An account in Finist�re, 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 their 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 in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named SAINT-RENAN (29) 1983, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 14 March 1983 between 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., several witnesses in the same hamlet in the commune of Plouarzel (29) observed a yellowish luminous phenomenon that seemed stationary above the tip of a megalithic monument. The UAP was perceived as static, then in motion. Intrigued, the witnesses decided to go and look at the phenomenon more closely: they were surprised because the object seemed to follow the road and the motorists. A 5th witness reported his observation made the next day, 15 March at 9 p.m., while driving towards Saint-Renan (29). Witness T1 came around 9 p.m. to alert witnesses T2, T3, and T4 at their home. The latter all state that their first impression when looking at the phenomenon shown by T1 was of seeing a big star, and they did not understand the reason for T1's "excitement." - T2: "At first I thought of a big star and I initially refused to believe in a UFO." - T3: "At first I therefore saw this luminous point which appeared to me 3 to 4 times bigger than a star and it emitted a bright, yellowish light." - T4: "My parents, my brothers and I came out of the house and Mr. Q pointed out a star to us in the sky in the northwest direction. At first I found nothing abnormal." The star that T2, T3 and T4 thought they saw exactly above the menhir does indeed exist, since it was Venus (272° in azimuth and 10° in elevation), and it is indeed a big star. The reference to the menhir from the residence of T2, T3, T4 is very precise and leaves no doubt. T1 was very excited by his prior observation made while driving. He was a victim of the illusion of the following ball (a perceptual illusion due to the witnesses' own movement), since the UAP seems to stop when the witness is stationary, and resume its course when he starts again. In fact, the direction of the star is fixed relative to the car when the latter does not change heading. When the car and the road change heading, the direction of the fixed star pivots relative to that of the road and can give the impression that the star is moving in the sky. T1 says "it follows a road making broken lines." This perception generates strong emotion (perhaps with the idea or hypothesis of dealing with an "intelligence"), and in doing so can promote a loss of precision in perception or memorization. The other observations made by T1, before or after, probably result from this same phenomenon. T1, persuaded of the UAP's movement, manages to get T2 into the car, and naturally leads the latter to the same illusion (an illusion also favored here by the carry-along or conditioning effect created by T1). T2 says "It seemed to me that this phenomenon moved from one side of the road to the other." T3 and T4, who stayed in the yard while T2 and T1 were in the car, had the perception upon T1 and T2's return that the UAP had not moved, whereas T2 (parent of T3 and T4) was now convinced of the movement. During a second vehicle experiment by T2 and T1, T3 and T4 ended up seeing the UAP move, but everything indicates that they themselves moved in the yard, because they were trying to follow with their eyes the trajectory of the car and the UAP's reaction (supposedly following the car; for T4, "at that moment, when my parents had traveled about a hundred meters, I clearly saw the luminous point descend in the sky"), and above all T3 indicates "at one moment I was masked by a shed and I moved to follow the trajectory of the craft." The reference to a star-like aspect is very present in the testimonies, and what deviates from it is classic for Venus at low elevation and/or seen through a car windshield (changing color, ovalization, changing intensity and induced impression of variable distance). The indications of the UAP's disappearance (T3: "it left in the direction of Ouessant and I never saw it again"; T4: "it seems to me that this phenomenon descended quite low near the road") correspond perfectly to the local configuration of Venus's setting. The misidentification with Venus leaves no doubt. Here we have the illustration: - of a first classic misidentification through the following-ball illusion created by the witness's movement. - of a carry-along effect on other witnesses into this same illusion, witnesses who were nevertheless well persuaded at the start that they were dealing with a star. - of the emotional influence among members of the same family: T3 and T4 adopt the idea, and thereby the perception of movement, once these have been acquired and communicated by their parent T2. The testimony of T5 is poorly documented. It is probably, the next day at 9 p.m., the observation of ARCTURUS at bearing 70° in the direction followed by T5; an observation that would probably have gone unnoticed by T5 if he had not been conditioned by the "facts reported in the press about the appearance of a UFO on 14 and 15 March last." GEIPAN classifies the case as A: astronomical misidentifications (Venus and Arcturus).