What Really Happened Over Cote d'Or?
Cote-d'Or is not one of the French departments with a single world-famous UFO case, but it is a useful place to study how French UFO history really works: a mixture of dramatic witness stories, rural rumours, gendarmerie records, later technical re-analysis, and many ordinary explanations.
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The most important takeaway is cautious rather than sensational. Cote-d’Or has produced puzzling reports, including one official GEIPAN case still classified D, meaning unidentified after investigation. Yet many other cases that once sounded strange have weakened under later review, especially when investigators could compare witness accounts with astronomy, weather, radar, photographs, aviation data, and the local landscape. GEIPAN’s own classification system distinguishes a fully identified case from a probable explanation, a data-poor file, and a genuinely unexplained one, so “unidentified” does not mean “proved extraordinary”.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frMethodology | GEIPANMethodology | GEIPAN
Why Cote-d’Or matters in French UFO history
Cote-d’Or’s UFO history matters because it shows two different eras side by side. The first is the press-driven saucer wave of 1954, when local and national newspapers were full of reports and ordinary witnesses interpreted odd lights through the language of the moment. The second is the modern French official process, in which GEIPAN, the UFO/UAP investigation group attached to CNES, reopens old files and publishes case summaries with classifications, supporting documents, and sometimes revised conclusions.
GEIPAN is not a private UFO club. It is attached to the French space agency’s Toulouse centre and works through a steering structure including civil and military authorities, with access to partners such as the gendarmerie, the air force, civil aviation, the navy, weather services, and scientific bodies. Its investigations rely heavily on witness statements, but also on technical checks where available.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frSon histoire | GEIPANSon histoire | GEIPAN The gendarmerie is especially important in local cases because it is often the first official point of contact for witnesses, and its statements may become the starting record for GEIPAN’s later analysis.[Gendarmerie Nationale]gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.frOpen source on gouv.fr.
For Cote-d’Or readers, this matters because a “UFO file” may contain several different things: a witness’s sincere description, a gendarmerie report, local press influence, later expert reconstruction, and a final classification that may change as methods improve. GEIPAN’s A cases are identified, B cases are probably identified, C cases remain unidentified because the data are insufficient, and D cases remain unidentified after investigation.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frMethodology | GEIPANMethodology | GEIPAN That distinction is essential when comparing Poncey, Arc-sur-Tille, Beaune, Neuilly-les-Dijon, and newer cases around the department.
The 1954 Poncey-sur-l’Ignon case: dramatic, famous, but still data-poor
Poncey-sur-l’Ignon is the department’s most atmospheric historical case. GEIPAN records the file as events on 2 and 4 October 1954, involving several people in the same commune, and classifies it C: not identified because reliable information is lacking. The file is not dismissed as imaginary; it is treated as a historically interesting but evidentially weak case whose details are difficult to secure decades later.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The first episode, on 2 October, began after a cultivator had been milking cows. She reported seeing an orange, vertically oriented luminous form with a greenish reflection, initially wondering whether it might be the Moon. GEIPAN’s later reconstruction found that the Moon was indeed low in the south-west, at about six degrees above the horizon, and that a partial lunar confusion through moving cloud could not be ruled out, especially because the witness did not clearly establish that she saw both the Moon and the object separately.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The second episode, on 4 October, is the part that gave the case its lasting reputation. A young woman closing shutters at the Val d’Ignon, near a former asbestos works south of the village, reported seeing a strong yellowish light above a plum tree, described as roughly mushroom-shaped or like a transparent globe lit from within. She estimated it at about 15 metres high and 50 metres away, but looked only briefly before fleeing with her child. Later, family members and neighbours found disturbed ground in a nearby field: a rectangular depression, loosened earth, and overturned clods spread over several metres. The gendarmes were informed the following evening, documented the traces, and considered but rejected a simple prank by two young men after checking their movements.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
This is why Poncey remains memorable. It combines a close-range light, frightened witnesses, alleged physical traces, and a gendarmerie file. Yet its weaknesses are just as important. The main 4 October object was not observed by multiple independent witnesses at the same moment; the ground marks were examined after the event, not during it; and the broader context was the huge October 1954 saucer wave. GEIPAN itself notes that 1954, especially October, saw a flood of national and local press stories about supposed UFO observations, many of which later proved to be ordinary phenomena such as stars, planets, aircraft, and fireballs.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Poncey is therefore best understood as a landmark local case rather than a solved or confirmed event. It is not strong enough to prove an exotic object, but it is too documented and culturally significant to ignore. It also shows how press expectation can shape witness interpretation without requiring witnesses to be dishonest.
