ALSACAT:

cnes
Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

geipan

Madam, Sir,

You have witnessed directly, on French territory, an aerospace phenomenon that has intrigued you and you want to understand what you have seen.

In order 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 that will allow us to open an investigation.

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

- The questionnaire should be about only one observation at a time

Your testimony is important and perhaps unique. It will consist of telling the story of your observation, answering specific questions, making drawings and sketches or attaching photographs to further refine your description.

It is imperative that you adhere to the instructions mentioned at each step so that we can gather as much information as possible about the observed phenomenon. You must not be afraid to tell us about it, nor to feel ridiculous, we are used to collecting this type of testimony.

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

We thank you in advance for the contribution you make to our work.

The head of GEIPAN
[]

GEIPAN
Centre national d'études spatiales
DCT/DA/GEIPAN
18 Avenue BELIN 31401 TOULOUSE CEDEX 9
05 61 27 48 01 - geipan@cnes.fr

We will ask you to provide as much information as possible about your observation. The most important thing is to leave nothing out: it is often the details that make it possible to solve the investigations. Do not hesitate to give the maximum of information, even if your memories are incomplete or that certain elements seem to you not important. If you are not sure about this or that detail, tell us your doubts, but, again, do not omit anything. We need to be able to visualize everything you've seen, like re-doing the movie of your observation. Use the end of this page to tell the story of your observation and continue on free paper as much as you want:

Your free account of the observation:

observation of a luminous phenomenon in the sky of Colmar

July 2 at 10:59 p.m.

I observed in the sky lights constituting an apparently coherent whole. It was not possible for me to identify this phenomenon, even if I thought at first to deal with a kite or model.

As I searched (from the south window of my apartment) to find the constellation of Hercules and then try to observe the famous Messier 13 cluster of stars, my eyes stopped on a set of light that performed a slow motion towards the zenith. I first thought I recognized a flying kite. The phenomenon seemed to measure barely less than one meter wingspan and seemed to move about ten meters above the roofs. As the observation progressed, I revised this assessment because a distance was in fact not really estimable. After a moment, I noticed that it was a set of lights advancing in a coherent manner. At first, I observed very strongly and noticed that it could not be a kite, because the wind was not perceptible (and no rope was visible). In addition, I began to imagine that the phenomenon was eventually beyond what I had estimated at the beginning. This involved a larger size, something I had difficulty believing (cognitive conflict). I also noticed the complete absence of noise from the phenomenon. Since there was no car on rue de l'Est at that time, a fairly significant silence made it possible to recognize that the phenomenon was apparently silent. The lights were white. Each of these lights surpassed the combined magnitude of the three stars of the great summer triangle. The magnitude of each of these lights was to be triple or quadruple of these three stars combined. The lights were round, although their roundness was not obvious to perceive. The confusion with stars was therefore excluded in several ways. I could not recognize whether a structure was linking these lights. This finding baffled me seriously. The lights seemed to be assembled in several straight lines, but this symmetry of the beginning of the observation then "deteriorated". At first, the lights were assembled at the center in the shape of a triangle or diamond, but two "straight" lines extended beyond the "triangle". The set formed was therefore difficult to define in simple geometric terms. I supposed at the beginning that it was a sngle phenomenon But after the strange rearrangement of the phenomenon during the second

CNES/GEIPAN Standard questionnaire GEIPAN V3.5-June-2013 page: 3

Your observation

half of the observation, I then asked myself the question (just after the observation) whether it was not rather a group of phenomena.

Indeed, after about 20 seconds, I began to recognize that the lights were certainly linked but that their distance was changing. It was the moment I tried to count the lights. But the recomposition only allowed me to estimate them: a dozen or fifteen lights were visible. Indeed, some (and only some, about three or four) seemed to change their position slightly, without touching themselves. I had the impression that it was a model craft whose structure was collapsing. I was expecting eventually to see the phenomenon fall to the ground, to the extent that a weakness of the structure of a model craft is always fatal. It did not happen. At the same time, however, the phenomenon appeared to be recomposing the positions slightly to shift its trajectory towards the south. The lights, however, seemed to keep the same altitude, despite the recomposition of the position of some. The phenomenon slowly disappeared by the conjunction of the distance and the halo of the city of Colmar that seemed to "fly over". The sighting lasted about a minute. I looked at the time indicated by my cell phone just after the observation: it was 11:00 p.m.. A glance at the leaves of the surrounding trees showed me that there was intermittently a very light breeze circulating between the buildings. Shortly after midnight, the weather indicated a north-northeast wind. Having a good memory of the size of the phenomenon in relation to its visual context, I returned an hour after the observation in the same place and I felt that the object had an angular size barely less than the width of the palm hand held at arm's length (amateur astronomers use this method to estimate a 10 ° gap).

