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 Sundhoffen, on May 19, 2020:

Case number:

ALSACAT-2020-05-19-SUNDHOFFEN-1

Summary:

On May 23, 2020, a resident of Sundhoffen completed the questionnaire from GEIPAN, the group officially responsible for studying the observations of "Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena" in France, to report a series of events he experienced with his brother on May 19, 2020.

He explained that he and his family regularly heard shooting exercises, especially before the CoViD19 crisis, coming from the forest of Neuland, between Sundhoffen and Colmar, at the Fronholz military base.

This Tuesday, May 19, 2020, from 11 a.m., they heard shots that seemed to come from everywhere.

Around noon, he took a walk with his dog near Horbourg-Whir, on the dyke on the banks of the Ill, and he noticed that these sounds came either from the East or from the West. He went for a second walk in the afternoon, and the shooting continued.

During dinner around 8 p.m. on the terrace, the family talked about these noises, imagining that they were shots to scare away birds around the crops, or to avoid hail above the vineyard. They noted that these shots did not resemble the usual military shots that they usually located easily.

Around 9 p.m., he went to the fields with his Paralux binoculars, 8x30, wide field 8.5° 149m at 1000m to observe the surroundings, and found himself at exactly 48°02'57.3" North , 7°24'40.7" East. No sooner had he scanned the sky than he saw a cloud "explode" literally, resembling a mushroom cloud, "like Hiroshima smaller, but translucent and visible thanks to the cloud touched."

He ran home to get his brother who also took binoculars, they came back to the same place. They heard shots, every three minutes, and with each shot, they were stunned, and looked for the new "mushroom." They saw the clouds "spread apart", separate into three layers horizontally, quite quickly, but above all, very geometrically, a bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometric.

His brother saw a projectile go up in the sky, and indeed, with each shot, there was a kind of small cloud, like a small residue that a flare leaves before exploding. These little clouds appeared everywhere below the big ones. They visibly formed discs similar to giant nipples, with a silvery-gray-black top, a white or orange bottom (the sunset was beginning). These discs, which should not be confused with those of the "exploded" clouds, came together to form a long cloud, which in turn grew and was shot, like the large clouds before, and so immediately, "always new clouds and others exploded."

He noted that the wind was coming from the Vosges (North-West) going in their direction (South-East), and that it was clear that no clouds were coming from the other side of the Vosges, nor from the North towards Selestat. They appeared on the spot. It took them more than half an hour to understand that the clouds were not coming from behind the Vosges mountains as they gave the illusion.

They appeared to be at the same height as the crest of the Vosges ountains, and appeared to be above Colmar or a bit further, and the size of Colmar, this estimation being difficult. They were certain that these clouds were somewhere between the Vosges and them. The sky all around was blue, and entirely overcast behind them, and above them, and towards Sainte-Croix-en-Plaine. The clouds had ended up completely covering the sky, with a fleecy, milky appearance, and also filamentous in places.

Then they thought they were "hallucinating", because in the clouds where the explosions were taking place, it seemed that a thunderstorm was being created in a kind of turmoil, in a large conglomerate. They heard explosions there, and gigantic, almost transparent "paragliders" descended in a spiral. They couldn't see what they were carrying.

The most incredible thing was that there was an unknown craft, like a huge helicopter, or a giant drone, hovering just above this storm. It sometimes moved laterally and very quickly. It seemed to them that it had "a kind of fan", and it was constantly hiding in a small black cloud similar to the traces left by the firing of anti-aircraft guns in the WWII. This cloud followed the ctaft in its movements. The craft was spitting out a series of small black clouds, like a coughing exhaust pipe, and these were descending. The small white clouds were rising, the black ones were descending.

In this half-hour of observation, white airliners had passed near the "conglomerate." During the past hour, a biplane circled around Colmar at low altitude. Its engine did not make much noise. It had a license plate that they couldn't read clearly, with an A or an R. It passed over them about ten meters up.

At 10 p.m., there were no more shots or clouds.

The GEIPAN or its representative(s) went to the site, found that the witnesses were readily available, and were able to make findings that permitted an explanation of the facts, detailed in an investigation report that can be read below in this file.

GEIPAN noted that shots were indeed heard throughout the day of February 19, 2020, including the evening of the observation between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., that shots were scheduled for May 19 as part of a military night drill.

The GEIPAN noted that the witnesses had declared that the detonations were different from the usual shootings; but crop protection fire, especially against birds, such as pigeons, also took place that evening.

The unusual clouds, GEIPAN indicated, were due to the presence of conditions favorable to the creation of lenticular clouds of the type known as storey clouds, clouds which disappear by expanding with nightfall. It was sunset that accentuated the contrast effects described by the two witnesses.

The black mass observed with binoculars, whose adjustment GEIPAN found to be imperfect, which made various jolts and resembled a large fan, strongly corresponds to the description of a paramotor microlight plane flying in the evening, the parachutes being one of the elements of these craft, allowing aerial acrobatics.

The GEIPAN has therefore classified the case as "B", a main misinterpretation with an aircraft but also multiple misinterpretations including a day and night shooting exercise, shooting to scare away unwanted animals from crops, lenticulars clouds , and other paramotor microlights planes.

Data:

Temporal data:

Date: May 19, 2020
Time: 09:30 p.m.
Duration: 1 hour.
First known report date: May 23, 2020
Reporting delay: 4 days.

Geographical data:

Department: Haut-Rhin
City: Sundhoffen
Place: Fields.
Latitude: 48.049
Longitude: 7.411
Uncertainty radius: 15 m.

Witnesses data:

Number of alleged witnesses: 2
Number of known witnesses: 2
Number of named witnesses: 0
Witness(es) ages: Young adults or adults.
Witness(es) types: Local people.

Ufology data:

Reporting channel: To the GEIPAN.
Type of location: Country.
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, shocked.
Witnesses interpretation: ?

Classifications:

Hynek: DD and N/A
ALSACAT: Series of non-UFO event and ultralight plane misinterpretation.

