An account in Nord, 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 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 WORMHOUT (59) 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 22 October 1997 at around 8:22 a.m., a witness, driving by car for her medical visits, observes in the sky a rectangular luminous glow of a yellowish white color. After giving care to a female patient, they both note that the object is still there and has moved closer to the house. The patient's husband, without going outside, also saw the object through the window. The witness gets back on the road and notes a little further on the presence of a second luminous object but slightly bigger. The two objects disappear at 8:40 a.m. This observation may have seemed strange because of static luminous objects that nevertheless disappeared, observed by several people. The re-examination reveals a very strong lack of consistency in these testimonies: - Only T1 is a spontaneous witness. T2 gave a statement to the gendarmes who came to her home. T2 says her husband saw it from inside through the window but without moving when T1 and T2 were outside to look at the UAP. - Major inconsistencies between witnesses: T1 says she went outside three times from T2's home to look at the UAP, including twice with T2 (before and after the care), when T2 says she did not go back outside after the care. T1 describes a rectangular object that did not change shape before arriving at T2's home and during two outings, and then in the shape of a disc during outing No. 3. T2 gives no indication of shape and only positions herself in relation to T1's statements made before: "I cannot tell you whether it is an oval or rectangular object." T2's husband is cited by T2 as having seen the object move in the sky, whereas T2 mentions nothing about movement and T1 says the object was static during the first two outings. T2 says she saw the UAP disappear during her outing with T1, whereas T1 never saw it disappear (it was no longer there, or no longer in the same place and with the same shape, during outing 3). - Little information on position in the sky. It is understood that at 8:25 a.m. T1 and T2 together observe the sky in the direction a priori East or South East, because it is mentioned by T2 "in the direction of Esquelbec" (which is at 155°) and T1 indicates a movement of the UAP towards the SE in the final phase of observation. It can be noted that T2 does not associate herself with the strangeness perceived by T1 and cooperates minimally in her testimony under solicitation from the gendarmes. T1 describes a very luminous UAP of white and yellowish color, and T2 an object that shone like the sun. At 8:25 a.m. the sun is in the East (106°) and slightly below the horizon (-1°). It is not yet visible but can brightly illuminate a cloud located in the East or South East and isolated in the blue morning sky (T1 describes the UAP in a blue sky). This cloud hypothesis can explain the disappearance of the UAP between T1's outings 2 and 3, as well as its reappearance (it could also be another cloud) in a changed form and as a disc later during outing 3. The final perception of movement of the oval UAP may come from T1's own movement by car. It can be established with good probability that it is the perfectly rectangular shape and the strong glow of the cloud that deceived T1. Concerning T2, it could be that, or a form of minimal complicity towards T1. In the emotion, T1 drew T2 and her husband into this testimony that would not have been made spontaneously. The same emotion then led T1 to reproduce her mistake with this cloud or another of different shape. This set of testimonies sits at the boundary between unexploitable due to low consistency and a probable explanation (cloud). The cloud explanation is adopted due to the absence of elements that could oppose it. GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of cloud.