An account in Doubs, France

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at around 10:30 PM–11:00 PM, a witness observed the appearance, in the sky, of a sparkling light below Venus. Its movement and its disappearance into a halo intrigued him. After 1/2 hour to 3/4 hour, the witness saw the same phenomenon again almost directly overhead. A photo reconstruction on the questionnaire was sent in. Only one testimony was collected. The witness provides very precise details to trace the trajectory of the UAP. The most precise point is that it happened to the right and slightly lower than Venus and in the line of sight given by the photo reconstruction. This reconstruction allows us to establish that the reference point indicated is not Venus but Jupiter, which was also very bright that evening. Analysis of the satellites visible that evening (see investigation document -reconstruction- attached) allows us to identify one whose final descending trajectory matches the one described by the witness in his reconstruction: - it passes to the right of Jupiter (10 to 15° to the right). - around 10:50 PM, i.e., within the (imprecise) time window given by the witness (10:30 PM–11:00 PM). This satellite (USA 234/FIA Radar 2) is visible but at a brightness level far lower than what the witness indicated. However, satellites can produce, in addition to their "normal" brightness, "flares," i.e., very bright and fleeting moments (a few seconds to one minute in duration) resulting from a mirror effect between the sun and a ground observer, a mirror effect that is indeed fleeting because it depends on the orientation of the flattest and most extended part of the satellite. Iridium is a satellite well known for this, and its flares are predictable because the orientation is known. The satellite "in question" here (USA 234/FIA Radar 2, of US military origin and not detailed; see on FIA-RADAR) is one of those whose flares are not or barely predictable, but fortunately it has been the subject of observational records of flares of very strong magnitude (brighter than or "similar to Venus" as the present witness notes): - flash of magnitude -0.5, observed on May 2, 2012 in Ukraine (see the detail of USA-234 (FIA RADAR2) bright flare seen. - flash of magnitude -5 (!), observed on April 30, 2012 by the same observer (see the images. - its twin FIA-Radar 1 flashed at magnitude -1 and 0, on May 25, 2015 (see the document double flare from FIA-RADAR 1. The witness describes the presence of a gray halo when the UAP disappeared, a halo that is difficult to explain other than by the combination of the flare going out with the satellite entering behind a slight haze not noticeable to the witness, as the sky was clear. The correspondence between the UAP's trajectory and that of the satellite subject to flaring makes this satellite explanation sufficiently probable to be retained despite this residual strangeness constituted by the halo. The witness describes another phenomenon: "1/2 hour to 3/4 hour later, almost directly overhead above me, I saw this curious phenomenon happen again but without the halo." We do have an Iridium flare in this new time window, but it occurs at 34° of elevation, a height that cannot be described as "overhead." We have little indication from the witness for this second phenomenon. Several satellite objects pass not far from overhead, but more precision on this "overhead" would have been needed, as well as a direction of movement (which must exist since the witness describes it as the same phenomenon). Perhaps one of these objects is capable of fleeting flares. We do not have enough information to investigate this second UAP. It should also be noted that it is common for a witness whose curiosity has been aroused after a first UAP to later notice one or more oddities, associating them with the first one, which are then identified as having nothing to do with it and which would not have been noticed without the real initial strangeness. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes: - probable observation of a satellite for the first UAP: B. - testimony unexploitable due to lack of reliable information for the second UAP: C.