The rooftop observation
Guests and hotel staff
The rooftop setting shaped how the observation developed. People already using the outdoor heated pool could look upwards together; hotel staff then brought journalists and police to the same position. A growing audience at one site made the display public, but also meant that later arrivals were shown what earlier observers had identified. The number of people present cannot by itself establish how many described the phenomenon independently.
The Globe and Mail clipping of 9 November identifies lifeguard Line St. Pierre and security director Albert Sterling. St. Pierre recalled going onto the pool deck at about 7 pm and seeing eight or ten orange lights arranged in a circle. Sterling said he watched for about two and a half hours. The article reports an estimated height of roughly 1,000 metres; it supplies no method for measuring that distance. Its interviews establish what participants said shortly after the event, while the apparent elevation and arrangement remain observations requiring interpretation. Globe and Mail clipping, printed page 11.
The Canadian Press account, reproduced from the Winnipeg Free Press on the same collector page, describes six lights with rays, a duration of about three hours and slow movement north. It also reports journalists seeing two lights through clouds. These differences concern the visible display, not simply spelling or editorial presentation. A coherent history can retain the prolonged observation without assigning one light count or a precise movement to every witness. Both articles draw on hotel interviews, so their appearance in separate newspapers does not create two independent groups of observers. Canadian Press clipping.
Police and journalists arrive
Haines and Guénette's report reconstructs a more detailed sequence. It places an American tourist's initial observation at about 7:15 pm, Sterling's arrival at about 7:35 and his first police call at 7:38. Laroche is said to have arrived at 8:00. Officer François Lippé was dispatched at 8:07 and reached the hotel at approximately 8:11. The report attributes three yellowish lights, each with a ray, to his description. These times belong to the investigators' reconstruction; the cited original police records have not been inspected alongside it. Report, printed page 2, PDF scan 4.
Lippé called Sergeant Masson for assistance at 8:20, according to the report. Masson arrived around 8:30 and contacted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at 8:44. RCMP investigator Luc Morin reached the hotel at about 9:30. The report places the final disappearance from view around 10:10, attributing it to increasingly dense cloud. These distinctions matter: a dispatch, an arrival, a telephone response and a witnessed change are different kinds of time marker. They should not be combined into a single uninterrupted observation by every named person. Report, printed pages 3–4, scans 5–6.
Photographs and witness drawings
The photographic chain
Laroche was a newspaper reporter who obtained exposure advice from a photographer. The report says he steadied his camera on a bench and used a long manual exposure. Its equipment section specifies a Nikon FS 35 mm camera, a 50 mm lens set to infinity, an aperture of f/1.8 and Astral ASA 100 colour film. The photographs therefore preserve an exposure accumulated over time, rather than an instantaneous image of every feature seen by eye. The later lens discussion prints f/1.1, a source inconsistency which should not silently replace the equipment description. Report, printed pages 11 and 15, scans 13 and 17.
The report also gives differing times for the first photograph. Its chronology places the exposure between 9:00 and 9:05, whereas the photographic section identifies approximately 9:10; the second is placed around 9:12. This is a disagreement within the original analysis, not evidence for a corrected shared clock. It limits attempts to attach an exact cloud height or witness statement to a particular exposure. Chronology, printed page 3, photographic discussion, printed pages 12–13.
A footnote describes Laroche mailing Haines the two relevant frames, numbered 13 and 14, together with selected other frames. Numerous frames were missing from that submission. The investigators say they examined original colour negatives and produced computer enhancements; the public facsimile preserves their reproductions and processing results. It does not provide the negatives, complete roll, original digital files or a continuous custody record for independent examination. Contemporary reporting that La Presse published a photograph establishes early circulation, but the actual newspaper photograph has not been inspected here. Report, printed page 3, footnotes, and photographic section.
