An orange orb in Charente-Maritime, 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, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained 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 CORME ROYAL (17) 1996, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On September 16, 1996, around 5 a.m., a witness driving a car was on his way to work. Along his route (observation point 0), he suddenly noticed a fairly large point with a bright luminosity. A few kilometers further on (observation point 1), he noticed on his left side a stationary ovoid craft with three square portholes giving off a strong orange light. The witness continued on his way and near Saintes (observation point 2), he observed in the sky two shapes identical to his second observation. Only one testimony was collected. The very first part of the observation (observation point 0), which the witness describes as follows: "I first noticed a fairly large point in the sky, which gave off a bright luminosity, while I was driving toward Nancras. I was intrigued by its strong brightness and its completely unusual size," the witness probably observed the planet Venus, rising to the east-northeast, that is, facing his direction of travel. The gendarmes mention in the report the presence of a microwave relay with three orange lights (the witness describes three portholes); there is also another antenna. Both are visible from observation point 2, but not from observation point 1, whereas the witness seems to see the same characteristics again. That does not seem to be able to be the explanation. For observation point 1, there is no explanatory hypothesis. The description of the UAP made by the witness, its apparent immobility, do not allow any explanatory hypothesis to be put forward. On the other hand, the data collected during the witness's hearing are not sufficient in quality and reliability. A nighttime on-site reconstruction would have allowed angle measurements (position and angular width), to question the witness more extensively and precisely, and to further investigate the hypotheses and perhaps develop others. More than 20 years later, relaunching such an investigation seems illusory. With regard to the current classification methodology A/B/C/D1/D2 (see the explanations on the classification methodology at GEIPAN), this case would have a strangeness level of D1, but its consistency is too weak to validate the unexplained character of the observation. Consequently, the case is classified as "C" as lack of reliable information.