What Really Happened in Meurthe's UFO Files?

Introduction

That pattern matters because it gives readers a realistic map of the department’s UFO record. Meurthe-et-Moselle contains an old airbase site at Chambley, the urban sky around Nancy, rural corridors where balloons, meteors and lanterns are often misread, and a local press tradition that periodically revives the subject. The best way to read the department’s UFO history is therefore not as a catalogue of proof, but as a study in evidence: which sightings were checked, which were explained, which remained weak, and which one still resists a tidy answer.

The official record points to one strong unresolved case

France is unusual because it has a long-running official UAP archive. GEIPAN, part of the French space agency CNES, was created to collect, analyse, investigate, publish and archive reports of unidentified aerospace phenomena. CNES describes it as a body that gathers eyewitness accounts, works with partners including the gendarmerie, police, Air and Space Force, CNRS and Météo-France, and publishes documented cases for the public.[CNES]cnes.frGEIPAN | CNESGEIPAN | CNES

For Meurthe-et-Moselle, the striking statistic is the imbalance between ordinary explanations and unresolved cases. An independent map built from GEIPAN and Global Meteor Network data lists forty GEIPAN cases in the department: fifteen class A, eleven class B, thirteen class C and one class D. In GEIPAN language, A means identified, B probably identified, C unusable for lack of reliable information, and D unexplained despite the evidence available.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frCarte Ovni.fr OVN I dans le Meurthe-et-Moselle (54) — Carte Ovni.frOVNI dans le Meurthe-et-Moselle (54) — CarteOvni.fr…

That distribution should temper both sceptical dismissal and UFO enthusiasm. It is not true that every local report has been waved away without attention: some cases contain photos, witness statements, expert assessment, aviation context or gendarmerie-style documentation. But it is also not true that the department’s public record is packed with robust unknowns. The official pattern is mostly prosaic explanations, weak records and one case that remains genuinely unresolved.

Nancy, 15 October 2004: the department’s key unresolved file

The most important Meurthe-et-Moselle case is the GEIPAN file listed as “[AERO MIL]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN[AERO MIL] NANCY (54) 15.10.2004 | GEIPAN… NANCY (54) 15.10.2004”. It is dated 15 October 2004, placed in Meurthe-et-Moselle, and classified D. GEIPAN describes the phenomenon type as strange to very strange, with medium to strong consistency.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN[AERO MIL] NANCY (54) 15.10.2004 | GEIPAN…

The summary is brief but significant. A Mirage patrol leader was alerted by a team-mate who reported being followed by an unknown aircraft at the five o’clock position. The leader also acquired a visual point, which disappeared after roughly fifteen to twenty seconds. He judged it to resemble the passage of a fighter-type aircraft, but ground controllers detected no corresponding trace. GEIPAN’s conclusion is that the event remains unexplained.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN[AERO MIL] NANCY (54) 15.10.2004 | GEIPAN…

This case matters for three reasons. First, it is an aviation case, not a casual street-level sighting. The observers were military aircrew, and the situation involved aircraft positioning and air-traffic awareness. Second, the sighting was short, which limits what can be extracted from it; a fifteen- to twenty-second visual point is not much to work with, even when the witness is skilled. Third, the lack of a matching ground-controller trace prevents an easy identification but does not by itself prove an exotic object. It simply leaves a narrow but stubborn gap between what was seen and what could be checked.

Within the department’s UFO history, this is the one case that deserves the label “unresolved” in the strong official sense. It is not a confirmed extraordinary craft. It is a brief military-airborne observation for which GEIPAN did not find a satisfactory explanation from the available evidence.

Chambley 2007: how a famous “UFO photo” became a child’s balloon

The Chambley-Bussières case is the opposite kind of landmark: memorable not because it stayed mysterious, but because it was explained carefully. On 5 August 2007, during a major hot-air-balloon event at the former Chambley-Bussières military base, a participant later noticed a strange spot in one of about 190 photographs. No one had visually observed the object at the time. The image nevertheless gained publicity as the “Chambley UFO”.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

GEIPAN’s account is useful because it shows why single-image UFO cases are fragile. A lone photo without a simultaneous visual observation leaves investigators with too many possibilities: aircraft, bird, camera artefact, nearby object, balloon or misjudged distance. In this instance, local investigator Christian Comtesse collected additional photographs and found the same mark in another image. One useful photo, containing hot-air balloons at known-looking distances, was then used for specialist image analysis by François Louange.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The analysis indicated an object roughly 75 centimetres to one metre across, about 300 metres from the photographer. That made the hypothesis of a small escaped balloon plausible. The case was finally strengthened by a hot-air-balloon pilot who reported seeing the object visually: it was a child’s fish-shaped balloon of about 80 centimetres. GEIPAN classified the case A, meaning identified.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

Chambley is one of the best teaching cases in Meurthe-et-Moselle because it cuts both ways. It shows that local investigators and GEIPAN can take a publicised UFO claim seriously. It also shows how a visually odd photograph can collapse into a mundane answer once distance, scale, multiple images and witness context are added.

