UNRESOLVED
CF-GEI-20121108364 UNRESOLVED
The Avignon Green Light Incident
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20121108364 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2012-11-12
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Avignon, Vaucluse, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
20 seconds
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
other
Source Origin database or archive this case was sourced from
geipan
Witnesses Number of known witnesses who reported the event
1
Country Country where the incident took place
FR
AI Confidence AI-generated credibility score based on source reliability, detail consistency, and corroboration
85%
In the early morning hours of November 12, 2012, at precisely 2:43 AM, a single witness in Avignon, France observed an unusual aerial object for approximately 20 seconds. The witness described the phenomenon as resembling "a sort of flying car, illuminated in green and equipped with red lights at the rear," traveling at low altitude above the city. The object's trajectory and lighting configuration initially suggested conventional aircraft, but critical characteristics were absent from the account.
The witness specifically noted the green illumination of the main body and two red lights positioned at the rear of the object. Significantly, despite the low altitude passage over an urban area, the witness reported no audible sound and did not mention any blinking or strobing navigation lights typical of aircraft. No other witnesses came forward to corroborate the sighting, despite the incident occurring over a populated area.
GEIPAN, France's official UFO investigation unit under CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales), attempted multiple times to arrange an on-site investigation with the witness, but the witness was unable to make themselves available for follow-up interviews. Due to insufficient information and the witness's unavailability for detailed questioning, GEIPAN classified this case as "C" (insufficient data for conclusive analysis), leaving the incident unresolved in their official files.
02 Timeline of Events
02:43
Initial Sighting
Witness observes unusual aerial object over Avignon, described as resembling a flying car with green illumination and red rear lights
02:43:00-02:43:20
Object Passage
Object travels at low altitude over the city for approximately 20 seconds. Witness notes absence of sound and blinking lights despite low altitude
02:43:20
Object Departs
Object passes out of view after 20-second observation period. No other witnesses report the phenomenon
2012-11-12
Report Submitted
Witness submits sighting report to GEIPAN for official investigation
2012-11 to 2013
Investigation Attempts
GEIPAN makes multiple attempts to arrange on-site investigation with witness, but witness remains unavailable for follow-up
2013
Classification C Assigned
GEIPAN officially classifies case as "C" (insufficient information) due to lack of detailed testimony and witness unavailability
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witness 1
Civilian
low
Single witness who observed the phenomenon at 2:43 AM on November 12, 2012. Witness was unable to make themselves available for multiple follow-up investigation requests from GEIPAN, limiting the depth of testimony and verification.
"Une sorte de voiture volante, éclairée de vert et équipée de feux rouges à l'arrière [A sort of flying car, illuminated in green and equipped with red lights at the rear]"
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case presents several analytical challenges that prevent definitive conclusions. The witness's description of "red and green lights" and the flight trajectory are consistent with helicopter navigation lighting standards, where green indicates the right side and red indicates the left (or in this case, rear-facing anti-collision lights). However, two critical anomalies undermine the helicopter hypothesis: the complete absence of reported sound and the lack of blinking navigation lights, both of which are unmistakable characteristics of helicopters, especially at low altitude over a quiet urban area at 2:43 AM.
The credibility assessment is complicated by the witness's unavailability for follow-up investigation. GEIPAN's multiple attempts to conduct an on-site interview suggest standard investigative protocol, but the witness's inability to participate raises questions about commitment to the report or potential misidentification embarrassment. The single-witness nature of the sighting over a city, with no corroborating reports, is notable. The "flying car" description suggests the witness may have been searching for familiar frames of reference to describe something unfamiliar. The 20-second duration provided adequate observation time, yet the report remains sparse on critical details such as apparent size, exact direction of travel, angular velocity, or weather conditions. The GEIPAN "C" classification appropriately reflects data insufficiency rather than an explained or unexplained determination.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
Unconventional Aerial Vehicle
The combination of silent operation at low altitude over a populated area, unusual green illumination of the entire object, and the witness's inability to recognize it as conventional aircraft suggests a potentially unconventional aerial vehicle. The "flying car" description and specific lighting pattern don't match standard aircraft configurations. The fact that GEIPAN could not explain it with available data and classified it as unresolved leaves room for the possibility of an unusual or unknown aerial phenomenon, though this remains speculative without additional evidence.
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Misidentified Helicopter
The object was most likely a helicopter on a night medical evacuation, police operation, or military exercise. The green illumination could have been external lighting or searchlights, while the red lights match standard aircraft anti-collision lighting. The absence of reported sound might be explained by environmental factors: wind direction carrying sound away, urban ambient noise masking rotor sounds, or the witness's position relative to the flight path. The lack of blinking lights could be observational error or memory inaccuracy. The "flying car" description reflects the witness attempting to describe an unfamiliar viewing angle of a familiar object.
Drone or UAV
Though less common in 2012, the object could have been a large commercial or experimental drone/UAV with non-standard lighting. This would explain the silent operation and unusual lighting configuration. The low altitude and urban setting would be consistent with early civilian drone operations. However, the 20-second passage suggests significant velocity, which would be unusual for drones of that era.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case most likely represents a misidentified conventional aircraft, possibly a helicopter on a night medical or police operation, observed under conditions that obscured typical identifying features. The witness's incomplete report and subsequent unavailability for detailed investigation prevented verification of critical details that would confirm or refute conventional explanations. While the absence of reported sound is anomalous for a low-altitude helicopter, factors such as wind direction, urban ambient noise, or the witness's location relative to the flight path could explain this discrepancy. The case holds minimal significance due to insufficient data, single-witness testimony, and lack of physical evidence or official corroboration. Without additional information, this remains a textbook example of an intriguing but ultimately inconclusive sighting that cannot be resolved with confidence.
AI CONFIDENCE SCORE:
85%
07 Community Discussion
VIEW ALL >// NO COMMENTS YET
Be the first field agent to contribute analysis on this case.
08 Live Chat 1 ROOM
ENTER LIVE CHAT
Real-time discussion with other field agents analyzing this case.