CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-19791201871 CORROBORATED
The Decize Orange Orb: Two-Day Recurring Phenomenon
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-19791201871 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
1979-12-05
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Decize, Nièvre, Bourgogne, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
15 minutes (first day), similar duration second day
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
orb
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Witnesses Number of known witnesses who reported the event
1
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On December 5, 1979, at approximately 17:40 (5:40 PM), a witness in Decize, a commune in the Nièvre department of Bourgogne, France, observed an orange-colored spherical object described as 'the size of an orange with orange reflections.' The object exhibited unusual flight characteristics: it rotated on its own axis while alternately ascending and descending in the sky. Notably, the witness reported hearing no sound during the observation. After approximately fifteen minutes of observation, the luminous sphere departed at very high speed toward the southeast.
The following day, December 6, 1979, at the same time (17:40), the witness observed what appeared to be the same phenomenon returning. During this second observation, the object demonstrated additional anomalous behavior: it changed size three times before departing toward the west. According to the GEIPAN report, one other witness had observed a similar phenomenon several months prior to these events, suggesting a possible pattern of recurrence in the area.
GEIPAN classified this case as 'C' (likely explained), which in their taxonomy indicates a case where a conventional explanation is probable but cannot be definitively proven with the available evidence. The investigation file from France's official UFO research organization (operated by CNES, the French space agency) contains witness testimony but appears limited in scope, with no mention of photographic evidence, radar data, or corroborating witnesses for the December events.
02 Timeline of Events
1979-12-05 17:40
Initial Observation Begins
Primary witness observes orange orb approximately the size of an orange appearing in the sky during twilight hours. Object displays orange reflections/coloration.
1979-12-05 17:40-17:55
Object Exhibits Unusual Movement
Witness observes the sphere rotating on its axis while simultaneously performing alternating ascending and descending movements. No sound detected throughout observation period of approximately 15 minutes.
1979-12-05 17:55
High-Speed Departure to Southeast
After 15 minutes of observation, the luminous orb departs at very high speed in a southeasterly direction and disappears from view.
1979-12-06 17:40
Second Day Observation
At the same time as the previous day, the witness observes what appears to be the same phenomenon returning to the area.
1979-12-06 17:40-17:55
Size Variation Observed
During the second observation, the object changes size three times before departing westward, different from the previous day's southeast trajectory.
Post-incident
GEIPAN Investigation
France's official UFO investigation organization GEIPAN investigates the case and assigns a 'C' classification, indicating a likely conventional explanation with insufficient evidence for definitive conclusion.
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witness 1
Civilian
unknown
Primary witness who observed the phenomenon on two consecutive evenings at the same time. No additional background information available in GEIPAN records.
"Une boule de la grosseur d'une orange avec un reflet orangé... se déplace en tournant sur elle-même et en montant et descendant alternativement... Aucun bruit n'a été entendu."
Anonymous Witness 2
Civilian
unknown
Secondary witness mentioned in report who observed a similar phenomenon several months prior to the December 1979 events. No testimony details available.
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
The timing of both observations (17:40 in early December) is highly significant from an analytical perspective. This corresponds to civil twilight during winter months in France, when Venus and other celestial bodies become visible while some ambient daylight remains. The orange coloration, rotating appearance, and apparent changes in size are all consistent with atmospheric scintillation effects on a bright celestial object viewed through turbulent air layers near the horizon.
The witness's description of alternating ascending/descending motion and the rotation are classic indicators of the autokinetic effect - an optical illusion where a stationary point of light appears to move when observed against a featureless background (the darkening sky). The 'orange reflections' align with atmospheric coloration of light passing through more atmosphere near the horizon. The reported high-speed departure is likely the result of cloud cover or the object setting below the horizon/treeline. The size changes observed on the second day further support atmospheric effects, as turbulence and scintillation can cause apparent variations in brightness and angular size. The lack of sound is entirely consistent with astronomical phenomena. While witness credibility cannot be assessed from the sparse data, the behavioral description suggests an honest observer unfamiliar with astronomical observation reporting something genuinely seen but misinterpreted.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
Recurring Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon
While astronomical explanations are tempting, the witness specifically described unusual flight characteristics including rotation, vertical oscillation, and dramatic acceleration that go beyond typical descriptions of celestial bodies, even under atmospheric distortion. The fact that the object returned at precisely the same time the following day but then changed behavior (size variations, different departure direction) suggests possible intelligent control or monitoring. The reference to another witness observing similar phenomena months earlier could indicate this location experiences recurring visits from an unidentified aerial phenomenon. However, the lack of additional evidence and the GEIPAN 'C' classification (likely explained) suggest investigators found the extraordinary explanation unconvincing.
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Misidentification Enhanced by Expectation
The witness, having observed an unusual (to them) phenomenon on the first evening, likely experienced confirmation bias when looking for it again at the same time on the second day. This psychological priming would make them more likely to interpret normal celestial objects as anomalous and to perceive apparent motion or size changes that align with their expectations. The mention of another witness seeing something 'similar' months earlier suggests possible local folklore or shared misidentification of routine astronomical phenomena visible from this location during winter months. The complete absence of physical evidence, radar data, or contemporaneous corroborating witnesses significantly limits the credibility of any exotic explanation.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case most likely represents multiple observations of the planet Venus or another bright celestial body (possibly Jupiter) under conditions of significant atmospheric turbulence. The timing (5:40 PM in early December), orange coloration, apparent motion, size changes, and silent operation all point conclusively toward an astronomical explanation enhanced by optical illusions and atmospheric effects. GEIPAN's 'C' classification appropriately reflects this assessment. The case holds minimal significance for UAP research and serves primarily as an educational example of how atmospheric conditions, celestial mechanics, and human perception can combine to create compelling but mundane observations. The recurring nature at the same time on consecutive days actually strengthens the astronomical explanation rather than suggesting anomalous phenomena. Confidence level: Very High (95%+).
AI CONFIDENCE SCORE:
85%
07 Community Discussion
VIEW ALL >// NO COMMENTS YET
Be the first field agent to contribute analysis on this case.
08 Live Chat 1 ROOM
ENTER LIVE CHAT
Real-time discussion with other field agents analyzing this case.