UFO HOVERING ABOVE SEA OFF BEACH IN MAROCCO
On November 17, 2008, we received the following testimony:
It may look trivial but when one is confronted with the real phenomenon one is puzzled.
We were on holiday at Martyl Beach, Tetouan, in the North of Marocco. I was sat in the sand and my 17-year old son was in the water. It was 11 o´clock in the morning, 25 of July 2007.
I was looking at my son occasionally, because the beach was rather desert.
Suddenly I saw a couple of things, occupying a space of no more than a square meter, flying at little more than a foot above the water very rapidly, and dangerously approaching my son. I stood up and noted that these things buzzed him without even touching him, and flew away at the same peed... They vanished over the horizon in less than a second.
I then called my son who was stunned, and he told me: "Dad, did you see these things? What is it?"
They looked like small flying fishes but the speed and regularity of their trajectory were perfect - it was not natural!!!!!
We were completely puzzled. It looked like a a flock of metallic birds flying at a vertiginous speed. Their color was greyish.
The flight was perfectly smooth.
The speed was way to high since they crossed the horizon in two or three seconds.
Najib (Rabat, Marocco)
We then contacted Mr Gerard Lebat, who is responsible for the Repas Ufologiques and lives partly in Marocco, and asked him if he would deal with this observation. Here are the results of his inquiry.
Inquiry of Gérard Lebat
Translate: John Tomlinson
It is 11 am 00 this morning of 25 July 2007, a father and son enjoy a moment of relaxation on the Martyl, beach near Tetouan in northern Morocco when they see an object moving very fast at sea level, coming from the horizon, careful not to fly over the beach and then speeding back towards the horizon.
Mr N.B. and his son were on the beach, they were exactly opposite the ERAC buildings on the new double track of the Martyl cornice. Martyl is located on the northern coast of Morocco, about 10km to the east of Tetuan, 30km from Ceuta.
It is a city of about 40'000 inhabitants, very touristic with fantastic landscapes and pleasant weather. It is also very popular for its beach, which are said to be some of the most beautiful of Morocco.
Close to Spain, Europe, Martyl is located in Morocco and therefore the North West of the African continent.
Mr N.B. is 50, lives in Rabat (Morocco), he studied at the Sorbonne in Paris where he obtained a PhD. He currently holds important positions in Morocco, Director of a large school, a specialist in ancient cities of Morocco.
His position is such that his testimony is considered serious and credible. In this survey, we will not give his name.
His son is 17; he is currently pursuing higher studies in a large University of Paris.
The two witnesses do not wear glasses; their vision is 10/10. None were wearing sunglasses that day. The observation was made with their sight, without other means of observation (pair of binoculars or other).
Between 11 and 11:30 AM on the morning of july 25 th 2007, N.B. (50° and his son (17) are vacationing in Martyl a well known maroccan touristic city.
They had decided to go to the beach that morning, tide was high, a beautiful cloudless sunny day, no waves: just a perfect environment. No boat to be seen on ocean surface, no seafaring craft anywhere in sight before, during and after sighting. This vacation place is also industrial pollution free, no nuisance of any kind.
Mister N.B. watches his son every now and then who was close to shore in the sea, while monitoring his son he suddenly sees a formation of objects flying feet above the sea level coming from the horizon at great velocity. AS these UFOs arrive at the level of the witnesses, they turn sharply seawards and fly away at great speed, they turned just about at where N.B.s son was standing from this witnesses standpoint about 15 meters away.
"I thought they were going to hit my son, their approach seemed dangerous but didnt and just passed closeby to then speed away and disppear in a second" states the witness.
The sighting last approximately twenty seconds. The flying crafts flew from apparent horizon to beach and out of sight again, right to left, and appeared to be metallic in aspect. Both witnesses do not recall colours of unidentified carfts but recall "they had no remarkably vivid colours but seemed to be grayish in aspect".
The 5 UFOs seemed solidly linked together somehow though shaped by separate identical objects. "They seemed linked together by a transparent material glasslike", declares N.B., "objects being one in back of another I couldnt see them clearly".
The speed was very high; the witness was able to account for its high speed when the object was close to his son. The speed was constant, no variation. The witness estimated that the observation did not exceed 20 seconds. (Length as being the upper range of this setting). The objects have appeared on the horizon. The estimated duration of the displacement of objects (for the beach up to the son) and visibility of the object was about 5 to 7 seconds. These objects were noiseless around the witness. No wind, no cars, or any noise that could hide any noise emitted by the flying crafts. The sea surface was perfectly flat, no presence of shoreberak, waves, boiling or other phenomena that could have been caused by the passage of the UFOs. The surface of the sea was really like a mirror. "We also note that the kinetics of the shape was perfect without deceleration or wake effects on the water surface".
