Dogs reacting in Pas-de-Calais, France

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 NOEUX-LES-MINES (62) 30.10.1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On three occasions, over a period of about fifteen days in early November 1993, the owners (T1 and T2) of a house found traces of crushed and flattened grass in their garden: first a winding line about 8 meters long by 40 cm wide, then a second line about ten meters long, and finally a circle at the junction of the two lines. They had a neighbor (T3) verify these various traces. T1 states that between November 8 and 14, around one in the morning, she saw a yellowish light moving at a height of 0.60 m from the ground. T3 also notes that his dogs barked abnormally for about fifteen days around 1:30 in the morning. The witnesses file their testimonies late, and the gendarmerie goes to the site on November 17, 1993. This is an observation of ground traces without observation of an aerospace phenomenon. Indeed, the observation by T2 (and only by T2) of a "yellowish light at a height of 60 cm that was moving around one in the morning" cannot be associated with the traces. It was seen after the traces were detected and represents nothing strange in itself; in particular, the position in the photo does not allow placing this glow above the witness's plot or on the ground much further away in other plots. This glow probably would not have been reported if these traces had not already created concern among the witnesses. It is not GEIPAN's mission (and therefore not within its expertise) to seek an explanation for ground traces in the absence of testimony of an aerospace phenomenon concomitant with the discovery of these traces. Indeed, suspicious ground traces can have a wide variety of origins unrelated to UAPs. Some examples (without claiming they apply here): fungi, thieves, wild or domestic animals, pranks or jokes by neighbors. GEIPAN should not have concluded this case as UAP D, because nothing indicates that it involves an aerospace phenomenon given the information collected. In conclusion, GEIPAN revisits this case as C: unexploitable because it exceeds GEIPAN's sole competencies.