Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesTwo people, Single collected testimony
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesWitness testimony, Official scientific investigation record
The case observation date is recorded only as August 1997, with the exact day unspecified.
Claim #1956 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
--/08/1997”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is associated with the Languedoc Roussillon region and the Aude department.
Claim #1957 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Languedoc Roussillon
Department
Aude”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN classified the case as C.
Claim #1958 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classified this case as “C” due to the lack of a precise date and lack of corroboration.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0003]] Analysis and classification
The case summary describes successive observation of two rapidly and silently moving phenomena of different shapes in a clear sky, with limited information and corroboration.
Claim #1959 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Successive observation of the rapid and silent movement of two phenomena of different shapes in the clear sky: lack of information and corroboration.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0001]] Summary
According to the reported testimony, on August 4 or 5, 1997, at 23:45, two people lying on deck chairs saw two luminous phenomena appear in the clear sky ten minutes apart.
Claim #1961 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On August 4 or 5, 1997, at 23:45 (the witness no longer remembers the exact date), two people lying on deck chairs were surprised to see two luminous phenomena appear in the clear sky, 10 minutes apart.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0001]] Description
The first reported phenomenon was described as orange blinking spots outlining an equilateral triangle, and the observation lasted three seconds.
Claim #1962 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The first phenomenon was described as orange blinking spots outlining an equilateral triangle. The observation lasted 3 seconds.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0001]] Description
The first reported PAN moved silently and very rapidly from north-northeast to south-southwest.
Claim #1963 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“of this PAN, silently from NNE to SSW, was very rapid.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Description
The second reported phenomenon consisted of two perfectly rectangular yellow/orange lights moving in parallel along the same trajectory as the first PAN.
Claim #1964 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The second phenomenon was described as two perfectly rectangular yellow/orange lights moving along the same trajectory as the first PAN. The lights moved in parallel and at a short distance from one another.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Description
Only one testimony was collected for the case.
Claim #1965 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one testimony was collected.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN assessed that the apparent triangle could result from a contour illusion or shape illusion, while stating that the materiality of the triangle was uncertain.
Claim #1966 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the materiality of the triangle is absolutely uncertain and is very likely the result of a well-known illusion, called a contour illusion or shape illusion (cf. Gestalt psychology).”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN stated that the objectively observed elements could have been three luminous points crossing part of the sky in three seconds at an undetermined altitude, followed ten minutes later by two other lights on the same trajectory.
Claim #1967 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“What the witness objectively saw was a set of 3 luminous points crossing half the sky together in 3 seconds, at an undetermined altitude, from NNE to SSW. Two other lights followed the same trajectory 10 minutes later.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN considered luminous objects carried by the wind as a possible explanation, but noted that the approximate observation date made weather correlation difficult.
Claim #1968 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“One might think of luminous objects carried by the wind: since the observation date is approximate, it is difficult to determine the weather that day, and in particular to correlate the movement of these lights with the wind direction.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0002]] Analysis
The source states that on August 4 there was a light wind from east to northeast in Perpignan, which could not explain the reported movement.
Claim #1969 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On August 4, there was a light wind from E to NE in Perpignan, which cannot explain the observed movement.”
Source: PORT-LA-NOUVELLE (11) --.08.1997
// [[T0003]] Analysis
