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 typeswitness report, official GEIPAN investigation, no photograph or video
The observation date listed for the case is July 3, 2021.
Claim #7776 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
03/07/2021”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified by GEIPAN as C.
Claim #7777 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as C: the absence of consolidated data does not allow a definite conclusion to be reached regarding the observed phenomenon.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0003]] Classification conclusion
The case summary describes a dark gray-black, V-shaped object moving through the night sky, with insufficient information.
Claim #7778 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of the movement of a dark gray-black, V-shaped object in the night sky: lack of information.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0001]] Summary
According to the witness account, the object moved from west to east and passed directly overhead.
Claim #7779 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Suddenly, he saw a “flat V-shaped” object, dark gray to black in color, moving from west to east and passing directly overhead.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0001]] Description
According to the witness account, a laser beam appeared to crackle upon contact with the object and revealed a honeycomb-like surface.
Claim #7780 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Equipped with a laser, he directed the beam toward the UAP and observed that the light “crackled” upon contact with it, revealing a surface covered with honeycomb-like structures.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0001]] Description
According to the witness account, the object maintained a constant altitude and regular speed, later made a smooth U-turn, slowed above him, and accelerated westward until it disappeared.
Claim #7781 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“noting that it maintained a constant altitude and a regular speed.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0002]] Witness movement description
GEIPAN considered a drone as a possible explanation, partly because the reported V shape is characteristic of some fixed-wing flying-wing drones.
Claim #7782 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“Certain elements of the report led to the hypothesis that a drone was observed, notably because of the V shape, characteristic of certain fixed-wing “flying wing” type drones (see the investigation report).”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
The absence of angular data prevents a precise estimate of the observed object's distance and dimensions.
Claim #7783 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The absence of angular data is a major obstacle in evaluating the hypothesis, as it prevents any precise estimate of the distance and dimensions of the observed object.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
The observation area is described as strictly prohibited to drone overflights, particularly at night.
Claim #7784 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Furthermore, it should be noted that the observation area is strictly prohibited to drone overflights, particularly at night.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0002]] Investigation assessment
GEIPAN states that it is probable the witness observed a real phenomenon, but that insufficient data make further study particularly difficult.
Claim #7785 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Thus, although it is probable that the witness observed a real phenomenon, in this context of insufficient data it seems particularly difficult for us to study it further.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0003]] Conclusion
GEIPAN describes the case's consistency as low because there was a single witness, no angular data, and no photograph or video of the UAP.
Claim #7786 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency* of this case is low: a single witness, no angular data, and no photograph or video of the UAP.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0003]] Consistency assessment
Only one report was collected for the observation.
Claim #7787 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one report was collected as part of this observation.”
Source: AVIGNON (84) 03.07.2021
// [[T0002]] Report count
