Leer en español

2022/MARCH/15 (EN)

English language editing: Martin Shough


The FOTOCAT databank collects 12,806 cases as of today. Recently, it had a contribution from UFO researcher Raoul Robé, with his updated catalogue of French photographic cases.


New Publications

(1) “A Commentary to the 2022 UAP Act.” On December 27, 2021, US President Joe Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022. For the first time in history, this bill included provisions for the establishment of an office within the Department of Defense to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). The following text is a descriptive commentary to this “UAP law”:


This essay has been reproduced by various websites and online magazines: UAPSG/GEFAI (Milton Hourcade), The UFO Chronicles (Frank Warren), Alternate Perceptions (Brent Raynes), as well as translated into German (UFO INFO).

(2)Exegesis of the Dudignac Saucer of 1955.” This is the complete version of the study carried out on the first photograph of a flying saucer in Argentina, a shortened piece of which was included in the previous edition of this blog: https://www.academia.edu/69431110/Exegesis_of_the_Dudignac_Saucer_of_1955

(3) My updated bibliography-1965 to 2021-can be consulted through the following link: http://www.cdufo.info/bib/bibliog1.pdf


The “Tomato Man” in Retrospective

UFO-related imagery is powerful, it is the reason it definitely attracts me. Fantastic (in its full sense) air machines and colorful humanoids repeatedly appear in any collection of UFO and flying saucer photographs. And FOTOCAT, being an archive of 13,000 reports of this category, is packed with it. A pair of stills under the tag of “alleged alien body-crash of 7/7/48” have rested in my files since the end of year 1980, and this is the excuse for the present entry. I am basically doing a selected literature review to highlight the existing major information sources, one that might be of interest to UFO students and historians. Also, to add my own bit of data.

On November 21, 1980, a tri-group paper entitled “Alien Body Photos: An Updated Report” was published by the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists, i.e., the Mutual Anomaly Research Center and Evaluation Network (MARCEN), the UFO Information Network (UFOIN), and the Ohio UFO Investigators League (OUFOIL), headed by their respective leaders Williard McIntyre, Dennis Pilichis and Charles J. Wilhelm, the first from Maryland, the other two from Ohio (USA). In an introduction to the report, McIntyre wrote:

after exchanging three letters with a gentleman in Tennessee, we received from a him a letter in mid-December 1978 that came with an 8x10 glossy print of a lot of debris and the charred remains of some type of body…the letter contained a challenge to identify the contents of the photo. We promptly fired off a letter giving our guess that it showed that remains of a light aircraft crash and its burned pilot. The response came in early January 1979 in the form of a three page, typed-single spaced letter detailing a fantastic odessey [sic] of a young Navy photographer flown to Mexico in 1948 as part of a team to document the crash of a 90-foot diameter “flying saucer” and its dead pilot. A fantastic adventure unfolded in those three pages ending with the writers concern for his own security since he was still in the service and fearful of prosecution for breaches of security.

The identity and background of the sender was checked and found proper; by the end of November 1979, once MARCEN had guaranteed in writing his anonymity, the source provided the original negative, which was analyzed by Eastman Kodak and other laboratories, which concluded that the picture had been taken at least 30 years before, and that no photographic tampering had been conducted. In May 1980, the source sent a second negative. This time, the body was lying in vegetation on a hillside. By then, in their own admission, MARCEN members “had begun believing this fantastic story.” In August 1980, the source gave permission to make the pictures and the story public, not without warning “of the possible consequences of such a release.” McIntyre wrote next: “Little did we know or visualize the explosion that would really come or who would detonate it.”

After disclosure, all hell broke loose over the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists, and apparently it was intense from the “ufological heirarchy” [sic]. At this point, their stand was: “Universally condemned as hoaxes by skeptics and establishment ufologists alike, the photos remain unidentified….No I personally believe that these photos and the story surrounding them are either completely authentic as told by our source or it is a complete hoax perpetrated in a sophisticated manner…”

The source informed he had 40 negatives more, and MARCEN sent someone to his mail address in San Antonio, Texas, only to find he did not live there, “but was known.” We have since learned—McIntyre finishes his prologue—that this was a mail drop used by the source to protect his actual identity even from us and that the name we knew him and checked out was actually the name of another member of the photographic team that supposedly documented the UFO crash and who has since died. A call by the source saying he would be in Washington, D.C. by Thanksgiving, when he would be willing to meet them, allowing them to probe his identity and inspect the rest of the negatives, was the last clue as to his whereabouts.

What was the tale narrated by the invisible source? Allegedly (everything from now on has to be taken allegedly, this is, with a good pinch of salt), he was a photographer assigned at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico, when he heard that at 13:22 hours on July 7, 1948 an early warning radar tracked an object moving at great speed crossing Washington state flying southeast. When the bogey was near Albuquerque, New Mexico, two F-94s attempted to intercept, in vain. By 14:29 hours it disappeared from the radar screens. It was determined that it had landed or crashed in Mexico, in the state of Nuevo León, between Nuevo Laredo and the Sabinas River, some 30 miles south of Laredo, Texas.

The Mexican military was notified of the incident and at 18:30 hours the U.S. Army and Air Force were onsite. A Naval Intelligence officer who was in Mexico City heard about that and planted himself on locatio by 20:10 hours. It as he who, after surveying the site, got authorization for the source’s photographic team to be airlifted to the site. They were told they were going to the site of a top secret airplane crash, where they arrived at 02:15 of the following day.

There they saw “the remains of the frame and structure of a disc shaped craft still smouldering and smoking some 12 hours after it had crashed.” What they observed and photographed was “an unearthly shaped craft made up of earthly looking debris” (a contradiction in their own terms, but this is ufology!). It was perfectly circular, about 90 feet in diameter, 28 feet in thickness at the center and tapering off to 5 feet thick at the perimeter.

Only one body was found, severely burned. It was 4 feet, 6 inches long [1.37 m]. Its head was extremely large for the body size by human proportions. The eyes had gone from the fire and the eye sockets were much larger than in humans and wraparound to give 180 degree vision. No visible ears or nose, but openings there. Two arms longer than in humans and the hands had four claw-like fingers. Well, other minutely-detailed data abound, as the writer-source certainly liked to spin a story. The first negative supplied was cut up, representing something like one sixth in size of the original, because of the recognizable persons appearing in the other portion of the complete photograph, as per the sender.

The Coalition report includes an initial analysis by Ground Saucer Watch, which concluded that “there is evidence of the ‘creature’ being severely burned and mutilated as a result of an obvious accident…signs of rigor mortis are indicative of the time after death…the time is calculated at 12 hours [appropriately, added emphasis]…measurement of the head and jaw bone are on the face…and a careful study of the extremities…compared to foreign pathology records, revealed a commonality between these measurements and that of a laboratory monkey…the wreackage [sic] materials revealed common ‘terrestrial’ geometric shapes and signs of manufacture…the size of the creature is 836mm…there is evidence of a horny sheath covering the toe portion of the primate. The nail, which is covered by hair, is very similar to that of a monkey.” Report signers Fred Adrian and William H. Spaulding wrote that It is the consensus of the GSW photographic review staff that the photographs represent a misinterpretation of a normal laboratory monkey (either a rhesus or orangutan) that has been badly burned and partially dismembered. GSW associated this to illegal rocket tests of the U.S. Government over Texas populated areas.

The solicited GSW conclusion provoked a headache in the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists, who actually believed it was a dead alien! They immediately suggested that Spaulding was manipulating the case “trying to mold the evidence to fit his own personal theory advanced on national television that UFOs are not extraterrestrial and originate from mundane sources on Earth.”

The Coalition found out that the first United Stated rocket experiment with German V-2s with a Rhesus monkey aboard was on June 11, 1948, launched from White Sands, and the monkey died before launch. Apparently, that V-2 went astray and landed in Mexico, but it hit Juarez, some 800 km NW of Nuevo Laredo and close to White Sands. Also, the US-launched V-2’s maximum range was ~110 km, while the distance from White Sands to the flying saucer crash point was not less than 900 km. Another counterargument was that the size of a primate is about 2 feet (0.61 m), shorter than the calculated length for the ‘creature’ by GSW (0.86 m). (Did no one think that 0.86 m does not match either with the 1.37 m figure stated by the source?) For the Coalition, there was no evidence of any tail in the photograph either.

In the GSW News Bulletin of April 1981, pages 10-13, the Adrian-Spaulding report was published in a pun-intended article by Spaulding entitled “Get the Monkies Off My Back!”, which included some additional content.1 It disclosed that the “Maryland-based organization has published a feeble counter against the original analysis, based on both biased and erroneous information.” GSW presented new facts to “this almost-silly incident”:

(a) A continuing analysis of the first photograph revealed that the burnt-effect of the dead alien head is “attributable to blistering on the space helmet worn by the monkey [see the following photo]. A fastening snap on the helmet has been discovered which is identical to early-space devices worn by test animals. The lighter or whitish marking on the deceased monkey is attributable to the area where the safety belt and buckle would have protected it from the intense heat/fire affects in the crash. A dark, strand-like substance covering both bodies has been tentatively identified as burnt nylon, the material used in “spacesuits” for test animals.”

(b) Certain remarks made to the media by McIntyre are labeled as “misinformation to strengthen his already weak case, by casting doubts on the photographic evaluation.”

To close the monkey hypothesis, it is known that “the United States launched flights containing primate passengers primarily between 1948 and 1961 with one flight in 1969 and one in 1985.”2 Apes, macaques and monkeys were used to that end.

Ape named “Able” launched to space in 1959. Image borrowed.3

The ufological community is like an ill-assorted family, and the 3-group coalition faced numerous other rows with colleagues, commencing with the “authority” on dead humanoids, Len Stringfield, he who disqualified the alien dead body pictures because they did not match with what he thought were “real” alien bodies, in particular the photos of an alien creature found in secret chambers beneath the Empire State Building (cover of Ancient Astronauts magazine, November 1977). Poor Stringfield was a guy most prepared to put up with a lot. He spent all his life swallowing as true every tale of UFO crashes and dead bodies he was told by innumerable anonymous sources. In this case, it was a Larry Barns from New Jersey who took a model to the offices of the publisher of AA. “[He] brought in a doll 4 inches long and had it photographed by then editor Jeffrey Goodman. These photos were later used on the cover and inside the magazine. Over lunch they made up the story of an alien being buried under the Empire State Building.” This quote—a situation witnessed by Timothy Green Beckley—comes from a letter he sent to Dennis Pilichis dated November 4, 1980.

