ALSACAT:

cnes
National Center for Space Studies

geipan

Madam, Sir,

You were a direct witness, on French territory, of an aerospace phenomenon that intrigued you and you want to understand what you saw.

In order to be able to answer your questions, the National Center for Space Studies and its specialized service GEIPAN offer you a two-step approach:

• On the website www.geipan.fr, first consult the UAP identification guide where you may find an explanation for your observation.
• If you have not found an explanation, complete the following questionnaire which will allow us to open an investigation.

- The questionnaire is individual and must be completed by the direct witness

- The questionnaire should only concern one observation at a time

Your testimony is crucial and perhaps unique. It will consist of giving an account of your observation, answering specific questions, making drawings and sketches or attaching photographs to further refine your description.

It is imperative that you follow the instructions mentioned at each step so that we can gather as much information as possible about the observed phenomenon. You should not be afraid to tell us or feel ridiculous, we are used to collecting this type of testimonies.

The conclusions of our investigation will be communicated to you personally. Once anonymized, your testimony will be published on our website (www.geipan.fr), "Case research" tab in the menu bar.

We thank you in advance for your contribution to our work.

The head of GEIPAN

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 1

Your observation

We will ask you to provide as much information as possible about your observation. The most important thing is not to omit anything: it is often the details that allow investigations to be resolved. So don't hesitate to give as much information as possible, even if your memories are incomplete or certain elements seem unimportant to you. If you are not quite sure of a particular detail, let us know your doubts, but, again, do not leave anything out. We need to be able to visualize everything you have seen, as if to remake the film of your observation.

Use the end of this page to recount your sighting and continue on loose paper as much as you want:

Your free observation story:

on June 05, 2015, I was unpacking cardboxes following my move in.

I made a pose [sic, pause] and sat down on my terrace (Dutch balcony).

I sat down and opened a packet of crisps. I then look at the landscape when I perceive two phenomena (objects I suppose) of round shape and dark color, probably black. They did not appear, they must have already been present.

One had a rather stable movement while the second made arcs of circles with the first object as the center. (with irregular amplitudes)

The movement was very slow. I didn't notice the rotation right away.

I didn't notice any noise despite the calm in the streets.

I kept my cool and took my iPhone 6 to film

I expected a spectacular event, a light, a change of direction, a disappearance. Since the phenomenon was not changing, I put my phone on the balcony ledge (still filming).

I waited and I ate some crisps that were next to me. (buzz sound on the video).

So I filmed 20 minutes of the phenomenon in 2 videos.

After 20 minutes I could no longer see the 2nd object because both seemed to lose altitude and disappear behind the buildings.

So I decided to stop filming and take my car to approach them.

I couldn't see them from my street because of the size of the buildings and I took a few minutes because of the red lights and the traffic (I entered Strasbourg).

Arrived around, I did not find the phenomenon. It was difficult to see a large area of the sky from below.

Arrived near the European Parliament. I decided to go home.

Please provide all the information requested.

What were your occupations just before your observation?

Just before the sighting, I was emptying cardboxes following my move in.

Precise address of the place of observation (street, city ...):

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 3

Observation conditions of the phenomenon

67300 Schiltigheim

Where were you exactly? (Please indicate if you were in a building and on what floor, if you were looking through a window, and how fast you were driving if you were in a vehicle.)

I am located on my balcony without glazing, located on the 4th floor of the building. SCHILTIGHEIM

Date of observation:... 05... /... 06... /... 2015 ......... Precise start time (in local time): start at 9:10 pm. .....

Duration of the observation or end time (in hours, minutes, seconds): about 20 minutes ....

Did other witnesses see the same phenomenon as you? If so, how many?

no or unknown ..................... ..

If necessary, please ask them to contact us at the coordinates indicated on the last page of this document.

How do you relate to these people (parents, friends, colleagues, neighbors)?

The observation was made: continuous

(cross out or remove unnecessary mention)

If the sighting was done intermittently, specify why it stopped and resumed:

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 4

How did this observation end?

The observed phenomena gradually disappeared behind the buildings.

