URECAT -> Home

Cette page en français

URECAT - UFO Related Entities Catalog

November 5, 1954, La Roche-en-Brénil, Côte-d'Or, France, Raymond R.:

Brief summary of the event and follow-up:

20 years after the events he claims to have occurred, Raymond R. wrote this letter to a French regional newspaper's director.

"Many people at this time speak about the flying saucers. I will give you the account, with all its details, of what I saw with my own eyes, on Friday, November 5, 1954."

"My profession forces me to work in the nature. On Friday 5, I was on the territory of the city of La Roche-en-Brenil (Côte-d'Or) at 3 km in the South of this city, in the meadows which border the Paris-Nice national road. The young man (aged 13) who was working pointed out for me an enormous gray mass, at the edge of the wood, which detached clearly on the yellow leaves at approximately 500 m away. It was then 10:09 A.M. I rushed with the kid in the direction of the object; after having made 100 meters, we saw orange gleams all around the machine. I did immediately think of a saucer. I thus returned over to our starting point to get my case which contained a 6x6 camera."

"We ran very quickly towards the machine but going through the wood to avoid being seen. At this point in time a scene appeared to our eyes, which I will remember a long time. We were in the wood, at 40 m of the saucer which was in the field. A man was outside, at 5 m of the machine; he carried a colorless combination, of plastic appearance. The shoulders were very developed, there was in its back, under its dressing, something which formed a kind of bump; he had a dark gray helmet, of a diameter of approximately 40 cm, which started from the shoulders."

"The man, who measured 1,50 m approximately but not more, held a box of a brilliant black on his chest. He moved heavily in all directions, in a radius of 3 m; he advanced, stopped, moved, returned. This lasted at least 10 min. The saucer was approximately 9 m in diameter. I drew a sketch for you, according to the photographs, which will be easier than a description."

"From Disc number 2 a weak gleam escaped, sometimes orange, sometimes greenish, a buzz similar to that of a power station characterized the noise of the machine, the cupola, of 3 m height, topped the craft, itself of a total height of approximately 5 m. The cupola was surrounded by portholes quite close one from each other."

"I then took, blow on blow, with some difficulties, the 7 photographs which were still available. The man entered again in the saucer, through a door located at the base of the craft, and which slipped from the inside. Then two other men in the same clothing came out from there. I have to state that a sharp gleam reigned inside the machine. I became very frightened, so did the kid. One of the two men held in his hands something which strangely resembled a machine pistol, which had a widening gun. The second held a white ball as large as two fists. They went to the exact place where their colleague had stopped, they turned their back at us, I could not see what occurred but a luminous blue smoke escaped. The kid, overwhelmed with emotion, left running through the wood, in the direction of National Road II and did much noise while running on dead branches. Immediately, one of the portholes of the cupola highly lightened in a raw green. A beam swept the area where the young man ran. I ducked against the slope."

"Then the kid pushed a sharp cry. I thought I would faint at this time. A few 20 seconds later, a powerful whistle and the saucer took off vertically. Michel, the kid, had a knee on the ground, his head was lowered, he was in the impossibility to stand up. His face pricked. Having put him back on his feet, his legs collapsed, but then he walked and it was over. Nevertheless we went to the site where the craft had been. The grass was burned and the black ground and softened like ash, on a radius of 3 m. It was 10:55 A.M.. Further away, I found a part of the white ball. It was an absorbent kind of cotton, but I was quite surprised when I picked it up! Heavy like lead. (I weighed it at the house, 428 grams.) At its side, a yellow powder also remained, resembling sulfur. I recovered what I could; it was also very heavy, 78 grams that I wrapped in a paper."

"But as soon as arrived at the car, the paper was corroded and my fingers burned. On the next days inflated blisters of water and blood were formed. At present all is healed, but my fingers remain sensitive, the very black skin became normal again."

