An account in Haute-Garonne, 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 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-GAUDENS (31) 14.08.1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On Saturday 14 August 1993 at around 10 p.m., several people in two different localities observed an unusual phenomenon in the direction of the Pyrenees. Three witnesses reported their observations to the Gendarmerie. The phenomenon described is a circular luminous point, red in color, and stationary to the right of Mont Valier (for T1 and T3) and in the direction of the Cagire (for T2). One of the witnesses (T3) took binoculars and noted inside the mass 5 red-orange luminous points. The observations lasted about 10 minutes, then the point disappeared in a few seconds. All of T2's oral statement is perfectly compatible with a phenomenon that would be solely on the ground. Indeed, it is perceived as "in the woods" at the start and then "sinking into the Pyrenees chain, in a horizontal movement." One must ask whether this is not also the case for the other testimonies, in which case the search for an explanation would go beyond GEIPAN's sole competencies. - T1 and T3, whose observation points are close together, place the UAP by their statements or drawings at the height of Mont Valier, slightly to the right. Only T3 mentions the sky for the end of his observation with the expression "the strange phenomenon disappeared horizontally in the sky." This does not mean the UAP was in mid-sky. Mont Valier is not an isolated summit and extends on its right with a ridgeline visible at a barely lower angular height, seen from the observation point (Saint-Gaudens). Above all, there are several reliefs in the foreground of Mont Valier also visible at the same angular height on the right. In particular, one notes the mountain bar at the level of the Sommet de Cournudère (1563 m). The drawings of T1 and T3 may concern one of the successive relief lines but certainly not the horizon line, which T1 and T3 may not even have distinguished. - T2 and T3 orally describe a horizontal disappearance ("disappeared sinking into the Pyrenees chain, in a horizontal movement"). However, the drawings of T1 and T2 taken alone without knowledge of the mention "horizontal" could suggest a rise in elevation into the sky. The oral mention "horizontal" can in no way apply to a UAP that would have been seen at an increasing angular elevation. It must therefore be understood that witnesses T2 and T3 intended in their drawings to represent a horizontal displacement that mainly involves a change in distance. This latter cannot be directly translated into a flat drawing, so the two witnesses represent it in perspective with a cone with increasingly reduced sizes of the UAP. They intended to represent a flight in distance and not a rise in elevation. This flight in distance may only be an illusion. Indeed, witnesses perceiving a decrease in the glow of a UAP, whose real distance they cannot assess, may interpret this as an actual decrease in the light emitted by a UAP that would be stationary, or as a flight in distance of a UAP whose light would be constant. GEIPAN experience shows that the context of strangeness experienced very often leads the witness to interpret it as a flight while the UAP is proven to be stationary. The testimony of T1 introduces a form of inconsistency more difficult to overcome. T1 orally describes no movement of the UAP, including during its disappearance. The "tilting forward" associated with the "appearance" of three beams of light can only be understood as a perception of a change in orientation of the UAP, since it was already perceived with an oriented shape ("flattened ovoid"). The main drawing is consistent with the account with a fixed point (no angular evolution). On the other hand, the secondary drawing mentions a "change of course" with an arrow pointing upward. In this context, one might think that T1 also intended to express in perspective a flight in distance, but the inconsistency prevents concluding. The search for an explanation therefore goes beyond GEIPAN's sole competencies, since the observation, once the unexploitable part of T1's testimony is set aside, is compatible with a phenomenon entirely located on the ground. The GEIPAN of the time should not have classified this case as D, because nothing indicates that it was an Aerospace Phenomenon. Despite everything, GEIPAN can provide some clues to search for a ground phenomenon, without being able to claim to delimit the field of research (see the investigation report). But this search runs into the fact that T2's observation direction, as indicated by the Pic de Cagire, does not intersect those of T1 and T3, indicated as being "to the right of Mont Valier," except in the hypothesis that T2 would have designated the Pic de Cagire as a landmark instead of Mont Valier. Nothing allows confirming or refuting such a confusion. The angular gap between the two summits is certainly small (20°) but, for a witness who would be familiar with the area, the two landmarks are rather distinct, even at night. A more thorough investigation at the time would have allowed identifying this gap, seeking details in the witnesses' indications, and lifting or on the contrary confirming this gap. At this stage, this gap adds a degree of strangeness because the correspondence of appearance, time, and duration would argue for a phenomenon of the same nature that would therefore have occurred in two different places. An absence of explanation at the end of a search that would also use all the competencies for researching ground phenomena (and not only aerospace phenomena) would in turn create a level of requirement on the consistency of the testimonies (level of information and assessment of its reliability) that there is little chance of satisfying 25 years after the facts, thus leading to unexploitable rather than unexplained. Consequently, the case is classified C: unexploitable because it goes beyond GEIPAN's sole competencies.