An account in Rh�ne, France

On December 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, a witness in a taxi scans and photographs the clouds with a smartphone. A circular spot of fluorescent green color that does not seem to move or goes at the same speed as the taxi particularly intrigues him. The witness takes several photographs then a little later on his route makes a video. Only one testimony is collected. The witness is looking for "elementals" or "beings of life" and believes he finds one that follows him in the landscape and in the bushes along his taxi ride. In fact, it is obvious that the witness is mistaken by a reflection of the sun created by his smartphone camera. In the photo at 3:16:29 PM the sun is offset from the center and the spot or UAP slightly green with halo is the classic reflection created by imperfect optics that reproduces (less brightly) in symmetry from the center of the image any extremely bright point, here the sun. In the photo at 3:16:42 PM where the sun is not in the center either, the reflection also exists but falls in an already very bright area of the image (the bright cloud) and therefore does not appear. In the photo at 3:16:18 PM, the reflection falls in the bush in the foreground. The same phenomenon is verified in the video part. GEIPAN no longer takes reports of strangeness from what is only seen on a device screen and not with the eyes. One might have thought the witness had checked with his eyes since he writes "I then checked by shifting my screen to look at this curious green spot in the bushes and that the spot truly existed." Analysis of the entire testimony leads us not to credit this verification: - on the one hand the witness makes no difference between the UAP that would be seen outside the optics (with the eyes) and that which truly exists in the screen and is created by the optics - on the other hand the witness shows such eagerness to find something abnormal in the landscape that one can doubt his critical thinking. Perhaps without his knowledge, he believes he found the glow with the naked eye in the bush, fleetingly, and without having tried to make sure of it. The photo traces given by this testimony unambiguously reflect the observation of an artifact. Consequently GEIPAN classifies the case as A: photographic artifact (sun).