An account in Loire-Atlantique, 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. 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 BAULE (44) 1979 is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. Two people (T1 and T2) observe, from their home, a luminous phenomenon with a halo of red-orange and yellow colors in the night sky above Pornichet. This very large phenomenon is perceived as stationary, then moving afterward in the direction of Saint-Nazaire; the halo disappears progressively. No other testimony will be collected despite notices published by the gendarmerie in the press and on the airwaves. The two witnesses very probably observed the Moon. The Moon (El 4.6°, Az 90.5) is indeed present very low above Pornichet, seen from the Pointe de Penchateau. All the descriptions are consistent with a misidentification with the Moon rising at the horizon: - shapes: clouds were present that night; a partial and variable (holey) presence of clouds in front of the Moon can make it appear in all sorts of shapes. The mention of a halo is also consistent with the effect of diffusion of the Moon's light by mists and clouds near the hole. T2 clearly distinguishes a fairly well-delimited central shape (the hole) within a halo. T2 reports: "Indeed, I observed for about one minute a UFO, shaped like a dome, standing out clearly from a red-colored halo"; - colors: depending on the thickness of mist or cloud, the color can indeed vary from red to "violent yellow"; - size: the Moon with the halo surrounding it can indeed correspond to the width of Pornichet seen from the Pointe de Penchateau (3 or 5 degrees), as T2 mentions. - perception of movement: this comes at the end of the observation, the UAP being described as stationary until then. T1 mentions a movement toward Saint-Nazaire. This is the classic illusion produced by the decrease in angular size and/or luminosity of a UAP (here the progressive closing of the cloud hole over the Moon), which the witness very logically interprets as a distancing in distance. The geography of the place perfectly allows describing a distancing beyond Pornichet, seen from the Pointe de Penchateau, as a movement toward Saint-Nazaire. T2 moreover gives a very precise description of this apparent movement phenomenon: "When I saw this UFO move, it moved progressively at a fairly regular speed at the start, then faster afterward, but always with the same progression. It did not disappear all at once. I always saw this halo which diminished as the UFO moved away." Note T2's astonishment: "What struck me most is that this halo was not reflected either on the water or in the sky." T2 imagines the UAP at Pornichet, that is, just on the other shore of the bay relative to the observation point. It is logical to look for a mirror effect (specular reflection) on the water at a midpoint between the UAP and T2. But the Moon, like the clouds diffusing its light, is much farther away. The reflection on the water cannot be specular but only through a diffusion effect, which is much less intense and depends on the surface roughness of the water (height and orientation of the ripples), probably not strong enough that evening. Consequently, GEIPAN reclassifies the case as A: observation of the harvest Moon.