Hooded in Calvados, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation 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 LILLE (59) 2000, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On Sunday, August 20, 2000, starting at 11:30 PM, a motorist observes in the sky a moving object shaped like a large circle made up of luminous "windows." The witness follows this object for about 8 km, then it disappears. Further on, when he stops, the witness observes on his hood a red dot moving about in all directions. Looking up, he again notices the same circular phenomenon stationary above his car. After a few seconds, the phenomenon disappears along with the red dot. Only one testimony is collected. The description may have seemed strange during the first analysis of the case in 2000. With the experience acquired by GEIPAN, there is hardly any doubt today. The description is consistent with reflections in the sky from a set of spotlights (also commonly called by the Anglicism "skytrackers") used for advertising purposes (see the investigation report). The beams rising from the spotlights are not visible here, only the impacts on a sky screen. The pattern formed by these impacts is typical of the scanning and rotation capabilities of the devices used at that time in nightclubs, as evidenced by other observations reported to GEIPAN where the investigation managed to find the equipment producing such effects (see the ILE BOUCHARD case). In GEIPAN's experience, various configurations can be encountered: visibility of impacts alone, beams alone, or both at once. This depends on weather conditions. Here, the presence of clouds that could create the screen in the sky is verified, as well as recent rain that could have cleaned the atmosphere of any water droplets that could make the rising beams visible (it is the presence of particles in the air that allows this visibility). It is a weekend evening, in summer, in a resort area (Normandy coast: Deauville, Trouville). This is favorable for the opening of nighttime establishments using such spotlights (nightclubs, etc.), since it is known that they were already widely used at the time. As for the second UAP, it resembles in every way the effect of a portable red laser operated by a prankster from the houses or buildings nearby: this is plausible, although unverifiable. It is understandable that the witness, already facing the strangeness of the first phenomenon, may have associated the second with it. Without the first UAP and the heightened alert, he might not have noticed the second one or been intrigued enough to make a report. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case according to the first UAP. The consistency of the testimony is weak, particularly lacking data on angular dimensions and positions in the sky. Nevertheless, the conformity of the appearance in the sky and the weather conditions allows for a confident conclusion (although the spotlight at the origin could not be identified): very likely observation of skytrackers or lasers.