Blue light in Alpes-Maritimes, 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, with the sole aim 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 in classification. This observation case, previously classified C, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. **Facts** On August 18, 1991, a ufologist presents himself at the Gendarmerie to report an observation whose account he had heard the day before. This observation was made by a group of 5 children (aged 7 to 10) in Gilette on August 16, 1991 after 11 p.m. These children observed, in the night sky, a luminous blue ovoid mass (30 cm at arm's length) provided with holes from which less bright blue lights come out, varying in intensity and becoming orange. This mass is animated by a rapid pendular movement and remains stationary. After 10 seconds of observation, a blue flash appears followed by a series of flashes. This mass turns on and off every 5 seconds. Another testimony describes the object seen from another place and from another angle suggesting that it was overflying the valley. The children will be heard in the presence of their parents by the Gendarmerie but the testimonies will not be the subject of official hearing reports. **Analysis** The present testimony is of significant strangeness: - totally luminous object of blue color provided with "holes" in which bright blue lights turn orange. Object that turned on and off every 5 seconds; - size of 30 cm, measured at arm's length (i.e. 30 meters wide if placed at 70 meters distance!); - a pendular undulating movement, flashes not touching the ground, ... But, this is not a testimony, but a description by a third party of observation accounts that have not been the subject of any direct testimony to the gendarmerie or to GEIPAN. The Gendarmerie merely announces that the children who made the observation confirm their statements as reported. This is quite different from a deposition (and answer to questions) made by each of them and transcribed by a gendarme. Nowadays GEIPAN does not take into account indirect testimonies. An indirect testimony cannot be consistent because the information is often insufficient and above all lacks reliability. In this case, given the strangeness of the case, good consistency would have been needed for it to be usable (see the information on GEIPAN's classification methodology. ) Consequently GEIPAN classifies the case as C: unusable testimony.