Earth File #984 // SOURCED record

Comines orange rugby-ball-shaped glow observation

On 28 September 1984, five witnesses reportedly observed a slow-moving orange glow, described as rugby-ball-shaped, between 8:30 p.m. and 8:50 p.m.; they reported that it split into two ovoid parts. GEIPAN currently classifies the case as PAN A and explains the observation as a misidentification of the setting Moon.
Source // GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive Earth record separated from alien editorial
FRED // CASE CONSOLE
SOL-3 // FILE 0984 // CH 17
CONTEXT VIEW // NOT SOURCE MEDIA
CASE FINGERPRINT
F2CC-92D4-6297
CLOCK // NOT PRECISE
WITNESS CONTEXT
Reported motionOVAL
FRED // PAPERWORK OBSERVATION // generated from Earth Record metadata
OVAL
Comines, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Nord // Sep 28, 1984. The diagram on the left is a structured-record visualization—not a reconstruction, photograph, sensor return, or additional evidence.
EXPLAINED CLOCK // NOT PRECISE GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive
Witness picturefive witnesses 1 interface marker(s) // not a headcount estimate
Motion traceReported motionslow-moving, reportedly split into two ovoid parts, reported to have moved in an intriguing manner
Sensor / evidenceNo sensor type statedeyewitness report, official scientific investigation record
Fred's paperwork completeness8/9 fields // 89%
Interface completeness only // this score does not measure truth, evidence strength, or extraterrestrial probability
1 document(s)1 source node(s)10 structured claim(s) location precision: locality slow-movingreportedly split into two ovoid partsreported to have moved in an intriguing manner
FRED // PAPERWORK OBSERVATIONAn interesting report is allowed to have an explanation. This is why the label stays attached to the box even after the mystery gets less glamorous.
Off-record desk banter // not case attribution
Tovin Raal would call this display “plenty of information.” Tovin Raal also can turn a routine observation pass into an incident report without visibly trying. His visualization standards are not binding on this desk.
Fred case console // context visualization // not evidence
Visitor Transmission // AlienBox editorial layer
We accept responsibility for the orange rugby-ball-shaped glow reported near Comines on 28 September 1984. The cited record says five witnesses observed it moving slowly between 8:30 and 8:50 p.m., then reported its division into two ovoid parts. GEIPAN currently classifies the case as PAN A and explains it as a misidentification of the setting Moon. This is understandable. Our separation procedure was optimized for orbital mechanics, not human interpretation. Gorkon Outpost still has the paperwork.
Fred // Earth Records Liaison // AlienBox editorial layer
GEIPAN’s sourced Earth Record classifies this as PAN A and explains it as a misidentification of the setting Moon. Sensible conclusion, and importantly, it does not accuse the five witnesses of seeing badly; it questions the interpretation. That distinction survives contact with most filing departments, which is encouraging. Off the Earth Record: yes, yes, you finally noticed us. We are taking responsibility for this one. The Moon may retain the paperwork, since it was already in the area and has an excellent legal department. I will not be reopening the old Gorkon argument about whether “orange rugby ball” counts as a useful vehicle description.
FRED // EXPENSE ACCOUNT DENIED

Buy Fred a Ionberry Ale

The Gorkon Outpost has again declined reimbursement. Voluntary support keeps AlienBox running and does not purchase influence over Earth Record conclusions.

EARTH CURRENCY BUY IONBERRY ALE // $5 Secure checkout via Stripe // funds settle to Orange-Hat, LLC
QR code for Fred's DigiByte tip address
DIGIBYTE // DIRECT TIP SCAN OR SEND DGB dgb1q9dw0cfzr22n2efrad7l8340na90nlptjnthq0s
OPEN DGB WALLET →
Suggested: 500 DGB // any amount welcome // blockchain confirmation monitor pending
SUPPORT POLICY // Support payments are voluntary and never influence Earth Record evidence ranking, factual conclusions, or editorial treatment. VIEW FRED'S EXPENSE ACCOUNT →
When
September 28, 1984
Where
Comines, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Nord
Morphology
OVAL
Evidence authority
SOURCED
Resolution
EXPLAINED

Why Fred Thinks This Case Matters

AlienBox comparative analysis from structured Earth Record fields // not a new source // not a change in evidence grade
Console archetype // Published-resolution comparison

Fred keeps this file near the top of the pile because the structured record explicitly indicates multiple witnesses and the source also supplies a published resolution to compare against the original report. That combination makes the case useful for cross-archive comparison without changing its evidence grade.

The source record includes a published resolution field. AlienBox treats it as an attributed source assessment to compare with the original report, not as an AlienBox verdict.

What strengthens the record

  • 1 linked source document provide provenance for the Earth Record.
  • 10 claim citations tie extracted statements back to source excerpts or locators.
  • The structured witness field explicitly records multiple observers without inventing a headcount.
  • Recorded evidence context: Eyewitness Report and Official Scientific Investigation Record.
  • The source record includes a published resolution: Misidentification of the setting Moon, according to GEIPAN.

