitions of the Twentieth Century", web page by "The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute", Dayton, Ohio 45469-1390, created by J. C. Tierney, last modified June 2013, at http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html

File history:

Authoring:

Changes history:

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

This page was last updated on November 27, 2014.