A triangle shape in Orne, France

On October 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM, a witness in his yard observes for 2 seconds the rapid NE-SW movement in the clear sky of a dark triangular object carrying fixed navigation lights at the corners. No noise is heard. The witness takes two photographs which, according to him, turn out to be unusable. The witness will make the same observation at 11:43 PM but the path of the UAP is in the opposite direction. No other testimony has been collected. The case is published on 02/23/2016 and classified C for lack of consolidated information and cross-checks. It is currently under review. The sincerity of the witness is heavily tainted by several points (see the investigation report): - a contrast treatment on the two photos (which the witness attributes to the two successive passages of the UAP on the first evening) highlights the presence of a dark mass (which can be attributed to the facade of a building that is indeed present and that borders the yard in front of the chimney clearly visible in the photo) and that what is described as a moving UAP (and identified as such in the photo by the witness) does not in fact move from one photo to the other (because it remains at the same level relative to the dark mass). It is not possible to explain how these fixed lights could have appeared so mobile and fleeting to the witness; - initially the witness finds nothing in these same photos that matches his observation: "The camera could not capture the movement despite its setup. Photos unusable." and he then sends them to GEIPAN as showing the presence of the UAPs, without any reservation on his part; - neither the dates nor the times of the photos match those of the two UAP passages to which the witness associates these photos. The hypothesis of a date and time malfunction of the camera can hardly be retained because the gap between the photos is 3 minutes while the witness gives UAP passage times spaced nearly 3 hours apart while specifying the time to the minute (7:54 PM and 11:43 PM). Such precision rules out the hypothesis of a memory error regarding the spacing of the UAP passages. The mix-up between photos can hardly be retained either because these photos are explicitly associated with the observation since the witness spots the UAP in them; - the witness does not respond to GEIPAN's request to specify the date of the photos. The only way to explain these inconsistencies other than by a deliberate action of fabricating evidence would be that the witness, impressed by his visual observation and regretting so much not finding any trace in the photos, ends up attributing to the UAP a strangeness found in the photos. But then these fixed lights would have to be visible only in photos and not to the naked eye, which is very implausible. In any case, such a hypothesis would also highlight a lack of sincerity of the witness through the absence of reservations or questions that such a situation required on his part, not to mention the absence of response to the GEIPAN email requesting details on the dates and on the environment of the photo taking. This testimony is of medium consistency: not very precise, coming from a single witness, accompanied by two photographs not showing the phenomenon, with imprecise shooting conditions. But the consistency is sufficient to establish the hypothesis of lack of sincerity of the witness. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes that the available elements do not allow any physical explanation of the UAP but allow retaining the hypothesis that the strangeness very probably results from a lack of sincerity of the witness, not on the fact of having seen something strange (no element allowing us to exclude it) but in the testimony that is made of it. Classification A: High probability of hoax or lack of sincerity of the witness.