Since August 1980, the Coalition promoted and featured the pair of photographs in local and national newspapers, TV stations and UFO outlets. It triggered a cascade of articles in UFO media, in the States but also in foreign revues, avid for sensationalism. UFOIN (D. Pilichis) submitted the information to UFO Report, where it was published in December 1980, pages 10 and 12. The article strictly followed the tale as written by their unknown source and unequivocally the photos were stated as showing “the body of one alien in the debris of the crash after the craft burned.” The initial skeptical position has vanished. As for the magazine editors, they considered it to be “the breakthrough ufologists have been waiting for…and then again it could be something else entirely!”

The—by then, largest UFO organization—Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) also entered in the controversy, indirectly, with the publication of an article by Leonard H. Stringfield in the December 1980 issue of The MUFON UFO Journal, pages 11-16 (“Status Report on Alleged Alien Cadaver Photos”). Conspirative-minded, Stringfield complained that his own 29 sources for retrieval of crashed saucers had dried all of a sudden: “I cannot help but wonder—he wrote—if someone in a powerful position pressed the “silence” button.” Therefore, he found suspicious the timely disclosure in August 1980 of a set of photos showing a burnt alien body, under the auspices of Williard McIntyre. He attacked the GSW’s conclusion that it was a monkey used in early military rocket tests, calling it “disinformation.” Apparently, he did not value the contrary posture by McIntyre and his partners. As a matter of fact, he talks of a “master plan” to discredit “any photographs that may surface showing alien cadavers, and beyond that, any serious research into the story of crash/retrievals.” In a follow-up to that article, in the MUFON journal of September 1981, Stringfield published “The Puzzling Case of the Cadaver Photos,” aimed to “re-state my position as it relates to my continuing research into this sensitive and controversial issue…because of the constant noise of criticism, insult and baseless rumors.” The author, in paranoid mode, did not believe it was coincidental that he and Charles Wilhelm (part of the Coalition), both from the Cincinnati area, came up with individual sets of photos displaying dead alien bodies at the very same time: “Think of the odds against this coincidence.” Another unbelieved “coincidence” is that back in September 1980 there began a “broadside of blatant attacks against my photos, my work, my credibility,” Stringfield said. I am not into details of that persecution, however I can but imagine that the response by rational people to pictures of aliens in a refrigerated chamber, like the ones he defended, would be nothing less than a plain laugh. Matter-of-factly, all purported evidence accumulated by Stringfield for crashed and retrieved saucers over the years, resulted in nothing but smoke. His sources were always pulling his leg. A grievous example of gullibility and intellectual blindness.

Stringfield called the reaction of the Coalition members a “selective vendetta” because he had termed their photos a hoax. And he reacted in this familiar way: “Certainly, I would not characterize Wilhelm or Pilichis or even McIntyre as secret agents, but if there is a conspiratorial meaning in the pattern of coincidental events, is it possible that all three were unwitting stooges for somebody else pulling their strings?” Evidently, there are people who live in another world, in a cloud of self-delusion.

Next is The Scientific Bureau of Investigation Report (Pete Mazzola, editor) for February 1981, touching upon this subject in the cover and interior pages 2-3. It also reproduced a clipping from the Morning Journal of August 30, 1980, when the tri-UFO-group started spreading the story and the pictures. This UFO fanzine displays a tremendously ridiculous logo including the word POLICE and stars within an official-looking badge and “investigative specialists” in the cover that makes readers associate it to FBI. Well, they had their own “analyzation” of the photographs, that concluded that they fell short from 2 to 8 years to year 1948, they were genuine “to their specific purpose and then misinterpreted incorrectly by the researchers involved,” measurements for the fur-covered body were 0.97 to 1.12 m and from 23 to 34 kg of weight, the being wearing a helmet made of see-through glass, two black hoses of 1.3 to 2.5 cm appear to be attached to back of helmet, the military-looking outfit is revealed not to be military after photo enhancement. Finally, their opinion, based on the data relevant to the being, agreed with that of Bill Spaulding/GSW. This was monkey business for the FBI, excuse me, SBI of New York. The precision of deductions they were able to make from the photos from these amateur investigators from their Staten Island “laboratories” is to be “praised.” Their conclusions went as far as to suggest that Coalition leaders “were duped into believing the photos to be true….intelligence gathering agencies of the U.S. used this ploy to continue ridicule of the phenomenon” or, as second alternative, “researchers involved perplexed hoax…[for]…satisfying their own egotistical motives.” I do not know what is worse. Anyway, cockfighting.

The issue of February 1981 of UFO Report revisited the theme on its pages 10 and 12 with info supplied by Ohioans Pilichis and Wilhelm, this time without acknowledging McIntyre. The update basically copied the imaginative account by their unknown source, as if it was the Bible. No signs of critique in their review at all. In the article, they criticized their critics (Springfield and MUFON), without mentioning them. The GSW report was included almost in full. The monkey hypothesis was not refuted or discussed but curiously interpreted: “Was the government misleading our source? Was he led to believe, along with the rest of the recovering team that they were documenting a UFO crash, when in reality they were using this as a cover story for their own secret experiments?” Rampant paranoia. This seed in UFO circles would grow in the following years, reaching to the crazy state of affairs we are contemplating today (lamentably also visible in US politics, incidentally).

La Recherche is a Paris-based French language popular science magazine covering recent scientific news. It is published by the Société d'éditions scientifiques (the Scientific Publishing Group). The July-August 1981 issue included a two-page article (pages 884-885) by Michel Granger devoted to this case. Under the title “A quite particular extraterrestrial,” it printed the main alien picture, and the Coalition rapport was abstracted, as well as the GSW study. Pros and cons regarding the alien and the ape theories were discussed. Granger finishes by saying: “We bet that ufologists will cling to these slender arguments for a long time; they are used to this exercise in this case and, by a sort of masochism, find reason for their stubbornness facing the official science which opposes them with common sense and critical mind.”

The last article by Pilichis and Wilhelm, noted above, seemed to indicate that the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists had ended their partnership. In 1982, Charles J. Wilhelm, director of OUFOIL, released a 53-page report: “An Investigative Report Into the Alledged [sic] Alien Body Photos.” In the Editorial, he wrote that the previous report by the tri-group Coalition had been published in haste, without OUFOIL being consulted during its make-up. Not only that, in their checking of the story they had found several discrepancies, in fact “a dozen flaws” which were ignored by the other members of the Coalition. OUFOIL decided to release its own report, marked as an “independent investigative report.” It started with a section to meticulously dissect McIntyre’s introduction in the Coalition report, basically stating that they never had access to the supposed identity of the source for alleged protection purposes; they were refused a copy of the agreement with the source; the claim that a microdensitometer test had been conducted was questioned on the basis that only a print, not a negative, had been received at that time; the Kodak analysis claimed by McIntyre was also put in doubt and a letter by Kodak dated January 26, 1981 informed that “…the negatives you describe were not sent to Kodak for analysis by either Dr. McYntyre [sic] or anyone else.” It was even denied that a MARCEL representative was ever sent to check the source credentials on site, and finally it threw a serious accusation: “Perhaps the real truth is that there is no source at all. That the real source is Mr. McIntyre himself” [What an unexpected twist of events!] OUFOIL characterization of the November 1980 Coalition report was: “full of contradictions, undocumented facts and just pure hog wash” (their emphasis).

It is followed by a section to break-down the story itself. They consulted White Sands Missile Base on any air disaster they might have been involved in around July 7, 1948 which occurred in Mexico between Nuevo Laredo and the Sabinas River. The received reply stated: “We have no knowledge of the air disaster you inquired about. Nuevo Laredo is over 500 miles [805 km] from our installation. Additionally, White Sands Missile Range does not investigate such incidents.” OUFOIL also queried about any team sent to photograph the crash, and White Sands’ response was: “There was a photography experiment done with the V-2…However, our records show no special team which performed the functions you described.” They also discovered that the early warning system radar mentioned by the source was not operative in 1948. The Dias Air Base also mentioned by the source was not in operation that year. The F-94 aircraft supposedly in flight to pursue the object did not fly until 1949. The crash area vegetation is similar to what is found in the eastern states of the US, not in Mexico. Blow-ups of the photographs show wiring present (source stated none was discovered) and indicate earthly metal configurations with welded joints. The uniform worn by the officer in the second photograph did not come into existence until 1957, not 1948. Experts very knowledgeable on burned patients at the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children (Cincinnati, Ohio) confirmed the photos represented the “incinerated body of a human.” In summary, review of an additional 20 items from the Coalition report ruined it completely, as well as the original story communicated by the alleged source: “45% of the listed items prove the story a hoax,” they concluded.

But, attention, it also uncritically affirmed that “The description of the body is very similar to those given by various anonymous [my emphasis, also to add unverified] medical and military sources, who have been involved with other alledged [sic] UFO crashed with bodies involved.” [My goodness! A well-reinvestigated report is in the verge of being spoiled with this statement, absolutely opposite to reality, as no example of purported evidence of dead humanoids has ever proved legitimate. A sidenote to mollify Stringfield?] The large OUFOIL report also checked the GSW analysis. To make a long story short, it supported the GSW arguments to confirm the authenticity of the negatives, but it strongly disagreed with its V-2 and monkey conclusion. The report supplied lots of detailed historical information on V-2 experiences in the US that led OUFOIL to conclude that given “the time period in question and the size of the burnt body, we feel that the photos are not of a V-2 rocket tests failure showing a burnt monkey. Its [sic] very possible and most likely the body is that of a human being from this planet in a small aircraft that crashed. The chances are that the aircraft was perhaps a military one.” Finally, the role of Williard McIntyre as probable instigator of the whole affair is seriously considered by background, motivation and actions.