Did you see the phenomenon directly with your eyes? YES

(cross out or remove unnecessary mention)

Was the phenomenon observed through an instrument (eyeglasses or sunglasses, binoculars, camera, camera, telescope, etc.)? If so, please specify the model:

I also filmed the scene with the video from my I Phone 6

2 video: 13min25s and 4min23s

Weather conditions (clear sky, clouds, wind, thunderstorm, haze, fog, rain, snow, change in conditions during the observation):

clear sky

Astronomical conditions (remember the position of the Moon, the Sun, the presence or not of stars or planets, etc.):

No, it was daylight at that time

Equipment on or active during the observation (headlights, radio, TV, lights ...):

Nothing active during observation

Noises during observation (TV or radio on, passing vehicles, airplane engine, thunder ...):

All kinds of noise from outside the city, but very weak.

(on the video you can hear creaks, it's just the fact that I was munching (crisps) and a plane that I also filmed goes to 3/4 of the first video.)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 5

Description of the phenomenon

In your descriptions, do not hesitate to make comparisons with known objects.

Number of phenomena (single, multiple or single then divides ...):

multiple: 2 phenomena.

Shape:

spherical to the naked eye, which could appear as a diamond

Color:

black, which could appear whitish in the middle

Brightness (compared to known stars like Venus and the Moon, or streetlight lighting, car lights, house lights, etc.):

dark, and seemed lighter in the center

Is there a trail or a halo? If so, what color?

No

Apparent size (express the dimensions of the phenomenon in relation to a familiar object and / or in millimeters counted on a graduated ruler carried at arm's length):

At first glance, I would say about 2m in diameter rather small if I take into account the filmed chimneys.

Noise coming from the phenomenon (hissing, buzzing, detonation, comparison with a known noise ...):

None

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 6

Distance between you and the UAP (the observed phenomenon), roughly estimated (specify if the object passed in front of or behind an element of the landscape)

from 700 to 1200 meters (estimate from Google Earth)

Initial UAP position in the sky (start of observation):

Indicate a cardinal point (North, South...), or an azimuth in degrees with respect to North, or a local visual or geographical reference (building, village)

SOUTH EAST from north

Indicate a height in degrees from the horizon, or from an element of the landscape (eg: 2 times higher than the church tower)

more than 1.5 times the total height of the brewery opposite with the large fireplace (see video)

Final position of the UAP in the sky (end of the observation):

Indicate a cardinal point (North, South...), or an azimuth in degrees with respect to North, or a local visual or geographical reference (building, village)

EAST - SOUTH EAST from north

Indicate a height in degrees from the horizon, or from an element of the landscape (eg: 2 times higher than the church tower)

1 times the total height of the same brewery with the fireplace

Trajectory of the phenomenon (straight line, rising, falling, with or without change of direction, curve, etc.):

one phenomenon seemed to revolve vertically around another (slow rotation, visible on all the videos) with varying amplitudes.

In addition to this trajectory, the two phenomena moved very slowly northwards and dropped in altitude until I no longer saw them.

CONFORMÉMENT À LA LOI N° 78-17 DU 6 JANVIER 1978 RELATIVE À L'INFORMATIQUE, AUX FICHIERS ET AUX LIBERTÉS, ET AU DÉCRET N° 78.774 DU
17 JUILLET 1978, VOUS DISPOSEZ D'UN DROIT DE CONTRÔLE ET DE RECTIFICATION DE VOS DONNÉES PERSONNELLES.
LES DEMANDES SONT À ADRESSER PAR ÉCRIT AU GEIPAN – COORDONNEES EN DERNIERE PAGE

V3-8/JANVIER 2015

page: 7

Portion of the sky covered by the UAP during the observation (e.g. a quarter of the sky or 30 ° to 40 ° from the horizon, etc.):

from 30 to 45 °

Effect (s) on the environment (ground trace (s), effect (s) on living beings or material):

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 8

Reconstruction of your observation

In order for us to be able to reconstruct the "movie" of your observation, we must have as much information as possible. Concretely this implies that we understand everything, from the beginning to the end of your observation, and that we know the direction of movement of the phenomenon as well as its altitude. This step is crucial.

