SERPAN - 1991 - BERTRE (TARN)

Magazine Overview

This document is an internal information bulletin from S.E.R.P.A.N. (Société d'Enquête et de Recherche sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-Identifiés), dated July 1, 1901, though the content pertains to events in 1989. The bulletin focuses on an investigation into a reported UFO sighting in Bertre, Tarn, France.

Investigation Chronology and Details

The bulletin provides a detailed chronological account of the investigation into the Bertre case, which occurred on the night of September 3-4, 1989. The primary witness is identified as Mr. Aujoulet, a 68-year-old retired sales executive.

Preliminary Contacts:

The investigation began with preliminary telephone contacts by Eric Maillot (EMT) with various individuals and organizations, including TRR, GDD, Gilles Munsch (GMH), and Mr. Aujoulet himself. These contacts aimed to gather details about the alleged physical effects and to obtain permission for a site visit. A letter sent to Mr. Aujoulet for details on physical effects and site visit agreement reportedly received no response initially. A subsequent telephone contact with Mr. Aujoulet secured an agreement for a site visit on the afternoon of Thursday, October 26, 1989. EMT and GMH were the primary investigators available. Arrangements were also made for accommodation in Dijon.

Field Investigation (October 26-27, 1989):

On Thursday, October 26, 1989, EMT and GMH met Mr. Aujoulet at his home in Bertre, Tarn. The witness's testimony was recorded, and photographs were taken of the exterior (south and north sides) and interior of the house, including bedrooms, the attic, and the roof. An interview was conducted in the living room, followed by a visit to the exterior to examine preserved tiles. The interview concluded in the living room. Later, they purchased an IGN map and had a meal before returning to Bertre for nocturnal surveillance of the site, documenting lighting conditions and taking photos. They also discussed points to clarify with the witness before resting on-site.

On Friday, October 27, 1989, the team conducted a detailed examination of the site, including photos and measurements. A second interview with Mr. Aujoulet was recorded. The investigators then traveled to Toulouse, where they attempted to contact Mr. Vélasco at CNES without an appointment. After lunch, they made a call to SEPRA. They then proceeded to the gendarmerie in Puylaurens, where they met a gendarme and reviewed press clippings, helicopter photos, and witness testimonies. An attempt to locate an LDLN investigator from Mazamet was unsuccessful due to time constraints. The day concluded with the return journey to Dijon.

Supplementary Investigation:

Further steps included correspondence with Mr. Aujoulet requesting a plan and status of the investigation (no response), and with the Tarn Info newspaper for a photo of the roof prior to SEPRA's action (response obtained). EMT also contacted SEPRA to inform them of the investigation and inquire about atmospheric re-entries (no response). GMH contacted the local national meteorological service (response obtained). EMT sent four letters to local EDF services regarding network incidents (one response obtained). EMT also contacted GESTO for information on the analysis of tiles and moss by Mr. Bounias (response obtained). The magnetic tapes were transcribed and entered into text processing by GMH and EMT. EMT sent correspondence to Mr. Denis Camp, an LDLN investigator, for supplementary information (responses obtained). A telephone contact was made with Mr. Aujoulet for recording purposes, followed by contacts with other individuals mentioned by him. A meeting was held between GMH and EMT to format the investigation report. The report's layout was finalized by GMH during a CNEGU meeting in June 1991. Finally, EMT contacted Mr. C.R., a professor in Lavaur, to obtain the Bertre file, which was unfinished as of July 1991.

Press Coverage

The bulletin includes reproductions of newspaper articles from "LA DÉPÊCHE" (September 13, 1989), "CENTRE PRESSE" (September 14, 1989), "L'EVEIL de la HAUTE LOIRE" (September 14, 1989), "LE PARISIEN" (September 14, 1989), and "TARN INFO" (September 15, 1989). These articles detail the Bertre incident, quoting Mr. Aujoulet and mentioning the involvement of the gendarmes and CNES investigators. The articles describe a luminous object, described as square or bottle-shaped, hovering over the house, and note the physical evidence found on the roof tiles.

Key Persons and Organizations

Key individuals mentioned include the witness François Aujoulet, investigators Gilles Munsch (GMH) and Eric Maillot (EMT), and CNES representative Mr. Vélasco. Organizations involved are SERPAN, CNES (SEPRA), EDF, LDLN, GESTO, and various press outlets.

Object Characteristics

Based on witness testimony and press reports, the object is described as luminous, square or ball-shaped, approximately 10 meters in size, and capable of hovering and moving rapidly without noise. It left physical traces, such as discolored and displaced roof tiles.

Themes and Editorial Stance

The primary theme is the investigation of a potential UFO/UAP sighting, emphasizing witness testimony, physical evidence, and scientific inquiry. The bulletin adopts a factual and investigative stance, documenting the process and findings of the SERPAN team. The inclusion of press clippings suggests an effort to disseminate information and potentially validate the seriousness of the reported event.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the detailed, methodical investigation of an anomalous aerial phenomenon. The editorial stance is professional and evidence-based, focusing on the process of inquiry, data collection, and analysis. The bulletin highlights the collaboration between civilian investigators, scientific bodies (CNES), and law enforcement (gendarmes), underscoring the seriousness with which such reports are treated by SERPAN. The inclusion of a disclaimer regarding the confidentiality and restricted diffusion of the report indicates a desire for controlled dissemination of sensitive information.

This issue of "AU-DELA DU RÉEL" from "TARN INFOS", dated Friday, September 15, 1989, focuses on a significant UFO sighting that occurred in Bertre, France. The cover headline, "Un objet volant non identifié stationne quelques minutes au-dessus de la maison," immediately draws attention to the lead story.

The Bertre Incident: A Witness Account

The main article details the experience of François Aujoulet, a 68-year-old retired commercial director who recently moved to Bertre with his wife. In the early morning hours of Monday, September 4, 1989, Aujoulet was awakened by an intense light. He observed a luminous object, described as bottle-shaped and covered in dazzling facets, hovering above his property. He noted that the object projected a beam of light towards a lucerne field and that the roof of his house seemed to move, with tiles changing color and some being lifted.

Aujoulet's initial disbelief gave way to a detailed description of the phenomenon. He estimated the object's size to be approximately 2.5 meters by 3 meters. He also mentioned his dog, Rex, accompanying him outside. The object remained stationary for about thirty seconds before disappearing.

Physical Traces and Official Investigation

Following the sighting, Aujoulet hesitated to report the incident, fearing ridicule. However, he eventually consulted the mayor, who advised him to contact the gendarmes. On Tuesday, September 12, gendarmes and specialists from the CNES (Centre National des Etudes Spatiales), specifically the SEPRA (Service d'Expertises des Phénomènes de Rentrées dans l'Atmosphère), visited Aujoulet's property. They conducted an investigation, including aerial photography of the house and surrounding area.