Sources:

[Ref. gei1:] "GROUPE D'ETUDE ET D'INFORMATIONS SUR LES PHENOMENES AEROSPATIEUX NON IDENTIFIES":

SUNDHOFFEN (68) 05/19/2020

DATE OF OBSERVATION 05/19/2020
REGION Alsace
DEPARTMENT Haut-Rhin
CLASSIFICATION B
UPDATED ON 11/23/2021
TYPE OF PHENOMENON Aicraft
STRANGENESS 0.28
CONSISTENCY 0.65

DOCUMENTS

Compte rendu enquete.pdf
Questionnaire terre-R.pdf

SUMMARY

Long nocturnal observation of a set of phenomena frightening the witness: multiple misinterpretations.

DESCRIPTION

After a day during which his family heard shots in their residential area, the witness around 9 p.m. decided to go to the fields with binoculars to observe the surroundings. The witness suddenly sees in the sky "a cloud literally "exploding." It looked like a mushroom cloud, like a smaller Hiroshima, but translucent and visible thanks to the affected cloud". He runs to get his brother and together they hear shots regularly again and note that "The clouds were parting, and separating into three layers horizontally, quite quickly, but above all, very geometrically. A bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometrical". His brother sees a projectile rising in the sky. The witness then describes the clouds with particular shapes and colors as well as the formation of a storm. The witness and his brother stated that they then saw an unknown craft hovering then moving in the clouds. The witness estimated the duration of the sighting at 30 minutes.

The available elements leave little doubt as to our explanatory hypothesis (see the investigation report). We have interrelated elements that turn out to be perfectly explainable.

The good availability of witnesses, the information obtained during the investigation makes it possible to highlight:

The GEIPAN classifies the case as B: main misinterpretation with an aircraft but also makes it a multiple misinterpretation with:

WITNESS

DATE OF THE OBSERVATION 05/19/2020
AGE 30
GENRE M
REACTION Emotion - Concern, Anxiety, Fright

CONDITION

ENVIRONMENT GROUND OCCUPATION Farming territories
WEATHER CONDITIONS Sunny spells or Partly cloudy
LOCAL DATE AND HOUR 05/19/2020 09:00 p.m.
REFERENCE FRAME Sky
DISTANCE BETWEEN PHRNOMENON AND WITNESS 3000 meters. Very difficult to estimate
START OF THE OBSERVATION Conditions of apparition caused by the phenomenon
END OF THE OBSERVATION Conditions of disappearancecaused by the phenomenon

LOCALIZATION

HORIZONTAL DIRECTION OF OBSERVATION 1.60 337.00
HEADING /
NATURE OF THE OBSERVATION OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Other
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OBSERVATION Single object
GLOBAL SHAPE Blurred shape - Fog, mist, cloud ; 3D - With faces - Cubic
COLOR Black ; Orangeish, fire
APPARENT SIZE 100mm
APPARENT SPEED Unknown
NOISE Type - Technological - Explosion, Detonation, Bang
EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONNEMENT Nobe
NUMBER OF OBSERVED PHENOMENON A lot at the same time, like a set up

Scan.

cnes

NATIONAL CENTER
FOR SPATIAL STUDIES

geipan

Madam, Sir,

You directly witnessed, on French territory, an aerospace phenomenon that has intrigued you, and you wish to entrust this observation to GEIPAN for analysis. We suggest that you first go to our website www.geipan.fr: consulting the UAP identification guide may allow you to quickly find an explanation for your observation.

If not, we invite you to complete this questionnaire.

Important: the questionnaire should not be completed if you did not make a direct observation (an object observed in a photo or on a film AFTER the shooting does not constitute a observation case)

Your testimony is crucial and unique. It will consist of writing a story about 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.

Don't be afraid to tell us about it, or feel ridiculous, we are used to collecting this type of testimony.

The conclusions of our investigation will be sent to you personally. Once anonymized, your testimony will be published on our website: www.geipan.fr, "Recherche de cas" tab in the menu bar.

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

The head of GEIPAN

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 1

Scan.

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 solve the investigations. Do not hesitate to give as much information as possible, even if your memories are incomplete or certain elements seem unimportant to you. If you are no longer very sure of such or such detail, let us know your doubts, but, once again, do not omit anything. We must be able to visualize everything you have seen, as if to remake the film 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 record your observation and continue on free paper as much as you wish:

Your free observation account:

I live in Sundhoffen (68280) with my mother and my brother.

We regularly heard shooting exercises, especially before the health crisis, coming from the Neuland forest, between Sundhoffen and Colmar, at the Fronholz military base

Pdf of military firing authorizations;

http://www.saintecroixenplaine.fr/iso_album/activite-tir-s_28.pdf

This Tuesday, May 19, 2020, from 11 a.m., we heard shots that seemed to come from everywhere.

I went for a walk with my dog around noon around Horbourg-Whir, on the dike on the banks of the Ill, and the sounds did indeed come either from the East or from the West.

I went for a second walk in the afternoon, and the shooting didn't stop.

We ate dinner on our terrace around 8 p.m., and we were talking about these noises. We imagined that it was shooting to scare away birds around the crops, or to avoid hail above the vineyard. But these shots did not look like the usual military shots that were easily located.

Around 9 p.m., I went to the fields with my binoculars to observe the surroundings. Exact location of my vantage point;

48°02'57.3"N 7°24'40.7"E
48.049260, 7.411295

No sooner have I scanned the sky than I see a cloud literally "explode". It looked like a mushroom cloud, like a smaller Hiroshima, but translucent and visible thanks to the affected cloud.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 3

Scan.

I ran home to get my brother who also took his binoculars and we returned to the same place.

The frequency of shots; every three minutes.

With each shot, we were amazed, and searched for the new mushroom. The clouds were parting, and separating into three layers horizontally, quite quickly, but above all, very geometrically. A bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometric.

My brother saw a projectile go up in the sky, and indeed, with each shot there was a kind of small cloud, like a small residue left by a flare before exploding.

These small clouds appeared everywhere below the big ones.

They visibly formed disks similar to giant nipples. The top was silver-grey-black, the bottom white or orange (the sunset was beginning). These discs - not to be confused with those of the "exploded" clouds - came together to form a long cloud. This long cloud grew and was fired upon, in turn, like the big ones before. And so on, always new clouds and other exploded ones.

The wind was coming from the Vosges (North-West) in our direction (South-East), and it was clear that no cloud was coming from the other side of the Vosges, nor from the North towards Sélestat. They appeared.

It therefore took more than half an hour to understand that the clouds were not coming from the other side of the Vosges as it gave the illusion.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 4

Scan.