We offer three complementary methods:

1. Take a picture of the environment as it was during the phenomenon, as if the camera were your eyes when observing. Feel free to draw what you observed directly on the photos.
2. Make one or more sketches of your observation (see next page) from your point of view, including the environment. Give as much information as possible to allow us a good understanding of the scene.
   
   You are entirely free from the sketches that you send us. But color accuracy is important, especially if the level of contrast between the observed phenomenon and the environment is low. Try to be as precise as possible, even if it means writing on the sketch.
   
   No drawing skills are necessary. The main thing is to make us understand what you saw in a schematic way. You can use the following page for this purpose.
3. Reconstruct your observation on one or more planes. If you can, this is to present your observation from a top view. To do this, you can print a map of your observation location on Google Map (http://maps.google.fr) or Geoportail (http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil) and record your different positions there, and the directions of observation.

How to "dress" a photo or a card with your comments?

If you are used to using drawing or image editing software (Photoshop, GIMP, Illustrator, etc.), we recommend that you use these tools, then we send a file in jpg, png or pdf format.

If you cannot access this type of hardware, print a map of the places and / or a photo, draw over it and attach it to the paper file; or scan or photograph the result and send it to us in jpg, png or pdf format.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 9

Sketch of your observation

Use this page to draw your sighting.

You are entirely free to draw up this sketch.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 10

What now?

Describe the emotions you felt during and after the observation:

I did not feel any particular emotions during the observation.

I was very calm.

Even strangely very calm eating crisps.

However, before the second phenomenon completely disappeared from my sight (end of the second video), I took my car to take a closer look,

Having found nothing (difficult traffic and building hiding the sky in the city) I felt frustrated and annoyed not being able to have filmed closer.

What did you do after your sighting? Did you talk about it? How did your interlocutors react? Did you do any research to understand what you saw?

I did not mention it immediately, then to a friend who reacted by not seeing an explanation.

It surprised him.

What interpretation do you give to what you observed? Have you thought of a known phenomenon? What are the elements that justify your interpretation? If you don't know, have you given up on understanding? If so, when and why?

I thought in the first few minutes of balloons (Montgolfier), but neither the size nor the trajectory matched. Then to drones, but the shapes, the trajectories and the time spent in the areas amaze me. I don't give up on understanding.

Before your observation, how interested were you in strange aerospace phenomena? Did you have a specific opinion on the subject? Which ? What were you basing it on?

This is not my first experience like this and it is by far not the most incredible that I have seen. However, it is the only one that I have been able to immortalize on video.

I think that's why I remained very calm during the sighting.

I have no specific opinion on the matter. However, the fact of never finding an answer to the incredible observations that I have been able to make forces me to be open to all is beyond hypothesis.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 11

Did this observation change your view of unidentified aerospace phenomena? If so, explain what you think now:

Despite this observation, I am and I remain very down to earth, looking for concrete and scientific explanations for my observations.

Do you think that science will provide an explanation for your observation?

Yes I think so, maybe drones, maybe other things I haven't thought about yet.

But like a testimony, an explanation must be proven.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 12

Summary

If you have already testified about this UAP, please tell us to which authority, organization or person by deleting or striking out the unnecessary mentions in the list below, and by completing the requested information (several possible contacts):

- Gendarmerie (mention the brigade and the date): ..........
- Police (mention the police station and the date): ......
- GEIPAN (mention the name of the contact and the date): ......
- Private investigator (mention the name of the contact and the date): ........
- Ufologist (mention the name of the contact and the date): .....
- Journalist (mention the name of the contact and the date): ........
- Internet (mention the site and the date): ....

Do you allow us to publish this last information? NO

(it may possibly identify you if your identity appears on that website)

Please specify in the list below the documents you attached or completed.

(check or delete unnecessary mentions)

() Questionnaire
() Map (s) or plan (s) (number: ... 2 ....)
() Video (s) of the sighting (number: .... 2 ...)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 13

You still have to fill in the publication authorization below, which will allow us to display your anonymized testimony on our website.

Authorization to publish your information

(In case of refusal, cross out or delete one and / or the other of the following formulas.)

- I authorize GEIPAN to publish this testimony on its own website, after removing the information allowing the identification of witnesses (name, address, etc.) and location maps.

