Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness, family members
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness report, official scientific investigation
The case observation date is 28 March 2016, and the listed region is Pays de la Loire.
Claim #9056 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
28/03/2016
Region
Pays de la Loire”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified B and its listed type of phenomenon is ball lightning.
Claim #9057 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
B
Update date
23/06/2021
Type of phenomenon
Ball lightning”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0001]] Case details
The source summarizes the observation as a silent white luminous ball followed by colored luminous phenomena, identifying probable ball lightning for phase 1 and lack of information for phase 2.
Claim #9058 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“Observation of the silent movement of a white luminous ball followed by colored luminous phenomena in the sky: probable observation of ball lightning (observation phase 1) and lack of information (phase 2).”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0001]] Summary
The observation occurred during a storm in the Blain region, with the witness reporting a white light at around 3:30 a.m. on March 28, 2016.
Claim #9059 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On March 28, 2016, a storm was raging in the Blain (44) region.”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0001]] Description
GEIPAN states that only the ball-lightning hypothesis can be retained, and only for phase 1.
Claim #9060 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Ultimately, only one hypothesis can be retained, and only for phase 1: that of ball lightning.”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN assesses the phase 1 description as highly compatible with experts’ characterization of ball lightning and notes that the storm context corresponds to a production condition.
Claim #9061 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The description of the UAP during this phase is highly compatible with the experts’ characterization”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0002]] Analysis
GEIPAN says that possible explanations for phase 2 include distant-storm lights, reflections on the cloud layer, and occasional visibility of the Moon, but none had sufficient probability to be retained.
Claim #9062 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“But the analysis of compatibility with the descriptions or of plausibility for the location and date does not give any of these hypotheses a sufficient probability for it to be retained.”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0003]] Phase 2 analysis
GEIPAN states that phase 2 has no explanation and that its consistency is too low to validate an unexplained nature for the observation.
Claim #9063 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Ultimately, we have no explanation for the observation in phase 2, but the consistency during this phase is too low to validate an unexplained nature for this observation.”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0005]] Classification rationale
GEIPAN classifies phase 1 as B, meaning probable observation of ball lightning, and phase 2 as C, meaning lack of reliable information.
Claim #9064 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“- B for phase 1: probable observation of ball lightning.
- C for phase 2: lack of reliable information.”
Source: BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1
// [[T0005]] Classification
