Red lights in Oise, France

On May 31, 2015, around 12:50-12:55 AM, two witnesses (T1 driver, T2 passenger to his right) on duty in a van were in the town of Silly-Le-Long (60) and got onto the Nationale 2 expressway heading northeast (toward Nanteuil-Le-Haudouin (60)). The night was clear and the Moon was behind them. While driving, they noticed at low altitude white (steady) and red (flashing) lights that intrigued them. Indeed, familiar with the area and close to Roissy airport, they were used to seeing planes, but what they saw seemed far too low and seemed stationary, therefore abnormal. Slowing down, they observed on their left the presence of a massive and dark UAP in a V shape. Just after passing the bridge called "de Silly," only T1 was able to see the UAP. The observation while driving was made through the windshield, the window, or the rearview mirror; it lasted between 1 and less than 4 minutes before the UAP was hidden by the road's terrain (a descent). The witnesses reported their observation in a gendarmerie report and in a GEIPAN questionnaire. No other testimony was collected. This observation case was very interesting and represented a lot of work for GEIPAN: it ultimately constitutes a textbook case on several points detailed below and in the attached investigation report. The witnesses observed, ahead of their vehicle, white and red lights arranged horizontally. These appeared stationary. When they reached the level of the phenomenon, the witnesses observed a massive object, in a very flattened V shape. The element that constitutes most of the strangeness of the observation (and the motivation for the testimony) is the "stationary levitation" aspect of a triangular-shaped object (not a plane because stationary and not the appearance of a helicopter). The investigation revealed that a light aircraft was passing at low altitude (touch-and-go exercise) in the opposite direction to the movement of the witnesses' vehicle. Considerable investigative work of on-site reconstruction with the witnesses and 3D simulation, based on the aircraft's GPS navigation data and the trajectory of the witnesses' vehicle, revealed a pivot effect, that is, the axis connecting the witnesses' position and the aircraft's position "pivots" essentially on itself, and can thus give the impression to witnesses who might have seen the aircraft that it is fixed at the pivot point. The pivot effect of this aircraft is especially confirmed and consistent with the visual observation of the UAP by the witnesses when the witnesses pass closest to the UAP. The pivot is located at a bridge that spans the road, and it is also at this level that the stationary UAP is seen. The reconstructed position of the aircraft and the reported positions of the UAP are angularly close over a large part of the observation. The angular gap can reach 20 to 30°, especially just after the bridge, but this remains compatible with a perception or memory error, especially since a gap of the same order appears between the two testimonies. Here we have a key element in favor of the witnesses mistaking the aircraft. Furthermore, the witnesses do not distinguish the aircraft from the UAP, whereas the aircraft (if it is not the UAP) would only be 20° or 30° away from it and emits its lights on a clear night a few kilometers away (or even much less at the pivot). Likewise, the aircraft pilot (interviewed) does not notice any imposing object (such as described by the witnesses) emitting lights (strong enough to be seen several kilometers away by the witnesses) and located in the immediate vicinity of his landing path. These elements taken alone would allow this case to be classified as a misidentification with the identified aircraft. However, this case was subject to more in-depth analyses related to significant gaps between the reported observation and the appearance of the aircraft. - Among the reported lights, some (color, flashing or not) are not explainable by those of the aircraft. But the most significant gap regarding the lights comes from one of the witnesses (T1) and poor perception can be invoked. In particular, T1 perceives (after passing the bridge) white rectangular lights flashing slowly that should have been point flashes (aircraft strobe codes). - The main gap with the aircraft hypothesis lies in the angular sizes: that of the aircraft, at the reported observation point, is 0.7°, while the reported size is between 14 and 27°, depending on the witnesses and the restitution methods. It is usual to have an overestimation of the angular sizes of a UAP, but the gap here is very large. It is noted, however, that these angular restitutions of the UAP's size are obtained in absolute terms or without reliable reference to objects on the ground. It is also noted that the most assertive angular gaps (the white lights differ from the aircraft not only in their rectangular appearance, but also in the angular gap between them) come from the sole witness T1, whereas he was after the bridge and was looking under conditions that were at the very least uncomfortable and not conducive to precision (at night, backward while driving, looking largely in the rearview mirror). Due to these gaps, this case was submitted in its entirety to the GEIPAN expert college. The elements in favor of misidentification with the aircraft prevailed and the majority of experts validated the hypothesis of a major perception illusion, an illusion considered explainable by night driving, observation in the rearview mirror, as well as fatigue or stress. These gaps are nevertheless significant and justify their inclusion in the GEIPAN database to feed ongoing or future work on perception or memory issues (whether specific to UAPs or not). Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: misidentification with an aircraft. A first 3D simulation video includes several synchronized windows: - Main screen: simulation of the view from the witness vehicle, of the UAP (according to the reported indications) and of the aircraft (according to the GPS positions recorded in the aircraft). The pivot effect of the aircraft is evident, particularly at the bridge crossing. Pivot marked by a purple vertical arrow. - The visual appearance of the UAP results mainly from the descriptions of witness T1. One notices the positional gap with that of the aircraft, one notes the angular size gap before and especially after the bridge (the two red markers point to nothing in particular but represent between their two positions an angular gap value of 20°). - Bottom-right window: video taken in the vehicle during the daytime reconstruction. - Bottom-left window: zoom on the aircraft simulation. The other 3D simulation video represents the scene viewed from the sky. There is of course no view of the UAP by the witness. This video allows one to appreciate the pivot effect.