| Report Summary |
The Trans-en-Provence UFO event occurred on January 8, 1981 and was observed
by a single witness. Due to the French privacy laws, the case was originally
published with the witness name replaced with the pseudonym Renato Collini;
however the witness name is by now well known to the UFO community as
Nicolai.
The account provided by the witness to the police authorities is as follows:
I have lived in Trans-en-Province at my current address for nearly
14 years. My wife and I live alone. She is the cleaning lady at the social
security office in Draguignan. I have not worked since November 1979.
I was previously an employee of the SCNI company. This firm went out of
business and I was laid off. I recieve a disability pension because I
suffered from a heart problem since 1973.
Yesterday, January 8. 1981, I was busy around the house as I am practically
every day. I was behind the house, which is built over a restanque (raised
level). I was building a concrete shelter for a water pump. Behind my
house on the same level is an expanse of flat ground. It is reached through
a path along the base of the house.
It was about 5PM. The weather was turning colder. My attention was
attracted by a slight noise, a sort of faint whistling. I turned around
and saw a device in the air at the height of a big pine tree at the edge
of the property. This device, which was not spinning, was coming lower
toward the ground. I was only hearing a slight whistling sound. I was
not seeing any flames, either below or around this device.
While it was continuing to come down, I went closer by walking towards
the stone cabin above my house.When I placed myself against the wall of
the cabin, I could see very well over the roof, since this cabin too is
built over a raised level. I was on the higher level, about 1.2 m from
the roof. From that position, I clearly saw the device resting on the
ground. Right away it lifted off, still emitting a slight whistling sound.
Reaching a point above the trees, it left at high speed toward the forest
of Trans, that is, towards the northeast.
When the device lifted off, I saw four openings below, through which
neither flame nor smoke were escaping. The device kicked off a little
dust when it left the ground. At that instant, I was about 30 m away from
the landing site. Later I went to the spot and I noticed a circle about
2 m in in diameter. At certain places along the circumference of the circle
were traces like abrasions...
The device had the shape of two saucers, one inverted on top of the
other. It must have measured about 1.5 m in height. It was the color of
lead. This device had a ridge all the way around its circumference. Under
the machine I saw two kinds of pieces as it was lifting off. They could
be reactors[1] or feet. There were also
two other circles which looked like trapdoors. The two reactors, or feet,
extended about 20 cm below the body of the machine.
I have not felt any disturbance of the sense of vision or hearing.[2]
Parts of the account obtained by a civilian investigator are
also relevant:
There [the witness] discovers a sort of ovoid vehicle, with the general
shape of two half spheres of unequal volume, clearly separated by a flat
ledge, extending at least 15 cm and forming a ring around the metallic
mass which has a... height of between 2 and 2.5 m/... The machine lifts
off, making a slight amount of dust and with a soft whistling. Then it
seems to tilt, exposing its underside, and it takes off at lightning speed,
passing exactly between the two tall trees, at the exact spot from which
it had seemed to fall.
The witness has noted that the landing trajectory is not identical
to the takeoff trajectory.[3]
GEPAN (a department of the French Space Agency responsible for
the investigation of UFO reports) also reconstructed the trajectory and
duration.
Trajectory The witness states he began to perceive the
phenomenon in the sky above the trees at the back end of the large platform,
more precisely between the two tall conifers that tower above the wood.
Mr. Nicolai states that the motion was fast and continuous, without sudden
changes in speed, and that there was no stop until the time when contact
was established with the ground... The departure path is described by
the witness as similar to the path of arrival...
Sound ... He compares it to a wind blowing fairly strongly.
He does not say[4] whether or not the
sound stopped during the landing. The shock at the impact point was recalled
like that of a stone falling to the ground[5]...
The Takeoff Phase ... the object was resting on the
ground for several seconds[6] before it
suddenly rose vertically over several meters, tilted... continued to rise
in this position and disappeared in the sky.[7]
Note that this object is engaging in the behavior I have termed
"drop-in", where the
object arrives on a steep trajectory and departs on a steep trajectory,
with only a short period in the landing or near landing location.
