Within Ariege UFOs
When Ariège UFOs Turned Into the Moon and Venus
Foix and Lavelanet show how dramatic Ariège sightings can become clear once astronomy, terrain, and timing are checked.
On this page
- Foix 1979 and the setting Moon
- Lavelanet 2011 and the dawn planet
- What these cases teach about witness perception
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Foix and Lavelanet are useful Ariège UFO cases precisely because they did not stay mysterious. In Foix in July 1979, a frightening red-orange “mass” seen near the mountain horizon was later reclassified by GEIPAN as a setting Moon. In Lavelanet in early 2011, repeated dawn sightings and phone videos of a bright white stationary light were identified as Venus. Both cases show how convincing a UFO report can feel at the moment, especially in mountainous terrain, and how strongly the answer can change once direction, timing, weather, horizon line and sky position are checked.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These are not throwaway debunks. They sit at the heart of Ariège’s official UFO record: a department where the public evidence is often less about extraordinary craft than about how ordinary sky objects become strange under local conditions. GEIPAN, the CNES unit that collects and analyses French reports of unidentified aerospace phenomena, classifies both Foix and Lavelanet as category A, meaning the phenomenon was identified after investigation.[CNES]cnes.frOpen source on cnes.fr.
Foix 1979 and the setting Moon
The Foix report began in the early hours of 4 July 1979, at about 2 am, near La Coume, a hamlet of Foix. A witness returning home saw what was described as a large red-orange mass, shaped like a shell or projectile, low in the sky in the direction of Serres-sur-Arget. The witness was frightened, went inside, watched from behind a window for about two minutes, heard no sound, and then saw the object disappear behind the mountain landscape. GEIPAN’s public case file records that no other testimony was collected.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The dramatic features are easy to understand. A large coloured object near a ridge, silent and apparently sliding down behind the terrain, could look like something close, solid and descending. Yet the very details that made the report memorable also made it testable. GEIPAN’s later review noted that the witness’s indicated direction was confused: the witness referred to the north, but Serres-sur-Arget lies west of Foix from the observation point. That westward direction mattered because it pointed towards a setting object rather than an object crossing the sky.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
GEIPAN’s re-examination treated the case as a good example of an old file that could be improved by later tools and accumulated investigative experience. The file had once been classed C, meaning not identified because of insufficient reliable information, but the later review found a coherent astronomical explanation. The Moon was low in the relevant part of the sky, close to setting; the reported colour, shape, low elevation, apparent size, duration and disappearance behind the relief all matched that explanation.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The Moon explanation also fits the witness’s own uncertainty. GEIPAN’s investigation note records that the witness initially wondered whether the object might be the Moon, but then rejected the idea because they believed the Moon was “in the sky”. GEIPAN found that surprising because the Moon was in fact very low on the horizon. The lesson is subtle: the witness was not necessarily inventing anything or seeing badly. The problem was interpretation under stress, at night, with fatigue, fear and terrain making a familiar object seem unfamiliar.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
This is why the Foix case matters in Ariège’s UFO history. It is not a weak case because it was ridiculous; it is useful because it was specific. A vague report of a light in the sky is hard to analyse decades later. Here, however, the time, place, direction, colour, relief and duration created enough structure for a later check. Once the ridge line and the western sky were taken seriously, the case moved from “not workable” to “identified”.
Lavelanet 2011 and the dawn planet
The Lavelanet case has a different rhythm. Instead of one alarming night-time moment, it involved repeated early morning observations in February and March 2011. The main witness reported a bright white light seen from home, filmed on a mobile phone on 9 February, 6 March and 11 March. GEIPAN’s French case summary says the light was observed on several mornings, remained immobile for a long period, disappeared when daylight arrived, and was seen towards the south-south-east, in the direction of Lavelanet-Bélesta.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The gendarmerie record gives the human texture behind the official summary. The witness described opening the shutters before dawn and seeing a light that seemed to float, periodically visible, static, very bright, white, and sometimes apparently blinking or blurred. The witness did not claim certainty: they said they could not tell whether it was a star, satellite or flying object. That uncertainty is important because the later explanation did not require dismissing the report; it required matching the report to the morning sky.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
There was also a second witness, a cousin, who said he had seen the phenomenon several times while driving back from work from Foix in the morning. He described a bright object towards the east, near the Pic de Saint-Barthélemy and the Monts d’Olmes massif, and said that through binoculars it seemed stationary, perhaps rotating, and disappeared with sunrise. A colleague reportedly suggested a satellite, but the witness doubted that because the light seemed too bright.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Why these explanations are stronger than simple scepticism
Foix and Lavelanet are sometimes best understood as “explained UFO cases” rather than “false reports”. The witnesses reported experiences that were unusual to them. The official question was not whether they were sincere, but whether the reported features required an unknown phenomenon once ordinary candidates were checked. GEIPAN’s own methodology stresses this distinction: it evaluates both the strangeness left after comparison with known hypotheses and the consistency of the available information, including witness detail, number of witnesses, reliability, and any photographic or video material.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Classification | GEIPANGeipan Classification | GEIPAN
The two cases also show two different routes to misidentification:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--insight-grid" markdown="1">
- Foix was a horizon case. The object appeared low, coloured, partly shaped by the mountain skyline, and then disappeared behind relief. A low Moon can look larger, redder and more object-like than expected, especially when partly framed by terrain.
