Vanishing suddenly 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) that 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 gained 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 PLOERMEL (56) 1985, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On the night of July 22 to 23, 1985 at 11:15 PM, a witness observed from his home a particular luminous phenomenon. Until 3:30 AM, the witness and other people observed the phenomenon from different locations in the Ploërmel (56) area. The phenomenon is described as oval in shape, emitting a pale white light accompanied by a luminous source rotating around it. The witness describes a luminous phenomenon that seemed to sweep the sky from side to side. No noise was heard. The phenomenon disappeared suddenly. Only one testimony was collected. This observation, which at first glance seems out of the ordinary, appears to be the spatial and temporal concomitance of a particular unusual phenomenon, occurring in an equally unusual context. Two hypotheses were explored and are ultimately fairly similar, because they involve the observation of the impact of searchlight beams on a low cloud layer: - beams from a nightclub device (Skytracer). - beams from the event "le triomphe de Saint-Cyr" at the Coëtquidan military camp. Although some discrepancies exist, and in particular regarding the directions of the UAP for the observation phases that took place from the Gendarmerie barracks, one can find numerous concordances between these hypotheses and the physical and dynamic characteristics of the UAP as well as with the observation conditions: - overall observation direction toward the east (except from point D for the skytrackers hypothesis); - visibility as provided by Météo-France data compatible with the observation distances; - presence of a low cloud layer; - observation low on the horizon possible because horizons were clear from at least two observation points and compatible with the distances considered and the altitude of the clouds; - ovoid main shape of the UAP; - presence of luminous "beams"; - confirmed movement of the UAP, like a set of mobile projectors; - low luminosity; - white color; Other aspects of the phenomenon fit poorly or less well with one or the other, or even both hypotheses; we will note in particular: - the rectangular shape observed to the left of the main shape in phases 2, 3, and 5; - the position of the UAP in phase 4 too far north as deduced from the reproduction in "Bretagne-Magazine" of the observation location. Is this reproduction (outside GEIPAN's investigation scope) faithful? (If it had included houses in the landscape, the conclusion on the observation direction would have been without discrepancy.) Is it another phenomenon? - the use of projectors for the nightclub hypothesis unlikely; - the Monday evening date would imply that the nightclub was open outside the weekend, which would not be excluded in the summer period, and that, concerning the "triomphe" of Coëtquidan which takes place on the night from Saturday to Sunday following July 14, one would be dealing with a test or adjustment of the event or at least of the projectors. However, most of these points remain weak compared to the other numerous and concordant aspects making the hypotheses plausible, with a greater possibility for the hypothesis of the projectors of the "triomphe" at the Coëtquidan military camp. Indeed, their existence is confirmed and they could have been used a few days before (or after) the "triomphe" ceremony, to prepare (or replay anomalies encountered during) the event. Such a hypothesis cannot be verified 33 years later, but nothing allows it to be excluded or considered unlikely. Consequently, a classification of "B" is appropriate: confusion with a set of projectors whose beam impacts project onto the low cloud layer.