Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
The case observation date was June 11, 1994.
Claim #2750 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation date
11/06/1994”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified as B by GEIPAN.
Claim #2751 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification
B”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
The archive lists the phenomenon type as model aircraft.
Claim #2752 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Model aircraft”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes a nighttime observation by a motorist of a UAP with multicolored flashing lights and identifies a probable observation of an aircraft model.
Claim #2753 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Nighttime observation by a motorist of a UAP with multicolored flashing lights: probable observation of an aircraft model.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0001]] Summary
At around 11:45 p.m. on June 11, 1994, a motorist on a small country road reported an object moving parallel to her at very low altitude on the right side of the road.
Claim #2754 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On June 11, 1994, at around 11:45 p.m., a motorist on a small country road observed an object on the right side of the road moving parallel to her at very low altitude.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Description
The witness described the UAP as lemon-shaped, with a cable on top and multiple multicolored flashing lights.
Claim #2755 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness described a UAP "shaped like a lemon" with a "cable" on top and covered with multiple multicolored flashing lights.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Description
Only one testimony was collected, and the witness did not specify the observation duration.
Claim #2756 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness did not specify the duration of the observation and saw it disappear rapidly. She tried to see it again, but in vain. Only one testimony was collected.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Description
The case was previously classified D and was later assessed as a probable confusion with a model aircraft, possibly an airplane or helicopter, piloted from a nearby aeroclub.
Claim #2757 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This observation case, which indicated a high apparent strangeness (initially classified D), proved to be a probable confusion with a model aircraft (airplane or helicopter) piloted from the nearby aeroclub.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Reexamination assessment
GEIPAN's model-aircraft assessment was based partly on the observation's direction toward the authorized overflight zone of a nearby aeroclub.
Claim #2758 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the observation was made primarily in the direction of the authorized overflight zone of a nearby aeroclub;”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Investigation elements
GEIPAN assessed the very low apparent altitude as consistent with the altitude limitations of model aircraft.
Claim #2759 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the height above the horizon at which the UAP was observed (very low) is consistent with the altitude limitations inherent in the use of model aircraft;”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Investigation elements
GEIPAN assessed the flashing lights as compatible with aircraft anti-collision lights, with colors largely consistent with air navigation lights.
Claim #2760 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the presence of flashing lights, as with aircraft anti-collision lights. For the most part, these lights had colors consistent with those used in air navigation;”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Investigation elements
GEIPAN stated that nighttime conditions, the moving vehicle, closed windows, and the object's small angular dimensions prevented the witness from identifying it as a model aircraft.
Claim #2761 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“These small angular dimensions, combined with the observation conditions—at night and from a moving vehicle with the windows closed—did not allow the witness to identify the shape as that of a model aircraft.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0002]] Investigation elements
GEIPAN proposed that the reported cable could have been part of the model aircraft's structure, such as its fin or tail, illuminated by the lights.
Claim #2762 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the "cable" observed by the witness could have been part of the structure of the model aircraft (for example, the aircraft's fin or tail), strongly illuminated by the lights;”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0003]] Residual strangeness
GEIPAN proposed that the apparent doubling of the UAP resulted from a brief change in the model's orientation relative to the witness, possibly with temporary obscuration by vegetation.
Claim #2763 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the "doubling" of the UAP was caused by a brief change in the model's orientation relative to the witness, making a structural part—probably the fuselage—more clearly visible;”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0003]] Residual strangeness
GEIPAN stated that the reported right-angle or perpendicular trajectories were compatible with model aircraft capable of rapid acrobatics within a small operating radius.
Claim #2764 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“"Right-angle" or "perpendicular" trajectories are hardly surprising for model aircraft, which are capable of rapidly performing acrobatics in every direction within a very small operating radius.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0004]] Trajectory assessment
GEIPAN assessed that the UAP probably disappeared because dense vegetation around the aeroclub site obscured it.
Claim #2765 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the UAP probably disappeared all at once, as it was obscured by the dense vegetation present around the aeroclub site.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0004]] Disappearance assessment
The case has moderate consistency because it involved a single witness and no photograph or video.
Claim #2766 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consistency is moderate, with a single witness and no photograph or video.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0004]] Consistency assessment
The Gendarmerie investigation used photographs taken on site to reconstruct the positions fairly precisely.
Claim #2767 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the Gendarmerie investigation (photographs taken on site) was able to reconstruct the positions fairly”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0004]] Consistency assessment
GEIPAN states that other hypotheses, including an airplane and a boat mast on the Loire, were explored and rejected.
Claim #2768 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Note: other hypotheses were explored and rejected: airplane, mast of a boat on the Loire.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0005]] Conclusion note
GEIPAN classifies the case as B, meaning a probable observation of an aircraft model.
Claim #2769 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of an aircraft model.”
Source: LE PELLERIN (44) 11.06.1994
// [[T0005]] Conclusion