The investigation revealed physical evidence on the roof: approximately 25 square meters of tiles had changed color, appearing as if burnt, and some had been lifted. The vegetation on the tiles in that area had also blackened. A portion of the roof structure was found to have sagged by several centimeters, a detail confirmed by the roofer who had recently worked on it. The suspect tiles were collected for laboratory analysis.

Jean-Jacques Velasco, the head of SEPRA, stated that their work would involve gathering all information and elements related to the phenomenon and analyzing them with sophisticated means. He acknowledged that such phenomena are not entirely new but highlighted the significance of the physical traces in this case. He expressed caution, stating that at this stage, nothing definitive could be said, but also hinted at the possibility of something significant having occurred, famously quoted as "Il y a quelque chose..."

Related Sightings and Broader Context

The issue also touches upon the broader context of UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) sightings. It mentions the ongoing work of the CNES and SEPRA in monitoring satellites and investigating unexplained events. The article notes that misinterpretations of aerial phenomena can arise from various sources, including satellites, astronomical events, or even aircraft.

Several other related incidents are briefly mentioned or detailed:

• Serre-de-Cazaux: An inhabitant, Mme Scaldafero, reported seeing a luminous circle, described as orange and red, over her property on a Sunday evening. She noted its inexplicable nature and the lack of physical traces.
• Pamiers: Henri Abadie reported seeing a large, red fireball-like object moving rapidly across the sky at night.
• Montdragon: Five villagers reported a sudden bright light and a "saucer" flying over their house late at night.
• Salies-du-Salat: André Rieu and his wife witnessed a large, white-blue luminous object that illuminated the entire landscape.

These additional accounts suggest a pattern of unexplained aerial phenomena occurring in the region during the same period.

Editorial Stance and Themes

The magazine adopts a serious and investigative tone, treating the witness testimonies and physical evidence with considerable attention. The involvement of official scientific bodies like CNES and SEPRA lends credibility to the reports. The articles emphasize the need for careful analysis and avoid jumping to conclusions, while acknowledging the puzzling nature of the events. The recurring theme is the presence of unexplained aerial phenomena, often accompanied by physical traces, which challenge conventional explanations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently presents UAP sightings as phenomena worthy of serious investigation, particularly when accompanied by physical evidence or credible witness testimony. There's an emphasis on the scientific approach, with the involvement of organizations like CNES and SEPRA, but also an acknowledgment of the limitations of current understanding, as indicated by the SEPRA representative's quote, "On ne sait pas ce qui s'est passé" (We don't know what happened) and "Il y a quelque chose..." (There is something...). The editorial stance appears to be one of open-minded inquiry, seeking factual evidence and expert analysis rather than sensationalism, while still recognizing the extraordinary nature of the reported events.

This document appears to be a section from a French publication, likely a newspaper or magazine, focusing on UFO (OVNI) reports. The primary article, titled 'A propos d'O.v.n.i.s.', details a call for witnesses by a reader named Denis Camp regarding a sighting on February 6th.

UFO Sighting on February 6th

Denis Camp, aged 38 and residing at 38 rue de Nore in Mazamet, has written to 'La Dépêche' seeking additional information about a UFO sighting. He notes that various regional newspapers, including 'La Dépêche du Midi', have widely reported on unusual events that occurred on the evening of February 6th. Specifically, within an area approximately 95 kilometers in radius centered on Toulouse, eight observations were made of a blue-green, ovoid luminous object around 11:30 PM. A ninth observation, reported in 'La Dépêche' on February 13th, is said to have occurred about twenty minutes earlier. Locations mentioned include Agen, Saint-Maurin, Rodez, Crespinet, Caraman, Carcassonne, Limoux, Saint-Girons, and Saint-Martory, all of which witnessed this 'strange spectacle'. Another report from Graulhet at 11:15 PM describes a brief, intense light.

Camp expresses interest in gathering more details and launches an appeal to any hypothetical witnesses of this 'intriguing celestial object' or any other 'particular phenomenon' in the Mazamet area. The editorial note clarifies that Mr. Camp is an official investigator for the UFO group 'Lumières dans la nuit' (Lights in the Night).

Investigation in Bertre (Tarn)

The subsequent pages detail an investigation conducted in Bertre, Tarn, concerning an observation on September 4, 1989. This section includes extensive documentation:

Site Plans and Maps

• Page 3: A site plan of the location in Bertre, showing the property of Mr. Aujoulet. It details features like a fence, ditches, trees, a meadow, a small bridge, and a 'zone illuminée' (illuminated zone) approximately 20.4 meters by 19.2 meters. The plan was created based on surveys from October 27, 1989, by EMT-GMH.
• Page 4: A more detailed plan of the property, including the house, garden, various structures (hangar, shed, terrace), a well, and surrounding areas like a road, fields, and a verger (orchard). It also indicates magnetic north and the approximate location of a witness.
• Page 5: A topographic map section from the Institut Géographique National, scale 1:25,000, showing the area around Bertre within the larger context of Lavaur and surrounding regions in Tarn and Haute-Garonne.
• Page 6: A close-up of the topographic map, specifically highlighting the area of Bertre and Genibres, with elevation contours and local features.

Photographic Documentation

• Page 7: A photograph of Mr. Aujoulet standing in front of his house, pointing to the roof where the UFO allegedly landed. A handwritten note from 'Tarn Info' expresses hope for good reception and future collaboration.
• Page 8: A photograph of the south facade of the house with a helicopter in the air, taken before tile removal during aerial surveys by S.E.P.R.A. The photo was provided by Jean-Luc Letitre of TARN INFO.
• Pages 9 & 10: These pages list the photographic documentation from two different photographers:
• Eric Maillot (October 26, 1989): Includes photo-montages and individual photographs detailing various views of the house (south, north, east facades), the roof, the surrounding grounds, and conversations involving Mr. Aujoulet and an EDF employee. Some photos capture the house at night.
• Gilles Munsch (October 26-27, 1989): Lists slides showing different perspectives of the house, including night views, and attempts to photograph lights produced by the house and a light in the meadow. It also includes views from various distances and angles on the property.

Incident Details and Witness Accounts

The investigation report for Bertre (B1) focuses on the observation of September 4, 1989. While the direct testimony of Mr. Aujoulet is not fully transcribed in the provided text, the photographic and site plan documentation strongly suggests a detailed on-site investigation was conducted. The mention of 'zone affectée' (affected zone) on the roof and the 'prélèvement des tuiles' (tile removal) implies that physical evidence was sought or collected.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document highlights a consistent interest in UFO phenomena, with a call for public participation in gathering information and detailed, methodical investigations. The inclusion of maps, site plans, and extensive photographic records indicates a serious approach to documenting and analyzing these events. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry, encouraging the sharing of information and supporting investigations by groups like 'Lumières dans la nuit'.

This document is a report titled "Enquête à BERTRE (81): Observation du 04.09.1989" (Investigation in Bertre (81): Observation of 04.09.1989). The photographic survey was conducted by Eric Maillot, with additional photographs and slides taken by Gilles Munsch and ENT. The report is dated Jeudi 26 Octobre 1989 (Thursday, October 26, 1989), with one entry dated Vendredi 27 Octobre 1989 (Friday, October 27, 1989).

