CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-19930201284 CORROBORATED
The Beaumont-Hague Venus Misidentification
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-19930201284 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
1993-02-13
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Beaumont-Hague, Manche, Normandy, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
Multiple consecutive evenings
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
light
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On February 13, 1993, at approximately 19:00 hours (7:00 PM), multiple witnesses in Beaumont-Hague, a commune in the Manche department of Normandy, France, reported observing an intense, stationary luminous point in the sky described as being the size of a large star. The sightings were not isolated to a single evening; witnesses reported the phenomenon recurring over several consecutive days at similar times. The object appeared as a bright, fixed point of light that remained in the same position in the sky, drawing attention due to its unusual brightness and steady presence.
The case was officially investigated by GEIPAN (Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non Identifiés), the French national UAP investigation service operated by CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales). Multiple witnesses came forward independently to report the phenomenon, suggesting a genuine observation of something unusual in the night sky over this coastal Norman region.
Following their investigation, GEIPAN determined with high confidence that the witnesses had observed the planet Venus. The case received a Classification B rating from GEIPAN, indicating a probable identification with a known astronomical or atmospheric phenomenon. The timing, description, persistence over multiple evenings, and stationary appearance all aligned perfectly with Venus's visibility as an evening star during this period in February 1993.
02 Timeline of Events
1993-02-13 19:00
Initial Observation
First witnesses observe an intense, stationary luminous point in the evening sky over Beaumont-Hague, described as the size of a large star
1993-02-14 to 1993-02-16
Repeated Sightings
The same phenomenon is observed over several consecutive evenings at approximately the same time and location in the sky
February 1993
Multiple Witness Reports
Several independent witnesses report the phenomenon to authorities, prompting an official investigation
Post-February 1993
GEIPAN Investigation
GEIPAN conducts official investigation, cross-referencing witness reports with astronomical data
Investigation Conclusion
Venus Identification Confirmed
Investigation concludes witnesses observed the planet Venus; case classified as Class B (probable identification)
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witnesses
Civilian observers
medium
Multiple independent residents of Beaumont-Hague who reported the same phenomenon over consecutive evenings
"An intense and stationary luminous point in the sky the size of a large star"
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case represents a textbook example of Venus misidentification, one of the most common sources of UFO reports worldwide. The specific details reported by witnesses—intense brightness, stationary position, appearance at dusk (19:00 hours in February), size comparable to a large star, and persistence over multiple consecutive evenings—are all characteristic signatures of Venus when it appears as the evening star. The fact that multiple independent witnesses reported the same phenomenon adds credibility to their observations while simultaneously confirming they were all observing the same celestial object.
The investigation's confidence in this explanation is well-founded. Venus is frequently the brightest object in the night sky after the Moon, often appearing unexpectedly bright to observers unfamiliar with astronomy. In February 1993, Venus would have been visible in the western sky after sunset, exactly matching the witnesses' descriptions. The coastal location of Beaumont-Hague, near the English Channel, may have provided particularly clear viewing conditions. GEIPAN's Classification B indicates they found sufficient evidence to explain the sighting without requiring physical trace analysis or more complex investigation. This case serves educational value in demonstrating how even multiple witness reports can result from mundane astronomical phenomena when observers lack familiarity with planetary movements.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Astronomical Phenomenon with Observer Bias
The case demonstrates how cognitive bias and lack of astronomical knowledge can transform a mundane celestial object into something perceived as extraordinary. Multiple witnesses likely influenced each other's perceptions once initial reports were made, creating a localized wave of attention to Venus that would normally go unnoticed. The stationary nature and repetition over consecutive nights actually argues against any anomalous phenomenon and strongly supports a conventional astronomical explanation.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case is explained with high confidence as a misidentification of the planet Venus. The evidence is conclusive: the timing (evening twilight), duration (multiple consecutive nights), appearance (bright, stationary point of light), and investigative findings all point unambiguously to Venus as the evening star. While the witnesses genuinely observed something unusual to them, astronomical data confirms Venus's visibility during this period matched their descriptions perfectly. This case holds minimal significance as a UAP event but serves as a valuable educational example of how astronomical phenomena can generate legitimate confusion among untrained observers. The GEIPAN Classification B is appropriate and the case demonstrates the importance of astronomical cross-checking in UAP investigations.
AI CONFIDENCE SCORE:
85%
07 Community Discussion
VIEW ALL >// NO COMMENTS YET
Be the first field agent to contribute analysis on this case.
08 Live Chat 1 ROOM
ENTER LIVE CHAT
Real-time discussion with other field agents analyzing this case.