GEIPAN Case 2012-06-08256 — MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012

Brief

On June 29, 2012, at approximately 06:06 local time, a man walking his dog near Maffliers (95) observed a gigantic luminous object hovering stationary at low altitude above a wheat field bordering a forest. The object remained still for 10–15 seconds, underwent four successive shape transitions over three seconds, then departed to the left at a speed the witness could not track with his eyes. GEIPAN investigators conducted two field reconstructions (September 2012 and June 2013), obtained GPS pointings, three-station meteorological data, and precise astronomical calculations confirming the sun's azimuth was more than 54° from the observed direction — ruling out direct solar observation. The Air Gendarmerie Brigade detected no aerial traffic; all optical hypotheses remained inconclusive, and the case was retained as D1.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

40 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Programs

GEIPAN, GEPAN, SEPRA

Tags

luminous white object, stationary hover, rapid departure, low altitude, single witness, canine reaction, France, Val-d'Oise, 2012, GEIPAN D1, optical hypotheses inconclusive

Key points

• The sole witness observed a stationary, silver-white luminous object above a wheat field approximately 17 minutes after sunrise on June 29, 2012, under a heavily overcast sky.p.2
• The object was stationary for 10–15 seconds, then executed a four-stage shape transition over three seconds before departing at extreme speed to the left — too fast for the witness to follow visually.p.3
• A full Pantone palette comparison conducted on-site produced no match; the witness described the color as silver-white, uniformly illuminated, and very vivid — a color he had never seen before.p.4
• The object's departure was so rapid that the phenomenon appeared to escape the witness's field of consciousness; the fifth drawn stage was explicitly characterized as an extrapolation beyond conscious perception.p.4
• GPS compass bearings and calibrated photograph analysis placed the observation sector at azimuth 349.35°–357.85°; the sun's apparent azimuth at 06:06 was 54°58', an angular separation exceeding 54°, definitively excluding direct sunrise observation.p.10
• The Air Gendarmerie Brigade confirmed no aerial movement was detected in the Maffliers area at the time of the observation; an on-site helicopter sweep found nothing suspect.p.5
• Precise time reconstruction via two drift measurements of the witness's unmodified phone clock placed the start of the observation between 06:05:29 and 06:06:28, with 06:06 the best estimate.p.10
• The witness confirmed in a follow-up telephone interview that the object's edges were sharp, its luminosity constant, and that it was completely opaque — masking the treetops behind it.p.17
• Four optical hypotheses — light from behind the treeline, white-arc phenomenon, natural optical lens from the sun, other natural optical phenomena — are enumerated in sections 6.1–6.4 of the report; none was conclusively established.p.2

Verbatim

• A une vitesse telle qu'il n'a pas pu le suivre des yeux.

  p.4

• Une couleur qu'il n'avait jamais vu auparavant.

  p.4

• Dès le début du mouvement très rapide, le PAN semble échapper de son champ de conscience.

  p.4

• La Brigade de Gendarmerie de l'Air a été consultée : aucun mouvement aérien n'a été détecté à Maffliers à ce moment-là.

  p.5

• Blanc argenté, uniformément éclairé, très très vif. Rien de comparable avec la gamme Pantone. Comme quelque chose qui réfléchit la lumière.

  p.15

• Les pointages en azimut et les calculs d'angles sur les photos et cartes ont montré que la direction du soleil était à plus de 54° du PAN observé ; cet écart important élimine l'hypothèse simple de l'observation directe du soleil levant.

  p.10

• Bien nets !

  p.17

• Pas du tout transparent. !

  p.17

Most interesting

• The witness had not reset his phone clock since the day of the observation, allowing investigators to measure its accumulated drift to the second on two separate occasions — a precise forensic time-anchor that is unusual in UAP case files.
• The witness noted that the phenomenon seemed to escape not just his line of sight but his conscious awareness: Step 5 of the departure sequence was acknowledged by both witness and investigator as an extrapolation beyond what was actually perceived.
• The witness's dog, positioned several meters ahead on the path, appeared to independently react to the phenomenon — providing a second behavioral indicator without a corroborating human witness.
• A topographic analysis using Google Earth showed that any light source behind the treeline would have needed to penetrate 240–360 meters of forest; beyond the treeline the terrain drops at least 46 meters into a hollow containing a stream and small lake, raising the possibility of dense fog accumulation as an alternative light source.
• The gendarmerie found flattened grass near the path on the day of the observation but not at the exact location where the witness reported seeing the object; the procès-verbal explicitly noted the cause — human, animal, or weather — could not be determined.
• A second field reconstruction was conducted on June 30, 2013 — one day after the one-year anniversary of the sighting — to replicate solar geometry and atmospheric conditions, with cameras positioned to capture any recurrence; results were inconclusive for all proposed optical hypotheses.