The 1954 French flap:

Two exceptional documents:

THE "SAUCER"
which hovered Saturday evening
above SEDAN
has been photographed

We announced yesterday that several people saw a luminous spot of round form, above the area of Sedan, Saturday in the evening. We did not want to give an exaggerated importance to this news, at a time when minds are influenced by the accounts related to strange appearances.

But the fact that this luminous spot could be fixed on photographic film obliges us to come out of our reserve.

The documents which we publish are absolutely authentic and they are by no means about trick photographs. These two photographs were taken Saturday at about 10 P.M. (the witnesses, in their emotion forgot the exact time) from a window of a building of Jean-Jaurès street in Sedan. Two witnesses were with the photographer. It is this latter who, wanting to take some air at the window of his room, was the first to see this abnormal gleam which intrigued other witnesses, in different places. Two policemen, in faction at the Sports Stadium, saw a luminous disc, at about 09:30 P.M.. Several young people, coming from the direction of Vrigne also saw it. When the photographs which we publish were taken, their author was unaware of any of the other observations.

These two photographs were taken with a "Sem Flex" 6x6, opening 3.5; exposure time: 1 second for the first and 2 seconds for the other; "Per Omnia" 23 filmstrip.

The smaller spot is the moon which reached its second district yesterday evening. The luminous disc, definitely larger than the moon, strongly impressed the film.

On the enlargings one clearly distinguishes an obscure central core in the middle of the luminous disc.

A photograph had been taken by an amateur on the side of the "Moulin à Vent" ("Windmill"). Unfortunately, the exposure time was too short: 1/100th of a second, it did not provide anything of value when developed.

Flying saucers give skin diseases!

Charleville (from our correspondent). -- A curious luminous form, which many people saw moving, Saturday, around 10 p.m. in the sky of Sedan was photographed. An amateur photographer, who took the fresh air at his window in the company of two comrades, suddenly saw in the sky a luminous disc which moved at a high speed.

Grabbing his camera, he managed to take two impressive shots with exposure times Of one or two seconds.

This lighting phenomenon has been seen by some fifty people, including police officers and several Sedan personalities.

Meteor or flying saucer, opinions are divided.

On the other hand, it is pointed out that in Thin-le-Moutier, a village in the district of Mezière, a Woman would have seen a flying saucer land less than thirty meters away from her and frightened, she Would have immediately lost consciousness. Since then that person, who enjoys general esteem in the country, suffers from a strange skin disease and is obliged to stay in her bedroom.

OUR READERS
HAVE THEIR SAY

THE DISC
PHOTOGRAPHED IN SEDAN
WAS SPOTTED IN ATTIGNY

We received the following letter from one of our readers in Attigny:

I read your article supported by several photographs of the "FLYING SAUCER" of Sedan with much interest.

In the torpor of this gentle autumn evening, ATTIGNY was too indifferent to realize that strange tourists visited the Ardennes sky, scorning our tourist offices and even our cooking specialties which are however quite enticing.

As this gentleman in Sedan breather the air at his window, observed, and had time to take photographs, I took the air too in my garden, Saturday evening at 09:30 P.M. Maybe the time and the temperature were admirably suitable to that.

My presence could not have been more convenient, if I had taken rendez-vous at a contradictory meeting, in which I was decided to oppose my absolute skepticism.

And yet I very clearly saw it pass - my eyes staring at a constellation at the south - in front of the latter, at an exceptional pace, a luminous sphere, very bright, followed by a long trail which could have been the exhaust of a powerful jet, or more simply, the heating of cosmic dusts caused by speed.

All my attention was focused at the passage of this bolide which went with grace in an impressive silence. This firework lasted only 3 or 4 seconds, limited as I was by the portion of the sky ranging between two groups of buildings.

We can only congratulate you for your impartial effort [] your fitting reflections. It is indeed too simple to ridicule events which one does not know but about it is discussed more and more. The most difficult task for a journalist is to make this discrimination between the illusionism, mystification and reality.

It may be lightheartedly, even with liveliness, joked at it, but it would perhaps also be useful to encourage sincere testimonies in order to correctly inform the readers about a course of facts which have nothing tenderizing enough to be compared with love stars; and which deserves a serious attention.

In its fugacity and silence, this phenomenon could be seen only by chance, exactly as one wins with the national lottery. (That did not happen to me yet). Here, the chances could be easily increased by setting up groups of qualified and perspicacious observers.

It was turnover time at the Sugar Refinery of Attigny, the night shift was on its way. Among those, I found witnesses who have been marveling at this beautiful comet.

A knowledgeable amateur.

Mr. Max Duchein uses the film "Perutj". He is therefore an amateur and perhaps even a very knowledgeable technician. Several possible hypotheses. Here are a few, non-limiting ones: Simple dots of light, halo and, most likely, which would not be without humour, a glass of champagne foaming abundantly. But you have to admit that it looks "astronautical".

THE TEST OF THE METEOR. October 16, as if it was purposely, a splendid meteor crossed the north of France towards 09:30 p.m.. It was observed on a score of departments by thousands of people, from the Allier to Lorraine and from the Swiss border to Paris. Naturally many witnesses believed to have seen a Flying Saucer and said so. The newspapers printed "Flying Saucer in Orly", or "in Montididier", or "in Metz." But once again the description made by all these weak brains appeared of a remarkable honesty.

[...]

The innumerable gathered testimonies show indeed that even when the witnesses called "Flying saucer" the observed object, their description is identical on 200.000 square kilometers where the visible phenomenon was visible: an "orange ball followed by a trail", a "large luminous ball with a tail", a "flying egg followed by a trail", a "bottle's bottom with a trail of thirty times its diameter", etc. The same phenomenon is uniformly described.

