BAZAS (33) 03.01.2025

On 3 January 2025 at about 03:00, a witness in Bazas (33) was awakened by strong white lights on the ground to the south. Sometimes rotating and brighter than car headlights, they remained under observation for approximately 1 hour 15 minutes. At about 04:15, a string-like arrangement of variously coloured steady and flashing lights appeared in the same direction, remaining in the same position for 15–20 minutes before disappearing abruptly. The witness recorded a video just over 1 minute long. Finally, at about 04:30, 2 other flashing lights appeared higher up, a white one to the south-southeast and a reddish one to the southeast. They were watched for approximately 15 minutes before going out suddenly. The source treats these as 2 separate final observations. Each involved only a single flashing light, with too little information for identification, no photograph or video, no established connection to the first 2 sightings and little strangeness. They were therefore not investigated further. GEIPAN found good evidential support for the first 2 sightings, particularly the second. There was only 1 account, but it was complete and submitted 2 days later; analysis of the second sighting's video added information. GEIPAN defines evidential support as the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively established. The witness considered a drone, then rejected it by treating all 4 observations as one sequence, saying he would be surprised to see 3 drones in Bazas at 04:00 on 3 January. After ruling out an aircraft (see the investigation report), GEIPAN examined the drone hypothesis and found it plausible. The varied steady and flashing colours did not match conventional red, green and white aviation lighting and instead resembled lights fitted by drone hobbyists. A large, accessible meadow lay along the line of sight, sufficiently distant from houses while offering a broad view of the village. GEIPAN proposed that one or more operators could have tested and flown a drone there, keeping it in sight without disturbing neighbours, despite the source's stated prohibition on night flights. It considered the maximum-height rules apparently respected because the UAP stayed near the ground, at the boundary between a prohibited zone and one allowing a maximum altitude of 60 m. Video analysis using GEIPAN's IPACO software placed a hypothetical drone between its operator and the witness, approximately 100–340 m away for a standard size of 30–100 cm. GEIPAN again noted that night flying would breach the stated rules, describing this as a frequent infringement by enthusiasts testing illuminated equipment. These are the source's regulatory assessments. GEIPAN classified the case B: probable recreational drone. IPACO is its image-analysis and processing software, referenced at IPACO.fr.