Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
The date of observation was 2015-10-23.
Claim #9136 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Date of observation
23/10/2015”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0001]] case details
At the end of the afternoon on 2015-10-23, a witness drove to Fumel airfield in the municipality of Montayral.
Claim #9137 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On October 23, 2015, at the end of the afternoon, a witness drove to Fumel airfield (the municipality of Montayral (47)) to “get some fresh air with his dog.””
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reported seeing a black spot in a black fog in the sky.
Claim #9138 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“he saw “a black spot in a black fog” in the sky.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0001]] Description
The reported phenomenon remained perfectly motionless and made no sound.
Claim #9139 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“perfectly motionless and made no sound.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0002]] Description
The witness looked away for a few seconds and was unable to see the phenomenon again; it had disappeared.
Claim #9140 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“At one point he looked away from the phenomenon for a few seconds, then tried to see the PAN again but in vain—it had disappeared.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0002]] Description
The investigation considered celestial body, airplane, helicopter, ophthalmic-problem, toy-balloon, solar-balloon, and hot-air-balloon hypotheses.
Claim #9141 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“Three factors (the motionlessness for 20 minutes, the sudden disappearance, and the appearance of a distant round shape with a protuberance) oppose, separately or in combination, the various hypotheses considered: celestial body (appearance and disappearance), airplane (motionlessness), helicopter (appearance, sound, and failure to be detected by radar), and…”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0002]] investigation analysis
The hot-air-balloon hypothesis was assessed as the strongest, but its probability was well below 50% and it was not retained.
Claim #9142 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Overall, the hot-air-balloon hypothesis is the strongest, but its probability is well below 50% and therefore it cannot be retained.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0003]] investigation conclusion
The case consisted of a single testimony without a photograph.
Claim #9143 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This is a single testimony, without a photograph.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0003]] investigation conclusion
The source states that the witness was precise and credible, and that the testimony's consistency was just sufficient to validate the observation's unexplained nature.
Claim #9144 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness is precise and credible; the consistency (level of information and credibility) of the testimony is just sufficient, given the level of strangeness, to validate the unexplained nature of the observation (see the investigation report).”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0003]] investigation conclusion
GEIPAN classified the case as D1: Unexplained phenomenon of medium strangeness.
Claim #9145 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as D1: Unexplained phenomenon of medium strangeness.”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0003]] investigation conclusion
The case page lists the classification as D.
Claim #9146 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
D”
Source: MONTAYRAL (47) 23.10.2015
// [[T0001]] case details
