2026/JUNE/15 (EN)
English language editing: Martin Shough
FOTOCAT DATABASE STATUS
FOTOCAT collects 13,208 cases to date. Researchers willing to investigate imagery UFO reports are invited to solicit information.
NEW PUBLICATIONS BY THE AUTHOR
NEW BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT
Next June 24 (a commemorative date you all recognize), the Spanish publisher Reediciones Anómalas will release my new book UAP: LOS OVNIS DEL SIGLO XXI (UAP: The UFOs of the 21st Century). A volume of 729 pages, in Spanish, it contains seven chapters covering these subjects: “UAP Under the Scrutiny of the U.S. Government, “NASA and UFOs”, “UFO Investigation”, “Spanish Declassification: An Inconvenient Truth”, “The Apocryphal Files”, “A Crash Course in Ufology”, and “The Reality Behind the Myth”.
The book’s foreword is contributed by the Spanish astronaut and former ministry of Science and Innovation, Pedro Duque.
The publisher has created a pre-sale purchasing outlet here:
https://www.reedicionesanomalas.com/product/uap-los-ovnis-del-siglo-xxi
From the release date, the book will also be available in the main bookshops and in Amazon.
UFO RESEARCH AND UFO REPORTS
Trump’s UFO Declassification - Release 01
V.J. Ballester Olmos
UFO fanatics will clearly be disgruntled by the output of President Donald Trump’s UFO declassification, announced with great fanfare, as they will not find anything about crashed saucers, alien corpses, or reverse engineering. Mere UFO believers will be truly disappointed as well. UFO researchers (myself included) will find here and there a few interesting hints of information and documentation, mostly about the early involvement of the United States in the history of the flying saucer/UFO topic, as well as knowledge on the way UAP reports currently flow to the U.S. Department of War (DOW)’s UAP office, AARO.
Introduced as the “Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters (PURSUE),”[1] Release 01 of a future series is divided into 16 tranches containing 158 files installed in the DOW’s website on May 8, 2026. [2]
The prologue indicates that the DOW, with support from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:
is overseeing government-wide efforts to expeditiously find, review, identify, declassify, and publicly release unresolved UAP-related records and historical documents in the federal government’s possession. This is an unprecedented, historic undertaking that requires coordination between dozens of agencies and the review of tens of millions of records, many existing only on paper, spanning many decades.
Any effort towards government transparency is praiseworthy (even if it serves the purpose of hiding evidence of other undisclosed, politically risky documents), but qualifying this as “unprecedented” is a bit of an exaggeration considering that the USAF, FBI, and CIA, among other U.S. agencies, had declassified and released their UFO-related documents more than 20 years ago.
It is promising to realize that this is only the prelude to further releases “on a rolling basis … with tranches posted every few weeks.” That is good news.
Yet the DOW presentation is equivocal, as it claims that “The materials archived here are unresolved cases [emphasis added], meaning the government is unable to make a definitive determination on the nature of the observed phenomena.” Although it admits that this “can occur for a variety of reasons, including a lack of sufficient data,” in reality that is untrue. Old cases, most of them possibly contained in the already-declassified Blue Book and FBI archives, are not necessarily unresolved. BB official statistics indicate that barely 5.6% of reports were of unknown origin [3] (a figure that has been downgraded by other analysts to as low as 3.3% [4]). With regard to modern cases (raw sightings, photography and videos from the 2000s and claimed to have been reported to the 2022-founded AARO), there is no evidence that the Pentagon UAP office has analyzed those reports and found them unexplainable. They are not on AARO’s website, nor does this release include any case studies proving that they have been properly evaluated. Equating reporting to AARO with unresolved by AARO is a false premise—pure propaganda aimed perhaps at giving the audience a bit of a thrill. In parallel with the previous perspective for Blue Book, the latest information provided by AARO signaled that only 2.8% of cases are unresolved (from a sample of 757 collected reports for 2024 [5]).
This assertion is verified in some of the published case abstracts, for example, in the case entitled “DOW-UAP-PR21, Unresolved UAP Report, Iraq, May 2022” [emphasis added]. Video footage submitted by the United States Central Command to AARO cites accompanying mission report DOW-UAP-D014 that describes the UAP as a “probable SU-27/35.” It includes an AARO comment that reads, “SU-27 and SU-35 are designations for military aircraft operated by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.” [6]
Another report (DOW-UAP-D055), dated November 18, 2016, describes a P-8A military platform (a Boeing P-8 Poseidon, a U.S. Navy aircraft used for surveillance, reconnaissance, and SIGINT) that captured via an IR sensor an unidentified low-flying object 55 nautical miles northwest of Latakia, Syria. The information identified the sighting as a missile launch. [7]
As a matter of fact, my stance that the released reports are pre-analyzed, and not unresolved after analysis, is implicit in the proviso the DOW adds to a number of video recordings:
This video description is provided for informational purposes only. Readers should not interpret any part of this description as reflecting an analytical judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination regarding the described event’s validity, nature, or significance.
Sources and Volume
On May 8, 2026, the website of the Department of War uploaded a set of 162 UFO/UAP files, assets that were modified four days later down to 158 in order to correct a number of detected duplications and to reorganize the files. All figures in the present paper refer to the official, definitive release, divided into 16 tranches (15x10 + 1x8).
With the passage of days, it was found that the order of files within tranches was not constant and that tranches were not a unit. Also, an improved mechanism was introduced to sort out files by agency, type, date, and location. This is a summary of the content of the release:
Another convenient option of this release is the immediate ability to download materials by clicking two buttons: DOWNLOAD RELEASE 01 DOCUMENTS [1.2GB] and DOWNLOAD RELEASE 01 VIDEO [1.3GB]. Computer technology in action to serve the citizens!
Review of Information Disclosed
I recognize the need to censor data in specific military UFO reports and agree with the caveat (in red in a number of introductions to cases) that:
Redactions have been made to protect the identity of eyewitnesses, the location of government facilities, or potentially sensitive information about military sites not related to UAP.
Therefore, there is no reason to even bother “disclosing” reports with 50-99% of the text blacked out. But this happens too repeatedly in the present declassification. This is not transparency. If you cannot declassify something—with good reasons for not doing so—don’t do it at all. Among other things, the absence of available information prevents independent investigators from following up and checking the sightings.
The most valuable sector of the declassified reports is AARO-destined assets, as contributed by a number of agencies and departments, because they were previously unknown to UFO researchers. As this declassification has shown, the FBI also submits reports directly to AARO. Under DOW, we find reports submitted to AARO from the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Central Command, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the U.S. Africa Command, the U.S. Navy, and by DOW itself. Particularly, we have the Mission Reports (MISREP) [8] and the Range Fouler Debrief (RFD) [9] forms. Around half of the MISREP/RFD reports (“D”-prefixed) are associated with one or more videos (“PR”-prefixed). That is, those “D”s are paired documents to “PR” videos. When this is the case, the PR preview information mentions its accompanying D report.[10] The distribution of such DOW reports by year follows:
(Ω) Not a UAP event
In my calculation, this batch of declassified reports represents 56 different UAP events observed and/or recorded by DOW surveillance platforms during 2020 to 2026.
