ALSACAT -> Homeclick!

Cette page en françaisCliquez!

ALSACAT:

ALSACAT is my comprehensive catalog of UFO sighting reports in Alsace, the region is the North-East of France, whether they are "explained" or "unexplained".

The ALSACAT catalog is made of case files with a case number, summary, quantitative information (date, location, number of witnesses...), classifications, all sources mentioning the case with their references, a discussion of the case in order to evaluate its causes, and a history of the changes made to the file. A general index and thematic sub-catalogs give access to these Alsatian case files.

Previous case Next case >

Case of Mulhouse, on December 18, 2015:

Case number:

ALSACAT-2015-12-18-MULHOUSE-1

Summary:

A man phoned on May 15, 2017, to GEIPAN, the study and information group on unidentified aerospace phenomena within the Center National d'Etudes Spatiales of France, to briefly report his observation. He left a story of his observation on the GEIPAN answering machine; GEIPAN then asked him to fill out their sighting report form, which the man did.

He reported that on Friday December 18, 2015, around 7:45 pm - 8:00 pm, he was in a car with a friend who was driving, arriving at the corner of Boulevard Roosevelt and Rue Descartes in Mulhouse.

As the friend pulled over to park the car, the man saw in the sky, on his right, a fuchsia-colored, non-flashing fluorescent light with no flashing lights, which he believed to be 10 times the diameter of a star.

He shows this to his friend who, surprised, asks what it is. The amused man answers him: "That? A UFO!". While the friend was maneuvering to park, the man continues to watch the "thing" moving in a straight line at the (apparent) speed of an airliner.

Suddenly, the "light" stopped instantly, "without any inertia", and paused for about twenty seconds, then, as suddenly as it had stopped, it resumed its initial speed, without acceleration period, and took the same trajectory to end up being hidden by the rooftops.

The man specified that he is used to the moves of airliners and formerly of fighter planes since Mulhouse is close to the Bâle-Mulhouse Euro-Airport, and close to the former Air Base 132 of Meyenheim.

Having left the car in the meantime, the witnesses had noticed that no noise was coming from the sky.

The man explains that what led him to think that the observed object is nothing known was:

- the "fluorescent fuchsia" light of the object, without any other light;

- the pause of about twenty seconds without slowing down or accelerating during its perfectly straight trajectory;

He attached a map of the place and a photo of the place with indications of his position and the trajectory of the object.

He carefully answered all the questions on the GEIPAN form, telling us that the observation lasted a minute and a half or two minutes, that he was not wearing glasses, that he had not heard any noise coming from the object against the background of ordinary traffic noise in the city center, that no device was operating except for street lights, that the object had a brightness comparable to that of Venus, with a size multiplied by approximately 10 compared to this planet.

The object had neither trail nor halo; he could not give the observation distance, but it seemed to him similar to that which an airliner would have had during landing approach. He estimates that the object was at azimuth 50°, without change, giving all the same a portion of the crossed sky of 60°. He indicated that the angular height was between 45° and 50°.

He said about the weather: "As far as I can remember: stable weather, clear skies, dry weather."

For him the object was "an unidentified flying object, period." He does not think it was something ordinary, but it hasn't changed his life, nor altered his opinion on the UFO issue, which he finds interesting without being obsessed with it.

He explains that he is only testifying now because he had just seen a television show on unexplained aerial phenomena qich was referring to the Cometa report and GEIPAN. He explains that he often looks at the sky at night, that he had already seen many "peculiar" things, incliding, in the company of a dozen other people, a sort of "star" forty years ago, moving in "square" zigzag at a speed several times that of a fighter plane. He had then called the air traffic control of the Euro-Airport, who did not spot anything on its radar, and mentioned that "the military maybe..."

GEIPAN specifies that the other witness did not send them his testimony.

GEIPAN publishes their analysis of the sighting, noting that the sky was cloudy that evening, horizontal visibility was good, on 12 km, and the wind was blowing weakly from the south.

They explain that the only flying object corresponding to what has been described is a recreational drone:

The stopping and restarting maneuver is classic for a drone, the lightness of a drone relative to the power of the engines allows this.

The witnesses did not hear its noise because the drone engines, usually electric, are hardly noisy, there is a distance factor, the noises of the city, and a wind blowing from the direction of the witnesses towards object, thus attenuating any noise.

They think the fuchsia color is the result of a "customization" by the owner of the drone.

Data:

Temporal data:

Date: December 18, 2015
Time: 07;45 p.m.
Duration: 90 seconds to 2 minutes.
First known report date: May 15, 2017
Reporting delay: 1.5 year.

Geographical data:

Department: Haut-Rhin
City: Mulhouse
Place:
Latitude: 47.7497
Longitude: 7.3302
Uncertainty ratio: 40 m.

Witnesses data:

Number of alleged witnesses: 2
Number of known witnesses: 1
Number of named witnesses: 0
Witness(es) ages: Adult or aged.
Witness(es) types: Men.

