Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness, eyewitness
Sensor typescamera
Evidence typeswitness report, photograph, official GEIPAN investigation
The case is titled “BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013” and has an observation date of 17/12/2013.
Claim #13106 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
Observation date
17/12/2013”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is associated with the Franche-Comté region and Doubs department.
Claim #13107 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Franche-Comté
Department
Doubs”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0001]] case details
GEIPAN classified the case as category C and identified the phenomenon type as “Lack of reliable information.”
Claim #13108 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C
Update date
23/06/2021
Type of phenomenon
Lack of reliable information”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0001]] case details
A witness reported observing a white luminous point in the night sky for approximately 15 minutes, with no unusual noise heard.
Claim #13109 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness was intrigued by a luminous point not listed in the application: taking binoculars, they observed a round, luminous white point that remained static for approximately 15 minutes.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0001]] description
The witness photographed the reported object, went inside, and found it had disappeared after returning to the balcony about five minutes later.
Claim #13110 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“When they returned to the balcony 5 minutes later, the object had disappeared.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] description
The source states that no other testimony was collected.
Claim #13111 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“No other testimony was collected.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] description
The source assesses that the static white luminous point had the characteristics of a celestial-body observation, but checks did not identify a satisfactory celestial-body explanation.
Claim #13112 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“This observation of a static white luminous point has all the characteristics of an observation of a celestial body, but the checks proved negative”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] analysis
The source reports that Stellarium showed only Fomalhaut in the field of view, and that Fomalhaut was not bright enough and was too low and too far south relative to the indicated direction.
Claim #13113 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“A check using another software program (Stellarium, see attached document) shows only the star Fomalhaut in the field of view; it is not so bright (magnitude 1) and, above all, is too low and too far south in relation to the indicated direction.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] astronomical check
The source reports that Venus had just set and Jupiter, with magnitude −2.7, was northeast.
Claim #13114 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The planet Venus had just set, and Jupiter (mag. −2.7) was to the northeast.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] astronomical check
GEIPAN rejected the airplane hypothesis as inconsistent with the object remaining motionless for too long.
Claim #13115 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Airplane: the observed object remained motionless for too long to be an airplane.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] GEIPAN hypotheses
GEIPAN considered a temporary spotlight from the nearby hill but noted that the reported elevation of 45° was substantially greater than the hill’s apparent 5° angle from Baume-les-Dames.
Claim #13116 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“However, the witness reported an elevation of 45°, substantially greater than the 5° angle at which the hill appears from Baume-les-Dames.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0002]] GEIPAN hypotheses
GEIPAN considered a Thai lantern as a possible explanation, but found the hypothesis limited by the reported duration, point-like appearance, and lack of movement despite weather information indicating no wind.
Claim #13117 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The hypothesis that could, at a stretch, fit remains that of a Thai lantern, but with characteristics at the limit for this type of phenomenon.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0003]] GEIPAN hypotheses
GEIPAN could not clearly confirm the Thai-lantern hypothesis.
Claim #13118 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN cannot clearly confirm this hypothesis.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0003]] GEIPAN hypotheses
The case remains in category C because of a lack of precise data on the object’s position in the sky and a lack of corroboration.
Claim #13119 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This case remains in category “C,” due to a lack of precise data on its position in the sky and a lack of corroboration.”
Source: BAUME-LES-DAMES (25) 17.12.2013
// [[T0003]] case conclusion