Left: evidence of common wire remains found close to the body’s left shoulder. Some type of eyeglasses?. Right: in the craft’s structure can be observed a simple six-sided hex nut, tubular piping, angle iron and various welded areas, quite made-in-Tierra.

Timothy Green Beckley is an old-timer of US ufology, a pioneer in the flying saucer and paranormal business (emphasis added), what today would be called an “influencer” in the terrain of nuts-and-bolt ufology. He casually had founded OUFOIL in the early 1970s. He could not but contribute something to this subject, and he did it with the article “Blockbuster Photos…Dead Aliens Found in UFO Crash,” published in UFO Review # 9, pages 10-11 (ca. 1981). Introduced as “What may turn out to be the most sensational photographs ever released in the United States endeavors to show the charred remains of a humanoid being that was found among the remains of a UFO that crashed near the Mexican border more than three decades ago,” Green set out the narration as initially presented by the tri-group report in November 1980, side by side with an “exclusive interview” with Charles Wilhelm, when he had not parted company yet with his two other colleagues. Wilhelm still adhered to the original tale as told by the mystery source in all terms with absolute credulity, as he described the “crashed interstellar vehicle,” his numerous talks to the source, “his true identity to become known in a near future,” and confirming statements like these. Replying to a question on why they are sure their informant is not lying, Wilhelm reassuringly declared: “We checked this out for more then [sic] a year before we released our findings.” Wilhelm next expands on reasons for accepting the authenticity of their source’s credentials and about all the background research they did: “we don’t have any reason to suspect that he’s fabricating,” he admitted. For what we found a little before, this is truly an extraordinary case of conversion from believer to doubtful Thomas.

In the Spanish language, a quite comprehensive reference to this case was signed by Mexican UFO researcher Luis Ruiz Noguez. Ruiz, a chemist by profession and the author of a variety of articles and books on photographs of UFO entities in Mexico and abroad, oversaw the 1948 dead alien pictures in Ovnis extrellados in Mexico (Crashed UFOs in Mexico), Mina publisher, 1996, pages 8 to 24. Ruiz wrote a detailed expose of most of what has been known about this controversy. Ruiz places this story as another fairy tale of the repeated category of UFO crashes in Mexico, of which he counts up to 25 such volatile incidents in UFO literature! Legend, not fact, in his experienced opinion.

A different interpretation for the photographs is that advanced by US engineer Larry Robinson of Indiana University. For its originality, I quote him in full: “The helmet is a motorcycle or auto racing helmet, not a pilot’s helmet, not an aviator’s helmet for that period. Aviation helmets necessarily had large earphone headsets and ear seals built into them, so the pilot could use the radio with the helmet on. They are missing from the helmet in the picture, as are the holes and fitting needed for their installation. Also, parts of the rear fork of the motorcycle are in the picture. The pipes are part of either a tent structure common here, or of a carnival ride. Both use that kind of construction. I figure the motorcycle crashed at a fair or a race, striking the tent or carnival ride. There is a circular plywood structure under the body, which suggests a carnival ride. Part of the folding card table is also visible, as is some Romex (which makes me doubt the date as being 1948).”4

The British author Jenny Randles in Fortean Times of May 2006 (page 28) wrote that “…the extent of the tissue damage does not preclude that it is human and evidence (often cropped out of shot) of what looks like a pair of spectacles implies this is the tasteless abuse of an image of a test pilot trapped in a fire after a plane crash.”

Either an aircraft pilot or the victim of a motorcycle accident, all points to a mundane origin of the unfortunate person depicted in the stills. A logical, down-to-earth, rational assessment of the whole issue seems simple, at least to me: old pictures (late 1940s or early 1950s) of an accident where the man was badly burnt. Sweetened with a false flying saucer crash story. What looks like a mystery novel must simply come from someone who wanted to make a good laugh out of gullible ufologists, if not an internal, self-built hoax to create publicity for a UFO group or personality. What amazes me is how the recipient of the photographs, who had made a realistic evaluation at the first sight of them, radically changed it to an alien scenario on the basis of an unverified narrative. It shows a pitiful eagerness of belief, if not something even more embarrassing.

Can anything else new be added in this controversy? I think so. Disregard the GSW monkey hypothesis (and, therefore, the accompanying V-2 test). We center on the body’s cranium. According to a review done by our consulting expert Andrés Duarte, the head of the “Tomato Man” (*) looks quite similar to a human skull seen from above, as it can be seen in various resources found in the net,5 as follows:

On the other hand, the monkeys’ crania seen from above that are shown in the following pages6 do not look much alike, “therefore I think it is a person and not a primate,”7 Duarte establishes for comparison.

These couple of photographs obviously depict a lifeless human body out of context. The reason why only a small piece of the complete film was sent attempted to hide the normal environment surrounding an accident, aircraft, motorcycle, or whatever. In this regard, this is fake ufology at its best.

The current note has been based entirely on published records collected in my files since 1980. This article comprises what I consider to be the best and most well-informed sources of information on this controversy. It is not intended to be an in-depth study of the photographs or the flying saucer story, but a literature trip on the circumstances wrapping this specific case of an alleged alien corpse, for the benefits of students who did not know the real deal in terms of bibliography.


(1) http://www.cufos.org/GSW-Bulletin/GSW_Bulletin_1981_Apr.pdf

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeys_and_apes_in_space#/media/File:Able_air_and_space.jpg

(4) Larry Robinson, e-mails to V.J. Ballester Olmos, April 1, 2002 and March 27, 2003.

(5) https://www.pinterest.cl/pin/489133209510585229/

(6) https://www.furaffinity.net/view/1980021/



(7) Andrés Duarte, e-mail to V.J. Ballester Olmos. June 13, 2021.

(*) According to Ron Schaffner, “Robert Easley is credited with coining the term “Tomato Man”


Unusual Celestial Phenomena Photographed in a U.S. Naval Air Station

By V.J. Ballester Olmos and J.C. Victorio Uranga

One loyal and continuing correspondent to FOTOCAT is Terry W. Colvin, originally from Sierra Vista, Arizona, now hailing from Hua Hin (Thailand). Colvin specializes in cruising the Blue Book archives at Fold3 and communicating findings to his fellow colleagues, the first author among them. Recently, he submitted information on a case we did not know, a visual and photographic sighting made by various military men stationed at the U.S. Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, on August 3 and 4, 1952. We have reviewed it with the aim to find a solution. Let us see if we succeeded. There are two documents, one is dated August 15, 1952 and signed by USAF Major Robert H. Ray, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s 3rd District Office of Special Investigations (OSI) commander, with information submitted to the 5th District OSI commander in Wright-Patterson AFB. It consisted of three photographs and a written statement by several U.S. Navy enlisted men received from the Philadelphia Office of Naval Intelligence. The memo ended: “No action has been taken in this matter by this office.”

At 20:55 EST, Mate of the Day HM3 Gerald H. Swarm saw an amber-colored light in the sky, four times as large as a star, located NW in an area south of the big dipper. He watched it for 45 minutes, had to leave for 10 minutes and then the object had disappeared. At 23:05 he saw a second object now located NE high in the sky, same size and color, roaring slowly to the SW. Was seeing it for 25 minutes until he reported it to others. He sent HN James J. Kelly to the operations’ building where the duty cameraman AFAN Richard W. Wade began taking pictures from 23:30 until 01:30 of the following day. On a clear night, he took three time exposures of 5, 10 and 20 minutes with a Speed Graphic camera with a 15” telephoto lens and 5.6 aperture. The statement was also agreed by HM3 M.J. Reidel, as well as by Kelly. Another cited witness was AA Stanley C. Chmielewski.

Regarding the initial sighting, it was a light dot 4 times brighter than a simple star which was observed in the night sky for 45 minutes. If we look at the sky chart at that time, we find Mars with a magnitude of -0.12 and its characteristic reddish coloration (for example, orange-colored Arcturus, present in the West, was relatively dim at 0.15). In principle, it would seem to be a suitable candidate for the observation. But it was 19º over the SW horizon (222º azimuth), 90º away from the NW, and therefore distant from the big dipper, as we can see below (left hand illustration). At 22:00 the object has disappeared from sight. What about Mars? The red planet is so low (barely 9.5º) that any obstacle in the landscape would prevent it being seen, consistent with HM3 Swarm having his UFO extinct (right hand illustration). (Arcturus is still visible, so it should be discarded as a target). The possibility that Mars has been the culprit remains considerable, assuming a probable positional mistake by the observer.

But the second observation is by far the most important as it lasted two hours and a half and photos were achieved. We will center our interest on this larger phase of the case. These are the three images (from left to right, with five, ten and twenty minutes of time exposure):

Such an extended, nocturnal sighting with pictures just showing linear tracks like those is typical of an astronomical stimulus, where planets and stars on time exposure shots present the same parallel traces. Our job is to determine the celestial bodies responsible for it. The first revelation we found is that the pictures are inverted. In other words, if you want to compare them with the sky of that night you need to rotate them 180 degrees to show the real position of planets and stars. We check now the 5-minute-exposure take. In the following pair of illustrations, please see on the left how it looks originally, and on the right the image once it has been rotated (we have highlighted six stellar points leaving tracks, one much more intense). Next, we have prepared a Stellarium sky chart at 01:00 of August 4, 1952, when cameraman Wade began to make pictures. Jupiter prominently stands out fixed in the sky. Alongside, we have included another close-up chart where red circles indicate the position of the planet and five nearby stars: the linear tracks structure is identical in both the real picture (up) and the astronomical sky (down).

Certainly, it was Jupiter that drew the attention of the observers, and the photographs perfectly show the planet in conjunction with the surrounding stars in the celestial vault. It is reasonable to think that the second sighting—long and collective—was the main experience of the first and key witness, because it was only then when he raised the alarm. And while reporting the event and recalling the initial observation, he probably reported position errors.

