Blue light in Drôme, France

On May 25, 2017 at 10:40 PM, a witness on their terrace is intrigued by the presence of a white, yellow, and blue light in the sky at low altitude. No noise and no trail are noticed. The witness films their observation with a camcorder and upon viewing discovers an object with particular shapes. The witness ends their observation around 1:10 AM, the object still being in the sky toward the North. No other testimony will be collected on this phenomenon. The witness observed the star Capella, which was indeed at the positions indicated in the sky at the start of the observation (10:40 PM, 15 degrees in height and azimuth 320 degrees, i.e., northwest) and then moved downward as described by the witness toward the North at the end of the observation (1:00 AM, 4 degrees in height and azimuth 345 degrees, i.e., almost due north). It is noted that most of the strangeness perceived by the witness, and what probably led them to make this report, results from what they saw on the viewfinder or on the camera recording. Obviously, both the trajectory and the appearance to the naked eye (the color and flickering effect is classic for a star seen at low elevation through atmospheric turbulence) show that the object chased with the camera is indeed Capella. Furthermore, the witness does not report the presence of a star next to the PAN (unidentified aerial phenomenon) even though the sky is clear and Capella can only be visible with its location almost identical to that given for the PAN. Under these conditions, GEIPAN devotes no additional resources to explaining the strangeness generated by the camera (since it was not seen with the eyes). Indeed, experience shows that one always gets there, but at the cost of efforts that would not be justified here. It is for this same reason that GEIPAN no longer takes into account testimonies dealing only with strangeness perceived through photo or video without direct ocular viewing. The present case is intermediate because of a beginning of strangeness (classic) perceived with the naked eye that needed to be documented. One notes in particular on the video strong lights from streetlamps, which can already be causes of mysterious reflections in the dark parts of the image. It is also known that a strong zoom on a star can lead to all sorts of shapes depending on focusing malfunctions, the geometric and radiometric quality of the device, with a probable accentuation effect from a camcorder (lesser quality than a still camera) and when aiming at a double star (Capella). Finally, it also happens that the witness zooms on a light other than the one that initially intrigued them, since framing with a strong zoom is not easy for anyone. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: misidentification with Capella.