An account in Pyr�n�es-Orientales, France

GEIPAN continues to publish all of its archives on its public website www.geipan.fr. Among its publications are old cases that were classified at the time as type "D" cases and that are now being re-examined, with the sole aim of being more relevant in the conclusions. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change of classification explained in an investigation note. This observation case formerly named MONT LOUIS (66) 1978 is one of the D cases recently revisited. On 26 February 1978, a witness reported to the gendarmerie an observation of a UAP made on 16 February at 6:40 a.m. for one minute. While driving his truck on the RN 116 in the municipality of SAUTO (66), the witness saw ahead of him, above the Têt valley, a luminous phenomenon he could not explain. He stopped and got out of his vehicle. First stationary above the valley, at the horizontal level of the witness's gaze, the UAP then departed at very high speed toward the North-North-East, without noise, passing above the witness. The UAP was then accompanied by a luminous trail, compared to that of fireworks. A second UAP, ovoid in shape and dark dull in color, followed the first UAP. The investigation conducted on site by the gendarmerie did not find any other witness. No anomaly on the EDF power grid was noted. No trace on the ground or on the vegetation in the surrounding areas was found. The described phenomenon presents many common characteristics (observation duration, shape, size, color, trajectory) with a rare astronautic phenomenon: a satellite re-entry. Moreover, there was indeed a satellite re-entry on the trajectory and at the indicated time, on 15 February 1978: that of Cosmos 250 (see the investigation notes). The meteorological data dated 15 February 1978 are consistent with those of the witness, which is not the case for those of 16 February, which supports the date error. The starting position of the UAP is marked in the gendarmerie report as below the horizon, with a mention "according to the witness's statements." This would not be compatible with an atmospheric re-entry. However, the witness does not directly say that the UAP was below the horizon but seems to deduce it ("at the horizontal level of my gaze, therefore below the summits of the surrounding mountains") while remembering above all that it was at the horizontal level of his gaze, which is an imprecise notion. The perfect consistency between the UAP's trajectory, its time, and that of the atmospheric re-entry of Cosmos 250 on 15 February 1978 leaves no doubt about the misidentification. This case is moderately consistent (single witness), the description of the observed UAP is moderately precise. The sincerity and credibility of the witness have never been questioned. However, due to his late report, he got the observation date wrong, and poorly remembered the initial position of the UAP relative to the horizon, which is perfectly understandable. In GEIPAN's current classification, this case of low strangeness is classified as UAP A, observation linked to a misidentification with an artificial atmospheric re-entry, involving the satellite Cosmos 250.