All the imagery documents are so severely redacted that an independent analysis is unachievable. However, in my view, balloons, various types of aircraft, missiles, drones, sensor anomalies, lens flares, the parallax illusion, birds, and other conventional objects and phenomena can account for the photographs and videos provided in this declassification. There is no digital evidence showing anything extraordinary in origin, at least nothing of extraterrestrial origin, according to the most recent assessment by the AARO leadership. [11]
The current declassification information disclosed U.S. international espionage activities for 2013, 2016, and mainly from 2020 to 2025. Unsurprisingly, regions selected for surveillance included the Arabian Gulf, Iraq, Syria, the Middle East, the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, Djibouti, the Gulf of Oman, the Strait of Hormuz, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, the East China Sea, and Japan. (Both undisclosed years and locations exist as well.)
Chapter of Errors
My general impression is that this first release was rushed into production, resulting in duplications, errors, and administrative oversights of various types. This was mostly corrected when the number of files was reduced from 162 to 158, and in my opinion the remaining rulings do not deserve harsh criticism. Nothing serious remains that a detailed review cannot detect and correct.
Even some duplicated documents have been removed—but not all (probably because they were present in the original archived papers). In the FBI group, a seven-page Air Intelligence requirement document dated February 15, 1949, appears 17 times in a row (SERIAL 164). And the file of Lonnie Zamora’s UFO landing encounter of April 24, 1964, appears three times (SERIAL 438).
As noted in the above table, videos PR028 and PR029 are wrongly associated in the case summaries with nonexistent files (“D7” and “D8”). By their date, location, and description, they have been accurately linked to MISREPS D025 and D027, respectively.
A most common kind of mistake appears in the Incident Date and Incident Location columns, where in many instances N/A is recorded in lieu of the actual dates and places. In the various large FBI case files, the preview explanation indicates a general timeframe of June 1947 to July 1968 instead of the actual years of every file. This is indicative of a process conducted too rapidly in order to satisfy a political decision. However, the actual information is inside the files and can be reconstructed. The following table shows the actual range of years in the Incident Date column for a number of tranches where N/A currently appears:
A key question to be posed about this declassification is whether or not it is a real one, i.e., are these released documents really new and had they actually been hidden? For the FBI materials, ranging from the 1940s to the 1960s, the publication specifically states that the files were “partially posted on the FBI vault with more redactions and some pages missing.” In this first release, the number of pages of FBI documents is 2,656. Given that ca. 2004 the Bureau posted in its site some 2,000 pages, [12] this is an indication of the magnitude of fresh materials. In the same vein, it is possible that a portion of the DOW documents that pertain to the period 1945 to 1955 have already been in the ~214,000 pages of Blue Book files declassified in 1976 and submitted to the National Archives and Records Administration. [13]
Something similar occurs with NASA-sourced materials. All the events and photographs are well known to UFO researchers and many of them have been reviewed in depth in the past, for example the Gemini 7 “bogey” of May 1965,[14] the Apollo 11 incidents of July 1969,[15] the Apollo 12 UFOs of November 1969 [16,17,18] and the May 1973 Skylab photos. [19] Nothing new under the sun, just astronaut surprises during the early years of space exploration.
Release 01 provides some items of interest for the scholar, minor issues to help fill gaps in the history of “ufology,” like 17 pages on 1945 “foo-fighters” (Numeric Files 1944-1945). Or some letters amidst the mass of FBI and USAF documents in the various files. Little pieces of the vast UFO puzzle.
Roughly speaking, we could divide the declassified files into four groups by nature and quality: (A) historical papers, (B) last century’s astronaut sightings, (C) current mission reports and Navy debrief reports, some of them associated with recorded videos, and (D) a present-day collection of “standard” UAP reports. Classes (A) and (B) are of little interest because they contain no new information. (C) written reports are so severely redacted as to be of little value, and videos do not exhibit images endowed with unexplainable features. (D) cases are the type of reports that UFO researchers are accustomed to handling—impressive-looking at face value … until they are analyzed.
Rather than an administrative declassification of secret documents made available to the public after years of censorship, this is merely a dumping of archives. Even so, it is welcome.
Videos and More Videos
Present Release 01 encompasses 28 different downloadable recordings. As previously indicated, the suppression of critical data embedded in the video screen hinders—if not totally prevents—the images from being correctly interpreted. The cameras aboard aircraft, drones or other platforms to collect intelligence imagery of sensitive zones are designed for specific purposes, not to capture unexpected, uncontrolled flying objects, or “areas of contrast” in DOW jargon.
This section will briefly review a selection of simple analyses that can be performed without accessing the important raw data that have been blacked out in the images. With more information, all videos would be resolved. And certainly, AARO analysts will solve them. For non-specialists, two of the more apparently incredible effects observed in the videos are the appearance of objects (mainly mere lighted dots) with no means of propulsion or wings visible, with an erratic motion, including abrupt change of direction or even sudden disappearance.
The change of position of objects tracked by sensors is normally due to the parallax illusion, [20,21] an effect responsible for the seeming motion produced by the relative movement of the platform camera and the background. A stationary object may appear to be moving when it is the camera that is really moving at a great rate of speed. This applies to several of the videos released, for example the South China Sea “windmills” farm video (PR048). [22,23] In the case of the May 2022 Iraq video (PR021), [24] here the object (probably a balloon) moves very slowly, and the parallax effect is smaller because it is closer to the ground. Generally, the greater the distance between the background and the object, the greater the speed effect. [25]
The “Diamond” PR028 [26] and “teardrop” (PR029) [27] videos are undoubtedly helium balloons with cord or load hanging. The first balloon is high up, at cloud level, and therefore closer to the airplane’s camera, which makes it appear to be moving very fast. Incidentally, who can claim these are AARO-unresolved cases when they plainly fit as conventional ballons?
The next recorded object is described as a “football-shaped body with three radial projections” (PR046). [28] The video contains hardly nine seconds of images of a flying object taken over the East China Sea. There is no associated Mission Report which could have provided additional information for identification, but investigators from the Metabunk site have noted the similarity of the object to a surveillance aerostat such as the Raytheon JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System), or the newer Lockheed Martin TARS (Tethered Aerostat Radar System). [29]
The images of an “eight-pointed star” (PR038) [30] are striking, but such effects can arise from diffraction in the camera optics around a compact, high-radiance thermal source, rather than from the physical shape of the object. In this case, that source could be something ordinary, such as a single-engine aircraft. The aperture, iris, and internal supports of an MWIR imaging system can produce fixed vertical, horizontal, and diagonal diffraction spikes. The “chandelier” appearance is therefore best understood as a camera-generated optical artifact around a small heat source, not as the outline of an unusual object. Similar examples exist in other videos released by the U.S. Military.[31]
Frame from video PR038
Mission Impossible
The FBI conducted an interview with a senior U.S. intelligence official regarding his first-hand account of a UAP encounter. [32] The scenario resembles that of a Hollywood movie. At 17:00 hours on an undisclosed date in late 2025, in an undisclosed location (a military facility in the Western U.S.), two senior intelligence officers (W1 and W2), two federal employees (1 and 2) and two pilots departed the operations center via a helicopter (call sign 1, CS1) “to conduct a daytime aerial search” of a mountain range west of a site where a personnel eyewitness had previously reported having observed “orbs/lights … [and] hearing thuds as if something has fallen and hit the ground.”
At 17:51 pm, CS1 spotted a large cavern entrance and orbited it.
At 20:50 pm, CS1 landed west of the mountains and dropped off officer W2 and another fed employee 3.
