Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesreporting witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness report, gendarmerie statement, site visit, no trace found
The case concerns a silent, straight-line south-to-north observation of an ovoid metallic-gray object approximately 20 meters above the ground on August 6, 1982, at 8:05 p.m.
Claim #4738 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“A witness at the corner of CD43 and Rue des Mouettes in MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) observed, on August 6, 1982, at 8:05 p.m., the silent S-N movement of an ovoid, metallic-gray object 20 meters above the ground.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning “A witness at the corner”
The witness reported that the object disappeared after the witness turned to look at another person who was also present.
Claim #4739 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The witness turned upon noticing another witness already present, but when looking again in the direction of the object, it had disappeared.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning “A witness at the corner”
The witness gave a statement to the gendarmerie on August 11, 1982, and gendarmes visited the site on August 12, 1982; no other testimony or trace was found.
Claim #4740 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness gave a statement to the gendarmerie on August 11 without being able to provide a more accurate estimate of the distances. On August 12, the gendarmes went to the site; no other testimony was collected and no trace was visible.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning “A witness at the corner”
GEIPAN considers the physical and dynamic characteristics of the observation consistent with confusion with a metallized nylon balloon of the “Mylar” type.
Claim #4741 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The physical characteristics (metallic appearance reflecting sunlight, ovoid shape, presence of a fanciful element) and dynamic characteristics (regular movement in the direction of the wind) are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of confusion with a metallized nylon balloon of the “Mylar” type (see the investigation report).”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning “The physical characteristics”
GEIPAN states that such balloons existed in 1982 and could be circular or ovoid and decorated with varied designs.
Claim #4742 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“Such balloons already existed in 1982 and were often circular or ovoid in shape and decorated with a fanciful design that could vary greatly and itself be circular in shape.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning “Such balloons already existed”
GEIPAN considers it possible that a predominantly red balloon design appeared as a luminous red eye to the witness when viewed from a distance in the setting sun.
Claim #4743 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“It is possible that such a fanciful design was predominantly red and, when observed from a distance and illuminated by the setting sun, appeared to the witness to have the appearance of a luminous red eye.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning “It is possible that”
GEIPAN states that the disappearance may have resulted from the witness looking away long enough to lose the object from view, while also noting uncertainty about the duration of the turn.
Claim #4744 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“We do not know how long the witness turned around; it may have been long enough for the witness not to have been able to find the UAP again in their field of vision, or for it to have disappeared.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning “Although the terminology used”
GEIPAN reports that the case was previously classified D and is now classified B as a probable observation of a “Mylar” balloon.
Claim #4745 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of a “Mylar” balloon.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning “GEIPAN classifies the case”
GEIPAN describes the consistency as rather low and says the hypothesis is sufficiently probable to be retained but not firmly confirmed or disproved.
Claim #4746 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency is rather low, with few elements allowing an hypothesis—which, in its current state, is nevertheless sufficiently probable to be retained—to be firmly disproved or confirmed.”
Source: MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN (76) 06.08.1982
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning “The consistency is rather low”
