Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typespilot, copilot
Sensor typesradar absent
Evidence typeseyewitness observation, Air Safety Report, telephone interview
The case was observed on October 8, 2000, at 17:04 UT during the climb phase of a flight bound for Grenoble.
Claim #1480 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On October 8, 2000, at 17:04 UT, the pilot and copilot of a flight bound for Grenoble, during the climb phase, observed the very rapid passage of a round, dark object above the cockpit.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case description
The pilot and copilot observed the very rapid passage of a round, dark object above the cockpit.
Claim #1481 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the pilot and copilot of a flight bound for Grenoble, during the climb phase, observed the very rapid passage of a round, dark object above the cockpit.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case description
The crew feared that the object might collide with the rear tail assembly, but no collision occurred.
Claim #1482 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The crew feared that the object might collide with the rear tail assembly, but nothing happened.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case description
The pilot filed an Air Safety Report, and the copilot was interviewed by telephone.
Claim #1483 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The pilot filed an ASR (Air Safety Report), and the copilot was interviewed by telephone and provided further information.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case description
The investigation considered possible misidentification of a weather balloon, a drone, or a bird.
Claim #1484 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Three hypotheses are considered: a possible misidentification of a weather balloon, a drone, or a bird (see the investigation report).”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case description
GEIPAN assessed the bird hypothesis as the most plausible of the three considered explanations.
Claim #1485 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The description of the UAP may evoke these three types of misidentification, but after analysis, the bird hypothesis is the most plausible of the three.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case assessment
The observation lasted one-tenth of a second, and GEIPAN cited the observation date, migratory-corridor location, the copilot's hypotheses, and absence of radar detection as supporting the bird hypothesis.
Claim #1486 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Although the observation duration (one-tenth of a second) was very brief, we nevertheless have sufficient elements in our possession to confirm this hypothesis, in particular:”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case assessment
The case had no radar detection associated with the observation.
Claim #1487 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“absence of radar detection.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case assessment
GEIPAN stated that the dark color and the pilots' impression of proximity further supported the bird hypothesis.
Claim #1488 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The dark color of the UAP and the impression of proximity felt by the pilots (and consequently its modest size) are points that further confirm the hypothesis.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0002]] Case assessment
GEIPAN described the case consistency as average because there were two witnesses but the observation was extremely brief and did not allow a correct description of the UAP.
Claim #1490 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency is average (two witnesses, but an extremely brief observation that did not allow the witnesses to describe the UAP correctly), but sufficient to support the hypothesis despite the uncertainties that remain attached to it.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0003]] Case assessment
GEIPAN classified the case as B, meaning a probable observation of a bird.
Claim #1491 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of a bird.”
Source: [AERO AFR] FROM ORLY (94) TO GRENOBLE (38) 08.10.2000
// [[T0003]] Case conclusion