"We were hardly recovering of our emotions, at 06:05 P.M., when nine objects with orange reflections crossed the sky from East to West with a rather marked whistle which drew our attention. One of them suddenly shot down vertically while the eight others disappeared in a snap. Judging by the clouds, they were at 8000 m of altitude. At 100 m above the ground, the craft was hovering; we then saw the shape of a disc. Then the gleam became pale, the very soft whistle and the disc landed while gently rocking. It touches the ground at the exact place, I insist, at the exact place where eight hours earlier we had already observed the same phenomenon. The orange light became very very pale, with greenish reflections occasionally."

"Neither the young man nor myself dared to approach. We were roughly 3200 m away. Approximately ten minutes later, the saucer took off rather gently until it was 10 m off the ground, then in an huge orange sheaf, it went up vertically, the ball quickly became very small and disappeared in the distance."

"Of the seven photographs I took, four only are very clear, for I changed diaphragm several times. After enlarging, one can very clearly distinguish the man, his clothes below the suit are probably black. It is impossible to distinguish the head or the hands which are hidden by opaque gloves."

"I had the powder and the cotton analyzed by a chemical engineer who remained perplexed with these two unknown substances. But it appears that in the powder, there is silver nitrate in great proportion. I preserve this evidence preciously, I will not reveal them now as one always ridicules the witnesses of similar encounters; but I would like that the public knows that the saucers really exist, this is why I authorize you to publish my account. Whether they are interplanetary or of a foreign country, I do not know, but it is undeniable that the ray it used as a weapon can have unimaginable consequences; when the kid was stopped, he was at more than 80 m of the craft including 40 m thickness of coppice; conclude for yourself."

"I am not insane. I have all my reason and if one day the need is felt, I will then be able to prove what so far the major part of the people believed to be an hallucination."

Raymond R. never provided any of the photographs he claimed he shot, and nothing else seems to have surfaced.

Basic information table:

Narratives:

[Ref. te1:] THE LETTER BY THE ANONYMOUS WITNESS:

[Ref. jv1:] JACQUES VALLEE:

[Ref. ld1:] "LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT" MAGAZINE:

The ufology magazine "Lumières Dans la Nuit" received and published the letter which follows. This letter was sent to this magazine by Mr. P. Salvy, journalist for the daily newspaper "Les Dépêches" of the city of Dijon. It is the adult witness, Raymond R., who had allegedly written it for this newspaper.

Here is the introduction by this magazine for this letter:

Here is the content of this letter:

[Ref. ga1:] "G.A.B.R.I.E.L." UFOLOGY GROUP:

[Ref. ga2:] "G.A.B.R.I.E.L." UFOLOGY GROUP:

[Ref. gl1:] CHARLES GARREAU AND RAYMOND LAVIER:

The ufologist Charles Garreau is none other than one of the journalists of "La Bourgogne Républicaine", the newspaper which had received the anonymous letter by Raymond R. about his alleged experience.

In their book, Garreau and Lavier quote the entire letter, and take the opportunity to request form Raymond R... or Michel to contact them if they read the book. They also point out that by an extraordinary coincidence, 20 years after, in November 1974, prospectors discovered the evidence of an important uranium layer at the precise place where this alleged experience occurred.

[Ref. pr1:] PETER ROGERSON:

[Ref. jj1:] JEAN-LUC JORION:

[Ref. fr1:] MICHEL FIGUET AND JEAN-LOUIS RUCHON:

The two authors indicate that on November 5, 1954 at La Roche en Brenil, close to La Croix-de-Molphey, Raymond R. and Michel XX, aged 13, made the observation of a gray saucer 9 meters in diameter and five meters height including a three height meters dome surrounded by close-together port-holes.

The profession of Raymond R... obliges him to work in nature and he is at the edge of N6, in the meadows which border this road. A 13 year old young man, the young Michel, is in his company and points out to him an enormous, gray mass, at the edge of the wood, which is detached clearly on the yellow leaves. The witnesses rush in direction of the object; after having crossed 100 meters, they see orange lights all around the machine. R. returns back to take a towel containing a 6 X 6 camera and, with Michel, they run through the wood to avoid being seen.

