Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness, witness on a scooter
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official GEIPAN investigation
The case concerns an observation dated March 10, 2015, in Brittany's Côtes-d'Armor department, associated with Loudeac.
Claim #9883 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
Observation date
10/03/2015
Region
Brittany
Department
Côtes-d'Armor”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN classified the case as C: lack of reliable information.
Claim #9884 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0001]] Case details
The archive summary describes a witness on a scooter reporting an oval shape with lights of different colors.
Claim #9885 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Brief observation by a witness on a scooter of an oval shape with lights of different colors: lack of reliable information.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0001]] Summary
According to the case description, at 4:30 a.m. the witness saw a black oval object with alternating yellow, orange, green, blue, and red lights, apparently stationary above a livestock feeder, and it disappeared instantaneously when the witness faced it.
Claim #9886 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“As he approaches, he then distinguishes for 4 to 5 seconds a black oval object with colored lights alternating between yellow, orange, green, blue, and red.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported no noise, smoke, or odor, and only one testimony was collected.
Claim #9887 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“No noise, smoke, or odor is noticed. A single testimony is collected.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
The investigation considered wind turbines located 2 km away, a drone, and a model aircraft as possible explanations.
Claim #9888 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Several hypotheses were considered in an attempt to explain this oval shape with multicolored lights: wind turbines located 2 km away, a drone (an activity practiced in the village), or a model aircraft (a club exists a few kilometers away).”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0002]] Investigation discussion
The report states that none of the considered hypotheses could be retained.
Claim #9889 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“None of these hypotheses can be retained (see the investigation report).”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0002]] Investigation discussion
The report identifies a possible contamination between witnesses within the same family as an alternative explanation for the similarities with an earlier observation.
Claim #9890 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“the other possibility to be taken into account is contamination between witnesses within the same family.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation discussion
The report says that a conscious hoax could not be ruled out, while also stating that the witness could not be discredited.
Claim #9891 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“the extreme possibility of conscious contamination, namely a hoax, cannot be ruled out”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0003]] Investigation discussion
GEIPAN concluded that no hypothesis was available to explain the observation, but the consistency was too low for the case to be characterized as unexplained.
Claim #9892 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Ultimately, there is no hypothesis available to explain this observation, but the consistency is too low to allow it to be characterized as unexplained.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0004]] Conclusion
GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.
Claim #9893 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.”
Source: LOUDEAC (22) 10.03.2015
// [[T0004]] Conclusion
