An account in Loiret, 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 explained in an investigation note. This observation case is one of the cases classified as "A" in 1979 by GEPAN, under the name COULLONS (45) 10.06.1979. On June 30, 1979, around 0:30, four people in a vehicle were traveling on the D 54 between Saint-Florent (45) and Villemurlin (45) (see the investigation note). Upon arriving at the path toward the place called Pierrefitte, they saw in the distance a red-colored phenomenon that seemed to descend from the sky at road level. The described shape varies according to the witnesses (banana-shaped with the tips pointing toward the sky, or drop-shaped). With the car stopped, they observed the UAP: no noise was heard, no intermittent light signal on the UAP was noticed. The witnesses then saw the UAP move slowly. Frightened, they decided to turn around to head back toward Coullons in order to alert the gendarmerie. One of the witnesses saw the UAP disappear behind the trees lining the road. Received by the gendarmes at 0:55, the latter immediately left for the indicated location without the witnesses. The first observations made that same night at 1:20 did not allow any traces to be found. The next day, the gendarmes, accompanied by the witnesses, returned to the presumed location of the UAP and discovered a fire pit with a diameter of 1.60 m. The ashes were still warm. No other trace on the ground or in the vegetation, and no other testimony was collected. The investigation would show that two days earlier (June 28), farmers had lit a brush fire. The gendarmes put forward the hypothesis that the witnesses had certainly seen a whirlwind of embers coming from the brush fire, which would explain the pear- or drop-shape of the phenomenon as well as its red color. Despite a concordance of locations between the apparent position of the UAP site and the location of the brush fire pit, the hypothesis of a misidentification with the latter fits poorly with the observation of the UAP. Today, the plausible hypothesis of a misidentification with the Moon is supported not only by the fact that the Moon was setting, which is perfectly consistent with the red color of the UAP, but also by the fact that its azimuth (281°) corresponds perfectly to that of the axis of the D 54. Moreover, the visual appearance of the Moon at setting is perfectly consistent with that of the UAP as described by the witnesses, the lunar crescent being set on the horizon. Although the witnesses do not mention the presence of the Moon, it was visible in the axis they indicate. The perfect consistency between the true position of the Moon, its location, and the descriptions provided by the witnesses leaves no doubt about the misidentification. It is not the witnesses' visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation that the witnesses make of their observation through their feelings (fatigue, driving, fear). GEIPAN classifies this case as A: misidentification with the setting Moon.