Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official GEIPAN investigation record, no photograph available
The case observation date was July 3, 2011.
Claim #18328 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
03/07/2011”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0001]] case details
The case was assigned Classification C.
Claim #18329 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this case as “C.””
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case description
The source summary describes the observation as the silent movement of three luminous balls along a straight trajectory and identifies a lack of information.
Claim #18330 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the silent movement of three luminous balls along a straight trajectory: lack of information.”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0001]] Summary
The witness reported seeing three white luminous balls toward the south-southwest.
Claim #18331 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“He then saw three white luminous balls in the sky toward the south-southwest.”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported that the objects moved along a straight trajectory from southwest to northwest without aircraft-like noise or condensation trails, with an apparent speed greater than commercial aircraft.
Claim #18332 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“Two of them moved closer together, and all three objects began moving along a straight trajectory oriented from southwest to northwest, without the noise or condensation trails typical of commercial aircraft at high altitude, and with an apparent speed”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0001]] Description
The observation lasted approximately 60 seconds.
Claim #18333 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The observation lasted approximately 60 seconds.”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case description
GEIPAN assessed the sighting as having average strangeness because the appearance was similar to balloons.
Claim #18334 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This sighting of three luminous balls crossing part of the sky is of average strangeness because their appearance was similar to that of balloons;”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case assessment
GEIPAN stated that the balloon hypothesis could neither be accepted nor formally ruled out because the wind measured at 7 km was contrary to the observed movement.
Claim #18335 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“since the wind measured at 7 km was contrary to the observed movement, this hypothesis can neither be accepted nor formally ruled out.”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case assessment
GEIPAN stated that the observation lacked sufficient consistency because it was based on a single testimony, had no photograph, and involved uncertainty about the wind.
Claim #18336 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In its current state, this observation lacks sufficient consistency: a single testimony, no photograph, and uncertainty about the wind.”
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case assessment
GEIPAN stated that no other elements were available to validate or exclude one of the hypotheses.
Claim #18337 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Without any other elements making it possible to validate or exclude one of these hypotheses, GEIPAN classifies this case as “C.””
Source: CHAMALIERES (63) 03.07.2011
// [[T0002]] case assessment
