Leer en español

2024/JUNE/15 (EN)

English language editing: Martin Shough.


FOTOCAT—the catalog—collects 13,131 entries. 12,858 of them reach up to the formal closing date of December 31, 2005, the remaining 273 entries to the present are exceptions, by region or category of special interest.



The Reliability and Psychology of Eyewitness-Centered UFO Experience: A Bibliography

By J. Ickinger, V.J. Ballester-Olmos, and U. Magin

Bibliographies are important resources for gaining an overview of the state of research on a particular subject. This bibliography offers a comprehensive compilation of publications on psychological aspects of UFO experiences, both from academia and private UFO research. It can be the basis and inspiration for your own research. As a spin-off to the 2023 volume The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony, we are publishing The Reliability and Psychology of Eyewitness-Centered UFO Experience: A Bibliography, a 66-page monograph containing over 1,300 references to essays, papers and books related to that important subject. This work has been authored by Jochen Ickinger, Ulrich Magin and me.

From the Foreword by Emeritus Professor Christopher C. French:

A wide range of psychological factors need to be considered when attempting to explain the various types of close encounter. Ickinger, Ballester-Olmos, and Magin have provided researchers in this area with an incredibly valuable tool in the form of this extensive bibliography.

Praise from reviewers:

An excellent scholarly resource for anyone interested in the UFO phenomenon and related to paranormal issues from a scientific perspective … A comprehensive and broad-spectrum compendium of important books and scientific articles … An outstanding resource to professional scholars and students alike. Matthew Sharps, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, California State University, Fresno, USA

Ickinger, Ballester-Olmos, and Magin offer a unique and extensive international bibliography of research on this very topic. For any serious student of the subject of UFOs or the paranormal more generally, it represents an essential resource – one that I will continue to consult for years. Greg Eghigian, Ph.D., Professor of History and Bioethics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

Even after more than 75 years of research, UFOs remain a mystery to us. They oscillate between subjective and objective reality, their ontology is uncertain, but their significance is undeniable … With their comprehensive and unique bibliography on the reliability and psychology of eyewitness accounts of UFOs, [the compilers] have created a veritable treasure trove of information for further research. Andreas Anton, Ph.D., Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, Freiburg, Germany

This monograph is available for free download from Academia.edu: 



It has been a year since the release of the 711-page volume The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony, the first book that collectively (57 chapters from 60 different authors from 14 countries) tackles the topic from an expert viewpoint. After more than two years of hard compilation and editing work, the two editors (me and Richard Heiden) decided, to ease distribution of the resulting tome of fresh knowledge, to publish it through a free download from Academia.edu: 


To date, the results have been promising: the book has received 6,600 views and 1,700 downloads from readers all over the globe. Mission accomplished! Simultaneously, for lovers of books on paper, collectors, libraries, university departments, etc., the Italian UPIAR publishing house launched a softcover, A4 size, print book in two editions, black & white and color: http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=201

(As the other hard books of my authorship in the same publisher, no royalties are generated, in order to reduce the final purchasing price).

In the May 2024 issue, pages 134-136, of Nova Religio. The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, a book review has been published penned by Dr. Matthew Bowman, Claremont Graduate University. These are some excerpts:

[UFOs] are not readily identifiable, creating an alarming, perhaps extraterrestrial, perhaps interdimensional category with deep and profound meaning for humanity. Th editors worry about the damage this construct does to our societies, along with the profound distraction and consequent suspicions it generates. They hope the volume offers a multidisciplinary refutation of the notion that eyewitness reports of UFO sightings are necessarily reliable. In fact, they say, they are not. […]

The essays throughout this lengthy volume range widely in style and method, but this is appropriate. UFOs do not appear to be any single thing, either. Despite its variance, its repetition, and its occasional unevenness, in its very structure this collection offers us a way of thinking about a consistently baffling phenomenon.


As loyal readers of this blog know, in July 2023 my last book was published online, Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera. It is a large-sized, 750-page book available gratis from Academia.edu at this link:


In January 2024, UPIAR publishing house printed hard copies of this book in a double edition of 700 pages in B&W and color: https://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=204

In spite of being a quite specialized book, limited to the history of Spanish ufology and not written in English, the reception of this big tome has been a very satisfactory one, with 1,200 online visits and 400 downloads.



Wim van Utrecht has been investigating UFO/UAP reports since the mid-1970s. He lives in Antwerp, Belgium, and is co-author of several books, including Unidentified Aerial Object Photographed over Zwischbergen, Switzerland, on July 26, 1975 (Caelestia, 1994, with Frits Van der Veldt), Belgium in UFO Photographs Vol. 1, 1950-1988 (UPIAR, 2017, with Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos), and Redemption of the Damned Vol. 1 and 2 (Anomalist Books, 2019/2021, with Martin Shough).

Solid Light or Lunar Light?

The 1983 Jüchen Case Revisited

Wim van Utrecht

Abstract – On May 24, 1983, a 14-year-old schoolboy observed a red-colored ball of light over a field south of the center of Jüchen, a municipality in the western part of Germany. The young witness reported how, from underneath the ball, a pyramid-shaped light gradually built up until it reached the ground. Still according to the boy, a couple of minutes later, the luminous pyramid disappeared in the same way it had appeared, gradually from top to bottom. The incident is regarded by GEP (1) investigators as an example of a solid light case. (2) In a recent paper, GEP describes the particularity of solid light as one of the few characteristics of UAP that can be regarded as a probable indicator of high strangeness (Ammon, et al, 2023, p. 314). The present author argues that the 1983 Jüchen case does not warrant a high-strangeness qualification, and suggests that the red ball was the Moon shining through clouds with crepuscular rays creating the pyramid shape.

Case Details

The case we are concerned with was first published in the November/December 1983 issue of GEP’s Journal für UFO-Forschung (JUFOF). In the article in question, author Hans-Werner Peiniger, Chairman of GEP, summarizes the report as follows (we translate from German):

In the evening of May 24, 1983, as it was already getting dark, 14-year-old high-school student Jürgen R. from Jüchen was behind his parents’ house toying with his handheld CB [Citizen Band] radio. He was standing about 30 meters from the house on the edge of a field. At approximately 6 p.m. he observed how, suddenly, a relatively round red object shot down from the closed cloud cover, and stopped above the ground, seemingly over a power line supported by poles. After a while, he noticed something that looked like a pyramid-shaped radiation field building up like an elevator from the underside of the object till it touched the ground. After a few seconds, the radiation field disintegrated again, however from top to bottom. When the field was no longer visible, the object shot up into the cloud cover as quickly as it had appeared. When it came out and when it entered the cloud cover, the witness got the impression that the object ‘vaporized’ the surrounding clouds. During the sighting, the radio communications with his colleagues were disrupted. (Peiniger, 1983, p. 161)

Puzzled by the incident Jürgen R. contacted GEP by phone. Shortly thereafter, the group mailed him a copy of their standard questionnaire. The young witness completed the form on June 13, 1983. This led to an on-site investigation conducted by Hans-Werner Peiniger and Gerald Mosbleck on August 27, 1983. Using the investigative notes, the completed questionnaire, weather data obtained from the Deutscher Wetterdienst (German Weather Service), and subsequent calculations carried out by Peiniger, the basic elements of the case can be summarized as follows:

Date: May 24, 1983

Time: from 6 p.m. till 6:10 p.m. CEST.

Location: Jüchen, a mid-size place near Grevenbroich in Bundesland Nordrhein-Westfalen. Jüchen is located about 23 km southwest from the city center of Düsselfdorf.

Terrain: flat rural terrain with a wide view over fields. There were no significant obstacles that hindered the view in the direction in which the phenomenon was observed (southeast). The distance to the power lines over which the UAP was situated was found to be approximately 350 m.

Shape: outline difficult to see, but oval-shaped with a slightly flat bottom (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Sketch of the unidentified object made by the witness. Image borrowed from the completed GEP questionnaire.

Color: orange red to brownish red, comparable to the color of the Sun at sunrise.

Angular size: approximately 2° for the moments it came out and entered the cloud cover; approximately 3° for the time it was motionless. [These values were obtained through what the investigators refer to as the “57 cm test”, and by which witnesses are asked to hold a ruler at arm’s length (~57 cm) and then estimate how many mm or cm the sighted object would have measured.]

Actual size: 11 m (when stationary over the power lines); 23 m (when coming out of and entering the cloud cover).

Azimuth: when first seen 120°; when stationary 140°; when last seen 145°.

Elevation: when first seen 17°; when stationary 11°; when last seen 15° [Both elevation and azimuth were obtained with the help of a compass with built-in inclinometer.]

Height above ground level: 68 m (when stationary over the power lines); 300 m (when coming out of and entering the cloud cover).

Distance over the ground: between 350 m (when stationary over the power lines); 1,046 m (when coming out of and entering the cloud cover).

Speed: faster than a fighter jet.

Sound: none heard.

Weather: dense cloud cover; light rain or drizzle (uniformly reported by all weather stations in Nordrhein-Westfalen); visibility: between 2 and 4 km, depending on the intensity of the precipitation; cloud ceiling near Jüchen: presumably 300 m, but ragged clouds may have drifted at 200 m; the wind was blowing from the north-northwest. [Source: letter sent by the Deutscher Wetterdienst to Hans-Werner Peiniger on October 24, 1983.]

With regard to the “radiation field”, the JUFOF article specifies:

After having remained motionless for about 15 seconds, four clearly visible red rays appeared below the object, building up like an elevator towards the ground. The four rays formed a pyramid. In between, there was a radiation field that lit up in a slightly lighter red than the color of the object. The background, trees and shrubs, were still clearly visible. The build-up went relatively fast, some 5 to 10 seconds.

The full radiation field was visible for about 1 to 2 minutes. The radiation field touched the ground and illuminated it.

The disintegration happened noticeably slower than the build-up. In circa 7 to 8 minutes, the pyramid-shaped radiation field was deconstructed from top to bottom. When it disappeared, the ground it touched continued to glow for about 10 seconds until the glow became weaker and disappeared completely. After circa 20 to 30 seconds, the object flew away at the same speed with which it had appeared, again breaking through the closed cloud cover. (Peiniger, 1983, p. 163)

The images below illustrate the gradual appearance and disappearance of what the JUFOF article refers to as “the radiation field.” With regard to Fig. 3, Peiniger emphasizes that: “For optical reasons, all ‘sides of the pyramid’ are drawn, but it’s obvious that only the four sides drawn in ‘J’ were recognizable as rays.”

Fig. 2. Reconstruction drawing of the incident made by Hans-Werner Peiniger using a photograph taken at the sighting location. The insert shows a close-up of the high-tension pole and the trees in the background. Both images courtesy of Hans-Werner Peiniger.

Fig. 3. Sketches presented by the GEP investigators showing the various stages of the “radiation field” (Peiniger, 1983, p. 164).

A Critical Look at the Data

There appears to be a discrepancy in the data collected by the investigators. On page 161 of Peiniger’s article, the time of the incident is given as “In the evening of May 24, 1983, as it was already getting dark.” (3) This phrase unambiguously informs us that the sighting occurred around sunset. Yet, on p. 162 of the same article, we are being told that the sighting took place “from 6 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. CEST.” Now, for an observer at Jüchen, at 6 p.m. local time on May 24, 1983, the Sun was still high up in the sky (a little more than 30° above the horizon). In fact, sunset at Jüchen that day was at 9:27 p.m., almost 3.5 hours later. 

