Earth File #757 // SOURCED record

Prades-le-Lez reported fixed bilobed luminous point

A witness described a fixed white, bilobed luminous UAP with a red point at its center on 2017-06-14. GEIPAN classified the case B: Venus and stated that the observation probably corresponded to Venus, but noted that this hypothesis could not be firmly confirmed because the testimony was imprecise and delayed.
Source // GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive Earth record separated from alien editorial
FRED // CASE CONSOLE
SOL-3 // FILE 0757 // CH 10
CONTEXT VIEW // NOT SOURCE MEDIA
CASE FINGERPRINT
A792-CE12-0493
CLOCK // NOT PRECISE
WITNESS CONTEXT
Reported hover / stationary phaseLIGHT
FRED // ROUTING NOTE // generated from Earth Record metadata
LIGHT
Prades-le-Lez (34) // Jun 14, 2017. The diagram on the left is a structured-record visualization—not a reconstruction, photograph, sensor return, or additional evidence.
PARTIALLY EXPLAINED CLOCK // NOT PRECISE GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive
Witness picturewitness 1 interface marker(s) // not a headcount estimate
Motion traceReported hover / stationary phasestationary/fixed
Sensor / evidenceNo sensor type statedwitness testimony, official scientific investigation
Fred's paperwork completeness8/9 fields // 89%
Interface completeness only // this score does not measure truth, evidence strength, or extraterrestrial probability
1 document(s)1 source node(s)10 structured claim(s) location precision: locality stationary/fixed
FRED // ROUTING NOTEPart of the drawer closes; part of it does not. Annoying, but considerably more useful than pretending uncertainty comes in one size.
Off-record desk banter // not case attribution
Mivra Qel would call this display “plenty of information.” Mivra Qel also has never encountered a restricted corridor she considered personally binding. His visualization standards are not binding on this desk.
Fred case console // context visualization // not evidence
Visitor Transmission // AlienBox editorial layer
The 14 June 2017 light over Prades-le-Lez was ours. We held position, displayed the white bilobed profile, and added the red central point because the standard configuration was undergoing review. Your witness described the object as fixed. GEIPAN classified the case B: Venus, noting that the testimony was imprecise and delayed and that the hypothesis could not be firmly confirmed. Their filing is therefore accurate in the administrative sense. The sky remains poorly indexed.
Fred // Earth Records Liaison // AlienBox editorial layer
GEIPAN classified this as B: Venus, while sensibly noting that the hypothesis could not be firmly confirmed: the testimony was imprecise and delayed. That is a reasonable label, not a cosmic acquittal. Off the Earth Record, I must correct the Visitors’ claim: our internal records indicate this was not ours. Venus may remain the best Earth-side explanation; it is not thereby a landing notice. I have told the Visitors this twice, and they continue submitting appeals to the wrong department. The universe is vast, but apparently not vast enough to escape administrative misunderstanding.
FRED // EXPENSE ACCOUNT DENIED

Buy Fred a Quasar Foam

The Gorkon Outpost has again declined reimbursement. Voluntary support keeps AlienBox running and does not purchase influence over Earth Record conclusions.

EARTH CURRENCY BUY QUASAR FOAM // $5 Secure checkout via Stripe // funds settle to Orange-Hat, LLC
QR code for Fred's DigiByte tip address
DIGIBYTE // DIRECT TIP SCAN OR SEND DGB dgb1q9dw0cfzr22n2efrad7l8340na90nlptjnthq0s
OPEN DGB WALLET →
Suggested: 500 DGB // any amount welcome // blockchain confirmation monitor pending
SUPPORT POLICY // Support payments are voluntary and never influence Earth Record evidence ranking, factual conclusions, or editorial treatment. VIEW FRED'S EXPENSE ACCOUNT →
When
June 14, 2017
Where
Prades-le-Lez (34)
Morphology
LIGHT
Evidence authority
SOURCED
Resolution
PARTIALLY EXPLAINED

Why Fred Thinks This Case Matters

AlienBox comparative analysis from structured Earth Record fields // not a new source // not a change in evidence grade
Console archetype // Published-resolution comparison

Fred keeps this file near the top of the pile because the source also supplies a published resolution to compare against the original report. That combination makes the case useful for cross-archive comparison without changing its evidence grade.

The source record includes a published resolution field. AlienBox treats it as an attributed source assessment to compare with the original report, not as an AlienBox verdict.

