Photographed in Pas-de-Calais, France

GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Among its publications are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C, or D) that are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in their conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named CALAIS (62) 1981, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On January 9, 1981, around 9 a.m., three witnesses working in a retirement home observed in the sky the East-West movement of an object of yellow-red color and elongated shape. This object moved at very high speed but no noise was heard. During the observation, which lasted 3 to 4 minutes, the object was hidden by clouds. Note that two of the witnesses had observed the same phenomenon the previous day. It should be noted that all the buildings were demolished starting in 2013, and it is therefore impossible to know in which exact building the witnesses were located (nevertheless, two possible extreme positions were considered in the investigation report). The UAP observed by the witnesses has all the characteristics of a condensation trail produced by an aircraft moving at high altitude and illuminated by the rising sun (see the investigation report): - cigar or ovalized shape similar to photographic examples of such trails. - "fire" color or red/orange/yellow typical of the color that such trails take when illuminated by the sun low on the horizon (at sunrise or sunset). - movement similar to that of a very distant object, "far in depth," as noted by witness 1. It is relatively common, in similar lighting conditions (sun low on the horizon) and in very stable atmospheric conditions at high altitude, for the condensation trail of an airliner to produce this kind of visual effect, of which GEIPAN today has numerous photographic testimonies. The common characteristics are that the aircraft producing these short condensation trails were photographed around dawn or dusk, with a sun near the horizon, which produces on the trails a yellow-orange color (which can sometimes even be red) and therefore this impression of "fire" noted by one of the witnesses. In 1981, GEIPAN did not have the experience, acquired and verified today, of this type of testimony created by aircraft trails. This had led to a classification of the case as unexplained at the time. The aircraft itself may or may not be visible and, when it is, it is often in the form of a very bright point preceding the condensation trails (see examples no. 7 and 9 of condensation trails). Most of the time, this bright point appears only fleetingly, depending on the geometry of the surface reflecting the sunlight and the movement of the aircraft relative to the position of the observers. The witnesses did not observe this phenomenon, but the UAP was only visible intermittently, masked from time to time by clouds. As for these trails, they can take a more or less elongated shape, in the form of a "V," a spindle, or even an ovalized shape, which corresponds well to the witnesses' descriptions of the UAP's shape ("cigar," "circle," "oval"). When the aircraft in question made a turn, the perspective was undoubtedly more favorable for the separation between the two condensation trails to be more visible, which gives one of the witnesses the impression that at that moment "it seemed cut in two." Finally, witness 1 notes the presence of "two white trails" before the UAP disappeared. This mention of white trails confirms the hypothesis of confusion with the condensation trails of an aircraft. It is impossible 37 years later to identify the aircraft responsible. But since the sighting was made at low height in the sky (it is indeed low on the horizon that these ochre colors of trails can occur at sunrise or sunset), the aircraft could have been within a range of 50 to 150 km east of Calais, which covers a traffic possibility already significant in 1981 and leaves a reasonable possibility of finding there an aircraft that made a trajectory with a more or less pronounced turn. The consistency of the testimony is rather weak. There are indeed three witnesses but dependent ones, giving few quantified elements (no angular data, for example). The qualitative information provided is sufficiently characteristic to validate the explanation. In conclusion, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of trails from an aircraft flying at high altitude, illuminated by the rising sun.