Within Loire UFOs
Why Official UFO Files Still Leave Doubts
The official files show why many local UFO reports are explained, probable, or too thin to settle.
On this page
- How GEIPAN classifies local reports
- Nantes and Blain as cautionary cases
- What weak evidence can and cannot prove
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Loire-Atlantique’s GEIPAN files are useful precisely because they do not tell a simple mystery story. They show a mixed official record: some reports are identified, many are probably explained, a large minority are too thin to settle, and only a few remain unexplained after investigation. That matters because “unidentified” in the French archive can mean two very different things: a genuinely unresolved case after inquiry, or a file that cannot be analysed properly because the witness data, timings, angles, images or corroboration are missing. GEIPAN’s public statistics, updated in June 2026, put class D cases at only 3.1% nationally, while class C “lack of data” cases make up 30.1% of published cases.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frStatistics | GEIPANStatistics | GEIPAN
For Loire-Atlantique, the same distinction is essential. An independent map built from GEIPAN/CNES open data lists 62 department cases: 13 class A, 27 class B, 19 class C and 3 class D. It is not an official CNES page, but it is a helpful index because it points back to the public GEIPAN record and gives a quick department-level picture.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frCarte Ovni.fr OVN I dans le Loire-Atlantique (44) — Carte Ovni.frOVNI dans le Loire-Atlantique (44) — CarteOvni.fr… The clearest lesson is not that the department has no interesting UFO history. It is that its official files repeatedly show how uncertainty is produced: by ordinary sky phenomena seen under odd conditions, by weak or late reports, by witness emotion, and by older cases that later tools can sometimes reclassify.
How GEIPAN Turns Sightings Into Official Uncertainty
GEIPAN is the French official body, attached to CNES, that collects, analyses and archives reports of unidentified aerospace phenomena. CNES says the group’s mission is to collect witness accounts, analyse them, carry out office or field investigations where needed, and inform the public; it also notes GEIPAN’s institutional line from GEPAN in 1977, SEPRA in 1988, and GEIPAN from 2005.[CNES]cnes.frGEIPAN | CNESGEIPAN | CNES…
The most important thing for Loire-Atlantique readers is GEIPAN’s classification system. A class A case is explained without ambiguity. Class B means the explanation is considered very probable. Class C means the observation is not analysable because of missing information. Class D means the case remains unexplained despite the material GEIPAN has. GEIPAN also divides D cases into D1 and D2, with D1 generally less strong in evidential consistency and D2 involving higher strangeness and stronger supporting material such as multiple independent witnesses, recordings or traces.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frLe glossaire du Geipan | GEIPANLe glossaire du Geipan | GEIPAN
This is where many public misunderstandings begin. A class C case is not a stronger mystery than a class B case. Often it is weaker. GEIPAN’s own methodology says classification depends on two ideas: residual strangeness after possible explanations are checked, and “consistency”, meaning the quantity and reliability of the information gathered. A strange-sounding account can fall into class C if the evidence is not strong enough to support either a firm explanation or a firm unexplained classification.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frLa méthodologie de classification au GEIPAN | GEIPANLa méthodologie de classification au GEIPAN | GEIPAN
That distinction fits Loire-Atlantique especially well. The department has coastal observations, airport-adjacent reports, rural night sightings, Nantes urban lights and older gendarmerie files. Those settings produce real witness experiences, but they also create classic uncertainty traps: moving vehicles, cloud layers, sky lanterns, aircraft approach paths, bright meteors, night-time distance errors and the difficulty of reconstructing events years later.
Nantes and Blain Show the Difference Between Mystery and Missing Data
Two Loire-Atlantique examples make the point clearly: Nantes in 2002 and Blain in 2016. Both sound interesting at first glance, but GEIPAN handles them very differently from a dramatic “unexplained object” narrative.