Images and remembered form
The reproduced photographs contain luminous areas against a dim background. Haines and Guénette identify some peripheral features as lens flare and interpret others as lights on a central body. Their explanatory drawing adds a dashed probable outline. The outline makes the proposed model intelligible, but it is an analytical reconstruction rather than a separate photograph of a material boundary. Likewise, a brightness trace can describe variation across an image without determining whether that variation represents a solid object, scattered light or an optical appearance. Report, printed pages 12–15, scans 14–17.
The witness drawings have their own dates and provenance. The report distinguishes sketches attributed to the night of the event from drawings made during 1991 interviews. Some show several lights around an oval; others preserve three lights or an arc. Laroche's May 1991 sketch compares the central form with the apparent diameter of the Moon. His later tabulated estimate is substantially larger. The distinction between a contemporaneous sketch, a later sketch and a prompted estimate is essential to assessing how much detail survived in memory. Report, witness drawings, printed pages 6–9.
Angular estimates and physical interpretation
The report's photographic and remembered sizes lead to different geometrical pictures. On an 8 by 12 inch enlargement, it gives separations of 0.370 inches and 0.384 inches between the most widely separated luminous areas in the two frames. Using its stated proportional method, it reports angles of 1°14′ and 1°17′. These are the authors' image measurements, rather than measurements independently repeated from the original negatives for this assessment. Report, printed page 15, scan 17.
Its witness table instead converts remembered descriptions at arm's length into much larger angles. Most entries were collected in 1991, months after the observation. Guénette's entry is dated 7 November 1990 and gives 1°50′; he observed briefly from Old Montreal rather than from the hotel roof. The authors note that his estimate is close to the photographic angles, while suggesting that buildings may have limited his view. That possible obstruction is part of their explanation for the discrepancy, not an established reason to discard the smaller estimate. Report, printed pages 17–18, scans 20–21.
Haines and Guénette select 27° as a reasonable lower bound for the central body as seen from the roof. At an assumed altitude of 3,500 feet, they calculate a width of 1,783 feet; at 9,000 feet, 4,586 feet. These are conditional calculations combining retrospective angular selection with assumed distance. Correctly converted, those widths are approximately 543 and 1,398 metres. Their precision should not obscure the uncertainty of the inputs. The published record contains no triangulated range which establishes an object of either size. Report, printed page 18.
The investigators' final discussion develops a coin-like body with directional light sources and considers how scattering could produce the visible rays. This offers a physical model for the reported arrangement, while assuming the material structure whose existence is disputed. Their conclusion that an unusual hovering object existed is a private investigator conclusion. Haines's NASA employment history does not make the publication a NASA investigation or government determination. Report, printed pages 23–24, scans 26–27.
Radar, weather and the optical explanation
Reported institutional contacts
The contemporary clippings attribute absent radar detections to police contacts with controllers and to the federal Transport Department. The private report later attributes operational radar and no contact to Dorval control-tower director Alain Jacques; its footnote dates a telephone comment to February 1991. These accounts document reported enquiries. Without plots, logs and an independently examined coverage record, they cannot determine whether a physical target should have been detected or whether its absence implied unusual radar properties. Contemporary clippings, report, printed page 20, scan 23.
The report reproduces weather information, but its cloud-height descriptions vary. The weather prose gives 3,400 feet at 9:30, its table gives 3,500 feet, and another passage describes approximately 3,600 feet near the final disappearance. The table's air-temperature and dew-point entries use tenths of a degree Celsius. Its atmospheric profile is attributed to Maniwaki, about 206 kilometres northwest; the graphic and reference list also differ in their date presentation. These materials provide context for the investigators' analysis, not an independently established optical profile directly over the pool. Report, printed pages 21–22 and references, scans 24–25 and 28.
Competing illumination accounts
Caelestia proposes that ice crystals reflected the hotel's underwater pool lights. Its argument challenges the use of large remembered angles when photographic angles are much smaller. The particular light-source proposal relies partly on a cited 1994 CBC pool view, which has not been independently inspected here. Caelestia evaluation.
The report describes nearby construction lights being switched off without an observed change. That reported test concerns the construction lights, not the pool lights; it cannot exclude every ground-light mechanism. Report, printed page 4.
