COLOMIERS (31) 25.05.2013

In May 2015, GEIPAN received an account of observations at Colomiers beginning on 25 May 2013. On the evenings of 25, 26 and 27 May, at an uncertain time between 21:00 and 22:00, T1 and 2 family members, T2 and T3, saw 3 yellow-orange lights low in the western sky. Initially stationary, the phenomenon then descended and disappeared behind the urban landscape. No particular sound was heard. Naked-eye and binocular viewing produced different descriptions of its shape, colors and other features. Only 1 questionnaire was collected. The attached investigation report identifies the following unusual features: - T1 and T3 described stars with an abnormal appearance. - T1 and T3 saw a bar of light through binoculars. - T1 described the lights' movements precisely, except for the time, which the source awkwardly calls “certain to more than an hour.” T3 did not report those movements. T2's account was confused: besides inconsistencies or contradictions, the movements were not mentioned spontaneously, suggesting they were not a strongly unusual feature for T2. T2's account therefore does not confirm T1's description of movement. Only 2 hypotheses were considered for the 3 lights appearing on 3 consecutive evenings, first stationary and then moving: helicopters or drones. GEIPAN could reasonably retain neither, assessing their probability below 30%. GEIPAN considers the evidential support weak for several reasons. T1 had been interested in UFOs since adolescence, was pleased from the first evening to make sightings and connect them with UFOs, and thought about them during the following days. Yet T1 did not take photographs or videos or call neighbors or friends, even on the third evening after 2 successive recurrences. Although already interested in unusual phenomena, T1 waited 2 years to report this sighting. GEIPAN found no indication that fear or reluctance caused the delay, since T1 discussed it publicly on forums and in the press. In GEIPAN's assessment, this weakens the evidence that the event felt strongly unusual when it occurred. There were also significant inconsistencies within individual accounts and contradictions between them. No plausible explanation was found. Nevertheless, GEIPAN considers the evidence too weak to substantiate the sighting's unusual and unexplained character. The case is classified C for insufficient reliable information.