At this point in time in their eyes a scene appears which they will remember a long time. Being in the wood, within 40 meters of the saucer which is in the meadow, they can observe a being which is within 5 meters of the craft. The man moves heavily in all directions, in a radius of 3 meters; he advances, stops, moves, returns. This lasts ten minutes. A weak gleam escapes from the disc, sometimes orange, sometimes greenish. A buzz is heard, similar to that of a transformer.

R. then takes 7 photographs in a row; the man regains his craft by a door located at the base. At this time, two other beings come out, one carrying a kind of weapon, the other a white ball. The being measures 1 m 50 approximately, wearing a colorless suit of plastic appearance. His shoulders were very developed. Under his suit, in his back, there was something bumpy; he carried a dark gray helmet of a diameter of 40 cm which started from the shoulders.

He held a box of a brilliant black on his chest. The second being wore the same outfit, and held in his hand a kind of weapon which strangely resembled a machine pistol of which the gun was widening. A third being in the same outfit and holding a white ball large as two fists in his hand.

A luminous blue smoke escapes. The child, at the top of emotion and astonishment, leaves running through the wood and does much noise while passing on the dead branches; immediately one of the portholes of the cupola becomes very luminous with a green color.

A ray swept the trimmings where the young Michel ran. R. lies down against a slope. Then, the child utters a sharp cry and R. feels he would faint. Twenty seconds later, the saucer takes off with a powerful whistling sound, vertically.

The young kid has a knee on the ground, head hang low, in impossibility standing up. His face tickles. Put on his feet, his legs "collapse", but after having walked, it all dissipated.

The two authors note that at 06:05 p.m., nine objects with orange reflections crossed the sky from East to West, causing a rather marked whistling sound. One of them suddenly dove vertically while the eight others disappeared at the speed of lightning. Within 100 meters of the ground, the craft became motionless. It had the shape of a disc, its gleam becomes pale, the whistling sound became very soft, and it went down gently while swinging. It touched the ground at the exact place where eight hours earlier, the craft had been posed, the light was very pale, with greenish reflections at times. Neither the young man, nor R... got close.

Approximately 10 minutes later, the saucer rose gently up to 10 meters of the ground, then, in a huge orange sheaf, it went up vertically and disappeared very quickly.

On the seven photographs taken, only four are very clear, because the witness had changed aperture several times. It would be well the first time that a landing scene is photographed... hence a careful reserve.

The chemical engineer who analyzed the powder and the "cotton" remained perplexed in front of these two unknown stuff, but it appears that there was a large proportion of silver nitrate in the powder.

The authors note that the craft has a cupola higher than its body, and a ray for paralyzing purposes which comes out of the dome that reminds them of the case of Quarouble. They note that the beings reinstated their apparatus by the lower part like those of the second meeting of Quarouble.

They indicate that there are traces, the ground was burned, the grass blackened; moreover, the ground was soft as ash, on a radius of three meters, they note that there is a substance comparable with a kind of absorbent cotton whose witness says that it was part of the ball which the being held. Grabbing it, the witness realized that it was heavy as lead (428 grams). Besides, a yellow powder remained, resembling sulphur; he recovered 78 grams of that which he put in a paper. But hardly arrived at the car, he realizes that the paper was corroded and that his fingers burnt. The next day, blisters full of water and blood had formed; the skin was black. Then, all healed.

They quote as sources the Vallée catalogue, case n° 329, and Lumière Dans la Nuit#125, pp 22-23-24, as well as the book of Garreau and Lavier, on page 52. At no time do they specify that the case has as primary source only an anonymous letter to a newspaper.

[Ref. bb1:] GERARD BARTHEL AND JACQUES BRUCKER:

These two authors, in their book published by Nouvelle Editions Rationalistes (New Rationalists Publishers) wrote that nothing happened, arguing that them and Michel Monnerie after a long investigation found a Raymond R. in this city but he was deceased since, and that in the city they did not find other witnesses, and that they found a young man who could according to them be the second witness but that he told them that he had not been witness of a UFO.

