Leer en español

2007/01/29 (EN)

Physically, FOTOCAT is an Excel spreadsheet of UFO and IFO cases where an image has been obtained on photo, film or video. It contains various data columns to register the date, time, location, province and country, explanation (if one exists), photographer’s name, special photographic features, references, etc. When completed, the full catalogue will be posted in internet, for an indiscriminate access to the worldwide UFO community.
  • Case Number
    Another milestone has been exceeded. Our present case base stores now 7,170 reports. Colleagues from several countries and national regions are working in close liaison with FOTOCAT Project to develop their national or local censuses to ensure that all known reports are entered into the catalog as soon as possible.

  • Target Established
    For the first time since 2000, when we launched this endeavor, we have established a final target number for FOTOCAT. Future projects in mind advise that this current job cannot be perennial. We have decided to stop the catalog (at least in a first phase) when the count for 1900-2005 arrives to 10,000 entries. It leaves still ample room for acquiring sighting data from your own regions. Do not delay any cooperation with us so that you guarantee that your local events are recognized and included into the largest photographic inventory in the world.

This section reports contributions received from new collaborators (or from regular ones which most recent contribution is considered outstanding). In addition to the new names cited here, many others are regularly contributing to the enlargement of FOTOCAT.
  • Positive Echoes of FOTOCAT Report #2 Release
    We are proud to inform that general good reception and applause has received the recent publication of our report Argentina, The Year 1965 in Photos. A few selections follow:
    • You are doing a heroic effort. (Dr. Richard Haines, Director, NARCAP)

    • The body of the work is very impressive and the presentation is superb. (James Carrion, International Director, MUFON)

    • Excellent report. I think you have made a pretty good case for explaining the 1965 wave of photographs in Argentina. I enjoyed and learned much from your report. (Tony Rullan, Pleasant Hill, California)

    • I am sincerely surprised by the quality of the paper. It is evident you have invested lots of work. Truly, it is a matter for reflection that such a good work on the Argentinean cases has been made by a Spanish researcher, not by an Argentinean one. Carlos Alberto Iurchuck (El Dragón Invisible web site, La Plata, Argentina)

    • This is the most professionally made catalogue I have ever seen. (Robert K. Lesniakiewicz, CBZA, Krakow, Poland)

  • FOTOCAT Report #3 Get Started
    “The Year 1947 in Photos” is the new project that has just commenced, scheduled for completion for third quarter of 2007. I am now teaming up with a great partner, Barry Greenwood, a famous historian of the UFO phenomena, author and one of the most experienced and knowledgeable UFO researchers in the United States. The cooperation that FOTOCAT Project is finding in the international arena is extraordinary and it will be reflected in the final study.

  • Various Acknowledgements
    Thanks are due to Polish ufologist Piotr Cielebias, the editor of NOL (Eastern European UFO Journal) for data to expand our knowledge of cases in Poland. Also from Poland, engineer Robert K. Lesniakiewicz is bringing interesting input to our catalog. Steve Tobias, a veteran of the USAF, for sending pics on possible UFO phenomena found in astronaut photography. Liliana Núñez, from Chile, has been kind enough to include an open letter on FOTOCAT in the section of Running Projects of her bulletin Archivos Forteanos Latinoamericanos. Gacetilla de Información, issue 6, October 2006. Kevin D. Randle, US writer of significant UFO books and expert on Roswell, has contributed first-hand information on the Joplin’s spook lights. Oscar Castro R., from the Corporación para la Investigación OVNI (CIO) of Chile, has contributed needed details on cases reported in their web site. To the Norwegian ufologist Ole-Jonny Braenne (UFO-Norge), who has mailed some needed visual documentation. To Germany’s Ferhat Talayhan (editor of Ufozine), who supplied us with copy of a needed book. And to veteran researcher Richard Hall for including a reference to our project in the last issue of his publication The Journal of UFO History, dh12@erols.com

    My special gratitude goes to CEI of Barcelona, the oldest UFO society in Spain, for making me possible to consult and scan its photographic archives. CEI’s web site is http://www.ctv.es/USERS/netcei/

  • Merging with PHOTOCAT

    Maurizio Verga (left) with Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, France, 2005.

    Thanks to the invaluable and disinterested aid from long-standing Italian researcher Maurizio Verga, his full catalog of photographic reports in Italy (PHOTOCAT) is being merged with FOTOCAT. Maurizio’s present records cover 1947 to 1998 and amounts to 562 entries, while our own inventory contains 400 cases for this country. Therefore, I expect this may bring some 200 additional events to FOTOCAT.