Ufology data:

Reporting channel: Reported by phone and form to GEIPAN.
Type of location: City.
Visibility conditions: Night.
UFO observed: Yes
UFO arrival observed: No
UFO departure observed: No
Entities: No
Photographs: No.
Sketch(s) by witness(es): No.
Sketch(es) approved by witness(es): No.
Witness(es) feelings: Puzzled.
Witnesses interpretation: Unidentified flying object.

Classifications:

Hynek: LN
ALSACAT: Possible LED balloon.

Sources:

[Ref. gei1:] GROUPE D'ETUDES ET D'INFORMATIONS SUR LES PHENOMENES AEROSPATIAUX NON IDENTIFIES (G.E.I.P.A.N.):

MULHOUSE (68) 18.12.2015

SUMMARY

Observation of the silent moves of a fluorescent fuchsia light in the night sky: probable observation of a recreational drone.

DESCRIPTION

Testimony in 2017 of an observation made on December 18, 2015 around 7:45 p.m. - 8 p.m. The witness reports the moves (rectilinear movement, stop, and resumption of movement) of a fluorescent fuchsia light in the sky of the near downtown Mulhouse (68). No particular noise is heard. No shape is distinguished. The witness loses sight of the phenomenon which is hidden by the surrounding roofs. Only one testimony is collected.

The consistency is correct, with a good description by the witness of the sighting and a photograph reconstructing it. We were able to show (see the investigation report) in this analysis that the witnesses has probably observed a recreational drone, equipped with light signaling, and used in unauthorized conditions (at night and in built-up areas).

This conclusion is based on the following two main elements:

- UAP behavior, with a straight trajectory and a sharp stop, followed by an instant restart at initial speed is typical of drones. The observation distance as well as the low inertia of these devices prevent witnesses from distinguishing any small parasitic movements of the drone, which could have occurred when it was stopped and restarted.

- the observed color, fuchsia, is whimsical and does not conform at all to those usually used in air navigation. This type of use of whimsical colors is typical of the "customization" of drones that can be done by some owners.

In addition, the noise could not be heard by the witnesses, both because of the distance separating them from the drone, the moderate noise emitted by the engines of this type of craft, the non-carrier wind and ambient traffic noise.

Also because of the viewing distance, but also because of its reduced dimensions, the shape of the drone could not be observed, only its light.

We can note that although the owner of this drone has equipped his craft with light signals, he does not respect the ban on flying his drone at night, nor the ban on using it above a city.

Some drone owners, in addition to not respecting the regulations, sometimes take reckless risks (possibility of material damage, even bodily harm), unaware of the danger.

GEIPAN classifies the case as "B": probable observation of a recreational drone.

WITNESS

DATE OF THE OBSERVATION 12/18/2015
AGE 70
SEX M

CONDITION

WEATHER CONDITIONS Very cloudy and cloud cover
LOCAL DATE AND HOUR 12/18/2015 07:45 p.m. / 08:00 p.m.
REFERENCE FRAME Urban Landscape
DISTANCE BETWEEN PHENOMENON AND WITNESS Difficult in a night sky. Estimated: altitude of an airliner that may perhaps be in the approach phase. We are about twenty kilometers from Euro-Airport Bâle-Mulhouse.

LOCALIZATION

HORIZONTAL DIRECTION OF OBSERVATION 50.00
NATURE OF THE OBSERVATION OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Descriptive terms (lights, shape, etc.)
GLOBAL SHAPE 1D - Spot (dot)
APPARENT SIZE size of Vénus multiplied by 10.
NOISE None, total silence
EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT None
NUMBER OF OBSERVED PHENOMENA 1

Document.

CNES
Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales

GEIPAN

Madam, Sir,

You were a direct witness, on French territory, of an aerospace phenomenon which intrigued you, and you wish to entrust this observation to GEIPAN for analysis.

We suggest to you, first of all, to visit our website www.geipan.fr, The consultation of the UAP identification guide will allow you perhaps to quickly find an explanation for your observation.

Otherwise, we invite you to complete this questionnaire.

Important: the questionnaire should not be completed if you did not do a direct observation

(an object observed in a photo or a film AFTER the shooting does not constitute an observation)

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

- The questionnaire should only deal with one observation at a time

Your testimony is capital and 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 shouldn't be afraid to tell us or feel ridiculous, we are used to collecting this type of testimony.

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 Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11 / April 2017 page: 1/15

Document.

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 saw, as if to replay the movie of your observation.

For your story, you can use the free text prepared before consulting the "What did I see?"

