MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1

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. This case of observation previously classified D and formerly called MONTPELLIER (34) 1997 is part of a recently reviewed set of cases. The Mauguio T1 summary describes a light moving silently in the distant sky and changing colour. This case proves to be a combination of 4 different observations, since they take place at different times and as many explanatory hypotheses can be considered (see the investigation report). GEIPAN’s perception of strangeness at the time resulted from failing to recognize that there were multiple observations and phenomena. Gendarmerie report 019/97 shows that the investigation is at the initiative of the Gendarmerie following a publication in the regional press on 18 March 1997 mentioning an Unidentified Aerospace Phenomenon (UAP) reported on the morning of 17 March directly above Montpellier by several pilots of airline aircraft. GEIPAN has since explained that morning observation as the probable atmospheric entry of a meteoroid; see the case RENTREE ATMOSPHERIQUE — NATIONAL (FR) 17.03.1997. The gendarmerie’s search for additional witnesses for morning observation thus collected the present testimony for several evening observations. It may be thought that the context of the press article and the gendarmerie’s active investigation could have created an extra strangeness among the evening witnesses and that, outside of this context, they might not all have testified spontaneously. Indeed, the observations of Mauguio (34) T1, Cabestany (66) and Montpellier (34) have little strangeness. Only the observation of Mauguio (34) T2 has a strange initial aspect requiring a thorough analysis. The observation reported in the testimony MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1 strongly recalls a misidentification with a satellite. The observation reported in the testimony MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997 very strongly suggests an astronomical misidentification, Sirius' position is very consistent with that of the UAP. The observation reported in the testimony CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997 is a probable misidentification with a Mylar balloon, reflecting on its surface the streetlights beneath its path. This conclusion is based on the following elements: - the actual shape of the balloon cannot be observed at night, only that of the reflections which may be visible. The shape initially seen with the naked eye was curved, consistent with the balloon’s possible round or oval shape, visible only through reflections of ground lights on its surface. In a second stage, the witness takes his binoculars and manages to distinguish several bright patches in the form of domes corresponding to different reflections (not separable to the naked eye) on the surface of the balloon, coming from several streetlights on the ground; - the presence of ball-type streetlights in housing developments in the immediate vicinity, which are turning their lights towards the sky; - the trajectory is steady in speed and altitude and conforms to the prevailing wind direction; - such a balloon could have been used on weekdays for a private one-time party (birthday...) or the previous weekend, with Mylar balloons having a significant longevity. The observation reported in the testimony MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2 is a probable misidentification with an MD-80 aircraft, with a particular lighting system and just taken off from Montpellier airport. This conclusion is based in particular on the following elements: - the actual shape of the aircraft cannot be observed by the witness because of the distance and the night observation conditions. Only the powerful landing lights were, and were well described in conformity with the MD-80 as point-like for the lights located at the "extremities" and rectangular for the central one. The oval shape mentioned in the photograph in the official report and in the witness’s statement is therefore more likely an interpretation of something unexplained; - the colours described are usually used in aeronautical, although the witness evokes a "blue white" colour for the initial lights, the blue being not used in aeronautical. However, it could be a colour with a dominant white colour tinted with blue; - the multiple extinguishing and ignition of landing lights may be caused by the need for the pilot to check his visibility during and after the turn. The MD-80 allows switching between the two types of lamps described; -the special lighting system of the MD-80 which makes most of the lights at the end of the wings close together and there are flashing red anti-collision lights on the fuselage, as well as the distance and variation of the plane heading, have been able to help this witness observe a change in colour from white (the headlights initially faced the witness and dominated) to orange (mixed colour) and then red (dominant red anti-collision lights) and a lack of visibility of the flashes; - the positions, movements and trajectory of the UAP are fully in line with that of an Air Liberté aircraft recorded by radar and just taken off from Montpellier airport, making a simultaneous turn and climb to reach the heading towards Paris Orly. Air Liberté had just started operating MD80s on this line; - the absence of noise is explained both by the considerable observation distance and by the wind, blowing in the direction of the plane; - the initial strangeness perceived by the witness may have resulted from the fact that, although familiar with the scene, he never observed MD-80 at take-off. It is then accentuated by the chance coincidence of the ignition of his flashlight with that of the nose landing lights of the aircraft; The evidential substance of each account is moderate or low due to the lack of precision on the hours, durations and positions in the sky. However, they are sufficient to conclude in the light of the little strangeness resulting after analysis. Accordingly, the GEIPAN classifies the various cases as follows: - MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T1 class B, likely observation of a satellite. - MAUGUIO (34) 17.03.1997 T2 class B, likely observation of an aeroplane on take-off. - CABESTANY (66) 17.03.1997 class B, probable observation of a Mylar balloon. - MONTPELLIER (34) 17.03.1997 classified A, very likely observation of a star, in this case Sirius.