Within Dordogne UFOs
Why Dordogne's Best Files Often Explain More
Official Dordogne files show how many dramatic sightings become less mysterious when timing, aircraft, satellites and local conditions are checked.
On this page
- How GEIPAN classifies Dordogne reports
- Cases explained by electricity, satellites and lanterns
- Military aircraft and the limits of confirmation
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Dordogne’s GEIPAN files are most useful when they are read as investigation records rather than as a catalogue of mysteries. The French space agency’s official UAP unit records witness reports, checks them against known phenomena, and then classifies the result. In Dordogne, that process has repeatedly turned dramatic descriptions into more ordinary explanations: the International Space Station over Bergerac, aircraft contrails near Siorac-en-Périgord, lanterns at Campsegret and Salignac-Eyvigues, a military helicopter at La Roche-Chalais, and a hot-air balloon between Daglan and Vitrac.[Geipan+5Geipan+5Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipanBERGERAC (24) 17.08.201417 Aug 2014 — Dordogne. Classification. A. Date de mise a jour. 06/11/2014. Type de phénomène. ISS. Etrange…
That does not mean witnesses were foolish or dishonest. It means the department is a good example of how sky reports change once timing, direction, weather, radar, local events, aircraft activity and video evidence are checked. The stronger the file, the more often the case becomes less mysterious. The weaker files usually remain uncertain because of missing data, not because they contain strong proof of something extraordinary.
How GEIPAN classifies Dordogne reports
GEIPAN is a technical department of CNES, the French space agency. Its stated mission is to collect, analyse, investigate, publish and archive reports of unidentified aerospace phenomena, while informing the public about them. Human testimony is central to the process, but witnesses are asked to submit a technical questionnaire, and photos, videos, sketches or other material can be added where available.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Understanding a Phenomenon | GEIPANGeipan Understanding a Phenomenon | GEIPAN
The key to reading Dordogne’s official files is the classification system. GEIPAN uses four main categories: A for a phenomenon perfectly identified after investigation, B for a phenomenon probably identified, C for a case not identified because there is too little reliable information, and D for a phenomenon not identified after investigation. GEIPAN says the classification is based on two measures: how strange the phenomenon remains after comparison with known causes, and how consistent or reliable the available information is.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Methodology | GEIPANGeipan Methodology | GEIPAN
This makes Dordogne’s record more nuanced than a simple split between “explained” and “unexplained”. A class A file is not just a guess; GEIPAN considers the explanation strong enough to identify the source. A class B file is still an explanation, but with more uncertainty. A class C file is not a hidden mystery category. It normally means the available information is insufficient. GEIPAN also allows older C and D cases to be revisited if new information becomes available.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipan Methodology | GEIPANGeipan Methodology | GEIPAN
Nationally, CNES gives a useful benchmark for this pattern: 24.6% of GEIPAN cases are listed as perfectly identified, 39.7% as probably identified, 32.4% as not identified because of lack of data, and only 3.3% as not identified after investigation. The Dordogne files fit that general lesson well: most of the public value lies in the investigation process, not in a pile-up of strong unexplained cases.[CNES]cnes.frGEIPAN | CNESGEIPAN | CNES
When Dordogne’s “UFOs” become known sky objects
Several Dordogne cases show how a startling sight can become clear once the observation is placed against the sky at the right time and direction. Bergerac on 17 August 2014 is a clean example. A witness reported a white luminous phenomenon moving through the sky for about five minutes at around 22:40, and other people also saw it. GEIPAN found that the description matched a large satellite and checked the International Space Station’s visibility, confirming that the ISS was visible in the indicated direction, from the north-west towards the east. The case was classified A.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipanBERGERAC (24) 17.08.201417 Aug 2014 — Dordogne. Classification. A. Date de mise a jour. 06/11/2014. Type de phénomène. ISS. Etrange…
A second Bergerac file, from 28 May 2008, is more cautious but still instructive. A witness saw a rapid luminous object around 00:04, with a north-west trajectory. GEIPAN classified it B, not A, as a probable ISS passage. The difference matters: both cases involve the same broad explanation, but one had enough alignment to be considered perfectly identified, while the other remained probable.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The Siorac-en-Périgord case of 17 August 2014 shows a different trap. A witness filmed and photographed rectilinear luminous streaks near the horizon around sunset. GEIPAN classified the case A as aircraft contrails. The explanation rested on geometry and lighting: aircraft far away can look slow, short and almost vertical if they are travelling towards or away from the observer, while local atmospheric conditions determine where a contrail appears or vanishes. The witness was also looking towards an area of heavy air traffic on a summer Sunday evening.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frGeipanSIORAC-EN-PERIGORD (24) 17.08.2014 | GEIPAN…
These cases are important because they show why a description alone can mislead. A “bright object”, “silent object” or “vertical luminous line” may sound unusual in isolation. Once the investigator knows the time, direction, horizon position and possible traffic, the mystery can shrink quickly.