Caelestia's metric conversions are erroneous, and its proposed size comparison cannot be adopted as a verified pool fit. Correcting those conversions changes the comparison, while the image scale, rooftop height, cloud altitude and pool dimensions remain unverified. The criticism of estimation methods survives this arithmetic problem, while the specific optical identification still requires testing. Caelestia evaluation.
Documentary chronology
Times below are evening Eastern Standard Time where specified by the private report. Observation times, calls and publication dates have different evidential roles.
| Date or time | Development | Source and significance |
|---|---|---|
| 7 November 1990, about 7 pm / 7:15 pm | Contemporary press gives about 7 pm; later report places tourist's first sighting at about 7:15. | Differing accounts of the beginning, not a reconciled stopwatch time. |
| 7:38 pm | Report places Sterling's first police call. | Reconstructed call time, distinct from observation onset. |
| 8:07 / about 8:11 pm | Lippé dispatched and arrives. | Report's police-response chronology. |
| 8:44 pm | Masson contacts RCMP. | Escalation of enquiries, not physical identification. |
| 9:00–9:05 / about 9:10 pm | Report gives different first-photograph times. | Internal timing disagreement retained. |
| About 9:12 pm | Second photograph placed by photographic section. | Exposure time attributed to investigators. |
| About 10:10 pm | Morin's account places disappearance behind thickening cloud. | End of visibility in this account. |
| 9 November 1990 | Globe and Mail and Canadian Press accounts published. | Contemporary interviews preserved as later collected clippings. |
| 1991 | Further interviews, drawings and angular estimates assembled. | Retrospective material distinguished from event-night records. |
| 1992, as attributed by Caelestia | Haines and Guénette report published privately; its reproduced cover is undated. | Developed photographic and physical interpretation. |
| January 2011 | Caelestia addendum discusses a December 2010 Casino display. | Separate later comparison, not 1990 corroboration. |
The report's abstract and references identify 1990, although its opening chronology prints 1991. That apparent internal typo does not justify moving the event. Similarly, later descriptions of Caumartin's observation and a military power interruption should remain separate claims until an evidential connection is established. Report chronology and references, separate comparison.
Evidence assessment
The available record supports a prolonged, publicly reported display of unusual lights and a substantive private investigation. Photographic reproduction makes the dispute more specific: different models can be compared with identified image features and published measurements. The principal weakness is the transition from those features to a physical structure at a known distance. Retrospective estimates and assumed altitude carry much of the enormous-size conclusion. A developed optical alternative identifies relevant questions, but its arithmetic and unverified event-night inputs prevent a confirmed source attribution.
Pool-light reflections in ice crystals
This hypothesis offers a case-specific conventional mechanism. Its strength is explaining why an apparent arrangement of lights need not be a material body. A convincing identification requires the actual lighting configuration, observer geometry and suitable atmospheric conditions, rather than resemblance alone. Those inputs have not been independently reconstructed.
Construction lights or another conventional light source
The reported construction-light switch-off provides a useful discrimination attempt within the private chronology. Its scope is narrow: without the original record and a controlled description of which lights changed, it cannot establish a comprehensive exclusion of local illumination. Other sources require their own documented geometry and timing.
A structured unidentified aerial object
Witness descriptions of an oval arrangement and the investigators' image interpretation motivate this hypothesis. Its large physical dimensions depend on disputed angular estimates and assumed altitude. The published brightness patterns and reconstructed boundary do not independently establish a solid body, unusual propulsion or extraordinary origin.
Exposure, reconstruction and remembered size
Long exposures, camera reflections, changing cloud visibility and later memory can affect different parts of the record. These mechanisms deserve source-specific testing rather than one explanation applied to every account. Recognising their relevance does not imply fabrication: it clarifies how a real light display could acquire a more definite form and size in subsequent analysis.
