ALSACAT-1990-09-19-MOOSCH-1
The case is known from a report from the local Gendarmerie Nationale of December 1990, anonymized and declassified in 2018 by the GEIPAN (official body in charge of "Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena in France).
The gendarmes' report indicates that on September 19, 1990 at 10:19 p.m., while patrolling in Moosch, they were informed by the gendarme on duty at their unit that their intervention had been requested in Moosch by a family who had just observed a UFO from their home.
The gendarmes went to the place immediately, observing the sky themselves without seeing any UFO.
They arrived at the family's detached house, in a built-up area, to the northwest of the town, accessing it from the city center by the C.D. 13 bis VIII, taking the direction of Geishouse. The house, surrounded by other dwellings and an unoccupied area up to the edge of the forest, was on the right side of the said road.
The gendarmes gave the weather conditions as overcast, cool, no rain, no moon.
When they arrived at the home of the couple and their three children, they learned that the latter had seen around 10:00 p.m. or 10:10 p.m. a UFO phenomenon from the window of one of the children's bedrooms on the east side of home.
It was an ovoid shape, quite large, clear, without shine, whitish, which moved by performing gyratory movements, above the Vosges mountains which overlook the town, from a fixed point materialized by a Virgin towards the north, substantially at the height of the place called Pins de Banks. After several rotations, the phenomenon disappeared. The witnesses did not have the reflex to take photographs, nor to call on other adults.
The gendarmes heard the couple in their offices afterwards, they maintained their statements, finding no explanation for the phenomenon.
The Gendarmes note that the husband had worked as a radar operator in the Air Force, that their children who saw the thing are aged 12 and 9, that the family has never dealt with them, that She is honorably known to Moosch, they appeared to them to be honest, sensible, and "certainly not in a daze at the time", so they feel there was no reason to doubt their words .
The Gendarmes used the "LE GEPAN" brochure from February 1979, distributed in the gendarmerie brigades, showing the family the photographic plates of the last pages. The family did not find any phenomenon similar to what they saw on these photographic plates.
The Gendarmes also explained that before going to the place of observation, they had intervened on a fire in Moosch, but that this fire could not explain the observation, because it had taken place in a laundry in the center of Moosch, so another direction, and inside; the flashing lights of the firefighters being, moreover, blue and not white.
On September 20, 1990, the Gendarmes informed the "Groupe d'Etude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifié" ("Group for the Study of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena") (GEPAN, ancestor of GEIPAN) in Toulouse, as well as the local press with a call for possible witnesses. A neighborhood investigation failed to find any other witnesses in Moosch. On the other hand, following the press article, five people came forward, declaring that they had seen one or more UFOs, on September 19, 20 and 21, 1990, but elsewhere in the Haut-Rhin, the gendarmes not investigating these sightings since the places were outside their sector.
The gendarmes' report includes the wife's statement. She certified that on Wednesday, September 19, 1990 at 8 p.m., she had put the three children to bed on the first floor, the bedrooms being on the mountain side, east side, and she was on the ground floor with her husband, watching TV.
Around 9:45 p.m., her daughter came downstairs telling us that her brother saw a light from his window. Given the late hour, the husband went up to see what was happening and a few moments later, he called his wife, so that she could see what the husband was seeing. From the bedroom, the four of them had observed for a good 5 minutes an ovoid shape, opaque, milky, the top upwards, which brushed the tops of the fir trees in the forest of Moosch, without emitting any brilliance. The thing moved to the right, to the left, performing a gyratory movement, thus performing 4 or 5 rotations. The woman speaks of a dimension appearing to be around 2 meters, remaining reserved on the accuracy of her own estimate.
When questioned, she indicated that the sky was cloudy, that we could not see the stars, nor the moon, that the phenomenon was rather dull, not illuminating the forest or the surroundings, that it was the first time she saw this. She said it was a white light without color reflections, without shine, without light rays, which "looked like an egg more or less".
She specified that her husband had gone downstairs to call the gendarmes and that when he came back upstairs, before the arrival of the Gendarmes, the phenomenon had disappeared; she estimates the total duration at 10 or 15 minutes.
The husband made a similar, shorter statement, adding that he doesn't think it was "an atmospheric phenomenon" and that there was no noise.
In 2018, GEIPAN revisited the sighting report and offered the most likely explanation: that of a nightclub projector, which explains well all the characteristics of the sighting, the repeated back and forth movement, the "milky" white color etc. The GEIPAN published on its website the detailed analysis of this explanation, noting that 30 years later, it was not possible to find a festive event that would correspond, but that this was not surprising, that it could have been a private party, or better, a simple test of the projector since it occurred on a Wednesday and not on the weekend and that the duration is too short for a real show. The GEIPAN explains the ovoid shape by effect of perspective since the witnesses were not below the projection, explains that the very good visibility explains well that the beam was not visible, only the "round" projected on the cloud cover present that evening.