Cases explained by lanterns, LED balloons and festive objects
Dordogne’s summer and weekend cases also show how local leisure activity can create reports that feel much stranger than their source. Campsegret on 1 June 2019 is one of the clearest examples. Around 23:30, an automobilist saw about thirty white lights moving silently across a clear night sky, stopped to watch, and later reported both to GEIPAN and the gendarmerie. GEIPAN judged the case to have low strangeness and good consistency, but classified it B as a very probable group of sky lanterns. The number of lights, their grouped movement, the Saturday night timing, the silent flight and the wind direction all supported that explanation.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Salignac-Eyvigues on 10 September 2017 is useful because the witness’s description sounded more structured. A person on a terrace saw an orange low-altitude light approaching, then described a triangular object through binoculars, with brighter whitish extremities. The object moved silently from west to east and was lost after about fifteen seconds. GEIPAN classified the case B as a probable sky lantern. The reasons were not just “orange light equals lantern”: GEIPAN pointed to the direction of movement matching the wind, the summer evening context, the possibility that a lantern may be single, and the fact that flames are not always visible because the burner can hide them from certain viewing angles.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Terrasson-Lavilledieu on 23 August 2016 adds another modern source: LED balloons. A family saw several silent coloured points of light, some apparently blinking, before trees hid the phenomenon. GEIPAN classified it B as probable helium LED balloons, noting that these can be coloured, fixed or blinking, and that the observed direction matched the wind during a holiday period favourable to festive releases.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These files are a reminder that “formation”, “silence” and “no obvious engine” are not enough to make a case exceptional. Lanterns and balloons drift with the wind, may appear to hold shape briefly, and can vanish when their flame dies, when they pass behind trees, or when distance and darkness remove contrast.
The electrical case that became less mysterious after re-examination
The Saint-Michel-de-Villadeix file from 1 December 1988 is one of the more striking Dordogne records because it includes effects felt by the witness. At about 08:20, a man walking near his home with his dog reported a round blue-violet luminous form moving rapidly and silently, brighter than arc welding. During the brief observation, he said he felt pressure and an electric discharge, while the dog fled and stopped responding to him.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
This case had previously been classified D under the older name Vergt 1988, but GEIPAN later re-examined it and reclassified it B as “electricity and plasma”. The later explanation drew heavily on details from the first gendarmerie statement and local site evidence: the luminous ball was close to the crossing of two power lines and a transformer, its movement aligned with one of the lines, nearby residents reported a sudden brief voltage drop at the time, and the witness himself described pressure and electric discharge effects.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The reclassification matters for Dordogne’s UFO history because it shows how older “unexplained” labels can be unstable. GEIPAN explicitly noted that the second statement, made ten days later, differed in ways that made the event seem stranger: it placed the phenomenon farther away and described several balls rather than one. The later review preferred the first statement, made the same day, because memory and outside influence can alter a witness’s account.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That does not make the case trivial. It remains a good example of why early testimony, local infrastructure and environmental clues matter. The most interesting part is not that the story was “debunked”, but that its official meaning changed when investigators weighted the earliest statement and physical setting more heavily than later elaboration.
Military aircraft and the limits of confirmation
Aircraft explanations in Dordogne are not always as simple as checking a public flight tracker. Some cases involve military activity, low-altitude routes or radar limitations. That makes them good tests of GEIPAN’s distinction between “identified”, “probably identified” and “not enough information”.