[Ref. vi1:] "VIMANA 21" UFOLOGY MAGAZINE:

[Ref. lg2:] LOREN GROSS:

[Ref. cn1:] "C.N.E.G.U." UFOLOGY GROUP:

[Ref. se1:] JOHN SCHUESSLER:

[Ref. bo1:] VICENTE-JUAN BALLESTER-OLMOS, "FOTOCAT 1954":

[Ref. tp1] TED PHILIPPS:

[Ref. jd1:] JEAN-PHILIPPE DAIN:

[Ref. ar1:] ALBERT ROSALES:

[Ref. lh1] LARRY HATCH - "*U* COMPUTER DATABASE":

[Ref. lg1:] LOREN GROSS:

[Ref. bt1:] "BETA TAURI":

[Ref. jb1:] JEROME BEAU:

Jerome Beau indicates that on Friday November 5, 1954, at 10:10 in La-Roche-en-Breuil [sic], in France, Raymond R. saw a machine making a noise of big transformer and emitting an orange light, posed in a pasture. At its side were three men in dark combination, one held a kind of box which emitted a ray of light of 3 meters length, the two others carried objects that resembled weapons. Another witness felt tickling on the face whereas he ran away. Four photographs of the scene were taken. There were traces, a whitish stuff and a circle 3 meters in diameter where the ground had the appearance of ash.

[Ref. gc1:] "LA GAZETTE DE COTE-D'OR" NEWSPAPER:

[Ref. ud1:] "UFODNA" WEBSITE:

The website indicates that on 5 November 1954, at 10:10, in La Roche-en-Brenil, France, a craft giving off an orange light, landed. Three men in dark coveralls were standing nearby.

The case was explained as: a planet.

The website adds that Raymond R. saw a craft, which made a noise like a large transformer and gave off an orange light, land in a pasture. Three men in dark coveralls were standing nearby. One was holding a sort of box, "which emitted a beam of light three meters long." The other two were holding objects that looked like weapons. Another witness fled and felt prickling on his face as he ran. Four photographs of the scene were taken. Traces: a whitish substance and a circle three meters in diameter where the ground had an ash-like appearance.

The website comments that "An object was observed and photographed. Physiological effects were noted. Traces found. One orange ball, about 20 feet across, was observed by two male witnesses in a pasture for ten minutes. An electric sound was heard. Three humanoids, each wearing a dark coverall, were seen."

The website further adds that "M Raymond R, and a 13-year old boy noticed a gray object on the edge of the woods; they approached through the woods to within 130 ft of it. It was about 30 ft in diameter and a total of 16 ft high; it had a 10-foot cupola in which was a row of portholes. It made a humming sound like a transformer. A man not more than 5 ft tall stood near it; he wore a transparent suit, apparently made of plastic, with black clothing beneath it, and a dark gray helmet that rested on his shoulders. On his back, beneath the suit, was something that gave him a humped appearance; on his chest was a small shiny black box. Moving heavily, he walked about near the saucer. Raymond R took 7 photographs, only 4, which came, out well. The man returned to the UFO through a door at its base; then two others came out, in the same costume. One of them carried a sort of pistol with funnel shaped barrel, the other a white ball as large as 2 fists. They went to the place where the first man had been, turned their backs, and did something that produced a blue luminous smoke. At this point they boy, frightened, ran off through the woods toward a nearby road. Immediately one of the portholes of the cupola became green luminous, and a beam swept the area where he was running. Some 20 seconds later, with a loud whistling sound, the saucer took off vertically...R found the boy paralyzed, but this quickly passed off. At the site where the UFO had been, the grass was burnt and the earth blackened and strewn with a sort of cinders, over a radius of 3 meters. Raymond found also a part of the white ball, which was a cottony substance but as heavy as lead, and a yellow powder resembling sulfur, which was also very heavy. Soon after collecting this powder in a paper, his fingers began to burn, and next day were blistered and blackened. The powder was later analyzed and found to consist largely of silver nitrate. At 1505, 9 orange luminous objects crossed the sky, and one of them landed in exactly the same spot, with a soft whistling sound. The witnesses were 600 ft away and dared not to go closer. After 10 minutes the UFO took off again, with a burst of orange light."

