Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesfamily, T1, T2, T3, T4
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, gendarmerie investigation, absence of physical trace
The case is titled MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980, concerns an observation dated 11/10/1980 in the Ardennes region of Champagne-Ardenne, and is classified C.
Claim #5372 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
Date of observation
11/10/1980
Region
Champagne-Ardenne
Department
Ardennes
Classification
C”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0001]] Case details
The archive summary describes a nighttime observation by a family of a colored luminous phenomenon on the ground and then passing above their home.
Claim #5373 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Nighttime observation by a family of a colored luminous phenomenon on the ground and then passing above their home: lack of information.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0001]] Summary
On October 12, 1980, T1 went to the gendarmerie to report an observation made the previous evening from her home, and the entire family was interviewed.
Claim #5375 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On October 12, 1980, a teenage girl went to the gendarmerie to report an observation made the previous evening from her home.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0002]] Description
T1 reported seeing a ball resting on the ground approximately 200 meters from the residence, observing it for about two minutes, and then seeing it rise and head toward “La Roche at 7 o’clock.”
Claim #5376 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“At around 11:40 p.m., T1 (14 years old) was lying in her bedroom when she saw through the window a ball resting on the ground 200 meters away, shaped like a flying saucer or a large cigar, with a yellow perimeter lighter than its orange-colored center.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0002]] Description
T2 reported seeing a large yellow-light-emitting ball that illuminated nearby gardens and later passed over the house toward the Roches.
Claim #5377 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“T2 saw a large ball emitting a strong yellow light, illuminating the garden and the neighbor’s garden and the “Roches at 7 o’clock,” 500 m away.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0002]] Description
T3 and T4 reported observing a rotating, long-range blue luminous beam for 10–15 minutes at a distance of 200–300 meters; T3 also reported hearing a short starting-up noise.
Claim #5378 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“At around 11:30 p.m., T3 and T4 (the parents), alerted by T1, saw for 10–15 minutes, at a distance of 200–300 m, a rotating, long-range blue luminous beam.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0002]] Description
The gendarmerie found no trace at the reported site and no related observation in the surrounding area.
Claim #5379 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The gendarmerie found no trace at the site, nor any related observation in the surrounding area.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0003]] Investigation findings
GEIPAN assessed that the testimonies had too many inconsistencies to validate the reported lights or balls taking off and flying over the area.
Claim #5380 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“There are too many inconsistencies among the testimonies to validate the main strangeness of the observation, consisting of these lights or balls or cigars that take off and fly over the area.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0004]] Reexamination assessment
GEIPAN stated that the most likely explanation was that lights were present on the ground for an unknown reason, while the observation of a flying light was highly suspect.
Claim #5381 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The most likely explanation is that there were indeed lights on the ground for an unknown reason. The observation of a flying light is highly suspect.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0004]] Reexamination assessment
GEIPAN classified the case C because of a lack of information.
Claim #5382 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C due to a lack of information.”
Source: MONTHERME (08) 11.10.1980
// [[T0004]] Classification conclusion