At 20:52 pm, CS1 headed towards the facility to refuel. A second helicopter (CS2) also refueled, lifted off and returned to XXX (redacted).
At 21:41 pm, CS1 lifted and headed towards a “debris” area in the mountains spotted by an “Observation Post” (OP, federal employee 4) by using FLIR and NVG devices. CS1 orbited but nothing was seen.
At 21:49 pm, CS1 departed the search location to return to base when OP notified that “XXX had XXX hits bearing XXX 4 miles out from their location.” CS1 moved to intercept.
At 22:02 pm, CS1 arrived at the provided coordinates. An aircraft was spotted at the horizon. OP then spotted an orb under FLIR, describing it as a “super-hot hovering at ground level” heading east and then south at a high rate of speed. It then broke into two objects. CS1 was directed to intercept.
At 22:07 pm, five military aircraft (MA) were in the airspace conducting a training mission. Once on station, CS1 searched the location with FLIR and NVG and the naked eye but the orb was not located. OP reported it had gained elevation and came “within ten feet of CS1” and then headed east. CS1 moved to intercept but OP reported it to be then 20 miles away. CS1 broke off pursuit, however co-pilot saw under NVG “something emerge from the two objects and then travel in a different direction and a high rate of speed.”
At 22:18 pm, while CS1 remained at the coordinates awaiting instructions, pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) “spotted a swarm of lights (too many to count) moving in all directions.” Contacted MA were in route to assist (estimated time of arrival 2 minutes). At 22:27 pm CS1 lost visual of the swarm.
At 22:27 pm, W1 (naked eye) and the pilots (NVG) spotted two large orbs appearing in close proximity to CS1, above the rotor disk, “stationary side by side.” They were “oval shaped, orange in color with white or yellow center and emitting light in all directions.” After a few seconds, up to four or five orbs flared up below the original two. “After a few seconds the orbs began to flare down in reverse order while appearing to be stationary until visual was lost.”
At 22:28 pm CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted four or five similar orbs appearing to the west of the mountains above the MA. “The orbs flared up one at a time in horizontal formation and after 10-15 seconds, flared down in the opposite order.”
At 22:33 pm, CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted a similar orb formation. “The orbs flared up one at a time in a horizontal formation and after 10-15 minutes, flared down in the opposite direction and lost visual.”
At 22:41 pm, CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted a similar orb flared up west over the mountains. Seconds later it flared down and lost visual.
At 22:49 pm, CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted a swarm of lights with three distinct orbs in triangle formation. After several seconds, the orbs flared down and lost visual.
At 22:52 pm, CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted 5-6 orbs that flared up “one at a time in a horizontal formation and after 10 seconds, flared down in the opposite direction and lost visual.”
At 22:57 pm, CS1 pilots (NVG) and W1 (naked eye) spotted four orbs over the MA as they descended to land. The orbs flared up “one at a time in a horizontal formation and after 10 seconds flared down in the opposite direction and lost visual.”
At 23:16 pm, CS1 low on fuel returns to operations center.
My observations follow. After almost five initial hours of useless search, we have 68 minutes of a fiesta display of one, several, and up to countless “orbs” either in the vicinity of or far away from the searching helicopter. And either close to or distant from the ground. Single, divided into two, or swarming. In the environment of a military facility with airborne operations underway.
There are 32 pictures related to this incident taken from 18:10:00 to 18:21:02 hours (denoted as FBI PHOTOS A001 to A008 and FBI PHOTOS B001 to B024).
The pictures are heavily redacted and the resulting images are indeterminable. The B series of photographs has incorrect date and time embedded “due to system date/time not being set.” It explains while the time displayed in the photos are in the range of 18:something hours while the times in the FBI interview are in the range of 22:something hours.
The report and image redactions make it impossible to evaluate this alleged sighting of sustained “orb” activity associated with erratic motion with respect to the ground and the copter. With the limited amount of available information, it is impossible to know if the report contains incorrect distance estimates and/or other significant errors.
Information is the key. A unique narrative of an alleged multiple-witness incident carries the same weight as a single-witness testimony. In the absence of an official report from the site’s operations center, the release of the actual recordings made by the pilots aboard the CS1 helicopter (as claimed by W1), and the report or audio from the jets’ occupants (W1 also stated that the orbs “appeared to break off from CS1 and pursue the MA”), the case is obviously flawed—it lacks adequate corroboration.
Why the “senior intelligence officer” reported the event to the FBI, and not to Defense, AARO or the operations center, is an enigma. And note, in the descriptions of the lights flaring up and down, echoes of the concluding moments of Steven Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
The case is to be kept in holdover not as unresolved but as lack of data (i.e., pending documentation from official sources). As things currently stand, it seems a waste of lots of resources for such meager results.
Other Cases
There are reports of seemingly unknowns, such as the January 27, 1994, UFO sighting over Kazakhstan [33] that has been in UFO websites since at least 2011. Incidentally, the exceedingly lengthy airborne observation of 40 minutes might be explained by the Russian launching of a Progress M-21 rocket to the MIR space station from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. [34]
The package of modern reports furnished by DOW and the FBI certainly contains some curious cases. One—at another undisclosed Western U.S. site—occurred sometime in 2023 and involved seven employees of the Federal Government “who separately reported observing several unidentified anomalous phenomena over the course of two days.” The case summary notes that they reported four distinct categories of experiences, including observing “orbs launching other orbs” at a distance, observing a large stationary glowing orb at close estimated range, pursuing a large phenomenon near the ground, and observing a large, seemingly transparent phenomenon, reported to being akin to a “translucent kite.” The case summary adds: “Although there is no technical data directly associated with this report, contextual factors … combine to make this report among the most compelling within AARO’s current holdings.” [35] (Emphases added).
A case dated September 1, 2023, produced by the FBI in four consecutive files, [36] included three interviews conducted with citizens regarding their first-hand account of a UAP encounter at a U.S. test site. The object was described as “an apparent ellipsoid bronze metallic object materializing out of a bright light in the sky, 130-195 feet in length, and disappearing instantaneously.” One file illustrates an actual site photo with a rendered graphic overlay of the presumed UFO, by far the most spectacular (and favorite to reproduce) image from this release.
Those more dramatic claims need to be professionally evaluated, and I am longing to see a technical report resulting from a full-scope inquiry by AARO. Until then, these are just more UFO stories.
It is fair to note the cleverly designed MISREP questionnaire, with detailed and precise information requirements about both the operation and the UAP detected, including outstanding data to evaluate the potentially anomalous nature of the object or phenomenon, such as maneuverability/response, means of propulsion, apparent intelligent control, other anomalous characteristics/behavior, assessment of benign vs. not, etc.
Final Assessment
To what extent has this declassification—the release of files that had been hidden from public view for indefensible reasons—really been a genuine one? Everything points to a pseudo-declassification. For reasons of political expediency, President Trump appears to have sought to entertain the public with attention-grabbing materials that distract from more serious issues (for example, the war with Iran). Thus, this seems more like an artificial compilation of papers. NASA and the FBI, mainly, appear to have been asked to contribute something to the “common cause.” And after searching through their inactive archives, they have produced mostly inconsequential material, much of which had already been in the public domain for many years. That is even worse when it comes to NASA, reproducing pictures from the late 1960s to the early 1970s whose original photography (already available from scientific vaults for decades) is of such extreme resolution as to enable categorizing the weird images as merely chromatic aberrations.