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, A Century of Landings (N = 923), (in JVallee04), Chicago, 1969; Schoenherr, Luis, Computerized Catalog (N = 3173); Phillips, Ted R., Ted Phillips investigation files; Phillips, Ted R., Physical Traces Associated with UFO Sightings, CUFOS, Chicago, 1975; Delaire, J. Bernard, UFO Register Volume 7 (1976), Data Research, Oxford, 1976; Hatch, Larry, *U* computer database, Author, Redwood City, 2002; Figuet, M; Rosales, Albert, Humanoid Sighting Reports Database.

[Ref. bo2:] JUAN-VICENTE BALLESTER-OLMOS:

This Spanish ufologist launched a project of a catalogue of French UFO photographic cases. This cases appears in his table as:

[*] is the old URL of this web page. My website moved from ufologie.net to ufology.patrickgross.org.

[Ref. ub1:] "UFO-DATENBANK":

This database recorded the case 9 times instead of one:

[This database recorded the same case 10 times instead of one!]

[Ref. pr2:] PETER ROGERSON - "INTCAT":

Note: "Gross 1954" is supposed to reference my web page; no link is provided and it does not reflect its content.

Points to consider:

Barthel and Brucker are seemingly using this kind of logic: if one does not find a witness named "Raymond R", it means that no UFO was seen. If one finds somebody who could be the witness but that this somebody is now deceased, it implies that he did not see a UFO. If somebody makes a point of remaining anonymous, it appears to them in this case all the same probable that he must be a resident of the city near the UFO landing, where he signs his anonymous letter using his first name and the first letter of his name without fearing that it may allow his identification. If one finds an unspecified person who could "match" the description of a witness who however remained anonymous, and if this person says he has not been witness of a UFO, it implies that this is indeed the witness but that there was no UFO. Also, Barthel and Brucker seem to consider that if a witness does nothing more than send an anonymous letter to a newspaper, then the residents of his city must have witnessed the UFO also, otherwise it implies there was no UFO. Lastly, they seem to consider that if a witness says "my profession obliges me to work in the nature" then necessarily the witness must reside in the city nearest to the observation's location.

The above remarks do not imply at all, however, that the account corresponds to actual facts.

The rational ufologist will be satisfied to note that the witness having remained anonymous, the case must be noted, as a simple testimony whose reality is yet unverified; it is not advisable to quote it as proof of the existence or non-existence of the UFO phenomenon, and even less legitimate to make use of it to support any explanatory theory for UFOs. The rational ufologist will stick to the principle "testis unus, testis nullus:" one witness only is not enough.

The first hypothesis which comes me to mind is that of a story invented by its anonymous author. This assumption will be quite fair if I present elements such as:

• inconsistencies in the described phenomenon
• chronological inconsistencies
• inconsistencies in the reported behavior of the alleged witnesses
• a general lack of independent confirmation
• and of course a general lack of hard evidence

And, indeed:

• We do have a general absence of hard evidence. Neither the allegedly collected substances, nor the landing trace, nor the described physiological effects, nor the photographs, nor any other evidence suggested in the account were checked or studied by whoever. The whole set of proof cited by the witness only exists "on paper" in his letter. There is no independent confirmation of anything (as far as I know).
• We have few inconsistencies in the described phenomena and events. Nothing can be concluded from that, for if the phenomenon is a yet unexplained phenomenon, we cannot decide how it should manifest itself.
• There is probably a chronological inconsistency, or rather, a curiosity in the course of the events: that the adult witness remained eight hours on location, with a 13 year old boy, between the two landings, seems odd to me, and not very practicable.
• There is a strong inconsistency of behavior on behalf of the witness. If truly he owns what he considers himself in his letter as hard and irrefutable evidence ready to prove the veracity of his statements, and noting that he makes a point of establishing the reality of the flying saucers publicly, it is incoherent on his parts and even absurd that he refrains from presenting these alleged evidence. The idea to present them "if the need were felt" is also incoherent, the witness seeming well to think that it would be wise that the public becomes aware of the reality of the phenomenon.

