Blue light in Loire, 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 named SAINT-HAON LE CHATEL (42) 2004, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. Two witnesses report their observation to a ufology association and to the press before being summoned by the gendarmerie. They report that while returning from an evening out, on May 21, 2004 around 1:30 or 2 a.m., T1 observes in the sky a luminous point that flashes and moves forward at the same time. Then the two witnesses observe this luminous point following varied trajectories (climb, descent). The UAP approaches and the witnesses then distinguish several luminous points of varied colors, all framing a black triangular mass. The witnesses hear a dull engine noise. The phenomenon passes over them at low altitude then moves away toward the mountains. Although data are missing (angle measurements, in particular height above the horizon and dimensions of the UAP, and the exact location of the colored lights on the UAP), and although others seem contradictory, key parameters allow the hypothesis of confusion with an aircraft, probably a small touring plane in night VFR flight (see the investigation report). These parameters consist of: - the presence nearby and in the observation axis of the Roanne airport, approved for night VFR flight. - the direction of movement of the UAP toward other airports on the other side of the mountain. - the witnesses' perception of an engine noise similar to that of an airplane or helicopter. - as well as three colors (red, green, yellow) consistent with aviation regulations. The elements that could be raised against this hypothesis are: - Insufficient to invalidate the hypothesis: the plane could also have carried a blue light, made a non-regular trajectory at the start, or the perception of irregularity could have resulted from a natural physiological phenomenon of ocular micro-mobility (micro-nystagmus) which occurs when one fixes on a luminous point, particularly at night, and gives the false impression that small luminous point objects are affected by small aberrant movements. - And/or tainted by lack of reliability (e.g., blue light, changing lights) due firstly to the observation conditions (strong emotion, generated from the start of the observation by an extreme hypothesis of an object in connection with the witnesses, or even an extraterrestrial object, and capable of altering the perception or memorization of certain factors observed afterward) and secondly to the testimony conditions (upon summons by the gendarmerie, after initial disclosure to a journalist). The consistency of the testimonies is weak: - Lack of information. No angular dimension measurements were taken, nor were the exact locations on the UAP of the colored lights observed by the witnesses specified. - Reliability is tainted by the observation conditions (see above) as well as by the testimony conditions. Nevertheless, the case can be classified as B: probable observation of an airplane. At the boundary of a case C: unusable testimony.