Police witness in Ardennes, 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 in classification. This observation case (also known as VRIGNES AUX BOIS (08) 1980) was revisited in 2007 and classified C, and was taken up again recently (see the investigation report). On March 11, 1980, around 9 p.m., a motorist (T1) was alerted by his young son (T2) to the presence in the clear sky of a luminous phenomenon "like a star." It seemed to approach and grow from the size of a coin to that of a plate, which frightened the witnesses. Panicking, the motorist made a U-turn, and his son told him the point had turned red. The vehicle's engine then stalled and the lights went out. The vehicle finally restarted after several attempts. The phenomenon then passed over the vehicle and gradually moved away. The frightened witnesses went home. No particular noise was heard. The motorist reported to the gendarmerie at 10:30 p.m., and an investigation was conducted on site from 11:40 p.m.: no trace on the ground or on the vegetation was found. No other testimony was collected. The witnesses probably observed an aircraft coming in their direction, with its landing light(s) or searchlight (helicopter) on. This powerful light prevents the visual perception of any other light signaling. Only the left navigation light was briefly seen by T2, either temporarily or at the end of the observation, before the UAP was lost from sight. No noise was perceived, but this parameter is not decisive. It depends on many factors, such as the witnesses' own auditory perception, the distance of the phenomenon, and any noises present inside the car's cabin. All these parameters are unknown, as are the strength and direction of the wind. And above all, when the witness states "I did not hear the slightest noise from the phenomenon" (police report), he does not specify whether the observation was made with the vehicle window open or closed. We have demonstrated throughout the investigation that the visibility conditions inside the witnesses' vehicle considerably limit their field of vision, and that the observation took place while the UAP remained visually low on the horizon, including once the U-turn was completed. It was therefore probably still very far from the witnesses when they made this U-turn and caused, in panic and stress, a chain of events unrelated to the phenomenon itself (engine stalling, lights going out, failure to turn on a flashlight). The witnesses are completely absorbed by their stress and the desire to leave the observation site as quickly as possible; the UAP, still under the hypothesis of confusion with an aircraft, being still far from the witnesses, had, so to speak, "all the leisure" to disappear for good from their field of vision, possibly following a turn. T1 (the driver) claims to have seen the UAP's red point again, "as my son had said," in front of him. We were able to show that this red point, observed at that moment, was probably only the planet Mars, visible in conjunction with the planet Jupiter, in the observation direction (southeast), facing the witnesses. Panicked and thinking only of getting home at that moment, T1 did not dwell further on this final observation of Mars, which was probably very brief, which did not allow him to notice that this "red point" was not moving and therefore could not be linked to the UAP. The witness's need to try to concentrate on his driving, at night and on a road in poor condition, combined with his state of stress, reinforces this point. The rapid and gradual disappearance of Mars could very well have been caused by a thick bank of fog passing in front of the planet, whose presence is confirmed by meteorological data. This disappearance contributes to the UAP illusion, because the decrease in intensity can be interpreted as an increase in the UAP's distance. This final confusion with the planet Mars invalidates the second part of the UAP's trajectory as it appears in the two sources of information relating to the case, after its passage over the witnesses' vehicle. They would ultimately have observed it only in the northwest direction. Regarding the secondary phenomena of the engine stalling and the simultaneous extinguishing of the car's lights, we have shown that a breakdown simultaneously causing the immediate and total stop of the engine and the lights is highly improbable, due to the mechanical and electrical design of the witness's vehicle. The hypothesis that the stalling was caused by a lapse in driving attention by T1, in a state of great stress at that moment, is more probable. It is also conceivable that, by a reflex of fear and unconscious protection (so as not to be "spotted"), the witness deliberately turned off his lights and then turned them back on. The fear of ridicule, when retrospectively and calmly thinking back on this episode, could explain why T1 did not wish to mention it explicitly before the investigators. This remains, however, highly hypothetical, with no concrete element supporting this hypothesis. In view of all these points, it now seems inappropriate to link the two events. The first was probably a simple aircraft observed under particular conditions (at night and head-on with landing light(s) or a searchlight on) that triggered a cascade of panic reactions from the two witnesses, who were in a state of extreme stress. The consistency is average. Data are missing: angular data (apparent dimensions of the UAP), testimonial data (windows open or closed, T2's position in the cabin, T2's testimony), and photographic data (no photos or videos of the phenomenon). The absence of these data neither disproves nor firmly supports an aircraft hypothesis, which nevertheless remains sufficiently probable to be retained. Classification D (which existed for a time for this case) is, however, excluded because of this hypothesis, which reduces its strangeness. GEIPAN classifies as B: probable observation of an aircraft.