Photographic Montages and Observations

The document presents a series of photographic montages and individual photographs detailing observations made at a house in Bertre (81) on September 4, 1989. The primary viewpoint for many of these images is from the lawn in front of the house (south side).

Photo-Montage Numéro 1: Taken from the lawn, it shows Mr. Aujoulet, an EDF employee, and GMH conversing about the alleged facts. The visible horizon is SW-W-NW.

Photo-Montage Numéro 2: Also from the lawn, facing south, with visible horizons NE-E-SE.

Photo-Montage Numéro 3: Similar view, with visible horizons SE-S-SW.

Photo-Montage Numéro 4: Focuses on the south facade of the house, showing the gutter.

Photo-Montage Numéro 5: A close-up of tiles overflowing the gutter.

Photo-Montage Numéro 6: A close-up of the roof section (south side), showing the TV antenna, chimneys, and an "affected zone." It includes an instruction to lift and unfold the montage at a specific point.

Photographie numéro 17: Taken from the lawn, from the window of Mr. Aujoulet's room.

Photographie numéro 18: Similar view, taken from the head of Mr. Aujoulet's bed.

Photographie numéro 15: A low-angle view of the roof (south side) from the skylight, noting an "affected zone" and the horizon E.S.E.

Photographie numéro 16: Similar to photo 15, from another angle.

Diapositive numéro 06 (Prise de vue Gilles Munsch): A telephoto view of the west part of the south roof section, showing the "affected zone" and chimneys.

Diapositive numéro 10 (Prise de vue Gilles Munsch): A close-up of tiles overflowing the gutter on the south facade. It questions whether this is a natural slippage, a consequence of the observed phenomenon, or due to "rearrangements" made on the roof.

Photographie numéro 09 (Prise de vue ENT): Shows the south facade. To the left is an "affaissee" (collapsed/sagging) zone, in the center is the "prélèvements" (sampling/take-off) zone, and to the right is a "normal" zone. The lighting is from the setting sun.

Diapositive numéro 36 (Prise de vue GMH): A similar view of the house from another angle, with lighting from the rising sun.

Photographie numéro 07 (Prise de vue Eric Maillot): South facade view from the porch, including cars.

Photographie numéro 08 (Prise de vue Eric Maillot): Similar view, from a different angle and further away.

Key Individuals and Organizations

The key individuals mentioned are Eric Maillot (photographer), Mr. Aujoulet (resident), GMH (observer), Gilles Munsch (photographer), and ENT (photographer).

Organizations mentioned include EDF (Électricité de France) and GDF (Gaz de France), with an EDF employee present at the scene.

Locations

The primary location of the investigation is Bertre (81), France. Specific views are described in relation to the house's south facade, roof, and surrounding landscape.

Themes and Editorial Stance

The document is primarily an investigative report focused on documenting a specific location and potential phenomena through photography. The recurring theme is the detailed visual examination of a house and its surroundings, with captions pointing out specific features and areas of interest like "affected zones" and "prélèvements." The editorial stance appears to be one of objective documentation and inquiry, posing questions about natural causes versus potential consequences of observed phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are visual documentation of a specific site (Bertre), detailed photographic evidence of a house's exterior, and the recording of observations and conversations related to alleged events. The editorial stance is factual and investigative, aiming to present evidence and prompt further questions about the nature of the observed features and events. The use of multiple photographers and different times of day (setting and rising sun) suggests a thorough approach to documentation.

This document is a report titled "Enquête à Bertre (81): Observation du 04.09.1989". It was compiled following an observation made on September 4, 1989, with photographs taken by Eric Maillot and Gilles Munsch. The report itself is dated Thursday, October 26, 1989, and Friday, October 27, 1989, indicating the dates the photographic evidence was processed or compiled.

Photographic Documentation

The report extensively uses photographs to document the observation site and its surroundings. The photographs are numbered and captioned, providing context for each image:

• Photographie numéro 10: South facade view from the porch at dusk.
• Photographie numéro 11: View of the North horizon and the East facade.
• Photographie numéro 12: Mr. Aujoulet, an EDF and SMH employee, on the road, West side.
• Photographie numéro 13: North facade view from the road (West side).
• Photographie numéro 19: Distant view of the property (North side), taken in the morning with a 50 mm lens.
• Diapositive numéro 23: Distant view of the property (North side), taken in the morning with a 210 mm lens.
• Photographie numéro 20: View of the North facade, from the small walnut tree at the bottom of the meadow, in the illuminated zone (50 mm lens).
• Photographie numéro 21: North facade view from the witness's observation position, next to the illuminated zone (130 mm lens).
• Photographie numéro 22: View of the North facade, from the fence separating the two meadows (50 mm lens).
• Photographie numéro 23: North facade view from the fence separating the two meadows (130 mm lens).
• Diapositive numéro 17: Silhouette of the house (North facade) against the sky at nightfall. One of the dormer windows is lit, projecting a dimly lit area at the back of the meadow, near the small walnut tree.
• Diapositive numéro 32: View of the North facade, from the central gravel driveway.
• Diapo 30: An image showing a house with a covered porch, overgrown with ivy.
• Diapo 28: An image showing a house in the distance across a grassy field, with a fence in the foreground.

Astronomical Data

A significant portion of the report is dedicated to astronomical data, specifically concerning the planet Jupiter. This section aims to correlate the observation with celestial events.

• Tableau des Horaires (TU): This table lists the rise, culmination, and set times for various celestial bodies (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Pluto) in Universal Time (TU).
• Bertre Coordinates: The latitude and longitude of Bertre are provided: 43.60° North Latitude and 1.94° East Longitude.
• Coordonnées Précises - Jupiter: Detailed information about Jupiter's position and visibility at the time of the observation is given. This includes:
• Longitude and Latitude.
• Right Ascension and Declination.
• Azimuth and Altitude.
• Zenith distance.
• Hour Angle.
• Apparent Diameter.
• Magnitude (-1.62).
• Times for Lever (Rise), Culmination, and Coucher (Set) in TU.

The text accompanying the astronomical data explains that Jupiter was progressing in azimuth and altitude towards the East during the observed time frame (3h to 5h HL). It notes that depending on the actual observation time, Jupiter might not have been visible or could have been situated at a right angle to the witness's direction of observation.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The report focuses on documenting a specific observation event with photographic evidence and supporting astronomical data. The inclusion of detailed astronomical calculations suggests an effort to rule out or contextualize potential celestial explanations for the observed phenomenon. The detailed photographic record indicates a methodical approach to the investigation. The overall stance appears to be one of careful documentation and analysis, aiming to provide a comprehensive account of the event and its potential context.

