Earth File #1235 // SOURCED record

Pujaut bright yellow luminous phenomenon (reported)

The GEIPAN case description reports that several people observed a bright yellow luminous phenomenon in a cloudy sky near Pujaut on October 11, 2013, at around 10 p.m.; it reportedly flickered and went out instantaneously. GEIPAN classified the case as category C because of insufficient information.

Source // GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive Earth record separated from alien editorial

FRED // CASE CONSOLE
SOL-3 // FILE 1235 // CH 03
CONTEXT VIEW // NOT SOURCE MEDIA

CASE FINGERPRINT
DA89-9C38-5B82
CLOCK // NOT PRECISE

Reported motionLIGHT

FRED // CLASSIFICATION DISPUTE // generated from Earth Record metadata

LIGHT

near Pujaut, Gard, Languedoc-Roussillon // Oct 11, 2013. The diagram on the left is a structured-record visualization—not a reconstruction, photograph, sensor return, or additional evidence.

INSUFFICIENT DATA CLOCK // NOT PRECISE GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive

Witness pictureseveral people, single testimony reported 3 interface marker(s) // not a headcount estimate

Motion traceReported motionflickered, went out instantaneously

Sensor / evidenceNo sensor type statedtestimony

Fred's paperwork completeness8/9 fields // 89%

Interface completeness only // this score does not measure truth, evidence strength, or extraterrestrial probability

1 document(s)1 source node(s)9 structured claim(s) location precision: locality flickeredwent out instantaneously

FRED // CLASSIFICATION DISPUTEMultiple witnesses are useful context. They still do not combine into a photograph when stacked carefully.

Fred case console // context visualization // not evidence

Visitor Transmission // AlienBox editorial layer

We observed the Pujaut event. We did not cause it. Your GEIPAN record reports that, on October 11, 2013, around 10 p.m., several people saw a bright yellow light in cloudy sky; it reportedly flickered and vanished instantaneously. The same record notes that a single testimony was reported and classifies the case C, for insufficient information. GEIPAN considered several hypotheses, but confirmed none. We have no replacement explanation. The paperwork remains admirably inconclusive.

Fred // Earth Records Liaison // AlienBox editorial layer

GEIPAN’s category C is doing useful work here: the record preserves a reported bright yellow light, but the information does not support a firm identification. Flickering and disappearing instantly are observations, not propulsion data. The lantern and aircraft explanations remained unconfirmed and tenuous, which is less exciting than certainty and considerably more honest. Off the Earth Record, the Visitors were observers rather than the cause. Their presence does not identify the phenomenon; it merely gives my filing department one more opportunity to mislabel a box. For once, the paperwork is appropriately cautious.

FRED // EXPENSE ACCOUNT DENIED

Buy Fred a Red Dwarf Stout

The Gorkon Outpost has again declined reimbursement. Voluntary support keeps AlienBox running and does not purchase influence over Earth Record conclusions.

EARTH CURRENCY BUY RED DWARF STOUT // $5 Secure checkout via Stripe // funds settle to Orange-Hat, LLC

QR code for Fred's DigiByte tip address

DIGIBYTE // DIRECT TIP SCAN OR SEND DGB dgb1q9dw0cfzr22n2efrad7l8340na90nlptjnthq0s

OPEN DGB WALLET →

Suggested: 500 DGB // any amount welcome // blockchain confirmation monitor pending

SUPPORT POLICY // Support payments are voluntary and never influence Earth Record evidence ranking, factual conclusions, or editorial treatment. VIEW FRED'S EXPENSE ACCOUNT →

When

October 11, 2013

Where

near Pujaut, Gard, Languedoc-Roussillon

Morphology

LIGHT

Evidence authority

SOURCED

Resolution

INSUFFICIENT DATA

Why Fred Thinks This Case Matters

AlienBox comparative analysis from structured Earth Record fields // not a new source // not a change in evidence grade

Console archetype // Published-resolution comparison

Fred keeps this file near the top of the pile because the source also supplies a published resolution to compare against the original report. That combination makes the case useful for cross-archive comparison without changing its evidence grade.

