Within Tarn UFOs
Why So Many Local UFOs Get Explained
GEIPAN's Tarn-et-Garonne files show how many dramatic sightings become Moon, aircraft, lantern, meteor or laser cases.
On this page
- What GEIPAN classes A, B, C and D mean
- The recurring explanations in Tarn et Garonne
- Why weak data can look more mysterious than it is
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Tarn-et-Garonne’s GEIPAN files are most useful not because they prove a dramatic local UFO story, but because they show how official French investigators sort strange-looking reports into stronger, weaker and explained cases. The department’s public record includes the Moon at Albias, a likely meteoroid near Caussade, a passenger aircraft on the A62, a Thai lantern over Montauban, a laser seen from Pompignan, LED balloons at Mas-Grenier, probable birds at Valence-d’Agen, and a recent probable sky-tracer near Labastide-Saint-Pierre. It also includes cases that remain unclear mainly because the information is too thin or inconsistent, notably the older Montauban 1980 file and the more complex Golfech nuclear-site report.[Geipan+2Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Recherche de cas | GEIPANGeipan Recherche de cas | GEIPAN
That pattern matters because “unidentified” does not always mean “unexplainable”. GEIPAN, the French space agency’s unit for unidentified aerospace phenomena, distinguishes between an event that survives investigation and an event that cannot be judged properly because timing, direction, distance, witness consistency or supporting evidence is missing. In Tarn-et-Garonne, the strongest lesson is practical: many local UFO reports become less mysterious when investigators compare witness impressions with astronomy, weather, flight paths, lighting, videos, local events and the limits of human perception.[CNES]cnes.frGEIPAN | CNESGEIPAN | CNES
What GEIPAN Classes A, B, C and D Mean
GEIPAN’s classification system is the key to reading Tarn-et-Garonne’s case files without overclaiming. Class A means the phenomenon is identified after investigation. Class B means it is probably identified. Class C means it is not identified because the data or information are insufficient. Class D means it remains unidentified after investigation. GEIPAN also explains that its classifications depend on two central measures: the remaining strangeness of the report after known explanations are tested, and the consistency of the evidence, meaning the quantity, reliability and objectivity of the information collected.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Classification | GEIPANGeipan Classification | GEIPAN
The distinction between C and D is especially important. A C case is not a “best unexplained case”; it is often a file that cannot be worked properly. The old Montauban report from 6 October 1980 illustrates this. A motorist reported a brief, silent, white luminous phenomenon moving in an arc and then vertically, with an “upturned plate” appearance. GEIPAN noted that several details given by the witness, such as size, distance and speed, were not usable without angular measurements or reliable landscape reference points. The file was therefore classed C for lack of reliable information, with helicopter, illuminated bird movement or something stranger all left as possibilities rather than firm conclusions.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The national statistics also put the department in context. GEIPAN’s dynamic statistics, dated 25 June 2026, list 3,368 published classified cases: 28.0% A, 38.8% B, 30.1% C and 3.1% D. In other words, the rarest outcome is not “identified”, but “still unidentified after investigation”. C cases are far more common, which makes them easy to misunderstand if a reader treats every unresolved file as equally strong.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Statistics | GEIPANGeipan Statistics | GEIPAN
This is why Tarn-et-Garonne is a useful department-level study. It contains several A and B cases where the likely explanation is specific and testable, but it also contains C cases where the real issue is not that the event was extraordinary beyond explanation. The issue is that the file does not contain enough dependable information to decide.
The Recurring Explanations in Tarn-et-Garonne
The department’s official record reads like a catalogue of ordinary things becoming extraordinary for a few minutes: a low Moon, a meteor-like flash, an aircraft with unusual-looking trails, a party lantern, festive balloons, birds in circling flight, and beams projected onto cloud. These are not dismissive guesses added after the fact. In the better-explained cases, GEIPAN gives reasons: direction, timing, weather, photographs or video, witness questionnaires, local events, or checks with outside sources.
