An account in Ille-et-Vilaine, 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 MONTFORT-SUR-MEU (35) 27.11.1987, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 25 November 1987 at around 8:20 PM (T1) and on 27 November at around 11:30 PM (T2, T3, T4, T5), several witnesses observed at length a luminous phenomenon in a westerly direction. This object, bright red in color, was ball-shaped or banana-shaped for some witnesses. The object appeared stationary or moving slowly. No noise was perceived. According to the gendarmerie investigation, several witnesses were heard. No suspicious traces were found on the ground by the gendarmerie in the area concerned. No weather balloon had been launched in the indicated time window from the Rennes Saint-Jacques (35) meteorological station. No helicopter flight was carried out at night on the days indicated. This case is consistent (multiple witnesses), and the description of the observed UAPs is very precise (see investigation notes). One hypothesis is considered: astronomical misidentification. The length of the observation time (up to about fifteen minutes for both cases), as well as the fact that the UAP was relatively stable or moved very slowly, are initial indicators of this type of misidentification. The fairly clear sky also allows this hypothesis. But the other details provided by the observations make it possible to establish with certainty the explanation of the UAP as a misidentification with the Moon: - the latter was then setting exactly in the observation directions (the Moon was at 222° for the first observation and at 245° for the second, while these observations are both located near the pylon at around 235°). - the actual movement of the Moon (toward the West and toward the ground) is also consistent with the descriptions. - the UAPs observed on 25 and 27 November are described as having a large apparent diameter and being fairly bright and (especially for 27 November) according to descriptions entirely typical of the Moon, in a phase close to First Quarter, at setting. - the colors of the two UAPs are perfectly consistent with the colors displayed by the Moon during the setting phase. - all five witnesses affirm that what they saw was not the Moon. Yet none of them mentions where the Moon was located relative to the UAP, nor even whether they actually saw the Moon (e.g., T2 says "I am affirmative it was not the moon. There was only one object"). This, while the Moon was indeed there in the indicated direction and not hidden by clouds because, at least on 27 November, the sky was reported as completely clear and starry by the witnesses (and by the Rennes weather station). For the first observation (T1 on 25 November), the misidentification with the Moon was probably favored by the presence of cloud veils (or scattered clouds), partially or totally covering the Moon at times (which is compatible with the weather data). This makes it possible to explain the almost round or oval shape (and not a half-moon), the disappearance and reappearance, and also the back-and-forth movements (an optical illusion caused by the variation in intensity of the visible part of the Moon depending on the covering and/or transparency of the veil). For 27 November, T2, T3, T4 and T5 clearly describe an object in the shape of a crescent, a banana, or a half-Moon, and in yellow or red colors... and yet do not recognize the Moon in a sky otherwise described as cloudless. This is a surprising element; other unreported elements may have misled the witnesses, perhaps there was a minimum of deceptive cloud veil, but the conclusion of misidentification with the Moon remains unavoidable given the many other elements. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: misidentification with the Moon at setting.