An account in Allier, 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, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case, previously classified D and named SAINT-POURCAIN SUR SIOULE (03) 1998, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On December 5, 1998, at 7:45 PM, a family of three people observed, in the overcast sky, a long horizontal luminous line at the height of the eastern horizon. This line seemed to consist of very bright red globes. After 30 seconds of observation, the UAP had an apparent back-and-forth movement before suddenly disappearing. No noise was heard during the observation. Two testimonies were collected. It is noted that the observation axis is that of the house's walkway. This walkway, rather long (15 m) and narrow (2.5 m), provides a good reference for determining the UAP's azimuth, approximately 65°. Furthermore, the drawing of the UAP above the hedge at the back of the garden allows estimating its elevation at around 4°, assuming the observation was made from the middle of the walkway (as the drawing seems to indicate). It happens that the Moon was precisely in that part of the sky (Stellarium) at 7:45 PM (4° and 66° East). The misidentification with the Moon is classic and can be explained by the cloud cover (present that evening) which almost completely hid the Moon except through small gaps evolving due to the wind, gaps capable of reproducing any type of shape with one or more glows, generally red when the Moon is low on the horizon as it was that evening. Here, the Moon must have been skimming the cloud layer from above or below, because the witness saw the glows outside the cloud mass. The other strangeness described is that of the UAP progressing toward the witnesses and then moving away. This is also a classic misidentification: as the gaps vary in size or opacity, the glows vary, and the usual interpretation is to see a change in distance of a glow of constant intensity. The witness was able to be contacted by telephone. He confirmed the exact position of his observation relative to the walkway and the hedges, as well as the height of the hedges at the time. He was able to understand the misidentification mechanisms thus described, and therefore GEIPAN's conclusions. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: moonrise.