Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesSingle witness
Sensor typesUnaided visual observation
Evidence typesWitness testimony, No photograph or video
The observation occurred on February 17, between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m., and involved a pale yellowish/bluish luminous UAP moving from west to east along a slightly descending trajectory.
Claim #7585 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On February 17, between 6:00 and 6:30 a.m., in their north-facing garden, the witness, on a break, observed a pale yellow/bluish luminous UAP moving from west to east along a slightly descending trajectory.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On February 17"
The observation lasted two seconds and occurred while the UAP was visually located behind an airliner in the landing phase; after accelerating and overtaking the airplane, it disappeared at the level of the airplane.
Claim #7586 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“This observation, lasting two seconds, took place while the UAP was visually located behind an airliner in the landing phase.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On February 17"
A single testimony was collected for the event.
Claim #7587 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“A single testimony was collected for this event.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On February 17"
GEIPAN describes the case as having average consistency because there was a single witness, no photograph or video, and a very short observation duration.
Claim #7588 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“average consistency (consistency is the amount of reliable information collected about a testimony), namely a single witness, no photograph or video of the UAP, and a very short observation duration.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "average consistency"
The analysis indicates that the witness probably observed an LED balloon.
Claim #7589 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The analysis (see the investigation report) indicates that the witness probably observed an LED balloon.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "The analysis"
The LED balloon hypothesis is supported by the UAP's round shape, yellowish/bluish luminosity, linear movement from west to east in the direction of the prevailing wind, and absence of a trail and noise.
Claim #7590 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“- Linear movement in the direction of the prevailing wind, from west to east,”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0002]] numbered list under "This hypothesis is supported by the following elements:"
The UAP's size could not be precisely assessed because usable data were lacking, and the distance between the airplane, the witness, and the UAP remained undetermined.
Claim #7591 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The size of the UAP cannot be precisely assessed because of the lack of usable data.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "The size of the UAP"
The source states that optical alignment with the aircraft was plausible, but the UAP's relative position could not be determined with certainty.
Claim #7592 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Consequently, it is equally plausible that the UAP was located at a greater or lesser distance than the airplane relative to the witness, making it impossible to determine its relative position with certainty.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "It is plausible that the UAP"
The observed acceleration may have been caused by a brief gust of wind, while the disappearance may have resulted from possible disintegration.
Claim #7593 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“This strangeness may be attributed to a brief gust of wind that caused it to accelerate, while its sudden disappearance may have resulted from its possible disintegration once it reached, according to the witness’s observation, the level of the aircraft.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning "The strangeness perceived by the witness"
GEIPAN classifies the case as B: probable observation of an LED balloon.
Claim #7594 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies this case as “B”: probable observation of an LED balloon.”
Source: PALAISEAU (91) 17.02.2022
// [[T0003]] concluding paragraph
