Red lights in Ardennes, France

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 BUZANCY (08) 20.04.1983, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 20 April 1983 at around 11 p.m., a farmer spotted a bright red glow through a window of a stable. Intrigued, he went out and noted that this luminosity came from a ball in the sky directly above Saint-Pierremont. The witness perceived rapid movements over a small interval and radiations. After a quarter of an hour, the witness called his neighbour, then the Gendarmerie. After an hour, the phenomenon was only a luminous point which suddenly disappeared. Two testimonies were collected. The gendarmes took part in the end of the observation; they observed the UAP indicated by the witnesses. There is little doubt: the UAP then observed by the witnesses and the gendarmes is Venus (see the investigation notes). The position in the sky matches, and the rest of the description is typical of misidentifications with Venus as recorded in large numbers by GEIPAN. The bright yellowish-red colour, enormous among the other white stars, is perfectly consistent with the appearance of Venus seen at low elevation. The colour (in general variable, W1 describes changes) results from the effects of the thick atmospheric layer (low elevation). The perceptions of small jerky movements or oscillations described by the witnesses and the gendarmes can be caused by the atmospheric effect and/or by a perception error when staring at a star (see the article on the autokinetic effect). The sudden disappearance observed by the gendarmes around midnight may correspond to the start of obstruction by the trees (visible in the background of the photo taken by the gendarmes to reconstruct the position of the UAP) because Venus had only 2 degrees of elevation left. It may also correspond to the presence of some clouds; this hypothesis is very plausible in view of the weather analysis and may explain W1's indication of 3 momentary disappearances of the UAP. The other photos taken by the gendarmes to reconstruct the position of the UAP in the earlier phases of the observation do not allow this reconstruction because they contain no reference point or are not located (the Gendarmerie is not able, 35 years later, to provide this location). Nevertheless, the general movement of the UAP, as can be retained from the testimonies despite the errors and inconsistencies in the official report, is consistent with that of Venus. Above all, none of the witnesses differentiates the UAP also observed by the gendarmes at the end of the observation from another UAP that would have been seen earlier; it is indeed the same UAP which only "was much bigger and closer" (as W1 said) at the beginning of the observation, which is also consistent in the case of Venus, then higher in the sky. The testimony is tainted by several inconsistencies, some of which could have gone against the Venus conclusion. Nevertheless, the analysis makes it possible to resolve these inconsistencies by identifying the sources of error and imprecision of the witnesses or the gendarmes. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observations of Venus.