MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997

GEIPAN continues to publish its complete 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 re-examined solely to improve the conclusions. New technical tools (software) and the investigative experience acquired over the intervening years sometimes allow this re-examination to produce new observations or even a change in classification. This sighting, previously classified D and formerly named MONTPELLIER (34) 1997, is among the cases recently re-examined. The case proved to combine four different observations made at different times, for which four separate explanations can be considered (see the investigation report). GEIPAN's perception at the time that the case was unusual stemmed from its failure to recognize that there were multiple observations and phenomena. Gendarmerie report 019/97 shows that the gendarmerie initiated the investigation following a regional newspaper article on 18 March 1997. The article mentioned an unidentified aerospace phenomenon (UAP) reported directly above Montpellier on the morning of 17 March by several airline pilots. GEIPAN has since explained that morning sighting as a probable meteoroid atmospheric entry; see the case: ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY — NATIONAL (FR) 17.03.1997 In seeking additional witnesses to the morning sighting, the gendarmerie collected these accounts of several evening sightings. The newspaper article and active gendarmerie investigation may have increased the evening witnesses' sense that their sightings were unusual; without that context, perhaps not all would have volunteered accounts. The Mauguio (34) T1, Cabestany (66) and Montpellier (34) observations were, in fact, only slightly unusual. Only the initial appearance in Mauguio (34) T2 required detailed analysis. The account MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1 strongly suggests a satellite misidentification. The account MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997 very strongly suggests an astronomical misidentification: Sirius's position closely matches that of the UAP. The account CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997 probably describes a Mylar balloon reflecting streetlights beneath its path. This conclusion rests on the following: - At night the balloon's actual shape could not be seen, only the shape of reflections. The curved shape initially seen with the naked eye fits a possible round or oval balloon, visible only through ground lights reflected on its surface. Using binoculars, the witness subsequently distinguished several dome-shaped patches of light, corresponding to separate reflections of several streetlights on the balloon's surface that could not be distinguished with the naked eye. - Globe-shaped streetlights that cast light upward were confirmed in housing developments immediately nearby. - Its speed and altitude remained steady, and its path matched the prevailing wind direction. - Such a balloon could have been used for a one-off private celebration, such as a birthday, during the week or the preceding weekend, since Mylar balloons last a long time. The account MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2 probably describes a misidentified MD-80 aircraft, with its particular lighting system, shortly after takeoff from Montpellier airport. In particular: - Distance and nighttime viewing conditions prevented the witness from seeing the aircraft's actual shape. Only its powerful landing lights were observed. Their description matches an MD-80: point-like lights at the “ends” and a rectangular central light. The oval shape mentioned in the photograph included in the official report and in the witness's statement is more likely an interpretation of something unexplained. - The described colors are normally used in aviation, although the witness called the initial lights “blue-white” and blue is not used in aviation. They may, however, have been predominantly white with a bluish tint. - Repeated switching of the landing lights off and on may have reflected the pilot's need to check visibility during and after the turn. The MD-80 allows switching between the two types of lights described. - The MD-80's particular lighting arrangement, in which most of the wingtip lights are close together and flashing red anti-collision lights are on the fuselage, together with distance and the aircraft's changing heading, may account for the observed color change: white initially, when the lights pointed toward the witness and dominated; orange as the colors mixed; then red when the red anti-collision lights dominated. These factors may also explain why flashing was not visible. - The UAP's positions, movements and trajectory fully match an Air Liberté aircraft recorded by radar after takeoff from Montpellier airport, turning and climbing simultaneously to take up its heading toward Paris Orly. Air Liberté had only just begun operating MD-80s on this route. - The lack of sound is explained both by the substantial viewing distance and by wind blowing toward the aircraft. - Although familiar with the area, the witness may never before have seen an MD-80 taking off, which could explain the initial sense of strangeness. The chance coincidence between switching on his flashlight and the aircraft's nose landing lights coming on then reinforced that impression. Each account has medium or low evidential quality because times, durations and sky positions lack precision. Nevertheless, they provide enough information for conclusions given the low degree of strangeness remaining after analysis. GEIPAN therefore classifies the individual cases as follows: - MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1: B, probable satellite observation. - MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2: B, probable observation of an aircraft taking off. - CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997: B, probable Mylar balloon observation. - MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997: A, very probable observation of a star, specifically Sirius.