Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness
Sensor typesnaked eye, binoculars
Evidence typeswitness report, gendarmerie investigation, official GEIPAN assessment
The observation date for the Arras case was 17 March 1978.
Claim #11344 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation date
17/03/1978”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case was classified A in the case details.
Claim #11345 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Case details
The source summarizes the observation as a slow movement of a round, luminous object in the sky and identifies it as an astronomical observation of the setting Moon.
Claim #11346 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the slow movement of a round, luminous object in the sky: astronomical observation of the Moon as it was setting.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Summary
A witness reported observing a round luminous object moving slowly in a south–northwest direction at around 1:30 a.m. on 17 March 1978.
Claim #11347 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On 17 March 1978, a witness observed, at around 1:30 a.m., a round luminous object moving slowly in a S–NW direction.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
The observation lasted 10 minutes, involved observation with the naked eye and binoculars, and the witness reported no particular sound.
Claim #11348 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“No particular sound was heard during the 10-minute observation, first with the naked eye and then with binoculars.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
The object slowly descended toward the horizon.
Claim #11349 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The object slowly descended toward the horizon.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
The gendarmerie investigation did not provide new information about the phenomenon.
Claim #11350 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The gendarmerie investigation did not provide any new information concerning this phenomenon.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN stated that the case had been classified as C in 2008 and later reexamined through investigation notes.
Claim #11351 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This observation case was among the cases classified as “C” in 2008 by GEIPAN. It was subject to a new examination (see the document: investigation notes).”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN stated that the witness’s sincerity and credibility had not been called into question.
Claim #11352 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The witness’s sincerity and credibility have never been called into question.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN stated that the observation had characteristics in common with the setting Moon, which was present in the observed area of the sky.
Claim #11353 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The phenomenon described has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, luminosity) with a perfectly known astronomical phenomenon: the Moon as it was setting.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN currently classifies the case as UAP A, explaining it as a misidentification of the setting Moon observed with partial cloud cover.
Claim #11354 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“In GEIPAN’s current classification, this case of low strangeness is classified as UAP A: an observation resulting from a misidentification of the setting Moon observed with partial cloud cover.”
Source: ARRAS (62) 17.03.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
