The 1954 "French UFO flap" -which may not have been a flap at all

 I would like to offer this page from Patrick Gross' Ufologie page.  It shows the results for an incident during the 1954 "French UFO flap" -which may not have been a flap at all (see Unidentified-Identified):

The 1954 French flap:

The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this site is here.

October 3, 1954, Marcoing, Nord:

Reference number for this case: 3-oct-54-Marcoing. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.

Reports:

[Ref. la1] "L'ALSACE" NEWSPAPER:

The newspaper reports on October 6, 1954, with no other information, that there was a sighting in Marcoing. The date is not given but the sighting is mentioned among others that took place on October 2 and 3, 1954.

See the article here.

[Ref. li1:] "LIFE" MAGAZINE:

MARTIAN MEN'S HEIGHT is shown by two bakers. Pierre Lucas (left) of Loctudy was going to well when, he said, orange ball fell from the sky. Suddenly a small bearded figure with one eye in the middle of his forehead tapped him on the shoulder. Serge Pochet (right) of Marcoing was approached by two small shadows.

[Ref. ar1:] ALBERT ROSALES:

103. Location. Marcoing France Date: October 3 1954 Time: night Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information. Humcat 1954-67 Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports Type: E?

[Ref. dj2:] DONALD JONHSON:

Donald Johnson says that on October 3, 1954, a humanoid report occurred later than 6:45 p.m., in the night and did not involve a UFO sighting: young baker's apprentice S. Pouchet, was approached by two small shadowy beings, about three feet tall, in Marcoing, Nord, France.

The sources are noted as "Webb, David F. & Bloecher, Ted. HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports, case A0271, citing Life Magazine, November 1, 1954" and "Life Magazine, November 1, 1954".

[Ref. gn1:] "GNEOVNI" UFOLOGY GROUP:

In "Special notes" of their catalogue, the GNEOVNI group indicates that there exists in several books, such as Aimé Michel's "M.O.C.", Planète publishers in 1966, in which there is a number of observation cases in the Nord and Pas-de-Calais which are not included in their catalogue because there "remains much doubts as to their credibility." One of them is noted "3-10-54 Marcoing nord".

[Ref. ta1:] "THINK ABOUT IT" WEBSITE:

Location: Marcoing France Date: October 3 1954 Time: night Bakers apprentice Serge Pochet was approached by 2 small shadowy entities, about 3-feet tall. No other information. Source: Humcat quoting Newspaper reports

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

This database recorded this case 9 times:

Case Nr.	New case Nr.	Investigator	Date of observation	Zip	Place of observation	Country of observation	Hour of observation	Classification	Comments	Identification
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	Night	CE III
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.30	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.30	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	20.00	NL
19541003			03.10.1954		Marcoing	France	Night	CE III

Explanations:

Not looked for yet.

Keywords:

(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)

Marcoing, Nord, Serge Pochet, entity, entities, dark, small, two

Sources:

[---] indicates sources which I have not yet checked.

• [la1] Article in the regional newspaper L'Alsace, Mulhouse, France, October 6, 1954.
• [li1] Part of the article "Astral Adventurers - Frenchmen report meetings with unlikely creatures", in LIFE Magazine, USA, page 28, November 1, 1954.
• [---] "HUMCAT: Catalogue of Humanoid Reports", compiled by David Webb and Ted Bloecher, Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), USA, circa 1978.
• [ar1] "1954 Humanoid Reports", compiled by Albert Rosales, circa 2001, at www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1954.shtml
• [dj2] "The Worldwide UFO Wave of 1954", electronic article by Donald Johnson, Ph.D., USA, page 5, 2009, at www.ufoinfo.com/onthisday/papers/Worldwide%20UFO%20Wave%20of%201954.pdf
• [gn1] "Catalogue Régional d'observations", by the Groupement Nordiste d'Etudes des Observations d'Objets Volants Non Identifiés (GNEOVNI), France, undated, circa 2009, at www.geru.fr/fr/catalogue-regional-observation-ovni-nord
• [ta1] "1954: October Sightings", catalog on the UFO website Think About It, USA, not dated, found 2014, at http://www.thinkaboutitdocs.com/8-1954-october-sightings
• [ub1] Online database UFO-Datenbank, Germany, found in 2016, at ufodatenbank.de

So what do you notice? Perhaps that someone notes that someone referred to this case...appearing in newspapers?  I am hoping that this sticks out like a ten feet (3m) high glowing red thumb. We have a case, once again, of 'investigation' by news-clippings.