We might repeat the same exercise with the other pictures, but we believe it is not worthwhile anymore. A small deduction we made on photo#3 is worth mentioning: the two luminous tracks it shows are due to a brief interruption of the time exposure and a slight camera movement in the interim, which meant that an expected double trace was divided into two halves. In fact, we are confident we have already found the source for the military UFO sighting of that August 3-4, 1952 from the U.S. Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania.

To end the administrative thread, a second memo, dated August 19, 1952, came out from USAF Lt. Colonel D.G. North, 5th district commander, addressed to the Commander Officer of the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC), also based at Wright-Patterson, with remittance of the above information. Except noticing that “information contained herein has been derived from sources other than USAF,” no further comments were offered. If ATIC sent the material to Blue Book Project or not, we do not know. We do know, however, that this case is not listed in the August BB monthly index.

(The actual information appears in the Fold3 pages beginning as https://www.fold3.com/image/12199814 & https://www.fold3.com/image/6982273).

US New UAP Office

The aftermath of the publication of the creation of a new UAP office inserted in section 1683 of the latest National Defense Authorization Act (27 December 2021) is as motley as expected, and I would like to show the reader various feedback articles on the issue:

My own review, “A Commentary to the 2022 UAP Act”:


Billy Cox’s “Been a long time comin'”:


Red Pill Junkie, “Will UFO Disclosure Move Forward Under Biden?”:


Milton Hourcade’s dissection:


Believers’ concerns:


The pentagon spokesperson says the new UAP Office is just the AOIMSG:


Related with this, the opinion by Christopher Mellon, ex-deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for intelligence, matters when he explains why he believes USAF is awol on the UAP business, now when the subject is located on a higher level: https://thedebrief.org/why-is-the-air-force-awol-on-the-uap-issue/

Curiously, he states: “I will present data below indicating that the Air Force and its component organizations actually detected thousands of UAP from 2004 through 2021. Admittedly, it is theoretically conceivable that none represented breakthrough Russian or Chinese technology–much less alien spacecraft–but the point is that we simply don’t know. That’s what makes them UAP.” Wow, thousands of intrusions in less than two decades in the USA only. If, as Mellon concedes, there is no evidence that they are vehicles from foreign countries, “much less alien spacecraft,” why does he avoid the natural conclusion that they are mundane objects? IFOs, in a word. Let us see how much money USA is going to spend to arrive to this conclusion that we give it for free.

According to the established calendar by the UAP act, not later than March 31, 2022, the head of the new UAP office of the DoD will provide a classified briefing to congressional committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, and the permanent select committee on Intelligence, including information on UAP incidents reported to the UAPTF after June 24 June, 2021. Stay tuned for coming (probably interested) leaks!

Late news! Is the Pentagon planning to classify all he UAP Task Force UFO data? See what Jazz Shaw has to say on HotAir, March 12, 2022: https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/03/12/report-the-pentagon-is-planning-to-classify-all-of-the-uap-task-force-ufo-data-n454860

UAP at the European University: Two Approaches

Prof. Hakan Kayal (Ph.D. in Engineering) holds the chair of Space Technology in the German University of Würzburg. He works on the development, construction and operation of space systems, nano satellites for scientific purposes, in particular for extraterrestrial missions, search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)…and research on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).1 The academic objective is perfectly legitimate, still I suspect a bias in adding UAP in the course of a research on life in the universe. Somehow, it shows a preconceived connection between ETI and UFOs, and there is no scientific basis for this at all! I would understand a neutral investigation on the UFO phenomenon in a University department of Anthropology, History, Sociology, or Folklore. Even under the aegis of Psychology or Psychiatry chairs. But under the umbrella of space technology, how will alumni be prepared to know the pitfalls and flaws of the human recording, memory and interpretation processes with abrupt, short-lived events, the major role of misinterpretation of trivial phenomena, the impact of hoaxes and frauds, and the examples of reports by mentally-unstable persons? I am afraid that by default UAP will be correlated with space vehicles, a terrible scientific mistake. Having said that, let them do their work and assess their finding at the end of the course.2

I have consulted two respected and experienced German colleagues, and this is their feedback. Jochen Ickinger of UFOINFO.DE3 remarked:

Prof. Kayal is without any doubt a serious and renowned scientist with high competence in his field. Likewise, his SkyCam project for detecting objects in the sky is professional and scientifically put on. Kayal is also the director of the Interdisciplinary Research Center For Extraterrestrial Studies of the University of Würzburg (IFEX), where UAP is also a part of the research field. While for most of the UFO reports a conventional explanation is correctly assumed, the remaining rest is considered to be highly relevant. Its sole treatment in the context of the search for extraterrestrial life suggests a certain bias in the interpretation of UFOs/UAP as anomalous or exotic aircrafts. This object-centered view was also evident in a Zoom meeting with Kayal on this topic and the reference to popular events, such as the Belgium UFOs, the controversial Navy videos, or in referring to the SCU report on the Gimbal video as a reference to what could be analyzed with data, even though the report was not based on objective data but on assumptions and estimates from witness testimony. The findings of decades of private UFO research, even on a scientific level, also do not find sufficient appreciation here, as other colleagues also noted. A scientific approach to a possibly anomalous phenomenon must always be done in an open and unbiased way and also take into account other non-anomalistic explanations. Whether the SkyCam project will provide new and convincing evidence about UAPs, and not just interpretive lights in the sky like the many previous similar projects, remains to be seen. Given the multiple appearances of conventional objects, especially the increasing drone presence, the goal of identification by smart software (machine learning) remains one of the biggest challenges.

For his part, Hansjürgen Köhler of CENAP4 has commented the following:

Subjectively, I see some deficits in the approach for the SkyCam search, as I do not believe this device can exclude all and possible "flight objects of the earthly kind". We understood well the wide range of the IFO-pool, and how it is constantly expanding, therefore I have my doubts that all this can be integrated in the SkyCam project. I also wonder why my astronomical colleagues with the Europe-wide ALLSKY network for fireball capture over a long time have not yet caught "UAP"? Of course, the argument would be to start with a first step, but aren’t we facing a big danger from a false approach? I have profound criticism about the alleged -and unfounded- “UAP properties,” those which have been listed in ufology since 1947, for the most part being misinterpretations of heavenly and manmade objects. After 75 years of "UFO hunt", the research shows UAP properties equal to IFO properties. 

But this is not the only recent European initiative in terms of university courses dedicated to UFO research. In Spain, and within the framework of the Criminology and Security degree at the Camilo José Cela University (Villanueva de la Cañada campus, Madrid), Professor Dr. Heriberto Janosch has opened a workshop on "Aerospace Identification" for students, with a duration of two months. The importance given by the university is reflected in the 2.56 credits granted, when one entire subject has 6.00. Participants will investigate the activities of the French GEIPAN and the Argentine CIAE using textbooks such as Allan Hendry's The UFO Handbook (Doubleday, 1979). Dr. Janosch, of Argentine and Spanish nationality, is also a recognized YFO researcher, having coauthored in 2013 the work Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 19655 (UFO sightings in Antarctica in 1965). The different approach with respect to his German colleague is ostensible: in this case, the workshop focuses on the explanation of the phenomena that the eyewitness is unable to resolve on their own.

Heri Janosch, on the right, at V.J. Ballester Olmos’s home study.

I also wanted to know the views of two renowned Spanish UFO scholars. Firstly, that of Dr. Ricardo Campo, philosopher and author of important research tomes on UFO casuistry in the Canary Islands6:

I have often thought that the ufologist, at least the one that could appear reflected in the academic initiative of Dr. Janosch, has something of an herbalist botanist: always in a search for specimens to be taken to his lab to analyze and place them not on sheets of blotting paper, but encoded in data tables. Both activities have in common to show a selection of manifestations of the real world. But if one pays attention to a part of the flora of a given region or ecosystem, the other, what does it show? Surely the students of that workshop will ask themselves the question when they review the stories extracted from the works that Dr. Janosch will use. (From my point of view, it would be very interesting if part of the selected casuistry came from Spain). And, perhaps, they ask themselves the same question regarding other topics in the world of mystery, about the alternative and postmodern thinking, which is not a small thing.

And then that of the physicist Julio Plaza del Olmo, a former researcher at the Spanish Ministry of Defense, who has authored some outstanding essays on UFO phenomenology7:

As it is formulated, it seems an interesting initiative from the point of view of developing critical thinking by studying how apparently anomalous cases end up having a mundane solution. Students will surely be able to learn how to evaluate and weigh aspects such as testimonies, data and evidence, which can surely help them in their training as criminologists, outside the field of ufology.


(1) https://www.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/aerospaceinfo/staff/kayal/

(2) https://p4-r5-01081.page4.com/_blog/18668-ufo-form-UAP-Sky-Searches-The-Sky/


(3) https://ufoinfo.de

(4) www.hjkc.de]

(5) V.J. Ballester Olmos, M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio Uranga,

https://www.academia.edu/31467521/AVISTAMIENTOS_OVNI_EN_LA_ANTARTIDA_EN_1965.pdf http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?language=en&artID=182&st=1

(6) El fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde el siglo XVIII hasta 1980 [The UFO Phenomenon in the Canary Islands, from XVIII century to 1980],


El fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde 1981 a 2015 [The UFO Phenomenon in the Canary Islands, from 1981 to 2015],


(7) https://www.academia.edu/31712514/Modeling_the_Law_of_Times





Argentine Air Force UFO Establishment

CIAE is the UAP task force for the Armed Forces of Argentina. Established May 2011 as CEFAE, it was revamped and technologized under the responsibility of Commodore Rubén Lianza in 2015, to be renamed as CIAE (Center for Aerospace Identification) in May 2019. Lianza publishes an annual report disclosing all UFO reports received and analyzed during the year, plus occasional investigations on older events. The latest annual report studies 45 reports that occurred from 1991 to 2021. CIAE investigates those UFO sightings supported by evidence (photography, video, or material), this is, only substantiated claims. All of them have been technically explained, the distribution of causes being birds & bugs (40%), balloons & airborne objects (18%), optical artifacts (11%), astronomical (11%), astronautical (11%), aircraft (7%), or ground facilities (2%). The 108-page monograph (in Spanish) is an example of “scientific ufology”, and it can be found here:


Quotable Quotes

When I was young, I used to read the Reader’s Digest, and one of the sections that both amused and inspired me was “Quotable Quotes.” I do not intend to open a new section in this blog but, eventually, I may include some sentences that convey subtle or explicit traits about the source of the phrases. I read the following in the Jacques Vallée diaries, an entry for April 26, 1975 (Forbidden Science, Vol. II, Documatica Research LLC, San Francisco, 2016, page 295). The dialogue was between theoretical physicist Jack Sarfatti1 and movie director Francis Ford Coppola. After the former told that aliens were in the process of contacting humans, the filmmaker replied: “Oh, yeah? Then why don’t they contact me?” Sarfatti answered: “But they do! They’re contacting you by sending me.” LOL.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti

The Incomprehensible in Ufology

What you currently read in some influential UFO books is what can be defined as “just word juggling,” a hollow discussion about time and consciousness and dimensions, made out of verbiage and wrapped into semantic gobbledygook that drives nowhere but one that looks intellectual and profound (just because you do not really understand it). It is the power of literary writing when it deals with esoteric thoughts devoid of a physical entity. What you read in books by both notable and copycat ufologists is a technique indistinguishable from what you can find in a similar troop of empty, Dalinian, meaningless words in a dialog in the 1974 novel The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. Le Guin, pages 313-319. Recommended reading.