    This major example of international cooperation will contribute to maximize the current panorama of UFO sightings in Europe within FOTOCAT.

  • Progress with Chile FOTOCAT
    The Chilean UFO association Canopus from Valparaíso and his leader Marcos González (working on his thesis for the M.S. degree in Meteorology by the Valparaíso University) are an important source for sophisticated, high-quality data regularly submitted from Chile. In an effort to cooperate with us, they have collected some 150 photographic cases in Chile (FOTOCAT has already 220 for that country) and we are now in the process of adding the new information to our records. I am confident that several dozens of unknown cases will be feeding into our catalog.

  • Regional Catalogs, Local Ufologists Help
    Several countries and regions are under special scrutiny. With the able assistance of local specialists, a full review of the photo cases of the concerned areas is being carried out under the optics of this Project. At the end of the day, we hope to reach definitive records of the reported UFO activity in those parts of the world, as far as images are concerned. We invite other ufologists who can contribute to draw the most complete panorama of photographic UFO sightings from other countries, provinces, regions, states, etc.

This section will revisit certain UFO photographs from past decades with a new interpretation.

  • Lunar Enigma
    Robert D. Morningstar (how felicitous!), self-described as “civilian intelligence analyst”, is the editor of the online UFO Digest. Last November 7, 2006, news for immediate release under the title “Morningstar Discovers Luminous ‘Sky Object’ Above Lunar Surface in Apollo 16 Photograph” was published in http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1106/skyobject.html

    The bottom line of the information was that “while studying NASA archives of the Apollo 16 Lunar Landing Mission, Mr. Morningstar (M*) discovered a brilliant and luminous ‘Sky Object’ floating above the lunar horizon in NASA photo AS-16-109-17761”. The reasons by which it caught the attention of M* were “its brightness as no stars are visible in the picture...(it) appeared to be distinctly triangular and not circular as one would expect a star to be if it were visible.” The press release follows: “Upon enlarging and enhancing the photo by improving gamma levels, contrast and brightest...the image of the ‘Sky Object’ shows it to be a very large, highly luminous triangular object floating above the lunar surface and apparently quite far beyond the lunar horizon. This would indicate that the object was very large.” (As Martin Shough has observed, this is a circular argument: “It’ s a very large object so it must be far away..., and because it’s so far away and looks so big, well, it must be very large.)
    (c) Robert D. Morningstar upon a severely augmented blob in an Apollo 16 picture.

    Finally, the information closes with this statement: “When one studies the photo with a ‘photographer’ s eye,’ one can see that in the composition of the photo, the ‘Sky Object’ appears to be the focal point of the astronaut-photographer’ s attention nearly in the center of the frame.”

    Because it reunites two of my curiosities in ufology, photos and astronaut sightings, I decided to take a look to this seemingly impressive photograph. One feels a strange sensation about a discovery of this nature: in spite of the apparent fact that there was an astronaut taking photos at a UFO over the Moon, it had to be discovered many years later by an aficionado looking at old NASA pictures.

    One week after the release I consulted Mr. Morningstar about the date of the photograph, to check, and he did not know at that time. He kindly wrote: “My research was conducted on a very large NASA photo made from the original negative and stored on the NASA Apollo Image archive.” Frankly, it made me think that not an actual research on the circumstances the picture was actually being obtained had been made.

    Let us provide some details: The Apollo 16 mission on the Moon lasted 72 hours, with a landing on April 21, 1972 and a return take-off on April 24th. During the mission there were 3 extravehicular activities (EVAs). Frame #17761 was taken by astronaut Charlie Duke during EVA-1, on April 21, 1972, an activity which started at 16:47:28 and ended at 23:58:40 (UTC).

    This sensational news was subject of discussion in the great UFO Updates forum list and during a few days several messages were exchanged about the discovery. Venus was hypothesized; however Terry Groff discarded it because “the lit area would have been on the upper half of the Venusian sphere as viewed from the Moon.”

    After following it up with Terry, he produced for me the following graphic that shows the position of 3 planets at the end of EVA-1 as seen from the Moon. Venus and Mars were under the horizon and, therefore, they could not be visible.

