ALSACAT-1982-01-01-KAYSERSBERG--1
The report of an investigation by Jacques Journot appeared in the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit #221-222 of November - December 1982.
This ufologist dealt with an observation of a phenomenon in Kaysersberg in the Haut-Rhin on Friday January 1, 1982 at around 5:30 p.m.
The witnesses were a 33-year-old man, a municipal police officer, and his 32-year-old wife, without profession, who had asked to remain anonymous.
The weather is given as "Cool weather - cloudy at times - Stars and moon visible intermittently."
Jacques Journot explains that the lady who was knitting in front of the television had looked up and out of a window in the living room facing west, and had then seen a dazzling white ball, stationary, above the mountain towards the places called "Rehbach" and "Rubenhaag" whose peaks reach an altitude of around 600 meters, towards the town of Labaroche.
She then called her husband, who was precisely reading an article from the Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace newspaper on UFOs, an article that Jacques Journot had precisely passed on to publicize his activities, those of the ufology group LDLN, and those of his own ufology group in Guebwiller, CHEPA.
The husband came to the window; he said:
"I saw a "white-yellow" ball, bigger than a flashlight. After about 10 minutes, the light decreased in intensity. It shrank, as if the light beam of a flashlight was reduced to about half of its initial size, no longer flickered. Then after 1 to 2 minutes, it resumed the same size, brightness and flickering. While performing this phenomenon, this ball was moving to the right, slowly, while descending, slowly. I was sure of it since I had taken a roof as a reference spot. This observation lasted about 25 minutes. From time to time I made quick back and forth moves between the kitchen and the living room window. Then, around 5:55 p.m., coming back from the kitchen, I saw nothing anymore."
Jacques Journot indicated that the moon was visible, sometimes hidden by the cloudy passages, on the left of the phenomenon.
He adds that the husband looked at the phenomenon with his 7 x 50 binoculars, but the light diffused more and he could see it better with the naked eye. He wore glasses to read but he sees very well from afar. The window was open; the color never varied.
He concluded that it seemed difficult to him to think that it was a star, "which is much smaller than what has been observed or Venus, because no cloud ever hid this luminous ball."
He describes witnesses as still skeptical about the UFO phenomena despite this being the wife's second sighting in 5 months. He notes that he personally knows the couple, absolutely trustworthy and absolutely not looking for publicity.
This report was followed by a comment from ufologist Fernand Lagarde who explains that this is a "very ordinary sighting if it were not for its unusual duration", and that "there is only Venus setting at 8:35 p.m. Paris time on January 1, 1982 which could have been confusing."
In the ufology magazine Lumières Dans La Nuit #229-230 of July - August 1983, ufologist Michel Figuet titled that "Venus has not yet finished its deceiving career."
Having read Jacques Journot's investigation report, he drew a straight line from Kaysersberg to Labaroche on a map, and indicated that "the movement of the phenomenon in a south-east to north-west direction is therefore false" and that the phenomenon was indeed Venus.
He explained that the white-yellow luminous ball was moving to the right and descending towards the West behind the mountain range (summit at 883 m and Labaroche at 750 m), while Venus in a high position descended slowly from left to right in relation to the observers and in no case was heading northwest.
He continued:
The tilt of Venus cannot be calculated as for a ship at sea for example. In this case, a helmsman can easily calculate the heading of a ship by knowing its azimuth and even its speed by reporting its azimuth every 3 minutes on a plotter. Both witnesses reported that the light decreased in intensity, no longer flickered and then resumed the same size, intensity and flicker after one to two minutes.
The weather conditions tell us that clouds are passing and that the stars are visible intermittently. The clouds were therefore the cause of the decrease in the luminous intensity of Venus.
