Red lights in Paris, France

On August 21 and 22, 2017, between 9 PM and 11 PM, a witness on their balcony on the 8th floor is intrigued by the stationary presence and movement of lights, which they film and photograph. Only one testimony is collected. The testimony had a certain strangeness, since it suggested that the individual lights were stationary for a significant duration. In fact, the witness, contacted by phone, clarifies that each one, taken individually, lasts at most one or two minutes. The same contact allows knowing the orientation of the observation, which is generally South from Paris 10th arrondissement (contradictory indications in the questionnaire, the witness indicates the UAP in the NE). These two elements naturally lead to the hypothesis of airplane landing lights at Orly. Indeed, the traffic shows many configurations of airplanes approaching Orly toward the North, and therefore with their lights facing Paris. The flight altitude is then between 1000 m and 3000 m, and the distance from Paris is 20 to 60 km. With a travel speed of 400 km/h, the airplane can remain near the same heading toward Paris (and therefore with a quasi-stationary effect seen from Paris) over 20 km, which is already 3 minutes. The altitudes correspond to a height in the sky of a few degrees for a witness in Paris with an unobstructed view above the rooftops, a UAP height consistent with the photos and videos of the observation. The airplane hypothesis is beyond doubt, even less so when the witness specifies on the phone that for at least one of the lights, this evolution led to perceiving and recognizing the green and red lights of an airplane. One might wonder why the misidentification occurs one evening for a witness living in the same apartment for over 10 years. But one might just as well wonder why the witness did not mention in their testimony the presence of airplane lights associated with one of the UAPs, and why they place the UAPs to the North-Northeast for an observation from a balcony facing South. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: airplane.