GEIPAN Case 2020-06-51034 — AUNAY-LES-BOIS (61) 03.06.2020

Brief

Three adults in the garden of a rural vacation home in Aunay-les-Bois (Orne, France) observed a silent object comprising two widely-spaced blue-white lights with smaller luminous points below, moving on a linear horizontal trajectory for 5-10 seconds beginning around 00h30 on June 3, 2020. GEIPAN investigators, working under CNES's Direction Technique et Numérique, conducted cognitive interviews, a June 2022 field survey, CAPCODA radar review, and IPACO video analysis; no conventional explanation was found. The only radar return in the observation window — a commercial aircraft at 34,000 feet moving northwest — was positionally and altitudinally incompatible with the sighting. The case was assigned GEIPAN Classification D, the agency's designation for phenomena that remain unidentified after full investigation.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

34 pages

Classification

Non sensible (GEIPAN Case Classification D — unidentified)

Programs

GEIPAN, CAPCODA, IPACO

Tags

dual blue-white lights, silent flight, linear horizontal trajectory, rural Normandy, 2020, GEIPAN Classification D, three corroborating witnesses, possible large object, no radar correlation

Key points

• Three adult witnesses simultaneously observed the UAP from a rural garden in Aunay-les-Bois (Orne) between 00h30 and 01h00 on June 3, 2020; all three filed independent GEIPAN technical questionnaires and produced matching sketches.p.2
• The UAP was consistently described across all three witnesses as two widely-spaced blue-white lights with smaller luminous points below, forming what appeared to be a single large object, moving silently on a linear horizontal trajectory.p.4
• Duration of observation was estimated at 5-10 seconds; the trajectory was parallel to the horizon at approximately 15 degrees elevation, spanning roughly one quarter of the sky, with the UAP briefly occluded by a tree line.p.4
• CAPCODA radar data showed one aircraft in the observation window, moving SW-to-NE at 22h00-22h01 UTC, positioned west and north of the witnesses at 34,000 feet (~10,300 m) — inconsistent with the reported sighting in direction, timing, and altitude.p.11
• Meteorological conditions at the nearby Alençon station: near-zero winds (1-1.2 m/s), no precipitation, 20 km horizontal visibility, no clouds detected — optimal observation conditions.p.10
• IPACO geometric analysis established a minimum UAP distance of 200 m, yielding a minimum end-to-end physical span of approximately 9 m; at 1,500 m distance, implied speed reaches 120-400 km/h.p.13
• Cognitive interviews conducted via videoconference (first use of that format by GEIPAN, necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic) showed excellent concordance in the witnesses' descriptions of appearance and motion.p.12
• The investigative team concluded that the three witnesses 'ont sans aucun doute observé ensemble un même phénomène, physiquement présent' — a physically real, co-observed phenomenon — whose strangeness derived primarily from its unusual appearance and total silence in a quiet rural environment.p.12
• Field investigation was conducted June 6, 2022 by two GEIPAN investigators working in the witnesses' absence to take photographs and angular measurements from the witnesses' reported vantage point.p.7
• The document is classified 'Non sensible' (not sensitive) and carries GEIPAN case reference 2020-06-51034 under DTN_DA_GP-2024.0012609, with Edition 1 dated November 3, 2025.p.1

Verbatim

• Dans la nuit du mardi 2 juin au mercredi 3 juin, entre 00h30 et 1h00, nous somme 3 adultes à avoir vu un phénomène lumineux se déplacer dans le ciel.

  p.2

• On pouvait voir 2 points lumineux assez espacés semblant appartenir à un même objet avec en dessous plusieurs petits points lumineux. La couleur des lumières était légèrement bleutée. Il n'y avait aucun bruit de moteur perceptible et pas de vent ce soir-là.

  p.2

• L'objet paraissait énorme et me semblait assez proche derrière les arbres à peut-être 200mètres environ. Pour moi l'objet était principalement composé de 2 lumière blanc bleuté avec un halo lumineux en dessous.

  p.4

• L'impression générale qui se dégage à l'issue de l'étude des éléments des QT et des EC est que les témoins ont sans aucun doute observé ensemble un même phénomène, physiquement présent, qui revêt pour eux une forte étrangeté en raison essentiellement de l'apparence peu commune, mais aussi de l'absence de bruit dans un environnement particulièrement silencieux.

  p.12

• La distance minimale possible séparant les témoins du PAN est de 200 m, ce qui donne comme dimension minimale possible « hors-tout » (d'un point lumineux à un autre) environ 9 m de long.

  p.13

• En ce qui concerne les vitesses possibles, elles varient entre 16 et 20 km/h si le PAN se trouve à 200 m de distance et peut aller jusqu'à 120 à 400 km/h pour une distance de 1500 m.

  p.13

• La carte CAPCODA* fait état d'un seul passage d'avion proche du créneau horaire d'observation, se déplaçant du sud-ouest vers le nord-est vers 22h-22h01 UTC. Cet aéronef passe à l'ouest et au nord de la position des témoins et évolue à une altitude de 34000 pieds, soit environ 10300 m.

  p.11

Most interesting

• The three witnesses independently drew sketches of the UAP immediately after the sighting, before consulting one another; when compared, all three drawings were concordant — a detail the lead investigator explicitly flagged as lending high evidential weight to the account.
• T3's sketch depicted a solid black form with the two lights attached, interpreting the phenomenon as a single large invisible object rather than two free-floating lights — a meaningful divergence from T1 and T2's renderings that GEIPAN noted without resolving.
• T2 and T3 submitted their formal GEIPAN questionnaires two and four months after the event respectively; the investigator raised the risk of 'faux-souvenirs' (false memories) for those two but concluded the core description remained stable across all witnesses.
• A fourth person was present at the gathering but did not witness the UAP and reportedly dismissed the other three's accounts while trying to find rational explanations — an unintentional blind-control dynamic within the witness group.
• The observation site was a seasonal vacation home the witnesses only visit occasionally, which prevented GEIPAN from conducting on-site investigation with witnesses present; investigators worked the location alone in June 2022, two years after the event.
• GEIPAN's initial azimuth estimate of approximately 190 degrees (nearly due south) was subsequently revised on the basis of photogrammetric and IPACO analysis — indicating meaningful uncertainty in the original positional data that the report flags explicitly.
• Despite extensive online searches the night of the event — covering drones, atmospheric phenomena, electrical arcs, military drones, agricultural spraying, comets, satellites, and weather balloons — the witnesses found nothing matching their observation before contacting GEIPAN.