The index page for the 1954 French flap section of this site is here.
Reference number for this case: 24-sep-54-Diges. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.
[Ref. 74:] JOURNAL "LE QUOTIDIEN DE LA HAUTE-LOIRE:"
The article underneath has been published in the daily newspaper Le Quotidien de la Haute-Loire, on Thursday, September 30, 1954.
MARTIANS WERE HOAXERSThe travelers of another world, whose newspaper of Lisbon had announced their visit in Portugal, were not born from an imagination exacerbated by the innumerable visions of flying saucers. They were only the creation of mystifiers, that the same newspaper denounces today. FLYING SAUCERS IN THE YONNEWidow Mrs. Jouffroy [Geoffroy] and Miss Fin, resident of Diges (Yonne) claim to have seen a flying saucer on Friday morning (24 09/1954) at 09:00 hours. They added that it was landed on a field. The saucer set out again, they also claim, a few minutes later, leaving two visible marks on the softened ground of the field. |
[Ref. 88:] L'YONNE REPUBLICAINE" NEWSPAPER:
The article underneath has been published in the daily newspaper L'Yonne Républicaine, France, September 28, 1954.
A FLYING SAUCER LANDED IN THE YONNEIn Diges, two people have glanced for a moment, ona mysterious craft and its pilot
in a clearing Seules preuves: deux traces dans la rosée du matin Only evidence: two traces in the morning dew Our colleague, Jean-Claude CHARLET, has reconstituted for you the image seen by Mrs widow GEOFFROY and Miss FIN. (Photograph L'Yonne Républicaine). |
|
|
(From our special investigators) Our icaunian sky already had the privilege of being streaked by various diurnal or nocturnal appearances. None of these craft had landed on the ground of our department. It does seem that this took place now, since two people of Diges saw a craft of dark and dull color, hidden in the angle of a clearing on Friday morning, at 9 hours approximately. Without noise, the apparatus disappeared with speed and discretion. HALLUCINATION OR TRUTH?Although we had received this information with much circumspection, we were obliged to face the obvious fact. An unknown machine, different from modern flying technique of our planet was landed, Friday morning, in Diges. Let us take again the collected statements. You will more easily follow the logic of our investigation. Mrs widow Geoffroy "I was going in the direction of the Cognats, to the laundry place located below the road which goes from Diges to the Michauts." "Before turning on the right and taking the path to the laundry point, my attention was drawn to the left by an odd machine. Near this mass having the shape of a reversed saucer, a man of average size looked at me." " - How was he dressed?" "- He was dressed of dark color and wore a kind of kaki cap on the head - probably. He exceeded by one head the height of the saucer." "- Which colour?" "- Dark dull gray, almost brown." "- Shiny?" "- No, dull." "- Which length?" "- You know, 5 to 6 meters. I was at a hundred meters. I did not look for long. I was seized by fear and I went away again without "beating around the bushes." When I went back there two hours afterwards, I did not see anything. No traces." "Go see for yourself. You will notice the meadow. At the bottom on the right one dead (birch) lays down. It is easy to found the place." A pastoral stage setTo land, the pilot chose his place, without any doubt. The meadow, (80 meters out of 40), slightly in slope, is framed on three sides by a heavy vegetation, where various types of trees of species common in our area gathered. There are also chestnut trees whose leaves are already turning yellow. The fourth side of the meadow is bordered by a road, but from above it, this access way must be hidden by the trees. On this fourth face on the other side of the road, close to the laundry place, a splendid curtain of birches with their white trunks add a pleasant aesthetic note to this pastoral decoration. So this is the modest landing strip, quite clear and hidden in the middle of the wood. It is perfectly appropriate for the one who can and wants to land without being seen. Having noted some wheel tracks in the field, we thought (the extreme limit of our cautious imagination), that some English or American camper had managed to picnic in the quietness with his car and that the car was covered with a dark gray cover... But our assumptions were going to be nullified in face of the answers of the second person who has seen the saucer. Miss Gisèle FINA MONTCHENOT Employed at Mrs. Guillot's, Miss