Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesThree witnesses
Sensor typesNaked-eye observation, Binocular observation
Evidence typesOfficial GEIPAN case record, Witness reports, On-site investigation
The case is titled “ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014.”
Claim #11949 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The observation date is 21 December 2014.
Claim #11950 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
21/12/2014”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is associated with the Rhône-Alpes region and Haute-Savoie department.
Claim #11951 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Rhône-Alpes
Department
Haute-Savoie”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case classification is B.
Claim #11952 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
B”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The source lists the phenomenon type as “Contrail.”
Claim #11953 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Contrail”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The source summarizes the observation as a luminous yellow, drop-shaped phenomenon followed by a matte-black circular shape, and identifies a short aircraft contrail as the probable explanation.
Claim #11954 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Observation in the sky of the movement of a luminous yellow, drop-shaped phenomenon, followed by a matte-black circular shape: probable observation of a short aircraft contrail.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Summary
The source says that three people observed a phenomenon they could not explain from a living-room window and then from a terrace.
Claim #11955 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“three people observed, through the living-room window and then from the terrace, a phenomenon they could not explain.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The witnesses initially saw the phenomenon as water-drop-shaped and yellow, moving across the sky, and later saw it as circular and matte black.
Claim #11956 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“At first, from indoors, the phenomenon was seen as water-drop-shaped and yellow in color, moving across the sky.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The source states that the matte-black circular UAP disappeared rapidly.
Claim #11957 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witnesses went out onto the terrace and then saw the UAP as circular and matte black”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The observations were made with the naked eye and with binoculars.
Claim #11958 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The observations were made with the naked eye and with binoculars.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
An on-site investigation was conducted, and the source says it refined or corrected certain data.
Claim #11959 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“an on-site investigation made it possible to refine or correct certain data”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
The source states that a short aircraft contrail was plausible based on the investigators’ visit and witness descriptions.
Claim #11960 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“it appears that a short aircraft contrail is plausible.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
The source explains that sunlight could make an aircraft contrail change quickly from a luminous patch to a dark patch.
Claim #11961 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“An aircraft contrail can thus quickly change from a luminous patch to a dark patch.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of an aircraft contrail.
Claim #11962 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of an aircraft contrail.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
The description gives a date of January 21, 2015, which conflicts with the case’s listed observation date of December 21, 2014.
Claim #11963 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On January 21, 2015, at around 6 p.m., three people observed, through the living-room window and then from the terrace, a phenomenon they could not explain.”
Source: ALLEVES (74) 21.12.2014
// [[T0001]] Description