Photo taken on May 20, 2020 at 9:30 p.m. (the next day)

As for altitude, we would say it was at the same altitude as these clouds here. Maybe lower.

From our point of view, it looked like they were the same height as the crest of the Vosges. The size of the clouds where the explosions took place seemed to be above Colmar or a little further, and the size of Colmar. Difficult to estimate, we are not specialists. Only one thing certain; it was between the Vosges and us, and the sky all around was blue, and completely overcast behind us (above our head and towards Sainte-Croix en Plaine). The clouds ended up completely covering the sky, with a fleecy, milky appearance, and also filamentous in places.

Then we thought we were hallucinating; in the clouds where the explosions took place, it seemed that a thunderstorm was forming in a kind of turmoil, in a large conglomera.

We could guess explosions inside this conglomerate. And gigantic, almost transparent "paragliders" descended in a spiral. We do not see what they maintained. The most amazing; an unknown craft, like a huge helicopter, or a giant drone, was hovering just above this storm. It sometimes moved laterally and very quickly. It seemed to us that it had some kind of fan. He was permanently hiding in a small black cloud similar to the traces left by the firing of anti-aircraft guns during the Second World War. This cloud followed it in his movements. The craft was spitting out a series of small black clouds, like a coughing exhaust pipe, and these were descending. The little white clouds were rising, the black ones were descending. It was certain that a screed weighed down the nipple discs and stabilized them.

It therefore took at least half an hour of observation to see the phenomenon. Planes, white airliner type, passed around the conglomera.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 5

Scan.

During the past hour, a biplane was circling around Colmar at low altitude. It looked like this one but the wingtips were rectangular. The motor didn't make much noise. Ir had initials that we couldn't read clearly (A, R?). It passed above us about ten meters high.

At 10 p.m., more shots, and more clouds.

The binoculars I had;

Paralux, 8x30, wide field 8.5° 149m at 1000m

quick sketch by hand, (I can do a better sketch-watercolor if necessary, I'm an illustrator:

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 6

Scan.

Your observation

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 7

Scan.

Conditions of observation of the phenomenon

Please provide all the information requested.

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

[-], 68280, Sundhoffen (further, in the fields)

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

B1. What were your occupations just before your sighting?

Family meal.

B2. 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.)

In a field, clear view, with binoculars.

B3. Description of the place of observation:

Fields, view of other fields between Sundhoffen and Colmar.

B4. Date of sighting:

05/19/2020.....

B5. Precise start time (in local time:

from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

B6. Duration of observation or end time (in hours, minutes, seconds):

one hour

B7. Did other witnesses see the same phenomenon as you? If yes, how much?

Yes, [-], my brother.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 8

Scan.

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

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

Brother

B9. The observation was made in a way:

continuous

(Strike out or delete as appropriate)

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

B11. What caused the end of the observation?

Nightfall, end of the phenomenon.

B12. Did you see the phenomenon directly with your eyes?

YES

(Strike out or delete as appropriate)

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

Paralux binoculars, 8x30, wide field 8.5° 149m to 100m

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

clear view, cloudy sky, light wind.

B15.Astronomical conditions (remember the position of the Moon, the Sun, the presence or absence of stars or planets, etc.):

Sun setting in the North West)

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

no

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 9

Scan.

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

Shots (similar to mortars) hard to locate.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 10

Scan.

Description of the phenomenon

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

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

Many at the same time, like a set up

C2. Form:

discs, nipples, explosion mushrooms

C3. Colour:

orange (sunset) silver-grey (over the clouds) etc.

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

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

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):

100mm

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

bangs

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 11

Scan.

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):

3000 meters. Very difficult to estimate

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

Indicate a cardinal point (North, South, etc.), or an azimuth in degrees from North, or a local visual or geographical landmark (building, village)

North-West

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

from 30° to 70°

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

Indicate a cardinal point (North, South, etc.), or an azimuth in degrees from North, or a local visual or geographic landmark (building, village)

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 12

Scan.

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

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

C14. Portion of the sky covered by the UAP during the observation (ex: a quarter of the sky or from 30° to 40° in relation to the horizon, etc.):

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

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 12^3

Scan.

Reconstruction of your observation

In order for us 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 photo of the environment as it was during the phenomenon, as if the camera were your eyes during the observation. 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 many elements as possible to allow us a good understanding of the scene.
    You are completely free of the sketches 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 required. The main thing is to let us understand what you saw schematically. You can use the following page for this purpose.
  3. Reconstruct your observation on one or more shots. If you can, present your observation with a top view. For this you can print a map of your place of observation on Google Maps (http://maps.google.fr) or Geoportail (http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil) and report your different positions there. and observation directions.

How do I "dress up" a photo or map with your comments?

If you are accustomed to the use of drawing or image editing software (Photoshop, GIMP, Illustrator, ...), we advise you to use these tools, then to send a file in JPG, png or PDF format.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 14

Scan.

If you cannot access this type of material, print a map of the location 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.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27 , 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 15

Scan.

Scan.

What now?

E1. Describe the emotions you felt during and after the observation:

shock, fear.

E2. 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?

That's all I talk about, and no one takes me seriously. I search the internet and look for contacts with meteorologists.

E3. How do you interpret what you observed? Did you think of a known phenomenon? What are the elements that support your interpretation? If you don't know, have you given up on understanding? If yes, when and why?

Cloud seeding, sure. Because we have seen the clouds being created. He has no more then. And the weather got colder.

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

None

E5. Did this observation change your opinion on UAPs?

Yes.

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

Yes, if there is no defense secrecy.

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

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 15

Scan.

I'm crying, and losing my girlfriend right now.

I no longer trust the government and feel very isolated, taken for a fool.

I would like to forget but I can't.

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 16

Scan.

Summary

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

- Private Investigator (mention contact name and date):

[-] , astronomers.

- Journalist L'Alsace, without giving evidence, but to find out if there have been any calls on this matter.

Do you authorize us to publish this latest information?

YES

(It may possibly allow you to be identified if your identity appears on that website)

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

(Check or remove unnecessary mentions)

[ ] Quiz
[ ] Sketch of the observed phenomenon (number ........ )
[ ] Map(s) or plan(s) (number ......... )
[ ] Photograph(s) of the sighting (number ......... )
[ ] Video(s) of the sighting (number ......... )
[ ] Photograph(s) of the environment (number ......... )

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 19

Scan.

