Hovering in Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation 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 NAY-BOURDETTES (64) 1983, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On April 29, 1983 at around 11:55 PM, a couple in a car observed from several locations a luminous phenomenon, square in shape then round, and bright orange in color, in the sky. The witnesses were frightened because the UAP seemed close and to be following them as they moved. They took refuge at a third witness's home, who noticed nothing unusual outside. The testimonies reported in the Gendarmerie report have the characteristics of an observation of a celestial body (see the reconstruction). These characteristics are now well known to GEIPAN with the accumulation of explained cases of this type, particularly over the last ten years (see the website and case searches with celestial body phenomena, Venus, moon, sun): - long observation duration of more than 30 minutes, low height in the sky. - position of the UAP stable when the witness is stopped and moving as soon as the witness moves, with the perception of being followed by the UAP. This is the "following ball" illusion. 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. Since the witness was already surprised beforehand by the UAP's appearance and considers it to be at close distance, this movement along the landscape is understood as the UAP moving parallel to the vehicle at the same speed, here 40 km/h above the houses. The disappearance of the celestial body behind obstacles and its reappearance at the end of a street can be perceived as an intention on its part to wait for the witnesses: "There, I spotted it above the CANCE establishments. It was hovering in the air and seemed to be waiting for us. Faced with fear..." - sensation of the UAP moving forward and backward. The witness, having interpreted the celestial body as a nearby object and moreover a moving one, any variation in the celestial body's light intensity is logically interpreted as the object moving forward or backward while keeping its own intensity constant. "We stopped again and it was seeing this phenomenon heading toward us that we reversed to flee." It is verified that this is indeed a celestial body, namely the Moon. The Moon's direction (at 12:20 AM, azimuth 128°, elevation 6°) is indeed above the CANCE buildings, which face the road when the witness travels on the La Monjoie path leaving Nay: "this time we took the Lamonjoie path to try to get back to the parents' home. There, I spotted it above the CANCE establishments. It was hovering in the air and seemed to be waiting for us. Faced with fear..." The starting point of the misidentification, which leads to the others (following ball, forward-backward movement), lies in the failure to recognize the celestial body. The Moon is nearly full (phase 0.92) at rising, it is reddish, the color described for the UAP, but does not have the classic shape of the Moon, neither round nor crescent. This is a common feature of the misidentification: the presence of cloud veils in front of the Moon only allows it to be seen through gaps in the clouds, whose shape is arbitrary and variable, here square at the beginning ("suitcase", "window"), it becomes round afterward but the misidentification is already underway. The weather recorded at Lourdes-Ossun (30 km) that night reports cloud cover (Infoclimat), and the Gendarmerie report mentions a call from a resident reporting having observed a glow behind a cloud in the Nay region around 11 PM that night, which at least attests that the cloud screen was not total and could let Moon glows through. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of the reddish Moon.