- Lavelanet was a bright-planet case. Venus is often striking before sunrise or after sunset. When seen through unstable air near the horizon, it can seem to flash, blur, pulse or even “move” slightly, while actually remaining fixed relative to the sky.
- Both depended on timing. A report without time and direction would have been much weaker. The decisive evidence was not a theory about UFOs in general, but a match between the witness’s observation window and the astronomical sky at that place.</div>
This is also why the cases are stronger than a casual “it was probably the Moon” or “it was probably Venus”. In both files, GEIPAN tied the explanation to concrete details: Foix to the Moon’s position, low western horizon and setting behaviour; Lavelanet to Venus’s position, repeated dawn visibility, immobility, brightness and disappearance with daylight.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
What Foix and Lavelanet teach about witness perception
The most valuable lesson is that perception and interpretation are not the same thing. A witness may accurately see a bright white point, a red-orange mass, a low horizon object, or a flickering light, but still misjudge what it is, how far away it is, how large it is, or whether it is moving. GEIPAN’s methodology explicitly treats witness testimony as central but fragile, noting that reports can be altered by short-term perception effects, emotion, memory, cultural expectations and the difficulty of estimating distance or speed for an unidentified object.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Methodology | GEIPANGeipan Methodology | GEIPAN
Foix shows how fear can transform a low astronomical object into a threatening presence. The witness’s description was detailed enough to be useful, but the emotional response helped make the object feel anomalous. GEIPAN’s conclusion is careful on this point: it does not attack the witness’s eyesight, but says the interpretation was shaped by the witness’s feeling at the time, including fatigue and fear.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Lavelanet shows a different psychological trap: recurrence can feel like confirmation. Seeing the same bright object on several mornings may make it seem more meaningful, especially if it appears brighter than a normal star and seems to shimmer. Yet regular recurrence at dawn is exactly what makes Venus a strong candidate. The case is a reminder that a witness can gather more observations and still become more convinced of an unusual interpretation unless those observations are checked against the sky.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
For Ariège, the terrain matters too. Both cases involve sky objects interpreted through a local landscape of ridges, valleys and mountain references. A low Moon behind a ridge can seem to sink into the land. A bright planet above the Monts d’Olmes can appear attached to a familiar horizon rather than to the much more distant sky. The mountain setting does not create the Moon or Venus, but it changes the way ordinary celestial objects are framed.
How they fit Ariège’s wider UFO record
Foix and Lavelanet should not be read as proof that every Ariège UFO report has a neat answer. They do show, however, why the department’s official record needs careful sorting. GEIPAN’s public Ariège listings include several cases classified A, B or C, with explanations such as Venus, satellite trains, reflections or insufficient reliable information rather than a strong pattern of unexplained category D events.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Local media coverage can make the department feel more mysterious than the official record does. A 2011 article in La Dépêche, prompted by a meteorite passage over Ariège, recalled older local UFO stories and noted that some sightings had circulated for decades, including famous or colourful accounts around Bélesta and Foix. The article is useful as a snapshot of local memory, but it also shows how explained, unresolved, anecdotal and folkloric material can sit side by side in public retellings.[ladepeche.fr]ladepeche.frInsolite. Ces Ovnis vus en AriègeInsolite. Ces Ovnis vus en Ariège
Foix and Lavelanet therefore act as anchor cases for the Ariège branch: they show what happens when memorable sightings are exposed to disciplined checking. The outcome is not a loss of interest, but a clearer kind of interest. Instead of asking only “Was it a UFO?”, these cases ask better questions: what exactly was seen, from where, in what direction, at what time, against which horizon, and with what astronomical objects present?
The practical takeaway for readers
The simplest takeaway is that Ariège’s explained UFO cases are not embarrassments to be brushed aside. They are some of the most useful cases in the department because they show the investigative hinge between mystery and explanation. Foix turned on the Moon setting behind a western mountain horizon. Lavelanet turned on Venus shining before dawn in the observed sector of sky. Both began as sincere reports; both became clearer when the sky was reconstructed.
