An account in Gard, 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 also known as BAGNOLS SUR CEZE 1997, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On Tuesday, September 9, 1997 at 9:30 PM, the witness, located on Chemin des Malins in SAINT-GERVAIS (30), spotted a luminous ball rising from the Fontesquière hill, pausing, varying in luminous intensity before disappearing. On Thursday, September 11 at 9:30 PM, the same witness, located on Chemin des Abels in SAINT-GERVAIS (30), observed above the Rocher de la Cazelle a ball that rose, paused, took a horizontal trajectory toward the West, and disappeared. Half an hour later, at 10 PM, the witness (who does not specify his position) again observed a ball in the Cristolle hills. This ball rose from the ground and disappeared. The witness describes for each observation an orange luminous ball with an apparent diameter of 8 to 10 centimeters. No other testimony was collected. No ground trace was found. The atmospheric conditions given by the gendarmerie are very good (very clear and starry night with no wind). The gendarmerie investigation indicates that the night of September 9 was lit by the fireworks of the town of BAGNOLS-SUR-CEZE closing a votive festival. The witness makes no distinction in the appearance of the UAP between his three observations (September 9 at 10 PM, September 11 at 9:30 PM and 10 PM). Four hypotheses are considered: escaped child's balloon, escaped captive balloon, Thai lantern, aircraft (see the investigation report). It is the backscattering of urban ground lights that would explain the luminous character of these balloons. The festive character of these balloons, especially in the case of a captive balloon several meters in diameter, is only compatible with the observation of September 9 (closing evening of the votive festival). This balloon hypothesis cannot fit for September 11, especially since the areas overflown are less conducive to backlighting from the ground. The hypotheses to consider are therefore: - aircraft or lantern on September 11. - aircraft or lantern or child's balloon or captive balloon on September 9. Considering that the witness would have mentioned a distinction in appearance if they had perceived one during the different observations, it is estimated that the probability that they noted no difference in appearance between these 4 hypotheses of such different natures (especially if the balloon type is only possible the first time) is zero. Therefore, it is a matter of looking for a hypothesis common to the observations, between lantern and aircraft. Note that if one were to limit oneself to the observation of September 9, the child's balloon hypothesis would also be eliminated. The backscattering of ground lights does not explain the perception of a ball for a child's balloon seen from so far away on September 9. This difficulty of explanation is lesser for an escaped captive balloon because it is bigger, but its probability of presence is lesser for the festival day and much lesser still outside the festival. The aircraft hypothesis could only correspond to a light or military plane, or a helicopter, to be so low and so close, but the single (and orange) light is not at all compatible (incompatibility with the UAP trajectory, absence of anticollision lights) for a single one of the observations, and even less for all three. The release of Thai lanterns seems, in terms of appearance and trajectory, compatible with the first two observations (September 9 and 11) and with the little known about the last one on September 11. The reluctance about this hypothesis mainly concerns the fact that Thai lanterns were rare in France in 1997 and only became popular from 2005 or 2007. But tourists who bought them on a summer trip to Asia could have wanted to make a sensation with them at the first festival occurring upon returning from vacation. The pioneering and sensational aspect of this festive practice on September 9 could then have encouraged repeating it as soon as the next favorable evening (September 11) for the pleasure of the initiator and a few spectators already impressed or enticed by the discovery on September 9. - In terms of consistency, the witness is unique but gives a fairly precise description of the locations and trajectories, except for the third observation. Regarding 3 successive observations, it is regrettable that the gendarmerie did not have each of the 3 observations explicitly described in a way that would encourage the expression of any differences in perception. The lantern hypothesis can match the descriptions, but its probability is tainted by its still rare use in 1997. The repetition two days later and outside a festival evening leads to supplementary hypotheses, certainly conceivable (the temptation to repeat such a novel experience as soon as possible), but further reducing probability. In the end, the consistency proves too marginal to support such a hypothesis even though it remains conceivable. These two factors also oppose maintaining it in the unexplained UAP category. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies it as C and concludes: lack of reliable information.