An account in Bouches-du-Rh�ne, 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) that 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 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 D and named SAINT-MARTIN-DE-CRAU (13) 24.08.1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On 24 August 1980 at around 8 p.m., two witnesses in their garden are intrigued by the presence of an object in the air. The witnesses describe an object shaped like a salad bowl, with a "polished aluminum" color. The upper part of the object seems to oscillate and the lower part seems fixed. The object descends vertically, then descends slowly and heads toward a field, crossing the RN113. The object takes a northward direction on a horizontal trajectory and the witness loses sight of it. No noise, no smoke are noticed. No other testimony will be collected by the gendarmerie. During the on-site investigation by the gendarmerie, no particular finding could be made, as the object never landed on the ground. The movement of the UAP consistent with the wind direction could suggest a kind of balloon, rather of the Mylar type, which could explain the "polished aluminum color" effect. Mylar balloons already existed at that time. But the description given by the witnesses and the sketches made by the gendarmes (and not by the witnesses) do not allow us to see what type of balloon it might be. The shape is indeed relatively complex, embellished with original elements. In order to get a better idea, to confirm or rule out the Mylar balloon hypothesis or another, we would have liked to have more concrete elements, which are not in the gendarmes' investigation, such as: - angular measurements of the UAP. - drawings made by the witnesses and not by the gendarmes. - estimates of angular heights at the beginning, middle, and end of the observation. - color readings using, for example, a Pantone color standard. Although a balloon hypothesis can be put forward, the lack of consistency in the testimony, despite the on-site investigation carried out by the gendarmes, does not allow a conclusion. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as "C": lack of reliable information.