Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness report
Sensor typesmeteorological station records
Evidence typesofficial investigation record, witness observation, meteorological data
The observation date was 2014-10-31.
Claim #12030 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
31/10/2014”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case occurred in Île-de-France, in the department of Hauts-de-Seine.
Claim #12031 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Île-de-France
Department
Hauts-de-Seine”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN classified the case as C.
Claim #12032 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The listed phenomenon type was Thai lantern.
Claim #12034 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
Thai lantern”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Case details
The summary describes orange luminous forms moving across the sky and states that information was lacking.
Claim #12036 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Observation of orange luminous forms moving across the sky: lack of information.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Summary
The observation involved orange luminous forms crossing the sky in less than a minute on a weekend night, moving from south to northeast.
Claim #12037 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The observation of orange luminous forms crossing the sky in less than a minute, on a weekend night, clearly suggests a Thai lantern, probably released nearby at the end of a private party, perhaps in connection with Halloween. The movement was observed from south to northeast.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN's description suggests that the phenomenon was probably a Thai lantern released nearby at the end of a private party, possibly in connection with Halloween.
Claim #12038 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“clearly suggests a Thai lantern, probably released nearby at the end of a private party, perhaps in connection with Halloween.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The wind recorded at Orly was light, at 4 to 7 km/h, from the south; southeast was recorded at Toussus and Pontoise.
Claim #12039 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The wind recorded at Orly was light (4 to 7 km/h) from the south (southeast recorded at Toussus and Pontoise).”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness's reported movement toward the north and east may have been compatible with the local wind, although the source states that this was difficult to estimate precisely because of the proximity of the Seine.
Claim #12040 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The witness describes movement toward the north and east, which may be compatible with the local wind, although this is difficult to estimate precisely because of the proximity of the Seine.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0001]] Description
The rapid movement, described as taking 12 seconds to cross a large part of the sky, was considered poorly compatible with a light wind.
Claim #12041 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“rapid movement (12 seconds to cross a large part of the sky) is poorly compatible with a light wind.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
The source states that observed instabilities may have been caused by non-uniform local winds.
Claim #12042 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The observed instabilities may have been caused by non-uniform local winds.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
The dynamics described by the witness fit poorly with the Thai lantern hypothesis.
Claim #12043 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The dynamics of the phenomenon described by the witness fit poorly with the Thai lantern hypothesis.”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN classified the case as C because precise weather conditions were unknown and corroborating information was lacking.
Claim #12044 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Because of the lack of knowledge of the precise weather conditions, and the lack of corroborating information, GEIPAN classifies the case as "C."”
Source: COLOMBES (92) 31.10.2014
// [[T0002]] Description
