FORET-FOUESNANT (LA) (29) 10.12.2018

On Monday, December 10, 2018 between 07:20 and 07:40, a witness driving in his home’s driveway was intrigued by an unusual phenomenon low above a field to the west. The witness stops and describes the UAP as a yellow "electric" bar with a large fluorescent-green headlight in its centre. Through the open car window, the witness hears no noise as the UAP moved. The latter moves first slowly and regularly and turns southward towards the witness and remains stationary. The witness reaches the end of the driveway, turns around and sees this bar moving eastward and slowly disappearing into the fog. The intermittent observation, while the witness drove and stopped, lasted 1 minute 30 seconds. The witness indicates a problem on the radio of his vehicle after this observation. He also indicates in the questionnaire: “What made it strange was its completely silent, steady movement and its luminous appearance”. No other testimony will be collected. Several combined factors (the 3-phase trajectory with a stop in the middle, the large size perceived by the witness, the slow movement speed, the appearance with very clear contours) individually or in combination conflict with the various hypotheses considered (see the investigation report): a drone (size, appearance), reflections of light projectors of agricultural machinery or sky-tracer laser projectors on the cloud layer (speed, appearance), a windborne object such as a sky lantern (trajectory, appearance). - the observation was made at night (early morning) and the French regulations do not allow night drone flights. Even if an owner were using a drone in breach of the rules, the UAP’s appearance would be unusual and contributes to the strangeness perceived by the witness, adding to the observed changes in trajectory. - the investigation showed that no agricultural machinery (light projection hypothesis) was present on the plots where the UAP was observed. - finally, for the last hypothesis, the 3-phase trajectory with a stop facing the witness and a subsequent change in course is a strong argument that opposes the hypothesis of an object carried by the wind. In the end, the drone hypothesis is the strongest but GEIPAN assesses its probability as well below 50%, so it cannot be adopted. These assumptions do not explain the strangeness of the observation perceived by the witness. It is a single account but it is quite possible (rural setting, low population density, morning hours) that the phenomenon was not seen by other people. The witness is precise, the evidential quality (amount of information) of the testimony is good despite the lack of photos or video of the phenomenon itself. But the observation was clarified using photographs of the setting and reconstructions (analysis of dimensions, distances, UAP trajectories) during a field investigation supported by cognitive interview of the witness (very cooperative). Thus the strangeness of observation remains great, the evidential quality of the account is good. The analysis found no compatible hypothesis with a probability above 50%. This indicates, according to the GEIPAN methodology, that this unusual observation remained unexplained after investigation despite medium or high evidential quality. Consequently, this case is classified by GEIPAN "D1" as an unidentified phenomenon.