AUXON (LES) (25) 19.06.2017

On Monday 19 June 2017 at approximately 22:30–23:00, a witness saw a sparkling light appear below what he called Venus. Its movement and disappearance in a halo puzzled him. About 30–45 minutes later, he saw what appeared to be the same phenomenon almost overhead. He supplied a photographic reconstruction with his questionnaire. Only 1 account was collected. The witness gave precise positional clues. The light was to the right and slightly below the bright planet in the direction shown by the reconstruction. GEIPAN established that this reference was Jupiter, also very bright that evening, rather than Venus. Analysis of visible satellites identified one whose final descending path matched the reconstruction: it passed 10°–15° to Jupiter's right at about 22:50, within the witness's approximate time window (see the attached investigation and reconstruction document). That satellite, USA 234/FIA Radar 2, was visible but normally much fainter than reported. GEIPAN explained that satellites can briefly brighten through specular sunlight reflections, or flares, lasting a few seconds to 1 minute. The effect depends on the orientation of a large, flat surface. Iridium satellites were a familiar example with predictable flares because their orientations were known. USA 234/FIA Radar 2 is a US military satellite for which detailed information is unavailable; the source refers to FIA-RADAR. Its flares are poorly predictable or unpredictable, but observations have recorded very bright events, comparable to or brighter than Venus, matching the witness's comparison. The source cites: - A magnitude −0.5 flare seen in Ukraine on 2 May 2012, with the reference 'USA-234 (FIA RADAR2) bright flare seen'. - A magnitude −5 flare seen by the same observer on 30 April 2012, with accompanying images. - Flares of magnitude −1 and 0 from its counterpart FIA-Radar 1 on 25 May 2015, documented in 'double flare from FIA-RADAR 1'. The grey halo at disappearance was harder to explain. GEIPAN proposed that the flare ended as the satellite passed behind a thin haze unnoticed by the witness in an otherwise clear sky. Despite this residual strangeness, the matching path of a satellite known to flare made the explanation sufficiently probable to retain. For the second event, the witness said the phenomenon repeated 30–45 minutes later, almost directly overhead, but without the halo. An Iridium flare occurred in that time window at an elevation of 34°, which GEIPAN considered inconsistent with overhead. Several other satellites passed near the zenith, but the account lacked a precise direction and direction of movement. GEIPAN reasoned that movement should have been present because the witness called it the same phenomenon; one of those objects might have produced a brief flare, but there was too little information to investigate. GEIPAN also noted that a first puzzling sighting can heighten a witness's attention to later unusual lights. Such events may be associated with the first despite subsequently proving unrelated, and might otherwise have passed unnoticed. GEIPAN classified the first UAP B, probable satellite observation, and the second C, an account that cannot be assessed for lack of reliable information.