| Date: | September 19, 1990 |
|---|---|
| Time: | 10:00 p.m. |
| Duration: | 15 minutes. |
| First known report date: | September 19, 1990 |
| Reporting delay: | Minutes. |
| Department: | Haut-Rhin |
|---|---|
| City: | Moosch |
| Place: | From the 2nd floor of home. |
| Latitude: | 47.861 |
| Longitude: | 7.052 |
| Uncertainty radius: | 100 m. |
| Number of alleged witnesses: | 4 |
|---|---|
| Number of known witnesses: | 4 |
| Number of named witnesses: | 4 |
| Witness(es) ages: | 2 adults, 2 children. |
| Witness(es) types: | Husband, wife, 2 of their chidren. |
| Reporting channel: | Phoned the local Gendarmes. |
|---|---|
| Type of location: | From bedroom on 2nf floor of home. |
| Visibility conditions: | Night, excellent visibility under cloud layer. |
| UFO observed: | Yes. |
| UFO arrival observed: | ? |
| 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: | UFO, not a weather phenomenon. |
| Hynek: | NL |
|---|---|
| ALSACAT: | Discotheque projector. |
[Ref. gen1:] GENDARMERIE NATIONALE:
|
NATIONAL GENDARMERIE
[-]
UNIT CODE
03560
REPORT No.
811 / 90
REPORT
OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Legal Information
GENDARMERIE OF ALSACE
Staff - Mail
- 7 JAN. 1981
PART #1
SHEET N° 1/3
PRECISE NATURE OF THE FACTS - REFERENCE
OBJECT: NIGHT-TIME OBSERVATION OF A U.F.O.
Witnesses: Family [-] of MOOSCH (68).
WE THE UNDERSIGNED [-]
CONSIDERING ARTICLES 16 to 20 and 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
REPORT THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS WE HAVE PERFORMED, ACTING IN UNIFORM AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS OF OUR CHIEFS.
PREAMBLE
On Wednesday, September 19, 1990 at 10:19 p.m., being on general surveillance patrol in MOOSCH (68), we were informed by the gendarme on duty at the Unit that our intervention had been requested at [-].
According to the explanations given, the [-] family would have just observed a U.F.O. (unidentified flying object), from their home.
We immediately transported to the indicated address, observing the sky ourselves without noticing such a phenomenon.
FINDINGS AND ACTIONS TAKEN
The [-] family occupies a detached house at [-], in MOOSCH, in an urban area, to the north-west of the town.
From the city center, it is reached by the C.D. 13 bis VIII, taking the direction of GHEISHOUSE.
The house, surrounded by other houses and an unoccupied area up to the edge of the forest, is located on the right side of the said street.
During our intervention, the weather conditions were as follows: overcast, cool temperature, no rain, no moon.
On our arrival, we were received by the couple [-] and their three children. They explain that they saw, around 10:00 p.m. 10:10 p.m., a U.F.O. Their vantage point is on the east side of the house, from the window of one of the children's bedrooms. They saw an ovoid shape, quite large, clear, without shine, whitish. It moved by making gyratory movements, above the Vosges mounds which overlooks the town, from a fixed point materialized by a Virgin towards the north, substantially at the height of the place called Pins de Banks. After several rotations, the phenomenon disappeared. The witnesses, the couple and the two oldest children, are convinced of what they saw. They didn't have the reflex to take photographs or call on other adults.
From this observation spot we can see the municipal forest of MOOSCH, the Vosges massif and on the right, the Virgin.
At the end of a prolonged interview with the couple, it turns out that they retain [sic] their words, finding no explanation about this phenomenon.
Mrs [-], performs the duties of [-].
Her husband, [-] is [-].
CLOSING DATE ON 12/01/90
|
Report 811/1 Sheet: 2
In the past, he worked as a radar operator in the Air Force. Their children are ages 12 and 9.
Unknown to our services, the [-] family is honorably known at MOOSCH. They are comfortably installed, and have a beautiful detached house. The couple seemed honest, sensible and certainly not in a daze at the time. There is no reason to doubt their words, which seem sincere.
On September 20, 1990, we reported this event to our Company Commander at [-] and were ordered to establish this procedure. The regulatory message was broadcast under the usual conditions, in particular for the Groupe d'Etude des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifié (GEPAN) [Study Group for Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena, GEIPAN ancestor] in Toulouse. Following the instructions given by the Commander of the Gendarmerie Legion of Alsace in Strasbourg, the local press was informed of the facts with a call for possible witnesses.
INVESTIGATION
We heard from the couple [-] and their son [-]. They maintain their explanations and provide a detailed description of the phenomenon.
We have investigated the locations where the U.F.O. was said to have been seen. The exact location cannot be determined, as it is a large forest mound culminating at 742 meters (see location plan and geographical map). We made a photographic board with a panoramic view from the observation spot.
It should be noted that the area concerned is uninhabited and only includes forest trails that are prohibited at night.
After verifications carried out locally, it appears that no demonstration was organized during the night of the events and in this region. The nearest town is three kilometers to the southeast. In addition, no aerial maneuvers were announced.
Twenty minutes before our intervention at Mr. [-] we were at the scene of an accidental fire in a laundry at MOOSCH R.N. 66, in the center of the village. No flames were visible from outside the store. No link seems possible, the flashing lights used by local firefighters emitting blue lights. In addition, the scene of the accident is located opposite the house [-] on the west side. The hypothesis of a reflection emitted on the monument of the Virgin is random given the distance and the hour of observation which corresponds to the end of the intervention of the firefighters.
A neighborhood survey was carried out in vain. We found no other witnesses at MOOSCH. On the other hand, following the press article, five people came forward, declaring that they had seen one or more U.F.O. on September 19, 20 and 21, 1990. All live in the Mulhouse region located southeast of MOOSCH.