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

Permission to publish your information

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

I, the undersigned.

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

Made in Sundhoffen............

May 23, 2020............

Signature

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

This questionnaire is to be returned:

Or

The information collected on this form is recorded in a file computerized by GEIPAN in order to collect, record and publish testimonies. They are kept for 99 years and are intended for GEIPAN, with regard to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data of April 27, 2016, you have the right to access and rectify information concerning you, which you can exercise by contacting l-cnil@cnes.fr and geipan@cnes.fr
You can also, for legitimate reasons, object to the processing of data concerning you, which would involve stopping the processing of the testimony.

V3-14/June 2019

page: 20

Scan.

cnes

NATIONAL CENTER
FOR SPATIAL STUDIES

geipan

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

DSO/DA//GP
Toulouse, 08/23/2021

INVESTIGATION REPORT

CASE OF OBSERVATION

SUNDHOFFEN (68) 19.05.2020

Scan.

2/24

1 – CONTEXT

Dated May 23, 2020, GEIPAN received a duly completed questionnaire reporting a UAP observation made on May 19, 2020 around 9 p.m. from SUNDHOFFEN (68).

The witness relates the presence of curious phenomena in the sky, animated by various movements. An investigator is appointed for a field investigation.

The observation having had another witness who came forward on the day of the investigation, the latter will be heard during the visit in situ, however only one questionnaire is collected.

In this investigation report we will sometimes use T1 to distinguish the main witness from his brother. In some cases we will say the witnesses, T1 and his brother, although the latter (who could have been T2) did not fill out a questionnaire.

2- CASE DESCRIPTION

Initial statement of the witness (T1) who completed the GEIPAN questionnaire:

(see appendix A - photos of the free story)

"I live in Sundhoffen (68280) with my mother and my brother.

We regularly heard shooting exercises, especially before the health crisis, coming from the Neuland forest, between Sundhoffen and Colmar, at the Fronholz military base.

This Tuesday, May 19, 2020, from 11 a.m., we heard shots that seemed to come from everywhere.

I went for a walk with my dog around noon around Horbourg-Whir, on the dyke on the banks of the Ill, and the sounds indeed came either from the East or from the West.

I went for a second walk in the afternoon, and the shooting didn't stop.

We ate dinner on our terrace around 8 p.m., and we were talking about these noises. We imagined that it was shooting to scare away birds around the crops, or to avoid hail above the vineyard. But these shots did not resemble the usual military shots that were easily located.

Around 9 p.m., I went to the fields with my binoculars to observe the surroundings.

No sooner have I scanned the sky than I see a cloud literally "explode". It looked like a mushroom cloud, like Hiroshima smaller, but translucent and visible thanks to the affected cloud. I ran home to get my brother who also took his binoculars and we returned to the same place.

The frequency of shots; every three minutes.

With each shot, we were amazed, and searched for the new mushroom. The clouds were parting, and separating into three layers horizontally, quite quickly, but above all, very geometrically. A bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometric.

My brother saw a projectile go up in the sky, and indeed, with each shot there was a kind of little cloud, like a little residue that a flare leaves before exploding.

These small clouds appeared everywhere below the big ones.

They visibly formed disks similar to giant nipples. The top was silver-grey-black, the bottom white or orange (the sunset was beginning).

These discs - not to be confused with those of the "exploded" clouds - came together to form a long cloud. This long cloud grew and was fired upon, in turn, like the big ones before. And so on, always new clouds and other exploded ones.

The wind was coming from the Vosges (North-West) in our direction (South-East), and it was clear that no clouds were coming from the other side of the Vosges, nor from the North towards Sélestat. They appeared. It therefore took more than half an hour to understand that the clouds were not coming from the other side of the Vosges as it gave the illusion.

As for altitude, we would say it was at the same altitude as these clouds here. Maybe lower.

From our point of view, it looked like they were the same height as the crest of the Vosges. The size of the clouds where the explosions took place appeared to be above Colmar or a little further, and the size of Colmar. Difficult to estimate, we are not specialists. Only one thing certain; it was between the

Scan.

3/24

Vosges and us, and the sky all around was blue, and completely overcast behind us (overhead and towards Sainte-Croix en Plaine).

The clouds ended up completely covering the sky, with a fleecy, milky appearance, and also filamentous in places.

Then we thought we were hallucinating, in the clouds where the explosions were taking place, it seemed that a thunderstorm was building up in some kind of turmoil, in a large conglomerate.

We could guess explosions inside this conglomerate. And gigantic, almost transparent "paragliders" descended in a spiral. We couldn't see what they were maintaining.

The most incredible; an unknown craft, like a huge helicopter, or a giant drone, was hovering just above this storm. He sometimes moved laterally and very quickly. It seemed to us that it had some kind of fan. He was permanently hiding in a small black cloud similar to the traces left by the firing of anti-aircraft guns during the Second World War. This cloud followed him in his movements. The craft was spitting out a series of small black clouds, like a coughing exhaust, and these were descending.

The small white clouds were rising, the black ones were descending. It was certain that a screed weighed down the nipple discs and stabilized them.

It therefore took at least half an hour of observation to see the phenomenon. Planes, white airliner type, passed near the conglomerate.

During the past hour, a biplane was circling around Colmar at low altitude. It looked like this one but the wingtips were rectangular. The motor didn't make much noise. He had initials that we couldn't read clearly (A, R?). It passed above us at about ten meters in height. At 10 p.m., more shots, and more clouds.

The binoculars I had: Paralux Eagle, 8x30, wide field 8.5° 149m at 1000m. 3"

End of witness story (T1)

Context of the observation:

The witness thinks of an experiment for cloud seeding, wonders about the "machine" which, for him, was hiding behind the clouds. He was worried about it and couldn't put the events into perspective.

He attached a sketch to give a better idea of the alleged facts.

Scan.

4/24

Sketch T1

3- PROCEDURE OF THE INVESTIGATION

Preamble: We think it is useful to separate the first part of the story, that which consists in recounting the events of the day, from those which occurred from 9 p.m. in the evening.

Indeed, the witness himself thinks that the shots heard in the morning around 11 a.m. may have come either from cannons for the protection of crops and/or to ward off hail or from shots to scare away game. Also, there were no intriguing observations made at the time.

We will therefore focus on evening observations from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Scan.