(1) A journalist’s view of GEIPAN UFO study:



(2) Philip Mantle on Nick Pope:


(3) The Spanish engineer and indefatigable UFO researcher Manuel Borraz writes in the abstract of “Two Soviet Examples of Hartmann's "Airship Effect": A fraction of witnesses to spectacular fireballs and re-entries of space debris are known to describe a shape surrounding the string of disintegrating fragments, sometimes interpreted as windows in a dark aircraft. A brief summary of two Soviet examples follows, including the proposed identification of the space objects involved. An article not to be missed:


(4) The Brazilian astrophysicist Luiz A. da Silva has just published a daring paper in The International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 21 (1), February 2022, pages 9-31, entitled “Self-Conscious Intelligent Technological Societies in the Universe: A Simple Direct Approach to Probable Astrosociological Realistic Scenarios.” The article’s abstract reads: We present an alternative equation to estimate the probable number N of self-conscious intelligent technological societies (SCITSs) within the radius of the observable universe. This equation has only one poorly-known factor, Pc, the SCITS’s formation probability, which can be estimated within an uncertainty by a factor of 10² (10−¹¹ ≤ Pc ≤ 10−⁹) by applying the restriction imposed by Fermi’s Paradox. The SCITS’s formation rate for a typical spiral galaxy is then estimated as ≈1 civ Gyr−¹. For a very optimistic maximum life expectancy ≈10⁸ yr, the conclusion is that two civilizations never coexist in the same galaxy. Our estimated values for Pc are compatible with current biological and astrophysical evidence. We also propose an alternative astrosociological classification scheme which enables us to speculate about possible evolutionary paths for SCITSs in the universe. The so-called ‘Closed Bottle Neck’ (CBN) scenario suggests that civilizations are no exit evolutionary ways. We argue that simply there would not be interstellar travels nor Galaxy colonization or a Galactic Club. Thus, Fermi’s Paradox results eliminated, and the perspectives about the future of our own civilization may not be positive.

(5) Jacques Vallée joins Avi Loeb's Galileo Project:



(6) John Rimmer’s clarifying and to-the-point review of Ralph Blumenthal’s revealing biography of the late Harvard psychologist and alien abduction believer, Dr. John Mack. “Fascinating book,” Rimmer concludes:


(7) Colavito on the pseudoscience practiced by notable ufologists:


(8) Ross Pomeroy on Dr. David Jacobs’ beliefs in abductions:


(9) Wikipedia about MUFON:


(10) Manuel Borraz and J.C. Victorio Uranga continue reviewing the content of Spanish events appearing in the book Wonders in the Sky, by Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck, deconstructing with a major documental and analytical skill the “space” bias of such historical happenings. This time they have studied the “extraordinary flight of Licenciado Torralba from Valladolid to Rome and back.” The reading of this essay conveys a true lesson in History. It can be found here:


What You Miss from the Spanish Edition

The two versions of this blog are not identical. I suggest you practice your Spanish by reading some articles not translated into English, so that you do not miss an iota of the present issue’s content:

Investigación telemática” (Ciber-case investigation): on the advantages and potentialities of telematics for the inquiry of UFO reports.


Thanks to the following colleagues who have sourced material or analysis to the current edition of this blog: Terry W. Colvin (Thailand), Joan Plana (Spain), J.C. Victorio Uranga (Spain), Manuel Borraz (Spain), Luis Ruiz Noguez (Mexico), Matías Morey (Spain), Brad Sparks (USA), Diego Zúñiga (Chile), Jochen Ickinger (Germany), Hansjürgen Köhler (Germany), Andrés Duarte (Chile), Dr. Ricardo Campo (Spain), Julio Plaza del Olmo (Spain) and Juan Pablo González (Spain).


A Catalogue of 200 Type-I UFO Events in Spain and Portugal, 1976


OVNIS: El fenómeno aterrizaje (UFOs: The Landing Phenomenon), 1978, 1979

Los OVNIS y la Ciencia (with Miguel Guasp) (UFOs and Science),1981, 1989

Investigación OVNI (UFO Investigation), 1984

Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (with J.A. Fernández Peris) (Encyclopedia of Close Encounters with UFOs), 1987


Expedientes insólitos (Unusual Files), 1995

These books are available in the second-hand market, for example:

IBERLIBRO: https://tinyurl.com/vspkk2mu

UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/bd7w538f

AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/y53kr56x

Norway in UFO Photographs: The First Catalogue (with O.J. Braenne), 2008


UFOs and Government (with M. Swords & R. Powell and C. Svahn, B. Chalker, B. Greenwood, R. Thieme, J. Aldrich, and S. Purcell), 2012


Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965 (with M. Borraz, H. Janosch & J.C. Victorio), 2013


Belgium in UFO Photographs. Volume 1 (1950-1988) (with Wim van Utrecht), 2017


The Marfa Lights. Examining the Photographic Evidence (2003-2007) (with M. Borraz), 2020



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

2022/MARZO/15 (ES)


El banco de datos FOTOCAT recoge a día de hoy 12.806 casos. Recientemente ha contado con la aportación del catálogo actualizado de casos fotográficos franceses, por parte del investigador galo Raoul Robé.


Nuevas publicaciones

(1) “A Commentary to the 2022 UAP Act”: El 27 de diciembre de 2021, el presidente de los EE. UU., Joe Biden, firmó la Ley de Autorización de la Defensa Nacional para el año fiscal 2022. Por primera vez en la historia, este proyecto de ley incluía disposiciones para el establecimiento de una oficina dentro del Departamento de Defensa para estudiar los Fenómenos Aéreos No Identificados (UAP). He pretendido redactar (en inglés) una descripción pormenorizada y comentada de esta “ley ovni”:


Este ensayo ha sido reproducido en varias revistas y webs de Europa y América, como UAPSG/GEFAI (Milton Hourcade), The UFO Chronicles (Frank Warren) y Alternate Perceptions (Brent Raynes), así como traducido al alemán (UFO INFO). (2)Exégesis del platillo de Dudignac de 1955”. Se trata de la versión completa del estudio llevado a cabo sobre la primera fotografía ovni importante tomada en Argentina, un resumen del cual publiqué en la anterior edición de este blog. Entero, se lee aquí:


(3) Mi bibliografía actualizada, de 1965 a 2021, puede consultarse ya en el siguiente enlace permanente: http://www.cdufo.info/bib/bibliog1.pdf


Fenómenos celestes inusuales fotografiados en una base naval aérea de EE. UU.

Por V.J. Ballester Olmos y J.C. Victorio Uranga

Un fiel corresponsal del proyecto FOTOCAT es Terry W. Colvin, originario de Sierra Vista (Arizona), ahora oriundo de Hua Hin (Tailandia). Colvin se especializa en navegar por los archivos del Blue Book de la USAF en la web Fold3 y comunicar los hallazgos documentales a sus colegas, el primer autor entre ellos. Recientemente, nos presentó información sobre un caso que no conocíamos, un avistamiento visual y fotográfico realizado por varios militares estacionados en la Estación Aérea Naval de los EE.UU. en Willow Grove, Pensilvania, el 3 y 4 de agosto de 1952. Lo hemos revisado con el objetivo de encontrarle una solución. A ver si lo conseguimos. Hay dos documentos, uno fechado el 15 de agosto de 1952 y firmado por el comandante de la USAF Robert H. Ray, comandante de la Oficina de Investigaciones Especiales (OSI) del 3º Distrito de Harrisburg (Pensilvania), con información enviada al comandante de la OSI del 5º Distrito en la Base Aérea Wright-Patterson. Consistía en tres fotografías y una declaración escrita por varios soldados de la Marina de los EE. UU., procedente de la Oficina de Inteligencia Naval de Filadelfia. El memorando terminaba así: “Esta oficina no ha tomado ninguna medida en este asunto”.

Según esta declaración, a las 20:55 horas (EST), el soldado de día Gerald H. Swarm vio una luz de color ámbar en el cielo, cuatro veces más grande que una estrella, ubicada al noroeste en un lugar al sur de la Osa Mayor. La observó durante 45 minutos, tuvo que ausentarse durante 10 minutos y al regresar el objeto ya había desaparecido. A las 23:05 vio un segundo objeto ahora ubicado al noreste en lo alto del cielo, del mismo tamaño y color, que se movía lentamente hacia el suroeste. Lo estuvo viendo durante 25 minutos hasta que lo informó a otros compañeros. Envió a James J. Kelly al edificio de operaciones donde el camarógrafo de turno Richard W. Wade comenzó a tomar fotografías desde las 23:30 hasta las 01:30 del día siguiente. Era una noche despejada y tomó tres fotos con exposiciones de cinco, diez y veinte minutos, con una cámara Speed Graphic con teleobjetivo de 15” y apertura de 5,6. La declaración también fue firmada por M.J. Reidel, así como por Kelly. Otro testigo citado fue Stanley C. Chmielewski.