For information, we have compiled a list of these people:
[-] in MULHOUSE. His neighbor would have taken pictures.
[-] in BRUNSTATT (68) would have seen a U.F.O. at the same time as the [-] family.
[-] in WITTENHEIM (68).
[-] in MULHOUSE DORNACH. Same osbsrvation as [-].
[-] in KEMBS (68) same observation as [-].
|
Report 811/1 Sheet 3
These people living outside our constituency were not heard.
CLOSURE
Given the checks carried out locally and the explanations provided by the [-] family, it seems that these witnesses witnessed a type B or C phenomenon, characterized by a diffusion of nocturnal light of undetermined origin. We have not been able to establish a plausible explanation for this case.
Let us add that we used the February 1979 LE GEPAN brochure, distributed in the gendarmerie brigades. We showed it to the [-] family, in particular the photographic plates of the last pages. No photograph could be designated by the witnesses as showing a similar phenomenon.
Done and closed in Fellering on December 01, 1990
Investigators: [-]
|
NATIONAL GENDARMERIE
[-]
811 / 90
REPORT
OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
HEARING MINUTES
OF WITNESS
PART #2
SHEET No. 1
ANALYSIS AND REFERENCES (EVENTUALLY
This day 09/26/1990 at 1:15 p.m., in MOOSCH (68)
we, the undersigned [-], Mdl-Chief, OPJ [= Chief Marshal, Judicial Police Officer]
considering Articles 16 to 19 and 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Report the following operations that we carried out, acting in uniform and in accordance with the orders of our chiefs.
PERSON CONCERNED
SURNAME, FIRST NAMES (FOR A WOMAN, ALWAYS ENTER THE MAIDEN NAME, FOLLOWED BY THE WIFE'S NAME)
[-]
who declares to us:
""" On Wednesday 19/9/90 at 8 p.m. I put our children to bed, including [-] 12 years old, [-] 9 years old and [-] 5 years old. I was on the ground floor with my husband and watched TV. The children sleep on the first floor, mountain side or east side.
Around 9:45 p.m., the girl came downstairs telling us that [-] saw a light from his window. Thereupon, given the hour, my husband went up to see what was happening and a few moments later, my husband called me to see this phenomenon. I went to join them in [-]'s room and all four of us observed a strange phenomenon for a good 5 minutes. It was an ovoid, opaque, milky shape, top up. This form brushed the tops of the fir trees of the forest of MOOSCH. It didn't emit a flash. It moved to the right, to the left, performing a gyratory movement. There were several rotations, 4 or 5. Its dimension, from our observation point, was about 2 meters, all things considered.
--- SI [on query]: The weather was cloudy. We couldn't see any stars nor the moon. We saw this form which was rather dull, emitting no light, nor lighted the forest or the surroundings.
This is the first time I've seen this. My husband came down to call you but afterwards, before you arrived, the phenomenon disappeared. We didn't think to take pictures and no neighbors witnessed it. In my opinion, it lasted 10 to 15 minutes.
--- SI: It was a white light and not a color reflection. There was no sparkle or light rays.
The whole family, except [-] who was sleeping, witnessed this phenomenon. If did not reappear since. This shape looked like an egg roughly.
9/26/90 at 6:40 p.m.
I have read the statement above, I abide by it and have nothing to change, add or subtract from it.
Signed in the declaration book
The O.P.J
[-]
|
NATIONAL GENDARMERIE
[-]
811 / 90
REPORT
OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
HEARING MINUTES
OF WITNESS
PART #3
SHEET No. 1
ANALYSIS AND REFERENCES (EVENTUALLY
This day 09/26/1990 at 1:15 p.m., at MOOSCH (68)
we, the undersigned [-], Mdl-Chief, OPJ [= Chief Marshal, Judicial Police Officer]
considering Articles 16 to 19 and 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Report the following operations that we carried out, acting in uniform and in accordance with the orders of our chiefs.
PERSON CONCERNED
SURNAME, FIRST NAMES (FOR A WOMAN, ALWAYS ENTER THE MAIDEN NAME, FOLLOWED BY THE WIFE'S NAME)
[-]
who declares to us:
""" On Wednesday 9/19/90 around 10 - 10:10 p.m., my son [-] called me to report a weird phenomenon on the mountain, east side. I went up to the first floor and I saw through the window a rather large ovoid shape, clear, without brilliance. It passed several times above the mountain, then it disappeared behind, to come back. It was clearly above the peak. It did not illuminate, like a diffused, opaque light.
-- From the distance, I can't give the size of the object but it looked large, egg-shaped. I had never seen that. I don't think it is an atmospheric phenomenon. There was no noise.
--- The time to call you and come back up, the phenomenon had disappeared. The weather was overcast, not starry.
9/26/1990 at 7:20 p.m.
I have read the statement above, I abide by it and have nothing to change, add or subtract from it.
(Signed in the declaration book)
The O.P.J
[-]
|
REPORT 811 / 90
PART 4
Case UFO sighting
GENDARMERIE
|
|
Report 811/6
PHOTOGRAPHIC BOARD
Panoramic view from [-]'s bedroom and of the places where the phenomenon was seen by the person concerned, his brother [-] and his parents.