In Nantes on 2 September 2002, a witness reported a sequence of luminous points around 22:00 for about 25 minutes. The points appeared to move from the horizon to a place where they seemed to “fall”, and the witness also described a triangle with luminous points. No sound was heard. GEIPAN did not turn this into a strong mystery; it classified the file as C because there was not enough additional information to analyse it properly.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That kind of file matters because it shows the limit of the archive. A class C Nantes report preserves a witness account, but it does not give the reader enough to decide what was seen. Without good angular measurements, independent witnesses, photographs, flight checks, astronomical reconstruction or precise environmental detail, the case remains suspended. It is not debunked, but it is also not strengthened by official publication.
Blain on 28 March 2016 is more instructive because GEIPAN split the observation into phases. During a storm and a power cut, witnesses saw a silent white luminous ball close to the ground, then later saw coloured flashes and reported an apparent shadow. GEIPAN treated the first phase as a probable ball-lightning event and classed it B, with low residual strangeness and moderate consistency. The second phase, however, remained much more confused and was classed C because the information was not reliable enough to support a stronger conclusion.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Why Some Loire-Atlantique Cases Move From Strange to Probable
One of the most useful things about the GEIPAN archive is that it can weaken an older mystery without dismissing the witness. Loire-Atlantique has several cases where the reported experience remained sincere, but later analysis made an ordinary explanation more likely.
The Nort-sur-Erdre case of 25 November 1990 is a good example. Witnesses travelling by car reported three fluorescent green forms of varying shapes in the night sky. The case had previously been treated as D, but GEIPAN later re-examined it and classified it A, identifying the likely source as laser or skytracker-style light beams reflecting on low cloud. The report points to a Saturday-night setting, partial cloud cover, low cloud layers, intermittent disappearances, movement patterns typical of motorised ground projectors, and the “following ball” illusion that can affect observers in moving vehicles.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That reclassification does not mean the witnesses invented the event. It means the features that seemed exotic in 1990 became more legible later: green light, moving patches, cloud reflections, changing shapes and apparent pursuit of a vehicle. GEIPAN also noted a weakness in the file itself: poor angular information and no clear duration. Those gaps are exactly the sort of missing details that make UFO reports hard to interpret decades later.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Le Pellerin on 11 June 1994 follows a similar pattern. A driver reported a low night-time object with multicoloured blinking lights, a “lemon” shape and what looked like a cable, apparently moving alongside the car. GEIPAN says the case had once appeared highly strange, but later analysis favoured a model aircraft or helicopter near an aeroclub. The probable explanation rested on the direction of observation, low altitude, aviation-style lights, night-time viewing from a moving car with windows closed, very small angular dimensions, and the same kind of “moving with me” illusion seen in other reports.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These cases are important for Loire-Atlantique because they reduce the temptation to rank sightings only by how odd they sound. A report can be vivid and still be explainable once investigators reconstruct the geometry, weather, local activity and witness conditions. Conversely, a report can remain unexplained not because it is stronger, but because the trail has gone cold.
The Three Class D Cases Still Need Careful Reading
The Loire-Atlantique files indexed as class D are the cases that remain unexplained after investigation, but even here the archive does not justify overstatement. The independent GEIPAN-based index lists three class D cases in the department: Nantes in 1979, Le Loroux-Bottereau in 1980 and Meilleraye de Bretagne in 1997.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frCarte Ovni.fr OVN I dans le Loire-Atlantique (44) — Carte Ovni.frOVNI dans le Loire-Atlantique (44) — CarteOvni.fr…
The Nantes case of 15 December 1979 is brief but striking. Around 02:00, a witness on the third floor of an apartment saw an orange phosphorescent cigar-shaped object, vertical in orientation, moving silently from north to south before disappearing into the urban landscape. GEIPAN records that no other testimony was collected and that the phenomenon remains unexplained.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Le Loroux-Bottereau, dated in GEIPAN’s page title to 20 January 1980 but described in the text as an observation on 24 January, is more detailed. A witness reported a dark cylindrical object with small side fins that later appeared oval and brightly yellow-orange, stabilised at an estimated 200 metres altitude and about 300 metres east of a water tower. The witness also reported radio-telephone interference, use of a portable spotlight, a sudden departure, fear, and a later vehicle dashboard electrical fault. GEIPAN says no other information was collected and the phenomenon remains unexplained.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The Meilleraye de Bretagne 1997 case, associated in the testimony field with Grand-Auverné, involved a couple returning from work around 01:30 on 3 May 1997. They saw a point brighter than the stars approach quickly, then described a large round luminous mass passing over a housing estate and disappearing southwards, with a sound like air displacement at the time of passage. GEIPAN records a duration of about five minutes and says no explanation was found.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These three files deserve attention, but not theatrical certainty. They are not proof of an extraordinary craft; they are the small remainder of the local archive that GEIPAN has not explained. Their evidential force differs from a modern, instrumented case with independent tracks, images and multiple separated witnesses. Nantes 1979, for example, explicitly lacks additional witnesses. Le Loroux-Bottereau includes reported physical and radio effects, but the public summary also says no further information was gathered. Meilleraye has two witnesses and a more dynamic description, yet it remains a short official summary rather than a fully instrumented reconstruction.