[...]

25 - Case of the D. 940, between Waben and Rue, Somme side.

Here is a particularly unusual abuse. This is the testimony of several adults explained by B & B, stand by, thanks to the "lucidity of a three-year-old girl!

On October 3, Mr. Georges Galland, his wife and son, drive in a car. Suddenly, they notice that an orange object follows them as they cross a deserted area of sand and swamps. After 8km of "pursuit", the object suddenly accelerates, turns to the right, and disappears towards the sea. In Le Journal de Rue, Somme, October 9, 1954, page 2, Mr. Galland, butcher at Rue, says he saw a cigar-shaped craft go down 200 meters, follow the road he followed, then branch off as if it wanted to land.

One would have thought that B & B had tried to reach Mr. Galland easier to find than Miss Fin... Not at all! They much prefer to rely on Radar, Parisian weekly they accuse of exaggeration in other pages! Because Radar, of which they exploit the reporting in the sense of their reductive ideas, discloses the "extraordinary" testimony of a three-year-old girl, Nadège Mansart, whose mother, Mrs. Nelly Mansart made an observation, which was essentially the same as that of Mr. Galland and his family, but in another sector of the same region. The girl, interviewed by a Parisian reporter, reportedly replied: "I saw the big moon". B & B dove into the breach to triumph and claim that Mrs Mansart, like the Galland family, without mentioning the other passengers of the two vehicles all identified in the local newspapers, had observed only our satellite! Incredible but true! A three-year-old girl would have identified the cause of a phe-

nomenon who confused her mother and other people with whom she was not even with! Note that in M.O.C., p. 143, Michel specifies that Mrs. Mansart lives saw a luminous phenomenon in the form of a mushroom, with kinds of short cables which hung. So, according to B & B, the moon was wired...

B & B, who know nothing about child psychology, did not understand that the girl wanted to talk about a luminous source bigger than the moon, because her conceptual universe and her vocabulary are too limited to be understood by stubborn people, what's more: ill-intentioned people!

Note in this case that it would have been an elongated moon that moved to the ground, able to turn to spin in another direction... A nice performance for our old Selene! Figuet, for his part, trusts the "works" of one Monsieur Caudron, who "explains" all these zig-zags in the mining country by confusions with the Moon, but by calling on a professor of geology, Antoine Bonte, of the Faculty of Sciences of Lille. This academic would have deserved a long unpaid leave for having informed the press of his time that the testimonies of October 3 (including that of two gendarmes!) were under the "selenography" file. These diversions can be found in La Croix du Nord for October 6, 1954, pages 1 and 8. If B & B had referred to them, it would have allowed them to appeal to a judgment just as stupid, but which, at least, would have flattered their taste for pedantry and pseudo-scientific explanations. To note two more things:

1 - Mr. and Mrs. Galland disputed the statements of Mr. Bonte published in the press.

2 - In L'Ardennais of October 19, 1954, page 1, appeared two photographs which explain very well the "big moon" of Nadège Mansart. (D.O. 18).

Question: Are two gendarmes able to take the moon for a UFO to report to their superiors?

The big moon of Nadège Mansart (3-year-old at the time) pinned in flagrant offense of vagrancy with our good old Selene...

Only people motivated by the desire to hurt want to think that a three-year-old child can be smarter and more lucid than her mother...

Ref. UFOTO : 0174
16 OCT 1954
Location : Sedan (FRA) / Author :

L'Ardennais, Tuesday, October 19, 1954. (Page 1)

Two exceptional documents: THE 'SAUCER' who hovered Saturday on SEDAN was photographed

These two photos were taken with a "Sem Flex" 500, aperture 3/5, exposure time 4 seconds for one, 3 seconds for the other, film "peromnia" 23. The smaller spot is the moon that reached last night the second quarter. The luminous disk, much larger than the moon, strongly impressed the film. On enlargements there is a dark central circle in the middle of the luminous disk.

A photo was taken by an amateur on the side of (illegible sentence) ... Unfortunately the exposure time too (illegible sentence) ...

We reported yesterday that several people saw a bright, round spot in the evening of Saturday over the Sedan area. We did not want to overemphasize this news at a time when minds are influenced by stories about strange apparitions.

But the fact that this luminous spot could be fixed on the film forces us to leave our reserve.

The documents we publish are absolutely authentic and it is not a photo montage. These two photos were taken Saturday around 10 p.m. (the witnesses in their emotion forgot the exact time) of a window of a building of the street Jean-Jaurès in Sedan. Two witnesses were next to the operator, it is the latter who wanted to take the air at the window of his room, first saw the abnormal glow that intrigued other witnesses in different places.

Two peacekeepers, on duty at the Sports Palace, saw a luminous disc around 9:30 p.m.

Several young people from the Vrigne direction also saw it. When the photos we published were taken, the person who took them is unaware of any of the findings elsewhere.

(Read more on page 4)

The saucer that hovered over Sedan was photographed

(Continued from the first page)

None of the witnesses said that they were flying saucers. They just reported, no more, we'll do like them.

Some saw the disc moving in a straight line at the roof, others including our photographer and his friends saw it motionless for a few moments, then making a few short movements at low speed to disappear then.

The operator who photographed the disc saw it red-orange "the color of the fire of a cigarette when the smoker sucks". As for the impression of size and distance left by the appearance, no one could pronounce. The moon was shining and there were some clouds.