| Date: | January 1, 1982 |
|---|---|
| Time: | 05:30 p.m. |
| Duration: | 25 minutes. |
| First known report date: | January 1982. |
| Reporting delay: | Day, days. |
| Department: | Haut-Rhin |
|---|---|
| City: | Kaysersberg |
| Place: | From home. |
| Latitude: | 48.138 |
| Longitude: | 7.262 |
| Uncertainty radius: | 2 km. |
| Number of alleged witnesses: | 2 |
|---|---|
| Number of known witnesses: | 2 |
| Number of named witnesses: | 0 |
| Witness(es) ages: | 32, 33 |
| Witness(es) types: | Polie officer and his spouse. |
| Reporting channel: | To local ufologist Jacques Journot. |
|---|---|
| Type of location: | Home in valley or valley slope. |
| Visibility conditions: | Nightfall. |
| UFO observed: | Yes. |
| UFO arrival observed: | No. |
| UFO departure observed: | Yes |
| Entities: | No |
| Photographs: | No. |
| Sketch(s) by witness(es): | No. |
| Sketch(es) approved by witness(es): | No. |
| Witness(es) feelings: | Puzzled. |
| Witnesses interpretation: | ? |
| Hynek: | NL |
|---|---|
| ALSACAT: | Venus. |
[Ref. ldl1:] UFOLOGY MAGAZINE "LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT":
|
DATE: Friday, January 1, 1982
Time: around 5:30 p.m.
WITNESSES: Mr X and Mrs Y wife of Mr X (33 and 32 years old) (Anonymity requested)
Mr X is a municipal police officer, Mrs Y is unemployed (witnessed a phenomenon on the night of July 22 to 23, 1981).
LOCATION: (68) KAYSERSBERG - direction South-East towards North-West (Michelin map 1/200,000th fold 17)
WEATHER: Cool weather - cloudy periods - Stars and moon visible intermittently.
THE FACTS:
Madame Y was knitting in front of the television. She lifted her head and looked out a window in the living room (westward). She saw a dazzling white ball, stationary, above the mountain towards the places called "Rehbach" and "Rubenhaag" whose summits reach an altitude of approximately 600 m (towards the town of LABAROCHE). She then called her husband who was precisely reading an article from the newspaper "Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace" on UFOs (which I had put in the press to publicize my activities, the LDLN magazine, and those of our Guebwiller group: CHEPA). Coincidence?...
Monsieur X came to the window: "I saw a "white-yellow" ball, bigger than a flashlight. After about 10 minutes, the light decreased in intensity. It shrank, as if the light beam of a flashlight was reduced to about half of its initial size, no longer flickered. Then after 1 to 2 minutes, it resumed the same size, brightness and flickering. While performing this phenomenon, this ball was moving to the right, slowly, while descending, slowly. I was sure of it since I had taken a roof as a reference spot. This observation lasted about 25 minutes. From time to time I made quick back and forth moves between the kitchen and the living room window. Then, around 5:55 p.m., coming back from the kitchen, I saw nothing anymore."
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
- The moon was visible, sometimes hidden by the passing clouds, on the left of the phenomenon (1st quarter on Sunday January 3)
- Mr X watched the phenomenon with his 7 x 50 binoculars. But the light diffused more and he could see it better with the naked eye.
- This observation was made with the window open.
- The color never varied.
CONCLUSION: - Difficult to say whether it is a star (which is much smaller than what has been observed) or Venus, because no cloud has ever hidden this luminous ball.
- Witnesses are still skeptical of UFO phenomena despite this being the second sighting made by Ms. Y in 5 months.
- Mr X wears glasses to read but he sees very well from a distance.
- I personally know this couple, absolutely trustworthy and absolutely not looking for publicity.
Comments by F. L.
We have here a very ordinary observation if it were not for its unusual duration. There is only
|
Venus setting at 8:35 p.m. Paris time on January 1, 1982 which could have been confusing.
The sketches provided give no indication of azimuths, it is difficult to question it but it remains a possibility.
It should be mentioned, however, that the Haut-Rhin department, in addition to BAVIC crossing its south, has been well supplied with observations since 1952. There are 110 of them in our archives, and it is certain that this number represents only a small part of reality.
If, around KAYSERSBERG as the center, we draw a circle with a radius of 15 km (good viewing distance for a phenomenon of the observed type) we find as observations (Michelin map #62 folds 17-18-19) by turning from the left to the right: Ste Marie-aux-Mines: 5/20/52; Bergheim: 1/9/54; Colmar: 5/31/52, 3/20/77; Wintzenheim: 1/18/54; Eguisheim: 10/14/54; Voegtshoffen: 12 snd 11/72; Munster: 10/1878; Lutterbach [sic]: 1951, 53, 68, and 2/22/77; Labaroche: 7/7/67; Soultzeren: 12/17/75; Lapoutroie: 10/14/54. That is a total of 16 observations, 12 of which are concentrated in the south, where, 20 km from Kaysersberg, is the source of helium of Soultzmatt where an observation was made on 10/18/54.
