Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesPrimary witness, Child passenger reportedly saw the object but did not testify
Sensor typesFive digital photographs
Evidence typesWitness report to a Gendarmerie station, Photographic record, Official GEIPAN investigation
The case records an observation and photographs of a dark object that rotated on itself and then disappeared into a cumulonimbus.
Claim #21680 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation and photographs of a dark object rotating on itself and then disappearing into a cumulonimbus: observation of a tethered balloon or helikite (tethered kite balloon).”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0001]] Summary
A witness traveling between Saint-Sauveur-Sur-Ecole and Tours observed the object near Orléans on November 1, 2007, between 11:15 and 11:30 a.m.
Claim #21681 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness, a passenger in a car traveling between Saint-Sauveur-Sur-Ecole (77) and Tours (37) on National Route 152 (now Departmental Route 1152), observed an object in the sky near Orléans (45) on November 1, 2007, between 11:15 and 11:30 a.m.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0001]] Description
The object appeared to be a hang glider, changed shape, and entered a nearby cloud where it disappeared.
Claim #21682 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The object appeared to be a hang glider, but changed shape and entered a nearby cloud, where it disappeared.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness took five digital photographs, while the vehicle's driver saw nothing and a child in the back of the vehicle saw the object but did not testify.
Claim #21683 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The vehicle’s driver saw nothing. A child in the back of the vehicle saw the object, but would not be brought forward to testify.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0002]] Description
The witness reported the observation at a Gendarmerie station, but the GEIPAN questionnaire was not completed.
Claim #21684 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness reported the observation at a Gendarmerie station; the GEIPAN questionnaire was not completed.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0002]] Description
The photographs showed an object whose appearance changed between photographs, including dome and parallelogram shapes, with dark or black coloring and occasional metallic reflections.
Claim #21685 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the object’s appearance changed from one photograph to another: dome, parallelogram;”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0002]] The photographs were analyzed by the brigade
Air Base 123 at Brecy–Orléans reported that no air traffic had taken place nearby during the relevant time and location.
Claim #21686 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Air Base 123 at Brecy–Orléans confirmed that no air traffic had taken place in its vicinity during this time slot and at this location;”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0002]] The photographs were analyzed by the brigade
The departmental weather services in Orléans stated that no meteorological aircraft appeared to have been deployed in the preceding days.
Claim #21687 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“the departmental weather services in Orléans stated that no meteorological aircraft appeared to have been deployed in the preceding days.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0002]] The photographs were analyzed by the brigade
The case analysis rejects the hypothesis of a piloted object, including civilian and military aircraft.
Claim #21688 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Consequently, the hypothesis of a “piloted object” is not retained.”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis of a “piloted object”
The retained hypothesis is that the object was a tethered balloon or a helikite.
Claim #21689 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The hypothesis retained is that of a tethered balloon or a helikite (a combination of a kite and a tethered balloon).”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis of an “unpiloted object”
The case record states that the object’s apparent disappearance into the cloud could be explained by destruction, passage behind the cloud, or retrieval using a tether.
Claim #21690 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The object’s apparent disappearance into the cloud could be explained by its destruction, by the object passing behind the cloud while the witness perceived the movement of the object and the cloud in the same plane, or finally by the user bringing the object back to the ground using the tether, with the object’s movement not perceived by the witness because…”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis of an “unpiloted object”
GEIPAN classifies the case as B: tethered balloon or helikite.
Claim #21691 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as B: tethered balloon or helikite (tethered kite balloon).”
Source: ORLEANS (45) 01.11.2007
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis of an “unpiloted object”
