FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019

On 29 November 2019, just before 22:00, a witness observed from an outdoor terrace what seemed to him to be a very bright star but whose scintillation intrigued him. 9 people called to come to see the UAP found themselves on the terrace and noticed the phenomenon’s various changes (appearances, disappearances, splitting and parts moving apart). The witness tried in vain to film with his mobile phone. Only one testimony would be collected. During the investigation, a further brief account was submitted by email, with videos showing the UAP (see the investigation report). This case has a fairly high degree of strangeness but medium evidential quality (several witnesses, but a single main account, and UAP videos). It cannot be identified for lack of data, although it has characteristics of an astronomical misidentification. According to the witness, his observation began at 21:50, lasted about 80 minutes and was toward the southeast at azimuth 123°, “below the constellation Canis Minor,” at an elevation between 30° and 60°. The preferred hypothesis during the investigation is an astronomical misidentification because of: - the very long observation time (about 80 minutes) which is typical of this kind of misidentification, - the UAP’s appearance in the videos is consistent with that of a bright star that is difficult to bring into focus due to the night environment, - the sparkling effect which is typical of an astronomical misidentification: this effect is due to the star’s low position above the horizon whose light is passing through atmospheric turbulence. However, the investigation determines that: - Sirius which corresponds to azimuth 123° cannot be retained because not yet risen at the observation time (rising at 22:12), - Procyon, star of the constellation Canis Minor is located on the east horizon at 9.50pm and is not in the direction indicated by the witness and is not in the elevation indicated by the witness, - the movement of lights is not confirmed by his female cousin, the only witness to have been found during the drafting of the investigation note, nor by the videos of the UAP. The angular height of the UAP is largely unclear. GEIPAN classifies the case C, an unidentifiable case due to lack of reliable data.