A beam of light in Centre-Val de Loir, France

GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Among its publications are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C or D) which are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience acquired 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 ORLEANS (45) 1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 23 January 1982 between 4:35 a.m. and 4:55 a.m., gendarmes from the highway patrol unit on patrol on the A10 (Paris-Province direction) saw in the sky an undefined clear mass as well as a strongly lit area on the ground. Throughout their journey of about thirty kilometres, their observations continued either while driving or while stopped. No particular noise was heard, notably during the patrol's stop. Several times they lost sight of the phenomenon before seeing it again. At the very end of the observation, the clear mass was no longer seen, but the witnesses noted that the glow remained to the East over copses bordering the highway. An on-site investigation was carried out by the gendarmes, who contacted the BA123 at Orléans, located 7 km as the crow flies from the highway: no aircraft or helicopter was in flight, and the base's radar station had been shut down since the previous evening. The company Cofiroute, manager of the A10, was contacted: no employee of this company noticed the phenomenon. No other testimony from residents along the A10 was collected. A female resident of Ingré (45), witness to a phenomenon on 17 January 1982, made a statement to the local press on 19 January 1982, a few days before the observation by the two gendarmes, but never presented herself to the police service she reported to. The local press commented on the event in an article on 27 January 1982, linking the three testimonies. We explored two hypotheses that could explain certain physical or dynamic characteristics of the UAP (see the investigation report). It is established that the phenomenon was in motion, and not static, since it illuminated various parts of the relatively nearby landscape (pylons, hangars) over a significant distance. It is known that celestial bodies (here the planets Jupiter, Saturn or Mars were present) can create perceptions of luminous phenomena following the witness, provided that the witness himself is moving. But it is not clear how one of these celestial bodies would be perceived as a "clear mass" even through a cloud, and would produce such focused illuminations on the ground. The hypothesis of confusion with a helicopter equipped with a powerful searchlight, located in or above the cloud layer, is more interesting. It would explain the unique perception of a "clear mass" without a well-defined outline and the absence of perception of navigation lights; as well as the luminous phenomenon observed on the ground illuminating various parts of the landscape, just as a helicopter searchlight sweeping the area would do throughout its movement along the highway. Since searchlights are not a priori intended to cross clouds, it must be assumed that the ground search mission with a searchlight is carried out primarily through gaps in the clouds, which is not incompatible with the presence of a cloud obstacle between the witnesses and the helicopter, because the low cloud cover was not continuous (3/8 octas). The absence of perceived noise and of a visible beam are not decisive arguments. Depending on meteorological conditions (wind force and direction, air purity), the noise may very well not be perceived on the one hand, and a light beam may not form if the air is pure, on the other hand. The relatively uniform cloud layer (3/8 and 6/8 octas at two levels) was located (barring weather error) at altitudes (1200 and 1500 m) placing the helicopter at a distance from the ground too great for the range of searchlights such as those fitted to civil and military helicopters at the time. Moreover, the rather small portion of the illuminated pylon shows that the object illuminating it, if located at cloud height, would have had to produce a very focused beam, somewhat like a laser, which was also not within the capabilities carried on board at the time. The description, particularly by T1, of the landscape illumination by the phenomenon, reminiscent of that produced by "black light," does not correspond to the hypothesis. A light used, for example, in the context of searches, must on the contrary be bright, powerful, and properly illuminate the entire surrounding landscape. Finally, why would a helicopter fly above the clouds for a surveillance function with a searchlight (through cloud gaps)? The hypothesis of returning from a mission with the searchlight left on also conflicts with the fact that T1 had time to see the details of the pylon and perceived an immobility of the glows. The probability of such a hypothesis is too low to be retained. Moreover, the consistency appears sufficient to support an unexplained character as it stands. In current GEIPAN methodology, the present level of strangeness and consistency require conducting a "field investigation" with the witness for a reconstruction and a cognitive interview. This is likely to impact both positively and negatively the assessment of strangeness and consistency. But it is not possible for a case under review so long after the fact. Therefore, the assessment of the present case is made according to the current criteria for taking into account strangeness and consistency* as if the field investigation had been done and had been totally neutral (no contribution either way), which is sometimes the case. However, in order to mark this methodological gap, the classification is made on the ABCD basis and not on the current ABC D1/D2, which corresponds, for the unexplained classification, to a stronger validation of the unexplained character. Here the case is at the boundary between an unexplained case and an unexploitable case due to lack of consistency in the state of the file, for lack of a GEIPAN investigation conducted on site. Consequently, the case is classified D: unexplained. *(see The classification methodology at GEIPAN).