Why Most Local UFO Reports Get Explained

Introduction

Eure-et-Loir’s official UFO record is most useful when read less as a catalogue of mysteries and more as a lesson in how reported strangeness is sorted. GEIPAN, the French space agency’s unit for unidentified aerospace phenomena, lists a public trail of local cases from the late 1970s to recent years. The pattern is plain: most reports in the department are either identified or probably identified, several cannot be analysed because the information is too thin, and only one visible Eure-et-Loir case, Trancrainville in 1982, sits in the strongest unresolved category.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH… Overview image for GEIPAN Files That matters because it changes the question. Instead of asking whether every odd light over Chartres, Dreux, Châteaudun or the Beauce was “really” a craft, the GEIPAN files ask what information exists, what ordinary causes fit the observation, and what remains once weak impressions, missing data and common sky misreadings are stripped away. In Eure-et-Loir, the recurring answers are balloons, bright stars and planets, sun effects, lantern-like lights, photographic artefacts and cases that remain open mainly because there is not enough reliable evidence to test.

How GEIPAN Sorts Eure-et-Loir Reports

GEIPAN is part of CNES, France’s national space agency. Its role is to collect, analyse, investigate, archive and publish reports of unidentified aerospace phenomena, with the wider French official lineage beginning in 1977. CNES describes GEIPAN’s work as involving partners such as the gendarmerie, police, civil aviation, the French Air and Space Force, Météo-France, CNRS and other experts.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The key to reading the Eure-et-Loir files is GEIPAN’s classification system. A class A case is identified without ambiguity. A class B case is probably identified. A class C case is not really interpretable because information is missing or unreliable. A class D case remains unexplained after investigation. GEIPAN also subdivides D cases into D1 and D2, depending on how strange and well-supported the case is.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

This is important for ordinary readers because “unidentified” does not always mean “mysterious in the same way”. A class C case can remain unresolved because it is weak, not because it is especially impressive. A class D case carries more weight because GEIPAN considers that an investigation has still failed to identify the phenomenon. Even then, a D classification is not proof of an exotic object; it is a statement about the limits of the available explanation.

Across GEIPAN’s national published statistics, the same caution appears. As of the statistics page consulted, GEIPAN’s classified published cases were distributed as roughly 28.0% class A, 38.8% class B, 30.1% class C and 3.1% class D. That means most published cases are identified or probably identified, while the fully unexplained category is small.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

For Eure-et-Loir, the departmental pattern is even more concrete. The public case table includes entries such as Fresnay-le-Comte in 1979, Châteaudun and Authon-du-Perche in 1980, Trancrainville in 1982, Saussay in 1986, Dreux in 1987 and 2002, Villiers-le-Morhier in 1997, Vernouillet in 2011, Chartres-to-Caen in 2012, Toury and Rohaire in 2012, Chérisy in 2015, Sainville in 2016, Dreux in 2018, Romilly-sur-Aigre in 2019, Le Thieulin in 2022 and Brézolles in 2023. In that visible list, Trancrainville is the single Eure-et-Loir case marked D.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH… GEIPAN Files illustration 1

What the Local Pattern Actually Shows

The department’s GEIPAN files do not point to a single local “hotspot” in the dramatic sense. They point to a spread of ordinary observation settings: someone at home notices a bright or moving point; a driver or patrol sees something in the sky or near the horizon; a photograph later reveals an odd mark; a witness reports a light whose movement seems wrong. The official work then asks whether the report matches a known sky object, aircraft traffic, weather conditions, image artefacts or a human-made object carried by wind.

A useful snapshot comes from independent mapping of GEIPAN data for Eure-et-Loir, which lists 19 departmental cases: 8 class A, 6 class B, 4 class C and 1 class D. That secondary count is not a substitute for GEIPAN’s own files, but it usefully mirrors the public official pattern: many local reports are explained, some are weak, and only one is strongly unresolved.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frOpen source on carteovni.fr.

The most telling detail is the variety of ordinary explanations. GEIPAN’s visible Eure-et-Loir entries identify or probably identify reports as a sunrise, Venus, Sirius, Arcturus, a sundog, LED balloons, Mylar balloons, photographic artefacts and other known phenomena. The same table also contains cases marked as lacking reliable information, which prevents a confident reconstruction.[Geipan+2Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…

This makes the department a useful miniature of the wider GEIPAN method. The official record does not say, “nothing happened”. It says, more precisely, that something was seen, remembered, photographed or reported, and then the case was tested against known causes. Often the reported strangeness survives only until the time, direction, weather, astronomy or imaging conditions are checked.

