Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeseyewitness, nine people reportedly observed the phenomenon, one testimony collected
Sensor typesmobile phone camera attempted, but no successful recording
Evidence typesofficial investigation record, witness testimony, unsuccessful mobile-phone filming attempt
The FAVARS case observation date was 2019-11-29, and the case was classified C.
Claim #8031 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
29/11/2019”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] case details
The case was located in the Limousin region and Corrèze department.
Claim #8032 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Limousin
Department
Corrèze”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] case details
The source describes a very long observation of a scintillating luminous phenomenon in the night sky and states that the case lacked information.
Claim #8033 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Very long observation of a scintillating luminous phenomenon in the night sky: lack of information.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] Summary
On November 29, 2019, shortly before 10:00 p.m., a witness observed from an outdoor terrace what appeared to be a very bright star whose scintillation effects were intriguing.
Claim #8034 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On November 29, 2019, shortly before 10:00 p.m., a witness observed from an outdoor terrace what appeared to be a very bright star, but whose scintillation effects intrigued them.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] Description
Nine people gathered on the terrace and observed the phenomenon's reported appearances, disappearances, division, and separation of parts.
Claim #8035 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Nine people called to come and see the UAP gathered on the terrace and observed the phenomenon's various developments (appearances, disappearances, division, and the separation of parts).”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness unsuccessfully attempted to film the phenomenon with a mobile phone, and only one testimony was collected.
Claim #8036 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness unsuccessfully tried to film it with their mobile phone. Only one testimony was collected.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0001]] Description
The case was judged unidentifiable because of a lack of data, while the source stated that it displayed characteristics of an astronomical misidentification.
Claim #8037 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Although fairly strong in strangeness but of average consistency (several witnesses, but a single testimony, and videos of the UAP), this case proved to be unidentifiable due to a lack of data, although the case displays characteristics of an astronomical misidentification.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] case assessment
According to the witness's indications, the observation began at 9:50 p.m., lasted approximately 80 minutes, and was toward the southeast at an azimuth of 123°, below Canis Minor, between 30° and 60° elevation.
Claim #8038 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“According to the indications provided by the witness, their observation at 9:50 p.m., lasting approximately 80 minutes, was made toward the southeast at an azimuth of 123°, “below the constellation Canis Minor,” between 30° and 60° elevation.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] observation details
The leading hypothesis during the investigation was astronomical misidentification.
Claim #8039 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The leading hypothesis during the investigation is an astronomical misidentification because of:”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] investigation hypothesis
The investigation stated that Sirius could not be retained because it had not risen at the observation time and was expected to rise at 10:12 p.m.
Claim #8040 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Sirius, which corresponds to an azimuth of 123°, cannot be retained because it had not risen at the time of the observation (rising at 10:12 p.m.),”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] investigation findings
The investigation stated that Procyon was on the eastern horizon at 9:50 p.m. and did not match the witness's reported direction or elevation.
Claim #8041 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Procyon, a star in the constellation Canis Minor, was located on the eastern horizon at 9:50 p.m. and was not in the direction indicated by the witness, nor at the elevation indicated by the witness,”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] investigation findings
The investigation found that the reported movement of the lights was not confirmed by the witness's cousin or by the UAP videos, and that the UAP's angular height was largely imprecise.
Claim #8042 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“moreover, the movement of the lights is confirmed neither by the witness's cousin, the only witness who could be located during the drafting of the investigation report, nor by the UAP videos. The angular height of the”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0002]] investigation findings
The case was classified as C, meaning it was unidentifiable due to a lack of reliable data.
Claim #8043 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The case is classified as “C,” a case that is unidentifiable due to a lack of reliable data.”
Source: FAVARS (19) 29.11.2019
// [[T0003]] classification
