An account in Indre-et-Loire, France

In GEIPAN publications (www.geipan.fr), there 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 investigation experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named SAINT-GERMAIN-SUR-VIENNE (37) 16.05.1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. This case is also known as CORMERY (37) 1993. On May 16, 1993, between midnight and one in the morning, three people in a vehicle are intrigued by the sight of a phenomenon seen several times during their trip. Only one witness reports their observation: the UAP is described as a bluish shape without consistency, most of the time in front of the vehicle at headlight height at a distance impossible to define. The UAP seems to move from right to left in a continual back-and-forth motion always at the same height. The intrigued witnesses do not stop and make a discontinuous observation over 4 km. Only one testimony will be collected. The witnesses very probably observed a nightclub laser on a Saturday to Sunday night (see the investigation report). The aspect described is typical of other observations now well known to GEIPAN (which was not the case at the time): elongated shape, lit from below by a bluish light, back-and-forth movements from left to right, object without consistency and of low thickness. Although the witness notes that the sky is clear at the observation location, the presence of clouds capable of reflecting a laser is confirmed toward the northern horizon, since a disturbance centered over Great Britain brought lightning described by the witness. In 1993, nightclub lasers were certainly few in number but they already existed. It happens that a GEIPAN case in the same sector named (ILE BOUCHARD (37) 11.12.1993) proved that a nightclub device called "Sky Rose" had been the cause of observations presenting the same typical aspects as this one. Other GEIPAN observation cases have shown that the generating device could be located several tens of kilometers from the witnesses and that for the same device the effects in terms of aspect and distance of appearance were variable (atmospheric factors), which of course increases the potential for misidentification. So even if it was not possible 25 years later to find the generating device (nor of course to prove its absence), the conformity of aspect with what the devices used at the time could generate allows the hypothesis to be retained as very probable. The case is classified A: very probable observation of a nightclub laser.