---

I, the undersigned .. .........., certify the sincerity of the information provided above.

Made in Schiltigheim .....

On 08/17/2015 ....

Signature

If you are completing this form by computer, insert your scanned signature or type

---

This questionnaire is to be returned:

- By e-mail with all the scanned parts to geipan@cnes.fr

or

- By mail to the following postal address, after making a copy for you to keep:

GEIPAN
National Center for Space Studies
DCT / DA / GEIPAN
18 avenue Edouard Belin,
31401 TOULOUSE CEDEX 9

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW N ° 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE N ° 78.774 OF
JULY 17, 1978, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF CONTROL AND CORRECTION OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA.
REQUESTS MUST BE SENT IN WRITING TO GEIPAN - COORDINATES ON THE LAST PAGE

V3-8 / JANUARY 2015

page: 14

Toulouse, 09/09/2016

DCT / DA / Geipan

INVESTIGATION REPORT

SCHILTIGHEIM (67300) 05.06.2015

OBSERVATION CASE

1 - CONTEXT

On 06/10/2015, GEIPAN received an email from the witness who sent 2 video files, 2 situation maps as well as the completed questionnaire relating to the daytime observation of a suspected UAP.

GEIPAN replied to it on 10/07/2015 asking for details relating to missing information in the questionnaire.

2- DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE (according to the elements received)

Witness T1: source: Questionnaire.

Date: June 05, 2015

Time: around 9:10 p.m. (HL) or 7:10 p.m. (UT) Duration: ~ 20 minutes

Location: Schiltigheim (67300).

Witness: 30-year-old male. Control agent. (Bac +2 level of study).

...On June 05, 2015, I was unpacking cardboxes following my move in. I did a pose and sat down on my terrace (Dutch balcony). I sat down and opened a packet of crisps. I then look at the landscape when I see two phenomena (objects I suppose) of round shape and dark color, probably black. They did not appear, they must have already been present.

One had a rather stable movement while the second made arcs of circles with the first object as its center (with irregular amplitudes).

The movement was very slow. I didn't notice the rotation right away.

I didn't notice any noise despite the calm in the streets.

I was calm and took my Iphone6 to film.

I expected a spectacular event, a light, a change of direction, a disappearance. Since the phenomenon was not changing, I put my phone on the balcony ledge (still filming).

I waited and ate some crisps that were next to me (noise on the video).

So I filmed 20 minutes of the phenomenon in 2 videos.

After 20 minutes I could no longer see the 2nd object because both seemed to lose altitude and disappear behind the buildings.

So I decided to stop filming and take my car to approach it.

I could not see them from my street because of the size of the buildings and I took a few minutes because of the red lights and the traffic (I entered Strasbourg).

Arrived around, I did not find the phenomenon. It was difficult to see a large area of the sky from below. Arrived near the European Parliament. I decided to go home. ...

2

It follows from this initial testimony (questionnaire) and the videos that:

- The place and date are known with precision.

- It was still daylight (setting sun). The weather was clear and the blue sky clear (clouds in the distance).

- The phenomenon seemed to be present in the sky before T1 saw it.

- It seems quite far (in the order of a km).

- The observation time is quite long (~ 20 min).

- The UAP appears to consist of two distinct but very similar and apparently independent forms.

- The moves of the UAP are very slow, with a gradual disappearance of one of the two forms, apparently hidden by a building.

- Angular height of appearance: low.

- Angular height of disappearance: very low.

- Sinuous and generally descending paths.

- Observation direction: East-South-East.

- Displacement in azimuth estimated by T1: from 30 to 45 °, towards the north (from right to left).

- No trace remains.

- No perceived noise other than ambient noise (city).

- No particular effect.

- T1 attempted to approach UAP by car but was unsuccessful.

- No other known witnesses.

- T1 claims to have made other (weirder) sightings in the past.

- T1 filmed the UAP with his Iphone6 over a cumulative duration of close to 18 minutes, which allowed him to stay calm (since he would have proof).

- T1 once thought that it could be hot air balloons and then drones but rejected these possibilities on the one hand because of the size, on the other hand because of the trajectory and the autonomy flight.

