An account in Sa�ne-et-Loire, France

A witness reports successive observations on January 6 and 7, then February 25 and 26, 2017: he observes colored phenomena moving in the sky or near the ground. The observations are long (from 8:30 PM until dawn). The gendarmes on site notice nothing. Only one testimony is collected (via the questionnaire and phone calls). The testimony reports a great strangeness: The observations take place almost every night (with or without clouds) at ground level (or even on the ground) as well as in the sky, in front of and behind the trees. Mostly glows, but there can also be something like a craft. Noises in the sky and creaking of trees are also noted. Photos on the computer can also move or reveal the witness's name in the trees. The reported strangeness is such that GEIPAN wants to have the testimony of the other witnesses present at the scene. But the wife does not want to testify. The witness's friends promise to do so but do not, whether it is the one GEIPAN was able to reach by phone in the presence of the initial witness, or another contacted separately. These two friends describe over the phone significant elements of strangeness which, while being of a similar nature (glows in the sky and on the ground), only partially overlap between witnesses. The gendarmes present one evening notice nothing, but the witness considers that the phenomenon was less strong that evening (but was still present). The refusal of three witnesses to testify greatly reduces the consistency of this testimony. This consistency is too weak to validate the strange character of a single witness's observation. Consequently, the testimony is classified as unexploitable in C: lack of reliable information. The fact that the part of the observation made by the gendarmes disagrees with the perception of the main witness only accentuates the already established lack of consistency.