An orange orb 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 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 in classification. This observation case, previously classified C and named THUMERIES (59) 04.04.1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On April 4, 1982, around 10:30 PM, four people spotted in the sky a luminous UAP of round shape and white color. According to T1, the UAP was stationary above THUMERIES, then headed north at very high speed. As it moved away toward TOURMIGNIES (59), it left in the sky a red line that gradually faded (T2). The following elements: - T1: "a luminous object, round in shape, white in color, very bright", - T1: "stationary for about two minutes", - T1: "three red points underneath", - T2: "It looked like a shiny balloon." ... "It seemed to have a halo. You could take it for a kind of fireball", could suggest a helicopter; the absence of perceived noise not being an element to oppose, since the distance is unknown and the wind is against the propagation of sound toward the witnesses. The case is characterized above all by its lack of consistency. Indeed: - four witnesses observed the phenomenon, but only the testimonies of two of them reached us. One witness did not respond to the gendarmes' summons; - these two testimonies are very brief and consist of a few descriptive lines; - absence of in-depth investigation by the gendarmes. No photographs taken on site, no reconstruction, no search for other witnesses; etc. - many data are missing, such as the angular elevations during the different observation phases, the angular dimensions of the UAP, the total observation duration; - other data are imprecise, such as, for example, the stationary phase of the UAP described by T1, as well as the way it disappeared. The direction of movement of the UAP is also not clear (north for T1, northeast for T2); - finally, certain data are mentioned by one witness but not by the other, such as, for example, the presence of three red points under the UAP, mentioned only by T1. The observation is not strange, since nothing is incompatible with the observation of a helicopter, but the set of testimonies lacks too much consistency to support this hypothesis, even though nothing can disprove it. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.