Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typessingle witness
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, official scientific investigation
On October 20, 2022, at around 7:00 a.m., a witness observed two UAPs from a terrace in Parthenay, Deux-Sèvres.
Claim #7512 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On October 20, 2022, at around 7:00 a.m., the witness is on the terrace of her home in Parthenay (Deux-Sèvres).”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0001]] Description
The two UAPs appeared as highly intense yellow lights that were motionless in the sky and approximately 15 cm apart when measured at arm’s length.
Claim #7513 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“She then observes, in a northwesterly direction, two UAPs appearing as two highly intense yellow lights, motionless in the sky.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported that the left light moved rapidly to the right, left a brief orange trail, and disappeared.
Claim #7514 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness states that she is unable to clarify how the second UAP disappeared, as it may either have gone out where it was or disappeared without her noticing, since her attention was focused on the movement of the first one.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Description
The observation lasted approximately 15 seconds.
Claim #7515 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The total duration of the observation is estimated at approximately 15 seconds.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Description
No other testimony was collected concerning the event.
Claim #7516 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“No other testimony was collected concerning this event.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Description
The case consistency was estimated to be low because there was one witness, no photographs, and no response to requests for additional information.
Claim #7517 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency* of the case is estimated to be low, due to the fact that there was only one witness, the absence of photographs of the UAP, and the lack of response to the investigator’s requests for additional information.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Consistency assessment
Checks with specialized services did not reveal any aircraft in the area during the observation period.
Claim #7518 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Checks carried out with specialized services did not reveal the presence of any aircraft (airplane or helicopter) in the area during the observation period.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Investigation checks
Analysis of databases for known astronomical phenomena did not identify a meteor passage matching the reported temporal and directional criteria.
Claim #7519 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In addition, analysis of databases dedicated to known astronomical phenomena did not identify any meteor passage corresponding to the temporal and directional criteria of the reported event.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Investigation checks
The hypothesis that two drones were observed was considered unlikely, particularly because of the reported orange trail.
Claim #7520 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Finally, the hypothesis that two drones were observed is considered unlikely, particularly because of the orange trail observed on one of the unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAPs), as described by the witness and recorded in the investigation report.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Investigation checks
Additional information was requested from the witness, but no response was received.
Claim #7521 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Additional information was requested from the witness to refine the research, but no response was received.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0002]] Follow-up
GEIPAN classified the case as C, an unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.
Claim #7522 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“case as “C,” an unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.”
Source: PARTHENAY (79) 20.10.2022
// [[T0003]] Classification
