A triangle shape in Var, France

The gendarmerie reports an observation made on February 1, 1981 at 2:40 a.m. by a night watchman. The latter, during his shift, sees above the sea three large pinkish and dull balls forming an isosceles triangle. No flashing light is seen, no noise is heard during the movement. No other testimony will be collected. The case had been classified as unexplained when it was taken into account at the time of the observation in 1981. Unexplained cases carry potential scientific knowledge stakes, but the unexplained character must remain validated over time. So these cases undergo a revisit. Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigative experience acquired over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This revisit does not allow keeping this case with unexplained status. - We do not have the written and signed testimony of the witness, who refused to provide it. It has been a basic rule at GEIPAN for many years to work from direct and signed testimonies. Any other situation is a failure in the consistency of the testimony in terms of its reliability. - The testimony is imprecise (no written description from the witness, no questions and answers). The information on size, distance, and speed is always subjective and of little use. It would have been necessary to know the positions in the sky at the beginning and end of the observation and its duration. - Given the few elements available, nothing rules out balloons or children's balloons lit by the city lights. It is a weekend night conducive to a festive event. The UAPs are reported as dull and not emitting light, which indeed reflects lighting in the middle of the night by the environment. The wind is weak and coming from the North at 1 a.m. (see the Infoclimat site). A witness who sees the UAPs above the sea (and not directly overhead) perceives above all a lateral movement from left to right, whether the UAPs go due South carried by the wind from La Valette or whether they go from La Valette toward La Seyne-Sur-Mer as the witness would have perceived it (reported in the official report). Moreover, since the wind is weak, it may have changed slightly between 1 a.m. and 2:40 a.m. The weak consistency of the testimony does not allow validating a character of inexplicable strangeness, all the less so since the little that is available would be compatible with a flight of balloons or children's balloons. Consequently, GEIPAN classifies the case as C: lack of reliable information.