Sighting in Limonest, December 8, 2018

The witness was in a car park when they noticed points of light in an overcast sky. They took out their smartphone and shot two photographs nine seconds apart, then got into their car and left without checking whether the lights were still there. They explained that they habitually photograph anything unfamiliar in the sky so they can look at the pictures later on a computer. No other witness came forward. The witness gave an observation time of one minute. Later, they followed up with the GEIPAN, mentioning a military air base that they believed had been overflown on a north–south path.

Analysis of the photo showed that one of the two lights, the fainter one, above the fourth street lamp, was a reflection produced by the smartphone lens, so the witness could not have seen it with the naked eye. The other, brighter light was not a reflection and therefore came from a real source. It could be consistent with the headlights of a low-flying aircraft, whose brightness drops quickly if the heading changes slightly, but this hypothesis could be neither confirmed nor ruled out because nothing was known about the trajectory or duration. Commercial flight-tracking sites showed nothing, which proves little since they do not cover every aircraft. The GEIPAN did not ask the CNOA for a traffic record at the time, and when it could have done so five months later, the traffic data could no longer be retrieved.

The witness's description covered only the first photo, even though the second showed a very different scene, and their stated duration was inconsistent. The GEIPAN classified the case as C, for lack of reliable information. It was not a hoax, since the witness did see a light in the sky before taking the photograph.