Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typesMotorist, Passenger, Two witnesses
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typesWitness testimony, Official scientific UAP investigation
The case observation date was 22 October 1981.
Claim #5025 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observation date
22/10/1981”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is located in Réunion, listed as an overseas department.
Claim #5026 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Overseas
Department
Réunion”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0001]] case details
The case is classified C.
Claim #5027 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0001]] case details
The case summary describes observations of a luminous phenomenon resembling a neon tube and stationary in the direction of the rising sun.
Claim #5028 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Observations of a luminous phenomenon resembling a neon tube and stationary in the direction of the rising sun: lack of information.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0001]] Summary
On October 22, 1981, at 8:30 a.m., a motorist and his passenger observed a white luminous phenomenon that appeared stationary at low altitude and was located in the direction of the rising sun.
Claim #5029 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“On October 22, 1981, at 8:30 a.m., a motorist and his passenger were intrigued by a white luminous phenomenon, stationary at low altitude, which they could not explain.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0002]] Description
According to the witnesses, the phenomenon was described as a line with a round shape underneath by one witness or as a rectangle by the other.
Claim #5030 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The UAP, shaped like a line with a round shape underneath (T1) or like a rectangle (T2), was located in the direction of the rising sun.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0002]] Description
According to the two witnesses, the observation lasted approximately five minutes before the phenomenon disappeared gradually according to one witness or almost instantaneously according to the other.
Claim #5031 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“According to the two witnesses, the observation of this “neon tube” lasted approximately 5 minutes before the UAP gradually disappeared according to T1, or almost instantaneously according to T2.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0002]] Description
No other testimony was collected despite an article published in the local press.
Claim #5032 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 97% extraction confidence
“Despite an article published in the local press, no other testimony was collected.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN considers that the witnesses may have observed an aircraft condensation trail under favorable atmospheric conditions, with the sun fairly low behind the aircraft and illuminating the trail.
Claim #5033 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 98% extraction confidence
“The witnesses may have observed an aircraft condensation trail under favorable atmospheric conditions, with the sun fairly low behind the aircraft and illuminating the trail.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0002]] Description
GEIPAN states that the aircraft-trail hypothesis becomes less probable but remains plausible.
Claim #5034 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“In fact, the “aircraft trail” hypothesis becomes less probable but remains plausible.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0004]] conclusion
GEIPAN concludes that the case involves a lack of reliable information and should not be retained as an unexplained UAP case.
Claim #5035 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Consequently, GEIPAN concludes: lack of reliable information.”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0004]] conclusion
The source states that the consistency of the case is poor because the description lacks precision and the two witnesses' accounts are discordant on some points.
Claim #5036 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The consistency is poor, both in terms of information and reliability:”
Source: SAINT-PIERRE (974) 22.10.1981
// [[T0003]] analysis
