An account in Rh�ne, 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) that are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose of being more relevant in the conclusions. This re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named Lyon (69) 1985, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On September 3, 1985, four witnesses in Lyon (2 witnesses) but also in Villefranche-sur-Saône (2 witnesses) were surprised by the rapid passage of a luminous phenomenon in the sky, and for some, by the presence in the water of a basin of a particular glow. The description of the UAP by the different witnesses is typical of a meteoroid re-entry: - observation duration of a few seconds, high speed of movement, - glow and halo ("fluorescent green color (a bit like Bengal flares), surrounded by a white veil," "a bright pale green ball, surrounded by a dark green halo"), - temporal conjunction of nearly identical observations by distant witnesses (here Villefranche-sur-Saône and Lyon), - indications of coherent trajectories. To confirm this hypothesis, a few singular elements for this re-entry must be explained: - the meteorite falls into the water and gives off a glow from the water for a few minutes: there are 3 witnesses of the UAP in the sky (T2 security guard in Lyon, T3 and T4 in Villefranche-sur-Saône). None sees it fall into the water, but for T2 in Lyon, there is a correspondence between the observed trajectory of the UAP in the sky and the glow in the water observed by T2 and T1 (T1 truck driver did not see the UAP in the sky). One can think that the meteorite actually fell into the water. No importance should be attached to the estimation by T1 and T2 of the size "30 m" of the glow in the water (such a size of meteorite would have caused a tidal wave!) because this estimation concerns the glow rising to the surface of the water and cannot apply to the source of the glow. Witness T1 also says "I saw a fairly large glow, yellowish-white in color, a bit like a diver lighting from inside the water," while T2 estimates the size of the source of the glow as a soccer ball. - The firefighters measure a slight radioactivity described as "minimal," outside the water and in the water: this element did not lead to further investigations. In the absence of recording of the zone of presence over time and space of this weak radioactivity, it is hardly permissible to assert that it was caused by the meteorite. Even if it were, that would in no way exclude the meteorite hypothesis. - T1 noted this strangeness: "the sign of the security vehicle was flashing." The gendarmerie report notes this as seen by three witnesses (T1, T2, and another security guard colleague of T2 mentioned in the report but who did not testify) for 4 seconds at the moment of the fall. However, this was only formally reported (deposition in the report) by T1 (T2, who was using the vehicle, mentions nothing in his deposition), and T1 observed it upon arriving at the scene after the fall and does not specify having seen the beginning and end of this flashing. It is common that in a situation of alert or emotion, a background anomaly is detected or even associated with another main anomaly, whereas without the latter and the tension created, it might have gone unnoticed or been relativized (here the witness, who is not a security agent but a trucker, was indeed in a state of alert because he was sent by the security supervisor to the scene where the security agents were already reporting by radio something unidentified; T1 also says he took the wrong route to get there). Consequently, since the consistency with a meteoroid re-entry is established and the singular elements of the testimonies are explained, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable meteoroid re-entry.