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 typesGEIPAN official case record, Witness testimony, Witness sketches, Gendarmerie on-site investigation, No additional testimony collected
The case concerns an observation in Ecquevilly, department of Yvelines, region Île-de-France, dated 15 November 1993, and is classified D.
Claim #2924 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
Observation date
15/11/1993
Region
Île-de-France
Department
Yvelines
Classification
D”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes a silent circle of lights with varying colors and luminous intensities and labels the phenomenon unexplained.
Claim #2925 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of a circle of lights of varying colors and luminous intensities moving silently: unexplained phenomenon.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0001]] Summary
During the night of 14 to 15 November 1993, at around 04:30, the witness reported seeing lights that moved toward the home and then formed a luminous circle above it.
Claim #2926 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“During the night of 14 to 15 November 1993, at around 04:30, a witness was awakened by his dogs barking.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0002]] observation narrative
The witness reported that the luminous circle contained white, yellow, and slightly bluish lights of different intensities, along with flashes of black light, and that the observation lasted 20 to 25 seconds.
Claim #2927 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“When they arrived above his home, the witness saw a luminous circle composed of white, yellow, and slightly bluish lights of different intensities.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0002]] observation narrative
The witness reported hearing no noise even though the window was open.
Claim #2928 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness heard no noise, even with the window open.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0002]] observation narrative
The witness went to the Gendarmerie on 24 November 1993 to give a statement, and later submitted sketches; the investigation found no trace and collected no other testimony.
Claim #2929 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“No trace was found, and no other testimony was collected during the Gendarmerie investigation.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0002]] investigation narrative
GEIPAN assessed that the observed PAN was probably relatively modest in size, approximately 5 degrees at its closest.
Claim #2930 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“we showed that the PAN observed by the witness was ultimately probably of a relatively modest size (approximately 5° at its closest).”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0002]] analysis
GEIPAN determined that a helicopter was the only somewhat credible hypothesis, but that the hypothesis did not fit the reported angular size and lack of sound.
Claim #2931 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“However, this angular size remains too large to fit well with the only somewhat credible hypothesis, namely confusion with a helicopter.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0003]] analysis
GEIPAN stated that the case had good consistency because of the detailed testimony and an on-site investigation conducted by the gendarmes shortly afterward.
Claim #2932 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The consistency is good, with a sufficiently detailed testimony and an on-site investigation carried out by the gendarmes shortly afterward.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0003]] consistency assessment
Under GEIPAN’s current methodology, the case would require a field investigation with the witness, but such an investigation was not possible because the case was being revisited long afterward.
Claim #2933 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“But it is not possible for a case being revisited so long afterward.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0003]] methodology assessment
The case is classified D as unexplained.
Claim #2934 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, the case is classified D: unexplained.”
Source: ECQUEVILLY (78) 15 November 1993
// [[T0004]] conclusion