Let's not make us say what we do not say and add to findings enough surprising by themselves.

But let's add the reflection of one of the witnesses referring to the saucers: "I'll end up believing in it!".

(60)

DATE: 16 October 1954

LOCATION: Sedan, Ardennes (France)

FORMAT: Picture

PHOTOGRAPHER: Not known

EXPLANATION: Lunar lens flare (as per Eric Maillot)

REFERENCES: L’Ardennais, October 19, 1954, released in Jean-Michel Ligeron’s O.V.N.I. en Ardennes, 1981, page 134. Eric Maillot.

REMARKS: Nil

UFO OF THE GREAT EAST

The photos of a ghost ufo
Sedan (08), 16 October 1954

Éric Maillot

Date: 16 October 1954
Time: 10 : 00 p.m.
Location: Sedan, Ardennes (France)
Format Picture
Photographer: Not know [sic]

To set the scene, let's read a passage from a press clipping of the time (1), illustrated by the two photos above:

"The documents we publish are absolutely authentic and it is not a photo montage at all. These two photos were taken Saturday around 10 p.m. (the witnesses in their emotion have forgotten the exact time) from a window of a building in rue Jean Jaurès in Sedan. Two witnesses were next to the operator, the latter who, wanting to take the fresh air out of the window of his bedroom, first saw this abnormal gleam, which intrigued other witnesses, in different places. Two peacekeepers, on duty at the Palais des Sports, saw a luminous disc, around 9:30 p.m. Several young people, coming from the direction of Vrigne, also saw it. When the photos that we published were taken, the author was not aware of any of the findings made by them. These two photos were taken with a "Sem Flex" 6x6, aperture 3.5, exposure time 1 second for one and 2 seconds for the other, film "Per Omnia" 23. The smaller spot is the moon that reached its second quarter last night. The luminous disk, much larger than the moon, strongly impressed the film. On enlargements there is clearly a dark central nucleus in the middle of the luminous disc."

Another article (2) provides interesting additional information: "A curious luminous shape, which many people saw evolving, Saturday, around 22h in the sky of Sedan could be photographed. photographer, laureate of a recent contest organized by a Parisian newspaper, who was taking the cool at his window in company

1/3

UFO OF THE GREAT EAST

luminous disc moving at high speed. Grabbing his camera, he managed to take two impressive shots with exposure times of one or two seconds. This luminous phenomenon was seen by about fifty people, among them peacekeepers and several personalities of Sedan. Meteor or flying saucer, opinions are divided."

A witness located in Attigny (08) also tells (3):

"I saw very clearly, with my eyes fixed on a constellation to the south, passing in front of it, at an exceptional pace, a luminous globe, very illuminating, followed by a long spindle that could be the exhaust of a powerful nozzle, or more simply, the heating of cosmic dust caused by the speed. All my attention was tense on the passage of this bolide that went majestically in an impressive silence. This firework lasted only 3 or 4 seconds, limited as I was by the space of the sky between two groups of buildings."

Aimé Michel, a fervent defender of saucers, wrote (4) about this UFO:

"THE TEST OF THE METEOR. On October 16, as if by a special act, a splendid bolide crossed the north of France around 9:30 p.m. It was observed on twenty departments by thousands of people, from the Allier as far as Lorraine and the Swiss frontier to Paris. Naturally many witnesses thought they had seen a Flying Saucer and said so. The newspapers printed "Flying Saucer in Orly", or "in Montdidier" or "in Metz." But once again the description made by all these stupid brains revealed a remarkable honesty."

He adds that the bolide was correctly and consistently described as an "orange ball followed by a trail", a "big luminous ball with a tail"", a "flying egg followed by a trail", a "bottle ass with a trail thirty times its diameter", etc.

Do we finally have two photos not of a saucer but simply of this big meteor whose existence cannot be doubted? Well no! It is not all that simple.

With a good look at the appearance of the "bolide" and the "Moon" on press images, an impossibility jumps quickly to anyone who has already taken paused pictures of a moving light: there should be a drag of the bolide car since it moved quickly on the sky background during one or two seconds of exposure. Here nothing like a meteor of this kind crosses the sky, from one horizon to another, often in less than ten seconds (a minute is a maximum possible but extremely rare).

Let's imagine that the photographer miraculously (on two shots!) followed and perfectly compensated the movement of the bolide in the sky. If this had been the case, it was the Moon that would have left a trail because of the shake caused to the camera. It is therefore impossible for this young man to have photographed the 9:30 p.m, meteor or another one around 10 p.m.

Would he have taken a picture of a real saucer around 10 p.m.? If this is the case, the saucer should be perfectly immobile for the reasons already explained above. Yet the photographer does not say it. And even if he had said it... it would be impossible! Why? Simply because the clichés show that neither the small glow (supposed to be the moon) nor the big one (supposed to be the saucer) are at the same position in the frame, nor at the same distance from each other. Since the Semflex camera did not have a zoom lens, it is impossible for the difference between the two objects to be a pure optical magnification effect. And since the Moon does not move enough on the sky background in a few seconds to justify this gap (N times the size of the so-called Moon is N / 2 °), we are facing a new impossibility with this alleged luminous saucer.

Let's summarize, it cannot be the meteor of October 16, 1954 around 9:30 p.m., it cannot be a saucer neither fixed nor even mobile. But what is it?

Simply an ordinary hoax of a young expert photographer who felt the opportunity to laugh with his friends about the credulity of journalists. No special effects according to the press. That's right, the photos were only aimed at the moon and not for any UFOs that would pass in the sky! The proof? Since there is no movement (luminous trace) associated with the two visible "luminaries", we are sure that the camera was steadily placed on a tripod (or propped against a wall) for both shots. Detail which invites to doubt that the photographer had quickly grasped the camera...

