[A27] DE LILLE (59) VERS TOURNAI (BE.WHT) 01.10.2007

GEIPAN continues to publish all its archives on its public website, www.geipan.fr. These include older cases originally classified A, B, C or D that are now being reassessed solely to improve the conclusions. New technical tools (software) and the investigative experience gained over the intervening years sometimes lead to new observations or even a change in classification. This sighting, previously classified D1 and named LILLE (59) 01.10.2007, is among the cases recently reassessed (see the investigation report). On 1 October 2007 at 07:40, a motorist on the A27 near the Belgian border saw, to his right above flat fields, eight white lights in two groups of four on what looked to him like a “delta wing.” He continued driving, then stopped on the hard shoulder. The UAP then appeared stationary. He mishandled his phone while trying to photograph it. After a few seconds, the UAP tilted, moved away and disappeared. Only one witness account was collected. According to the investigation, the UAP very probably resulted from powerful floodlights mounted on two masts illuminating a sports ground on the Luchin estate. Their chance alignment and position just above a line of trees made the witness believe that he was seeing a single illuminated object hovering at low altitude. The renovated Luchin estate had been inaugurated about two weeks earlier, so lighting tests probably took place before the first matches or training sessions on the pitch concerned. Poor viewing conditions and the brightness of the floodlights also prevented the witness from seeing the supporting masts. The conclusion rests on the following points: - A complete reassessment of GEIPAN’s first investigation in 2008 revealed errors in the witness’s location and viewing direction, resulting in incorrect estimates of the UAP’s azimuths and dimensions. A distant line of trees in the direction of the lights probably also contributed to the confusion. These erroneous witness data may have resulted from the delays between the sighting and the first meeting with the witness (four months), and between that meeting and the writing of the investigation report (five months), delays conducive to the formation of false memories. - After corrections and checks, the entire sighting proved to have taken place to the right of the motorway, at an angle of about 30° to the witness’s direction of travel. Vegetation obstructed the view on some stretches. Two probable positions were inferred: approximately kilometre 4 measured from the Belgian border, where the sighting began, and approximately kilometre 3, where the witness stopped. - Conditions were poor: it was raining, horizontal visibility was about 3–4 km, and it was twilight just before sunrise. The sky was probably still quite dark and visibility from the motorway poor, with distant landscape features barely visible or invisible. - The Luchin estate, bought by LOSC, the Lille football club, in 2003, was in the final stage of renovation in autumn 2007. The lighting masts were already installed, however, and operating tests or maintenance probably took place before the first matches or training sessions following the inauguration. - From kilometre 4, the view across the fields to the estate is completely unobstructed. It remains so until approximately kilometre 3. - The witness began observing around kilometre 4, where the view to the right opened up. From that location, two masts happened to be visually aligned. - The floodlights’ white colour matches the witness’s description. - The estate’s masts are 25 metres tall and support floodlights arranged horizontally in rows of 3, 4, 6 or 8. The two masts aligned at the start of the sighting carry 7 and 3 lights. From the witness’s position, 4 and 3 respectively are visible, from left to right, matching the number and alignment in his sketch. The source reports eight lights in the initial account but gives this four-plus-three comparison in its analysis. - The lights are visible just above a line of trees, as the UAP was. - The witness then stopped about a kilometre farther on to observe more closely. The apparent separation of the masts was greater, but he did not notice this because he still could not distinguish them, probably owing to the lights’ brightness and the poor viewing conditions. The UAP therefore looked larger. Since he had moved closer and believed it was one object, he concluded that it had remained in the same place. He nevertheless distinguished the metal structure supporting the lights, describing it as “the dark grey or black craft.” - One light’s flashing could be explained by a malfunctioning floodlight during testing of the stadium lighting. - The UAP was described as too large. That estimate is highly uncertain, however, because it was reconstructed during a site investigation several months later and based on an incorrect initial witness position. The investigation also notes a natural tendency for witnesses to overestimate apparent dimensions. - The UAP’s movement as it disappeared is difficult to explain, but this part of the account lacks precision and consistency. If it was moving directly away, as one interpretation of “perpendicular to the aircraft’s axis” suggests, gradual switching-off of the lights could have produced the familiar illusion of an object receding into the distance. If the sketch’s sideways movement is accepted instead—which would no longer be perpendicular to the aircraft trajectories—there is no explanation. - The description of the lights’ final tilt is less ambiguous and ultimately remains the only unusual feature under this hypothesis. The evidential strength is moderate: one witness, an initial investigation affected by incorrect position measurements, imprecise details particularly about the disappearance, and no photographs. Given the exact agreement on many decisive points, GEIPAN considers that the single discrepancy, the tilt seen only during the disappearance, does not alter the explanation’s very probable status. It attributes this discrepancy to the witness’s misperception, such as an optical illusion or poor viewing conditions. GEIPAN therefore classifies the case A: a very probable sighting of floodlights seen at a distance in poor conditions.