CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-20100302540 CORROBORATED

The Valentine Moon Crescent Case

CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20100302540 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2010-03-17
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
D8 Road from Valentine to Martres-de-Rivière, Haute-Garonne, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
Several minutes
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
1
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On March 17, 2010, at approximately 8:40 PM local time (20h40), a motorist traveling on the D8 road between Valentine and Martres-de-Rivière in Haute-Garonne observed an intriguing orange luminous phenomenon just above the western horizon. The object appeared unusual enough that the witness stopped their vehicle to photograph it. The witness described seeing an orange glow that then took the shape of a crescent before disappearing below the horizon. GEIPAN investigators conducted a thorough analysis of the sighting, cross-referencing the witness's testimony and photographs with astronomical ephemeris data for March 17, 2010. The investigation revealed that at 18:40 UTC (20:40 local time), the moon was in its final phase of the new moon cycle, positioned just above the western horizon. At this specific time and location, the moon would have been illuminated by the setting sun, appearing as a faint orange crescent—exactly matching both the witness's photographic evidence and verbal description. This case was officially classified as 'A' by GEIPAN, indicating a conclusively explained phenomenon with 100% certainty. The witness's photographs provided crucial corroborating evidence that allowed investigators to definitively match the observation with known astronomical data. The orange coloring was consistent with atmospheric scattering of sunlight through the thicker atmosphere near the horizon, a well-understood optical phenomenon.
02 Timeline of Events
20:40
Initial Observation
Motorist traveling on D8 road observes an intriguing orange luminous phenomenon just above the western horizon
20:40+
Witness Stops Vehicle
Witness considers the phenomenon unusual enough to stop the vehicle and prepare to photograph it
20:42
Photographs Taken
Witness captures photographs of the phenomenon, which now appears as an orange crescent shape
20:45
Phenomenon Disappears
The crescent-shaped object disappears below the western horizon
2010-03
GEIPAN Investigation Initiated
Official investigation begins with analysis of witness testimony and photographs
2010-03
Astronomical Analysis Completed
GEIPAN cross-references ephemeris data for March 17, 2010, confirming moon position at 18:40 UTC (20:40 local) matches witness description exactly
2010-03
Case Classified 'A'
GEIPAN officially classifies case as 'A' - conclusively explained as observation of the waning crescent moon
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Motorist
Civilian driver
medium
Motorist traveling on D8 road between Valentine and Martres-de-Rivière who responsibly stopped to photograph an unusual phenomenon
"The witness described observing an orange luminous phenomenon just above the horizon that took the form of a crescent before disappearing"
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case represents a textbook example of astronomical misidentification, but one that highlights an important principle in UAP investigation: even experienced observers can be temporarily fooled by familiar celestial objects under specific viewing conditions. The witness's decision to stop and photograph the phenomenon demonstrates good observational practice, and ironically, this documentation led directly to the conclusive explanation. The orange coloration and crescent shape are perfectly consistent with a waning crescent moon near the horizon during twilight hours. The credibility of this case is actually enhanced by its resolution. The witness provided photographs, a specific time and location, and an honest description of what appeared anomalous to them. GEIPAN's ability to cross-reference ephemeris data with the exact time (20:40 local) and viewing direction (west) demonstrates the value of precise reporting. The atmospheric conditions on March 17, 2010, would have enhanced the orange appearance through Rayleigh scattering, making the moon appear more unusual than during clearer, higher-elevation observations. This case serves as an excellent calibration example for understanding how conventional phenomena can initially appear unexplained.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Cognitive Unfamiliarity Hypothesis
While the explanation is conclusive, this case illustrates how even common astronomical objects can appear anomalous when observed under unfamiliar conditions. Most people observe the moon when it's higher in the sky and during fuller phases. A thin crescent moon at the horizon with enhanced orange coloration represents a less frequently encountered configuration. The witness's genuine puzzlement demonstrates that 'unfamiliar' does not equal 'unexplainable,' and that provisional uncertainty is appropriate when encountering unexpected phenomena—even when those phenomena have conventional explanations.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This sighting is definitively explained as an observation of the waning crescent moon during the final phase of the new moon cycle. The GEIPAN classification 'A' indicates 100% certainty in this conclusion, supported by astronomical ephemeris data that perfectly matches the witness testimony and photographic evidence. The orange luminous crescent observed at 20:40 local time on the western horizon corresponds exactly with the moon's position and phase on March 17, 2010. While the case has no significance as an unexplained phenomenon, it holds value as a documented example of how atmospheric conditions and viewing angles can make familiar celestial objects appear anomalous, even to attentive observers. The witness's response—stopping to photograph rather than dismissing the observation—represents exemplary citizen science behavior.
AI CONFIDENCE SCORE:
85%
07 Community Discussion
VIEW ALL >
// AUTHENTICATION REQUIRED
Sign in to contribute analysis on this case.
LOGIN
// 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.
OPEN LIVE CHAT 1
// SECURITY CLEARANCE NOTICE

This system uses cookies to maintain your session and operational preferences. Optional analytics cookies help us improve the archive. Privacy Policy