Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness
Sensor typesunaided visual observation, camera, video
Evidence typesphotographs, video recordings, official GEIPAN analysis
The case concerns a long observation of a fixed luminous phenomenon in the sky, identified in the summary as Venus.
Claim #15084 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Long observation of a fixed luminous phenomenon in the sky: observation of Venus.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0001]] Summary
On August 22, 2017, at 4:30 a.m., a witness observed a fixed luminous phenomenon toward the east from the first floor of their home.
Claim #15085 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On August 22, 2017, at 4:30 a.m., a witness observed a fixed luminous phenomenon in the sky toward the east from the first floor of their home.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness took photographs and videos during the half-hour observation, and only one report was collected.
Claim #15086 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness took photographs and videos (tablet and camcorder) during the half-hour observation. Only one report was collected.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN states that the UAP was located at approximately azimuth 84° at 6:08 a.m. on 22/08/2017, and that comparison with Stellarium showed Venus at the same azimuth with an apparent magnitude of -4.
Claim #15087 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“a comparison with Stellarium at the same time shows the presence of Venus at azimuth 84° and an apparent magnitude of -4.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN explains that zooming in on a planet or star with the equipment used was impossible because of defocusing, and that filming a luminous point with the zoom produces optical and electronic artifacts.
Claim #15088 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Magnifying an image of a planet or star is impossible with this type of equipment because of defocusing, meaning that focusing cannot be achieved on an object so distant; a luminous point filmed with the zoom produces optical and electronic artifacts.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0002]] Explanation
GEIPAN states that the observed shape varied according to movements and may have been caused by an aperture defect, while the colors were chromatic aberrations related to defocusing.
Claim #15089 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The colors are chromatic aberrations also related to defocusing.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0002]] Explanation
The witness described the UAP as a large star with no change in trajectory and not much movement.
Claim #15090 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Furthermore, the witness describes the UAP as a large star "without any change" in trajectory and with "not much movement."”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0002]] Explanation
GEIPAN classifies the case as A and identifies the observation as Venus.
Claim #15091 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this case as A, as a certain observation of Venus.”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0002]] Conclusion
The case record lists its classification as A, region as Franche-Comté, and department as Doubs.
Claim #15092 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Region
Franche-Comté
Department
Doubs
Classification
A”
Source: ETUPES (25) 22.08.2017
// [[T0001]] Case details
