An account in Ardennes, France

The unexplained cases carry potential stakes for scientific knowledge, but the unexplained character must remain validated over time. So these cases undergo a re-examination. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case previously classified D1 and formerly named GIVET (08) 20.07.2009 is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On July 20, 2009 around noon, a person busy gardening suddenly notices the presence of a shiny cigar-shaped object equipped with a small fin. The object is silent and remains stationary above the houses in their neighborhood. The front of the object is pointed toward the N-E but the rest of the object is difficult to make out. The witness describes "a kind of agitation" above the object. The observation will last about ten minutes, then the frightened witness will go back inside. No other testimony will be collected on this phenomenon. No flight incident was reported to the gendarmerie. The observation is very strange, because of the elements described and the angular size (20 meters wide at 10 meters distance) of the whole described (see the investigation report). The confirmation of the second point during a second meeting with the witness rules out any explanatory hypothesis and makes the observation even stranger. Indeed, the angular size combined with the angular position (which is not vertical but in a field of view without raising the head) makes it unthinkable that this UAP would not have been noticed (and reported) by the neighborhood in broad daylight (at noon) in an urban area (a neighborhood survey was conducted). The consistency of the testimony is not sufficient to validate an unexplained or inexplicable character for this observation. That would have required several independent witnesses or traces or photos. Here the single witness raises questions through their behavior in the face of such strangeness, in particular they stop the observation to go eat while the UAP is still there — "10 meters from them and 20 meters wide" — while they have a camera available. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: unusable testimony.