With regard to modern cases, it was AARO that provided DOW the selection of cases for release, in order to create a package that could appear intriguing. [37]
In the various recent U.S. Congressional hearings, we have listened to very serious accusations from “whistleblowers” accusing U.S. authorities of allegedly concealing crucial knowledge about the arrival of flying saucers since 1947, or even before. But no proof whatsoever has been delivered, and I am convinced it will never surface because it never existed.
But I will not demand absolute proof. I only need to see declassified scientific analyses (of testimonies, photographs, and/or videos) that seemingly lead to no apparent conclusion other than the sightings being not merely unexplained, but truly unexplainable. Is that asking too much?
This first UFO release by President Trump contains a significant general caveat, one to keep in mind when reviewing declassified UFO reports, especially the ones with apparent extraordinary “strangeness” content. Frankly, I could not agree more:
All descriptive and estimative language contained in this report reflects the reporter’s subjective interpretation at the time of the event. Such characterizations should not be interpreted as a conclusive indication of the presence or absence of any intrinsic object features or performance characteristics.
Acknowledgements
To Julio Plaza del Olmo, Mick West, Alejandro Agostinelli, Martin Shough, Jochen Ickinger, Jaime Servera, Moisés Garrido, and Manuel Borraz.
Special thanks to Dr. Gary Posner for assistance with editing.
Notes
[3]
[4] Tim Printy, “Blue Book Classifications Summary” and “The Remaining Unknowns,” https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNliteSE_1.pdf, pp. 86-106 and 122-144.
[5] The Department of Defense AARO, “Fiscal Year 2024 Consolidated Annual Report on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena,” https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY24-CONSOLIDATED-ANNUAL-REPORT-ON-UAP-508.PDF
[8] A MISREP is a standardized reporting form the U.S. military uses to record the circumstances surrounding its operations. U.S. military services often use MISREPs to report Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena to AARO. The GENTEXT, or “general text” section of these reports, often contains important qualitative, contextual information, distinguishing it from the more quantitative, or numerical, data found elsewhere in the report.
[9] A Range Fouler Debrief Form is a standardized reporting form the U.S. Navy uses to record the circumstances surrounding an unauthorized intrusion into controlled airspace during active military operations or training. These reports contain a narrative description of the observer’s experiences.
[10] The D to PR connection is not necessarily a strict one-to-one mapping. The archive structure suggests that one PR video can correspond to multiple D reports, or that several PR videos can be attached to a single incident cluster.
[11] Lawrence Walzer, “The CTX Interview. Dr. Jon Kosloski,” Combating Threats Exchange (CTX), Special Issue, Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Science and Analysis, Spring 2026, pp. 8-12,
https://nps.edu/documents/110773463/165192597/CTX-EAG-Special-Issue-2026.pdf
[13] https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps
[14] James Oberg, “Gemini-7: Lessons and Legends (A 30th Anniversary Revisit),”
https://web.archive.org/web/20030819042617/http:/www.jamesoberg.com/gemini7.html
[15] James Oberg, “The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents,” https://www.debunker.com/texts/apollo11.html
[16] James Oberg, “Why NASA watches out for true UFOs,” https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25147760
[17] James Oberg, “Astronaut ‘UFO’ Sightings,” http://www.debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html
[18] NASA, Moon Pigeons and Other Unidentified Visual Phenomena Associated with Space Flight, March 18, 1970.
[19] James Oberg, “The Skylab 3 Mission ‘UFO Photographs’ of 1973,”
https://www.debunker.com/texts/SkylabUFO_1973.html
[20] AARO, “Effect of Forced Perspective and Parallax View on UAP Observations,” https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/Information%20Papers/AARO_Effect_of_Forced_Perspective_and_Parallax_View_on_UAP_Observations_2024.pdf
[21] CIAE (Rubén Lianza), “CASO AGUADILLA – Puerto Rico (24 -25 de abril 2013),”
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2018/11/informe_ciae_2025.pdf, pp. 104-129.
[22]https://www.war.gov/UFO/?releaseDate=Release+01&agency=Department+of+War#DOW-UAP-PR048-Unresolved-UAP-Report-INDOPACOM-2024
[23] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkgTajUDORs
[25] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijdri_ikL9c
[31] https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr38-the-chandelier-ufo.13307/
[32] https://www.war.gov/UFO/?releaseDate=Release+01&agency=FBI#USPER-Statement-about-UAP-Sighting
[34] http://www.nicap.org/940127ussr_dir.htm and http://www.nicap.org/reports/940127ussr_report.htm
[35] https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/release_1/western_us_event_slides_5.08.2026.pdf
[36] https://www.war.gov/UFO/?agency=FBI#FBI-September-2023-Sighting-Composite-Sketch
https://www.war.gov/UFO/?agency=FBI#FBI-September-2023-Sighting-Serial-003
https://www.war.gov/UFO/?agency=FBI#FBI-September-2023-Sighting-Serial-004
https://www.war.gov/UFO/?agency=FBI#FBI-September-2023-Sighting-Serial-005
[37] https://defensescoop.com/2026/05/14/uap-trump-first-pursue-ufo-file-drop/
GEIPAN UFO Statistics for 2023 to 2025
According to recent statistics published in its website, out of a total of 162 reports received for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, GEIPAN has investigated 78 cases. In this period, this was the case distribution by classification:
(A) Perfectly identified phenomenon: 81%
(B) Probably identified phenomenon: 16%
(C) Unidentified phenomenon (lack of data): 3%
(D) Unidentified phenomenon (after investigation): 0%
GEIPAN data for its complete database of 3,320 cases (1937-2026) issued on March 3, 2026, reveals 3.2% for D cases (https://www.geipan.fr/en/stats)
Interview to Jon Kosloski
AARO’s director Dr. Jon Kosloski was interviewed for the Spring 2026 UAP special issue of the CTX journal, by Lawrence Walzer (Center on Combating Hybrid Threats). Kosloski defined AARO as a “whole-of-government effort to advance … multi-domain awareness for anomaly resolution,” and identified AARO’s biggest challenge as “lack of high-quality data.” He elaborated that when sophisticated sensors aboard military platforms detect something potentially anomalous, “the data captured is often not well-suited for rigorous scientific investigation.” This mismatch develops into incorrect assessments of an object’s size, speed, or appearance, which are crucial for a proper attribution. Kosloski noted “parallax, satellite flaring, or even in-camera artifacts” as common sources of UAP misattributions. To the recurrent question about a possible extraterrestrial origin of UAP, he clearly responded that “the data we’ve analyzed to date simply does not point to that conclusion.”
https://nps.edu/documents/110773463/165192597/CTX-EAG-Special-Issue-2026.pdf
22 September 1964 (06:08), Big Sur, California
Code-named “Buzzing Bee,” this footage filmed using a Boston University telescope and a brand-new image orthicon detector, has been claimed to show a UFO event. However, it has been satisfactorily explained as the launch of an Atlas D rocket from Vandenberg AFB:
Kingston A. George, “’Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again,” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, No. 1, January-February 2009, pp. 42-46,
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2009/01/22164446/p42.pdf
Tim Printy, “Joel Carpenter and the Big Sur Case,” SUNlite, Vol. 6, No. 4, July-August 2014, pp 4-22, https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite6_4.pdf
The original film has been untraceable for decades until it was found by AARO in late 2024. It was digitalized, uploaded to the Internet and submitted to UFO researcher and amateur astronomer Tim Printy, who corresponded with AARO personnel by then. At this writing (2026), that online link is no longer active so I have uploaded it again to YouTube for public inspection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkmuAVPfPU
The Mystery of Dead Scientists
Ufology is a territory exposed to wild rumors and urban legends. Every now and then they emerge. It is the force of sensationalism. One that produces payback. One that, when explained or refuted, is given virtually no media exposure. Recently, one outlet disseminated the specious rumor that one general and many other individuals employed by the U.S. Government in military or research centers that somehow might be related to UAP investigation, mysteriously went missing or died. Fortunately, true analysts and writers exposed the issue. Here the reader will find some food to combat irrationality.