Respecto al avistamiento inicial, fue un punto de luz cuatro veces más brillante que una estrella, visto en el cielo nocturno durante 45 minutos. Si miramos el mapa del cielo en ese momento, encontramos a Marte con una magnitud de -0,12 y su característica coloración rojiza (por ejemplo, Arcturus, de color naranja, presente en el oeste, era tan tenue como 0,15). En principio, parecería ser un buen candidato para la observación. Pero estaba a 19º sobre el horizonte suroeste (222º de azimut), a 90º del noroeste y por lo tanto distante de la Osa Mayor, como podemos ver abajo (ilustración de la izquierda). A las 22:00 horas el objeto ya ha desaparecido de la vista. ¿Qué pasa con Marte? El planeta rojo está tan bajo (apenas 9,5º) que cualquier obstáculo en el paisaje impediría verlo, lo que concuerda con el hecho de que el ovni visto por Swarm se extinguió (ilustración de la derecha). (Arcturus todavía es visible, por lo que debe descartarse como objetivo). La posibilidad de que Marte haya sido el culpable sigue siendo considerable, asumiendo un probable error de posición por parte del observador.

Pero, con mucho, la segunda observación es la más importante ya que duró dos horas y media y se lograron fotos. Centraremos nuestro interés en esta fase más extensa del caso. Estas son las tres imágenes (de izquierda a derecha, con cinco, diez y veinte minutos de tiempo de exposición):

Un avistamiento nocturno tan largo, con imágenes que solo muestran trazas lineales como esas es algo típico de un estímulo astronómico, donde los planetas y las estrellas en tomas con exposición presentan semejantes huellas paralelas. Nuestro trabajo es determinar los cuerpos celestes responsables de ello. La primera constatación que podemos hacer es que las imágenes están invertidas. En otras palabras, si queremos comparar las fotos con el cielo de esa noche hay que girarlas 180 grados para mostrar la posición real de los planetas y las estrellas. Comprobamos ahora la toma de exposición de cinco minutos. En el siguiente par de ilustraciones se observa, a la izquierda, cómo se ve originalmente. Y, a la derecha, la imagen una vez rotada. Hemos resaltado seis puntos estelares que dejan huellas, una de ellas más intensa. A continuación, preparamos un mapa del cielo con Stellarium a la 01:00 horas del 4 de agosto de 1952, cuando el camarógrafo Wade comenzó a tomar fotografías. Júpiter destaca prominentemente como un astro fijo en el cielo. Al lado, hemos incluido otro gráfico ampliado donde los círculos rojos indican la posición del planeta y de cinco estrellas cercanas: la estructura de las trazas lineales es idéntica tanto en la imagen real (arriba) como en el cielo astronómico (abajo).

Ciertamente, fue Júpiter lo que llamó la atención de los observadores, y las fotografías muestran perfectamente al planeta en conjunción con las estrellas que lo rodean en la bóveda celeste. Es razonable pensar que el segundo avistamiento, largo y colectivo, fue la experiencia principal del primer testigo, porque fue solo entonces cuando dio la voz de alarma. Y al informar del suceso y recordar la observación inicial, probablemente la informó con errores de posición.

Podríamos repetir el mismo ejercicio con las otras imágenes, pero creemos que ya no merece la pena. Sí mencionar, sin embargo, una pequeña deducción que hicimos en la foto Nº3: las dos pistas luminosas que muestra se deben a una breve interrupción del tiempo de exposición y a un ligero movimiento de cámara en el ínterin, lo que provocó que el esperado doble trazo se dividiera en dos mitades. Por todo lo antedicho, estamos convencidos de haber encontrado la fuente del avistamiento militar de ovnis del 3 al 4 de agosto de 1952 desde la Estación Aérea Naval de los EE. UU. en Willow Grove (Pensilvania).

Para finalizar el hilo administrativo tenemos un segundo memorando, fechado el 19 de agosto de 1952, del teniente coronel D.G. North, comandante del 5º Distrito, dirigido al comandante oficial del Centro de Inteligencia Técnica Aérea (ATIC), también con base en Wright-Patterson, con el envío de la información anterior. Excepto notar que "la información contenida en este documento procede de fuentes distintas a la USAF", no hay más comentarios. Si el ATIC envió el material al proyecto Blue Book no lo sabemos. Sin embargo, este caso no figura en el índice mensual del Libro Azul correspondiente a agosto de 1952.

(El lector puede acceder a toda la documentación desde las páginas de Fold3, comenzando en los enlaces https://www.fold3.com/image/12199814 y https://www.fold3.com/image/6982273).

Sobre la nueva oficina ovni del Departamento de Defensa

Las secuelas de la publicación de la creación de una nueva oficina UAP, inserta en la sección 1683 de la última Ley de Autorización de la Defensa Nacional de 27 de diciembre de 2021, son tan variopintas como se esperaba, y me gustaría mostrar al lector varios artículos que enjuician y comentan el tema:

Mi propia reseña, “A Commentary to the 2022 UAP Act”:


Billy Cox, “Been a long time comin'”:


Red Pill Junkie, “Will UFO Disclosure Move Forward Under Biden?”:


La disección hecha por Milton Hourcade:


Las preocupaciones de los creyentes:


El portavoz del Pentágono dice que la nueva oficina UAP es solo la continuación de la AOIMSG:


Relacionado con todo ello, importa señalar la opinión manifestada por Christopher Mellon, ex-Subsecretario de Defensa, acerca de que la Fuerza Aérea americana “ni está ni se le espera” en el asunto ovni (UAP), ahora que el tema se halla ubicado en un nivel superior:


Una de sus afirmaciones es para tomarla en cuenta: “Presentaré datos a continuación que indican que la Fuerza Aérea y sus organizaciones componentes en realidad detectaron miles de UAP desde 2004 hasta 2021. Es cierto que es teóricamente concebible que ninguno se deba a una revolucionaria tecnología rusa o china, y mucho menos a naves espaciales extraterrestres, pero el punto es que simplemente no lo sabemos. Eso es lo que los convierte en UAP”. ¡Vaya! Miles de intrusiones en menos de dos décadas solo en los EE. UU. Si por una lógica que admite Mellon, no parece tratarse de vehículos voladores de un país extranjero y “mucho menos una nave espacial extraterrestre”, ¿por qué no prosigue el argumento y concluye que son objetos y fenómenos banales? Ovis, en una palabra. Veamos cuánto dinero se va a gastar USA para llegar a un final que se lo damos gratis.

Según el calendario establecido por la “ley UAP”, no más tarde del 31 de marzo de 2022 el jefe de la nueva oficina ovni del Departamento de Defensa brindará una sesión informativa clasificada a los comités del Congreso sobre Servicios Armados, Asignaciones y al comité permanente selecto de Inteligencia, incluyendo información sobre los incidentes ovni llegados al UAPTF con posterioridad al 24 de junio de 2021. ¡Estén atentos a las próximas filtraciones (probablemente interesadas)!

¡Últimas noticias! ¿Se plantea el Pentágono clasificar todos los datos ovni de la UAP Task Force? Vea lo que ha escrito Jazz Shaw en HotAir el pasado 12 de marzo: https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/03/12/report-the-pentagon-is-planning-to-classify-all-of-the-uap-task-force-ufo-data-n454860

OVNIS en la universidad europea: Dos enfoques

El profesor Hakan Kayal (doctorado en Ingeniería) ocupa la cátedra de Tecnología Espacial en la universidad alemana de Würzburg. Trabaja en el desarrollo, construcción y operación de sistemas espaciales y nanosatélites con fines científicos, en particular para misiones extraterrestres, búsqueda de inteligencia extraterrestre (SETI)… así como en la investigación de los fenómenos aéreos no identificados (antes ovnis, ahora FANI, o UAP en su acrónimo inglés).1 El objetivo académico es perfectamente legítimo, aunque me preocupa el sesgo de agregar los ovnis en el curso de una investigación sobre la vida en el universo. De alguna manera, muestra una conexión preconcebida entre ETI y ovnis, ¡y no hay base científica para esto en absoluto! Entendería una investigación neutral sobre el fenómeno ovni en un departamento universitario de Antropología, Historia, Sociología o Folclore. Incluso bajo la égida de cátedras de Psicología o Psiquiatría. Pero bajo el paraguas de la tecnología espacial, ¿cómo los alumnos van a prepararse en el conocimiento de las trampas y fallos de los procesos humanos de registro, memoria e interpretación de eventos inesperados y de corta duración, el papel que juega la mala interpretación de fenómenos triviales, el impacto de engaños y fraudes y, finalmente, los ejemplos de informes de personas mentalmente inestables? Me temo que, por defecto, los UAP se correlacionarán con vehículos espaciales, lo cual sería un terrible error científico. Dicho esto, dejémosle hacer su trabajo y evaluemos sus hallazgos al final del curso2.

