An account in Haute-Vienne, 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, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case, previously classified D and named SOLIGNAC (87) 1979, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On December 20, 1979, around 8:45 AM, three people observed for 30 to 40 seconds a luminous and motionless phenomenon in the sky toward the Southeast. The UAP is described as a very luminous orange-red mass, rectangular, oval, or circular in shape depending on the testimony. The witnesses report overcast gray weather with a low cloud ceiling. The UAP suddenly pivots to take the shape of a cigar and departs, leaving behind an orange trail turning white. The object disappears into the clouds. Descriptive elements are made in relation to the sun. "The object reminded me of a setting sun," "the object in question was bigger than the sun," "I thought it was an eclipse" (see the investigation notes). The rising sun is precisely in the observation direction, and its low angular height gave it the dominant color of the UAP, that is, bright red. The variable shape of the UAP, the short duration of the observation, and the rapid departure of the UAP are explained by the presence of clouds having masked the Sun, visible only through a gap in the cloud cover. This point of the phenomenon is supported by testimony elements in favor of a UAP in a sky with non-uniform cloud cover. "This object was half masked and intermittently by a black cloud," "the craft seemed propelled, it then disappeared into the clouds." The presence of inhomogeneous cloudy sky, the perfect consistency between the true position of the Sun and the location and description of the UAP, the absence of observation of the sun apart from the observation of the UAP, constitute a set that leaves no doubt about the misidentification. This case is well consistent (three witnesses having given their testimony to the gendarmerie), the description of the observed UAP is fairly precise. Misidentification with the rising or setting sun is not a rare case in GEIPAN's records and concerns all types of witnesses. GEIPAN classifies the case as A: Rising sun.