CACHAN (94) 12.09.2025

On 12 September 2025, between 09:44 and 09:46, a witness observed a luminous phenomenon in the sky from his home in the commune of Cachan (Val-de-Marne), between the east and the southeast. From a bedroom bay window, the witness saw a horizontally elongated shape consisting of aligned lights. Its overall appearance resembled aircraft portholes, with constant moderate brightness and no discernible color or sound. The object followed a straight and slow trajectory during a sequence estimated at one or two seconds. The evidential quality* of the case is assessed as low to medium. The observation is based on a single testimony, without photographs or video. The technical questionnaire presents data differences, particularly between the initial duration of 1-2 seconds and the mention of disappearance after several minutes. The absence of additional contact prevented clarification of these contradictions or refinement of the apparent distance and dimensions. *According to the GEIPAN criteria, evidential quality is the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively established. The strangeness perceived by the witness is assessed as weak: the witness himself having estimated the strangeness of his observation to be 1 in 5, stating that he was simply intrigued by the unusual appearance of aligned lights. The absence of acoustic signature and the perception of a structure evoking portholes being the main factors of the report. Several explanatory hypotheses may be considered, including the fleeting observation of an aircraft seen from a particular angle, some of whose structures or openings might have produced an impression of aligned lights, or a transient luminous reflection observed through the bay window. However, the information available is insufficient to rigorously test these assumptions, in particular because of the lack of reliable data on the distance, apparent size and actual trajectory of the phenomenon. In the absence of any complementary elements to characterize the phenomenon, despite follow-up requests to the witness, the GEIPAN classifies this case as "C": lack of data.