An account in C�te-d'Or, France

In GEIPAN's publications, there are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C or D) and 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 BEAUNE (21) 22.02.1995, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 22 February 1995 after 10:30 PM, three members of the same family (two adults and a 12-year-old child) are intrigued by an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) above their home. The witnesses, looking through a skylight, describe an object like a star, bright white. Not all the testimonies are unanimous on the UAP's movement. The observation lasts two to three minutes. The witnesses probably observed a pass of the MIR space station, visible in the sky at the date and time of the observation (see the investigation report). This conclusion is based on the following points: - the witnesses' description of the shape, color, and size of the UAP, described as a large bright white star, is entirely compatible; - the speed, described as fairly slow by T1, matches well with MIR's apparent speed; - regarding the direction of movement, we were able to show that the MIR station, present in the sky that evening, was indeed moving toward the south-southeast. (The mention of stillness by T3 could perhaps be explained by the brevity of the start of his observation, but above all, there is a contradiction between T3 and the gendarmes who state that T3 did see the UAP move); - the observation duration is mostly given by the witnesses as short, and in any case not exceeding three minutes, which corresponds perfectly with the duration of the MIR station's pass. (T2's mention of a duration of 15 minutes probably concerns the final phase following the disappearance of the phenomenon, the witness having continued to observe perhaps in the hope of seeing the UAP again); - T2's mention of the UAP "repositioning" a little further away without observed movement is entirely compatible with what can be observed for certain satellites, so the brightness can fluctuate significantly and rapidly, to the point of giving the impression of an extinction followed by a "relighting" further away. The mention of stillness of "about 30 seconds" by T2 requires some specific assumptions to remain compatible with the hypothesis. - Overestimation of duration or confusion between the periods of extinction and the periods of illumination of the UAP, or confusion with a nearby similar object (star) during the UAP's extinction periods. The fact that the other witnesses did not mention this stillness in sequences is an element supporting this type of error and confusion by T2. The limited nature of these latter explanations affects the probability of the MIR hypothesis without however invalidating it, given the strength of the other points in its favor. The consistency of this case is poor: - in terms of information, many very imprecise or even contradictory data remain between the testimonies. We can also regret the absence of angular measurements (size, height above the horizon) as well as a precise and detailed chronology of events for each witness; - the contradictions undermine the perception of the reliability of the testimonies, especially in a context where the first witness, a child (T3), sensitized to the notion of UFOs (by a lesson at school that very day) and looking for a UFO that evening, may have induced in his parents (T1 and T2) by alerting them a strong climate of strangeness capable of altering their sense of observation or their critical thinking. The level of consistency remains sufficient to support the MIR hypothesis given the good probability that can be assigned to it. Faced with a greater final strangeness (absence of hypothesis or lower probability of the MIR hypothesis), this consistency would have been insufficient to conclude and the case would have been classified C (unexploitable) and in no case maintained as D (unexplained). See GEIPAN's classification methodology. The case is classified as "B": probable observation of the MIR space station.