CROZON (29) 13.01.2020

The witness was driving early in the morning on a small country road on the Crozon peninsula. The weather was bad, with strong gusts, a low cloud ceiling and rain. He saw 2 identical horizontal red rectangles on his left, partly hidden by the tops of a stand of pine trees. After slowing down, he noticed a third identical red rectangle appearing to the left of the other 2, with the same spacing. The group seemed large to him and relatively high in the sky. It moved along the road, retaining its appearance, always to his left and toward an intersection a little farther on. The 3 UAPs then stopped at the intersection, ahead of the witness. He in turn stopped a little before the intersection to watch them. Now closer, he estimated that they spanned two-thirds of his windscreen's width, slightly to his left. He had to lean forward in his seat to see them fully. He described them as resembling truck taillights: bright red, luminous, sharply defined and containing small moving beads. Despite gusts shaking his vehicle, the UAPs remained motionless. After a few seconds, the 3 UAPs departed southward ahead of him, retaining their appearance and arrangement while shrinking in apparent size. They initially moved at moderate speed in bouncing movements, descending in apparent elevation to the horizon before accelerating and disappearing almost instantaneously upward into the sky, without interacting with the clouds. The evidence in this case is of good quality: the account is very coherent and detailed, and the observed phenomenon has a high degree of strangeness. The remote and field investigations provided information allowing several explanations to be considered. Further examination by GEIPAN's expert committee considered: - Drone(s). - Helicopter(s). - Light from a lighthouse or coastal signal station. - Wind-turbine warning lights. - A laser or nightclub spotlight. - A light inside the passenger compartment reflected on the windscreen. - An aircraft. - Reflective plates, position lights or clearance lights on a truck. The first 3 hypotheses—drones, helicopters and lighthouse light—were examined in depth. The others were eliminated with reasons given. The nearby Lanvéoc-Poulmic naval air station was asked about a possible aviation-related sighting and said none of its aircraft was maneuvering at the time. Although the UAPs' shape and color could suggest some form of illuminated marking, for which the investigators could find no examples, all other parameters fit drones or helicopters poorly or not at all. The UAPs' large angular size would require them to be relatively close. Particularly in the case of helicopters, the witness should have heard their engines with the wind carrying the sound toward him, even in the unfavorable conditions: inside a car with its engine running and windows closed, in rain and wind. It also seems difficult to envisage 3 such craft remaining visible while continuously maintaining their mutual spacing. Three drones would fit slightly better because they could be somewhat closer while making considerably less noise. Even so, this would require large drones at a short distance. A French Navy drone instructor also advised that the UAPs' appearance did not match any lighting markings used by military drones. Lanvéoc-Poulmic further confirmed that it had conducted no drone exercise on the evening of the sighting. The source says “evening” here despite placing the observation early in the morning. Drones from another base or a private individual remained possible, but still unlikely in the observation conditions. The coastal-signal-station/lighthouse hypothesis is very unlikely. A coastal signal station is not intended to emit light signals, and no sufficiently powerful lighthouse in the area could produce fixed red rectangular lights lasting 2 minutes along the viewing direction and moving in “bounces.” In rain a beam should have been visible below the rectangles, but none was seen. Lighthouse illumination is also rather diffuse and could not form 3 sharply defined red rectangles on the cloud base. Finally, a witness familiar with the area should have recognized lighthouse lights, even in this weather, which is usual for the region, and should already have seen them under similar weather conditions. GEIPAN remains cautious because the technical questionnaire was written and submitted 5 months after the observation, while the field investigation and reconstruction occurred a year later. GEIPAN's experience is that such delays can disturb or even alter elements of an account. A visual reconstruction was made using a video simulation tool and will be published with the investigation report. In conclusion, the investigation produced extensive information and explored many hypotheses. GEIPAN followed its most complete investigation methodology: remote investigation, field investigation, then review by its expert committee. It considers none of the explanations examined satisfactory in relation to the account. It therefore publishes all information provided by the witness together with the entire investigation, and classifies the sighting “D,” unexplained. The source's summary specifies D1.