Rumbling in Morbihan, 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 in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named LA TRINITE PORHOUET (56) 1985, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On the night of 25 to 26 May 1985 between 23:00 and 01:30, four witnesses observed various luminous phenomena. First (phase 1) the witnesses in a vehicle were intrigued by numerous luminous flashes of different colours in the sky from different points along their route. Then, back at the family property (phase 2), the witnesses, scanning the starry sky, noticed two luminous points moving at equal distance from each other at variable speed. These points then disappeared, hidden by the landscape. It was then (phase 3) that, in a gap in the trees, they saw a red rectangular luminous object on the top of a hill. Frightened, the witnesses went back inside the home and conferred among themselves without understanding what they had seen. They finally heard a dull sound (phase 4) and noticed a total silence in the countryside that worried them. Going back outside a few minutes later, they saw nothing more. The witnesses went to the Gendarmerie the next day. No other group of witnesses concerning these nocturnal phenomena was found among the surrounding population. There is an observation sequence in 4 phases, each having led to descriptions of different UAPs (see the investigation report). The starting point (phase 1) probably originated from storm lightning (recorded by the weather service to the West that evening), which the witnesses were unable to identify with certainty (although the hypothesis was raised) for multiple reasons: the witnesses were unfamiliar with the area, the lightning was very distant while the local sky was clear and not stormy, and the distance meant thunder could not be heard. The following three phases are the subject of fleeting, imprecise or contradictory descriptions that do not allow an explanation of sufficient probability to be retained. Nevertheless, none of these observations seems strange, because for each of them there is at least one explanation that the limited information available can neither confirm nor refute: - the description of the UAPs in phase 2 is reminiscent of the lights of a simple aircraft which, under certain observation conditions and depending on the type of lights present and lit, can take on a somewhat particular appearance; - the description of the UAP in phase 3 could correspond to a break in the clouds revealing a harvest moon; - the description of the sound in phase 4 (no visual observation, as the witnesses were inside) could correspond to a rumble of thunder. The whole observation may have seemed strange at the time because of its apparently complex character, compounded by strangeness as at least perceived by the witnesses. The experience accumulated since then at GEIPAN leads to the idea of a priming phenomenon. The witnesses may have been placed by their first observation in a climate of strangeness (here probably amplified collectively since none of the witnesses seems able to bring moderation by developing the initial hypothesis of storm lightning), leading them subsequently to scan the sky and to associate with this initial strangeness other phenomena that might have gone unnoticed without the initial strangeness. The fact is that the gendarmes made inquiries among the villagers and the farming community to cross-check these testimonies and found nothing, whereas this Saturday evening corresponded to the fair at the town of Josselin (56) and was therefore conducive (and not only for the witnesses) to many late-night outings, including on the roads taken by the witnesses. The consistency of the observation is poor. The data collected are too imprecise, even contradictory, when not totally absent. For example, the essential elements are missing: angular measurements, certain initial and final observation directions, observation durations, etc. But the available elements make it possible to establish: - that the first observation was probably caused by lightning from a storm. - and that the other observations are not very strange, would probably not have existed without the persistent strangeness created by the first observation, and cannot be explained due to the lack of reliable information. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes B (storm lightning) for the UAP of phase 1 and C for the rest of the observations.