CORROBORATED
CF-GEI-20100502572 CORROBORATED
The Monceaux Photographic Anomaly: An Insect Misidentification
CASE FILE — CF-GEI-20100502572 — CASEFILES CLASSIFIED ARCHIVE
Date Date when the incident was reported or occurred
2010-05-22
Location Reported location of the sighting or event
Monceaux-sur-Dordogne, Corrèze, France
Duration Estimated duration of the observed phenomenon
Instantaneous (single photograph)
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%
On May 22, 2010, at 13:54 hours, a photographer in Monceaux-sur-Dordogne, Corrèze department, was taking pictures of a child on a motorcycle when they inadvertently captured something unusual. The witness did not observe anything anomalous during the actual photography session, only discovering the strange object later when reviewing the images on a computer screen. Concerned enough to file an official report, the witness submitted a police report (procès-verbal) to the local gendarmerie, which was subsequently forwarded to GEIPAN for investigation.
The gendarmerie conducted a preliminary investigation that included checks of aerial traffic and neighborhood inquiries, but these efforts failed to identify the object captured in the photograph. The case remained unresolved through conventional investigation methods, prompting GEIPAN's technical analysis division to conduct a detailed photographic examination. This analysis would prove decisive in explaining the anomaly.
GEIPAN's photographic analysis determined that the mysterious object was almost certainly an insect that passed extremely close to the camera lens during the exposure. The technical examination revealed that given the camera's shutter speed, aperture settings, and focus (which was locked on the child, the nearest subject), the object's blur characteristics indicated it was positioned at a distance less than the hyperfocal distance—well under one meter from the lens. Calculations based on the camera specifications demonstrated that if the object measured approximately 1 centimeter, it would have been positioned roughly 13 centimeters from the lens, consistent with a flying insect. The lighting on this "insect-form craft" (as GEIPAN humorously termed it) also matched the ambient sunlight, further supporting the prosaic explanation.
02 Timeline of Events
13:54
Photograph Taken
Witness photographs a child on a motorcycle in Monceaux-sur-Dordogne. No anomaly observed at the time of capture.
Later same day
Anomaly Discovery
Witness reviews photographs on computer screen and discovers strange object in one image that was not visible during photography session.
Days following incident
Official Police Report Filed
Concerned witness files procès-verbal (police report) with local gendarmerie regarding the photographic anomaly.
Investigation period
Gendarmerie Preliminary Investigation
Gendarmerie conducts investigation including aerial traffic checks and neighborhood inquiries. Investigation unable to identify the object through conventional means.
Later date
Case Forwarded to GEIPAN
Police report belatedly transmitted to GEIPAN for specialized analysis. Case enters official UAP investigation database.
Analysis phase
GEIPAN Technical Photographic Analysis
GEIPAN conducts detailed analysis of photograph examining shutter speed, focus, depth of field, and object characteristics. Calculations determine object was approximately 1cm in size at 13cm from lens.
Case closure
Classification as Class B - Insect Explanation
GEIPAN concludes the anomaly is a flying insect captured in extreme close-up proximity to camera lens. Case classified as B (probable explanation identified).
03 Key Witnesses
Anonymous Photographer
Civilian photographer
medium
Civilian witness photographing a child on a motorcycle. Demonstrated responsible behavior by filing official police report when discovering anomaly.
"Il constate à postériori sur une des photographie, la présence d'un objet étrange non remarqué lors de la prise de vue. (They noticed after the fact, in one of the photographs, the presence of a strange object not observed during the shot.)"
04 Analyst Notes -- AI Processed
This case exemplifies a common category of UAP reports that GEIPAN receives: photographic or video anomalies discovered only during post-capture review rather than witnessed directly. The witness's credibility appears solid—they took the appropriate step of filing an official police report and cooperating with the investigation. However, the lack of direct visual observation during the event is a significant limiting factor. The gendarmerie's investigation, while thorough in checking conventional explanations like aircraft traffic and local activity, could not resolve the case through these methods alone.
The technical photographic analysis provides compelling evidence for the insect explanation. GEIPAN's examination was methodical: they analyzed shutter speed, aperture settings, depth of field, hyperfocal distance, and object blur characteristics. The calculation that a 1cm object at 13cm from the lens would produce the observed effect is specific and verifiable. The consistency of the lighting with solar illumination adds another corroborating detail. This case demonstrates the value of expert photographic analysis in resolving anomalous images and highlights the frequency with which insects, birds, and other small objects near the camera create seemingly mysterious photographs.
05 Theory Comparison
BELIEVER ANALYSIS
Genuinely Anomalous Aerial Object
A minority position that the object could represent something genuinely anomalous that happened to be present but unobserved. Proponents might argue that the gendarmerie's inability to identify the object through conventional investigation leaves room for uncertainty. However, this theory fails to account for the compelling technical evidence of the insect explanation, particularly the precise calculations of object size and distance based on optical principles.
SKEPTIC ANALYSIS
Camera Artifact or Lens Defect
Alternative mundane explanation suggesting the anomaly could be a lens flare, internal reflection, or optical artifact created by camera mechanics rather than an external object. Dust on the lens, sensor spots, or processing artifacts could potentially create similar effects. However, this theory is less supported than the insect explanation given the specific blur characteristics and lighting consistency analyzed by GEIPAN.
06 Verdict
ANALYST VERDICT
This case is conclusively explained as a flying insect captured in extreme close-up during a photograph. GEIPAN's Class B designation is appropriate—the explanation is highly probable and supported by technical analysis, though absolute certainty is impossible without the actual insect specimen. The case holds minimal significance for serious UAP research but serves valuable educational purposes. It illustrates how optical effects, focus mechanics, and motion blur can create compelling anomalies in photographs, and demonstrates why direct visual observation is crucial for credible UAP reports. The witness's honest reporting and willingness to submit to official investigation is commendable, even though the outcome proved mundane. Cases like this help researchers understand the prevalence of photographic artifacts in the overall dataset of reported anomalies.
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.