Incident · 21 October 1982 · Laxou, near Nancy (Meurthe-et-Moselle), France
The 'Amarante' case: a biologist's hovering object near Nancy (France, 1982)
Also known as Amarante, L'Amarante, Amarante case, Nancy 1982, Laxou 1982
Partly explained. GEPAN's own analysts could not distinguish the withered amaranths from a control plant and suggested frost the day before may have dried the leaves, so the physical trace that made the case notable is not established; the sighting itself, by a single witness, remains unexplained. (GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983))
Around midday on 21 October 1982, a young biologist working in a cellular-biology laboratory reported that a small oval object, about 1.5 metres across, had hovered silently a metre above his garden for twenty minutes before leaving straight up at great speed. He went to the gendarmerie that evening. The next morning he noticed that amaranth plants beside the spot had withered, and the gendarmes came back to take samples.
France's official UAP office, then GEPAN, investigated and published the case as Technical Note 17 in March 1983, keeping the witness anonymous and coding the place names; later writers place it in Laxou, near Nancy. GEPAN found no reason to reject his testimony, but he was the only witness, military radar showed nothing notable, and its plant analysts could not distinguish the withered plants from a control, pointing instead to frost the day before and to poor sample keeping. A physicist's estimate that the grass rising beneath the object would need a strong electric field is the note's only physical hypothesis.
The case is often cited as physical evidence of a strong field acting on plants; GEPAN's own report is more cautious. Sceptics argue the withered flowers were normal for the season and the account a perception without an object.
Sources: GEPAN (CNES), Note technique n° 17, 21 March 1983 · Rossoni, Maillot & Déguillaume, Les OVNI du CNES (2007), ch. 15
Facts and claims
- documented A 30-year-old biologist told the gendarmerie on the evening of 21 October 1982 that around midday a silent oval object about 1.5 m across, its lower half like polished metal and its upper half blue-green, hovered about a metre above his small garden for twenty minutes while he approached to within 50 cm, then left vertically at great speed; his camera jammed. He was alone. The next morning he reported withered amaranth plants beside where it had been, and the gendarmerie took samples. Source: GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983)
- documented GEPAN investigated on site and published its findings as Technical Note 17 on 21 March 1983. It found the reported observing conditions very good and nothing in the witness's account or behaviour suggesting a distortion of perception or memory, but noted that a single witness allows no cross-checking. Source: GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983)
- documented Military radar recordings for the sector during the sighting showed no notable anomaly, only five intermittent, unconfirmed plots that GEPAN called a very common radar phenomenon. Source: GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983)
- documented The plant analyses were inconclusive: the only difference between the withered amaranth and the control was a slightly raised level of two amino acids, which the analysts linked to ordinary stress such as parasites, a wound or excess fertiliser; they suggested frost on 20 October may explain the dried leaves, and said that, as the samples had been kept, plant biochemistry could not explain the difference. Source: GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983)
- documented A physicist consulted by GEPAN estimated that the grass rising as the object left, as the witness described, would require an electric field of at least 30 kV/m, which would have been far stronger at the amaranth bed; he wrote that this could not be said to have caused the drying, only that the clue was worth considering. Source: GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983)
- claimed A 2007 sceptical study of the CNES's cases by David Rossoni, Éric Maillot and Éric Déguillaume names the town as Laxou, in the western part of the Nancy conurbation, and argues that amaranths often carry withered flower spikes in late October, especially after an early frost, and that the account may reflect a hallucination; GEPAN's note gives no such explanation. Source: zetetique.fr (archived)
Connected files
Documents
- GEPAN Technical Note 17: the 'Amarante' case, 21 October 1982 (published 21 March 1983) (documented in)
Organizations
- GEIPAN (CNES, France) (investigated by)
More incidents
- Trans-en-Provence landing trace (France, 1981)
- Canneto di Caronia fires and the government study group (Sicily, 2004–2014)
- Valensole landing: a craft and two small beings in a lavender field
- Falcon Lake: Stefan Michalak's reported landing and burns (Manitoba, 1967)
- Three game wardens on night patrol watch lights zigzag at great speed
- Car stalls and its lights die as a fireball passes, Mayet