Moving in formation in Côte-d'Or, France

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 DIJON (21) 2004, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On May 2, 2004 at around 11:30 PM and May 3 at around 8:30 PM, a witness and his son observe at great length, first with the naked eye, then with binoculars, and then by taking a video, a luminous phenomenon that intrigues them. The witnesses describe the presence in the sky of luminous balls of color much bigger than the stars located nearby. These balls seem to move away then come closer before disappearing quickly. The luminous intensity is very high. The description contains typical characteristics of an observation of a celestial body: - The observation duration is long (> 15 or 30 min) and the UAP changes little or not at all in position in the sky. - The UAP appears two evenings in a row and with a sufficiently identical appearance and position for the witness to report it as the same phenomenon. (W1: "The next evening around 10:30 PM, I filmed this phenomenon again"). The indication of the second evening (Moon opposite the direction) fixes the observation direction to the NW. Now, in the NW, a star much brighter than the others predominates: VENUS. - W1 says "I went to the window and that's where I saw in the sky a big luminous ball that was 10 times bigger than a star, it was green in color." - W2 says "my father called me saying come see, there's a star bigger than the others. I looked and I saw a big yellow and green star." It is clear that, despite the weather bulletin reporting cloudy skies, the witnesses observe in this direction of the sky a set of stars since W2 says "I want to specify that that evening there were several stars but this ball was bigger than the others." Everything above is characteristic of a misidentification with VENUS, which is indeed much brighter (or "bigger") than the other stars and especially can appear in various and changing colors due to atmospheric effects, which can also create sensations of movement (W2 says "This phenomenon also made zigzags from right to left and from top to bottom"). The elements of strangeness described by the witnesses initially boil down to the sight of a star distinctive for its intensity and its yellow or green color. Then, there is a clear increase in perceived strangeness with these other balls accompanying the main ball, the latter also making back-and-forth movements (W1: "this sphere resembles a tennis ball always in motion, approaching quickly and moving away just as quickly", "the other luminous balls formed a formation above forming a 'V' and descending quickly to the level of the village lights. Then, these balls left again just as quickly."). That evening, Venus formed, with Saturn and Mars on one side, and Elnath and Capella on the other, a V pointing downward at Venus (see the reconstruction document). The whole thing does descend (as described) toward the city lights, because it passes (on the first day) from elevation 10° at 11:30 PM to cross the horizon to the right at 12:40 AM. W2 says "Then later there was a ball that came back with another smaller one", this can correspond (see reconstruction) to Pollux and Castor which indeed take the initial place of Venus. The perception of back-and-forth movement for W1, or for W2 of "leaving and returning" or even of "rapid movement toward the EAST" (that is, moving closer to W2 since he is looking toward the Northwest) can correspond to a well-known optical illusion of GEIPAN: variations in intensity of a UAP, here caused by variations in atmospheric opacity, are interpreted as changes in distance of the UAP. It is noted that this increase in perceived strangeness (beyond the initial aspect of the yellow star) begins with the observation made with binoculars and especially on the video. From that point on, one can no longer distinguish very well what results from observation with the naked eye and observation via a device. And it is probably this increase in strangeness that led the witnesses to testify and also what may have led GEIPAN to an initial classification as unexplained D. However, we have known since then, from acquired experience, that the strangeness perceived on videos, photos or binoculars, which is not minimally already present with the naked eye, is in the vast majority of cases artifacts from these devices, artifacts that generate a very strong perception of strangeness. Moreover, GEIPAN no longer takes these witness cases into account. GEIPAN does not have the video transmitted to the gendarmerie to proceed with a confirmation. The V explained above by the astronomical configuration is 30° in span and would correspond rather to a naked-eye view, but it is possible that the V was much smaller and was perceived only on the video and is a pure video artifact linked to the zoom (maximum here). It is also possible that the video artifact(s) created a strong feeling of strangeness, subsequently leading to perceiving with the naked eye as strange an astronomical configuration that was only moderately so at the start (big yellow or green star). Although one cannot specify the exact origin of the increase in strangeness between the two plausible causes (astronomical configuration or device artifact), it is manifest that the starting point of the observation is very probably Venus and that without the use of devices, the strangeness would have remained at that star bigger than the others and yellow in color. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observations of Venus.