An orange orb in Nouvelle-Cal�donie, 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 of classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named LA FOA (988) 05.03.1984, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. This case concerns the observation of an unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) by several residents of the town of LA FOA (988) on different dates (the 2nd and 5th and one date with unknown day) in March 1984 (see the investigation report). On 07 March 1984, the gendarmerie was notified that several people from a neighborhood in LA FOA in New Caledonia had repeatedly observed luminous phenomena in the sky. The gendarmerie investigation reports in a single official statement that: - on 05 March 1984 between 04:30 and 06:30, two witnesses in a car (T1 and T2) made a very long observation of a particularly luminous phenomenon in the sky. - on 02 March 1984 around 20:00, two witnesses at home (T3 and T4) observed a fireball emitting a white light. - and on a date of which he does not remember the day but still in March 1984, another witness (T5) made an observation on three occasions from his home of a "wide band of light". A final witness (T6) is heard by the gendarmerie because he is mentioned in T5's statement. However, this last witness made no observation. The witnesses or pairs of witnesses observe a UAP on different dates and times, with the positions and movements of the UAP themselves being different. It is appropriate to seek an explanation specific to each of the three observations (T1-T2, T3-T4 and T5) without initially assuming that it could be the same phenomenon. Furthermore, the gendarmerie intervened following the rumor about residents having repeatedly seen luminous shapes in the sky. No witness spontaneously reported their observation. Because of this rumor and the approximate cross-checking done between witnesses, it is possible that the strangeness reported by witnesses during their statements is greater than that felt at the time of observation, and that, taken in isolation, certain observations might have gone unnoticed. What precedes may explain the anecdotal or at least inconsistent character of T5's statement: - the witness no longer knows whether it was the day before or two days before ("one or two days ago"), which is never the case when the observation is truly strange; - the available information is imprecise (not only regarding the date) and allows no precise analysis ("like a wide band of light, illuminating the sky intensely, occurred, this on three separate occasions. It looked like the passage of a very luminous object moving from right to left above the trees facing my home"); - the witness has a first meteorological explanation, which does not remove the perceived strangeness but reduces its magnitude ("At one point I thought it announced the arrival of bad weather, while remaining shocked by this phenomenon."); - in the surrounding context, one cannot exclude, given the little information available, that a particular configuration of vehicle headlight beams projected into the sky could have produced an initial strangeness limited at first and increased retrospectively. T5's observation has very low consistency (information as well as reliability) in view of the elements available 35 years later. This observation, of an a priori rather low strangeness, is unexploitable (classification C) due to lack of reliable information. In contrast, the testimonies of T1 and T2 show a real level of perceived strangeness (even if it may have grown after the observation) and possess a good level of information. These two witnesses undoubtedly made a misidentification with Venus. - The described appearance of the UAP is consistent: luminous ball, white color and strong luminosity, features described under the UAP fairly recurrent in misidentifications with Venus. - The long duration of the observation (2 hours according to T1) is characteristic of an astronomical misidentification, and the disappearance of the UAP for half an hour after sunrise is characteristic of Venus. - Venus was in the direction indicated by the witnesses and should have been in the vicinity of the UAP if the latter was not Venus, whereas the witnesses report a starry and clear sky and do not mention near the UAP the brightest of the stars. The witnesses note a movement of the UAP, which seems inconsistent with Venus: - it should be noted that the witnesses were in a car at the beginning of the observation, which could have caused an illusion of movement of the UAP in the environment and near horizon, whereas it was this environment that was moving in front of Venus due to the hilly and winding profile of the track taken by the witnesses. - T2's description might suggest a movement of the UAP occurring after the vehicle stopped ("he stopped the vehicle. It was then that the light beam disappeared, the ball stabilized then left in the direction of the Ouipoin Koindé mountain"). This description supports the previous explanation because the stopping of the vehicle is followed by a stabilization of the ball. The description of the final movement toward the mountain is also compatible with the hypothesis. Indeed, a decrease in Venus's intensity (variation of the atmospheric haze) is logically interpreted by the witness as an increase in distance of the UAP along the line of sight, which corresponds to the direction of the mountain in question. T2 reports that "the light beam disappeared" after T1 flashed his headlights with his vehicle. This conjunction is not reported by T1, who only reports that "at a certain moment the trapezoidal shape went out and I only perceived the glow of the balloon," whereas it is he who is a priori seeking a reaction from the UAP by flashing his headlights. The cessation of the beam results from an evolution of the atmospheric haze, while the memorization and/or interpretation by T2 of a conjunction or causality with the headlight flash should be attributed to the experienced strangeness, or even increased retrospectively. For the observation of T3 and T4: the description of a luminous ball moving slowly may evoke the observation of an aircraft or a satellite. But nothing appears in the record of aerial operations made just after the observation, nor in the record of satellite passages that can be made 35 years later. The observation therefore has a strange character. On the other hand, the consistency is weak. - In terms of information, we have no indication of duration or angular size of the UAP. - One may doubt the reliability: both witnesses T3 and T4 give a minimal account without any expression of experienced strangeness, as if it were enough just to answer the questions of the gendarmes who come to meet them following the observation statements they might have made in the neighborhood. T2 indeed reported to the gendarmes an observation related by T3. The short account of T3 and T4 is almost identical with the same expressions and the same words, as if there had been collusion before the hearing with the gendarmes. T3 reportedly shared with T2 two earlier observations similar to that of T2, but does not mention the second one to the gendarmes (3 March at 04:00) and gives a description of the first one (2 March at 19:00) that has little analogy with that of T2 (very distinct direction and movements). The consistency of the observation of T3 and T4 does not appear sufficient to support the strangeness that emerges from it and give it an unexplained character. Consequently: Case FOA (LA) (988) 05.03.1984: the observation of T1 and T2 is classified A, observation of the planet Venus. Case FOA (LA) (988) 02.03.1984: the observation of T3 and T4 is classified C, potentially strange but unexploitable due to lack of reliable information. Case FOA (LA) (988) --.03.1984: the observation of T5 is classified C, potentially not very strange but unexploitable due to lack of reliable information.