France 1954 -> Homeclick!

Cette page en françaisCliquez!

The 1954 French flap:

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

October 24, 1954, Huningue, Haut-Rhin:

Reference number for this case: 24-Oct-54-Huningue. Thank you for including this reference number in any correspondence with me regarding this case.

Summary:

The regional newspaper L'Alsace, in their French-speaking issue for October 27, 1954, reported the observation of a luminous object in the sky of Huningue in the Haut-Rhin department, in the night from Saturday to Sunday, thus on October 24, 1954, at about 1 a.m..

As he was on his way back home, Mr. Charles Bernard, collector at the office of the social housing of Huningue, saw in the sky right above the buildings of the Société Alsacienne de Teinturerie, a yellow orange luminous object whose contours he was unable to distinguish.

The object remained motionless for more than 20 minutes, then suddenly rose vertically to be quickly lost from sight.

With this witness were other witnessess: Mrs Bernard, spouse of Charles Bernard, Mr. Ernest DiHier, city council man of Huningue, and his spouse.

Reports:

[Ref. lae1:] "L'ALSACE" NEWSPAPER:

Luminous object in the sky of Huningue

In the night from Saturday to Sunday, at about 1 o'clock, as they were going back home, Mr. Charles Bernard, collector of the H.L.M. office of Huningue, saw in the sky right above the buildings of the Société Alsacienne de Teinturerie, an orange-colored luminous object of which he was unable to perceive the edges and that remained motionless for more than 20 minutes, then suddenly rose vertically and quickly disappeared. The same phenomenon was observed by Mrs Bernard as well as by Mr. Ernest DiHier, city council member of Huningue and his spouse who were with Mr. Charles Bernard.

[Ref. bbr2:] GERARD BARTHEL AND JACQUES BRUCKER:

This does not mean that we must neglect the manifestations UFOs in their entirety, but, simply, approach their study in an extremely circumspect way considering that the parameters of the problem, can at one time or another, be distorted. One case among others, appeared in the newspaper "L'Alsace" for October 27, 1954: "October 24 - 01:00 - Mr. Charles Bernard, collector of the HLM office, of Huningue, saw in the sky an orange-yellow luminous object of which he did not could distinguish the outlines and which, motionless for more than 20 minutes, suddenly climbed vertically and disappeared quickly. This same phenomenon was observed by Mrs Bernard as well as Mr. Ernest DiHier, Huningue city councilor and his wife, who were in the company of Mr. Charles Bernard".

First observation: assuming, something we have not verified, that a compiler of records inserts this fact in a catalog, this case observed by Mr. and Mrs. Di Hier did not stop for twenty minutes, it did not climb vertically, they could not distinguish the outlines since in fact there was no object, but a luminous phenomenon. We are now in possession of all elements to identify a medium-sized meteorite. It was enough to investigate on this case... but still it had to be dome. A reflection comes immediately to mind. By this reasoning we implicitly admit that if the case had been investigated, we would have immediately realized the error committed. Think again! There is an incredible amount of facts and events that can, if the survey is not carried out with the utmost objectivity (which is the most frequent), tip the pseudo-investigator in favor of the non-negligible nature of the observation.

[Ref. cvn1:] CHRISTIAN VALENTIN:

Journalist Christian Valentin indicates that on Sunday, October 24, 1954, at 1 o'clock in the morning, two couples going to their homes in Huningue have seen a luminous orange object in the sky.

The object was above the buildings of the Société Alsacienne de Teinturerie company, during more than 20 minutes, and then suddenly flew up vertically and disappeared completely.

[Ref. cvn2:] CHRISTIAN VALENTIN:

Former journalist Christian Valentin published in 2012 a very interesting book telling the story of UFO sightings, flying saucers sightings, in Alsace, from the beginning to 1980.

In this book, he reports that the case of Sunday, October 24, 1954, in Huningue in the Haut-Rhin was reported in L'Alsace newspaper for Wednesday, October 27, 1954, in the French-speaking issue:

Luminous object in the sky of HUNINGUE

In the night from Saturday to Sunday, at about 1 o'clock, as they were going back home, Mr. C. B., collector of the H.L.M. office of Huningue, saw in the sky right above the buildings of the Société Alsacienne de Teinturerie, an orange-colored luminous object of which he was unable to perceive the edges and that remained motionless for more than 20 minutes, then suddenly rose vertically and quickly disappeared. The same phenomenon was observed by Mrs B. as well as by Mr. D., city council member of Huningue and his spouse who were with Mr. C. B.

Explanations:

Unidentified.

Barthel and Brucker, "skeptics" literally "in a rage" on occasion, sometimes solved some of the 1954 affair. But sometimes, too, their words are so ambiguous and poorly written that I do not even understand exactly what they meant, and sometimes their reasoning shows real foolishness. It is the case here.

For example, they say that the UFO "did not stop for twenty minutes, it did not climb vertically, they could not distinguish the contours", thus contradicting the story in L'Alsace. But what reason do they give? It would be "because in fact there was no object, but a luminous phenomenon." It is obviously extremely stupid to reason like this. It is obvious that a luminous phenomenon can not only be the visual appearance that a luminous or reflective material object takes (example the moon, a meteor), but above all, a luminous phenomenon can perfectly stop for 20 minutes, climb vertically, and have indistinct contours!

Here we have an edifying example of the total stupidity that Barthel and Brucker sometimes showed, whom - sometimes with good reason - critize foolishness of their opponents.

But did they actually investigate? Their statement is most ambiguous about this: "It was enough to investigate this case... but still it had to be done." And one realizes that in this case, the "investigation" to which one is asked to refer seems to be merely their absurd reasoning, according to which only an "object", and not a "luminous phenomenon", could stop for 20 minutes, climb vertically, and have indistinct contours...

I am therefore not convinced that it was indeed a meteor, especially since there was, to my knowledge, no temporally and geographically concordant testimony that would indicate a meteor entry.

Keywords:

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

Huningue, Haut-Rhin, multiple, luminous, orange, duration, motionless, fast, ascent

Sources:

[----] indicates sources that are not yet available to me.

Document history:

Version: Created/Changed by: Date: Change Description:
0.1 Patrick Gross November 5, 2005 First published.
1.0 Patrick Gross March 2, 2009 Conversion from HTML to XHTML Strict. First formal version.
3.0 Patrick Gross February 8, 2015 Additions [lae1], [cvn2].
3.1 Patrick Gross May 2, 2019 Addition [bbr2]. Change of Explanations, was only "Unidentified."

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on May 2, 2019.