Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesPrimary witness traveling by vehicle, Witness’s parents reportedly observing from another location
Sensor typesVideo recording
Evidence typesWitness report, Video, GEIPAN investigation, IPACO video analysis
The observation date was January 4, 2025.
Claim #22956 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“04/01/2025”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Case details, Date of observation
The case was located in the Languedoc-Roussillon region and the Pyrénées-Orientales department.
Claim #22957 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Languedoc-Roussillon
Department
Pyrénées-Orientales”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN classified the case as A.
Claim #22958 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Case details
The listed type of phenomenon was Thai lantern.
Claim #22959 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Thai lantern”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes a filmed observation of numerous twinkling red lights passing through the sky and identifies them as sky lanterns.
Claim #22960 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Filmed observation of numerous twinkling red lights passing through the sky: observation of sky lanterns.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Summary
A witness traveling by vehicle in Perpignan reported observing around ten twinkling red lights moving through the sky, and filmed the phenomenon after stopping the vehicle.
Claim #22961 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On January 4, 2025, at around 6:00 p.m., a witness (T1) traveling by vehicle in Perpignan (66), in the presence of his partner (T2), reported observing a UAP consisting of around ten twinkling red lights moving through the sky.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness's parents reportedly observed the lights from another location, providing a partial cross-check of the observation.
Claim #22962 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“At the same time, the witness's parents, who had been alerted, confirmed that they had also observed the lights from another location, which allowed a partial cross-check of the observation.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0001]] Description
The total duration of the phenomenon was estimated at approximately ten minutes.
Claim #22963 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The total duration of the phenomenon is estimated at approximately ten minutes.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Testimonies
GEIPAN stated that the video lasted 2 minutes and 08 seconds and clearly showed ten lights moving slowly upward in the sky.
Claim #22965 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The primary witness's account is sufficiently precise and supplemented by a video lasting 2 minutes and 08 seconds.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Testimonies
GEIPAN assessed that the lights' glowing or twinkling appearance and wind-influenced ascending trajectory were consistent with sky lanterns.
Claim #22967 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Indeed, the glowing/twinkling lights moving along an ascending trajectory influenced by the wind display characteristics consistent with those generally observed when sky lanterns are released.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN stated that IPACO software authenticated the video and verified chromatic consistency with the lantern hypothesis.
Claim #22968 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The IPACO* software, used by GEIPAN to analyze photos/videos, made it possible to authenticate the video and verify the chromatic consistency with the lantern hypothesis (Appendix 1).”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN reported that all lights appeared to depart from the same point, followed continuously ascending trajectories, maintained regular speed and spacing, and did not overtake one another or change trajectory.
Claim #22969 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The trajectory is continuously ascending.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN assessed that the apparent speed and orientation were consistent with a weak northward wind of 4 to 6 km/h.
Claim #22970 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The apparent speed and orientation are consistent with a weak wind directed northward (4 to 6 km/h).”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN stated that the only light appearing to travel in the opposite direction was a reflection or tracking flare.
Claim #22971 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The only light that appears to travel in the opposite direction in the film is a reflection (a tracking flare).”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN reported that the highest lights went out in order of arrival.
Claim #22972 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The highest lights go out in order of arrival.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN classified the case as A, meaning an observation of sky lanterns.
Claim #22976 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of sky lanterns.”
Source: PERPIGNAN (66) 04.01.2025
// [[T0004]] Classification conclusion