5/24

In situ: We went to the witness's home on June 25, 2020. We were received with great kindness and we were able to hear the witness and his brother who did not fill out a questionnaire (this is not therefore not formally a second testimony) even if the latter provided a lot of information in confirmation.

The witness begins by stating that he did some research on his own. He is indeed very intrigued by what he has seen and has many questions.

He also gives some details about what he calls "the machine". We learn from him that for a year there has been strong shooting activity, almost every day, in the region, that the movements were too fast to come from a helicopter, "perhaps by a drone, but giant then" (sic). "It" (the machine) moved violently from right to left or remained static at times. No perceived noise.

At certain times, the observation was carried out with another pair of binoculars of "Revue" brand 7x50 (120 m to 1000 m). We did not find any faulty adjustment. It is true that the investigation took place some time later, but we see no reason for a change in the setting to have taken place between the time of the observation and our arrival.

Drawing redone later by T1's brother.

The numbers in the circles do not show an ordered progression but the order of discovery of the various elements of the observation.

Scan.

6/24

From the questionnaire and the interview with the witnesses we can summarize the strangeness felt during the observation due to the presence of clouds making him think of "mini nuclear explosions" and by repetitive noises resembling mortar fire.

The places are described in General Annex B in 1/- as well as the weather in 2/-

3.1. SUMMARY OF COLLECTED ELEMENTS

WITNESS #1

# QUESTION RESPONSE (AFTER INVESTIGATION)
A1. Commune and witness observation department (ex: Paris (75)) SUNDHOFFEN (68)
A2. (opt) if town unknown (during a trip): Town of start of trip; End of move municipality N/A
A3. (opt) if during a trip: name of Boat, Route or Flight / aircraft number N/A
Conditions of observation of the phenomenon (for each witness)
B1. Occupation of the witness before the sighting Meal at home
B2. Precise location of the place of observation Lat. 48.0416 Long. 7.4130
B3. Description of the place of observation Agricultural land
B4. Observation date (DD/MM/YYYY) 19/05/2020
B5. Observation start time (HH:MM:SS) 09:00:00 p.m.
B6. Duration of observation (s) or End time (HH:MM:SS) 1h
B7. Other witnesses? If yes, how much? 1
B8. (opt) If yes, what is the link with other witnesses? Brother
B9. Continuous or discontinuous observation? Continue
B10. If discontinuous, why did the observation stop? N/A
B11. What caused the observation to end? Nightfall, end of the phenomenon
B12. Phenomenon directly observed? YES
B13. UAP observed with an instrument? (which one?) Paralux binoculars, 8x30, wide field 8.5° 149m at 1000m; another pair of binoculars brand "Revue" 7x50 (120 m to 1000 m).
B14. Weather Nice sunny spells or Partly cloudy
B15. Astronomical conditions No stars (daytime observation, or obscured sky)
B16. Equipment on or active no
B17. Known external noise sources Shots (similar to mortars) difficult location
Description of the perceived phenomenon
C1. Number of phenomena observed? 1
C2. Shape? Fuzzy Shape - Fog, Cloud, Cloud; 3D - Faced - Cubic
C3. Color? Black; Orange, fire
C4. Brightness? Intensity - Weak, subdued, ex: medium or weak stars (mag. 0 to 5)
C5. Trail or halo? DK

Scan.

7/24

C6. Taille apparente? (maximale)
C7. Bruit provenant du phénomène? Type - Technologique - Explosion, Détonation, Bang
C8. Distance estimée? <1000m (éloignée)
C9. Azimut d'apparition du UAP (°) 1.6°
C10. Hauteur d'apparition du UAP (°) de 30° à 70°
C11. Azimut de disparition du UAP (°) 337.00
C12. Hauteur de disparition du UAP (°) NSP
C13. Trajectoire du phénomène Stationnaire, Immobile; Montante; Descendante; Orientée - Balancier
C14. Portion du ciel parcourue par le UAP (°) NSP
C15. Effet(s) sur l'environnement
...Pour les éléments suivants, veuillez reporter les réponses du témoin ou sinon indiquez simplement si ce dernier a répondu à ces questions
E1. Quelles sont les émotions ressenties par le témoin pendant et après l'observation? "Choc, peur"
E2. Qu'a fait le témoin après l'observation? "Je ne parle que de ça, et personne ne me prend au sérieux. Je fouille sur internet et je cherche des contacts avec des météorologues"
E3. Quelle interprétation donne t-il à ce qu'il a observé? "Ensemencement de nuages, certain. Parce que nous avons vu les nuages se créer. Il n'a pas plus ensuite. Et le "climat" s'est refroidi"
E4. Avant son observation, quel intérêt le témoin portait aux UAP? "Aucun"
E5. L'observation a-t-elle changé l'avis du témoin sur les UAP? "Oui"
E6. Le témoin pense t'il que la science donnera une explication aux UAP? "Oui, s’il n'y a pas de secret défense"
E7. Pense-t-il que l'expérience vécue a modifié quelque chose dans sa vie? Quel est son ressenti? "Je pleurs, et perds ma copine en ce moment même. Je ne fais plus confiance au gouvernement et me sens très isolé, pris pour un fou. Je voudrais oublier mais n’y arriverai pas."
Documents et pièces jointes
D1. Y a t-il eu reconstitution sur plan ou photo/croquis de l'observation? oui

4- HYPOTHESES ENVISAGEES

1 - Manoeuvres militaires: (cause unique) La lecture du questionnaire fait penser à un potentiel exercice militaire en début de nuit, la zone étant en outre et pour partie destinée à ces exercices. Notre première démarche consistait à obtenir une confirmation de cette manoeuvre. Cette manoeuvre répond-elle à l’ensemble des données?

2. La possibilité d’une méprise multiple est envisageable et permettrait peut-être de répondre aux diverses interrogations que suscite la lecture du témoignage dans son ensemble. L’inquiétude ressentie par T1 (et par son frère) face aux évènements étant de nature à épaissir une observation peut être banale en liant plusieurs faits entre eux?