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

Your own story of the observation:

Friday, December 18, 2015, around 7:45 p.m. / 8 p.m., arriving at the corner of boulevard Roosevelt and rue Descartes at 68100-Mulhouse in the company of a friend who drives his car, and with whom we are going at a meeting, when he stops to park the car, I see in the sky, on my right, a neon fuchsia "light", non-flashing and without flashing light, as bright as a big star and of, estimated, 10 times its diameter. I point this out to my friend who, surprised, asks me what it is. Amused, I answer him: "That? A UFO !". While he was parking, I continue to watch the "thing" moving forward, in a straight line, at the speed of an airliner. In the region we are used to the moves of airliners because, on the one hand, we are, in a straight line, some 25 kilometers from Euro-Airport Bâle-Mulhouse and, we have been familiar with the passage of fighter airplanes, because 18.5 kilometers (in a straight line) from the former Meyenheim air base 132. Suddenly, the "light" stops instantaneously, without any inertia - that is to say passes from a speed X to the speed zero - and makes a pose during about twenty seconds. Then, as suddenly as it stopped, and instantly resuming its initial speed, so without any acceleration, it continued its trajectory to end up being hidden by the roofs.

In the meantime, having got out of the car, we could see that no noise was coming from the sky.

The three things that I think are important are:

- the "fluorescent fuchsia" light of the object, without any other light;

- the fact that it did a "pose" of about twenty seconds during its perfectly straight trajectory;

- the absence of deceleration and acceleration; it flies, stops suddenly, and resumes its initial speed just as sharply.

Why talk about it only now?

Simply, that it is after having recently watched a report on television on unexplained aerial phenomena, evoking the Cometa report and the Geipan, that I decided to contact you. I have, because always having "the nose in the air" at nightfall (I like to look at the sky), seen many "particular" things in my life, of which one, one evening, about 40 years ago, like a "star", moving at a speed several times higher than that of a fighter plane and making square "zig-zag" and, again, without inertia. So, after observing it with binoculars which only allowed me to magnify the luminous "dot", I called the air traffic control of Euro-Airport. The controller who spoke to me, after checking with the radar, replied that the military could perhaps..., but that he, in the sector and according to the trajectory that I indicated to him, saw nothing. There were half a dozen of us together at the time of this sighting, and had all seen exactly the same thing.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 4 / 15

Document.

Observation conditions of the phenomenon

Please provide all the information requested.

A1. Precise address of the place of observation (town, department, street, ,,,):

MULHOUSE (Haut-Rhin), corner of Boulevard Franklin D. Roosevelt and Rue René Descartes.

A3. If during a trip: name of the boat, the route or the flight reference:

None.

B1. What were your occupations just before your observation?

None. With a friend, we were in the car and were going to park for a meeting.

B2. 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 going if you were in a vehicle.)

First in the car (through the front right window), then in the street.

B3. Description of the observation site:

At a street corner, in an open area, when we were going to park the car, and after. My friend was driving.

B4. Date of observation: 12/18/2015 B5. Precise start time (in local time): 07:45 p.m.

Precise time? Rather, it is around 7:45 p.m. / 8 p.m.

B6. Observation duration or end time (in hours, minutes, seconds): ................

1.5 / 2 minutes, maybe. The sighting was then hidden by the roofs.

B7. Did other witnesses see the same phenomenon as you? If yes how much? If so, please ask them to contact us at the coordinates indicated on the last page of this document.

Other than the friend I was with, to my knowledge: no witnesses. I asked my friend to please fill out this same questionnaire.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 5 / 15

Document.

B8. If applicable, identity and relationship between these witnesses and the main witness:

None.

B9. The observation was made in a way: continuous / discontinuous
(cross out or delete the unnecessary mention)

B10. If the observation was made discontinuously, specify why it was interrupted and resumed:

Continuous observation.

B11. What prompted the end of the sighting?

The roofs of the surrounding buildings.

B12. Did you see the phenomenon directly with your eyes? YES
(cross out or delete the unnecessary mention)

B13. Was the phenomenon observed through an instrument (eyeglasses or sunglasses, binoculars, camera, camera, telescope ...)? If so, please specify the model:

No.

B14. Weather conditions (clear sky, clouds, wind, thunderstorm, haze, fog, rain, snow, change in conditions during observation):

As far as I can remember: stable weather, clear skies, dry weather.

B15.Astronomical conditions (remember the position of the Moon, the Sun, the presence or not of stars or planets, etc.):

Usual stars of an evening in mid-December with clear skies.

B16. Equipment on or active during the observation (headlights, radio, TV, lights, ...):

Nothing, apart from urban lighting.

B17. Noise during observation (TV or radio on, passing vehicles, airplane engine, thunder ...):

Nothing, apart from the usual noise of a close city center at this time.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 6 / 15

Document.

Description of the phenomenon

In your descriptions, feel free to make comparisons with known objects.

C1. Number of phenomena (single, multiple or single then divides ...):

1 only.

C2. Shape:

The appearance of a star.

C3. Color:

That's what caught my attention: fluorescent fuchsia!