Balloons, Stars and the Problem of Plausible Strangeness

The Brézolles case from 27 May 2023 is a good example of how a simple explanation can still require careful work. The witness saw a bright point in the morning sky near the Sun, apparently moving in an unusual way, briefly stopping, then continuing before disappearing. GEIPAN classified the case as A and identified the likely cause as a festive Mylar balloon.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The case is useful because the explanation is not just a guess. GEIPAN’s summary says the investigation considered the witness description, apparent size, direction, brightness, weather, wind, astronomy and air traffic. The report notes that air-traffic reconstruction showed nothing notable beyond ordinary high-altitude commercial activity, and that the observed shape, grey metallic appearance and sunlight reflection were consistent with a wind-borne festive balloon.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The “brief stop” is the memorable part for a witness, but GEIPAN’s explanation shows why such details do not automatically make a case extraordinary. Local wind variations at altitude can alter an object’s apparent movement, and a small reflective object can brighten, fade or seem to vanish as the geometry of sunlight changes. In Brézolles, the perceived oddity became less strange once the object was treated as something drifting, reflecting and changing visibility rather than powered flight.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

Le Thieulin on 21 March 2022 shows the astronomical side of the same pattern. GEIPAN classified the report as A, identifying the first observation as Sirius and the second as Arcturus. The file describes observations with the naked eye and then binoculars of a luminous phenomenon apparently moving in the sky.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

Photo Artefacts and Sun Effects

Not every Eure-et-Loir report begins as a moving light in the sky. Some begin as an image that looks odd after the fact. Dreux on 31 May 2018 is listed by GEIPAN as a class A case explained as a photographic artefact linked to the Sun.[Geipan]geipan.frOpen source on geipan.fr.

This category is especially important for modern UFO history. Phones and digital cameras make it easy to preserve a puzzling mark, flare, reflection or sensor effect, but the existence of an image does not by itself make the phenomenon external to the camera. A bright light source, lens reflections, internal optics, motion blur, compression and exposure effects can create shapes that seem detached from ordinary causes.

GEIPAN’s wider image-analysis material explains why this matters. Its IPACO tool is used to help authenticate and analyse photo and video documents, including checking for traces of alteration, optical artefacts, camera parameters and measurable features such as geometry, luminance and sharpness.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

For a reader looking at Eure-et-Loir cases, this creates a practical rule: a photograph can strengthen a case only if it can be tied to the observing conditions, camera behaviour and scene geometry. If the image is merely odd-looking, especially near the Sun, it may weaken rather than strengthen the extraordinary interpretation.

Older identified cases also show how ordinary sky effects can produce striking impressions. Fresnay-le-Comte in 1979 is listed as a class A case explained as sunrise. The Chartres-to-Caen observation of 31 August 2012 is listed as a class A case explained as a sundog, a bright atmospheric effect caused by sunlight refracting through ice crystals.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…

Those two examples are easy to underestimate. Sunrise and sundogs are not obscure scientific curiosities; they are ordinary sky events. Yet they can look spectacular, geometric, bright, misplaced or “too strange” when seen briefly, from a moving vehicle, through cloud, or without a clear sense of direction and elevation. GEIPAN Files illustration 2

Why Some Eure-et-Loir Files Stay Unresolved Without Becoming Strong Evidence

The class C cases are among the most important for keeping the local record honest. Saussay in 1986, Villiers-le-Morhier in 1997, Toury in 2012 and Rohaire in 2012 appear in the public list as cases with a lack of reliable information.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…

That classification often frustrates readers, because it does not offer a neat answer. But it is also one of GEIPAN’s most useful safeguards. A case can fail to be explained because the report arrived late, the direction is uncertain, the duration is vague, there is no independent witness, no usable photograph, no precise time, or no way to compare the observation with aircraft, weather or astronomical data. In those circumstances, “unidentified” is not a dramatic finding. It is a warning that the file is too thin.

