An account in Charente-Maritime, 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, with the sole aim 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 EGUILLE (L') (17) 16.03.1980 (but also known as ROYAN (17) 1980), is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On 16 March 1980 around half past midnight, three witnesses were intrigued by the presence of a luminous mass of orange-yellow colour in the night sky, which was overcast and low. For 45 minutes, despite coming and going (notably to alert the gendarmerie), the witnesses followed the silent movements of the phenomenon. The latter disappeared quickly between Marennes and Rochefort (17). A sketch representing the movement of the UAP and the surrounding landscape is attached to the official report, as well as a location map and an annotated photographic plate with the position of the UAP. No other testimony was collected. Only two hypotheses were retained, studied and developed; which are ultimately fairly close to each other. That of the impact on the low cloud layer of the spotlight of a poacher (on a boat or on foot) fishing for glass eels (official fishermen never go out on Sundays) is plausible given the privileged position of the witnesses, located in the immediate vicinity and observing along the axis of the Seudre, a river where this fishing is practised. The fishermen use powerful spotlights which, aimed at the sky, can give this striking appearance of a spot on the low cloud layer. The shape, circular and distorted by perspective, the "small luminous tail" described by witness 1, as well as the size estimates given by the witnesses, are all characteristics compatible with this hypothesis. However, it is invalidated by four main factors: - the colour of the spotlight, which is white and not orange-yellow. - the luminosity of the UAP, described as very strong, even dazzling, by the three witnesses. Witness 1 describes, for example, that the surrounding landscape was lit up as if in broad daylight, which is strictly impossible to produce with the impact of a spotlight on clouds, even at low altitude. - the risk a poacher would take in leaving his spotlight aimed at the sky like that, making him easily detectable by the authorities. - one could also wonder why a poacher would "play around" with his spotlight like that, moving it back and forth in the sky for 45 minutes. The other hypothesis, involving a nightclub spotlight, is plausible, just like that of a poacher's spotlight, given the observation axis, towards a coastal area, the shape, the dimensions and the "small luminous tail" described by witness 1. The movements described by the witnesses, as well as the orange-yellow colour, are also compatible with the hypothesis, as is the date, on the night from Saturday to Sunday. On the other hand, there are data that invalidate this hypothesis. We will note in particular: - the luminosity of the UAP, described as very strong, even dazzling, by the three witnesses. Witness 1 describes, for example, that the surrounding landscape was lit up as if in broad daylight, which is not compatible with a spotlight on clouds, even low ones. - we are out of season and no establishment that could use this type of spotlight is open. - the distances are too great for it to be a spotlight used by a coastal establishment, unless one imagines a local device closer by, but it is too late for any verification to be carried out on site. There is therefore no hypothesis of sufficient probability to explain the observation. In terms of consistency, although all the witnesses were heard by the Gendarmerie and the official report drawn up as a result is fairly complete (maps and photographic plate), important data are missing, such as azimuth readings for each witness (only witness 1 having provided the information) and elevation angles of the UAP. In current GEIPAN methodology, the present level of strangeness and consistency require carrying out 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 being revisited so long after. Therefore, the assessment of the present case is made according to the current criteria for taking into account strangeness and consistency (see GEIPAN news /index.php?id=181&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[backPid]=211&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=209) as if the field investigation had been carried out 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 based on the ABCD scale and not on the current ABC D1/D2 scale, 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 lack of a GEIPAN investigation carried out on site. Consequently, the case is classified D: unexplained.