Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness, driver of a van, VOUZIERS resident
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeseyewitness report, local gendarmerie interview, press account
The case concerns the silent movement of an orange-colored luminous ball in the sky.
Claim #2030 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation of the silent movement of an orange-colored luminous ball in the sky: lack of information.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0001]] Case details — Summary
The observation date listed for the case is 6 February 1997.
Claim #2031 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation date
06/02/1997”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified as C and the type of phenomenon is listed as lack of reliable information.
Claim #2032 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification
C
Date updated
23/06/2021
Type of phenomenon
Lack of reliable information”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0001]] Case details
On 19 February 1997, L’Union published an article recounting a reported aerial phenomenon observed by a VOUZIERS resident a few days earlier.
Claim #2034 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“On 19 February 1997, the newspaper L’Union published an article in its columns recounting the observation of an Aerial Phenomenon (PAN) by a resident of VOUZIERS (08) a few days earlier.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The witness reported seeing an intermittently visible orange-colored luminous ball moving from west to east while driving a van, and reported hearing no sound with the window open.
Claim #2035 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“He reported that, while driving his van, he saw intermittently in the sky the movement of an orange-colored luminous ball from west to east. With the window open, no sound was heard.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The witness was interviewed by the local gendarmerie brigade on 21 February 1997.
Claim #2036 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“The witness was interviewed on 21 February.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The local investigation did not identify other witnesses or obtain information concerning the observation.
Claim #2037 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“The investigation conducted locally over the following days did not identify any other witnesses or obtain any information concerning the observation of this PAN.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
GEIPAN described the case as poorly substantiated because there was a single witness, inconsistencies between accounts, and a lack of precision or consistency about the object’s positions, duration, and date.
Claim #2038 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“This case is poorly substantiated (see the investigation notes):”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The reconstructed observation had characteristics in common with the Mir space station, including duration, shape, size, color, and trajectory.
Claim #2039 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“What can be reconstructed of the observation has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, color, trajectory) with a perfectly known astronautical object: the Mir space station.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
Mir made evening passages across the sky during the observation period under conditions consistent with the reconstructed observation.
Claim #2040 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“In addition, Mir did make passages across the sky in the evening during the observation period, under conditions consistent with what can be reconstructed of the observation.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The Mir hypothesis would place the observation on 5 or 7 February rather than 6 February, although the exact date remains uncertain in the testimony.
Claim #2041 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“However, the MIR hypothesis would correspond to an observation not on 6 February but on 5 or 7 February, which would remain consistent with the”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0002]] Case description
The testimony contains uncertainty about the date because the press article gave Thursday, 6 February, while the gendarmerie report gave Tuesday, 06 February 1997; 6 February 1997 was in fact a Thursday.
Claim #2042 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“in the press article, the witness speaks of “Thursday, 6 February,” whereas in the gendarmerie report, he speaks of “Tuesday, 06 February 1997.” 6 February 1997 was in fact a Thursday.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0003]] Case description
GEIPAN stated that inconsistencies prevented formally identifying the observation as a misidentification of the Mir station, while also preventing it from being characterized as unexplained.
Claim #2043 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Nevertheless, the imprecisions or inconsistencies in the testimony (date, PAN’s departure direction, exact position of the witness) prevent this case from being formally identified as a misidentification of the Mir station.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0003]] Case description
GEIPAN chose the option that the witness’s observation could not be determined from consistent evidence and classified the case as PAN C: lack of reliable information.
Claim #2044 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN chooses the second option and classifies the case as PAN C: lack of reliable information.”
Source: VOUZIERS (08) 06.02.1997
// [[T0003]] Case description
