NIMES (30) 13.10.2015

On 13 October 2015 at 00:40, a witness was disturbed by aircraft noise overhead, described as a fighter aircraft passing. He opened his shutters to investigate and saw above his building a “craft” with several triangular shapes and white points. He immediately filmed it. The wind was strong and cold, so he could not remain outside long. On reviewing the video, he found several apparent craft, including a more or less stationary point. He reported to GEIPAN in May 2019. No other account was collected. The supplied video shows several luminous points and an orange oval shape. He said he had seen only one UAP directly; the other points appeared only in the recording. He described a clear, starry sky, whereas Nîmes-Garons weather records for the morning of 13 October 2015 show heavy cloud, humid conditions, north-to-south wind at 20 km/h gusting to 35 km/h, and visibility limited to 13 km (see weather document). GEIPAN notes that heavy cloud could explain appearances and disappearances and reduce strangeness. Such inconsistency is normal in a delayed account, but makes identification harder and weakens evidential substance. He also said in the questionnaire that he did not remember the astronomical conditions, yet specified “a completely clear, starry sky” under weather conditions. GEIPAN examined several hypotheses: - Lanterns for the points: a weekday in October, in the middle of the night with 20–35 km/h wind, does not favour lanterns, although they could resemble the points seen only on video. North-to-south wind is poorly compatible with the reported east/southeast observation. - Military aircraft: he heard aircraft before but not during the observation. That does not exclude an aircraft, since distance, path direction and altitude can leave it inaudible at the observer’s location. The brief sighting does not confirm the east/southeast trajectory given for the one UAP seen directly. The reporting delay prevents retrieval of radar confirmation for civilian or military flights. Aircraft seem the most probable hypothesis but cannot be confirmed. GEIPAN cannot validate the reported strangeness: weather may explain disappearances, and aircraft are compatible with the noise that first drew him to the window. Despite the video, the evidential substance is poor because its additional points were not seen in real time and could be optical effects or lens reflections. The delay also prevents obtaining supplementary information to confirm aircraft. GEIPAN classifies the case C: insufficient reliable information.