Fin, orphan in state care, walked her goats which grazed on a forest road very close to the clearing located "in Bécard". "- My dogs, one white and the other black, started to bark a little in the meadow. I approached at about thirty meters and, from this place, I saw a machine, lower than a car, of sunken gray color, maroon. A mixture difficult to describe. "- Was the colour dull or shiny?" "- Dull and one tone." "- Which height?" "One meter approximately. The machine of five meters at least was more pointed at one end and was more rounded at the other end." "- Could it have been round?" Yes, but I maintain that it was more pointed on one end side. It rested on bars. I saw them." "What was there on it. Was there no door?" "- Yes there was a door, like that of a trap door, it was opened, right in the air". (what Mrs. Geoffroy mistook from a bulge from a more important distance)." "- Nothing was shining on this door?" "The pilot dressed almost in black wore a helmet (1). He had shoes and, close to his apparatus, he was working, almost squatted. The collar of his outfit was raised. I did not see the color of his skin." With her goats, Miss Gisele Fin follows a path and approaches the road where she would feel in better safety. She thus quits looking at the machine and goes into the depths of the wood. When, by the road, she turned back to look at in the clearing, the machine disappeared without any noise. HALLUCINATION, MYSTERY or TRUTH? The mystery remains whole, obviously. PROOFOne evidence only, according to a women of Mrs. Guillot's farm who went on the premises a little while later. She claimed to us, like Miss Fin, to have seen in the two tracks 50 centimeters apart and broad as the finger (the grass was dry in this place). There, must the tracks have landed whose heat like a tepid domestic iron, dried the dew. It is all that remained there from the visit of this unknown machine. There are no traces left any more now. AN INTERESTING REGION?Our investigation is practically finished. You know as many details than we do. We will still add to clarify the doubtful points that one resident of the hamlet of Varennes, commune of Diges also, Mrs. Lucas, saw one evening, one month ago, a strange machine which moved as if hovering above her house. The moonlight allowed a perfect vision. Then, in only one blow, at a right angle, the machine left vertically, prodigiously quickly... Mrs. Lucas did not say anything for fear that she would be ridiculed. What can be attractive to the saucers in the area of Diges? Only one assumption. The ochre heaps, of Sauilly, must be surprising, so that they draw the attention of the air observers. Let us hope that, without any damage, we will soon know the bottomline. Mrs. widow Geoffroy and Miss Fin are then the first Icaunians who looked from relatively close at... At whom, by the way? The inhabitants of another planet or advanced people of our good old Earth: the first to master cosmic energy? Jacques DELINDRY. (1) Cap or helmet? It may have been that two passengers, one with a cap, one with a helmet, came out of the apparatus one alternatively. |
[Ref. 1685:] "VAR MATIN REPUBLIQUE" NEWSPAPER:
In the Yonne, two women state to have seen a flying saucerAuxerre, AFP. -. Mrs widow Jouffroy and Miss Fin, residents of Diges (the Yonne) claim to have seen Friday morning at 9 o'clock a "flying saucer". They add that it was posed in a field. Its "pilot" was inspecting the "apparatus" whose upper door was open. The saucer went away again, they further claim, a few minutes later, leaving two marks visible on the soaking ground of the field. |
[Ref. 1638:] "LE PROVENCAL" NEWSPAPER:
|
The first flying cigar landed... on skates at 15 km of AuxerreAND ITS PILOT WAS A NEGROEAuxerre. The landing of several flying saucers has already been announced many times: some go even as far as to say with a point of irony that it has become ordinary. But no flying cigar had so far been seen on the ground; since a few hours this regrettable gap has been filled: the object was seen in the Yonne, in Diges, about fifteen kilometers from Auxerre. The two witnesses are formal. Widowed Mrs. Geoffroy, 69 years, declared to the gendarmes of the locality: "Yes, sirs, I saw it with my eyes (sic). It was 9 hours of the morning, I went to the laundry point, when my attention was drawn by an apparatus having the shape of a cigar pointed at the two ends and larger in the center. Near the machine, a man of average size looked at me passing by. He wore a kaki cap. Its face was very brown, almost black. But suddenly, I was afraid and I left running. Two hours afterwards, when I returned, the cigar had disappeared. " Continued on page 11 under the headline "FLYING CIGARS" |
