Night of 2–3 June 2020, between midnight and 01:00 local; estimated duration five to ten seconds
Outcome: Open (Unresolved). GEIPAN retained D after interviews, fieldwork and geometric analysis. A meteor, drifting lights and drones were examined without a satisfactory identification; some testimony was discussed between witnesses before submission.
A brief passage over rural Orne
Three adults in a family garden reported two principal bluish lights, accompanied by smaller points or a surrounding halo, moving horizontally at a steady apparent rate. The lights passed behind poplars and reappeared before leaving view. Their duration estimates ranged from about five to ten seconds.
The episode occurred after midnight at the start of 3 June 2020. References to the evening of 2 June and to the following day belong to that same overnight sequence. It should not be split into two cases or dated by the eventual investigation report.
Three accounts, with a shared discussion
The witnesses supplied questionnaires and drawings, and participated in cognitive interviews. GEIPAN requested radar information in 2020 and later developed a field and image-analysis reconstruction. Its published report is dated November 2025.
Multiple observers give the enquiry more material than a single retrospective account, but independence still matters. The investigators noticed that some questionnaire answers appeared to follow consultation between the witnesses. A shared conversation can preserve agreement while also making it difficult to tell which details were independently noticed.
The trees supplied a useful, conditional constraint
The investigators treated the reported disappearance behind trees about 200 metres away as a lower distance bound. Combined with an estimated angular span, this produced a minimum separation between the principal lights of roughly nine metres. The report also calculated different possible speeds at greater distances.
Those are conditional results. They depend on correct identification of the intervening trees, a genuine occlusion and reliable estimates of apparent size and time. A drawing annotated on a later photograph is not a camera image of the lights themselves. Nor does the spacing between lights prove one solid structure connected them.
A range of speeds, rather than one headline number
The report explores speeds from tens to hundreds of kilometres per hour depending on assumed range and duration. That spread is informative: even with three people, the actual distance and elapsed time were not directly measured. Selecting the largest calculated value would give a misleading impression of a single established performance figure.
The two dominant lights might have belonged to one source, separate sources or a more complicated optical appearance. The witnesses favoured an object-like impression, but an estimated span between lights cannot establish a connecting body. The catalogue records the reported lights while leaving that physical interpretation open.
The alternatives and present outcome
The enquiry considered a fragmented atmospheric entry, lights drifting with the wind and one or several drones. It found no matching meteor record, difficulties with the wind and reported motion, and problems fitting a single drone to the inferred dimensions. Several drones remained possible but were judged an unsatisfactory explanation.
GEIPAN retained D, and UKPX records Open (Unresolved). This describes the investigation’s unresolved identity question; it is not a finding that the lights exceeded known aeronautical performance. Independent footage or a matching operator record would test the possibilities more effectively than increasingly precise calculations built on the same estimated distances.
Location and map reference
Aunay-les-Bois, Orne, France. Broad commune reference from the French government geographic API; not the witness home, precise observation position or object location. This listing does not advertise access to private property.
Sources and review
CNES–GEIPAN official case record and the original investigation report. Official summary;34-page report pp 1–4, 28–34; conditional IPACO distance/size calculations and inter-witness consultation reviewed. No event photo or positive radar return claimed. Sources and current classification checked 13 November 2026. The incident date above is distinct from the later investigation and archive-update dates.