BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T1

On 28 March 2016, a storm struck in the Blain area (44). Having gone back to bed after calling EDF to report a power failure, the witness (T1) observed a white light coming from outside at about 03:30. From the window, he saw a white ball 2 m above the ground. He decided to go upstairs to see the UAP better through a roof window. Joined by his family, all of them observed this white light. The witness then went outside his home, but the phenomenon had disappeared. No particular noise was heard during the slow lateral displacement of this white ball. The witness remained outside and then observed on one side of his farm a blue-green light in a single flash at 100 m above the ground. Five minutes later, another light but orange, coral yellow, appeared on the other side of his farm in a single flash as well. Three witnesses (T2, T3, T4) saw a cast shadow on the property, and the coloured flashes then reappeared. The witnesses were afraid and remained intrigued by these phenomena. The analysis of the evidence and the search for explanatory hypotheses led to a distinction between two phases in this observation: this distinction is necessary because of an interruption of the phenomenon followed by a radical change in the aspect of the UAP(s) (colour, size, number), which allows the assessment of the assumptions in relation to the whole observation (two phases) or only to one or the other of the phases (see the investigation report). Phase 1 is about observation as long as the UAP is seen by the witnesses as a white light and until its disappearance observed. Phase 2 starts with the observation of multiple lights and distinct colors until the end. In the end, only one hypothesis can be used and only for phase 1: that of ball lightning. The description of the UAP on this phase is highly compatible with the characterization of experts (read the presentation on Aspects, Manifestations and classification of ball lightning), the stormy and possibly thundery conditions were also compatible with its occurrence. The second phase is longer but also more confused in its description. It might possibly be associated with a combination of lights produced by a distant storm and reverberations of lights (on the ground but far away) on the cloud layer (emergency response vehicle, Donges refinery in the Southwest, halo of cities (Nantes/St-Nazaire), ...). Even the Moon (~ full), normally hidden by clouds, could briefly have contributed through a temporary gap in the clouds. But the analysis of compatibility with descriptions or likelihood in place and date does not give any of these hypotheses a sufficient probability to be retained. The evidential strength (amount and reliability of information) is strong in the first phase because the UAP is close and of well-defined form. In the second phase, the descriptions are more imprecise or sometimes contradictory. The emotion is also stronger. In the annals of the GEIPAN (nearly 4000 cases of observation) it is common to encounter situations where a first strange perception creates in the witness an understandable state of heightened alertness (on a background of emotion that can go as far as panic) and which can lead him to associate other unusual features or subsequent information with the initial strangeness, thereby increasing it, even though those features might not otherwise have been noticed or caused concern in the absence of initial strangeness. The situation with several witnesses sharing in real time their emotion greatly favors this phenomenon "avalanche" on the lived strangeness. It is possible that this occurred here between phase 1 (initial strangeness) and phase 2. T4’s more detached attitude and much lower sense of strangeness also put the second phase’s objective strangeness into perspective. T4 disagrees with T2 and T3 on a key feature, the colours of the glows. This undermines the storm-light hypothesis and further weakens the evidence. The purpose of a GEIPAN cognitive interview conducted on site is to create conditions that allow the witness to return as close as possible to his initial perception and to prevent (or at least detect the clues) factors that alter this initial perception (false memories, interpretations including by avalanche effect in perceived strangeness, influence between witnesses above all, as here, when they shared in real time the emotion and could then exchange before the investigation ...). Thus, cognitive interview is a way to increase or at least assess the evidential strength (amount and reliability of information) of an account or set of accounts. The very basis of this cognitive interview is to be tailored individually to each witness, excluding possible active or passive influences from other witnesses. This was not possible here, investigators perceived a family too emotionally close-knit or united by the observation, even 6 months later, to risk adding to their distress by separating them. In doing so, the group interview may have yielded additional information but could neither improve nor assess the overall evidential strength. In the end, we do not have an explanation for the observation in phase 2, but the evidence for this phase is too weak to establish it as an unexplained observation. Accordingly, the GEIPAN classifies the case as: - B for phase 1: likely observation of ball lightning. - C for phase 2: lack of reliable information.