An orange orb in Ard�che, 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 LES OLLIERES (07) 1979, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 21 July 1979, a first group of people (T1 and his wife) observed from 10:45 PM to 11:28 PM the presence of a luminous phenomenon, colored and stationary, at the top of a ridge line in the direction of the "Serre de Pieroulet". The UAP is described as a "lighthouse" with a powerful yellow-orange light source projecting a blue beam rotating regularly through 360° and sweeping the ground. During the 45-minute observation, no particular noise was heard. T1 was getting ready to take a photograph when the UAP suddenly went out. The next day, these first witnesses learned that their closest neighbors (T2 and his wife), while closing the shutters around 11:00 PM, had noted the presence of a luminous UAP in the same direction. T2 and his wife observed the UAP for about ten minutes before going to bed. The Gendarmerie was notified the next day by T1. Only T1 and T2 gave testimony. The UAP was particularly well described by the main witness T1. His report thus allowed us to realize that the appearance and behavior of the UAP was very peculiar and did not correspond to any known phenomenon, whether natural or artificial in origin (see the investigation report). Indeed, the only hypothesis could be a helicopter (because the UAP is indeed stationary in the sky) using a searchlight, but whose beam would inexplicably be blue, a color different from that of the source, and would rotate endlessly without any surveillance or lighting purpose. Witness T1 being unfortunately deceased, it was impossible for us to continue the investigation further, which could have continued with, for example, a cognitive interview or an on-site reconstruction. The other three witnesses could not be found, but it is also possible, almost 40 years after the facts, that they too are deceased. T1's field of scientific expertise is very closely related to everything concerning light and color, as well as the impact they have on their environment. It so happens that his observation concerns precisely luminous and colored phenomena falling exactly within his field of expertise. This coincidence reinforces the consistency, already factual given the precision and completeness of the description: - the witness uses descriptive parameters he masters; - in terms of reliability, the wide recognition that witness T1 already enjoyed does not allow imagining a particular desire to add strangeness to an observation to show off. On the contrary, the attitude of recognized scientists generally pushes toward the greatest distance with respect to the UAP. In this context, the testimony is representative of a real experienced strangeness and of a knowledge stake for this scientist. T1 did not take a photograph. He is a priori the owner of a camera, but it is understood that the witness gets his equipment at the moment the UAP disappears. We can regret the mediocre quality of T2's testimony, little detailed, and the absence of the other two testimonies, those of the wives. Nevertheless, T2's testimony, besides placing the UAP in the same direction and at the same time, confirms T1's on the points that make up the essence of the strangeness: fixed yellow/orange glow, blue light sweeping the ground. T2 does not mention the beam, and the experienced strangeness appears weak (the witnesses stop observing and go to bed). In GEIPAN's current methodology, the present level of strangeness and consistency requires conducting a "field investigation" with the witness for a reconstruction and a cognitive interview. This is likely to impact both positively and negatively the assessment of strangeness and consistency. But it is not possible for a case revisited so long after. Also, the assessment of the present case is made according to the current criteria for taking into account strangeness and consistency (see GEIPAN news: GEIPAN classification methodology) as if the field investigation had been done and had been totally neutral (no contribution either way), which is sometimes the case. However, in order to mark this methodological gap, the classification is made on the basis A B C D and not on the current A B C D1/D2, which corresponds, for the unexplained classification, to a stronger validation of the unexplained character. Here the case is at the boundary between an unexplained case and an unexploitable case due to lack of consistency in the state of the file, for want of a GEIPAN investigation conducted on site. Consequently, the case is classified D: Strange phenomenon of medium or strong consistency.