CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-19830400971 CORROBORATED
The Sommauthe Venus Misidentification
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-19830400971 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
1983-04-20
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Sommauthe, Ardennes, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
approximately 1 hour
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
light
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Witnesses Number of known witnesses who reported the event
2
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On April 20, 1983, at approximately 23:00 hours, a farmer in Sommauthe, Ardennes, observed a bright red light through the window of his stable. Intrigued by the vivid luminosity, he stepped outside and identified the source as a luminous sphere in the sky, positioned vertically above the nearby village of Saint-Pierremont. The witness perceived rapid movements over small intervals and observed radiating emanations from the object. After approximately fifteen minutes of observation, he contacted his neighbor and then the Gendarmerie (national police). The observation continued for about an hour, during which the phenomenon gradually diminished to a small luminous point before disappearing suddenly around midnight.
Two witness testimonies were formally collected, and gendarmes arrived in time to participate in the latter portion of the observation. The officers personally observed the phenomenon indicated by the witnesses and took photographs attempting to document the object's position in the sky. The object was described as displaying a bright yellow-red color that stood out prominently against the white stars in the night sky. Witnesses reported the object appeared to oscillate and make small jerking movements. The primary witness noted three momentary disappearances during the observation period.
This case was originally classified as 'D' (unexplained) under the designation BUZANCY (08) 20.04.1983 but was subsequently re-examined by GEIPAN using modern analytical software and accumulated investigative experience. The re-examination conclusively identified the observed phenomenon as the planet Venus, leading to reclassification as 'A' (positively identified). The case serves as a textbook example of Venus misidentification, demonstrating how atmospheric conditions, observer psychology, and lack of astronomical knowledge can transform a familiar celestial object into an apparently anomalous phenomenon.
02 Timeline of Events
23:00
Initial Observation from Stable
Farmer notices bright red light through stable window. Steps outside and identifies a luminous sphere in sky above Saint-Pierremont. Object appears large, very bright, with yellow-red coloration. Witness perceives rapid movements and radiation effects.
23:15
Witnesses Called
After 15 minutes of observation, primary witness calls his neighbor to view the phenomenon, then contacts the Gendarmerie to report the observation.
23:30-24:00
Continued Observation Phase
Witnesses continue observing object, noting oscillating movements, color variations, and three momentary disappearances. Object gradually appears smaller and less bright as observation continues.
~23:45
Gendarmerie Arrival
Gendarmes arrive on scene and begin their own observation of the phenomenon indicated by witnesses. Officers take photographs attempting to document the object's position in the sky.
24:00 (midnight)
Sudden Disappearance
After approximately one hour of total observation time, the phenomenon—now reduced to a small luminous point—suddenly disappears. Venus at this time would have been at approximately 2° elevation, obscured by treeline visible in gendarmerie photographs.
1983-04-21+
Official Investigation
Gendarmerie collects formal witness statements. Two testimonies recorded. Officers attempt photographic reconstruction of object positions but images lack adequate reference points for precise analysis.
2018 (approximately)
GEIPAN Re-examination
Case originally classified as 'D' (unexplained) under designation BUZANCY (08) 20.04.1983. Re-examined using modern software and accumulated experience. Astronomical analysis conclusively identifies Venus. Reclassified to 'A' (positively identified).
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witness 1 (T1)
Farmer/Agricultural worker
medium
Local farmer who initially observed the phenomenon from his stable in Sommauthe. Called neighbor and gendarmerie after 15 minutes of observation.
"Le phénomène était beaucoup plus gros et plus proche au début de l'observation. [The phenomenon was much larger and closer at the beginning of the observation.]"
Anonymous Witness 2 (Neighbor)
Civilian resident
medium
Neighbor called by primary witness approximately 15 minutes into the observation. Provided corroborating testimony.
Gendarmerie Officers
Law enforcement/Gendarmes
high
Multiple gendarmes responded to the report and observed the phenomenon during the final portion of the sighting. Took photographs attempting to document the object's position and later participated in scene reconstruction.
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case demonstrates exceptional documentation value as a Venus misidentification study, particularly because it involved multiple civilian witnesses AND official gendarmerie observation, yet still proved to be a mundane astronomical phenomenon. GEIPAN's analysis identifies several factors that contributed to the misidentification: (1) Venus was observed at low elevation, causing atmospheric distortion and the characteristic yellow-reddish coloration; (2) the autokinetic effect caused perceived oscillations and jerking movements when witnesses fixated on the stationary object; (3) atmospheric thickness at low angles created color variations that witnesses interpreted as changes in the object; (4) the sudden disappearance around midnight corresponded precisely to Venus dropping to 2° elevation and being obscured by treeline visible in gendarmerie photographs.
The investigation reveals interesting methodological challenges. Witness testimonies contained several inconsistencies and errors that initially complicated analysis. The gendarmes' reconstruction photographs lacked proper reference points or precise location data (the gendarmerie could not provide exact positions 35 years after the fact). However, GEIPAN analysts successfully reconciled these inconsistencies by identifying sources of witness error and imprecision. Critically, the general movement pattern described by witnesses matched Venus's trajectory, and witnesses consistently described observing the same object throughout—stating it merely appeared "much larger and closer" at the beginning, which perfectly matches Venus appearing brighter at higher elevation. The three momentary disappearances reported align with meteorological analysis suggesting intermittent cloud cover. This case exemplifies how thorough astronomical cross-referencing and understanding of perceptual phenomena can resolve apparently puzzling observations.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Multiple Perceptual and Contextual Factors
This case demonstrates how multiple factors combine to create compelling but false UFO reports: (1) Lack of astronomical knowledge among witnesses and even law enforcement; (2) The autokinetic effect creating apparent movement when fixating on stars; (3) Atmospheric distortion at low elevations causing color changes and apparent size variations; (4) Observer expectation and excitement amplifying normal phenomena into extraordinary experiences; (5) Confirmation bias where multiple witnesses reinforce each other's interpretations. The fact that trained gendarmes also observed and documented the 'phenomenon' shows how professional training doesn't necessarily include astronomical literacy. The witness inconsistencies and errors in testimony further demonstrate the unreliability of human observation under conditions of excitement and unfamiliarity with the stimulus.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case is definitively explained as misidentification of the planet Venus. GEIPAN's confidence level is extremely high, supported by: precise astronomical position correlation, characteristic low-elevation Venus appearance (yellow-red coloration, apparent brightness), explained perceptual phenomena (autokinetic effect causing apparent movement), meteorological data supporting cloud-caused disappearances, and treeline obstruction matching Venus's setting time. While this case is historically interesting as an example of how even trained gendarmes can misidentify celestial objects, it holds no significance as a genuine anomalous phenomenon. The value lies primarily in its documentation as a Venus misidentification case study, demonstrating the importance of astronomical knowledge in UAP investigation and illustrating common perceptual errors. The case's reclassification from 'D' (unexplained) to 'A' (explained) after re-examination also highlights how improved analytical methods and accumulated database experience can resolve previously puzzling cases.
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.