Moving in formation in Bouches-du-Rh�ne, 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 their conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation 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 CIOTAT (LA) (13) 21.04.1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 21 April 1982 at around 9 p.m., a motorist spotted above the LA CIOTAT golf course a formation of at least 6 luminous balls, white in colour, in a V shape. For 15 seconds he observed these balls, which seemed stationary. No noise was heard. This group disappeared instantly. No other testimony was collected on this phenomenon. Despite the investigation by the gendarmes, who at the time contacted the head of air surveillance at Salon de Provence, who stated that no aircraft from the Salon base was in flight at the time of the facts, all the elements converge toward the hypothesis of confusion with the Patrouille de France (and in particular their powerful nose light, the only element visible over a great distance) flying in formation toward the witness for a few moments (see the investigation report). Perhaps this official was not the right person to rule on whether or not the Patrouille de France was active (he did not directly answer this question) or he did not have authorisation to communicate the information, even to the military gendarmes. It is otherwise attested that the Patrouille de France was in La Ciotat the day after the witness made his observation. The Patrouille de France (PAF), contacted and informed of the present elements in favour of the hypothesis as well as against it (the opinion of air traffic control at the time of the observation), estimates at 60% the probability of the PAF being present at that place and date, but no longer has archives to attest to it. Besides the above elements of likelihood of place and date, there are very strong elements of resemblance for this "Patrouille de France" hypothesis, in particular: - "V" formation: there are at least three possible formations of the Patrouille de France taking the appearance of a more or less elaborate "V"; - number: presence of at least 6 balls. The Patrouille de France aircraft can number 8 or 9 maximum, but can also sometimes fly in smaller numbers; - colour: white lights. The landing lights (or headlights) are placed on the nose of the Alphajets, in service since 1981. The colour is white or whitish-yellow; - no noise heard: It is entirely possible that the aircraft were several tens of kilometres away, and that the absence of perceived noise is hardly surprising in that case; - trajectory: stationary UAPs. Observed moving toward the witness, they would indeed appear stationary over an observation duration as short as 15 seconds; - duration: observation of about 15 seconds and instant disappearance. The aircraft changed direction after that length of time. Being visible only by their nose light, which has only a narrow angle of visibility, they then became invisible to the naked eye, due to the great distance separating them from the witness. The elements of likelihood, consolidated by the strong elements of resemblance, lead us to retain this hypothesis as very probable. The consistency is rather weak but nevertheless sufficient with regard to the hypothesis retained. The angular measurement data are missing, such as the size of the UAPs, individually and as a whole, and the height above the horizon. We nevertheless have a drawing. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies this as A: very probable observation of a squadron of aircraft.