“Looking back, I think I had an interesting experience. One of the lessons is how information can be distorted. What sometimes leaves me skeptical about what I read and see is how, from nothing at all, you can create a legend. It’s interesting to have experienced it yourself.
I think you have to have experienced it yourself to believe it.”
Raymond Romand (1991)
1991, in a French university. The man who agrees to speak to us is an internationally renowned neurobiologist, author of more than a hundred scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. In 1954, at the age of 12, he found himself at the origin of an improbable news story that would have deeply marked him and his family of farmers from the Haut-Jura. It is this news item that we will discuss here, in order to try to understand its ins and outs.
Autumn 1954: the case and its context
The impossible summary
The story begins on Monday, September 27, 1954. It suddenly puts four young children living on an isolated farm in the valley of Mont Fier, a Jura peak 3 km from the village of Prémanon, near the Swiss border, in the media spotlight.
Sticking to the primary sources alone – the two gendarmerie reports and the thirty or so press articles from the first fifteen days (entirely or mainly devoted to this affair) – does not allow us to offer a standard summary, as these various reports actually constitute versions that are sometimes very different from one another. Therefore, the summary that we are proposing is a composite version, borrowing from the first two texts written (both on the evening of Wednesday 29 September). One is the first report from the Saint-Claude gendarmerie brigade [1] dated the same day (here “in quotes”) and the other is the press article of Dernières dépêches–La Franche-Comté républicaine [2] published on Thursday 30 (here in italics).
It was 8:30 p.m. that evening, while it was raining cats and dogs, Raymond, 12, came out of the family farmhouse to hear the dog barking. It was then that, suddenly, he found himself facing “a strange machine, aluminum color, rectangular shape, approximately two metres high and one metre wide.” The mysterious silver device shone in the light of the farm lamps. Frightened, the kid went back inside. But curiosity was stronger. He went back out. “As the machine approached, appearing to glide slowly, the boy grabbed a stone and threw it in its direction. The shock is said to have produced a metallic sound. Using a Eurêka pistol he was carrying, the child shot an arrow that would have made a sound identical to the previous one.” The machine continued to advance and the blast knocked out young Raymond who, terrified this time, fled to his room. Her younger sister, Janine, aged 9, had also seen this type of robot on the doorstep.
Each of the two sources then provides specific details (but complementary once the story is fixed): if the gendarmes report that a “red glow swinging at ground level about 100 metres away” was seen by the “two young sisters”, they do not mention the physical clues, even though they discovered them on the ground. It is the journalist who takes care of this: at the place indicated by [Raymond], the gendarmes noted vague traces. But it has been raining for 36 hours and these are very indistinct. It will be later understood that these traces are located precisely in the extension of the red glow, itself mentioned by the gendarmes but absent from the journalistic account…
The daily newspaper then offers a form of synthesis that will make sense later: “We saw ghosts last night”, the kids said the next day at school, because they had never heard of “saucers”. The police also specify for their part that the parents “did not want to give the slightest credence [to their children] and did not try to find out. They do not want their names to be revealed. The publicity of this event originated from the story that the children told their teacher who seems to have believed what they said”.
For the authors of these first two texts, the vehicle and its occupant are identical. Very quickly, in fact, it will appear in the light of the press articles of the following days that the terms used here to describe the first (silver device, machine) actually refer to the second. At this stage, the differentiation between saucer and Martian still remains to be made. However, the framework to make this distinction is provided by the news of the time, namely the stories of flying saucers that have amazed and entertained newspaper readers for the past three weeks. So, let us leave the Haut-Jura for a moment to return to it later, after consulting the press of the time.
The 1954 flying saucer wave: the “Martian context”
Born in the United States and baptized flying saucers by the American press on June 25, 1947, flying saucers crossed the Atlantic and flew over the Old Continent where newspapers took over. Even the satirical newspaper Canard enchaîné of July 9, 1947, headlined on its front page: “The mystery of flying saucers remains impenetrable”. The first specialized works date from 1950. Ouranos, a private network of volunteer investigators, was set up. The first books by French authors came out in 1954, signed by science fiction writer Jimmy Guieu [3] and science journalist Aimé Michel [4]. They had barely appeared on bookstore shelves when an exceptional wave of saucers swept over France; there were up to 60 daily sightings – and probably even more press articles. This is the “fantastic autumn”, during which the saucers no longer just fly over France, they land in the fields or on the railway tracks; a strange mixture of rurality and science fiction. The most emblematic case of the wave is that of Quarouble (in the North of France): on September 10, a worker named Marius Dewilde saw a saucer on the railway line near his home and found himself confronted with two small beings about a metre tall, “wearing helmets made of translucent material”. He tried to seize one of them, but found himself paralyzed by a ray emanating from the saucer. He then heard a noise reminiscent of a sliding door closing, the ray went out, the saucer flew away and disappeared. According to Le Parisien libéré of October 13th, “the police, the Air Gendarmerie and the DST took various samples”. Traces were discovered on the sleepers. In Les Apparitions de Martiens (Fayard, 1963), Michel Carrouges, an author known for his work on surrealism, notes the importance of the affair: “The Dewilde incident is the most famous. It was the first to effectively launch the notion of the little divers.”
At the beginning of this wave, the media coverage of this affair is exceptional, both in France and abroad, up to a report from Pathé news. While The War of the Worlds, the film by Byron Haskin, has just been screened in the region (as in Valenciennes, on September 4), hundreds of curious people will flock to Quarouble… thus passing from fiction to reality!
Having become a social phenomenon, saucers and Martians are everywhere: from National Lottery posters to Camembert boxes and Perrier advertisements!
From the birth of the news item to its development
But let us return to the Haut-Jura where events unfolded from the end of September to mid-October 1954.
The investigation by the gendarmes of Saint-Claude and Les Rousses
In all likelihood, the article in Dernières dépêches–La Franche-Comté républicaine of Thursday 30 did not leave the gendarmes indifferent: “Due to certain more or less accurate press information, the Section Commander [the Saint-Claude brigade] believed it necessary to conduct a new investigation into the mysterious device that was allegedly seen on September 27, 1954 by the children of a farm in Prémanon (Jura).” This is how Captain Brustel introduced the second gendarmes’ report devoted to this affair [5], dated the following day, Friday October, 1st. In this second report, the present perfect replaces the conditional of the first one, and there is abundant mention of the traces on the ground. “In the direction where the red glow was seen swinging at ground level, but at a slightly greater distance (about 200 metres), we notice on the grassy ground a large crown whose outer and inner circles have a diameter of 3.50 m and 2.50 m respectively. Despite the heavy rain of recent days and the trampling of curious onlookers, it still appears clearly and perfectly drawn. Over its entire surface, the grass is flattened and oriented in an anti-clockwise direction. According to the opinion of the first reliable witnesses, including that of the parish priest, this drawing cannot be the work of an everyday object or the ordinary trampling of people or animals. Four holes, initially very visible and determining the angles of a large trapezium inside the large circle, now merge with the cattle tracks. These traces, add the same witnesses, appear to have been made by a kind of foot with three spurs arranged in a triangle at their ends.” Other considerations tend to support the veracity of the story: “Although the parents persist in believing or making others believe that the basis of the affair is inaccurate, the young witnesses remain affirmative. A scenario could not be so well put together a priori if it were simply the fruit of the imagination of these young children who, moreover, do not vary in their statements.”
Like the first report, the second will remain unknown to the public for a quarter of a century. We will see that only a few pieces of information will be selectively disseminated through the press, thanks to the links woven by local journalists with the brigade of Saint-Claude and that of Les Rousses, the closest to Prémanon.