What strengthens the record

  • 1 linked source document provide provenance for the Earth Record.
  • 10 claim citations tie extracted statements back to source excerpts or locators.
  • Recorded evidence context: Witness Testimony and Official Scientific Investigation.
  • The source record includes a published resolution: Venus, according to GEIPAN classification and assessment; not firmly confirmed.

What limits the record

  • No sensor type is recorded in the structured Earth Record.
  • The structured record does not establish multiple independent observers.
  • The current dossier is anchored to one source network rather than independent source networks.

What would help resolve it

  • Can the originating record establish an exact number of observers and whether their observations were independent?
  • Did any radar, infrared, optical, telemetry, or other instrument record the event, and is that material preserved?
  • Can the source establish a usable duration for the observation rather than only a date or narrative sequence?

Fred Says Go Here Next

Internal research paths chosen from this dossier's structured fields. Similarity is navigation, not corroboration.
Resolved UFO & UAP Case Files → Compare published explanations across resolved case files.
Related Earth File #1163

Angers (49): Two orange luminous phenomena photographed

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

 Related Earth File #1099

Savigny-sur-Braye (41) luminous-object observation, 29 November 2014

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

 Related Earth File #801

Reported observation of orange luminous points in Oullins

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

 Related Earth File #744

BLOIS (41) — Two luminous points crossing the sky

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

 Related Earth File #1277

Valloire mountainside bright-light observation

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

 Related Earth File #1213

Saint-Michel-sur-Meurthe orange light observation

Shared evidence context: Official Scientific Investigation; similar witness context: Witness.

Earth Record // SOURCED

Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official scientific investigation
The observation date was 2017-06-14.
Claim #8568 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation date 14/06/2017”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] case details
The case was classified B.
Claim #8569 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification B”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] case details
The case type of phenomenon was listed as Venus.
Claim #8570 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon Venus”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes a fixed, bilobed luminous point and identifies the observation as Venus.
Claim #8571 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Observation of a fixed, bilobed luminous point: observation of Venus.”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] Summary
The witness described a white, bilobed UAP with a red point in the middle and reported that, apart from the Moon, no star was shining in the sky.
Claim #8572 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“The witness described a white, bilobed UAP with a red point in the middle and noted that, apart from the Moon, no star was shining in the sky.”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN stated that the observation probably corresponds to Venus.
Claim #8573 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“What the witness described probably corresponds to an observation of Venus.”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] Description
The source states that Venus was in the east and that the witness mentioned the southeast without conviction.
Claim #8574 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Venus was in the east; the witness mentioned the southeast without conviction,”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0001]] Description
The source states that Venus can produce a non-point-like and multicolored glow due to an atmospheric effect involving diffracted light rays.
Claim #8575 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“It is also common for Venus to produce a non-point-like and multicolored glow (here, an effect of red lobes). This results from the atmospheric effect (diffracted light rays).”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0002]] Description
The Venus hypothesis cannot be firmly confirmed because the testimony was very imprecise and was given six months after the observation.
Claim #8576 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“It is not possible to firmly confirm this hypothesis. Indeed, the testimony is very imprecise and was given six months after the observation.”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN classified the case as B: Venus.
Claim #8577 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: Venus.”
Source: PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 // [[T0002]] Description
FRED // PUBLIC DESK CHANNEL

Ask Fred About This File

Questions about the dossier get an Earth Record answer first, then Fred may add clearly separated off-record commentary.

Questions are conversation, not evidence. Fred cannot promote a claim, alter a citation, or improve a source tier because somebody asks nicely.

Related Cases

Source Documents

AlienBox displays translated titles when available. Canonical links always point to the original source.
PRADES-LE-LEZ (34) 14.06.2017 FR // English display translation
ALIENBOX CLEARANCE // EARLY ACCESS
Receive new dossiers before the humans organize them.
Join the early-access list for new sighting dossiers, major archive drops, Fred's notes, Visitor confessions, and future Clearance-only research tools.
HUMAN COMPLIANCE NOTICE // Fred and Visitor transmissions are AI-generated AlienBox editorial layers. Earth Record claims are separately sourced and audited. Ask Fred conversations are contextual explanations, not new evidence. Foreign-language source material remains immutable in its original archive; English display/analysis translations are stored separately with provenance. Scanner graphics, flashes and alien silhouettes are interface design only.
Earth ArchiveSourcesMethod