An account in Savoie, 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 CHANAZ (73) 22.08.1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On August 22, 1980, around 9:45 PM, a witness is drawn outside his home by a strong glow. He observes in the sky a burst of flashes of orange-red color, round in shape with a tail. The phenomenon moves quickly and silently along a straight trajectory. No odor was detected. Only one testimony was collected on August 24, 1980. By its visual appearance and its trajectory, the described UAP is perfectly compatible with the atmospheric re-entry of a meteoroid or a satellite object (see the investigation report). The observation duration is not described but can be indirectly estimated at a minimum of 10 seconds and a maximum of 1 or 2 minutes. It is compatible with a meteoroid re-entry of long duration because it was made along a trajectory tangential to the atmosphere (a rare phenomenon but already observed with a duration that can reach two minutes), as well as with the re-entry of a satellite object (the latter always using a tangential trajectory). What reduces the probability of the hypothesis without invalidating it is the fact that there was no other testimony, even though such a UAP had time to fly over a large geographic area, was large, luminous, and visible for at least 10 seconds, and this at an hour that was indeed nighttime but not very late in the summer and holiday period. The consistency is poor. It could have been improved by an investigation with the witness to obtain a more precise angular measurement in azimuth and elevation, and above all to obtain an indication of observation duration far more precise than what the investigation was able to estimate indirectly. This consistency is just sufficient to support the atmospheric re-entry hypothesis despite the residual strangeness related to the fact that such a luminous and long re-entry was not observed by other witnesses. In conclusion, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: observation of the atmospheric re-entry of a meteoroid or a satellite object.