This is an old report from 1981,
but it was well documented and the physical traces were also fully
investigated.
It is the best confirmation yet
of the technology conjecture that I made in my article titled ‘Reverse
Engineering the UFO’ that I placed in
Viewzone. And posted here also.
I noticed in this report that we
have the craft behaving exactly as a magnetic field exclusion vessel
would. No thrusters are observer and it
lands heavily as if it was a pilot error even though it was travelling at
survivable speeds close to the ground.
Perhaps the pilot was out practicing.
Once he settled down, he reengaged
the craft, got lift established and then tilted the craft in the direction of departure. The most important observation is that this
is exactly how one would fly a magnetic field exclusion vessel.
This is an important addition to
the many current observations of the crafts in flight as it displays take off
procedures.
The Trans-en-Provence, France
UFO Incident
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2011
|
Left to right: Dr. Jacques F. Vallee. Dr. Michel Bounias and the
witness, Mr. Renato Nicolai
|
On the afternoon of January 8, 1981, a strange craft landed on a farm near
the village of Trans-en-Provence in the Var region in southeastern France.
Physical traces left on the ground were collected by the Gendarmerie within 24
hours and later analyzed in several French government laboratories. Extensive
evidence of anomalous activity was detected.
The case was investigated by the Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux
Non-identifiés (GEPAN), or Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group,
established in 1977 within the National
Center for
Space Studies (CNES) in Toulouse,
the French counterpart of NASA. (The functions of GEPAN were reorganized in
1988 into the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques or
SEPRA). The primary investigator was Jean-Jacques Velasco, the current head of
SEPRA.
The witness was the farmer Renato Nicolai, 55, on whose property the UFO landed
and then took-off almost immediately. Thinking that it was a military
experimental device, Nicolai notified the local gendarmes on the following day.
The gendarmes interviewed Nicolai and collected soil and plantsamples from
the landing site within 24 hours of the occurrence, notifying GEPAN on January
12 as part of a cooperation agreement for UFO investigation between the two
agencies. Further collection of samples and measurements of the site
were undertaken by the GEPAN team, and the samples were thoroughly
analyzed by several government laboratories.
The first detailed report on the case was published by GEPAN in 1983 in its
"Technical Note No. 16, Inquiry 81/01, Analysis of a Trace."
The Trans-en-Provence Case
A celebrated physical evidence case occurred on January 8, 1981, in Trans-en-Provence, France. The case attracted
widespread interest, partly because a UFO was seen landing and physical
markings found shortly after it departed, but mostly because a French
government agency analyzed the samples and announced anomalous
results.
The actual sighting was brief, but its effects on the environment were the key
aspect of the event. A 52-year-old technician, Renato Nicolai, was outside
working on an upper-level terraced portion of his property at about 5:00 p.m.
when he heard a whistling sound to the east. Turning, he observed an object
resembling "a somewhat bulging disk like two plates glued to
each other by the rim, with a central ring some 20 cm wide." The disc
passed over two trees adjacent to Nicolai's garden, descended, and abruptly
landed about 50 meters away. Because his property was elevated, however, the
object was blocked from his view, and Nicolai was obliged to seek a vantage
point near a small outbuilding where he could look down on the object.
After some seconds on the ground, the object ascended, kicking up some dust,
and retraced its incoming flight path, once again emitting a low whistle, and
disappeared in the east. As it flew away, Nicolai saw two round protrusions on
the underside like landing gear, and two circular areas that looked like
"trap doors." The total elapsed time was 30-40 seconds.
Nicolai went to inspect the landing site and found a circle about 2 meters in
diameter with tracks or traces at certain spots on the circumference of the
circle. Investigators described findingtwo concentric circles about 10 cm
wide, one 2.2 meters in diameter and the other 2.4 meters in diameter. The next
day, after having been notified by a neighbor, the Gendarmerie arrived at the
scene and gathered samples of the traces and
control samples from outside the circular area.
Ultimately, Groupe d'Etude des Phenomenes Aerospatiaux Non-ldentifies (GEPAN)
-- a unit of the French space agencyorganized to investigate UFO reports
-- was called in by the Gendarmerie, and some days after the landing they
examined the site, collecting additional soil and
vegetation samples for analysis. Their investigation also included an
assessment of the witness (his background and story), a check of atmospheric
conditions at the time of the UFO encounter, and air traffic on the day in
question. GEPAN, in conjunction with the Gendarmerie, continued its
investigation over the course of the next two years.