GEIPAN’s methodology explicitly links classification to two ideas: strangeness and consistency. Strangeness is the remaining distance from known explanations after investigation; consistency concerns the quantity and reliability of information, including witness detail, photographs, precision and source reliability. GEIPAN’s own classification article stresses a common-sense principle: the stranger a report remains, the stronger the case information needs to be.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frmethodologie classification geipanmethodologie classification geipan

That principle is vital for Eure-et-Loir. A single vague light over a rural horizon is not equivalent to a multi-witness, instrument-backed incident. A case with little information can remain unresolved forever without becoming stronger. In practice, time usually weakens such files, because flight data, weather detail, memory and local corroboration become harder to recover.

This is also why gendarmerie records matter. GEIPAN’s own materials and older correspondence show the practical value of official local reporting: a gendarmerie statement can help trigger checks with airports, weather services and other local sources while information is still fresh.[Geipan]geipan.frGroupe d'études et d'information sur lesGroupe d'études et d'information sur les

The One Stronger Exception: Trancrainville

The exception in the Eure-et-Loir pattern is Trancrainville, dated 17 January 1982 in the GEIPAN list and published under the case title Trancrainville, 23 January 1982. It is marked class D, with the phenomenon described in the public table as strange and of medium or strong consistency.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…

This case belongs in any discussion of GEIPAN records and ordinary explanations because it shows the difference between a weak unresolved case and a stronger unresolved one. It is not simply another “light in the sky” that lacked detail. The parent Eure-et-Loir record treats it as the department’s standout official mystery, linked to a motorway-patrol observation on the A10 in the early morning, involving a pale undefined mass in the sky and a brightly lit area on the ground.

Even here, the careful wording matters. Trancrainville’s class D status does not confirm a craft, a landing or an extraordinary technology. It means GEIPAN did not identify the phenomenon after assessment. The case stands out because the ordinary-explanation filter did not close it in the way it closed Brézolles, Le Thieulin, Romilly-sur-Aigre, Dreux 2018 or Fresnay-le-Comte.

For readers, the best way to handle Trancrainville is comparative. It should not be diluted by treating every weak local report as equally mysterious. Nor should it be overclaimed. Its value is that it marks the boundary of GEIPAN’s method in Eure-et-Loir: after many cases are reduced to balloons, stars, sun effects, artefacts or insufficient evidence, one file remains officially unresolved.

What Ordinary Explanations Change About the Department’s UFO History

The GEIPAN files make Eure-et-Loir’s UFO history less sensational but more understandable. They show that the department has a real official trail, with named places, dates, witness material and investigative classifications. They also show that most of the trail points back to familiar causes.

The most useful ordinary explanations fall into a few recurring groups:

Reflective or illuminated balloons: Romilly-sur-Aigre and Brézolles show how small objects can seem controlled, metallic or unusually bright when catching sunlight or carrying LEDs.[Geipan]geipan.frOpen source on geipan.fr.
Bright astronomical objects: Authon-du-Perche is listed as Venus, while Le Thieulin is identified as Sirius and Arcturus. These cases show how planets and stars can seem stranger than expected when viewed briefly or without reference points.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…
Sun and atmospheric effects: Fresnay-le-Comte is explained as sunrise, and the Chartres-to-Caen case as a sundog. These are ordinary, but visually powerful, causes.[Geipan]geipan.frRecherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…
Image artefacts: Dreux 2018 shows why a photograph can be misleading when the Sun and camera optics are involved.[Geipan]geipan.frOpen source on geipan.fr.
Thin files: Several class C cases remain unanalysable not because they are proven anomalies, but because the information is too limited to test properly.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

This does not make witnesses foolish. It shows how normal perception works under poor conditions. A witness may be sincere, observant and careful, yet still misjudge distance, size, speed, direction or altitude. A tiny nearby balloon can look like a distant object; a fixed star can seem to move; a light near the horizon can appear to hover; a camera artefact can look like something in the sky.

