UNRESOLVED
CF-GEI-20181250686 UNRESOLVED PRIORITY: HIGH
The La Forêt-Fouesnant Yellow Bar Phenomenon
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20181250686 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2018-12-10
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
La Forêt-Fouesnant, Finistère, Brittany, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
1 minute 30 seconds
Object Type Classification of the observed object based on witness descriptions
rectangle
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%
On the morning of December 10, 2018, between 07:20 and 07:40, a single witness driving in their driveway in La Forêt-Fouesnant, Brittany, observed an unusual luminous phenomenon at low altitude above a field to the west. The witness stopped their vehicle and, with the window open, observed what they described as an "electric" yellow bar with a large fluorescent green light in its center. The object was completely silent throughout its maneuvers.
The phenomenon exhibited a three-phase trajectory: it first moved slowly and regularly, then turned directly south toward the witness and remained stationary, and finally moved due east before slowly disappearing into the mist. The witness described the object as having very sharp contours and appearing large in size. Notably, the witness reported experiencing problems with their car radio immediately following the observation. In their testimony, the witness stated: "I justify the strangeness by the absolutely silent and regular movement as well as the luminous appearance."
GEIPAN (France's official UAP investigation unit under CNES) conducted a thorough field investigation including cognitive interview techniques, photographic reconstructions, and analysis of dimensions, distances, and trajectories. Despite systematic evaluation of multiple conventional hypotheses—including drones, agricultural equipment lights, laser sky-tracers, and Thai lanterns—investigators could not identify any explanation with greater than 50% probability. The case was officially classified as D1 (unidentified phenomenon) due to high strangeness combined with good witness consistency and credibility.
02 Timeline of Events
07:20
Initial Sighting
Witness driving in their driveway notices unusual luminous phenomenon to the west above a field at low altitude. Stops vehicle to observe.
07:20-07:25
Phase 1: Slow Regular Movement
Object described as electric yellow bar with large fluorescent green center light moves slowly and regularly. Witness opens car window and confirms complete silence during maneuvers.
07:25-07:30
Phase 2: Orientation and Hovering
Object turns directly south toward witness and remains stationary in hover. Sharp contours clearly visible.
07:30-07:35
Phase 3: Eastward Departure
Witness reaches end of driveway, turns around, and observes the bar moving due east, slowly disappearing into the mist.
07:40
Electromagnetic Effect Noted
Witness discovers problems with vehicle radio following the observation. Total observation duration: 90 seconds.
2018-12-10 onwards
GEIPAN Investigation
Official investigation including field work, cognitive interview, photographic reconstructions, and systematic hypothesis evaluation conducted. Case classified D1.
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Witness 1
Civilian motorist
high
Single witness driving in their driveway in rural Brittany. Demonstrated high cooperation with GEIPAN investigation, participating in cognitive interview and on-site reconstructions. Described by investigators as precise in their testimony.
"Je justifie l'étrangeté par le déplacement absolument silencieux et régulier ainsi que de l'apparence lumineuse. (I justify the strangeness by the absolutely silent and regular movement as well as the luminous appearance.)"
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case demonstrates exceptional investigative rigor by GEIPAN, with the witness providing detailed, consistent testimony supported by on-site reconstruction. The witness's credibility is enhanced by their cooperative nature, precision in reporting, and willingness to participate in cognitive interviewing. The three-phase trajectory with deliberate directional changes and a stationary hover phase is particularly significant, as it contradicts wind-borne object behavior and suggests controlled flight.
Several factors elevate this case's credibility: (1) the electromagnetic effect on the vehicle's radio, a commonly reported correlate in high-strangeness cases; (2) the witness's explicit acknowledgment of the object's silent operation despite having the car window open; (3) the sharp, well-defined contours observed; and (4) GEIPAN's systematic elimination of conventional explanations. The drone hypothesis, while strongest, was rejected due to the object's unusual appearance, size, nighttime operation (illegal in France), and trajectory characteristics. The rural location and early morning timing reasonably explain the absence of additional witnesses. The D1 classification indicates this meets GEIPAN's strict criteria for genuinely unexplained phenomena.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Illegal Drone Operation Hypothesis
The strongest conventional explanation is an illegally operated drone during restricted nighttime hours. However, GEIPAN investigators rated this probability well below 50% due to: the unusual appearance (yellow bar with green center light), the large perceived size inconsistent with typical consumer drones, the three-phase trajectory with precise directional changes and hovering, and the electromagnetic effect on the vehicle radio. French regulations prohibit nighttime drone flights, making this scenario both illegal and unlikely given the object's characteristics.
Light Projection on Cloud Layer
Agricultural equipment lights or laser sky-tracers projecting onto the cloud/mist layer could create unusual aerial luminous effects. GEIPAN field investigation specifically checked agricultural parcels where the phenomenon was observed and confirmed no agricultural equipment was present. Additionally, the slow controlled movement, sharp contours, and three-phase trajectory with hovering are inconsistent with projected light behavior. This hypothesis was eliminated during the investigation.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case represents a genuinely unidentified aerial phenomenon as determined by France's official scientific investigation body. The combination of detailed single-witness testimony, thorough field investigation with reconstructions, electromagnetic effects, and the systematic elimination of conventional explanations (all below 50% probability) makes this a significant data point. While the single-witness nature limits corroboration, GEIPAN's methodology and the witness's credibility are both strong. The controlled flight characteristics—particularly the three-phase trajectory with stationary hovering and directional changes—argue against natural or simple man-made explanations. This case exemplifies why official classification systems exist: it demonstrates genuine strangeness that resists conventional explanation despite rigorous scientific investigation.
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.