Catalogue retro 1981

Magazine Overview

This document is the "CATALOGUE ANNUEL RÉGIONAL CNEGU ANNÉE 1981," a digital edition from 2006, focusing on unidentified aerospace phenomena (UAP) observations from 1981. The cover features a stylized map of France with several flying saucer-like objects, a central CNEGU logo, and contact information. The main title is prominently displayed, along with the year of the catalog.

Table of Contents (Sommaire)

The table of contents, dated January 1983, outlines the structure of the catalogue:

• Avertissement (Warning/Notice)
• Catalogue des cas (Case Catalogue)
• Précisions et Commentaires (Details and Comments)
• Indice de Crédibilité (IC) (Credibility Index)
• Liste des cas (List of Cases)
• Carte simplifiée 1/1 000 000 (Simplified Map 1/1,000,000)
• Annexes, including distribution data by month, day of the week, and hour (TU), and the HYNEK Classification.

Avertissement (Notice)

The introduction states that the 1981 CNEGU Catalogue is an annual, non-exhaustive, and chronological list of alleged unidentified aerospace phenomena. It notes that the information may not have been verified and could include hoaxes or misidentifications. Each entry primarily contains details on dates, times, locations, number and quality of witnesses, and a brief description of the phenomena, along with information sources. The list is accompanied by a synthesis and a simplified map (☆) focusing on cases that remained unidentified by January 1983 and received a credibility index of 3 or higher (☆☆). The goal is to present observations from a region synthetically and make them accessible. Readers seeking more detailed information are directed to CNEGU member groups or the original sources. The document clarifies that cases marked with a star (★) have remarks in the annex, and no new elements are added to previous catalogs (1978, 79, 80). The map (☆) is detailed and uses specific symbology. The credibility index (☆☆) definition and criteria are in the annex.

Catalogue des Cas (Case Catalogue)

The catalogue details numerous UAP sightings from 1981:

• L/06/00810218 (01): February 18, 1981, 21h TU, near CR 111 and CR 101, France. A couple reported a demi-spherical object (5-10m diameter) with headlights and colored lights that followed their car for about 600m.
• F/98/88810322 (01): March 22, 1981, approx. 2h30 TU, DINOZE, SAINT-LAURENT, EPINAL, France. Four witnesses saw a bright, orange, elliptical object near a TV relay. It appeared stationary, then oscillated slightly. Other cars stopped to observe it. The object was visible until Saint-Laurent.
• F/15/57810330 (01): March 30, 1981, approx. 10h15 TU, MAGNY, France. A group observed a metallic sphere moving north, changing color (red, white, black), and then ascending into the clouds. The observation lasted about half an hour.
• F/98/88810408 (01): April 08, 1981, approx. 20h30 TU, BOUZEMONT, France. A witness saw a luminous point that grew into two red spheres, then turned orange and disappeared. This repeated until 22h TU, despite a storm. The central white sphere emitted light beams.
• F/15/54810518 (01) & (02): May 18, 1981, approx. 21h15 TU, Malzéville-Nancy, France. A witness saw an egg-shaped object moving from SW to NE, appearing to 'fall' towards a TV relay, disappearing, and reappearing before vanishing definitively. Two other people in Nancy saw a similar object.
• F/15/54810527 (01): May 27, 1981, approx. 19h10 TU, Nancy, France. A witness saw a large, green, internally luminous spherical object flying slowly from E-NE to W-SW at low altitude before disappearing behind houses.
• F/98/88810611 (01): June 11, 1981, approx. 20h05 TU, BOUXIERES-AUX-BOIS, France. Two bright 'balls' were seen moving slowly, resembling fireballs with diffuse whitish trails. The phenomenon lasted about two minutes. A magnetic detector registered an anomaly on June 8th.
• F/98/88810614 (01): June 14, 1981, approx. 18h45 TU, France. A witness observed a luminous ball moving from NW to SE, disappearing after 5-6 seconds. The speed was estimated at 10°/sec.
• F/98/88810704 (01): July 04, 1981, approx. 21h30 TU, MIRECOURT, France. A luminous object, initially red-orange, grew in size and moved erratically before disappearing. It was surrounded by a whitish halo and lasted about 30 minutes.
• F/98/88810711 (01): July 11, 1981, approx. 21h TU, LA SCHLUCHT, France. Two witnesses saw a bluish light, described as a luminous 'tower' with two superimposed stages, which then disappeared. They heard strange 'noises'.
• F/98/88810908 (01): September 08, 1981, approx. 21h30 TU, MONTHUREUX-SUR-SAÔNE, France. A witness observed a large orange sphere, initially mistaken for the moon, which then moved and disappeared.
• F/98/88810909 (01): September 09, 1981, approx. 18h50 TU, MATTAINCOURT, France. A witness and his son observed an orange sphere moving WNW-ESE, stopping, then accelerating rapidly and disappearing. The observation lasted about 5 minutes.
• F/98/88810911 (01): September 11, 1981, approx. 4h45 TU, RAZIMONT (EPINAL), France. A witness saw a large, luminous red ball with a green-blue trail moving rapidly from N to S, appearing to descend and then explode into fragments.
• F/98/88810911 (02): September 11, 1981, approx. 4h45 TU, ADONCOURT, France. A witness observed a bright yellow luminous form moving horizontally across the sky at high speed before disappearing.
• F/98/88810911 (03): September 11, 1981, approx. 4h40 TU, TIGNECOURT, France. A witness observed a fast-moving red luminous object crossing the sky from N to S, lasting about 4 seconds.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the cataloging of UAP sightings in France during 1981. The editorial stance appears to be one of diligent record-keeping and objective reporting, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of observed phenomena. The inclusion of a credibility index suggests an effort to assess the reliability of each report. The publication emphasizes its role as an informational document and a reference base for ufological research. The CNEGU's commitment to collecting and disseminating such data is evident throughout the issue.

