An account in Ardennes, 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) that 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 of classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named CHARLEVILLE-MEZIERES (08) 09.01.1994, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On January 9, 1994, around 7:45 PM, the front right passenger (T1) of a vehicle observes a luminous phenomenon in the sky that intrigues her. On several occasions and in different locations, the witness observes a rectangular shape, then a diamond shape, and finally an ovoid shape with lights of different colors. No particular noise is heard. The witness suddenly becomes afraid because the shape seems to advance toward her. The witness goes to the gendarmerie, and the driver (T2), who was not able to make all the same observations as his passenger, orally confirms the latter's statements. No other testimony, no other information will be collected during the gendarmerie investigation. Despite an investigation by the gendarmes, many basic elements necessary for any analysis of this type are missing (see the investigation report). For each of the phases: - the azimuth or a directional reference point at which the PAN was located; - the elevation above the horizon; - the duration of observation; - the angular dimensions of the PAN. We have a second witness T2 who says he "confirms T1's statements" but at the same time indicates that he only saw the PAN at point no. 3 and never afterward, without making or signing any deposition. It is therefore not known whether the sighting of the PAN seen at point 3 overlaps with that of T1. The fact that T1 did not share her second observation at point no. 5 with T2, and that T2 did not testify, also harms the consistency of the whole, which is already largely tainted by a lack of precision. The consistency (level and reliability of the information) of the testimony is too weak to build a hypothesis and to formulate any conclusion. In this context, the strange and unexplainable character that may have prevailed during the first investigation cannot be retained. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.