Mick West, “The UAP Body Count: A Case-by-Case Analysis,”
https://mickwest.substack.com/api/v1/file/3d08b80a-d67e-449c-9888-0c133be16ed8.pdf
Michael Shermer, “The Mystery of Missing and Dead Scientists, Explained,”
https://www.skeptic.com/article/the-mystery-of-missing-and-dead-scientists-explained/
Alejandro Agostinelli, “El club de los «ángeles científicos» caídos. ¿En serio no hay explicación?,” https://factorelblog.com/2026/04/28/el-club-de-los-angeles-cientificos-caidos-en-serio-no-hay-explicacion/
Miscellaneous
(1) Salim Sigales, “Analisis del caso Lago Cote. 4 de septiembre de 1971,” (Cote Lake Case Analysis. September 4, 1971), https://ifpa.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Informe-de-resolucion-Lago-Cote-2.pdf
(2) Chinese space stuff reentries over Argentina.
(3) Avi Loeb is proved wrong again. Comet 3I ATLAS is a comet, the European Space Agency confirms! https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice/Five_things_Juice_has_revealed_about_Comet_3I_ATLAS
(4) Commodore Rubén Lianza, director of CIAE (the UFO study center of the Argentine Air Force), has released through the Ministry of Defense website the “Informe de resolución de casos analizados en 2025” (Resolution report of cases analyzed during 2025):
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2018/11/informe_ciae_2025.pdf
(5) Thierry Pinvidic and Jacques Scornaux (eds.), First European Congress on Anomalous Aerial Phenomena: Physical and Psychosocial Aspects. Brussels (Belgium), November 11-13, 1988: https://mega.nz/file/3Rd3FaxS#371aWJr9CVMyK1OO-hK2dnsusKd6xZkzuVPitiIqJdE
LITERATURE
UFO – Niet te geloven! (UFO – Unbelievable!)
By Wim van Utrecht & Frederick Delaere. The authors wrote:
Every year, the Belgisch UFO-meldpunt (Belgian UFO Reporting Center) receives hundreds of reports from people who believe they have seen something unexplained in the sky. Often, they assume they have spotted an alien spacecraft. The reporting center, led by the two authors of this book, seeks an explanation for every report. Almost always, it turns out that the sighted phenomenon was a meteorite, a satellite, an airplane, a weather phenomenon, a bird, a balloon, a drone, a star, a planet, a kite, or - very seldom - a hoax. But there’s also a small sample of well-documented cases that remain unidentified. Alas, this professionally published book, with 300 colourfully illustrated pages, will soon be no longer available from the publisher or on Amazon. However, interested parties can send an e-mail message directly to wim.van.utrecht@skynet.be Beware though that the book is written in Dutch.
There is something I must add myself: that is an extraordinary book. It is the 21st century version of Allan Hendry’s 1979 The UFO Handbook. This text is an essential consulting tool, and I expect someday there will be an English translation. Such a wonderful job cannot be wasted.
How to Identify Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)? How to Investigate Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP)?”
Edited in 2026 by Ukranian UFO researcher Igor M. Kalytyuk, who introduces this volume as follows:
This handbook represents a comprehensive and methodologically structured attempt to reframe the study of unidentified aerial observations within the boundaries of contemporary scientific practice. Rather than engaging with speculative interpretations, the work deliberately positions itself within an evidence-based framework, emphasizing measurable parameters, reproducibility, and multi-source data verification. One of the key strengths of the handbook lies in its systematic integration of observational methodologies with modern technological capabilities. The document combines traditional visual observation techniques with advanced approaches, including multi-sensor monitoring, radio-frequency analysis, radar detection, and AI-assisted data processing. This layered approach significantly enhances the reliability of interpretation and reflects current trends in aerospace surveillance and data fusion systems.
Equally important is the authors’ attention to sources of observational error. The handbook provides a detailed and well-structured analysis of natural, atmospheric, optical, and technological phenomena that are frequently misidentified as anomalous objects. By incorporating perceptual psychology, optical illusions (such as parallax), and environmental factors into the analytical framework, the work demonstrates a high level of methodological rigor and critical thinking. From a practical perspective, the handbook functions not only as a theoretical guide but also as an operational manual. The inclusion of standardized reporting forms, observational protocols, interview methodologies, and analytical tools makes it applicable to a wide range of users — from researchers and analysts to aviation professionals and security personnel. This practical orientation significantly increases its value as a reference document.
Another notable aspect is the implicit alignment of the handbook with contemporary international approaches to research, such as those employed by institutions like GEIPAN and CIAE and similar analytical bodies. The focus on neutrality, data integrity, and the avoidance of premature conclusions reinforces the document’s credibility and positions it within a broader scientific and institutional context. In conclusion, this handbook represents a substantial contribution to the emerging field of structured AAP research. It successfully bridges the gap between observational practice and scientific analysis, offering a coherent framework for the documentation, verification, and interpretation of anomalous aerospace phenomena. Its interdisciplinary nature, methodological clarity, and practical applicability make it a valuable resource for both scientific and operational communities.
ATLAS des lieux extraterrestres
This “Atlas of Extraterrestrial Sites” is a compilation of UFO observation sites, commemorative monuments, research centers and museums, interstellar architecture, ovniports and landing stations, cosmic temples, and ufological art, as found elsewhere in the world. Wonderfully illustrated, this 223-page, hardcover, 30x24 cm in size, is authored by Philippe Baudouin, a French philosopher by education and a specialist in the history of media. Associate Lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Paris-Saclay university, Baudouin is also member of the Centre de Recherche en Design of ENS Paris-Saclay.
Published by Lapérouse Éditions, Noisy-sur-École, July 2025.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the following colleagues who have sourced material or analysis to the current edition of this blog: Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga (Spain), Alejandro Agostinelli (Argentina), Luis Ruiz Noguez (Mexico), Moisés Garrido (Spain), Igor M. Kalytyuk (Ukraine), Heriberto Janosch (Spain), and Rubén Lianza (Argentina).
BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR
A Catalogue of 200 Type-I UFO Events in Spain and Portugal, CUFOS, 1976,
https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/Catalogue_of_200_Type_I_UFO_Events_in_Spain_and_Portugal.pdf
OVNIS: El fenómeno aterrizaje (UFOs: The Landing Phenomenon), Plaza & Janés, 1978, 1979, 1984, https://es.scribd.com/document/429158011/OVNIS-El-Fenomeno-Aterrizaje-Vicente-Juan-Ballester-Olmos
Los OVNIS y la Ciencia (with M. Guasp) (UFOs and Science), Plaza & Janés, 1981, 1989.
