Photographed in Alpes-Maritimes, France

On June 25 at 0h13 then at 0h14, two witnesses on their terrace observe the movements of round, luminous phenomena of yellow-red color that appear successively. No noise is noticed. They disappear quickly in the sky. Only one testimony is collected. The testimony is given to the gendarmerie by only one of the witnesses, who reports, in part, observations made only by his wife. This witness never responded to the GEIPAN request to fill out a questionnaire, particularly by his wife. Let us note the elements of the testimony extracted from the gendarmerie report: - Point-like appearance of the UAPs. - Color predominantly yellow and red. - Linear trajectory. - Immobilization for each of the two sequences of about 5 seconds. - Observation duration of 4 seconds (Note: not compatible with the immobilization duration noted above, which is longer) for the first sequence, then between 15 and 20 seconds for the second. - Very luminous UAP. - Observation towards the South-East (Note: for which sequence?). Also note the inclusion in the report of a photograph showing a circular luminous phenomenon of white color, without any mention of whether this image is related to the observation. As it stands, some of this data could correspond to several distinct known phenomena (satellite, meteor, airplane, or helicopter). However, information is missing to confirm or rule out any of these hypotheses, in particular: - Was the trajectory permanently linear? - Although the observation azimuth is known thanks to cross-checks carried out by the gendarmes, we do not know whether this azimuth concerns one or the other of the sequences, or both. - Data on elevation above the horizon are also absent. - Finally, there is a doubt regarding the observation and immobilization duration of the UAP mentioned by the witness twice in the report, contradicting itself. The testimony of the main witness's wife would also have been useful to add to the file, but it was never provided despite follow-ups from GEIPAN. The lack of information and the inconsistency of the testimony (notably due to many elements of indirect testimony and the non-response to the GEIPAN request for additional information) do not allow it to be used. The case is classified C: lack of reliable information.