Blue light in Côtes-d'Armor, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience gained 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 and named PLERIN (22) 29.12.1994, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. This case consisted of various observations made between 28 and 31 December 1994, in the evening or early in the day, in the Côtes-d'Armor: 4 witnesses (T1, T2, T3, T4) reported their observations to the gendarmerie, all of which were recorded in the same report. The attached investigation note details all the observations and all the phenomena observed. The set of observations is not very consistent, with imprecise descriptions. The re-examination leads to distinguishing 3 distinct phenomena: - UAP 1 observed by T1 and T2 on 29 December 1994 between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM. - UAP 2, 3, 4 seen by T3 on 29, 30 and 31 December between 6:00 AM and 6:45 AM (with T4 on 31 December). - UAP 5 seen by T3 and T4 on 31 December and UAP 6 by T4 on 28 December. UAP 1 presents all the characteristics of observing a thunderstorm. The lights making up the UAP are indeed compared to one or more lightning flashes: "it looked like explosions but kilometers apart and always one at a time", "there were kinds of lightning flashes in the sky", "these flashes were flat and very long. I cannot tell you the size of these flashes", "it looked like flashes but much bigger", "a new flash appeared", "when I say I saw flashes, there was only one that seemed to move". The hypothesis of a misidentification with a thunderstorm is reinforced by the fact that the UAP was seen toward the sea. This direction is moreover confirmed by the witnesses: "I drove a little while toward the sea", "I again saw a bright blue light, immense, in the direction of BINIC, perhaps above the sea". However, the presence of a thunderstorm at sea, visible from the coast, is confirmed by the gendarmerie investigation early in the evening of 29 December 1994, that is, at a time consistent with that of the observation. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes for UAP 1: B probable observation of a thunderstorm. UAP 2, 3 and 4 present very similar characteristics. They are bright white lights, at the same times on three consecutive days, observed over long durations (more than 40 minutes for UAP 3 and 4), without movement and in the same direction from one day to the next. These data are entirely characteristic of an astronomical misidentification. A reconstruction shows the presence of the planet Venus (very high magnitude -4.24), in the SE direction (~130°) and at about ten degrees of elevation in the sky. The hypothesis of a misidentification with Venus is reinforced by the fact that the UAPs were seen at a low angular elevation, through a window (that of T3 and T4's kitchen) oriented SE. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes for UAP 2, 3 and 4: B probable observation of Venus. The descriptions of UAP 5 and 6 are too imprecise (short duration, little information) and too inconsistent (lack of coherence in the testimonies) to be usable: one can thus imagine confusions with various lights: car headlights, urban lights, in an emotional context charged by the previous observations. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes for UAP 5 and 6: C Lack of reliable information.