C4. Brightness (compared to known stars like Venus and the Moon, or the lighting of a street lamp, car lights, house lights, etc.):

From the luminosity of Venus.

C5. Presence of a trail or a halo? If so, what color?

Nothing.

C6. 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):

Let's say: size of Venus multiplied by 10.

C7. Noise coming from the phenomenon (hissing, buzzing, detonation, comparison with a known noise ...):

No audible noise.

C8. 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):

Difficult in a night sky. Estimated: altitude of an airliner that may perhaps be in the approach phase. We are about twenty kilometers from Euro-Airport Bâle-Mulhouse.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 7 / 15

Document.

C9. C10. UAP initial position in the sky (start of observation):

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

Approximtely, around azimuth 50.

Indicate a height in degrees from the horizon, or from an element of the landscape (eg: twice as high as the church tower).

I would say the sighting was between 45 ° and 60 ° from us.

C11. C12. UAP final position in the sky (end of observation):

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

No change. It stayed in a straight line.

Indicate a height in degrees from the horizon, or from an element of the landscape (eg: twice as high as the church tower).

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 8 / 15

Document.

No variation.

C13. Trajectory of the phenomenon (straight line, rising, falling, with or without change of direction, curve, etc.):

Straight line.

C14. 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.):

On the portion of sky visible there, let's say: 60%.

C15. Effect (s) on the environment (ground trace (s), effect (s) on living beings or material):

None

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 9 / 15

Document.

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 Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 10 / 15

Document.

E1. Use this page to draw your sighting. You are entirely free to draw up this sketch.

Approximate trajectory.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 12 / 15

Document.

Sketch of your observation

These indications are, of course, estimated!

The "fuchsia" line indicates the direction of the trajectory and the green circle the place where, approximately, the object paused for about twenty seconds.

The end of the red arrow indicates where we were standing.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 11 / 15

Document.

What now?

El. Describe the emotions you felt during and after the observation:

None, apart from - nevertheless - a certain perplexity. Something neon fuchsia that wanders across the sky and pauses for about twenty seconds, stopping without inertia and instantly resuming its move, at the same speed, and without acceleration, this is not common.

E2. What did you do after your observation? Did you talk about it? How did your interlocutors react? Did you do any research to understand what you saw?

Nothing. / With my friend, yes, during the 5 minutes before we got to our meeting. / After that, it happened to me. Some take it well, others ask you when you last had a drink... / Research? None.

E3. 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?

It is an unidentified flying object; period! / Known phenomenon? I do not know - and doubt that there are - aircraft equipped, on the apparent totality of their surface, with fixed fluorescent fuchsia lighting and posing [pausing] while violating the laws of physics. / Understand? I would like to!

E4. Before your observation, what interest did you have in strange aerospace phenomena?

It interests me, but it does not obsess me. But, if "objects" come to us from "elsewhere", how can we not be interested in knowing that we would not be alone in the Universe?

ES. Did this observation change your opinion about UAPs?

Not at all.

E6. Do you think science will provide an explanation for your observation?

Science, maybe, even surely. But, if there was something non-terrestrial, do the authorities allow the dissemination of information...; if I were them now, I probably wouldn't do it either.

E7. Do you think the experience you had changed anything in your life? That there can be a before and an after? Explain how you are feeling:

Completely indifferent.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11 / April 2017 page: 13/15

Document.

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 contacts possible):

- Gendarmerie (mention the brigade and the date): No!
- Police (mention the police station and the date): No!
- GEIPAN (mention the name of the contact and the date): No, not so far !!
- Private investigator (mention the name of the contact and the date): No!
- Ufologist (mention the name of the contact and the date): No!
- Journalist (mention the name of the contact and the date): No!
- Internet (mention the website and date): No!

Do you allow us to publish this last information? YES

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

Please specify in the list below the documents you have attached or completed.
(tick or delete unnecessary mentions)

Questionnaire X
Sketch of the observed phenomenon (number:)
X map(s) or plan(s) (number: 1)
Photograph(s) of the sighting (number:)
Video(s) of the sighting (number:)
Photograph(s) of the environment X (number: 1)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 14 / 15

Document.

You still have to complete 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 other of the following formulas.)


I, the undersigned: []

certifies the sincerity of the information provided above.

Done at .....
on .....
Signature
[]


This questionnaire is to be returned:

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

or

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

GEIPAN
Centre national d'études spatiales

DCT / DA // GEIPAN
18 avenue Edouard Belin,
31401 TOULOUSE CEDEX 9

Thank you for having taken the time to testify.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW Nr 78-17 OF 6 JANUARY 1978 RELATING TO COMPUTING, FILES AND FREEDOMS, AND DECREE Nr 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

V3-11/April 2017 page: 15 / 15

Document.

