Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo people traveling by car, witnesses
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesofficial GEIPAN case record, witness reports
The case observation date was 07/04/1980, in Burgundy and the Saône-et-Loire department, and its classification is A.
Claim #11057 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
07/04/1980
Region
Burgundy
Department
Saône-et-Loire
Classification
A”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes nighttime observations from a vehicle of a luminous ball moving close to the ground in successive jumps and identifies the explanation as a misidentification of the rising Moon.
Claim #11058 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Summary
Nighttime observations from a vehicle of a luminous ball moving close to the ground in successive jumps: misidentification of the rising Moon.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0001]] Summary
On April 7, 1980, at around 2 a.m., two people traveling on departmental road D13 near Saint-Usuge saw an orange-red light at very low altitude, approximately above the river la Seille.
Claim #11059 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On April 7, 1980, at around 2 a.m., two people (T1, passenger, and T2, driver) traveling on departmental road D13 a few kilometers from Saint-Usuge (71) saw an orange-red light at very low altitude.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] observation description
The witnesses reported that the object appeared to move in successive jumps, fell and stopped beside the road, and later gained altitude and disappeared as a car approached.
Claim #11060 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witnesses then saw the ball fall and come to a stop at the side of the road.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] observation description
The observation lasted approximately 10 minutes.
Claim #11061 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The observation lasted approximately 10 minutes.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] observation description
The case was considered consistent because there were two witnesses, and the description was considered fairly precise; the witnesses' sincerity and credibility were not called into question.
Claim #11062 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“This case is consistent (two witnesses), and the description of the observed UAP is fairly precise.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] case assessment
GEIPAN states that the phenomenon's characteristics correspond to the rising Moon and that the Moon was rising along the axis indicated by the witnesses.
Claim #11063 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The phenomenon described has many characteristics in common (observation duration, shape, size, and color) with a perfectly known astronomical object: the rising Moon.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] explanatory assessment
GEIPAN explains the reported movement as typical visual illusions caused by the celestial body's apparent movement relative to the landscape and changes in luminous intensity.
Claim #11064 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The perceptions of movement of the UAP correspond to typical illusions created by a celestial body:”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0002]] explanatory assessment
GEIPAN notes that the witnesses were in a state of stress and panic and distinguishes their visual perception from their interpretation of the observation.
Claim #11065 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It is not the witnesses’ visual perception that is at issue, but the interpretation the witnesses make of their observation through their subjective experience (fatigue, driving at night, panic).”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0004]] explanatory assessment
GEIPAN classifies the case as UAP A, associated with a misidentification of the rising Moon.
Claim #11066 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as UAP A: observation associated with a misidentification of the rising Moon.”
Source: SAINT-USUGE (71) 07.04.1980
// [[T0004]] final classification
