GEIPAN Case 2012-06-08317 — LAMBERSART (59) 17.06.2012

Brief

At 04:00 on 17 June 2012, a resident of Lambersart (Nord) went outside to let his cat out and observed a silent, highly symmetric formation of 10–15 transparent spheres — compared in the report to soap bubbles — moving south-to-north at angular size equal to a 1-euro coin held at arm's length, for roughly 15 seconds before the formation disappeared into a cumulus cloud. GEIPAN's geometric analysis placed the objects at 1,460–2,000 m altitude with computed diameters of 49–68 m; the wind-drift hypothesis collapsed by a factor of 100 in altitude, implying the objects were moving far faster than wind speed. The sole surviving hypothesis — aircraft in formation — was rated low probability given the transparent appearance, total silence, and large number of objects; GEIPAN closed the case D1 with consistency 0.7 and strangeness 0.6.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

10 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED (public GEIPAN case file)

Programs

GEIPAN, GEPAN, SEPRA

Tags

transparent spheres, formation flight, silent, 10–15 objects, cloud entry, Lambersart France, 2012, GEIPAN D1, estimated 49–68 m diameter, south-to-north trajectory

Key points

• Single witness, no corroboration, no photograph or instrument data; observation lasted approximately 15 seconds beginning at 04:00 on 17 June 2012.p.5
• Objects described as 10–15 transparent spheres in a highly ordered, symmetric, multi-layered formation flying south-to-north without any audible sound.p.2
• METAR data from Lille-Lesquin (LFQQ) confirmed clear sky, light SW wind at 8 knots, cloud ceiling at 1,460–1,770 m — consistent with the witness account of objects disappearing into a cumulus cloud.p.3
• No aircraft, satellite, or other aerial vehicle was recorded in any database for that date and time over the observation area.p.4
• Using standard angular-size formula with a 1-euro coin (23 mm) at arm's length (68 cm), GEIPAN calculated object diameters of 49–68 m at the 1,460–2,000 m altitude range.p.7
• Wind-drift hypothesis internal contradiction: objects drifting at 17 km/h covering the observed arc in 15 seconds would have been at only 14.5 m altitude — a factor of ~100 below the cloud base.p.8
• Tabular speed analysis over arc angles of 50°–130° at altitudes of 1,460–2,000 m yields speeds from 163 km/h to 1,029 km/h, all far exceeding measured wind speed.p.9
• The aircraft-in-formation hypothesis was the only candidate considered, but rated low probability given transparent appearance, absence of noise, and large number of objects.p.9
• Case closed D1 — unidentified objects of unknown nature; consistency score 0.7, strangeness score 0.6.p.10

Verbatim

• Considérées dans leur ensemble, les caractéristiques physiques et dynamiques des objets décrits par le témoin ne ressemblent à priori à aucune caractéristique d'objets connus.

  p.6

• les objets mesurent entre 49 m et 68 m de diamètre

  p.7

• les valeurs obtenues pour la vitesse des PANs sont d'une part bien au-delà des vitesses mesurées du vent au sol

  p.9

• les PANs observés par le témoin présentent des caractéristiques, en particulier physiques, qui ne s'apparentent à aucun objet naturel ou manufacturé connu. Ce cas est à classer en « D1 » comme observation d'objets de nature inconnue.

  p.10

• Ce témoignage est d'une bonne consistance : précis, mais venant d'un témoin unique et sans photo. L'observation est étrange car il s'agit d'objets ayant une apparence peu banale, bien que leur comportement ne présente pas d'aspects hors du commun.

  p.10

Most interesting

• The witness initially mistook the formation for a flight of ducks before realizing it was a highly structured, symmetric array of transparent spheres.
• GEIPAN's geometric contradiction is stark: if the objects were wind-borne at 17 km/h, they would have been at only 14.5 m altitude — physically impossible for cloud entry and a factor of ~100 below the METAR-reported cloud base.
• At the computed altitude of 1,460–2,000 m, each sphere had an estimated diameter of 49–68 m, comparable to the wingspan of a wide-body airliner.
• The investigator notes that the absence of angular elevation measurements prevented a direct speed calculation, requiring the tabular multi-scenario approach on page 9.
• The coordinates entered in the structured data table — 50,6505; -3,0343 — carry a negative longitude sign that appears to be a transcription error; Lambersart is located at approximately 3.03°E, not west of the prime meridian.
• The witness remained outside scanning the sky for approximately one hour after the observation and reported nothing further.
• Dawn twilight was already visible on the NE horizon at 04:00, potentially explaining the faint illumination on one side of the spheres, though the investigator flags a left/right inconsistency in the witness's description relative to compass geometry.
• The report was produced on 6 November 2013 — more than 17 months after the original event and 14 months after GEIPAN received the witness's email.