White light in Vaucluse, France

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. This observation case, previously classified D and named MORMOIRON (84) 1985, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On 14 January 1985, two witnesses T1 and T2 observed a particular luminous phenomenon. A sphere about 3 metres in diameter whose colour gradually changed from white to orange. This sphere, which became blinding, moved slowly and without noise. It seemed to follow the vehicle before disappearing. Another witness T3 had previously, on 2 January, made an observation of a glow that did not move. After the gendarmerie investigation and transmission to GEIPAN, the two observations remained associated as a whole without explanation, leading to a classification D. The re-examination of the case leads to an explanation for each of the observations (see the investigation notes). The re-examination leads to distinguishing 2 distinct phenomena: - the UAP no. 1: observed by T1 and T2 on 14 January 1985 after 5:15 PM. - the UAP no. 2: observed by T3 on 2 January 1985 after 9:00 PM. UAP no. 1 of 14 January: The description of the appearance of the UAP of 14 January is consistent with the appearance of the Sun near sunset (orange colour) seen through a cloud layer: the UAP is indeed a smooth sphere, producing at times a blinding light. The position and evolution of the UAP also correspond. The presence of the Sun near its setting in the direction of observation of the UAP is verified. The witnesses' perception of the UAP's movement is perfectly explainable by the witnesses' own movement. It is a classic illusion known to GEIPAN contributing to the strangeness and non-recognition of a celestial body for witnesses in motion, an illusion called 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. As the witness has already been surprised beforehand by the appearance of the UAP and considers it to be at a close distance (hundreds of metres in the present case), this movement along the landscape is understood as a movement of the UAP parallel to the vehicle, reproducing the latter's speed. On the other hand, when the vehicle weaves, the perception of movement parallel to the vehicle no longer applies and gives way to a UAP that cuts straight across. The starting point of the "following ball" misidentification seems here to be the non-recognition of the sun when the witnesses are stationary. The reason is due to the presence of clouds masking and veiling the sun, thus creating rapidly varying appearances, light intensities and colours (the witnesses note the rapid movement of the clouds), as well as more or less total disappearances and reappearances. The variation in light intensity is classically interpreted by a witness who does not recognise the UAP as a variation in distance, here too a source of strangeness. It is also known that the sun behind scattered clouds can create light beams, another obvious source of strangeness for anyone who does not recognise the sun. The perfect consistency between the true position of the Sun and that of the UAP, and the "following ball" effect, leave little doubt about the explanation. Only the impossibility of affirming that the sky was sufficiently clear that evening for the sun to be visible to the witnesses prevents us from considering this hypothesis as certain. It is nevertheless highly probable. It may be noted that the witnesses were not familiar with the location, which may also have facilitated this misidentification. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: Misidentification with the sun at sunset. UAP no. 2 of 2 January 1985: The description of the appearance of the UAP, pale orange in colour, is consistent with the appearance of Mars. It is verified that the position and evolution of the UAP also correspond perfectly to those of Mars (to within a few degrees). The observation must not have been very strange for the witness and may have become more so when he learned 12 days later of the other observation (14 January) reported in much stranger terms (and moreover by military personnel) and with which a link could be made. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: Misidentification with Mars at sunset.