Investigación OVNI (UFO Investigation), Plaza & Janés, 1984,
http://ufology-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Ballester-Olmos_V.-J._Investigation_UFO_1984.pdf
Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (with J.A. Fernández Peris) (Encyclopedia of Close Encounters with UFOs), 1987,
https://www.academia.edu/41625252/ENCICLOPEDIA_DE_LOS_ENCUENTROS_CERCANOS_CON_OVNIS
Expedientes insólitos (The Unusual Files), Temas de Hoy, 1995.
The above books are out-of-print. Print copies can be purchased in the online second-hand market, for example:
IBERLIBRO:
UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/42y39e89
AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/26u587tb
TODO COLECCIÓN: https://tinyurl.com/45xzvrym
Norway in UFO Photographs: The First Catalogue (with O.J. Braenne), UPIAR, 2008, https://upiar.com/italian-norway2
UFOs and Government (with M. Swords & R. Powell, and C. Svahn, B. Chalker, B. Greenwood, R. Thieme, J. Aldrich, and S. Purcell), Anomalistic Books, 2012, http://www.anomalistbooks.com/book.cfm?id=64
Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965 (with M. Borraz, H. Janosch & J.C. Victorio), (UFO Sightings in Antarctica in 1965), UPIAR, 2013, https://upiar.com/italian-antartida2
Belgium in UFO Photographs. Volume 1 (1950-1988) (with Wim van Utrecht), UPIAR, 2017, https://upiar.com/italian-belgium
The Marfa Lights. Examining the Photographic Evidence (2003-2007) (with M. Borraz), UPIAR, 2020, https://upiar.com/italian-marfa2
The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony (eds.) (with R.W. Heiden), UPIAR, 2023, https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=reliability2
Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera (My Correspondence with Antonio Ribera), UPIAR, 2024, https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=ribera2
Mi correspondencia con José-Tomás Ramírez y Barberó (My Correspondence with José-Tomás Ramírez y Barberó), UPIAR, 2025, https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=ramirez2
The Reliability and Psychology of Eyewitness-Centered UFO Experience: A Bibliography (with J. Ickinger and U. Magin), UPIAR, 2025 (second edition), https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=psybib
Mi correspondencia con Eduardo Buelta (My Correspondence with Eduardo Buelta), 2026,
https://www.academia.edu/164912884/Mi_correspondencia_con_Eduardo_Buelta
HOW YOU CAN COLLABORATE WITH FOTOCAT PROJECT
There are several options you can follow:
Volunteer work, onsite or remote
Deliver sighting reports, photographs, archives, bibliography, etc.
Donations to help defray research expenses
You can reach Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos directly by e-mailing to: ballesterolmos@yahoo.es
2026/JUNIO/15 (ES)
Editor de la sección en castellano: Juan Pablo González
BASE DE DATOS FOTOCAT
El catálogo FOTOCAT reúne 13.208 casos a fecha de hoy. Los investigadores interesados en el estudio de casos fotográficos están invitados a solicitar información.
NUEVAS PUBLICACIONES DEL AUTOR
ANUNCIO DE NUEVO LIBRO
El próximo 24 de junio (una fecha conmemorativa que todos ustedes reconocerán), la editorial española Reediciones Anómalas publicará mi nuevo libro UAP: LOS OVNIS DEL SIGLO XXI.
Se trata de un volumen de 729 páginas que contiene siete capítulos dedicados a los siguientes temas: «Los UAP, bajo la lupa del Gobierno de EE. UU.», «La NASA y los ovnis», «Investigación OVNI», «Desclasificación: una verdad incómoda», «Los expedientes apócrifos», «Curso acelerado de ufología» y «OVNIS, la realidad tras el mito».
El libro está prologado por el astronauta español y exministro de Ciencia e Innovación, Pedro Duque.
La editorial ha abierto la venta anticipada en el siguiente enlace:
https://www.reedicionesanomalas.com/product/uap-los-ovnis-del-siglo-xxi
A partir de su publicación, el libro estará disponible en librerías y en Amazon.
INVESTIGACIÓN Y CASUÍSTICA
Estadísticas del GEIPAN 2023-2025
Según las estadísticas recientes publicadas en su página web, de un total de 162 informes recibidos durante los años 2023, 2024 y 2025, GEIPAN ha investigado 78 casos, clasificados como:
(A) Fenómeno perfectamente identificado: 81 %
(B) Fenómeno probablemente identificado: 16 %
(C ) Fenómeno no identificado (falta de datos): 3 %
(D) Fenómeno no identificado (tras su investigación): 0 %
Los datos de GEIPAN para su base de datos completa de 3.320 casos (sucedidos entre 1937 y 2026), publicados el 3 de marzo de 2026, muestran un 3,2 % de casos clasificados como tipo D (https://www.geipan.fr/en/stats).
Entrevista a Jon Kosloski
El director de la AARO, Dr. Jon Kosloski, fue entrevistado para el número especial sobre UAP de primavera de 2026 de la revista CTX por Lawrence Walzer. Kosloski definió la AARO como un “esfuerzo de todo el Gobierno para avanzar en la conciencia multidominio para la resolución de anomalías” y señaló que el mayor desafío de la oficina es la “falta de datos de alta calidad”. Explicó que, cuando sensores sofisticados a bordo de plataformas militares detectan algo potencialmente anómalo, “los datos capturados a menudo no son adecuados para una investigación científica rigurosa”. Esta limitación puede dar lugar a evaluaciones incorrectas sobre el tamaño, la velocidad o la apariencia de un objeto, que son algunos de los aspectos fundamentales para lograr una atribución correcta. Kosloski destacó que fenómenos como el paralaje, los destellos de satélites o incluso artefactos generados por las propias cámaras son fuentes frecuentes de identificaciones erróneas de UAP. Respecto a la recurrente cuestión sobre un posible origen extraterrestre de los ovnis, respondió de manera clara que “los datos que hemos analizado hasta la fecha simplemente no apuntan a esa conclusión”.
https://nps.edu/documents/110773463/165192597/CTX-EAG-Special-Issue-2026.pdf
22 de septiembre de 1964 (06:08), Big Sur, California
Entre los especialistas es muy conocido el caso de las 06:08 horas del 22 de septiembre de 1964 en Big Sur, California, durante el lanzamiento de un cohete Atlas D desde la base área de Vandenberg. Grabado a través de un telescopio de la Universidad de Boston con un detector de imágenes orthicon, se dice que fue interferido por un ovni. Este avistamiento ovni -que aparece al final de la grabación- ya fue resuelto satisfactoriamente en su día [1,2]. En la sección V del primer volumen de su informe sobre registros históricos de marzo de 2024, la AARO afirmó que no había localizado aún la filmación. Gracias a la colaboración de Tim Printy he tenido acceso a la correspondencia que cruzó con la AARO en octubre de 2024 con respecto al hallazgo y digitalización de la película original, de la que he recibido copia. Acabo de subir la filmación a YouTube para conocimiento general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkmuAVPfPU
[1 ]Kingston A. George, “’Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again”, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, Nº. 1, enero-febrero de 2009, pp 42-46,
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2009/01/22164446/p42.pdf
[2] Tim Printy, “Joel Carpenter and the Big Sur Case”, SUNlite, Vol. 6, Nº. 4, julio-agosto de 2014, pp 4-22, https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite6_4.pdf
El misterio de los científicos muertos
La ufología es un terreno expuesto a rumores disparatados y leyendas urbanas. De vez en cuando, estas resurgen. Es la fuerza de un sensacionalismo que genera beneficios a algunos desaprensivos. Sin embargo, cuando tales afirmaciones se explican o se refutan, la atención mediática dedicada a su resolución suele ser casi inexistente.