The U.F.O. rotated above this ridge. The red arrow indicates the location of the Virgin and beyond the place called Pins de Banks.
(See attached location map)
[Picture.]
East View
[Picture.]
West View
[Ref. uda1:] "UFODNA" WEBSITE:
19 September 1990 :
Thann, Alsace, France
GEPAIN THANN (68)1990
Hynek rating: DD
The sources are indicated by a link to the GEIPAN home page at http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/geipan/index.html
[Ref. jbu1:] JEROME BEAU:
19
At 9:45 p.m. in Thann (Haut Rhin), a couple and their children observe an ovoid shape of milky color above the trees. This form performed a whirl move for 15 mins before disappearing. A neighborhood investigation found four other witnesses who saw similar phenomena on September 19, 20 and 21.
The source is indicated as "GEPAN: Case of D type".
[Ref. spa1:] "SPICA" UFOLOGY ASSOCIATION:
| City | Date and hour of observation | General shape Identification |
General color Hypothesis |
Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THANN | Wednesday 19 September 1990 at 09:45 p.m. | elliptical (2D) Unidentified |
white None |
Unsolved -lack of info |
[Ref. gei1:] GROUPE D'ETUDES ET D'INFORMATIONS SUR LES PHENOMENES AEROSPATIAUX NON IDENTIFIES (G.E.I.P.A.N.):
SUMMARY
Nocturnal observations, in the overcast sky, of the moves (back and forth and rotating movements) of a milky-colored ovoid shape: probable observations of luminous laser animations (skytracer).
DESCRIPTION
GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. In its publications, there are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C or D) and which are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and to the investigation experience acquired over the last few years, this re-examination sometimes results in new remarks or even in a change of classification.
This observational case previously categorized D and named THANN (68) 1990 is part of a set of cases reviewed recently.
On September 19, 1990, around 9:45 p.m., a couple and two children observed the moves in the overcast sky of a milky white ovoid shape. This shape performs movements and gyratory movements above the MOOSCH forest before disappearing. A neighborhood investigation found 4 other witnesses who saw similar phenomena on September 19, 20 and 21.
During the observation, the GEIPAN had no (or little) experience of these observations. The cases accumulated since (search for cases on www.geipan.fr with keyword skyrose, skytracer, or laser) make it possible to affirm that the present observation is perfectly in line with the hypothesis of a luminous spot on the cloudy ceiling created by using a spotlight on the ground (see the investigation report):
Given this strong conformity, the hypothesis is to be retained despite the fact that the day of the observation is a Wednesday evening (and not a weekend more conducive to a festive event) and that no trace of any local or private manifestation was found. Indeed, 30 years later, this absence of trace is not decisive, nothing can invalidate the existence of such an event or even of a test session during the week (it lasted only 15 minutes) for an event held over a weekend that would not have caused strangeness in the sky due to different weather conditions.
The consistency is correct, with an investigation carried out on the spot by the Gendarmes. However, we may regret the absence of angular readings and photographs or videos taken at the time of the events by the witnesses.
Consequently the GEIPAN classifies in B: observation of luminous animations (laser, skytracer).
DATE OF OBSERVATION
09/19/1990
REGION
Alsace
DEPARTMENT
Haut-Rhin
CLASSIFICATION
B
UPDATED ON
07/18/2018
TYPE OF PHENOMENON
Laser
STRANGENESS
0.30
CONSISTANCE
0.50
DOCUMENTS
Investigation report.pdf
REP nr 811 (1990307412).pdf [gen1]
| WITNESS | |
| DATE OF THE OBSERVATION | 09/19/1990 |
| AGE | 40 |
| GENDER | F |
| REACTION | Emotion - Curiosity, Interest - Active |
| CONDITION | |
| ENVIRONMENT GROUND OCCUPATION | Artificializd territories - Urban areas |
| WEATHER CONDITIONS | Some cleaings of Cloudy |
| LOCAL DATE AND TIME | 19/09/1990 09:45 p.m. |
| REFERENCE FRAME | Sky |
| DISTANCE BETWEEN PHENOMENON AND WITNESS | NP |
| START OF THE OBSERVATION | Conditions of appearance provoked by the witness |
| END OF THE OBSERVATION | Conditions of disappearance provoked by the phenomenon |
| LOCALIZATION | |
| HORIZONTAL DIRECTION OF OBSERVATION | 90.00 90.00 |
| NATURE OF THE OBSERVATION OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS | Phenomenon Descriptive terms (lights, shape, etc.) |
| CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OBSERVATION | Single object |
| GLOBAL SHAPEE | 3D - 2 symmetry axis - Ovoid |
| COLOR | White |
| APPARENT SIZE | NA |
| APPARENT SPEED | Unknown |
| NOISE | Unknown |
| EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT | Unknown - Not specified |
| NUMBRE OF OBSERVED PHENOMENA | Only one |
| WITNESS | |
| DATE OF THE OBSERVATION | 09/19/1990 |
| AGE | 40 |
| GENDER | H |
| REACTION | Emotion - Curiosity, Interest - Active |
| CONDITION | |
| ENVIRONMENT GROUND OCCUPATION | Artificialized territoriees - Urban areas |
| WEATHER CONDITIONS | Very cloudy or covered |
| LOCAL DATE AND TIME | 09/19/1990 10:00 p.m./10:10 p.m. |
| REFERENCE FRAME | Sky |
| DISTANCE BETWEEN PHENOMENON AND WITNESS | NA |
| START OF THE OBSERVATION | Conditions of appearance provoked by the witness |
| END OF THE OBSERVATION | Conditions of disappearance provoked by the witness |
| LOCALIZATION | |
| HORIZONTAL DIRECTION OF OBSERVATION | 90.00 |
| NATURE OG THE OBSERVATION OR DESCRIPTIVE TERMS | Phenomenon |
| CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OBSERVATION | Single object |
| GLOBAL SHAPE | 3D - 2 symmetry axis - Ovoid |
| COLOR | White |
| APPARENT SIZE | seemed big |
| APPARENT SPEED | Unknown |
| NOISE | None, Total silence |
| EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT | Unknown - Not specified |
| NUMBER OF OBSERVED PHENOMENA | Only one |
|
ASSISTANT DIRECTORATE OF THE ORBITAL SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE
GROUP FOR STUDY AND INFORMATION ON
UNIDENTIFIED AEROSPACE PHENOMENA
Toulouse, 06/13/2018
DSO/DA//GP
GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. In its publications, there are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C or D) and which are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and to the investigation experience acquired over the last few years, this re-examination sometimes results in new remarks or even in a change of classification.