Day by day, the first investigations and reactions from the press
A chronological reading of the newspaper articles will now enable us to understand how the emerging story evolves and develops in the press.
On the same October 1st, an article in Le Progrès [6] gives details on the traces spotted on the ground, information which appeared in the second gendarmes’ report dated of the same day: “With Madame Genillon, a schoolteacher in the village, who was the first to know the confidences of the Romand children, with the gendarmes from Les Rousses, we noticed, at the precise place where the four kids had seen the red ball of fire, the ground literally trampled, colchicums flattened as in the press, four holes resulting from the driving in of four triangular corners”. This article is illustrated with a photograph [7] of Raymond and the schoolteacher’s husband, posing, paternalistically, with their hands on the young boy’s shoulder.
Le Progrès now clearly establishes the various components of the story: “So it would seem that a mysterious craft landed at Prémanon. The living creature would have resembled a rectangular parallelepiped (in short a lump of sugar?) and the red fireball would perhaps be the interplanetary vehicle.” Hesitant until then, the differentiation between passenger and vehicle is beginning to take place while the relationship to the sky is introduced by the glow, which has become a “fireball” – yet only described as being below a meadow. Now, everything is there: barely a few hours after the first text published on this affair in Les Dernières dépêches of the previous day, the story, until then informal and hesitant, suddenly crystallizes. The simple glow is transformed into an interplanetary vehicle, there is talk of landing, the mysterious device, robot or ghost, becomes a living creature, “passenger of the Prémanon saucer”. Better still, the story is enriched with new elements: this “something cold” emitted by the creature and which weighs on Raymond’s shoulder before he falls to the ground, or these other traces spotted this time on “a mast, the fir tree whose bark had been torn off over 15 centimetres at 1.50 m from the ground” [8].
On the same October 1st, five more articles appeared in the local (Le Comtois [9]), regional press (L’Est républicain [10], Le Bien public [11], Le Dauphiné libéré [12]) and national press (Le Parisien libéré [13]). Discovered by Julien Gonzalez at the time of writing, the article in Le Comtois – very enlightening on the premises of the story – is an unreduced version of the one in Dernières dépêches published the day before. No Martian is mentioned (other than in the title): what will be the Martian is at the same time the saucer (which is specified here as standing on three legs). The cause of the blast is clearly explained: it is because “the machine started up so suddenly that the displacement of air knocked little Raymond over”. A simple draught that, according to the press articles, became the “something cold, impalpable and icy” that weighed on the child’s shoulder, the “strange radiation that paralyses” or the Martian’s “kiss”!
Of the three other papers of the following day, Saturday, October 2, Paris-Presse [14], L’Indépendant du Haut-Jura [15] (Morez) and Le Courrier [16] (Saint-Claude), it is the latter that catches our attention. The aerial nature of the testimony is confirmed: “the three children saw the ‘object’ disappear, which moved away into the sky, leaving behind a reddish glow”. The interplanetary origin is even mentioned, with a title referring to the Martians. Although it does not explicitly rely on the first gendarmerie report, the article nevertheless makes a discreet allusion to it [17]. Moreover, it takes up some of its information: Le Courrier cites the brand of the Eurêka children’s pistol, known until then only to the gendarmes. It gives also information concerning the siblings: “Three children – a 12-year-old boy, an 8-year-old girl and another 4-year-old”, repeating the various errors in the report regarding the number, age and confusion between girl and boy. In reality, there were 4 children – a 12-year-old boy, a 9-year-old girl, another 8-year-old girl and a 4-year-old boy). A series of errors that will serve as a marker for us later on…
“These children,” Le Courrier continues, “are perfectly normal. They do not go to the cinema and do not read any children’s newspapers that publish illustrated stories that could have influenced their imagination. Could this be an incursion by inhabitants of another planet? We publish this information with all the usual reservations, while insisting [on the fact] that the three young witnesses, not yet influenced by certain similar apparitions, belong to an honorably known family who wish to remain anonymous and therefore not seeking publicity.”
Less than a week after the event, this series of ten press articles published in three days is part of a first phase of day-to-day reactions.
Journalists return to the scene and amplification phase
The second period lasts one week. It is a phase of in-depth study, during which some journalists return to the site, while the international press, then the weeklies, take over from the dailies.
On Monday 4, Le Progrès [18] looked back at the case in the local page of Jura (Morez) with a brief, as short as it was important. The local newspaper returned to the scene: “In Prémanon, where opinions are very divided, the story of last week’s ‘flying saucer’ continues to be the subject of conversation. At the home [of the] children who ‘saw’ the craft, it is now a conspiracy of silence, and everything is being done to confuse the unwelcome visitors, who have been very numerous, understandably, in recent days. However, what remains mysterious is the trace, left about 150 m from the house, which takes the form of a crown whose grass has been laid down in an anti-clockwise direction. And, today as yesterday, it is difficult to know whether or not the young boy could have imagined such a story”. Important, since the mention of the crown is absolutely unique in literature; only the second report from the gendarmes mentions it. There is therefore no doubt that, like his local colleague from the Courrier, the journalist from the editorial office of Le Progrès in Saint-Claude has also, if not consulted the reports, at least discussed their content with the gendarmes from the nearby brigade.
On the same 4th of October, the first article in the foreign press appeared in the Feuille d’Avis de Neuchâtel [19]. Still in French-speaking Switzerland, the Journal du Jura [20] and the Journal de Genève [21] of the 5th, followed by L’Impartial [22] of the 6th, confirmed the interest already shown by Radio Suisse Romande (Sottens) through the voice of its journalist Louis-Albert Zbinden (1922-2009) reporting in Prémanon for the evening news magazine “Le micro et la vie” (the micro and life). Still on the 6th, the information was broadcast in Italy in Milano Sera [23] and then the next day in Corriere di Sicilia [24], as well as in Egyptian Gazette [25].
On October 8, Semaine du monde [26] was the first national weekly to deal with the affair. It published a photo of the “mast erected by a holiday camp [with] 15 cm of bark torn off at a height of 1.50 m.”
On Saturday 9, a week after a first article motivated by the first gendarmerie report, Le Courrier [27] also returned to the case, this time following the second report. It took up certain elements, such as the mention on the field of “a circular imprint 3.50 m in diameter, with the marks of four feet arranged like the corners of a trapezoid”. The journalist continued: “A visit to the site, in the presence of the gendarmerie and Mr. Julien Prost, mayor, allowed us to note: – the obstinacy of the Romand family in denying the existence of any phenomenon, for fear of ridicule; – the conviction of the schoolteacher and her husband: the young Romand and his two sisters saw something, indisputably, without having consulted each other. And they saw different things (…) The nuanced position of Mr. Abbé Barthelet, the friendly and always smiling priest of Prémanon who was a great resistance fighter during the war and is not a man to be taken in by lies: he would not believe anything without this imprint. There was something, but what?”
On the same day, Le Journal de Dôle et de la région [28] gave the only other mention in the press of the Eurêka arrow pistol, information obtained this time from the Rousses gendarmerie section.