La Roche-Chalais on 25 June 2019 was classified A as a military helicopter in exercise. The witnesses reported being awakened around 00:30 by a buzzing sound and seeing a fluorescent green oval phenomenon with red signals at the rear, apparently very low. GEIPAN noted that the unusual colour and sound were the reasons the witnesses rejected the helicopter explanation, but concluded that the features matched a rare type of military helicopter activity in the area.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Saint-Germain-des-Prés on 21 October 2015 was more cautious. A witness described a few seconds of strong fixed white lights and a red light in the night sky. GEIPAN classified it B as a probable military aircraft in exercise. It also acknowledged a limitation: the case had not been processed quickly enough to verify with military air traffic control whether an aircraft was definitely present at the time. Strong humidity could explain the halo perceived around the aircraft lights, and other white points were probably additional aircraft taking part in the manoeuvre.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Saint-André-de-Double on 26 June 2011 shows an even weaker evidential position. Witnesses described a rapid, silent movement of lights, including three white lights forming a triangular shape. GEIPAN found some features compatible with low-altitude aircraft, but others did not fit neatly, especially the silence and lighting. Civil and military radar checks only showed high-altitude flights, while GEIPAN also noted that radar does not cover all low-altitude traffic and that the sector was known to the air force as a low-altitude exercise area. The case was classified C because precise information was lacking.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
That progression is the point: one military explanation is class A, one is class B, and one remains class C. Dordogne’s files do not force every aircraft-like report into a neat answer. They show where confirmation is strong, where it is probable, and where a plausible explanation cannot be proved with the available record.
Why the newest explained files still matter
The 2024 Daglan-to-Vitrac case shows that the same investigative pattern continues in recent Dordogne reporting. On 20 September 2024, between about 05:50 and 06:10, a motorist saw a bright white blinking point in the still-dark morning sky. At one point it seemed to flare up like a lantern or burner flame. The witness filmed it, remained doubtful because hot-air balloons are not commonly expected at night, and described it as apparently immobile.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
GEIPAN classified the case A as a hot-air balloon. This was not based on a loose resemblance. The file cites a radar restitution from CAPCODA, the French air operations planning and air-defence conduct centre, confirming a balloon in the area and at the time. GEIPAN also analysed one of the witness videos and found the burner flame used to heat the balloon envelope. The slow speed explained the impression of immobility, and the early-morning timing fitted normal balloon practice, when stable air is preferred.[Geipan]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
For readers interested in Dordogne’s UFO history, this is a valuable modern counterweight to older folklore. It contains the ingredients that often make a sighting feel strange: darkness, driving, a bright intermittent light, apparent hovering, a sudden flare, and uncertainty about normal local aviation. It also contains the ingredients that make a case solvable: videos, timing, direction, radar confirmation and a known aircraft type.
What Dordogne’s explained files really show
The explained Dordogne files do not prove that every local report has a simple answer. They show something more useful: many reports that begin as “unidentified” become identifiable once the right checks are made. The recurring explanations are not random. They cluster around predictable sources:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--insight-grid" markdown="1">
- Astronomical objects and satellites, such as the ISS over Bergerac or planets and bright stars in other Dordogne files.
- Aircraft and contrails, especially when distance, sunset lighting, low altitude or military activity alters the appearance.
- Festive airborne objects, including sky lanterns and LED balloons.
- Local environmental effects, including the re-examined Saint-Michel-de-Villadeix electrical case.
- Balloons and hot-air balloons, especially in conditions where slow movement or burner flashes can look odd.</div>
The broader lesson is not scepticism for its own sake. It is proportional reading. A class A Dordogne file should not be retold as an open mystery. A class B file should be described as probably explained, with the uncertainty left visible. A class C file should not be inflated into proof of the extraordinary when GEIPAN’s own reason is lack of reliable information. And older dramatic stories should be treated differently from modern files supported by questionnaires, photographs, videos, radar checks or gendarmerie material.
Dordogne’s GEIPAN archive is therefore a strong antidote to the idea that official UFO files automatically make a place more mysterious. In this department, the best files often do the opposite. They preserve the witness experience, then show how ordinary sources can look extraordinary from the ground, especially at night, at a distance, in motion, or under the pressure of surprise.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why Dordogne's Best Files Often Explain More. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The Demon-Haunted World
Rating: 4.5/5 from 43 Google Books ratings
Strong fit for understanding how unusual sightings are examined, explained, and reclassified through scientific investigation.
