An account in Meurthe-et-Moselle, 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 HERSERANGE (54) 1979, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On December 18, 1979, starting at 2:14 a.m., five people from the same family observed for 15 minutes, 3 luminous discs (the color varies according to the witnesses from white to red-orange) vertically above a school. They turn off and on. For some witnesses, these discs have an upward movement. This observation is characterized on the one hand by an apparent strangeness perceived by the witnesses, seemingly strong judging by the repeated terms UFO and flying saucers, and on the other hand by the extreme poverty of the testimonies. It concerns three luminous discs that turn off and on (in a direction passing through the vertical of the school). This is the essential information (which fits almost in a single sentence) and common (the sentence is almost repeated) to the 5 statements of the same family, the parents and the 3 children aged 10 to 13. The little additional information varies according to the witnesses. The father and mother (T1 and T2) indicate (or have the impression for T2) that the discs were rising in the sky. Two children, T3 and T5, specify nothing about the movement while T4 also does not mention the vertical movement but is the only one to have seen one of the discs leave the others. The color of the discs can also vary between witnesses: orange, or white, or unspecified. Nothing is known about the position in the sky, the angular size, the orientation of the discs, the type of sharp or precise outline of these lights (which would be an indication of their materiality or not), etc. With this little information, it is not possible to look for an explanation. One might regret that the Gendarmerie or GEIPAN did not conduct additional questioning or reconstructions, but it is illusory to do so 40 years later. On the other hand, this observation stands out for a lack of intrinsic consistency that did not encourage further investigation. Indeed, when strangeness is strong, testimonies are rarely succinct and even less duplicated. The most singular thing here, compared to the mass of GEIPAN testimonies, is the absence of indication about the conditions of the disappearance of the UAPs. The mother and the 3 children went back to bed while the UAPs were still there! All this casts doubt on the reality of the perceived strangeness. It is also noted that T1 (the father of the family) had already made a large number of flying saucer observations before. These observations and their repetitions may have generated in him a strong emotional charge which could explain that he insisted on waking the other witnesses, including the young children, shouting "the saucers". These other witnesses may therefore have been more impressed (even if it was perhaps not the first time) by T1's feeling than by the observation itself, to the point of becoming supportive of this feeling. This would explain the repetition of the minimal descriptions and that everyone went to bed leaving the father alone with the observation. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.