C6. Apparent size? (maximum)
C7. Noise coming from the phenomenon? Type - Technological - Explosion, Detonation, Bang
C8. Estimated distance? <1000m (distant)
C9. Azimuth of appearance of the UAP (°) 1.6°
C10. AP appearance height (°) from 30° to 70°
C11. Azimuth of disappearance of the UAP (°) 337.00
C12. Height of disappearance of the UAP (°) DK
C13. Trajectory of the phenomenon Stationary, Motionless; Rising; Descending; Oriented - Pendulum
C14. Portion of the sky covered by the UAP (°) DK
C15. Effect(s) on the environment
...For the following, please report the witness's answers or otherwise simply indicate whether the latter answered these questions
E1. What are the emotions felt by the witness during and after the observation? "Shock, fear"
E2. What did the witness do after the sighting? "I only talk about that, and no one takes me seriously. I scour the internet and look for contacts with meteorologists"
E3. What interpretation does he give to what he observed? "Cloud seeding, sure. Because we saw the clouds forming. It didn't after that. And the 'climate' got colder"
E4. Before his observation, what interest did the witness have in UAPs? "None"
E5. Did the sighting change the witness's opinion of UAPs? "Yes"
E6. Does the witness think science will explain UAPs? "Yes, if there is no defense secrecy"
E7. Does he think the experience changed anything in his life? How does he feel? "I'm crying, and losing my girlfriend right now. I don't trust the government anymore and I feel very isolated, taken for a fool. I would like to forget but I can't."
Documents and attachments
D1. Has there been reconstruction on plan or photo/sketch of the sighting? yes

4- ASSUMPTIONS CONSIDERED

1 - Military manoeuvres: (single cause) Reading the questionnaire makes one think of a potential military exercise at the beginning of the night, the area being also and partly intended for these exercises. Our first step was to obtain confirmation of this maneuver. Does this maneuver meet all the data?

2. The possibility of multiple misinterpretations is conceivable and would perhaps answer the various questions raised by reading the testimony as a whole. The concern felt by T1 (and by his brother) in the face of events being likely to thicken an observation can be trivial by linking several facts together?

Scan.

8/24

4.1. SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS

Regarding Hypothesis 1:

Research was carried out in particular on the Internet and in the press because the "classic" maneuvers are announced regularly.

We also found various military bases in the area and request an air traffic map from the National Air and Space Force Air Operations Center (CNOA).

Were requested:

We have received confirmation that there were exercises with so-called reduced mortars during week 19. The mortar is a light weapon whose strong recoil is absorbed by the ground. The elevation is greater than 45° which makes it a weapon for reaching close sites. It is an infantry support weapon.

The problem with this type of firing is that they do not produce smoke that could explain the formation of the clouds described by the witnesses.

The witnesses speak of a kind of small clouds, "like a small residue left by a flare before exploding". The witness's brother also indicates that he saw like small missiles rising from the ground to the sky.

CNOA map analysis (unpublished):

1/ - The witness indicates in his testimony that a small plane flew over them just after the sighting. The CNOA map does mention traffic (small tourist plane). (Speed of 85 knots or 136 km/h)

2/ - Moreover, at the time of the sighting (within 3 minutes – the thumbnail indicates 07:26:56 p.m.), we also have a trace of an aircraft that we cannot confirm to be a military traffic. This traffic is at 2° north.

It cannot be the "machine" described by T1 which was observed at ~350°.

The CNOA map allows us to eliminate this possible air traffic as a source of misinterpretation since this track is not in the observation area.

Scan.

9/24

Regarding the dark "machine" leaving "little black clouds, like a coughing exhaust pipe" behind itself, it should be noted that the observation was largely carried out with binoculars, (verification made in situ there was noticed a bad adjustment of the Paralux binoculars), which indicates a traffic quite far from the witnesses.

A helicopter on an exercise mission, parachuting even a few men, does not remain in situ for twenty minutes! This is the estimated time of observation of the "machine" according to our main witness. Even if we reduce this time to half it is still too much. What the witnesses saw through the binoculars cannot therefore be a helicopter. Also the description talks about a "big fan" or a big drone.

The firing officer, whom the investigators had on the line, indicates that there is indeed a training ground south of Colmar, and that they are doing exercises at night. He is aware of all the maneuvers that occur in the region since he is the one who manages the table mentioning them.

He was aware of the testimony, he read it and he indicates that the explosions of this type of ammunition (reduced mortars) remain white in color like milt. On July 07, 2020, the investigators received a response to their email sent to the Town Hall of Sainte-Croix. On May 19, 2020, there were indeed day and night shootings. This confirms the witness statements. This is valid for the Hart-Nord site. The

Scan.

10/24

the witness and his brother heard mortars fired, but these were not linked to the presence of clouds and the "machine".

Hypothesis 2: a multiple misinterpretation.

We have an ultimately sober, but initially strange description of cloud formation. All this, however, is explained by small frequent lenticular clouds in a region conducive to their appearance. (See General Annex B in 3/-)

Hypothesis 2 would involve a formation of clouds above the Vosges mountains, where quite often, lenticular clouds are created and concomitantly reduced mortar fire as well as the possibility of paragliders taking advantage of a mild weather and light wind to indulge in their favorite hobby in an area allocated to them.

The witness states that he took some photos some time later showing clouds similar to those of the sighting. On some we see a column of smoke that seems to come from the ground. (General Annex B in 4/-)

- The witness describes as a large fan or a giant drone as well as huge parachutes with transparent wings. An ultralight paramotor offers this type of description. (General Annex B in 5/-)

The investigators then asked the manager of the "French alpine club Colmar Moyenne Alsace" to find out whether on the evening of May 19, 2020, there would have been no outings that evening.

The second school center is that of the Markstein (68). The calendar as of May 19, 2020 does not indicate any internships.

It remained to contact "Alsace paramotor", which is to the west of the witnesses, on their website the dates of the flights scheduled in May were 06.15 and 29. Reached by telephone on July 7, 2020, its manager indicates that the activity of Alsace paramotor restarted at the beginning of June 2020 (after confinement). It is therefore not directly responsible for any moves north of Colmar. He specifies (in general) the possibility of evening flights up to 30 minutes after sunset. For him, there is nothing surprising that several people move together in an apparently close sector.

[CoVid 19] Containment having found a gradual epilogue from May 11, it does not seem illogical that there could have been flights on May 19 given, moreover, the favorable weather conditions.

Scan.

11/24

The description of a machine with a large fan can correspond to these paramotor devices which have an autonomy of 4 hours (3 l for one hour of flight, 12 l tank). The craft is handy, light and easy to use. It allows all kinds of maneuvers including acrobatic.