2/3

UFO OF THE GREAT EAST

We are also almost certain (no visible luminous trace) that the objects were not visually mobile during the exposure.

The Gibbous Moon, in the PL> DQ phase (74%), was indeed present that evening (height 10° east-northeast) and strongly luminous (magnitude -11). During the two-second break, it saturated the film and created the big bright spot embedded in a halo.

If the latter is the Moon then what is the small spot? Just a virtual optical reflection, also called "ghost reflection" or lens flare, of the Moon, the only real object. This reflection changes position as soon as we change the framing of the luminous source that generates it, here the Moon. It remains symmetrical at the optical center of the lens of the lens.

So, if we had the original prints in 6x6 format (56 × 56 mm image) we could have proved it easily. But they have been published cropped in the press and have also been enlarged! As a result, one cannot even exclude that a street lamp, eliminated during the reframing of the image, created this reflection... A ghost reflection is here all the more likely as the "Semflex 3,5" is known from collectors today to easily create "flare" in a situation of backlight or overexposure. This story, although ancient, still resonates in the present as the optical reflections are nowadays very often presented in the media and by ufologists as UFOs or unusual phenomena. I will cite, as an illustrative example, those taken in the valley of Hessdalen, that so-called scientists present to us scientifically as being ionized plasmas, which are often only such optical reflections of lampposts (or light quite ordinary sources: sun, stars, ...). You will find on this website the explanations for these strange Norwegian lights:

http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/02/a-propos-de-quelques-photos-considerees.html

In the future, so as not to fall into the trap of misinformation or "fake news" with such sensationalistic images, you will find various examples of saucer photographs well explained on the very educational websites below:

http://meprises-du-ciel.fr/meprises-photographiques/
http://www.ipaco.fr/page22.html
http://ufo-scepticisme.forumactif.com/t276-les-reflets-parasites-dans-l-objectif
http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.fr/2014/02/a-propos-de-quelques-photos-considerees.html
http://www.caelestia.be/lensflares.html

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I allowed myself to simplify my point about these shots in order to be understood by a maximum of readers. In all rigor, the demonstration would be complex: it would be necessary to add tedious calculations of angular sizes of the objects, the width of the field of the apparatus, the magnification factor on the basis of the known angular size of the Moon (0.5 ° or ½ degree), the number of pixels occupied on the image, the measurement of the spacings, the estimation of displacements in degrees on the sky and then on the film in N seconds, a reconstitution with a Semflex and its film, etc. All this to reach the same conclusion.

(1) Journal L'Ardennais, Charleville-Mézières, France, p.1 for October 19, 1954.
(1) Journal L'Est Républicain, France, p.6 for October 21, 1954.
(2) Journal L'Ardennais, Charleville-Mézières, France, p? for October 23, 1954.
(3) "Mystérieux Objets Célestes", Aimé Michel, Arthaud pub., 1958.

3/3

No saucer photographed in Sedan

The alleged saucer photo of Sedan, allegedly taken on October 16, 1954, is not well known. It is unknown to the "good authors", like Jimmy Guieu and Aimé Michel. But it was finally recovered, 43 years later, to try to prove that the "big moon", seen the evening of October 3, 1954, by the small Nadège Mansart, was not the moon, but a flying saucer.

The "princeps" article, with the shots, appeared in L'ARDENNAIS.

Two exceptional documents:

THE "SAUCER"
which hovered Saturday evening
above SEDAN
was photographed

We reported yesterday that several people saw a bright spot in the evening of Saturday over the Sedan area. We did not want to give an exaggerated importance to this news, at a time when the minds are influenced by stories about strange apparitions.

But the fact that this spot of light could be fixed on film forces us to leave our reserve.

The documents we publish are absolutely authentic and it is not a photo montage. These two photos were taken Saturday around 10 p.m. (the witnesses in their emotion forgot the exact hour) from a window of a building of the Jean-Jaurès street in Sedan. Two witnesses were next to the operator. It was the latter who, wanting to take the air out of the window of his bedroom, first saw this abnormal gleam which intrigued other witnesses in different places. Two peacekeepers, on duty at the Palais des Sports, saw a luminous disc around 9:30 p.m. Several young men from the direction of Vrigne also saw it. When the photos we published were taken, the author was unaware of any of the findings made elsewhere.

None of the witnesses by the way said that they were flying saucers. They confined themselves to what they saw, without more. We will do like they did.

Some saw the disk move quickly in a straight line at the rooftops level, others, incliding our photographer and his friends saw it motionless for a few moments, then making a short trip at low speed to disappear then. The operator who photographed the disc, saw it red-orange "of the color of the fire of a cigarette when the smoker sucks". As for the impression of size and distance left by the appearance, no one could pronounce it. The moon was shining and there were some clouds. Do not let us say what we do not say and add to the findings, which are surprising enough by themselves.

But let us add the remark of one of the witnesses referring to the saucers: "I will end up believing in it!"

Note [by Dominique Caudron]: The photographer gives a completely whimsical description of the behavior of the object, but he is obliged to do so, otherwise he could not explain how he managed to succeed in taking two photos with a duration of one and two seconds.

[Photo caption:] These two photos were taken with a "Sem Flex" 6x6, aperture: 3.5; exposure time: 1 second for one and 2 seconds for the other; film "Per Omnia" 23.

