Trans-en-Provence UFO Incident

This is an old report from 1981,but it was well documented and the physical traces were also fullyinvestigated.

It is the best confirmation yetof the technology conjecture that I made in my article titled ‘ReverseEngineering the UFO’  that I placed inViewzone. And posted here also.

I noticed in this report that wehave the craft behaving exactly as a magnetic field exclusion vesselwould.  No thrusters are observer and itlands heavily as if it was a pilot error even though it was travelling atsurvivable speeds close to the ground. Perhaps the pilot was out practicing.

Once he settled down, he reengagedthe craft, got lift established and then tilted the craft in the direction of departure.  The most important observation is that thisis exactly how one would fly a magnetic field exclusion vessel.

This is an important addition tothe many current observations of the crafts in flight as it displays take offprocedures.

The Trans-en-Provence, FranceUFO 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 nearthe village of Trans-en-Provence in the Var region in southeastern France.Physical traces left on the ground were collected by the Gendarmerie within 24hours and later analyzed in several French government laboratories. Extensiveevidence of anomalous activity was detected.

The case was investigated by the Groupe d'Etudes des Phénomènes AérospatiauxNon-identifiés (GEPAN), or Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena Study Group,established in 1977 within the NationalCenter forSpace Studies (CNES) in Toulouse,the French counterpart of NASA. (The functions of GEPAN were reorganized in1988 into the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques orSEPRA). The primary investigator was Jean-Jacques Velasco, the current head ofSEPRA.

The witness was the farmer Renato Nicolai, 55, on whose property the UFO landedand then took-off almost immediately. Thinking that it was a militaryexperimental device, Nicolai notified the local gendarmes on the following day.The gendarmes interviewed Nicolai and collected soil and plantsamples fromthe landing site within 24 hours of the occurrence, notifying GEPAN on January12 as part of a cooperation agreement for UFO investigation between the twoagencies. Further collection of samples and measurements of the sitewere undertaken by the GEPAN team, and the samples were thoroughlyanalyzed 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 attractedwidespread interest, partly because a UFO was seen landing and physicalmarkings found shortly after it departed, but mostly because a Frenchgovernment agency analyzed the samples and announced anomalousresults.

The actual sighting was brief, but its effects on the environment were the keyaspect of the event. A 52-year-old technician, Renato Nicolai, was outsideworking 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 objectresembling "a somewhat bulging disk like two plates glued toeach other by the rim, with a central ring some 20 cm wide." The discpassed over two trees adjacent to Nicolai's garden, descended, and abruptlylanded about 50 meters away. Because his property was elevated, however, theobject was blocked from his view, and Nicolai was obliged to seek a vantagepoint 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, anddisappeared in the east. As it flew away, Nicolai saw two round protrusions onthe 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 indiameter with tracks or traces at certain spots on the circumference of thecircle. Investigators described findingtwo concentric circles about 10 cmwide, one 2.2 meters in diameter and the other 2.4 meters in diameter. The nextday, after having been notified by a neighbor, the Gendarmerie arrived at thescene and gathered samples of the traces andcontrol 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 theyexamined the site, collecting additional soil andvegetation samples for analysis. Their investigation also included anassessment of the witness (his background and story), a check of atmosphericconditions at the time of the UFO encounter, and air traffic on the day inquestion. GEPAN, in conjunction with the Gendarmerie, continued itsinvestigation over the course of the next two years.

No terrestrial or mundane cause for the event could be discovered. When the finalreport, entitled, Technical Note 16, was released, it reached the followingconclusions:

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 upto 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 theimmediate 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 chlorophylland, moreover, exhibited "signs of premature senescence."

6. Biochemical analysis showed numerous differences between vegetation samples obtainedclose 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. Iturned around and I saw, in the air, a ship which was just about the height ofa pine tree at the edge of my property. This ship was not turning butwas descending toward the ground. I only heard a slight whistling. I saw noflames, 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. Fromthere I saw the ship standing on the ground.

"At that moment, the ship began to emit another whistling, aconstant, consistent whistling. Then it took off and once it was at the heightof the trees, it took off rapidly... toward the northeast. As theship began to lift off, I saw beneath it four openings from which neithersmoke nor flames were emitting.The ship picked up a little dust when itleft the ground.

"I was at that time about 30 meters [100 feet] from the landing site. Ithereafter walked towards the spot and I noticed a circle about two meters [7feet] in diameter. At certain spots on the curve of the circle, there weretracks (or traces).

"The ship was in the form of two saucers upside down, one against theother. It must have been about 1.5 meters [5 feet] high. It was the color oflead. The ship had a border or type of brace around itscircumference. Underneath the brace, as it took off, I saw two kinds of roundpieces which could have been landing gear or feet. There were also two circleswhich looked like trap doors. The two feet, or landing gear, extended about 20centimeters [8 inches] beneath the body of the whole ship."

The samples of soil and wild alfalfa collected from thelanding site, as well as the control samples from varying distancesfrom the epicenter, were subjected to a number of analyses: physico-chemicalanalysis at the SNEAP laboratory, electronic diffraction studies atToulouse University, mass spectrometry by ion bombardment at the University ofMetz, and biochemical analysis of the vegetable samples at theNational Institute of Agronomy Research (INRA), among others. The findingsreport included the following statements:

"Traces were still perceptible 40 days after the event.

