GEIPAN Case 2012-04-08222 — SAINT-LO (50) 04.04.2012

Brief

A single civilian witness in Saint-Lô, Normandy observed two bright yellow-white luminous points crossing the sky from east to north at high speed at 20:15 on 4 April 2012. The second point orbited the first continuously in ellipses, executing abrupt sharp-angle deflections before both disappeared behind a cloud after roughly 15 seconds. Military radar returned two anomalous unidentified tracks in the area — neither carrying transponder data, and neither correlating directly with the sighting in time or geometry. After a field investigation completed over two years post-event, GEIPAN assigned a consistency score of 0.7, a strangeness score of 0.6, and a D1 (unexplained) classification.

Metadata

Agency

GEIPAN / CNES

Release

2007-03-22

Type

PDF • .pdf

Length

13 pages

Classification

UNCLASSIFIED

Programs

GEIPAN

Tags

luminous points, non-linear flight, orbital motion, sharp-angle deflection, D1-unexplained, Saint-Lô, France, 2012, GEIPAN, radar-unknown-track

Key points

• Observation took place 4 April 2012 at 20:15 during twilight (sunset 20:34), from a residential garden in southern Saint-Lô, Manche, Basse-Normandie.p.1
• Single civilian witness; the continuous observation lasted approximately 15 seconds before both UAP vanished into or behind a cloud.p.2
• The second of the two luminous points traced ellipses around the first and executed abrupt sharp-angle bifurcations, including near-contact passes followed by rapid withdrawal.p.1
• Witness location fixed at 49.100759° / -1.085414°; UAP appeared at azimuth 70°, disappeared at azimuth 40°, at an estimated elevation of approximately 30° ±15°.p.2
• Military radar identified two unidentified tracks (X1 and X2) with no transponder or altitude data; X1 moved at roughly 120 km/h at 15,200 feet and was visible for one minute only.p.8
• Track X1 was recorded at 20:05 — ten minutes before the sighting and approximately ten kilometres south of the witness — making direct correlation with the observation impossible.p.8
• All standard hypotheses rejected: astronomical and spatial phenomena excluded by twilight conditions; Iridium flare excluded by CalSKY; space debris excluded by retrograde trajectory and absence of additional witnesses; balloons excluded by wind incompatibility; drones and ULMs excluded by absence of noise.p.11
• The field interview was conducted more than two years after the observation; the witness directed the investigator to prioritise his contemporaneous notes and photographs over his later verbal account.p.11
• Consistency rated 0.7 (single eyewitness, no photograph or video); strangeness rated 0.6 (non-linear displacement, though distant).p.13
• Final classification: D1 — unexplained.p.13

Verbatim

• Le premier point a une trajectoire rectiligne et uniforme, presque banale, mais c'est le second qui captive l'attention du témoin, car il évolue sans cesse autour du premier, décrivant des ellipses, des bifurcations brusques en angle aigu, allant au contact puis reprenant sa position en arrière de façon très rapide.

  p.1

• Les deux en rouges [Traces X1 et X2] correspondent à des détections sur lesquelles nous n'avons aucune info.

  p.8

• La plus proche de Saint Lo au sud [X1] n'est visible que 1mn avec une information radar 3D de 15200' [15200 pieds, environ 4600 mètres] et n'est visiblement pas une double piste de celle en 1755 [Trace 1].

  p.8

• Après une enquête de terrain qui a permis de préciser les azimuts, et un entretien cognitif qui n'a pas apporté de nouveaux éléments significatifs, ce cas d'observation reste d'une étrangeté élevée compte tenu des évolutions du deuxième PAN autour du premier ; ce cas d'observation résiste aux hypothèses usuelles de méprise.

  p.12

• Le témoin a indiqué qu'il fallait conserver ses déclarations initiales, issues de ses notes et photographies prises juste après l'observation.

  p.11

• La consistance du cas est évaluée à 0,7 car issu d'un témoin oculaire unique, sans réserve. Il n'y a pas de photo ou vidéo. L'étrangeté du cas est élevée, évaluée à 0,6 : objet à déplacement non linéaire, mais lointain.

  p.13

Most interesting

• Immediately after the sighting, the witness took written notes and consulted a gendarmerie officer friend — steps that preserved a contemporaneous record the investigator later treated as more reliable than the witness's verbal recollections two years on.
• CalSKY confirmed no satellite of negative magnitude was visible above Saint-Lô at 20:15 on 4 April 2012, eliminating an Iridium flare as an explanation.
• The southeast-to-northwest trajectory of the UAP is described in the report as 'nettement rétrograde' — explicitly inconsistent with the direction space debris re-enters the atmosphere.
• Military radar track X1 moved at roughly 120 km/h at 15,200 feet with no transponder signal — anomalously slow for any commercial, private, or military aircraft in cruise.
• The field interview was conducted more than two years after the sighting; the investigator explicitly noted how elapsed time had degraded the witness's directional memory, producing contradictions with his original questionnaire.
• No other witnesses reported a comparable observation in the same time window, a fact the investigator cited as grounds for eliminating space debris re-entry.
• The witness described his prior interest in UAP as casual and no greater than his interest in other topics; the investigator recorded this as a credibility factor, noting he had not already committed to an extraordinary interpretation.