The smaller spot is the moon that reached its second quarter last night. The luminous disc much larger than the moon has strongly impressed the film.

On enlargements there is clearly a dark central core in the middle of the luminous disc.

A photo was taken by an amateur on the side of the "Moulin à Vent" [Windmill]. Unfortunately, the too short exposure time: 1/100th of a second, has given nothing at development.

(L'ARDENNAIS, October 19, 1954, page 1)

Two days later, another newspaper gave details of the photographer's skill.

Flying saucers
give skin diseases!

CHARLEVILLE (from our correspondent). - A weird luminous shape, that many people saw moving, Saturday, at about 10 p.m. in the sky of Sedan could be photographed.

An amateur photographer, laureate of a recent contest organized by a Parisian newspaper, who was taking the fresh air at his window with two comrades, suddenly saw in the sky a luminous disk that was moving at a great speed.

Grabbing his camera, he managed to capture two impressive shots with a one-second or two-second exposure time.

Another photographer in another part of the city, who operated at a hundredth, got nothing on his film.

This luminous phenomenon was seen by about fifty people, among them peacekeepers and several personalities of Sedan. Meteor or flying saucer? opinions are divided.

It is reported, on the other hand, that in Thin-le-Moutier, a village located in the district of Mézières, a woman reportedly saw a flying saucer land less than thirty meters from her and that, frightened, she reportedly have lost consciousness immediately. Since then, this person, who enjoys widespread esteem in the country, suffers from a strange skin disease, and is forced to stay in the bedroom.

(L'EST RÉPUBLICAIN, October 21, 1954, page 6)

This supposed proof of the existence of the luminous phenomenon will encourage other readers to make themselves known.

: OUR READERS
HAVE THE WORD

THE DISC
PHOTOGRAPHY IN SEDAN
HAS BEEN SEEN AT ATTIGNY

We received from one of Attigny's readers the following letter:

I read with great interest your article, supported by several photographs of SEDAN's "FLYING SAUCER".

In the torpor of this sweet autumn evening, ATTIGNY was too indifferent, to realize that strange tourists were visiting the Ardennes sky, disdaining our torists offices and even our specialties that are yet so enticing.

As this Monsieur from Sedan was taking the air at his window was watching and had time to take photographs, I myself took the air in the garden on Saturday night at 09:30 p.m. It must be believed that the weather and the temperature were suited for this.

My presence would not have been more opportune if I had made an appointment for a contradictory meeting, in which I was determined to oppose my absolute skepticism.

And yet, I saw very clearly, the eyes fixed on a constellation in the south, passing in front of this one, at an exceptional pace, a luminous globe, very illuminating, followed by a long spindle which could be the exhaust of a powerful nozzle, or more simply the heating of cosmic dust caused by the speed.

All my attention was tense on the passage of this fireball that was majestically spinning in an impressive silence. This firework lasted only 3 or 4 seconds, limited as I was by the extent of the sky between two groups of buildings.

We can only congratulate you for your impartial effort and your thoughtful reflections. It is indeed too simple to ridicule events that we do not know, but we talk about more and more. The most difficult task for a journalist is to discriminate between illusionism, mystification and reality.

One can pleasantly joke at ease, or even with verve, but it might also be useful to encourage sincere testimonies in order to inform the readers properly about an unfolding of facts that are not quite touching enough to be compared to the stars of love; and that deserve serious attention. In its fleetingness and silence, this phenomenon could only be perceived by chance, just as one wins the national lottery. (Which has never happened to me yet). Here, one could easily increase the chances by setting up competent and insightful observer groups.

It was time for the team change at the Sucrerie d'Attigny, the night crew was en route. Among them, I found witnesses who were amazed by this beautiful comet.

Note [by Dominique Caudron]: This reader did not appear until after the photos were published. He does not note that the photographer's testimony does not agree with his observation, but he does not speak of a saucer, but of a celestial phenomenon that he describes as a fireball, and others as a comet.

What is remarkable is that it advocates surveillance of the sky by groups of observers. This is what ufologists would do 20 years later by organizing "observation nights" (hoping to observe UFOs), and what the FRIPON network does, sixty years later, to record the meteors.

(L'ARDENNAIS, October 23, 1954)

Then come 27 years of silence, before the case is found again at the regional level.

Many authors wanted to report in a book the UFO sightings made in their area.

This is the case of Jean-Michel Ligeron, who, although rather focused on the natural sciences, published in 1981, O.V.N.I. in Ardennes, with subtitle: "10 years of investigation on Flying Saucers". He publishes both his own investigations and copies of newspaper articles.

For the 1954 cases, there are very few investigations, but there is a review of the local press. We then find the cases of October 16, with photocopies of fairly good quality of articles of L'ARDENNAIS for 19 and 23 October, seen above.

There is unfortunately no analysis of the observations mentioned, especially the photographs taken in Sedan, but the author is still going to annotate the two photos of L'ARDENNAIS for October 19.

This is to make clear to the uninformed reader that the UFO is the largest of the two objects, and therefore much brighter than the moon.

But 43 years later, Jean Sider, who did not study the photos, did not check the position of the moon, or did not even investigate the memorable pursuit of Ms. Nelly Mansart's car on October 3, 1954, uses Sedan's photos to prove, on the basis of the testimony of a three-year-old child, that the "saucer" that seemed to accompany Ms. Mansart's car that night was a saucer, not the moon.

This is a particularly unusual abuse. This is the testimony of several adults explained by B & B, mind you, thanks to the "lucidity of a three years old girl!

...

