GEIPAN Case 2018-12-50686 — FORET-FOUESNANT (LA) (29) 10.12.2018

Brief

On the morning of December 10, 2018, a single female witness driving from her rural home near La Forêt-Fouesnant (Finistère, France) observed a silent yellow bar with a bright fluorescent-green central light moving slowly above an adjacent field at low altitude. The phenomenon halted and pivoted to face her directly for roughly 20 seconds before resuming eastward flight and disappearing into haze. GEIPAN investigators conducted a remote inquiry followed by a field investigation and cognitive interview on October 5, 2019; all four hypotheses — wind-borne object, agricultural spotlight reflection, sky-tracer projection, and drone — were assessed individually and collectively insufficient to explain the observation. With a combined consistency score of 0.68 and no hypothesis exceeding 50% probability, the case was formally classified D1.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

23 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED — public GEIPAN release; case classification D1

Programs

GEIPAN

Tags

D1-unexplained, nocturnal light, yellow bar, fluorescent green, silent UAP, hovering, direction change, France, Brittany, Finistère, 2018, rural, single witness, possible EM effect

Key points

• Single civilian witness — a woman driving to work — observed the phenomenon between 07:20 and 07:40 on December 10, 2018; field investigators did not arrive on site until October 5, 2019, nearly ten months later.p.2
• The phenomenon appeared as a pale-yellow rectangular bar with an intense fluorescent-green circular light at its center; contours remained sharp throughout the observation, with mist patches observed passing in front of and partially obscuring the object.p.6
• During the second stop the object turned to face the witness due south and held stationary for approximately 20 seconds before resuming eastward travel — a behavioral sequence investigators found incompatible with all four candidate explanations.p.2
• The witness reported complete silence from the phenomenon throughout the observation, conducted with car windows lowered, and noted her vehicle radio display stopped functioning normally afterward and had not recovered as of the questionnaire date.p.16
• GEIPAN's geometric site reconstruction placed the object's maximum altitude at under 215 m during stop 1 and under 78 m above ground during stop 2 — well below the cloud ceiling of 700–1020 m.p.14
• The witness's reported angular size (50 cm at arm's length at stop 2; 30 cm at stop 3) implies a physically large object if distances are taken at face value; at 350 m the formula yields a real diameter of roughly 257 m, leading investigators to flag probable perceptual size overestimation.p.8
• Drone hypothesis was judged the strongest but remained well below 50% probability, disqualified by unusual bicolor appearance, French prohibition on nocturnal drone flight, and the atypical early-Monday-morning timing.p.18
• Investigator-assigned scores: information quality I = 0.80, witness reliability F = 0.85, combined consistency C = I x F = 0.68, characterized as 'rather good.'p.21
• GEIPAN's classification rubric defines D1 as a case where strangeness exceeds 0.5 and consistency is sufficient to validate the unexplained character — both conditions were met.p.22

Verbatim

• une barre jaune avec en son centre un gros phare fluo vert qui se dirige vers l'est. Un peu surprise je baisse mes vitres, ma radio, reste en phares et j'observe, aucun bruit dans le ciel, un déplacement très lent et régulier, j'ai le sentiment qu'elle dévie sa route et se dirige un peu vers moi.

  p.2

• cette barre se tourne lentement vers moi, bien de face, plein sud et se met en stationnaire comme pour m'observer (environ 20 secondes sans aucun mouvement de la barre). Je réalise que ce ne peut être un avion, un drone ? Plutôt curieux en pleine nuit venant de nulle part.

  p.2

• Aucun rayonnement émis, aucune projection, aucun halo. Aucun bruit provenant du PAN perçu par le témoin tout au long de l'observation (fenêtres ouvertes, moteur de sa voiture en fonctionnement et en bruit de fond).

  p.7

• J'ai été silencieuse pendant 3 jours. Lorsque j'en ai parlé, j'ai bien sûr provoqué des rires dans mon entourage mais mon fils m'a pris très au sérieux et m'a encouragé à remplir ce questionnaire

  p.16

• Suite aux moqueries j'ai bien voulu écouter mon entourage mais je reste ferme sur l'étrangeté de l'objet lumineux que j'ai aperçu. Je n'ai pas pu penser à un phénomène que je connais. Je justifie l'étrangeté par le déplacement absolument silencieux et régulier ainsi que de l'apparence lumineuse

  p.16

• Après observation, je n'avais plus d'écran d'indication de radio mais toujours le son. Je n'arrive pas à ce jour à la refaire fonctionner de manière normale

  p.16

• l'étrangeté de l'observation reste grande, la consistance du témoigne est bonne. L'analyse n'a pas permis d'identifier d'hypothèse compatible probable à plus de 50%.

  p.21

• En conséquence, ce cas est classé par le GEIPAN « D1 » phénomène non identifié.

  p.21

Most interesting

• The phenomenon performed a deliberate-seeming three-phase behavioral sequence: westward approach, a 20-second stationary hover oriented directly toward the witness, then resumed eastward departure — a pattern investigators considered the single strongest argument against every conventional explanation.
• Mist patches were observed passing between the witness and the object on several occasions, which investigators used as evidence the phenomenon was a physical solid rather than a projected light beam — eliminating the sky-tracer hypothesis on phenomenological grounds.
• The nearest candidate for sky-tracer projectors was a nightclub 8 km north on the outskirts of Quimper; GEIPAN confirmed no venue was open at that hour in the immediate area.
• GEIPAN contacted the farmer working the adjacent fields; she confirmed neither she nor her son was present that morning and that no drones were operated on the property.
• The witness's car radio display permanently malfunctioned after the event; the report notes this but does not formally classify it as a confirmed electromagnetic effect.
• A model-airplane club existed south of the commune, but investigators rated a solo nocturnal flight by a member at 07:30 on a Monday morning as highly improbable — and the club's training ground was 11 km away.
• Despite three days of self-imposed silence and social mockery from acquaintances after reporting, investigators rated the witness as credible, consistent across all contacts, and without prior interest in UAP.
• The report was finalized in Toulouse on May 28, 2020 — roughly 18 months after the observation and 8 months after the field investigation — reflecting GEIPAN's methodical multi-stage inquiry process.