An account in Yvelines, 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, for the sole purpose 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 ECQUEVILLY (78) 15.11.1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. During the night of November 14 to 15, 1993, at around 4:30 a.m., a witness was awakened by the barking of his dogs. He got up and noted that indeed his dogs but also his horses were all looking in the same direction. The witness went to another room of the house and saw through the window ("about 300 meters to the West of his dwelling" according to the gendarmerie), static lights illuminating the ground. The witness heard no noise even with the window open. However, he noted that the lights were moving toward him. When they arrived above his home, the witness saw a luminous circle made up of white, yellow and slightly bluish lights, of different intensities. Flashes of black light were also seen. The duration of the observation was 20 to 25 seconds. The witness went outside his dwelling but the lights had disappeared. The witness went to the gendarmerie on November 24, 1993 to make his statement, then later handed over sketches of his observation. No trace was found, no other testimony was collected during the gendarmerie investigation. GEIPAN recontacted the witness in July 2018. We have shown throughout the analysis (see the investigation report) that the UAP observed by the witness was ultimately of a probably relatively modest size (about 5° at closest approach). This modest size contrasts with the sketches made by the witness, which suggested that the UAP could have been of a larger size. However, this angular size remains too large to fit well with the only somewhat credible hypothesis, that of confusion with a helicopter. Indeed, this hypothesis would imply that this helicopter was close to the witness (about 55m for an EC145-type helicopter of the time), and would therefore have been heard, in a context of nighttime silence, with the window open, whereas the witness heard no noise. Other testimonial parameters also prevent validating this hypothesis, such as the large number of lights observed, the absence of navigation and anti-collision lights, the illumination of the ground by a "black light". The consistency is good, with a sufficiently detailed testimony and an on-site investigation carried out shortly after by the gendarmes. Although the witness did not have the reflex to take photos and videos and no angular measurements were taken during the investigation by the gendarmes, we were nevertheless able, thanks in particular to the photographs taken on site by the gendarmes, the sketch and the witness's testimony, to reconstruct well the trajectory of the UAP and to visualize its appearance. In the current GEIPAN methodology, the present level of strangeness and consistency require conducting a "field investigation" with the witness for a reconstruction and a cognitive interview. This is likely to impact both positively and negatively the assessment of strangeness and consistency. But it is not possible for a case being revisited so long after. Therefore, the assessment of the present case is made according to the current criteria for taking into account strangeness and consistency (see in GEIPAN news of April 27, 2017, The classification methodology at GEIPAN) as if the field investigation had been done and had been totally neutral (no contribution either way), which is sometimes the case. However, in order to mark this methodological gap, the classification is done on the basis A B C D and not the current A B C D1/D2, which corresponds for the unexplained classification to a stronger validation of the unexplained character. Here the case is at the limit between an unexplained case and an unexploitable case due to lack of consistency in the state of the file, for lack of a GEIPAN investigation conducted on site. Consequently, the case is classified D: unexplained.