CNES
NATIONAL CENTER
OF SPACE STUDIES

Deputy Directorate of Orbital Systems Directorate
Group of Studies and Information on Phenomena
Aerospace Unidentified

Toulouse, 04/14/2020
DSO / DA // GP

INVESTIGATION REPORT

MULHOUSE (68) 12/18/2015

OBSERVATION

Document.

2/11

1 - CONTEXT

The GEIPAN was contacted on May 15, 2017 by telephone by the main witness (T1) about an observation of UAP that he made in the town of MULHOUSE (68) on 12/18/2015 in the company of another witness (T2). In his voice message left on the GEIPAN answering machine, T1 gives a brief summary of his observation.

After being called back by GEIPAN, T1 sent the completed observation questionnaire as an attachment by email, indicating that it had asked T2 to do the same. To date, we DID not receive any questionnaire from T2.

In the questionnaire completed by T1, there is a photograph reproducing the observation conditions and the trajectory of the UAP, as well as a map of the places also showing the trajectory of the UAP but also the position of the witnesses.

2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

The description of the case is taken from the free narration part of the questionnaire completed by T1:

"Friday December 18, 2015, around 7:45 pm / 8:00 pm, arriving at the corner of boulevard Roosevelt and rue Descartes at 68100-Mulhouse in the company of a friend who drives his car, and with who we are going to a meeting, as he stops to park the car, I see in the sky, to my right, a neon fuchsia "light", non-flashing and without flashing light, as bright as a big star and estimated to be 10 times its diameter. I point this out to my friend who, surprised, asks me what it is. Amused, I answer him: "That? A UFO!". While he is parking, I continue to watch the "thing" moving forward, in a straight line, at the speed of an airliner. In the region we are used to the moves of airliners because, on the one hand, we are, in a straight line, some 25 kilometers from Euro-Airport Bâle-Mulhouse and, we have been familiar with the passage of fighter airplanes because 18.5 kilometers (in a straight line) from here is the former Meyenheim air base 132. Suddenly, the "light" stops instantaneously, without any inertia - that is to say passes from a speed X to the speed zero - and makes a pose [pause] during about twenty seconds. Then, as suddenly as it stopped, and instantly resuming its initial speed, so without any acceleration, it continued its trajectory to end up being hidden by the roofs. In the meantime, having got out of the car, we could see that no noise was coming from the sky.

The three things that I think are important are:

- the "fluorescent fuchsia" light of the object, without any other light;

- the fact that he did a "pose" of about twenty seconds during his perfectly straight trajectory;

- the absence of deceleration and acceleration; it flies, stops suddenly, and resumes its initial speed just as sharply.

Why talk about it only now?

Simply, that it is after having recently watched a report on television on unexplained aerial phenomena, evoking the Cometa report and the Geipan, that I decided to contact you.

I have, because always having "the nose in the air" at nightfall (I like to look at the sky), seen many "peculiar" things in my life, of which one, one evening, about forty years ago, like a "star", moving at a speed several times greater than that of a

Document.

3/11

fighter plane and making square "zigzags" and, again, without inertia. So, after observing it with binoculars which only allowed me to magnify the luminous "dot", I called the air traffic control of Euro-Airport. The controller who spoke to me, after checking with the radar, replied that the military could perhaps..., but that he, in the sector and according to the trajectory that I indicated to him, saw nothing. There were half a dozen of us together at the time of this sighting, and had all seen exactly the same thing."

3 - CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION

The geographical location is summarized on the map below, provided and completed by T1.

[Legend of the map by T1:]

These indications are, of course, estimated!

The "fuchsia" line indicates the direction of the trajectory and the green circle the place where, approximately, the object has paused for about twenty seconds.

The end of the red arrow indicates where we were standing.

Document.

4/11

The meteorological data between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. UTC are as follows, taken from the Météo France public library for the Bâle-Mulhouse station, located about 20 km south-east of the position of witnesses.

The weather was overcast (7/8 oktas), horizontal visibility good, 12 km, and the wind was blowing weakly from the south.

T1 indicates that the weather was "stable, clear sky, dry weather", which seems contradictory (for cloudiness) with the elements obtained above, but TI is not sure to remember it correctly ("As far as I remember") and the testimony was submitted to GEIPAN more than a year and a half after the sighting.

Analysis

The witness provided a photograph of the place annotated with the trajectory of the UAP:

Document.

5/11

The strangeness of the observation for T1 is constituted by the following three elements, which he himself gives:

- "the" fluorescent fuchsia" light of the object, without any other light;

- the fact that it did a "pose" of about twenty seconds during his perfectly straight trajectory;

- the absence of deceleration and acceleration; it flies, stops suddenly, and resumes its initial speed just as sharply."

Only one object can produce these three elements: a drone.

In this document from the operational intelligence center of the Air Transport Gendarmerie ("guide for the use of witnesses to illegal drone overflight"), it is indicated how to discern at night a drone from an aircraft:

Trajectory:

"The trajectory is constantly changing, alternating phases of acceleration and hovering flights for multicopters and helicopters. For flying wings, the trajectory will consist of phases of straight lines and turns. The average wingspan of the drones (from 40 cm to 1.50 m) makes it difficult to distinguish them beyond 50 meters, only their lights are visible."

