Sighting in Aunay-les-Bois, June 3, 2020

Three witnesses were in the garden of an isolated family house in the countryside, between midnight and 1 a.m., when they saw an unidentified aerial phenomenon pass by in silence. By their estimates, the sighting lasted 5 to 10 seconds. The phenomenon consisted mainly of two bluish light sources of similar brightness, surrounded by a halo or by several similar small points of light. It moved at constant speed along a horizontal path, low above the horizon (about 15°). Hedges on either side partly restricted the witnesses' view. They watched it approach from the south-southeast, disappear briefly behind a row of poplars, then leave their field of view toward the east.

The case is considered to have good consistency: several witnesses completed a technical questionnaire, drew detailed sketches and took part in cognitive interviews. However, some of the questionnaire answers appear to have been given after the witnesses had conferred with one another.

The investigation looked at three hypotheses. An atmospheric entry, in particular of a fragmenting body, would fit the bluish colour, the elongated shape and the straight horizontal trajectory, but no database of observers or automated cameras recorded such an event, which should have been logged given the large dimensions involved. Wind-borne luminous balloons were ruled out: the wind direction was poorly compatible, or even incompatible, with the direction of travel, and the measured wind speed at that altitude was far lower than the phenomenon's estimated speed. Finally, drones were compatible with the speed if they were no more than a few hundred metres away, but civilian drone flights are strictly forbidden at night, and a French Navy expert said that military drones can use blue lights but that these flash. A single drone was excluded, since the phenomenon passed behind trees 200 m away, which would imply a size above 9 m. Several identical drones remained possible but were judged unlikely.

As no hypothesis was satisfactory, GEIPAN classified the case as D: phenomenon unidentified after investigation.