The Nancy sky: lanterns, Venus, contrails and the urban UFO effect

Nancy and its surrounding communes dominate the department’s UFO geography partly because more people are looking at the same sky. GEIPAN’s case list includes multiple Nancy-area reports across several decades, including C-class cases from 1977, the D-class 2004 military case, lantern reports in 2008 and 2009, a Venus identification in 2010, and a contrail case in 2012.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The 2009 lantern episode around Essey-lès-Nancy illustrates the urban effect well. Contemporary reporting preserved in GEIPAN’s press file described several dozen orange luminous balls moving for about eight minutes from east to west; even the mayor was said to have seen them. The later explanation was celebratory lanterns released for a wedding.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN1. Ovnis en Meurthe-et-Moselle, une explication, disonsGEIPAN1. Ovnis en Meurthe-et-Moselle, une explication, disons

This kind of case is common in modern UFO records because lanterns look stranger than people expect. They can appear as silent orange lights, drift in loose formation, rise or fade, and seem coordinated when they are simply moving with the same air current. GEIPAN’s Meurthe-et-Moselle list includes several lantern-related classifications, including Nancy in 2008, Nancy in 2009, Azerailles in 2009, Favières in 2010 and Xirocourt in 2013.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANRecherche de cas | GEIPANGEIPANRecherche de cas | GEIPAN

Astronomical and atmospheric explanations also recur. The public case table identifies Nancy, 21 May 2010, as Venus; Nancy, 3 February 2012, as a condensation trail; Villerupt, 13 August 2013, as a satellite; and a Nancy aviation-linked case on 13 October 2013 as a meteoroid.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANRecherche de cas | GEIPANGEIPANRecherche de cas | GEIPAN

The lesson is not that witnesses are foolish. It is that city skies produce ambiguous sightings: lights seen through buildings, aircraft paths over the urban area, reflections, social events, drones, satellites and bright planets. A reader looking at the Nancy record should separate the one unresolved aviation case from the broader cluster of ordinary but easily misread phenomena.

Weak cases still matter, but for a different reason

A class C case is not a disguised mystery. It usually means the report lacks enough reliable information to investigate properly. GEIPAN’s classification framework, as summarised in a public discussion of its methods, treats class C as non-exploitable because reliable information is missing. Consistency depends on factors such as witness quality, independent accounts, photos, videos or traces; a single testimony may be weak, while several independent witnesses or good recordings strengthen a case.[IHEDN Région Lyonnaise]ihedn-rl-ar14.frIHEDN Région Lyonnaise Retour sur les recherches en matière de PANIHEDN Région Lyonnaise Retour sur les recherches en matière de PAN

The 1971 Neuves-Maisons case is a good example. The report was made decades after the event, concerning an observation from 2 November 1971 when the witness was a child. The witness described a silent circular object with two rows of “portholes”, apparently rotating while moving in a straight line at low altitude. GEIPAN noted that a lost balloon matched several features — straight path, silence, low apparent altitude and duration — but could not be confirmed because no balloon matching all the described details was found.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

The decisive issue was not whether the story was interesting. It was whether it could still be tested. GEIPAN noted the forty-five-year delay, the young age of the witness at the time, and the fact that only one of two known witnesses had provided testimony. The case was therefore classified C: a late testimony that could not be exploited because reliable information was lacking.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

Croismare in 2017 shows a more modern version of the same problem. A witness flying a drone saw a bright flash and later found brief flashes in the drone video. GEIPAN considered that the recorded flashes might be small wind-borne debris passing close to the camera, while the ground-level flash was probably unrelated and could have been a reflection. Because the visible phenomena appeared only fleetingly and on too little usable data, the case remained class C rather than a firm identification.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

These cases matter because they protect the record from false certainty. A weak case is not proof of anything exotic, but neither is it always a neat debunking. It is often a reminder that without prompt reporting, multiple witnesses, exact time, direction, duration and imagery, the investigation runs out of traction.

The 1954 wave: folklore, press excitement and likely meteors

Meurthe-et-Moselle also appears in the famous French UFO wave of 1954, a period when newspapers across France reported a surge of “flying saucer” stories. Local accounts include Lunéville and Nancy on 9 January 1954, and later Lorraine press stories around Toul, Vézelise and the wider region.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgOpen source on patrickgross.org.

The Lunéville account is typical of the period. Reports described several residents, and reportedly students, seeing a round object moving from north to south in the early morning, slower than a jet, silent, and leaving a luminous yellow trail. Related regional reports from the same morning stretched across eastern France.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgOpen source on patrickgross.org.