This document is a collection of detailed reports on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) sightings that occurred in France during 1981. The reports are organized by reference number and include dates, times, locations, witness descriptions, and sometimes additional investigative notes. The magazine appears to be focused on documenting and investigating unexplained aerial events.

Detailed Sightings

September 13, 1981:

• La Zabette (MIRECOURT, MATTAINCOURT): Mr. M. C. and his son reported that their car's engine, radio, and electrical circuit failed for a second while driving. Mr. C. felt pain in his left knee. Simultaneously, his son saw a red luminous sphere flying horizontally. The object paused, accelerated, and disappeared into the clouds. No sound was heard. Mr. C. did not see it. An electrical perturbation was noted at the Ravenel hospital around the same time (21:05 TU).
• POISSONS to DOULAINCOURT: A woman, Mme. Freiche, observed a strong orange glow that grew significantly as she approached. The glow changed to a luminous yellowish-white. She then saw a huge, luminous, egg-shaped object hovering about 16 meters above the ground, approximately 200 meters from the road. It was described as pale yellow and seemed to be waiting for her. The object was silent and illuminated the surroundings. She continued driving, feeling anxious. Later, she saw a 'moon-like' object, round and white with dark lines resembling a road map, hovering above the road. She did not look in her rearview mirror to see if it moved. She was deeply shaken by the experience.

September 27, 1981:

• ANCERVILLE-CUE: Mr. Jean-Pierre Mazeaud observed a pale yellow sphere, like a 'worn lamp', about 12 degrees above the horizon. It was about 1 km away and remained immobile for a few moments. Its apparent diameter was estimated at 24 arc minutes. Suddenly, it curved and approached him. Then, a second identical phenomenon appeared. Both moved silently towards HALLIGNICOURT. The witness, accustomed to military aircraft, noted the absence of acoustic reverberation, suggesting it was not a conventional aircraft.

October 4, 1981:

• MATTAINCOURT: Mr. M. G. and his neighbor, Mr. R. G., observed two orange spheres flying in concert, silently, about 42 arc minutes in apparent size. They emitted flashes. The phenomenon lasted 2-3 minutes, moving from Northeast to Southwest. The same phenomenon reappeared at 19:45 TU, moving in the reverse direction.

October 22, 1981:

• MIRECOURT: Mrs. T. and C., nurses, observed an immobile object, vaguely oval and yellow-orange, suspended low in the sky. It remained visible for about thirty minutes. It then changed shape and color to an incandescent red ball, moving very slowly towards the Southwest and disappearing around 18:30 TU. They also observed several airliners and fighter jets during this time.

November 4, 1981:

• AZELOT: During a night maneuver, a military pilot and his crew were surprised by three immobile white lights in the sky, arranged in an equilateral triangle. The phenomenon disappeared after takeoff and landing. A ground witness reportedly confirmed the observation.

