Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesTwo witnesses, Friends/dependent witnesses
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesWitness reports, Gendarmerie report, GEIPAN official investigation, Wind-direction comparison
The case records the observation date as 31 July 1994.
Claim #2691 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“31/07/1994”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details, Observation date
The case is located in the Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur region and the Bouches-du-Rhône department.
Claim #2692 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur
Department
Bouches-du-Rhône”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case phenomenon type is listed as "Children's balloon."
Claim #2693 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
Children's balloon”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN's summary describes a daytime observation of a silent cylindrical-shaped object associated with two round, metallic-colored shapes and moving in all directions, and states that a balloon was the probable explanation.
Claim #2694 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Daytime observation of the silent movement of a cylindrical-shaped object associated with two round, metallic-colored shapes and moving in all directions: probable observation of a balloon.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0001]] Summary
On July 31, 1994, at around 2:30 p.m., witnesses observed a cylindrical shape in the sky associated with two round, metallic-colored shapes.
Claim #2695 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“On July 31, 1994, at around 2:30 p.m., witnesses observed a cylindrical shape in the sky associated with two round, metallic-colored shapes.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
One witness reported seeing two protrusions with flashing lights, and the object was described as moving silently at a fairly high altitude in all directions.
Claim #2696 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“One of the witnesses saw two protrusions with flashing lights. This object moved silently, flying in all directions at a fairly high altitude.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
Two witnesses reported their observations to the gendarmerie.
Claim #2697 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“Two witnesses reported their observations to the gendarmerie.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Case description
GEIPAN states that the observed direction of movement was consistent with the wind direction recorded by the Marseille-Observatory station.
Claim #2698 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The direction of movement, consistent with that of the wind.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Explanation of movement
GEIPAN states that the witnesses' descriptions of slow movement, circling, swaying, and movement like a dead leaf were typical of a light object carried and buffeted by weak wind.
Claim #2699 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“This description is typical of light objects carried and buffeted by a weak wind.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Explanation of movement
GEIPAN proposes that the object could have been a novelty beach balloon released from Cassis or its surrounding area.
Claim #2700 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 94% extraction confidence
“It could therefore be a novelty beach balloon, released from Cassis and its surrounding area”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Explanation of object description
GEIPAN states that the testimonies had rather low consistency because they were brief and came from dependent witnesses who were friends.
Claim #2701 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The consistency of the testimonies is rather low. Although there are two testimonies, they are very brief and come from dependent witnesses (friends).”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Assessment of testimonies
GEIPAN classifies the case as B: balloon.
Claim #2702 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: balloon.”
Source: ALLAUCH (13) 31.07.1994
// [[T0002]] Final classification