BLAIN (44) 28.03.2016 T2

On 28 March 2016 a storm was affecting the Blain area (44). After calling EDF to report a power failure, witness T1 returned to bed. At about 03:30 he noticed white light coming from outside. Through the window he saw a white ball 2 m above the ground. He went upstairs for a better view through a skylight and was joined by his family, who all observed the white light. He then went outside, but the phenomenon had disappeared. No particular sound had been heard during the ball's slow lateral movement. Remaining outside, he then saw a single blue-green flash on one side of his farm, 100 m above the ground. Five minutes later, a single orange, coral-yellow flash appeared on the other side. Three witnesses, T2, T3 and T4, saw a cast shadow on the property, and the colored flashes reappeared. The witnesses were frightened and remained puzzled. Analysis of the accounts and possible explanations led to a distinction between 2 phases. This was necessary because an interruption was followed by a radical change in the appearance of the UAP or UAPs: color, size and number. It permits hypotheses to be assessed against the entire 2-phase sighting or either phase separately (see investigation report). Phase 1 covers the period when the UAP was seen as a white light, through its observed disappearance. Phase 2 runs from the appearance of multiple differently colored lights to the end. Ultimately, only 1 hypothesis can be retained, and only for phase 1: ball lightning. The UAP's description in that phase strongly matches expert characterizations (see the presentation on the aspects, manifestations and classification of ball lightning), while the stormy, possibly thundery weather also matches conditions for its occurrence. Phase 2 lasted longer but is more confused in the accounts. It could involve a combination of distant lightning and distant ground lights reflected from the clouds, such as an emergency-response vehicle, the Donges refinery to the southwest, or the glow from Nantes or Saint-Nazaire. Even the nearly full Moon, normally hidden by clouds, might briefly have contributed through a passing gap. However, analysis of compatibility with the descriptions and plausibility at that location and date gave none of these hypotheses sufficient probability to retain it. Substantiation, meaning the amount and reliability of information, is strong in phase 1 because the UAP was close and clearly shaped. Phase 2 descriptions are less precise and sometimes contradictory, with stronger emotion. In GEIPAN's records, then containing nearly 4,000 cases, an initial strange perception often understandably heightens a witness's alertness against an emotional background potentially reaching panic. The witness may then associate later unusual impressions or information with the initial event, amplifying it, although those later impressions might not otherwise have been noticed or caused concern. Several witnesses sharing their emotions as events unfold greatly encourages this “avalanche” effect on experienced strangeness. This may have happened here between phases 1 and 2. T4's more detached response, with much less experienced strangeness, also places phase 2's objective strangeness in perspective. T4's disagreement with T2 and T3 over a key detail—the colors of the glows, which weighs against the distant-lightning hypothesis—further weakens the evidence. An on-site GEIPAN cognitive interview aims to help a witness return as closely as possible to their initial perception and prevent, or at least detect signs of, factors altering it: false memories, interpretations including the avalanche effect, and especially mutual influence when witnesses shared emotions during the event and could discuss it before the investigation. Such interviews can improve, or at least assess, the amount and reliability of information in an account or group of accounts. Fundamentally, the interview must be individual to each witness, isolating possible active or passive influence from the others. This was impossible here. Even 6 months afterward, investigators considered the family too emotionally “close-knit or united” about the sighting to risk additional distress by separating them. The collective interview may therefore have added information but could not improve or assess overall evidential strength. No explanation was found for phase 2, but its substantiation is too weak to validate unexplained status. GEIPAN therefore classifies: - Phase 1 as B: probable ball lightning. - Phase 2 as C: lack of reliable information.