Earth File #785 // SOURCED record

Reported luminous-point observation near the Gorges de la Cèze

A holidaymaker reportedly observed a very rapid luminous point crossing the nighttime sky. The witness described an initially straight trajectory followed by a zigzag before it disappeared behind a rock. GEIPAN classified the case B as a probable misidentification of a meteor, although the explanation was not confirmed with certainty by meteor-reporting websites.
Source // GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive Earth record separated from alien editorial
FRED // CASE CONSOLE
SOL-3 // FILE 0785 // CH 12
CONTEXT VIEW // NOT SOURCE MEDIA
CASE FINGERPRINT
E3E9-E53C-83BD
CLOCK // NOT PRECISE
WITNESS CONTEXT
Reported direction changesLIGHT
FRED // CLASSIFICATION DISPUTE // generated from Earth Record metadata
LIGHT
a beach beside the Gorges de la Cèze // Aug 14, 2016. 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 pictureholidaymaker, single witness 1 interface marker(s) // not a headcount estimate
Motion traceReported direction changesvery rapid passage across the sky, initially straight trajectory, zigzag trajectory
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)11 structured claim(s) location precision: area very rapid passage across the skyinitially straight trajectoryzigzag trajectory
FRED // CLASSIFICATION DISPUTEPart of the drawer closes; part of it does not. Annoying, but considerably more useful than pretending uncertainty comes in one size.
Fred case console // context visualization // not evidence
Visitor Transmission // AlienBox editorial layer
Yes, that was ours. The human record describes a holidaymaker’s report of a very rapid luminous point, initially straight, then zigzagging before disappearing behind a rock. GEIPAN classified the case B and listed a meteor as the probable explanation; meteor-reporting websites did not confirm that explanation with certainty. Reasonable. Our transit was brief, and the paperwork has therefore filed a controlled maneuver under “possibly ordinary sky object.” Earth administration remains admirably committed to categories.
Fred // Earth Records Liaison // AlienBox editorial layer
GEIPAN’s B classification is sensible: the Earth Record supports a probable meteor misidentification, while meteor-reporting websites did not confirm that explanation with certainty. One witness saw a luminous point make a straight passage, zigzag, and vanish behind a rock—an intriguing report, not a navigation log. Off the Earth Record: yes, yes, you finally noticed us. The Visitors are taking responsibility. It was one of ours, and apparently the trajectory looked better in rehearsal. I have requested the flight plan from Gorkon Outpost; naturally, the pilot filed the snack receipt instead. The human record remains correctly cautious. The family record remains embarrassing.
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
August 14, 2016
Where
a beach beside the Gorges de la Cèze
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.
  • 11 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: Probable misidentification of a meteor; the explanation was not confirmed with certainty by meteor-reporting websites..

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 #1270

Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône: reported succession of five white flashes

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

 Related Earth File #1231

Callac luminous points observation

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

 Related Earth File #1180

Fontaines observation of a stationary bright object

Shared evidence context: Witness Testimony; similar witness context: Single Witness.

 Related Earth File #1160

Noisy-le-Grand (93) — two orange luminous phenomena

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

 Related Earth File #787

Wissembourg: two white lights above the clouds

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

 Related Earth File #747

Reported luminous-object observation at Nogent-sur-Marne

Shared evidence context: Witness Testimony; similar witness context: Single Witness.

Earth Record // SOURCED

Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesholidaymaker, single witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official scientific investigation
The case observation date was 2016-08-14.
Claim #8863 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“14/08/2016”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Case details, Observation date
The case is classified B.
Claim #8864 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Classification B”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Case details, Classification
The listed type of phenomenon is Meteor.
Claim #8865 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon Meteor”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Case details, Type of phenomenon
The source summarizes the event as a nighttime observation of the rapid passage of a luminous point across the sky on an unusual trajectory and identifies a probable observation of a meteor.
Claim #8866 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Nighttime observation of the rapid passage of a luminous point across the sky on an unusual trajectory: probable observation of a meteor.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Summary
A holidaymaker on a beach beside the Gorges de la Cèze was looking at the starry sky and reported a very rapid passage of a luminous point like a shooting star.
Claim #8867 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“He is surprised by the very rapid passage of a luminous point, “like a shooting star.””
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported that the UAP trajectory was initially straight, followed by a zigzag, before the UAP disappeared behind a rock.
Claim #8868 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The trajectory of the UAP is straight, then a zigzag is observed by the witness before the UAP disappears behind a rock.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Description
A single testimony was collected for the case.
Claim #8869 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“A single testimony was collected.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Description
The case appears to be a possible misidentification of a meteor, according to the source's assessment.
Claim #8870 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“this case appears to be a possible misidentification of a meteor (see the investigation report).”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0001]] Description
The witness personally validated the meteor hypothesis after conducting research.
Claim #8871 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“However, the witness personally validated this hypothesis after conducting research.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0002]] Description continuation
Meteor observation reporting websites did not confirm the meteor explanation with certainty.
Claim #8872 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Meteor observation reporting websites did not make it possible to confirm it with certainty.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0002]] Description continuation
The case is classified B as a probable misidentification of a meteor.
Claim #8873 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“The case is classified B, probable misidentification of a meteor.”
Source: MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 // [[T0002]] Description continuation
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.
MEJANNES-LE-CLAP (30) 14.08.2016 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