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

Brief

Three adults gathered in a rural garden in Aunay-les-Bois (Orne, France) observed, between 00h30 and 01h00 on 3 June 2020, a silent luminous phenomenon consisting of two widely-spaced bluish light points with a row of smaller sub-lights beneath them, moving linearly parallel to the horizon at an elevation of approximately 15 degrees before disappearing from view after roughly five seconds. The witnesses independently sketched the object immediately after and found their drawings consistent. GEIPAN (the UAP division of France's CNES space agency) assigned the case a Category D classification, meaning no conventional explanation was found after investigation. The document is a filled witness intake questionnaire following GEIPAN's version-3 standard form.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

15 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Programs

GEIPAN

Tags

two-light formation, bluish lights, halo, silent, Normandy France, 2020, GEIPAN, category-D, linear trajectory, rural, three civilian witnesses, sub-light array, no propulsion signature

Key points

• Three adult witnesses observed the phenomenon simultaneously in a rural setting in Aunay-les-Bois (61500, Orne) on the night of 2-3 June 2020, between 00h30 and 01h00.p.4
• The UAP displayed two main widely-spaced bluish light points with a row of smaller light points aligned beneath them and a blue halo around each source.p.7
• The phenomenon was completely silent despite apparent proximity; witnesses noted they could routinely hear aircraft over the same rural area and heard animal calls minutes before the sighting.p.6
• Duration was approximately five seconds; trajectory was linear and parallel to the horizon, covering roughly one quarter of the visible sky arc.p.9
• Initial azimuth was reported as 150 degrees (SE), final position due East, at an elevation of approximately 15 degrees throughout.p.8
• Angular separation of the two primary light points, measured by holding a ruler at arm's length, was estimated at 30 mm — implying a substantial subtended angle at the estimated 1-2 km range.p.7
• All three witnesses independently drew sketches immediately after the observation and found their renderings consistent with one another upon comparison.p.2
• The sky was partly clear with a waning crescent moon and Venus visible, conditions that reduce the likelihood of misidentifying bright celestial objects.p.5
• Primary witness considered silent military drone and orbital station as candidate explanations but found no matching visual reference to confirm either hypothesis.p.12
• The primary witness reported returning to the observation site multiple times afterward and never reproducing or re-observing the phenomenon.p.12

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 a finalement disparu de notre champ de vision nous étions un comme sonnés, un peu interloqués par ce que nous venions de voir et avons décider de dessiner l'observation.

  p.2

• Luminosité proche d'un éclairage d'avion mais semblait encore plus gros et irradiant. (halo autour des lumières)

  p.7

• La première interprétation est celle d'un drone militaire du fait que le phénomène soit silencieux, je n'ai rien trouvé à ce sujet pour me permettre de valider cette hypothèse .

  p.12

• Oui je pense que nous aurons une explication scientifique, car les cas inexpliqués sont extrêmement rares

  p.13

Most interesting

• The primary witness had a childhood interest in ufology but had grown skeptical in adulthood, initially dismissing the object as an aircraft mid-sighting before revising her assessment when she noticed the silent sub-light array.
• All three witnesses sat around a fire and sketched the phenomenon from memory immediately afterward, then compared drawings — a spontaneous, uncoordinated corroboration method that produced consistent results.
• The reported 30 mm angular separation at arm's length corresponds to a subtended angle of roughly 3.4 degrees; if the estimated 1-2 km distance is accurate, the physical span of the object would be very large for a drone-class platform.
• The primary witness reported being systematically discredited when recounting the event, even when emphasizing that all three observers saw the same thing and that she herself sought a rational explanation.
• The questionnaire form used was version V3, dated June 2019, indicating GEIPAN's standardized civilian intake process was active and current at the time of submission.
• Despite extensive post-sighting online research covering drones, atmospheric phenomena, lightning, aircraft, military hardware, satellites, and agricultural equipment, the witnesses found no matching reference image.