Modern Files Often Explain More Because the Evidence Is Better
Later Loire-Atlantique files show why better data can reduce uncertainty rather than increase it. A spectacular observation at La Turballe on 22 December 2024 was classed A, not because it was dull, but because the witness details could be matched to a well-documented fireball. GEIPAN records a short yellow-orange “flaming band” seen in the night sky; the witness noted GPS position and direction, and the event correlated with dozens of International Meteor Organization reports and detections by four FRIPON fireball network cameras. GEIPAN therefore classified it as a bolide.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The Nantes 22 November 2020 file points in the other direction: good witness material can still lead to a probable, not certain, explanation. A witness photographed about ten red-orange lights moving at low apparent altitude after sunset. GEIPAN judged the file to have good consistency, including precise data and photographs, but the colour, circular appearance, spacing, weekend timing and wind compatibility all pointed towards sky lanterns. Because the origin of the lantern release could not be traced, the case was classified B rather than A.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Bouguenais on 4 December 2021 shows why aviation-related cases are not automatically stronger. The file concerns a Ryanair flight approaching Nantes Atlantique Airport, where the pilot reported conflicting traffic at 6,000 feet and made an avoidance manoeuvre. The object did not appear on TCAS or airport radar, and a drone was considered possible, but GEIPAN relied on the gendarmerie inquiry and classed the case C because no element confirmed a drone or allowed a firmer conclusion.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
For readers, this is one of the department’s most important lessons. A pilot report is serious because it involves air safety, but seriousness is not the same as evidential completeness. If radar, TCAS, visual detail and corroborating material do not converge, GEIPAN may still be left with a low-consistency file.
What Weak Evidence Can and Cannot Prove
Weak evidence can prove that someone reported something. It can sometimes prove that the report reached the gendarmerie, aviation authorities or GEIPAN. It can preserve date, place, direction, emotion, sketches, photos or witness language. It can also reveal recurring local explanation patterns: lanterns around weekends, meteors and bolides on clear nights, aircraft or drones near Nantes Atlantique, light reflections on cloud, model aircraft, and vehicle-based perception errors.
What weak evidence cannot do is carry the weight often placed on it in UFO retellings. A single witness, no image, uncertain distance, no angular size, no independent timing, no radar trace and no known environmental checks cannot support a confident extraordinary claim. GEIPAN’s classification method makes that explicit: as residual strangeness rises, consistency must also rise. If the case is strange but the information is weak, the result is often class C, not a strong class D.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frLa méthodologie de classification au GEIPAN | GEIPANLa méthodologie de classification au GEIPAN | GEIPAN
The Real Value of the Loire-Atlantique GEIPAN Record
The best way to read Loire-Atlantique’s GEIPAN files is as a map of uncertainty, not a scoreboard of belief. The official record does not erase local UFO history. It makes that history more precise. It separates a Nantes class C light pattern from a Nantes class B lantern cluster, a Blain storm event from its weaker later phase, a reclassified Nort-sur-Erdre laser case from the still-unexplained Nantes 1979 cigar-shaped object, and a La Turballe fireball from more ambiguous airport-adjacent reports.
