An account 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) that are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named MARTIGUES (13) 1982, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On January 14, 1982, around 6:40 a.m., a motorist on the road to Martigues near Saint-Mitre-Les-Remparts (13) is intrigued by a colored luminous phenomenon that seems to follow him in his movements and to be stationary when the motorist stops. No noise is heard. Only one testimony is collected by the gendarmerie. This testimony, reported in the gendarmerie report, presents some typical characteristics of an observation of a celestial body. These characteristics are now well known to GEIPAN with the accumulation of explained cases of this type, particularly over the last ten years (see website www.geipan.fr and search for cases with celestial body phenomena: Venus, Moon, Sun). The typical aspect here is the perception of being followed by the UAP: - Position of the UAP stable when the witness is stopped and moving as soon as the witness moves. The direction of the celestial body is of course fixed in absolute terms. When the car follows a roughly constant heading, the celestial body is fixed relative to the vehicle and moves along with the landscape. As the witness was already surprised beforehand by the appearance of the UAP and considers it to be at close distance, this movement along the landscape is understood as a movement of the UAP parallel to the vehicle, reproducing the latter's speed, here to the left of the witness on the road. If the car changes heading, the direction of the celestial body changes relative to the reference frame tied to the vehicle and the road, which can lead the UAP to cross the road (the case here). The starting point of the misunderstanding of a following UAP is the failure to recognize the celestial body. This is fairly frequent with bright stars at low elevation; the atmospheric thickness modifies the colors, creates scintillations (or here "flashing lights") and perceptions of burst glows, even slightly moving ones. Observation through a window or windshield also creates bursts into multiple luminous points and/or colors, regardless of the star's elevation. On the morning of the observation, several celestial bodies could have been the cause of the misunderstanding, at low elevation (Capella 12° and azimuth 323°) or at higher elevation (Jupiter 32° and azimuth 165°, Vega 32° and azimuth 6). The hypothesis is plausible but cannot be consolidated because the other characteristic of the observation is its lack of precision. The elevations and azimuths of the UAP are not indicated, nor even the precise location and direction of travel of the witness. If the witness is traveling near Saint-Mitre-les-Remparts toward Istres, therefore on a heading oscillating between 285° and 360° (depending on his exact position on the road), Capella is a hypothesis, because it indeed crossed the road from left to right several times to end up up to 40° on the left relative to the vehicle's axis. If the witness is traveling in the other direction toward Martigues (more plausible because he lives in Istres and travels to go to work), the heading oscillates between 180° and 105°. Jupiter at heading 165° can indeed cross the road to end up up to 15° on the left relative to the vehicle's axis. The indications, "very low on my left" in the testimony seem a bit pronounced to correspond to one of the above situations, particularly the second one, which nevertheless corresponds to the most plausible direction of travel. Nevertheless, the witness was not subjected to a gendarmerie or GEIPAN questionnaire protocol (only 10 lines of free-form notes by the police) to specify positions and directions, and it is not excluded that the witness may have taken a road other than the presumed main one. The testimony is not precise enough to validate or invalidate the celestial body hypothesis. It is in any case not very strange insofar as, alongside the celestial body hypothesis, there is also that of a helicopter. Sufficiently distant, the latter can be unrecognizable and inaudible and can also create a perception of a following ball during the witness's movement. The short duration of the observation makes this hypothesis possible, and here too the testimony allows neither validation nor invalidation. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.