This observation is important because if the sighting occurred not at 6 p.m. but closer to sunset, say at 9 p.m., we find that at that moment, the 95.9% illuminated Moon was sitting in the southeast at azimuth 134° and elevation 16°. This position in the sky falls within the azimuth and elevation ranges determined by the investigators when they visited the sighting location, namely: azimuth between 120° and 145°, elevation between 11° and 17° (Peiniger, 1983, p. 163). According to one of the witness’s answers given in the questionnaire, the object was seen “over a high-tension pole”. Such a pole would have constituted an excellent reference point for the investigators to determine a reliable azimuth direction. So, the question arises as to whether the round luminous object may not have been the Moon.

Fig. 4. Stellarium rendering of the evening sky on May 24, 1983 at 9:00 p.m. The insert is an enlarged image of the Moon showing its waxing gibbous phase.

Fig. 5. Google map of the sighting location showing the azimuth of the Moon on May 24, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. (red arrows), as well as the azimuth range of the UAP as determined by Peiniger and Mosbleck (blue arrows).

The “6 p.m.-6:10 p.m.” time estimate appears in the questionnaire completed by the witness on June 13, 1983, i.e., nearly three weeks after the event. In these circumstances, a mistake about the time is easily made. It would be more difficult to understand how someone’s memory can turn a nocturnal sighting into an event that happened in broad daylight. Even under the given weather conditions (closed cloud cover with light rain or drizzle), it should have been clear to the witness whether it was afternoon or dusk. Also, if it had been daylight, and if the UAP was really “vaporizing the surrounding clouds” as it re-entered the cloud cover and shot off, one would expect the witness to have reported seeing the blue sky through the clouds at that moment.

Apart from the fact that the Moon was positioned in the southeast the evening of the sighting, there are other details in the report that hint at the idea of the unidentified object having been the lunar disc shining through clouds. We list them below.

  • Included in the GEP questionnaire is a sketch that represents the shape of the UAP. The sketch, reprinted here as Fig. 1, shows an oval shape with a flattened bottom (“slightly flattened towards the bottom” in the accompanying handwritten text). On May 24, 1983, the Moon was 95.9% illuminated and waxing gibbous. With its lower left side in the shadow, the Moon’s appearance that evening matches the description given by the witness fairly well.

  • The UAP was described as “orange red to brownish red”. These colours are typical for a low Moon. When the Moon sits close to the horizon its reflected light has to travel through a longer atmospheric path. Colors with short wavelengths, such as blue and green, are then filtered out.

  • The sighting lasted close to 10 minutes. It is well known that the bulk of long-duration UAP reports is almost always attributable to astronomical bodies.

  • The fact that the scene unfolded itself in complete silence was considered an additional element of strangeness, but becomes fully normal if the object sighted was the Moon.

  • The description of a luminous object moving in and/or out of the clouds at an incredible speed is often found in UAP reports that can be attributed to the Moon. As the Moon breaks through the clouds, witnesses tend to mistake the rapidly growing visible part of the lunar disc for a luminous object that approaches at high speed. Similarly, clouds moving in front of the Moon can create the illusion of a luminous ball suddenly diminishing in size and appearing to shoot away into the distance. (4,5)

  • The different azimuths for the beginning and the end of the sighting (120° and 145°, respectively) suggest a displacement to the right. This is to be expected from an astronomical body.

The latter argument is not foolproof as it also raises a problem with regard to the angular distance travelled. We know that the horizontal distance traveled by the Moon in 10 minutes would have been a little over 2° (i.e., four Moon diameters). Yet, the angular distance covered by the object was estimated to have been 145°-120° or 25°.

It is important to note in this regard that, if the object was the Moon, the estimated angular size—which, according to the “57cm test” conducted at the site varied from 2° to 3°—would have been overestimated by a factor 4 to 6 (on average, the full Moon’s angular diameter is about 0.52°). Two months before the on-site investigation, when the witness was asked in the GEP questionnaire to compare the UAP’s size to a common object held at arm’s length, the young man selected “soup plate” from answers ranging from “pinhead” to “bigger than a soccer ball.” A standard soup plate has a diameter of about 23 cm. Held at arm’s length (57 cm) that gives an angular size of 23° or 46 times the Moon’s diameter! The point we want to make is that, when observing a moving object in the sky, an overestimation of the object’s angular size logically entails an overestimation of the angular distance travelled by that object.

It is well known that determining the apparent size of an object in the sky by asking witnesses to compare the size of what they saw to some common object held at arm’s length always yields exaggerated sizes. More reliable estimates are obtained when witnesses are asked to compare the size of what they saw to that of a star or the full Moon (Hendry, 1979, p. 18). Peiniger was well aware of this problem as he wrote: “Experience and tests have shown that these values [2°-3°] can be reduced by 30 to 50%.” Following this rule, Peiniger settled on an angular size of 1.2°, which is still twice the size of the Moon.

Fortunately, there is a question in the GEP questionnaire that asks witnesses to compare the object’s size to one of the following: a point-shaped object (like a star), somewhat bigger than a point-shaped object, one-quarter of the size of the full Moon, half the size of the full Moon, three-quarters the size of the full Moon, the full Moon, an object bigger than the full Moon. This time, the witness selected “three-quarters the size of the full Moon,” which equals an angular size of about 0,38°. It is likely that this is the most reliable estimate of the object’s apparent size, and probably not a coincidence that it is close to what the Moon may have looked like when seen through translucent clouds, making its “outline difficult to see.”

Crepuscular Lunar Rays

If the Moon theory is correct, the “four red rays” that formed the pyramid-shaped “radiation field” underneath the object, may have been lunar rays passing through gaps in the cloud cover. Due to perspective, such crepuscular rays (6) always appear to fan out from the light source that creates them (Figs 6 and 7 show examples of this optical atmospheric phenomenon). In reality, however, they are parallel beams of light, but seen as luminous columns oriented away from the source, much like railway tracks that appear to meet at a vanishing point in the distance. Crepuscular rays can be bright enough to illuminate the ground, especially when the light source is the Sun. They are sometimes referred to as Jacob’s Ladder after a biblical tale in which Jacob dreamed of a staircase to heaven.

Fig. 6. Crepuscular Moon rays shining upwards from the clouds over the French Pyrenees. Image borrowed from https://moucaud.fr/systeme-solaire/la-lune/

Fig. 7. A spectacular example of crepuscular rays, now with the Sun as the light source. Despite the fact that this image is all over the internet, the name of its author and where and when it was taken remain unknown. We found it at https://www.gadu.org/antologia/el-simbolo-de-la-luz/ Of special interest in this image is the dark horizontal zone that makes it look as if the beams are cut off in mid-air.

Crepuscular Moon rays aren’t seen as often as crepuscular Sun rays. The best chance to observe them is when the air is filled with scattering particles. That can be dry particles like dust and pollen, but also tiny water droplets. A situation with light rain or drizzle is ideal for the visibility of crepuscular rays. But how to explain the elevator-like build-up?

In the questionnaire, the witness selected “Stratus” as the cloud type from which the oval-shaped object “shot down.” Gaps in stratiform cloud layers are not created instantly. They form gradually at places where the cloud is thinnest. Before the cloud breaks up, it will become more translucent, letting more light pass until an intensity is reached bright enough for the escaped light to successively illuminate floating particles all the way down to the ground. Perhaps, this simple fact can account for the elevator-like build-up of the luminous pyramid.

It is also possible that the rays appeared to descend due to a narrow band of low-level mist or drizzle moving away from the observer, with the wind, so moving down the sky and intercepting moonlight at reducing elevations.

For that theory to work, we need a situation in which the mist or drizzle moved in the direction the witness was looking at. If the wind was blowing from a direction perpendicular to the line of sight, the witness would have seen the rays appear one by one from left to right, or vice versa. Had the layer of mist or drizzle approached from where the phenomenon was, the “build up” would have been from top to bottom. So, the only good fit for the theory would be a northwestern wind. In their letter to GEP, the German Weather Services mentioned a north-northwestern wind. This wind direction is confirmed by balloon soundings conducted at Essen (7), 53 km northeast of Jüchen, on 2 p.m. on May 24 and 2 a.m. on May 25 (both local time). The balloons recorded the following wind data:

- May 24, at 2 p.m., altitude 153 m: 350° or north-northwest (speed: 8 knots or 14.8 km/h)

- May 24, at 2 p.m., altitude 433 m: 357° or north (speed: 10 knots or 18.5 km/h)

- May 25, at 2 a.m., altitude 153 m: 330° or north-northwest (speed: 6 knots or 11.1 km/h).

- May 25, at 2 a.m., altitude 1419 m: 360° or north (speed: 25 knots or 46.3 km/h). (8)

We further found that on May 24, in Maastricht, 55 km west-southwest of Jüchen, the 24-hour vector average of the wind on the ground was 333°, so again north-northwest (the average wind speed was 6.7 m/s or 24.1 km/h). (9)

Dependent on the exact time, and on local geographical and atmospheric conditions, the situation may, of course, have been slightly different that evening at Jüchen. Still, it’s safe to say that on May 24, 1983 the wind in the western regions of Germany came from the north to northwest quadrant. Under these circumstances, mist or drizzle would have drifted along with the witness’s line of sight away from him towards the luminous phenomenon, and therefore may have played a role in the illusion of a descending “radiation field.”

Harder to explain is the disintegration of the “radiation field” from top to bottom. One possibility is that this was caused by a shaft of precipitation (Virga) that dropped from the base of the stratus cloud (see Fig. 8). Positioned in between the parent cloud and the witness, a developing fallstreak would first shield the top of the “pyramid,” then, as the cloud gradually stretched downward, obscured the lower part as well. Its translucent character would not have obscured the Moon itself, but would have been opaque enough to render the fainter crepuscular rays invisible. In the questionnaire, the witness stated that the light that came from the object “flickered irregularly.” (10) This is exactly what one would expect from a distant light that is shining from behind a curtain of rain.

Fig. 8. Nimbostratus with fallstreaks over the Cathedral of Our Lady in Antwerp, Belgium. Photograph taken by the author in the afternoon of April 4, 2019.

Interestingly, the photographs shown in Fig. 2 show a hill in front of the witness with its slope masking the lower part of some trees in the background. Under these viewing conditions, a fallstreak may have been seen as touching the visible horizon, hiding the rays from sight, while the illuminated patch on the ground remained visible until the wind-driven cloud intersected with the rays and cut off their path to the Moon.

The biggest problem with the Moon theory lies not so much with the gradual build-up and disintegration of the light rays, but more with elevation. Both the oval shape of the object and the reddish color suggest that the sighting occurred shortly after moonrise, with the lunar disc still close to the horizon and its light travelling a long enough path through the atmosphere. Moonrise on May 24 was at 6:49 p.m. If we were to assume that the incident took place at 7 p.m., the moon would have been at an elevation slightly over 1°, ideal for atmospheric refraction (flattening) and filtering of shorter wavelengths (reddening) to occur. However, in this scenario, the Moon’s azimuth would have been 109°, i.e., 11° more east than the most easterly azimuth determined by Peiniger and Mosbleck.

A second disadvantage of assuming that the incident happened at an earlier time is that, at 7 p.m., the Sun was still 21° above the horizon. In the presence of ambient light from the Sun, one may wonder if, even on a dark clouded evening and a sky full of reflective particles, crepuscular lunar rays would have been bright enough to illuminate the ground. Moreover, when the Moon is positioned low on the horizon, the large amount of atmosphere will make it appear dimmer. Unfortunately, Peiniger’s article does not contain a clear indication of how bright the phenomenon was. All we have is an answer in the questionnaire that compares its brightness to the setting Sun, which may be interpreted in two ways: a bright glowing yellow-orange disc, or a dim red disc. The article itself also mentions that the rays that formed the “radiation field” were “clearly discernible” and in a “slightly lighter red,” but it tells us nothing about brightness. On May 24, the Moon’s distance from Earth was 384,564 km, which is about average. So, the lunar disc would not have looked exceptionally big or bright for reasons of proximity.

