Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesfour independent groups, air traffic controller, multiple witnesses, eight statement-givers, seven reporting an observation
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness statements, official scientific investigation
The case observation date was 22 November 1981, and the case was associated with Brittany and the Finistère department.
Claim #4985 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
22/11/1981
Region
Brittany
Department
Finistère”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0001]]
The case was classified as B and the phenomenon type was listed as Meteoroid.
Claim #4986 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
B
Update date
23/06/2021
Phenomenon type
Meteoroid”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0001]]
The case summary describes multiple observations of a red-orange luminous phenomenon that suddenly disappeared, with a probable explanation of meteoroid atmospheric reentry.
Claim #4987 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Multiple observations in the sky of a red-orange luminous phenomenon; sudden extinction: probable observation of a meteoroid atmospheric reentry.”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0001]]
Between 07:55 and 08:00 on 22 November 1981, four independent groups observed a low, spherical red-orange luminous phenomenon on the horizon in a lightly overcast sky.
Claim #4988 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On 22 November 1981 between 07:55 and 08:00, four independent groups of people observed, in a lightly overcast sky, a low, spherical red-orange luminous phenomenon on the horizon.”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
The phenomenon disappeared instantaneously or appeared to have fallen into a field near a runway at Guipavas airfield.
Claim #4989 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 92% extraction confidence
“This ball disappeared instantaneously or appeared to have fallen into a field near a runway at Guipavas airfield (29).”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
The air traffic controller at Guipavas airfield contacted the Gendarmerie the following day, and eight statements were collected, seven of which reported observing the UAP.
Claim #4990 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The Gendarmerie was contacted the following day by the air traffic controller at Guipavas airfield (29): a total of 8 statements were collected, 7 of which reported observing the UAP.”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN states that the witnesses probably observed the atmospheric reentry of a meteoroid.
Claim #4991 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witnesses probably observed the atmospheric reentry of a meteoroid (see the investigation report).”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN identifies the phenomenon's red-orange color, ball shape, reported sparks and trail, short duration, probably slow and regular movement, and descent-related disappearance as elements supporting the meteoroid-reentry hypothesis.
Claim #4992 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The elements supporting this hypothesis are as follows:”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN describes the event as a tangential atmospheric reentry observed head-on, which could appear as a luminous point low on the horizon with little angular change or apparent stationarity.
Claim #4993 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“This involved a tangential atmospheric reentry observed head-on (that is, along the reentry path), which can thus appear as a luminous point low on the horizon, changing little angularly, and even”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0002]]
GEIPAN states that the explanation can be retained, while noting uncertainty related particularly to witnesses' perceptions of changes in shape among stationary witnesses.
Claim #4994 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“Ultimately, the explanation can be retained; the resulting uncertainty stems less from the rarity of the phenomenon”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0005]]
GEIPAN assesses the case consistency as good, citing numerous witnesses, some independent of one another, and no inconsistency apart from the duration reported by T3.
Claim #4995 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The consistency is good, with numerous witnesses (some independent of one another), without any inconsistency despite the different descriptions (except for the duration reported by T3), and with a fairly good description of the UAP.”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0005]]
GEIPAN classifies the case as B: meteoroid atmospheric reentry.
Claim #4996 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 100% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as B: meteoroid atmospheric reentry.”
Source: GUIPAVAS, BREST (29) 22.11.1981
// [[T0005]]