November 9, 1981:

• MATTAINCOURT: Mlles Valérie C. and Sandrine B., along with Frédéric C. and others, observed a luminous orange phenomenon with a white and orange trail. It moved in a straight line at high altitude, with an apparent size of 24 arc minutes. It disappeared abruptly, like a lamp being switched off, leaving only the trail for a few seconds. No sound or secondary effects were noted. Some witnesses showed signs of fear.

November 10, 1981:

• SAINT-AME: Mr. J-C L. observed a luminous, circular, flattened, bright white object descending rapidly behind a mountain. The object had an apparent speed and distance estimated at over five kilometers. No sound or secondary effects were observed. The trajectory was rectilinear and descending.
• ANOULD: Mr. and Mrs. G. observed a small 'cloud' that gave the impression of a piece of a rainbow, but with colors that were not strictly identical. They continued to their home and observed the same phenomenon for a few more minutes before losing interest.
• DIARVILLE: Mr. André S. and passengers observed an orange sphere in the sky that accompanied their car for about eight kilometers. The sphere seemed to move south, then reappeared on their left. Mr. S. stopped to observe it for ten minutes. The 'ball' was stationary above nearby woods, then moved again. He followed it for about 20 kilometers.

December 10, 1981:

• EPINAL: Mlle G. Laetitia observed a green 'ball' with well-defined contours, immobile in the sky. After about ten seconds, it disappeared. She searched for it but could not find it again, feeling troubled and anxious.

January 4, 13, or 20, 1981:

• GARNICH: Two witnesses observed an oval or circular luminous shape surrounded by red, orange, yellow, and green lights. It moved in a South-North direction and disappeared from view after about a minute.

February 19, 1981:

• BAINS-LES-BAINS: Two students observed a large white light, resembling a powerful projector, moving slowly from NNE to SSW at an estimated altitude of fifty meters. It had dark 'stripes' and blinked before disappearing, reappearing briefly, and then disappearing permanently. Three other young people also witnessed it briefly.

November 10, 1981 (second report):

• GERARDMER: Mr. Gilbert M. and his son observed two bright, luminous 'objects' that initially appeared immobile but were later seen to be moving imperceptibly towards the Southwest. Mr. M. thought it might be Venus, while his son suggested it was an optical effect. They observed it for about ten minutes, then moved further and observed for another five minutes.
• DEYVILLERS: Mme. Marie M. observed a large, bright, yellow, sparkling point of light, immobile in the sky. It was larger and brighter than any star. She and her husband observed it for about ten minutes before going inside.

Supplementary Information

Several reports include 'Renseignements complémentaires' (Supplementary Information) which often refers to military exercises, air traffic control data, or astronomical information (like moon phases) to rule out conventional explanations. For instance, military maneuvers in the MEUSE region were noted for specific dates, and air bases in St-Dizier reported no relevant activity. Astronomical data confirmed that the moon was not in a position to be mistaken for the observed phenomena in some cases.

Investigations and Conclusions

Most of the investigations were conducted by CVLDLN (Centre d'étude et de documentation sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux), CLEU, or GPUN. In many instances, the conclusion stated that no explanation could be given for the observed phenomenon, or it was deemed a probable atmospheric phenomenon (in one case).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme throughout this issue is the detailed documentation of unexplained aerial phenomena. The magazine's stance appears to be one of serious investigation and reporting, presenting witness accounts with a degree of credibility, often including supplementary data to try and identify or dismiss conventional explanations. The use of reference numbers (Réf) and classification codes (IC) suggests a systematic approach to cataloging these events. The overall tone is factual and observational, aiming to present the evidence without overt sensationalism, while acknowledging the unexplained nature of many sightings.

This document is a section of the "CATALOGUE D'OBSERVATIONS C.N.E.G.U. Année 1981," detailing Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) reports for the year 1981. It is published by C.N.E.G.U. and includes supplementary information, analyses, and statistical data related to the observed phenomena. The primary focus is on cataloging and evaluating sightings, with a particular emphasis on the methodology for assessing the credibility of witness accounts.

Detailed Incident Report: Jaguar Aircraft Encounter

On page 1, a specific incident is detailed from September or October 1981, between 10 PM and midnight (HL). Two Jaguar A tactical support military aircraft from the 7th Fighter Wing, based at Saint-Dizier, were returning to Base Aérienne 113 after a night training flight. During their final approach to landing, at an altitude of 250 meters, with all lights on including the landing light, ground personnel (two mechanics and a pilot) and the air traffic control (CLA) noticed something unusual.

