English language version
In conclusion: A witness quite exceptional - exceptional by the nature of observation: the size of objects, their formation flying in close proximity to a swimmer is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
Comments on the analysis of the Martyl case
By Claude POHER, Dr. Astrophysics, former director of GEPAN , French official organization in charge
of studying unidentified aerial phenomena
I hope to return to some details of the analysis of this observation, in a strictly educational maner, to share my experience.
Facts material to the physicist:
The two witnesses of the phenomenon observed it with their naked eyes, the sun almost vertical. This observation was held on 25 July 2007, around 11 am, on a Mediterranean beach in Morocco, by a very sunny, very quiet, very warm day.
The phenomenon was brief and close as up to 10 / 20 meters from the witnesses. At this distance, the binocular vision of witnesses has probably helped everyone to properly assess the magnitude of the size of the phenomenon and perhaps also its minimum distance.
However, more delicate, with regard to distance, lack of references over the sea, with a phenomenon observed for the first time, because there was apparently no effect on the water surface, to determine the verticality of the phenomenon. Binocular vision does not help in the vertical direction, facing the sea The curved path of travel of the phenomenon has remained close to the sea surface in a horizontal plane (about 0.5 meters above the surface of the water), at about eye level of witnesses. The total duration of observation was estimated between 10 and 20 seconds. a Witness however said he was surprised at the speed of movement, and of the silence of the observation. A period of 20 seconds is extremely long, just consider a stopwatch to check this.
The dimensions of the unidentified objects were estimated subjectively by witnesses about a meter in the horizontal direction, and a few tens of centimeters in thickness vertically. Witnesses describe some details of the configuration of the phenomenon.
Comments on optics of the human eye:
The human eye has an angular resolution of one minute of arc (1 / 3000 e radian). This is the result of several factors, such as the size of the photosensitive cells of the retina, the diameter of the optics of the eye, the characteristics of the internal transparent medium, etc. ...
This resolution must mean nothing is observable by a human if its apparent size (diameter / distance) is less than 1 / 3000.
Therefore, for a phenomenon of a meter in diameter, the maximum distance at which a man could distinguish it is 3000 meters, in ideal weather conditions. For details of 10 centimeters it is 300 meters. And for an observer not warned of the emergence of a quiet phenomenon, it is clear that it would begin to distinguish that much closer to him.
In these conditions (always ideal from the air) it is preferable to consider that the object has been perceived by the human eye, at the beginning of the observation, from about 2000 or 1000 meters.
Regarding the removal phase of the phenomenon one may consider probably a maximum distance of 3,000 meters to be retained, in ideal weather conditions, because the eyes follow the phenomenon until it can no longer be observable.
In short, in ideal weather conditions, this would have gone 4 to 5 kilometers or less in 10 to 20 seconds. This would correspond to a minimum speed of around 200 meters per second, and a maximum speed of around 500 meters per second. The speed of sound is 340 meters per second.
Comments Atmospheric :
witnesses describe a pattern of gray, which is observed almost horizontally over the sea
In these circumstances, we can not say that the observation was held in ideal weather conditions.
But it is only the contrast sky / travel phenomenon that attracts the attention of witnesses.
The atmospheric circulation makes it even more difficult the perception of the phenomenon range, especially since it is a silent phenomenon that can not attract attention by its contrast with the natural light from the horizon.
By adding the constraints of the atmospheric conditions, it seems very likely that the distance at which a phenomenon of this size and this gray, silent, could not be seen by witnesses from a distance of 3 km. less than 1,000 meters. would seem more probable.
The actual speed of the phenomenon should be significantly less than the limits calculated above. In these circumstances it seems to me highly premature to conclude it moving at supersonic speed without defining various considerations. This kind of premature conclusion that creates unease among those who do not share our point of view. We must absolutely avoid hasty conclusions. Conclusion means that the investigation is completed.
It is not the case here.
Do not ask questions about the distance, size or duration: simulate, measure, timing. We realize that the analysis of evidence of this kind is based on key parameters, which are the dimensions of the phenomenon, the distance of observation, the duration of the various phases of its trajectory. It is our interest to identify this data as objectively as possible.
From experience, I found that it is possible and preferable to appeal to the visual and temporal memory of witnesses. Even years after the fact.
Therefore the best method seems to be to get the witnesses at the location of their sighting in compliance with conditions (time, weather) as similar as possible.
Instead of them (the words are traps, they do not have the same meaning for everyone), it is better to try a simulation of the physical facts, phase by phase, the witnesses involved separately and observe each other.
To make the simulation, here we could use a grey cardboard simulating the objects held vertically by an assistant in a motorized boat. The witness, placed where they were on the beach, would only say by radio radio " closer, more to the left or right," ... And nothing else.
A GPS or a theodolite (or simple poles and a decameter) investigators would then easily obtain more objective distances of displacement.
This method is very effective, we are often surprised at the consistency of the witnesses. Similarly, for the duration, do not ask questions but let the witnesses each separately describe and wait the duration they believed observation took place with investigators measuring each time the estimated break down period lasted.
Each witness should focus on his memories, in silence, eyes closed if necessary, and trying to show the evolution of his own observation using memory, so as to to explain to investigators without speaking. Witness trying to respect, in his memory,the speed of evolution of the phenomenon.
The human body has several internal clocks, and guards unconscious memory, even years after the fact. An investigator examines the actions of witnesses and the stopwatch simply reconstituted each phase, without saying anything, simply noting the time elapsed with the stopwatch in silence.
This should be done several times in order to calculate averages, phase by phase (approach, passing a short distance, distance). Do not indicate the length timed to witness in order not to create situations of conflict between his personal assessment and timing.
Proceed separately for each witness, and calculate average figures.
This method often reveals great surprises. The actual period of times averaged are often much shorter than those measured orally (5 times lower in some cases).
This method of recovery time does not necessitate going on site, the witness may attempt to revive the scene in a chair, away from the scene.
However, regarding the assessment of dimensions and distances, coupled with a contrast, nothing beats an on-site simulation, under realistic conditions.
This observation is certainly interesting, but much remains to be done before concluding.
With more objective results, discussion and conclusions would give them greater weight, of course.
End of return answer from GEPAN former chiarman , mister Claude Poher , PHD ASTROPHYSICS - No event proved so far as to identify the phenomenon.
As might be expected, after reading a number of opinions, so far we could not give any explanation for this observation. There is nothing we can prove with certainty that this is a particular object land or natural phenomenon.
The file is not closed, if you have any ideas please contact gerard lebat by email at email@example.com
Gérard LEBAT – Translate : John Tomlinson (c)