That approach is less dramatic than treating every file as a mystery, but it is more useful. It shows why some cases deserve attention, why others weaken under scrutiny, and why “unidentified” is not a single category. In Loire-Atlantique, the official archive leaves doubts not because every file points beyond known phenomena, but because real-world reports arrive unevenly: some with enough data to solve, some with enough detail to suggest a likely answer, and some with too little reliable evidence to settle at all.<section class="further-reading-section" data-page-toc-exclude aria-labelledby="further-reading-title"><div class="fr-section-shell"><div class="fr-section-header"><div class="fr-section-heading"><p class="fr-section-kicker">Amazon book picks</p><h3 class="fr-heading" id="further-reading-title">Further Reading</h3></div><p class="fr-intro">Books and field guides related to Why Official UFO Files Still Leave Doubts. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.</p></div><div class="fr-books-grid"><article class="fr-book-card">Book<div class="fr-book-info"><h4 class="fr-book-title">The UFO Experience</h4><p class="fr-book-author">By Joseph Allen Hynek</p><p class="fr-book-desc">Strong fit for discussions of classification and evidence quality.</p><div class="fr-book-actions">
See on Amazon</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">Book
<div class="fr-book-info"><h4 class="fr-book-title">UFOs</h4><p class="fr-book-author">By Leslie Kean</p><p class="fr-book-desc">Centers on documented reports and official records.</p><div class="fr-book-actions">
See on Amazon</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">Book
<div class="fr-book-info"><h4 class="fr-book-title">The Believing Brain</h4><p class="fr-book-author">By Michael Shermer</p><p class="fr-book-desc">Explains why people interpret ambiguous evidence in compelling ways.</p><div class="fr-book-actions">
See on Amazon</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">Book<div class="fr-book-info"><h4 class="fr-book-title">The Demon-haunted World</h4><p class="fr-book-author">By Carl Sagan</p><p class="fr-book-desc">Directly relevant to uncertainty and weak evidence.</p><div class="fr-book-actions">
See on Amazon</div></div></article></div><div class="fr-section-footer"><div class="fr-browse-links" aria-label="Browse more on Amazon">Browse more on Amazon:The UFO ExperienceUFOsThe Believing Brain</div><p class="fr-disclosure">As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.</p></div></div></section><section class="further-reading-section" data-page-toc-exclude data-ebay-localized-links data-ebay-visual-market="EBAY_GB" aria-labelledby="merchant-block-title"><div class="fr-section-shell"><div class="fr-section-header"><div class="fr-section-heading"><p class="fr-section-kicker">eBay marketplace picks</p><h3 class="fr-heading" id="merchant-block-title">Marketplace Samples</h3></div><p class="fr-intro">Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.</p><div class="fr-ebay-market-toolbar"><div class="fr-ebay-market-picker">UsingUSA<div class="fr-ebay-market-menu" data-ebay-market-menu role="listbox" hidden></div></div></div></div><div class="fr-ebay-market-panel" data-ebay-market-panel="EBAY_GB" data-ebay-market-default="1"><div class="fr-books-grid"><article class="fr-book-card">
<div class="fr-book-info"><p class="fr-book-kicker">Example eBay listing</p><h4 class="fr-book-title">Anderson Entertainment UFO Saucer Collectable</h4>SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible<div class="fr-book-actions">
Browse similar oneBay.co.uk</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">
<div class="fr-book-info"><p class="fr-book-kicker">Example eBay listing</p><h4 class="fr-book-title">Junior Alien Bust Replica | Betty & Barney Hill UFO Model, UFO/UAP Collectible</h4>SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible<div class="fr-book-actions">
Browse similar oneBay.co.uk</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">
<div class="fr-book-info"><p class="fr-book-kicker">Example eBay listing</p><h4 class="fr-book-title">122CM LARGE ROSWELL ALIEN GREEN FINISH UFO EXTRATERRESTRIAL FIGURINE OUTER SPACE</h4>SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible<div class="fr-book-actions">
Browse similar oneBay.co.uk</div></div></article><article class="fr-book-card">
<div class="fr-book-info"><p class="fr-book-kicker">Example eBay listing</p><h4 class="fr-book-title">SHADO UFO Moon Mobile (Half Size) - 3D Printed In White and Ready for Painting</h4>SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible<div class="fr-book-actions">
Browse similar oneBay.co.uk</div></div></article></div><div class="fr-section-footer">
Browse more oneBay.co.uk<p class="fr-disclosure">Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.</p></div></div></div></section>
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Statistics | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/stats
2.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: Carte Ovni.fr OVN I dans le Loire-Atlantique (44) — Carte Ovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/departement/loire-atlantique
3.
