AUNAY-LES-BOIS (61) 03.06.2020

On 3 June 2020, three witnesses were in the garden of a family home in the countryside at Aunay-les-Bois (61). Between 00:00 and 01:00 they saw a UAP pass silently for an estimated 5–10 seconds. It consisted mainly of two bluish light sources of comparable brightness, surrounded by a halo or several similar secondary points. The whole moved horizontally at constant speed, low above the horizon at an estimated elevation of 15°. Hedges partly restricted their view to the sides. They saw it approach from the south-southeast, disappear briefly behind a row of poplars, then leave their view permanently toward the east. GEIPAN assesses the evidential substance as good: several witnesses completed technical questionnaires, made detailed sketches and took part in cognitive interviews. However, the investigation report notes that some questionnaire answers appear to have been coordinated between witnesses. The observation remains strange after investigation because it poorly matches the hypotheses examined. Cognitive interviews, fieldwork and IPACO* analysis neither favoured a hypothesis nor reduced its strangeness: - Atmospheric entry: a fragmented body could fit the bluish colour, possible elongated shape and straight horizontal path. However, no observer or automated-camera database recorded such an event, which GEIPAN believes should have been documented given the large size involved. - Windborne objects, such as illuminated balloons: wind direction is poorly compatible, or incompatible, with the UAP’s motion. The balloons would need enough altitude to follow the prevailing wind approximately, but measured wind speed there was far below the UAP’s estimated speed. GEIPAN therefore rejects this possibility. - One or more drones: the calculated speed fits drones at most a few hundred metres away. Civilian or military drones can carry lights of various colours. The report states that civilian night flying is strictly prohibited. A French Navy expert and drone instructor consulted about military drone lighting said blue lights can be used but flash. The witness angular data also exclude a single drone in GEIPAN’s analysis: passing behind trees 200 m away would imply a size greater than 9 m. Several identical drones remain possible but were considered unlikely. Without further information, no hypothesis is satisfactory. The case has good evidential substance and retains high strangeness after investigation. GEIPAN classifies it D: a phenomenon unidentified after investigation. Under GEIPAN’s criteria, evidential substance is the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively substantiated. *IPACO is GEIPAN’s image-analysis and processing software (IPACO.fr).