(DPT) BAS-RHIN (67) 11.04.1980

GEIPAN continues to publish its complete archives on its public website, www.geipan.fr. These include older cases classified at the time as A, B, C or D that are now being re-examined solely to improve the conclusions. New technical tools (software) and the investigative experience acquired over the intervening years sometimes allow this re-examination to produce new observations or even a change in classification, explained in an investigation note. This sighting, previously classified D and named SOULTZ SOUS FORETS (67) 1980, is among the cases recently re-examined. On the night of 11–12 April 1980, between 23:50 and 00:30, several witnesses watched a luminous phenomenon in the sky for an extended period from different locations. It intrigued them because it was stationary when they stopped but appeared to move when they traveled in their vehicle. The accounts in gendarmerie reports 491 and 307 have the characteristics of a celestial-object sighting. GEIPAN now knows these well from accumulated explained cases, particularly over the past ten years (see www.geipan.fr and searches for cases involving celestial bodies, Venus, the Moon and the Sun): - Observation for more than 30 minutes, low elevation, and final disappearance behind local terrain. - A UAP that appears stationary when the witness stops and moves when the witness moves, creating the impression of being followed. This is the “following ball” illusion. The celestial object's absolute direction is of course fixed. When a car follows an approximately constant heading, the object remains in the same direction relative to the vehicle as the landscape passes by. Because the witness has already been surprised by the UAP's appearance and judges it to be nearby, its apparent progress along the landscape is interpreted as the UAP moving parallel to the car at the same speed. Here it appeared to the witnesses' left on the road from Hoelschloch to Merkwiller. On reaching Merkwiller, the UAP accordingly “went around the church,” to the left of the car's direction of travel; when the vehicle stopped at the intersection, the UAP remained level with that intersection. - Failure to identify a conspicuous, very bright celestial object present in the viewing direction, despite a sky described as clear and starry. Checks confirm that the object was Venus, very conspicuous at 23:50, with magnitude −4.4, azimuth 301° and elevation 6.2°. - The sightlines given by witnesses T2 and T3 agree: they place the UAP “above Liebfrauenberg,” meaning the castle of that name. T1 uses a less precise landmark, “near the radars of the Drachenbronn base.” At the end of his statement, T3 also mentions those radars while repeating that the UAP was above Liebfrauenberg: “I would add that when the ball was above Liebfrauenberg, in that direction, it was very close to and just above the air base's radar installations, to their left.” This wording is confused, particularly because the landmarks differ in azimuth by 20°–30°, depending on the width assigned to the Liebfrauenberg castle grounds. T3 may chiefly have wanted to emphasize that military radars were near the UFO. T4 says: “For about half an hour we were able to observe the object, which was apparently stationary above the DRACHENBRONN base.” T4 was not local, being there for military service, and may have adopted T1's or T3's landmark: all the witnesses were together at least at one stage. His “apparently” may reflect this. He also abbreviates the reference to the base, which is to the northeast, rather than its radars, which are toward north-northwest. - Using the precise landmark given by T2 and T3 and not contradicted by T1 or T4—the Liebfrauenberg castle—and the Merkwiller intersection or the locality Hattenweg as the viewing position, the sightline matches Venus's azimuth, approximately 300°. The terrain profile in that direction, within ±5°, does not obscure Venus. The highest angular obstruction, the Goersdorf forest hills, is 4.2 km away (from Hattenberg, as named in the source) and 200 m higher, an apparent elevation of 2.7°. This estimate places Venus's disappearance behind the terrain at 00:20, while witnesses give 00:25 or 00:30. The elevation changes by 1.2° over ten minutes. These differences are well within the uncertainty in estimating or knowing exact times and exact witness positions, the latter affecting the assessment of terrain obstruction. Gendarmerie report 491's investigation summary and accompanying drawing describe a final rapid departure toward the northeast after half an hour stationary above Liebfrauenberg. This would contradict the hypothesis. However, T2 and T4 do not mention a final departure. T2 says: “It remained above Liebfrauenberg until 00:30. I do not know which direction it took afterwards; I was not paying attention.” This suggests T2 knew of reports of a final departure but could not confirm them. T3 says: “This ball left, leaving a yellow trail, toward the north.” T3 may have experienced the familiar illusion of interpreting a celestial object's final dimming through the atmosphere as sudden recession into the distance. The investigation suggests that he may have approximated a northeastward departure as northward, while giving Venus's azimuth at that time as 308°; this directional inconsistency is in the source. It compares this with his approximate association of Liebfrauenberg and the base's radars. T1 says: “The object remained motionless near the radars of the DRACHENBRONN base. We observed this phenomenon until 00:25, when it moved away at very high speed toward LOBSANN.” Lobsann is northeast, so this would imply a clear final movement to the right, which cannot be explained as recession into the distance as proposed for T3. However, T1's account differs from the others in several respects. During the car journey with T2 and T4, T1 describes the UAP as “high in the sky,” whereas T4 and T2 place it on the left, or in the corresponding fixed direction; T4 also says T1 drew the others' attention to the UAP on his left. Only T1 describes “two discs connected by a line.” T1 also describes the UAP crossing the road from the right. Such an impression of movement relative to the road could have occurred, but not in that direction or to that extent. The road's heading varies, particularly near the cemetery, where T1 reported the crossing: it changes from north to northeast. The source states that Venus's direction relative to the road therefore changes from left, at ten o'clock, to near the road's heading, at twelve o'clock. These distinctive and/or exaggerated impressions in T1's account lead the investigators not to retain them. Other apparently unusual features, such as color changes and impressions that the UAP descended in jerks or steps, are common in observations of Venus at low elevation through atmospheric layers that alter its color. The initial failure to recognize it because of its glow and colors leads to a mistaken distance estimate and ultimately the following-ball illusion. These impressions reinforce one another's apparent strangeness. GEIPAN considers the close match with Venus's appearance and sky position conclusive. It does not retain the few apparently contradictory elements, such as a final departure eastward, because they come from only one of the four witnesses and are unique to that witness or contradict the other three. Finally, none of the witnesses separately identified Venus during more than 30 minutes, although the sky was clear and Venus was in their viewing direction and should have provided a key reference for locating the UAP. GEIPAN consequently classifies the case A: observations of Venus.