Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, gendarmerie interview report, official scientific investigation record
The case record lists the observation date as July 3, 2010.
Claim #19194 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On July 3, 2010, at 3:13 a.m., a witness noticed, between two clouds, a flame-red object.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Description
A witness reported seeing a flame-red object between two clouds at 3:13 a.m.; the object was initially stationary and then moved silently southward before disappearing.
Claim #19195 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The object was initially stationary, then moved silently southward before disappearing.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Description
The case summary describes the observation as the silent passage of an orange luminous object across the sky.
Claim #19196 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the silent passage of an orange luminous object across the sky.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Summary
The listed type of phenomenon is Thai lantern.
Claim #19197 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Thai lantern”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Case details
The record says the observation characteristics resemble a known phenomenon often observed with Thai lanterns.
Claim #19198 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The characteristics of the observation resemble those of a known phenomenon very often observed with Thai lanterns”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Description
The record states that the wind was weak and unstable according to weather documents for Auxerre.
Claim #19199 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“According to the weather documents (weather records”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0001]] Description
The record says the propeller shape described by the witness can be explained by viewing a flying lantern from below.
Claim #19200 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The propeller shape described by the witness can be explained by an observation of a flying lantern "seen from below" (see comparison image).”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0002]] Description
The observation is assessed as presenting no strangeness.
Claim #19201 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The observation presents no strangeness.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0002]] Description
The case is assessed as having low evidentiary strength because it relies on a single testimony and contains little information in the gendarmerie interview report.
Claim #19202 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The case has low evidentiary strength because of the single testimony and the small amount of information contained in the gendarmerie interview report.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0002]] Description
The possible hypothesis that the observed object was a Thai-type lantern is retained.
Claim #19203 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The possible hypothesis that the object observed was a Thai-type lantern is retained”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0002]] Description
The case is classified B as very probably explained.
Claim #19204 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“this case, with a low level of strangeness, is classified B as very probably explained.”
Source: BRION (89) 03.07.2010
// [[T0002]] Description