Arc-sur-Tille in 1979: Cote-d’Or’s strongest official unresolved file
If Poncey is the department’s most evocative old story, Arc-sur-Tille is the cleanest example of an officially unresolved Cote-d’Or case. GEIPAN’s public file, dated 8 December 1979, is classified D: a phenomenon not identified after investigation. The summary describes two witnesses at home seeing a blue-marine and white crescent-shaped object, without shine, near ground level by a small wood. It was estimated at four to five metres high, made no noise, oscillated, and then rose rapidly northwards after an observation lasting about one minute thirty seconds from roughly 200 metres away. The witnesses and gendarmes found no ground trace.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The case is often associated with Varois-et-Chaignot in witness listings, while the GEIPAN file title uses Arc-sur-Tille. This is not unusual in older UFO records: nearby communes, gendarmerie jurisdictions, later catalogues, and witness addresses may produce slightly different place labels. What matters is that the official file places the case in Cote-d’Or and leaves it in the highest-interest category: not merely “not enough information”, but “not identified after investigation”.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Even here, caution is necessary. The public summary is brief, the observation was short, and there were no traces, photographs, radar data, or multiple independent observation points in the accessible summary. The object’s reported behaviour sounds unusual, but the evidence base is still mostly testimonial. Arc-sur-Tille is therefore the department’s key unresolved case, not proof of a craft or technology.
Its value for readers is comparative. Against a background of many Cote-d’Or cases later explained as the Moon, satellites, aircraft, lanterns, projectors, or ground lights, Arc-sur-Tille stands out because GEIPAN has not reduced it to one of those explanations. That makes it important within the department’s UFO history, while still leaving its meaning open.
The cases that became less mysterious after review
A useful way to read Cote-d’Or’s UFO record is to look at cases that initially sounded strange but later became weaker. These files do not make the subject less interesting; they make it more concrete. They show what investigators actually test.
In Bierre-les-Semur, a camper reported an orange luminous object around 4 am on 18 July 1978, describing it as like an upside-down plate or saucer. He took three photographs, but they yielded nothing useful, and no other witnesses were found. GEIPAN later re-examined the case and classed it B, concluding that the most probable explanation was the Moon. The reasoning was specific: the object’s orange colour, low position, south-west direction, and the Moon’s actual position at about two degrees above the horizon all fitted a low Moon seen through cloud gaps.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Levernois, near Beaune, shows a different kind of re-analysis. In February 1995, three members of a family saw a bright white light after 10.30 pm. The case had previously been treated as more puzzling, but GEIPAN later classed it B as a probable observation of the Mir space station. The conclusion rested on the object’s star-like appearance, apparent speed, and the reconstructed path of Mir in the sky. GEIPAN also noted contradictions between witnesses and the possibility that a child, primed by a school lesson about UFOs and actively looking for one that evening, may have influenced the family’s interpretation.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Beaune in 2014 is a classic modern “orange light” report. A witness saw a silent yellow-orange luminous phenomenon at 5.28 am on 3 October. GEIPAN classed the case B, judging it probably to be a sky lantern carried by the wind, based on the colour, flame-like impression, regular movement, lack of sound, and movement consistent with wind direction.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Neuilly-les-Dijon in 2015 is similar but more cautious. A witness saw seven or eight silent orange spherical lights crossing the sky over about ten minutes and disappearing into cloud. GEIPAN thought the report was compatible with sky lanterns, especially because it happened on a weekend morning and the lights were orange and weak. But photographs were unreadable, no other witnesses came forward, weather data did not confirm or refute the lantern hypothesis, and radar around Dijon showed only high-altitude airliners. The result was C, not because the case looked especially exotic, but because the record lacked enough confirming information.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These cases are important because they correct a common misunderstanding. A weakly explained UFO case is not always a spectacular mystery. Sometimes it is a familiar-looking explanation that cannot be formally confirmed because photographs are poor, angles are missing, timing is vague, or no independent witness exists.