Let's also note that the author of the letter is familiarized with the "flying saucers" according to his own words, and that the letter surfaces in 1973, without precise indication on its real dating.

One can then consider that a person invented this story, not to obtain material benefits from it, not for publicity, but for example to perhaps note the possible diffusion of the account taken as true account, for the personal satisfaction of having fooled the press. This is not proven, but this is a possibility that cannot be discarded, until proof of the contrary.

The assumption of an invented account would be obviously slightly weakened if other testimonies were available, which would be in agreement with the account. (The assumption of the invention obviously would not be completely refuted in this case; nothing prevents a tall-teller from grafting his fable onto other accounts, more verified or also invented.)

And indeed:

It is noted in the introduction of the letter published into the magazine "Lumières dans la Nuit:"

It seems obvious that the publication of these other articles on this event is not by "Lumières Dans La Nuit:" this magazine started in 1957, it is not daily but monthly, its preceding number does not contain any such articles at all. I deduce that it is in the newspaper "Les Dépêches" for November 1954, that these articles were published.

A further step to undertake to improve the relevance of this file is thus obviously to search for these articles and to evaluate their content. In the meantime, let's already note that it is quite intriguing that the newspaper seems to indicate exactly that there were too landings there, one at 10 A.M., and the other at 06:00 P.M. These articles are thus key data, one question being whether the witness is Raymond R. or whether there were other witnesses.

List of issues:

Evaluation:

Probable hoax.

Sources references:

* = Source I checked.
? = Source I am told about but could not check yet. Help appreciated.