Instead of the expected two landing lights from the Jaguar aircraft, they observed three white landing lights. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that a small, sparkling white sphere was positioned between the two aircraft. The sphere appeared to be flying in concert with the Jaguars. The pilots in the air also noticed the sphere and immediately reported its presence to the control tower. As the Jaguars, approximately 150-200 meters apart, continued their descent, the luminous sphere suddenly left its position, ascended vertically at a very high speed, and disappeared rapidly within seconds, without any audible noise. The witnesses, including the pilots, were astonished and could not explain the phenomenon. Investigations by the C.N.E.G.U. revealed that the radar approach screen showed nothing unusual. The report notes the low altitude of the aircraft at the time of observation and states that further information is unavailable due to military security protocols, as the event occurred within the airspace of a strategic military base in northeastern France. The source is listed as GROUPE 5255.

Catalogue Methodology and Credibility Index

Pages 2 through 10 elaborate on the methodology and content of the 1981 catalogue. This catalogue follows previous editions from 1978, 1979, and 1980, focusing on UAP observations in departments 52, 54, 55, 88, and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Key updates for the 1981 edition include:

1. Credibility Index (IC): Introduced in 1980, this index is now presented in full. It is designed to judge the quality of testimonies and ranges from 0 to 5. The index is quantified from 0 to 1 across five essential data groups:
* Date and Time: Precise (1) vs. imprecise/unknown (0).
* Location: Precise (1) vs. imprecise/unknown (0).
* Witness(es): Known (name, address, age, profession) (1) vs. unknown (0), including people passing through who did not stop to observe closely.
* Number of Witnesses: More than one known witness (1) vs. a single witness (0).
* Investigation: Conducted and documented with known investigator(s) (1) vs. not documented, unknown investigator, or case known only through press/rumor (0).

2. Symbology: The symbolic notation used by CNEGU has been refined, with details provided in a recent "Note Technique" by CVLDLN.

Other elements from 1980 are retained. The document emphasizes the value of statistical studies and geographical correlations of observations with ufological group locations.

It is noted that cases marked with an asterisk (*) often involve principal witnesses who are also family members and the originators of the information. The ongoing investigations do not yet allow for a definitive opinion on the veracity of these cases, but the high number of observations warrants caution.

The catalogue also mentions the intention to classify cases according to J. Allen Hynek's system, but the author found it difficult to apply due to the criteria. A condensed version of this classification is presented in an annex.

Progress and Future Developments

The authors acknowledge a slowdown in the pace of catalogue production but note that new methods for increasing rigor have been developed and utilized, such as summary sheets, the credibility index, and symbols. The planned use of a TYPE-REPORT QUESTIONNAIRE (modified CECRU version) starting in 1982 is expected to be a significant step forward, requiring universal adoption and commitment.

Further proposals will be made at future C.N.E.G.U. sessions to continue the effort. The document concludes by inviting readers to provide critiques and suggestions, and to report any erroneous or incomplete information.

Statistical Data and Visualizations

Several pages (6-10) present statistical data and visualizations of the reported UAP observations for 1981:

• Map (Page 6): A simplified map of the Nord-Est region of France and Luxembourg shows the distribution of cases, color-coded by Credibility Index (IC=5, IC=4, IC=3).
• Monthly Distribution (Page 7): A bar chart shows the number of cases per month, with a peak in September and October.
• Day of Month Distribution (Page 8): A scatter plot and bar chart illustrate the distribution of cases across the days of the month.
• Day of Week Distribution (Page 9): A scatter plot and bar chart show the distribution of cases across the days of the week.
• Time of Day Distribution (Page 10): A scatter plot and bar chart illustrate the temporal distribution of cases throughout a 24-hour period, noting that the data is based on local time (HL-2h in summer, HL-1h in winter).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes are the systematic cataloguing of UAP sightings, the rigorous evaluation of witness credibility through a defined index, and the statistical analysis of observational data. The editorial stance is one of diligent investigation, cautious evaluation, and a commitment to scientific methodology in the study of UAP. There is an emphasis on the importance of precise data, documented investigations, and collaboration within the ufological community. The document also highlights the challenges posed by military secrecy and the need for continued effort and refinement of methods.

