GEIPAN Case 1976-11-02763 — SAINT-GEOIRS (38) 25.11.1976

Brief

On 25 November 1976 at approximately 07:10, a farmer-hunter in Saint-Étienne-de-Geoirs (Isère) observed an elongated cylindrical object roughly 2 meters long hovering stationary at 10 meters altitude and 10 to 15 meters from his position. The object emitted a red intermittent glow across its entire surface, changed direction abruptly, then departed silently to the south before disappearing behind terrain features. Gendarmerie investigation produced no corroborating witnesses and no physical traces; the helicopter hypothesis could not be validated because no helicopter passage was confirmed in the sector at that time and no sound was heard. In a re-examination note dated 12 December 2011, GEIPAN rated the case PAN D1 — unexplained, low evidentiary consistency, high degree of strangeness.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

2 pages

Classification

PAN D1

Programs

GEPAN, GEIPAN, SEPRA

Tags

cylindrical UAP, close encounter, silent propulsion, red intermittent light, abrupt direction change, 10m altitude, France, 1976, GEIPAN D1, single witness

Key points

• The object was cylindrical, approximately 2 meters long, and hovered stationary at 10 meters altitude when the witness observed it at 10–15 meters range.p.1
• A red intermittent glow propagated across the entire surface of the object throughout the close-range observation.p.1
• The object departed silently to the south, stopped, then disappeared behind terrain — no engine or rotor noise heard at any point.p.1
• Gendarmerie found no corroborating witnesses and no physical traces in the observation zone indicated by the witness.p.1
• The witness had diminished eyesight but was regarded favorably in the commune and personally guided investigators to the observation sites.p.2
• The Grenoble-Saint-Geoirs aerodrome lay 5.72 km away; the helicopter hypothesis was considered but rejected because no helicopter passage was confirmed and the witness reported no sound.p.2
• GEIPAN's 2011 note concluded the object does not resemble any known aircraft type, maintaining the unexplained classification.p.2
• Final classification: PAN D1 — unexplained, low consistency (single witness), high degree of strangeness, with an estimated 8 to 10 seconds of close observation.p.2

Verbatim

• Le 25 novembre 1976 vers 7h10 un cultivateur à la chasse observe au loin durant quelques secondes une lueur rouge qu'il prend pour un feu de cheminée.

  p.1

• Arrivé à dix ou quinze mètres du chasseur, ce phénomène change de direction et le témoin constate alors qu'il est en présence d'un objet de forme allongée de deux mètres de long environ.

  p.1

• L'objet cylindrique est immobile à 10 mètres du sol et une lueur intermitente rouge se propage tout autour de l'objet.

  p.1

• Il se déplace ensuite sans bruit en direction du Sud, s'immobilise puis repart et disparaît caché par le paysage.

  p.1

• Le témoin, connu favorablement sur la commune, présente une vision oculaire diminuée mais chasse régulièrement dans le secteur qu'il connaît bien.

  p.2

• L'objet décrit ne ressemble pas à un aéronef de type avion ou hélicoptère, ni à rien de connu.

  p.2

• L'observation présente un fort degré d'étrangeté (observation proche mais courte 8 à 10 sec)

  p.2

• Dans la classification actuelle du GEIPAN, ce cas inexpliqué peu consistant avec un fort caractère d'étrangeté est classé comme PAN D1.

  p.2

Most interesting

• The witness anchored his 07:10 timestamp not by a watch but by the sound of a scheduled departure from the Grenoble-Saint-Geoirs aerodrome — a methodologically significant detail that GEIPAN used to cross-check potential aircraft traffic.
• GEIPAN's re-examination program was explicitly designed for analytical precision, not to shift category counts upward or downward; the reclassification process required documentary justification in a formal note d'enquête.
• At 10–15 meters from the witness, the object subtended enough visual angle for him to discern a cylindrical shape roughly 2 meters in length, yet produced zero audible noise — a flight profile inconsistent with every rotary-wing aircraft available in France in 1976.
• The case predates the formal founding of GEPAN; it was investigated by gendarmerie and received only an initial expert review at the start of GEPAN activity, making the 2011 note its first systematic analytical treatment.
• Despite the witness's documented reduced visual acuity, his detailed familiarity with the terrain was considered credible enough that gendarmerie relied on him to physically locate the observation sites.