• [te1] * Letter from "Raymond R." to the newspaper La Bourgogne Républicaine, (copy), France, personal file.
• [jv1] * "Un Siècle d'Atterrissages", article by Jacques Vallée, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans la Nuit (LDLN), France, #43.
• [jv1] * "Passport To Magonia - On Ufos, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds", book by Jacques Vallée, Contemporary Books publisher, USA, 242, 1969.
• [jv1] * "Chronique Des Apparitions Extra-Terrestres", French translation of "Passport to Magonia", book by Jacques Vallée, Denoel publisher, France, page 298, 1972.
• [ld1] * Letter to the newspaper Les Dépêches, in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans la Nuit (LDLN), France, #125, pp 23-23, May 1973.
• [ga1] * "La 'Paralysie' - Synthèse provisoire des recherches entreprises par l'équipe G.A.B.R.I.E.L.", article in the ufology magazine Ouranos, France, special issue #1, page 4, 4^th quarter 1973.
• [ga2] * "Cinq plus un... ou la boucle bouclée", article by the ufology group G.A.B.R.I.E.L., in the ufology magazine Ouranos, France, Nouvelle Série #9, page 8, 4^th quarter 1976.
• [gl1] * "Face Aux Extra-Terrestres", book by Charles Garreau and Raymond Lavier, Delarge publisher, J'ai Lu éditeur, France, pp 47-52, 1975.
• [---] ? Official UFO, USA, February 1976.
• [pr1] * "INTCAT Part 10", catalogue by Peter Rogerson, MUFOB, U-K-. New Series 5, #36. pp 8-9, Winter 1976-1977.
• [---] ? "UFO Register", by J. Bernard Delaire, Data Research, Oxford, U-K., 1976.
• [---] ? "HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports", case A1689, compiled by David F. Webb and Ted Bloecher, CUFOS, USA, circa 1977.
• [jj1] * "Paralysie, l'arbre qui cachait la forêt (1)", article by Jean-Luc Jorion, in the ufology magazine Inforespace, SOBEPS, Belgium, #32, page 14, 1977.
• [---] ? "Les Apparitions d'Humanoïdes", book by Erich Zurcher, Alain Lefeuvre publisher, France, pp 185-186, 1979.
• [fr1] * "OVNI, Premier Dossier Complet Des Rencontres Rapprochées en France", book by Michel Figuet et Jean-Louis Ruchon, France, pp 207-210, 1979
• [bb1] * "La Grande Peur Martienne", book by Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes publisher, Paris, France, 1979.
• [vi1] * Catalogue in the ufology magazine Vimana 21, ADRUP, France, #17 special Côte-d'Or, page 19, 4^th quarter 1984.
• [---] ? Article in the ufology magazine VLJ, by Jan Heering, pages II-III, April 1985.
• [lg2] * "The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse - UFOs: A History - 1954 November - December", monography by Loren Gross, USA, page 10, 1991.
• [---] ? "Computerized Catalog", compiled by Luis Schoenherr.
• [cn1] * "Catalogue Nord Est des observations d'humanoïdes - Chronologie des cas répertoriéespar le CNEGU", in the annual ufology magazine Les Mystères de l'Est, CNEGU, France, #1, page 10, 1995.
• [se1] * "UFO-Related Human Physiological Effects", paper by John F. Schuessler, in "Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports, The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York September 29 – October 4, 1997", published by the Journal of Scientific Exploration, USA, 1997.
• [jd1] * Listing UFOTO, by Jean-Philippe Dain, France, circa 2002, on the web, disappeared.
• [lh1] "*U* Computer Database", database by Larry Hatch, USA, circa 2002.
• [lg1] * "UFOs: A History. 1954", book by Loren E. Gross, USA, Supplemental Notes, pages 10-11, November-December 2002.
• [bo1] * "The Year 1954 In Photos", electronic document by Vicente-Juan Ballester-Olmos, Fondation Anomaly, Spain, 2004.
• [---] ? "UFOs: A History. 1954", book by Loren E. Gross, USA, Supplemental Notes, pages 10-11, November-December 2002.
• [tp1] * "Top Physical Trace Cases - Cases of High Strangeness - A Preliminary List", catalogue by Ted R. Phillips, Center for Physical Traces Research (CPTR), USA.
• [---] ? Eric Maillot, France.
• [jb1] * "Novembre 1954", web page by Jérôme Beau, RR0 website, France, circa 2008, at rr0.org/data/1/9/5/4/11/index.html
• [gc1] * "A la une - OVNI: mythe ou réalité?", article by Roald Billebault in the newspaper La Gazette de Côte-d'Or, France, May 10, 2007.
• [ar1] * "1954 Humanoid Reports", compiled by Albert Rosales, circa 2001, at www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1954.shtml
• [bt1] "Dépôts d'OVNIS", article in the UFO bulletin BETA TAURI, edited by Hervé Clergot, #1, France, December 2003.
• [ud1] "5 Nov 1954 - La Roche-en-Brenil, France", web page by the website UFOdna, circa 2008, at www.ufodna.com/uf18/uf9/189202.htm
• [---] "Les Mystères de la Côte-d'Or", book by Alain Lequien, De Borée publisher, France, 2010.
• [bo1] "An Approach to UFO Photographs in France", table by Juan-Vicente Ballster-Olmos, Spain, circa 2013, as link to Google Groups from fotocat.blogspot.fr
• [ub1] Online database UFO-Datenbank, Germany, found in 2016, at ufodatenbank.de
• [pr2] "INTCAT 1954", catalogue compiled by Peter Rogerson, U-K., circa 2016, at https://intcat.blogspot.com/search?q=1954

Document history:

Authoring

Changes history

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

This page was last updated on December 8, 2018.