Still on the 9th, L’Est républicain [29] is the third newspaper to return to the case. Delivering a long text in a lively style, both documented and poetic, the newspaper’s correspondent in Morez willingly uses long headlines and a sense of formula: “victim of a strange being resembling an enormous ‘sugar lump’, from another world, with the help of one of these mysterious unidentified objects, which are currently sweeping over Europe, will a 12-year-old from Jura have been the hero of the first interplanetary battle? (…)”. The journalist goes to the scene, describes the situation on the spot “after dozens of cars had passed on the path riddled with rocks”, the child who runs away at the sight of him, parents who tire of this story. The reader witnesses a revisited scene in which the children are this time very correctly mentioned: “In the barn, Raymond, 12 years old, Janine, 9 years old, Ghislaine, 8 years old and Claude, 4 years old were organizing a big game. They were going to experience another one. (…) A dog barks. A child’s laugh. Raymond goes out onto the doorstep of the barn in which Janine, Ghislaine and Claude are looking for a good hiding place. Cops and robbers… Raymond who is armed with a pistol with arrows will be the representative of order. He will wait a few minutes outside, and then, thanks to his flair… (…) A nervous little finger that presses the trigger of a kid’s pistol. A fraction of a second during which a heart beats at a crazy pace. And then a shock that produces a metallic sound.” With the exception of the Eurêka mark and the mention of the crown in the grass, the story is very complete, the traces perfectly described, even the indication of the counter-clockwise direction of the trampled grass. Conclusion: “As for the large parallelepiped seen by Raymond and Janine, it is permissible to suppose that it was the passenger of the mysterious craft. And, a little story of the great History, perhaps we will always ignore that a handful of stones and an arrow gun were the weapons of the first interplanetary battle whose only soldier was a 12-year-old boy…”.
Sunday 10th, it was the turn of the weekly Radar [30] to deliver its report (due to its own press agency Coordination [31]): a story composed of three photographs, the only visual testimony of the place with the family farm and the traces on the meadow represented by the location of pennants, a close-up of the mast and the portrait of Raymond, standing in front of Captain Brustel. A description: “A ball of such bright color that it makes one think of an incandescent metal”, a confirmation: “The passengers (…) look exactly like a giant lump of sugar”, and a comparison, not without foundation moreover, referring to the breath that put the child to bed: “Like the visitors of Dewilde, in the North, [the passengers] are capable of emitting a strange radiation that paralyzes”.
Finally, we will end our press review with Ici Paris [32] from Monday, October 11. Like the paper from l’Est républicain, this is a long-form story, in a documentary style where poetry, a taste for long titles and good formulas emerge (“it is also a fable that La Fontaine had not thought of: ‘Raymond and the Flying Saucer’ ”). Unlike the other reports, the special correspondent in Morez is not very forthcoming about the beginning of the relationship; on the other hand, a wealth of details are provided on the second part and the end of the meeting, as well as on the aftermath, the investigation, the traces, the social and family context: “(…) On the threshold of the door, before jumping the step, he stopped, stunned (…) It began with the most astonishing kiss in the world. The parallelepiped shape came forward and gently surrounded the kid’s shoulders. Then what served as his head – and which could not be seen in the shadows – approached the child’s cheek. Raymond felt something cold. He fell to the ground. He got up and tried to scream, without success.” (…) “Two children had managed to put a Martian to flight! The interplanetary traveler returned to his saucer, which he had left in a field, near a disused holiday camp.” (…)
“The ‘Martian’ operation was skillfully conducted by the captain of the gendarmerie himself, Mr. Brustel. The four children were questioned separately, and at length. A reconstruction was carried out, both in the courtyard of the farm, and at the place where the interplanetary vehicle had landed. (…) It was there that the next day, the ground was found literally trampled, flattened colchicums, four holes resulting from the driving in of four triangular wedges, a scratched mast and a fir tree whose bark had been torn off over fifteen centimetres at 1.50 m from the ground.” (…)
“Nevertheless, a Martian entered Raymond’s life, sowing trouble within his family, from the village of Prémanon, mobilizing the gendarmes of Saint-Claude and Les Rousses. (…) How many contradictions in all this, which should perhaps have remained a wonderful fairy tale for modern times. The little hero, after having wiped away the kiss of a Martian whom he managed to make retreat, was punished by his parents. (…) To tear him away from evil, Mrs. Romand decided to inflict small deprivations on him. Banned from going out, no dessert. This little Galileo will be subdued. – I saw him anyway, exclaimed the little boy. – The great evil, you see, said Mrs. Romand, is that the child did not want to tell us anything. He went to tell his teacher, instead of trusting his parents.” The whole story is sharply denied by the mother in just a few words: “Besides, on the evening of the Martian, he didn’t leave [the farm]!”
This sequence was further extended by the Belgian weekly Germinal [33], reproducing the content of Radar / Coordination on 17 October, then finally by a reader’s letter [34] from Paris-Match on 23.
Analysis of local, regional, national and international press
To try to better understand how the story was transformed and then developed, we must now highlight the relationships between the various press titles. However, at a time when there was little concern for copyright (the law on literary and artistic property dates from 1957), practically no article or photograph from the corpus that we have compiled on this affair is signed or sourced (as was the custom at the time). In the absence of credits, and in order to highlight the relationships between newspapers, we will base ourselves on the one hand on the information concerning the newspaper correspondent [in square brackets when indicated in the article] and, on the other hand, on a content analysis.
First observation: Le Parisien Libéré [“Dijon, September 30 (from our corr. part.)”] and Le Dauphiné Libéré [“Dijon, September 30”] of October 1st as well as Paris-Presse the following day are based on the original article of Dernières Dépêches of September 30. In Morez, L’Indépendant du Haut-Jura of October 2 is the only one to indicate the borrowing with the reprint of “the story from Les Rousses and related by our great colleague Les Dernières Dépêches”. These four papers share a certain amount of information, characteristics and sentence structures indicating the demarcation (for example, the weather conditions are indicated in the same way, there are always two children, etc.). Conclusion: the Dernières Dépêches article is at the origin of most of the first articles in the regional and national press for the period up to October 2.
With the exception of L’Est républicain [“Morez (From our correspondent)”] and Le Bien public [“Morez – (CP)”], both from 1/10, which publishes two barely rewritten versions of the same original text. From this second finding, we conclude that Morez’s “Correspondant Particulier” was working for different titles, a common practice in the press. What remains to be seen is whether the list here is exhaustive.
Third finding: we saw that the information from an official source (gendarmerie) was disseminated in local press titles, namely Le Courrier (2 and 9/10), Le Journal de Dôle et de la région (9/10) or with a local editorial team, such as Le Progrès (1 and 4/10). The conclusion is self-evident: the unofficial contacts traditionally developed and maintained by journalists with the gendarmes allowed the local press to be particularly efficient in covering and following up on this affair. On the other hand, by the very fact that it is local, this same press, rediscovered in 2023 and 2024 as part of our investigation, remained totally unknown to specialists for 70 years.
The fourth finding concerns the foreign press. The Feuille d’Avis de Neuchâtel [“(c)” for correspondance] of 4/10 repeats almost word for word the information from the Courrier of 2/10; for example, it states that the statements of the witnesses “recorded with the greatest seriousness and transmitted as required to the competent authorities”. The Journal du Jura of 5/10 is nothing other than a copy and paste, not from the Courrier, but from the article in the Neuchâtel newspaper, credited with its initials “F. d’A. N.”. For its part, the Journal de Genève [“(From our correspondent in St-Claude)”] of the same day implicitly refers to the Courrier, while the information from L’Impartial the following day is a pure and simple copy, without any indication of origin. Even more astonishing, the transalpine newspapers – Milano Sera [“Ginevra, 6 ottobre”] then Corriere di Sicilia, [“S. Claude, 6.”] the following day – place Prémanon in Switzerland, which makes it a probable reprint of the Journal de Genève. Finally, more seriously, Egyptian Gazette credits ANSA (Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata), the Italian press agency. Conclusion: the Courrier article of 2/10 is directly or indirectly at the origin of all the articles published abroad. That is probably even more than the seven articles listed, since the ANSA dispatch – itself indirectly based on the Courrier article – was indeed distributed internationally. While the second gendarmerie report was motivated by “certain more or less accurate press information”, it is now the erroneous information from the first report concerning the siblings which is, not without irony, being disseminated by the press in several countries!