Assessment snapshot
| Proposition | Assessment | Basis and limit |
|---|---|---|
| Hotel staff, journalists and police reported unusual lights | Strong published historical support | Contemporary interviews and later reconstruction; original statements not fully recovered. |
| Two photographic frames entered private analysis | Supported as documented source history | Reproductions and submission description; original negatives and raw processing absent here. |
| The display was a measured enormous solid object | Not established | Conditional altitude and retrospective angular selection. |
| Pool-light reflections provide a developed alternative | Supported as an attributed interpretation | Specific mechanism proposed; event-night inputs and claimed size fit unverified. |
| No radar return identifies unusual radar properties | Not established | Attributed contacts without actual plots or coverage audit. |
Claim ledger
| Claim | Source role | Main uncertainty | Evidence that would sharpen the assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forty to seventy-five people observed the object | Private report's count | No recovered census or independent-account audit | Original witness list and separate initial statements |
| The photographs show a central material boundary | Investigator reconstruction and enhancement | Processing, contrast and outline selection | Negatives, raw digitisation and reproducible analysis |
| Twenty-seven degrees gives a reliable minimum size | Retrospective angular-estimate selection | Memory, prompting and discrepancy with photographic angles | Original interview records and independently established scale |
| A light-source switch-off excludes reflections | Reported construction-light test | Exact source, sequence and observation conditions | Original police record and operational lighting evidence |
| Pool lights match the observed geometry | Critical optical calculation | Conversion errors and assumed image/cloud dimensions | Surveyed geometry and tested atmospheric model |
Open questions
The original photographic scale
What field, crop and enlargement dimensions were used for each published measurement? The difference between film gauge and image-frame width matters when converting a print measurement into an angle. The reproduced report is insufficient for independently calibrating every stage.
Independent descriptions and changes over time
Which accounts were written before participants discussed the display together, and how did later interviews elicit estimates? Separating original statements from prompted recollection would help explain differing counts, outlines and apparent size.
The event-night lighting and atmosphere
Which hotel and neighbouring lights were operating, and what atmospheric layer could produce the proposed appearance? The specific optical hypothesis needs a reconstruction of the observation conditions, not merely a later view of the same pool.
Further research
Witness record
The contemporary press names St. Pierre and Sterling; the private report identifies Lippé, Masson, Morin, Laroche and other journalists in different observation and response roles. Guénette was both a brief observer away from the hotel and a later investigator. These distinctions affect independence and perspective. No participant's professional role supplies an automatic measurement of range or physical structure. Contemporary interviews, private report chronology.
The unidentified tourist, unnamed pilot and initials-only witnesses should retain the degree of identification supplied by their respective source. The publication does not establish that the pilot later contacted was the person operating the small aircraft seen from the roof. The December 2010 Casino observers belong to a different event and contribute no additional 1990 witness count.
Source library
Contemporary reporting
- Globe and Mail and Winnipeg Free Press / Canadian Press, 9 November 1990: both complete Montreal clippings on printed page 11 of UFO Newsclipping Service no.257, December 1990, visually read. Newspaper/date headings are supplied by the collector; complete original issues were not inspected.
Private investigator report and reproduced evidence
- Haines and Guénette, Details Surrounding a Large Stationary Aerial Object Above Montreal, private publication, 1992: public GARPAN facsimile, containing chronology, drawings, photographs and analysis. All 28 scans visually inspected; readable central text, tables and figures read. Printed page 1 is absent and pages 10 and 16 are blurred, with page 16 duplicated. No unqualified complete-report read or independent authentication of its original attachments is claimed.
Critical interpretation and later comparison
- Caelestia evaluation: complete article and notes read. Developed opposed optical argument; its conversions and specific source identification require the qualifications discussed above.
- Caelestia case summary: report-derived narrative and reproductions, not an independent witness chain.
- Van Utrecht, January 2011 addendum: complete text read; a separate December 2010 Casino comparison. Linked images and video were not independently authenticated.
Archival and original-media leads
- Police files, radar records, underlying meteorological products, original negatives and the cited CBC programme remain retrieval targets. Their cited or described content should not be counted as another inspected source. Public access to a reproduction also does not establish permission to republish the original photograph.