This observational case previously classified D and named THANN (68) 1990 is part of a set of cases reviewed recently.
It concerns the observation of a UAP by four witnesses from the same family (two adults and their two children), from their homes, on 09/19/1990 around 10:10 p.m.
The second witness telephoned the office of the competent Gendarmerie brigade. The Gendarmes arrived on the scene a few minutes later and questioned the witnesses.
Two of these witnesses, adults, went to the office of the brigade to be heard again. It was on this occasion that the only document in the possession of GEIPAN relating to this case of observation was drawn up, namely the witness hearing report.
An on-site investigation (particularly in the neighborhood) was carried out by the Gendarmes, who also informed the press of the facts. Following the publication of a press article, five other people came forward but were not heard because they were outside the constituency concerned.
A sketch representing the movement of the UAP and the surrounding landscape is attached to the report.
|
2/13
Two situation maps as well as photographs representing the location of the UAP observed from the position of the witnesses are also included in the report.
Here is the description of the case, as narrated by the witnesses in the report:
Main witness, hereinafter referred to as "T1":
“On Wednesday 9/19/90 at 8 p.m., I put our children to bed, in particular M**12 years old, A M* 9 years old and J N* 5 years old. I was downstairs with my husband watching TV. Children sleep on the first floor, mountain side or east side.
Around 9:47 p.m., the girl came downstairs telling us that M saw a light from his window. Thereupon, given the time, my husband went up to see what was happening and a few moments later, my husband called me to see this phenomenon. I went to join them in A* A*'s room and all four of us observed a strange phenomenon for a good five minutes. It was an ovoid, opaque, milky shape, top up. This form brushed the tops of the fir trees of the forest of MOOSCH. She didn't emit a flash. She moved to the right, to the left, performing a gyratory movement. There were several rotations, 4 or 5.
Its dimension, from our point of observation, was approximately 2 meters, all things considered. On interrogation: the weather was cloudy. We couldn't see any stars or the moon. We could see this form which was rather dull, not emitting light, nor illuminating the forest or the surroundings. It was the first time I had seen this. My husband came down to call you but afterwards, before you arrived, the phenomenon disappeared.
We didn't think to take any pictures and no neighbors witnessed it. In my opinion, it lasted ten to fifteen minutes.
On interrogation: it was a white light and not a color reflection. There was no sparkle or luminous rays.
The whole family except JN who was sleeping witnessed this phenomenon. It did not reappear since. This shape looked roughly like an egg.
9/26/90 at 6:40 p.m. Reading made by me of the civil status information and the declaration above, I persist in it and have nothing to change, to add or to subtract from it."
Witness No. 2, husband of the first, hereinafter noted as "T2":
“On Wednesday, 09.19.1990 around 10 p.m. - 10:10 p.m., my son M* called me to let us know about a bizarre phenomenon on the mountain, east side.
|
3/13
I went up to the first floor and saw through the window a rather large ovoid shape, clear, without shine. It passed several times over the mountain, then it disappeared behind, to come back. It was clearly above the peak. It didn't illuminate, like a diffused, opaque light.
From the distance I can't give the size of the object but it looked large, egg-shaped. I had never seen that. I'm not thinking of an atmospheric phenomenon. There was no noise. The time to call you and come back up, the phenomenon had disappeared. The weather was overcast, not starry.
9/26/1990 at 7:20 p.m. Reading made by me of the civil status information and the declaration above, I persist in it and have nothing to change, to add or to subtract from it."
The geographical location is summarized on the map below,
[Map legend:] Map 1 - Close view of the observation area
|
4/13
[Map legend:] Map 2 - Overview of the observation area
The meteorological data are those from the weather stations of Colmar (68) and Mulhouse (68), located respectively in straight line at about 33 km to the northeast and 24.5 km to the southeast of the position of witnesses.
On 09/19/1990, between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. UTC, the sky was very cloudy (6/8 oktas, height of the ceiling unknown), the wind very light from the southeast sector and the visibility excellent (20 km at 9 p.m. UTC):
[Weather data table.]
|
5/13
[Weather data table.]