Light:

"Red, green and white colored lights are common to aircraft and drones. If other colors of light are seen it is a drone."

Noise:

"Most drones have electric motors. This noise is similar to that, amplified, of a flying insect (bumblebee, hornet, etc.). Others can be equipped with fuel engines whose noise will be similar to that of a 2-stroke engine (mower, chainsaw, etc.)."

A photographic brochure then shows the different lights that can be observed at night on drones:

Document.

6/11

We can take these characteristics one by one and compare them to those of the UAP.

Concerning the trajectory, it is stated in the document that it constantly changes, alternating phases of acceleration and stationary flight for multicopters. [...] The average wingspan of the drones (from 40 cm to 1.50 m) makes it difficult to distinguish them beyond 50 meters, only their lights are visible."

The witnesses were undoubtedly too far away to be able to observe, moreover at night, the drone itself, only visible by its lights.

Its movement is simple and can be broken down into two parts: a mobile, "perfectly" rectilinear, and another stationary, which a multicopter-type drone can quite achieve.

The stop phase could correspond to a phase of observation or aerial shots.

A drone is able to come to a "dead" stop or almost in its trajectory and to resume its initial speed with minimal acceleration when it restarts and this, in a very short period of time. This is due to its very low inertia, its mass being very low compared to the power of its engines.

In addition, the observation distance also plays a role in the non-perception by witnesses of possible small parasitic movements caused by the inertia of the drone when it is stopped, the greater this distance, the greater the effects. inertia (slowing down) will be imperceptible.

With regard to lights, the document indicates that if colors other than red, green and white are observed, it means that it is a drone. The color fuchsia is not used in aeronautics at all and is typical of the possible fanciful use of any color by drone owners who "customize" their aircraft. It will thus be possible to observe blue, yellow, purple, etc.

The light flashing sequence is not standardized for drones as it is for airplanes and helicopters. It will indeed be possible to find lights as well

Document.

7/11

fixed as all or part flashing lights. Here we only have one fixed light, which is quite possible with the light signaling of drones.

Finally, relative to the noise produced by the engine of a drone, it is much less powerful than that of an aircraft.

The witness indicates on this subject: "In the meantime, having got out of the car, we could see that no noise was coming from the sky."

The perception of a sound depends on other factors, such as the direction of the wind for example, which was blowing from the south therefore in the direction of the UAP and not carrying towards the witnesses, but also on the possible presence of surrounding noise that can mask the noise of the drone. As the observation took place in the near city center at a relatively busy hour (7:45 p.m. / 8 p.m.), it is likely that there must have been a noticeable background traffic noise (T1 also answers the question concerning the presence noise when observing in the questionnaire saying: "nothing, apart from the usual noise of a close city center at this time").

On the other hand, we can safely say that the probably quite large distance separating the witness from the drone (if it is indeed that) prevents any perception of the noise of its engine, of a moderate intensity.

Night flight by drone, which is moreover over a built-up area, is strictly prohibited, whether it is for leisure or for any professional use.

We sought to find a possible drone owner, private or professional, in the area supposed to have been overflown by the machine, without success.

With the democratization of this type of device, many private owners now use them, without necessarily being affiliated with an association or a group of users.

That said, some drone users who are unaware of the danger and who do not respect the regulations do not hesitate to use them in any condition, risking material damage or even bodily injury.

3.1. SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS COLLECTED

WITNESS #1

# QUESTION ANSWER (AFTER INVESTIGATION)
A1. Commune and department of the witness observation (ex : Paris (75)) MULHOUSE (68)
A2. (opt) if unknown commune (during a trop): Commune of Start of trip; Commune of End of trip N/A
A3. (opt) if during a troip: nane of the Boat, of the Roador Flight number / Aircraft number N/A
Conditions of observation of the phenomenon (for each witness)
B1. Occupation of the witness before the observation Travels
B2. Precise localization of the place of observation Lat. 47.7480
Lon. 7.3327

Document.