This document appears to be a collection of pages from various publications, primarily focused on astronomical data and meteorological investigations, with a specific emphasis on events in or around Bertre, France. The core content includes astronomical tables, correspondence regarding an unexplained luminous phenomenon, and meteorological reports.

Astronomical Data (Page 1)

The first page features a detailed table of planetary coordinates from September 4, 1983, for the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. The data is presented in ecliptic, equatorial, and azimuthal systems, along with hourly information. The table is associated with "ASTRONOMIE PLANETAIRE" and the publisher "AMSTRAD" for January 1997, though the data itself is from 1983. It also includes location details for Bertre (43.50° Latitude Nord, 1.94° Longitude Est).

Investigation into a Luminous Phenomenon in Bertre (Pages 3-4, 7-9)

Several pages document an inquiry initiated by Eric Maillot concerning a "luminous phenomenon" observed in Bertre on September 4, 1989, between 03:30 and 05:00. Maillot contacted EDF (Electricité de France) and meteorological services to ascertain if any power grid irregularities or unusual weather conditions were recorded.

EDF, through its Subdivision of Castres, responded on April 12, 1990, stating that while their district (Puylaurens) registered incidents on dates close to the event (September 1, 7, and 10, 1989), they recorded no incidents on September 4, 1989, in Bertre.

The National Meteorological Service (Direction de la Météorologie Nationale) provided climatological information for Bertre on September 4, 1989. Their report, dated December 12, 1989, and a subsequent clarification dated July 9, 1990, indicate that the night of September 3-4, 1989, was characterized by anticyclonic conditions, a clear or slightly cloudy sky, and calm weather. Temperatures were around 8 degrees Celsius at 4 AM. The data from the automatic weather stations at Lavaur and Albi confirm a clear night with a significant temperature drop. No specific human observations were made during the night, but the available data suggests clear conditions. The meteorological services confirmed no particular observations or precipitation were noted by their stations in Puylaurens and St Paul Cap de Joux.

Meteorological Data and Lightning Reports (Pages 5-6, 8)

Page 5 contains a letter from Météorage Franklin, dated January 9, 1990, responding to Maillot's inquiry. Météorage Franklin operates a national network of lightning detection stations. They reported that their system detects 90% of lightning strikes with a precision of 2-3 kilometers. They also noted that their performance might be reduced in border regions and that their region of interest could be at the periphery of their network. They mentioned plans to extend their network to Europe, including Switzerland, the Benelux countries, and Germany, which would improve performance in Maillot's region.

Page 6 provides specific "Relevés sur 36.17 METEORAGE" for the commune of Bertre on August 7, 1989, and August 16, 1989. These records detail local times, amperage, distance, position (N.O., N.E., S.O.), and the number of lightning arcs detected. For August 7, there were strikes at 17:59 and 18:06. For August 16, multiple strikes were recorded between 14:18 and 14:55. The report for August 27, 1989, states "R.A.S." (Rien à Signaler - Nothing to Report). A note clarifies that this research is not exhaustive due to limited means and focuses on periods recognized as prone to thunderstorms.

Page 8 presents a detailed climatological summary for Bertre on Monday, September 4, 1989, from the Centre Départemental de Météorologie, Aérodrome du Sèquestre, Albi. It contrasts data from Lavaur and Albi, showing atmospheric pressure (1020.9 hPa at Albi), precipitation (none), visibility (clear), temperatures (low of +4.9°C at Albi, +5.4°C min at Lavaur), humidity (24% at Albi, 19% min at Lavaur), and wind speed. No particular phenomena were noted.

Other Sections

Page 2 contains a heading "D/ METEOROLOGIE". Page 10 lists sections for an investigation: "1 - Contact préalable", "2 - Enquête sur le terrain", and "3 - Suivi et complément d'enquête".

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are astronomy, meteorology, and the investigation of unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of thoroughness and data-driven inquiry, as evidenced by the detailed astronomical tables and the systematic follow-up with official meteorological and energy service providers. The publication seems to aim at providing factual information and analysis related to these subjects.

This document is a transcript of a telephone interview conducted before an investigation into a reported UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) sighting. The interview is with Mr. Aujoulet, the witness, and involves investigators (referred to as EMT and GMH) and an EDF (Électricité de France) representative.

Interview with Mr. Aujoulet

The interview, conducted on September 15, 1989, focuses on an event that occurred on the night of the new moon, approximately eight days prior.

Roof Damage and Initial Observations

Mr. Aujoulet confirms that the roof repair is already done. He explains that an eight-day period of rain followed the incident, causing a significant leak, necessitating roof work to prevent further damage.

He notes that some traces of the event remain on the roof, with brown tiles visible in certain areas. Approximately fifty tiles were taken, and he kept about thirty broken ones. He initially didn't realize an object had landed on his roof, thinking it was in the air.

The Sighting

Mr. Aujoulet describes being woken up by a bright light. He saw a luminous beam illuminating the meadow in front of his house. He went to the window and observed the light, initially not understanding its source. He then went outside and followed the beam, which he discovered was coming from the roof of his house.

He recounts that the beam started at the eaves of the roof. He descended a slope and, even at a lower point, could still see the light. He describes the illuminated meadow as being as bright as daylight. He mentions seeing a walnut tree in the meadow lit up as if by the sun.

He then turned back towards the house and saw the illuminated object on the roof. It lasted for about 4-5 seconds before extinguishing. He states that his wife, who was sleeping directly below, heard nothing.

Vehicle and Vegetation

His car is kept in a hangar 40 meters away and has no battery problems. He did not observe any traces on the vegetation (alfalfa for horses).

Object Characteristics

The beam of light on the ground was described as a square, approximately 10x10 meters. He questioned an individual who suggested it could be an extraterrestrial craft searching for a lost piece.

Mr. Aujoulet's eyesight is good, and he wears glasses for reading. He confirms he was not wearing his glasses during the sighting.

Family and Other Witnesses

Only Mr. Aujoulet was present at the time of the sighting. His son and daughter-in-law had visited three days prior. His wife was asleep in a different room.

His wife was awake when he returned to the house and asked what had happened. He recounted the event to her, and they went back to sleep. The next day, he called the mayor to inquire if anyone else had seen anything, which led to the gendarmerie being alerted.

He mentions that after the event was reported in local newspapers, several people called to report seeing a luminous object in the sky on the same night, particularly those returning from parties in Lavaur.

Electrical Effects and Other Observations

He noted that the corridor and kitchen lights might have been affected. His dog did not react unusually and followed him.

There were no halogen lamps at the house. He mentions a neon light in a small outbuilding. He also refers to an article in France Dimanche (Paris Match?) that he found to be an "interdiction of publication."

He clarifies that the "beam" he saw was not like a flashlight beam in fog but rather the illuminated area on the ground. The ground's appearance was likened to a TV screen with static at the end of broadcasts, possibly due to dew.

He recalls that Mr. Aujoulet seemed to think that tiles were broken when SEPRA was on the roof, but he couldn't confirm this. Photos viewed at the gendarmerie did not show broken tiles on the roof.

