Within Loir et Cher UFOs
Did Ternay's Famous UFO Come From the Ground?
The Ternay roadside sighting is the department's landmark case because later mapping turned a once-stranger report into a probable ground-light event.
On this page
- What the family reported from the car
- Why the case was once treated as stranger
- How later reanalysis weakened the UFO claim
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The Ternay case of 22 May 1981 is the most interesting UFO episode in Loir-et-Cher because it changed character over time. At first it looked like a classic rural night sighting: four family members in a car, a silent oval mass near a small wood, coloured lights, apparent low altitude, and a later search that found no trace. For years it sat in the stronger-looking end of the file because it had multiple witnesses and a prompt gendarmerie response. GEIPAN’s later reanalysis, however, moved the case away from the unexplained category and classed it B: probably identified as confusion with forestry machinery working at night, about two kilometres south of the witnesses.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
That makes Ternay a landmark Loir-et-Cher case for a different reason from the famous “unsolved” stories often discussed in UFO culture. Its value is not that it proves an exotic object was there, but that it shows how a roadside report can become less strange when old testimony is combined with mapping, terrain profiles, aerial photographs, and a more careful reconstruction of sightlines. GEIPAN’s case page now lists the event as a “vehicle” type phenomenon, with low residual strangeness and only moderate consistency.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
What the family reported from the car
The sighting began late at night after a music rehearsal in Ternay. The principal witness was driving a Peugeot 404 towards Saint-Martin-des-Bois with three relatives in the car. At about 23:40, the group noticed a bright phenomenon ahead. The driver first thought of an aircraft about to land near Tours, but the witnesses soon rejected that impression because the lights seemed stationary, low, silent and close to a small wood.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The descriptions gathered by the gendarmerie were vivid but not identical. The witnesses spoke of a dark or luminous mass, an oval or elongated lens shape, bright white lights, red-orange lights at the ends, and blue or green lights reported by some but not all of them. Several mentioned beams or reflections directed towards the ground. The observation lasted roughly ten to fifteen minutes, after which the phenomenon seemed to disappear behind the wood.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
Two details helped make the case feel stronger at the time. First, there were four direct witnesses in the same car rather than a single isolated observer. Second, the report was made quickly: the principal witness telephoned the gendarmes soon after returning home, and the gendarmes went to his home and then to the scene at daybreak. The next morning included a reconstruction lasting about three hours, searches for possible ground traces, and later formal interviews of all four witnesses. No environmental trace was found.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The witnesses also added a second phase that deepened the impression of oddness. After the main observation, the driver and his daughter returned by another route, close to the wood. They reported a sudden thick cloud of smoke or mist that concealed the small wood for about thirty seconds. On the return pass, the daughter noticed small red-orange “star” lights close to the ground. GEIPAN later treated these details cautiously, because they were not all reported with the same emphasis and did not lead the witnesses to stop again.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
Why the case once looked stranger than most local reports
Ternay stood out within Loir-et-Cher because it had the elements that often make a UFO file compelling to ordinary readers: several witnesses, a rural night setting, a silent object-like form, apparent low altitude, coloured lights, a possible landing interpretation, and a formal gendarmerie record. CarteOvni’s Loir-et-Cher index, which mirrors public GEIPAN/CNES data, lists Ternay as the department’s 1981 case and notes four testimonies; the wider department record contains no current class D, unexplained cases.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frternay 1981 0500869ternay 1981 0500869
The original human impression is easy to understand. The witnesses used the nearby wood as a visual reference point and estimated the phenomenon at about 300 to 400 metres away, around ten metres above the ground. In a dark rural landscape, a bright source apparently aligned with a visible clump of trees can look much closer than it really is. GEIPAN’s later report stresses that all four witnesses located the phenomenon in relation to the same small wood, which became the key to the later reinterpretation.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
How the forestry-machinery explanation works
GEIPAN’s later analysis did not simply say “tractor” and close the file. It reconstructed the geography. The witnesses were on a road, using a small wood about 400 metres away as their apparent reference point. The reanalysis then looked beyond that wood, southwards, towards fields and wooded ground around places such as L’Airerie and Le Haut Feu. Elevation profiles showed that the land rose gradually away from the witnesses, making it possible for a ground source farther away to appear above the local horizon.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The crucial shift was distance. GEIPAN concluded that the lights could have come from agricultural or, more probably, forestry machinery about two kilometres from the witnesses, not from an object only 400 metres away. At that range, powerful work lights shining on the ground or on trees could merge into an oval luminous mass, especially when the machine was partly hidden by branches and viewed at night from a moving car.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The forestry version was preferred over a general agricultural-work explanation for a specific reason: old aerial photographs. GEIPAN compared images from May 1978 and July 1981 and found that a small wood in the line of sight had been partly cut between those dates; by 1984, the report says, the wood had almost disappeared. That does not prove a forestry machine was operating at exactly 23:40 on 22 May 1981, but it gives a local reason why night forestry work in that precise sector was plausible.