An orange orb in Ardennes, France

GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Among its publications are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C or D) which are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named CHARLEVILLE-MEZIERES (08) 1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 17 January 1982 at 1:30 a.m., two witnesses, from their home, observe at length an orange luminous ball on the ground in a field, lighting up everything around. The phenomenon is described as rising from the ground, leaving a sort of colored gaseous layer. The next day, the witnesses go to the presumed location of the UAP but no trace is found on the frozen and snow-covered ground. The elements reported in the official report are of low precision, and it is not possible 35 years later to contact the witnesses to enrich or clarify these elements. Nevertheless, with the experience acquired since then by GEIPAN, characteristic elements allow us to formulate a very probable hypothesis for this observation, namely that of the observation of the Moon. - The UAP is stationary for a fairly long duration (here on the order of 15 minutes). - The shape described: "An enormous orange ball, with an intense light." - The Moon is indeed in the direction observed by the witnesses and the witnesses do not notice it. We do not have the exact address of the witness, but he indicates that his window faces due East and the Moon is indeed present at 1:30 a.m. at azimuth 102° (almost due East) and at low elevation (2.3°), which usually gives it a reddish or orange color. The low elevation can lead the witness to think that "this ball was in the fields about 300 meters away, on a hill. The light was so intense that I could not see what was around it. This light lit up the whole group of houses. For me, this ball was on the ground." What the other witness, T2, says is more consistent with a UAP that is on the horizon and not against a landscape background (doubt being allowed by T1's statements): "I saw an object rising from the ground. I did not see the shape but I noticed something like a gaseous layer of gray-white color and in the center an orange color that gradually diminished. The gray color took over. After this phenomenon, the object left. We went to bed." The starting point of the misidentification is the failure to recognize the Moon. This most often comes from the presence of clouds or mists that partially hide the Moon; T2's statements above ("something like a gaseous layer of gray-white color and in the center an orange color that gradually diminished") indicate that this is most likely what happened. The cloudy layer can reveal the Moon (variably or not during the observation) according to a contour of any shape, for T1 "when it was moving away I noticed that it resembled what is called a flying saucer" or with a blurred contour or no contour when the cloud covers it but does not block the glow (for T1 "The object having left, there remained on the ground a sort of orange vapor, for a few minutes"). Many witnesses report a final movement of the UAP, sometimes very fast. This is the illusion of receding into the distance. The reduction in intensity of the Moon due to stronger cloud cover is interpreted "logically" by the witness as the UAP receding into the distance (which would have its own constant luminous intensity), especially since very often, as the cloud gap over the Moon closes, the angular size of the UAP decreases. Here, T1 does not explicitly give an indication of angular movement in the sky; T1 says "It left in the direction of SEDAN." However, around 1:45 a.m. (the observation duration is not indicated but one can assume that between the time T2 got out of bed and this strange phenomenon being observed for a minimum, at least 15 minutes had passed) the Moon is at 105° azimuth; the direction of Sedan is centered around 128°. It is entirely plausible that the witness described the receding into the distance (in the Moon's direction) by approximating it with the Sedan direction, if only because the witness does not perfectly know the Sedan direction (within 20°, which is not a big error) or because the witness had nothing more precise to indicate to the gendarmerie (conveniently) the direction of the Moon (the only geographical landmark in that direction seems to be the village of Fleigneux, as far from the location as Sedan). Moreover, T2 indicates no direction of final movement. It is also noted that over 15 minutes the Moon gained 3° in elevation, which is compatible with T2's statement, if the latter observed over a sufficient duration ("I saw an object rising from the ground") and 3° to the right, which may have given T1 an idea of a movement already started toward Sedan, also assuming that the observation duration was sufficient and that T1 made a distinction between the direction of the UAP and that of Sedan (the most likely being that T1 associates the direction of the UAP with that of Sedan through lack of knowledge or convenience of reference point). Given all the preceding elements, the hypothesis to retain is that of the Moon. It is not possible to state it with total certainty because, not having the exact address of the witnesses, we cannot confirm the absence of physical obstacles between the witnesses' position and that of the Moon (although in terms of general terrain, beyond the first 100 meters which cannot be verified, no obstacle due to the terrain is present). Likewise, although the official report indicates clear skies, it is not possible (no meteorological data available) to guarantee the absence of a total cloud screen in front of the Moon. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of the reddish Moon.