CHATEAUNEUF (73) 02.07.2019

On 2 July 2019 at about 22:00, witnesses watching a stormy sky noticed a bright red light moving rapidly before disappearing behind mountains. An identical light reappeared several times in quick succession. One witness took photographs with strong zoom; only his account and photographs were collected. He wrote: “Our attention was drawn to a bright red light moving visibly rapidly... I extend the zoom fully, giving me, with intelligent zoom (cropping in the sensor), a magnification of 1475 mm, and obtain fairly good pictures, which I attach.” The unusual appearance that puzzled him came from the zoomed photographs, although he had also seen the point of light directly with the naked eye. The assessment therefore focused on the photographs (see attached image-analysis document). In P1010510.JPG, P1010511.JPG and P1010512.JPG, the camera plainly failed to focus. Severe defocus turned the orange phenomenon into a circular patch resembling bokeh, the intentional artistic blurring of roughly point-like lights. These 3 images were entirely unusable for analysis. P1010513.JPG was somewhat better focused. Enhancement revealed foreground branches at the right and bottom, and an irregular, vertical, reddish, cotton-like shape suggesting red parachute distress flares. The red-orange color, reported behavior and witness description fitted this explanation very well. Such flares ignite in the air, explaining why 2 appeared in place. They can continue rising before descending under gravity. Malfunctions or short burning times could explain why 2 were seen stationary, probably for only a few seconds at most. In this photograph, the proposed flare had finished rising and begun descending; a pyrotechnic smoke trail to its left, distorted by the local wind, marked its ascent. The source states that using distress flares outside genuine emergencies is strictly prohibited because it needlessly ties up substantial rescue resources, although pranksters sometimes launch them during celebrations. Military illumination flares, also fitted with parachutes and used to light terrain during night exercises, were another possibility, although red is rare in that context. No military exercise was identified here. P1010514 also showed defocus, although less severe than in the first 3 photographs. Foreground branches, partly visible across the defocused discs, explained why the camera focused on them rather than the UAP behind them. This image was unusable. The UAPs' red-orange color, behavior and witness description matched illumination flares very well. The zoom factor explained the photographs' unusual appearance. However, the launch source could not be identified, so the explanation remained probable rather than certain. GEIPAN classified the case B as a probable misidentification of illumination flares.