Within the perimeter mentioned there are at least two popular mineral springs: Soultzbach-les-Bains and Ribeauvillé. Many metalliferous deposits.
I would not be complete if I did not point out, 5 km south of Kaysersberg, TROIS-EPIS, where an apparition of the Virgin took place on May 3, 1941 [sic, 1491]. A dazzling light enveloped the witness and the Virgin appeared to him, holding an ice cube in one hand and a stalk of wheat with three twin ears in the other. (See more details in the Guide de la France religieuse et mystique: Tchou 1969 publ).
[Ref. ldl1:] UFOLOGY MAGAZINE "LUMIERES DANS LA NUIT":
|
Venus has not yet finished its cheating career.
By carefully reading the investigation by Mr. J. Journot in LDLN n° 221-222 p. 31, I realized that the phenomenon observed on January 1, 1982 in Kaysersberg (Haut-Rhin) around 5:30 p.m. was in reality only the evening star.
In the Ardèche on the same day and at the same time, cibists from the Vernoux plateau were making the same confusion. The correspondent of the "Dauphiné-Libéré" of Vernoux recognized his error on the 27 Mhz frequency. Here it is.
The Michelin map number is not specified in Mr. J. Journot's investigation, so I look for Kaysersberg on the Atlas Oberthur index and I find this place on Michelin map No. 62. The fold indicated by the investigator is not the right one, it is fold 18. I draw a straight line in the direction of Labaroche to the S-W. The movement of the phenomenon from South-East to North-West is therefore false.
The white-yellow luminous ball moved to the right and descended to the west behind the mountain range (summit at 883 m and Labaroche at 750 m). VENUS in high site descended slowly from left to right in relation to the observers and in no case was heading towards the North-West.
The inclination of Venus cannot be calculated like for a building at sea for example. In this case, a helmsman can easily calculate the heading of a ship by knowing its azimuth and even its speed by reporting its azimuth every 3 minutes on a plotter. Both witnesses reported that the light decreased in intensity, no longer flickered and then resumed the same size, intensity and flicker after one to two minutes.
The weather conditions tell us that clouds are passing and that the stars are visible intermittently. The clouds were therefore the cause of the decrease in the luminous intensity of Venus.
Comment by Mr. Lagarde p. 32: "The sketches provided giving no indication of azimuths it is difficult to accuse Venus but it remains a possibility."
This possibility is the correct one because the N is mentioned on the sketch.
This absolutely trustworthy couple was mistaken by an astronomical phenomenon. To err is human.
Did reading a press article on the UFO phenomenon act as a psychological trigger: Venus = UFO? (Rising of Venus: Caravelle case in LDLN 217-218; case of the "Flying Hedgehog" in LDLN 186). [...other cases...]
|
I did not locate the two places called "Rehbach" and "Rubenhaag"; but we are also told that the supposed UFO was in the direction of Labaroche, which is almost 6 km in straight line from Kaysersberg. Seen from the center of Kaysersberg, the direction of observation is therefore about 241° (about the South-East).
It should be noted that as the witnesses had requested anonymity, we obviously do not have their address, and that Kaysersberg is quite large; I estimated the radius of uncertainty of their position at 2 km. As the "Labaroche" direction is a landmark at 6 km, we should not expect to find a concordance with Venus to the degree.
On January 1, 1982 at 5:30 p.m., we are after sunset, it is dark but not yet totally dark. Venus is in the direction 224°, at an elevation of 14°, it will set at 7:18 p.m.
25 minutes after 5:30 p.m., Venus has descended to the height of 11°, and is now in the direction of 229°. It did "go down" and did go "to the right" of the witnesses.
Note, however, that only 11.57% of its surface was sunlit, which did not make it exceptionally bright.
Michel Figuet was therefore most certainly correct; in any case, there is no solid reason to reject the Venus explanation.
Venus.
* = Source is available to me.
? = Source I am told about but could not get so far. Help needed.
| Main author: | Patrick Gross |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | None |
| Reviewers: | None |
| Editor: | Patrick Gross |
| Version: | Create/changed by: | Date: | Description: |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | Patrick Gross | February 13, 2023 | Creation, [ldl1], [ldl2]. |
| 1.0 | Patrick Gross | February 13, 2023 | First published. |
