Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness
Sensor typesvideo recording
Evidence typeswitness report, video analysis, official investigation
The case observation date was October 3, 2015.
Claim #9208 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
03/10/2015”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is classified as B.
Claim #9209 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
B”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0001]] case details
On October 3, 2015, at around 10:15 p.m., a witness observed three ogive-shaped objects above a neighbor’s trees; the objects displayed alternating red, blue, and green colors, were initially motionless, and later moved south.
Claim #9210 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“On October 3, 2015, at around 10:15 p.m., a witness closing his shutters observed three ogive-shaped objects above his neighbor’s trees.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
No sound was heard during the 10 to 15 minutes of observation.
Claim #9211 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 94% extraction confidence
“No sound was heard during the 10 to 15 minutes”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The investigation report states that an aircraft phenomenon was possible but unlikely because the alternating colors did not correspond to aircraft position lights.
Claim #9212 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 94% extraction confidence
“According to the attached investigation report, an aircraft phenomenon is possible but unlikely, given the alternation of blue, green, and red colors of the UAP, which do not correspond to aircraft position lights, regardless of their type.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0002]] investigation report summary
The distinction between three separate UAPs could not be confirmed from analysis of the video.
Claim #9213 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The observation of three distinct UAPs, as described by the witness, cannot be confirmed by analysis of the video, in which the distinction between three UAPs is not evident.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0002]] investigation report summary
Video analysis confirmed that the UAP moved away and was consistent with a period of little apparent movement followed by slow movement toward the south.
Claim #9214 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“This video shows that the UAP did indeed move away, and corresponds to the witness’s description of a phase during which the UAP appeared to move very little and then moved slowly toward the south.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0002]] investigation report summary
Following analysis and a visit to the witness, GEIPAN identified an LED balloon or a group of three LED balloons as the most probable hypothesis.
Claim #9215 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Following analysis of these data and a visit to the witness, the most probable hypothesis is an LED balloon or a group of three LED balloons.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0002]] investigation report summary
GEIPAN classified the case as B because it considered LED balloons the most probable explanation.
Claim #9216 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: LED balloons.”
Source: FOURAS (17) 03.10.2015
// [[T0003]] conclusion
