GEIPAN Case 2014-06-50078 — ETRELLES (35) 01.06.2014

Brief

On June 1, 2014, at 23h07, two witnesses in a service vehicle traversing the ZI du Piquet industrial zone in Etrelles (Ille-et-Vilaine) observed a silent, dark rectangular mass bearing two small round greenish-white lights, which held a near-vertical stationary position for roughly two seconds before departing to the east at extraordinary speed. GEIPAN deployed two investigators who conducted separate cognitive interviews with each witness, reconstructed the scene on-site, and queried military air control (CNOA) and the BOAM meteor network. The CNOA reported no radar trace, and the nearest documented meteor (BOAM, 23h12'30'') was ruled out on both timing (5'30'' discrepancy) and azimuth (39° discrepancy); all other conventional hypotheses were rated very weak or null. GEIPAN classified the case D1 — unexplained with high consistency (0.85) and medium strangeness (0.70) — noting that absence of photographic or video evidence precluded upgrade to D2.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

12 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Programs

GEIPAN, BOAM

Tags

dark rectangular mass, two greenish-white lights, silent, high-speed departure, bent trajectory, brief hover, no radar return, D1 classification, France, Etrelles (35), 2014, industrial zone

Key points

• Two witnesses in a service vehicle observed the phenomenon at 23h07 on June 1, 2014, in the ZI du Piquet industrial zone on the northern outskirts of Etrelles (Ille-et-Vilaine); observation lasted 2-3 seconds.p.1
• The object appeared as a compact dark rectangular mass approximately the size of two Renault Espace vehicles, bearing two small round greenish-white lights with no halo or ground-directed beam, and blotted out background stars.p.2
• T2 observed a bent trajectory — the object arrived South-North before turning West-East toward Laval — while T1 observed only the brief stationary phase and the high-speed departure; both agreed on the 109° azimuth of disappearance.p.2
• The entire event occurred in total silence, at a departure speed both witnesses described as 'vertigineuse' and 'stupéfiante', with no environmental effects detected.p.2
• T1 confirmed the 23h07 observation time by reference to a 23h12 mobile phone call placed after several minutes of discussion with T2, placing the sighting 5'30'' before the BOAM-recorded meteor — ruling out confusion.p.3
• Military air control (CNOA) confirmed no radar trace at that time and location, reporting nothing 'other than liners' and providing no documentation to GEIPAN.p.4
• The BOAM-recorded meteor at 23h12'30'' showed an azimuth of 70° from Etrelles versus the witnesses' 109° — a 39° discrepancy — compounding the timing gap as grounds to reject the meteor hypothesis.p.5
• A Thales aerospace electronics facility approximately 400 meters from the observation point was consulted; its surveillance camera was aimed only at the entrance gate and recorded nothing anomalous in the relevant sky sector.p.3
• GEIPAN's hypothesis table rated all alternatives — motorized aircraft, meteorological phenomenon, bolide/meteor, material object illusion, ISS, sky tracer, wind-borne lantern, car headlight reflection — as 'very weak' or 'null'.p.10
• Final classification: D1, unexplained; consistency (IxF) = 0.85; strangeness (E) = 0.70; D2 excluded solely for lack of photographic or video evidence.p.12

Verbatim

• Il s'agissait d'un survol très bref de leur voiture par un PAN avant disparition à très grande vitesse de ce dernier.

  p.1

• Selon T1 et T2, deux petites lumières rondes, blanches légèrement verdâtres étaient perceptibles sous ce qui a paru être une masse noire compacte.

  p.2

• Toujours selon T1, le PAN a bien été, un court instant estimé à 2 secondes, en position stationnaire, presque à la verticale du véhicule, avant de disparaître à une vitesse qualifiée de «vertigineuse» ou encore de «stupéfiante» en direction de Laval, soit vers l'Est.

  p.2

• Le tout s'est déroulé dans un silence total, ce qui a constitué un facteur d'étonnement important pour les témoins.

  p.2

• lorsque les lumières ont disparu, je me suis retourné vers l'autre personne et je compris qu'elle avait aussi été témoin de la scène. Nous avons débattu de toutes les sources de confusion et aucune ne correspondait à la scène dont nous avions été témoins. Après plusieurs minutes de débat, l'autre personne a passé un appel téléphonique

  p.3

• il a indiqué qu'il n'existait à cette heure et en ce lieu «rien d'autres que des liners et qu'il n'y avait pas de trace particulière»

  p.4

• il s'agit d'un PAN, observé par deux témoins de grande fiabilité, dans des conditions d'observation idéales et qui semble résister à toutes hypothèses, notamment à l'hypothèse explicative du passage d'un météore.

  p.12

• Le GEIPAN classe ce cas D1 comme cas inexpliqué, de consistance élevée du fait des deux témoignages de grande qualité, et d'étrangeté moyenne (la matérialité de l'objet est possible mais pas certaine, le phénomène a de nombreux points communs avec un bolide).

  p.12

Most interesting

• Both witnesses deliberately refrained from discussing the sighting with each other immediately after it occurred, in order to preserve independent written accounts — a methodological choice that strengthened the credibility evaluation.
• T1 corroborated the 23h07 observation time through a 23h12 mobile phone call placed after several minutes of post-sighting discussion; mobile phone clocks are radio-synchronized, giving the timestamp high precision.
• The Thales defense electronics plant — manufacturing aerospace and avionics components — was located approximately 400 meters from the observation point, a proximity the report flags without drawing a conclusion.
• T2 exited the vehicle after the disappearance and checked the ground for physical traces; none were found.
• The witnesses ran a standard 'apparent size of the moon' evaluation test with the GEIPAN investigators and overestimated by only one level on the reference scale, suggesting reliable angular-size reporting.
• The bent trajectory observed by T2 — a near-right-angle turn from South-North approach to West-East departure — is explicitly cited as a key element distinguishing the case from any bolide, since no natural or known man-made object consistent with the other parameters executes such a course change.
• GEIPAN's strangeness score of 0.70 reflects medium-strangeness classification: physical materiality of the object is considered possible but not certain, and the multi-point overlap with a bolide signature kept the score from reaching the D2 threshold.