70 years later, a last-minute scoop: the mysterious correspondent from Morez has finally been identified!
The answer to the question about Morez’s ‘Correspondant Particulier’ has arrived as these lines are being reread. Following Julien Gonzalez’s expertise and initial research, thanks to the collaboration of Corine, daughter of the Genillon couple, and finally by consulting the press archives in Dole and Dijon with Julien, we have now found the identity of the mysterious Morez correspondent. The journalist was none other than Jacques Mandrillon (1930-1979), known as ‘Jacky’, first cousin of the schoolteacher, who was also a charismatic figure and influential journalist, even becoming for a time an official at the Ministry of Agriculture. A friend of Bernard Clavel, “Jacques Mandrillon was also, and perhaps above all, a poet” [35]. Before becoming editor-in-chief of Le Progrès for the Jura region, “he began his career as a correspondent for Les Dépêches in Morez, his home town” [36], and in his early days “wrote the local column for several regional dailies” [37]. As such, he was the author of the very first article in Dernières dépêches on the Prémanon “Martian”, as well as its various reprints (La Bourgogne républicaine and Le Comtois), and finally the papers referring, and with good reason, to correspondence from Morez (Le Bien public, the two articles in L’Est Républicain and the one in Ici Paris), giving the affair a regional and national reputation.
Ufologists’ “cold” investigations
Thanks to the investigations and counter-investigations of ufologists, we will now see how, from November 1954, once the media fever had died down, another perspective would end up emerging with the point of view of the actors concerned, shedding light on this news item in a completely different light. This period lasted until 1979, when, independently of each other, Yves Bosson and Jean-Pierre Rospars, the authors of this article, began to take an interest in Prémanon.
The Cosmos Group of Geneva: the forgotten investigation
In Geneva, the Cosmos group, one of the first associations of ufologists, sent two of its investigators on a mission to the Haut-Jura on November 14, 1954. Their three-page report [38] is most informative. Excerpts:
In Morez, “Complete indifference of the people contacted. There is little belief in flying saucers.” In Prémanon, “We asked the customs officer (who is permanently in the region), he was not on the scene. However, he heard that Raymond had spoken to a strange man he called a “steel ghost”. According to this customs officer, it was a question of a charred tree and not a flag bearer [the famous summer camp flagpole]. He gave us the Radar newspaper in which there is a photo of this charred tree (the pole). The teacher and her husband were absent.” At the Mont Fier farm, the investigators met Raymond and his uncle. They noted that “the farmer’s brother, (…) completely denied the existence of flying saucers and added that the boy had lied to journalists and the police. Raymond being present, he confirmed what his uncle had said. (…) According to [the parents] this story would come simply from a composition that the child had to write for school. [The uncle] stated and confirms that this affair grew because of the teacher who took the child’s story seriously. Little Raymond assures us that he never saw anything (he says he dreamed). […] To the question: can you tell me the shape of this flying saucer, he answers “there is no shape since I saw nothing”. How did you describe the “steel ghost”: like a piece of sugar, he answers. Throughout the afternoon, he assures us that he saw nothing, so we ask him the question, why did you tell the gendarmes that it existed; he answers: because I told my teacher!!! What traces did you show the gendarmes? He replied ironically, they were cow’s foot prints. Why did your little sister hide in the barn? That’s not true, he said, the barn was closed. Did you really throw stones? He replied: No, I dreamed that I was throwing them. I also told my mistress that I had taken my pistol.” At the Saint-Claude gendarmerie, Captain Brustel “is absent, it is Gendarme Bourgeois who receives us. He was there the day after tomorrow with the captain at Mont Fier. An interesting point, the police noticed crown-shaped traces [of trampled grass ] about 3.50 m in diameter and about 50 cm wide. As for the holes, the gendarmes claim that they are rather, as little Raymond says, cattle tracks. The first impression of the gendarmerie is that little Raymond is not afraid of anything and he confirms what we already know”.
Discovered by Yves in 1979 when he was saving the archives of the Cosmos group, this investigation report had never been published. The approach of the group of ufologists has several interesting characteristics: it is a neighbourhood investigation, the first of its kind; six weeks after the events, it is after the media fever; finally, it is not the work of journalists or police officers, but of a third category of investigators: ufologists. Since they are people interested in flying saucers, in order to verify their existence, it is understandable that the two investigators were disconcerted: “This investigation shows that it is extremely difficult to obtain information in this environment. The statements are all contradictory and are never confirmed. It is difficult to form an opinion based on this investigation and we cannot say that the sole trace of this crown can suffice to prove the landing of a flying saucer.”
From the front of the newsstands to the windows of the bookstores
Meanwhile, the Prémanon saucer will leave the newspapers for the books. The pioneers of ufology already mentioned, Jimmy Guieu [39] and Aimé Michel [40], each publish their second book, respectively in 1956 and 1958. A place is reserved for our case. Guieu bases his work on the investigation of another journalist from La Bourgogne républicaine named Charles Garreau [41], himself a pioneer of ufology and future author of several books on the subject [42]. For his part, Michel takes up Garreau’s investigation and the articles from the national press that he has professional knowledge of thanks to the Argus of the Documentation Service of the future ORTF [43]. At once sensitive, beautiful and touching, the passage from his book entitled “Prémanon or Innocence” has left a deep impression: “The Prémanon affair [is] certainly the most poetic in the entire history of Flying Saucers. If one day a museum of innocence is built, a touching place will be reserved, I hope, for little Raymond’s dart gun (…)”. The innocence of children even becomes an argument in favor of the reality of flying saucers.
A form of consecration for the small village of Prémanon, now known by ufologists around the world. Notoriety then confirmed with two books published in the United States [44] by the Franco-American astrophysicist Jacques Vallée, a world authority on UFOs, who inspired Steven Spielberg for the role of the aptly named Lucien Lacombe, the main character in the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind played by François Truffaut. Prémanon was even selected for the famous international catalogue of nearly a thousand cases of UFO landings published in Jacques Vallée’s second book (see case no. 160).
The Hoax of the Dissident Ufologists
In 1979, Gérard Barthel and Jacques Brucker, two ufologists who had become skeptical about the reality of UFOs, published La Grande peur martienne [45], a work intended to be a refutation of the wave of saucers of 1954. They had no trouble revisiting cases that had been little or poorly investigated, such as Prémanon, to propose trivial explanations, often making do with information obtained by telephone, without any particular verification. During their investigation in 1978, they claim to have found Raymond and his father. They concluded the six pages devoted to Prémanon in these terms:
“(…) Let us specify that the teacher had asked the children in the previous days to think about the stories of ‘Martians’ that were in the news at the time. (…) The fact that Mrs. G. had underestimated the children’s imagination when she asked them to think about the subject of ‘Martians’ provided the key to the whole affair, the inventive spirit of the kids had done the rest. A few square metres of grass trampled by animals, a stake with scratched bark, by anything else, and we were in possession of one of the most solid cases in ufological literature. (…) A well-planned hoax (…) some kids set a trap for us, we [the ufologists] fell for it. That’s all! ”
Let us add that G. Barthel and J. Brucker were not aware of the report of the Cosmos group since it was in 1979, the year their work was published, that we discovered it. We will note the convergence of the two investigations, but also their divergences: school writing for Cosmos, influence of the teacher on her students, hoax and trap for Barthel and Brucker… these are strong words!