    Next step was to consult NASA’s most recognized UFO expert, James Oberg. Jim concurred that “the picture in question does have a tiny blob on it” but provided the required sense of perspective of the scene. First, by going to the Apollo 16 Image Library, where we see photograph #AS-16-109-17761 in the environment of its first EVA mission, described in the section Magazine 109/G (B&W) Frames 17746-17864. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#M109

    © NASA. Original photograph AS-16-109-17761 (high resolution). Charlie Duke during EVA-1 on April 21, 1972.© NASA.

    Oberg notes: “Just seeing the nature of the imagery –hand-held off the hip documentation from the bouncing rover as it makes its way across the surface- shows that the author’ s description is total fantasy.” He refers to M* characterization of a photograph centered on a potential astronaut’s interest.

    This picture is part of a sequence, which we can see in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.trvsta1.html

    Jim Oberg continues: “If you look at the previous and subsequent image, nothing shows up”.

    Following step, now entirely sharing the Apollo 16 actually circulating over the Moon surface, we can consult the transcript of the actual interval when the crew was driving, something nobody did, excerpted below:
    123:02:48 Duke: This seatbelt is great. It seems to be taking it with no problem. (Pause) We are at 6 kilometers an hour now, Tony, 0.4 (km range), still nothing new to report. Maybe more cobbles in this area now. In fact, there are. The regolith is more cobbly in appearance, (the fragments are) still angular. Maybe 40 percent of the surface is covered with cobbles that are 10 centimeters (or larger).
    123:03:20 England: Okay. We copy that.

    [Duke - "Looking, later, at the pictures, that was a high estimate (of surface coverage)."]
    [Charlie's pictures on this part of the drive may be AS16-109- 17753 to 17755. Frame 17755 gives a good indication of the small scale, local undulation of the terrain. The fact that we can see the shadows of both helmets means that the Rover is pitched down considerably. This is one of only a few pictures of this kind in the Apollo collection. Photos 17752 to 17755 are combined in strip form.]

    123:03:21 Young: Look at that one. (Pause)
    123:03:27 England: And we're right on the timeline.
    123:03:28 Duke: We see some small fresh craters, meter size, that show some very fresh...at least...Perhaps it's indurated regolith. That's what it looks like, because the little hard clods are the same inside the craters as on the rim.
    123:03:57 England: Okay.

    [Charlie is describing a piece of regolith breccia, which is also known as 'instant rock'. These are clods of dirt which are formed by an impact in soil. Apollo 17 photo AS17-133- 20208 shows a dramatic example of a small crater covered with regolith breccia.]

    123:04:00 Duke: At our 11 o'clock position, we're at 089 for 0.4. We have two very bright, small craters that are 2 or 3 meters across, and we see some whitish material down below in the walls of the crater there. They're about 25 meters off.

    [These may be the craters in AS16-109- 17756.]

    123:04:23 England: Okay, Charlie. Those rocks that you collected (at the ALSEP), were they...Were they all breccias, or could you tell (what they were)?
    123:04:29 Young: Charlie, you hit my arm.
    123:04:32 Duke: I'm not sure, Tony. I think they were breccias, but they were really dust covered, so I couldn't tell you, really.
    123:04:40 England: Okay, understand. And have you seen any rocks that you're certain aren't breccias?
    123:04:50 Young: (Annoyed) Quit hitting my arm!

    [Duke - "I was moving around, taking pictures and reaching for maps and stuff like that; and, as I moved around in my seat, I'd keep hitting John's arm and it would knock him over. And, when I hit his arm, it would move the handle and it would turn the vehicle. And he was getting a little frustrated with me, for which I don't blame him. But it's really hard to stay out of his way. You had plenty of room as far as fore and aft goes; but, side-by-side, we were sort of shoulder-to-shoulder and it was difficult to stay out of his way. If we had it to do again, maybe we ought to design the Rover a little bit wider so the passenger wouldn't be knocking the guy's arm."]

    [Jones - "The T-handle was really in the center, wasn't it?"]
    [Duke - "Right in the center. Yeah. Either one of us could drive. I could have driven with my left hand. We didn't do it that way; but we had trained a little bit where I could drive it, too."]

    123:04:54 Duke: (Answering Tony) Negative. I haven't seen any that I'm convinced is not a breccia.
    123:04:58 England: Okay.

    [Charlie's photos taken during this part of the traverse are AS16-109-17757 to 17761. Frames 17756 to 17761 are combined in strip form.]