8/11

B3. Description of the place of observation Urban Landscape
B4. Date of the observation (JJ/MM/AAAA) 18/12/2015
B5. Hour of the start of observation (HH:MM:SS) 19:45:00/20:00:00
B6. Duration of the observation(s) or end Hour (HH:MM SS) 1m5/2m
B7. Other witnesses? If yes, how many? 1
B8. (opt) If yes, what relationship with the other witnesses? A friend
B9. Observation continued ou discontinued? Continued
B10. If discontinued, why was the the observation interrupted? N/A
B11. What caused the end of the observation? The roofs of the surrounding buildings
B12. Phenomenon observed directly? Yes
B13. UAP observed with an instrument? (which one?) No
B14. Weather conditions Very cloudy or overcast
B15. Wether conditions No star (daytime observation, or overcast sky)
B16. On or active equipements Nothing, except for street lights
B17. Known sources of external noises Nothing, except for the usual noises of near downtown at that hour.
Description of the observed phenomenon
C1. Number of observed phneomena? 1
C2. Shape? 1D - Dot (spot)
C3. Color? Fuchsia
C4. Luminosity? Intensity - Clear, medium, ex: full moon (mag. -10 à -5)
C5. Trail or halo? Nothing.
C6. Apparent size? (maximal) > 0.04°
C7. Noise coming fom the phenomenon? None, total Silence
C8 Estimated distance? N/A
C9. Azimut of appearance of the UAP (°) 50.00
C10. Height of appearance of the UAP (°) I would say that the observation was between 45 and 60° relative to us
C11. Azimut of disappearance of the (°) No change. It remained in straight line.
C12. Height of disappearance of the UAP (°) No change.
C13. Trajectory of the phenomenon Linear or Straight Line; Stationary, Motionless
C14. Portion of the sky crossed by the UAP (°) On the part of the sky visible at this place, let's say: 60 %.
C15. Effect(s) on the environment No
For the next items, please report the witness answers or just indicate if the latter did answer those questions
E1. What are the emotions felt by the witness during and after the observation ? None, except - nevertheless! - some perplexity. Somethinf fluorescent that wanders

Document.

9/11

in the sky and does a pause of about twenty seconds, with a stop without inertia and instant restart of its move, at the same speed, and without acceleration, this is not ordinary
E2. What did the witness do after the observation? Nothing. / With my friend, yes, during the 5 minutes before we arrived at out meeting. / Later, I did. Some take it well, others ask you when your last drink was... / Research? None
E3. What interpretation does he give to what he observed? It is an unidentified flying object; period! / Known phenomenon? I do not know... and doubt it exists... aircraft with on the total apparent surface, a steady fuschsia fluorescent lighting and doing a pose violatinf the laws of physics. / Understand? I would like to!
E4. Before his observation, what was the witness' interest in UAPs? It interests me, but I^m not obsessed. But, if "objects" come from "elsewhere", how not to be interested in knowing that we are not alone in the Universe?
E5. Did the observation changed the witness' opinion on UAPs? Not at all
E6. Does the witness think science will give an answer to UAPs? Science, perhaps, even surely. But, if there was something non-terrestrial, that the authorities allow the dissemination of information...; if i were them, now i probably wouldn't
E7. Does he think the experience has changed anything in his life? What is his feeling? Totally indifferent.
Documents and attachments D1. Was there an on-spot reconstitution or on a nap or photo/sketch of the observation ? Yes

4 - SUGGESTED ASSUMPTIONS

The only hypothesis considered is that of confusion with a recreational drone.

Document.

10/11

4.1. SYNTHESIS OF THE HYPOTHESES

HYPOTHESIS EVALUATION*
DRONE 95 %
ITEM ARGUMENTS FOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST OR ERROR MARGIN FOR/AGAINST
- COLOR - FUCHSIA, FANTAISY, TYPICAL OF A DRONE'S "CUSTOMIZATION" - NO NORMALISATION OF LIGHTS COLOR USE FOR DRONES 0.90
- DISTANCE (SHAPE NOT OBSERVED) - IMPORTANT DISTANCE OF OBSERVATION (REDUCED SIZE OF DRONE) - NO SURE DATA ON THE OBSERVATION DISTANCE 0.80
- NOISE - NOISE ENITTED BY DRONE ENGINE VERY MODERARE - NON CARRIER WIND AT GREAT DISTANCE
- AMBIENT TRAFFIC NOISE HIDING THE DRONE'S ENGINES NOISE
- LACK OF DRONE ENGINE NOISE 0.90
- DISPLACEMENT - STRAIGHT LINE AND POSSIBLE SUDDEN STOP, WITHOUT INERTIA, CONFORM TO THE POSSIBILITIES OF A DRONE - - 1.00

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

4.2. SYNTHESIS OF THE CONSISTENCY

The consistency is correct, with a good description by T1 of the observation and a photograph reconstructing it.

We can however regret the absence of testimony from T2 and the fact that no photo or video of the UAP could be taken.

5- CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we were able to show in this analysis that the witnesses had probably observed a recreational drone, equipped with light signaling, and used in unauthorized conditions (at night and in built-up areas).

This conclusion is based on the following two main elements:

- The behavior of the UAP, with a straight trajectory and a sharp stop, followed by an instant restart at initial speed is typical of drones. The observation distance as well as the low inertia of these devices prevent witnesses from distinguishing any small parasitic movements of the drone, which could have occurred when it was stopped and restarted.

- The observed color, fuchsia, is whimsical and does not conform at all to those usually used in air navigation. This type of use of whimsical colors is typical of the "customization" of drones that can be done by some owners.