UFOs
Provides context on official investigations, aviation reports, and the challenges of evaluating unexplained aerial sightings.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)
Helps explain perception, memory, and belief formation—important factors when assessing witness reports.
The UFO Experience
Explores classification systems and investigative approaches similar in spirit to official case-review processes.
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/projets/geipan
2.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2014-08-08952
3.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2014-08-09123
4.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2019-06-50757?order=field_classification_des_cas&page=102&sort=asc
5.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2017-09-50430
6.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2019-06-50780
7.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2024-09-51579
8.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Understanding a Phenomenon | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/what-did-i-see/step-1
9.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Geipan Methodology | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788
10.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2008-05-02196?field_date_value=2007-03-01&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_classification_des_cas&page=%2C328&sort=asc
11.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2016-08-09530
12.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1988-12-01155?order=field_date&page=125&sort=asc&undefined=
13.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2015-10-09360
14.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-06-02782
15.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2020-11-51125
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/save_json_import_files/export_cas_pub_20251127093552.csv
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Un cas remarquable R
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Un%20cas%20remarquable-R.pdf
18.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete137.pdf
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete579
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete579.pdf
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Tableau temoignages R
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Tableau%20temoignages-R.pdf
22.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2015-07-09251
23.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-06-02782?field_agregation_index_value=Ain&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=36&sort=desc
24.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2010-04-02616?order=field_classification_des_cas&page=83&sort=desc
25.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2008-01-01986?page=95%2C0&undefined=
26.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2020-08-51065
27.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2015-10-09338
28.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2017-09-50529?field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=21%2C24&sort=desc
29.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2023-06-51525?page=%2C8
30.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2012-06-08255
31.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2010-09-02646?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=field_date&page=2%2C6&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc&video=on
32.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2009-07-02376?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=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=50.708634400828224&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=31.765537409484374&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=20.22890244005691&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-5.127542872443095&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_classification_des_cas&page=13%2C24&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc
33.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1985-02-01063
34.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1978-09-00548?field_agregation_index_value=06&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=43%2C24
35.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2017-07-09734
36.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2016-02-09429
37.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2018-07-50605
38.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2011-08-02803
39.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/412
40.
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=131&select-category-export=nothing&sort=desc
41.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=avion&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=5&sort=asc
42.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas?field_date_value=2021-06-26&field_is_new_value=1&page=%2C66
43.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=militaire&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_classification_des_cas&page=2&sort=asc
44.
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=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_date_d_observation&page=22&sort=desc
45.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-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&page=16&sort=desc
46.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/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=title&page=38&sort=desc
47.
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=2021-11-23&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_date&page=2%2C0&sort=asc
49.
Source: uapedia.ai
Link:https://uapedia.ai/wiki/geipan-frances-official-uap-unit/
50.
Source: academia.edu
Link:https://www.academia.edu/99067452/GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
Additional References
51.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Ancient Aliens: French Government EXPOSES Evidence of UFOs (Special) | History
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBIkZ646gA
52.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0J7zroZ6Rk
53.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Ancient Aliens: 300+”Flying Saucer” Incidents in France (Season 19) | History
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcMrAX4zRwo
54.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives • FRANCE 24 English
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s
55.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369507030_GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
56.
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/
57.
Source: nationalgeographic.fr
Link:https://www.nationalgeographic.fr/espace/france-qui-se-cache-derriere-le-geipan-le-bureau-des-ovnis-en-france-etrange-enquetes
58.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/gendarmeriedurhone/posts/ovni-ufo-panqui-na-jamais-entendu-un-te%CC%81moin-trouble%CC%81-par-de%CC%81tranges-apparitions/3800094506714993/
59.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dMXMY9tSEs
60.
Source: facebook.com
Title: we didnt find answers in 2025 but ufo researchers say the search continues
Link:https://www.facebook.com/spacecom/posts/we-didnt-find-answers-in-2025-but-ufo-researchers-say-the-search-continues/1222266453097370/
Topic Tree