The strongest reading of the Eure-et-Loir files is therefore neither debunking for its own sake nor belief for its own sake. It is sorting. GEIPAN’s record separates reports with good ordinary explanations, reports too weak to settle, and the rarer cases that remain unresolved after investigation. GEIPAN Files illustration 3

How to Read a Local GEIPAN File Without Overclaiming It

A good Eure-et-Loir GEIPAN reading starts with the classification, but it should not stop there. The classification tells the reader GEIPAN’s conclusion; the file details explain why that conclusion was reached. A class A balloon case with a witness questionnaire, weather checks and air-traffic reconstruction is stronger than a casual guess. A class C case with missing data is weaker than a mystery headline. A class D case deserves attention, but still needs restraint.

The most important questions are practical:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--insight-grid" markdown="1">

Was the time precise enough to check astronomy, aircraft and weather?
Was the direction of view known?
Was there more than one independent witness?
Did a photograph or video exist, and was it analysed as an image rather than treated as self-explanatory?
Did the reported movement fit wind, viewing geometry or observer movement?
Did the witness describe a solid object, or mainly light, brightness and apparent motion?
Did GEIPAN classify the case as unidentified after investigation, or merely unanalysable for lack of information?</div>

These questions turn the department’s records from folklore into evidence. They also explain why ordinary causes dominate. Most sky reports begin as fragments: a light, a shape, a few seconds of motion, an emotional reaction, sometimes a photograph whose context is incomplete. GEIPAN’s method is designed to test those fragments against known causes before leaving anything unexplained.

For Eure-et-Loir, that leaves a balanced picture. The department has enough GEIPAN material to be worth studying, but not a pattern that supports sweeping claims of repeated extraordinary activity. Its official UFO history is mostly a history of explanation: balloons over villages, bright stars mistaken for moving lights, the Sun creating false clues, photographs producing artefacts, and a small number of files where the evidence is too weak or, in Trancrainville’s case, still not satisfactorily explained.

Amazon book picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Example eBay listing

Flying Saucer Embroidered Patch Iron Sew On Clothing Alien NASA Space UFO Badge

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

UFO SHADO - 2 Patch Set #1 - Gerry Anderson Ed Straker ITC - FREE P&P - UK

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

UFO Alien White Head Face Embroidered Iron Sew On Patch

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Rainbow UFO Space Flying Saucer Embroidered iron sew on patch clothe new N-1551

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO patch

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?amp=&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=121&sort=desc

<summary>Source snippet</summary><p>Recherche de casTRANCRAINVILLE (28) 23.01.1982, 17/01/1982, D, Eure-et-Loir… DREUX (28) 1987, 06/01/1987, B, Eure-et-Loir… CH…</p>

2. Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/projets/geipan

3. Source: carteovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/departement/eure-et-loir

4. Source: geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete746
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete746.pdf

5. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/cas/2019-04-50749?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_date&page=30&s=09&sort=desc

6. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=11&order=field_departement_textuel&page=11%2C37&sort=asc

7. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/node/58246

8. Source: geipan.fr
Title: Groupe d’études et d’information sur les
Link:https://geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Courriers-R39.pdf

9. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=43&sort=asc

10. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date&page=31&s=09&sort=desc

11. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/temoignage/10258

12. 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=2020-11-18&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=1&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=18&sort=desc

13. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2007-03-01&field_is_new_value=1&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=12&sort=asc

14. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2021-06-26&field_is_new_value=1&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=8&sort=desc

15. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2021-11-23&field_is_new_value=1&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation_textuel&page=1&sort=desc

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=field_phenomene_textuel&page=157&sort=asc&undefined=

17. Source: carteovni.fr
Title: dreux 2018 0550594
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/dreux-2018-0550594

18. Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan

19. Source: ipaco.fr
Title: Méthodologie d’analyse
Link:https://www.ipaco.fr/page7.html

20. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-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=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=119&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc&video=on

<summary>Source snippet</summary><p>GeipanRecherche de casListe des nouveaux cas; ROMILLY-SUR-AIGRE (28) 24.04.2019, 24/04/2019, A, Eure-et-Loir, Ballon LED; THIEULIN (LE)…</p>

21. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/missions-methodes-et-resultats

22. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/glossaire

23. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788

24. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/stats

25. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2022-03-51333

26. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2023-08-51447

27. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/60410

28. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/node/61025

29. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58961

30. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: methodologie classification geipan
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/methodologie-classification-geipan

31. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas?field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=1&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=title&page=%2C25&sort=asc

32. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/save_json_import_files/export_cas_pub_20251127093552.csv