PELLERIN (LE) (44) 11.06.1994

GEIPAN continues to publish all its archives on its public website, www.geipan.fr. These include older cases classified at the time as A, B, C or D that are now being reexamined solely to improve the relevance of their conclusions. New technical tools (software) and investigative experience acquired over the intervening years sometimes lead to new comments or a change of classification. This sighting, previously classified D, is one of a group of recently reexamined cases. On 11 June 1994 at about 23:45, a woman driving along a small country road saw an object to the right, moving parallel to her at very low altitude. She described a 'lemon-shaped' UAP with a 'cable' on top and numerous multicolored flashing lights. She lost sight of it before watching its movements again. She did not specify the observation's duration, but saw it disappear rapidly. She tried to find it again without success. Only one account was collected. The apparently highly strange observation, initially classified D, proved to be a probable misidentification of a model airplane or helicopter operated from the nearby flying club. The conclusion is based on the following (see the investigation report): - The main observation direction was toward the nearby club's authorized flying area. - The UAP's very low elevation above the horizon matched the altitude limits inherent in model-aircraft use. - Flashing lights resembled aircraft anti-collision lights, with colors mostly consistent with aviation lighting. - Its very small angular size prevented details being distinguished. Combined with nighttime viewing from a moving vehicle with closed windows, this prevented the witness from recognizing the model's shape. Only its lights were visible. - The closed windows prevented her hearing noise, and a model's motor does not produce the same sound level as a full-size aircraft. The remaining unusual features could be explained satisfactorily within this hypothesis: - The 'cable' could have been part of the model's structure, such as its fin or tail, brightly illuminated by its lights. - The apparent 'doubling' of the UAP could result from a brief change in the model's orientation, more clearly exposing a less illuminated component, probably the fuselage. It might also have been briefly obscured by vegetation, such as a branch. - She described it as traveling at her speed and going around obstacles. At night, without clear reference points, its actual trajectory cannot be established with certainty. The 'following ball' illusion can make a witness think a UAP moves together with the vehicle. A change in the model's brightness or actual speed could suggest recession or a change in depth, without demonstrating either. She also had no firm basis for estimating its distance: it could have been relatively near or farther away. Associating its path and variations with nearby landscape features therefore has no basis. 'Right-angle' or 'perpendicular' paths are unsurprising for model aircraft, which can perform rapid aerobatics in every direction over a very small area. - The UAP probably disappeared abruptly behind the substantial vegetation around the club. At night, the sudden disappearance of a luminous object can create an impression of extremely rapid departure. Nighttime model flying may seem surprising, but the event occurred in 1994. The source notes that regulations then were less restrictive than at the time of its reexamination, after drones became widely available. The practice may also have been rare enough to be unfamiliar to the gendarmes, or they may have rejected it as incompatible with the reported appearance. The case has moderate evidential strength: a single witness and no photographs or video. The account is imprecise, especially regarding angular positions and sizes, but the gendarmerie's on-site photographs allowed positions to be reconstructed fairly accurately. Ultimately the evidence is sufficient to support the hypothesis despite residual uncertainty. Other hypotheses investigated and rejected were a full-size airplane and the mast of a boat on the Loire. GEIPAN therefore classifies the case B: probable observation of a model aircraft.