No terrestrial or mundane cause for the event could be discovered. When the final
report, entitled, Technical Note 16, was released, it reached the following
conclusions:
1. Evidence indicates a strong mechanical pressure on the ground surface,
probably due to a heavy weight, of about 4 to 5 tons.
2. At the same time or immediately after this pressure, the soil was heated up
to between 300 and 600 degrees C.
3. Trace quantities were found of phosphate and zinc.
4. The chlorophyll content of the wild alfalfa leaves in the
immediate vicinity of the ground traces was reduced 30 percent to 50 percent,
inversely proportional to distance.
5. Young alfalfa leaves experienced the highest loss of chlorophyll
and, moreover, exhibited "signs of premature senescence."
6. Biochemical analysis showed numerous differences between vegetation samples obtained
close to the site and those more distant. - 'The UFO Evidence: Volume II:
A Thirty-Year Report' - Richard H. Hall
Surface evidence magnified
|
-----
Renato Nicolai's Testimony
"My attention was drawn to a small noise, a kind of little whistling. I
turned around and I saw, in the air, a ship which was just about the height of
a pine tree at the edge of my property. This ship was not turning but
was descending toward the ground. I only heard a slight whistling. I saw no
flames, neither underneath or around the ship.
"While the ship was continuing to descend, I went closer to it,
heading toward a little cabin. I was able to see very well abovethe roof. From
there I saw the ship standing on the ground.
"At that moment, the ship began to emit another whistling, a
constant, consistent whistling. Then it took off and once it was at the height
of the trees, it took off rapidly... toward the northeast. As the
ship began to lift off, I saw beneath it four openings from which neither
smoke nor flames were emitting.The ship picked up a little dust when it
left the ground.
"I was at that time about 30 meters [100 feet] from the landing site. I
thereafter walked towards the spot and I noticed a circle about two meters [7
feet] in diameter. At certain spots on the curve of the circle, there were
tracks (or traces).
"The ship was in the form of two saucers upside down, one against the
other. It must have been about 1.5 meters [5 feet] high. It was the color of
lead. The ship had a border or type of brace around its
circumference. Underneath the brace, as it took off, I saw two kinds of round
pieces which could have been landing gear or feet. There were also two circles
which looked like trap doors. The two feet, or landing gear, extended about 20
centimeters [8 inches] beneath the body of the whole ship."
-----
The samples of soil and wild alfalfa collected from the
landing site, as well as the control samples from varying distances
from the epicenter, were subjected to a number of analyses: physico-chemical
analysis at the SNEAP laboratory, electronic diffraction studies at
Toulouse University, mass spectrometry by ion bombardment at the University of
Metz, and biochemical analysis of the vegetable samples at the
National Institute of Agronomy Research (INRA), among others. The findings
report included the following statements:
"Traces were still perceptible 40 days after the event.
"There was a strong mechanical pressure forced (probably the result of
a heavy weight) on the surface.
"A thermatic heating of the soil, perhaps consecutive to or immediately
following the shock, the value of which did not exceed 600 degrees.
"The chlorophyll pigment in the leaf samples was weakened from
30 to 50 percent... The young leaves withstood the most serious losses,
evolving toward the content and composition more characteristic of old
leaves."
"The action of nuclear irradiation does not seem to be analogous with the
energy source implied with the observed phenomenon; on the other hand, a
specific intensification of the transformation of chlorophyll... could be tied
to the action of a type of electric energy field.
"On the biochemical level, the analysis was made on the entirety of the
factors of photosynthesis, lipids, sugars and amino acids. There were many differences
between those samples further from the spot of the landing and those that were
closer to the spot.
"It was possible to qualitatively show the occurrence of an important
event which brought with it deformations of the terrain caused by mass, mechanics,
a heating effect, and perhaps certain transformations and deposits of trace
minerals.
"We cannot give a precise and unique interpretation to this remarkable
combination of results. We can state that there is, nonetheless, another
confirmation of a very significant event which happened on this spot."
-----
Elapsed Time Event Comments
0-3 secs Witness first sees the object which appears to be above two tall
conifers approx 35 m from the impact point. Distance estimate is based on map
and statement that the cabin is 35 m away from impact point; comparison of that
distance on the map[8] with the distance to the tree suggests an additional 35
m to the tree.