They much prefer to rely on Radar, Parisian weekly they accuse of exaggeration in other pages! Because Radar, of which they exploit the report in the sense of their reductive ideas, discloses the "extraordinary" testimony of a three-year-old girl, Nadège Mansart, whose mother, Mrs. Nelly Mansart, made an observation substantially identical to that of Mr. Galland and his family, but in another area of the same region. The girl, interviewed by a Paris reporter, reportedly replied "I saw the big moon". B & B rush into the breach to triumph and claim that Mrs. Mansart, like the Galland family, not counting the other passengers of the two vehicles all identified in the local newspapers, had only observed our satellite! Incredible but true. A three-year-old girl would have identified the cause of a phenomenon that puzzled her mother and other people she was not even with!

Note [by Dominique Caudron]: B & B are Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, authors of La Grande Peur Martienne. Jean Sider claims to give them lessons by making the same mistake as them. Nadège Mansart has never been interviewed by Parisian reporters, and it is on the basis of GNEOVNI newsletters (which quoted Le Courrier Picard), that Barthel and Brucker claim that it was the moon, not the opinion of the 3-year-old girl.

B & B, who know nothing about child psychology, did not understand that the girl wanted to talk about a light source bigger than the moon, because her conceptual universe and her vocabulary are too limited to be understood by narrow-minded people, what's more: ill-intentioned people!

Note [by Dominique Caudron]: If the three-year-old thought she recognized the moon, but bigger, in the direction of the moon, it is simply that she saw the moon, which by an arch-classic illusion seemed to be larger near the horizon. But, for Jean Sider, all those who do not agree with him are narrow-minded and ill-intentioned.

2 - In L'Ardennais of October 19, 1954, page 1, appeared two photographs which explain very well the "big moon" of Nadège Mansart. (D.0, 18).

(Jean Sider, LE DOSSIER 1954 ET L'IMPOSTURE RATIONALISTE, Ramuel 1997, page 54)

[Dominique Caudron:] In this "D.O.", that is to say the Iconographic Notebook, Jean Sider gives, on page 18, a reproduction of the article of the newspaper L'ARDENNAIS seen above. Then he comments:

The "big moon" Nadège Mansart (3 years old at the time), pinned on film in the act of vagrancy with our good old Moon...

Only people motivated by the desire to hurt want to think that a three-year-old can be smarter and more lucid than his mother...

[Dominique Caudron:] These two photos each show two objects, one of which is supposedly the moon, and the other a "saucer". For Jean Sider, the fact that the alleged saucer looks bigger, proves that it is a saucer that Nadège Mansart saw, since it seemed bigger than the moon. But not only is it a classic paralogism, but he wants to forget that neither Nadège Mansart nor his mother saw two objects, and therefore his explanation falls by the wayside. Above all, we will see that these two photos never show anything else than the overexposed moon, and its reflection in the lens. Zero for Jean Sider.

As for his second affirmation, it is nothing but the anti-rationalist aggressiveness, which does not honor its author.

(Jean Sider, LE DOSSIER 1954 ET L'IMPOSTURE RATIONALISTE, CAHIER ICONOGRAPHIQUE, Ramuel 1997, page 18)

Let's skip another 5 years. Eric Maillot, who read Jean-Michel Ligeron's book, regrets that he did not mention the possible explanations for each case.

He [Maillot] mentions, therefore, a short summary followed by an appropriate explanation:

October 16, 1954, 9:15 pm, All the department.

Ph: Red-orange disc, 5xPL, going very fast is towards west. Duration 30s max.

Id: Meteor, racing car, probable Taurides (radian in the East).

(Eric Maillot, CRITICAL REVIEW OF CASES CITED IN "UFO IN ARDENNES", THE EASTERN MYSTERIES n ° 7, 2002, p.52)

Finally, on the occasion of its 40th anniversary, the CNEGU (North-East UFO Groups Committee), publishes OVNI SUR LE GRAND EST, where are presented 40 years of its research. A file is devoted to the photos of Sedan.

[Dominique Caudron:] It is still Eric Maillot, who, this time, tackles precisely the two photos of Sedan, and he not tender for the photographer

[Dominique Caudron:] He begins by showing the two photos, as they appear in Ligeron's book, mentions the article of L'ARDENNAIS of the 19th, that of the EST REPUBLICAIN, and even that of L'ARDENNAIS of the 23rd, which reinforces the luminous object (ie the meteor), but not the photos. Then he mentions the opinion of Aimé Michel who finds in this "meteor test" a proof of the competence of the witnesses (illusory proof, but this is another story). He continues then.

Do we finally have two photos not of a saucer but simply of this great bolide of which we cannot doubt the existence? Well no! It is not all that simple.

A good look at the appearance of the "fireball" and the "Moon" on press images, an impossibility jumps quickly to anyone who has already taken pictures paused from a moving light: there should be a drag of the bolide since it moved quickly on the sky background during one or two seconds of exposure. Here nothing like a meteor of this kind crosses the sky, from one horizon to another, often in less than ten seconds (a minute is a maximum possible but extremely rare).

Let's imagine that the photographer miraculously (on two shots!) followed and perfectly compensated the movement of the bolide in the sky. If this had been the case, it was the Moon that would have left a trail by the shake caused to the camera. It is therefore impossible for this young man to have photographed the 9:30 p.m. meteor or another around 10 p.m.

