Red lights in Rh�ne, 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, with the sole aim 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 LYON (69) 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 27 August 1997, around 9:45 PM, three witnesses returning from work observed the movement of a triangular object (or rather round according to the testimonies) moving silently, at low altitude and in complete silence. The craft was equipped with two large headlights. When it arrived above the witnesses, one of the headlights was aimed at the witnesses for a few moments. Two silhouettes inside a glazed cabin were seen by one of the witnesses. The gendarmerie received a letter from T1 co-signed by T2 and T3, and interviewed the 3 witnesses. It emerges from the official report that: - T1: the UAP was above the take-off and landing zone for helicopters of the hospital. The strangeness for T1 consists of the momentary aiming of the spotlight or headlight toward her on the ground, the absence of noise, and the non-observation of the rotor and the exhaust system. - T2 repeats the first two elements of strangeness of T1 but saw green and red lights characteristic of aviation navigation lights. - T3 specifies no particular strangeness ("I did not pay much attention to this phenomenon and I returned to my vehicle"). This takes place at a location where helicopters are present and land. Everything described is compatible with a helicopter flight. The witnesses are nevertheless a priori familiar with helicopters because they work at the hospital. The absence of noise led GEIPAN at the time not to retain this hypothesis. But since then we have had many other cases where witnesses do not perceive the noise of a helicopter at 100 or 200 metres, so much is their perceptual attention monopolised by the visual or by emotion. We also know of course that noise depends on wind conditions. See on www.geipan.fr the cases MESSINCOURT (08) 10.03.1994 or [D417] of MUNSTER (68) towards COLMAR (68) 13.11.2015. What triggered the strangeness for the witnesses, especially for T1 who may have influenced T2 (T3 seems unconcerned) by shouting "UFO", is the aiming of the spotlight toward them. Helicopters however quite often point spotlights at the ground. The other reported elements of strangeness such as the non-observation of rotors or exhaust system are not to be considered given the night-time observation conditions. On the other hand, the green and red lights and the low speed of movement consolidate the helicopter hypothesis. The set of testimonies is not very consistent. It seems that T1 may have influenced T2 and T3, who do not convey the same perception of strangeness. It is imprecise and gives rise to inconsistencies (on the lights for example). The helicopter hypothesis leaves little doubt, mainly because of the location, the green and red lights, the references to this hypothesis by the witnesses, and the explanation of the phenomena triggering strangeness (the aimed spotlight and the absence of noise). Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: helicopter.