Two reported incidents of alleged actual landings and entities and who turns up after -the press. There were people claiming to be flying saucer investigators but that amounted to noting down a news item on the radio or adding a newspaper clipping to the scrapbook. From the news clipping these people could pontificate and waffle on over pages.

I understand that there was no funding for flying saucer research but most of these people involved in the subject knew each other one way or another. There was a very real attitude, not just in France, that even if a report came from a mile or two away -why go investigate when the newspapers had all the information?

I actually almost choked on a swig of coffee when I read Italian investigators, who had not once even attempted to go and investigate Rosa Lotti's encounter in 1954 until the early 2000's, complaining and criticising newspapers and journalists for leaving out information and not doing a thorough job. Well, at least the reporters got off of their arses and went to see her.  There are literally hundreds of cases like the one above.

Writers -'ufologists'- are making money out of including these cases in their books and worst of all in their "data" or "sightings breakdowns" that make them look so good.  The truth is that they are producing nonsense: they have no data other that he wrote what so-and-so wrote who got it from whatshisname who found it mentioned in a newspaper clipping. That is then the solid data used by people like Jacques Vallee who does not actually check anything himself. 

The period 1947-2018 has literally achieved nothing when it comes to ufology other than over-hyped hysteria, bunko-men and...literally, huge volumes of trash.  Graham F. N. Knewstub's British Flying Saucer Bureau Technical Report No. 1 was in the 1950s, we all thought that we were seeing real science (I was fooled, too) when Vallee published his work on UFO Waves, Flaps and so on.  He included well known hoaxes, misidentifications of aircraft, meteors, weather balloons and much more in amongst the not investigated UFO cases. The data was useless.

Then we saw Ted Bloecher Report on the UFO Wave of 1947, published in 1967. This was an actual attempt at analysis and to piece events from that year together.  Published work that could be peer reviewed. It was as early as 1956 that Bloecher became intrigued by the growing number of “UFO occupant” reports and along with researcher David Webb, started to work on what would become the Humanoid Catalogue –HUMCAT: a collection of early “humanoid” sightings. I prefer not to use the term “Humanoids” as an all-encompassing term but the important thing is that the work began.

   Ted Bloecher’s major interest was always in occupant reports or Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K), as they would be called after J. Allen Hynek set out his categorisation of UFO sighting reports.  Bloecher had been one of the top thinkers in the Civilian Saucer Investigation group and after that became active with the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) and when  NICAP became “moribund”, Bloecher moved on to the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) and the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).  He was still concentrating his efforts on investigation of CE3K reports with David Webb. In 1978, CUFOS published his and Davis's Close Encounter at Kelly and Others of 1955, based on the investigation of the Kelly-Hopkinsville case.

   Bloecher could well be called the top authority on these cases in the United States by the 1970s and though he did everything he possibly could (see UFO Contact?) to get the Euporia, Mississippi landing/entity case prioritised and investigated it never was –presumably due to the prejudices of the two investigators.

   But being the top man does not come with a university grant or even financial funding and to keep records complete Bloecher filed away press reports.  This should have been the data base used for thorough investigation of the cases. Instead, ufologists just quoted Bloecher and that he, himself, was referencing newspaper reports.

   Then came the big excuse of the “Grey Abduction Paranoia” –if a case did not involve Greys then it was a fake or misidentification.  No need to bother. Or to use the much criticised US Air Force ‘excuse’ used so well by MUFON today: the amount of time that has passed negates any fruitful investigation.

Ufology does not “get the respect deserved”?  You earn respect.

Two cases from recent years I have tried to get more information on so I went to the site owners who reported on the cases.  In each I was told “I picked that up from (website) –best you contact him” and so I did: “I read that on (name of website) because it seemed interesting” and then I was advised to contact the “original source”. This original source turned out to have copied the item from some newspaper item and he could not remember which or the date. This is the most common response I get when following up old reports and today I more or less expect it.

Ufology is basing all of its claims on cases –including plain old “UFO” sightings- that were never investigated because it is much easier to sit in a chair and say “The evidence is all there” –it is not.

In the United States, France and Belgium I think there are enough ufologists with some credibility who can open cold case investigations on old CE3K/Alien Entity cases.  Once the witnesses, now in their 60’s, 70’s and 80’s are gone then so are all of the facts that they can tell us and to ascertain which, if any, of the CE3K/AE reports is genuine could provide us with the valuable data we need.