3- REMOTE INFORMATION SEARCH

New elements collected remotely:

Precise location of the witness:

It is confirmed by a third party (residing in the greater Strasbourg area) that hot air balloons are sometimes observed in the sky over the Alsatian capital, but this third party has no particular memory for this date (neither does his family ).

Two important elements of the urban landscape, clearly visible on the videos, are identified, namely:

- The FR3 Alsace television tower (to the left of the observation field).

- The fireplace in the former Schutzenberger brewery (to the right of the observation field).

A difficulty arises in accurately locating the location of the witness since the geolocation provided by Géoportail or GoogleMaps from the postal address is often only an approximation.

The precise location of the witness is found thanks to various cross-checks. Azimuth, altitude and angular height readings are now available.

Observed shape:

The shape of the two "presumed craft" not appearing to be perfectly circular, a video image capture, carried out with the IPACO software, allows to have both visual and radiometric confirmation (see appendix 4).

3

Trajectories:

Measurements taken regularly on the images of the two videos made it possible to trace approximately the apparent trajectories (seen from the position of T1) of the two unusual shapes.

(see appendix 3).

They reveal that T1 was deluded into thinking that one of the shapes was slowly spinning around the other. In fact, the two appear to follow similar trajectories, broadly drifting and descending, apparently linked to local air currents.

Everything leads us to believe that these are deices carried by the wind.

As the apparent sizes do not seem to vary appreciably between the beginning of the first and the end of the second video, it is plausible to deduce that the distance to the witness varied little, therefore that the slow observed drift took place globally in a south-west to north-east direction, i.e. perpendicular to the direction of observation.

Distance:

No reliable benchmark allowing to objectively estimate the Witness-Uap distance, it is from the apparent size (determined thanks to the video) and the various common sizes of the hot air balloons that the distance is therefore evaluated (for this hypothesis).

Altitude:

Based on these possible distances (depending on actual size), it is possible to deduce the maximum altitude (start of observation). Angular height < 8.7 °

If diameter = 6 m distance: 6.875 km Altitude: 1052 m
If diameter = 10 m distance: 11.459 km Altitude: 1753 m
If diameter = 15 m distance: 17.187 km Altitude: 2630 m
If diameter = 20 m distance: 22.917 km Altitude: 3507 m

These altitudes are perfectly compatible with the aerostats hypothesis.

Meteorology:

The meteorological data collected (see appendix 5) show that the conditions were favorable for aerostats flights. (Stable temperature, stable pressure, very low wind, sunset, no precipitation). The movements observed are not perfectly compatible with the directions of the wind on the ground but it is important to note the fact that on the one hand this direction is very changeable between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. and that on the other hand the wind at altitude can differ significantly, wind on the ground, especially during turbulence associated with sunset.

Indeed, local turbulence can easily prevail over a remarkably weak prevailing wind.

Aerostats flights:

Since the hot air balloon / gas balloon hypothesis appears very plausible, a search for possible flights is undertaken.

Despite all the contacts made with the French aerostation structures (balloon level), it was not possible to identify a flight of two devices likely to account for the sighting.

However, the UAP evolution area being a border (Franco-German border at 4.7km in the mean observation azimuth 115°) it may very well be that German balloonists are at the origin of such flight. All the more so since this activity is highly developed across the Rhine.

An additional research relating to potential flights located across the Rhine is therefore undertaken.

A first discovery reveals that a competition takes place from 03 to 06/06 less than 80km from Schiltigheim and, what is more, almost in the observation azimuth. This is the "Horb Neckar Balloncup 2015" which takes place in the city of Horb am Neckar (Baden-Württemberg).

4

The idea is therefore put forward that two of these hot air balloons could have approached the Franco-German border at the level of the town of Offenburg.

Thanks to an exchange of emails with an organizer of this competition, this track had to be ruled out.

Verification made by this kind collaborator, the hot air balloons did not approach within 40 km of the border, the rules of this competition having been defined to avoid any risk of landing in the Black Forest. The 15 balloons in competition all remained east of Freudenstadt (Germany).