Would he have taken a picture of a real saucer around 10 p.m.? If this is the case, the saucer should be perfectly immobile for the reasons already explained above. Yet the photographer does not say it. And even if he said it... it would be impossible! Why? Simply because the clichés show that neither the small glow (supposed to be the moon) nor the big one (supposed to be the saucer) are at the same position in the frame, nor at the same distance from each other. Since the Semflex camera did not have a zoom lens, it is impossible for the difference between the two objects to be a pure optical magnification effect. And since the Moon does not move enough on the sky background in a few seconds to justify this gap (N times the size of the so-called Moon is N / 2 °), we are facing a new impossibility with this alleged luminous saucer.

Let's summarize, it cannot be the racing car of October 16, 1954 around 9:30 p.m., it cannot be a saucer neither fixed nor even mobile. But what is it?

Simply an ordinary hoax of a young expert photographer who felt the opportunity to laugh with his friends about the credulity of journalists. No special effects according to the press. That's right, the photos only aimed for the moon and not for any UFOs that would pass in the sky! The proof? Since there is no movement (luminous trace) associated with the two visible "luminaries", we are sure that the camera was steadily placed on a tripod (or propped against a wall) for both shots. Detail which invites to doubt that the photographer had quickly grasped the camera...

We are also almost certain (no visible luminous trace) that the objects were not visually mobile during the installation.

The Gibbous Moon, in the PL> DQ phase (74%), was well present that evening (height 10 ° east-northeast) and strongly luminous (magnitude -11). During the two-second break, it saturated the film and created the big bright spot embedded in a halo.

If the latter is the Moon then what is the small spot? Just a virtual optical reflection, also called "ghost reflection" or lens flare, of the Moon, the only real object. This reflection changes position as soon as one changes the framing of the light source that generates it, here the Moon. It remains symmetrical at the optical center of the lens.

So, if we had the original prints in 6x6 format (56 × 56 mm image) we could have proved it easily. But they have been published cropped in the press and have also been enlarged! As a result, we cannot exclude the fact that a lamp post, eliminated during the reframing of the image, created this reflection... A ghost reflection is all the more likely here because the "Semflex 3.5" is known to current collectors to easily create "flare" in backlighting or overexposure.

...

I allowed myself to simplify my remarks on these shots in order to be understood by a maximum of readers. Strictly speaking, the demonstration would be complex...

... to reach the same conclusion.

Note [by Dominique Caudron]: We are going to develop a little bit... to reach the same conclusion

(Eric Maillot, Les photos d'un ovni fantôme », OVNI SUR LE GRAND EST, 2018, document 10)

ANALYSIS

For journalists, the photographs, which are authentic and without editing, accredit the phenomenon. We will see that in fact, as shown by Eric Maillot, it is the phenomenon that discredits the photographs... and the photographer.

First of all, it is odd that our photographer was "taking the fresh air" on October 16th, around 10 p.m. The temperature should not be so oppressive that in the evening he had to open the window. But here, to take his pictures, he needed the window to be open. And since he could not say that he was preparing to take his picture, he had to find something else.

[Photo caption:] the arrow indicates the direction of the moon, not the place of shooting

Since, according to the photographer, the moon was in the field of the camera, it gives us an indication of the orientation of the shot.

On 16 October in Sedan and at 1000 p.m., the moon is in an azimuth of about 65°, that is to say in the East-North-East, at a height on the horizon of about 10°. In Jean Jaurès street, in Sedan, there are indeed buildings, on the west side, from where one could see it, and facing the East-South-East. Our photographer was able to see and photograph the moon.

The apparent diameter of the moon, for this day and this hour, is 32.44'

The Semflex is a 6x6 reflex camera, with two superimposed lenses, with a focal length of 75 mm. The moon makes a spot of .7 mm on the film, or 1/85 of the field.

On the images seen above, this would only make 5 unfortunate pixels on the screen. But the smallest of spots is at least three times larger, which allows understanding that the images have been largely cropped to extract the most interesting part, which is also quite normal.

As for the "saucer", it is a different story. We know that that night, a meteor was visible around 9:30 p.m., in the north-east quarter of France. But here, the witnesses agree to find it had a visibility of a few seconds, five seconds for some, and a trajectory from East to West. A witness who, having discovered the meteor, would have taken his camera to photograph it, would have had only one or two seconds to act, while the meteor was on the west side. Unfortunately, it is on the other side. From the window where one saw the moon, the meteor was no longer visible.

That's not all. After having taken his camera, the witness still had time to do an exposure of a second, to change the exposure time, to unroll the film, then to do an exposure of two seconds, all this for a meteor which was visible only a few seconds, and was no longer even in his field of vision.

There is more: a meteor that traveled a large part of the sky in a few seconds, should have an apparent speed of the order of ten degrees of arc per second. It should have left a long trace on the photos, posed one and two seconds. But the photos show no movement.

Force is to conclude that our photographer could not photograph the meteor, and that what he photographed was not the meteor.

But, is the smallest of these spots really the moon? We can doubt it when we think about the exposure time: 1 s to f / 3.5, and even 2 s !. We will see that it is terribly overexposed.

We are also looking in vain for the traces of this famous film "Per Omnia" 23. In fact, it is probably the film "P33 Ferrania 23 Din", which had a sensitivity of 160 ASA. This will allow us to calculate the exposure time that would have been necessary.

The moon is a rather dark object, comparable to an ash track. But it is itself lit in full sun, so that its brightness is that of a clear ground, lit by a veiled sun. Those who remember the instructions for use of film in the times of paper films, see well that in the veiled sun, one is very far from such a long exposure.

For a sensitivity of 100 ASA, the instructions for use of film recommended, for a veiled sun, a exposure time of 1/125 to f / 11, which corresponds to 1/1000 to f / 4. We can then calculate that for 160 ASA at f / 3.5, It is 1/2000 s needed, at least to photograph the full moon.

