Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesSingle witness, Motorway traveler/driver
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesWitness report, Official GEIPAN investigation, Source assessment
The case concerns an observation on 15 February 2018 at around 9:30 p.m. by a witness traveling on the A19 motorway between Beaune-la-Rolande and Chilleurs-aux-Bois.
Claim #8351 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On 15 February 2018, at around 9:30 p.m., a witness traveling on the A19 motorway between Beaune-la-Rolande (45) and Chilleurs-aux-Bois (45) observed”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported a triangular UAP with two red lights, later described as having sky-blue lights, and two white lights underneath and at the front.
Claim #8352 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“a UAP with a triangular shape and two red lights.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported that the object made two right turns, traveled alongside the motorway, produced no perceived sound, and disappeared into a cloud after an observation lasting an estimated 2 to 5 minutes.
Claim #8353 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The observation, estimated to have lasted between 2 and 5 minutes, ended when the UAP disappeared into a cloud.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN assessed the case consistency as average because there was a single witness who was unable to take a photograph.
Claim #8354 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency* of the case is average, with a single witness who was unable to take a photograph of the UAP.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Case assessment
The investigation examined the hypothesis that the witness had observed a military aircraft and considered that hypothesis probable.
Claim #8355 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“we examined the hypothesis that the witness had observed a military aircraft, a hypothesis that appears probable for the following reasons:”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
The source gives proximity to Orléans Air Base 123 and the observed red and white lights as reasons supporting the probable military-aircraft explanation.
Claim #8356 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Presence approximately 30/40 km from Orléans Air Base 123, toward which the UAP was heading at the end of the observation.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
The source states that nighttime driving conditions, rain, windshield-wiper use, vehicle speed, and the witness's attention to driving likely impeded recognition of an aircraft.
Claim #8357 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“These factors very probably contributed to preventing the witness from recognizing the aircraft”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Investigation explanation
The C-130 Hercules is described as having a navigation-light configuration similar to the lights reported by the witness, although the source does not explain the report of two red lights.
Claim #8358 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the C-130 Hercules, has a navigation-light configuration similar to the lights described by the witness (the presence of white and red lights), although we cannot explain why the witness mentioned two red lights when this aircraft has only one.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Aircraft comparison
The investigation could not formally confirm that such an aircraft was present at the reported place and time.
Claim #8359 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“did not make it possible to formally confirm the presence of such an aircraft at the place and time of the observation.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Investigation conclusion
The case is classified as B, meaning a probable observation of a military aircraft according to the source.
Claim #8360 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The case is classified as “B,””
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Classification
The source summary describes the event as observation of a shape with lights moving unusually in the nighttime cloudy sky and identifies a military aircraft as the probable explanation.
Claim #8361 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of a shape with lights moving in an unusual manner in the night-time, cloudy sky: probable observation of a military aircraft.”
Source: [A19] from BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE (45) to CHILLEURS-AUX-BOIS (45) 15.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Summary
