A triangle shape in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative 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 SAINT-ETIENNE (04) 1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On August 30 at 1:30 PM, a witness on a sales route was driving his vehicle when he noticed a clearing in the sky. Looking up, he saw above his vehicle a "gigantic device" of gray-gold color, matte, and rectangular in shape. The witness describes the presence on the left side of two rows of black dots as well as a yellow and red triangle at the front. Another triangle is described on the right side. The UAP seemed to follow the car during slowdowns or accelerations and changes of direction. It was lost from sight by the motorist several times. In the car was the witness's 6-year-old daughter: she gave the same description as her father and would be the last to see the UAP above the village before it suddenly disappeared into the sky "without taking a precise direction." According to the available elements, this observation is strange in more than one respect (see the investigation report): The apparently very large angular size of the UAP, with the witnesses describing it in these terms: - T1: "gigantic"; "immense"; "it could have been between 1 and 1 hectare in surface area. It was perhaps 100 or 150 meters from the ground"; "the device blocked out the sky"; - T2: "big device," T2, rear passenger of the car, also made a drawing where the UAP above the car extends beyond both sides of the car's roof. It is very surprising, if the UAP was as imposing as the witnesses described, that no other testimony was brought to the attention of the gendarmes, especially since the observation took place in daylight, over a probably fairly long period of time, and along a trajectory of several kilometers. With the available elements, no known phenomenon of a meteorological, astronomical, or aeronautical nature can account for the characteristics of the UAP as described by the witnesses. In GEIPAN's current methodology (since 2008, see on the website GEIPAN classification methodology), for a strange observation to be retained as such and classified unexplained, the consistency must be significant, meaning a high level of information and reliability must be available. In terms of information, the absence of a more thorough investigation by the gendarmes is to be regretted, beyond the necessary and unsuccessful questioning of residents in the area to find possible other witnesses. We would thus have liked to have the following information: - a sketch of the UAP made independently by T1; - photographs of the key locations mentioned by T1, as part of an investigation reconstructing the trajectory of the witness's vehicle; - measurements of the angular dimensions of the UAP and its components; - more details on the disappearances of the UAP: at what precise moment, in what manner (progressive fading, sudden rapid departure, etc.); - same remarks on the reappearances of the UAP: did the witnesses actually observe a reappearance (in what manner?) or did they turn their gaze to the UAP, which was already present? - concerning the UAP itself: was it visible against the blue sky background? Against a cloudy background? If so, was it at any point partially or totally marked by clouds? Did the whole UAP appear "solid" to the witnesses, or did it have less perceptible, fuzzier, harder-to-distinguish parts? - at one point in his account, T1 states that the UAP was visible "above the Villermé woods" (located on the right side of the road taken by the witnesses). It was therefore no longer above the vehicle at that moment. The same applies to T2, who briefly glimpsed the UAP "above the village" at the moment when, once arrived home, T1 was putting the vehicle in the garage. It would have been interesting to have more details on the UAP's appearance, its height on the horizon, its angular dimensions, etc., at those precise moments of the observation. In terms of reliability, the testimony of a 6-year-old child, without providing any decisive additional information compared to that of the father, does not give a decisive boost in reliability to the father's testimony either, especially when the conditions of the child's hearing are unknown (presence or absence of the father). Overall, the consistency is insufficient (especially in terms of information) to give this a priori strange observation an unexplained character. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.