By appealing to an imaginary hoax, a pretext intended to mask their own incompetence, the two dissident ufologists have in reality launched a fake news story : some of those who believed wholeheartedly in the metal of the Prémanon saucer now think that the affair “is nothing more than a hoax”…
Our own investigations
Remotely with GEPAN (1978–1980)
In 1977, at the instigation of the Ministry of Defense, a Study Group for Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena, GEPAN, was created within the National Centre for Space Studies, CNES. At the time, Jean-Pierre was a young scientist, and a combination of circumstances led him to be an external collaborator of this study group. One of the objectives assigned to the group by the Scientific Council that oversaw it was to carry out a series of field investigations into significant UFO observations. It is remarkable that the Prémanon case had then been selected on the basis of the two gendarmerie reports along with a dozen others. Contacts had been made with the Rousses and Saint-Claude brigades, as well as with the schoolteacher. Finally, the investigation did not take place due to the weather conditions during the winter of 1978 and the dispersion of the protagonists.
In 1980, Jean-Pierre became aware of the two gendarmerie reports and the GEPAN interview with the schoolteacher, who in 1978 rejected any idea of a hoax (statements very similar to the long interviews she gave to Yves from 1985 to 1991). What made GEPAN’s approach so interesting were also the attempts to contact the gendarmes Dubois and Brustel, who signed the two gendarmerie reports, by telephone. Under Jean-Pierre’s direction, the GEPAN secretary managed to locate them and converse with the former and the wife of the latter: clear refusal by the two retired gendarmes to receive GEPAN investigators and to mobilise resources for this purpose.
On the field (1984–1991)
For his part, Yves, during his on-site investigation, was lucky enough to find almost all the other players in this affair and conducted a series of eighteen interviews, sometimes over several years. They include the schoolteacher and her husband, Raymond and his sister Janine, the three sons of the late Captain Brustel, as well as Claude Comte (1936-2000), the Cosmos investigator, Louis-Albert Zbinden, Charles Garreau, Raymond Vuillermoz (1921-2008), one of the three gendarmes who participated in the official investigation, and Julien Prost (1905-1988), mayor of Prémanon at the time of the events. The results of these investigations would be the subject of two publications, in 1992 and 1993 [46].
For the most part, the story was indeed triggered by a school essay, but on a free theme, without an imposed subject or a course on Martians, as Raymond specified during the 1991 interview: “it was a free text. There are two possibilities in the texts, either we put what happens at home, so the parents didn’t always like it, or we invented a text of pure fiction, and there it was a text of pure fiction.” Raymond had never heard of saucers or Martians. The son of farmers, his frame of reference was completely different: “We lived next to a shepherd who looked after the herds of a Swiss farm and it was the winter transhumance, that is to say that the herds had to go down the mountain and return to Switzerland – so, if I remember correctly, I invented a story according to which this Swiss shepherd had scared us, but I say I invented it, well we were asked [to write] a free text, we invent what we want. […] I know that the shepherd himself, with his big cape, could have had the appearance of a ghost, so it is possible that I spoke directly of the ghost [in the writing], it is very possible. But in my mind, even if I did not write it down, it was linked to the shepherd. In any case, what I am absolutely certain of, it was an invention of my mind.” He specifies: “I think that this shepherd living alone, came to see us from time to time. With his big cape, [he] could have the appearance of a ghost. It is obvious that from this, one could embroider the story of the ghost […]”.
The account by the journalist from Ici Paris dated October 11, 1954, fits these statements perfectly: “For several hours already, the Swiss shepherd’s flocks had been crossing the courtyard of the Romand farm at full speed, to reach a nearby pasture. […] The Swiss shepherd was at home, and Raymond wanted to go out. […]” The attested existence of the shepherd thus gives credence to Raymond’s words by anchoring them in an independent reality.
As for Mrs. Genillon, she explained in 1985 the circumstances in which she collected the children’s first comments: “I had given them a free subject and […] her brother and sisters […] told me the same scene […] in a slightly different form.” In 1991, she added: “Oh, you know, a priori, since they had three different accounts on more or less the same subject, I was tempted to believe them. They could also have been playing, playing a joke, you know…” It was then Mr Genillon, her husband, who was interested, who gave importance to the story .
In 1991, Raymond recounts this decisive moment in the formation of the news item: “I wrote this text [the school essay] which apparently interested the teacher’s husband. Now, I don’t know if he was a journalist at that time, but he was very well informed about what we call UFOs. And he came to see me and asked me what I had seen. Well, I must have repeated more or less the same thing to him. He may have even suggested to me: haven’t you seen this, haven’t you seen that? And at 12 years old, you can easily be impressed by your teacher’s husband. I kept saying yes, yes! You saw this; I said yes, yes, and one thing led to another a story was built that I had seen a UFO or a sugar cube and I had shot him with a dart. And I may have invented the story of the sugar lump, it’s possible. Whether I invented it or whether it was suggested to me, I don’t remember. As a child, I didn’t foresee the consequences. I began to understand when journalists came and it’s quite obvious that when you’re a child, when you’ve said something once, a child’s pride, you don’t want to retract it. Well, you told your teacher that, you told her husband that, you don’t want to change it and you continue to tell it more or less the same way. So, unfortunately, many people imagine that what children say is gospel, that’s why you have to be wary sometimes, children make up a lot of stories and I was one of them at that time.”
A primitive narrative is being formed during this exchange with the teacher’s husband, that is to say between the two key players in the affair. It evolves between the child’s feeling of being trapped in the headlong flight – which his “childish pride” nevertheless manages to counterbalance – and the adult’s interpretation of this draft of a narrative – a narrative unconsciously induced by his own questions, themselves in tune with the spirit of the times, namely the wave of flying saucers in the autumn of 1954.
In contrast to Barthel and Brucker’s conclusion, the conclusion of Yves’s 1993 article was that “there was therefore no deliberate intention to mystify anyone in this affair: neither on the part of the journalists, nor the police, nor the schoolteacher. All the actors each contributed their part, without prejudging the final result, and no one is in a position to claim responsibility for it.”
Our additional investigations (2019–2024)
No new elements will be reported for the next quarter century. In 2019, following extensive correspondence, the two authors of this text decided to reopen the case. This was the occasion for a further investigation [47] during which about twenty new interviews were conducted, as well as a new archive search focused on the local press [48]. Finally, the last elements left on the sidelines of the case were examined in situ.
A “strange” red light
To understand the origin of this red light, it is necessary to consult a geographical map or to climb Mont Fier (1282 m), from where there is a breathtaking view of this valley. The latter is inhabited by four farms, all spaced 200 m from each other, arranged along a west-east axis. Seen from the family farm, it turns out that the direction of the red glow indicated by the children is precisely that of the nearest farm (Autun holiday camp). So, how can we be surprised by the presence of an ordinary glow in the direction of the only source of human activity visible in the valley, namely that of the neighboring farm and the path allowing access by car? Raymond, always answering in the affirmative to the adults’ questions, could very well have referred to the memory of a light relating to the neighboring farm by pointing its direction to the police.
An enigmatic, vaguely peeled pole
We were able to document the presence of various posts erected at that time around the farm, one of which was used to hoist a flag in the colony’s colours (“flagpole”). Thanks to the photos from the magazines Semaine du monde and Radar, we were able to determine the location of the photographed post, as located at the edge of the road leading to Prémanon, at the height of the south facade of the holiday camp. Its use, however, remains unknown. At most, we can assume that given its location, it was related to the road, the adjoining plot or the holiday camp.
