"Interdimensional door» in St-Jérôme, 4 more 2013
The 4 more 2013, a man in his forties is insomnia, what would happen to him ever. To 2:45, it comes out on the balcony for entertaining with his telescope. Suddenly, something really extraordinary happens to him : it will take him a week just to overcome Event, but it remains marked for months. Watch the video d'enquête ABOVE to hear testimony and see the reconstruction of the event !
The case investigation was also investigated — after GARPAN — by team Studies center on UFOs Jean Casault, and I would say well investigated by himself and his collaborators (see article). However, since Article M. Casault begins in obviously trying to present the work in an unfavorable light GARPAN, few remarks are in order, although this displeases me much, because it involved the joint request of the witness.
The article begins with an email M.Casault (*see footnote article) written by the latter in which she mentions that GARPAN seems to have taken the testimony of her husband in an "ordinary" ... Obviously, this statement is explained by the fact that the witnesses did not know that :
1. We already talked about this witness to the UFO-SHOW, the 5 February 2014 ;
2. that this case was in our investigation Annual Review 2013 (cas No.48) ;
3. important observation was that in our TOP 12 of 2013 ;
4. finally, we had prepared a very good video of d'investigation 15 minutes, but it just was not finished yet ...
In view of these facts, it seems clear that M. Casault and his team were not aware of all the work we had done on this important case investigation ... However, we can conclude that these circumstances have served to increase the likelihood of the event and the credibility of investigations of this UFO case, since the two teams have treated independently. We can even add that it allows to compare how the CEO and GARPAN work and operate, and what distinguishes.
Our excellent video d'enquête (CI-HAUT !) was finally published 8 March 2014. However, I regret to have to assume during the interview that it was a "vessel", and not simply telling UFO, because the witness used during the testimony of the word "vessel" that does not fit his indescribable observation : he calls "this huge white thing" ... It is also one of the merit of M. Casault have highlighted the non-vehicularity this UFO. This is also why I try to make adjustments at the end of my video d'enquête adding the indirect testimony of the spouse of the witness who relates his words carefully : "It is as if what I saw was in 1D (en une dimension) » :
(Transcription by Audrey Matton and Y.V.)
Witness : On the night of 3 the 4 more, I was unable to sleep, I was insomnia. At one point, I felt like something that drew me out. In the evening, I had seen something in the sky that had caught our attention, my wife and I. It was like a point illuminated and changed color, passing from blue to red, green, yellow. And wondered, What was ?
Investigator : It was to say that I went back outside to see if I will not see him again this luminous point, if I would not be able to see with my telescope ... It seemed still far. Thereafter, making examinations with my telescope, I got up and, turning left, is the flash !… This is what I saw, this " immense truc blanc »… which was to my left. This caught my attention, and at the same time it became, it's all lit up : fields, neighboring, our field. As we saw daylight for a few seconds barely.
It : How long you think ?
T : I think may be 2 to 3 seconds. What is special, is thatthere is an object that is detached from the "thing-there" : it was a big white ball, as the size of a balloon which was traveling south. I heard whistle, it was as if it cleaved the air.
There was like a trail, I do not know what was ... I saw this ball that was there as a trail of fire behind her, but it was not fire, car everything was white. The ball was the same color as the vessel, it was the same thing ...
It : When this ball is then output the rectangular vessel, she was heading South, is what it was in your direction ?
T : Not.
It : She moved away from you ?
T : It away from me, a little slight right.
It : Wholesale, you think you have seen how far away compared to the UFO ?
T : Oh ! It, I could see at one point ..., I lost sight of as. I could see it was increasingly low : perhaps 1000 meters (3281 pi), really further into the field.
It : Say that from the moment that the ball then fate, you hear the whistle until it disappears, how long it took to 1000 meters ?
T : I do not know, 3-4 seconds maximum.
It : And then, at that time, what happened, when you have lost sight of the ball that moved away ?
T : Everything is off. There was nothing, it was over ! Everything stopped at the same time.
It : Yet the UFO was still close enough to you ...
T : It was pretty close to me, but I saw la boule, that caught my attention, as from the UFO... All jostling and happens so quickly… As this ball-TV reception there all my attention, I even saw in my vision field to my left that this "big thing" was there.