This report was written just after the observation. I compiled all the details that seemed possible to document the observation.

A check made the next morning with a compass allowed me, thanks to my memory of the positioning of the buildings, to determine that the phenomenon had circulated along an axis east ==> west or east-north-east ==> west-south-west. The clinometer of the compass allowed me to determine that the phenomenon had disappeared at about 30 ° above the horizon.

A few weeks later, I remembered one detail: the lights had a slight flicker. This detail seemed to me on the moment insignificant because commonplace, but I later remembered that some stars do not show flicker (especially the planets). It seemed important to me to add this detail, however insignificant it is.

CNES/GEIPAN Standard questionnaire GEIPAN V3.5-June-2013 page: 4

Conditions of observation of the phenomenon

Please provide all the information requested.

What were your occupations just before your sighting?

I was spotting the constellations in the night sky

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

[-] 68000 Colmar

Where exactly were you? (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 was in my apartment (Methodist Church housing). I looked out of a window in the living room, located to the south. The window was open.

Date of sighting: ...07.../...02.../...2014.... Precise start time (in local time):

10:59 p.m.

Duration of observation or end time (in hours, minutes, seconds): 23:00 ...........

Did other witnesses see the same phenomenon as you? If so, how many? …I don't know.......

If necessary, please ask them to contact us using the contact details given on the last page of this document.

What relationship do you have with these people (parents, friends, colleagues, neighbors)?

not relevant.

The observation was made in a way: continuous / discontinuous

If the observation was made discontinuously, specify why it was interrupted and resumed:

For a brief moment, I had to turn my head to continue observing the phenomenon, which moved. Before this movement, I would observe the phenomenon by looking at the top left to

CNES/GEIPAN Standard questionnaire GEIPAN V3.5-June-2013 page: 5

then observe it at the top right. The phenomenon was where I expected when I saw it again. Between these two moments when I did not see the phenomenon, one second must have passed.

How did this sighting end?

The phenomenon disappeared under the combined effect of distance and city lights. The light pollution ended up "drowning" the phenomenon, which gradually disappeared.

Did you see the phenomenon directly with your eyes? YES

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

No, even though I had some available (but not at hand).

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

The sky was perfectly clear. The weather conditions did not change during the observation. I had premeditated an observation of the starry sky that evening because I knew from the weather that the sky was going to be perfectly clear.

Astronomical conditions (remember the position of the Moon, the Sun, the presence or absence of stars or planets, etc.):

The sun had been down for quite a while. The moon was invisible. From the window where I was standing, stars of high magnitude were visible. The stars making up the center of the constellation Hercules were barely noticeable, but enough to see this constellation.

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

No equipment turned on. The room I was in was pitch dark.

Noise during observation (TV or radio on, passing vehicles, aircraft engine, thunder, etc.):

No noise caught my attention. We heard in the background the noise of cars noticeable at the beginning of the night. During the sighting, a car or two may have passed on Rue de l'Est. Ditto for Boulevard d'Alsace.

CNES/GEIPAN Standard questionnaire GEIPAN V3.5-June-2013 page: 6

Description of the phenomenon

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

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

The first phase of the observation gave me the impression of seeing a single phenomenon comprising about fifteen lights. During the second part of the observation, the movement of some of these lights could suggest that it was about fifteen phenomena possibly independent but advancing "in formation".

Shape:

Each of the lights was small in size but I could tell they were round. The distance from these lights was such that the roundness was barely noticeable. The "formation" was geometric but irregular. These lights seemed arranged in a regular space but their arrangement was only of an imperfect geometry (see drawing). Towards the end of the observation, some lights seemed to reverse their place, without however changing the overall shape.

Color:

White.

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

Three or four times the brightness of the stars of the summer triangle combined. Afterwards, I still remembered that these lights had a slight twinkle. This flickering made it difficult to perceive the roundness of the lights.

Presence of a trail or a halo? If so, what color?

Nothing was noticeable around the lights.

Hint: When planes are taxiing at night at medium altitude, my eyes are able to make out the part of the fuselage directly adjacent to the position lights.

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):

Slightly smaller than the size of the outstretched palm at arm's length. Afterwards, I wonder if the phenomenon did not have an angular extent equivalent only to half of the outstretched hand at arm's length.

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

CNES/GEIPAN Standard questionnaire GEIPAN V3.5-June-2013 page: 7