Investigation Details

On October 26, 1989, investigators met with Mr. Aujoulet. They were granted permission to photograph and record the event. Mr. Aujoulet showed them his roof.

Gendarmes and the mayor had previously visited, and approximately fifty tiles were taken for analysis. Mr. Aujoulet showed photos of the slipped tiles.

He reiterates that the object was positioned on the south side of the roof, between two small windows. He states that many tiles had moved, with over fifty missing or discolored (pinkish/brown). There was a depression of 7 to 8 cm in the roof structure. No part of the roof appeared burnt, but some moss on the tiles was described as burnt and green.

The house's roof was only four years old and had been redone.

An EDF agent arrived and Mr. Aujoulet recounted the roof's condition.

Witness's Perspective and Object Description

Mr. Aujoulet describes seeing the pre-dawn light and then a beam illuminating the meadow. He went to the window and then outside. He saw a luminous beam from the roof, which he had previously seen from his bedroom window. He noted that the beam started at the roof's ridge.

He mentions that Mr. Vélasco questioned why he didn't see anything from the slope, and they retraced the path together. Mr. Vélasco observed that from halfway down the slope, only the ridge was visible.

He emphasizes that it was only when in the meadow that the full extent of the illumination was apparent. He describes the light as being like daylight. He admits to not being a strong believer but felt something extraordinary was happening.

He saw the object, described as 3-4 meters wide and the same in height, with square headlights illuminating the ground. It was on the roof and lit up for about 4-5 seconds before extinguishing. His wife, sleeping directly below, heard nothing.

Further Details and Inquiries

He was asked if the beam was square, and he confirmed it was approximately 10x10 meters on the ground. He mentioned an encounter with an astronomer who suggested the object might be extraterrestrial.

He confirmed he could hear well but wore glasses for reading. He was not wearing glasses during the sighting.

He stated that no one else was at home during the sighting. His wife was awake when he returned and he explained what happened.

He was asked about the condition of the vegetation, and he stated there were no traces in the alfalfa.

Newspaper Articles and Official Reports

Mr. Aujoulet showed newspaper clippings from TARN INFO, LA DEPECHE DU TARN, and LE PARISIEN, detailing the event. He also presented a declaration receipt from the Gendarmerie Nationale dated September 15, 1989, filed by Gendarme Vabre Eric, concerning Mr. Aujoulet's statement about observing a UAP above his house, which caused damage to the roof.

Electrical Issues

He was asked about electrical problems. He mentioned that when two radiators are on, the circuit breaker trips, but only one can be used at a time. He was also asked about the voltage on a nearby pylon, which was stated to be 20,000 volts.

Mr. Velasco's Opinion and Other Accounts

There's a brief mention of Mr. Velasco's opinion on UFOs. Mr. Aujoulet initially didn't believe in such phenomena but now considers it extraterrestrial.

A plastic-sheathed electrical cable was observed wrapped around the chimney, which Mr. Aujoulet confirmed was present before the observation and was intact.

He has been a property owner since May, officially since July. He believes the roof beams were bent by the weight or gas pressure from the object. He doesn't think the object landed but rather that gas pressure during takeoff caused the movement, leaving it about 20 cm from the roof.

He reported no TV disturbances. He mentioned that after the event was published in newspapers, the gendarmes received about fifty phone calls reporting similar sightings. An astronomer visited and suggested the object was searching for a lost piece.

He mentioned that a piece of metal, 3 meters long and very light, was found in the fields about 300 meters away, which Mr. Velasco was unaware of.

Further Inquiries and Witness Hesitations

Mr. Aujoulet was asked if other people had contacted him, and he mentioned a person who gave him a book by Raël.

He was asked about the beam's shape and confirmed it was square. He also mentioned a report of a similar case in Martre-Tolosanne.

He described the beam as incredible and that it didn't reach the side fence. He noted that the gendarmes asked why he didn't go into the beam. He indicated that the light covered the ground, extending from the edge of the apparatus to the width of the meadow.

He was asked if the light was in the air or on the ground. He confirmed it was on the ground. He described the object as being like a gas bottle, 3-4 meters wide and high, with square headlights. He is colorblind and described the light as almost white, slightly orangish, and incredibly bright.

He stated the object remained for 4-5 seconds before departing. His wife, sleeping below, heard nothing.

He was asked if the light illuminated the trees, and he confirmed it illuminated two small trees, covering a width of about 22 meters and a depth of about 20 meters.

Reconstructing the Event

He was asked if he remembered if the trees were illuminated. He stated that the roof ridge was higher than the trees, and the beam descended to the width he described. He was asked if the roof was illuminated or dark, and he stated it must have been illuminated since the beam descended.

He then had a realization about the physics of the situation, noting the roof's slope might be steeper than the theoretical beam angle, casting doubt on his initial interpretation. He believes he only saw half of the apparatus and that it was not on the roof but further away.

He confirmed the beam was fixed and did not tremble. He speculated that perhaps his sighting caused the search to stop.

He stated there was no light on the ground when he looked back, only the beam. His dog followed him but showed no reaction, which he found surprising.

He confirmed he likely jumped over the chain blocking the meadow. The meadow has since been cut twice, but the grass has not been affected.

Post-Sighting Events and Investigation

He was asked about the height of the alfalfa during the observation, stating it was 15-20 cm higher than now. It has since been cut several times.

He was asked about his dog's reaction, noting that the dog barked upon their arrival and at the EDF representative's arrival. He wondered why the dog didn't react during the sighting.

He showed the investigators a pamphlet from GEPAN with a drawing of an object that resembled a satellite with solar panels, which he stated was not what he saw.

He reiterated his description of the object as a gas bottle and confirmed seeing headlights.

He mentioned that he told Mr. Vélasco about the event, but Mr. Vélasco did not confirm or deny it.

He showed newspaper clippings he had kept.

Gendarmerie Declaration

A declaration from Gendarme Vabre Eric, dated September 9, 1989, confirms receiving a statement from Mr. Aujoulet regarding a UAP observation above his house that caused damage to the south side of the roof. This declaration was registered under PV n°599 and transmitted to the public prosecutor.

Further Discussion on the Event

He was asked if the France Dimanche montage was accurate, and he said it resembled the event, with the lighting originating from the object in a triangular shape.

He confirmed the light was luminous on the sides and widened like a beam. However, it's noted that if Mr. Aujoulet was positioned to the side of the beam, he shouldn't have been able to see it extending from both sides.

He mentioned an upcoming conference at a high school in Lavaur where he will share his experience.

He stated he would not hide what he saw and mentioned that others have seen similar things.

He was asked about the object's size, and he referred to an article about a sighting in La Serre de Cazaux.

He mentioned receiving letters from eccentric individuals, including an 88-year-old woman who claimed to be from Venus, and a follower of Raël.

