FONTENAY-LE-FLEURY (78) 28.01.2018

On 28 January 2018 at 02:45, the witness was up caring for her ill husband. Her attention was drawn to a very intense glow almost due north through the living-room window. The witness saw a juxtaposition of green lights arranged in a rosette and a green beam that moved in all directions by sweeping the surroundings. The UAP lights up and goes out completely and moves several times. No noise was heard during the UAP movements but the witness never opened the living-room window. The UAP then headed towards the frightened witness who cowered against the living-room wall. When the witness looked out of the window again, the UAP had disappeared. The observation lasted between 30 and 45 seconds. No further testimony will be collected. The description contained unusual features GEIPAN had not previously encountered (see the investigation report). A plausible hypothesis could be established with regard to the appearance and behaviour of the UAP, namely the use of a drone, equipped with LEDs and laser beam. Examples on the Internet show recreational drones (online at this address) with a laser beam moving at night in a way that corresponds well to the observation: - the mobility of the beam “in all directions”, - the green colour, - beam thickness; the observation by the witness of a thickness of 30 cm corresponds well to a laser beam, while the observation of small particles inside this beam is characteristic of a phenomenon of light diffraction in the presence of aerosols or fine microscopic particles. These examples of these recreational drones do not have an aspect of “green luminous rosette” surrounding the green beam. But, adding green LEDs (multiple modular possibilities) on various ends of the drone can create from a distance an effect of this type. Angular and distance estimates using testimony and photographs taken during cognitive interview argue for a sufficiently large drone (1 m) such as those used professionally, even militarily. GEIPAN considers recreational use in a residential area around 02:00 understandable: because such activity is prohibited, an operator might seek to avoid witnesses, while the desired visual effect would be stronger where the beam could play across obstacles and facades. It is much less understandable for a professional or military drone. For professional use, the purpose of a beam moving so much is unclear. A military training explanation conflicts with confirmation from the nearby Camp de Frileuse at Beynes that no operations of any kind took place that night. The presence of a recreational drone is more likely, while the angular size favors a professional drone. However, the overestimation of size (factor 2) by the witness is not excluded despite the reliability of the markers used (space between two trees) and a professional drone could also have been used recreationally. The evidential quality of the account is very good, both in terms of information and reliability. Consequently, the GEIPAN classifies the case in B: likely observation of a drone for recreational use.