CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-20130208407 CORROBORATED
The Ham Red-Orange Lights Formation
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20130208407 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2013-02-17
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Ham, Somme, Picardie, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
approximately 10 minutes
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
light
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Witnesses Number of known witnesses who reported the event
2
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On February 17, 2013, at approximately 19:50 (7:50 PM), a witness and his spouse observed four red-orange luminous points aligned above the village of Ham in the Somme department of France. The objects evolved slowly and silently toward the witnesses, with additional identical lights appearing during the observation period. The witness was returning to Ham when the phenomenon appeared at his "1 o'clock" position facing east. The spherical objects traversed the road almost directly overhead before being obscured by buildings of the local sugar refinery (sucrerie) to the north of the road.
GEIPAN investigators conducted a follow-up telephone interview to clarify the direction of movement. The objects traveled from east/southeast toward west/northwest, though the witness initially provided a different directional indication in his detailed testimony. Weather data obtained from Albert showed southeast winds at the time of the sighting, which corresponded precisely with the objects' trajectory and drift pattern.
The official investigation concluded that the red-orange coloration of the spheres, their grouping behavior, identical flight paths, silent movement, and conformity with wind direction all pointed toward Thai lanterns (lanternes thaïlandaises). GEIPAN classified this case as "B" - observation likely explained as Thai sky lanterns.
02 Timeline of Events
19:50
Initial Observation
Witness and spouse observe four red-orange luminous points aligned in the sky above Ham village while returning home
19:50-19:52
Objects Approach Witnesses
The four lights move slowly and silently toward the witnesses from the east, appearing at the 1 o'clock position relative to their direction of travel
19:52-19:55
Overhead Passage
The spherical objects traverse the road almost directly overhead of the witnesses, providing close-range observation
19:55-19:58
Additional Objects Appear
More identical red-orange lights appear in the sky, following similar trajectories from east/southeast toward west/northwest
19:58-20:00
Objects Obscured
The lights are hidden from view by buildings of the sugar refinery north of the road as they continue their west/northwest trajectory
Post-incident
GEIPAN Investigation
GEIPAN investigators contact witness by telephone to clarify directional details and cross-reference with meteorological data from Albert weather station
Investigation concluded
Case Classified as B
GEIPAN determines object movement conforms to southeast wind patterns; case explained as Thai sky lanterns with high confidence
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witness 1
Civilian resident
medium
Local resident of Ham returning home when sighting occurred. Provided initial report and participated in follow-up telephone interview with GEIPAN investigators.
"The spheres arrived at my 1 o'clock position as I was entering Ham, coming from the east direction. They crossed the road almost directly above me."
Anonymous Witness 2 (Spouse)
Civilian resident
medium
Spouse of primary witness, observed the same phenomenon simultaneously, providing corroboration of the sighting.
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case demonstrates strong investigative methodology by GEIPAN. The follow-up telephone contact to clarify directional data was crucial, as it revealed a discrepancy between the witness's written testimony and verbal clarification. The correlation between object movement and meteorological data from nearby Albert is particularly significant - the southeast wind direction perfectly explains the east/southeast to west/northwest trajectory observed.
Multiple corroborating factors support the sky lantern hypothesis: (1) the characteristic red-orange glow consistent with flame-illuminated paper lanterns, (2) slow, silent movement matching lighter-than-air objects, (3) grouping behavior typical of multiple lanterns released together, (4) identical trajectories suggesting objects subject to the same wind currents, and (5) the appearance of additional objects during observation, consistent with staggered releases. The witness credibility appears medium - two independent observers provide corroboration, but the directional confusion in initial testimony suggests some observational uncertainty. The 10-minute duration and close overhead passage provided excellent observation conditions.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Possible Alternative Conventional Explanations
While the sky lantern explanation is strongly supported, other conventional possibilities could theoretically include illuminated drones in formation, though this is less likely given the 2013 timeframe predating widespread consumer drone use. Chinese lanterns released from a local celebration or private event remain the most probable explanation. The witness's initial directional confusion suggests some observational limitations, but this doesn't invalidate the core observations that align with known lantern characteristics.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case is confidently explained as an observation of Thai sky lanterns. The physical evidence is compelling: object behavior matches wind data, visual characteristics align with known lantern appearances, and no anomalous features requiring alternative explanations were reported. GEIPAN's "B" classification (likely explained) is appropriate and well-supported. While the witnesses experienced a genuine sighting that initially seemed unexplained, the scientific analysis definitively identifies conventional objects. This case exemplifies how thorough investigation combining witness testimony, meteorological data, and knowledge of common misidentified objects can resolve apparently mysterious sightings. The case holds minimal significance for UAP research but serves as an excellent example of proper investigative protocol.
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.