The Roof Incident and Investigation Timeline

Mr. Aujoulet confirmed that the gendarmes came on a Thursday afternoon and inspected the house and roof. They left a notice for him to make a statement the next day. On Friday, he made his statement, and they returned that afternoon and went onto the roof. SEPRA arrived on Tuesday.

Only one gendarme went onto the roof initially, and three with SEPRA.

He confirmed that the burnt moss was collected on the first day by the gendarme. He stated that SEPRA had already been contacted, as the moss was burnt and black, with green edges, and the tiles had moved. This prompted their investigation.

SEPRA arrived on Tuesday afternoon by helicopter and took photos. They had difficulty taking off due to fog. The helicopter arrived around 11 AM and stayed until 7 PM. They returned the next day to search for tiles, and Mr. Vélasco returned three weeks later to collect seven tiles.

Chronological Reconstruction

Mr. Aujoulet was asked to recount the events chronologically, starting from before he saw anything. He was sleeping and turned towards the north window. He saw a large luminous beam.

It is noted that this would only be conceivable if the beam was very thin, suggesting that "beam" might be synonymous with "glow" for Mr. Aujoulet, rather than a visible channel of light. This could be a simple vocabulary error or a reconstruction that adds weight to the event.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document primarily focuses on a detailed witness account of a UAP event, emphasizing the physical evidence (damaged roof) and the subsequent investigation by authorities. There's a recurring theme of corroboration through other sightings reported after the event gained media attention. The investigators appear to be meticulously documenting the witness's statements, probing for details, and noting potential inconsistencies or alternative explanations, such as the witness's colorblindness or the physics of light beams. The editorial stance seems to be one of objective reporting and investigation, presenting the witness's testimony and the findings of official bodies without overt skepticism or endorsement of the UAP hypothesis, while also acknowledging the possibility of misinterpretation or exaggeration.

This document, identified as issue 3 of 'OVNI', details a series of interviews and investigations related to a potential Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) sighting. The primary witness, referred to as MRA, recounts an experience involving a luminous beam and a distinct object. The interviews, conducted by GMH and EMT, also involve MRA's wife (MME) and explore the physical evidence found at the scene, particularly on the roof of the witness's house. The date of the recording or interview is noted as 'Ve 27.10.1989 matin', suggesting the events likely occurred around that time.

Witness Testimony (MRA)

MRA describes being woken by a luminous beam that illuminated the pre (meadow) outside his house. He initially saw it through the shutters and then opened them to observe the light. He describes the beam as illuminating a 20m by 20m area of the meadow. Descending to investigate, he saw the beam on the ground and wondered about its nature. He then returned to the house and described the object as being like a gas bottle, about 3 meters high, with square headlights that illuminated the meadow. He noted that the light was incredibly bright, making sunlight seem pale in comparison.

MRA initially hesitated to call the mayor but did so because of the unusual nature of the event. The mayor then contacted the gendarmes. When asked to compare the light on the ground to the light seen from the window, MRA stated it was the same, illuminating the same area, including a small poplar tree in the middle of the meadow.

He described the light as similar to stadium floodlights but more intense. He also mentioned experiencing eye strain and fatigue for about a week after the event, though he attributed this to general overwork and fragile eyes.

Wife's Testimony (MME)

MRA's wife, MME, stated that she heard nothing and slept through the entire event. She was woken by her husband when he came downstairs. She did not notice any unusual sounds or vibrations and confirmed that their dog did not bark.

Investigation of the Roof

Following the sighting, an investigation was conducted, focusing on the roof of MRA's house. The roof was covered in brown tiles, many of which were found to be broken or damaged. MRA noted that the damage seemed concentrated in an area that might correspond to where the object was perceived to be. Gendarmes and representatives from SEPRA (Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrée Atmosphérique) were involved in examining the roof and collecting samples, including broken tiles and moss.

There was discussion about the condition of the roof structure, specifically a curved beam with a noticeable hump and a dip. It was speculated that this might be due to the natural work of the wood rather than the UAP. However, the presence of new tiles and the extent of the damage led to further investigation.

MRA showed the investigators a drawing he made and a GEPAN (Groupe d'Études des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-Identifiés) brochure, comparing the object he saw to a satellite. He described the lights on the object as square and intense.

GEPAN and SEPRA Involvement

The document mentions GEPAN as a study group at the Centre Spatial de Toulouse, dedicated to examining unidentified aerospace phenomena. SEPRA appears to be involved in the technical analysis of the evidence, such as the roof tiles. The report notes that SEPRA took tiles from the roof, and that the gendarmes were also involved in the initial investigation.

Other Details and Observations

During the interviews, MRA mentioned that the luminous beam was directional, illuminating only a specific area. He also noted that he was not blinded by the light and that the beam passed about 1 to 1.5 meters from him. He mentioned that he usually wears glasses for reading but not for general vision during the day.

There was a discussion about the weather conditions, with MRA stating it was not foggy or misty, but rather dry due to a prolonged drought. He also mentioned that he had seen similar bright lights from football stadium projectors.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are witness testimony, physical evidence analysis, and the involvement of official or scientific bodies in investigating UAP sightings. The editorial stance appears to be one of detailed reporting and objective inquiry, presenting the witness's account and the findings of the investigation without overt sensationalism. The document highlights the challenges in definitively identifying such phenomena and the process of gathering and analyzing information. The comparison of the UAP to a satellite and the mention of GEPAN suggest an interest in the scientific and technical aspects of UAP research.

This document appears to be a transcript of interviews and notes related to a UFO (OVNI) sighting that occurred in Bertre, France, on September 4, 1989. The primary focus is on the testimony of a witness, referred to as Mr. A., and the subsequent investigation by the gendarmerie and potentially other organizations like SEPRA. The interviews were conducted by EMT and GMH, with the date of the transcription being October 27, 1990.

Witness Testimony of Mr. A.

Mr. A. reported that on the night of September 4, 1989, while in his bedroom with the window open, he was attracted by a strong light outside. He observed a luminous object, described as a "child's top" approximately 2 to 3 meters in size, hovering over his roof. The object was covered in facets resembling yellow-orange headlights. He approached within two meters of the object. He then noticed a light beam emanating from above and the middle of his roof. The object remained stationary, and after about 30 seconds, the phenomenon ceased, and the light went out, leaving him momentarily disoriented in the dark.

Mr. A. stated that the object's light was intense, far superior to sunlight. He noted that the tiles on his roof had moved and changed color, and that the roof ridge had subsided and twisted, creating a 'dent' or 'hollow'. He believes this damage was caused by the object. He also mentioned that moss and lichen on the roof were 'cooked' and easily disintegrated, indicating a thermal effect. He noted that the tiles themselves were still resistant.

He confirmed that the tiles were about five years old and had been artificially aged. He observed that the color difference was most noticeable when the sun was not directly overhead. He also mentioned that the tiles had slid downwards, causing a 'break' and a 'hollow'.

Mr. A. also reported other observations of similar phenomena, including one on the night of August 31, 1989, where he saw a luminous object behind Mr. K.L.'s house that illuminated the ground and stopped. He also mentioned his wife, Mme. A., had seen an object in March and Mr. K.L. had seen one in May.