Document.

10/11

In addition, the noise could not be heard by the witnesses, both because of the distance separating them from the drone, the moderate noise emitted by the engines of this type of machine, the non-carrier wind and ambient traffic noise.

Also because of the viewing distance, but also because of its reduced dimensions, the shape of the drone could not be observed, only its light.

We can note that although the owner of this drone has equipped his craft with light signals, he does not respect the ban on flying his drone at night, nor the ban on using it above an agglomeration.

Some drone owners, in addition to not respecting the regulations, sometimes take reckless risks (possibility of material damage, even bodily harm), unaware of the danger.

GEIPAN classifies the case as "B": probable observation of a recreational drone.

6 - CLASSIFICATION

Strangeness (E) 0.300

Consistency (C) 0.600

Reliability (F) 0.750

Information (I) 0.800

Rated B

Discussion:

Map.

GEIPAN's arguments for the explanation by a drone all seem valid to me.

However, without ruling out this possibility, I see another possible explanation and I find some reasons to favor it.

I think that as it already happened in Mulhouse in this period, it was perhaps an "LED balloon."

A "LED balloon" is a simple toy balloon, which can be inflated with helium to make it "fly", such as children use, but equipped with a battery and one or more LEDs that light it up.

The lighting of such balloons can be programmed to blink, there can be multiple colors, but some of the lights of these balloons are only one color and do not blink.

A photo is better than a laborious description:

Ballons à LED.

My arguments for this explanation are as follows:

  1. There is no longer to wonder about the absence of perceived engine noise, the balloons are obviously silent.
  2. The fuchsia color, evidently uniform, stable, is not typical of drones, although possible. Most recreational drones (see the photos in the GEIPAN file) have various light effects, of various colors, moreover often supposed to evoke a "UFO". Here it seems that we have a so-called fluorescent light, apparently uniform, which corresponds very well to what we have seen with an LED balloon.
  3. Painting a drone in fuchsia color is certainly possible; but I have the impression that the witness is talking about a fuchsia light, a total fluorescence of the thing. If it was fuchsia paint, it still needed to be lit to make it "stand out." With a fuchsia-colored envelope balloon lit from the inside, the effect is guaranteed and the method is simple.
  4. As if by chance, the object flies in the direction of the wind: like a balloon carried by the wind. Of course, nothing forbids flying a drone in the direction of the wind, but...
  5. Using a drone in the center of Mulhouse around 7:45 p.m. - 8 p.m. is quite risky for its owner: how to follow it with the eyes (it ends up hidden by roofs for witnesses, the risk is that the same happens to the owner); how to be sure to recover it, how not to worry about a fall, a loss, a capture? A careless and disrespectful owner of the rules is obviously possible. But with the LED balloon, these risks are zero, these balloons cost nothing, the loss of such a balloon is not comparable to that of a fairly expensive drone.
  6. LED balloons including exactly fuchsia color were on sale (5 Euros for 5 balloons) at that time in a well-known department store [See photo below] in downtown Mulhouse, at the same stand as Chinese lanterns.
  7. Releasing a LED balloon is not illegal, unlike using a drone in an urban center. No authorization is required.
  8. There have been at least two very likely cases of "LED balloons" interpreted as UFOs in the same urban area: see for example that of Brunstatt on June 24, 2015 or maybe that of Dornach on December 25, 2014 - Brunstatt and Dornach are contiguous to Mulhouse.
LED balloons.
The LED balloons sold in the store I mentioned, note that the fuchsia balloon is the one at the front.

There remains the question of the sudden "pause". This would favor an explanation by a drone, certainly. But this can also happen with a balloon. We are in the city center, surrounded by buildings but with crossroads that cause sharp random air currents (I know that, I live not far from the place of observation) quite able to have this kind of effects on a balloon, even less subjected to inertia than a drone.

I do not think it was a Chinese lantern, for two reasons: whereas fuchsia-colored LED balloons abound, colored Chinese lanterns do not populate the skies of Alsace, where they are, almost always, in their "natural" orange color; on the other hand, given the "flashing" of the lanterns (their flame flickers in the wind) and the care of the witness to report as best as possible what happened, I think he would have reported that, that it is unlikely that he hadn't noticed a flicker.

In percentages of relative reliability of hypotheses, I would conclude: 10% colored Chinese lantern, 30% drone, 60% LED balloon.

Evaluation:

Possible LED balloon.

Sources references:

* = Source is available to me.
? = Source I am told about but could not get so far. Help needed.

File history:

Authoring:

Main author: Patrick Gross
Contributors: None
Reviewers: None
Editor: Patrick Gross

Changes history:

Version: Create/changed by: Date: Description:
0.1 Patrick Gross July 10, 2021 Creation, [gei1].
1.0 Patrick Gross July 10, 2021 First published.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on July 10, 2021.