The paramotor does not need an upwind to fly, the engine makes up for that. Takeoff is done anywhere, landing too. No need for a flight plan or authorization to fly in the sky. The average capacity of move is from 500 to 1500 meters without problem.

The owners of this type of device are quite numerous and use the available land, including that of the flight instructor (which in this case is located in the axis of observation of the witnesses).

- The shots heard, according to our witnesses, are different from those that are usually heard. Are these shots to scare away birds in order to preserve crops? (Vine – cereals). They are of different types that we develop in our General Annex B in 6/-.

The various elements of the testimony find consistency with the elements above. We recall that the witnesses only saw the "machine" and the parachutes through binoculars. It is not impossible, as the instructor underlines on the telephone, that several paramotors could have evolved in the sector of visibility of the witnesses taking advantage of a favorable upwind. The sails and the "fan" being in fact only one artifact and not two separate elements. The evolutions, the deviations observed by the witnesses, are explained by their maneuverability allowing surprising evolutions. The witnesses describe sometimes sudden lateral movements.

The "firecrackers" or other game (boars) deterrent devices producing a different sound from the mortar fire heard on other days, they were not identified at the time of the observation. But we also have the night shots from the Fronhotz field very close to the witnesses. Perhaps a conjunction between the two, which would explain the vision of a "missile" seen by the brother of T1.

The only negative element for the present hypothesis is that we will not be able to find the authors of these possible maneuvers in the sky.

4.1. SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS

In summary, the witnesses perfectly describe what they saw and heard, including the presence of shots, a rocket to scare away crop pests, starting from the ground and seen by the witness's brother, a black "machine", like a "big fan" and parachutes. Combined, this gives the testimony that is the subject of this file. The study shows that the facts are disparate but explainable.

4.2. SYNTHESIS OF THE CONSISTENCY

The consistency of the case is notable for the testimony of T1 first, then of his brother (even if the latter did not formally testify), their photos and sketches, the cooperation of the Town Hall of Sainte Croix en Plaine who agreed to send the copy of the shooting forecasts including May 19, 2020.

The strangeness felt is commensurate with the concerns of the witnesses, who are very aware of ecology, who do not speak of UAPs but of possible climate tests (cloud seeding). The descriptions, however, include apparent anomalies at the aerial level and this is also what prompted this specific file.

Scan.

12/24

5- CONCLUSION

After a day during which his family heard shots in their residential area, the witness decided around 9 p.m. to go to the fields with binoculars to observe the surroundings. The witness suddenly sees in the sky "a cloud literally "exploding".

He runs to get his brother and together they hear shots regularly again and note that "The clouds were spreading apart, and separating into three layers horizontally, quite quickly, but above all, very geometrically. A bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometric".

His brother sees a projectile rising in the sky. The witness then describes the clouds with particular shapes and colors as well as the formation of a storm. The witness and his brother stated that they then saw an unknown craft hovering then moving in the clouds. The witness estimated the duration of the sighting at 30 minutes.

The available evidence leaves little doubt about our explanatory hypothesis.

We have interrelated elements that turn out to be perfectly explainable.

The good availability of the witnesses, the information obtained during the investigation makes it possible to highlight:

The GEIPAN classifies in B: main misinterpretation with an aircraft but also multiple misinterpretations with:

- a military exercise of day and night shooting, - shooting to scare away unwanted animals from the crops – (pigeons and/or wild boars etc.), - lenticular clouds in formation, - paramotor ultralights. (Highly probable hypothesis).

Scan.

13/24

6- CLASSIFICATION

Appendices

Scan.

14/24

APPENDIX A

Photos of the witness attached to the questionnaire.

"A bit like lenticular clouds, but perfectly geometric"

Photo taken on May 20, 2020 at 9:30 p.m. (the day after the sighting)

"During the past hour, a biplane was circling Colmar at low altitude. It looked a lot like this one, but the wingtips were rectangular."

Scan.

15/24

Sketch of the witness taken from the free account.

Scan.

16/24

GENERAL APPENDIX

SUNDHOFFEN (68) 19.05.2020 – Additional investigation.

1/ - Analysis of the geographical environment of the observation sites:

Observation azimuths (red arrows). The star shows the location of the witnesses.

Azimuth 1°6 which corresponds to the beginning of the observation of the clouds which seemed strange to the witnesses. This is also where unidentified traffic appears on the CNOA map.

Scan.

17/24

Azimuth 337° end of zone of these same clouds (angular height estimated at 6°).

Azimuth 351° of the "machine" in the cloud. Angular height estimated at 6°.

Scenic montage of locations.

Between A and C, presence of many clouds, (forms of explosions). B presence of "the machine" in a large cloud. The dotted red arrow corresponds to the movement observed by T2 of what it thinks is a helicopter.

Scan.

18/24

2/ - Weather: Colmar-Meyenheim station (68).

At 9 p.m. the wind is blowing from the direction of 30° (NNE) with a force of 11 km/h with gusts of up to 34.9 km/h. It then drops to just 7 km/h at 10 p.m. and the strength of the gusts also drops. The sun sets at 7:03 p.m. UTC. No particular clouds are mentioned during this period. Visibility 20 km.

Witnesses speak of a presence of thin clouds such as Stratus or Stratocumulus, floating on the hills in the distance.

Stratocumulus clouds are normally non-fibrous. They have gray or white spots and layers formed by groups of rounded masses.

Stratus are located at an altitude of about 1200 m maximum and appear as a uniform gray or whitish layer. One can often see on the Vosges and in the plain of Alsace configurations like those in the photos below (which resemble the drawing made by the witness):

Photo taken the next day at the scene by T1.

Scan.

19/24

3 / - Lenticular cloud:

The lenticular cloud or altocumulus lenticularis is a stationary cloud, in the shape of an airplane wing profile that forms under the wind of the mountains, signaling the presence of a jump or wave. In reality it forms permanently on the windward side and dissolves on the other side, creating a stationary cloud contrasting with a strong wind. It is found in stacks of several copies forming a stack of plates. It is appreciated by gliders (those who practice gliding) because it shows the presence of a stable and powerful ascending air flow.

Even if the wind is calm in the valley or on the mountainside where you are, the presence of the wave cloud indicates that it is blowing hard at altitude. When the wind speed reaches 50 km/h, these clouds appear between 2 and 7 kilometers in altitude. By floating downwind of the ridge, this cloud also indicates, like a flag, the source of the upper flow. In the south as in the north, lenticular clouds often begin to form in the early afternoon and reach their "peak" just before sunset.