Fig. 9. Flattened orange Moon rising over Westbourne, UK, photographed in October 2019. Image borrowed from https://www.bbc.com/weather/features/50041017

In summary, the reported elements, and in particular the reported oval shape and orange-red color, do not tally well with the required brightness/contrast for crepuscular rays to have been visible at any time between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. On the one hand we need a large amount of atmosphere between the Moon and the observer to account for the red color and the oval shape, while on the other more atmosphere also means less light.

With regard to the color, we noted a particularity in an unusual UFO study conducted by the French CNEGU in 1994. (11) The aim of the study was to visit sighting locations of possible Moon cases 18 years after the reported event took place. The project was called “Opération Saros” after the interval of approximately 18 years and 11 days after which the Earth, Sun, and Moon return to nearly the same relative positions. Below are some quotes of how the witnesses described what they saw in cases that could be attributed to the Moon. Each quote is followed by the elevation of the lunar disc at the moment of the concerned sighting (we selected only those cases in which the Moon was more than 5° above the horizon):

- 1976/04/19, Laville-aux-Bois: “an enormous red sun” — Moon at 6°

- 1976/04/19, La Robertsau-Strasbourg: “luminous yellow round ball” — Moon at 12°

- 1976/07/03, Art-sur-Meurthe: “a bright red blurry shape” — Moon at 9°

- 1976/07/22, Vandoeuvre: “oval shape, metallic, like luminous magma, very sparkling”; “luminous orange disc” — Moon at 12°.

- 1976/08/01, Tomblaine: “red-orange ball, quite bright” — Moon at 9°

- 1976/08/08, Urimenil-Golbey: “big ball of fire, incandescent”; “red ball that resembled the setting sun” — Moon at 9°.

Similar descriptions were given in two of the 15 Belgian and Dutch Moon cases collected by the author:

- 1972/07/19, Faymonville: “red-orange hat-shaped object, edges very clear” — Moon at 6°

- 2009/07/03, Houthalen: “orange” — Moon at 13°

- 2014/07/16, Meulebeke: “orange-red, as if there was a fire behind the clouds” — Moon at 8°

- 2015/09/19, Vorst: “super big flame of fire, pulsating” — Moon at 6°

From these descriptions, it appears that witnesses who mistook the Moon for an unidentified aerial object, quite often describe the lunar disc as shining with a bright yellow-red color, even when its elevation is around 10°.

We know that the filtering of shorter, bluer wavelength also happens when the air is filled with smoke. In that regard, it is interesting to note that there are lignite surface mining plants at Frimmersdorf and Neurath, respectively 6 km and 10 km southeast of the sighting location, i.e., in the direction the witness was looking at. Both plants were operational in 1983, and it’s not impossible that smoke particles from these industrial sites added to the reddish hue of the Moon.

However, the presence of light rain or drizzle makes that theory unlikely, as it can be argued that the falling water droplets would have cleared the air of smoke particles.

Even if the Moon can appear orange-red at elevations of more than 5°, the same does not apply to refraction phenomena. Still, we can think of an alternative explanation for the oval shape and/or flattening of the object near the bottom, namely a cloud. We know that scud clouds drifted underneath the base of the stratus cloud, so it’s not far-fetched to imagine one such cloud obscured the lower part of the Moon, not dissimilar to what can be seen in Fig. 10. With a part missing at the bottom, an otherwise round object is quickly referred to as “oval-shaped.”

Fig. 10. Artist’s rendering of an unidentified aerial phenomena seen over Réméréville, France, in September 1976. The object was described as having the shape of a bowl with a very intense orange glow coming from its upper part that illuminated the few clouds and passed through them to emerge in rays of different hues. The couple who witnessed the event claimed that the object was first on the ground, then moved towards the east before disappearing at a dizzying speed. Investigation by CNEGU showed that the object was almost certainly the rising Moon. Drawing borrowed from OPERATION SAROS (1976-1994).

Radio Interference

The Moon theory offers no explanation for the disturbances that reportedly affected the portable CB radio during the sighting. We can only speculate as to what may have happened. Perhaps, the anxiety of the moment caused an error in handling the radio, or perhaps the light rain caused water to enter the handheld device and temporarily affected the transmission. It is interesting to note here that another CB enthusiast with whom the witness was in contact when the phenomenon was seen, had asked why his friend so abruptly ended the conversation. But more telling, perhaps, is that this potential witness, who was “over a km away,” did not see anything strange in the sky. (Peiniger, 1983, p. 164)


Despite the problems described, we feel that the Moon is the best candidate to explain the Jüchen incident. Possible explanations evaluated by the German investigators included a manifestation of ball lightning and the flight of a helicopter. The long duration (~10 minutes) as well as the large size (between 11 and 23 m if one were to assume that the luminous ball was at the same altitude as the cloud base) seem to rule out ball lightning. Furthermore, we don’t think that introducing ball lightning in the equation is a good idea as it merely replaces one unknown with another. A helicopter seems unlikely because of the atypical red color of both the oval-shaped object and the “radiation field.” Even if the moderate north-northwest breeze would have carried much of the noise away from the witness, one would still expect the latter to have heard some sound of the rotors in this rural setting.

It is regrettable that no one else in or near the town of Jüchen reported seeing what the young boy described. Possibly, other people did see the luminous display, too, but never reported it because they immediately recognized it for what it was. Although the investigators typify the witness as very reliable, we cannot be sure that every part of his story is equally close to the truth. The fact remains that we have to rely on descriptions given by a witness of only 14 years of age, and that anecdotal evidence of this kind is not to be treated as factual evidence.

We also need to emphasize that UFO/UAP reports that turned out to be misinterpretations of the Moon can be very spectacular in content. In fact, earlier studies have shown that the Moon was responsible for quite a few car chases and near landings. (12) One example of such a case concerns a frightening encounter between the occupants of an ambulance car and a luminous red ball that followed the vehicle and ended up ‘blocking’ their passage. (13)

As for the so-called solid light cases described in the UFO/UAP literature, it is often ignored that over the years several of these incidents received satisfying explanations. In the early 1980s, Dutch physicist Jan Heering, who was among the first to study cases of this type, turned his back on UFO research after having realized that the bulk of solid light cases were either completely unreliable, or could equally well be attributed to known phenomena. (14,15) The Jüchen case is actually one of the very few solid light cases that stood the test of time. Yet, all we have is a single witness describing something that closely resembles a rare optical atmospheric phenomenon. As such, we can only conclude that in this case, too, the evidence for solid light is anything but solid.


(1) Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens (GEP) was founded in 1972, and is regarded as Germany’s leading UFO research organization.

(2) By “solid light case” is meant a sighting report that involves lights or beams of light, which to the observer appear to have properties that one would normally associate with solid objects. Examples of solid light are light beams that are bent or cut off in mid-air.

(3) In the original German text, it says: “Am Abend des 24.05.1983, es dämmerte bereits.”

(4) A fine example of this illusion was given by pilot and Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham who reported the following personal experience to space journalist and historian James Oberg (we quote from an email sent by James Oberg to Herbert Taylor on December 20, 2007): “Shortly after taking off from Ellington AFB in the late 1960s, after dark, with low overcast, Cunningham was climbing gently through the clouds when he noticed a light, level with him at about 2 o’clock. It brightened, then took on a form that grew larger. To all appearances it was approaching him at a constant ‘angle off’, a sure indication of impending collision. He grew concerned and took hold of his controls to perform an evasive dive, when he was startled to see the object now backing away from him in the same direction. It disappeared entirely, to his puzzlement. A few moments later he cleared the cloud deck he was in, and there at the precise position was the full Moon. He had seen a slice of it between two cloud layers, the slice enlarging (towards its center) and then diminishing.”

(5) Another example of an object that was seen to fly in and out of clouds and was attributed to the Moon, is the following case from the Blue Book files: “DATE: 14 October 1957 / LOCATION: San Bernardino, California / GMT: 15/0710Z. LENGTH OF OBSERVATION: 2-3 minutes. BRIEF SUMMARY OF SIGHTING: Object shape of cup upside down, size of a quarter, silvery and gold. Moved East and out of site in clouds. Came down from clouds & moved back up into clouds. COMMENTS: Area was overcast. Moon full on this date [actually, only 73.5% of the lunar disc was illuminated on October 14, 1957] & in about same position as object sighted. It is believed break in clouds let moon show through momentarily. CONCLUSIONS: Moon.” (Blue Book’s record card on this case can be viewed at: https://archive.org/details/1957-10-6972299-SanBernardino-California).

(6) We use the term crepuscular rays here for convenience. True crepuscular rays, however, are seen at dawn or dusk, when the light source—almost always the Sun—is below the observer's horizon.

(7) Essen is located 152 m above sea level, Jüchen 81 m.

(8) https://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html

(9) Source: https://weerverleden.nl/19830524-380&all The weather station of Maastricht is located 116 m above sea level.

(10) The word in the original German text is “flimmerte” (irregular flickering) as opposed to “flackerte” (periodical flickering).

(11) C.N.E.G.U. (1994), Comité Nord-Est des Groupes Ufologiques, Opération SAROS (1976-1994): «Des OVNIs réproductibles, une hypothèse verifiée».

(12) See for instance: Alexandre, T. with Maillot, E. (2015), Des OVNI au clair de lune: Les dossiers de S.O. N°6, Ed. Ecrit’Vain, as well as S.E.R.P.A.N. (1993), Les influences de la lune sur la casuistique & l’ufologie, and C.N.E.G.U. (1994), Opération SAROS (1976-1994): «Des OVNIs réproductibles, une hypothèse verifiée».

(13) Van Utrecht, W. (2023). “Lunar Terror in Poland” in Ballester-Olmos, V.J. & Heiden, R.W. (Eds.), The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony (pp. 205-219). Available online at: 


(14) See, for instance, Heering, J. (April 1985), Letter to the Editor, SVL Tijdschrift 4/14, (pp. II-IV). The journal is available at:https://files.afu.se/Downloads/Magazines/Belgium/SVL%20Tijdschrift/SVL%20Tijdschrift%20-%20Jaargang%204%20No%2014%20-%20april%201985.pdf

(15) One classic example of a solid light case for which an alternative explanation was offered is the Argentinean Trancas case from 1963. See Banchs, Dr. Roberto E. (March 1994), Los identificados VI – casuística ovni con ocupantes en Argentina, Los fenómenos de Trancas, private publication.


Ammon, D., Günter, T. A., Kramer, A., Peiniger, H.-W. (2023). “UAP Research in Germany Single Case Studies, Data Management, Understanding of ‘Strangeness’” in Journal of Anomalistics, 23, 302-323. Available online at:


Hendry, A. (1979). The UFO Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating and Reporting UFO Sightings, Sphere Books Ltd, London.

Peiniger, H.-W. (1983). “CE2-Fall in Jüchen” in Journal für UFO-Forschung 4(6), 161-167. Available online at:



One of the most well-known series of UFO photographs is that snapped by Rex Heflin in Santa Ana, California, on August 3, 1965. Many analyses have been performed on those pictures up to now and the general consensus points to a fake, although some parties consider it a legitimate flying saucer event. Recently, French UFO investigator Jean Claude Néglais has reviewed the images and written this text that Raoul Robé offered to this blog. I feel this is an interesting contribution to the debate. Monsieur Néglais (Nancy, 1946) has been a photoengraving draftsman and layout designer until retirement. He is not a UFO skeptic; he is willing to stress.

An analysis of the Santa Ana (Rex Heflin) 1965 UFO Photographs

Jean Claude Néglais

Abstract: A new analysis of the infamous Rex Heflin trio of UFO photographs, conducted by a non-skeptic and UFO witness himself. Various reasons in the analysis make it impossible to believe that those three photos were taken as reported by the photographer.  

