Moving in formation in La Réunion, France

Thanks to new technical means (software) and the investigation experience gained over all these recent years, this re-examination sometimes leads to new remarks or even a change in classification. This observation case, previously classified D and named SAINT-PIERRE (974) 1981, is part of a set of cases recently re-examined (see the investigation report). On October 22, 1981 at 8:30 a.m., a motorist and his passenger are intrigued by a white luminous phenomenon, stationary at low altitude, that they cannot explain. The UAP, shaped like a line with a round shape underneath (W1) or a rectangle (W2), is located in the direction of the rising sun. The driver stops his vehicle. He then thinks about getting out the theodolite located in the back of the vehicle to observe the UAP more closely, but the two witnesses find themselves as if "paralyzed" in the car. The observation of this "neon tube," according to the two witnesses, lasts about 5 minutes before the UAP disappears gradually according to W1 or almost instantly according to W2. Despite an article published in the local press, no other testimony will be collected. The witnesses may have observed an airplane condensation trail under favorable atmospheric conditions, with the sun fairly low behind the airplane and illuminating the trail. This trail is of a particular type with fragments, here with only one fragment: - the process of airplane trail formation and persistence of this trail involves several atmospheric factors (including pressure, humidity) that can vary along an airplane's trajectory, even without changing altitude; - if along the entire path, the process allows formation and great persistence, the trail will be long and continuous behind the airplane, subject only to the wind effect, which can widen and disperse it or twist it; - if along the entire path, the process allows formation but with low persistence, the trail will be short and will give the impression of following the airplane; - if the formation and persistence processes vary along the trajectory, the trail can be fragmented or even limited to a single piece, fixed, persistent, as is probably the case here. The Contrail Science site gives examples with photographs. The round and less luminous shape observed under the line by W1 is, in the absence of angular indication, compatible with a dispersion and local widening of the trail. It is also not specified whether the round shape is attached to the line or distant from it. It could also be a nebulosity distant from the trail whose particularly round shape leads W1 to associate it with the strangeness of the line, whereas he would have noticed nothing without the initial strangeness. This shape is perceived by W1 as more difficult to distinguish than the line; it is possible that W2 (who did not see it) does not have the same visual capacity or attention as W1, or did not associate a nebulosity with the initial strangeness. The disappearance of the trail as perceived by W2 seems too rapid. But the hypothesis of a lesser visual capacity or attention of W2 can also explain that he only saw the beginning of the decrease in luminous intensity, while W1 was able to follow the phenomenon that "faded little by little." The consistency is poor in both information and reliability: - the description lacks precision, particularly in terms of angular position in the sky, angular size, and the respective positions of the two shapes seen by W1. - there are two witnesses (not independent) whose accounts reinforce each other on certain points and disagree on others. The discrepancies in the accounts gave rise to no request for clarification to better quantify the degree of disagreement beyond words. The lack of information and certain discrepancies lead to making complementary hypotheses to explain the observation by a trail. In fact, the "airplane trail" hypothesis loses probability but remains plausible. In the end, the consistency proves too marginal to validate such an explanation. These two factors—the existence of a plausible hypothesis but a lack of consistency to support it—oppose maintaining the case in the unexplained UAP category. Consequently, GEIPAN concludes: lack of reliable information.