Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesyoung adolescent, another witness, relatives
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness testimony, gendarmerie investigation, no ground traces found, no confirmation of aircraft flights, reported dog barking
The observation date was 2008-05-01, and the case was classified as C.
Claim #23594 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
01/05/2008
Region
Midi-Pyrénées
Department
Lot
Classification
C”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0001]] case details
The case record identifies the phenomenon type as lack of reliable information.
Claim #23595 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Phenomenon type
Lack of reliable information”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0001]] case details
At 10:15 p.m. on May 1, 2008, a young adolescent reportedly heard high-pitched voices and unknown words before seeing an unidentified object suspended five meters above the ground.
Claim #23596 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On May 1, 2008, at 10:15 p.m., a young adolescent outside his home hears “high-pitched” voices and words that are “unknown” to him before seeing in front of him an “unidentified object suspended in the air five meters above the ground.””
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness described the object as dark-colored, pyramidal, large, topped by a large beam of light, and displaying different colors; the object remained static.
Claim #23597 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“The witness describes the “dark-colored” object as “pyramidal” in shape, large in size, and topped by a large beam of light.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0001]] Description
The witness reportedly remained in front of the sight for approximately 15 or 20 minutes, then saw a big flash and found that the object had disappeared when he opened his eyes.
Claim #23598 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“he remained in front of this sight for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes. He was then dazzled by a “big flash,” and when he opened his eyes again the object had disappeared.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] continuation of Description
The witness reportedly experienced severe headaches that disappeared when his brother arrived.
Claim #23599 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“The witness then experienced severe headaches that disappeared when his brother arrived.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] continuation of Description
Another witness reportedly told the gendarmerie that a dog barked abnormally in the same area that evening, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m.
Claim #23600 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“Another witness reported to the gendarmerie that the same evening, in the same area, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., his dog had barked abnormally, whereas it normally barked only in the presence of visitors.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] continuation of Description
The witness and relatives gave a statement to the gendarmerie, which conducted an investigation and found no ground traces or confirmation of aircraft flights in the area at that time.
Claim #23601 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witness and his relatives gave a statement to the gendarmerie. The gendarmes conducted a very serious investigation and found no traces on the ground, nor did they receive confirmation of aircraft flights in the area at that time.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] continuation of Description
The record states that the observation report had none of the characteristics of a hoax.
Claim #23603 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“This observation report has none of the characteristics of a hoax.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] continuation of Description
A consulted physician stated that the reported visual phenomena preceding severe headaches seemed consistent with ophthalmic migraines and that the witness's age and sex were consistent with that diagnosis.
Claim #23604 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 96% extraction confidence
“in ophthalmic migraines, visual phenomena (sparkling points, geometric shapes, etc.) precede severe headaches, which seems to be the case with this young man.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0002]] medical assessment
The ophthalmic-migraine hypothesis could not be confirmed but was considered by GEIPAN.
Claim #23605 // UNRESOLVED // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This hypothesis cannot be confirmed, but must be considered.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0003]] medical assessment
GEIPAN stated that it is very difficult to confirm the reality of an observation by a single witness, even when the witness is considered sincere.
Claim #23606 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“As in all cases of very strange observations by a single witness, it is very difficult to confirm the reality of the observed phenomenon, even if the witness is considered sincere.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0003]] explanation
GEIPAN classified the case as C because the account contained elements characteristic of a transient hallucination and lacked concrete evidence and corroboration.
Claim #23607 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Because the account contains certain elements characteristic of a transient hallucination, GEIPAN classifies this case as “C” for lack of concrete evidence and corroboration.”
Source: LAVERGNE (46) 01.05.2008
// [[T0003]] explanation
