An orange orb in Saône-et-Loire, 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 C and named LOUHANS (71) 1980, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On April 7, 1980, around 2 a.m., two people (T1 passenger and T2 driver) traveling on the D13 departmental road a few kilometers from Saint-Usuge (71) noticed a red-orange light at very low altitude. This light was located approximately above the river "la Seille" and seemed to move following the watercourse. On the D178 at the place called "Varennes", the UAP was seen as a ball, moving close to the ground in successive leaps. The witnesses then saw the ball fall and come to a stop on one side of the road. The driver stopped, then, panicking, reversed and made a U-turn. As a car approached from the opposite direction, the witnesses saw the ball gain altitude and disappear. The witnesses went to the gendarmerie. The observation lasted about 10 minutes. This case is consistent (two witnesses), the description of the observed UAP is fairly precise. The sincerity and credibility of the witnesses have never been questioned (see investigation notes). The initial classification of C does not seem justified at all. The described phenomenon presents many common characteristics (observation duration, shape, size, color) with a perfectly known astronomical object: the Moon at moonrise. The Moon was indeed rising in the axis the witnesses indicate. The perceptions of movement of the UAP correspond to the typical illusions created by a celestial body: The UAP follows the moving witnesses along a parallel trajectory; this is the illusion of the following ball. - the direction of the celestial body is of course fixed in absolute terms. When the witness's car follows a roughly constant heading, the celestial body is fixed relative to the vehicle and moves along the landscape. Since the witness does not see a celestial body but a UAP and considers it to be at a close distance, this movement along the landscape is perceived as a displacement of the UAP parallel to the vehicle, reproducing the starts/stops; - the perception of UAP movement is introduced by its (apparent) movement along the landscape. In a total absence of landscape (sea, desert), the illusion does not occur or occurs little. If landscape landmarks are close, the celestial body moves quickly behind them; if they are far, the movement and therefore the perceived speed of displacement of the UAP is less. An alternation of landmarks more or less close in the landscape is enough for the witness to perceive jerky movements of the UAP in leaps ("moving in leaps"). Likewise, the notion of the UAP's height relative to the landscape below is relative; an alternation of landscape heights (poorly recognized) can induce a perception of alternation of the UAP's absolute height, also contributing to the notion of movement by leaps of the UAP. Another movement phenomenon of the celestial body can be created by its variation in light intensity, itself caused by the evolution of the atmospheric veil in front of the celestial body (the sky not being completely clear). This variation is logically interpreted by the witness as a variation in distance (toward him or away from him) of the UAP at speeds often described as lightning-fast, particularly during the flight and final disappearance. This flight in distance is then logically described as a flight into the sky or "a gain of altitude," and the witness of course sees and describes no variation in position in elevation or azimuth (indeed, those of the celestial body are fixed). Here, the witness says "the ball rose at great speed, veering to the right relative to our direction of travel." Indeed, previously the UAP "followed" the witnesses and had a parallel trajectory on their right; the final flight in distance of the UAP is logically perceived as a moving away toward the right of the UAP, therefore with a change of trajectory of the latter. It should be noted the state of stress and panic in which the witnesses are plunged: "panic-stricken, my mother reversed" (T1). It is not the witnesses' visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation the witnesses make of their observation through their feelings (fatigue, night driving, panic). Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as UAP A: observation linked to a misidentification with the Moon at moonrise.