An account in Dr�me, 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) which are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose 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 CHABEUIL (26) 01.01.1977, was the subject of a first revisit in 2011 in which an attached sky chart indicated the presence of Venus in the sector of the sky observed. The new conclusion emphasizes the elements that contributed to the strangeness of the case at the time and confirms the astronomical observation. On January 1, 1977 between 7:30 PM and 7:45 PM, two people were driving in a car on a communal road in the La Serre neighborhood in Valence (26). During their round trip on this road, they were intrigued by the presence of a white luminous phenomenon of very high intensity at low altitude. Stationary in a southerly direction, the wide-shaped UAP then rose rapidly and disappeared, still in a southerly direction. No noise was heard during the long observation. A third witness found by the gendarmes during the investigation reported having noticed nothing unusual that evening and in his field, but described an observation of a UAP made a year earlier. The observation is well documented thanks to the photos and reconstructions by the gendarmes. However, there are inconsistencies in the descriptions of the UAP's shapes or movement. The near-stationarity of the UAP over a significant duration (two observations of at least 10 minutes separated by at least 15 minutes) suggests the observation of a celestial body. Regarding the appearance, certain points in the testimonies indicating movement or a wide shape may have seemed strange and led to this hypothesis being ruled out during the first investigation 40 years ago. But the experience acquired by GEIPAN makes it possible to explain these perceptions. The variation in light intensity, caused by the evolution of the atmospheric haze in front of the celestial body, is logically interpreted by the witness as a variation (called radial) in distance (in its direction) of a UAP that would be at constant intensity and at speeds often described as lightning-fast, particularly during the escape and final disappearance. - witness T1 says "at that moment the object moved at a dizzying speed toward the south"; - witness T2 says "After about a minute, this craft began to rise and decrease in size. This maneuver lasted about five seconds and at that moment the ball of fire went off toward the south like a shooting star. I specify that this happened very quickly."... "I must add that when the craft flew off, I had the impression that our car was moving in reverse." Note that the southerly direction of movement is the same as the direction the witnesses attribute to the UAP, which supports a perception of radial movement. Only T1 describes a movement that could suggest a non-radial trajectory with a change in position in the sky; he says "moved at a dizzying speed toward the south describing a curve at the start of about 45°." T2 indicates a sense of size larger than that of a celestial body with shapes and projected rays. This also occurs during confirmed observations of very bright celestial bodies like Venus or Sirius not far from the horizon, the most common element (also attested here) being the variable colors and flickering. It is noted that the observation was made in the presence of or near patches of fog, which have the effect of accentuating the dispersive effects of the atmosphere on the lights coming from the celestial body. Finally, note that T1 distinguishes no shape effect beyond a large, generally round luminous point, and that the two witnesses often refer to a star to indicate the UAP. There is hardly any doubt when one notes (see attached reconstruction made from the gendarmerie photos) that Venus is exactly (within one or two degrees) in the direction of the UAP (234° and not due south as the witnesses thought). Venus indeed has a descending trajectory until it is a few degrees above the top of the hill at the end of the observation. The strong luminosity with dispersion of rays due to the fog could have led to the belief that the UAP was sitting on the hill, at least for T2, because T1 always placed the UAP above the ground. The final disappearance of the UAP results from the passage of thicker fog or cloud. The perceptions of the UAP's intelligence (departure) in reaction to the presence of the witnesses signaled by the headlights are pure coincidence; moreover, T2 specifies that the UAP's "reaction" took two minutes ("I have the impression that our car's lights were bothersome because two minutes after the headlight flash, the craft left"). Venus is exactly in the direction of the UAP. The deviations reported from the standard appearance of a star are consistent with those recorded during numerous confirmed observations of Venus or Sirius near the horizon, and what would not be consistent (non-radial movement) is noted by only one witness (T1) and not by the other. In conclusion, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of Venus.