The father is located about 15m from the son, the object is in turn passed to 10m from the son, next horizon.
(Either the father saw the object pass about 25 meters from him).
LIMITE DE LA VISION
BORD DE MER
Limite de vision
The mass seemed to move about 50cm from the surface of water, we even had the impression that it could affect swimmers added Mr N.B. The general movement of the objects was in a curve, fitting perfectly the shape of the beach (very low curved).
More Details given by the witness: The object was seen at eye level in the center of our field of vision on the horizon. The sun was at its highest in July which means that the rays are almost perpendicular to the ground (86° at 11.30 AM). This means their in reflect ion or contrast, on the contrary, objects are lit with rays perpendicular to the axis of observation.The shadow cast by the luminous mass enabled the witness to pay attention to this phenomenon and it seems likely that it is also with the help of this he was able to obtain an accurate measurement of distance of the object above the sea (about 50cm).
The mass, which came from the north, consisted of 5 or 6 items, maximum 7. These greyish objects had a length of about 30cm all identical; they looked like small aircrafts. The witness observed these objects from three different perspectives: front view when they arrived on his right, sideways when they were close to his son and from the rear when they dashed away.
"I was about fifteen meters from my son, who was sitting in the water on the beach." The beach is huge but MARTYL in the vicinity of N.B. were only 6 or 7 people. The beach was relatively empty. Of these some bathed, others were sitting on the beach or stood, but apparently none had paid attention to the phenomenon. His son very close to these "airplanes" was also able to observe and gave in fact the same description as his father. Mr N.B. did not have time to move during the observation he remained standing, stunned to see the phenomenon that was totally unknown.
VARIATIONS IN THE DESCRIPTION BETWEEN THE WITNESS NR 1 (FATHER - MR N.B.) AND THE WITNESS NR 2(THE SON).
The question is whether the witness Nr 2 (the Son) observed variations in relation to the description of the father. Here is what was raised about this issue, and commented by N.B.: "The only difference between the observation of my son and mine is that he considers the moving objects were moving in a straight line while I consider they turned around in a curve. Maybe this is because he had noticed the object in question only close to him and so he hadnt a view only of half the displacement of entire sighting from horizon to beach and away he recognizes that these objects were also grouped into a single system. He also confirms that it looked like small aircrafts. Their speed was immense."
WHAT THE WITNESSES STATE
Immediately after the observation, the witness thought of birds but soon realized that the speed and perfection of the flight were strange, incompatible with those of birds. In this case it would have been a flight of metallic birds moving at breakneck speed. His son had the same impression, he said: "You see that? What is this stuff? It looks like small flying fish but the speed and regularity of their trajectory is perfect. It is not natural!!!!!." The witness also thought of a flight of miniature aircraft, aircraft "that fly in formation but the speed and technology employed seem impossible and moreover, they were really small".
As for people around the witness, whom he talked with saw nothing and felt indifferent.
1 - VARIOUS REFLECTIONS:
As indicated in the title, this chapter covers only thoughts, they are not prepared analysis by specialists in the areas mentioned, which would be regarded as definitive and unassailable, but only ideas that will allow all subsequent readers freely develop hypotheses about the possible identification of this object.
In the first version of this report, we presented an analysis on a rate determined from the vision of up to one eye, taking into account the situation of witnesses, but without taking into account the size of the object. This measure can not be accepted. A more appropriate at the end of this chapter.
The dimensions of the mass (1m on 1m) or by each small object (30cm), which included, are well known as estimated during the passage of the mass was about 10 meters from the son and father of 25 meters.
Noise - Impact on the surface of the sea opinion from MP Engineer
Silence: unimaginable even a glider at short distance makes noise, this observation relates to many previous ones. Although on this point, it is better to be cautious.
It is arguable that a noise level of that of an electric motor could be covered by the waves (even if the witness said there were none, we must be realistic: there are always waves of the sea, even if some days they are softer and less noisy) and wind. I do not know Morocco, but on the north coast of Algeria, there is always wind, and probably the same in Morocco. Depending on the direction of the wind, a little noise could be imperceptible.
(Note, however, that the witness saw the object from 25m and his son was 10m away, so the setting is a good reliability: no noise.)
An object flying fast 0.30 cms above the water should leave a wake on water, (See http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rase%2Bmotte/video/x3fzkx_avions-de-chasse-en-rase-motte_fun?from=rss) unless too light or its sustenance is not based on the same principles that our wings.
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
Mr Lebat thank you for making us aware of these testimonies.
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.
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