|
SAUCERS AND FLYING CIGARSContinued from the first page Landing on skates At 09:15, the cigar was also seen at the same place by Miss Gisele Fin, aged 16, orphan in state care, who walked her goats. The attention of the girl was drawn by the barkings of the two dogs which accompanied her. The declarations of Miss Fin coincide with those of Mrs. Geoffroy. The latter however specified that the mysterious machines seemed to rest on very thin skates. Frightened in her turn, the girl escaped. The owner of the young goatkeeper, alerted, was to find at the place where the cigar rested two traces which seemed to be left by skates. But the gendarmes who came in number... the next day morning, did not see anything. FLYING SAUCER ON BONNBonn (A.F.P.). This newspaper published Thursday the photography of an employee of administration and a housewife who are said to have seen the "unidentified flying objects" in the sky of Bonn. Several neighbors of these witnesses are said to have confirmed their statements. The newspaper does not specify the dates of these appearances of which one would have been noted in full midday and the other in the night. |
[Ref. 1082:] "SAMEDI-SOIR" NEWSPAPER:
(Excerpt.)
|
[...] And the cigar posed in a clearing, in Diges in Yonne, near which Mrs. widows Gaffroy [sic, Geoffroy] saw a man, from the back, in combination and capped of a khaki bonnet... [...] |
[Ref. 1458] "FRANCE-DIMANCHE" NEWSPAPER:
This weekley newspaper published a series of third hand drawings of some of the different shapes of flying saucers allegedly reported in France in 1954:
|
YonneMachine in the shape of a shell surmounted by a cupola and provided with a slide. Comprised a pilot who was seen squatting in a clearing. Made the dogs bark and Miss Fin, goatkeeper, look up. |
And:
|
Lavoir-du-Bécard (Yonne)This saucer came apparently from the same workshop as the machine observed by Miss Fin. Shell type with external cockpit, but without slide. Seen in a clearing with 9 a.m. by Mrs. Geoffrey. |
[Ref. 1703:] HAROLD T. WILKINS:
The author indicates that in France in 1954, Mrs Simone Geoffroy of Diges said:
"I saw a curious engine like a cigar pointed at both ends on the ground in a field. Standing near it was a being like a tall, dark-skinned man in a khaki hat. He looked at me but said nothing. I was terribly scared and ran away. People who went there two hours later saw nothing."
The author indicates further in his book that in 1954, at Diges, France, a tall, dark entity in a "khaki space suit," standing by a cigar-saucer, pointed at both ends, looked hard at Mrs Simone Geoffrey, "who took to her lightsome heels."
[Ref. -:] CHARLES GARREAU:
Ufologist Charles Garreau investigated into this case at the time when it occurred and concluded that the two witnesses saw a Bell 47 military helicopter of NATO.
Garreau indicates that the two witnesses, Mrs. Geoffroy, a widow, aged 59, and Miss Gisele Fin, aged 16, were independent witnesses separated by 150 to 200 meters in the location Michaut near Diges and that their testimony diverges on certain points, which are primarily that of the size of the machine.
However, testimonies clearly showed that the two witnesses saw a man, upright at a time and squatted at another time, or two men at the same time in different positions seen from the different angle of sights, and that this man or these two men wore pilot looking clothes and cap or helmet.
[Ref. 659:] MICHEL CARROUGES:
Michel Carrouges mentions this encounter in a section of his book devoted to testimonys of 1954 including observation of the presence of "pilots of human size."
He notes that it was broad daylight since it was 9 o'clock in the morning, that the two women made the observations at a few moments one after the other.
He indicates that the man was of an average size, wore a cap and appeared to be busy making some repair on the machine.
He notes an element as being decisive, that neither one nor the other of the two women saw the machine neither taking off nor landing.
In general, Carrouges evokes through similar cases that it is sometimes undeniable that the pilots are people like us, that certain saucers can be misinterpreted helicopters, and he seems to think that as for this case, this interpretation is quite possible without however being as firmly established as in other resembling cases.
