Within Mayenne UFOs
Why Aron's 2019 UFOs Split Two Ways
Aron's two 2019 reports show how one strange account can stay unusable while another bright light can be identified as the ISS.
On this page
- The red pyramid like report
- The ISS photograph case
- What made one file weak and one strong
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Aron, a small commune in Mayenne, produced two modern UFO reports in 2019 that are useful precisely because they did not end the same way. One March report sounded stranger: a red rectangular form, then orange discs arranged like a pyramid, rising and vanishing after about 15 seconds. GEIPAN, the French space agency’s public UAP investigation unit, left it in category C because the single-witness account contained important conflicts with checked weather and astronomical data. A second Aron report, from May, came with a photograph and a steadier description of a moving light; GEIPAN classified it as category A, identifying it as the International Space Station.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That split makes Aron one of Mayenne’s clearest recent examples of evidence sorting. The issue is not whether one witness was sincere and the other was not. It is that the first file did not give investigators enough reliable, checkable material, while the second offered timing, direction, motion and a photographic clue that could be tested against a known satellite pass.
The red pyramid-like report
The first Aron sighting was reported for 28 March 2019, at about 11 pm. The witness said they had opened the door at home and saw a small, bright red rectangular shape in the sky, followed by an orange disc with smaller discs above it, forming a pyramid-like structure. According to the report, the form seemed to rise vertically and disappear into clouds, leaving brief traces compared to snow marked with pink spots. The observation lasted only about 15 seconds and no other witness was found.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
This is the more memorable of the two Aron accounts, but it is also the less usable one. GEIPAN’s case page records it as category C, with “lack of reliable information”, a strangeness score of 0.70 and a consistency score of 0.45. The official summary says the account was “not exploitable” because key data did not remain reliable enough after investigation.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The main problem was not simply that the report was odd. GEIPAN checked the context around the stated date and time. Weather data from the nearest archived station showed no rain, a temperature of 4.7°C and calm or near-calm wind, while satellite imagery suggested a clear sky over the observation site, with only small high clouds near the northern and southern horizon. That conflicted with the witness’s impression that the object rose into clouds above the eastern viewing direction.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
The astronomical check created another tension. GEIPAN’s reconstruction for nearby Laval at 11 pm on 28 March 2019 found no Moon visible at the time, with Mars low in the west and several winter stars visible. The witness, however, had indicated that the Moon was visible, and later described a remembered lunar position that did not match the stated date. Investigators considered whether the witness might have misdated the sighting, but a later message in November 2024 reaffirmed the date as 28 March.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
GEIPAN also checked aircraft and satellite possibilities. A Transavia Boeing 737 passed just east of the location at about 11.04 pm, but the report says that route did not explain the observation. The International Space Station had passed twice earlier that evening, but not at a time matching the reported sighting, and a satellite flash was also outside the stated time window.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
That leaves a careful but unsatisfying result: not explained, but not strong. GEIPAN noted that the description had high strangeness and did not resemble common phenomena very well. It briefly considered transient luminous events, a family of upper-atmosphere flashes linked to thunderstorms, but rejected that idea because 15 seconds was too long and there were no storm clouds to the east over the relevant distance. The final reason for category C was blunt: one witness, no photo or video, imprecisions, and conflicts between remembered sky conditions and checked sky conditions.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
The ISS photograph case
The second Aron report came from 31 May 2019, around 11.30 pm. The witness was out at night taking photographs near a canal linking two ponds, two or three kilometres from the centre of Aron on the road towards Jublains. They described a silent, translucent, round object like a small ball, apparently moving on a steady path. The witness thought it moved at a modest pace, “like a cyclist”, and kept one photograph from several attempts.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frCompte rendu enquete578Compte rendu enquete578
At first glance, that report still had weaknesses. It was again a single-witness case, and the photograph was not a clean astronomical record. GEIPAN described the image as showing a typical camera shake effect, common when a camera is held by hand. The shape in the image looked filament-like, while the witness’s direct description was of a spherical or ball-like object; no landscape or stars appeared in the photograph to provide a fixed reference frame.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frCompte rendu enquete578Compte rendu enquete578
Even so, the May case had something the March file lacked: a coherent match to a known object in the sky. GEIPAN checked astronomical, meteorological, aviation and satellite conditions. The sky was clear, the weather matched the witness’s “pre-summer” description, and no aircraft was present in the sector at the time. A reconstruction using satellite data showed the International Space Station crossing the sky a few minutes before the witness’s stated time, from 11.16 pm to 11.23 pm.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frCompte rendu enquete578Compte rendu enquete578
The direction problem turned out to be solvable. In the questionnaire, the witness’s stated route appeared to conflict with the ISS path. But in a later email, the witness clarified that the object moved from right to left. GEIPAN concluded that the witness had probably reversed east and west, which made the described motion consistent with the ISS trajectory.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Why one file stayed weak and one became strong
The Aron pair is useful because it shows that GEIPAN’s categories are not a simple ladder from “boring” to “mysterious”. Category A means the phenomenon was identified after investigation. Category C means it could not be identified because the data or information were insufficient. GEIPAN’s own methodology also distinguishes “strangeness”, meaning how unusual the report remains after comparison with known causes, from “consistency”, meaning the quantity and reliability of the evidence collected.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The March sighting scored higher for strangeness because a red rectangle changing into orange discs and rising into cloud is not a standard description of a plane, planet, satellite or firework. But its consistency was weak. The account depended on one person’s memory, lasted about 15 seconds, had no image, and included claims about the Moon and clouds that did not match the checked sky for the stated date. In GEIPAN’s reasoning, a strange account needs strong supporting data; when it has weak supporting data, it cannot be promoted into a robust unexplained case.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
The May sighting was less exotic but better testable. The observation lasted roughly three minutes, the motion was regular, the witness had taken a photograph, and the trajectory could be compared with a specific ISS pass. The photograph did not prove the object by itself; GEIPAN actually treated it cautiously because of camera movement. But the file had enough converging details for a practical identification.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frCompte rendu enquete578Compte rendu enquete578
This distinction matters for Mayenne’s UFO history. The department’s public record is not dominated by dramatic, unresolved cases. Aron instead shows a more common reality in official UAP work: the most spectacular-sounding testimony can become unusable if it cannot be anchored, while a more ordinary moving light can be solved when timing, path and known sky traffic line up.
