Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
The case observation date was 4 January 1994, and the case was classified C with the phenomenon type listed as lack of reliable information.
Claim #2883 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
04/01/1994
Region
Haute-Normandie
Department
Eure
Classification
C”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes a nighttime observation of a cone-shaped luminous phenomenon with multicolored horizontal bands followed by regular flashes, and identifies a lack of reliable information.
Claim #2884 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Nighttime observation of a cone-shaped luminous phenomenon with multicolored horizontal bands followed by regular flashes; witness extremely frightened: lack of reliable information.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0001]] Summary
According to the case description, on Tuesday, 4 January 1994, at 11:50 p.m., a witness saw a luminous cone-shaped UAP with multicolored horizontal bands rotating on itself after noticing a yellowish light growing larger in the sky.
Claim #2886 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On Tuesday, 4 January 1994, at 11:50 p.m., a witness watching television had his attention drawn by a yellowish light growing larger in the sky.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
The witness placed the UAP below the cloud layer toward the northwest above Bonnemare Castle and reported that it moved away, returned as a yellow ball, and grew larger again.
Claim #2887 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The witness placed the UAP below the cloud layer, toward the northwest above Bonnemare Castle, but at a relatively close distance.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
The witness reported being panicked, later hearing noise and seeing regular flashes, observing that his dog was frightened, and experiencing muscle contractions in his legs and lower back.
Claim #2888 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“Panicked, the witness went to bed without waking his wife.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
The witness contacted the gendarmerie the following day, and no other testimony was collected.
Claim #2889 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness contacted the gendarmerie the following day. No other testimony was collected.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
GEIPAN characterized the testimony primarily by a lack of consistency, citing missing information about duration, angular height, changes in position, angular size, and the disappearance of the UAP.
Claim #2890 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This testimony is characterized first and foremost by its lack of consistency:”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0002]] Assessment
GEIPAN assessed the witness reliability as mediocre and stated that stress could have affected the descriptions, including possible visual illusions involving the final phase.
Claim #2891 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“reliability is mediocre.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0003]] Assessment
GEIPAN considered a possible misidentification involving a skytracer, noting that this type of misidentification was common during the 1990s.
Claim #2892 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The description of the UAP and the presence of clouds suggest the possibility of a misidentification involving a skytracer.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0003]] Assessment
The gendarmerie inquiry contacted local community halls and discotheques, and no pyrotechnic event or laser show was found to have taken place on the evening of the observation.
Claim #2893 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“It turned out that no pyrotechnic event or laser show had taken place on the evening of the observation.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0003]] Gendarmerie inquiry
GEIPAN considered an aircraft explanation because the reported direction corresponded to Rouen Vallée de Seine Airport, located 14 km to the northwest.
Claim #2894 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The direction in which the UAP was observed corresponds exactly to the direction of Rouen Vallée de Seine Airport (76), located 14 km to the northwest.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0004]] Aircraft hypothesis
GEIPAN stated that the UAP's retreat and return could be explained by clouds obscuring an aircraft to varying degrees, producing changes in angular size and luminous intensity.
Claim #2895 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The UAP's retreat and return can be explained by clouds more or less obscuring the aircraft, leading to a variation in angular size and luminous intensity that the witness”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0004]] Aircraft hypothesis
GEIPAN concluded that no hypothesis could be retained as more than 50% probable and that the available information did not allow the case to be validated as unexplained.
Claim #2896 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Ultimately, the strangeness of the case exists because it is not possible to retain any hypothesis as more than 50% probable.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0005]] Final assessment
GEIPAN stated that it was not possible to reach a conclusion and classified the case as C: lack of reliable information.
Claim #2897 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is not possible to reach a conclusion.
GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.”
Source: BACQUEVILLE (27) 04.01.1994
// [[T0006]] Final assessment