[Ref. 152:] JACQUES VALLEE:
The author indicates that on September 24, 1954, two women submitted independent reports on a dark gray disc seen in a clearing close to Bécar. A man of normal size was standing close to the object, which flew away without noise.
[Ref. 89:] JACQUES VALLEE:
|
153 Sep. 24, 1954 09:00 P.M., Becar, near Diges and "Les Michauts" or "Les Jolivets" (France). Two women (Widow Geoffroy and Miss Gisele Fin) made independent reports of a dark gray disk, 6 m in diameter, 1 m high, seen in a clearing. A man of normal height was standing close to it. He wore dark clothes and a kind of cap. Miss Fin came within 30 m of the craft and stated the man was repairing it. Traces were found on the grass. (L'Yonne Républicaine, le Parisien, Sept. 28, 1954; Paris-Presse, Sept. 29, 1954.) (14; Carrouges 98) |
[Ref. 732:] MARK CASHMAN'S SIGHTINGS DATABASE:
|
Becar, near Diges and "Les Michauts" or "Les Jolivets" 9/24/1954 9:00 Two women (Widow Geoffroy and Miss Gazelle Fin) made independent reports of a dark gray disk, 6 m in diameter, 1 m high, seen in a clearing. A man of normal height was standing close to it. He wore dark clothes and a kind of cap. Miss Fin came within 30 m of the craft and stated the man was repairing it. Traces. |
[Ref. 223] MICHEL FIGUET AND JEAN-LOUIS RUCHON:
The two authors indicate that in the location Au Bécard, close to Diges, in the department of Yonne, on September 24, 1954 at 09:00 a.m., Mrs. Geoffroy moved towards a laundry place at the river located below the road of Diges, in Aux Michaults, when her attention was caught by an apparatus posed on the ground in a clearing bordered of woods.
Close to the machine in the shape of cigar, a man seemed to carry out a repair, "it looked at to me passing without saying anything," she said. "He was of average size and wore a sort of kaki cap on the head . I became afraid and I slipped by. Two hours later when I went again by there, the machine had disappeared."
The authors also provide this statement by Miss Gisele Fin:
"The machine rested on very thin bars, the pilot carried a helmet similar to those of motorcylists, he was dressed in a combination of gray color."
The witnesses did not see the machine land, nor take off. The authors indicate that "the pilot of average size and carrying a kaki cap and dressed of a suit of dark color can make you think of an helicopter pilot."
The woman who was the boss of Gisele Fin, after being informed, came back to the place a little later. She noted that there were two parallel traces distant of 50 centimeters, appearing to correspond to traces of bars in the grass.
[Ref. -:] BERTRAND MEHEUST:
French sociologist Bertrand Méheust has written that the case is explained by a confusion: it was a helicopter and its two pilots.
[Ref. -:] BARTHEL ET BRUCKER:
The two ufologists publishing within "Les Editions Rationnalistes" claim to have found the explanation of this case as having been a simple blurry light and an indistinct shade from which the two witnesses "exaggerated" to please a sensationalist press.
Further on in their book, they claim to have spoken to the witnesses. "Le plus jeune témoin", they say, (i.e. the youngest male witness(, had told them that in the company of the old lady she had seen a gleam in broad dayligh in the clearing and that they believed to have seen a very vague shadow.
They claim to have sought Mrs. Geoffroy, to have found her, and that she told them that there were two small occupants covered of hairs, of yellows color, and wearing pantyhose.