What the Aron split says about Mayenne
Aron’s two 2019 cases sit close together in place and time, and GEIPAN’s May report explicitly notes that the same witness had made the earlier March report. That does not make the two sightings the same event, nor does it make either one automatically suspect. It does, however, gives readers a rare side-by-side lesson in how official classification can change with the quality of the available evidence.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frCompte rendu enquete578Compte rendu enquete578
The March case should be described carefully as unresolved only in a limited sense: GEIPAN did not identify it, but the reason was lack of reliable information, not a strong unknown surviving a rich investigation. The May case should be described just as carefully in the other direction: it was identified as the ISS not because “satellite” is a convenient default explanation, but because the reported movement, brightness, height, timing and later direction clarification were judged to fit a real pass of the station.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
For a Mayenne reader, that is the value of Aron 2019. It keeps two ideas in view at once. Some sky reports remain genuinely odd as human experiences, especially when the witness gives a vivid description. But in an evidence-led archive, vividness is not the same as strength. The Aron files show the difference between a story that cannot be responsibly pushed further and a sighting that becomes clearer once it is placed back into the real sky above Mayenne.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why Aron's 2019 UFOs Split Two Ways. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Demon-Haunted World
Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings
Perfect fit for a page contrasting weak and strong evidence.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Courrier%20trajectoire%20PAN-R.pdf
2.
Source: nasa.gov
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/spot-the-station/
3.
Source: nasa.gov
Title: spot the station frequently asked questions
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/spot-the-station-frequently-asked-questions/
4.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788
5.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/412
6.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B14%5D=14&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B15%5D=15&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B16%5D=16&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=1&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=57.70414723434193&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=19.642587534013032&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=49.921875&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-9.843750000000002&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=%2C7&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc&video=on
7.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=11&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&page=%2C43&select-category-export=nothing
8.
Source: geipan.fr
Title: 15 VALLEE sli
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/sites/default/files/15_VALLEE_sli.pdf
9.
Source: space.com
Title: how to track the international space station
Link:https://www.space.com/how-to-track-the-international-space-station
10.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s
11.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Geipan: France is also interested in UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXDikL331Y
12.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2xTieploU
13.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/cas/2019-04-50742
14.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete578
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete578.pdf
15.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: ARON (53) 28.03.2019 [E Cgei CR T,D S] compte rendu enquete 2024
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2024-12/ARON%20%2853%29%2028.03.2019%20%5BE-Cgei%20CR%20T%2CD%20S%5D%20compte%20rendu%20enquete%202024.pdf
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/temoignage/9766
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
18.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=title&page=22%2C5&sort=asc
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B1%5D=14&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=title&page=%2C6&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2007-03-01&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_classification_des_cas&page=47&sort=desc
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas?field_agregation_index_value=Photo&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=%2C46&sort=asc
22.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: News V3 VBA February20 2018 V1
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/News-V3-VBA-February20-2018_V1.pdf
23.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan
24.
Source: play.google.com
Link:https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?hl=ln&id=ovni_info.space.ovniobservation
25.
Source: academia.edu
Link:https://www.academia.edu/99067452/GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
26.
Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEIPAN
27.
Source: youtube.com
Title: GEIPA N: qui étudie les ovnis?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4vKMT7ytTk
Additional References
28.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Identifying UFOs / Anti-Myth Superpowers
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GtoO00G_No
29.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/vraioufake/videos/ovnis-mais-quest-ce-que-le-geipan-/460603821691143/
30.
Source: journaldunet.com
Link:https://www.journaldunet.com/magazine/1546833-bp1-ce-site-on-ne-peut-plus-officiel-permet-de-voir-les-signalements-d-ovni-autour-de-chez-vous/
31.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248556848_Analyses_archeometriques_dans_la_grotte_ornee_Mayenne-Sciences_Thorigne-en-Charnie_Mayenne
32.
Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/p/DV67ywYE_sa/
33.
Source: x.com
Link:https://x.com/laflammerouge16/status/2064344855648567621
34.
Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/reel/DW0uRj4gOlJ/?hl=en
35.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/ParcMayenne/posts/spectacular-sunset-the-other-evening-captured-by-rod/807800988014039/
36.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333610396_Statistical_regularities_induce_spatial_as_well_as_feature-specific_suppression
37.
Source: ladepeche.fr
Link:https://www.ladepeche.fr/2023/07/22/carte-ovnis-avions-lanternes-chinoises-satellites-dans-quels-departements-le-geipan-enquete-t-il-le-plus-11346696.php
Topic Tree