An account in Ard�che, 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 investigative 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 TOURNON (07) 1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 08 May 1980 at around 22:30, military personnel, engaged in night firing exercises, observed a particular phenomenon above the training ground. Their attention was drawn to a point emitting a bright whitish light. The witnesses describe an object to the West that moved in their direction, approached and moved away without noise. The observation duration was long before the object disappeared to the West. These testimonies from career military personnel, reported in the gendarmerie report, 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 search for cases with the phenomena: stars, Venus, Moon, Sun): - long observation duration of more than 30 minutes, low height in the sky, quasi-stationarity or very small trajectory in the sky. Indeed, none of the witnesses describes an angular evolution of the UAP, even though the observation lasted over 1 hour. - sensation of forward-backward movement of the UAP. The witness having interpreted the celestial body as a nearby object, any variation in the luminous intensity of the celestial body is logically interpreted as a forward or backward movement of the object which would keep its own intensity constant. T2 says "This luminous point must have been at a fairly great distance, above the mountain! This point approached, until it became the size of a football, it was of great luminosity. It stopped facing us, in the direction of the targets, and its luminosity noticeably illuminated the place where we were. I specify that the sky where this object was was absolutely clear of any cloud." T1 says "This object then left at a speed much faster than the one at which it had come. When this craft left, we continued our firing session. Ten to twelve minutes after moving away, this craft returned but at a much greater distance." - failure by the witnesses to identify a remarkable celestial body, although very bright and present in the direction of observation, while the sky is described as clear and starry. It is verified that it is indeed a celestial body, namely Venus. The direction of Venus (evolving from azimuth 290° to azimuth 300°) is compatible with the observation of T1, the only witness giving the direction: "This phenomenon came from the westerly direction. It left in the same direction" (the West-East movement being the illusion of approach-moving away previously described). The first mistake, which leads to the other (forward-backward movement), lies in the failure to recognize the celestial body. Venus is the cause of many mistakes. It is by far the brightest "star" (here magnitude -4.5), it is visible at low elevation in the sky (here from 16° to 11°) and its rays pass through a great atmospheric thickness, producing variable effects, variations in luminous intensity, color distortion, halo, or even oscillation due to turbulence in the atmosphere. Here, the UAP is seen yellow or white, and with variable intensities. All these effects exist even in the absence of clouds and can be accentuated (intensity variation, up to near-disappearance) by the presence of cloud veils otherwise invisible. It is verified that Venus is indeed visible given the surrounding terrain: the dimensioning obstacle in elevation in the direction of Venus from the firing range is Mont de Rosier or Cerisier at 700 m altitude, i.e. a height difference of about 200 m from the firing range at more than 1.5 km, i.e. an angle of 8°, too small to hide Venus. The witnesses' indications, regarding the direction of the UAP, are not precise enough to ensure an exact correspondence with Venus. But the witnesses confirm the absence of clouds and "starry weather", they observe to the West, at a height close to the mountains, and do not notice Venus, which is the star that "jumps out at you" when looking at that sector of the sky (the other "strong" stars are Capella and Procyon, much less bright, magnitude 4 points lower!), even though they mention the size of a star to qualify the final size of the UAP. If the UAP had been something other than Venus, Venus would have been used to locate the UAP. The other elements of strangeness, such as "the moving away of the UAP" when the lamps were pointed toward it, or the watch that the next day was fast, are pure coincidences which here attracted the witnesses' attention because of the climate of strangeness already in place. The above elements leave no doubt. GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of Venus. These testimonies are imprecise in terms of information. They well illustrate the strangeness that a celestial body, here Venus, can generate, even for career military personnel.