    123:05:03 Duke: Okay. We're going generally west now, and at our 1 o'clock position on a heading of 270 at a bearing...We're (at a bearing to the LM of) 091 at 0.5 (km range); we're in another distinct ray field - ray pat(tern) - 'Ray', let's say, 'boulder field'. We sort of passed out of one, and we're in another one. And we're getting the...Go ahead, John.

    [Duke, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "I think the whole way out there, we were in this series of rays from South Ray."]
    [Young, from the 1972 Technical Debrief - "You couldn't tell where one took up and the other left off."]
    [Jones - "There's a nuance here that I don't get. You were talking along and then you said, 'Go ahead, John.' And there was certainly no verbal cue that he had something he wanted to say."]
    [Duke - "I don't know whether he nudged me or whether I saw him looking over to the left."]
    [Jones - "Could you have seen him in the seat? Did you have enough peripheral vision that you could see him?"]
    [Duke - "Yeah."]
    [Jones - "Did you ride with the Gold Visor down?"]
    [Duke - "Yeah, the Gold visor was down, but the opaque side-blinders weren't down."]
    [Jones - "Could you see him?"]
    [Duke - "Yeah, I think so."]
    [Jones - "That is, through the helmet and you could see where he was looking."]
    [Duke - "No, I couldn't do that. Now that I think of it, when he turned, he would just turn inside the helmet and he would still be facing forward (meaning that the suit wouldn't have moved). So I don't know what I was thinking about, here."]

    Now we have seen the picture in its true context, with the actual conversations being held at the time of taking the photos, and the enigma picture placed along the others also taken in the moment. We have to disregard the interpretation (by sheer augmentation) of this picture as anything remotely anomalous.

    FOTOCAT Project wishes to acknowledge the assistance provided by Terry Groff and Jim Oberg.

  • 1942 China Image Solved?

    Jun-ichi Kato has proposed a quite reasonable solution to the 1942 picture of an oval-shaped object over a normally-transited street in the location of Tientsien, in the Chinese province of Hopeh. According to the available story, a Mr. Masujiro Kiru was going through his father's photo album from the China Campaign just before WWII when he found a photograph of a flying object. His father, now deceased, had bought the picture from a Tientsien street photographer, apparently right after it was taken.

    Mr. Kato has found a postcard of a Manchurian city (in the past, North of China, today Kiturin city, Mongolia), taken in the decade of the forties, where the composition of the streets and buildings, including the electric poles along the street and the lamps over the streets and between houses, keep a marked resemblance to the 1942 photograph of an alleged UFO which shape and position extremely looks like the street lamp of the Manchurian city in the same epoch.

    It seems a common sense explanation. See http://www.our-j.com/ourjtopics2.html.
    Thanks to Martí Flò for alerting us to this.

This section will display a sample of UFO sighting directly reported to FOTOCAT.

● Stereo UFO Photos Made in Spain

© Vicents Tobenyas Radua

Last July, an email from photographer Vicents Tobenyas Radua, from Barcelona, reported about two pair of stereo pictures he made to the clouds on March 24, 1978. Later on, when he was to project the slides he found in the images two or three spheres and two triangles joined by the base (he did not see anything strange at the time of taking the photos). The pictures were taken at 12 hours from a mount in Vic (Cataluña, Spain) at 1,000 meters height, and the photographer estimated that the clouds cover was between 2,000 to 5,000 meters. Shutter speed was 1/125s and diaphragm was between f8 and f11 (actual data from memory). The original slides are 24 x 22 millimeter and they made an inter-negative over a close-up surface of 5 x 5 millimeter to highlight the finding and made a positive from it. Camera was a Kodak of the fifties or sixties with a mechanic shutter, film used was positive Orwo. Filters were used. Photographs are created in pairs simultaneously. Another anomaly is that considering that the two shutters click at the same time, the spheres appear in different places, therefore the photographer interprets that these were moving very rapidly. Asked about internal lens flares, the expert photographer claims that typical sun flares were hexagonal-shaped.

Consulted photo analyst Bob Shell, he wrote to FOTOCAT Project:
The round spots in the last two are definitely lens flare. Whether it would be hexagonal depends on the aperture setting, which becomes more circular as it is opened wider. If you look at those carefully you can just see that they tend toward hexagonal, particularly the one to the right in the yellow frame. The trio spots in the first frame are not like anything I have ever seen before. If the next frame is the other half of that stereo pair, then it does not show them, making me think that they are not real objects at a distance but some sort of internal camera reflection instead. Lens flare and internal reflections can come in an amazing variety of shapes and sizes.

