CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-20180650550 CORROBORATED
The Andernos-les-Bains Red Lights Observation
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20180650550 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2018-06-23
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Andernos-les-Bains, Gironde, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
15 seconds
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
light
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Witnesses Number of known witnesses who reported the event
2
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
On June 23, 2018, at approximately 23:15-23:30, two witnesses observed multiple bright red luminous objects moving silently across the sky in Andernos-les-Bains, France. The primary witness (T1), an amateur astronomer who was photographing the Moon and Jupiter with his telescope on his terrace, was alerted by his spouse (T2) to the phenomenon. T2 first observed two red objects (PANs - Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés) traveling from east to west, but T1 arrived too late to witness this initial passage.
Two to three minutes later, T2 called T1 again for the same phenomenon. This time, T1 successfully observed three identical bright red, highly luminous objects traveling from the east toward the south or southwest. The objects moved relatively slowly at a fairly low altitude, did not blink, and emitted no sound. The witness observed them for approximately 15 seconds before they disappeared behind trees and houses. The objects were described as identical to each other and to those from the first passage.
GEIPAN conducted an official investigation and classified this case as 'B' (probable explanation identified). Only one of the two witnesses submitted testimony to GEIPAN, and no photographs or videos were captured, resulting in a medium consistency rating for the case. The investigation concluded that the witnesses very likely observed sky lanterns carried by the wind, based on the characteristics of the sighting, timing (Saturday evening), favorable weather conditions (weak wind in June), and local festivities being held in Andernos-les-Bains that evening.
02 Timeline of Events
23:15-23:30
Astronomical Observation Begins
T1 is on his terrace photographing the Moon and Jupiter with his telescope under clear conditions favorable for sky watching.
23:15-23:30 (initial)
First Passage - Two Red Objects
T2 observes two bright red objects traveling from east to west on the opposite side of the house. She alerts T1, but he arrives too late to witness this first passage.
23:18-23:33 (2-3 minutes later)
Second Passage - Three Red Objects Observed
T2 alerts T1 again to the phenomenon. T1 successfully observes three identical bright red, highly luminous objects moving slowly from east toward south/southwest at low altitude. Objects are silent and non-blinking.
23:18-23:33 (+15 seconds)
Objects Disappear Behind Landscape
After approximately 15 seconds of observation by T1, the three objects disappear behind trees and houses, concluding the sighting.
Post-incident
GEIPAN Investigation Initiated
One witness submits testimony to GEIPAN. No photographs or videos were captured. Investigation establishes medium consistency rating and identifies local festivities as probable context for sky lantern launch.
Post-investigation
Case Classified as 'B'
GEIPAN concludes the observation was very likely sky lanterns carried by wind, based on visual characteristics, movement patterns, timing (Saturday evening), weather conditions, and local celebrations. Case closed with probable explanation.
03 Key Witnesses
T1 (Primary Witness)
Amateur astronomer / civilian
medium
Amateur astronomer who was photographing the Moon and Jupiter with his telescope when the incident occurred. Observed the second group of objects for approximately 15 seconds.
"Ces PANs se déplacent relativement lentement, à une altitude assez basse et ne clignotent pas. T1 ne perçoit aucun bruit émanant de ces PANs."
T2 (Spouse)
Civilian witness
medium
Spouse of primary witness who first observed the phenomenon and alerted T1 to both passages of the objects. Witnessed both the initial two objects and the subsequent three objects.
"T2 vient de constater de l'autre côté de la maison le passage de deux PANs de couleur rouge d'est en ouest."
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case demonstrates textbook characteristics of Chinese lanterns: silent movement, bright red/orange coloration, slow horizontal trajectory consistent with wind direction, low altitude, multiple objects in formation, and appearance during evening festivities. The GEIPAN investigation was thorough in establishing contextual factors including the day of the week (Saturday), season (June with favorable weather), and local celebrations that would typically involve lantern releases for weddings, parties, or anniversaries. The witness credibility is enhanced by T1's background as an amateur astronomer engaged in legitimate astronomical observation when interrupted by the phenomenon, suggesting familiarity with celestial objects and aircraft.
The case's evidential value is limited by the lack of photographic documentation despite T1 having telescope equipment available, though the rapid nature of the event and its occurrence on the opposite side of the house from his observation position provides reasonable explanation. The medium consistency rating is appropriate given single witness testimony submission and absence of corroborating physical evidence. The investigation acknowledges that while red lanterns are possible, orange is more typical, and no direct confirmation of a lantern launch was found despite festivities occurring in the area. The classification as 'B' rather than 'A' (certain explanation) reflects this minor uncertainty, though the preponderance of evidence strongly supports the lantern hypothesis.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
Formation of Anomalous Aerial Objects
Some might argue the objects represent genuinely anomalous phenomena given the identical appearance of multiple objects, precise formation, and appearance during astronomical observation by a witness familiar with celestial objects. However, this interpretation is undermined by the strong contextual evidence for sky lanterns, the typical characteristics displayed, and lack of any truly anomalous behavior. The witness's astronomical knowledge would make misidentification of conventional celestial objects unlikely but would not necessarily aid in identifying terrestrial pyrotechnic devices encountered unexpectedly.
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Conventional Aircraft or Drones
Alternative prosaic explanation could involve illuminated drones or small aircraft with red navigation lights operating in formation, possibly as part of the evening festivities. However, this theory is less supported than sky lanterns given the complete silence reported by witnesses, the low altitude, slow speed, and lack of blinking lights typical of aircraft. The movement pattern and visual characteristics more strongly align with wind-borne objects rather than powered flight.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case is almost certainly explained as Chinese sky lanterns released during local festivities. The GEIPAN investigation correctly identified all key indicators: the visual characteristics (bright red, non-blinking lights), behavioral patterns (silent, slow horizontal movement at low altitude matching wind direction), temporal context (Saturday evening in summer with favorable weather), and circumstantial evidence (local celebrations). While the specific launch could not be definitively traced, likely due to private rather than official release, the convergence of multiple supporting factors makes the sky lantern explanation highly probable. This case serves as a useful reference example of how mundane explanations can initially appear anomalous to witnesses, even those with astronomical knowledge, when encountered unexpectedly. The case holds minimal significance for UAP research beyond its educational value in demonstrating proper investigation methodology and the importance of considering prosaic explanations.
AI CONFIDENCE SCORE:
85%
07 Community Discussion
VIEW ALL >// NO COMMENTS YET
Be the first field agent to contribute analysis on this case.
08 Live Chat 1 ROOM
ENTER LIVE CHAT
Real-time discussion with other field agents analyzing this case.