Albias on 17 January 2009 is the simplest example. The witness reported two puzzling observations in the same night. GEIPAN found that the first, at about 00:30 local time, matched the Moon visible in the eastern sky, about 60% illuminated in a waning gibbous phase, described by the witness as an orange half-circle on the horizon. The case was classed A as the Moon, while a second, separate observation later that night was considered probably consistent with a flying lantern.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Caussade on 31 July 2011 shows how a short, fast sky event can look unfamiliar even when its behaviour fits a natural explanation. A witness described a very rapid, silent, white oval phenomenon that vanished toward the horizon. GEIPAN classed it B, judging it probably to be an atmospheric entry by a meteoroid or space debris. The file notes that the date fell within a period of many meteor showers and that the trajectory was compatible with a Perseid; the report was also forwarded to meteorite specialists at IMCCE and the national natural history museum.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The A62 Valence-d’Agen to Toulouse case from 11 August 2013 shows another common mechanism: perspective. A driver and passenger saw a white point that seemed almost stationary, with two white trails forming a triangle without a base, for about twenty minutes. GEIPAN classed it A as a passenger aircraft with short condensation trails. What made it convincing was not just the label “aircraft”, but the match between the observation, the meteorological conditions for condensation at altitude, and similar appearances seen in comparable cases.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
When Light on Cloud Becomes a “Moving Object”
Two Tarn-et-Garonne files are especially good at showing how projected light can create an apparently structured aerial phenomenon. In Pompignan on 17 November 2016, two witnesses saw a long green trace in a cloudy night sky, and one took photographs. GEIPAN classed the case A as a laser. The source was linked to a large laser installation in Toulouse by the artist Yvette Mattern, with tests beginning before the advertised public dates. The observed direction was compatible with a beam from the roof of the Quai des Savoirs, allowing for smartphone compass imprecision and the fact that the visible impact on clouds can appear far from the actual projector.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Labastide-Saint-Pierre on 20 July 2024 is a newer and slightly less certain version of the same family of explanation. A driver saw a pale light in cloudy, stormy conditions in the direction of Montauban, then briefly filmed a lasso-like shape that seemed to stretch, change form and move rapidly. GEIPAN judged the report fairly consistent because it included a technical questionnaire and an analysable 11-second video, but classed it B rather than A: probable sky-tracer. The visual effect matched the movement of a ground-based projector hitting low cloud, but investigators could not prove exactly which projector was in use.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That difference between Pompignan and Labastide-Saint-Pierre is instructive. In Pompignan, GEIPAN could connect the effect to a known laser event, its test period, direction and similar observations. In Labastide-Saint-Pierre, the appearance and context were strongly compatible with a sky-tracer, especially on a Saturday night near Montauban during local festivities, but the exact source remained unconfirmed. One file therefore becomes A, the other B. Both still show how a light source on the ground can be perceived as something moving in the sky.
