SAINTE-FOY-DE-PEYROLIERES (31) 08.07.2018

On 8 July 2018 at 23:30, in Sainte-Foy-de-Pérollière (31), a witness telephoned GEIPAN a few minutes after a very brief UAP sighting. He had been unable to photograph or film it. Another person present that evening did not see it; according to the sole account collected, everything happened very quickly. Two months later, the witness completed a technical questionnaire describing moving lights in the night sky. He reported changes in the trajectories of the lights and a dark object, extraordinarily fast movement, changes in the geometric arrangement of the lights, and fluctuations in brightness before the phenomenon disappeared. The entire observation lasted about 20 seconds and comprised 5 phases: 1. About 1 minute after a shooting star passed, 5–6 very bright points appeared and descended a short distance with a “cascade” effect, then dimmed. This phase lasted about 4–5 seconds. 2. For about another 5 seconds, 4 lights appeared in a line, continuing the preceding cascade effect. The formation moved slowly downward, gradually drawing closer until a dark rectangular shape became visible, with the 4 lights geometrically aligned on it. Toward the end of this phase, the witness distinguished dark-orange shades. 3. The movement changed from vertical to horizontal while still appearing slow. The rectangle gradually became triangular, then gained speed. 4. The witness considered this the strangest phase: the shape accelerated extraordinarily rapidly, without sound or a trail. He followed it visually for about 1–2 seconds. 5. It became rectangular again, as in phase 2, moved slowly and faded into the night until it disappeared. GEIPAN collected one very detailed account. It considers its evidential support good despite the absence of photographs or video. A field investigation enabled a reconstruction, and a cognitive interview improved the investigator's understanding. Although the interview took place some time after the sighting, GEIPAN considers that it also confirmed the account's internal coherence. Under GEIPAN's criteria, evidential support depends on the quantity and reliability of the information collected. The account contains much detailed information, particularly about the key fourth phase, which the witness estimated at only 1–2 seconds. His observation was chaotic and interrupted: he “jumped up” and said, “I also had to get past a large tree, a bay laurel, to keep following it visually, which I managed to do”; “I must have lost sight of it for 1 second.” This point could not be clarified conclusively. GEIPAN identifies it as probably the only contradiction in the account, since the witness also said that he never lost sight of the UAP. The witness found the sighting extremely strange, especially its silence, the extraordinary acceleration in phase 4, and lights apparently forming dark geometric shapes, alternately rectangular and triangular. GEIPAN considers that substantial strangeness remains after investigation and does not question the account's evidential support. The investigation was lengthy and examined extensive material and numerous hypotheses (see the investigation report). GEIPAN used its fullest investigative methods, both remotely and in the field, and consulted its expert committee twice. It examined 7 hypotheses: 1. A passing satellite train. 2. Fragmentation during atmospheric reentry. 3. Fireworks. 4. An aircraft. 5. Several aircraft flying in formation or a squadron. 6. A retinal afterimage following possible earlier exposure to the bright lights illuminating the house's façade. 7. A coordinated drone display. Civilian or military aircraft flying in formation with their landing lights on provided the closest match to the reported details. However, GEIPAN considers that 2 factors rule this out: - The angular distance covered, about 90°–110° in 4 seconds, implies very high speed and therefore some proximity, yet no sound was heard despite wind favorable to carrying it. - The radar traces show too few aircraft, and their distribution in altitude and direction does not match the account. GEIPAN's aviation expert also considered a nighttime squadron flight unlikely, further weakening the formation-flight hypothesis. GEIPAN did not obtain the National Air Operations Centre's (CNOA) air-traffic radar records in time. It renewed the request after the CNOA's data-retention period had elapsed. It did obtain radar data for the Toulouse area from Blagnac air traffic control, but these may cover a time window slightly too late for the sighting. Based on the investigation and the expert committee's assessment, GEIPAN classifies the case D: a phenomenon whose nature and origin remain unexplained.