Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo direct witnesses: a son and daughter-in-law, third-party reporter who did not witness the event
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesindirect testimony, gendarmerie investigation, official GEIPAN case assessment
The case page lists the observation date as 21 June 1997.
Claim #1970 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
21/06/1997”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is classified as C and its phenomenon type is listed as lack of reliable information.
Claim #1971 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C
Update date
23/06/2021
Phenomenon type
Lack of reliable information”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes a very long observation of an ovoid, silent PAN flying at low altitude over a car, based on indirect testimony and characterized by a lack of information.
Claim #1972 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Very long observation of an ovoid, silent PAN flying at low altitude over a car; indirect testimony: lack of information.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0001]] Summary
On 23 June 2007, a Béziers resident reported to the gendarmerie that his son and daughter-in-law had observed a PAN for a long time during the night of 21 June 1997, around midnight.
Claim #1973 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On June 23, 2007, a resident of BEZIERS (34) reported to the gendarmerie that his son and daughter-in-law had observed a PAN for a long time during the night of June 21, 1997, around midnight.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
According to the passenger, the reported PAN was a flat, ovoid craft with non-luminous white lights, appeared to follow the vehicle, regularly appeared and disappeared, made no particular noise, and was approximately 50 meters above the ground.
Claim #1974 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“According to the passenger, the PAN regularly appeared and disappeared.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
The reported observation lasted 45 minutes while the witnesses traveled on the N609 from Béziers.
Claim #1975 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Traveling on the N609 from Béziers, the driver and his passenger observed for 45 minutes a flat, ovoid craft; non-luminous white lights radiated from the craft.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
The gendarmerie investigation did not identify an aircraft that could correspond to the observation.
Claim #1976 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The investigations conducted by the gendarmerie did not make it possible to identify an aircraft that could correspond to this observation.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
The two direct witnesses could not be interviewed because they had returned home by the time of the investigation.
Claim #1977 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In addition, the two direct witnesses, residing in Alpes-de-Haute-Provence (04), could not be interviewed because they had returned home by the time of the investigation.”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
The case was reported only by a third person who saw nothing, so its consistency was assessed as very low because it was not a direct testimony.
Claim #1978 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is reported only by a third person, who saw nothing. The consistency of this case is therefore very low, since it is not a direct testimony (see the investigation notes).”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
Under GEIPAN's current classification, the case is classified as PAN C due to a lack of information, specifically the complete absence of direct testimony.
Claim #1979 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, under GEIPAN’s current classification, this case is classified as PAN C, due to a lack of information (complete absence of direct testimony).”
Source: BEZIERS (34) 21.06.1997
// [[T0002]] case description