Another opinion was solicited to Martin Shough. His considered report follows:
I assume the "triangles joined by the base" refers to the interior structure of the blobs in first (top) pair? I see in each case three approximately triangular sectors joined approximately at their apices (not their bases), somewhat like distorted Maltese crosses each with one arm missing, embedded in a patch of lesser brightness. Two of these objects appear on one photo of the pair; there is nothing at all visible on the other so the question of "motion" does not arise.

If auto flash was not used, then the angles would have to be found to work out whether such bright illumination was likely from the sun. Failing that could they possibly be multiple images of the camera aperture scattered by the internal optical surfaces? One would expect the same effect from both lenses with parallel optical axes, but if one lens is filtered or differently coated then possibly the scattering would occur on one photo only. I would favor nearby insects however, since at very close range the FOV of one stereo lens does not intersect that of its partner.

The objects in the bottom pair are different, round bright blobs with no internal structure. There are two on one image, three on the other, and no two positions coinciding. They appear almost symmetrically round (apart from a slight flattening of the circumference at a position around 5 o'clock). Differing positions on perfectly simultaneous exposures obviously cannot indicate "high speed" as there is no interval. Such "motion" would be literally instantaneous.

If the exposures are not quite exactly simultaneous because of a lag in the mechanism then there could be a very small interval, but if the objects have moved many degrees (as indicated, assuming here an FOV typical of most cameras) during some unknown tiny fraction of a second (the lag), then the angular rate is extremely high and, depending on the unknown shutter speed, one might expect to see motion blurring of the reflective or self-luminous objects in the direction of motion.

The similarity of the flattening in the same position on all objects suggests again the possibility of multiply scattered images of the same bright source, as above, possibly with a changed sun angle or exposure. But in this case the wide difference in the positions of the blobs between two simultaneous (or virtually simultaneous) photos taken with fixed parallel optics suggests that the blobs must have different sources unrelated to the camera optics.

One might think of insects again, possibly closer to the lens this time and slightly more out of focus (the blobs appear a little larger). At the distance of the background cloud both photos are of the same field of view of course, but the pencils of light rays describing the conical FOV of each lens do not intersect close to the camera, where they are covering different fields of view. This is also the region where depth of field limits would cause focus problems, so the likely conclusion is that these objects too are insects - three insects near one lens, two different insects near the other, all out of focus and scattering either bright sunlight or flash. On the other hand, the similar flattened-circle geometry of each image does not suggest insect structure. We would have to assume that this is an added optical artifact caused by the diffracted image of the lens aperture partially eclipsed by the shutter mechanism.

I also don't understand what the photographer means by the images being "within the cloud" or "behind the clouds". It's obvious that if the sources of these lights were "within the cloud" - i.e. huge objects several thousand meters away - then they are UFOs. But there's nothing (as far as I can see) in the photos to establish this.

The most interesting information would have been the angular scale, to test the idea of a high-speed motion due to a slight time lag in the two stereo shots, but we still don't have it. At least knowing the exposure is something to go on. Let's take #3 and #4: How wide are these images? It now sounds as though he is saying these images are 5mm square cropped details out of 24x20mm frames. If this is right then assume the full FOV is 30 degrees (reasonable) and say the angular width of the object is 1/18 of the angular width of this cropped area, then we are looking objects about 5/18 = < about 0.3 degree across.

We don't know which lights on the pair of photos are images of the "the same" object, but lets say there's a 3 degree displacement (just guessing but in the right range). Now let’s say the delay between the "simultaneous” shutter releases is huge, say a whole second. Then the angular rate of the hypothetical object is 3 deg/sec. During the exposure stated of 1/125 sec the object would therefore move about 0.025 degrees. This means that during the time the shutter is open the object should move about 1/12 of its own diameter. It would not be "stopped" but would be blurred about 10% of its length in the direction of motion. That ought to be discernable. But the situation is far worse that that because of course a 1 second lag between stereo pairs is ludicrous; not even a crude mechanical coupling could be as bad as that! Let's allow 1/10 second, then the angular rate becomes 30 degs/sec and the above result gets increased by an order of magnitude –that is, the objects would have moved one whole diameter during each exposure.

