BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014

On the evening of 24 April 2014, a retired couple were watching television in their conservatory. At 22:26, the husband, T1, noticed an orange light through a skylight: an incandescent orange ball edged with small orange flames and no trail. It moved through the overcast sky from the east. Thinking an airplane was on fire and about to crash, he asked his wife, T2, to photograph it in case civil aviation investigators needed evidence. Its silent, unusual flight puzzled him. He saw a triangular shape before it disappeared behind a screen of trees at the edge of the cloud cover. T2 took several mobile-phone photographs. Only 1 questionnaire was completed, and no other accounts were collected. No rational explanation was sufficiently compelling (see investigation report). A drone was the least unsatisfactory hypothesis, but relied largely on the broad range of conceivable drones rather than those actually known. Theoretical possibilities for shapes and lighting were not necessarily encountered in practice, especially in 2014. The source also considered nighttime urban flying unrealistic and dangerous, in addition to prohibited. Other proposed explanations were still weaker. The accounts were well substantiated: - T1 had ample time to observe. His excellent vision and specific professional experience made observation one of his strengths. - T2's account was less detailed because taking photographs divided her attention. The only usable image could not genuinely confirm the UAP, although its glow was not explained by the surroundings. Confusing details in her account probably arose from unexpected camera difficulties: flash activation and intervening glass, compounded by haste in relative darkness. Her account nevertheless supported T1's. - T1's triangular structure recalled other, controversial reports. A stereotype of this kind exists and could influence accounts, but both witnesses remained measured in their reactions. - An on-site investigation and cognitive interview were conducted promptly. Information collected there was more precise and sometimes differed from the questionnaire, but nothing undermined the accounts' reliability. The evidential strength supported treating the sighting as unexplained at this stage. GEIPAN classified it D1: an unexplained phenomenon of moderate strangeness.