Green light in Hauts-de-Seine, 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 their 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 PARIS (75) 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On September 7, 1997 at 1:43 AM, a witness observes from his balcony a triangular shape of large dimensions with two blue lights and one green light moving slowly on a straight trajectory. The observation lasts 12 seconds. No noise was perceived, but the witness felt vibrations in his body, and when he wanted to take a photo, his camera jammed. Only one testimony was collected. The testimony reports numerous strangenesses which, taken as they are, could have led the GEIPAN of the time (SEPRA) to classify the case as unexplained. This new examination does not allow confirming this classification. Indeed, the testimony does not have sufficient consistency, especially in terms of reliability, to validate its strange character and therefore becomes unusable. The elements of strangeness (unexplainable) are strong and numerous but present themselves with strong differences and inconsistencies depending on their medium: the official statement taken by the gendarmerie the day after the observation, and the witness's publication made 3 months later and handed over by him to the gendarmerie. The witness is editor-in-chief of a magazine called "Etrangeté et mystères" (Strangeness and Mysteries) and publishes his observation in his own magazine. It can be noted that he therefore has an interest, for his magazine, in having testimonies that bring mystery. But we first place ourselves at the level of the inconsistencies between the two versions of the observation: - Triggering of the observation. In one case (official statement), the triggering is visual: the witness first sees the triangle, looks at it through binoculars, then with the camera, then feels vibrations in his body and on the bay windows. In the other (publication), the strangeness starts with vibrations, not of the bay windows, but of numerous plants on the balcony, with details about the synchronism with the vibrations in his body, then he sees the triangle in the sky. It is surprising that the witness does not know exactly what started the strangeness, just as it is surprising that what is a priori the strangest (the vibrations around him in the absence of noise) concerns such different elements (windows, plants). It should be noted that the temporal inconsistency is already present between the two interviews with the gendarmes (at the gendarmerie and at home). - Duration: 12 seconds in one case and more than 17 seconds in the other, where it is stated that it was measured with a stopwatch. Why is the stopwatch mentioned 3 months later to produce different information? - Angular size: the UAP is covered by 3 fingers in one case, 4 in the other. - Camera: in one case, the witness reports the impossibility of the camera to capture the image and only says (without attributing any strangeness) that he took no shots. But 3 months later, it is a real strangeness: the camera refuses to take the photo when he presses the shutter button, even after switching to manual focus. These are enough elements to call into question the reliability of a single human testimony with no trace of photos or anything else, whereas such a level of reported strangeness requires (GEIPAN methodology) a very good level of reliability to be able to characterize the observation as unexplained. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: unusable testimony. The fact that the witness produces his testimony in his own magazine about mystery and the strange, that he states there his conviction about the reality of the strange and about the conspiracy aimed at hiding this reality, also constitutes an additional element for calling reliability into question (although the inconsistencies noted are already sufficient to conclude on reliability). Indeed, the witness's testimony serves his activity in his magazine and the positions and convictions carried by him or the magazine.