Aviation, radar, and the Dijon-Longvic factor
Cote-d’Or has a serious aviation context. Dijon-Longvic’s former air base, BA 102, was historically significant and remained a major military site until its dissolution process in the 2010s. French regional reporting on the 2024 transfer of the former base notes that the process began in 2014 and followed the dissolution of the base in 2016.[Journal du Palais]journal-du-palais.frla ba 102 transferee a la smadlla ba 102 transferee a la smadl This background matters because aircraft, military flights, radar checks, and airport weather data appear repeatedly in Cote-d’Or UFO files.
The clearest example is Lacour-d’Arcenay in March 2022. A witness saw an apparently low object with three blue lights and heard a deep humming or rumbling sound as it crossed overhead and turned. GEIPAN classed the case A: an identified aircraft. The key evidence was a reconstruction from the national air operations centre, which matched the phenomenon to a military aircraft flying visually at the relevant time, route, and location.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
Dijon-Longvic also appears as a technical reference point even when the explanation is not an aircraft. In Neuilly-les-Dijon, weather data from the base were checked for the sky-lantern hypothesis, and primary radar traces around Dijon were requested. In Vougeot in 2025, GEIPAN used meteorological information from Dijon-Longvic, around 15 kilometres north-east of the witnesses, to assess whether a white moving light on clouds could be a projector beam.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
This makes the aviation link more practical than conspiratorial. The local airfield and former military infrastructure do not automatically make UFO cases more extraordinary. Instead, they provide data sources and ordinary explanations: military traffic, aircraft lights, radar context, and weather observations. In Cote-d’Or, aviation history is part of the evidence environment.
Modern Cote-d’Or reports show ordinary sources can look strange
Recent GEIPAN cases in the department are especially useful because they include photographs, videos, or more systematic checks. They also show how “UFO-like” reports can arise from ground-based lights rather than anything flying.
At Magnien in October 2023, a single witness saw multiple bright round objects and later photographed lights that seemed to include three aligned sources and a luminous “silhouette”. GEIPAN found that the three aligned lights photographed at ground level were certainly wind-turbine lights about 15 kilometres away, based on geographical and photographic analysis. Other parts of the report remained less clear: the first moving lights were classed C for lack of sufficient data, and the “silhouette” was also classed C, though GEIPAN considered it probably a lit object or person on the ground rather than an aerial phenomenon.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The 2025 Vougeot case is a good example of how video can strengthen a prosaic explanation. Two witnesses near the Château du Clos de Vougeot saw a white oval light making repetitive curved movements on a cloudy night. One witness recorded several videos and a photograph. GEIPAN classed the case B as a probable skytracker or powerful projector used for a private event or display. The investigation noted the repetitive movements, low to medium cloud ceiling, likely light pollution from the Dijon direction, and the way a beam can become visible when it strikes moisture in clouds.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
These recent files are a useful counterweight to older folklore. They show that a witness can be sincere, the sight can be unusual, and the explanation can still be terrestrial. They also show that better evidence does not always make a case more mysterious. Sometimes videos, photographs, weather records, and map analysis make a strange-looking report easier to understand.
What patterns stand out across the department?
The first pattern is that Cote-d’Or’s strongest stories often involve low lights near the horizon, fields, villages, or cloud cover. That makes them vivid, but also vulnerable to misperception. Low Moon cases, distant turbine lights, cloud-reflected projectors, and lanterns all become harder to judge when distance, height, and direction are estimated without instruments.