I don't see any evidence that any of these blobs is deformed at all in a way that would suggest motion blurring. In fact the one type of deformation they do show -a flattening of one edge- is identical on all blobs and plainly independent of any individual motions. So on present evidence, i.e. without any other good reason to believe the "objects" are large and at distances of kilometers, I'd rule out motion, and revert to my favored explanation of different image sources - probably scattering sources of bright sunlight - close enough to the camera that they only fall within the conical FOV of one lens or the other, not both. I don't think any further work on this would be fruitful.

Finally, we submitted the photos for advance information to Jeff Sainio, a conspicuous expert in analysis of photographs, and he kindly sent us this comment:

Close-up of round blobs, by Jeff Sainio
These do not appear to be distant objects. A meaningful stereo pair has the same objects, separated by some small different distance, in the 2 photos allowing triangulation. There is no hint in these photos as to what aligns to what, so no meaningful triangulation can be done. All blobs are the same size, suggesting mis-focused, small, bright objects such as raindrops, dandelion seeds, or other floating debris, very close to one lens, and out-of-view of the other. Any detail in the blobs will be the same, as seen in the attached comparison of 2 of the blobs. (The detail is dictated by the lens and aperture.) At 125th second and rapid speed, smearing of the objects in the direction of motion would be expected. None is apparent.

In conclusion, the international expert consensus calls for a reality not more than virtual for the “UFOs” in the images of this case.

There are very few 3D UFO photos in the phenomenology. The first such stereo image was achieved in the winter of 1870 in Mount Washington, New Hampshire. After the Spanish example of 1978, a pair of pictures with a stereoscopic camera was achieved on August 22, 1983 in Poland. The last known stereo photographs known were produced by the infamous Ed Walters (of Gulf Breeze dubious fame) with a NIMSLO camera in February 1988.

Some basic statistics derived from FOTOCAT.

● Revision of the 60s Decade
The decade of the sixties is represented within FOTOCAT by 1,111 data-lines, entries or cases. The distribution of reports by year and nature follows in this table:

YEAR REPORTS # UFO (# and %) IFO (# and %)
1960 49 24 (49%) 25 (51%)
1961 70 40 (57%) 30 (43%)
1962 53 23 (43%) 30 (57%)
1963 72 22 (31%) 50 (69%)
1964 52 19 (36%) 33 (63%)
1965 163 75 (46%) 88 (54%)
1966 157 63 (40%) 94 (60%)
1967 220 100 (45%) 120 (55%)
1968 171 90 (53%) 81 (47%)
1969 104 67 (64%) 37 (36%)

--------- ------------ ------------
Grand Total 1,111 523 (47%) 588 (53%)

1965 jumped in terms of case reporting, 1966 maintained the same high level, to be surpassed by peak year 1967. In the last two years of this period the number of cases decreased, yet keeping a high score compared to the first part of the decade.

As far as explained versus unexplained events, there is an average 50-50 proportion, one which is roughly constant over the years (+/-10 percent points), with the exception to 1963, a year where 25 of the IFO reports belong to a sole event, occurred on February 28th over Arizona and due to the multiple series of photographs taken of the atmospheric after-effects of the aborted launching of a Thor Agena rocket.

I have also inspected the distribution of photographic reports by country. Only 14 nations (plus sightings in the Space) have contributed over 1% of total (11 cases):

Beautiful picture taken by Ray Stanford from Phoenix, Arizona, at 18, 05 hours of February 28, 1963. Ray clearly identified the ring’s cause.

  • 447-USA


  • 66-ITALY

  • 62-SPAIN

  • 43-UK


  • 40-JAPAN

  • 28-CANADA

  • 24-SPACE

  • 19-FRANCE

  • 18-BRAZIL

  • 16-SWEDEN

  • 14-RUMANIA

  • 13-MEXICO

  • 11-CHILE

March 19, 1966. Strange-looking UFO in Daniels Park, Colorado, photograph by Mrs. Pearl B. East. © Wendelle C. Stevens

In addition to realize the marked American accent of the records (40% of all cases from USA), FOTOCAT has made special compilation jobs with Argentina, Australia, Italy, Chile and Spain, what would explain their input levels. The present country frequency ratios do not necessarily compare well each other.

