Moving in formation in Pyrénées-Atlantiques, France

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, explained in an investigation note. This observation case, formerly named ALDUDES (64) 1985, is one of the cases classified as "D" by GEPAN and recently re-examined. It is in fact two completely different observations: that of February 2 and that of February 4 (see the investigation notes). The UAP of February 2 corresponds to an observation of the star Arcturus. - This star seen at the horizon regularly causes mistaken identifications due to the effects of scintillation, color bursting, and movement: effects caused by light rays passing through the atmosphere. - There is a perfect match in the azimuth directions. - The observation is accompanied by a rarer phenomenon of atmospheric refraction (superior mirage), which makes it possible to explain that the star was seen beyond the horizon. This phenomenon also accentuates the classic mistaken-identification effects linked to passing through the atmosphere. It is not possible, 32 years later, to quantitatively confirm this atmospheric refraction. - The same observation is reported by the press (a group of night skiers at the Somport resort, see the report). The repetition, two evenings in a row, of a nearly identical UAP observation by two independent groups of witnesses, with the same coincidence (to within 1 or 2 degrees) in azimuth with Arcturus, and with the same nature of sighting beyond the horizon, makes it possible to validate the Arcturus hypothesis and the particular atmospheric refraction phenomenon accompanying it. GEIPAN classifies this case as A: observation of Arcturus. The UAP of February 4 probably corresponds to an observation of an airplane. - The hypothesis was rejected by the witnesses due to the absence of noise from the UAP. The wind blowing from the northwest acts in the opposite direction to the sound and could therefore have greatly attenuated it. - The observation was made on the evening of February 4, while the press published that very day an article "UFO in the sky" relating to the observation of February 2. It is therefore possible that the witnesses of February 4 were in a state of alert and perceived strangeness in an observation that would have remained more mundane without the first observation and its media coverage. GEIPAN classifies this case as B: probable observation of an airplane.