Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
The case concerns a reported observation on June 29, 2012, in the Val-d'Oise department.
Claim #17839 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
29/06/2012
Region
Other
Department
Val-d'Oise”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0001]] Case details
A witness reported a stationary white luminous object at low altitude above a field near a forest, observing it for less than twenty seconds.
Claim #17840 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“a walker, alerted by his dog, was intrigued by the presence of a stationary white luminous object at low altitude above a field on the edge of a forest.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported that the object was large, with a flat underside and a concave upper side.
Claim #17841 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the object was large, with a flat underside and a concave upper side.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0001]] Description
As rain began, the reported object rose slightly, tilted, and departed rapidly toward the cloudy sky without a particular noise or smoke, according to the witness.
Claim #17842 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“As it began to rain, the object rose slightly, tilted, and departed at high speed toward the cloudy sky.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0002]] Observation description
No other report was collected concerning the phenomenon.
Claim #17843 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“No other report was collected concerning this phenomenon.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0002]] Observation description
The observation was considered extremely similar and synchronous with observing the sun at sunrise between two layers of clouds, but the observation direction, apparent tilting, and apparent size were identified as discrepancies.
Claim #17844 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“This case is notable for being extremely similar and synchronous with a very familiar natural phenomenon: observing the sun at sunrise between two layers of clouds.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0002]] Explanation assessment
GEIPAN investigators verified the location and observation directions, ruled out an inadvertent directional-estimation error, and were unable to establish a satisfactory complex-sun-reflection hypothesis.
Claim #17845 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“They were unable to establish a satisfactory hypothesis;”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0002]] Investigation findings
GEIPAN classified the case as D1, unexplained and of medium consistency.
Claim #17846 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this case as “D1,” unexplained and of medium consistency.”
Source: MAFFLIERS (95) 29.06.2012
// [[T0003]] Classification conclusion
