Red lights 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) 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 CHOLET (49) 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On July 21, 1997 between 10:45 PM and 11:15 PM, two witnesses observe for 3 or 4 minutes, the passage from SW to NE above their house, of a dark craft with colored lights on either side and emitting a dull sound. We have been able to show through the analysis that the witnesses probably observed, under difficult conditions (at dusk and/or at night), a small touring plane, preparing to land, landing lights on, after a night VFR/IMC flight, possibly at Ancenis airport (see the investigation report). The sound perceived, similar to that of a "small plane" according to T1, as well as the total observation duration, fits perfectly with the hypothesis. The precise shape of the plane is difficult to discern, against an already very dark sky background (see the astronomical situation). The witnesses describe a circular object, elongated in its length and devoid of wings, but this is most certainly a classic perceptual illusion, the brain unconsciously trying to reconstruct a "solid" shape from the UAP only visible through its lights. The arrangement of the lights, as the witnesses describe it, is also entirely consistent with the observation of an aircraft coming from the front, the observation beginning while it is low enough on the horizon for perspective to "flatten" the triangular shape defined by these three landing lights (one at the front and the other two further back) so that they appear aligned horizontally or nearly so. The testimonies diverge, however, on the color of the lights, described as white by T2 and red by T1. But T1 only observes in the final phase, which only allows seeing the landing lights edge-on to the beams and at a much lower intensity that can often be perceived as reddish while still retaining a white dominance. Another divergence is the fact that at the moment T1 sees these red lights, T2 no longer sees any lights. An explanation, besides a memory failure on the part of one of the two witnesses, could be that the difference in visual acuity does not allow T2 to distinguish (at least to the point of retaining it) what T1 still sees. More difficult to explain is the absence of visibility of the anti-collision lights in this final phase when the plane passes above (or nearly) the witnesses. As much at the beginning of the observation, these can be "drowned" under the strong brightness of the landing lights, as much when the observation angle increases as the plane advances toward the witnesses, the anti-collision lights should be visible, no longer being obscured by the landing lights which are themselves less visible due to the observation angle. Is this a deliberate (and dangerous) maneuver by the pilot who would have turned them off in meteorological conditions not suited to it? The attested presence of a few clouds at 1500 m altitude could however explain this extinction, probably temporary, of the anti-collision lights, in the context of an IMC flight of this plane. This is however to be qualified, as it seems astonishing that the witnesses never at any point mentioned observing the plane cross a cloud, while the moon was full and capable of illuminating them, which would then have been visible by contrast against the dark sky background. This last point nevertheless does not seem sufficient to prevent retaining the hypothesis, given that it is not without a possible explanation and given the importance of the other points in favor of the hypothesis. The consistency is average. We have two testimonies, one of which is particularly detailed, but useful data for the analysis is missing, such as angular measurements (dimensions of the UAP, heights above the horizon during the different phases, etc.). Above all, there are contradictions between witnesses that the gendarmerie investigation did not try to qualify and quantify. The consistency is barely up to what is necessary to validate the aircraft hypothesis with its content of residual strangeness (the aircraft hypothesis must be associated with particular aeronautical, atmospheric, or visibility circumstances). The case is classified B, on the edge of being unexploitable due to lack of consistency (level and reliability of the information).