It : You think it is remote or has just disappeared ?
T : According to me, it is as if he had just disappeared, simply.
It : The sky was clear ?
T : Yes.
It : There was no cloud ?
T : Not.
It : When you saw the UFO, is it hiding behind the stars ?
T : Yes, yes. You could not see through, it was white, pure white and I could not see through.
It : You think that the UFO was how far you ?
T : It is difficult to say, I think about 2000 feet (610 m).
It : It was still low, from the photo that your wife sent me.
T : Yes, oh oui ! It was just above the treetops, it was not very high.
It : For height, how it was higher than the treetops ?
T : 20-25 feet (6-8 m).
It : Ultimately, it would be very impressive ?! It was still very close.
T : Oh it was close, it was relatively close, yes !
It : The rectangular UFO, you have seen how many seconds ?
T : 2 to 3 seconds.
It : You saw a flash, glare, then you see the ship, 2-3 seconds after the ball leaves, you look and follow Eye, and when you return to the UFO is gone ?
T : Yes, there is nothing.
It : This happened even when relatively quickly it all.
T : It was quickly.
It : But there were several episodes.
T : Quickly, then with you related, there was no wind, there was no noise. Où on habite, there is a small lake through the house. In May, Already nature awakens : you hear many noises when you leave at night. As, we heard nothing and I have not felt any smell, this effect is rather special as what I saw there.
It : You were at the beginning of May, and then you say that, even at that time, when you go out at night, there are many sounds, but this time, there were none.
T : Not.
It : Is this happening to you go out and that there is no sound, as this time ?
T : Ben non, me that I never got. We always hear a crackling or something. When I left to go to my telescope, I said "it is very quiet", that's it, I did not make a case. I really came at the right time, a matter of seconds, otherwise I probably would not have seen the UFO.
It : When you tell that you were inside, you were insomnia, et là, you had a feeling of having to leave : is what you claimed it was because it went through your head, "ah, So like I'm going to see the star that looked tonight ", or you really had a feeling that prompted you to go outside ?
T : I went to the door, I went outside. I do not ask myself questions. It happened like this. I do not know if there is a link or not, I felt like that feeling then go see if there was not something.
It : We describe this rectangular UFO. He had what color and were there details ?
T : I think you've seen the drawings ...
It : I'm looking :
T : Drawing ..., it really is this form where it had : rectangular, but it was not a perfect rectangle, there was an angle.
It : Yes, it's just strange. I wondered if it was because you saw him obliquely, but, ultimately, is that it was not totally rectangular. There was a tip that was slightly trapezoidal ?
T : Yes, right.
It : It seemed to you the front or rear ?
T : I do not know.
It : It was completely still when you saw?
T : Yes, it was still.
It : It was white or light ?
T : Bright white.
It : What brilliance was there : it was very bright and it was a little light ?
T : It was very bright.
It : From the moment the glare was gone, and he had just luminous UFO there, is that it continued to illuminate a different way ?
T : It was less strong.
It : It lit the treetops ?
T : Yes.
It : Is this your illuminated field ?
T : Yes.
It : Is it lit beyond your field ?
T : Not much ... but it was still a great field here.
It : You have not seen any detail within this rectangle, trapezoid then ?
T : Not, no. I saw no line, nothing.
It : Your wife told me yesterday that you had questioned : "How you are able to say [to the size of the UFO] about 100 feet long for 40 pieds de large (30 m x 12 m) ? », and you replied that you had been measured by comparing your patio. You can tell me that ?
T : Yes, because we know that the dimension to our patio : the UFO was least twice the size of the patio, the size and width. Worse you look at the tip tree, I remember very well that the UFO began to that tree and he went up to him. I can see in the sky, at that height, what size and grandeur that it had. It was not like a car where you see the canvas, Paint, but then I did not see it. I saw only a light, a light only, nothing.
It : Yes, this is strange. There was no noise ?
T : Not, no noise. The only sound I heard, is when the ball is loose. It, I heard as spin, as whistle…
It : Have you heard whistle immediately when it is output, or is it from the moment she took a little distance you hear the sound ?
