Glowing eyes in Seine-Maritime, France

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 MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982 (but also known as ROUEN-SAPINS (76) 1982), is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. A witness at the corner of CD43 and rue des mouettes in MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) observes on 6 August 1982 at 8:05 PM the silent S-N movement of a grey metallic ovoid object at 20 metres from the ground. The sun reflects its rays at times. The witness sees on the side a red geometric figure resembling an "eye". The witness turns around upon noticing another witness already present, but when he looks again in the direction of the object, the latter has disappeared. The witness makes his statement to the gendarmerie on 11 August without being able to give a more accurate estimate of the distances. On 12 August the gendarmes go to the site, no other testimony is collected and no trace is visible. The physical characteristics (metallic appearance reflecting sunlight, ovoid shape, presence of a decorative element) and dynamic ones (regular movement in the direction of the wind) are fully consistent with the hypothesis of confusion with a metallised nylon balloon of the "Mylar" type (see the investigation report). Such balloons already existed in 1982 and were often circular or ovoid in shape and decorated with a decorative design that could be highly variable and itself circular in shape. It is a Friday evening in the summer period, which is favourable for a festive or recreational event of this type. It is possible that such a decorative design has a dominant red colour and, observed at a distance lit by the setting sun, appears to the witness to have the appearance of a luminous red eye. Although the terminology used by the witness is not very explicit on this subject ("[] I specify that at one point I turned around to look at this person, and it is while looking again in the direction of the object that the latter disappeared."), it is possible to suppose that the disappearance of the UAP occurred while the witness had turned his gaze away to see the other person who was herself observing the UAP. It is not known how long the witness turned around, perhaps long enough for the witness not to be able to find the UAP again in his field of vision or for it to have disappeared. The consistency is rather weak, with few elements allowing one to refute (unknown duration of the witness's turning around) or firmly confirm a hypothesis which, as it stands, is nevertheless sufficiently probable to be retained. At the time of the observation and the initial investigation, GEIPAN had no (or little) experience of misidentifications caused by Mylar balloons (see on the website the cases recorded since then, search for cases with keywords "Mylar" or "balloon"). GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of a "Mylar" balloon.