Why Weak Data Can Look More Mysterious Than It Is
Some of the department’s more intriguing files are not explained because they are too strong; they are unresolved because the available evidence is fragile. Réalville on 13 January 2009 is a compact example. A motorist on the A20 reported a fast, silent, yellow-orange object seen through the windscreen at 06:42. It appeared to pass at about 50 metres altitude, then went out with no trail. GEIPAN requested further material, but no gendarmerie record was provided, and the case was classed C for lack of information.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Golfech on 6 October 2010 is more complicated and more interesting. Two people at the Golfech nuclear power plant reported a dark triangular phenomenon with flashing white lights at the corners and a flashing red light at the centre. A phone video was made, and GEIPAN initially considered a probable aircraft. Later, after a new investigation made possible by access to the site, GEIPAN considered several hypotheses, including an EDF maintenance craft, aircraft, drone, hoax and a D classification. But the file was weakened by major problems: the witnesses interpreted the event differently, one witness gave statements that undermined the other, the video turned out to show lamp posts rather than the reported object, and the aircraft hypothesis had inconsistencies.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The final Golfech classification is revealing. GEIPAN considered it certain that four flashing points of light passed in a triangular arrangement, but treated the “black triangle” itself as likely to be a contour or form illusion: the mind joining separate lights into a single object. Expert opinion was split, with four experts favouring D1 because the luminous phenomenon over the site remained unexplained, and eight favouring C because the dossier contained too many inconsistencies to support a consolidated judgement. GEIPAN therefore classed it C for insufficiently reliable information.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
For readers, Golfech is a useful warning against two opposite mistakes. It should not be flattened into “just an aircraft” when GEIPAN itself found problems with that explanation. But it should also not be promoted as a strong unexplained nuclear-site UFO case, because the evidential base is unstable. The most defensible reading is narrower: something luminous was reported and partly witnessed, but the file’s contradictions and misleading video prevent a firm conclusion.
Birds, Balloons and the Problem of Distance
Daylight cases can be just as deceptive as night lights. At Valence-d’Agen on 9 April 2023, a couple saw white objects circling in the sky; one later filmed a similar object. GEIPAN explored balloons and birds. Balloons matched some features, such as whiteness and brightness, but the circular path was harder to reconcile with available wind data. Birds became the more likely explanation because white underparts, circling behaviour in rising air and possible wingbeats in the video better matched the observation. GEIPAN still classed the case B, not A, because the video and expert review supported a probable rather than certain identification.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
This case highlights a common trap in UFO reports: witnesses naturally estimate distance, size, altitude and speed, but those estimates can be unreliable when the object is unfamiliar. GEIPAN’s methodology explicitly treats human testimony as central but fragile. It lists perception errors, emotional response, memory effects, false memories, cultural interpretation and delayed reinterpretation as factors that can change how an observation is described.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Methodology | GEIPANGeipan Methodology | GEIPAN
In Tarn-et-Garonne, this problem appears repeatedly. The 1980 Montauban file had unusable estimates of size, distance and speed. The Golfech file had uncertain altitude and possible contour illusion. The Valence-d’Agen bird case depended partly on whether the movement seen on video was object movement or camera movement. None of this means witnesses are dishonest. It means that sincere observation is not the same as precise measurement.
What the Department’s Files Say Overall
Taken together, Tarn-et-Garonne’s GEIPAN files show a modest but varied official UFO record. There are clear identifications, probable identifications and underdetermined cases, but not a strong public pattern of high-consistency, high-strangeness unexplained events. The department’s entries include rural roads, motorways, gardens, small towns, Montauban’s urban surroundings, and the Golfech nuclear site; the explanations range from astronomy and meteors to aircraft, lanterns, lasers, balloons, birds and projectors.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Recherche de cas | GEIPANGeipan Recherche de cas | GEIPAN
The most important reader takeaway is that classification is not a drama scale. A class A case can be memorable because it shows exactly how a mistake happened. A class B case can be highly useful because the explanation is strong but not proven beyond all doubt. A class C case can sound mysterious while being evidentially weak. And a D case, nationally rare in GEIPAN’s published statistics, is not the same as a claim of extraterrestrial origin; GEIPAN states that it uses recognised scientific knowledge and has found no proof of such an interpretation.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Statistics | GEIPANGeipan Statistics | GEIPAN
That makes the Tarn-et-Garonne files valuable for a grounded local UFO history. They preserve witness reports without treating every report as equal, and they show how official investigators move from an initial impression to a conclusion or non-conclusion. The department’s UFO story is therefore less about one spectacular mystery than about the discipline of checking: where was the Moon, what was flying, what was the weather doing, what local events were taking place, what did the video actually show, and how much of the witness account can be tested?
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why So Many Local UFOs Get Explained. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)
Helps explain witness confidence and interpretation errors.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes.fr
Title: GEIPAN | CNES
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan
2.