3 secs Object strikes the ground with a sound like a stone falling. The
motion from the trees to the impact point is fast and continuous. Assuming the
distance from the impact point to be 35m for the top of the tree, and assuming
the altitude to be above the tree (stated to be "dozens of meters
high"[9],[10]); because of the error in translation, resolved to 10 m, we
take 10 m as the altitude of the object; the distance traversed between first
sight and impact is therefore 14 m.
The following assume a constant deceleration:
The deceleration based on a 3 second time to cross this distance is -0.32G from
a speed of 34 kph.
According to Velasco, an upper limit to the weight based on the ground trace
is 700 kg. To accomplish the noted deceleration at that weight would require a
thrust of 7,171 kg.
4-25 secs Object is on the ground and the witness is continuing to move to a
new location. Assuming 8 secs to walk 10m (a reasonably brisk walk), walking 30
m takes 24 secs, of which it is assumed 1-2 secs are used while object is
descending, since the report refers to "while it was continuing to come
down, I went closer by walking".
25-28 secs Witness observes the object on the ground. According to the
statement: "several seconds"; also, "From that position I
clearly saw the device resting on the ground."
28-35 secs Object lifts from the ground, tilts, and departs. Altitude
appears to be that of the tops of the trees, here estimated to be 10 m
("it lifted off... reaching a point above the trees, it left at high
speed").
It took from 1-3 secs to accomplish this.
The following assume a constant acceleration / deceleration:
If it took 3 sec, then it accelerated at approximately 0.45 G for 1.5 sec to 5
m and then decelerated at -0.45G to 10 m; the thrust required in the
acceleration phase is 10,204 kg assuming a 700 kg weight.
If it took 1 sec, it accelerated at approximately 4G for 0.5 sec to 5 m and
then decelerated at -4G for 0.5 sec to 10 m; the thrust required in the
acceleration phase is 91,840 kg, assuming a 700 kg weight.
The GEPAN account differs somewhat, claiming "it rose vertically over
several meters, tilted above the platform, continued to rise in this position
and disappeared in the sky." Hopefully "several" is 10 or so.
-----
Description Of The Trace Evidence
The trace was found by the witness immediately after the departure of the
object. The trace was circular, 2.4 m in diameter, and had the form of a ring,
0.2 m in width (it is claimed that there is a "crown" to the trace
which is only 0.1 m in width. Note that the witness reported the object
surrounded by a shelf approximately 0.15 m in width.
Photographs show the trace as lighter in color than the surrounding dirt.
Vegetation remains (leaves and sticks) from the edges of the path where the
object landed are seen to cross the trace (as of the next day). There does not
appear to be any preferential orientation for this material, nor does it appear
affected by pressure or heating. In combination, this indicates the possibility
that either a) the force which produced the trace had no outward and no inward
components, or b) the material was swept back over the trace either at or after
the object departure. Note that the witness mentioned the object's departure as
having raised some dust.
The soil of the trace is lighter than neighboring soil, appears to be slightly
raised or crusty, and bears radial striations. These striations are not
perfectly radial, but are slightly curved in a clockwise direction, and are
slightly irregular. The trace ring shows these formations most prominently on
the directly east and west sides of the ring. The north side of the trace shows
a slightly lower degree of the same effect.
The width of the ring as photographed and diagrammed shows no notable
deviation, nor does the circularity of the ring show any notable deviation.
- GEPAN - "Technical Note No. 16, Inquiry 81/01, Analysis of a
Trace"
-----
Overall Conclusion
The Trans-en-Provence UFO observation lasted under a minute. However, in that
minute, information was gained by an alert witness and extracted by focused and
experienced investigators which allow an analyst to form and validate
hypotheses about the nature of the object.
The Trans-en-Provence UFO was able to dissipate considerable kinetic energy
without affecting the ground beneath it. This may have resulted in the observed
"whistling" sound, which indicates a motion of air away from the
object. The object was then able to create close to 600 degrees C of ground
heating on departure, despite the apparent insufficiency of mere thrust
pressure to produce those temperatures. It then departed after tilting, and did
not produce any further effects on the environment at that time.
Many previous observations have indicated that the UFO rim is a source of
energetic phenomena. The Trans-en-Provence case continues to support that
pattern.
Sources:
"The UFO Evidence: Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report" - Richard H. Hall
– 2000
Jean-Jacques Velasco - "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical
Traces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case," – 1990
Michel Bounias - "Research Note: Further Quantification of Distance-Related
Effects in the Trans-en-Provence Case," – 1995
www.bibliotecapleyades.net
www.ufoevidence.org
www.scientificexploration.org
www.jacquesvallee.net
www.ufocasebook.com