A bright white light that appeared almost stationary, then moved left and right, was filmed from Burnhaupt-le-Bas on 24 November 2024. GEIPAN matched the principal recorded light to a regional airliner approaching Basel–Mulhouse. The same report treats other lights seen earlier more cautiously. That separation is essential: one well-supported identification should not erase the different quality of evidence for the rest of the evening.
Several phases, one observer
The witness first noticed four aligned lights near the eastern horizon, in the direction of Germany’s Black Forest, while closing a bathroom shutter. One seemed to approach another and disappear. After going downstairs for a phone, the witness returned to find the initial lights gone. Further lights appeared in a different part of the view, and attention eventually settled on a particularly bright source behind a small group of bare trees.
The witness described that source as white and circular, initially still, then moving slowly one way and back the other before disappearing. No associated noise was reported. Familiarity with local airports made the appearance seem unlike the aircraft the witness normally recognised. GEIPAN nevertheless treated recognition as a question to investigate rather than an exclusion of aircraft.
There was one observer. On 3 December 2024 GEIPAN received the questionnaire, two annotated photographic reconstructions and a marked map. A video was too large to send with that email. Investigators arranged a transfer on 18 December and obtained it. These dates concern evidence submission; the observation itself remained 24 November.
Matching movement and time
The principal light was recorded with a Samsung Galaxy S22. Camera movement, zooming and changes of direction complicated the view, but the trees provided a useful reference. GEIPAN considered the recording sufficiently informative for a comparison with aircraft movements. The phone’s synchronised clock was more useful than the witness’s approximate recollection of the starting time.
The report compared successive video positions with Flightradar24 data for a Frankfurt–Basel flight operated with a CRJ-900. In its reconstruction, the aircraft’s approach included two broad changes of direction. From the witness’s viewpoint these produced the same leftward, then rightward, apparent movement as the bright light.
The calculation also explains why a descending aircraft could look almost level. It was approaching the observer while losing height; the two changes nearly balanced in angular elevation. The report’s table shows only a small change in apparent height during the recorded sequence. This is an explanation based on viewing geometry, not a claim that the aircraft hovered.
At long range, the aircraft’s bright forward-facing landing lights would merge into one source. Other lights would be harder to distinguish. As the aircraft turned away from the observer, the directional landing lights would cease pointing toward them, providing a reason for apparent disappearance without requiring the aircraft itself to vanish.
The earlier lights were less securely documented
For the four low lights over the Black Forest, the investigator proposed ski-slope grooming vehicles. The report records that the relevant ski season had opened two days earlier and considers powerful moving work lights a plausible fit. It also notes that ordinary illuminated night skiing was not scheduled for that Sunday. The proposed explanation was maintenance activity, not simply floodlit skiing.
Other transient lights were compared with two additional airliners whose routes crossed the relevant part of the sky. The annex stresses imprecise directions and timing. It also acknowledges that commercial flight-tracking data do not show every possible aircraft. These earlier phases therefore warrant attributed, qualified explanations rather than the certainty assigned to the main filmed light.
What the classification covers
The 20-page report is dated 3 December 2025. It explicitly bases the category A classification on phase three, the principal filmed observation: an aircraft approaching Basel–Mulhouse. UKPX records Closed (Explained) on that basis, while retaining the lesser certainty of the preliminary lights. The case is evidence that a recorded unusual appearance can be tested successfully; it is not evidence that all lights in the area must share one cause.
UKPX reviewed the report and its trajectory tables and diagrams, rather than independently obtaining the original phone file or raw flight-tracking archive. Witness size and distance estimates are not adopted as measurements. No radar-confirmed unidentified object is claimed: the comparison concerns identified aviation traffic.
Map location
Approximate locality pin at the French government geographic API’s municipal centre. It identifies Burnhaupt-le-Bas only, not a private witness address, exact sighting position, flight path or visitor destination.
Sources and review
Primary source: GEIPAN original investigation report. Sources checked 14 November 2026. Incident and source-publication dates are distinguished above. The illustration is conceptual and does not record an observed event.