The second pattern is that single-witness reports are common. GEIPAN can still investigate them, but the lack of independent confirmation often pushes a case towards B or C rather than a stronger conclusion. Lacour-d’Arcenay was identified because military flight data matched the report; Neuilly-les-Dijon remained C because the lantern hypothesis was plausible but not confirmable; Magnien became a mixed file because some photographed lights were identified but other reported elements lacked enough data.[cnes-geipan.fr+2cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The third pattern is that old classifications are not fixed forever. Bierre-les-Semur and Levernois both show GEIPAN revisiting older files with newer tools and a more structured method. In both cases, reports that had once seemed more puzzling were moved towards probable explanations: the Moon in one case, Mir in the other.[cnes-geipan.fr]cnes-geipan.frOpen source on cnes-geipan.fr.
The fourth pattern is that Cote-d’Or’s unresolved material is narrower than its folklore. Poncey is historically rich but officially C, meaning the evidence is insufficient. Arc-sur-Tille is the key D case, but it is brief and testimonial in the public summary. The department’s public UFO history is therefore not a catalogue of confirmed anomalies; it is a layered record of reports, interpretations, and re-interpretations.
How to judge a Cote-d’Or UFO claim
The most useful question is not “Was it a UFO?” but “What kind of UFO case is it?” In French official usage, a phenomenon can be unidentified because it survived investigation, or because the information is too poor to decide. Those are very different situations.
A strong Cote-d’Or claim should ideally have several features: independent witnesses, exact time and location, clear direction and elevation, photographs or video with usable landmarks, weather conditions, checks against aircraft and satellites, and a record close in time to the observation. Cases lacking those features may still be interesting, but they should not be treated as strong evidence.
Poncey has cultural importance, witness drama, and gendarmerie documentation, but also uncertainty, delayed trace interpretation, and the charged atmosphere of October 1954. Arc-sur-Tille has the strongest official unresolved status, but limited public evidence. Bierre-les-Semur and Levernois show how later astronomical and satellite checks can reduce mystery. Beaune and Neuilly-les-Dijon show why orange lights are often suspected lanterns. Lacour-d’Arcenay shows the value of military flight reconstruction. Magnien and Vougeot show how modern images can support mundane explanations rather than extraordinary ones.
That mix is what makes Cote-d’Or a good department-level UFO study. It contains a little of everything: a famous saucer-wave trace case, one official unresolved file, aviation-linked investigations, rural misperceptions, modern photographic analysis, and a steady reminder that the best answer is often neither ridicule nor belief, but careful sorting.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to What Really Happened Over Cote d'Or?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
UFOs
Focuses on documented cases, official records, and evidence-based assessment of unexplained aerial reports.
Passport to Magonia
Places European UFO reports in historical and cultural context, making it especially relevant to French cases.
The UFO Experience
Examines witness reports, classifications, and investigative methods relevant to evaluating cases like those discussed for Cote-d'Or.
Dimensions
Explores patterns across unexplained reports and competing interpretations rather than simple sensationalism.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Methodology | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/58788
2.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Son histoire | GEIPAN
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/histoire-du-geipan
3.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1954-10-09227
4.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1979-12-00696
5.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1978-07-00528
6.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1995-02-01652?field_is_revisited_value=1&page=%2C10
7.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2014-10-09023
8.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2015-06-09220
9.
Source: journal-du-palais.fr
Title: la ba 102 transferee a la smadl
Link:https://journal-du-palais.fr/au-sommaire/entreprises/la-ba-102-transferee-a-la-smadl
10.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2022-03-51335
11.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2025-09-51674?field_date_value=2024-08-12&field_is_new_value=1&page=%2C1
12.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2023-10-51493
13.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/node/46607?page=%2C534&undefined=
14.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://www.geipan.fr/en/recherche/cas/tab?field_agregation_index_value=&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B11%5D=11&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B12%5D=12&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B13%5D=13&field_classification_des_cas_target_id%5B14%5D=14&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_date_d_observation_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_date_value=&field_departement_target_id=&field_document_existe_ou_pas_value=1&field_is_new_value=All&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_latitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_latitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmax%5D=&field_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_phenomene_target_id=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_departement_textuel&page=29&select-category-export=nothing&sort=asc&video=on
15.
