Sighting in Long, October 31, 1954

At around 8 p.m., two witnesses were riding a tractor: one was a farmer, the other their employee. As they reached a grassy field, they saw a luminous phenomenon about twenty metres from the track, and it frightened them. One described a luminous craft spinning a few metres above the ground; the other described a fireball whirling about 4 m up, framed by rays of bright colours. The driver switched off the tractor's lights, and the object then rose obliquely at a normal speed towards the south and crossed the Somme valley. When the headlights were switched back on, it reappeared, spun again, and left towards the south-west. The witnesses saw no marks on the ground.

The next day, the farmer told the deputy mayor that the object was circular, about the size of an ordinary round table, and that they had heard a hum like a swarm of bees leaving its hive. They mentioned orange colours, a blue centre that made them close their eyes for a moment, and a brighter upper part. The gendarmerie learned of the sighting from the press, spoke to the witnesses, took their statements on 4 November and was taken to the spot, where it found no marks in the grass. It also found two other witnesses, who had seen the phenomenon from a different place in the village. A shopkeeper had seen, at the same time, an orange ball about one metre across, giving off varied lights like those of arc welding, moving fairly quickly towards the south-west. A pork butcher had seen a cylindrical craft above the trees lining the Somme; as it moved away it looked elongated, almost oval, with several orange glows. Moments later, these two people saw the first two witnesses arrive, their faces drawn with fear.

GEIPAN considers the case very consistent, with two pairs of witnesses at two different places, and has no doubt that the phenomenon occurred. Several features suggest ball lightning: the whirling, multicoloured, dazzling appearance and the sound like a swarm of bees. However, without information on the weather as the witnesses experienced it or weather records from the time, this hypothesis could not be confirmed. The case is classified C."