PLOUHINEC (56) 19.01.2023

On 19 January 2023 at around 19:50, a witness from his home in the commune of Plouhinec (56), observed a UAP in the form of an isosceles triangle towards the south-east. The whole lower surface of the UAP was lit with uniform yellow lights. This UAP moved slightly to the left and appeared below electrical wires passing in front of the house. The witness attempted to capture the UAP in a photo, without success. Indeed, on the display screen, instead of the UAP image, there was a sky-blue display, never seen before with this device. At this moment, the UAP was no longer noticed by the witness, being masked entirely by the camera. When he lowered this camera to observe the UAP again with the naked eye, he found that the UAP was no longer present and that the display screen of the camera was again normal. The witness transmitted his observation to GEIPAN 2 months after the event, allowing for a field investigation by two experts on 13 May 2023. The principal investigator then exchanged information with the witness repeatedly to gather more detail, leading to the loan of the original camera. Thus, a technical test campaign was conducted the week of 31 July 2023. The results of these tests are given in Appendix 1 (see the investigation report). The study of the CNOA* map and the data of the specialized site "ADS-B.NL" reveals that no aircraft traffic that could correspond to the UAP was present at the time of observation, in the azimuth of the phenomenon. The analysis of the data collected concludes that: - The witness was able to accurately recount the various elements relating to the appearance and behaviour of the UAP, without contradictions between his technical questionnaire, the field investigation and subsequent exchanges. - The observation, although brief, shows a phenomenon whose characteristics are difficult to match to known phenomena. However, we explored the hypothesis of a drone, potentially of military origin. However, the appearance of the UAP and its presence in the observation area remain incompatible with this hypothesis. Furthermore, the possible dimensions calculated for the UAP, taking into account the overestimate made by the witness of its apparent size, imply that this drone should be of a certain size and be in the vicinity of the witness - approximately 15–20 m away for a drone of about 50 cm to 1 m. Such proximity would lead to other constraints (prohibited flight, noise perception...) that were not validated by the investigation. - Most ancillary phenomena reported by the witness could be explained logically and/or shown to have no connection with the UAP. -- GEIPAN demonstrated that the offset in the camera’s internal clock had existed for at least nearly 18 months. -- The presence of an artifact found on the ground by the witness, consisting of twigs arranged in a triangle, is noted. Although the witness appears to link this element to his observation indirectly (considering that someone else, a child or another person, might have made a reconstruction), there is no objective element of the investigation that can confirm this link. - A detailed analysis of the witness’s camera, which unexpectedly showed a blue screen when the witness tried to photograph the UAP, concluded: "Although we were able, during our tests, to recreate a blue screen very similar to that observed by the witness, its generation during the observation requires a succession of operating errors which seem unthinkable in the context and/or the existence of at least one blue image in memory, which, although theoretically possible, has proved impossible in practice to display during the UAP observation". The appearance of this blue screen, never seen before on this device, owned by the witness for about 10 years,, remains unexplained for the moment. In conclusion, GEIPAN considers the residual strangeness after investigation substantial when compared with known phenomena. The drone hypothesis, which has been extensively explored, could not be consolidated. The investigation file was presented to the expert committee of the GEIPAN (lastly on 03 December 2025), which stressed that, according to the criteria of the GEIPAN, the evidential quality* of the account remained medium despite a thorough investigation and the perfect cooperation of the witness. In particular, several elements reported, ancillary to the observation, seem to give rise to interpretations that could not be linked to the UAP. As a result, GEIPAN classifies this case as “C,” unidentified because of insufficient objectively established data. EVIDENTIAL QUALITY: Under GEIPAN’s criteria, this is the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively established. CNOA, now CAPCODA: Air Operations Planning and Conduct and Air Defence Centre (French Air and Space Force). IPACO: GEIPAN image analysis and processing software (IPACO.fr).