Vanishing suddenly 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) 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 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 and named WINGLES (62) 28.06.1988, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. (see the investigation report). On the night of 28 June 1988, one witness (T1) and his wife (T2) observed, from 10:20 PM, successive appearances of luminous balls in the cloudy sky. These balls moved rapidly in all directions and without noise, performing something like "aerobatics" or "ballets". T1 would see a large craft appear in the shape of an ogive. From this greyish mass came 4 white light beams that blinked. Stationary for about thirty seconds, it disappeared suddenly at 2:10 AM. Only two testimonies were collected. The description may have seemed strange during the first analysis of the case in 1988. With the experience acquired by GEIPAN, there is little doubt today. The description is consistent with reflections in the sky from a set of spotlights used for advertising purposes. The beams rising from the spotlights are barely visible here; the witnesses mainly see the impacts on a sky screen. The pattern formed by these impacts is typical of the scanning and rotation capabilities of the devices used: - Circular or "ogive" shape, depending on the perspective created by the viewing angle. - Large-amplitude movements, back and forth, sometimes always along the same trajectory, sometimes performing various figures, as well as stops. - Color and brightness of the UAPs: a whitish light that does not dazzle. In GEIPAN experience, various configurations can be encountered: visibility of impacts alone, beams alone, or both at once. Meteorological conditions determine visibility and visibility distance, and this explains the random or even fleeting nature of the phenomena (the spotlights of a nearby nightclub may only rarely be visible while another elsewhere produces distant and frequent effects): - Here, the presence of a low cloud cover is verified, which could create the screen in the sky. - It is also noted that the witnesses observe the presence of partial beams, just below the UAPs, or rays turning off and on regularly, also below the UAPs. It is known that the 1980s saw the appearance in large numbers of this type of spotlight, both in nightclubs and on the occasion of various events (funfairs, concerts). Since the observation date was a Tuesday evening, the nightclub hypothesis is rather to be excluded (except for tests?) and it would therefore be a one-off event, which could have been held in Lens (a few kilometers away) or its surroundings. It is difficult, almost 30 years later, to investigate further the possibility of the event. The presence of the producing event (spotlights) cannot be established but, insofar as it is perfectly possible, the very strong correspondence of a visual appearance that otherwise resembles nothing else (see investigation report) and the conformity of meteorological conditions are sufficient to establish the hypothesis as probable. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of lasers or "skytracer".