[Ref. 387:] ALBERTO ROSALES, HUMCAT:
|
73. Miss Simone Geoffroy saw a flying saucer in a clearing; it was 35 ft in diameter, elongated, with a dome on top. Behind it stood a dark complexioned man wearing a uniform and a khaki skullcap, looking at her. She hastened away. Miss Gisele Fin, a shepherd, was led to the clearing by the barking of her 2 dogs; she had to restrain them from attacking the pilot, who had his back to her and was leaning on his craft. At the site afterwards was found a small green pill. Humcat 1954-53 |
[Ref. 1371:] STEVEN DUNN, OCCUPANTS DATABASE:
| DATE | DESCRIPTION | MICAP_CLAS | REF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/26/1954 | Valence, FR 26 Sep 54 While gathering mushrooms in the woods, a woman saw a small humanoid wearing a diving suit with a clear helmet. She ran. A moment later she heard a loud whistling and saw a disc-shaped object lift from the woods. Evidence of a landing was found. | CE-3-013 | Randle/Estes, FOV pg 165 |
| DATE | DESCRIPTION | MICAP_CLAS | REF |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29.09.1954 | Chabeuil, FR 19 SEP 54 Mme. Leboeuf, out gathering mushrooms at about 1600, was startled by her dog barking at what looked like a scarecrow at the edge of a wheat field. The "scarecrow" was a humanoid about 3 FT tall, encased in a translucent material that made him look like he was done up in a plastic bag. Mme. Leboeuf had the impression of two very large eyes. The sack-man began waddling towards her and she turned and ran. Shortly after a metallic saucer-shaped object rose from amongst some nearby trees. M. Leboeuf later found that shrubs and bushes in the area where Mme. said the object took off were crushed as if something had been resting on them. | CE-3-103 | Lorenzen, UTWS, pg 167 |
[Ref. 312:] UFOCAT'S "ON THIS DAY":
|
On this Day September 24 [...] 1954 - At 9 o'clock in the morning two women, Mrs. Geoffroy and Miss Gazelle Fin, independently witnessed a dark gray disc, six meters in diameter, in a clearing in Becar, near Diges, France. A man of normal height was standing close to it. He wore dark clothes and some kind of cap. Miss Fin came within 30 meters of the craft and said that it looked like the man was repairing it. Traces were found on the grass. (Sources: Le Parisien, September 28, 1954; Jacques Vallee, Passport to Magonia, p. 211). |
[Ref. 1037] TED PHILIPPS:
|
September 24, 1954, Becar, France: multiple witnesses, humanoids, traces. |
[Ref. 312:] "RR0" WEB SITE, JEROME BEAU:
|
September 24 09:00 : In Diges (Yonne), widow Geoffroy and Gisèle Fin have a CEIII. 2 traces distant of 50 cm and wide as a fingre are noted in the dew by Mrs Fin. The grass is dry at this place. Traces too small for a Bell 47 helicopter. |
[Ref. 1701] PHOTOGRAPHIE:
On March 21, 2006, a reader from Auxerre sent me via email the electronic photography that follows and explains:
|
This picture was taken at the very place and with the same orientation that the reconstitution by the draughtsman for the newspaper "L'YONNE REPUBLICAINE". |
It is obvious that since a field ufologist Charles Garreau investigated the case and interviewed the two women and concluded that they saw a military helicopter, and since the newspapers of the time evoke this possibility, it is perfectly illegitimate to propose without any serious bases assertions on the an alleged low quality of the investigations of the time, and it is not legitimate to attack of ufologists in general.
It is just as notable that it is once again Jacques Vallée who includes the case in a catalogue supposed to list "humanoids" landings, changing the description of an olive drab outfit and of a helmet into that more confused of "dark clothing and a sort of cap." It is on such bases that speculations were later elaborated about "UFOS imitating the technology of the moment", UFOs which are then considered as "a mysterious intelligence misleading the witnesses" where there really was only an helicopter.
It is also notable that the two post-investigators Barthel and Brucker took their readers for granted, implying that they found the "rational" explanation, and blaming the descriptions of the two women on the account of exaggeration. There is no exaggeration; there is mere ignorance of helicopters, which were very new in the France of 1954, at least for 59 years old widow and a 16 year old girl which are legitimately not supposed to know the latest aviation trend as it may be the case for a pilot or aeronautical engineer. There is also the outdistances and brevity factors: Mrs. Geoffroy was at a distance she estimated to be of a hundred meters away of the aircraft and looked at it only a few seconds before fleeing from fear. Miss Fin looked at it longer, probably, and her description is thus more detailed.
