Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness
Sensor typesvideo recording
Evidence typeswitness report, analyzed video, meteorological model comparison
On May 11, 2025, at 10:45 a.m., a witness observed a UAP from their home in Saint-Genis-Pouilly, under a completely clear sky.
Claim #22770 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On May 11, 2025, at 10:45 a.m., a witness observes a UAP from their home in Saint-Genis-Pouilly (01). Under a completely clear sky,”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness described the UAP as a white sphere with a vaporous texture, comparable in size to Venus, moving slowly and disappearing behind treetops after approximately four minutes.
Claim #22771 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“they see a white sphere with a vaporous texture, comparable in size to Venus. The object moves slowly: it first advances toward the witness, turns north, then heads west again before disappearing behind the treetops after approximately 4 minutes of observation.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness was able to film the UAP, and the video was analyzed as part of the investigation.
Claim #22772 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“despite the presence of a single witness, the witness was able to film the UAP—the video was analyzed as part of the investigation”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0002]] Consistency and video analysis
The video analysis identified a lower appendage visible in the non-defocused portions of the video.
Claim #22773 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Highlight the presence of a lower appendage, visible in the non-defocused portions of the video.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0002]] Video analysis
The source states that filming conditions produced artifacts, including maximum digital zoom, difficulty maintaining stability without a tripod, ubiquitous defocusing, and later computer enlargement.
Claim #22774 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Demonstrate that the elements making the case strange to the witness are mainly artifacts induced by the filming conditions:”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0002]] Video analysis
The UAP's speed during the second part of its trajectory was assessed as compatible with the light wind shown in AROME modeled data from Météo France, with size estimates compatible with a novelty balloon or weather balloon.
Claim #22775 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Demonstrate that the UAP's speed of movement, in the second part of its trajectory, is compatible with that of the light wind shown in the AROME* modeled data from Météo France, for size estimates compatible with those of a novelty balloon or a weather balloon.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0002]] Video analysis
The investigated hypothesis was that the observation involved a weather balloon or a novelty balloon.
Claim #22776 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The hypothesis investigated—that the observation involved a weather balloon or a novelty balloon—is supported by the following elements:”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0002]] Investigated hypothesis
The investigated balloon hypothesis was supported by the object's round shape, lower appendage, white color, and movement and speed consistent with the wind.
Claim #22777 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Movement and speed consistent with the wind present.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis support
The type of balloon could not be determined, and the origin of the launch, whether France or Switzerland, remained undetermined.
Claim #22778 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The type of balloon could not be determined. Despite intensive searches, the origin of the launch (France or Switzerland) remains undetermined.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0003]] Unresolved balloon type and launch origin
GEIPAN classified the case as B, meaning a probable observation of a balloon carried by the wind.
Claim #22779 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as "B": probable observation of a balloon carried by the wind.”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0003]] Classification
The source lists the phenomenon type as Balloon and the case classification as B.
Claim #22780 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification
B
Update date
25/06/2026
Type of phenomenon
Balloon”
Source: SAINT-GENIS-POUILLY (01) 11.05.2025
// [[T0001]] Case details