A triangle shape in Haute-Garonne, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined. On September 1, 2000, around 5:30 a.m. (around 3:30 a.m. UTC), a man briefly catches sight of a geometric shape made of luminous points in a triangle shape. The UAP disappears behind a building. No noise is heard. No other testimony will be collected. The routine investigation that the then-GEIPAN (SEPRA) conducts with the aviation authorities shows that the airport radar confirms the recording of 3 unknown traffic tracks detected at 5:40 a.m. in the southeast of Toulouse. The recording, which is not confirmed by the military authorities, is entrusted to the DGAC radar specialists for expert analysis. The result of the expert analysis is definitive: these tracks are not significant. They actually come from a parasitic response caused by an aircraft flying beyond the radar's effective range. The coincidence with the witness's observation briefly made it seem like confirmation of the materiality of his observation. That was not the case. GEIPAN had then classified the observation itself as unexplained. The re-review of this case, 18 years later, finds nothing to correct in the analysis of the radar artifact. On the other hand, the unexplained nature of the observation can no longer be retained given the consistency of the testimony. This testimony is very imprecise: - What was orange, the luminous points or the whole shape? According to the witness's drawing, one might think it was only the luminous points, but then what does the witness mean by "shape"? In GEIPAN's experience, many witnesses believe they see a solid shape connecting luminous points (which are actually isolated) in the sky; - how long did the observation last. The expression "I barely had time to catch sight of it" could mean a fraction of a second or 10 seconds. In the first case, one might think of shooting stars or a meteoroid re-entry with fragmentation, but one would still need the angular spacing of the points (size of the triangle) and the presence or absence of halos. In the second case (observation lasting 10 seconds), the first hypothesis (shooting stars or atmospheric re-entry) is ruled out. Depending on the shape of the luminous points and the behavior of the light, one might think of a flight of white birds backlit by urban lights (a misidentification already recorded; do a case search on with the keyword "bird"); - it is only known that it was going from North to Southwest, which goes against objects carried by the wind, which is from the South (7 km/h). There are too many unanswered questions to be able to explore, confirm, or refute the hypotheses that GEIPAN has learned to pose (perhaps not the case 18 years ago) when a witness sees several luminous points in a triangle. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.