Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
The case concerns an observation in Troyes, in the Aube department and Champagne-Ardenne region, dated 2016-10-02.
Claim #15265 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
Observation date
02/10/2016
Region
Champagne-Ardenne
Department
Aube”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified A and its phenomenon type is Airliner.
Claim #15266 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A
Date updated
23/06/2021
Phenomenon type
Airliner”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0001]] Case details
A witness reported seeing 7 to 8 white lights moving across the sky, with one light separating and the group forming a compact triangle; no sound was heard and the observation lasted approximately 10 seconds.
Claim #15267 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“His attention is drawn to 7 to 8 white lights identical to those of aircraft moving across the sky. One light separates from the group, with the whole forming a compact triangle. No sound is heard during the observation, which lasts approximately 10 seconds.”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
Only one testimony was collected for the case.
Claim #15268 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one testimony is collected.”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN assessed that the observation highly probably corresponded to the passage of a Falcon aircraft at a relatively low altitude of 4,900 metres.
Claim #15269 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is highly probable that the observation corresponds to the passage of a Falcon aircraft at a relatively low altitude (4,900 m), as shown”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
According to the case analysis, the aircraft's passage time and direction correspond exactly to the observation, and the aircraft passed at a minimum distance of 3,800 metres from the witness at an altitude of 4,900 metres.
Claim #15270 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The time and direction of passage correspond exactly (the record is made in UTC, which indeed corresponds to 9:59 p.m. local legal time). The aircraft passes at a minimum distance of 3,800 m from the witness and flies at an altitude of 4,900 m.”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
GEIPAN considered the discrepancy between the witness's reported angular elevation of 15 to 30 degrees and the reconstructed elevation of 52 degrees to be within the usual margin of error for a witness without ground reference points.
Claim #15271 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“this discrepancy falls within the usual margin of error in a witness’s assessment of angular elevation when the witness has no ground reference points”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
GEIPAN considered the reported silence potentially explainable by a southwesterly wind carrying noise away from the witness and by attention or the unusual visual perception masking sound perception.
Claim #15272 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The fact that the aircraft passage was silent (even though the window was open) can be explained by the presence of a southwesterly wind recorded on (Infoclimat), blowing at 15 to 20 km/h against the propagation of noise originating from the northeast (the position of the Falcon aircraft).”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0003]] Analysis continuation
GEIPAN classified the case as A, meaning observation of an aircraft.
Claim #15273 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: observation of an aircraft.”
Source: TROYES (10) 02.10.2016
// [[T0003]] Analysis conclusion