However, this research also revealed that tourist flights (notably tourists first flights) are regularly carried out from two very close cross-border sites, by several companies. On the one hand a departure from the town of Kehl (border town with Strasbourg) which is only ~ 5km from the witness in the East-South-East, on the other hand another departure from the town of Offenburg located ~ 20km to the South-East. These two places are located in the direction of the witness's observation.

Attempts to contact these companies by email failed to confirm this hypothesis as some responded negatively and others did not. These are German companies for which the official nature of the GEIPAN investigation may have less weight than in France.

3.1. SUMMARY OF THE ELEMENTS COLLECTED WITNESS Nr 1 (T1)

#	QUESTION	RESPONSE (AFTER INVESTIGATION)
A1	Municipality and witness observation department (ex: Paris (75))	Schiltigheim (67)
A2	(opt) if common unknown (during a trip): Municipality at the start of the trip; Municipality of End of trip	---
A3	(opt) if during a trip: name of the Boat, Route or Flight / plane number	---
Conditions for observing the phenomenon (for each witness)
B1	Occupation of witness before observation	Moving in his apartment
B2	Precise address of the place of observation	Lat 48.602441 ° N - Long 7.741782 ° E Alt ~ 143m
B3	Description of the observation site	Dutch balcony (terrace)
B4	Observation date (MM / DD / YYYY)	Friday 05/06/2015
B5	Time of the start of the observation (HH: MM: SS)	~ 21:10 (LT) (i.e. 19:10 UT)
B6	Observation duration (s) or End time (HH: MM: SS)	~ 20 minutes
B7	Any other witnesses? If so, how many?	No
B8	(opt) If so, how does this relate to other witnesses?	---
B9	Continuous or discontinuous observation?	Almost continuous
B10	So discontinuous, why did the observation stop?	Eat chips and use their mobile to change the shot.
B11	What caused the sighting to end?	Disappearance of one of the 2 shapes then stop to try to approach the UAP by car.
B12	Phenomenon observed directly?	Yes
B13	UAP observed with an instrument? (which one?)	Yes (Iphone6)
B14	Weather conditions	Fairly clear sky. Clouds in the distance
B15	Astronomical conditions	Setting sun (still clouds

5

		lighted). No stars yet.
B16	Equipment on or active	---
B17	Known external noise sources	Urban activity + consumption of crisps by the witness + plane in the distance.
Description of the perceived phenomenon
C1	Number of phenomena observed?	2
C2	Shape	Circular to the eye but rather drop of water (or pear) on the videos.
C3	Color	dark gray or black
C4	Brightness	Darker than the sky (maybe light in the center?)
C5	Trail or halo?	No
C6	Apparent size (maximum)	Not estimated by witness but actual size estimated at 2m! But estimated angular size thanks to the video: ~ 3 'of arc
C7	Noise coming from the phenomenon?	None
C8	Estimated distance (if possible)	700 to 1200m according to witness According to video: of 6,875km for diam 6m at 11.459km for diam 10m at 17.187km for diam 15m at 22,917km for diam 20m (2,292km for diam 2m)
C9	UAP appearance azimuth (°)	Estimated: SE Measured on video: ~ 126.7 °
C10	Height of appearance of UAP (°)	Estimated to be more than 1.5 x that of the top of the brewery chimney Estimate from video: 8.7 ° (1) and 7.6 ° (2)
C11	UAP disappearance azimuth (°)	Estimated: ESE Measured on video: ~ 112.5 ° and ~ 115.75 °
C12	UAP disappearance height (°)	~ horizon according to witness Measurement on video: 0.8 ° (1) and 2.9 ° (2)
C13	Trajectory of the phenomenon	Complex (cf. reconstruction)
C14	Portion of the sky covered by the PAN	Estimated by witness from 30 ° to 45 ° Measured from video: 14.2 °
C15	Effect (s) on the environment	RAS
For the following items, simply indicate whether the witness answered these questions
E1	Reconstruction on plan and photo / sketch of the sighting?	Yes
E2	Emotions felt by the witness during and after the observation?	Yes
E3	What did the witness do after the sighting?	Yes

