An orange orb in Tarn, 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 CASTRES (81) 30.07.1978, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. During the night of 29 to 30 July 1978, around 3:45 in the morning, a moped rider (T1) returning from a party at CASTANET-LE-HAUT (34) noticed an immense orange glow in the sky while he was at the place called "Le Devès", in the municipality of MURAT-SUR-VEBRE. The UAP was also observed by another witness (T2), from the same location. The observation lasted five minutes, at the end of which the UAP disappeared at moderate speed. A gendarmerie patrol became aware of the case on 1 August 1978. The two witnesses were immediately questioned. The investigation carried out on site did not find any other witness, nor any trace on the ground. The direction indicated by the two witnesses corresponds precisely (to within one or two degrees) to that of the Moon (see the investigation note). The red Moon at rising or setting is the cause of many mistaken identifications by witnesses (see GEIPAN annals on search for cases with Moon phenomenon). It is generally the presence of clouds in front of the Moon that creates the mistaken identification; they mask it enough that it cannot be recognized, but while letting its glow appear through gaps that can take all sorts of shapes, some of them strange. The complex shape indicated by witness T1 (disc and domes) could be one of them. The weather information still available 40 years later does not allow either confirming or ruling out such a cloud configuration. The swaying movements of the UAP can be explained by a perception error linked to the movements of the cloud shapes in front of and around the Moon. The final movement of the UAP to the right noted by T1 required making contact with the witness. T1 spontaneously mentions what still seems strangest to him: "it disappeared all at once" and to the question "where to?" he answers "forward" — "in front of me." He remembers a retreat into the distance. When reminded of his testimony of movement to the right, he answers that there was a little of that but that it was mainly forward. T1 was therefore the victim of the classic perception error of interpreting a change in the UAP's intensity (here, its decrease due to the closing of the cloud veil) as a change in the UAP's distance, in this case a retreat into the distance. This point illustrates once again that witnesses' expressions should not be taken literally because they also contain interpretations. The very great consistency between the true position of the Moon and the position of the UAP leaves no doubt about the mistaken identification. This case is consistent (2 independent witnesses), the description of the observed UAP is fairly precise. The sincerity and credibility of the witnesses have never been questioned. It is not the witnesses' visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation the witnesses make of their observation in the face of the unrecognized phenomenon. GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of the red Moon.