Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesmotorist, passenger
Sensor typesradar
Evidence typestestimony, radar trace
The case details list the observation date as 27/01/2012, the region as Ile-de-France, the department as Paris, and the classification as C.
Claim #18195 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
27/01/2012
Region
Ile-de-France
Department
Paris
Classification
C”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes an observation of a silent, silver-colored and shiny cylindrical object, with insufficient information.
Claim #18196 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the movement of a silent, silver-colored and shiny cylindrical object: lack of information.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0001]] Summary
The source description states that a motorist and passenger observed the object from the A13 motorway toward Caen between 4:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m.; it was initially stationary, then moved rapidly east-west, and disappeared leaving a cloud trail.
Claim #18197 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Between 4:30 p.m. and 5:15 p.m., they observed in the sky a silent, silver-colored and shiny cylindrical object, initially stationary and then moving very rapidly along an east-west trajectory.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0001]] Description
Only one testimony was received by GEIPAN for the observation case.
Claim #18198 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one testimony was received by GEIPAN.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN considered an aircraft and a cylindrical thermal balloon as hypotheses, with the balloon potentially gray or transparent and temporarily reflecting the sun.
Claim #18199 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Several hypotheses were considered for this observation case: an aircraft or a cylindrical thermal balloon, (gray or transparent) that might have temporarily reflected the sun.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN requested radar traces from the Air Force; one trace was recorded, but its quality was unusable and it did not correspond to the testimony.
Claim #18200 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN requested radar traces from the Air Force: only one trace, whose quality proved unusable, was recorded in the area, and it does not correspond to the testimony.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Radar investigation
The witness gave inconsistent direction information, first stating that the object came from the east toward the west and later stating that it came from the northwest.
Claim #18201 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Furthermore, the witness indicated in the questionnaire that the object “came from the East going toward the West,” then in subsequent email exchanges on 22.03.2012, indicated that the object came from the Northwest.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Radar investigation
The source states that the observation time and location were too imprecise for reliable correlation with aircraft passages.
Claim #18202 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The time of the phenomenon is known only with a precision of approximately half an hour, which is a considerable margin for correlating it with aircraft passages; the observation location during a journey on the motorway is also imprecise.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Radar investigation
The observed aircraft did not appear on the radars, and the only radar trace was unusable.
Claim #18203 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The observed aircraft do not appear on the radars, and the only radar trace produced proved unusable;”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Radar investigation
GEIPAN states that no solid evidence remains to confirm or rule out any hypothesis.
Claim #18204 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“no solid evidence remains to confirm or rule out any hypothesis.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Radar investigation
GEIPAN classifies the case as C, meaning no decision due to a lack of reliable information.
Claim #18205 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this case as “C”: no decision due to a lack of reliable information.”
Source: [A13] FROM PARIS (75) TO CAEN (14) 27.01.2012
// [[T0002]] Classification conclusion