The source record includes a published resolution field. AlienBox treats it as an attributed source assessment to compare with the original report, not as an AlienBox verdict.

What strengthens the record

1 linked source document provide provenance for the Earth Record.
9 claim citations tie extracted statements back to source excerpts or locators.
Recorded evidence context: Testimony.
The source record includes a published resolution: GEIPAN category C; lack of reliable information. Hypotheses involving a Thai lantern or aircraft remained unconfirmed and tenuous..

What limits the record

No sensor type is recorded in the structured Earth Record.
The structured record does not establish multiple independent observers.
The current dossier is anchored to one source network rather than independent source networks.

What would help resolve it

Can the originating record establish an exact number of observers and whether their observations were independent?
Did any radar, infrared, optical, telemetry, or other instrument record the event, and is that material preserved?
Can the source establish a usable duration for the observation rather than only a date or narrative sequence?

Fred Says Go Here Next

Internal research paths chosen from this dossier's structured fields. Similarity is navigation, not corroboration.

Resolved UFO & UAP Case Files → Compare published explanations across resolved case files.

Earth Record // SOURCED

Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.

Witness typesseveral people, single testimony reported

Sensor typesNot stated

Evidence typestestimony

The GEIPAN case record lists the observation date as 2013-10-11.

Claim #13278 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“Observation date 11/10/2013”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

The case is listed in the Languedoc Roussillon region and the Gard department.

Claim #13279 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“Region Languedoc Roussillon Department Gard”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

The case is classified as C and its phenomenon type is listed as lack of reliable information.

Claim #13280 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“Classification C Update date 23/06/2021 Phenomenon type Lack of reliable information”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

The case description reports that on October 11, 2013, at around 10 p.m., several people observed a bright yellow luminous phenomenon in a cloudy sky; it flickered and went out instantaneously.

Claim #13281 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“On October 11, 2013, at around 10 p.m., several people observed a bright yellow luminous phenomenon in the cloudy sky. The phenomenon flickered and then went out instantaneously.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

The record states that a single testimony was reported.

Claim #13282 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence

“A single testimony was reported.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

GEIPAN studied hypotheses involving a star or planet, reflection of the sun on a geostationary satellite, a Thai lantern, and an aircraft.

Claim #13283 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“GEIPAN studied several hypotheses for this observation of a fixed yellow point of light lasting 2 minutes: -star or planet: the witness indicated a very cloudy sky, as did the weather reports from Nîmes and Avignon.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0001]]

GEIPAN stated that the Thai-lantern hypothesis remained worthy of consideration.

Claim #13284 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“This hypothesis nevertheless remains worthy of consideration.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0002]]

GEIPAN stated that it lacked the information needed to confirm the Thai-lantern and aircraft hypotheses, which remained tenuous.

Claim #13285 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“GEIPAN does not have the information needed to confirm either of the last two hypotheses, which themselves remain tenuous.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0002]]

GEIPAN classified the case as not very strange, in category C, due to a lack of information.

Claim #13286 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence

“GEIPAN classifies this case as not very strange, in category "C," due to a lack of information.”

Source: PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // [[T0002]]

FRED // PUBLIC DESK CHANNEL

Ask Fred About This File

Questions about the dossier get an Earth Record answer first, then Fred may add clearly separated off-record commentary.

Related Cases

PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 // INCIDENT

Source Documents

AlienBox displays translated titles when available. Canonical links always point to the original source.

PUJAUT (30) 11.10.2013 FR // English display translation

ALIENBOX CLEARANCE // EARLY ACCESS

Receive new dossiers before the humans organize them.

Join the early-access list for new sighting dossiers, major archive drops, Fred's notes, Visitor confessions, and future Clearance-only research tools.

HUMAN COMPLIANCE NOTICE // Fred and Visitor transmissions are AI-generated AlienBox editorial layers. Earth Record claims are separately sourced and audited. Ask Fred conversations are contextual explanations, not new evidence. Foreign-language source material remains immutable in its original archive; English display/analysis translations are stored separately with provenance. Scanner graphics, flashes and alien silhouettes are interface design only.