Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesgendarmes, primary witnesses, secondary witness at a command post
Sensor typescamera
Evidence typeswitness reports, corroborating observation by another gendarme, photographs attempted but no image produced
The case observation date was 13 May 1980.
Claim #11018 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
13/05/1980”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is listed in the Picardy region and Somme department.
Claim #11019 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Picardy
Department
Somme”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] case details
The case classification is A.
Claim #11020 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] case details
The source identifies the phenomenon type as Venus.
Claim #11022 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
Venus”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] case details
On 13 May 1980 at 00:05, two gendarmes on patrol on the A1 motorway spotted a luminous object above the Roye toll plaza.
Claim #11023 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On 13 May 1980 at 00:05, two gendarmes on patrol on the A1 motorway spotted a luminous object above the Roye toll plaza (80).”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] description
Another gendarme at the command post confirmed the presence of the object in the sky.
Claim #11024 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“where another gendarme confirmed the presence of the object in the sky.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] description
One witness took two photographs, but the film produced no image.
Claim #11025 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“One of the witnesses took two photographs of the UAP, but the film was subsequently found to have produced no image.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] description
The gendarmes observed the UAP as appearing to follow their car during a nearly one-hour observation.
Claim #11026 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Resuming their journey northward, the gendarmes observed that the UAP appeared to be following the car. The observation lasted nearly an hour.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] description
GEPAN classified the observation as “C” in 1980.
Claim #11027 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This observation case was among those classified as “C” in 1980 by GEPAN.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0001]] description
GEIPAN describes the case as well substantiated, with two primary witnesses and two secondary witnesses.
Claim #11028 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This is a well-substantiated case (2 primary witnesses and 2 other secondary witnesses);”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0002]] re-examination assessment
Venus was present in the observed area of the sky.
Claim #11030 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Moreover, Venus was indeed present in the observed area of the sky, although the witnesses do not mention it.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0002]] explanation
GEIPAN states that the observation's characteristics are common to Venus at sunset.
Claim #11031 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The phenomenon described has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, color, etc.) with a known astronomical object: Venus at sunset.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0002]] explanation
GEIPAN states that the issue was the witnesses' interpretation of the observation, including an impression of being followed and nighttime driving, rather than their visual perception.
Claim #11032 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is not the witnesses' visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation they give to their observation through their subjective experience (impression of being followed, nighttime driving).”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0002]] explanation
The case is currently classified as PAN A, meaning an observation resulting from a misidentification involving Venus.
Claim #11033 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In the current GEIPAN classification, this low-strangeness case is classified as PAN A, an observation resulting from a misidentification involving Venus.”
Source: ROYE (80) 13.05.1980
// [[T0002]] current classification