For readers comparing Ariège sightings, these cases offer a quick credibility test. A strong report is not just vivid. It needs time, direction, duration, weather, horizon references, independent witnesses if available, and a check against astronomy and aviation. Without those details, a case may remain interesting but weak. With them, even a frightening or repeated UFO report can sometimes become something more modest and more instructive: a record of how the Moon or Venus, seen at the wrong moment and in the right landscape, can briefly become an Ariège mystery.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to When Ariège UFOs Turned Into the Moon and Venus. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The UFO Experience
Provides a framework for evaluating UFO reports and distinguishing unexplained cases from misidentifications.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)
Helps explain witness confidence, memory, and belief persistence in seemingly convincing sightings.
The Demon-Haunted World
Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings
Explores critical thinking, perception, and how people can misinterpret unusual observations.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan
2.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Notes%20d%27enquete47.pdf
3.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/PV%20n%C2%B0639%20%282011310403%29.pdf
4.
Source: ladepeche.fr
Title: Insolite. Ces Ovnis vus en Ariège
Link:https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2011/08/06/1141894-insolite-ces-ovnis-vus-en-[ariege
5.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/contact
6.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/sites/default/files/2026-01/cnesmag-99-en_0.pdf
7.
Source: cnes.fr
Title: rapport cospar 2018
Link:https://cnes.fr/sites/default/files/2024-06/rapport-cospar-2018.pdf
8.
Source: cnes.fr
Title: mag 90 60 years en
Link:https://cnes.fr/sites/default/files/2024-08/cnesmag-90-60-years-en.pdf
9.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%255B11%255D=11&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmin%255D=&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%255Bmax%255D=&field_latitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_classification_des_cas&page=122&sort=desc
10.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&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_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_phenomene_textuel&page=3&sort=desc
11.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B11%5D=11&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B12%5D=12&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B14%5D=14&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=&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=field_classification_des_cas&page=131&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc&video=on
12.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&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=116&order=field_date_d_observation&page=145%2C34&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc
13.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=c&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=132&sort=desc
14.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B11%5D=11&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B12%5D=12&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B14%5D=14&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=&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=field_departement_textuel&page=147&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc&video=on
15.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B11%5D=11&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=1&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_type_de_cas_target_id=116&order=field_date_d_observation&page=2&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc&video=on
16.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&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=98%2C26&sort=desc
17.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B11%5D=11&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=&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=26&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc&video=on
18.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives • FRANCE 24 English
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s
19.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Geipan: France is also interested in UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXDikL331Y
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/48069
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-03-02747
22.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Classification | GEIPAN
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58787
23.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/54925
24.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Methodology | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788
25.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&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=116&order=field_departement_textuel&page=11&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc
26.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: export cas pub 20251127093552.csv
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/save_json_import_files/export_cas_pub_20251127093552.csv
27.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&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_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=12&sort=asc
28.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?customGetLattitude=46.124763699209396&customGetLongitude=2.4169921874999996&customGetZoom=6&field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id=All&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=50.52739681329302&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=41.72213058512578&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=9.8876953125&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-5.053710937500001&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=146%2C2&sort=desc
29.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_=&field_agregation_index_value=&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=field_departement_textuel&page=155&sort=desc
30.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=lune&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=11&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B1%5D=12&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=field_date_d_observation&page=%2C1&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc
31.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58894?page=%2C45
32.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=lune&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=11&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B1%5D=12&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=field_classification_des_cas&page=%2C13&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc
33.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=2007-03-01&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=field_classification_des_cas&page=17%2C0&sort=asc
Additional References
34.
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFOs: GEIPAN is working on the issue (Toulouse)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnOX-NXZFqE
35.
Source: carteovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/commune/lavelanet-09
36.
Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/p/DV-b2GWCQTK/
37.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Identifying UFOs / Anti-Myth Superpowers
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GtoO00G_No
38.
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFO & UAP. Your Astronomy Sucks #3
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keDI4dNX9tg
39.
Source: meprises-du-ciel.fr
Link:https://meprises-du-ciel.fr/sources-naturelles/astronomie/planetes/
40.
Source: meprises-du-ciel.fr
Link:https://meprises-du-ciel.fr/sources-naturelles/astronomie/lune/lune/
41.
Source: docs.google.com
Link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQVpFB2Gb7s0rIn21NpTUPiL7AG_4UHcaq8TQ8aZWi0j77WgvikqACk8H0GHQcKRz1bQHDdg7EgBR_l/pubhtml?gid=0&headers=false&single=true&widget=true
Topic Tree