Umpteenth analysis of Rex Heflin's photos by someone who is rather convinced of the reality of the UFO phenomenon and has himself been the witness of a strange event. I have "always been familiar with" this 1965 case,1 consisting of a low-altitude sighting during which the witness, a highway inspector in Santa Ana, California, had time to take three Polaroids from his parked van. His camera was a professional endowment and he had it with him for his work.

Those photos have been the subject of numerous expert appraisals for, or against, by pros, and by anti-UFOs, including by people I have a high regard for, and have been used as illustrations for books or articles on many occasions. The witness, "Rex" Heflin, esteemed by his family, friends and co-workers, never tried to monetize the use of his pictures. He willingly complied with numerous investigations conducted by official services or amateurs. He entrusted his originals several times for reproduction. Unfortunately, all those reproductions from the times of film photography led to a loss in quality making the analysis more difficult (Polaroids are even worse in that regard). Sometime later, Heflin claimed that someone purporting to be an official from NORAD had kindly asked to borrow the originals from him, which he unsuspectingly accepted as he had done so many times before for others — but this time the photos were not returned to him, and NORAD denied any involvement. Subsequent investigations, both incriminating and exculpatory, were therefore all made from reproductions with loss of quality compared to the originals, and sometimes cropped.

Of course, the theory of the skeptics was that of doctoring… which they never managed to prove beyond refutation. That of the "pros" denied this possibility, and earnest and collected investigators who had met Heflin judged him very favorably. Many measures were taken by one and all, none met with general approbation. The situation persisted for decades and the author of the photos never went back on his statement of the facts.

Searching the Internet, I discovered an American counter-investigation,2 which explained the reappearance of the original, indisputable Polaroids at Heflin’s house in 1993, which they had therefore been able to submit for the first time to computer analysis. Using a higher scale in Photoshop made it possible to reveal some details that were hard to see, and therefore debunk some theories, such as that of a suspension system to hang a model. By the end of their investigations, they were leaning heavily toward the reality of what Heflin had been saying all along… and I followed them in that conclusion.

                                                                                          Photos 1,2 and 3.  

After translating their article into French, I sent it to ufologist friends. The only reaction was the zetetic response, providing me with links to studies "proving" the invalidity of the arguments “pro” (i.e., that it is a UFO), and obviously other studies "proving", as always, that it was a fake. The ‘irrefutable' arguments provided being parallax studies 'demonstrating' that it was a small nearby object, which made me laugh out loud reading them. I then undertook to dismantle them, or rather to demonstrate that the opposite version was the right one.

Here, it must be said that since the first time I saw those photos, I have been prone to trusting them, but with a feeling of unease when looking at them. I had never looked further. With the uncropped originals back, now was the time to do it. The theory of a small nearby object (foreground) being not valid for me, it was now necessary for me to demonstrate that those photos had been taken as Heflin said, placing this large object far away from the witness and the lens of the camera. It would lead me somewhere I had not expected.

To start with, being a bit of a photographer myself, the position where the camera had to be made things incompatible with what the photos showed. Well, one had to start with the beginning: show that if you come from the right side of the van (going from the position where photo 2 was taken to that of photo 3), the things closer to the camera would get bigger and move unlike, obviously, the distant ones on the horizon. So I took distant points visible on both photos 2 and 3 displayed at the same scale… and I almost fell out of my chair. Very distant things did not overlap (Demo 1). This is totally impossible for two shots from the same mono-focal camera and from the same place. On the attached illustration, I made these points coincide… by modifying the scale of one of the photos (Demo 2). On my screen, one is 350mm wide, the other now 365mm (note the thin vertical green lines).

At this stage, one could still counter-argue that the photos in the study were cropped for publication, although this is not what is said. Those are the genuine originals. To go on counter-arguing, knowing these are the originals, would then become a question of faith, and not a strict technical argumentation.

                                                          Above: Demo 1. Bottom: Demo 2.

How could anyone among the many experts and seasoned, impartial investigators who looked into this case not even start by doing that? Just investigate the technique of taking a picture! Now it must be a fake, the story of these photos was very different from what the witness claimed.

As an amateur aviator myself, I absolutely know that everything above the horizon line is above me (us), and that the reverse is true, positioning the lens is simple: it is on the horizon line, in the middle of the photo and it is aiming for the center of the frame (where the diagonals intersect). Or so it should. Subsequently:

the lens is just a little below the top of the rear-view mirror in photo 2 as in photo 3, around the top right curve. Consequently, the mirror should be narrower at the bottom than at the top, since the bottom is farther from the eye or the lens… whereas it is the opposite, the perspective is reversed. One might think that the mirror frame is tilted, closer to the van and to the lens at the bottom. It seems real if you look at the reflections. But it would have to be a lot to reverse the perspective. If it were a distortion due to the poor quality of the lens, the adjacent straight lines would have to be twisted — and they are not. The only possible explanation for all this is that what was photographed with the Polaroid, without being in front of it or even exactly at the same height for photos 2 and 3, is a two-dimensional object… a photo, probably larger, on which the UFO was added. If you change the point of view, the perspectives differ but the elements remain in a fixed position. In photo 2 and 3 there is an inverted convergence line because, in the final shot, the camera was placed too far down the photo, and slantwise for a comprehensive view. In photo 3, the edges of the rear-view mirror are more parallel, so the camera was raised a little towards the axis of the image. The horizon lines are of different dimensions because the camera was not exactly at the same distance in the two photos. It goes unnoticed in the foreground which gets necessarily bigger, but it is impossible for the horizon. It was therefore done very roughly, without a professionally made frame to place the Polaroid right in the axis and at a constant distance from the photographed image and perfectly perpendicular to the plane of the enlargement…

Still scrutinizing photos 2 and 3, one sees that the horizons are parallel to each other. Try taking three shots in 20 seconds, with the camera handheld, turning between 1 and 2 and moving on the bench seat of a truck for photo 3 — and keeping the framing (horizon) that similar… Incidentally, photo 1, at least at 90° from the other two, is almost parallel too. I would go as far as saying that the terrain rising slightly to the right of the road, it goes down on the left. Either a device was used in the truck for the original photos, producing this constant slope even when pivoting 90° to the right between photos 1 and 2. Or— big mistake—the parallelism was corrected on the « second shot » made after adding the « object » to the original shot.

                                                                              Demo 3.

Finally, another disturbing element is the absence of any deformation of the straight lines on photos 2 and 3, as if the cheap Polaroid lens were perfect. I would not say the same for photo 1 where the posts are all the more twisted the closer they are to the edge... but they could have been actually twisted. There is not the slightest vignetting either. It strongly suggests to me (until proven otherwise, for which one would need a Polaroid 101) that the originals were taken with other, more professional equipment. Perhaps also, on the second shot, the original was severely cropped? To sum it up:

On this almost flat terrain, the lens MUST be at the height of the true horizon (never mind the trees), roughly below the upper right corner of the frame of the rear-view mirror. Yes, any point between you and the horizon (infinity) is at your height if you see it on the horizon. Anything against the sky is higher than you, anything against the landscape is lower than you. So the rear-view mirror is lower than you and should appear narrower at the bottom since it is further from the eye (the lens). It's called perspective. No need for calculations.

On the other hand, the target axis is necessarily the center of the image, where its two diagonals intersect. We are talking, let me repeat, about « uncropped » photos according to the witness.

For photo 3, we see that the camera is closer to the door compared to photo 2 (larger mirror, image in the mirror nearer the truck, outer edge of the deflector more visible), the point of view from the camera is also a little bit further back in the cab and points more towards the sky (less bushes nearby, less of the rear-view mirror bottom and more of the roof of the truck). It all makes sense in the narrative.

The expected perspective remains upside down for the rear-view mirror, even if we see less of it. What seems to me the coup de grace for so-called photos taken on the fly and in a hurry, is the perfect parallelism of the horizon lines between the two pictures. Give it a try, especially when moving around inside a truck, taking a batch of pictures “on the fly”…

Photo 1 in the timeline, taken more comfortably in front of him through the windshield — lens exactly the same. Weird, isn't it?

So, for me, the difference in size of the background objects (infinity) between the pictures, the “upside-down” perspective of the rear-view mirror, and the strict parallelism of the horizon lines between pictures, make it impossible to believe that those three photos were taken as stated. As far as perspective goes, one cannot even consider a deformation by the lens on the edges, there is none on the black edge of the door, even more so in the center of the image. Any further attempt to prove there was a potential flying object there is literature.


(1) Since Frank Edwards' book Flying Saucers — Serious Business, as early as 1966.

(2) Ann Druffel, Robert M. Wood and Eric Kelson, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 583–622, 2000.

The Governmental UAP Scene in America

Highlights from the first AARO’s history report.


February 2024 was the release date to the U.S. Congress of the classified Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Volume I. One month later, a 63-page public version appeared on the AARO’s website1. It is an appalling dossier for those who have been deceived in the belief that the United States government has kept flying saucers under custody. This has been a recurrent tale since the early stages of the UFO mythology. All that time devoid of proof, I hasten to add. Like shapes, colors, and sizes of alleged UFOs, every such story is different from one another, something that is typical of the human imagination.

This report results from a legal mandate established in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2023, Section 6802(j), approved on December 22, 2023, which states: “Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, the Director of the Office shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership a written report detailing the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena.”

As I said, AARO had a schedule to fulfil and this first volume results from hardly 10 months of investigation.2 I said hardly because they have to examine all the americana ufology and evaluate stories back to the 1940s. Of course, there are several minor, unavoidable mistakes here and there, of a light weight that cannot be adduced to detract from the value and veracity when checking the hard conclusions of the conducted research. I am highlighting here some of the AARO statements:

*AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology. All investigative efforts, at all levels of classification, concluded that most sightings were ordinary objects and phenomena and the result of misidentification.

*AARO found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology. AARO determined, based on all information provided to date, that claims involving specific people, known locations, technological tests, and documents allegedly involved in or related to the reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial technology, are inaccurate.

*AARO assesses that all of the named and described alleged hidden UAP reverse-engineering programs provided by interviewees either do not exist; are misidentified authentic, highly sensitive national security programs that are not related to extraterrestrial technology exploitation; or resolve to an unwarranted and disestablished program.

*AARO assesses that the inaccurate claim that the USG is reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology and is hiding it from Congress is, in large part, the result of circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lack of any evidence. AARO notes that although claims that the USG has recovered and hidden spacecraft date back to the 1940s and 1950s, more modern instances of these claims largely stem from a consistent group of individuals who have been involved in various UAP-related endeavors since at least 2009.

This refers to Dr. James T. Lacatski and his coworkers at the 2008-2012 DIA program AAWSAP/AATIP, cancelled by weak results and by an UFO/paranormal orientation inconsistent with the originally stated objectives sold to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The report clearly writes: “Many of these individuals were involved in or supportive of a cancelled DIA program and the subsequent but failed attempt to reestablish this program under DHS [Department of Homeland Security], called KONA BLUE.”

*AARO assesses that UAP sightings and reports of these sightings to USG organizations and claims that some UAP constitute extraterrestrial craft and that the USG has secured and is experimenting on extraterrestrial technology have been influenced by a range of cultural, political, and technological factors.

*Several factors—domestic and international—most likely influenced sightings, reports, and the belief by some individuals that there is sufficient proof that some UAP represent extraterrestrial technology.

*AARO assesses that some portion of sightings since the 1940s have represented misidentification of never-before-seen experimental and operational space, rocket, and air systems, including stealth technologies and the proliferation of drone platforms.

