Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesWitness, Witness's partner
Sensor typesCamera
Evidence typesPhotograph, One testimony
The case records an observation and photograph of two silent, yellow luminous objects, identified in the summary as Thai lanterns and a photographic artifact.
Claim #15327 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation and photograph of the silent movement of two yellow luminous objects: observation of Thai lanterns and a photographic artifact in a photograph.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0001]] Summary
On August 3, 2016, at 11:06 p.m., a witness and his partner observed two sunflower-yellow luminescent objects moving slowly and silently one after another.
Claim #15328 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On August 3, 2016, at 11:06 p.m., a witness and his partner observed the slow and silent movement of two luminescent objects, sunflower yellow in color, following one another.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
One witness photographed the objects, which moved away toward the south and eventually disappeared after leaving only a red point visible.
Claim #15329 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“One of the witnesses took a photograph with his camera. The objects moved away toward the south. They went out, previously leaving only a red point visible.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN states that the visual observation clearly indicates a flight of Thai lanterns, citing the color, trajectory, extinction behavior, possible cylindrical appearance, and summer date.
Claim #15330 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The visual observation clearly indicates a flight of Thai lanterns: this is true of characteristics such as the color, the trajectory—which corresponds to that of the wind recorded that evening: from 300°, whereas the witness placed the UAP's arrival at 330°—, the manner of final extinction, the possibly cylindrical appearance, like a "shinbone," as well as…”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN explains the luminous flagella around the object in the photograph as a photographic artifact caused by movement while the shutter remained open during the one-second exposure.
Claim #15331 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The surprise caused by the photograph, showing luminous flagella around the UAP, results from a photographic artifact.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0002]]
The source states that the camera was on automatic settings with the flash enabled and an exposure time of one second, and that the operator moved while the shutter was still open, producing zigzags or light flagella.
Claim #15332 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Thinking that the exposure had ended—the confusion is easy to make between the nearly instantaneous duration of the flash and the longer exposure time—the operator stopped framing properly and moved while the shutter was still open, producing these zigzags or light flagella.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN states that the origin of the UAP was a Thai lantern and classifies the case as A: photographic artifact because the photograph was the key source of the witness's reported strangeness.
Claim #15334 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The origin of the UAP is a Thai lantern, but since the key element of the strangeness experienced by the witness is instead the photograph, GEIPAN classifies the case as A: photographic artifact.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0003]]
The source states that only one testimony was collected for the case.
Claim #15335 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Only one testimony was collected.”
Source: BALMA (31) 03.08.2016
// [[T0001]] Description
