Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesSingle witness
Sensor typesMobile-phone camera (iPhone 4s)
Evidence typesEyewitness testimony, Photographs
The case concerns an observation and photographs of a very luminous UAP in the daytime sky, with a stated lack of reliable information.
Claim #8247 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation and photographs of a very luminous UAP in the daytime sky: lack of reliable information.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0001]] Summary
On October 13, 2018, a witness at a playground reported a bright flash in the sky and described a UAP that appeared to consist of two flashes of sunlight on a central object; the witness took photographs with a mobile phone.
Claim #8248 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On October 13, 2018, a witness at a playground was intrigued by the presence of a bright flash in the sky.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0001]] Description
A single testimony was collected for the case.
Claim #8249 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“A single testimony was collected.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0001]] Description
The report states that the UAP cannot be satisfactorily characterized because the photographs lack reference points for determining its location, movement, distance, or dimensions.
Claim #8250 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the absence of reference points in the photographs does not make it possible to precisely locate”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0001]] Description, investigation limitations
The report states that the UAP appears unclear and that the iPhone 4s optics and sensor produce substantial background noise, making the device unsuitable for photographing small, distant objects.
Claim #8251 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the UAP itself appears unclear, its shape being difficult to characterize.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0002]] Description, investigation limitations
The witness proposed confusion with a stratospheric balloon as a possible explanation.
Claim #8252 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness nevertheless put forward a hypothesis: confusion with a stratospheric balloon.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
The possibility of a stratospheric balloon was investigated on the Internet and through the department dedicated to balloon study at CNES, without result.
Claim #8253 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“We sought to investigate this possibility further on the Internet and through the department dedicated to the study of balloons at CNES, without result.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
Estimates produced with IPACO may be consistent with the stratospheric-balloon hypothesis, but the hypothesis could not be validated because other parameters were absent or imprecise.
Claim #8254 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Although the estimates of dimensions and distances made with the IPACO software on the photographs may be consistent with the hypothesis, the absence or imprecision of all the other parameters does not allow it to be validated.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
The absence of consolidated data does not allow a satisfactory conclusion.
Claim #8255 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The absence of consolidated data does not allow a satisfactory conclusion.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN classifies the case as C, meaning lack of reliable data.
Claim #8256 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN classifies the case as “C”: lack of reliable data.”
Source: ANNECY (74) 13.10.2018
// [[T0003]] Classification conclusion