About the aeronautical situation, the closest airport to the witnesses is that of Colmar-Houssen, located approximately 27 km in straight line east of the witnesses' position.
This airport is approved for night flights by instruments. It is mainly used for business, tourism and school flights, as well as for transporting sports teams and personalities.
Analysis
Let's review in detail the points of the testimonies relating to the appearance and behavior of the UAP.
Appearance:
- Shape: "ovoid", "looked like an egg roughly" (T1); "ovoid", "egg-shaped" (T2)
- Color: "white" (T1)
- Appearance: "opaque, milky" (T1); "opaque" (T2)
- Brightness: "no glow", "rather dull, neither emitting light nor illuminating the forest or surroundings", no light rays (T1); "without shine", "it did not illuminate, like a diffused light" (T2)
Behaviour:
- Movements: "right, left, performing a gyratory movement. There were several rotations, 4 or 5" (T1); "it passed several times over the mountain, then it disappeared behind, to come back" (T2)
- Disappearance: "the phenomenon has disappeared" (T1 and T2)
|
6/13
The set of these characteristics is typical of confusion with a powerful projector (also commonly called "skytracker" or "skyrose") used for advertising or entertainment purposes and whose impact is reflected in the low clouds present that night.
The impression of an opaque, milky and shineless aspect of the UAP noted by the two witnesses is completely consistent with the effect produced by the projection on low clouds of a powerful beam of light emitted by a searchlight located on the ground. The ovoid shape is an effect due to perspective; if the impact of the beam on the clouds had been observed at the zenith, its shape would have been circular, identical to that of the projector used.
The color is also quite consistent, with white being the most commonly used. The movements of the UAP as noted by the witnesses are also typical of the movements often made by this type of projector, which can consist of circular movements and back and forth.
The range of such projectors is usually more than 10 km, sometimes more (up to about 20 km). When we look at map 2 of the geographical location on page 4, we see that heading east, where the UAP was observed, is on the other side of the mountains the valley of the Rhine. To the south-east, and within a radius of 20 km around the position of the witnesses, are the suburbs of the city of Mulhouse, with numerous agglomerations.
It is quite possible to think that a projector was used in or near one of these cities, for commercial, cultural, sporting or private events, for example, or for test purposes for a first use the following weekend.
[Image caption:] Example of the effect on low clouds of using a spotlight
|
7/13
Presence or absence of a beam
The projection beam of a projector can be more or less visible (or not visible at all), depending on local weather conditions and/or pollution, as well as the light output of this beam and the distance from the observer.
The presence of fine particles in suspension in the atmosphere is an essential and crucial factor in the formation of a light beam. These particles can be water droplets, microparticles of pollutants, etc.
At the time of the sighting, the visibility was excellent; we also know that a cloud layer covered the sky (6/8 oktas).
Unfortunately, for lack of more precise data, and in particular on the height of the cloud ceiling and on the rainfall conditions prevailing at the observation, this point is not decisive for the hypothesis.
Date
The night from 19/19/1990 to 20/09/1990 is that of Wednesday to Thursday, not conducive to the opening of night establishments using such lasers (discotheques...). As already indicated above, a local event (commercial, sporting, cultural, etc.) could however have taken place on the same day and used this type of equipment, but also a private party.
Nevertheless, although it seems illusory almost 30 years after the facts to find a possible trace of this kind of local manifestation, we carried out research for the day of the observation. Unfortunately, they did not allow us to find any trace of a local event or festivity likely to have used such a projector.
The 80s and 90s saw the appearance of this type of projector in large numbers, both in discotheques and at various events (fairgrounds, concerts, etc.) and that witnesses, hardly accustomed to their presence, try as best they can to explain what they see and do not understand with their words, by comparing the characteristics of the phenomenon to objects already known to them or by trying to find or reject any explanation themselves potentially suitable ("I don't think an atmospheric phenomenon", according to T2).
