An account in Moselle, 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, for the sole purpose 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 VIGY (57) 1993, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On 11 August 1993 at around 3:30 a.m., a witness (T1) driving his car observed a very sparkling yellow light stationary above a farm and then above the Hayes castle. The witness described a large luminous ball turning on itself in silence and larger than a star. The shape described afterwards is that of a disc topped with a dome or shaped like an "upside-down mushroom". The light intensity gradually decreased and the UAP seemed to move away in the direction of Charleville-sous-Bois. Back home, the witness asked his mother (T2) to observe the phenomenon: climbing onto a chair, she made out a uniform yellow light, fixed in the starry sky, then quickly went back to bed. T1 observed the UAP until its complete disappearance. The total duration of the observation was 20 minutes for T1. The data cross-checked with the geographical situation, indicating an observation towards the North-East, point towards confusion with the planet Venus, which was also rising in the North-East (azimuth 58°): Position correspondence: - T1's first observation (from "Le Marais" towards "Ferme St Léon") corresponds to azimuth 62°, the second (from "Ferme St Léon" towards "Château de Hayes") to 56°. The sighting made by T2 is less precise because she indicates the forest of Charleville-sous-Bois; the azimuth of the forested area around Charleville-sous-Bois is between 38° and 62°. - the UAP was low in the sky like Venus. T2 obtained visibility of the UAP above the forest ("I saw a very bright light in the sky just above the forest of Charleville-sous-Bois") by climbing onto a chair, that is, the UAP and the forest were sufficiently close angularly to clear together above a nearby obstacle following a small gain in angular field of visibility (climbing onto a 50 cm chair allows a gain of 0.6° for an obstacle at 50 m and 3° for an obstacle at 10 m). Visibility of Venus: - T2's statements indicate that, in the direction of observation, the sky showed stars. - it is verified that there is no ground obstacle for visibility of Venus despite its low height in the sky (at least 3° at the start of observation). Angular stationarity of the UAP: The stationarity of the UAP noted by both witnesses (and over a duration of 20 minutes for T1) also supports the hypothesis of a celestial body. The mention of the impression of movement of the UAP towards Charleville-sous-Bois (that is, along the line of sight) noted by witness 1 is subjective and linked to its decrease in light intensity, which the witness mentions at the same time. The intensity variation results from that of the atmospheric thickness or from the occurrence of a cloud veil. The witness, who does not recognize Venus, logically interprets the decrease in intensity as the UAP fleeing into the distance. The disappearance of the UAP, observed only by T1, is perceived as the outcome of the reduction in intensity and the moving away. Aspect: The initial shape described by T1, of a large luminous yellow ball, is a typical confusion for Venus. This celestial body is brighter than the stars (strong intensity giving the impression of a luminous ball) and colors are introduced by the great atmospheric thickness, the body being seen here at low height in the sky (3°). The mention of an "elongated shape with a dome in the center" or of an "upside-down mushroom" is more difficult to explain, but since Venus was very low on the horizon (3°), it is possible that atmospheric turbulence deformed its image. The occurrence of a cloud veil may also be the cause of a diffusion of Venus's light. It is indeed noted that for T1, this shape (other than the initial ball shape) is only distinguishable at a second stage, and that for T2, who observed only briefly and later, the light was inside the UAP ("This light was yellow like the color of car headlights. It was uniform. What I saw was an object illuminated by itself"). The above elements report a very strong coincidence with an observation of Venus. Only the shape description in the second part of the observation is a bit more singular compared to the mass of misidentifications recorded with Venus at GEIPAN. But it is not unique, it can find an explanation and therefore cannot call into question the highly probable nature of the Venus hypothesis. The consistency is average; the two witnesses filed reports with the Gendarmerie, but the testimonies lack direct and precise evaluations (elevation, azimuth). One can note a certain inconsistency in T2's attitude, who notes the strange character ("It is the first time I observe similar phenomena"), in particular after a very precise description of the shape, but who stops the observation (after 5 or 7 minutes) before the disappearance of the UAP. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: very probable observations of Venus.