Moving in formation in Haute-Garonne, France

Testimony received in May 2015 of an observation made on May 25, 2013. On the evenings of May 25, 26, and 27, 2013 (uncertain time between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m.) the witness (T1) and two other people (T2 and T3) from his family observe the presence of 3 colored lights (yellow-orange) at low altitude in a westerly direction. The phenomenon, stationary then in downward movement, disappears hidden by the urban landscape. No particular noise is heard. The observation is made with the naked eye and with binoculars, which leads to different descriptions of the UAP (shape, colors, etc.). Only one questionnaire is collected. According to the investigation report (attached), the elements of strangeness are: - the stars with an abnormal appearance: for T1 and T3. - the bar of light (seen with binoculars) for T1 and T3. - the movement of the lights: described precisely by T1, except for the time which is certain to within more than one hour. Not part of T3's observation. It is confused for T2; beyond the inconsistencies or contradictions, these movements are not reported spontaneously and therefore do not seem to represent a strongly perceived strangeness. T2's testimony does not confirm T1's regarding these UAP movements. Only two hypotheses are considered for this succession of 3 consecutive evenings of these 3 fixed then moving lights: helicopters or drones. But neither can be reasonably retained (probability < 30%). The consistency of the testimony is weak: - T1 has been interested in UFOs since adolescence, is satisfied from the first evening to see observations and to be able to link them to UFOs, thinks about it in the following days, but does not think of taking photos or videos, nor of calling neighbors or friends, not even on the 3rd evening while the observation has already occurred 2 evenings in a row. - T1, although pre-sensitized to the strange, waited two years to report his own strange observation. One does not find in him the fear or restraint created by fright or strangeness that could explain the delay in reporting, since he speaks about it publicly on forums and in the press. This would tend to reduce the reality of the strangeness perceived at the time of the observation. - Inconsistencies (within the testimonies) or contradictions (between the testimonies) on notable points. The observation finds no plausible explanation. However, the consistency of the testimony is too weak to validate the strange and unexplained character of the observation. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.