What limits the record

  • No sensor type is recorded in the structured Earth Record.
  • The current dossier is anchored to one source network rather than independent source networks.

What would help resolve it

  • Can the originating record establish an exact number of observers and whether their observations were independent?
  • Did any radar, infrared, optical, telemetry, or other instrument record the event, and is that material preserved?
  • Can the source establish a usable duration for the observation rather than only a date or narrative sequence?

Fred Says Go Here Next

Internal research paths chosen from this dossier's structured fields. Similarity is navigation, not corroboration.
Multi-Witness UFO & UAP Reports → Compare how multiple-observer records differ in sourcing and resolution. Resolved UFO & UAP Case Files → Compare published explanations across resolved case files. Historical UFO & UAP Files → Put this report beside other historical archive records.
Related Earth File #1060

Vigneux-sur-Seine luminous red-orange object observation, assessed as a celestial lantern

Shared evidence context: Eyewitness Report; same recorded morphology.

 Related Earth File #556

Reported luminous object observation in Cholet, assessed as a probable satellite

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation Record; same recorded morphology.

 Related Earth File #995

PONTVALLAIN (72) 1981 observation

Shared evidence context: Eyewitness Report; shared source network.

 Related Earth File #989

Freland (68) reported luminous-object observation

Same recorded morphology; shared source network.

 Related Earth File #981

Lot, Midi-Pyrénées — reported meteoroid re-entry observation

Same recorded morphology; shared source network.

 Related Earth File #1316

Reported dazzling light over Dole, 29 July 2021

Same recorded morphology; shared source network.

Earth Record // SOURCED

Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesfive witnesses
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeseyewitness report, official scientific investigation record
The observation date was 28 September 1984.
Claim #10758 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation date 28/09/1984”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0001]] Case details
The case is listed in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region and Nord department.
Claim #10759 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Region Nord-Pas-de-Calais Department Nord”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0001]] Case details
The case details list the classification as A.
Claim #10760 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification A”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes observations of an orange glow shaped like a rugby ball and identifies the explanation as a misidentification of the Moon.
Claim #10761 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observations of an orange glow in the shape of a rugby ball: misidentification of the Moon.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0001]] Summary
In 1984, GEPAN classified the case as “D.”
Claim #10762 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“was one of the cases classified as “D” in 1984 by GEPAN.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
On September 28, 1984, between 8:30 p.m. and 8:50 p.m., five witnesses saw a slow-moving orange glow the size and shape of a rugby ball.
Claim #10763 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“On September 28, 1984, between 8:30 p.m. and 8:50 p.m., five witnesses saw the slow movement across the sky of an orange glow the size and shape of a rugby ball.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
The witnesses reported that the glow split into two ovoid parts and moved in an intriguing manner.
Claim #10764 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“During the observation, this glow split into two ovoid parts and moved in an intriguing manner for the witnesses.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the described phenomenon shares characteristics with the setting Moon and that the Moon was present in the observed area of sky.
Claim #10765 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“The phenomenon described has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, color) with a perfectly known astronomical object: the setting Moon.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the witnesses’ visual perception is not at issue; rather, the interpretation of the observation is at issue.
Claim #10766 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“It is not the witnesses’ visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation the witnesses make of their observation through their feelings (astonishment, fatigue, nighttime observation).”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN’s current classification is PAN A, defined in this case as an observation associated with a misidentification of the Moon.
Claim #10767 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“In GEIPAN’s current classification, this case of moderate strangeness is classified as PAN A: observation associated with a misidentification of the Moon.”
Source: COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 // [[T0002]] Description
FRED // PUBLIC DESK CHANNEL

Ask Fred About This File

Questions about the dossier get an Earth Record answer first, then Fred may add clearly separated off-record commentary.

Questions are conversation, not evidence. Fred cannot promote a claim, alter a citation, or improve a source tier because somebody asks nicely.

Related Cases

Source Documents

AlienBox displays translated titles when available. Canonical links always point to the original source.
COMINES (59) 28.09.1984 FR // English display translation
ALIENBOX CLEARANCE // EARLY ACCESS
Receive new dossiers before the humans organize them.
Join the early-access list for new sighting dossiers, major archive drops, Fred's notes, Visitor confessions, and future Clearance-only research tools.
HUMAN COMPLIANCE NOTICE // Fred and Visitor transmissions are AI-generated AlienBox editorial layers. Earth Record claims are separately sourced and audited. Ask Fred conversations are contextual explanations, not new evidence. Foreign-language source material remains immutable in its original archive; English display/analysis translations are stored separately with provenance. Scanner graphics, flashes and alien silhouettes are interface design only.
Earth ArchiveSourcesMethod