An account in Seine-et-Marne, 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 the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification. This observation case, previously classified D, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. **Observation** In the evening of 27 February 1982 at 8:15 PM, a witness is watching television when suddenly he sees through the window of his living room a luminous phenomenon described as a big ball and flames of orange color. Twenty minutes later, the witness notes through the same window the presence of three balls one meter from the ground and emitting lights of different colors (red, green, orange). No noise is emitted by this phenomenon. The witness observes these objects until 10:45 PM. He watches television again and does not see the phenomenon disappear. Only one testimony was collected. The witness remains shocked by his observation. **Analysis** This testimony is characterized by a fairly strong strangeness because there is no solid hypothesis that can explain the appearance and the presence for several hours of 3 or 4 luminous balls, even though there are stranger things than simple fixed glows. It is also characterized by a weak consistency in terms of information: - The gendarmes made a survey on site with photos to give the observed position of the UAPs. One can regret the absence of angular size measurements of the balls, of precision on movement or lack thereof. Above all, there is no observation by the witness of the disappearance of the phenomenon or phenomena. and even more so in terms of reliability: - There is a strong inconsistency in the expression of the strangeness experienced by the witness. The witness takes 20 minutes to go look at the window after being alerted by a luminous ball in the sky (with flames of orange color). After having noticed the 3 blinking balls one meter from the ground, the witness states he continues to observe the objects for 2.5 hours but does not see their disappearance "because he was watching television." One can think that the symptoms perceived following this observation (and that the witness associated with this observation) may have amplified a strangeness (which was perceived much more weakly at the time of the observation) to the point of perhaps influencing the memorization or the account; - The reliability of the information is tainted on several points: the witness no longer mentions the initial light in the sky observed at the window, while the gendarmes specify that it remained above the other 3 the whole time. The witness states he "never took an interest, either through reading or any other media, in the study of this kind of phenomenon" whereas, besides the fact that he knows how to contact GEPAN within a few working hours (Monday morning for an observation on Saturday evening) in a period without internet, he says the opposite to the gendarmes, adding that he always wished to be there at the moment of a UFO appearance. The consistency of this testimony and of everything that could be collected is insufficient in absolute terms and, moreover, in light of the strangeness that results from it. It is not possible to qualify such an observation as unexplained or inexplicable, which in fact is unexploitable. **Conclusion** Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.