Section IV, “Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945,” reviews in 13 pages the official involvement of the United States in the flying saucer, UFO, and UAP business. Considering the huge task involved with the multiple projects and UFO-related activities and research done in 78 years, the exposure of background and results of every one of the “approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts,” performed from 1946 to present-day is more than acceptable (minor inaccuracies notwithstanding) synthesis of everything the various U.S. administrations have done in order to clarify this subject with better or worse success. In addition, AARO has interviewed approximately 30 people who claimed to have insight into alleged USG involvement in off-world technology exploitation or to possess knowledge of UAP that have allegedly disrupted U.S. nuclear facilities in the past.

Regarding its own findings since its establishment on July 15, 2022, it resumes as follows:

Of all the reports that AARO investigated and analyzed, none represent extraterrestrial or off-world technology. A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics. AARO has kept Congress fully and currently informed of its findings. AARO’s research continues on these cases.

The AARO report presents some key findings, among others:

None of these investigations (including USG, foreign, and U.S. academic efforts)

reached the conclusion that any of the UAP reports indicated extraterrestrial origin.

All of these efforts and reviews concluded that the vast majority of UAP reports could be resolved as any number of ordinary objects, natural phenomena, optical illusions or misidentifications. Many of the cases, however, remain unresolved.

Even with the significant advancements in ground- and air-based sensors, the apparent inability to collect sufficient and high-quality data for scientific analysis continues to plague investigations.

AARO found no evidence to suggest that the USAF had a policy intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, or interactions.

Section V of the report, “ Assessment of Interviewee Claims of USG Involvement in Hidden UAP Programs,” represents the core of the Congress-mandated study, this is, the checking of alleged whistleblowers. As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals. Out of them, AARO saw how two main narratives emerged. The primary narrative alleges that “the USG and industry partners are in possession of and are testing off-world technology that has been concealed from congressional oversight and the world since approximately 1964, and possibly since 1947, if the Roswell events are included. The narrative asserts that this UAP program possesses as many as 12 extraterrestrial spacecraft.”

The bottom line conclusion reads: AARO discovered no empirical evidence supporting these claims.

The other narrative is that “a cluster of UAP sightings that occurred in close proximity to U.S. nuclear facilities have resulted in the malfunctioning and destruction of nuclear missiles and a test reentry vehicle.” Investigation allowed conclusions to be reached on the majority of the claims made in these narratives. Any “unresolved allegations” will be reported in Volume II. AARO’s findings to date are as follows:

No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered

Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP Crash Denied on the Record

The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic

Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP Program Activity

(False) Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial Spacecraft

The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP

Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored

Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft

Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy

The subject of whistleblowers is quite absurd. Alleged testimonies have proved to be false or misinterpreted by third parties. The principal whistleblower, David Grusch, has refused to testify before the AARO. Everybody can do it without any fear of penalties or something worse. Now he is 100% protected by the law to tell any stories he wish. Why is he hiding? Lack of trust in AARO? A meager excuse. He is well aware of the sparse value of his testimony and doesn't want to be caught in a falsehood. No? Prove me wrong!

The alleged claims of this type are unsubstantiated rumors, as the first official inquiry has made evident, after due follow-up and investigation. Still calling them genuine without the slightest piece of evidence? The power of faith.

Of special interest to FOTOCAT, the international inventory of UFO sightings where photographs, film, video or digital imagery have been obtained, is the subsection “AARO Investigating Unresolved Historical Nuclear-Related UAP Cases”. It deals with footage obtained at 06:08 hours of September 22, 1964 from Big Sur, California. Just dating it as 1964 and without locating it, the report states: “AARO has not been able to recover the alleged film of the ballistic missile reentry vehicle being shot down by a UAP in 1964. AARO was able to correlate the general time and location with an antiballistic missile test, which could have been the genesis for this observation.” This case has created lots of literature, both pro and con, and, for me, the best civil investigation was made by Kingston A. George, operations analyst at that time of the 1st Strategic Aerospace Division in 1964 and expert in the Orthicon imagery3 who concluded it was the result of a faulty deployment of two decoy reentry vehicles during Atlas rocket launch.4

Explained Orthicon image extracted from the Big Sur film.5

In Section VI (“Investigation into Named USG Sensitive Programs”), we find interesting details on the failed attempt from James Lacatski (the DIA scientist who managed the AAWSAP/AATIP program) to sell his pet program to the Department of Homeland Security after it was cancelled by DIA for lack of merit, once it was granted 22 million bucks, spent in 38 scientific-looking but highly speculative papers and in paranormal research in Skinwalkers, a ranch in Utah owned by Robert Bigelow, of Bigelow Aerospace, the contractor who got the DIA contract. This section’s resume is that, after checking “numerous” claims of programs alleged to involve UAP exploitation:

AARO concludes many of these programs represent authentic, current and former sensitive, national security programs, but none of these programs have been involved with capturing, recovering, or reverse-engineering off-world technology or materials.

Under the headline “Nexus of Proponents of the USG UAP Reverse-Engineering Allegation,” the report states for the nth time:

AARO found no empirical evidence that any UAP investigatory effort since 1945—foreign, domestic, government, private, or academic—has ever uncovered verifiable information regarding the recovery or existence of extraterrestrial beings or crafts. Although AARO continues to conduct interviews, research programs, and pursue investigatory leads, AARO’s work has resulted in disproving the majority of these claims using the verifiable information made within those claims.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, AARO director (July 2022-December 2023), author of the report.

John Greenewald’s recent YouTube commentary6 on this report presents a peculiar reasoning line. Facing the overwhelming asseveration by AARO in the Executive Summary that “None of the programs mentioned by interviewees are UAP reversing-engineering programs, and all the authentic programs have been properly notified and reported to Congress,” among other confirming findings, his belief is that if these programs ever existed AARO would have no access to them. “I believe they would stay in the black world,” he said, not just for the public but for the very Congress. I admire the hard work done by Greenewald’s Black Vault project in unearthing tons of governmental UFO and UAP documents, but, frankly, this is a severe anti-educational statement, close to conspiracy: by his logics, we have no way of knowing the truth. It takes research to nowhere. That is a bad excuse to let conspiracies continue flying and that is terrible. Please put your feet on the ground.

Not surprisingly, this report confirms the analyses recently aired by The New York Post journalist Steven Greenstreet7,8 or by evolutionary ecologist Dr. Luis Cayetano9,10 in the sense that a handful of individuals have had a major influence in convincing the U.S. Congress to push UAP-oriented legislation with little basis in fact and much in belief. The report says: “AARO researched and interviewed numerous people, programs, and leads. It has determined that modern allegations that the USG is hiding off-world technology and beings largely originate from the same group of individuals who have ties to the cancelled AAWSAP/AATIP program and a private sector organization’s paranormal research efforts. These individuals have worked with each other consistently in various UAP-related efforts.” (Emphasis mine)

These are truly devastating words. One after another fanciful allegations have been demolished. What else do you need to find out that everything is due to obdurate conspiracy-minded believers and the efforts of active UFO influencers. As expected, the pro-alien UFO groups are not happy with this report and have expressed bitter distrust with their government’s Department of Defense. But we know they will always be unhappy unless they hear what they want to hear. But the legend they espouse has never happened. And this will be affirmed by whatever government exists in the United States, a Biden-ruled democratic government or a Trump-ruled right-wing government.

Section VII covers the “Historical Context of UAP Investigatory Efforts Since 1945,” and determines, in summary, that:

AARO assesses that the incidents of UAP sightings reported to USG organizations, the claims that some constitute extraterrestrial craft, and the claims that the USG has secured and is experimenting on alien technology, most likely are the result of a range of cultural, political, and technological factors.

Section VIII’s title is “Testing and Development of U.S. National Security and Space Programs Most Likely Accounted for Some Portion of UAP Sightings.” Part of the section’ summary reads:

We assess that the majority of UAP sightings in the earlier decades of UAP investigations were the result of misidentification of ordinary phenomena and objects, based on AARO’s findings of its own cases to date and the findings of all past investigatory efforts. However, we assess that some portion of these misidentifications almost certainly were a result of the surge in new technologies that observers would have understandably reported as UFOs.

Finally, we reach to Section IX: “Conclusion.” It is crystal clear:

To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP represented off-world technology or the existence a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress. Investigative efforts determined that most sightings were the result of misidentification of ordinary objects and phenomena. Although many UAP reports remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.

It may seem an undue assumption but the basis for this is an empirical one. AARO has concluded, by analyzing its own reports, that the better documented a case the higher probability exists for a sound solution. In other words, if nothing extraordinary has been found in the best sightings, why should it appear in the low quality reports? If extraordinary elements had been found in these reports they would not be categorized as low quality, in the first place.

It is utterly simplistic the way certain popularizers and podcasters speak to their paid listeners of “extraterrestrials” in the context of UAP sightings. They do not realize the profound requirements it implies: solid, unquestionable proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Checked and rechecked scientific evidence by multiple and independent verifying sources. Those commentators use the alien fantasy trivially and recklessly, basing their speculation on simple rumors and hearsay. AARO’s reasoning is not only impeccable but adjusted to corroboration by peer researchers.

In the cited review on this AARO report, a surprised John Greenewald asked himself what all those listed U.S. flying saucer, UFO and UAP programs have accomplished over the years? There is a straightforward response. Lack of positive results comes if you are seeking something that does not exist, or merely expecting that there is more to what the international raw findings show: 98% of reports are conventionally explained,11 the minor remaining residue contains nothing extraordinary and, consequently, it is reasonable to assess it shares the same nature.

The serious problem of those criticizing this report is their sick lack of confidence in their own government: they do not believe in what the U.S. Department of Defense publicly defends. Unless they hear what they want to hear, the rest is unconvincing to them. If claims of crashed saucers or reverse-engineering are formally denied by the related aerospace companies and you dismiss that as so much waste paper, what can be done to disprove a false testimony? It is meaningless. If tomorrow the DoD announces that they have been torturing little aliens kept in a Pentagon pantry for decades, I hope they will negate this as well!

AARO will provide its complete findings to Congress in two volumes. Current Volume I contains AARO’s findings from 1945 to 31 October 2023 based on the requirements, and Volume II will include any findings resulting from interviews and research completed from 1 November 2023 to 15 April 2024, hopefully available for the second part of the present year.

It was no surprise to read the angry reaction and response by Christopher Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and (GW) Bush administrations. Mellon is presently one of the most avid advocates of the UAP/alien flag. One of those characters that, when in government, did nothing to clarify or reduce censorship to the UFO question, on the contrary, added seals of secrecy whenever possible, and when retired they use their credentials to attack their government for an alleged lack of transparency.12 I am not hiding his attempt to debunk the AARO report, one critique which has been backed up by other UFO activists—whom he does not even dare to mention by name. But I think it should be read because it is a good encapsulation of the state of pro-UAP discussion and because it is true that it discovers some historical flaws in the report, although probably to be detected only by hyper-experts.13

I said that the AARO report contains a number of errors in dates and names and other inaccuracies. For me, these are not extraordinarily serious. Because they do not tarnish the accomplished mission of the report: revealing the inexistence of secret programs or projects linked to the U.S. Government on recovery and manipulation of alleged UFO crash remains. That was the core of the investigation. That was what whistleblowers claimed. And that is what has been flatly denied. The aim of the AARO report was not to write a history about 80 years of American ufology. For that, we have hundreds of books. In addition to acceptable minor criticism, such an attempted total refutation of the DoD report is unfair and it is charged with ad hominem insinuations and bad faith.