|
8/13
WITNESS Nr 1
| # | QUESTION | ANSWER (AFTER INVESTIGATION) |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Commune and department of observationof the witness (ex : Paris (75)) | MOOSCH (68) |
| A2 | (opt) if unknown commune (during a trip): Commune of the start of the trip; Commune of the End of the trip | |
| A3 (opt) | if during a trip: name of the Ship, of the Road or Flight / plane number | |
| Conditions of observation of the phenomenon (for each witness) | ||
| B1 | Occupationof the witness before the observation | WAS WATCHING TV |
| B2 | Precise address of the observation place | 47.86/7.05 |
| B3 | Description of the observation place | BETDROOM AND THE 2ND FLOOR OF THE WITNESS' HOUSE |
| B4 | Date of observation (MM/JJ/YYYY) | 09/19/1990 |
| B5 | Hour of the start of the observation (HH:MM:SS) | ABOUT 09:45:00 p.m. |
| B6 | Duration of the observation(s) or hour of the end (HH:MM:SS) | MORE THAN 5 MINUTES |
| B7 | Other witnesses? If yes, how many? | YES - 3 |
| B8 (opt) | If yes, what link with the other witnesses? | SPOUSE AND TWO CHILDREN |
| B9 | Observation continuous ou discontinuous? | CONTINUOUS |
| B10 | If discontinuous, why was the observation interrupted? | / |
| B11 | What pcaused the end of the observation? | THE UAP DISAPPEARD |
| B12 | Phenomenon observed directly? | YES |
| B13 | UAP observed with an instrument? (which one?) | NO |
| B14 | Weather conditions | VERY CLOUDY SKY (6/8 OCTAS), VERS WEAK WIND FROM SOUTH-EAST SECTOR AND EXCELLENT VISIBILITY (20 KM AT 9:00 p.m. UTC) |
| B15 | Astronomical conditions | / |
| B16 | Equipements turned on or functionning | / |
| B17 | known external sources of noise | / |
| Description of the perceived phenomenon | ||
|
9/13
| C1 | Number of observed phenomena? | 1 |
| C2 | Shape | OVOID |
| C3 | Color | WHITE |
| C4 | Luminosity | OPAQUE, MILKY" |
| C5 | Trail or halo? | / |
| C6 | Apparent size (maximum) | ESTIMATED BY THE WITNESS AS 2 METERS |
| C7 | Noise coming from the phenomenon? | / |
| C8 | Estimated distance (if possible) | / |
| C9 | Azimuth of appearance of the UAP (°) | 90° |
| C10 | Height of appearance of the UAP (°) | / |
| C11 | Azimutf of disappearance of the UAP (°) | 90° |
| C12 | Height of disapperance of the UAP (°) | / |
| C13 | Trajectory of the phenomenon | "WAS MOVING LEFT TO RIGHT, PERFORMING A GIRATORY MOVEMENT. THERE WERE SEVERAL ROTATIONS, 4 OR 5" |
| C14 | Portion of sky crossed by the UAP | / |
| C15 | Effect(s) on the environment | / |
| FOR THE NEXT ITEMS, JUST INDICATE WETHER THE WITNESS ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS | ||
| E1 | Reconstitution on map and photo/sketch of the observation? | / |
| E2 | Emotions felt by the witness during and after the observation? | / |
| E3 | What did the witness do after the observation? | / |
| E4 | How does he interpret what he observed? | / |
| E5 | Interest for UAPs before the observation? | / |
| E6 | Origin of the interest for UAPs? | / |
| E7 | Did the witness opinion on UAPs changed? | / |
| E8 | Does the witness think science will explain UAPs? | |
WITNESS Nr 2
| # | QUESTION | ANSWER (AFTER INVESTIGATION) |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Commune and department of observation of the witness (ex : Paris (75)) | MOOSCH (68) |
|
10/13
| A2 (opt) | if unknown commune (durng a trip): Commune of the start of the trip; Commune of the End of the trip | |
| A3 (opt) | if during a trip: name of the Ship, of the Road or Flight / plane number | |
| Conditions of observation of the phenomenon (for each witness) | ||
| B1 | Occupation of the witness before the observation | / |
| B2 | Precise address of the observation place | 47.86/7.05 |
| B3 | Description of the place of observation | BEDROOM AT THE 2ND FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF THE WITNESS |
| B4 | Date of observation (MM/JJ/YYYY) | 09/19/1990 |
| B5 | Hour of the start of the observation (HH:MM:SS) | ABOUT 10:00:00 p.m./10:10:00 p.m. |
| B6 | Duration of the observation(s) or Hour of end (HH:MM:SS) | MORE THAN 5 MINUTES |
| B7 | Other witnesses? if yes, how many? | YES - 3 |
| B8 (opt) | If yes, what link with the other witnesses? | SPOUSE AND TWO CHILDREN |
| B9 | Continuous or discontinuous observation? | DISCONTINUOUS |
| B10 | If discontinuous, why was the observation interrupted? | THW WITNESS WENT TO PHONE THE GENDARMES |
| B11 | What provoked the end of the observation ? | THE UPA WAS NOT THERE ANYMORE WHEN THE WITNESS CAME BACK FROM PHONING THE GENDARMES |
| B12 | Phenomenon observed directly? | YES |
| B13 | UAP observed with an instrument? (which one?) | NO |
| B14 | Weather condtitions | VERY CLOUDY SKY (6/8 OKTAS), VERY WEAK WIND FROM THE SOUTHEAST SECTOR AND EXCELLENT VISIBILITY (20 KM AT 9 p.m. UTC) |
| B15 | Astronomical Conditions | / |
| B16 | Equipments turned on or active | / |
| B17 | Known xternal sources of noises | / |
| Description of the perceived phenomenon | ||
| C1 | Number of observed phenomena? | 1 |
| C2 | Shape | OVOID |
| C3 | Color | / |
| C4 | Luminosity | "NO BRILLIANCE, DIFFUSED LIGHT, OPAQUE" |
| C5 | Trail or halo? | / |
| C6 | Apparent size (maximum) | / |
|
11/13
| C7 | Noise coming from the phenomenon? | AUCUN |
| C8 | Estimated distance (if possible) | / |
| C9 | Azimuth of appearance of the UAP (°) | 90° |
| C10 | Height of appearance of the UAP (°) | / |
| C11 | Azimuth of disappearance of the UAP (°) | / |
| C12 | Height of disapperance of the UAP (°) | / |
| C13 | Trajectory of the phenomenon | / |
| C14 | Portion of sky crossed by the UAP | / |
| C15 | Effect(s) on the environment | / |
| FOR THE NEXT ITEMS, JUST INDICATE WETHER THE WITNESS ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS | ||
| E1 | Reconstitution on map and photo/sketch of the observation? | / |
| E2 | Emotions felt by the witness during and after the observation? | / |
| E3 | What did the witness do after the observation? | / |
| E4 | What interpretation does he give to what he observed? | / |
| E5 | Interest for UAPs before the observation? | / |
| E6 | Origin of the interest for UAPs? | / |
| E7 | Did the witness' opinion on UAPs change? | / |
| E8 | Does the witness think science will give an explanation to UAPs? | |
The only hypothesis considered is that of confusion with the light spot formed on the cloud layer by the use of a "skytracker" style projector.
