Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo witnesses, female motorist, her husband
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, absence of unusual noise, absence of ground trace
The case observation date was January 13, 1978.
Claim #11373 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“13/01/1978”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Case details, Observation date
The listed phenomenon type was Atmospheric Luminous Column.
Claim #11375 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Atmospheric Luminous Column”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Case details, Type of phenomenon
The summary describes a slow-moving rectangular orange-red luminous phenomenon with a halo along its long sides and identifies it as a solar column.
Claim #11376 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Observations of the slow movement of a luminous phenomenon, rectangular in shape and orange-red in color, in the sky; the presence of a halo along the long sides of the rectangle: observation of a solar column.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Summary
On January 13, 1978, at around 5:40 p.m., a female motorist and then her husband observed the phenomenon.
Claim #11377 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On January 13, 1978, at around 5:40 p.m., a female motorist and then her husband observed the slow movement of a luminous phenomenon, rectangular in shape and orange-red in color, in the sky; the presence of a halo along the long sides of the rectangle was noted.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
No unusual noise was heard during the observation phases.
Claim #11378 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“No unusual noise was heard during the observation phases.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
No trace was found on the ground, and no other testimony concerning the phenomenon was collected by the gendarmerie.
Claim #11379 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“No trace was found on the ground and no other”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0001]] Description
The case was described as consistent because it had two witnesses, and the description of the observed UAP was described as precise.
Claim #11380 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“This case is consistent (two witnesses), and the description of the observed UAP is precise.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
The witnesses’ sincerity and credibility were never called into question.
Claim #11381 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witnesses’ sincerity and credibility were never called into question.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the phenomenon had characteristics in common with a luminous phenomenon linked to the Sun, identified as a solar column.
Claim #11382 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The phenomenon described has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, color) with a luminous phenomenon linked to the Sun: a solar column.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the Sun had only just set below the horizon directly along the axis indicated by the witnesses.
Claim #11383 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In addition, the Sun had only just set below the horizon directly along the axis indicated by the witnesses.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the winter season and a few clouds favored observation of a solar column.
Claim #11384 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The winter season and the presence of a few clouds favored observation of a solar column.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
The source states that the witnesses’ visual perception was not at issue, but that their interpretation of the observation was involved through their reactions.
Claim #11385 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is not the witnesses’ visual perception that is at issue, but rather the interpretation the witnesses give to their observation through their reactions (astonishment, observation of a rare luminous phenomenon).”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
Under the current GEIPAN classification, the case is classified as PAN A, a low-strangeness observation resulting from a misidentification of a solar column.
Claim #11386 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In the current GEIPAN classification, this case of low strangeness is classified as PAN A, an observation resulting from a misidentification of a solar column.”
Source: GUIPEL (35) 13.01.1978
// [[T0002]] Description
