On 13 October 2014, a witness reported observing an orangey light for about 10 seconds near Pertuis. The witness reported that it arrived from the right, deviated 90 degrees toward the east, stabilized, then ascended vertically and disappeared, with no noise or trail. GEIPAN classified the case C because of insufficient information; a Thai-lantern hypothesis was considered but not accepted as sufficiently supported.
Source // GEIPAN / CNES UAP Case ArchiveEarth record separated from alien editorial
FRED // CASE CONSOLE SOL-3 // FILE 1109 // CH 11 CONTEXT VIEW // NOT SOURCE MEDIA
CASE FINGERPRINT B132-B9EC-6D3E CLOCK // NOT PRECISE
Reported ascending motionLIGHT
FRED // FAMILY MATTER // generated from Earth Record metadata
LIGHT
Pertuis, Vaucluse, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur // Oct 13, 2014. The diagram on the left is a structured-record visualization—not a reconstruction, photograph, sensor return, or additional evidence.
INSUFFICIENT DATACLOCK // NOT PRECISEGEIPAN / CNES UAP Case Archive
Witness picturewitness report 1 interface marker(s) // not a headcount estimate
Motion traceReported ascending motionarrived from the right, deviated 90 degrees toward the east, stabilized
Sensor / evidenceNo sensor type statedwitness testimony, official 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)8 structured claim(s)location precision: localityarrived from the rightdeviated 90 degrees toward the eaststabilized
FRED // FAMILY MATTERShape and motion give me something worth diagramming. The diagram remains a diagram, which I am apparently required to keep explaining.
Fred case console // context visualization // not evidence
Visitor Transmission // AlienBox editorial layer
That was ours. The witness’s account, as recorded by GEIPAN, describes an orangey light arriving from the right, turning 90 degrees east, stabilizing, then ascending vertically and disappearing after about ten seconds. We consider the maneuver satisfactory. GEIPAN classified the case C because it lacked sufficient information; its investigators also judged the Thai-lantern hypothesis too fragile to accept. No criticism intended. Human agencies are required to leave a paper trail even when the object declines to provide one.
Fred // Earth Records Liaison // AlienBox editorial layer
The Earth Record is straightforward about being incomplete: one witness reported an orangey light making an abrupt turn and vertical ascent near Pertuis, while GEIPAN classified the case C for insufficient information. The Thai-lantern explanation was considered, but not accepted as sufficiently supported. Sensible. A label reading “unresolved” is not an invitation to print “extraterrestrial” in larger letters.
Off the Earth Record, yes, this one was ours. Mivra Qel—Orinthian, habitual violator of restricted corridors—once bet the family she could hover over a lake longest without being noticed. She learned that reflected moonlight is still light, and I learned that Gorkon Blue does not improve an incident report. So: apologies for the paperwork. The Earth evidence remains limited; the family responsibility does not.
FRED // EXPENSE ACCOUNT DENIED
Buy Fred a Red Dwarf Stout
The Gorkon Outpost has again declined reimbursement. Voluntary support keeps AlienBox running and does not purchase influence over Earth Record conclusions.
SUPPORT POLICY // Support payments are voluntary and never influence Earth Record evidence ranking, factual conclusions, or editorial treatment.VIEW FRED'S EXPENSE ACCOUNT →
When
October 13, 2014
Where
Pertuis, Vaucluse, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Morphology
LIGHT
Evidence authority
SOURCED
Resolution
INSUFFICIENT DATA
Why Fred Thinks This Case Matters
AlienBox comparative analysis from structured Earth Record fields // not a new source // not a change in evidence grade
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.
8 claim citations tie extracted statements back to source excerpts or locators.
Recorded evidence context: Witness Testimony, Official Investigation, and Flight Tracking Check.
The source record includes a published resolution: Unresolved; GEIPAN classified the case C for lack of information. A Thai-lantern explanation was considered but judged too fragile....
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.
“Region
Provence Alpes Cote d'azur
Department
Vaucluse”
Source: PERTUIS (84) 13.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
A witness reported observing an orangey light for 10 seconds that arrived from the right, deviated 90 degrees toward the east, stabilized, then ascended vertically and disappeared.
“On October 13, 2014, at 8:50 p.m., a witness looking toward the northwest observed for 10 seconds the movements of an orangey light coming from his right (see his diagram), which made a 90° deviation toward the east, then stabilized before making a vertical ascent and disappearing.”
A Thai-lantern hypothesis was considered, but GEIPAN judged it too fragile to accept because of uncertainty about the wind, the unusual Monday timing for releasing lanterns, and the complex final trajectory.
“Given the uncertainty about the wind direction (variable wind, the Marignane weather report being inconsistent with the witness's indications, and the proximity of the Lubéron mountain range), the day of the observation (Monday), which is unusual for releasing lanterns, and the complex final trajectory, this hypothesis is too fragile to be accepted.”
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.