Modern readers should treat these 1954 accounts cautiously. They are valuable local folklore and press history, but often lack the documentation standards now expected: precise sight lines, independent timed statements, photographs, radar data or official technical analysis. Some regional 9 January 1954 reports are very plausibly linked to a bright meteor seen across Lorraine, Alsace and neighbouring areas. Specialist catalogue work on related Alsace reports explicitly identifies similar descriptions from that morning as the passage of a large meteor, and notes that newspapers variously framed the event as a saucer, a possible saucer or a meteor.[Ufologie]ufologie.patrickgross.orgUfologie ALSACATUfologie ALSACAT

The 1954 material therefore belongs in the department’s UFO history, but not as strong evidence of a craft. Its value is cultural and historical: it shows how spectacular natural phenomena, Cold War anxieties, newspaper framing and local retelling could turn a shared sky event into a “wave”.

Military and aviation links are real, but easily overstated

Meurthe-et-Moselle’s UFO record contains real aviation connections: the Nancy military-airborne case, the Chambley former airbase setting, and several cases involving aircraft-like explanations or sky traffic. GEIPAN itself can involve aviation expertise; CNES lists the Air and Space Force among GEIPAN partners, and public method discussions note that GEIPAN can request radar traces from the air force in relevant cases.[CNES]cnes.frGEIPAN | CNESGEIPAN | CNES

But “aviation connection” does not automatically mean “military mystery”. Chambley’s former airbase status made the 2007 photo more eye-catching, but the object was a child’s balloon. The 2004 Nancy case is genuinely harder because it involved military pilots and no matching ground-controller trace, yet the observation was very short and described only as an unknown traffic-like point.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN[AERO MIL] NANCY (54) 15.10.2004 | GEIPAN…

The right balance is to take aviation cases seriously without exaggerating them. Pilots are trained observers, but they are still subject to limited viewing time, relative motion, glare, workload and uncertainty. Radar absence can be meaningful, but it can also reflect size, angle, filtering, range, equipment limits or the fact that a visual impression did not correspond to a trackable object. In Meurthe-et-Moselle, aviation raises the evidential stakes most clearly in the Nancy 2004 case; it does not turn the whole department into a military UFO hotspot.

What the department’s UFO pattern really says

The Meurthe-et-Moselle record is best read as a layered pattern rather than a list of wonders. At the top sits one official unexplained case: the 2004 Nancy Mirage patrol report. Below that are good explained cases such as Chambley 2007, where local inquiry and image analysis converted a publicised UFO photo into a child’s balloon. Around those are repeated modern misidentifications: lanterns, Venus, contrails, satellites, birds, sunlight and meteoroids.[GEIPAN+2GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPAN[AERO MIL] NANCY (54) 15.10.2004 | GEIPAN…

The department also shows why class C should not be ignored. Neuves-Maisons 1971 and Croismare 2017 are not strong unresolved cases, but they are useful because they show the boundary between curiosity and evidence. A detailed memory from childhood, reported forty-five years later, is not the same as a timely multi-witness investigation. A flash on drone footage is not the same as a trackable object with depth, distance and independent corroboration.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.

For readers, the practical conclusion is simple. Meurthe-et-Moselle has a real UFO archive, but its strongest story is not a dramatic claim of alien visitation. It is the contrast between one unresolved aviation incident, several well-explained public scares, and many reports that teach the same lesson: the sky over Nancy, Chambley, Toul, Lunéville and the rest of the department can look strange, but strangeness only becomes a durable UFO case when the evidence survives investigation.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to What Really Happened in Meurthe's UFO Files?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The UFO Experience

By Joseph Allen Hynek

Explores how UFO reports are collected, evaluated, and classified, matching the evidence-focused approach of the page.

See on Amazon

Book

The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects

By Edward J. Ruppelt

Focuses on investigation methods and the distinction between explained and unexplained sightings.

See on Amazon

Book

UFOs

By Leslie Kean

Emphasizes documented cases, official investigations, and unresolved reports similar to the GEIPAN material discussed.

