Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness
Sensor typesphone camera, photographs
Evidence typesphotographic evidence, image analysis, official field investigation
The case concerns observation of a luminous UAP beside the full Moon, classified as an unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.
Claim #7301 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation of a luminous UAP beside the full Moon: unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0001]] Summary
The observation occurred on March 24, 2024, in the witness's apartment in Le Mans, where the witness saw a golden-yellow spherical UAP beside the full Moon and photographed it.
Claim #7302 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On March 24, 2024, the witness was in the evening in the living room of his apartment located in Le Mans (72) when he observed the full Moon and noticed beside it the presence of a UAP appearing in the form of a golden-yellow sphere.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness did not visually observe movement and inferred movement from the UAP's successive positions in two photographs.
Claim #7303 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The witness did not visually observe the UAP's movement, but inferred it from its successive positions in the photographs (see the investigation report).”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Description
Image analysis determined that the photographs were taken at approximately 19:43 using phone file timestamps, although no metadata was generated by the old phone model.
Claim #7304 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Determine the time the photographs were taken (19:43, to the nearest minute) using the timestamps of the files saved on the phone, as no metadata was generated by this old phone model.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Analysis findings
Image analysis concluded that the UAP could not have been a simple lens reflection.
Claim #7305 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Demonstrate that, despite appearances, it was impossible for the UAP to be a simple lens reflection.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Analysis findings
The circular appearance of the UAP was probably an artifact, and the object was more likely point-like or nearly point-like.
Claim #7306 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Show that the circular appearance of the UAP was probably an artifact, with the object being more likely point-like, or nearly so.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Analysis findings
The UAP's apparent angular travel was estimated at approximately 1.5 degrees, with initial and final observation azimuths of 99 degrees and 100.5 degrees.
Claim #7307 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Estimate the apparent angular distance traveled by the UAP, which was approximately 1.5°.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Analysis findings
A field investigation on June 13, 2024, found that the witness had reversed the order of the photographs, indicating apparent movement from left to right from the witness's viewpoint.
Claim #7308 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The investigation conducted on site on June 13, 2024, demonstrated that there had been a memory reversal concerning the order in which the photographs were taken, ultimately indicating, from the witness's point of view, movement of the UAP from left to right.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Field investigation
The investigation found that the witness probably intended to photograph the Moon initially without seeing the UAP, saw it during the second exposure, and then lost sight of it because it was obscured by trees.
Claim #7309 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“the witness had probably initially intended to photograph the Moon without seeing the UAP, before seeing it during the”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0002]] Field investigation
The investigation could not determine whether an aircraft was present in the observation line at the relevant time because CAPCODA data reconstructions were unusable due to a timing problem and private reconstruction websites did not resolve the issue.
Claim #7310 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“It was not possible to determine whether an aircraft was present in the observation line at the time of the observation, either through the CAPCODA* data reconstructions (unusable because of a timing problem) or through private reconstruction websites.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis assessment
Wind-direction data were inconsistent with the LED balloon hypothesis, although the source notes possible margins of error in ground-level wind measurements and indicated azimuths.
Claim #7311 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Regarding the LED balloon hypothesis, the data concerning wind direction were not consistent with the movement of an object carried by the wind.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0003]] Hypothesis assessment
The movement and disappearance of the UAP were not directly observed, and the photographic appearance was misleading because of the zoom and phone image-sensor performance.
Claim #7312 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Furthermore, during the field investigation it was confirmed that the movement and disappearance of the UAP had not been directly observed by the witness, and that its appearance as reproduced in the photographs was misleading given the zoom used and the performance of the image sensor in the phone used.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0003]] Field investigation
GEIPAN classified the observation as C, meaning an unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.
Claim #7313 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This finding led GEIPAN to classify this observation case as “C”: unidentified phenomenon due to a lack of data.”
Source: LE MANS (72) 24.03.2024
// [[T0003]] Classification conclusion
