RIXHEIM (68) 15.04.2012

On 15 April 2012 at about midnight, a witness saw a round orange ball move silently, apparently on fire. It descended eastward, then turned south. A second apparently identical orange, fiery phenomenon appeared, and the first seemed to join it. Both followed the same heading together. They gradually dimmed and went out simultaneously. Only one questionnaire was collected. GEIPAN considers the shared path evidence of two windborne objects, a conclusion the witness also reached: “The appearance and behaviour made me think it was very light and ‘carried by the wind.’” Ground wind at the airport was from north-northwest at 15 km/h. GEIPAN notes that winding airflow higher up, influenced by the city, hills or woodland, could explain movement first from the west and then from the north. The two UAPs followed the same route with an offset. Their apparent convergence is subjective because it occurred when they were in the same viewing direction, making relative distances difficult to judge. The orange colour and extinction in flight are characteristic of sky lanterns, and a weekend night favours celebratory releases. Flames trailing behind are unusual: lanterns can catch fire, but then fall fairly quickly. GEIPAN notes that perceived flames can be subjective, caused by flickering unfamiliar lantern light and, especially here, atmospheric turbulence, drizzle or light rain. This does not diminish the witness’s care and precision as an airline pilot. The investigation benefits from a careful path reconstruction based on his angular perceptions, the only direct spatial information available to a witness. His drawing places the second UAP’s appearance 5–6 times farther away than the first’s closest passage, implying an apparent angular size 5–6 times smaller. Yet he perceived fire in this smaller UAP too, no larger than one tenth of the Moon according to his angular references. GEIPAN sees this as reinforcing the subjective nature of the flame impression. “Rearward flames” are the only anomaly in an account otherwise strongly suggesting windborne objects, particularly sky lanterns. Perceptual difficulty or misinterpretation under far-from-ideal atmospheric conditions could explain that appearance. GEIPAN concludes that the observation probably concerned sky lanterns.