Boom in Haute-Vienne, 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 BESSINES SUR GARTEMPE (87) 1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On October 5, 1993, at around 6:20 PM, several people in a garden near a woods observe the appearance of colored lights in a clearing. After a few moments, the witnesses hear something like the sound of thunder and see a flash of lightning. The luminous phenomenon in the clearing disappears. The re-examination of this case allows the following elements to be established: - The witnesses' descriptions use terms usually associated with thunderstorm events: flashes, thunder, detonation. - The distinctions made from a thunderstorm explanation are not very convincing. "It wasn't a thunderstorm because... there wouldn't have been just one detonation," "the flashes went in one direction and the detonation or sound in the other." - The element that must have seemed the strangest, the glows in the woods, was not verified by the witnesses as actually coming from the woods, because the witnesses gave up on going to check. So it could very well have been a succession of thunderstorm flashes seen through the woods. Indeed, the observation location (near the vegetable garden) is on the southern flank of a dome (Puy de Sarran), the glows are perceived at the level of "the northernmost clearing" which is near the summit of Puy de Sarran, the wooded areas are mostly on the flanks of this dome (the downward elevation difference is 10 over 70 m), so that flashes coming from the northern or northwestern horizon of the dome (no trees on the eastern side of the dome) can be perceived through the trees without crossing much tree thickness (dome shape of the wooded cover) to appear at the surface of the clearing (this one is seen by a witness and therefore without obstruction from trees). The fact that the lights were seen at 4 meters above the ground at the level of the clearing further reduces the thickness of trees crossed upstream of the clearing by the light path of the flashes. - The Limoges weather service, questioned by mail by the brigade about the situation at 6 PM and without contextual elements, indicates nothing abnormal at 6 PM without widening the time range. On the other hand, the response from the Sauvagnac radio station reports heavy rain, distant thunderstorms, and flashes in several directions, starting from 8 PM and without ruling on the 6:30 PM to 7:00 PM range. This information is highly compatible with the occurrence of thunderstorm alerts (a few flashes and a single clap of thunder) 30 minutes or an hour earlier, 12 km further north. - The witnesses are friends, a priori in a rather cheerful or lively situation (each having nonetheless drunk 3 beers and a pastis in the afternoon before the observation (see report), one can think that this may have facilitated communication or even the amplification of the feeling of strangeness. - One might be surprised that the gendarmes did not perceive the thunderstorm situation from their premises located 2 km from the observation location. The flashes may have been masked by the relief of the dome since the hypothesis is that of distant flashes beyond the dome, and in any case flashes are not always perceived inside buildings. On the other hand, the sound of detonation ("like an explosion or a clap of thunder") was indeed heard from the home of T4, but this one is located closer to the garden (1 km) and north of the dome, therefore closer to the supposed origin of the thunder and without any potential sound screen induced by the dome. It is not possible to affirm that the origin of the UAPs is the thunderstorm, but the set of elements gives this hypothesis a probability greater than 50%. Furthermore, the consistency of the testimonies is weakened by the total absence of angular measurements of the origins of the glows and the durations of the glows. The set of testimonies is at the limit of being unusable. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: thunderstorm.