He querido consultar a dos respetados colegas alemanes, y esta ha sido su reacción. Escribe primero Jochen Ickinger, de la organización UFOINFO.DE3:

El Prof. Kayal es sin duda un científico serio y reconocido con alta competencia en su campo. Asimismo, su proyecto SkyCam para la detección de objetos en el cielo es una puesta en escena profesional y científica. Kayal también es el director del Centro de Investigación Interdisciplinario para Estudios Extraterrestres de la Universidad de Würzburg (IFEX), donde los UAP también forman parte del campo de investigación. Mientras que para la mayoría de los informes de ovnis se asume -correctamente- una explicación convencional, al resto se le considera muy relevante. Su tratamiento en el contexto de la búsqueda de vida extraterrestre sugiere un cierto sesgo en la interpretación de los ovnis/UAP como aeronaves anómalas o exóticas. Esta visión centrada en objetos volantes también fue evidente en una reunión sostenida con Kayal por Zoom sobre este tema y sobre otros populares como los ovnis de Bélgica, los controvertidos videos de la Marina, o el informe de la SCU sobre el video Gimbal, como referencias a supuestos hechos que se podían analizar con datos, aunque no son datos objetivos sino suposiciones y estimaciones acerca de testimonios de testigos. Los hallazgos de décadas de investigación privada sobre ovnis, incluso a nivel científico, tampoco encuentran suficiente reconocimiento aquí. Una aproximación científica a un fenómeno posiblemente anómalo siempre debe hacerse de manera abierta e imparcial y también debe tener en cuenta otras explicaciones no anómalas. Queda por ver si el proyecto SkyCam proporcionará evidencia nueva y convincente sobre los UAP, y no solo luces ambiguas en el cielo de variada interpretación, como muchos proyectos similares anteriores. Dadas las múltiples apariencias de los objetos convencionales, especialmente la creciente presencia de drones, el objetivo de la identificación mediante software inteligente (aprendizaje automático) sigue siendo uno de los mayores desafíos.

Otro estudioso germano, Hansjürgen Köhler, del CENAP4 ha tenido a bien aportar estos comentarios:

Subjetivamente, veo algunas deficiencias en el enfoque de búsqueda a través de la SkyCam, ya que no creo que este dispositivo pueda excluir todos los posibles objetos volantes de origen terrestre. Entendemos bien la amplia gama de causas que generan falsos ovnis y como esta se expande constantemente, por lo que tengo mis dudas de que todo esto se pueda integrar en el proyecto SkyCam. También me pregunto por qué mis colegas astronómicos de la red ALLSKY en toda Europa, para la captura de bólidos y meteoros durante tanto tiempo, aún no han captado "UAP". Por supuesto, el argumento sería comenzar con un primer paso, pero ¿no estamos enfrentando un gran peligro por un enfoque falso? Tengo críticas profundas sobre las supuestas -e infundadas- "propiedades UAP", las que se han enumerado en la ufología desde 1947, en su mayor parte siendo malas interpretaciones de objetos celestes y otros hechos por el hombre. Después de 75 años de "caza de ovnis", la investigación muestra que las propiedades de los ovnis son iguales a las propiedades de los ovis. 

Pero no es esta la única iniciativa europea en cuanto a cursos universitarios dedicados a la investigación ovni. En España, y en el marco del grado de Criminología y Seguridad de la Universidad Camilo José Cela (campus de Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid), el profesor Dr. Heriberto Janosch ha abierto un taller sobre “Identificación Aeroespacial” para los alumnos, con una duración de dos meses. La importancia universitaria dada se refleja en los 2,56 créditos asignados, cuando una asignatura completa de grado tiene 6,00. Los participantes indagarán sobre las actividades del GEIPAN francés y el CIAE argentino usando libros de texto como el de Allan Hendry, The UFO Handbook (Doubleday, 1979). El Dr. Janosch, de nacionalidad argentina y española, es un reconocido investigador del fenómeno ovni, siendo coautor en 2013 de la obra Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965.5 Es notoria la diferencia de enfoque con respecto al colega alemán: en este caso el workshop está enfocado a la explicación de los fenómenos que el testigo ocular es incapaz de resolver por sí mismo.

Heri Janosch, a la derecha, en el estudio de V.J. Ballester Olmos.

En este caso, he querido pulsar la opinión de dos reconocidos estudiosos españoles. Primeramente, la del Dr. Ricardo Campo, filósofo y autor de importantes volúmenes de investigación sobre la casuística ovni en Canarias6:

A menudo he pensado que el ufólogo, al menos el que podría aparecer reflejado en la iniciativa académica del Dr. Janosch, tiene algo de botánico herborizador: siempre a la búsqueda de especímenes o, más bien, de casos, de ejemplares, que llevarse a su despacho para analizarlos y colocarlos no en láminas de papel secante, sino codificados en tablas de datos. Ambas actividades tienen en común mostrar una selección de manifestaciones del mundo real. Pero si una pone la atención en una parte de la flora de una comarca o ecosistema dado, la otra ¿qué muestra? Seguramente los alumnos de ese taller se harán la pregunta cuando revisen los relatos extraídos de las obras que va a utilizar el Dr. Janosch. (Desde mi punto de vista, sería muy interesante que una parte de la casuística seleccionada procediese de España). Y, tal vez, se hagan la misma pregunta respecto a otros temas del mundo del misterio, del pensamiento alternativo y posmoderno, que no es poco.

Y seguidamente la del físico Julio Plaza del Olmo, ex-investigador del Ministerio de Defensa español, que ha escrito algunos ensayos estadísticos sobresalientes sobre la fenomenología ovni7:

Tal y como está formulado, parece una iniciativa interesante desde el punto de vista de desarrollar el pensamiento crítico al estudiar cómo casos aparentemente anómalos acaban teniendo una solución mundana. Los alumnos seguramente podrán así aprender a evaluar y ponderar aspectos como testimonios, datos y pruebas, que seguro les puede servir de cara a su formación como criminólogos, fuera del ámbito de la ufología.


(1) https://www.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/aerospaceinfo/staff/kayal/

(2) https://p4-r5-01081.page4.com/_blog/18668-ufo-form-UAP-Sky-Searches-The-Sky/


(3) https://ufoinfo.de

(4) www.hjkc.de

(5) V.J. Ballester Olmos, M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio Uranga,

https://www.academia.edu/31467521/AVISTAMIENTOS_OVNI_EN_LA_ANTARTIDA_EN_1965.pdf http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?language=en&artID=182&st=1

(6) El fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde el siglo XVIII hasta 1980.


El fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde 1981 a 2015.


(7) https://www.academia.edu/31712514/Modeling_the_Law_of_Times





Investigación telemática

No hacía falta que sobreviniera una pandemia para conocer las bondades y ventajas del trabajo telemático. La investigación ovni a distancia, que siempre hemos dado en llamar trabajo de gabinete (y algunos cazurros “ufología de salón”), ha dado notables resultados y repetidos éxitos en cuanto a la identificación de casos se refiere. Nosotros ya experimentábamos con el estudio de casos en remoto desde finales de los años ochenta. El GEIPAN francés, por ejemplo, estima que el 90% de los casos puede resolverse sin que haga falta una encuesta sobre el terreno. La moderna tecnología informática, los cercanos recursos científicos y los accesos ilimitados que proporciona internet ayudan considerablemente en esta tarea.

En enero de 2022, dos antiguos casos de “aterrizaje” en España se han resuelto de esta forma. Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga se empeñó en estudiar una información según la cual el 7 de abril de 1950 se vio en Salamanca un ovni posado sobre los raíles de ferrocarril a unos 15 o 20 metros de distancia. En principio, según un artículo de la entidad catalana IIEE, los datos eran innegables. Lo cierto es que, concienzudo y escéptico como es, Victorio Uranga consiguió lo que había publicado en su día la prensa local y, además, entró en contacto con el testigo principal quien le respondió a un formulario para recabar los datos precisos. Su investigación apunta con gran seguridad al avistamiento de un avión moviéndose por el horizonte salmantino, nada de un “encuentro cercano”. La versión fantástica, dada a conocer en el boletín ufológico del IIEE, fue sencillamente un relato distorsionado y exagerado del testigo, del autor del artículo o de ambos a la par. Véase el estudio del caso aquí: https://misteriosdelaire.blogspot.com/2022/01/un-aterrizaje-ovni-del-ano-1950.html

En la lista en línea “Anomalist”, formada por 100 estudiosos hispanoamericanos, hace poco Ignacio Cabria se preguntaba sobre un suceso sobre el que originalmente había escrito Manuel Osuna y que publiqué en mi libro OVNIS: El fenómeno aterrizaje, allá por 1978. Una pareja de novios había estado viendo luces en el cielo varias noches de diciembre de 1971 desde San Juan de Aznalfarache (Sevilla). La noche del día 30, la pareja y el hermano de ella de 15 años recorrieron el campo viendo luces que parecían estar cerca del suelo y a unos 70 metros de distancia. Se tomaron fotografías, pero no salieron bien tras el revelado. Cabria había mostrado interés por la existencia de alguna investigación posterior. No la había habido (como tantos otros informes que llevan la etiqueta “ovni”, cuando debían llevar la de “sin investigación”), pero Manuel Borraz ha asumido el reto y ha encontrado detalles significativos: la repetida aparición del “fenómeno”, la baja altura angular a la que siempre se hallaba, la desorbitada estimación de dimensiones, la constante aparición de la enigmática luz por el suroeste, la nula constancia de observaciones por otras personas y la presencia a esa hora del planeta Venus a baja altura sobre la misma parte del firmamento donde había sido visto en las últimas semanas. En suma, blanco y en botella. Ver sus comentarios aquí:


Centro de estudio ovni de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina

La CIAE es el grupo de trabajo sobre UAP de las Fuerzas Armadas Argentinas. Establecido en mayo de 2011 como CEFAE, fue renovado e informatizado bajo la dirección del Comodoro Rubén Lianza en 2015, para pasar a llamarse CIAE (Centro de Identificación Aeroespacial) en mayo de 2019. Lianza publica un informe anual que da a conocer todos los informes de avistamientos ovni recibidos y analizados durante el año, además de investigaciones ocasionales sobre sucesos más antiguos. El último informe anual estudia 45 informes ocurridos entre 1991 y 2021. La CIAE se dedica a investigar aquellos avistamientos de ovnis respaldados por evidencia (fotografía, video o material), no informes de afirmaciones sin fundamento. Todos ellos han sido explicados técnicamente y se distribuyen de la siguiente forma: pájaros e insectos (40%), globos y objetos aéreos (18%), artefactos ópticos (11%), estímulos astronómicos (11%), astronáuticos (11%), aviones (7%) e instalaciones terrestres (2%). La monografía correspondiente al año 2021 tiene 108 páginas y es un verdadero ejemplo de “ufología científica”. El lector interesado en aprender cómo se resuelven informes ovni lo puede encontrar aquí:


