An account in Nord, 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) which are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose of being more relevant in their conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative 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 FEIGNIES (59) 06.11.1981, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 6 November 1981 at around 7:45 pm, a witness spotted a very intense luminous phenomenon behind her dwelling and "near an electricity pole" in a field. The observation lasted about an hour, and when the light went out, the witness then saw a cigar shape in a vertical position surrounded by various colors. Subsequently, these lights went out to reveal an object shaped like a rugby ball, metallic grey in color. For 4 to 5 seconds, this object swayed from left to right, then returned to its vertical position. The witness then noted in the sky an orange corridor "coming from the location of this craft" as well as white trails. No noise was heard during the observation. The witness reported having already observed luminous phenomena near her home the previous week. The Gendarmerie was only notified of this observation 10 days later. No other witness for this date and this observation area was found. The analysis is taken up again from: - the official report (PV) of the witness's statements; - aerial photos and the mapping of the time and of today; - the private investigation conducted in the days following the observation (review Lumières Dans La Nuit (LDLN) January February 1984 n°235-236), part of which is attached to the PV. No element from this private investigation is used to support the conclusion, which rests solely on the other elements. On the other hand, the elements of this investigation which in appearance would contradict the hypothesis retained are taken up to separate the elements strictly attributable to the witness from the interpretations or conclusions implicitly or explicitly deduced from the investigation. We conclude that the witness, newly settled (two months) and probably unfamiliar with the place and local agricultural practices, very probably observed one or more agricultural machine(s) carrying out night work in the adjacent fields, and more precisely the picking up of piles of sugar beets harvested in the preceding days and piled up along a farm track, easily accessible from the road located to the east (see the investigation report). This conclusion is based on the following points: - similar observations having taken place in the preceding days; - night work linked to the beet harvest probably already existed in 1981, with floodlights equipping the dedicated machines; - we are in the middle of the beet lifting period, and beet fields are located not far from the witness's house, in the observation direction; - the lifting work, probably already begun on all or part of the plots located nearby in the preceding days, was completed shortly (10 days) after the observation, according to the private investigation; - the UAP "seems on the ground" according to the witness; - presence of strong lights, comparable to the floodlights of agricultural machines; - the measurements and calculations of distances and dimensions, although necessarily imprecise due to the poor observation conditions, can fit with the observation of such machines. The distance could be roughly between about 250 and 500 m, with a position of the farm track about 400/450 m from the witness, in the observation axis; - long observation, compatible with the time needed to pick up the beets; - imprecise, changing shape of the UAP, caused by a perceptual illusion of shape, at night; - the movements of the agricultural picking-up machine, going back and forth around the beet piles, are compatible with the witness's description mentioning a horizontal displacement, with back-and-forth movements; - the "orange corridor" observed by the witness once the machine had left "recalls what it is possible to observe when a floodlight is pointed toward the sky, in favorable atmospheric conditions (mist, fog, humidity). It may be one of the work lighting floodlights, left on for a time (duration not specified by the witness) for nothing (which can be explained by a pointing toward the sky). This is a plausible hypothesis which no element can confirm or refute; - these agricultural machines are noisy, but the observation conditions (behind a window, television on, and observation distance) can explain that the witness did not perceive any noise. Two aspects of the observation (coming exclusively from the private investigation) apparently fit the hypothesis less well: - the observation of fine multicolored rays around the UAP. The hypothesis of a light diffraction phenomenon caused by the presence of condensation on the glass of the French door generated by the witness was considered; it can however occur under certain conditions (strong temperature difference, high humidity, and short distance between witness and glass), of which only the last could not be confirmed due to lack of precision on the distance; - the observation of the UAP, in a specific phase, in front of the pole. The (brief) mention in the private investigation was not directly made by the witness, and the drawing intended to support this type of information was not made by the witness herself either. Moreover, no explanation is given as to what concretely would have allowed the witness to think that the UAP was passing in front of the pole. The factual elements allowing the claim to be assessed are missing: no comparative data on the UAP/background shades, no data on the luminous power of the "lights" at that moment. The mention of ground lit by the UAP not visible to the witness is not contradictory with its position around the pole, but it is no more contradictory with its position further away, around the farm track, therefore behind the pole. Moreover, doubts exist about the nature of the "profiling" of the pole visible to the witness: it could be just as much by contrast with the background landscape lit by the Moon as by contrast with the luminosity of the UAP. The consistency is poor, with a description of the UAP and the various observation phases that is not very detailed. But it is sufficient to conclude given the good probability of the hypothesis retained (resulting low strangeness). Consequently, GEIPAN classifies it as A: very probable observation of one or more agricultural machine(s) carrying out beet picking-up work on a farm track located in the observation axis.