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The explanation also accounts for the apparent movement. Before the car stopped, the witnesses’ changing position could have produced a parallax effect: the closer wood shifted against the more distant lights, making the phenomenon appear to move from “in the sky” towards the wood. Once stopped, any real movement of the machinery could make the lights seem to slide or vanish behind the trees. GEIPAN specifically linked the early larger movement to the witnesses’ own movement and the later fine movement to the probable source itself.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The coloured lights are less perfect but still compatible with a machinery explanation. GEIPAN noted that strong lamps and projectors on forestry equipment can be powerful and varied in tint, while branches can produce intermittent flicker as the machine moves. The report also acknowledged a weakness: blue and green were not ordinary colours for such machinery, and one witness described only red and white. This is why the case is classed as probable rather than certain.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
What changed when GEIPAN reclassified the file
The reclassification matters because GEIPAN’s categories are not labels of witness sincerity; they are judgments about how well a case can be matched to known causes after investigation. GEIPAN explains that class B means a phenomenon is probably identified after investigation, while class D means it remains unidentified after investigation. Its classification system weighs both residual strangeness and consistency: an explanation becomes more acceptable when the remaining strangeness is low enough in relation to the available evidence.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANClassification | GEIPANGEIPANClassification | GEIPAN
In Ternay, the case had usable testimony and a serious early record, but the later reconstruction lowered the strangeness. GEIPAN’s current page gives the case a B classification, a strangeness score of 0.30 and a consistency score of 0.60. In plain English, the file still has enough detail to be worth reading, but the best known explanation now fits well enough that it is no longer treated as unexplained.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
What still remains uncertain
The forestry-machinery explanation is strong, but not absolute. The main uncertainty is the exact timing of the cutting work. GEIPAN’s aerial-photo comparison shows that the relevant wood changed between 1978 and July 1981, and the report infers that exploitation may already have begun by May 1981. That is a reasonable inference, not a timestamped work log proving which machine was active on the night of the sighting.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
There are also witness-perception uncertainties. Some colours, especially blue and green, do not map neatly onto ordinary forestry equipment, although coloured perception can be affected by distance, glare, damp air, branches, and the way witnesses later describe unfamiliar light. GEIPAN’s own hypothesis table keeps this as a margin of error rather than pretending every detail has a perfect mechanical match.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
The smoke or mist report is another ambiguous element. It could fit night work, dust, exhaust, local fog, or a perception of illuminated moisture, but the file does not contain enough direct evidence to identify it with confidence. It is striking in the witness story, yet it does not overturn the broader reconstruction because the main “object” was already poorly located by distance and horizon cues.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
For readers of Loir-et-Cher’s UFO history, the fair conclusion is therefore neither “nothing happened” nor “a craft landed near Ternay”. Something unusual was genuinely reported by four people; the gendarmerie treated it promptly; GEIPAN later found a plausible ground-based cause; and the remaining doubts are the normal doubts of an old rural night case, not strong evidence for an unexplained aerial object.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
Why Ternay matters in Loir-et-Cher UFO history
Ternay is the department’s best lesson in reclassification. Loir-et-Cher’s public GEIPAN/CNES record, as indexed by CarteOvni, contains ten cases and no current unexplained class D cases. Ternay is the one that most clearly shows how a case can migrate from “strange roadside object” to “probable misidentification” when later tools make the landscape legible.[CarteOvni.fr]carteovni.frloir et cherloir et cher
It also connects naturally with other Loir-et-Cher cases where the decisive evidence is not a dramatic revelation but a mundane context check: balloons, satellites, lanterns, insects, photographs, weather, terrain or ordinary vehicles. Ternay’s distinctive contribution is that the suspected source was not in the sky at all. The important mistake was spatial: the family looked at a nearby wood, saw lights aligned beyond it, and reasonably placed the phenomenon too close and too high.[GEIPAN]cnes-geipan.frGEIPANMicrosoft WordCR AC_JPA MPD.docx…
That makes the case worth keeping in the department’s UFO map. It is not a throwaway debunking anecdote. It is a compact example of how official files can respect testimony while still changing the interpretation. The family’s account remains the starting point, but the final weight of the evidence now rests on sightlines, distance, darkness, aerial photographs and the practical realities of rural machinery.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: GEIPANMicrosoft Word
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete18.pdf
2.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: GEIPANClassification | GEIPAN
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58787
3.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: ternay 1981 0500869
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/ternay-1981-0500869
4.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: loir et cher
Link:https://carteovni.fr/departement/loir-et-cher
5.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: GEIPANIts history | GEIPAN
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58791
6.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: Observations OVNI à Ternay
Link:https://carteovni.fr/commune/ternay-41
7.