The post in question could be a dry wood whose bark would have naturally detached – in fact in three separate places, which makes this hypothesis the most likely. (However, other possibilities cannot be excluded, such as bark stripping due to an animal with its antlers – or its hooves when the felled tree is on the ground – or even when transporting the trunk).
Origin of the traces on the ground
With the help of a reconstruction on site, we located the position of the area photographed by the Radar newspaper in agreement with the descriptions of the actors of the time [49]. Currently, a herd of Swiss cows still occupies the plots of the valley during summer periods. Having read the description of the tracks noted by the gendarmes, Bernard Conry the shepherd presently in charge of them, spontaneously recognized those of a cow lying down – most often on its right side, thus causing a typical crushing of the grass in the other direction, counterclockwise.
It could also have been another animal or a combined effect of wind and rain; if we consider however that the tracks were located on the “cattle track” mentioned by Brustel, it is most likely that the crown (probably partial) of crushed grass corresponds to the mark left by a cattle lying down on the ground.
As for the four holes, also described in the second gendarmerie report, they correspond very precisely to the footprints of cattle, down to the three spurs mentioned by Captain Brustel’s witnesses, who were in fact “reliable”. To be convinced of this, it is enough to consult the literature, the experts who are the farmers, or to examine the traces that can always be found in certain places in the valley, after the cattle have passed. Indeed, depending on the composition, humidity and resistance of a terrain likely to vary from place to place, also depending on the pressure on the ground exerted by the thin and protruding hooves of the cattle (depending on the weight of the animal and its walking or running speed), the passage of a herd can cause this type of hole. Having spotted them in various places in the valley, it is true that these holes are reminiscent of those of stakes (of triangular section) driven into the ground and randomly arranged on the ground. Nothing that could therefore correspond precisely to an animal footprint such as one imagines, formed of an uninterrupted series of prints regularly spaced from each other, as is the case for example when animals pass on the snow. This is undoubtedly the reason why these traces are not recognized as being cattle footprints and rightly challenge the observer, convincing him that something unusual has indeed happened at this place!
Seventy years later, our conclusions, according to which the traces attributed to a flying saucer were probably those of a herd of cattle, match the explanations given by Raymond, in 1954 already, then in 1991: “in this field, between the time when I told my story and the time when the journalists came, a herd of Swiss cows passed by, that is to say these transhumance herds and there were dozens of cows that passed through this field, so we can ask ourselves the question, as my parents used to say, how can you find traces of a flying saucer in a field that has been trampled? Which makes it absolutely absurd.”
The identity of the “Martian”
Last enigma: the Martian! We had established in 1991 that a Swiss shepherd was behind it. We now know, thanks to the testimonies of Guy Marchand, a former boy in holiday camp, who became a monitor of the nearest camp [50] and Bernard Conry, the farmer already mentioned, that the Swiss shepherd, who successively became a ghost and a Martian, answered to the surname of Morel and the first name of Fernand.
Armed with a stick, threatening to shoot cartridges of coarse salt from a rifle, busy checking everyone’s actions with a view to ensuring that the integrity of crops and pastures is respected, Fernand Morel wanted in particular to prevent the young people at the holiday camp from “patasser” [51] the hay before mowing it! Nicknamed for this reason “Grain de sel” [Grain of salt] or “la Fouine” [Weasel], this Swiss shepherd with his large cape inspired fear in the valley of Mont Fier. It was therefore not surprising for Raymond to draw inspiration from this very special figure to transform it into a scary ghost in his school essay on a free theme.
Contribution to the study of a news item
Three main actors with strong characters
Raymond, the initiator of the affair
A 12-year-old schoolboy at the time of the events, who became a researcher in neurobiology, he is the author of the essay that triggered it all. After the media frenzy of 1954, he never contradicted himself in his statements. An endearing and honest figure, Raymond appeared from a very young age as a strong personality, capable of standing up to adults, intelligent and endowed with a lively imagination [52], which his later career would confirm. This partly explains the turn taken by events in 1954. If he had not entered into the adult game or had retracted [53], history would have taken a different course.
The schoolteacher’s husband, the inventor of the affair
Husband of the schoolteacher, Jacques Genillon (1927-2019), a former resistance fighter, was a lawyer at the Lons-le-Saunier bar (specializing in the military field), Knight of the Legion of Honor and Knight of the National Order of Merit. During the Second World War, he took part at a very young age in the sabotage of the Lons train station, a heroic act that prevented the additional dispatch of German troops to counter the Normandy landing. It was he who collected Raymond’s story, then contacted the press –the photographer for Le Progrès Daniel Ribatto as well as journalist Jacky Mandrillon from Les Dépêches – and alerted the Gendarmerie in Les Rousses, in the person of Raymond Vuillermoz, brigade commander. He introduced Raymond to the journalists and organized the on-site reporting by the employees of the Coordination press agency, in particular the photoshoot session in his own office in his wife’s official apartment at the village school. He guided the journalists on site (Le Progrès, Radar, Semaine du monde) and did not hesitate to pose twice. Described by those around him as having a strong personality, a very assertive character, possibly related to his past as a very young resistance fighter, today we would say that he was a whistleblower: pointing out the intrusion of this unknown “something” in our environment…
Captain Brustel, the discoverer of the traces
Knight of the Legion of Honour, Croix de Guerre 1939-1945, Gendarmerie Captain Raymond Brustel (1908-1987) led the Saint-Claude brigade (Jura) from 1946 to 1958. A combatant in the Second World War, at the head of his squadron 8/4 of Montbrison, Captain Brustel participated with General Louis Beaudonnet (1923-2014) in the liberation of Strasbourg, during heroic battles in January 1945 at Kilstett (Bas-Rhin). Raymond Brustel’s career continued in Saint-Claude from 1946 to 1957 before becoming commander, then general councilor of the Pinols canton, in Haute-Loire (1964-1982). Well-known in the Haut-Jura, he displayed in his work a great closeness with people, adept as he was at the sociability of the time. His three sons like his grandson never heard about the episode of the flying saucer at home. “In reality, my father was building his career, that’s all he was interested in”, Roger, the eldest son, tells us.
A series of contingencies
Like other famous or tragic news stories, it is, as we have seen, an exceptional series of contingencies, which allowed the emergence of the case that interests us here, by the combination of multiple elements nested one after the other:
• the Treaty of Dappes of 1862 [54], the summering of Swiss cows in French fields, a shepherd with a particular psychology,
• a school assignment to complete and the imaginative spirit of a proud child, refusing to back down,
• a young teacher for whom the child’s fictional story becomes the expression of a lived reality,
• the interest of her husband, who has both the cultural background allowing another reading of the child’s story and the relationship leading to the intervention of the media and the police,
• the intervention of the captain of the gendarmerie,
• the credibility that the official intervention of the gendarmerie gives to the story,
• the selection of various traces in the grass, on the ground, on a mast,
• the association of said traces with Raymond’s story,
• the wave of saucers of the time,
• media interest in this type of high-profile case,
• the family’s silence,
• the disbelief of the villagers,
• a favorable social environment.
From rurality to modernity: a double transformation
We have seen that the Martian results from the transformation by adults of the imaginary representation of the ghost, the latter being inspired in the child by the real figure of the Swiss shepherd.
The first transformation is therefore to be credited to the child, who deliberately borrows the ordinary figure of the shepherd from his social environment to transform it into a ghost – an imaginary representation intended for his schoolwork.
