Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesretired couple, T1, T2
Sensor typesmobile phone camera
Evidence typeswitness testimony, several mobile-phone photographs, questionnaire
The observation occurred on the evening of April 24, 2014, when a retired couple were watching television in their conservatory.
Claim #12704 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On the evening of April 24, 2014, a retired couple were watching television in their conservatory.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On the evening of April 24, 2014"
At 10:26 p.m., witness T1 observed an incandescent orange-colored ball with an outline of orange flames and no trail, moving through an overcast sky from the east.
Claim #12705 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“At 10:26 p.m., the man (T1) was drawn to a source of orange light that appeared through one of the conservatory’s skylights.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0001]] paragraph beginning "On the evening of April 24, 2014"
T1 reported an absence of noise and noticed a triangular shape before the UAP disappeared behind trees at the edge of the cloud cover.
Claim #12706 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“He noticed a triangular shape before the UAP disappeared behind a line of trees at the edge of the cloud cover.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "he asked his wife (T2)"
Witness T2 took several photographs with a mobile phone, but only one questionnaire was completed and no other testimony was collected.
Claim #12707 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“His wife had time to take several photographs with a mobile phone. Only one questionnaire was completed. No other testimony was collected.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "he asked his wife (T2)"
The case record states that no rational explanation appears able to prevail.
Claim #12708 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“No rational explanation appears able to prevail (see the investigation report).”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0002]] paragraph beginning "No rational explanation appears able to prevail"
The drone hypothesis is described as the least unsatisfactory explanation, while the other hypotheses are described as even more tenuous.
Claim #12709 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“the drone hypothesis remains the least unsatisfactory”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0002]] numbered hypothesis discussion
The investigation found that the consistency of the testimonies was good and that no element undermined their reliability.
Claim #12710 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Taken as a whole, the investigation revealed no element undermining the reliability of the testimonies.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0003]] paragraph beginning "the triangular structure described by T1"
GEIPAN validated the unexplained nature of the observation and classified the case as D1, an unexplained phenomenon of medium strangeness.
Claim #12711 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently: GEIPAN classifies the case as D1: an unexplained phenomenon of medium strangeness.”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0003]] concluding paragraph beginning "Consequently: GEIPAN classifies"
The case page lists the phenomenon type as a strange to very strange phenomenon with medium to strong consistency, with strangeness 0.70 and consistency 0.76.
Claim #12712 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
Strange to very strange phenomenon / medium to strong consistency
Strangeness
0.70
Consistency
0.76”
Source: BORNEL (60) 24.04.2014
// [[T0001]] case details section
