28 January 2014, around 22:15–22:20 local; estimated two to three minutes
Outcome: Open (Unresolved). GEIPAN retained D1 after an interview, site reconstruction and comparison with lasers, drones and ball lightning. Similarities to ball lightning were not supported by sufficient confirming evidence.
A low red appearance in a village
A woman outside with her dog at They-sous-Montfort described a bright red appearance moving slowly along the street on 28January 2014. She recalled a pause, a return in the opposite direction, a short coloured tail and a small sound near the end before the light left view.
The account was reconstructed through an interview and a return to the site. Reported distances and heights should remain estimates. No instrument tracked the appearance or established the physical dimensions of the ball-like light.
The enquiry preserved changes in recollection
The original questionnaire and later interview differed on some details, including the colour of the initial halo and orientation of the passage. The investigator recorded those differences rather than silently combining the most dramatic version of every detail.
Such changes do not establish that nothing happened. They do show why a precise trajectory reconstructed much later should be read with care. The source also notes that a blue outline in a drawing arose from the pen used; it was not a separately observed blue rim. Illustrations should not promote drawing materials into physical features of the event.
Testing several kinds of explanation
The investigation considered a laser, a drone and a perceptual explanation, alongside ball lightning. Some aspects of the reported form and movement resembled historical ball-lightning descriptions, but the file lacked factual material that could establish that cause. Weather checks did not supply a straightforward thunderstorm context.
A resemblance to a class of unusual natural reports is a useful lead, not a specimen identification. Equally, uncertainty about a natural mechanism cannot establish a vehicle. The question remains tied to what was actually described, the conditions in which it was seen and the absence of a recording.
The drawing and the event are different records
The investigator explicitly explains that the drawing’s blue outline came from the pen, whereas the coloured tail was part of the description. That small distinction illustrates a recurring problem in old case material: a graphic convention can acquire evidential weight through repeated copying.
There is also no clinical confirmation of the proposed ball-lightning analogy. It remains a physical possibility discussed against the testimony, alongside other hypotheses. The source’s own caution is more useful than either renaming the experience ball lightning as a certainty or presenting its unexplained status as evidence of a visitor.
The present classification
GEIPAN retained D1, and UKPX records Open (Unresolved). The source’s suggested ball-lightning analogy is retained in the article, while its unconfirmed status remains clear. No physical trace, original event image or independently documented second observer closes the evidential gap.
A timely independent observation would be especially helpful here because it could test whether the perceived light occupied the same external position for more than one observer. The broad map reference represents the village only. It neither identifies the witness’s home nor invites visitors to reconstruct the event on private land.
Location and map reference
They-sous-Montfort, Vosges, France. Broad commune reference from the French government geographic API; not the witness home, precise observation position or object location. This listing does not advertise access to private property.
Sources and review
CNES–GEIPAN official case record and the original investigation report. Current official page;15-page report pp 1–2, 7–9 and 11, including recollection differences, ball-lightning discussion and drawing-pen clarification. The report’s inconsistent printed coordinates are not used for the map. Sources and current classification checked 13 November 2026. The incident date above is distinct from the later investigation and archive-update dates.