6

E4	What interpretation does he give to what he observed?	Yes
E5	Interest in UAPs before observation?	Yes
E6	Origin of interest in UAPs?	Yes
E7	Did the witness's opinion on UAPs change?	No
E8	Does the witness think that science will give an explanation to the NAPs?	Yes

4- SUGGESTED HYPOTHESIS

4.1. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS	ARGUMENT (S) FOR	ARGUMENT (S) AGAINST	IMPORTANCE *
Drone or radio-controlled scale model	Compatible movements	Autonomy> 30 min? Not very compatible form. 2 gear Too similar trajectories of the 2 vehicles. Very urban area (Danger) < 4%
Aircraft	Apparent size compatible	2 trajectories that are too similar Movements too slow. Final altitude too low. Very urban area (Danger) Not very compatible form	< 1%
Aerostatbr />(hot air balloon or gas balloon)	Smooth movements but with two complex but similar trajectories, seemingly linked to air currents. Water drop (or pear) shape. Similar apparent size and compatible with the presumed viewing distance. Conditions favorable to flight (calm weather, clear sky, <2 hours before sunset)	No discernible pods. No visible colors or inscriptions. No noticeable ignition of the burners on the videos. > 95%
Hallucination or mystification	No other witness 2 videos	0%

* Reliability of the hypothesis estimated by the investigator: certain (100%); strong (> 80%); medium (40% to 60%); low (20% to 40%); very low (< 20%); zero (0%)

7

5- CONCLUSION

The shapes discernible on the videos (see appendix 4) are largely reminiscent of two hot air balloons (or even gas balloons), the basket of which would not be optically separated from the balloon due to the distance. The double body aspect (balloon + basket) is reinforced by a radiometric analysis (specialized software IPACO). The two partially reconstructed trajectories (from the video and the ground marks that appear there) are quite similar except for a faster loss of angular height of one of the two forms. These trajectories can at some point give the illusion (witness's perception) that one shape revolves around the other. These trajectories evoke those of objects carried by the wind, with a constant drift to the left of the witness. The drop in altitude of the two forms is consistent with the need to land before nightfall (according to regulations).

It was not possible to finalize the exact identification of the devices originally, however a large majority of the descriptive parameters from visual observation and from the videos converge perfectly towards this very simple and plausible explanation. . The probability of a flight from Kehl (or even Offenburg) is high. Indeed, there are tourist flight companies in this sector located in the direction of the observation and at a distance compatible with the observed size of the hot air balloons on the video.

The strangeness is therefore very weak and if there is only one witness, the consistency remains quite strong because the videos confirm its observation and allow a very objective approach of the observed phenomenon.

Consequently, this observation should be classified in A: Observation of hot air balloons

5.1. CLASSIFICATION

STRANGENESS CONSISTENCY (1) (IxF) (2) (E)
[Survey closed on 08/30/2016]
(1) Consistency (C): between 0 and 1. Amount of reliable information (I) (F) collected on a testimony (C = IxF).
(2) Strangeness (E): between 0 and 1. Distance in terms of information from all known phenomena.

8

List of annexes

Annex 01: geographical location (1 page).

Annex 02: topographical situation (2 pages).

Annex 03: graphic reconstruction of the trajectory of the UAPs (3 pages).

Appendix 04: UAP shape (1 page).

Appendix 05: weather conditions (5 pages).

Source of images & photographs: Géoportail + GoogleStreetView + Wikipedia

9

Annex 01

Geographical location

10

Annex 02

Topographic situation

Extract from IGN map

Source: Géoportail

The two main landmarks (plus the TV rake antenna), namely the FR3 Alsace television tower (Place de Bordeaux in Strasbourg), located 1.630 km away, and the fireplace of the former Schutzenberger brewery (Rue des Chasseurs in Strasbourg), located at 425m, were used to calculate the various azimuths (via Géoportail and Googlemaps).

The next page gives a more precise visualization.

11

Annex 02b

Main topographic landmarks

FR3 Alsace tower - Place de Bordeaux (Strasbourg).

Chimney of the Schutzenberger Brewery.