Source: carteovni.fr
Title: blois 1965 0702569
Link:https://carteovni.fr/cas/blois-1965-0702569
8.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/en/projects/geipan
9.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Geipan: France is also interested in UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXDikL331Y
10.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn2xTieploU
11.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/49012
12.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: export cas pub 20251127093552.csv
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/save_json_import_files/export_cas_pub_20251127093552.csv
13.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/temoignage/3609
14.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?customGetLattitude=47.76986450938331&customGetLongitude=1.1865234375000004&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=1&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=52.03897658307622&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=43.50075243569041&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=8.657226562500002&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-6.284179687500001&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&page=%2C21
15.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/search/cas?field_agregation_index_value=%C3%A9toile&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=%2C73&sort=asc
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B0%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_classification_des_cas&page=7%2C6&sort=asc
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?customGetLattitude=47.76986450938331&customGetLongitude=1.1865234375000004&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=1&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=52.03897658307622&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=43.50075243569041&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=8.657226562500002&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=-6.284179687500001&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=6%2C25&sort=desc
18.
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_date&page=33&s=09&sort=desc
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=Gard&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=1&sort=asc
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/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_date&page=124&sort=asc&undefined=
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/missions-methodes-et-resultats
22.
Source: uapedia.ai
Link:https://uapedia.ai/wiki/geipan-frances-official-uap-unit/
23.
Source: Wikipedia
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEIPAN
Additional References
24.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Meeting France’s UFO detectives • FRANCE 24 English
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zczcBLukQ6s
25.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/TheFrenchHistoryPodcast/posts/a-drawing-from-the-files-at-the-french-ufo-department/1337099231754482/
26.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/FRANCE24.English/posts/-franceinfocus-is-there-anybody-out-there-in-france-an-organisation-exists-whose/860539629578748/
27.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/southwestfrance/posts/1342464920438589/
28.
Source: servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr
Link:https://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2021-12/Table.pdf
29.
Source: lextutor.ca
Link:https://www.lextutor.ca/freq/fr/FR%28Lemonde_150k%29.txt
30.
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFO Office: Is the truth out there? • FRANCE 24
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqQGyAwWCg
31.
Source: facebook.com
Title: très belle carte postale de jussy écrite aujourdhui 25 septembre mais en 1905
Link:https://www.facebook.com/100064403511048/posts/tr%C3%A8s-belle-carte-postale-de-jussy-%C3%A9crite-aujourdhui-25-septembre-mais-en-1905-/940770038079771/
32.
Source: gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.fr
Title: des gendarmes face aux phenomenes aerospatiaux non identifies
Link:https://www.gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.fr/gendinfo/terrain/immersion/2018/des-gendarmes-face-aux-phenomenes-aerospatiaux-non-identifies
33.
Source: ufotransparency.com
Title: intl fr geipan montluel 2022 temoin reconstitution r1
Link:https://ufotransparency.com/files/intl-fr-geipan-montluel-2022-temoin-reconstitution-r1
Topic Tree