An account in Aude, France

On October 13, 2012 at around 2:05 a.m., a witness observes, over a very short period of time (8 to 10 seconds), toward the west, a good dozen objects having the appearance of shooting stars, pale blue in color, very faint, following a short trajectory while crossing "in all directions" and going out quickly. These UAPs are at an estimated height of "4 or 5 fingers above the hills and rooftops of the village." Immediately after, the witness makes a second observation, at the zenith and for 15 to 20 seconds, he observes a red luminous point moving like a satellite toward the west. But this object stops dead for 3 or 4 seconds while its brightness grows rapidly, giving it a spherical appearance surrounded by a fuzzy red luminous halo. Then it moves, making a series of very rapid zigzags consisting of very sharp, angular turns, without jerks or accelerations/decelerations, to finally resume its initial trajectory, stop a second time, emit a series of vibrations, then stop a third time before disappearing definitively "at the wind turbines" at very high speed. No other testimony is collected. The conclusion of the investigation report (see the document) indicates that two observations are reported: - The UAPs observed at first have a behavior that cannot be likened to that of shooting stars. - Then the observation of another UAP whose behavior cannot be likened to any known manufactured or natural object. - Rejection of the laser spot hypothesis in the absence of a cloudy or misty screen. - Impossibility of explaining the zigzag trajectory by a micro-nystagmus perception phenomenon. This observation case cannot be explained with the elements available to the investigation. It is therefore to complete or clarify these observations that GEIPAN asked to meet the witness at the observation site for an interview and a reconstruction. Even two years later, this meeting could have been decisive. Despite several follow-ups by phone, answering machine, text message, and email, the witness could not be reached to schedule an appointment. A more recent final attempt did not succeed. It was therefore not possible to make progress in explanation, nor even to consolidate the consistency and reliability of the testimony, which therefore remain insufficient given the level of strangeness of the observations described in the questionnaire. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: insufficient information.