An account in Lot-et-Garonne, France

On October 23, 2015, late in the afternoon, a witness goes by car to the Fumel aerodrome (town of Montayral (47)) to "get some air with his dog." He drives along the hangars and parks his vehicle in a small area near the surveyor's beacons. He opens the door, lets his dog out, and when he turns around, he sees "a black spot in a black fog" in the sky. The UAP appears to him with a "sort of handle" shaped like an arc at the bottom left and "high and far away": it remains perfectly still and makes no noise. The sky is blue, there is no mist. The witness has neither binoculars nor a camera to observe the UAP. At one point he looks away from the phenomenon for a few seconds, then tries to see the UAP again but in vain, it has disappeared. Surprised by this observation, the witness thinks it will be mentioned in the press the next day by other witnesses, which will probably not be the case. No other testimony will be collected. Three factors (the stillness over 20 minutes, the sudden disappearance, the appearance of a distant round shape with a protrusion) oppose, individually or in combination, the various hypotheses considered: celestial body (appearance and disappearance), airplane (stillness), helicopter (appearance, noise, and non-detection by radar), witness's ophthalmological problem (stillness). The investigation focuses on a balloon, which cannot be a toy balloon (too small), nor a solar balloon (cause of disappearance?, little realism in this location), then on a hot-air balloon hypothesis. The hypothesis is realistic in this place and in the late sunny afternoon. The size (10 to 20 m) gives the minimum distance (a few km) for a perception of distance and blur around the phenomenon. Nevertheless, this hypothesis encounters two difficulties: - the description of a protrusion difficult to explain by the basket (protrusion not oriented downward). But this element is not the one most clearly detected by the witness (only after 10 minutes with a significant effort of concentration and focusing) - and above all the rapid disappearance. The witness looked away and then could no longer find the phenomenon. It is difficult to assess the duration of non-observation, and the compatibility with a descent of the hot-air balloon over that duration. This would be compatible provided that several unknowns (hot-air balloon size) or margins of error (witness's angular data on the size and elevation of the UAP) are taken in the favorable direction, in addition of course to the temporal conjunction (with the looking away). Overall, the hot-air balloon hypothesis is the strongest but its probability is well below 50% and therefore cannot be retained. The various hot-air balloon pilots in the department, contacted for this investigation, did not respond to the requests, which in itself does not constitute an argument against the hypothesis. This is a single testimony, and without photographs. It is entirely possible (rural area) that the phenomenon was not seen by other people. The witness is precise and credible, the consistency (level of information and credibility) of the testimony is just sufficient (given the level of strangeness) to validate the unexplained nature of the observation (see the investigation report). Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as D1: Unexplained phenomenon of medium strangeness. Note: this case was submitted to the GEIPAN expert panel.