SAINT-AUBIN-SUR-QUILLEBEUF (27) 05.03.2025

On 5 March 2025, at around 11:45 a.m. / 12 p.m., a single witness observed from a small electric all-terrain vehicle in the Vernier marsh area of the commune of Saint-Aubin-sur-Quillebeuf (27), a UAP glimpsed very briefly over the groves. The witness described a round or "rather spherical" shape, silent, without a halo or trail, of an apparent size comparable to that of a handball, heading south in the direction of the sun before disappearing behind the groves after an observation of less than fifteen seconds. The file also contains two photographs of the UAP taken by a nearby trail camera, on 5 March 2025 at 10:50 a.m. and on 6 March 2025 at 12:37, showing a broadly similar silhouette in both images. The evidential quality* of the case is good. Although there is only 1 witness, the visual observation is well documented through two usable photographs, a detailed technical questionnaire, a reconstruction on a map, and a field survey supplemented by environmental and meteorological checks. This set is a much more rigorous record than a single testimony, despite the absence of direct instrumental measures regarding the trail camera’s exposure time (see the investigation report). The strangeness felt by the witness stems mainly from the unusual appearance of the UAP — perceived as a small round, silent and non-luminous shape — and from the discovery of the same silhouette on two photographs taken by his trail camera. The witness indicates that the appearance was too fleeting to provide a detailed description, leading him first to think of an ordinary balloon. It is subsequently viewing the photographs that turned this otherwise unremarkable event into a report. Two main hypotheses were examined: that of a drone or a lightweight artificial device, and that of a bird observed and photographed under special conditions. The drone hypothesis explains some aspects of the description: the silhouette may suggest a small unobtrusive utility device. However, it remains speculative: no technical element supports it, no operator has been identified locally, and the constraints associated with propulsion, absence of noise and context weaken it. The most consistent hypothesis favours a bird of the duck family (Anatidae) seen from the rear, or almost from the rear, in flapping flight. GEIPAN’s technical analysis shows that such a configuration produces a generally rounded silhouette, the head and neck being hidden by the bulk of the chest, with a consistent contrast of shades between a dark back and a lighter belly. In addition, the photographic conditions may blur the movement of the wings to the point of making them indistinguishable, explaining the compact and hard-to-discern appearance of the phenomenon. The dimensions evaluated on the images are compatible with a medium to large bird. Among the local species, the Canada goose is a credible candidate, although the quality of the photographs does not allow for formal identification. The initial visual observation, although unable to distinguish between these possibilities, does not contradict this interpretation. However, a residual strangeness still exists, mainly related to the unusual appearance of the silhouette on both photographs and the inability to identify the object at first sight for the witness and for the persons consulted. However, this residual strangeness appears to be greatly reduced by the analysis, which shows that a rear or near-rear view of a bird of the duck family, combined with an imperfect image rendering of the wings by the trail camera, can produce this kind of appearance without the need to invoke an unknown phenomenon. Nor does the fact that two photographs taken 1 day apart show a generally similar silhouette appear incompatible with this hypothesis, since the geometry of passage and the photographic conditions remain similar. The most plausible hypothesis, therefore, is that of a bird of the duck family (Anatidae), probably a Canada goose, caught under optical conditions that are unfavourable to a normal rendering of its shape. GEIPAN therefore classifies the case B: probably identified, probably corresponding to the observation and photography of a bird of the duck family under particular geometry and imaging conditions. *EVIDENTIAL QUALITY: Under GEIPAN’s criteria, this is the amount of information collected for an account that is considered reliable and objectively established.