Detailed Sequence Of Events
Of importance to determining the point or range of events in the sequence
which might correspond to the creation of the trace, is a detailed and
measured sequence of events, which, based on the reference, seems to be
as follows:
| Elapsed Time |
Event |
Comments |
| 0-3 secs |
Witness first sees the object which appears to
be above two tall conifers approx 35 m from the impact point. |
Distance estimate is based on map and statement
that the cabin is 35 m away from impact point; comparison of that
distance on the map[8] with the distance
to the tree suggests an additional 35 m to the tree. |
| 3 secs |
Object strikes the ground with a sound like a
stone falling. The motion from the trees to the impact point is fast
and continuous. |
Assuming the distance from the impact point to
be 35m for the top of the tree, and assuming the altitude to be above
the tree (stated to be "dozens of meters high"[9],[10]);
because of the error in translation, resolved to 10 m, we take 10
m as the altitude of the object; the distance traversed between first
sight and impact is therefore 14 m.
The following assume a constant deceleration:
The deceleration based on a 3 second time to cross this distance is
-0.32G from a speed of 34 kph.
According to Velasco,
an upper limit to the weight based on the ground trace is 700 kg.
To accomplish the noted deceleration at that weight would require
a thrust of 7,171 kg. |
| 4-25 secs |
Object is on the ground and the witness is continuing
to move to a new location. |
Assuming 8 secs to walk 10m (a reasonably brisk
walk), walking 30 m takes 24 secs, of which it is assumed 1-2 secs
are used while object is descending, since the report refers to "while
it was continuing to come down, I went closer by walking". |
| 25-28 secs |
Witness observes the object on the ground. |
According to the statement: "several seconds";
also, "From that position I clearly saw the device resting on the
ground." |
| 28-35 secs |
Object lifts from the ground, tilts, and departs. |
Altitude appears to be that of the tops of the
trees, here estimated to be 10 m ("it lifted off... reaching a point
above the trees, it left at high speed"[11]).
It took from 1-3 secs to accomplish this.
The following assume a constant acceleration / deceleration:
If it took 3 sec, then it accelerated at approximately 0.45 G for
1.5 sec to 5 m and then decelerated at -0.45G to 10 m; the thrust
required in the acceleration phase is 10,204 kg assuming a 700 kg
weight.
If it took 1 sec, it accelerated at approximately 4G for 0.5 sec to
5 m and then decelerated at -4G for 0.5 sec to 10 m; the thrust required
in the acceleration phase is 91,840 kg, assuming a 700 kg weight.
The GEPAN account differs somewhat, claiming "it rose vertically over
several meters, tilted above the platform, continued to rise in this
position and disappeared in the sky." Hopefully "several" is 10 or
so. |
An analysis of the formation
of the trace is available.
|
| Hynek Classification |
CE2 |
| Original Vallee Classification |
Type
2 |
| Current Vallee Classification |
CE2 |
| Minimum Distance |
Unknown |
| Object Appearance |
This image (from the excellent French journal Lumineres Dans La Nuit
((LDLN)) shows the approximate appearance of the object in the landing
area (M. [ Monsieur ] Phillippe Planard created this "croquis montage
[ line drawing ] modeled after a photo of the actual scene with the UFO
drawn in):

|
| Object Behavior |
Object landed, stayed for a brief period, and
then took off and retraced its course. |
| Physical Effect |
Ring showing effects of heat and pressure, at the approximate
diameter of the disk. |
| Medical Effect |
None |
| Comments / Conclusion |
This fascinating case may correlate with the North China
Sea, Hudson Valley, and Arizona cases. |
Footnotes
1. The witness may mean the sort of "bell" that extends
from a rocket engine.
2. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
3. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
4. Perhaps this should be "cannot say".
5. Unfortunately the size of the comparison stone nor
the height from which it might have been dropped were not provided. If they
had been, it might be possible to make some comparisons.
6. The analysis below implies the object was on the
ground for nearly 30 seconds.
7. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
8. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
9. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
10. This turns out to be an incorrect translation.
According to M. Bourdais, "'Dozens of meters' is an incorrect translation of
the original French text which is 'une dizaine de mètres de haut'. This
means exactly 'about 10 meters high'. I suppose that the translator, failing
to find a word to translate 'dizaine' (it does not exist), called it a dozen
and then made a mistake which was to add 'some' with the plural on dozens. The
result is completely misleading, unfortunately."
11. Report on the Analysis of Anomalous Physical Traces:
The 1981 Trans-en-Provence UFO Case, Journal Of Scientific Exploration (Society
For Scientific Exploration), Vol 4, No 1, pp 27-48, 1990
|
|