Another overview, much more reasonable and fairer from my perspective, is that written by Tim Printy in his journal:14

Some of the criticism from UFO proponents was justified because they were pointing out mistakes. Other points are nit-picking with the UFO history that was described or disagreeing with conclusions. Roswell proponents were unhappy that the report appeared to agree with the conclusion that a New York University balloon created the debris discovered by Mac Brazel in June/July (depending on which version of the story you accept) of 1947. Others felt major cases that they cherish dearly were either ignored or unmentioned. I suspect the reason for the omission was because, as I recall, AARO had previously indicated that the older cases were not a priority because of the limited amount of information available. The thinking appears to be that they should not allocate valuable resources on something that is not going to shed new information. After all, what will they discover about an old sighting that isn’t already available? The data from these cases is limited and, in some cases, non-existant or conflicting. Most of them have been examined to death and the best their defenders can do is declare them “Unidentified,” which is not saying much. The bottom line is these old cases, no matter how convincing UFO proponents find them, are inadequate as proof of anything. UFOlogists need better evidence and AARO is trying to find it. So far, they have not found the evidence that UFOlogy claims exist, which angers them to the point they lash out at AARO.

For any honest, sincere and neutral observer of the situation, as The Guardian wrote, this report sent the world of ufology into a tailspin.15

The last but not the least review to the content of the AARO historical report, the Office’s current situation and its possible future trend is brilliantly described by Douglas Dean Johnson in his paper “What's next for AARO?,” posted June 7, 2024. You cannot miss it: https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/what-next-for-aaro/


(1) https://www.aaro.mil/

(2) Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick signed the report before leaving AARO in October 2023.

(3) Kingston A. George, “Preliminary Report on Image Orthicon Photography From Big Sur,” Operations Analysis Staff Study, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, Vandenberg AFB, 13 October 1964.

(4) Kingston A. George, “’Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again,” Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, No. 1, January-February 2009, pp 42-46, https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2009/01/22164446/p42.pdf

(5) “Joel Carpenter and the Big Sur Case,” SUNlite, Vol. 6, No. 4, July-August 2014, pp 4-22, https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite6_4.pdf

(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg4FKt2Pe7I

(7) Steven Greenstreet, “Spooky Hustlers: How wacky UFO activists and "crazy" ghost hunters duped Congress into hunting UFOs,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Wud0LzFQY&t=2177s

(8) Steven Greenstreet, “UFO "religion" influencing Congress to hunt aliens, says top Pentagon official,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RUoYqBewC8

(9) Luis Cayetano, “Mapping the UFO scene using association charts,”


(10) Luis Cayetano, “Wake Me Up Before You Go Go, Don’t Leave Me Hanging On Like a UFO,” in UFO FOTOCAT blogsite (scroll down), http://fotocat.blogspot.com/2023_03_15_archive.html

(11) GEIPAN, Forte baisse des CAS D sur les 10 dernières années, https://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fr/actualites/baisse-cas-d

(12) Steven Greenstreet, “Pentagon source: UFO activists INSIDE THE PENTAGON overly classified UFO data to make them seem more spooky,” https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1779165103365169637

(13) https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/

(14) See: “AARO on the backpage,” SUNlite, Vol. 16, No. 3, May-June 2024, p. 1, http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite16_3.pdf

(15) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/22/ufologists-sean-kirkpatrick-pentagon-report-uaps

News from AARO.

In an off-camera presentation to press in the Pentagon1, March 6, 2024, the current acting director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), Timothy Phillips, has reported that the U.S. military are developing portable UFO detection kits. Phillips also said that ~1,200 cases have been reported to AARO to date. In February 2024, AARO closed 122 cases, with 68% of the cases consisting of balloons or airborne garbage that advanced sensors were able to detect.

It is funny, we are coming back to the early days of ufology when some technicians manufactured magnetic UFO detectors to record the presence of one in their vicinity. Nothing was achieved in the end. Now, with the latest technology, they believe these instruments will capture the passing of flying UAPs. If there are no anomalous parameters truly identified in UFOs or UAP (because there are no such anomalies as such), what are these devices supposed to register? Visual stations, like those used to successfully film fireballs but zoomed to low altitudes? This is a fantasy and a ridiculous expenditure, as time will tell, when birds, balloons, drones, kites, and aircraft are screened out.

In the same press engagement, Phillips said this regarding the claims by “whistleblowers”:

Here are some of our findings. AARO has found no verifiable evidence that any UAP sighting has represented extraterrestrial activity. AARO has found no verifiable evidence that the U.S. government or private industry has ever had access to extraterrestrial technology. AARO has found no indications that any information was illegally or inappropriately withheld from Congress. AARO assesses that alleged hidden UAP programs either do not exist or were misidentified authentic national security programs unrelated to extraterrestrial technology exploitation.

We assess that claims of such hidden programs are largely the result of circular reporting in which a small group of individuals have repeated inaccurate claims they have heard from others over a period of several decades. I wish to emphasize that we believe most of the individuals repeated these claims to do so without malice or any effort to mislead the public.

AARO’s web site continues feeding new documentation and investigation reports. The last addition to the UAP vault is the complete set of papers related to a never-born UAP project that James Lacatski, a former scientist at the DIA and program manager of the AAWSAP/AATIP DIA’s UAP project (2008-2012), unsuccessfully attempted to sell to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Called KONA BLUE, it was established as a potential Special Access program on July 2011, and terminated December of the same year.2 The DHS saw no value in it. It was described by AARO as follows:

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) first learned of the KONA BLUE program from interviews conducted as part of its historical review. Multiple interviewees identified KONA BLUE as a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sensitive compartment established to protect the retrieval and exploitation of "non-human biologics." AARO researched the information provided by the interviewees and learned KONA BLUE was a Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) that had been proposed to DHS leadership but was never approved or formally established. KONA BLUE never received any materials or funding, and there is no information beyond the proposal presentation marked with the KONA BLUE name.

A most important brief paper released by AARO has to do with the parallax. This is a concept so basic yet dismissed in the analysis of UFO observations. The parallax is simply defined as the apparent displacement of an object viewed from different positions.3 In an AARO Information Paper—which I expect will be the first of many other technical papers in the future—entitled “Effect of Forced Perspective and Parallax View on UAP Observations,” it is highlighted that:

in some cases, the effects of these phenomena are known to cause inaccurate estimations of a UAP’s size, speed, and direction of travel. These phenomena consequently affect data derived from a single sensor moving very fast relative to the target object.4

For many years, we, civilian, amateur investigators, had realized the immense importance of this effect in evaluating UFO sightings. A remarkable case study where the “parallax illusion” effect was key in identifying the culprit which provoked the UFO episode, was the Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, airborne infrared video taken on April 25, 2013, over Rafael Hernández airport by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection DHC-8 aircraft. Commodore (equivalent to U.S. Colonel) Rubén Lianza, the head of the Argentine Air Force’s UFO study, the Center for Aerospace Identification (CIAE),5 wrote an illuminating and didactical paper, clearly demonstrating that the filmed flying object with an apparent transmedium capacity, was simply a pair of conventional wedding party, heart-shaped Chinese lanterns.6

Please check this perfect example of parallax illusion.7 This illusion not only makes you believe that the walker moves "sideways" every time an overflying drone crosses its path (cutting its line of travel) but also appears to walk faster when the drone goes along one of its sides in the opposite direction. and even walking "backwards" when the drone moves in the same direction, on the opposite side. The parallax illusion here is easily discovered because you are looking at the walker's legs and you know that it is impossible for him to walk backwards or sideways. But you will notice that it becomes much more deceptive if you watch the video again but previously covering the walker's body and legs, so that you can only see his head. This parallax illusion (which makes it appear that the object is "accelerating or decelerating" or even moving "laterally") greatly deceived some UFO researchers who initially studied the Aguadilla case, thinking that it was a self-propelled object with the ability to maneuver, when in reality, it was a pair of hot air balloons carried by the wind, in a rectilinear path equal to that of the example of our walker in the video.


(1) https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3702219/media-engagement-with-acting-aaro-director-tim-phillips-on-the-historical-recor

(2) https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Records-Research/ Go to “History and Origin of Kona Blue,” and “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) KONA BLUE Information Release.”

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

(4) https://tinyurl.com/5e5jxfm8

(5) https://www.argentina.gob.ar/fuerzaaerea/centro-de-identificacion-aeroespacial

(6) https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_cefae_2017.pdf, pages 51-73.

(7) https://www.instagram.com/p/CAXOaNhA8v7/

Updating the “Whistleblower” Fancy.

David Grusch, claimant number one who denounces but does not show up to be investigated by the Department of Defense, The Black Vault reports. Read John Greenewald’s website’s entry “FOIA Documents Reveal AARO’s Authorized and Repeated Attempts to Engage with David Grusch,”


Jason Colavito’s “Chris Mellon Releases Texts from Government Official Claiming a Crashed UFO,” https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/chris-mellon-releases-texts-from-government-official-claiming-a-crashed-ufo

Brian Dunning’s “New UFO whistleblower Jason Sands, explained,” https://briandunning.substack.com/p/new-ufo-whistleblower-jason-sands

Erik Lacitis (Seattle Times staff reporter) writes: “Area 51 vets break silence: Sorry, but no space aliens or UFOs,” https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/area-51-vets-break-silence-sorry-but-no-space-aliens-or-ufos/

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick’s latest interview. On May 9, 2024, the former director of AARO held streamlined conversation with the New York Post journalist Steven Greenstreet. It is posted on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4lWb1XBvVo

News on a forthcoming book by Luis Daniel Elizondo:


It will certainly need an in-depth analysis, as this guy has been the source of a big confusion and misleading information, being a person mainly focused on fame.

A lucid, documented synthesis of the UAP situation in the United States has been written by prize-winning investigative reporter Art Levine: “Pentagon Strikes Back Against Claims of Alien Invaders,” The Washington Spectator, May 29, 2024, https://washingtonspectator.org/pentagon-strikes-back-against-claims-of-alien-invaders/

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has an obsession with aliens visiting the Earth and he is sickeningly pushing back on the legislation that would force governments to disclose this (poor man!):



The Official UAP Scene in Japan

On June 6, 2024, the founding general meeting was held of the “Diet (Parliament) Members League for Clarifying Unidentified Aerial Phenomena from a National Security Perspective.” It is aimed to establish a specialized agency in the Japanese Government to handle UFOs and UAP. Chairman is Yasukazu Hamada (head of the Liberal Democratic Party’s National Affairs Committee) and Secretary General, Shinjiro Koizumi (former Environment Minister), https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2024052800727&g=pol

It is incredible how fashions expand. The copycat effect affects even politicians. In a second thought, it is not surprising that they adhere to media-valued (i.e., publicity generator) concepts. Never in 80 years of flying saucers and UFOs, were they seriously considered as a problem of national concern for air safety (and let alone for ground security!) Large birds, lightning, balloons, or drones, for example, pose a very much greater danger to air navigation than UFOs. It is pure posturing, paid with taxpayer monies.

The Official UAP Scene Down Under.

10 pages of UFO emails released by FOIA by the Australian Department of Defence. The key message is: “Defence has no particular interest in the subject. One document clarified Defence stopped actively monitoring for UFOs/UAPs in 1996.” See Dan Holmes, “Defence drops 10-page UFO dossier,” https://www.themandarin.com.au/243606-defence-drops-10-page-ufo-dossier/

FOTOCAT Surprises: Resolving Cases

Usually, during the study of a UFO sighting, the normal procedure is to look for all the concurrent regional phenomena and events that could have caused an equivocal observation, until the final solution is found. It's a detective work. But sometimes the process is the opposite. There are thousands of UFO cases pending settlement. They are under the general blanket of "unidentified", or "anomalous". Wrong. They are simply events that lack data for a proper evaluation. FOTOCAT's 13,100+ catalog of image sightings contains many such cases. All pertinent information is stored in the physical archive. But not only that. I also gather references to space phenomena, unrelated to actual UFO observations, which might potentially lead to UFO sightings. For example, rocket or missile launchings, barium clouds artificially produced, fuel vesting in the atmosphere, research balloon launches, space reentries, and the like. I do that expecting that new incoming cases correlate in date and time and location with anything on record, so that it permits its identification (“just in case any UFO report enters matching moment and geography”).

