Green light in Yvelines, France

On January 28, 2018 at 2:45 a.m., the witness got up to care for her sick husband. Her attention was drawn by a very intense glow seen almost due north through the living room window. The witness saw a juxtaposition of green lights arranged in a rosette pattern and a green light beam that moved in all directions, sweeping the surroundings. The UAP turned on and off completely and moved several times. No noise was heard during the UAP's movements, but the witness never opened the living room window. The UAP then headed toward the witness, who, frightened, pressed herself against the living room wall. When the witness looked out the window again, the UAP had disappeared. The observation lasted between 30 and 45 seconds. No other testimony was collected. The description reflected a strangeness still unknown to GEIPAN (see the investigation report). A plausible hypothesis was established regarding the appearance and behavior of the UAP, namely the use of a drone equipped with LEDs and a laser beam. Examples on the Internet show recreational drones (online at this address) with a laser beam operating at night with an appearance that matches the observation well: - the mobility of the beam "in all directions," - the green color, - the thickness of the beam; the witness's observation of a thickness of 30 cm matches a laser beam well, while the observation of small particles inside this beam is characteristic of a light diffraction phenomenon in the presence of aerosols or fine microscopic particles. These examples of recreational drones do not show a "green light rosette" appearance surrounding the green beam. But the addition of green LEDs (the modular possibilities are numerous) on various ends of the drone could, from a distance, create this type of effect. The angular and distance estimates made using the testimony and photographs taken during the cognitive interview point to a sufficiently large drone (1 m), such as those used professionally or even militarily. The presence of this drone in a residential area at 2 a.m. can be understood for recreational use, since such activity is prohibited and must encounter as few witnesses as possible, and the sensation effect sought is stronger in an area where the beam can "play" with obstacles and facades. It is much less understandable for a professionally or militarily used drone. One might question the reason for such a swirling beam for the former, and for the latter, the hypothesis of special training operations, which conflicts with the fact that the authorities of the nearby training camp (Frileuse camp in Beynes) indicated an absence of operations of any kind that night. The presence of a recreational drone is more likely, while the angular size points to a professional drone. However, an overestimation of size (factor 2) by the witness is not excluded despite the reliability of the reference points used (the space between two trees), just as it is also possible that a professional-type drone could have been used recreationally. The consistency of the testimony is very good, both in terms of information and reliability. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of a recreational drone.