Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typestwo witnesses
Sensor typesbinoculars
Evidence typesofficial case record, witness statements to the Gendarmerie, witness drawing, site investigation
The observation date recorded for the case is 12 February 2018.
Claim #8362 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
12/02/2018”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified as C, described as a lack of reliable information.
Claim #8363 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case summary describes long, discontinuous observations of slowly moving multicolored luminous phenomena in the night sky.
Claim #8364 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Long, discontinuous observations of slowly moving multicolored luminous phenomena in the night sky: lack of reliable information.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Summary
On 12 February 2018 at around 7 p.m., a witness reported seeing a circular, multicolored luminous UAP that appeared motionless.
Claim #8365 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“On Monday, February 12, 2018 (and not 18/02 as indicated in the report), at around 7 p.m., a witness (T1) leaving his home was intrigued by a luminous UAP in the sky, circular and multicolored in shape. The UAP was motionless, and the witness decided to fetch binoculars to observe it more closely.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0001]] Description
The two witnesses observed luminous phenomena discontinuously until 11 p.m., with changing colors and very slow movement.
Claim #8366 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“T2 joined his father (T1) at Moureuille (63), and together they observed, discontinuously, until 11 p.m., luminous phenomena with changing colors and moving very slowly.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
The witnesses gave statements at the Gendarmerie in February 2018, and T1 drew what he had seen through binoculars.
Claim #8367 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The witnesses gave a statement at the Gendarmerie in February 2018, and T1 drew what he had seen through the binoculars.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Description
An investigator visited the site on 15 November 2018 and reported additional information.
Claim #8368 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On 15/11/2018, an investigator went to the site and reported additional information (see the investigation report).”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Investigation report reference
GEIPAN assessed that the witnesses probably observed stars.
Claim #8369 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The witnesses probably observed stars (see the investigation report).”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Assessment
The assessment supporting a stellar explanation included the appearance, near-immobility, duration, and compatibility with confirmed star positions.
Claim #8370 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The elements supporting this are: the appearance, the near-immobility, the duration of the observation, and the compatibility of the observations with confirmed positions of stars.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Assessment
The source states that the observations were not continuous and occurred within a limited field, leading the witnesses to mistake different visible stars for the same phenomenon.
Claim #8371 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 93% extraction confidence
“The witnesses did not observe continuously and did so within a limited field.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Assessment
The source proposes that binocular viewing may have increased the strangeness by producing an iridescent appearance around a magnified luminous point through fogging, but says the extent of this explanation is uncertain.
Claim #8372 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“However, the subsequent observation through binoculars may have heightened the strangeness by introducing, due to a fogging phenomenon, an iridescent appearance around a magnified luminous point.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Assessment
The source states that the initial strangeness involving UAP 1 may have been caused by the star Deneb, although this was considered surprising unless atmospheric conditions enhanced multicolored effects.
Claim #8373 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 93% extraction confidence
“What remains most surprising here is why the initial strangeness for T1 involving UAP 1 would have been caused by the star Deneb, which is not known as a major source of misidentifications, unless atmospheric conditions particularly enhanced multicolored effects here”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0002]] Assessment
GEIPAN concluded that the case had a borderline C classification, close to B, because a probable astronomical misidentification appeared plausible but was not confirmed.
Claim #8374 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The assessment of consistency and strangeness according to the GEIPAN method gives a borderline value of C, “phenomenon unidentified due to lack of reliable information,” but close to B, “phenomenon probably identified,” as an astronomical misidentification of celestial bodies, given that it was observed by two witnesses.”
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Conclusion
GEIPAN concluded with classification C: phenomenon unidentified due to lack of reliable information.
Claim #8375 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN concludes with a classification of C: “phenomenon unidentified due to lack of reliable information.””
Source: MOUREUILLE (63) 12.02.2018
// [[T0003]] Conclusion