Citas citables

Cuando era joven, solía leer el Reader's Digest, y una de las secciones que me divertían e inspiraban se titulaba “Quotable quotes”. No pretendo abrir una nueva sección en este blog pero, eventualmente, puedo incluir algunas frases que transmitan rasgos sutiles o explícitos sobre el origen de las frases. Leí lo siguiente en los diarios de Jacques Vallée, una entrada del 26 de abril de 1975 (Forbidden Science, Vol. II, Documatica Research LLC, San Francisco, 2016, página 295). Es un diálogo que tiene lugar entre el físico teórico Jack Sarfatti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti) y el director de cine Francis Ford Coppola. Después de que el primero dijera que los extraterrestres estaban en proceso de contactar con los humanos, el cineasta respondió: “¿Oh, sí? Entonces, ¿por qué no contactan conmigo? Sarfatti respondió seriamente: “¡Pero lo hacen! Te están contactando, enviándome a mí”.😂

Lo incomprensible en ufología

Lo que actualmente leemos en algunos libros influyentes sobre ovnis -u otros con ínfulas de pretensión- es lo que se puede simplemente definir como hacer juegos malabares con las palabras. Verbigracia, discusiones huecas sobre el tiempo, la conciencia o las dimensiones, hechas de verborrea envuelta en un galimatías semántico que no conduce a ninguna parte, pero que parece intelectual y profundo (exclusivamente porque no se entiende). Es el poder de la escritura literaria cuando se trata de pensamientos esotéricos desprovistos de una entidad física. Lo que lees en los libros de ufólogos notables -e imitadores de tercera fila- es una técnica indistinguible de lo que puedes encontrar, por ejemplo, en ese daliniano amasijo de palabras vacías y sin sentido que presumen ser un diálogo que hace poco leí en la novela de Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974), páginas 313-319. Recomiendo su lectura.


(1) Un punto de vista periodístico sobre el GEIPAN francés:



(2) Philip Mantle escribe sobre Nick Pope:


(3) El ingeniero español e infatigable analista Manuel Borraz escribe lo siguiente en el resumen de su ensayo (en inglés) sobre el llamado “efecto aeronave”, “Two Soviet Examples of Hartmann's Airship Effect": Una fracción de los testigos de las espectaculares bolas de fuego que dejan en el cielo bólidos y reentradas de chatarra espacial describen una forma rodeada por una cola de fragmentos en desintegración, a veces interpretados como ventanas de un objeto volante oscuro. Seguidamente presento dos ejemplos soviéticos, al tiempo que identifico los objetos espaciales causantes del espectáculo celeste. Es un artículo para no perdérselo:


(4) El astrofísico brasileño Luiz A. da Silva acaba de publicar un atrevido trabajo en The International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 21 (1), febrero de 2022, páginas 9 a 31, bajo el título “Self-Conscious Intelligent Technological Societies in the Universe: A Simple Direct Approach to Probable Astrosociological Realistic Scenarios” (Sociedades tecnológicas inteligentes autoconscientes en el universo: Un simple enfoque directo a escenarios realistas astro-sociológicos probables). El abstract del artículo dice así: Presentamos una ecuación alternativa para estimar el número probable N de sociedades tecnológicas inteligentes autoconscientes (SCITS) dentro del radio del universo observable. Esta ecuación tiene solo un factor poco conocido, Pc, la probabilidad de formación de SCITS, que puede estimarse con un factor de incertidumbre de 10² (10−¹¹ ≤ Pc ≤ 10−⁹) aplicando la restricción impuesta por la Paradoja de Fermi. La tasa de formación de SCITS para una galaxia espiral típica se estima entonces en ≈1 civ Gyr−¹. Para una esperanza de vida máxima muy optimista de ≈10⁸ años, la conclusión es que dos civilizaciones nunca coexisten en la misma galaxia. Nuestros valores estimados para Pc son compatibles con las evidencias biológicas y astrofísicas actuales. También proponemos un esquema alternativo de clasificación astro-sociológico que nos permite especular sobre posibles caminos evolutivos para SCITS en el universo. El llamado escenario de 'cuello de botella cerrado' (CBN) sugiere que las civilizaciones no tienen vías evolutivas de salida. Argumentamos que simplemente no habría viajes interestelares ni colonización de galaxias ni Club Galáctico. Así, la Paradoja de Fermi resulta eliminada, y las perspectivas sobre el futuro de nuestra propia civilización pueden no ser positivas.

(5) Jacques Vallée se une al proyecto Galileo de Avi Loeb:



(6) El investigador británico y alma del equipo Magonia, John Rimmer, ha escrito una reseña muy clarificadora del libro de Ralph Blumenthal sobre el fallecido psicólogo de Harvard y creyente en las abducciones, Dr. John Mack, una obra tan reveladora como fascinante:


(7) Colavito sobre la pseudociencia de algunos ufólogos notables:


(8) Ross Pomeroy opina sobre la creencia en las abducciones del Dr. David Jacobs:


(9) Lo que tiene que decir Wikipedia sobre el MUFON:


(10) Manuel Borraz y J.C. Victorio Uranga siguen la revisión de los casos españoles que aparecen en el libro Wonders in the Sky, de Jacques Vallée y Chris Aubeck, desmontando con el máximo rigor documental el enfoque “espacial” de varios sucesos históricos. En esta ocasión, han preparado este ensayo que trata sobre “el extraordinario vuelo del licenciado Torralba desde Valladolid a Roma y vuelta”. La lectura -y la consecuente lección de historia- la hallará el lector aquí:


(11) Caída de meteorito en la provincia de Ciudad Real en la madrugada del 15 de enero de 2022: https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/4941601/0/meteorito-cae-cerca-aldea-ciudad-real/

(12) Detección de un bólido sobre el Mediterráneo occidental a las 19:20 horas del 18 de enero de 2022: https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/4943811/0/h/

(13) Reentrada sobre España de un satélite de la serie Starlink a las 23 horas del 23 de enero de 2022:



(14) Informa Diego Zúñiga, CEO de la editorial Coliseo Sentosa, especializada en literatura ufológica -y de calidad, agrego yo- de la apertura de un canal en YouTube en donde semanalmente se transmitirá una versión 2.0 de “La Biblioteca Ufológica”, dirigida por Sergio Sánchez, para hablar de libros dedicados a la materia que tanto nos apasiona. Estos son algunos de los capítulos emitidos hasta ahora:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE4nE1I8bsk&t=942s (dedicado a Cielos despejados, de Matías Morey Ripoll)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAiuJCb5HTA (dedicado a Extraterrestres bajo la lupa, de Martin Kottmeyer)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwdYLlGaGpw&t=1s (dedicado a OVNI. Mitología de una emergencia, de Pablo Vergel y Félix Ruiz)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3At4HccuuJk&t=2064s (dedicado a OVNIs en Chile, de Patricio Abusleme)

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:

The ‘Tomato Man’ in Retrospective” (el alienígena carbonizado de 1948): He recopilado una retrospectiva de este curioso episodio de la ufología americana, llena de historias de estrellamientos de ovnis, gracias a que hace décadas los autores de los informes principales me remitieron las fotografías originales. Este es uno de esos casos que subyugan, que hacen volar la imaginación, pero que el verdadero investigador debe aprender a controlar. Espero que os molestéis en repasar el artículo, incluso aunque esté en inglés.


(1) En diciembre pasado, el veterano que firma este cuaderno de bitácora cumplió la friolera de 73 añitos. Aunque me siento como 37 (¡ja!) y tengo varios proyectos de gran calado en marcha y otros por comenzar, en el horizonte lejano se adivina un futuro cese de actividades. De momento, vaya la foto rodeado de mis nietos Lucas (derecha) y Matías y otra de Fernando, todos haciéndose mayores y objeto de mi devoción.

(2) El mismo día que difundía esta edición del blog, Juan Antonio Fernández Peris y yo sostuvimos una interesante reunión de trabajo en mi domicilio, a cuenta del estudio que está realizando de los más de 400 informes ovni recopilados para la Comunidad Valenciana, muchos de ellos encuestados personalmente por él y sus colaboradores en los años ochenta. No he querido dejar de plasmar una imagen de nuestro encuentro.

J.A. Fernández Peris, a la derecha, y V.J. Ballester Olmos (Valencia, 16 de marzo de 2022)


Mi gratitud a los siguientes colegas que han aportado información a la presente edición del blog: Terry W. Colvin (Tailandia), Joan Plana (España), J.C. Victorio Uranga (España), Manuel Borraz (España), Luis Ruiz Noguez (Méjico), Matías Morey (España), Brad Sparks (EE.UU.), Diego Zúñiga (Chile), Jochen Ickinger (Alemania), Hansjürgen Köhler (Alemania), Andrés Duarte (Chile), Dr. Ricardo Campo (España), Julio Plaza del Olmo (España) y Juan Pablo González (España).


A Catalogue of 200 Type-I UFO Events in Spain and Portugal, CUFOS, 1976


OVNIS: El fenómeno aterrizaje, Plaza & Janés, 1978, 1979

Los OVNIS y la Ciencia (con Miguel Guasp), Plaza & Janés, 1981,1989

Investigación OVNI, Plaza & Janés, 1984

Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (con J.A. Fernández Peris), Plaza & Janés, 1987


Expedientes insólitos, Temas de Hoy, 1995

De estas obras agotadas se encuentran ejemplares en el mercado de segunda mano, por ejemplo:

IBERLIBRO: https://tinyurl.com/vspkk2mu

UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/bd7w538f

AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/y53kr56x

Norway in UFO Photographs: The First Catalogue (con O.J. Braenne), 2008


UFOs and Government (con M. Swords & R. Powell y C. Svahn, B. Chalker, B. Greenwood, R. Thieme, J. Aldrich y S. Purcell), 2012


Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965 (con M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio), 2013


Belgium in UFO Photographs. Volume 1 (1950-1988) (con Wim van Utrecht), 2017


The Marfa Lights. Examining the Photographic Evidence (2003-2007) (con M. Borraz), 2020



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