Recently, while curating materials in the FOTOCAT archive, I found notes of a coincidental space phenomenon that allows a plausible answer. The corollary is that by applying adequate scientific resources, an analyst can solve UFO cases without a need to even talk to eyewitnesses. You just need basic data about the "strange" phenomenon from press accounts, published information, investigator's reports, etc. to probe the event up to its final resolution. This little piece is an example.

By doing some clerical job of filing in the material FOTOCAT, I came upon and the results of the following investigation by Jim Oberg: “Space Clouds-Strange Spinoff of the Space Age.” (1) In page 12, it is a historical overview of events discussed in the paper, a very useful listing of 15 space events from 1961 to 2013 of missile tests, rocket’s venting clouds, fuel dump, booster explosions, etc. I made chronological copies of those data and filed them for a future correlation. Recently, checking Barry Greenwood’s Just Cause (#34, December 1992, page 8 (2), I came across a news published in Notice to Mariners of October 28, 1961 describing a “Celestial Phenomenon in North Pacific”, that read:

Second Officer William A. Ash of the American S.S. Iberville, Capt. M.O. Vinson, Master, reported the following: “At 1700 G.M.T. on September 21, 1961, while in lat. 31º30’ N., long. 175º 30’ E., a few minutes before morning twilight, a while opaque mass about twice the size of the full moon appeared in the northwest at an elevation of about 20º. It continued to climb toward the zenith and about an elevation of 40º, the mass opened gradually to appear as a huge halo with a satellite in the center having very nearly the brightness of a first magnitude star. By the time it reached the zenith it had more than doubled in size reaching its maximum at the zenith and them diminishing as it proceeded to the southeast. As it diminished it continued to decrease in size but did not appear to shrink into a corona as it had appeared but rather faded out completely at an elevation of approximately 20º. The entire mass was in view for approximately 8 to 10 minutes.” Weather partly cloudy, wind NW force 2, slight sea and small NW swell, temperatures: dry 74º F, wet 67º F, sea 79º F.

If only we received UFO reports as detailed as this one! On that day and time, according to the records provided by Oberg, a Soviet missile test occurred over the Pacific. That weapon test was detected from the ship on the sea and annotated in the vessel’s logbook for posterity. Now we have discovered the cause. Unfortunately, in that case there were no photographs taken and it is not included in the catalog.


(1) http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/Space_clouds-Strange_Spinoff_of_the_Space_Age.pdf

(2) https://tinyurl.com/4exhwshf

AFU: Excellency in Preserving UFO Archives

Excerpts from a recent article about Sweden AFU’s accomplishments by the French AFP news agency: “The unexplained: Giant Swedish archive logs paranormal phenomena”:

Newspaper clippings, books and first-hand accounts of people who said they visited other planets are catalogued in a giant Swedish archive on paranormal phenomena, attracting the curious and researchers from around the world. The Archives for the Unexplained (AFU) claims to be the world's biggest library of paranormal phenomena, with 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) of shelves running underground. Clas Svahn, 65, and Anders Liljegren, 73, who run the archive located in the southeastern town of Norrkoping, say they are neither superstitious nor believers, but rather "curious investigators of the unknown". The AFU—the name of both the library and the association that has collected documentation for more than 50 years—is mainly comprised of books, but also more original documents, such as first-hand accounts of paranormal activity recorded on tape and photos of ghosts.

"What we are building here at AFU is depository knowledge," explains Svahn, showing AFP journalists around the 700-square-metre (7,535-square-foot) library. "We're trying to get as much as we can on... every kind of unsolved scientific mystery that we can find... to make this available for the world." The library receives around 300 visits each year, by appointment only. The archives are in the process of being digitalized and many of the documents can already by consulted on a server. All that is needed is an access code, which the pair are more than happy to share.

Greg Eghigian, a professor of history and bioethics at Pennsylvania State University in the United States, visited the AFU to do research for a book on the history of UFOs (unidentified flying objects): "I have worked in countless archives in Europe, the United States and the UK. My time at the AFU was easily the most fascinating and most productive," he told AFP. "The AFU is without question the... most comprehensive archive for materials involving the global history of the UFO phenomenon in the world," he said, adding: "One cannot study the subject thoroughly without consulting its holdings."

The study of UFOs has long been stigmatized, but is becoming a more accepted field of scientific research. In September 2023, NASA officially joined the search for UFOs, saying the discipline required "a rigorous, evidence-based approach." At the AFU, Svahn flips through the yellowed pages of a book with a red cover. The work is from the underground UFO scene in the former Soviet Union, typed up clandestinely in only seven or eight original copies. The book is "one of the rare things we have", Svahn says as he peruses the handwritten notes in Russian in the margins and sketches of rockets. "They didn't know what they were seeing... but we can compare this with our own files and (can conclude it was) rocket launches from the Plesetsk rocket base" which were secret at the time, he says.

The AFU archives contain some surprising material, including a little-known anecdote about French writer and politician Victor Hugo, currently on display at the Norrkoping museum of art. In notes he wrote during his political exile on the British island of Jersey from 1852-1855, Hugo described having encounters with his dead daughter. These writings contributed to the birth of a new religion now practiced by several million followers in Vietnam, Caodaism, said exhibition curator Magnus Bartas. A fresco of Victor Hugo today adorns the wall of a temple a dozen kilometers north of Ho Chi Minh City.

The AFU, administered by an association of volunteers and hobbyists, "also covers the folklore, the beliefs" associated with paranormal phenomena in general, said Svahn. "We love to see this as a social thing, impacting society all around the world and impacting people's lives." Beliefs evolve over generations and what was superstitious and rejected as such in the past may not be as stigmatized today. Swedish artist Ida Idaida spent a month doing research in the AFU archives to create a giant sculpture made of dark wood. She sought inspiration from the experiences of witches, detailed in books, whose knowledge has been disdained throughout history, she told AFP.

People whose experiences and accounts are not taken seriously in society can find their rightful place in the archive, says museum curator Magnus Bartas. "The archive says something is unexplained. That means we shouldn't reject it. We should investigate it. We should be open."

I have personally contributed to the AFU assets by donating, a few months ago, my full collection of UFO and IFO slides, some 2,400 photos, most copies but also a good number of them being originals. I hope that one of these days AFU will report in detail about this donation. The agreement was that AFU will digitalize and upload all slides and their basic info so that this set of imagery may be available to researchers and scholars all over the world at no cost.


A UAP Filmed From a Window Plane?

Close to LaGuardia airport, New York, on March 24, 2024. All information here:


The flying object in five frames of the video shot.

SONATE-2 Satellite and More

Sonate-2 is a nano satellite developed by the German University of Würzburg, under the impulse of Professor Dr. Hakan Kayal. Among its missions is to detect and record any UAP-like anomalies: 


The same department of the Würzburg Julius-Maximilian University has placed the SkyCAM-6 camera at Hessdalen:


Space Decay in Colombia 1983 Vintage

Close to the sunset on December 13, 1983, a flash was seen in the sky and then a bright luminosity was falling over the plain. On the next day, a metallic sphere was found near San Juan de Arama (Colombia). This was debris from a space reentry, like many other similar pieces found in many parts of the planet since the advent of the space age.


The Largest UFO in the World

Distinguished investigators Jaime Servera and Julio Plaza has joined talent and effort to carry out an exhaustive inquiry on an amazing UFO sighting witnessed by the crew of a commercial flight over the Atlantic off the Galician Coast on March 12, 1997. Do not miss the investigation process. It deals with what can be truly described as the most gigantic maritime (transmedium?) unidentified light ever reported. The final research report has been uploaded to Academia.edu through this link:


Planned route of AEA 118 airplane and site of sighting.
How to Perform an Optimal UFO Inquiry

Since 2011, the Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des UFO-Phänomens (GEP), a major UFO organization in Germany, has developed principles of good scientific practice for research on UAP/UFOs. The aim is to establish specific guidelines for responsible behavior in case investigations for the layperson and citizen science researchers. The research principles are based on professional standards for scientific work in Germany, but also on internationally existing codes of conduct for the analysis of UAP and related spontaneous phenomena. In 2024 it has just been updated and also translated into English to reach a much wider audience. It can be found here: https://www.ufo-forschung.de/wp-content/uploads/UAP-Research-Principles_2023-05-05.pdf

Quotable Quotes

There is a direct correlation between the amount and quality of available information on a case with the ability to conclusively resolve it.” ... Any final assessment on the veracity of these accounts must be accompanied by provable facts.”

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), U.S. Department of Defense, Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Volume I, February 2024, https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Volume_1_2024.pdf


(1) Julio Plaza del Olmo,The UAP land in the European Parliament,” https://www.academia.edu/116826865/The_UAP_land_in_the_European_Parliament

(2) “The Trinity UFO Crash of 1945,” by Brian Dunning of Skeptoid Media, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsrHvqjQjK8

(3) Isaac Koi, “First peer-reviewed" UFO journal - UPIAR now online (1976-1984),”


(4) Larry J. Hancock, Ian M. Porritt, Sean Grosvenor, and Larry Cates, “UAP Activity Pattern Study 1945-1975 Military and Public Activities,” https://zenodo.org/records/8213330

(5) “Enhancing Space Situational Awareness to Mitigate Risk: A Case Study in the Misidentification of Starlink Satellites as UAP in Commercial Aviation,” a paper published by Cornell University’s ArXiv, March 13, 2024, on pilot confusions rendering UAP reports: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.08155.pdf

(6) Douglas Dean Johnson, “Gravity waves and Faraday rings-- or imaginary things? The Ray Stanford movie of December 4, 1980,” https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/gravity-waves-and-faraday-rings-ray-stanford/

(7) Curt Collins,The Legend of the President and the Alien Bodies,” https://thesaucersthattimeforgot.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-legend-of-president-and-alien-bodies.html

(8) Baptiste Friscourt, “The New Director of GEIPAN, France’s Official UAP Investigative Office, Discusses Science and the Study of Aerial Mysteries,” The Debrief, April 24, 2024, https://thedebrief.org/the-new-director-of-geipan-frances-official-uap-investigative-office-discusses-science-and-the-study-of-aerial-mysteries/

(9) Elon Musk on aliens: https://www.space.com/elon-musk-ufos-aliens-no-evidence-starlink

(10) Caroline Delbert writes “Why UFO Footage Plays Tricks on Your Mind, According to the Guy Who Investigates It?,” in Popular Mechanics, February 27, 2024, https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a46755634/why-jellyfish-ufo-is-not-aliens/

(11) Controversial Dr. Bruce Maccabee dies at 82, Robert Sheaffer writes about him in his blog : https://badufos.blogspot.com/2024/05/dr-bruce-maccabee-1942-2024.html

(12) Who is Richard Dolan? Writer William G. Pullin end his post: “In my humble opinion, this entire situation is cringeworthy, and an embarrassment to the entire UFO research community, of which Mr. Dolan claims to be a card-carrying member. It will never change, nor will Mr. Dolan's place in the UFO entertainment industry, for he has a seat at the self-promotional table”: https://williamgpullin.blogspot.com/2024/05/cringeworthy-promotion-dolan-style.html

(13) Interview to Bill Diamond, president and chief executive officer of the SETI Institute: https://www.space.com/seti-chief-bill-diamond-ufos-alien-visitation

(14) On peculiar personalities that stumble around the UFO arena. “The Real Story Behind Danny Sheehan and Those $15,000 UFO "PhD" Degrees,” posted by Jason Colavito, May 7, 2024: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-real-story-behind-danny-sheehan-and-those-15000-ufo-phd-degrees

(15) “Looking for Alien Artifacts: Where are we?,” by Christopher Graney, June 1, 2024, The Vatican Observatory, https://tinyurl.com/bdhenb2b

(16) Gretchen Stahlman’s “An analysis of the scientific literature on UAPs from 1967 to 2023,” https://sentinelnews.substack.com/p/gretchen-stahlman-an-analysis-of


SKYWARD GAZE: The year UFOs captured the world

From prolific, long-standing and rigorous Italian researcher Maurizio Verga, this book in English covers some interesting topics of the wonder year of 1947: newspaper headlines, flying saucer advertisement, saucer crashes predating Roswell, cartoons and comics, and more. This 142-page large-size, profusely illustrated hardcover book on day one of the saucer era is available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CPW7F5HS/

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)

Unusual Earth-grazing meteor sighted over Spain on March 29, 2024.