(View from rue Perle in Strasbourg)

Annex 03a

Graphic reconstruction of the trajectory of the NAPs

Reconstruction of the evolution of the UAPs on the first part of the first video, over a period of 5:30 minutes and in a step of 30 seconds.

Variations in the orientation of the iPhone have been compensated for by tracking relative to the antenna.

Then, simultaneous variations in orientation and zoom, combined with de-focusing prevented the continuity of these trajectories from being ensured

Two other parts of the movement, produced in an almost similar fashion, are presented on the following pages.

Shape 1

Shape 2

13

Annex 03b

Graphic reconstruction of the trajectory of the UAPs

The trajectories continue with a continuous drift to the left. Here again, it is clear that the two UANs undergo simultaneous and quite similar variations as was already the case on the first part of the trajectory. This irresistibly suggests evolutions of a lighter-than-air that undergoes winds or (thermal) air currents.

Continuation trajectory
Position	Time on video 1
13	06:30
14	07:00
15	07:30
16	08:00
17	08:30
18	09:00
19	09:30
20	10:00
21	10:48

14

Annex 03c

Graphic reconstruction of the trajectory of the UAPs

Continuation trajectory
Position	Time on video 1
22	00:00
23	00:30
24	00:56
25	01:30
26	02:00
27	02:30
28	03:00
29	03:20
30	03:30
31	04:00
32	04:20

Az: 115.75°

Az: 110.5° /NG

Az: 123.5° /NG

After a rather chaotic and hardly usable end of video 1, a second video allows the reconstruction to continue. The end of the filmed trajectories remains consistent with the previous phases, but again showing a loss of altitude (and / or distance). One of the UAPs (yellow) disappears before the other (position 29) in the ~ 115.75 ° / NG azimuth, hidden by a building.

15

Annex 04

Shape of the UAPs

Video capture under IPACO (V3.96w) of a shape with vertical radiometric cut

This radiometric cut confirms the visual impression obtained by a magnification of one of the shapes recorded on the videos.

It clearly appears that the shape initially perceived as spherical is in fact elongated downwards in the form of a point. This seems to correspond perfectly to the shape of a hot air balloon or a gas balloon whose basket and lines would add to the spherical shape of the balloon.

16

Annex 05a

Weather conditions

Source Météociel:

http://www.meteociel.fr/temps-reel/obs_villes.php?code2=7190&jour2=5&mois2=5&annee2=2015&envoyer=OK

17

Annex 05b

Weather conditions

Source Météociel:

http://www.meteociel.fr/temps-reel/obs_villes.php?code2=7190&jour2=5&mois2=5&annee2=2015&envoyer=OK

Summary of the day

Extract data between 1 p.m. and 11 p.m.

According to these Météociel data, it appears that there was a southerly wind (close to the ground) since the beginning of the afternoon which passes into the south-eastern sector at the start of the observation, becoming very changeable by the continuation to gradually move towards the northern sector (Cf. graph).

This wind was weak because less than 6km / h (7km / h in gust).

The temperature of 29.4 ° C at the start of the observation gradually decreases (sunset) while the humidity increases slowly. Visibility is around 40km.

No rain.

18

Annex 05c

Weather conditions - Source Météo 60

http://www.meteo60.fr/releves-climatologie-station-jour.php?station=13367&annee=2015&mois=06&jour=05

19

Annexe 05d

Weather conditions

Source Météo 60

http://www.meteo60.fr/releves-climatologie-station-jour.php?station=13367&annee=2015&mois=06&jour=05

The data collected via the Météo60 Website seem to confirm the data from Météociel, i.e. a weak wind (close to the ground), less than 6 or 7 km / h which gradually passes from the South-East sector to the North sector, a temperature of ~ 29 ° C which slowly decreases as the humidity% increases slowly (sunset) and the pressure remains stable. No rain.

Note:

It is important to consider that the wind conditions at altitude may be different from those measured at ground level.

20

Appendix 05e

Weather conditions - Source Infoclimat

http://www.infoclimat.fr/observations-meteo/archives/5/juin/2015/strasbourg-entzheim/07190.html

Note:

The Strasbourg-Entzheim station (aerodrome) is located ~ 12km south-east of the observation point.

Infoclimat data confirms the previous findings.