Here we have a description fairly consistent with what the witnesses say.

Here the photo from the Bol d'Air site (a paragliding school in the Vosges) shows clouds resembling those drawn by the witness:

Scan.

20/24

Lenticular clouds above the Vosges (copyright Hervé Parmentelat site Vosges-nature.net)

4 / - Photo of T1 showing, according to him, a "missile" rising from the ground:

5 / - Paraglider and paramotor operating in the same observation area:

Scan.

21/24

Photo from the Vertical Trotters website (copyright) which shows clouds above the Vosges, some of which have a "mushroom" shape

Scan.

22/24

The witness speaks of a large fan observed through binoculars. (Note that the binoculars checked during the on-site investigaton revealed a faulty setting). He also talks about three black spots following this big fan. The dorsal apparatus presents this aspect of a large fan (Photo n°03) and the three black spots could be only three other paramotors further away. (Picture n°01). The sails are particularly large (Photo n° 02).

A paramotor ultralight is an aircraft supported by a flexible parachute-type wing. Its maximum continuous power is less than or equal to 81 horsepower for single-seaters and 102 horsepower for two-seaters. The minimum flight speed is less than or equal to 65 km/h. In principle, night flying is prohibited. But we are in the evening and the sky is still very clear.

The aeronautical night begins 30 minutes after local and legal sunset time and ends 30 minutes before sunrise. Note that a daytime flight cannot start after the legal sunset time.

In other words, the Sun setting at 7:03 p.m. UTC (9:03 p.m. legal), the flight is authorized until 9:33 p.m., which seems very short for the observation schedule at 9:30 p.m. of the "machine" and the parachutes. But the schedule given by T1 and later confirmed by his brother is approximate. Within five minutes of the given time, we are perfectly within the legality of a flight.

The difference is therefore not prohibitive, an error may exist especially on more than 1 hour of observation. The duration estimated by T1 for the observation of the "machine" and the paragliders would be of the order of 20 minutes. "The machine" was also not visible for long, playing hide and seek in the clouds. As a reminder, the small private plane which passed at low altitude above the witnesses is mentioned at 9:07 p.m., at the very beginning of the observation.

The emagrams could have confirmed the possibility of the creation of convective lenticular type clouds, therefore with an updraft favorable to paragliding flights (the witnesses speak of three). A paramotor does not need these specific conditions.

The area north of Colmar is conducive to this type of event since there is an area dedicated to parachuting and other flights (Ultralights etc.)

The witnesses noticed "the machine", the ventilator and the parachutes with the binoculars.

6/ - About crop protection shots:

Boars are a real plague for farmers because the warming climate is a boon for these ungulates whose natural mortality rate is collapsing while that of the birth rate is increasing (range of up to 10 wild pigs). At the level of the vines, the boar does not do miss either. In 2010, for example, half of the Thann (Haut-Rhin) vineyard was ransacked by a dozen wild boars. 20 kg of grapes were harvested instead of 700!

A "Cerberus" type device to keep them away is often used. This device, manufactured by the Lombost factory (Allier) consists in broadcasting every three minutes approximately, ten seconds of a radio program. The craft is equipped with several loudspeakers capable of covering 10 to 20 hectares of area. The noise pollution, particularly at night, is significant.

https://www.lafranceagricole.fr/article/proteger-ses-mais-contre-les-sangliers-1,0,68118498.html

There are also sound alarms in the form of sticks exclusively designed to scare away game. With a very high sound intensity, this scaring "firecracker" seems effective. But it obliges the farmer or winegrower to be present when the game comes. Indeed it comes in the form of a dynamite-type stick that should then be lit.

Scan.

23/24

However, there is an HF firing system allowing the protection of several hectares.

This process produces a sound that sounds like a gunshot but sharper and more intense, and totally different from that produced by even a reduced mortar fire. Is that what the witnesses heard for an hour? (Here called rhino scarer but also wild boar).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bq3jMXWhlM&feature=emb_rel_pause

The HF firing system allows remote triggering, it is long range, infinitely programmable. The frequency is variable. In principle, one does not fire a shot every three or five minutes, but in intervals of 15 or 20 minutes or more.

Finally, one should note the draft decree plan for big game hunting which provides for day and night hunting and shooting, particularly against wild boars in order to protect agricultural areas. For 2020, the period is between 04/15 and 09/30/2020, therefore including May 19, for the wild boar hunting permit.

https://www.haut-rhin.gouv.fr/content/download/29790/183615/file/AP_ChassePAR_TirNuitLampeSanglier_2020.pdf

This does not prove that the shots heard during the day and evening of the sighting originated there. The regularity of the shots described by the witnesses (approximately every 3/5 minutes) corresponds however well with the radio type device which can broadcast every three minutes either a radio program or a sound.

The fact that T2 sees a shell from the ground can be explained by a sounding stick type (see the video above). Again going against the mortar fire hypothesis, unless very close, the rise of a shell or a mortar cannot be observed. In addition, the mortar-reduced does not rise very high in the sky and falls very quickly.

There is another animal repellant device, the gas cannon. The latter works mainly during the day and is intended to drive away pigeons and rabbits likely to destroy a field that has just been sown.

This device is adjusted in order to obtain sound shots which can occur at regular intervals. The noise is not very loud, however, but sufficiently audible and disturbing for nearby residents.

Scan.

24/24

In the same type of device there are scarers such as AviTrac which produce the same effect, namely chasing away pigeons or rabbits. These devices are used during sowing. Sounds may vary in range and intensity.

Investigators eliminate these two types of craft which do not produce a visual effect of shells leaving the ground, but only a sound.

Finally, no explosion shows luminosity, which seems to mean that in fact no mortar or shell is at the origin of the movements perceived in the clouds.

Discussion:

Map.

I do not see anything relevant to add to the GEIPAN investigation, which, I think, gives a very good account of what explains this series of events.

Evaluation:

Series of non-UFO event and ultralight plane misinterpretation.

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 January 26, 2023 Creation, [gei1].
1.0 Patrick Gross January 26, 2023 First published.

Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict



 Feedback  |  Top  |  Back  |  Forward  |  Map  |  List |  Home
This page was last updated on January 26, 2023.