[AERO LOC] NORGES-LA-VILLE (21) 16.05.1993

GEIPAN continues to publish all its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Its publications include older cases classified at the time as A, B, C or D that are now being re-examined solely to improve the accuracy of their conclusions. New technical tools (software) and the investigative experience gained over the years sometimes lead to new observations or even a change in classification. This observation case, formerly classified D and named [AERO LOC] NORGES-LA-VILLE (21) 16.05.1993, is among the cases recently re-examined (see investigation report). On 16 May 1993 at 19:15, a microlight pilot and his passenger saw a sphere with bluish reflections apparently rotating as it moved rapidly toward their aircraft. The pilot turned and the UAP crossed his path. He began another turn to see and follow it better, but it had disappeared. The observation lasted 15–20 seconds. Weather and visibility were excellent. Only one statement was filed with the gendarmerie; the passenger confirmed the pilot’s account by telephone. GEIPAN considers the UAP probably a Mylar balloon carried by wind aloft. Its spherical shape and metallic appearance reflecting sunlight fit that explanation. Such balloons have existed since the late 1970s and, especially initially, were often round or ovoid. They may be inflated with air but more commonly helium, allowing them to rise and remain airborne for 2 weeks to 2 months. The perception of rapid motion in the opposite direction is fully compatible with the witness’s own speed: - Assessing UAP movement requires angular-motion perception, difficult here because the observer was moving, and a distance estimate, impossible for an unrecognized object. The witness himself said, “In fact, everything depends on how far away this object was when I passed it, which I cannot estimate.” - Wind speed at 2,400 m was unknown, although the witness estimated it as zero. Even a stationary UAP could seem to move oppositely at varying speed depending on the assumed passing distance. - Given the available information, perceived fast motion opposite to the witness fits a balloon. Motion in the same direction, or faster than the witness, would have been incompatible in GEIPAN’s analysis. The witness appeared to see the sphere rotate but was uncertain, explaining the impression by a possible protrusion that caught his attention. Failure to see it after completing his turn is unsurprising: its small angular size allowed it ample time to be lost from view during the manoeuvre. The evidential substance is moderate, with a fairly good description. Angular measurements might have helped constrain distance and its compatibility with perceived speed. GEIPAN also regrets the absence of a second formal account. It classifies the case B: Mylar balloon.