It seemed to me that the helicopter remained to be better identified.
Those which quite accurately understood that the women saw an helicopter naturally thought of the Bell 47. The Bell 47 is the overall spacegoat helicopter for many more or less sensible explanation for saucer reports in the 1954 France, but actually, it is not always suitable and it is absolutely not the only helicopter flying in the French skies at that time.
Actually, criticisms carried against the explanation by a helicopter for this case note with some right certain difficulties: the size of the described craft seems to be too small to match a Bell 47. The absence of rotor or tail rotor seems less telling to me, inasmuch a thin rotor can go unnoticed when the landed helicopter is seen briefly and from a distance against a background of trees (see the drawing in the press).
 | Bell 47 helicopter. |
 | Many different models of the bell 47 were produced, with varying aspects. |
 |
Three entities equipped with helicopters exist within the Army in metropolitan France in 1954: ALOA, the Light Aviation of Artillery Observation, which is made up of 10 GAOA, which stands for Air Groups of Artillery Observation, the GH1, Helicopter Group number 1, based in Satory under the command of the Major Razy, and the CHLES, Compagnie of Light Helicopters for Medical Evacuation, controlled by the Captain De Puy Montbrun.
GH1 receives its first Djinn in 1954, besides its few Hiller H-23. The Air Force, which obviously also has its helicopters, grouped them on July 1, 1954 within the 65th Escadre of Helicopters.
It is precisely in September 1954 that the first field tests of helicopters begin in France.
It is on November 22, whereas the 1954 saucer flap was finishing, at least with regard to the published accounts, that GH1 and ALOA are gathered under the same command, under General Lejay, and that ALAT, the Light Aviation of the Army, is so founded.
It is rather useless to seek the traditional "proximity of an air base" or its absence to debate this sighting: many pilots of helicopters were then trained in the local airclubs everywhere in France. We are in 1954, well before strict regulations are taken seriously, and we are talking the type of helicopters one would call an Ultralight if it were an airplane.
It is not possible to say that no Bell 47 flew in France in 1954, but they were very few indeed, 1 military exemplary only, probably, and some civilian agricultural dispersant spreaders. The first military Bell 47 is ordered at the end of 1953, is manufactured under license by Fenwick, and is in Issy-les-Moulinaux near Paris at the beginning of 1954. It seems well that it is only in 1955 that a second military Bell 47 is acquired. Weaponed Bell 47s arrived only in 1956, and did not really give satisfaction.
There still remains the problem of the interval between the landing traces on the ground for which Miss Fin and possibly also an unnamed lady are supposed to have said that they were only 50 cm apart. This is an interval that, although having been perhaps underestimated, seems well too narrow for an helicopter, well at least for a Bell 47 helicopter.
Yes, definitely, something does not fit right into place with the Bell 47. Does it mean it could not have been an helicopter? Certainly not; maybe it just needs the replacement of the Bell 47 with a model more matching to the witnesses description.
I submit "Djinn", aka SO 1221, an extra-light utility helicopter built in France from 1953 on by Sud-Oust Aviation, future SNIAS.
 On of the "Dinn" evaluated by the US Air Force. |
The Djinn was the first functional helicopter using gas exhausted from a turboprop gas turbine engine, sent inside the rotor two blades to be expelled in exhausts at their tips in order to put the rotor in rotation. This concept avoided a tail rotor, replaced by another gas exhaust, it de-iced the rotor automatically, it used remainders of gases ejected at the back for propulsion. The system had initially been tested on the SO 1120 Ariel II (1948) and III (1951) prototypes, but it is on the Djinn that it was actually first used, based on a Turbomeca Palouste IV turbo propeller engine. The system was extremely manoeuverable but not very fast, not exceeding 130 km/h.
Its tracks were closer thans those of heavier helicopters: the machine was concepted so that it may take off form the rear platform of a pickup truck. Djinn was tiny, manoeuverable, more reliable than it looked and it required only little maintenance. Its length was 5 meters 30.
