Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesT1, T1's partner
Sensor typesvideo
Evidence typesvideo, official investigation record
The case observation date was 17 August 2024.
Claim #23246 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
17/08/2024”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] case details
The case was classified as B.
Claim #23247 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
B”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] case details
The case phenomenon type was recorded as sky-tracer.
Claim #23248 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
sky-tracer”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] case details
On 17 August 2024, T1 and T1's partner observed a UAP through a window in Novalaise at around 11:10 p.m.
Claim #23249 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“On 17 August 2024, the witness (T1) and his partner, who live in the municipality of Novalaise (73), had recently gone to bed, in darkness (only the television was on), when at around 11:10 p.m. they observed a UAP in the sky through the window.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] Description
The sky was overcast with light rain during the observation.
Claim #23250 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The sky was overcast with light rain.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] Description
T1 described the UAP as silent and as a luminous disk separating into several rectangles that moved across the sky regularly and repetitively.
Claim #23251 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“T1 described this UAP as silent and consisting of a “luminous disk separating into several rectangles” that swept across the sky in a regular and repetitive manner.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0001]] Description
T1 reported that the phenomenon moved westward and disappeared after 2 to 3 minutes.
Claim #23252 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“After 2 to 3 minutes of observation and movement toward the west, the UAP disappeared.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0002]] Description
A video of the UAP was provided and could be used for analysis of the case file.
Claim #23253 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“a video of the UAP was provided and could be used for analysis of the case file (see the investigation report).”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN considered the hypothesis that a sky-tracer was observed probable because the movements were repetitive and regular and the sweeping speed varied, characteristics described as typical of such a device.
Claim #23254 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The hypothesis that a sky-tracer was observed (a projector or laser directed toward the sky) proved probable for the following reasons:”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0002]] assessment
The investigation did not identify the user of the suspected sky-tracer.
Claim #23255 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The investigation work did not make it possible to identify the user of this device, who could just as well be a private individual as a more distant shopping center.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0002]] assessment
T1 considered but rejected the sky-tracer hypothesis because no visible beam was observed.
Claim #23256 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It should be noted that T1 did consider this hypothesis, rejecting it because of the absence of a visible beam.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0002]] assessment
GEIPAN stated that T1 probably overestimated the UAP's elevation and that landscape features, distance, and unknown luminous power could explain the absence of a visible beam.
Claim #23257 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Indeed, because of the presence of rain, one might expect a beam to be visible, but the UAP’s elevation was probably overestimated by T1: it was quite low, near landscape features (trees, etc.) that may have concealed the beam.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0003]] explanation
GEIPAN classifies the observation case as B, meaning a probable observation of a sky-tracer.
Claim #23258 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this observation case as “B”: probable observation of a sky-tracer.”
Source: NOVALAISE (73) 17.08.2024
// [[T0003]] classification