A triangle shape in Ardennes, 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 MESSINCOURT (08) 10.03.1994, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On 10 March 1994 at around 8:55 PM, two witnesses observed colored lights that outlined a shape (circular and flat for W1, and triangular for W2) in the sky. The unusual trajectory intrigued the witnesses, as did the arrival of another UAP. No particular noise was heard during the short, discontinuous observation by the two witnesses. No other testimony was collected. Only one hypothesis deserves to be taken into account: that of a helicopter passing by. - In the testimonies, there are two very strong elements in favor of the hypothesis, and consistent between witnesses: the trajectory and especially the triangle of 3 navigation lights, white, red, and green. - The absence of radar detection can be explained by a low altitude (< 200 or 300 m) not confirmed but compatible with the other observed elements. - Likewise, the absence of noise perception (perceived by W2, W1 does not comment) may be surprising but is encountered by GEIPAN in a few similar cases. It is also known that attention focused on a very "striking" visual observation can mask the accompanying sound perception. - The other elements against it cannot invalidate the hypothesis because they are of questionable reliability due to lack of confirmation or even lack of consistency between witnesses, and even assuming they are reliable, they can find an explanation that does not reduce the probability of the hypothesis below 50%. These are the second UAP joining the first, seen only by W1, white lights gravitating (according to W2) or slowly turning (according to W1), inside the navigation triangle (according to W1) or outside (according to W2). - The testimonies would have justified an on-site investigation to clarify the information and understand the discrepancies. Nevertheless, the consistency is sufficient to conclude because the observation is fairly long and detailed, consistent on the determining points (both positive and negative). Details seen by W1 are not seen by W2 (which is not a contradiction), and the real contradictions (shape and positions of the white lights) are ultimately not determining. Consequently, GEIPAN considers the helicopter hypothesis to have a probability greater than 50%: classification B: helicopter.