An account in Vienne, France

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 of classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case formerly named LUSIGNAN (86) 1993 is one of the cases classified as "D" by SEPRA and recently re-examined. On 28 February 1993 at around 5:30 or 5:45 a.m., a female motorist driving on the D150 between SAINT-SAUVANT (86) and LUSIGNAN (86) observed on her left a very powerful flash of white light and noticed an object shaped like a dome with three luminous circles. The observation lasted 3 to 4 seconds, the time for the witness to continue on her way. The following evening, the witness went to the gendarmerie to report the facts. Little information was collected on this UAP. The elevation above the ground of the UAP described by the witness is at most 2 m, estimated by him/her from a distance of 300 m, a distance validated by cartography given the position of the woods relative to the road (see the investigation notes). This is a significant distance for assessing a height above the ground; moreover, the witness insists on the intensity of the UAP's lights. It is possible and even probable that whether these lights were attached to the ground (or not) could not be distinguished by the witness. Thus, an important element of perceived and described strangeness by the witness (UAP off the ground) cannot be validated. Furthermore, the location of the UAP made by the gendarmerie places it at the level of a passable dirt road. In the end, this description indicates with good probability the presence of one or more vehicles with elevated lighting (agricultural, hunter's 4x4, etc.), even at that early morning hour. It is not the witness's visual perception that is in question. It is noted that the witness made the observation under poor conditions, while driving and partly via the rearview mirror, and did not stop to observe the UAP's characteristics more precisely, particularly its evolution. These are elements that give the testimony weak consistency, nevertheless still sufficient to validate the above hypothesis. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: Ground lights.