Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesmotorist, children, several witnesses, independent witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official investigation
The case concerns observations by several witnesses of a stationary, very bright white phenomenon in the sky, with no sound heard; GEIPAN's summary identifies a probable observation of skytracer impact spots.
Claim #23290 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observations by several witnesses of a stationary phenomenon in the sky, very bright and white. No sound was heard: probable observation of impact spots in the sky from a skytracer (laser projector).”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0001]] Summary
The observation occurred on 27 November 2011 at 18:50, when a motorist and her children saw a stationary luminous phenomenon above the village church; a fifth witness later provided testimony.
Claim #23291 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On 27 November 2011 at 18:50, a motorist and her children were intrigued by the presence of a stationary luminous phenomenon above the church of the village of Saint-Gatien-des-Bois (Calvados, in the Lower Normandy region). A fifth witness would also provide testimony later.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0002]] Description
A new meteorological study found that low stratocumulus cloud banks were very probably present in the observation area, contrary to the earlier assessment that there were no clouds there.
Claim #23292 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“However, a more detailed new meteorological study (described in an appendix to the investigation report) shows that low stratocumulus cloud banks were very probably present.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN considered the circular shape, variable number, white color, cloud presence, brightness, exceptional horizontal visibility, and absence of sound compatible with the skytracer hypothesis.
Claim #23293 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“This hypothesis should now be retained, supported by the following elements:”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0002]] Description
A provider working for the nearby golf course offered entertainment using a skytracer model whose characteristics were fully compatible with the UAPs, but actual use during the events could not be formally demonstrated.
Claim #23294 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The actual use of skytracers by this provider at the time of the events could not, however, be formally demonstrated, but operational tests could have been carried out in preparation for future events.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN judged the skytracer hypothesis probable because of its compatibility with the UAP appearance and cloud cover, its plausibility given local practices and equipment, and the absence of contradictory formal evidence.
Claim #23295 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The strong compatibility of the hypothesis with the appearance of the UAP and the cloud cover, its plausibility given the practices and equipment whose use is attested at the location and during the period, and the absence of any formal element that could contradict it make it possible to retain the hypothesis as probable.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0004]] Conclusion
GEIPAN assigned the case classification B and described it as a probable observation of impact spots in the sky from a skytracer.
Claim #23296 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN concludes with classification B: probable observation of impact spots in the sky from a skytracer.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0004]] Conclusion
The source states that the consistency rating is good because there were several witnesses, including at least one independent witness, but notes the lack of angular data explicitly originating from the witnesses.
Claim #23297 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The consistency is good simply because there are several witnesses, at least one of whom is independent of the others (T5), describing broadly the same thing.”
Source: SAINT-GATIEN-DES-BOIS (14) 27.11.2011
// [[T0003]] Description