If we examine the 7 countries which individually add over 3% of total to the catalog, we arrive to the following table:

1960 24 3 3 0 2 0 5
1961 22 0 14 0 2 5 14
1962 17 7 9 1 3 0 3
1963 38 5 4 0 3 1 9
1964 28 1 5 2 1 1 3
1965 52 45 8 6 6 4 2
1966 84 14 9 7 11 4 3
1967 130 12 12 8 9 7 1
1968 27 52 1 28 3 9 0
1969 25 12 1 10 3 10 0

Highlighted “flap” years (in US Air Force terminology, a condition characterized by an advanced state of confusion) are not a common feature in the various countries concerned. 1967 was the most important year for the United States, 1965 and 1968 were for Argentina, 1961 and 1967 for Italy, 1968 for Spain, 1966 for Great Britain, 1969 for Australia, and 1961 for Japan. Yes, a true state of confusion.

Where regularly we will include any published literary piece on curious phenomenology.

This quarter’s entry is devoted to the announcement of a new book that we do recommend to our fellow colleagues:

An International Bibliography On Some Luminous Transient Phenomena In The Atmosphere

By Renzo Cabassi, Roberto Labanti, Edoardo Russo, Massimo Silvestri, and Giuseppe Stilo.

Authors and compilers are members of CISU (Italian Center for UFO Studies) and CIPH (Italian Committee for Project Hessdalen).

This huge bibliography includes full references to 2,955 entries arranged in a chronological order and published all around the world since 1497 A.D. through 2006.
Several entries are annotated and the whole list is divided in three different chapters concerning:

- Earth Lights (EL), Saint Elmo's Fires (SEF), ignus fatui (IF)
- Hessdalen Phenomena (HP)
- Earthquake Lights (EQL), seismic precursors (SP), atmospheric electricity (AE),
and Tectonic Strain Theory (TST).

This is the largest work ever issued worldwide on these phenomena, and it is the result of some active projects within CISU and CIPH.

The present bibliography is edited in a large format (21 x 29.7 cm), softbound booklet, 126 pages long, and it is available for purchase directly from UPIAR publishing house at http://www.upiar.com

More details on its contents and the compilers, the full text of the preface and of compilers' introductions to the three book chapters are available at http://www.cisu.org/ltpa.htm

This is a brief item report for the serious and critical-minded UFO researcher. Some selected information sources which I judge of interest for gaining knowledge from a scientifically-oriented perspective.

  • FOTOCAT Report #1 on Italian Book

    Cover of new book by Giuseppe Stilo

    As an appendix to the new book by Giuseppe Stilo, Il quinto cavaliere dell’ Apocalisse. La grande ondata UFO del 1954 (The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse. The Big Wave of 1954), a first tome of a voluminous job, now covering from January 1st to October 31st, released by publisher UPIAR, Torino (Italy), 2006, pages 601-640, it has been published the version 2 in English of my paper “The Year 1954 in Photos”. This impressive volume prepared by G. Stilo is a paramount job and it is high recommended. It can be ordered through info@upiar.com

    As a reminder, version 1 of my paper in English appeared in http://www.ikaros.org.es/fotocat1954.pdf. Version 3 was the Spanish translation (including images) in the journal @nomalía (II), 5, May 2005. And version 4 (also with photographs) is the French translation in the annual magazine La Gazette Fortéenne, Vol. IV, 2005, pages 99-133. The various versions represent successive improvements over the initial one.

  • New Witness to June 2, 2004 Missile Fireball

    The sighting as seen by Santiago Delgado from Seville

    Santiago Delgado Ruíz has written us to report he was a witness to the June 2, 2004 fireball (now we know it was a French ballistic missile launching effect, see this blog, October 2006). He was in Seville city and was impressed by the vision, of which he made this spectacular drawing:

  • Recommended Browsing
    Any dumb can create today a web site or a blog. But not too many of the existing sites merit we lose time on a visit. One such exception is http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/ , the blog by Kevin Randle that I find personally recommendable to UFO students.

  • Working Session in Valencia

    Pedro León (left) and Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, in the second’s Studio.

    Last December 1st I had the pleasure to host Pedro León Sistach in Valencia City. Pedro came from Barcelona to spend one day working with me on the investigations we have been doing for some years with researcher Manuel Borraz on a significant UFO incident occurred in Spain in 1985 which involves video footage, Police intervention, radar detection and observations from pilots in the air. The work session was quite fruitful and I hope we can report results in the following months.

Your volunteer collaboration to the FOTOCAT Project is requested. Please write to: fotocat@anomalia.org

We will supply you with state, regional, provincial or national catalogs for you to check and enlarge.

If you are willing to donate photographic materials, files or literature to be preserved, feel free to use the following postal address:

Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos
Apartado de Correos 12140
46080 Valencia