An account in Maine-et-Loire, 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) that are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose of being more relevant in their conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named PELLOUAILLES-LES-VIGNES (49) 24.04.1995, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. This case concerns the observation on April 24, 1995 at around 9:30 PM of an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) by three witnesses in a hamlet of the municipality of SAINT-SYLVAIN-D'ANJOU (49). The witnesses are outside when they notice in an uncultivated field the presence of a UAP. They describe a large mass of oval shape, gray "concrete" in color, stationary in a field at between 10 and 15 meters high. No noise is heard, notably when the UAP moves and disappears at very high speed in a NE direction. A red luminous point is seen during the short-duration observation. The witnesses immediately go to the field at the presumed location of the UAP but notice nothing unusual. The Gendarmerie, contacted, proceeds to interview the witnesses, and the press publishes an article the day after the observation (article not attached to the official report). The diffuse appearance of the UAP in a first phase, then sharper, compact and colored at the end of the observation, as well as the behavior consisting of a phase of immobility followed by a phase of rapid movement, support the hypothesis of confusion with the impact on the low cloud layer of a mobile disco spotlight (see the investigation report). This impact would have been observed by the witnesses first far from its original source, then, the spotlight being aimed more vertically at the end of the observation, farther from the witnesses but closer to that source. This explains, when the beam approaches the vertical, the reduction in size, the less flattened shape, the stronger luminosity, the sharper color (that of the source). These "laser"-type projectors (also commonly called by the Anglicism "skytracker") were widely used for advertising purposes, often by nightclubs in the 80s and 90s. GEIPAN has recorded numerous observations resulting from misidentifications caused by these installations. (see www.geipan.fr and case search with keyword "laser"). Moreover, in the official report, the gendarmes report that a press article published the day after the observation suggested that a "laser lighting test" may have been carried out by a nightclub at the same time as the observation. This could not be confirmed, because the press article was not provided by the gendarmes and the nightclub owner never presented himself to the gendarmes, despite several summonses. The three witnesses mentioned a red luminous point, smaller than the main shape and accompanying it. In 1995, red lasers already existed, although with more limited power, and therefore range, than today. The skytrackers of the 90s are not lasers, but conventional light projectors. Laser technology allows thinner and brighter beams. This could explain the (point-like) impact spot of a laser tested that day and coupled with the conventional projector. But nothing supports such an explanation. There is here an element of residual strangeness because this has never been observed in GEIPAN's laser testimonies. The consistency of the case is poor. Important data are missing, such as azimuth and elevation angle measurements of the UAP, as well as angular size. The witnesses did not provide a sketch of the UAP, although requested by the gendarmes during the interviews, which somewhat impairs the assessment of the reliability of the testimonies. An on-site investigation at the time would have clarified many points, besides those mentioned above, and possibly supported or eliminated the hypothesis of the nightclub test, if the manager of the nightclub suspected of being the source of the confusion could have been interviewed or visited at the time. We have a plausible hypothesis due to the general appearance and a potential explanation as to the originating nightclub. Nevertheless, the red point noted by the witnesses constitutes a singular point for this hypothesis and confers a certain level of residual strangeness. In light of this, the consistency is poor and too weak to validate a hypothesis with such resulting strangeness, and even weaker to give an unexplained character if the hypothesis were not to be retained at all. It is not possible to conclude. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.