Police witness in Bouches-du-Rh�ne, France

GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Among its publications are old cases classified at the time (A, B, C, or D) which are now being re-examined, for the sole purpose of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case, previously classified D and formerly named MARTIGUES (13) 1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On January 12, 1982, between 5:45 a.m. and 6:15 a.m., two witnesses saw, from the slightly open shutters of their bedroom, a high-intensity glow. The object is described as a white luminous ball with a green halo that remained motionless and silent. Each appearance lasted a few seconds. The testimony of a third witness, reported by T2, indicates an observation made around 7 o'clock in the morning. The observation by the direct witnesses (who signed a police report) was made from bed through the slightly open shutters of their bedroom. It concerns a fleeting fixed glow seen several times, for a few seconds, between 5:45 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The police report indicates that the bedroom window overlooks the highway bridge, facing northwest, and 150 m from the observation point. T2 places the UAP "at a height of 60 m, near the highway bridge. The latter peaks at 45 m." These elements indicate a UAP at low elevation in the northwest direction. The height of the UAP would be 60 m - 25 m (height of the 8th floor) observed at 150 m, i.e., around 12° of elevation. One hypothesis could be the observation of Capella. This star moves toward an azimuth of 320° and an elevation of 15° and is therefore in the northwest sector. Capella can present, due to atmospheric turbulence at low elevation, variable colors compatible with those observed (white and green). T1 indicates that it was raining. The sky may not have been completely overcast and may have allowed Capella to appear fleetingly. The passage of cloud cover can vary the star's intensity and give the impression of the witnesses being at varying distances. The witnesses nevertheless report a strong luminosity for an observation of Capella: T1: "of very strong intensity. I thought it was a storm flash or a 'factory flash'." T2: "the central point very violently lit," "a lighting that encompassed the whole neighborhood." In fact, they made the observation from their bed through the gap in the shutters (T1 states he did not move from bed, and T2 observed before getting up; there was no longer a UAP during the observation that followed from the balcony). This observation condition may have accentuated the impression of surprise and intensity of the light. But this same observation condition seems to indicate a restricted angular field of view around the normal of the building, which reduces the probability of the Capella hypothesis, without however excluding it (as shown by the attached reconstruction). Another hypothesis would be ball lightning. The rainy weather, the colors and the halo, the short duration suggest this type of phenomenon, which can appear during a stormy atmosphere (yellow + pale green halo). See the article Aspects, manifestations and classification of ball lightning. This would explain more directly (than the Capella hypothesis) the perception of a strong glow and also of a ball or halo (although these latter perceptions sometimes also accompany observations of celestial bodies). We do not have the statement of the 3rd witness reported by T2, but only what was reported in the police report. Between 7:00 a.m. and 7:15 a.m., he saw a glow in the shape of a white-bluish hemisphere. This very strong and silent glow lasted two seconds. The observation seems incompatible with Capella due to the direction (see reconstruction), but is compatible with ball lightning. The latter can manifest itself fleetingly in stormy weather, including an hour (7:00 a.m.) later than the observation by T1 and T2. The observation is not very strange because the glow could result from a star or, more likely, from ball lightning. The very poor observation conditions, in particular the apparently reduced visual field (from bed through the gap in the shutters), did not allow proper observation of the appearance, evolution, and disappearance of the UAP, which are determining elements for further investigation and for confirming one of the hypotheses (especially for ball lightning). The third testimony also lacks consistency (precision, reliability) due to its indirect nature. In conclusion, these are testimonies of low strangeness, possibly corresponding to a star or, more likely, to a manifestation of ball lightning, but which cannot be properly exploited due to their low consistency. GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information. The observations made on other days, reported by T2 and recorded in the police report, are unexploitable (lack of information, no precise date).