Red lights in Essonne, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named SAINT-HILAIRE (91) 04.10.1981, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. It concerns the observation of an unidentified aerospace phenomenon (UAP) by a couple of motorists at the intersection known as "la cabane à Pierrot" in the municipality of SAINT-HILAIRE (91) during the night of 03 to 04 October 1981 at approximately 02:30. The witnesses are surprised to see flashes on the ground, then three red lights still at ground level that seem to come toward the witnesses. The latter, seized by fear, leave the location quickly. No noise was heard. The Gendarmerie was notified on 09 October and went to the scene without finding any traces. Only one testimony was recorded by the gendarmerie on 03 November 1981. Preliminary note concerning a case where the testimonies and traces relate to a phenomenon explicitly described or perceived on the ground: - in the absence of evidence that the ground-level phenomenon could only have come and/or left by air, the search for an explanation goes beyond GEIPAN's sole competence and a GEIPAN conclusion can only be formulated if proof or near-proof is established; otherwise GEIPAN must conclude C: Unexploitable because it goes beyond GEIPAN's sole competence. - in the opposite case, the absence of testimonies or traces of phases of the phenomenon off the ground may lead GEIPAN to be unable to conclude for lack of reliable information (classic GEIPAN classification C). We are here in the first case, since nothing allows us to exclude that this phenomenon arrived or left by the ground, because the absence of traces in the ground proves nothing one way or the other. The case is therefore classified C: Unexploitable because it goes beyond GEIPAN's sole competence. Nevertheless, GEIPAN provides, without any conclusion other than what precedes, an analysis according to its methods of certain aspects of the case (see the investigation report). The lights, well observed as coming from the ground, are difficult to explain in terms of vehicles: - the successive sighting of white lights and red lights, as well as the evolution of the configuration of the lights, may correspond to changes in viewing angles or changes in the orientation of a vehicle; - agricultural machinery in operation could thus have particular lighting with a single headlight at the front (perceived as successive flashes due to variations in aiming) and 3 red lights at the rear. But an agricultural or other practice intended by the owner or operator is unlikely at 02:30 in the morning on a Sunday. However, the owner, who was nevertheless identified, was not interviewed; - the incursion of one or more third parties onto the field cannot be excluded either, a context of returning from Saturday night festivities possibly favoring incongruous initiatives or accidents. The particular lighting could only be explained by vehicles (several motorcycles?) or particular vehicle configurations; - no trace was visible in the field, which does not however exclude the presence of a vehicle at the time of the facts, particularly if the ground was dry; - the perception the witnesses had at the end of the observation of lights approaching them may correspond to the reality of the movement or correspond to a phenomenon known to GEIPAN: the witnesses interpret the increase in intensity of a light (which could here be caused by a better alignment of the lights in the direction of the witnesses) as an advance of these lights toward them. The vehicle hypothesis runs up against the question of its plausibility in that place and time, without being able to be excluded. On the other hand, the consistency of the case is mediocre in information and reliability: - the witnesses did not make a spontaneous statement. It was rumor that led to the intervention of a GEPAN correspondent, then the hearing by the gendarmes. Under these conditions, a witness may find themselves constrained in their statements by their previous descriptions made on the fly and by the understanding (with potentially increased strangeness) that may have been made of them and spread; - there is only one testimony. The identical description (to the point that the gendarmerie retained only one testimony) may reflect strong coordination and influence between witnesses before the summons by the gendarmes; - there is no description of the disappearance of the UAP, and no measurement of angular sizes; - the owner of the field where the phenomenon was located was not interviewed.