MOUGINS (06) 25.06.2016

On June 25 at 00:13 and then 00:14, two witnesses on their terrace observed the movements of round luminous phenomena of yellow-red colour which appear successively. No noise is noticed. They disappear quickly in the sky. Only one testimony is collected. The testimony is given to the gendarmerie by only one of the witnesses, who reports, in part, observations made only by his wife. This witness has never responded to the request to complete questionnaires in particular by his wife. Let us take the evidence from the gendarmerie report: - Point-like appearance of the UAPs. - Colour with yellow and red dominant. - Linear path. - Stationary for about 5 seconds in each of the 2 sequences. - 4 seconds observation time (Note: not compatible with the above-noted immobilization time, which is higher) for the first sequence and then 15-20 seconds for the second sequence. - Very bright UAP. -Observation towards the southeast (Note: for what sequence?). Note also the presence in the report of a photograph showing a white circular luminous phenomenon, without any mention if this image is related to the observation. As they stand, some of these details may correspond to several known distinct phenomena (satellite, meteor, aircraft or helicopter...). However, there is a lack of information to confirm or invalidate any of these assumptions, in particular: - Was the path straight throughout? - Although the observation azimut is known through the cross-checks made by the gendarmes, we do not know whether this azimut concerns either or both of the sequences. - Elevation data above the horizon are also missing. - Finally, there is uncertainty about the sighting and stationary durations, which the witness gives twice in mutually contradictory terms in the report. The testimony of the wife of the main witness would also have been helpful in the record, but was never provided despite the follow-up requests of GEIPAN. The account cannot be used reliably because it is incomplete and inconsistent, particularly owing to its many secondhand elements and the lack of a response to GEIPAN’s request for more information. The case is classified as C: lack of reliable information.