"There was a strong mechanical pressure forced (probably the result ofa heavy weight) on the surface.

"A thermatic heating of the soil, perhaps consecutive to or immediatelyfollowing the shock, the value of which did not exceed 600 degrees.

"The chlorophyll pigment in the leaf samples was weakened from30 to 50 percent... The young leaves withstood the most serious losses,evolving toward the content and composition more characteristic of oldleaves."

"The action of nuclear irradiation does not seem to be analogous with theenergy source implied with the observed phenomenon; on the other hand, aspecific intensification of the transformation of chlorophyll... could be tiedto the action of a type of electric energy field.

"On the biochemical level, the analysis was made on the entirety of thefactors of photosynthesis, lipids, sugars and amino acids. There were many differencesbetween those samples further from the spot of the landing and those that werecloser to the spot.

"It was possible to qualitatively show the occurrence of an importantevent which brought with it deformations of the terrain caused by mass, mechanics,a heating effect, and perhaps certain transformations and deposits of traceminerals.

"We cannot give a precise and unique interpretation to this remarkablecombination of results. We can state that there is, nonetheless, anotherconfirmation 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 tallconifers approx 35 m from the impact point. Distance estimate is based on mapand statement that the cabin is 35 m away from impact point; comparison of thatdistance on the map[8] with the distance to the tree suggests an additional 35m to the tree.

3 secs Object strikes the ground with a sound like a stone falling. Themotion from the trees to the impact point is fast and continuous. Assuming thedistance from the impact point to be 35m for the top of the tree, and assumingthe altitude to be above the tree (stated to be "dozens of metershigh"[9],[10]); because of the error in translation, resolved to 10 m, wetake 10 m as the altitude of the object; the distance traversed between firstsight 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 froma speed of 34 kph.

According to Velasco, an upper limit to the weight based on the ground traceis 700 kg. To accomplish the noted deceleration at that weight would require athrust of 7,171 kg.

4-25 secs Object is on the ground and the witness is continuing to move to anew location. Assuming 8 secs to walk 10m (a reasonably brisk walk), walking 30m takes 24 secs, of which it is assumed 1-2 secs are used while object isdescending, since the report refers to "while it was continuing to comedown, I went closer by walking".

25-28 secs Witness observes the object on the ground. According to thestatement: "several seconds"; also, "From that position Iclearly saw the device resting on the ground."

28-35 secs Object lifts from the ground, tilts, and departs. Altitudeappears 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 highspeed").

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 5m and then decelerated at -0.45G to 10 m; the thrust required in theacceleration 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 andthen decelerated at -4G for 0.5 sec to 10 m; the thrust required in theacceleration phase is 91,840 kg, assuming a 700 kg weight.

The GEPAN account differs somewhat, claiming "it rose vertically overseveral meters, tilted above the platform, continued to rise in this positionand 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 theobject. 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 tracewhich is only 0.1 m in width. Note that the witness reported the objectsurrounded 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 theobject landed are seen to cross the trace (as of the next day). There does notappear to be any preferential orientation for this material, nor does it appearaffected by pressure or heating. In combination, this indicates the possibilitythat either a) the force which produced the trace had no outward and no inwardcomponents, or b) the material was swept back over the trace either at or afterthe object departure. Note that the witness mentioned the object's departure ashaving raised some dust.

The soil of the trace is lighter than neighboring soil, appears to be slightlyraised or crusty, and bears radial striations. These striations are notperfectly radial, but are slightly curved in a clockwise direction, and areslightly irregular. The trace ring shows these formations most prominently onthe directly east and west sides of the ring. The north side of the trace showsa slightly lower degree of the same effect.

The width of the ring as photographed and diagrammed shows no notabledeviation, nor does the circularity of the ring show any notable deviation.- GEPAN - "Technical Note No. 16, Inquiry 81/01, Analysis of aTrace"


Overall Conclusion

The Trans-en-Provence UFO observation lasted under a minute. However, in thatminute, information was gained by an alert witness and extracted by focused andexperienced investigators which allow an analyst to form and validatehypotheses about the nature of the object.

The Trans-en-Provence UFO was able to dissipate considerable kinetic energywithout affecting the ground beneath it. This may have resulted in the observed"whistling" sound, which indicates a motion of air away from theobject. The object was then able to create close to 600 degrees C of groundheating on departure, despite the apparent insufficiency of mere thrustpressure to produce those temperatures. It then departed after tilting, and didnot produce any further effects on the environment at that time.

Many previous observations have indicated that the UFO rim is a source ofenergetic phenomena. The Trans-en-Provence case continues to support thatpattern.


"The UFO Evidence: Volume II: A Thirty-Year Report" - Richard H. Hall– 2000

Jean-Jacques Velasco - "Report on the Analysis of Anomalous PhysicalTraces: The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case," – 1990

Michel Bounias - "Research Note: Further Quantification of Distance-RelatedEffects in the Trans-en-Provence Case," – 1995

No comments:

Post a Comment