The first two prototypes were SO 1220 single-seater with uncovered structure registered F-WGVO and F-WGZX. F-WGVO accomplished its first flight on January 2, 1953. It will be later used as aerial application helicopter for agriculture.
The first two-seater version, with closed cockpit, SO 1221, made its first flight on December 16, 1953, and it beat the preceding altitude record in the lighter than 500 kg helicopters category when it reached 4789 meters a few days later. Twenty-two pre-production SO 1221 were then built for evaluation by the French army, and the flights begun within ALAT (Light Aviation of the Army)... on September 23, 1954, as by chance.
 Djinn de l'ALAT. |
The US Air Force took delivery of three exemplaries of the SO 1221 for evaluation in 1954 (see photo). The US Air Force found the machine really well designed but they did not adopt it, for reasons known as budgetary, but probably also political. In 1961, the French Army used 150 exemplaries, for reconaissance, training, air ambulance, and even anti-tank attack using the North-Aviation SS 10 missile.
 Djinn antichar de l'ALAT avec ses missiles SS 10. |
In 1967, half were still in service in our army. Some models were exported towards Germany and Switzerland, and the career of the Djinn continued on in the civilian world, as aerial spreading machine for agriculture. 178 exemplaries were produced overall. The famous Alouette II and II helicopters gradually put an end to the Djinn's career.
 Djinn version sans habitacle, au musée. |  Djinn au musée de l'ALAT, détails. |
A Djinn and a Bell 47 are on display at the ALAT museum in Dax, France. (02:00 to 06:00 P.M. except Sundays and free days. Guided tours on Tuesdays and Fridays.)
Some of my colleagues in ufology, who are inclined to think or totally convinced that there wasn't ever any extraterrestrial flying saucer in France or elsewhere maybe, would certainly be happy to note that once again a flying saucer was an helicopter, and jump to their conclusion or reinforce their conclusion that other helicopter versus saucer debated cases are also helicopters for the reasons that if this case was an helicopter, then these other case are also helicopters, the situation being the same or similar, and the arguments being exportable.
I do not agree. Some of these other debated case are not explainable by an helicopter because the situation is in fact not at all the same.
Some of my colleagues in ufology, who are inclined that any trivial explanation for any saucer case must be the result of some bias or simply silly, would argue that I have no absolutely certain argument and absolutely no proof that this was indeed an helicopter and not an extraterrestrial saucer.
They are partly right. But they do not have nearly one better argument that it was an ET spaceship, not one nearly as conclusive as the arguments of mine to defend that it was an helicopter.
Let me expose the situation in detail and from the start again.
Firstly, I need to list the points for the ET saucer explanation, and concede that these points exist and forbid a totally certain helicopter explanation.
The first such points is that according to the journalist, after Miss Fin fled in the woods, she looked back and the apparatus was gone, yet there has been no noise. Helicopters are noisy. Unfortunately, this silence is not quoted from the witness but mentioned by the journalist. Unfortunately, we do not know how far Miss Fin run away, or if she made much noise running on layers of broken branches in the woods. The silence is a problem to the helicopter theory, but it may be that it is only a problem due to lack of precision in the newspaper article or some misunderstanding.
The other point is the one I already mentionned, the distance between the tracks. Even for the small Djinn helicopter, the bars are not only 50 cm distant. According to the article, two people saw them including the 50 cm gap; Miss Fin and another woman not involved in the sighting. But as explained above, this may also result of confusions of different tracks. It is a point against the helicopter explanation, but not a very good one.
Let's see if the points against the saucer explanation are better or outnumbering or both.
We have two witnesses, so we have a good reason that something was seen, that, at least, probably gets the agreement of all.
But are they qualified witnesses?
Widow Geoffroy is an old lady. She does her laundry in the nearby river. We are in 1954, at a time when practically no ordinary people ever saw an helicopter, and certainly only aviation enthusiasts, pilots and people interested in recent technologies may have seen the rather strange-looking Djinn in some aviation magazine. Would she recognize Djinn as an helicopter? That is quite unsure.
