(DEP) CHER (18) 18.08.1987

GEIPAN continues to publish all its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Its publications include older cases classified at the time as A, B, C or D that are now being re-examined solely to improve the accuracy of their conclusions. New technical tools (software) and the investigative experience gained over the years sometimes lead to new observations or even a change in classification. Any change in classification is explained in an investigation note. This observation case, formerly classified D and named NEUVY SUR BARANGEON (18) 1987, is among the cases recently re-examined (see the investigation notes). On 18 August 1987 at around 2215, a resident (T1) of NANCAY (18) and two inhabitants (T2 and T3) of VOUZERON (18) observed a luminous phenomenon from their home in the direction of the north-northwest in the sky. T1 described "two lights" moving together and noise-free. T2 described the UAP as a "white bright light" having the shape "of a luminous cigar" and making a turn to go towards Vierzon. T3 described the UAP as "a large, bright white glow" and after having observed the UAP well it seemed to him to see "two slightly smaller bright white lights" as well as a "blinking red light" under the UAP. T3 confirmed the turn and departure towards Vierzon. Although the witnesses describe the same direction of the UAP, it is not certain that they observed the same thing, as the observed UAP descriptions are different, especially between T1 on the one hand and T2 and T3 on the other. Witnesses are convinced that they have seen a "UFO." Yet the observation has many characteristics of an airliner misidentification: presence of several lights, high brightness, turn in the trajectory. The long delay between the observation and the review by the GEIPAN prevents any formal identification of any aircraft responsible for the observation. However, a reconstitution shows that flights from Paris to West Africa (e.g. Dakar) regularly fly over the area where the observation took place. However, it should be noted that during these flights, the aircraft then reach their cruising altitude and begin a turn towards South-Southwest in the Nançay region. This change of course is very consistent with the turn made by the UAP described by the witnesses. Since aircraft routinely fly over the area, some features must have seemed unusual compared with an ordinary aircraft. These differ between witnesses, even T2 and T3, who certainly saw the same UAP. They appear to be: - The strong white glow (T2 and T3): a single light for T2, two for T1 and also for T3, although T3 distinguished them less clearly and it is unknown whether they were additional to a single brighter light. - The shape of a luminous cigar for T2, elongated shape for T3. Nothing like that for T1. - The absence of noise, the strangeness of which would be due to a perception of limited distance since the form of the UAP is distinguishable (for T2 and T3). This white glare dominance may result from the aeroplane's headlights (or from aeroplanes if several UAPs) and could be aircraft with their lights lit either after take-off (most likely) or before landing. T1 could see the two lights of the same aircraft. Lights can be lit below 4000 m or during phases of flight level change. These aircraft may not be aircraft at cruising altitude and may not be airliners. The presence of headlights can explain the perception of shape or a luminous cigar by reflection on the fuselage (cases of lights in the wings), it is also consistent with the flashing red lights observed by T3, also used at ground level and at low altitude by many aircraft. The steady green and red navigation lights may have gone unseen because the headlights outshone them. This may also explain the non-perception of white strobe lights, but they may not have been present because they are not mandatory for all aircraft and flight phases. The absence of noise perception is common in aircraft misidentification. Here, it is noted that the wind is transverse to the direction of observation and does not favour sound reaching the witnesses. The observation elements would argue for an unusual flight (in this area) at low or medium altitude of one or more aircraft. We have no means to validate such a hypothesis 30 years later but it is clear that this is possible and could produce the same perception (including multiform) for the witnesses. These testimonies and data collected lack evidential substance. No aeronautical surveys were made at the time, we do not have any records of angular measurements of the position of the UAP in the sky and the angular size of the UAP. Nothing was undertaken to understand or validate the differences between the testimonies, nor to detect possible influences between witnesses. (They spoke with each other before deposition). It is not possible after reconsideration to qualify this case as unexplained, since: - on the one hand, the aircraft hypothesis could explain this by non-usual conditions (but not extreme, far from it) for the place (medium or low altitude, one or two very close planes). - On the other hand, the level of strangeness testified cannot be validated, the evidential substance of the case is too low. Also, although the aircraft hypothesis is plausible, the weak evidential substance of the accounts leads to classification C: lack of reliable information.