The second transformation is that of adults – at once involuntary, social and collective. They appropriate the child’s story in order to rationalize it, to give it meaning. The archaic figure of the ghost fades away to make way for an interpretation in tune with the times, that of the Martian, the image of modernity, both of the present and of the future.
This is how, in just a few hours, through the social body and without anyone being able to prejudge the final result, the shepherd – this figure of rurality – is transformed into a Martian disembarked from his flying saucer, a reflection of the interplanetary voyages in the making [55].
Conclusion
A collective narrative based on an original creative process
The Prémanon “Martian”affair reveals an original creative process that we have attempted to document. While this complex mechanism for producing a collective narrative relates here to the Martian controversy, there is no doubt that a similar process (which can sometimes be useful to identify in real time) is also at work in the production of other types of collective narratives, mobilising the ecosystem of the press – often in interaction with that of the gendarmerie.
Text © 2024 Yves Bosson & Jean-Pierre Rospars
This text is a pre-publication of an article to appear in the newsletter Les Amis du Vieux Saint-Claude. Reproduction prohibited, all rights reserved.
Links
Thanks
Our gratitude and thanks go to the following people and organizations for their help, information and assistance over the past five years:
Amis du Vieux Saint-Claude (AVSC) and Véronique Blanchet-Rossi • Evelyne Chudziak at the Côte d’Or Departmental Archives • The Jura Departmental Archives • The Saint-Claude Municipal Archives • Bataillon de Gendarmerie de Haute-Montagne (BGHM) • Philippe Baudouin • Jean-Yves Bizot • Alain and Guy Brustel • Chief Warrant Officer François Colin at the Saint-Claude gendarmerie brigade • Gilles Munsch, Jean-Claude Leroy and the members of the Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques (CNEGU), in Val d’Ajol (88) • Bernard Conry • Olivier Cousinou • Mary-Pierre Desvignes at GEIPAN, CNES in Toulouse • Raymond Duplan • Corine Genillon • Julien Gonzalez • Claude Jacquinot • Christelle Petit at the Lyon Municipal Library • Bruno Mancusi • Guy and Michèle Marchand • René Masson • Claude Maugé • Bertrand Méheust • Thierry Pinvidic • The editorial staff of Le Progrès in Saint-Claude • Franck Roncaglia at the Gendarmerie Museum in Melun • Gilles Durand and Raoul Robé from SCEAU – Archives OVNI in Brunoy • Mélanie Blicq at Historical Defense Service (SCAID / SHD) of Châtellerault • Nolwenn Marchand and the Prémanon Town Hall • Roger Vandel • Dominique Vuillet • Without forgetting Raymond and all the involuntary actors in this improbable news item.
Footnotes
[1] “Report from Chief Warrant Officer Dubois, provisionally commanding the Saint-Claude gendarmerie section, on the appearance of a strange device” – Document No. 29/4 of 29-09-1954, folios 81 and 82 of register N/4 of the Saint-Claude brigade.
[2] “Near Les Rousses – Two children stone a ‘flying saucer’ that had landed in the farmyard”, Les Dernières dépêches–La Franche-Comté républicaine (Dijon) & La Bourgogne républicaine (Dijon), both on p. 4 of the edition of 30-09-1954. At the time of writing (August 2024), historian Julien Gonzalez found this article in the Dole Library: although it is common to both editions, only the one in Dernières dépêches (Jura edition of La Bourgogne républicaine ) was available in the Jura department. As such, it is the one we are choosing.
[3] Jimmy Guieu, Les Soucoupes volantes viennent d’un autre monde, Paris, Fleuve Noir, 1954. Translation: Flying Saucers come from another World, Hutchinson, 1956.
[4] Aimé Michel, Lueurs sur les soucoupes volantes, Tours, Mame, 1954. Translation: The Truth About Flying Saucers, Robert Hale Ltd., London – 1957.
[5] “Additional report from Captain Brustel, commander of the Saint-Claude gendarmerie section, on the appearance of a mysterious device in Prémanon, Jura” – Document no. 30/4 of 01-10-1954, folios 82 and 83 of register N/4 of the Saint-Claude brigade.
[6] “Saucers… fly! The passengers of Prémanon’s saucer look like lumps of sugar”, Le Progrès (Lyon) of 01-10-1954, p. 3. (Reference title on the front page of the newspaper: “Offensive of flying saucers (…) Carriers of sheet metal and parallelepiped creatures in the Jura. On page three: the saucers in our region”).
[7] The photo (not credited) is probably by Daniel Ribatto (1926-1981), photographer located at 45 rue du Pré in Saint-Claude very close to the Le Progrès local team, at no. 39 of the same street. (On the Saint-Claude press, see Véronique Blanchet-Rossi, “Local press and printing in Saint-Claude, 19th-21st centuries”, Les Amis du Vieux Saint-Claude n° 46, 2023, pp. 59-74).
[8] For some commentators, it was a problem linked to the landing of the flying saucer: “It is assumed that the craft scratched the mast when it landed: it then moved a few metres away from it before coming to rest”. For others, the problem was related to the take-off: “As it took off, the fireball hit this fir tree and charred its bark”.
[9] “When ‘Martians’ are afraid of children”, Le Comtois (Besançon) of 01-10-1954, p. 2.
[10] “A ‘saucer’ would have landed in the Haut-Jura”, L’Est républicain (Nancy) of 01-10-1954, p. 7.
[11] “Did a flying saucer land on the Haut-Jura?”, Le Bien public (Dijon) of 01-10-1954, p. 3.
[12] “A flying saucer in the Jura?”, Le Dauphiné libéré (Grenoble) of 01-10-1954.
[13] “First hostilities between earthlings and flying saucers… Two children from Prémanon (Jura) throw stones at a craft which had landed in a farmyard”, Le Parisien libéré of 01-10-1954.
[14] “The ‘Martians’ on vacation (continued) – A three-legged ‘saucer’ in the Jura”, Paris-Presse , 02-10-1954.
[15] “Flying Saucer over the Haut-Jura”, L’Indépendant du Haut-Jura (Morez) of 02-10-1954.
[16] “A mysterious craft has reportedly landed in the Haut Jura – Should we fear an attack by the Martians in the coming months?”, Le Courrier (Saint-Claude) of 02-10-1954, p. 2.
[17] “[The children’s] statements were therefore recorded with the utmost seriousness and transmitted as appropriate to the competent authorities.”
[18] “On flying saucers”, Le Progrès (Lyon) of 04-10-1954, Jura edition, p. 5.
[19] “At the border – A mysterious craft is said to have landed in the French Haut-Jura”, Feuille d’Avis de Neuchâtel of 04-10-1954, p. 5.
[20] “At the border – Prémanon – A mysterious craft is said to have landed in the French Haut-Jura”, Journal du Jura (Bienne) of 05-10-1954, p. 3.
[21] “Celestial hallucination – A mysterious craft is said to have landed in the Haut-Jura”, Journal de Genève of 05-10-1954, p. 6.
[22] “French border – A mysterious craft is said to have landed in the Haut-Jura”, L’Impartial (La Chaux-de-Fonds) of 06-10-1954, p. 2.
[23] “Flying saucer ‘lands’ in Switzerland”, Milano Sera (Milan) of 06-10-1954.
[24] “The police investigate – A flying saucer attacks a child”, Corriere di Sicilia (Catania) of 07-10-1954.
[25] “3 children see saucer take off”, Egyptian Gazette (Cairo) of 07-10-1954.
[26] “Saucers! Have the French Gone Mad?”, Semaine du monde (Paris) of 08-10-1954, pp. 7-8.