Miss Fin is a 16 year old girl who guards goats. Just as for Mrs Geoffroy, she probably never ever saw any helicopter, does probably not read aviation news magazines. She is 16 and guards goats; not that there is anything wrong with that, but this is hardly the profile of someone who would obviously recognize Djinn as an helicopter.
The two witnesses are not qualified witnesses.
But, one may argue, they saw a flying saucer and thus a saucer it is. Making an helicopter out of it is silly.
That would be a good argument if the women had described a flying saucer. But they did not. Read the newspaper report carefully. It is apparent that they describe a man in some pilot-type outfit, not at all some humanoid of alien appearance. It is apparent that they do not describe a saucer shaped object. The object is not saucer shaped, it has a normal door, it has normal dull colours. And there is more on this later.
The witness did not describe an extraterrestrial spacecraft and its occupant from another planet, they briefly saw and then described a machine not resembling a flying saucer and its human occupant.
But, one may argue, what about the journalists? They investigated, so if it were an helicopter, they would have found out.
Unfortunately, this does not hold. It is obvious that they did not even think of an helicopter. They thought of a car under cover, and eliminated it since cars don't fly away, but they have at least forgotten to tell us why it was not an helicopter. They did not need to tell us that it was not a meteor or Venus, but they should have mentioned helicopters.
But, that is the least of the journalist's investigation problems. In their interview of Miss Fin, notice how they want her to describe a saucer, and how it is apparent in their own wording of the interview that Miss Fin insisted that it was not round:
"W: - One meter approximately. The machine of five meters at least was more pointed at one end and was more rounded at the other end."
"- Could it have been round?"
"W: - Yes, but I maintain that it was more pointed on one end side. It rested on bars. I saw them."
This is called "influencing the witness."
Throughout the interview, it is apparent that the journalist knows what he is looking for: a saucer. He know a saucer is round and shiny. But the two witnesses are quite clear: it was not round and not shiny.
Today, no decent UFO field investigator would do a witness interview that way at the risk of being rightfully ridiculed. At least, I wouldn't. But here we have journalists, they suspect a saucer, because they know of other saucer cases, including one in the area a month earlier. They are not trained UFO investigators with a catalog of trivial explanations to check for "à la Blue Book", they are journalists with no UFO investigation experience and expecting to grab an interesting saucer story.
You may agree but yet call for help a "real" UFO investigator who would then reject the helicopter. For example, you may say that Jacques Vallée, a "real" UFO investigator, has the case in his listing of alien landings, so it was an alien landing.
But Jacques Vallée did not investigate 1954 french cases. He only summarized newspapers stories. He investigates cases, of course, but not this one, and of cource he never claimed he had. Actually, if anyone feels that because a case is listed by Vallée or Michel means that there was an investigation which demonstrated that it was extraterrestrial, that is an error.
Does this mean that the case was not investigated by any ufologist?
Allow me to smile at the Barthel and Brucker explanation which is as often, quite out of wack and with little relation to the nature of the narrative.
Of course, Bertrand Méheust counts more as a ufologist. He did not investigate the case in 1954, but he did some thinking. His conclusion? It was an helicopter. But did any ufologist investigate on the location at the time, listening to the witnesses?
Well, Yes, there actually was a "real" UFO investigator on the case. Charles Garreau investigated it and interviewed the witnesses. His conclusion:
They saw an helicopter.
So, all in all, we have two unqualified witnesses interviewed by a journalist looking for a saucer story, the witness do not describe any alien nor saucer but a human in aviation clothes and a machine they do not identifiy but which is resembling more an helicopter than a saucer, which they saw briefly and fled, being afraid. And we have one noted field investigator who investigates and concludes it was an helicopter.
Is there absolute proof that it was an helicopter? No. But where is the proof or even some indications that it was an alien spaceship? You tell me.
My tentative conclusion: probable light helicopter.
(These keywords are only to help queries and are not implying anything.)
Diges, Les Michauts, Les Jolivets, Yonne, Simone Geoffroy, Jouffroy, Gisèle Fin, flying saucers, landing, traces, occupant, occupants, repair, silent, helicopter, Bell 47, Djinn, ALAT
[-] indicates sources which I have not yet checked.
