White light in Cher, 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 gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case, previously classified D and named NEUVY SUR BARANGEON (18) 1987, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation notes). On 18 August 1987 at around 22:15, a resident (T1) of NANCAY (18) and two residents (T2 and T3) of VOUZERON (18) observed from their homes a luminous phenomenon in the sky in a North-Northwest direction. T1 describes "two lights" moving together and without noise. T2 describes the UAP as a "bright white-colored glow" shaped like "a luminous cigar" and making a turn to head off in the direction of Vierzon. T3 describes the UAP as "a large bright white glow" and after observing the UAP carefully, thinks he sees "two slightly smaller bright white glows" as well as a "red flashing light" located beneath the UAP. T3 confirms the turn and the departure in the direction of Vierzon. Although the witnesses describe the same direction of appearance of the UAP, it is not certain that they observed the same thing, because the descriptions of the observed UAPs are different, especially between T1 on the one hand, and T2 and T3 on the other. The witnesses are convinced they saw a "UFO." Yet the observation presents many characteristics of a misidentification with an airliner: presence of multiple lights, strong luminosity, turn in the trajectory. The long delay between the observation and this re-examination of the case by GEIPAN prevents any formal identification of the possible aircraft responsible for the observation. Nevertheless, a reconstruction shows that flights departing from Paris heading for West Africa (for example: Dakar) regularly fly over the region where the observation took place. It should be noted that during these overflights, the aircraft reach their cruising altitude and begin a turn toward the South-Southwest in the Nançay region. This change of trajectory is very consistent with the turn made by the UAP described by the witnesses. Since aircraft usually fly over the area, elements creating strangeness compared to a usual aircraft were needed. These elements differ according to the witnesses, even between witnesses (T2 and T3) who are certain to have seen the same UAP. It seems that these are: - The strong white glow (T2 and T3), single for T2, double for T1, and also (but less distinguishable, without knowing whether it is in addition to a single stronger light or not) for T3. - The luminous cigar shape for T2, elongated shape for T3. Nothing of the sort for T1. - The absence of noise, whose strangeness would come from a limited distance perception since the shape of the UAP is distinguishable (for T2 and T3). This dominance of white glow may result from the aircraft's landing lights (or lights, if multiple UAPs). It could thus be aircraft with their landing lights on either after takeoff (most likely) or before landing. T1 may have seen the two landing lights of the same aircraft. Landing lights can be on below 4000 m or during flight level change phases. These aircraft may not be aircraft in cruise phases and may not be airliners. The presence of landing lights can explain the perception of a shape or luminous cigar through reflection on the fuselage (in the case of lights in the wings); it is also consistent with the red flashing lights observed by T3, also used on the ground and at low altitude by many aircraft. The non-perception of the fixed green and red navigation lights may result from the presence of the landing lights, whose glow overpowers the former. This can also explain the non-perception of the white strobe lights, but they may not have been present since these are not mandatory for all aircraft and flight phases. The absence of noise perception is usual in misidentifications with aircraft. It is noted here that the wind is transverse to the observation direction and does not favor noise. The observation elements would argue for an unusual flight (in this sector) at low or medium altitude of one or more aircraft. We have no means to validate such a hypothesis 30 years later, but it must be acknowledged that this is possible and could produce the same perception (including multiform) for the witnesses. These testimonies and collected data lack consistency. No aeronautical records were made at the time; we have no angular measurement records of the UAP's position in the sky or the UAP's angular size. Nothing was done to understand or validate the differences between testimonies, nor to detect possible influences between witnesses. (They spoke among themselves before giving statements.) It is not possible after re-examination to qualify this case as unexplained, since: - On the one hand, the aircraft hypothesis could explain it under unusual conditions (without being extreme, far from it) for the location (medium or low altitude, one or two very close aircraft). - On the other hand, the level of strangeness testified cannot be validated; the consistency of the case is too weak. Therefore, although the aircraft hypothesis is plausible, the weak consistency of the testimonies leads to classifying the case as C: lack of reliable information.