He provided a sketch of his house, demonstrating a good sense of proportion. He was cooperative with the investigators, offering to provide a copy of his house plans, though he initially hesitated due to the volume of correspondence he received.

Gendarmerie Investigation

A gendarme from Puylaurens met with the interviewers and confirmed that Mr. A. had reported the incident. The gendarme stated that he was the first to go up onto the roof and take photos. He mentioned that Mr. Velasco, the mayor of a nearby commune, had collected samples of moss and tiles. The gendarme noted that the only visible difference in the trace was the color of the tiles.

He showed photographs of the roof, highlighting the color difference in the tiles. He confirmed that the tiles had moved and that there was an apparent subsidence of the roof ridge. He also mentioned that journalists had been to the site, some even before the SEPRA team arrived.

The gendarme explained that the roof had been protected by Mr. A. and the gendarmerie. He described a 3-meter long trace on the south side of the roof where the object was presumed to have been. He also confirmed the effect on the vegetation, noting that the moss was 'cooked' and easily detached.

He suggested that for more detailed scientific information, Mr. Velasco should be contacted, as the gendarmerie was not specialized in such matters. He expressed a general interest in UFOs but did not elaborate further.

Regarding the physical evidence, the gendarme stated that the SEPRA had collected the tiles. He mentioned that the second visit by SEPRA indicated they had found something significant. He also noted that some tiles might have been left behind, and that control tiles would be needed for comparison.

He confirmed that a journalist from Paris Match had been particularly persistent and had obtained photos, some taken from a helicopter. He admitted that some of these actions were done to 'annoy' the journalist.

Other Witnesses and Information

The document mentions that Mr. Velasco, the mayor, was involved in collecting samples. It also refers to an article in "France-Dimanche" and other people who had seen a light during the Lavaur festival.

There is a mention of a previous incident in St. Martory in February 1989, which involved a bolide (meteor). The gendarmes reportedly had no knowledge of Mr. A.'s specific testimony but were aware of prior related accounts.

SEPRA and Journalistic Involvement

The document indicates that SEPRA had requested meteorological and radar reports for the night of the incident. It also mentions that SEPRA had initially started tests on the tiles but stopped due to cost and lack of credits, calling them "rigolos" (jokers).

Journalists from "Tarn Info" and "Paris Match" were actively involved in covering the event, with some journalists reportedly accessing the roof without authorization. The gendarme expressed skepticism about how the press obtained information, suggesting they could "pirate telex communications."

Further Details and Inconsistencies

During the interviews, there are attempts to clarify details, such as the lighting in Mr. A.'s house. Mr. A. insists that the cage d'escalier light, even when on, would not illuminate the pre outside due to the small size of the skylight. He also recounts an experience where he was illuminated by an object while returning from the house, seeing the beam coming from the roof.

There's a discussion about whether the object's light could have come from his own house, which Mr. A. strongly refutes, emphasizing the intensity and nature of the light he observed.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this document are witness testimony, physical evidence of a UFO encounter, the investigation process by authorities (gendarmerie, SEPRA), and the role of the media. The editorial stance appears to be one of detailed reporting and investigation, presenting witness accounts and official findings without overt sensationalism, while also acknowledging the complexities and potential inconsistencies in witness recall and official procedures. The document aims to provide a comprehensive account of the event and its aftermath.

This document appears to be an excerpt from a French ufology publication, likely a magazine or newsletter, focusing on detailed case investigations. The primary content revolves around the UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) sighting in Bertre, France, on September 4, 1989. The publication's character is investigative, aiming to meticulously document and analyze UFO reports, including witness testimonies, object characteristics, and potential physical evidence.

The Bertre UAP Sighting (September 4, 1989)

The core of the document details an encounter reported by a single witness in Bertre, Tarn, France. The observation took place between 03:30 and 04:00 AM during a local festival. The witness, located on the first floor of his home and later below in a sloping luzerne field, described an object that was initially fixed and then exhibited erratic, jerky movements. The object's shape was described as a "rectangular vertical rounded" form, likened to a bottle of gas or a vertical toupie. Its color was perceived as white-yellow-orange, comparable to car headlights. The witness, who was colorblind, estimated the object's size at a maximum of 4m x 3m. An illuminated zone, measuring approximately 20m x 20m, was also present and lasted for about 5 minutes, while the object itself was visible for 45 seconds to 30 seconds. The object maintained a fixed position relative to the landscape, at an angular height of about 10°30' and an azimuth between 180° and 184.5°, at an estimated distance of over 80 meters. No sound or physiological effects on the witness were reported. The witness's dog showed no unusual reaction. The document also notes that the luzerne field did not appear altered, but some roof tiles were darker than others, and there were indications of roof structure deformation. However, the investigators suggest these roof anomalies were likely due to construction or renovation issues rather than the UAP itself.

Investigation and Correspondence

The document includes correspondence between various individuals and organizations involved in investigating the Bertre case. Mr. Eric Maillot and Mr. Gilles Munsch, acting in a personal capacity, visited the witness, Mr. Aujoulet, on October 26, 1989, to gather information. They also attempted to contact Mr. Vélasco of SEPRA (Service d'Étude des Phénomènes de Régression Appliquée) in Toulouse, who had previously investigated the case. Their initial visit to SEPRA was unsuccessful, leading them to contact the gendarmerie in Puylaurens, who confirmed the existence of a report (PV 1599) and its transmission to SEPRA. Maillot and Munsch offered to share their findings, including recordings and photographs, with Vélasco. They later sent a formal request for information and their own investigation report to Mr. Vélasco on December 4, 1991, following up on an earlier, unanswered letter from November 9, 1989. They expressed their interest in the "physical effects" alleged on the roof and sought SEPRA's conclusions.

Another section details a separate case from November 25, 1983, involving a sighting near Castres, and mentions other reports from the revue "Lumières dans la Nuit." It also references an investigation by Jean-Lenoît Love and the author into a phenomenon near Bertre, involving a "very intense manifestation" over a locality. During this investigation, they observed various objects: luminous spheres with erratic and jerky movements, dark craft with illuminated undersides, and luminous objects shaped like gas bottles. The duration of these observations was generally long, around fifteen minutes. The report suggests that many people might have witnessed similar phenomena but remain discreet.

Hypotheses and Conclusions

The document presents hypotheses regarding the Bertre case. It dismisses conventional explanations like meteors or artificial satellite debris as incompatible with the observed facts. The report emphasizes the need for objective and dispassionate analysis, especially after the initial media and ufological interest has subsided. The investigators are seeking SEPRA's official findings and conclusions on the Bertre incident. The document also mentions an agriculturalist who reportedly recovered a golden metallic triangle in his field, an information marked as "CONFIDENTIAL."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The publication consistently focuses on detailed, evidence-based investigations of UAP sightings. It values witness testimony but also seeks corroborating evidence and attempts to rule out conventional explanations. The editorial stance appears to be one of serious inquiry into unexplained aerial phenomena, with a commitment to thorough documentation and analysis. The use of interviews, correspondence, and the collection of physical evidence highlights a methodical approach. The publication also seems to track the activities of other investigative bodies like SEPRA and CNES, indicating a network of interest within the ufological community.

