Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo witnesses traveling in a vehicle, aircraft pilot interviewed during the investigation
Sensor typesaircraft GPS data, vehicle trajectory data
Evidence typeswitness report, official investigation, on-site reconstruction, 3D simulation
The case observation date was 31 May 2015.
Claim #15723 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
31/05/2015”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case was classified as A.
Claim #15724 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0001]] Case details
Two witnesses observed lights and a dark, V-shaped UAP while traveling near Silly-Le-Long.
Claim #15725 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“Slowing down, they observed on their left a massive, dark, V-shaped UAP.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The observation lasted between 1 and less than 4 minutes and ended when the UAP was concealed by the road’s terrain.
Claim #15726 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“it lasted between 1 and less than 4 minutes before the UAP was concealed by the road’s terrain (a descent).”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The investigation found that a light aircraft was flying at low altitude in the opposite direction from the witnesses’ vehicle during a Touch and Go exercise.
Claim #15727 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The investigation showed that a light aircraft was flying at low altitude (Touch and Go exercise) in the opposite direction to the movement of the witnesses’ vehicle.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0002]] Description
An on-site reconstruction and 3D simulation using aircraft GPS data and the vehicle trajectory demonstrated a pivot phenomenon.
Claim #15728 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“A substantial investigation effort involving on-site reconstruction with the witnesses and 3D simulation, based on the aircraft’s GPS navigation data and the trajectory of the witnesses’ vehicle, demonstrated a pivot phenomenon”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation analysis
The pivot effect could give witnesses the impression that the aircraft was stationary at the pivot point.
Claim #15729 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“may thus give witnesses who saw the aircraft the impression that it is stationary at the pivot point.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation analysis
The pivot point was located at a bridge crossing over the road, where the stationary UAP was seen.
Claim #15730 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“The pivot point was located at a bridge crossing over the road, and this was also where the stationary UAP was seen.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation analysis
The investigation identified substantial discrepancies between the reported observation and the aircraft’s appearance, including differences in light characteristics and angular size.
Claim #15731 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Nevertheless, this case was subjected to more in-depth analysis because of significant discrepancies between the reported observation and the aircraft’s appearance.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0004]] Discrepancies
The reported UAP angular size was between 14 and 27 degrees, while the aircraft’s reconstructed angular size was 0.7 degrees at the reported observation point.
Claim #15732 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“at the reported observation point, the aircraft’s angular size was 0.7°, whereas the reported size was between 14 and 27°”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0004]] Discrepancies
The majority of GEIPAN experts approved the hypothesis of a major perceptual illusion explainable by nighttime driving, rearview-mirror observation, fatigue, or stress.
Claim #15733 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“the majority of the experts approved the hypothesis of a major perceptual illusion, considered explainable by nighttime driving, observation in the rearview mirror, as well as fatigue or stress.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0005]] Expert assessment
GEIPAN classified the case as A: misidentification of an aircraft.
Claim #15734 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: misidentification of an aircraft.”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0005]] Classification conclusion
The aircraft pilot interviewed during the investigation did not report seeing an imposing nearby object emitting lights.
Claim #15735 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“the aircraft’s pilot, who was interviewed, did not notice any imposing object (as described by the witnesses) emitting lights”
Source: SILLY-LE-LONG (60) 31.05.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation analysis
