An orange orb in Nouvelle-Calédonie, 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 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 March 7, 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 March 5, 1984 between 4:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., two witnesses in a car (W1 and W2) made a very long observation of a particularly luminous phenomenon in the sky. - on March 2, 1984 around 8 p.m., two witnesses at home (W3 and W4) observed a fireball emitting a white light. - and on a date whose day they do not remember but still in March 1984, another witness (W5) made an observation on three occasions from their home of a "wide band of light." One final witness (W6) is heard by the gendarmerie because they are mentioned in W5'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 UAPs themselves being different. An explanation specific to each of the three observations (W1-W2, W3-W4, and W5) should be sought, without initially assuming that it could be the same phenomenon. Furthermore, the gendarmerie intervened following rumors about residents having repeatedly seen luminous shapes in the sky. No witness spontaneously reported their observation. Due to this rumor and approximate cross-checking 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, some observations might have gone unnoticed. What precedes may explain the anecdotal or at least inconsistent character of W5'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 does not allow any 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 explanation of a meteorological nature, 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. W5's observation has very low consistency (in terms of information and reliability) given the elements available 35 years later. This observation, with an a priori rather low strangeness, is unexploitable (classification C) due to lack of reliable information. In contrast, the testimonies of W1 and W2 report 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 mistook Venus. - The described appearance of the UAP is consistent: luminous ball, white color and strong luminosity, features described under the UAP fairly recurrent in cases of mistaken identity with Venus. - The long duration of the observation (2 hours according to W1) 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 were not Venus, whereas the witnesses report a clear, starry 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 start of the observation, which could have caused an illusion of movement of the UAP in the environment and nearby 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. - W2'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 vehicle stopping 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 in 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. W2 reports that "the light beam disappeared" after W1 flashed their headlights with their vehicle. This conjunction is not reported by W1, 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 W1 who is a priori seeking a reaction from the UAP by flashing the headlights. The cessation of the beam results from an evolution of the atmospheric haze, while the memorization and/or interpretation by W2 of a conjunction or causality with the headlight flash should be attributed to the strangeness experienced, or even increased retrospectively. For the observation of W3 and W4: the description of a luminous ball moving slowly could suggest 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. However, the consistency is weak. - In terms of information, we have no indication of duration or angular size of the UAP. - One can doubt the reliability: both witnesses W3 and W4 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. W2 indeed reported to the gendarmes an observation related by W3. The short account of W3 and W4 is almost identical with the same expressions and the same words, as if there had been collusion before the hearing with the gendarmes. W3 reportedly shared with W2 two prior observations similar to W2's, but does not mention the second one to the gendarmes (March 3 at 4:00 a.m.) and gives a description of the first one (March 2 at 7:00 p.m.) that has little analogy with W2's (very distinct direction and movements). The consistency of the W3 and W4 observation 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 W1 and W2 is classified A, observation of the planet Venus. Case FOA (LA) (988) 02.03.1984: the observation of W3 and W4 is classified C, potentially strange but unexploitable due to lack of reliable information. Case FOA (LA) (988) --.03.1984: the observation of W5 is classified C, potentially not very strange but unexploitable due to lack of reliable information.