GEIPAN Case 2008-07-02443 — BARRET-DE-LIOURE (26) 08.07.2008

Brief

Two members of the same amateur astronomy club observed a pulsing bright point from the 1360-meter summit of Bergiès mountain on the evening of July 8, 2008. Through a 9x50 finder scope, both witnesses independently described a steel-gray ovoid object resembling two plates stacked face-to-face, with a rounded protrusion on its upper surface and a visible tonal demarcation between halves; no sound was heard across the roughly five-minute observation. GEIPAN dispatched an on-site investigator who confirmed witness credibility; a weather balloon explanation was considered and dismissed on grounds of shape and an anomalous lateral displacement inconsistent with a single wind drift. The case was ultimately classified D1: unexplained, moderately strange, good consistency.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

6 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Programs

GEIPAN, GEPAN/SEPRA/GEIPAN

Tags

ovoid shape, steel gray, optical finder scope, magnitude -4 brightness, silent, Drôme France, 2008, D1-unexplained, GEIPAN, pulsing / appearing-disappearing

Key points

• Two amateur astronomers observed a bright, pulsing point from the 1360-meter summit of Bergiès mountain, Barret-de-Lioure, Drôme, at approximately 21h30 on July 8, 2008, with the phenomenon appearing and disappearing at least three times.p.1
• Through a 9x50 finder scope, the primary witness described the object as ovoid — 'deux assiettes posées l'une sur l'autre' (two plates placed one on top of the other) — steel gray, with a rounded protrusion on the upper portion and a visible tonal demarcation between upper and lower halves, the lower half being lighter.p.1
• The object's brightness at peak was estimated as approximately magnitude -4, comparable to Venus at maximum brightness.p.1
• A comparison observation of a commercial aircraft through the same 9x50 finder scope showed a clear fuselage and condensation trail; the UAP's image was described as more contrasted than the aircraft, suggesting it appeared at closer effective range.p.2
• The second witness independently confirmed the ovoid shape and additionally noted a swaying motion, detected by reference to the finder scope's crosshair reticle.p.2
• No sound was detected from the object throughout the approximately five-minute observation window.p.2
• GEIPAN analysis flagged an azimuth inconsistency: the witness described the object as 'slightly to the left of the sun,' but the recorded azimuth of 315° places it 10° to the right of the sun at azimuth 304°, leaving the spatial reconstruction incomplete.p.5
• A weather balloon hypothesis was considered but dismissed: while southward drift was consistent with observed surface winds, a second positional relocation ('lower and to the right') was incompatible with a single balloon drifting north, and the observed shape did not match a weather balloon.p.6
• The GEIPAN on-site investigator found nothing anomalous at the location and confirmed the witness account and good faith of the primary witness; the second witness was not present at the site visit approximately one month after the observation.p.6
• Final classification: D1 — observation inexpliquée, moyennement étrange, de bonne consistance (unexplained, moderately strange, good consistency).p.6

Verbatim

• Il s'agissait d'un objet de forme ovoïde (deux assiettes posées l'une sur l'autre) et d'une couleur gris acier. Une excroissance arrondie était visible sur la partie supérieure. Une démarcation évidente de teinte semblait séparer les deux ''assiettes'', la partie inférieure étant plus claire.

  p.1

• Son éclat a augmenté progressivement pour atteindre une intensité approximativement égale à celle de la planète Vénus à son maximum (magnitude -4).

  p.1

• Je certifie qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un avion de ligne ou de chasse, d'un hélicoptère, d'un ballon sonde, d'une montgolfière ou d'un modèle réduit, et encore moins d'une étoile.

  p.2

• J'ai observé, ainsi que Monsieur B., un objet d'une forme inhabituelle au regard de mes connaissances en aéronautique. Nous n'avons perçu aucun bruit provenant de l'objet au cours de cette observation.

  p.2

• L'aspect observé ne correspond pas à un ballon météo.

  p.6

• L'enquêteur dépêché sur place par le GEIPAN n'a rien relevé d'anormal et confirme le témoignage et la bonne foi de Monsieur A

  p.6

• Ce cas est classé D1, observation inexpliquée, moyennement étrange, de bonne consistance.

  p.6

Most interesting

• Both witnesses were members of the same amateur astronomy club and described themselves as practiced observers of both the daytime and nighttime sky — a credential GEIPAN explicitly cited in its consistency assessment.
• The primary witness took an azimuth bearing against a building corner to stabilize himself for the finder-scope observation, demonstrating deliberate methodological care during the sighting.
• The report notes a minor date discrepancy in the initial email — the witness wrote 'mardi 8 juin' (Tuesday June 8) before later writing July 8; GEIPAN retained July 8 as correct, treating the June reference as a slip.
• Stellarium software was used to reconstruct the astronomical environment; Venus was near the sun at azimuth 298° with elevation 3°38' and was almost certainly unobservable, ruling it out as a candidate.
• The GEIPAN report was authored on November 20, 2012 — more than four years after the July 2008 observation — reflecting the unit's backlog of pending case analyses.
• Two commercial aircraft were present in the sky during the observation and were used by the primary witness as an immediate visual comparator through the same finder scope, providing an in-situ reference frame for the UAP's apparent size and contrast.