4.1. SYNTHESIS OF THE HYPOTHESIS
| HYPOTHESIS | EVALUATION | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Skytracker | 70% | ||
| ITEM | ARGUMENTS PRO | ARGUMENTS CON OR ERROR MARGIN | PRO/CON |
| SHAPE | - OVOID, BY EFFECT OF PERSPECTIVE, THE WITNESS NOT BEING BELOW THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECTOR'S BEAM ON THE CLOUDS | - | 1.00 |
|
12/13
| NUMBER | - UNIQUE | - | 1.00 |
| - COLOR | - WHITE | 1.00 | |
| - MOVES | - TYPICAL FOR A SKYTRACKER | - | 1.00 |
| - LUMINOSITY | - DIFFUSED ON THE CLOUDS, NON DAZZLING | - | 1.00 |
| - VISIBILITY | - IMPACT ON THE ÜPRESENT CLOUDS | - NON VISIBILITY OF THE BEAMS, BUT DEPENDS ON THE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND MOST USUAL CASE. ITEM NON DECISIVE BECAUSE OF LACK OF DATA | 0.60 |
| - OCCURRENCE AND PLACE AND DATE | - PRESENCE OF CITIES IN THE AREA OF IMPACT | - NOT USUAL ON WEEKDAY, BUT POSSIBILITY OF A TEST. NO EVENT FOUND BUT 30 YEARS LATER IT DOES NOT PROVE THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVENT | 0.30 |
*Reliability of the hypothesis estimated by the interviewer: certain (100%); strong (>80%); significant (60% to 80%); medium (40% to 60%); low (20% to 40%); very low (<20%); nil (0%)
4.2. CONSISTANCY SYNTHESIS
The consistency is correct, with an investigation carried out on the spot by the Gendarmes. However, we may regret the absence of angular readings and photographs or videos taken at the time of the events by the witnesses.
During the observation, GEIPAN had no (or little) experience of these observations. The cases accumulated since (search for cases on www.geipan.fr with keyword skyrose, skytracer, or laser) make it possible to affirm that the present observation is perfectly in line with the hypothesis of a luminous spot on the cloudy ceiling created by the use of a spotlight on the ground.
Given this strong conformity, the hypothesis is to be retained despite the fact that the day of the observation is a Wednesday evening (and not a weekend more conducive to a festive event) and that no trace of a any local or private manifestation was found. Indeed, 30 years after this absence of trace is not decisive, nothing can invalidate the existence of such an event or even of an adjustment session during the week (it only lasted 15 minutes) for an event held on a weekend that would not have caused strangeness in the sky due to different weather conditions.
|
13/13
The consistency is correct, with an investigation carried out on the spot by the Gendarmes. However, we may regret the absence of angular readings and photographs or videos taken at the time of the events by the witnesses.
Consequently the GEIPAN classifies in B: observation of light animations (laser, skytracer)
5.1. RATING
GEIPAN [gei1] had published the Gendarmerie report a few years earlier, with the localization "Thann" instead of Moosch, and without the explanatory part, written afterwards.
|
An important point is that Skytracers need a power supply (actually we can always assume a generator). The possibility is there, however. In the direction of observation, at 1800 meters in a straight line, I find several dwellings.
On the map below, the witnesses are in TG. The location of the "Virgin" is in V, on the "rue de la Vierge". The dwellings that I mention are at the places marked H. These dwellings are in the direction of the sighting of the UFO given by the reports.
|
Nothing stands in the way of the very well-formulated explanation of GEIPAN [gei1].
|
One sometimes call them "discotheque lasers", it is often so in the regional Pres, as a cause of UFO sightings. They are actually not lasers but projectors of ordinary light.
The purpose of these Skytracers is to get attention from far away, up to miles away. Lasers are mostly effective on location, inside a nightclub or on a concert place.
|
Their light can be white, but it can also have a green, blue, red, yellow hue... Motors are used to move the projections on 1, 2 or 3 axis. By software, they can be programmed to perform sequences of more or less repetitive figures; as witnesses often report.
|
When there is vapor in the air from the ground up, the Skytracer produces a beam of light, fixed or mobile.
It can produce the impression of a "luminous cigar."
|
But id a low cloud layer tops a mass of dry air on the ground, there is no visible beam, one sees the projection of the beam on the bottom of the clouds. It is mostly in such conditions that people sometimes are unable to recognize projectors.
With several networked and programmed Skytracers, it is possible de produce shows of the "flying saucer" or "flying saucers formation" kind.
Probable Skytracer.
* = 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 | August 5, 2022 | Creation, [gen1], [uda1], [jbu1], [spa1], [gei1]. |
| 1.0 | Patrick Gross | August 5, 2022 | First published. |