Recientemente, algunos medios difundieron la idea de que un general, primero, y luego numerosas personas empleadas por el Gobierno de Estados Unidos en ámbitos militares o centros de investigación, y que de algún modo podrían estar relacionadas con la investigación de los UAP, habían fallecido o desaparecido misteriosamente.
Afortunadamente, analistas y escritores rigurosos han sacado a la luz la realidad del asunto. Aquí el lector encontrará argumentos e información que pueden ayudar a combatir la irracionalidad de la noticia.
Mick West, “The UAP Body Count: A Case-by-Case Analysis”,
https://mickwest.substack.com/p/the-uap-body-count-doesnt-add-up
Michael Shermer, “The Mystery of Missing and Dead Scientists, Explained”,
https://www.skeptic.com/article/the-mystery-of-missing-and-dead-scientists-explained/
Alejandro Agostinelli, “El club de los «ángeles científicos» caídos. ¿En serio no hay explicación?”, https://factorelblog.com/2026/04/28/el-club-de-los-angeles-cientificos-caidos-en-serio-no-hay-explicacion/
Miscelánea
(1) Salim Sigales, “Análisis del caso Lago Cote. 4 de septiembre de 1971”,
https://ifpa.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Informe-de-resolucion-Lago-Cote-2.pdf
(2) Chatarra especial china reentra sobre Argentina.
(3) Nuevamente se refutan las ideas de Avi Loeb. El cometa 3I ATLAS es un cometa, confirmado por la Agencia del Espacio Europea.
(4) El comodoro Rubén Lianza, director del CIAE (el centro de estudio ovni de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina), ha publicado en la web del Ministerio de Defensa el “Informe de resolución de casos analizados en 2025”:
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2018/11/informe_ciae_2025.pdf
(5) Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga, “Cuando los marcianos intentaron comunicarse con una localidad de Albacete”, https://misteriosdelaire.blogspot.com/2026/04/cuando-los-marcianos-intentaron.html
(6) Escribe Alejandro Agostinelli: “Un día como hoy, el cometa Halley se llevó al doctor Josef Allen Hynek (1910-1986), asesor científico de la Fuerza Aérea de EE.UU, fundador del Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) y considerado «padre de la ufología». Fuimos corresponsales del CUFOS en Argentina y tuvimos ocasión de reunirnos con él en dos de sus visitas a la Argentina, en 1980 y 1982. Nunca pude olvidar la enorme curiosidad de ese tipo por historias ocurridas en el culo del mundo. En Factor le dedicamos dos notas, una cuando nadie parecía recordarlo, en 2016, y la jugosa reseña que escribió Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos sobre la biografía de Mark O’Connell, The Close Encounters Man”.
https://factorelblog.com/2016/04/28/hynek-i/
https://factorelblog.com/2020/05/07/hynek-primera-biografia/
(7) “A lo tonto -nos dice Moisés Garrido-, ya llevamos 60 DOSIERES. Comenzamos hace diez años con el dosier dedicado al caso Ummo. Miles de páginas rescatadas del olvido. Y seguiremos. Todos los dosieres están disponibles gratuitamente en nuestro blog”: https://elblogdemoisesyclaudia.blogspot.com
(8) Thierry Pinvidic y Jacques Scornaux (coordinadores), First European Congress on Anomalous Aerial Phenomena: Physical and Psychosocial Aspects (Primer Congreso Europeo sobre Fenómenos Aéreos Anómalos: Aspectos Físicos y Psicosociales). Bruselas (Bélgica), 11-13 de noviembre de 1988:
https://mega.nz/file/3Rd3FaxS#371aWJr9CVMyK1OO-hK2dnsusKd6xZkzuVPitiIqJdE
Por Frederick Delaere y Wim van Utrecht
Los autores han escrito:
Cada año, el Belgisch UFO-meldpunt (Centro belga de informes sobre ovnis) recibe cientos de denuncias de personas que creen haber visto algo inexplicable en el cielo. A menudo, suponen que han observado una nave espacial extraterrestre. El centro de informes, dirigido por los dos autores de este libro, busca una explicación para cada caso. Casi siempre resulta que el fenómeno observado era un meteorito, un satélite, un avión, un fenómeno meteorológico, un ave, un globo, un dron, una estrella, un planeta, una cometa o, en muy raras ocasiones, un engaño. Sin embargo, también existe un pequeño conjunto de casos bien documentados que siguen sin ser identificados. Lamentablemente, este libro publicado profesionalmente, con 300 páginas ilustradas a todo color, pronto dejará de estar disponible a través de la editorial o de Amazon. No obstante, las personas interesadas pueden enviar un correo electrónico directamente a wim.van.utrecht@skynet.be
Eso sí, hay que tener en cuenta que el libro está escrito en neerlandés.
Yo añadiría algo más de mi cosecha. Este es un libro extraordinario, es la versión del siglo XXI del icónico tratado de 1979 de Allan Hendry The UFO Handbook. Esta obra es una herramienta de consulta esencial para el investigador.
How to Identify Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)? How to Investigate Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena (AAP)? (¿Cómo identificar OVNIS? ¿Cómo investigar fenómenos aeroespaciales anómalos?)
Editado en 2026 por el investigador ucraniano Igor M. Kalytyuk, quien presenta este volumen de la siguiente manera:
Este manual representa un intento exhaustivo y metodológicamente estructurado de replantear el estudio de las observaciones aéreas no identificadas dentro de los límites de la práctica científica contemporánea. En lugar de recurrir a interpretaciones especulativas, la obra se sitúa deliberadamente en un marco basado en la evidencia, haciendo hincapié en parámetros medibles, la reproducibilidad y la verificación de datos mediante múltiples fuentes.
Uno de los principales puntos fuertes del manual radica en la integración sistemática de metodologías de observación con las capacidades tecnológicas modernas. El documento combina técnicas tradicionales de observación visual con enfoques avanzados, incluyendo la monitorización multisensorial, el análisis de radiofrecuencia, la detección por radar y el procesamiento de datos asistido por inteligencia artificial. Este enfoque por capas mejora significativamente la fiabilidad de las interpretaciones y refleja las tendencias actuales en los sistemas de vigilancia aeroespacial y de fusión de datos.
Igualmente importante es la atención que los autores prestan a las fuentes de error observacional. El manual ofrece un análisis detallado y bien estructurado de los fenómenos naturales, atmosféricos, ópticos y tecnológicos que con frecuencia se identifican erróneamente como objetos anómalos. Al incorporar la psicología de la percepción, las ilusiones ópticas (como el paralaje) y los factores ambientales dentro del marco analítico, la obra demuestra un elevado nivel de rigor metodológico y pensamiento crítico.
Desde una perspectiva práctica, el manual funciona no solo como una guía teórica, sino también como un manual operativo. La inclusión de formularios estandarizados para informes, protocolos de observación, metodologías de entrevista y herramientas analíticas lo hace aplicable a una amplia variedad de usuarios, desde investigadores y analistas hasta profesionales de la aviación y personal de seguridad. Esta orientación práctica incrementa considerablemente su valor como documento de referencia.
