Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness types7-year-old child, father as indirect submitter
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesofficial GEIPAN case record, witness report
The case concerns an observation in Chasseneuil-du-Poitou, in the Vienne department and Poitou-Charentes region, on 24 September 2009.
Claim #20128 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“(CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
Observation date
24/09/2009
Region
Poitou-Charentes
Department
Vienne”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0001]] Case details
The reported phenomenon involved rapid movements and abrupt stops of a white rectangular parallelepiped in the sky.
Claim #20129 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the rapid movements and abrupt stops of a white rectangular parallelepiped in the sky: lack of information.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0001]] Summary
The observation was reportedly made by a 7-year-old child and was submitted to GEIPAN indirectly by the child’s father.
Claim #20130 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This case results from the testimony of a 7-year-old child, indirect testimony because it was reported by his father.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
The child reportedly observed an opaque white parallelepiped-shaped object behind an airplane; the object tilted, dropped, moved toward a neighboring television antenna, rose rapidly, stopped abruptly, and disappeared vertically into the sky.
Claim #20131 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“The child was then intrigued by an opaque white parallelepiped-shaped object behind the airplane. The object tilted to pass under the airplane, then dropped sharply before stabilizing below a high-voltage power line.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
The reported observation lasted between 20 and 30 seconds, and the sky was clear and cloudless.
Claim #20132 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“During the observation, which lasted between 20 and 30 seconds, the sky was clear and cloudless.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
The reported wind came from the north-northeast at an average speed of 17 km/h, while the object appeared from the southwest and moved against the wind.
Claim #20133 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“An established wind blowing at an average of 17 km/h came from the north-northeast; the object, in the shape of an opaque white parallelepiped, appeared at altitude from the southwest of the observation site, that is, against the wind.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN stated that no usual hypothesis accounted for the reported criteria.
Claim #20134 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 90% extraction confidence
“No usual hypothesis makes it possible to account for these criteria.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN did not consider it desirable to investigate further because the testimony concerned a child of that age.
Claim #20135 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN did not then consider it desirable to investigate further the testimony of a child of this age.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN stated that there was no particular reason to question the child’s sincerity, while noting that a child of that age may be more easily influenced and may exaggerate or over-interpret observations.
Claim #20136 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“There is no particular reason to call the child’s sincerity into question, but a child of this age may be more easily influenced, including unconsciously, by discussions or situations in his immediate environment, an influence that may lead to exaggerating or over-interpreting observed elements that may have been mundane to begin with.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
The child’s father had previously reported an observation that was later explained as Thai lanterns, and GEIPAN stated that this may have influenced the child’s interpretation or concern about the sky.
Claim #20137 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Let us note that the father had already given initial testimony to GEIPAN one month earlier; this other observation had quickly found an explanation (Thai lanterns), but it may have created in the child a factor of influence or concern related to the possible strangeness of the sky.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN classified the case C because of a lack of reliable information.
Claim #20138 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case C: lack of reliable information.”
Source: (CAN) CHASSENEUIL-DU-POITOU (86) 24.09.2009
// [[T0002]] Description