I am undertaking this work in the UK (though some prominent ufologists appear to not want this –I wonder why?) and I just hope and pray that someone out there will do likewise in their own country.  PLEASE!

You Tube and UFO False Info The Venezuelan UFO Wave of 1954: Invasion of the Hairy Humanoids

 The observer drew a picture of the UFO....not shown therefor NOT a piece of evidence.

 Photograph was taken of the UFO in two or three cases. "Never published" or they did not exist?  All of the American and South American Ufologists who copied and reprinted the news stories but not one got a copy of any of the photos?  Oh it was an "official cover up" not down to the fact Ufologists founded it less work to just reprint news items -standard from 1940-2000s.

Hundreds of observers (if we take just one case) so where are the gathered statements as evidence?  Surely APRO had as many gathered as possible? No.

One man identified as the translator of the items and we do not even have his real name.

The French 1954 UFO wave was no such thing. Assessing all of the material, including from French language sources, we see that meteorites, aircraft, helicopters and even a man repairing a broken down bus were all mixed into the pot. 95% at least of the "Wave" was false. People like Jacques Vallee know this but ...

We are NOT being presented with "irrefutable proof" in these videos just stories. Some of the entity cases I have dealt with in my books  (Contact) and they are impressive because something obviously DID happen.

I, personally, observed a 7 feet tall carrot-like  entity and UFO in my back garden. 20 other people saw it all. Prove that statement false. Only my confession to a false statement would be evidence.

The use of some outright stupid AI images/clips only helps take away any credibility because  they are so laughable and "if he resorts to this AI trash how far can he be trusted?"

I've spent over five decades looking at the subject of AE/CE3K encounters and assessing the evidence and reporting on them. People will ignore that because some hack has posted utter rot on You Tube with really awful AI.

Witness to Aliens Repair of Craft — Revisited: New Scientific Models Cas...

Unfortunately, video producers tend to ignore the actual facts in favour of 'proof' from science that 'adds' to the cases. The cases then become accepted as genuine. Add something "similar" between the case and another" -more 'proof'.  "Multiple witness case"....no. An alleged double witness observation of a UFO at best. But two do not become "multiple witnesses".

This is a 2004 statement from Anders Liljegren, who investigated the case thoroughly:

"I most certainly have further info on the classic Swedish Gideon Johansson case! "I wrote an article on the case for Britain's Flying Saucer Review in 1970 (Nov/Dec 1970 pp.14-17). Today I must admit that the case was much overrated at that time. "My own evaluation today is that this case should (must) be labeled as 'psychological'. Gideon Johansson was a man who saw many things in his lifetime (ghosts, revenants, 'UFOs' (five or six times), etc). He even reported seeing a small Santa Claus-like figure in the industry area where he worked prior to the saucer landing. And he heard voices speaking in Russian from large tanks at the industry area where he was working. No one else heard the voices. "Following up on the case, I have read local newspapers of the time, interviewed about fifty of Mr. Gideon Johansson's workmates, neighbours, relatives and inhabitants of Mariannelund. I have also talked with Gideon's son Rolf, who was a witness together with Gideon, but who only confirms the FIRST phase of the sighting: a brilliant light over the nearby three-storied building. The supposed two other witnesses except for Gideon and Rolf have never been found and interviewed by anyone. "I have been able to prove beyond any doubt that Gideon was and overenthusiastic UFO believer before the claimed landing (with EM effect) in 1959. The case was 'the master case' of Swedish ufology in the 1970's. Big shame on us! "Gideon had had a 'UFO' sighting in the summer of 1958 which can very certainly be traced to a bright bolide seen over half of Sweden. Most other witnesses saw two streaks of light going towards the northwest while Gideon saw a 'flying telephone receiver' and sent detailed and colourful accounts of this sighting to anyone interested. Despite the great distance (8000 meters of more) Gideon was able to see details no one else saw. He first reported this first (meteor) case to Mr. Sven Schalin, NICAP representative for Sweden, in a letter to Schalin in January 1959, nine-ten months prior to the landing. "Mr. Schalin visited Gideon at his home in August 1959, just six weeks prior to the 'landing'. Mark Rodeghier kindly digged out Schalin's orignal report on the meteor from the NICAP archives at CUFOS for me. In spite of Schalin's visit -- Schalin's interest in UFOs was widely published by Swedish media after the Domsten affair (now known as a outright hoax) -- Gideon did not contact Schalin to report the landing just six weeks later. This is extremely curious to me! In fact he waited until 1967 to send his detailed report to K. Gosta Rehn (APRO representative). "Of all Gideon's workmates -- and I have interviewed all of his closest mates at the electrical department of the factory as well as many others who knew him well -- no one had heard about the landing until after K.Gosta Rehn wrote about it in his 1969 book. The local newspaper reporter (who moved from the town in 1964) had never heard of the story when I phoned him in 1996. Gideon's story grew in size as the years went by. In fact, most people I have talked to regard Gideon as a storyteller, not just because of his UFO reports. "In the contemporary autumn 1959 local newspapers I found several interesting things: "There was a large military exercise -- involving more than 900 infantry soldiers close to Mariannelund alone -- at almost the exact reported time of the landing. In fact the exercise was all over eastern Sweden and involved hundreds of Swedish Air Force planes swarming also over Mariannelund. It is reported that a council meeting in the town had to be postponed, the day before the reported landing, because of the repeated noice of air force jets. None of the soldiers saw anything, no 'UFO' reports. There are no reports of a saucer at this time in the military archives we have copied. This makes me suspect that what Gideon and his son really saw was a military parachuted light or some other light connected to the exercise which was going on right in the direction where the light was seen. In fact Gideon's son today says that Gideon's landing and humanoids was an effect of his great immagination. "The William Gill sighting was published, as a short notice, by the newspaper Gideon was reading daily (a newspaper called Smalandstidningen), just about one week before Gideon should have seen his saucer. "The Gill sighting - as reported then in Sweden - has many elements common to the Gideon sighting: humanoids, the witness waving to the humanoids, UFO vehicle being 'repaired', etc. To me the Gill sighting was one source of inspiration, as was the contemporary Swedish UFO literature (Adamski, etc) and, possibly, Schalin's visit to Gideon's home just six weeks prior to document the meteor case for NICAP. "There is no documentation at all of an electric blackout at the factory. The local newspaper reported about the lack of water in the local river, which almost prevented pulp production at the factory where Gideon was working, but said not a word about an electric blackout, or for that matter damages to power lines. "Archives for UFO research [www.afu.info] has saved many correspondence files (early ufologists like K.Gosta Rehn, Sven Schalin and Lars Andersson) which give unique insights into the case and Gideon's personality. This spring I prepared a 30-page document on the Gideon case for the upcoming UFO-Sweden CD on ufology. We have used the case as an instructive example at the regular two-day training courses for the chain of UFO-Sweden field investigators. "It was originally my intention to let 'The Gideon saucer' become my contribution to the Hilary Evans-Denis Stacy collection published this year by John Brown (Fortean Times) but lack of time prevented this. I hope to make a special issue of the AFU Newsletter some time in the future but I don't know when this can happen. Anyway, the case is most instructive as an example of a psychological explanation. "The Gideon saucer case should be regarded with very great caution. I repeatedly see it here and there, but it would take a lot of effort to stop that tide. It only makes one suspicious of so many other similar cases reported from near and far. "Best regards to you all, Anders Liljegren, Archives for UFO research (AFU), "

The Brooklyn Bridge UFO | The Weirdest Story You'll Ever Hear

Sadly, it has to be said that no one (however sceptical they might want to appear) is willing to just outright state this case was a hoax and Linda may have pulled friends or family intro it -her husband being one of them.

When I first read Witnessed I thought Hopkins had decided to write a novel! Hopkins has been exposed for ignoring facts but stacking the deck -and his weekly Intruder Foundation meetings allowed alleged abductees to share stories so that each one picked up on things that eventually appeared in their next sessions. If Hopkins was being unbiased and logical he would KNOW that would happen/  In fact it all strengthened his stories to try to silence critics because "how can so many unrelated people report the same thing?"

Because Budd Hopkins made sure they all talked freely and he guided them in hypnotic sessions and even in cases not his own; once he used hypnosis out popped similarities to his creation.

Ufology still considers Hopkins and Neapolitano and the case as genuine.  But, then, Ufology is basically made up of fakers, grifters and people generally out to sell somethingso noi one gets out of this clean.

Agent Provocateur

A Key Witness in the Linda Cortile UFO Abduction Case rev 022214

Budd Hopkins on the Brooklyn Bridge - The Linda Case..mov

The Two Major Players of Budd Hopkins' Witnessed Case

1996 Budd Hopkins Hears of New Danger from Linda Cortile rev 022214

1996 Symbols Revealed as Evidence of Alien Abduction rev 022014