Otro aspecto destacable es la alineación implícita del manual con los enfoques internacionales contemporáneos de investigación, como los empleados por instituciones como GEIPAN y CIAE, así como por otros organismos analíticos similares. El énfasis en la neutralidad, la integridad de los datos y el evitar conclusiones prematuras refuerza la credibilidad del documento y lo sitúa dentro de un contexto científico e institucional más amplio.
En conclusión, este manual constituye una contribución significativa al emergente campo de la investigación estructurada de los fenómenos aeroespaciales anómalos (AAP – Aerospace Anomalous Phenomena). Logra tender un puente entre la práctica observacional y el análisis científico, ofreciendo un marco coherente para la documentación, verificación e interpretación de fenómenos aeroespaciales anómalos. Su naturaleza interdisciplinaria, claridad metodológica y aplicabilidad práctica lo convierten en un recurso valioso tanto para la comunidad científica como para los ámbitos operativos.
Atlas des lieux extraterrestres
Este “Atlas de los lugares extraterrestres” es una recopilación de fotografías de lugares de observación de ovnis, monumentos conmemorativos, centros de investigación y museos, arquitectura interestelar, puertos ovni y estaciones de aterrizaje, templos cósmicos y arte ufológico, que pueden encontrarse en distintas partes del mundo. Magníficamente ilustrado, este volumen de 223 páginas, tapa dura y de 30x24 cm está escrito por Philippe Baudouin, filósofo francés de formación y especialista en historia de los medios de comunicación. Es profesor asociado de Ciencias de la Información y la Comunicación en la Université Paris-Saclay y miembro del Centre de Recherche en Design de l’ENS Paris-Saclay.
Publicado por Lapérouse Éditions (Noisy-sur-École) en julio de 2025.
MÁS CONTENIDOS EN LA SECCIÓN EN INGLÉS
(Las dos versiones de este blog no son idénticas, por lo que te sugiero que practiques inglés con estos artículos que solo aparecen en ese idioma en la sección superior de este blog)
Trump’s UFO Declassification - Release 01 (Una detallada revisión de la primera serie de documentos desclasificados en 2026 por la Administración Trump).
AGENDA PERSONAL
(1) Conozco al doctor Antonio Bueno, médico rural, funcionario en la Generalitat Valenciana, director de ambulatorio, investigador de episodios ovni, y sobre todo gran persona, desde hace cincuenta años. En mayo de 1979 ya formó parte del equipo valenciano que participó en una magna reunión en la estación espacial de Villafranca del Castillo (Madrid) y ha asistido a muchos otros encuentros ufológicos desde entonces. He tenido la fortuna de contar con él en la realización de alguna encuesta sobre el terreno. Hace unos meses me facilitó sus archivos, entre los que he encontrado algunas cosas de bastante interés, como la entrevista que sostuvo con el testigo del caso de Villares del Saz (Cuenca) de 1953 [1]. Durante las pasadas vacaciones de Pascua, Antonio y yo volvimos a reunirnos para tratar detalles pendientes de las informaciones encontradas en sus archivos relativas a casos investigados por él en Cuenca hace años. Como siempre, fue un encuentro muy agradable y fructífero, que dejo consignado gráficamente a continuación.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/129446187/Entrevista_al_testigo_del_aterrizaje_de_Villares_del_Saz_1953
Mayo de 1979, Antonio Bueno aparece en el extremo derecho, junto a mí. En la foto, entre otros, Félix Ares de Blas, François Louange, David G. López y Miguel Guasp. Y Antonio Bueno (a la izquierda) con V.J. Ballester Olmos. La Eliana (Valencia), abril de 2026.
(2) Los niños se van haciendo ya mayores. De izquierda a derecha: Lucas, Matías y Fernando.
Agradecimientos
Mi gratitud a los siguientes colegas que han aportado información a la presente edición del blog: Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga (España), Alejandro Agostinelli (Argentina), Luis Ruiz Noguez (México), Moisés Garrido (España), Heriberto Janosch (España), Rubén Lianza (Argentina) e Igor Kalytyuk (Ucrania).
LIBROS DEL AUTOR
A Catalogue of 200 Type-I UFO Events in Spain and Portugal, Center for UFO Studies, 1976, https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/Catalogue_of_200_Type_I_UFO_Events_in_Spain_and_Portugal.pdf
OVNIS: El fenómeno aterrizaje, Plaza & Janés, 1978, 1979, 1984,
https://es.scribd.com/document/429158011/OVNIS-El-Fenomeno-Aterrizaje-Vicente-Juan-Ballester-Olmos
Los OVNIS y la Ciencia (con M. Guasp), Plaza & Janés, 1981,1989.
Investigación OVNI, Plaza & Janés, 1984, http://ufology-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Ballester-Olmos_V.-J._Investigation_UFO_1984.pdf
Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (con J.A. Fernández Peris), Plaza & Janés, 1987,
https://www.academia.edu/41625252/ENCICLOPEDIA_DE_LOS_ENCUENTROS_CERCANOS_CON_OVNIS
Expedientes insólitos, Temas de Hoy, 1995 .
De estas obras agotadas se encuentran ejemplares en papel en el mercado de segunda mano. Por ejemplo:
IBERLIBRO:
UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/42y39e89
AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/26u587tb
TODO COLECCIÓN: https://tinyurl.com/45xzvrym
Norway in UFO Photographs: The First Catalogue (con O.J. Braenne), UPIAR, 2008, https://upiar.com/italian-norway2
UFOs and Government (con M. Swords & R. Powell y C. Svahn, B. Chalker, B. Greenwood, R. Thieme, J. Aldrich y S. Purcell), Anomalist Books, 2012, http://www.anomalistbooks.com/book.cfm?id=64
Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965 (con M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio), UPIAR, 2013, https://upiar.com/italian-antartida2
Belgium in UFO Photographs. Volume 1 (1950-1988) (con Wim van Utrecht), UPIAR, 2017, https://upiar.com/italian-belgium
The Marfa Lights. Examining the Photographic Evidence (2003-2007) (con M. Borraz), UPIAR, 2020, https://upiar.com/italian-marfa2
The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony (eds.) (con R.W. Heiden), UPIAR, 2023, https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=reliability2
Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera, UPIAR, 2024,
https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=ribera2
Mi correspondencia con José-Tomás Ramírez y Barberó, UPIAR, 2025,
https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=ramirez2
The Reliability and Psychology of Eyewitness-Centered UFO Experience: A Bibliography (con J. Ickinger y U. Magin), UPIAR, 2025 (second edition),
https://upiar.com/item.cfm?articoloid_rw=psybib
Mi correspondencia con Eduardo Buelta, 2026,
https://www.academia.edu/164912884/Mi_correspondencia_con_Eduardo_Buelta
CÓMO PUEDE COLABORAR CON EL PROYECTO FOTOCAT
Hay varias opciones de colaboración a su disposición, a saber:
Trabajo voluntario, presencial o a distancia
Entrega de información sobre casuística, fotografías, archivos, bibliografía, etc.
Donaciones para ayudar a sufragar gastos de investigación
Puede dirigirse directamente a Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos al siguiente correo electrónico: ballesterolmos@yahoo.es
© Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos Link
<< Home