(DEP) HAUTE-GARONNE (31) 14.08.1993

GEIPAN continues to publish its full archives on www.geipan.fr. Older cases originally classified A, B, C or D are being reexamined to improve their conclusions. New software and investigative experience sometimes produce new findings or a change of classification. This case, formerly named SAINT-GAUDENS (31) 14.08.1993 and classified D, was recently reexamined (see the investigation report). On Saturday 14 August 1993 at about 22:00, several people in 2 localities saw an unusual phenomenon towards the Pyrenees. Three witnesses reported their observations to the gendarmerie. They described a stationary red circular point of light, to the right of Mont Valier for T1 and T3 and towards Le Cagire for T2. Through binoculars, T3 saw 5 red-orange points within the luminous mass. The observations lasted approximately 10 minutes, after which the point disappeared within a few seconds. GEIPAN found T2's entire spoken statement consistent with a phenomenon on the ground: it was initially seen 'in the woods' and then described as disappearing farther into the Pyrenees in a horizontal movement. GEIPAN therefore asked whether the other accounts might also concern a ground phenomenon, whose explanation would require expertise beyond its remit alone. T1 and T3 observed from nearby locations and placed the UAP at the height of Mont Valier, slightly to its right, in their descriptions or drawings. Only T3 mentioned the sky when describing its final disappearance horizontally. GEIPAN noted that this did not establish that the UAP was in open sky. Seen from Saint-Gaudens, Mont Valier continues to the right into a ridge at only a slightly lower angular elevation. Several ridges in front of Mont Valier also appear to its right at the same angular height, notably the mountain ridge around the Sommet de Cournudère, 1,563 m high. GEIPAN considered that T1's and T3's drawings could depict one of these successive ridgelines, but certainly not the actual horizon, which they might not even have distinguished. T2 and T3 verbally described a horizontal disappearance. The source then refers to drawings by T1 and T2 which, without that verbal description, might suggest an ascent. It subsequently interprets drawings attributed to T2 and T3 as attempts to show horizontal recession into the distance; these witness labels are inconsistent in the French. GEIPAN reasoned that 'horizontal' could not describe increasing angular elevation. Distance cannot be represented directly on a flat drawing, so a cone containing progressively smaller UAP shapes was used as perspective: the intention was to depict recession, not ascent. GEIPAN also cautioned that recession might itself be an illusion. When an object's real distance is unknown, decreasing brightness can be interpreted either as dimming of a stationary source or as a constant light moving away. Its experience suggests that the perceived strangeness of a sighting often leads witnesses to infer recession even when the UAP is established to be stationary. T1's account presented a harder inconsistency. Verbally, T1 described no movement, including during disappearance. A 'forward tilt' associated with the appearance of 3 light beams could only mean a perceived change in orientation, since T1 already described an oriented shape, a flattened ovoid. The main drawing matched a stationary point with no angular movement. A second drawing, however, labelled an upward arrow as a 'change of heading'. T1 might also have intended to depict recession in perspective, but GEIPAN could not conclude this because of the inconsistency. Once the unusable portion of T1's account was set aside, GEIPAN found the observations compatible with a phenomenon entirely on the ground. Seeking an explanation therefore required expertise beyond GEIPAN's alone. It concluded that the original D classification should not have been assigned because nothing established an aerospace phenomenon. GEIPAN could offer some leads for investigating a ground phenomenon, but could not define the full scope of that search (see the investigation report). A further obstacle was that T2's viewing direction, marked by the Pic de Cagire, did not intersect T1's and T3's directions to the right of Mont Valier. They could coincide only if T2 had named the Pic de Cagire instead of Mont Valier. Nothing confirmed or ruled out that confusion. Although the angular separation of the peaks was relatively small, 20°, the landmarks should be fairly distinct even at night to someone familiar with the area. A more thorough investigation at the time could have identified the discrepancy and sought clarification to resolve or confirm it. As it stands, the discrepancy adds strangeness: the matching appearance, timing and duration would suggest the same kind of phenomenon occurring in 2 separate places. GEIPAN reasoned that, if a search using all relevant expertise in ground phenomena as well as aerospace phenomena still found no explanation, it would require a level of evidential support—amount of information and assessment of reliability—that was unlikely to be obtainable 25 years later. The result would be an unassessable case, rather than an unexplained one. It therefore classified the case C: unassessable because it requires expertise beyond GEIPAN's remit alone.