Source: cnes.fr
Title: GEIPAN | CNES
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan
4.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Le glossaire du Geipan | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/glossaire
5.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: La méthodologie de classification au GEIPAN | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/methodologie-classification-geipan
6.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2002-09-01590
7.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2016-03-09426
8.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1990-12-01229
9.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1994-06-01358
10.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1979-12-01872
11.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1980-01-00718
12.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1997-05-01661?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&page=115
13.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2024-12-51617
14.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2020-11-51134
15.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2021-12-51283?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=13&page=%2C2
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Forte baisse des CAS D sur les 10 dernières années | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/actualites/baisse-cas-d
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Medias.pdf
18.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Questionnaire terre R1192
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Questionnaire%20terre-R1192.pdf
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Temoignage%20Direct-R.pdf
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/48318
22.
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
23.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2007-08-01851
24.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete496
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete496.pdf
25.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: compte rendu d’enquete1
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete102.pdf
26.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-04-02849
27.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: evolution classification des cas
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/evolution-classification-des-cas
28.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/node/412
29.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: missions methodes et resultat
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/missions-methodes-et-resultat
30.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: deux nouveaux cas d1
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/deux-nouveaux-cas-d1
31.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/node/58701
32.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1992-05-01262
33.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/faq-page
34.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/missions-methodes-et-resultats
35.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: blain 2016 0350747
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/blain-2016-0350747
36.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/projets/geipan
37.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/cas/2007-08-01851?field_date_value=2007-03-01&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=title&page=77&sort=desc
38.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2019-08-31&field_is_new_value=1&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=title&page=22&sort=asc
Additional References
39.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2xTieploU
40.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Ancient Aliens: French Government EXPOSES Evidence of UFOs (Special) | History
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBIkZ646gA
41.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Geipan: France is also interested in UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXDikL331Y
42.
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFOs: GEIPAN is working on the issue (Toulouse)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnOX-NXZFqE
43.
Source: 20minutes.fr
Link:https://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/sciences/4215259-20260329-demarche-scientifique-comment-enqueteurs-geipan-tentent-expliquer-cas-ovnis-france
44.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/France3Occitanie/posts/comment-fonctionne-le-geipan-le-groupe-d%C3%A9tudes-et-dinformations-sur-les-ph%C3%A9nom%C3%A8n/971177045625594/
45.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/humanite.fr/posts/un-millier-de-cas-dobservations-%C3%A9tranges-34-restent-inexpliqu%C3%A9es/1406374151534600/
46.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Groupe d’études et d’informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés
Link:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_d%27%C3%A9tudes_et_d%27informations_sur_les_ph%C3%A9nom%C3%A8nes_a%C3%A9rospatiaux_non_identifi%C3%A9s
47.
Source: youtube.com
Title: GEIPAN: Tout savoir sur les OVNIS et Phénomènes Aérospatiaux (PAN)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWt2zkuxRNQ
48.
Source: youtube.com
Title: GEIPA N: qui étudie les ovnis?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4vKMT7ytTk
Topic Tree