T : I, I would say it is more quand elle a pris the distance. She spent over trees. It was about the field, and this is really I heard that whistle. I saw it take off from : it really captured my attention, because it moved, while the other non. Everything happened so fast that we know where to head, what to look worse. It emitted a, it moved. You're disais : «Ayoye, it goes where ?! This will do what ?! »…
It : Can you imitate the sound it made ?
T : It just makes : fffffffffffffffffffff ...
It : As, it is far. If you watched the UFO was still there, but there was nothing. What happened immediately after ?
T : There was nothing. This is again as quiet as it was. I heard nothing. I did not feel peculiar smell. There was no wind. As, I thought : "What I do ? Will I go in the house or I wait a bit ? Maybe I'll see something else ... "..." No, okay, I've had enough there. "... And, at that time, I went into the house to dwell on the couch.
It : What you feel ?
T : I felt mixed me. I was cold. I felt sad and excited together. I a little scared. Together, I do not know what is, I got the question : "Did I really see that ? ». It is as : "It can not, is ! ». Then, I'm lying on the couch, and I felt the tears flowed. It is a mixture of emotion ... I cried.
It : You felt as how long ? You could sleep later ?
T : If I slept an hour that night, this is beautiful. I was upside down. Somewhere, I always wanted to see something. Mais là, see something of this intensity then, is like : "It threw me off my chair" ! I felt like evil. You're disais : "Who will say that I ? I can not tell it to anyone ... There they are people who will take me for a fool ... ". I worked on Saturday morning. I really did not sleep much, I had to get up early.
It : In the following days, What was your relationship to this experience ?
T : On the same day, I had talked to my wife, and explained to him what I had seen, but I stayed with it. I have not told anyone else. Worse in the following days, I felt a bit mixed. I thought a lot about it. I asked questions and tried to remember the details of what I had seen. One day after, I also took notes on a sheet, with date, etc ... to remember as much as possible.
It : This is a good sign. You still been troubled by your experience, is not it ?
T : Yes, slightly. Somewhere, since I was a teenager, I dream of something, UFO in the sky, because my uncle and aunt have already seen. And tsetse, when I was young, they told me their story, and I know that it exists. There is no doubt about it, but I did not think it would happen this way then. I imagined myself more to see something that would move, and would fly in the sky in the distance. Not something that would stop a few thousand feet (+ of 305 m) very. And it took me by surprise ; I did not expect. If I saw something moving in the distance in the sky, I would have been a lot less surprised.
It : It took about how many days, How many weeks before you "may overcome" your experience ?
T : Maybe one week.
It : Is it made you make dreams thereafter ?
T : Not, not at all.
It : Is that around your property, there are communication towers or power lines ?
T : Not, not here.
It : It is very interesting this story, very impressive.
Indirect evidence of the Joint witness
T : My husband expected to see in the videos as : a flying saucer that moves in the sky, not that happen in his face like that.
It : Yes, additional, what he saw was very detailed : his account includes several episodes. This is why it is so interesting.
T : Monsieur Casault a parlé an inter-dimensional gate ; this is what went through my mind when my husband told me about. It was so defined, as if it were a door or something. This is after talking he realized that it was quite possible. This is as if it were in 1D [en a dimension], it was not in 3D.
It : Interesting as formula.
T : Like watching a door, we did not see the tower and we could not imagine the behind. This is why Mr. Casault said it is like an inter-dimensional doorway. It watches over a two bon sens.
It : He has good ideas, notre ami…
T : My husband was so upset by it. He often returned to his testimony, it is worse as if someone had opened a light, then off : "I have not seen it from spinning or", he said. Ça spreads évanoui, he just left the ball that started in the field. That's what makes us believe that this assumption has to look. AC diminué of intensité, when the ball portion is in the field. Le rectangle, si is veut, decreased intensity. And when the ball disappeared, it was all off at the same time.
Footnote article : M. Casault mentions having received this email the 21 January 2014, which would surprise me greatly, because three days ago, the 18 January 2014, I asked the witness with diligence and professionalism during a half-hour, Moreover, as we hear in our video d'enquête.