[27] “The flying saucer of Prémanon”, Le Courrier (Saint-Claude) of 09-10-1954, p. 2.
[28] “Flying Saucers and Cigars – Study of the Facts and Investigation by Maurice Champy”, Le Journal de Dôle et de la région (Dole) of 09-10-1954, p. 1. This is the only signed article in our corpus.
[29] “While his little brother, wide-eyed, watched ‘The Burning Field’, Raymond, 12, attacked a ‘flying saucer’ with an arrow gun and then fled, thinking he saw a ghost”, L’Est républicain (Nancy) of 09-10-1954, p. 7 – the only article signed with the author’s initials (“J.M.”).
[30] “On French soil: Saucers leave their mark – Jura: it looks like a piece of sugar”, Radar (Paris) of 10-10-1954, p. 11.
[31] According to the series of 25 photographic prints (approx. 18 x 24 cm) bearing the stamp “Copyright Coordination” on the back found in 1990 by the tireless archive researchers Raoul and Lionel Robé. These talented photographs were all published in Radar (without any text or photo credit), for the coverage of the wave of flying saucers of 1954. Today preserved by the association SCEAU – Archives OVNI, they constitute a precious testimony of this period.
[32] “Because a ‘Martian’ kissed him, Raymond (12 years old) – the little Galileo of the Jura – was corrected by his mother…”, Ici Paris of 11-10-1954, pp. 7, 12.
[33] “Raymond Romand (12-year-old boy): ‘I did see the pilot’ ”, Germinal (Brussels), 17-10-1954, p. 1.
[34] Mr. Raymond Michaud, 23, rue du Pré, Saint-Claude (Jura): “Experts we consulted are lost in conjecture about the nature of the unusual visitors. Machine, galaxy or secret weapon, children, with their eyes washed with innocence and their overwhelming ingenuousness, saw on a strange September night these passengers of the sky, whose name we will one day end up knowing.”
[35] When he died, the poet… A large crowd at the funeral of our colleague Jacques Mandrillon, Les Dépêches (Dijon), 21-10-1979.
[36] “Obituary. M. Jacky Mandrillon, departmental director of Le Progrès”, Les Dépêches (Dijon) du 19-10-1979.
[37] “Jacques Mandrillon: farewell to a friend”, Le Journal de Dôle et de la région du 26-10-1979.
[38] Claude Comte & André Rosset, “Report of our fact-finding trip to Morez, Prémanon and Saint-Claude (Jura), November 14, 1954”.
[39] Jimmy Guieu, Black-out sur les soucoupes volantes [Black-out on the flying saucers], Paris, Fleuve Noir, 1956, pp. 131-133 (re-edited by Omnium Littéraire, Paris, 1972, pp. 150-152).
[40] Aimé Michel, Mystérieux objets célestes [Mysterious Celestial Objects], Paris, Arthaud, 1958, pp. 143-150 (reprinted by Planète, Paris, 1966 and 1967, under the title À propos des soucoupes volantes [About Flying Saucers], pp. 116-119, and Seghers, Paris, 1977, pp. 126-129). Translation: Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, New York, S.G. Phillips, 1958, pp. 90-92.
[41] “I did not think it was worth writing an article myself in the newspaper because the correspondent’s article was condensed but complete” (interview by YB of 14-11-1984).
[42] On Prémanon, see his third book : Charles Garreau and Raymond Lavier, Face aux extra-terrestres [Facing the Aliens], Paris, J.-P. Delarge, 1975, pp. 211-213 (re-edited by Le Livre de Poche, 1978, pp. 218-221).
[43] Entrusted to one of us by A. Michel, these articles from Parisien Libéré, Dauphiné and Paris-Presse have been included in our corpus.
[44] Jacques and Janine Vallée, Challenge to Science. The UFO Enigma, Chicago, Henry Regnery, 1966, pp. 170-172 (reprinted by Ace Star Book, New York, pp. 191-193) and Jacques Vallée, Passport to Magonia , Chicago, Henry Regnery, 1968, p. 212. Translation: Chroniques des apparitions extra-terrestres [Chronicles of Extraterrestrial Apparitions], Paris, Denoël, 1972, p. 285 (reprinted by J’Ai lu, 1974, p. 261).
[45] Gérard Barthel & Jacques Brucker, La Grande peur martienne [The Great Martian Fear], Paris, Nouvelles Editions Rationalistes, 1979, pp. 88-93.
[46] Yves Bosson, “Soucoupes françaises et vaches suisses : quelques notes sur l’affaire de Prémanon” [French saucers and swiss cows: some notes on the Prémanon affair], Actes des sixièmes Rencontres européennes de Lyon consacrées au phénomène ovni [Proceedings of the Lyon Meetings devoted to the UFO phenomenon], Aix-en-Provence, Sos-Ovni, 1992, pp. 4-17 and “Prémanon ou l’innocence : enquête sur un cas au-dessus de tout soupçon” [Prémanon or innocence: investigation into a case above all suspicion] in Thierry Pinvidic (dir.), Ovni, vers une anthropologie d’un mythe contemporain [UFO, towards an anthropology of a contemporary myth], Bayeux, Heimdal, 1993, pp. 122-145.
[47] Yves Bosson & Jean-Pierre Rospars, “Déconstruction d’un événement ovni : pourquoi Prémanon n’est pas un canular” [Deconstructing a UFO event: why Prémanon is not a hoax], in Thierry Pinvidic (ed.), Les Savoirs du troisième type – Ovnis et imaginaires de l’espace (in preparation).
[48] We benefited from the in-depth knowledge of the local and regional press acquired by the historian Julien Gonzalez.
[49] The villagers themselves readily attribute the traces to the summer activities of the holiday camp: “It turned out that the traces in question corresponded to the mast and stakes of the marabout that the colony erected next to the house of the camp” (souvenirs by Antoinette Meunier (1930-2023) for the association “Les Mots mêlés”, 2017) or to a “small sheet metal shack” fixed by four posts, according to the mayor at the time (interview with YB on 16-08-1985). Although René Masson, born in 1930, still thinks of a marabout located on an adjoining plot (interview with YB and JPR on 2-10-2024) – the implicit message of the inhabitants remains: “no saucer on our territory!”
[50] The Autun camp was based in the nearest farm during the summer. Guy had attended it from the age of 7, for the first time in… 1954 and then for 15 years. In the course of a series of interviews with his wife Michèle, who is herself very active in preserving the history and heritage of the Prémanon area, the activities of the holiday camp were richly documented.
[51] “Patasser”: to trample, in Jura dialect. Trampling hay results in a loss of income for the farmer.
[52] He “is not afraid of anything” (gendarme Bourgeois according to the report by Comte and Rosset), “overflowing imagination” (Robert Gauthier, town hall secretary), “a lot of imagination […], in the army his exceptional IQ was noted” (Mme Genillon).
[53] “[…] My sister, more or less certain, my outraged parents […] continued to repeat that what was being said was false. They were right, but their son did not want to give up. That, I recognize […].”
[54] The Treaty of Dappes of 1862 represents the “pastoral context” of the affair. It concerns the modification of the border by an exchange of territories between France and Switzerland, such that the Paris-Geneva road is from then on entirely traced on French soil. The right of grazing is linked to the Treaty of Dappes: herds of Vaudois cows are authorized to graze up to 10 km inside the lands of Franche-Comté, during the summer pastures from May to October.
[55] The imagination is ready for it: 15 years before Neil Armstrong, Tintin achieved his lunar objective: Hergé’s album We Walked on the Moon was published in 1954 by Casterman, following a pre-publication in the weekly magazine Tintin in previous years.