PRALONG (42) 29.07.2023

The main witness of this observation (T1), observes through the window of his bathroom, a UAP of orange colour, of trapezoidal shape, moving horizontally. Intrigued, he went outside and alerted his partner (T2). Together, they find a second UAP of similar shape, located at a higher altitude in the sky. T1 then captures a brief UAP video, lasting a second, before finding, with T2, that the two UAPs are moving south-eastward while gaining altitude. The witness specifies that the UAPs, seen from further away, had a spherical shape and made small circular movements. No noise was otherwise perceived by the witness. According to the GEIPAN criteria, the evidential quality* of the case is good, with two witnesses of observation, one of whom sends a technical questionnaire with a sketch and a usable video. * Evidential quality is the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively established. Only one hypothesis is explored, that of observing sky lanterns (see the investigation report). The description of the phenomenon (UAP) provided by the witness, including an orange colour, a shape changing from trapezoidal to round, a comparison with a flame and the absence of noise, remains characteristic. The witness does not feel any particular strangeness, since he repeatedly compares the UAP to a lantern in his testimony. The apparent trajectory of the UAP, moving southeast, is consistent with the direction of wind, oriented to the west-northwest. Its low intensity is also an element in favour of the hypothesis, as lantern releases can only be carried out in calm weather. The description of the witness for the first UAP is also very precise, with a particular form, "trapezoidal", of “feet” that may correspond to the lantern’s suspension supports but also "small circular movements"; all these elements indicate that it was initially to be found at a small distance from the witnesses, to the east, before moving further south-east. The municipalities of Pralong (42) and Champdieu (42) did not know of a release of sky lanterns on the evening of observation, however the good description of the UAPs and the airflow conditions supported this hypothesis. GEIPAN classifies the case A: sky lanterns.