But the brightness of the moon in the neighborhood is 10 times less, for a luminous surface halved, and thus luminance 5 times less. Some tests of photos with the same phase of the moon, show that for 160 ASA and f / 3.5, it was 1/400 s that it took.

We have reconstructed on the right what would have been the cliché, supposed cropped and enlarged 3 times, with a correct exposure.

With a pose of 1 s, the photo is overexposed 400 times, and 800 times with a pose of 2 s. Not only is the image more than a broad spot of light scattering in the gelatin, but the reflection in the lens, the "lens flare", usually unobtrusive to the moon, must become visible. We must thus have two spots of light: A broad one, corresponding to the scattering spot of the moon, and a smaller one corresponding to the reflection.

And that's what we see in the photos published by L'Ardennais! The so-called photo of the saucer is only that of the moon, and the supposed picture of the moon is probably only that of its reflection.

Now, could the photographer ignore it? He knew he had not photographed the meteor. At best, he could have seen the beginning of the phenomenon, but it would have disappeared before he could take a picture.

On the other hand, if he was really the winner of a photography contest, he could not ignore that his photograph of the moon would be very overexposed, with the appearance of the reflection.

Moreover, his photographs, without any trace of movement, were not taken on the fly, but the camera was propped up against one edge of the window, or placed on a foot.

It is also doubtful that he knew nothing about the observation of the meteor, as many people had to talk about it the next day.

So he knowingly went to bring to the reporters two shots supposed to show both the moon and the saucer, and that he told them a good story to explain that he succeeded to photograph them together. These photographs were actually authentic and without editing, it is true. The journalists were fooled, accepted the story of the other two witnesses, of which one oddly did not know the version, one did not ask his opinion to a professional photographer, nor to an amateur astronomer, copied the name of the film wrongly, and forwarded a magnificent proof of the existence of the sedan saucer.

The ignorance of these brave journalists does not do them honor, and is all too common. But the top is that one then used this 100% phony photo to prove that the so-called saucer that worried so much Mrs. Nelly Mansart on the road from Hérissart to Amiens, was a saucer, and not the moon.

It is also curious that it took 64 years for these photos to be demystified. As of December 2, 2016, Patrick Gross's website still mentions:

Explanations:

The meteor of October 16, 1954, at 09:30 p.m.

[Note by Patrick Gross: the source is not given; it is this page. My page obviously did not contain just this. In particular, I added the source [jbs1] with the explanation of the photographic aspect of the case by lens reflection from [jbs1] on December 26, 2009, almost 10 years before Dominique Caudron created his page. But his does not appear in his page.]

[Note by Patrick Gross:

My page created on May 15, 2004 is archived independently on October 14, 2004, at https://web.archive.org/web/20041022082116/http://ufologie.net/1954/16oct1954sedan.htm wuth the explanation "Meteor". That year, I was starting this catalogue, and had not yet dealt with the data showing that there had been the big meteor of 09:30 p.m. Aimé Michel talked about.

In this archive of my page at https://web.archive.org/web/20071116102335/http://ufologie.net/1954/16oct1954sedan.htm done on November 16, 2007, one can read that I added the first publication by Eric Maillot ([1488], now [emt1]), not spefcifi to the question of the photos, with the meteor explanation. I cannot tell when exactly I added this ince I started to keep a change history only on December 26, 2009 ("First formal version" in my page history).

In this archive of my page at https://web.archive.org/web/20101121031947/http://ufologie.net/1954/16oct1954sedan.htm done on November 21, 2010, one can see that I added among other documents the [jbs1] publication with its mention "Lunar lens flare (as per Eric Maillot)". I changed my explanation "Meteor" to "The meteor of October 16, 1954, at 09:30 p.m.". My page history shows I made these changes on December 26, 2009.

My "France 1954" catalog was started in 2004, almost 15 years ago. At the end of these 15 years, I managed to published a totally unprecedented documentation on this matter, but it must be obvious that I am not done; I still find additional sources, or previously unreleased sources to publish. So I did not give priority so far to "explanations" for all cases (except obvious ones), because in many cases, I know I will still find and publish more information. As of November 20, 2019, I published about 1807 case files, and 341 still have as explanation "Not looked for yet."]

It is simply not humanly possible to me to "solve" all cases at once, it is humanly impossible to expect from me that I add everything new of a case at once. But in this case for example, I did not hide the "Moon lens flare" explanation of the photos by Eric Maillot, it was already there 9 years ago.

This is true for all fast moving luminous phenomenon observations, around this time, but not for photos.

But it should be noted that 2018 is the year of the publication of the demystification, and not the discovery of the deception. This trick never waited for a careful analysis, and this analysis was just waiting for cataloging. [The "discovery of the deception" is published in 2018 by Dominique Caudron, and is added to my page in 2019.]

In fact, it was during an update of the catalog of Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos that Eric Maillot analyzed these photos... in 2004, 14 years before the publication of their analysis [Note by Patrick Gross: these are the sources [emt1] and [jbs1] in my page. [emt1] was there (https://web.archive.org/web/20071116102335/http://ufologie.net/1954/16oct1954sedan.htm) on May 15, 2004; [jbs1] was there on December 26, 2009 (https://web.archive.org/web/20101121031947/http://ufologie.net/1954/16oct1954sedan.htm).]

So, ufologist friends who still have some hope that this or that photo is that of an authentically unidentifiable object, beware! This photo may be already demystified without your knowledge.