A triangle shape in Paris, France

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 PARIS (75) 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On Sunday, August 24, 1997, at 8:01 PM, a witness observes and photographs two UAPs above PARIS (75). He contacts a scientific journal, which advises him to inform the DGAC. The latter gets in touch with the headquarters of the Air Transport Gendarmerie, which instructs the BGTA of Paris to conduct an investigation. On September 4, 1997, Gendarmerie investigators go to the witness's home to interview him and view the nine slides he had made at a private laboratory. Eight of these nine slides are then successively entrusted to the Central Photographic Laboratory of the Gendarmerie, then to the Gendarmerie's Criminal Research Institute. An additional interview of the witness is conducted by the gendarmes on October 11, 1997, to gather further information. The witness also makes a sketch of the UAP at that time, which is handed over to the gendarmes. Finally, a study is conducted by SEPRA in May 1998, followed by an exchange of letters and faxes between the witness, SEPRA, and the company Fleximage; the latter receiving a detailed account of the observation from the witness in June 1998. The case was then classified D by SEPRA, due to the difficulty at the time of untangling and clarifying the various elements of strangeness between: 1) What was seen by the witness 2) What is on the slides presented to the gendarmes 3) What appears on a new paper print once the slides are cleaned of development product residues 4) What the witness says about the UAP after learning what is on the paper print. It is now established that: Point 2): the UAP seen by the witness is not on the slides presented to the gendarmes. The latter are alerted by a spot on the photos (boomerang shape) which turns out to be a residue of development product. Point 3): a paper print from one of the cleaned slides fortuitously contains an artifact (since nothing equivalent exists on the slide) in the shape of a hollow pentahedron. Point 4): the paper print is shown to the witness without revealing the artifact nature of the object. The witness, asked to comment on this object, does not make the connection with the observed UAP. However, afterwards, the witness gives new accounts of his testimony in which the UAP, initially described (and drawn) as similar to "a greasy paper carried by the wind" with "jagged edges," becomes "Its remarkable shape standing out against the blue background of the sky was extraordinary: five sides, a pentahedron." It is therefore known that the UAP observed by the witness is not on the slides, and also that the witness is subsequently influenced, consciously or unconsciously (false memory phenomenon), by what he saw on the paper print. Point 1): the absence on the slide does not allow the witness's initial description to be called into doubt. But no information is available (or usable without ambiguity) concerning the angular dimensions, the angular height above the horizon of the UAP. For example, "at 5000m altitude" means nothing since a witness cannot estimate the distance of an unknown object. The investigators, during their visit to the witness's home, focused on viewing the slides without conducting further investigations (photographs of the shooting locations, angular measurements from the observation window). Nevertheless, the little information available is compatible with the observation of a light object (debris, paper, balloon) carried by the wind, because the wind (meteorological data) blows in the direction of the observed movement of the UAP. In conclusion, we have a series of usable photographs, but their careful analysis does not reveal the presence of any UAP, and we do not have sufficient information to identify the UAP described by the witness. However, what is described does not reflect great strangeness, as it is compatible with a light object carried by the wind. Consequently, GEIPAN reclassifies the case as "C": Testimony unusable due to lack of reliable information.