See on Amazon

Book

The Believing Brain

By Michael Shermer

Helps readers understand why ordinary events can become extraordinary stories, a central theme of the article.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The UFO ExperienceThe Report on Unidentified Flying ObjectsUFOs

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

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

Shop location

UsingUSAUSAUSAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Example eBay listing

Green alien figurine on a stand model Area 51 UFO space alien 24cm

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible figure

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

SHADO UFO 7 Mini Figures Complete Konami SF Movie Selection Pre-Colored In stock

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible figure

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Varginha Alien Figure on Display Stand – Metallic Bronze UFO Lore Statue | Gift

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible figure

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

VINTAGE SILVERCORN ALIEN FIGURE GREEN TUBE UFO 1999

SearcheBay.co.uk: UFO collectible figure

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: carteovni.fr
Title: Carte Ovni.fr OVN I dans le Meurthe-et-Moselle (54) — Carte Ovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/departement/meurthe-et-moselle

2. Source: cnes.fr
Title: GEIPAN | CNES
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan

3. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=Nancy&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=%2C2&sort=asc

4. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: GEIPANRecherche de cas | GEIPAN
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?order=field_departement_textuel&page=66&sort=desc&undefined=

5. Source: carteovni.fr
Title: nancy 2004 1001631
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/nancy-2004-1001631

6. Source: carteovni.fr
Title: toul 2000 0701547
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/toul-2000-0701547

7. Source: carteovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/commune/toul-54

8. Source: carteovni.fr
Link:https://carteovni.fr/commune/nancy-54

9. Source: carteovni.fr
Title: Cas OVNI non identifiés (classe D) en France
Link:https://carteovni.fr/classification/d

10. Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%255B11%255D=11&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_latitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=100&sort=asc

11. 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_date_d_observation&page=60&sort=asc

12. Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives • FRANCE 24 English
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s

13. Source: youtube.com
Title: Geipan: France is also interested in UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXDikL331Y

14. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2xTieploU

15. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/53093?field_is_revisited_value=1&page=%2C2

16. Source: ihedn-rl-ar14.fr
Title: IHEDN Région Lyonnaise Retour sur les recherches en matière de PAN
Link:https://ihedn-rl-ar14.fr/2019/05/18/retour-sur-les-recherches-en-matiere-de/

17. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2007-08-02247

18. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: GEIPAN1. Ovnis en Meurthe-et-Moselle, une explication, disons
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Presse%2009.09.2009.pdf

19. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1971-11-08602

20. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2017-10-50442?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=13&page=%2C6

21. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954lunevillef.htm

22. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954champignyleslangresf.htm

23. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Title: Ufologie ALSACAT
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/alsacat/1954-01-09-bergheimf.htm

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

25. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/

26. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/46715

27. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Rapport%20IPN-R.pdf

28. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Liste%20temoignages%20directs-R.pdf

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

30. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%255B11%255D=11&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_date_d_observation_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_latitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmax%255D=&field_longitude_value%255Bmin%255D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=66&sort=desc

31. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%5D=14

32. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B14%5D=14&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B15%5D=15&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B16%5D=16&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=%2C81&select-category-export=nothing

33. Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=All&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%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=60&sort=asc

34. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/11oct1954doncourtf.htm

35. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/jan1954xaffevillersf.htm

36. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954nancy2f.htm

37. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954metzf.htm

38. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://www.ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954epinalf.htm

39. Source: ufologie.patrickgross.org
Link:https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/1954/9jan1954polignyf.htm

40. Source: estrepublicain.fr
Link:https://www.estrepublicain.fr/edition-de-nancy-ville/2017/06/30/si-une-soucoupe-se-pose-je-monte-a-bord-dit-thierry-levaudel

41. Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEIPAN

42. Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO

Additional References

43. Source: youtube.com
Title: Unexplained UFOs near Rennes: filmed reenactment of the Étrelles case
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7MToY5eaBY

44. Source: 20minutes.fr
Link:https://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/sciences/4215259-20260329-demarche-scientifique-comment-enqueteurs-geipan-tentent-expliquer-cas-ovnis-france

45. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/1057911964266605/posts/4218066008251169/

46. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/LEstRepublicainLuneville/posts/crop-circle-feu-spontan%C3%A9-cierge-volant-en-lorraine-et-franche-comt%C3%A9-de-nombreux-/1594337709361794/

47. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/lufos/posts/2055652348661158/

48. Source: estrepublicain.fr
Link:https://www.estrepublicain.fr/edition-de-nancy-ville/2017/06/30/j-ai-observe-deux-evenements-lumineux-dans-ma-vie

49. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/ScienceetVieMag/videos/un-ovni-sest-enflamm%C3%A9-dans-le-ciel-europ%C3%A9en-le-soir-du-dimanche-8-mars-visible-d/1146435700827995/

50. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacehipsters/posts/1608218192556391/

51. Source: estrepublicain.fr
Link:https://www.estrepublicain.fr/edition-de-nancy-ville/2017/06/30/le-geipan-travaille-essentiellement-a-partir-de-pv-de-gendarmerie-et-de-compte-rendu-de-pilotes-ou

52. Source: facebook.com
Title: un ovni dans un champ de lavande en salles ce mercredi 9 juillet le film valenso
Link:https://www.facebook.com/Ina.fr/posts/un-ovni-dans-un-champ-de-lavande-en-salles-ce-mercredi-9-juillet-le-film-valenso/1051983047139374/