An orange orb in C�te-d'Or, 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 the conclusions. This observation case, previously classified D and named PRECY SOUS THIL (21) 18.07.1978, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. Around 4 a.m. in the night of July 17 to 18, 1978, a camper observes a luminous phenomenon stationary in the sky at low altitude. The witness describes an orange ball shaped like a saucer or an upside-down plate. The witness takes three photographs before the phenomenon disappears slowly then quickly toward the South. No noise was heard during the observation. The gendarmerie collected no other testimony in the surrounding area about this phenomenon, and the development of the photographs yielded nothing. The color of the UAP (fire, therefore orange) as well as the fact that the UAP was low on the horizon, toward the South-West, is entirely characteristic of a celestial body at setting (see investigation notes). If one sets aside for a moment the description of the final movement toward the south, one has a solid explanation of the UAP. Indeed, the Moon is present (Stellarium verification) at an azimuth of 240°, which is precisely the direction of Dompierre-en-Morvan (seen by the witness from Lucenay ~240°), a direction attributed to the initial phase of the UAP. The hypothesis of a misidentification with the Moon would be reinforced by the fact that its angular height of 2° is perfectly consistent with a description of a UAP at low altitude and of fire color (color of the reddish Moon setting). Furthermore, there were clouds forming at that time. A part of the Moon through breaks in the clouds can take any kind of shape and therefore the one described by the witness. The final movement toward the South is very poorly documented. It remains compatible with the Moon misidentification insofar as the break in the clouds could have moved toward the South, or at least have had a movement perceived as "toward the South" when observed from a bearing of 240°. Now the wind was generally toward the East that day (no indication available at 4 a.m.) and can indeed be decomposed for the witness into a radial movement of approach from bearing 240° (not perceptible to the witness) and an orthogonal movement to the line of sight at 240°, which is perceived as going toward the South. The very great consistency between the true position of the Moon and the position and description of the UAP gives good probability to the Moon explanation, and the little that is known of the final mobility of the UAP remains compatible with this Moon explanation. It is not the visual perception of the witness that is in question, but the interpretation the witness makes of his observation through his feelings (fatigue, astonishment). In GEIPAN's current classification, this case of low strangeness is classified as UAP B, probable observation linked to a misidentification of the Moon.