Red lights in Gers, France

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 MAUVEZIN (32) 1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On July 15, 1993 at around 11 p.m., then on the 16th at around 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., three young campers, seasonal workers in Mauvezin (32), observed on 3 occasions colored luminous phenomena moving in the sky. The witnesses perceived a dull sound during certain observations. One of the witnesses tried to take photos which turned out to be unusable. The hypothesis of confusion with aircraft is the most plausible for this series of observations, which has characteristics identical to those of airplanes approaching or taking off from Toulouse Blagnac airport. We will note in particular: - the presence of powerful white/yellow lights, comparable to landing lights, switched on in approach or takeoff conditions. - the presence of a red light described as central, comparable to one of the anti-collision lights located under the fuselage; although the flashing is not mentioned in the testimonies. - the shape described by the witnesses can be entirely comparable to that delimited by the landing lights of an airplane, either as an equilateral triangle when the UAP is observed from below, or in another geometric form depending on the observation angle. - the movement of the UAPs, identical to air corridor R17 at heading 304° and connecting Toulouse-Blagnac to point AGN114.8 Ch95X. Even if this route was not the same in 1993 as it is today, the relative proximity of Toulouse-Blagnac airport does not prevent the overflight of the area where the witnesses were, or the presence nearby of airliners on approach or shortly after takeoff. - the mention of the existence of a sound coming from the UAP in two of the three phases, a sound whose intensity and nature can vary considerably depending on the environment (weather and in particular wind, terrain) and the distance of this UAP from the witness. The fact that the witnesses were student seasonal workers domiciled far from the observation site and unfamiliar with proximity to an air corridor, in any case this one, may explain the mistake with airplanes and the absence of other testimonies. The consistency is average. Although all the witnesses were heard by the Gendarmerie and the report drawn up as a result is fairly complete, important data are missing such as azimuth readings and elevation angles of the UAPs. An on-site investigation would have made it possible to clarify many points and possibly to strengthen the hypothesis, if the flights suspected of being the cause of the confusion had been found at the time. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observations of airliners.