This document, titled "HYPOTHESES SUR LE PHENOMENE OBSERVE" (Hypotheses on the Observed Phenomenon), appears to be an excerpt from a publication focused on unexplained phenomena, likely a magazine or newsletter, given its structure and content. It delves into a specific case investigated by an unnamed entity, possibly a research group like TARN INFO or SEPRA, concerning a witness identified as Mr. A. The document is written in French and critically examines various hypotheses to explain Mr. A.'s observation.

Analysis of Excluded Hypotheses

The document systematically evaluates and dismisses several potential explanations for Mr. A.'s observation:

1. The Hoax (Le canular): Excluded because Mr. A. did not profit financially or seek celebrity from his observation. The investigation was initiated by the mayor of Bertre.
2. The Prank (La farce): Ruled out due to the complexity and resources required to stage such an event, and Mr. A.'s lack of interest in ufology, focusing instead on horses and fishing.
3. Astronomical Misidentification (La méprise astronomique): Dismissed as no celestial body could reasonably explain the observed phenomenon, particularly the light seen at the beginning of the observation or above the roof.
4. Hallucination (L'hallucination): Eliminated because the witness is described as mentally sound. Various somatic causes (migraines, blood pressure issues, brain tumors) that could induce typical visions are also ruled out, with Mr. A. being a teetotaler.
5. Misidentification with an Agricultural Vehicle or Other Vehicle (La méprise avec un engin agricole, un véhicule): Excluded because the line of sight from Mr. A.'s position, considering the roofline, did not align with any potential reliefs that could be mistaken for an object. The house itself obscured a view of a nearby farm where such misidentification might have been possible.
6. Misidentification with a Human Aircraft (La méprise avec un aéronef humain): Rejected as no conventional aircraft could match the observation's criteria. The silence of the alleged object makes even secret aircraft unlikely. Mr. A. is partially deaf, and his wife has good hearing, and their dog did not react, which would be expected with an approaching vehicle.

Remaining Hypotheses and the Extraterrestrial Theory

With the above hypotheses excluded, the document focuses on remaining possibilities, primarily the extraterrestrial vessel (Le vaisseau extra-terrestre) theory, which Mr. A. strongly believes in.

The narrative explains how Mr. A. arrived at this conclusion:

• Initial Observation: Mr. A.'s observation was not initially considered extraordinary.
• Investigation: A gendarme investigated, finding a trace on Mr. A.'s roof. Scientists collected samples, and the press became involved, with a helicopter photographing the roof. This extensive response, involving significant resources, led Mr. A. to believe his observation was important and strange.
• The Metallic Piece: An agricultural worker confided in Mr. A. about finding a light metallic piece in his field, which provided a potential motive for an extraterrestrial presence.
• Astronomer's Theory: Mr. Claria, an astronomer, proposed that extraterrestrials lost a piece of their craft and were prospecting the area where it was lost, possibly miscalculating their location by a hundred meters. The observed beam of light was theorized to be a projector used for examination.

Mr. A. embraced this theory, seeing it as original and seductive, supported by the presence of an "ovni" (UFO), material traces, responsible parties (ETs), and a motive.

Critiques of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

The document then critically examines the extraterrestrial hypothesis, highlighting several problems:

• Physical Traces: The physical traces (thermal, mechanical) on the roof are unlikely to be related to the UFO.
• Dog's Reaction: The complete lack of reaction from the dog is unusual for an intrusion.
• The Metallic Piece: The piece itself has not been seen by anyone else, nor reported to SEPRA, and its search was not discreet.
• Projector Beam: The beam remained fixed for five minutes, which is odd for an intelligence searching for something. The purpose of searching for young walnut trees to replant is questioned.
• Location Error: The error in the search location is deemed gross, implying that any extraterrestrial error would also be significant.
• ET Technology: The technology of the ETs is questioned if they can lose "sheet metal and bolts." The ability of the craft to hover silently, without pollution or strong thermal emissions, is noted, but its stability and lack of movement are also points of scrutiny.
• Lack of Environmental Impact: The "UFO" caused no environmental disturbance, which is considered unusual and unconfirmed outside of the witness's account.

Alternative Hypothesis: Misidentification

The document proposes a more probable alternative hypothesis: misidentification.

• Initial Conviction: EMT (presumably an investigator) was already 80% convinced of a lack of connection between the traces and the UFO, viewing the UFO as a fixed object rather than a flying one.
• Verification Goal: The primary goal of verifying misidentification was not fully achieved during the displacement to Tarn, but significant coincidences were noted.
• Light Sources: The light could have originated from the witness's bedroom window or a skylight (lucarne). This light might have been from a vehicle passing by, or from people returning from a party, illuminating the lower part of the field. A light from the staircase could have passed through the skylight, illuminating the area.
• Witness's Memory: Mr. A.'s memory of his actions, such as leaving lights on, is described as vague.
• Visual Conditions: The lighting conditions, the witness's descent into the dark, and his potential for exaggeration are discussed. The declivity of the terrain might also have created a perception of the house being lower than it was.
• Sudden Extinction: A key detail that challenges the misidentification hypothesis is the sudden and simultaneous extinction of the lights, as the window and skylight are distinct sources.

Further Hypotheses and Conclusion

Further hypotheses are considered to explain the sudden extinction:

• Electrical Power Outage: A temporary electrical failure that lasted just long enough for Mr. A. to return to his room, with power resuming just before he reached the South facade. This is considered highly improbable but not entirely excluded.
• Timer or Draft: The possibility of a timer or a draft causing a door or shutter to obscure a light is mentioned but deemed unlikely to explain the simultaneous extinction.
• Mme A.'s Action: The most plausible explanation for the simultaneous extinction is that Mme A., disturbed by the noise and light, turned off both lights using a double switch. She might have forgotten this action, or later realized its significance and found it difficult to explain.

Conclusion:

The document concludes that the case remains inconclusive regarding the precise origin of the observed phenomenon. It acknowledges the warm reception and availability of Mr. and Mme Aujoulet during the investigation. The authors regret the lack of fruitful correspondence with some individuals. The report will be transmitted to SEPRA for further investigation, emphasizing the need for nocturnal reconstructions to clarify the event. The authors stress that their analysis is purely to understand the phenomenon and does not involve moral judgment of the witnesses.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical analysis of witness testimony and the systematic elimination of conventional explanations for unexplained phenomena. The editorial stance is one of rigorous investigation, prioritizing rational explanations while acknowledging the limitations of current knowledge and the importance of the human factor in witness accounts. The document advocates for transparency in administrative matters related to such investigations.