Source: geipan.fr
Link:https://geipan.fr/sites/default/files/PV%20n%C2%B03779%20%282012311944%29.pdf
16.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/
17.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2013-07-08484
18.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2002-04-01587
19.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1998-08-01510?field_is_revisited_value=1&page=%2C6
20.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2016-02-09413
21.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2015-11-09369?field_date_valu_valu=04-23&field_is_revisited_value=All&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=132%2C0&sort=asc
22.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/2005-11-01729?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_longitude_value%5Bmin%5D=&field_type_de_cas_target_id=All&order=field_date_d_observation&page=61&sort=asc
23.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: methodologie classification geipan
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/actualites/methodologie-classification-geipan
24.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/node/412
25.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1993-11-01335
26.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/cas/1980-03-00751
27.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/en/what-did-i-see/step-1
28.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/save_json_import_files/export_cas_pub_20251127093552.csv
29.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Title: Compte rendu enquete171
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete171.pdf
30.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete6.pdf
31.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/missions-methodes-et-resultats
32.
Source: cnes-geipan.fr
Link:https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/sites/default/files/Compte%20rendu%20enquete9.pdf
33.
Source: cnes.fr
Link:https://cnes.fr/projets/geipan
34.
Source: gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.fr
Link:https://www.gendarmerie.interieur.gouv.fr/gendinfo/actualites/2022/comment-la-gendarmerie-prend-elle-en-compte-les-etrangetes-dans-le-ciel
35.
Source: cote-dor.gouv.fr
Title: Présentation de la D.I.P.N
Link:https://www.cote-dor.gouv.fr/Services-de-l-Etat/Securite/La-Direction-interdepartementale-de-la-police-nationale-D.I.P.N/Presentation-de-la-D.I.P.N
36.
Source: cote-dor.gouv.fr
Link:https://www.cote-dor.gouv.fr/Publications/Communiques-de-presse/Communiques-de-presse-des-annees-anterieures/2024/Signature-de-l-acte-de-transfert-de-propriete-de-l-ancienne-base-aerienne-102-Dijon-Longvic
37.
Source: cote-dor.gouv.fr
Link:https://www.cote-dor.gouv.fr/layout/set/print/Publications/Communiques-de-presse/Communiques-de-presse-des-annees-anterieures/2024/Signature-de-l-acte-de-transfert-de-propriete-de-l-ancienne-base-aerienne-102-Dijon-Longvic
38.
Source: bibliotheques-numeriques.defense.gouv.fr
Link:https://bibliotheques-numeriques.defense.gouv.fr/shd/impression/document/5b2084e7-7408-4750-bc89-ffdce7a63b94
39.
Source: francearchives.gouv.fr
Link:https://francearchives.gouv.fr/facomponent/be4b3d7cf4b0a49fe5d8694cee4d6499185d81e8
40.
Source: passionpourlaviation.fr
Link:https://www.passionpourlaviation.fr/tag/ba102/
Additional References
41.
Source: youtube.com
Title: UFO Emits Weird White Material Onto Small French Town
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrg0rhIaGg
42.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Ancient Aliens: French Government EXPOSES Evidence of UFOs
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wBIkZ646gA
43.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Ancient Aliens: 300+”Flying Saucer” Incidents in France
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcMrAX4zRwo
44.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9DtIdw-eiE
45.
Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369507030_GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
46.
Source: 20minutes.fr
Link:https://www.20minutes.fr/high-tech/sciences/4215259-20260329-demarche-scientifique-comment-enqueteurs-geipan-tentent-expliquer-cas-ovnis-france
47.
Source: insee.fr
Link:https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1285896
48.
Source: academia.edu
Link:https://www.academia.edu/99067452/GEIPAN_classification_with_text_mining_and_machine_learning
49.
Source: uapedia.ai
Link:https://uapedia.ai/wiki/geipan-frances-official-uap-unit/
50.
Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/p/B7oJvtMiun6/
Topic Tree
Follow this branch
Related pages 95
- Manche UFOs
- Ariege UFOs
- Correze UFOs
- Dordogne UFOs
- Hautes Pyrenees UFOs
- +90 more in sidebar