An account in Bas-Rhin, 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 their 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 explained in an investigation note. This observation case, previously classified D and named SOULTZ SOUS FORETS (67) 1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. During the night of April 11 to 12, 1980, between 11:50 PM and 12:30 AM, several witnesses observed at length, from different locations, a luminous phenomenon in the sky. This phenomenon, static or moving when the people moved in their vehicle, intrigued the witnesses. The testimonies reported in the gendarmerie reports (No. 491 and No. 307) present the characteristics of an observation of a celestial body. These characteristics are now well known to GEIPAN with the accumulation of explained cases of this type, particularly over the last ten years (see website www.geipan.fr and case search with celestial body phenomena, Venus, Moon, Sun): - long observation duration of more than 30 minutes, low height in the sky, and final disappearance of the UAP behind the local relief. - stable position of the UAP when the witness was stationary, and mobile as soon as the witness moved, with the perception of being followed by the UAP. This is the illusion of the "following ball." The direction of the celestial body is of course fixed in absolute terms. When the car follows a roughly constant heading, the celestial body is fixed relative to the vehicle and moves along with the landscape. Since the witness was already surprised beforehand by the UAP's appearance and considers it to be at close distance, this movement along the landscape is understood as a displacement of the UAP parallel to the vehicle, reproducing the vehicle's speed, here to the left of the witnesses on the road from Hoelschloch to Merkwiller. And of course, upon arriving at Merkwiller, the UAP "goes around the church" located to the left of the direction followed by the car, and at the intersection, when the vehicle stops, the UAP remains at the level of the intersection. - failure by the witnesses to identify a remarkable celestial body because it was very bright, yet present in the direction of observation, while the sky is described as clear and starry. It is verified that this is indeed a celestial body, namely Venus, which at 11:50 PM is very visible (magnitude -4.4) at azimuth 301° and elevation 6.2°. - The sighting references of witnesses T2 and T3 agree; they place the UAP "above the Liebfrauenberg," which is in fact the castle of the same name. T1 uses a less precise reference ("near the radars of the Drachenbronn base") and T3 mentions at the end of his statement these same radars while repeating that the UAP was above the Liebfrauenberg ("I specify that when the ball was above the Liebfrauenberg, in that direction, it was very close and just above the radar installations of the Air Base, to their left." The wording is confusing, especially since there is a 20° to 30° difference in azimuth between the two references (depending on the width of the area attributed to the Liebfrauenberg castle). One might think that T3 mainly wanted to draw attention to the fact that military radars were not far from the UFO. T4 mentions "we were able to observe for about half an hour the object which was apparently stationary above the DRACHENBRONN base." It is noted that T4 is not originally from the area (military service) and may have used the reference of T1 or T3 (the witnesses were all together at least at one moment of the observation), which the word "apparently" would reflect, but while making a shortcut, he speaks of the base, which is in the NE direction, and not of the base's radars, which are in the WNW direction. - Taking the precise reference used by T2 and T3 and not contradicted by T1 and T4, namely the Liebfrauenberg castle, and as observation location the Merkwiller intersection or the Hattenweg locality, the sighting corresponds to the azimuth of Venus (~300°). It is verified that the elevation profile in this direction (at ±5° around) does not hide Venus; the highest obstacle (the Goersdorf forest massif) is at 4.2 km (from Hattenberg) with a height difference of 200 m, i.e., at a relative elevation of 2.7°. According to this estimate, the masking of Venus occurs at 12:20 AM while the witnesses note it at 12:25 or 12:30 AM; the variation in elevation over 10 minutes is 1.2°. This is perfectly within the margins of error in assessing or knowing the exact times of the observation elements, as well as the precise positions of the witnesses at the time of these observations (which affects the evaluation of maskings). The gendarmerie report No. 491 notes in its investigation summary and the associated drawing that the UAP made a final escape (after half an hour of stability above the Liebfrauenberg) toward the northeast. This would contradict the hypothesis. But T2 and T4 do not mention a final escape. The expression used by T2, "the latter remained until 12:30 AM above the Liebfrauenberg. I do not know what direction it took afterward, I did not pay attention," suggests that T2 was aware of testimonies of a final escape but was not able to confirm it. T3 mentions "this ball left leaving a yellow trail, in a northerly direction." T3 may have experienced the classic illusion of a final reduction in the star's intensity (due to the atmospheric layer) by interpreting it as a sudden distancing, and he may have approximated an escape toward the northeast (Venus is then at 308°) as an escape toward the north, just as he already approximated Liebfrauenberg and the base's radars. T1 states "The object remained motionless near the radars of the DRACHENBRONN base. We observed this phenomenon until 12:25 AM, at which time it moved away at very high speed toward LOBSANN. LOBSANN being in the NE, this indication would reflect a clear final escape of the UAP frankly to the right, without the possibility of associating it with a distancing escape as for T3. Nevertheless, the testimony of T1 deviates from the others on more than one point. In the car phase (with T2 and T4), T1 describes the UAP "high in the sky" while T4 and T2 see it on the left (or in a fixed direction equivalent to the left), and while T4 mentions that T1 pointed out the UAP to the others on his left. T1 is the only one to describe a UAP as "two discs connected by a line." Finally, T1 describes a crossing of the road by the UAP, the UAP coming from the right. This sensation of the UAP moving relative to the road could have occurred, but not in that direction and not in those proportions. The road's heading is not stable, particularly at the cemetery (the area indicated by T1 as the UAP crossing the road); the heading changes from N to NE, and therefore the direction of Venus relative to the road changes from the left (10 o'clock heading) to settling near the road's heading (12 o'clock heading). These elements of singularity and/or exaggeration of T1's sensations lead us not to retain them. The other elements of apparent strangeness, such as color changes, impressions of the UAP lowering in height in jerks or steps, are classic for observing Venus at low elevation through atmospheric layers creating color modifications. The initial misidentification (failure to recognize it due to the glow and colors) is the origin of the error in assessing distance and ultimately of the following-ball illusion. The whole thing mutually reinforces itself in strangeness. The strong coherence of appearance and position in the sky with Venus leaves no doubt. The few elements that would oppose this (final escape toward the east) cannot be retained because they come from only one witness among the 4, in singularity or contradiction with the other three. Finally, none of the witnesses distinguished Venus for more than 30 minutes, while the sky was clear and Venus was in the observation direction and should have been a key reference point for locating the UAP. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of Venus.