Anomaly2015-06-20
On June 20, 2015 at around 11 p.m., a female driver saw three orange-red glowing points moving silently from north to south. At the same time, a bright green light moved from east to west. …
both described green light
GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its website: www.cnes-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 in classification. This observation case, previously classified D, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. **Summary** In the night of 27 to 28 June 1998 around one in the morning, a motorist suddenly suffers a total breakdown of his vehicle (engine stop, headlights, radio). He pulls over to the side of the road and then sees a green glow in front of his vehicle. The witness gets out and approaches but feels as if paralyzed. He then observes a stationary conical object floating above the ground and a being heading toward the inside of the object, which has three seats, two of which are occupied. The object then takes off rapidly vertically. The witness, gradually regaining his composure, gets back into his vehicle. The next day, the witness realizes he has a significant memory gap concerning part of what he had done the previous evening. He returns to the scene accompanied, but no trace is visible. Only one testimony is recorded. The gendarmerie on site found no trace or clue. **Analysis** This testimony is extremely strange: - conical craft without wings, floating off the ground and taking off vertically; - small men with oval heads and four fingers entering the craft via a gangway before takeoff. **Conclusion** The case was then classified D. With regard to GEIPAN's current methodology (see GEIPAN's classification methodology), this classification is not correct. Indeed, the consistency of the testimony is not sufficient to validate an unexplained or inexplicable character. In terms of information, a second independent witness and/or indisputable traces (photos or ground traces) would have been needed here. Reliability is also in question since the witness does not remember what he did in the 4 hours preceding this observation, so one can wonder whether this observation is not the product of another type of memory alteration. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case C: unexploitable testimony.