Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesparticipant, hot-air-balloon pilot
Sensor typescamera, human visual observation
Evidence typesphotograph, photographic analysis, pilot testimony
The case observation date was August 5, 2007.
Claim #23924 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
05/08/2007”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is associated with Lorraine and the department of Meurthe-et-Moselle.
Claim #23925 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Lorraine
Department
Meurthe-et-Moselle”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN classified the case A.
Claim #23926 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
A”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN lists the phenomenon type as Balloon.
Claim #23927 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Type of phenomenon
Balloon”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case involved a spot on a photograph with no visual observation at the time the picture was taken and was identified as a mistaken identification of a child’s balloon.
Claim #23928 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Spot on a photograph with no visual observation at the time the picture was taken: mistaken identification of a child’s balloon.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Summary
A very large hot-air-balloon event took place at the former military base of Chambley-Bussière on August 5, 2007.
Claim #23929 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On August 5, 2007, a very large hot-air balloon event took place at the former military base of Chambley-Bussière (54).”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Description
A participant later noticed a suspicious spot in one photograph, and GEIPAN learned of the case through media coverage under the name “the Chambley UFO.”
Claim #23930 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“After the event, one of the participants noticed a suspicious spot in one of his photographs (approximately the 190th), which appeared to be neither an aircraft, nor a bird, nor an artifact caused by the camera.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Description
Christian Comtesse collected additional photographs, and the same spot appeared in another photograph.
Claim #23931 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“He collected many other photographs, and the same spot is present in another photograph.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0001]] Description
A photographic analysis concluded that the object measured between 75 cm and 1 meter and was approximately 300 meters from the photographer.
Claim #23932 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“the result is that it is an object measuring between 75 cm and 1 meter, located approximately 300 meters from the photographer.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0002]] Photographic-analysis procedure study
The source presents a runaway child’s balloon as a plausible hypothesis for the object’s identity.
Claim #23933 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“A plausible hypothesis is that it was a runaway child’s balloon.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0002]] Photographic-analysis procedure study
In March 2008, Christian Comtesse obtained testimony from the pilot of one of the hot-air balloons, who had visually witnessed the object.
Claim #23934 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“he ultimately obtained the testimony of the pilot of one of the hot-air balloons, who had visually witnessed the object.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0002]] Pilot testimony
According to the pilot testimony, the object was a fish-shaped child’s balloon approximately 80 cm in size.
Claim #23935 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It turned out to be precisely a fish-shaped child’s balloon, approximately 80 cm in size.”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0002]] Pilot testimony
GEIPAN describes the case as ultimately classified A.
Claim #23936 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This case, ultimately classified A, is exemplary in more than one respect:”
Source: CHAMBLEY-BUSSIERES (54) 05.08.2007
// [[T0003]] Case assessment