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_departement_textuel&page=145&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc
3.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/temoignage/8334
4.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.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_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date&page=76&sort=desc
5.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?customGetLattitude=46.124763699209396&customGetLongitude=2.3840332031249996&customGetZoom=6&field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B12%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=50.52739681329302&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=41.72213058512578&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=9.42626953125&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-4.658203125000001&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=7&sort=desc
6.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=enquete&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=16&sort=asc
7.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_value=2004-04-23&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date&page=90&sort=asc
8.
Source: youtube.com
Title: France’s Official UFO Investigation Agency (GEIPAN)
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXi5B0NTwVc
9.
Source: youtube.com
Title: GEIPAN: Everything You Need to Know About UFOs and Aerial Phenomena
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-dgmfIOYBE
10.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwyQkuzxp78
11.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Recherche de cas | GEIPAN
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?order=field_departement_textuel&page=149&sort=asc
12.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1980-10-00808
13.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2010-10-02663
14.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Classification | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58787
15.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Statistics | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/stats
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2009-01-02730
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-07-02802
18.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2013-08-08537
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2014-09-09009
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2020-08-51050
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2016-11-09587
22.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2024-07-51546
23.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2009-01-01949
24.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2023-04-51433
25.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Methodology | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788
26.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?customGetLattitude=46.124763699209396&customGetLongitude=2.406005859375001&customGetZoom=6&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=50.52739681329302&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=41.72213058512578&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=8.745117187500002&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-3.9331054687500004&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=136%2C0&sort=asc&undefined=
27.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: 2015 09 01 Spatial Point Pattern Analysis of the Unidentified
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/2015-09-01_Spatial_Point_Pattern_Analysis_of_the_Unidentified.pdf
28.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58792
29.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.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=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=147%2C11&sort=asc
30.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?order=field_departement_textuel&page=148&sort=asc
31.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/missions-methodes-et-resultats
32.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/412
33.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/faq-page
34.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/56899?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=18&sort=desc
35.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://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=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=144&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc
36.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B12%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_departement_textuel&page=57%2C19&sort=asc
37.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete807
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete807.pdf
38.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=orange&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=12%2C0&sort=asc
39.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=12&order=field_departement_textuel&page=7%2C37&sort=desc
40.
Source: academia.edu
Link:https://www.academia.edu/99067452/GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
41.
Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEIPAN
42.
Source: academieairespace.com
Link:https://academieairespace.com/event/geipan-studies-uaps-ufos/?lang=en
43.
Source: uapedia.ai
Link:https://uapedia.ai/wiki/geipan-frances-official-uap-unit/
Additional References
44.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Pierre Bescond: Why France Studied UFOs at the Highest Level
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWKfvL0666E
45.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives • FRANCE 24 English
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s
46.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369507030_GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
47.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/ScienceetVieMag/posts/essais-nucl%C3%A9aires-et-ovni-un-myst%C3%A8re-se-dessine-/1124613899818446/
48.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/645013589690611/posts/1812790556246236/
49.
Source: reddit.com
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1l3mw3x/pentagons_aaro_director_jon_kosloski_just_told/
50.
Source: tourisme-tarnetgaronne.fr
Link:https://www.tourisme-tarnetgaronne.fr/en/fete-manifestation/theatre-saint-exupery/
51.
Source: france-science.com
Link:https://france-science.com/en/caipan-ii-international-conference-on-unidentified-aerospace-phenomena-organized-by-geipan-in-toulouse/
52.
Source: trip.com
Link:https://www.trip.com/travel-guide/montauban/festival-montauban-en-scnes-153504719/
53.
Source: openaccess.thecvf.com
Link:https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/ACCV2024/papers/Yavuz_O1O_Grouping_of_Known_Classes_to_Identify_Unknown_Objects_as_ACCV_2024_paper.pdf
Topic Tree