Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo witnesses
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimonies, gendarmerie investigation
The case is titled GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992, was observed on 12 May 1992, and is classified B.
Claim #3405 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
Date of observation
12/05/1992”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is located in the Île-de-France region and Seine-et-Marne department.
Claim #3406 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Île-de-France
Department
Seine-et-Marne”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes a fixed yellow luminous spot that changed shape and moved along an ascending trajectory before changing direction and increasing its distance.
Claim #3407 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“Observations of a fixed yellow luminous spot that subsequently changed shape and moved along an ascending trajectory; change of direction and increasing distance: observation of an aircraft.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0001]] Summary
On May 12, 1992, at around 10:30 p.m., a witness observed a yellow luminous spot, and a second witness later joined the observation.
Claim #3408 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On May 12, 1992, at around 10:30 p.m., a witness, from the first floor of their home, observed “a yellow luminous spot” in the sky.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0002]] Description
The two witnesses reported that the UAP appeared to lengthen, followed an ascending trajectory, changed direction, left a yellow trail, and gradually moved away; no sound was heard.
Claim #3409 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“During a final phase, the UAP changed direction, leaving a yellow trail behind it. No sound was heard during the observation. The UAP gradually moved away.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0002]] Description
The testimonies were recorded by the gendarmerie, which conducted an investigation.
Claim #3410 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“These two testimonies were recorded by the gendarmerie, which conducted an investigation (see report).”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN assesses that the observed UAP resembles an ordinary aircraft observed head-on with landing lights, followed by a turn and altitude gain.
Claim #3412 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The UAP observed by the two witnesses resembles an ordinary aircraft, observed in a first phase head-on, with its landing lights on, appearing stationary or moving slowly because it was heading toward the witnesses; then, in a second and third phase, it turned while gaining altitude until reaching an atmospheric layer more conducive to the formation of a contrail, and appeared to be moving rapidly, “accelerating abruptly” after its turn, because it was then observed more transversely (see the investigation report).”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN assesses that the reported long luminous trail is consistent with a contrail produced by the aircraft at an altitude conducive to contrail formation.
Claim #3414 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“During the second phase, the witnesses’ description (“a very long luminous trail of the same color as it”) is entirely consistent with the observation of a contrail produced by this aircraft, which at that moment was at an altitude conducive to the formation of such a trail.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0003]] Analysis
GEIPAN states that uncertainties prevented a definite conclusion about whether the trail could still have been illuminated by the sun.
Claim #3415 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Unfortunately, too many uncertainties in the existing data and variables sensitive to measurement are present, and they do not allow a definite conclusion on this point.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0003]] Analysis
GEIPAN classifies the case as B, meaning a probable observation of an aircraft.
Claim #3416 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of an aircraft.”
Source: GUERARD (77) 12.05.1992
// [[T0003]] Analysis
