An account in Loiret, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative 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 D and named MARDIE (45) 02.05.1990, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. It concerns the observation by three witnesses of an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) from their garden, then from the street in front of their home, in BOU (45), on 02.05.1990 at 9:00 PM. The witnesses describe the silent passage of an oval or semi-spherical gray-silver shape with appendages present beneath the UAP, which disappears at the horizon. The UAP is described as being oval in shape (although the drawings rather represent a semi-sphere), gray/silver in color, having a "polished" appearance. The three witnesses also note the presence beneath the UAP of what they describe as appendages, rods, or "tentacles," as well as light reflection phenomena on its surface, identified by witness 1 as probably caused by the impact of solar rays on that surface (see the investigation report). The UAP is finally described as being silent and moving at a constant speed. Its movement occurs in the direction of the wind, which was weak. Estimates of observation duration diverge, ranging from one minute to five minutes. All this data is compatible with the hypothesis of a novelty balloon of the "Mylar" type (reflecting sunlight) moving in a straight line and steadily with the wind, the "appendages" possibly being the strings used to hold it by hand on the ground, or a component of the novelty balloon (such as "legs" for an animal-shaped balloon). Such balloons already existed in 1990. This is in an urbanized area and still during daylight. It is rather on weekends that festive or recreational events of this type occur. But a birthday could also be celebrated on that very day, and there could also have been some kind of event that day in the town or another located further upwind. The fact that nothing can be found nearly 30 years later cannot disprove this hypothesis, which can therefore be retained as probable given the strong consistency on the other points. At the time of the observation and the initial investigation, GEIPAN had no (or little) experience with misidentifications caused by Mylar balloons (see on the website cases recorded since then, search for cases with keywords Mylar or balloon). The consistency is average, based mainly on the good concordance of the descriptions and sketches of the UAP made by the witnesses, as well as on the site plans with the UAP trajectory established by the Gendarmes. GEIPAN classifies the case as "B": probable observation of a Mylar balloon.