Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesresident, resident’s son, four witnesses
Sensor typescamera, mobile phone
Evidence typesphotographs, witness testimony, official GEIPAN investigation
The observation date for the Offranville case was 2023-04-23.
Claim #11765 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
23/04/2023”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is classified A.
Claim #11766 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] case details
GEIPAN lists the phenomenon type as a shadow cast on clouds.
Claim #11767 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
shadow cast on clouds”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes a dark phenomenon on clouds as the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds by a spotlight at the foot of the building.
Claim #11768 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation and photographs of a dark phenomenon on clouds: observation of the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds and formed by a spotlight located at the foot of the building.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] Summary
On the evening of April 23, 2023, a resident of Offranville was observing an aurora borealis and taking photographs when clouds formed and the resident noticed a UAP.
Claim #11769 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“On the evening of April 23, 2023, a resident (T1) of OFFRANVILLE (76) is in his garden observing an aurora borealis.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness's son also noticed the UAP, photographed it, and sent the photographs to his father by mobile phone.
Claim #11770 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“At the same time, at the witness’s home, the witness’s son (T2) also notices the UAP and takes photographs of it, which he sends to his father via his mobile phone.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN states that the case involved very low strangeness and very good consistency, with four witnesses, one testimony reported to GEIPAN, and numerous photographs.
Claim #11771 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“With very low strangeness and very good consistency* (4 witnesses, but only one testimony reported to GEIPAN, illustrated by numerous photographs), this case turns out to be a misidentification involving the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds and formed by a spotlight located at the foot of the building (see the investigation report).”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0002]] case description
GEIPAN identifies the observation as a misidentification involving the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds by a spotlight at the foot of the building.
Claim #11772 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“this case turns out to be a misidentification involving the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds and formed by a spotlight located at the foot of the building”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0002]] case description
GEIPAN states that the visual appearance corresponded to Offranville's twisted bell tower, including small bells visible on one side.
Claim #11773 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The visual appearance of the UAP corresponds perfectly to the shape of Offranville’s (76) twisted bell tower, recognizable in particular by the small bells present on one side, corresponding to the dark structures of the UAP visible in one of the photographs taken by the witnesses.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0002]] case description
GEIPAN states that the UAP's immobility, angular height, and alignment among the spotlight, bell tower, and witness reinforced the explanatory hypothesis.
Claim #11774 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The immobility of the UAP, its significant angular height, and the alignment between the spotlight, the bell tower, and the witness reinforce the explanatory hypothesis.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0002]] case description
The case is classified A as an observation of the church bell tower's shadow projected onto low clouds by a spotlight at the building's foot.
Claim #11775 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The case is classified A: observation of the shadow of the church bell tower projected onto low clouds and formed by a spotlight located at the foot of the building.”
Source: OFFRANVILLE (76) 23.04.2023
// [[T0002]] case conclusion