Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesthree observers, single testimony reported
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typestestimony, no photographic or video documents
The case record lists the observation date as 1993-01-06, the region as Rhône-Alpes, the department as Haute-Savoie, and the classification as C.
Claim #3287 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
06/01/1993
Region
Rhône-Alpes
Department
Haute-Savoie
Classification
C”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is categorized as involving a lack of reliable information, with a strangeness value of 0.60 and a consistency value of 0.30.
Claim #3288 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Lack of reliable information
Strangeness
0.60
Consistency
0.30”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Case details
The summary reports a silent, very-low-altitude passage of a dark triangular UAP with lights.
Claim #3289 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the silent passage, at very low altitude, of a dark triangular UAP with lights: lack of information.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Summary
The source reports that on January 6, 1993, at 7:10 p.m., three people observed above the streetlights the silent passage of a triangular-shaped craft that was dark, had a central red light and several white lights grouped at each end, then departed at very high speed and disappeared behind a mountain toward Annecy.
Claim #3290 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On January 6, 1993, at 7:10 p.m., three people (one adult and two children) observed, above the streetlights, the silent passage of a triangular-shaped craft. Dark in color, it was illuminated by a red light at the center and several white lights grouped at each end. It suddenly departed at very high speed and disappeared behind a mountain in the direction of Annecy.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Description
The observation was reported through testimony in 2015 concerning an older observation from 1993.
Claim #3291 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Recent testimony (2015) of an old observation (1993).”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Description
The case record states that only one testimony was reported.
Claim #3292 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one testimony was reported.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN states that the lack of information and the testimonial data, particularly the age of the case, do not allow it to decide in favor of any hypothesis.
Claim #3293 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“we can conclude that the lack of information and the testimonial data in chapter 3.0 (in particular, the age of the case) do not make it possible to decide in favor of any hypothesis.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
The testimony is assessed as having low consistency because it is detailed but very old, involves a single eyewitness, and has no photographic or video documents.
Claim #3294 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This testimony has low consistency: detailed but very old. A single eyewitness and no photographic or video documents.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
The case is classified as C because the phenomenon is unidentifiable in its current state and the significant lack of information prevents a sound assessment.
Claim #3295 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This case is classified as “C” as an observation of a phenomenon that is unidentifiable in its current state, with the significant lack of information making it impossible to establish a sound assessment.”
Source: TALLOIRES (74) 06.01.1993
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
