An orange orb in Haut-Rhin, France

On April 15, 2012 around midnight, a witness observes the silent movement of a round orange ball that seems to be on fire. The object moves on a downward trajectory toward the East, then turns to a South heading. A second phenomenon seeming identical (on fire and orange) is spotted and seems to be joined by the first: the two UAPs move together following the same heading. The light intensity of the two UAPs gradually decreases, then they go out at the same moment. Only one questionnaire is collected. From the descriptions, one can conclude that these are two objects carried by the wind, because they follow the same trajectory; moreover, the witness also arrives at this conclusion. ("The appearance and behavior of the phenomenon made me think it was very light and carried by the wind."). The wind measured (at ground level) at the airport is N-N0 (15 km/h), which does not rule out, at higher altitude (with the influence of the city, hills, or forests), winding wind currents that could explain a direction of movement from the West and then from the North. The two UAPs follow each other on the same trajectory with an offset; the sensation of one UAP joining the other is subjective because it occurs when the UAPs are seen in the same direction and therefore with distance gaps that are difficult to assess. The orange color and the final extinction (in flight) of the two UAPs are characteristic of Thai lanterns, and a weekend night is favorable for such festive events. The description of flames at the rear of the UAP is strange for Thai lanterns, which can certainly catch fire but then fall fairly quickly. However, the perception of flames is often subjective; it can be induced by the flickering of a lantern's light for someone not accustomed to the full range of a lantern's light appearances, or even more so here by atmospheric turbulence and conditions of drizzle or light rain. This takes nothing away from the precision quality of the witness, who is an airline pilot. The investigation benefits from a careful reconstruction of the trajectory that the witness had to faithfully establish from his angular perception (because a witness only has that). Yet he places on his drawing the appearance of the 2nd UAP 5 to 6 times farther away than the closest passage of the first, and therefore from an angular perception a priori 5 or 6 times smaller. Even so, the same perception of fire comes to him for this UAP 5 or 6 times smaller and no bigger than 1/10 of the moon (according to the angular references given by the witness), which reinforces the subjective nature of the "flames" aspect. The "rear flames" aspect constitutes the only element of strangeness in a whole where everything points toward objects carried by the wind, and in particular Thai lanterns. But it is entirely possible that this aspect results from a perception difficulty (or interpretation error) favored by atmospheric conditions far from optimal. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes that the observation probably involved Thai lanterns.