This document, titled "CLASSIFICATION HYNEK," is an annex presenting a summary of J. Allen Hynek's classification system for Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) or Phénomènes OVNI. The summary is based on Hynek's 1974 book, "Les Objets Volants Non Identifiés - Mythe ou Réalité?" published by Editions Belfond.

Preliminary Definitions

The document begins by establishing foundational definitions crucial for understanding the classification:

• UFO Report or Notification: This is defined as a declaration from one or more credible individuals, who are considered responsible and mentally sound. They describe seeing an object or light in the sky or on the ground, either directly or with an instrument. The key characteristic is that the sighting cannot be identified as a known event, object, or physical or psychological process.
• UFO Observation or Experience: This refers to the actual content of a report or notification.
• UFO Phenomenon: This broad term encompasses both the observations themselves and the reports that arise from them.

The document also distinguishes between two senses of the term "UFO":

• UFO (Strict Sense): This refers to the existential correlate of the UFO phenomenon, meaning its actual existence independent of any manifestation.
• UFO (Common Sense): This is defined as a reported vision, documented in writing, of objects or lights observed in the sky or on the ground. The object's appearance, trajectory, general behavior, and luminescence do not suggest a conventional logical explanation. Crucially, these sightings not only baffled the original observers but also remain unidentified after a thorough examination by technically competent individuals.

Hynek's Six Classes of UFO Phenomena

The core of the document details the six main classes of UFO phenomena as defined by J. Allen Hynek, primarily distinguished by the degree of strangeness:

Class 1 - Night Lights

These lights typically do not emanate from a single point source. They are brilliant, vary in size, and are often yellowish, white, or metallic. Their movement can resemble that of a balloon or aircraft, often giving the impression of intentional control. While the light may not appear attached to a solid body, this is presumed. Generally, the movements of night lights do not defy the laws of physics, with some exceptions.

Class 2 - Day Discs

Objects in this class are generally oval, discoidal, ellipsoidal, or described as "shriveled gherkins." They are usually brilliant or luminous (though rarely point-source), yellowish, white, or metallic. Their movement can range from extremely slow to extremely rapid, with disappearances occurring in seconds. The movement is perceived as "under intentional command" with significant acceleration capabilities. No intense noise or vibrations are associated, only occasional faint rustling.

Class 3 - Radar-Optical Notifications (Minimum 2 witnesses)

This class involves the observation of an unidentified radar target corroborated by a simultaneous visual observation, confirming both apply to the same object or event. The radar detects a defined luminous target, not resulting from equipment malfunction or a meteorological phenomenon. The visual observation typically involves a light or group of lights, sometimes with a faintly glimpsed outline of an object. Speeds are generally high, with instances of dizzying speed or stationary flight. Characteristic maneuvers include "head-to-tail" movements, sharp turns, and abrupt changes in direction. These events almost exclusively occur at night.

Class 4 - Close Encounters of the First Kind (Minimum 2 witnesses)

These encounters involve objects or lights seen at close range (generally less than 150 meters) without any reported interaction between the UFO and its environment or the observer. The object is described as illuminated, sometimes intensely bright (like an oxyhydrogen torch) or luminescent like a neon tube. The shape of the craft is often perceived secondarily, typically described as ovoid, like a "rugby ball," frequently topped with a dome. Rotation of lights, and presumably the craft itself, is often noted, usually counter-clockwise. Common traits include stationary flight, absence of sound, and rapid departures without sonic booms.

Class 5 - Close Encounters of the Second Kind (Minimum 2 witnesses)

Similar to Class 1 encounters, these UFOs are seen landing or hovering near the ground. After the UFO departs, witnesses discover circular traces on the ground (sometimes nearly perfect circles) that were not present before. These traces can persist for extended periods, from days to years. The phenomenon typically generates physical effects, including electromagnetic, gravitational, and thermal disturbances, which can affect the surrounding environment, including plants, animals, and the witnesses themselves.

Class 6 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Minimum 2 witnesses)

These encounters are fundamentally similar to other close encounters but are distinguished by the reported presence of occupants (humanoids). Observers in this category often have less technical training or background compared to those in previous classes. The occupants are generally described as either very large or very small, with a tendency towards the larger size. They often have voluminous heads, little to no neck, and tapered feet.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The document's stance is purely informational, presenting J. Allen Hynek's established classification system without personal commentary or endorsement. The recurring theme is the systematic categorization of UFO sightings to bring order to the diverse phenomena reported by witnesses. The emphasis is on precise definitions and observable characteristics to differentiate between various types of encounters.