Pilots and UFOs, the never ending story, on a recent fabricated fake news in Spain.

CEONI (1968-1973), old pictures recovered.

Humanoids, a new book by F. Soto.


Thanks to the following colleagues who have sourced material or analysis to the current edition of this blog: Francis Ridge (NICAP, USA), Dr. Luis Cayetano (USA), Josef Garcia (Germany), Julio Plaza del Olmo (Spain), Jaime Servera (Spain), Joan Plana Crivillén (Spain), Isaac Koi (England), Edoardo Russo (CISU, Italy), Mikhail Gershtein (Russia), Dr. Heriberto Janosch (Spain), Dr. Jonathan McDowell (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA), Manuel Borraz (Spain), Paul Maley (USA), Pablo Petrowitsch (Chile), Luis Ruiz Nóguez (Marcianitos Verdes, Mexico), Commodore Rubén Lianza (CIAE) and Danny Ammon (Germany).


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

The above books are also available in the second-hand market, for example:

IBERLIBRO: https://tinyurl.com/ycx5a5u4

UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/yeyrx7ph

AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/4aewex7h

TODO COLECCIÓN: https://tinyurl.com/y8j6nwwy

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), (UFO Sightings in Antarctica in 1965), 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


The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony (editor) (with R.W. Heiden), 2023


Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera (My correspondence with Antonio Ribera), 2023



Six unique items for sale:


Softcover, 18.5x12cm, illustrated, 141 pages, Abbé Th. Moreux, LES AUTRES

MONDES SONT-ILS HABITÉS?, Gaston Doin (Paris), 1923.

Price: 300 US dollars plus postage

Softcover, 19x12cm, 357 pages, Camille Flammarion, RÊVES ÉTOILÉS (Ernest

Flammarion, éditeur, Paris), 1914.

Price : 400 US dollars plus postage.

Softcover, 18x12cm, 2 volumes, illustrated, Vol. 1, 257 pages, Vol. 2, 255 pages,

Camille Flammarion, LA PLURALIDAD DE MUNDOS HABITADOS (Publisher Maucci, Barcelona), 1920.

Price : 300 US dollars plus postage.


Hardcover, 31x23cm, full-colored, 136-page issue of HORIZON magazine, May 1959, containing the original article by Henri Lhote, “Discovering A Stone Age Museum,” 12 color pages describing the findings of the famous Tassili paintings. Price: 300 US dollars plus postage.

Hardcover, 30x23.5cm, illustrated, 70 pages. Derek De Solla Price, GEARS FROM THE GREEKS. The Antikythera Mechanism – A Calendar Computer From ca. 80 B.C. Science History Publications (New York), 1975.

Price: 150 US dollars plus postage.

Hardcover, 19.5x23cm, illustrated, 92 pages, including plans, sketches, pictures, and dropdowns. Maria Reiche, MYSTERY ON THE DESERT. Nazca, Peru. Maria Reiche (Stuttgart), 1968. Text in three languages: German, English, and Spanish.

Price: 200 US dollars plus postage.

Write to: ballesterolmos@yahoo.es


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

2024/JUNIO/15 (ES)

Editor de la sección en castellano: Juan Pablo González.


El catálogo FOTOCAT reúne 13.131 casos hasta la fecha. 12.858 de ellos hasta la fecha oficial de cierre que es el 31 de diciembre de 2005. Los restantes 273 informes hasta el final son excepciones, por región o categoría de interés especial.



The Reliability and Psychology of Eyewitness-Centered UFO Experience: A Bibliography

Por Jochen Ickinger, V.J. Ballester Olmos y Ulrich Magin

Después de dos años de trabajo, tengo la satisfacción de comunicaros la publicación de una bibliografía internacional dedicada a ensayos y libros sobre la fiabilidad y psicología de los testigos de las experiencias ovni. Esta monografía de 66 páginas y más de 1300 referencias la he realizado con el extraordinario concurso de los investigadores alemanes Jochen Ickinger y Ulrich Magin. Espero que sea de vuestro interés. Ha sido prologada por el eminente profesor Christopher C. French.

Los siguientes académicos han escrito palabras de aprecio a este trabajo:

Dr. Matthew Sharps, profesor de Psicología, California State University

Dr. Greg Eghigian, profesor de Historia y Bioética, Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Andreas Anton, Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology and Mental Health, Friburgo

Una selección de opiniones de un amplio rango de lectores: “Felicitaciones” (Dr. Jorge Conesa-Sevilla), “En tu línea de excelencia” (Jaime Servera), “Una monografía imprescindible” (Moisés Garrido), “Excellent” (Dr. Scott R Scribner), “Congratulations” (Dr. Luiz Augusto da Silva), “Calidad” (Gabriel Wüldenmar), “Wonderful” (Dr. Greg Eghigian), “Excellence” (Edoardo Russo).

En la edición en inglés de este blog he añadido más información, para quien tenga interés. La monografía se puede descargar de forma gratuita desde el portal Academia.edu en este enlace:



Ha pasado un año desde la publicación del volumen de 711 páginas The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony, el primer libro que en su conjunto de 57 capítulos (de 60 autores diferentes de 14 países) aborda el tema desde un punto de vista experto. Después de más de dos años de arduo trabajo de compilación y edición, los dos editores (Richard Heiden y yo) decidimos, para facilitar la distribución de esta nueva pieza de conocimiento, que se publicara a través de una descarga gratuita desde Academia.edu:


Hasta la fecha, los resultados han sido prometedores: el libro ha recibido 6.600 visitas y 1.700 descargas de lectores de todo el mundo. ¡Misión cumplida! Simultáneamente, para los amantes de los libros en papel, coleccionistas, bibliotecas, departamentos universitarios, etc., la editorial italiana UPIAR ha lanzado un libro impreso de tapa blanda, tamaño A4, en dos ediciones, una en blanco y negro y otra en color: http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=201

En la edición de mayo de 2024, páginas 134-136, de Nova Religio. The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, que edita la University of Pennsylvania Press, se ha publicado una reseña de nuestro libro de la pluma del Dr. Matthew Bowman, de la californiana universidad Claremont Graduate. He extraído algunas frases, que traduzco:

[Los OVNIs] no son fácilmente identificables, lo que crea una categoría alarmante, quizás extraterrestre, quizás interdimensional, con un significado profundo y profundo para la humanidad. Los editores se preocupan por el daño que esta construcción causa a nuestras sociedades, junto con la profunda distracción y las consiguientes sospechas que genera. Esperan que el volumen ofrezca una refutación multidisciplinaria de la noción de que los informes de testigos oculares sobre avistamientos de ovnis son necesariamente confiables. De hecho, dicen, no lo son. […] Los ensayos a lo largo de este extenso volumen varían ampliamente en estilo y método, pero esto es apropiado. Los ovnis tampoco parecen ser una sola cosa. A pesar de su variación, su repetición y su irregularidad ocasional, en su estructura misma esta colección nos ofrece una forma de pensar sobre un fenómeno consistentemente desconcertante.


Como saben los fieles lectores de este blog, en julio de 2023 se publicó online mi último libro, Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera. Es un libro de gran tamaño, de 750 páginas, disponible gratuitamente en Academia.edu en este enlace:


En enero de 2024, la editorial UPIAR imprimió ejemplares de este libro en tapa blanda en una edición doble de 700 páginas en blanco y negro y también en color: https://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=204

A pesar de la limitación de tratarse de un libro bastante especializado, centrado en la historia de la ufología española y no estar escrito en inglés, la acogida de este gran tomo ha sido muy satisfactoria, con 1.200 visitas en línea y 400 descargas.


Aspectos más destacados del informe AARO sobre registros históricos de la intervención del Gobierno de EE.UU. en el tema ovnis1

V.J. Ballester Olmos

Febrero de 2024 fue la fecha de entrega al Congreso de los Estados Unidos del informe clasificado sobre el registro histórico de la participación del Gobierno de EE. UU. en el problema de los fenómenos anómalos no identificados (UAP en inglés, FANI en español, se refiere a los antiguos platillos volantes, más tarde ovnis). Se trataba del Volumen I. Un mes después, se ha publicado la versión pública de 63 páginas en el sitio web de la AARO2 (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office: Oficina para la resolución de anomalías en todos los dominios), entidad creada en julio de 2022 por el Departamento de Defensa.

Este informe obedece a un mandato del Congreso estadounidense. La Ley de Defensa Nacional del año fiscal 2023, aprobada el 22 de diciembre de ese año, ordenaba a Defensa que “no más tarde de 540 días después de la fecha de promulgación de la Ley de Autorización de Inteligencia para el año fiscal 2023, el Director de la Oficina presentará a los comités de defensa del Congreso, a los comités de inteligencia del Congreso y a los dirigentes del Congreso un informe escrito que detalle el registro histórico del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos en relación con fenómenos anómalos no identificados”.

Este es un informe verdaderamente demoledor para aquellos que han sido engañados con la creencia de que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha mantenido bajo custodia platillos volantes. Esta ha sido una historia recurrente desde las primeras etapas de la mitología ovni. Tan duradera como falta de pruebas, me apresuro a agregar. Como las presuntas formas, colores y tamaños de los ovnis, cada una de estas historias es diferente entre sí, algo que es típico de la imaginación humana.

Como he dicho, la AARO tenía un cronograma que cumplir y este primer volumen es el resultado de apenas 10 meses de investigación3. Digo apenas porque han tenido que examinar toda la historia de la ufología americana y evaluar historias que se remontan a la década de 1940. Por supuesto, hay varios errores menores e inevitables aquí y allá, de un peso leve que no pueden aducirse para restar valor y veracidad a la hora de comprobar las duras conclusiones de las investigaciones realizadas por esta oficina del Departamento de Defensa americano. Destaco aquí algunas de las relevantes afirmaciones de la AARO:

* AARO no encontró evidencia de que alguna investigación del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, investigación patrocinada por académicos o panel oficial haya confirmado que algún avistamiento de un UAP representara tecnología extraterrestre. Todos los esfuerzos de investigación, en todos los niveles de clasificación, concluyeron que la mayoría de los avistamientos fueron objetos y fenómenos ordinarios y el resultado de una identificación errónea.

* AARO no encontró evidencia empírica para las afirmaciones de que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos y empresas privadas han estado aplicando ingeniería inversa a tecnología extraterrestre. AARO determinó, basándose en toda la información proporcionada hasta la fecha, que las afirmaciones que involucran a personas específicas, ubicaciones conocidas, pruebas tecnológicas y documentos supuestamente involucrados o relacionados con la ingeniería inversa de tecnología extraterrestre son inexactas.

* AARO evalúa que todos los supuestos programas ocultos de ingeniería inversa de UAP nombrados y descritos proporcionados por los entrevistados o no existen, o son programas de seguridad nacional auténticos y altamente sensibles mal identificados que no están relacionados con la explotación de tecnología extraterrestre, o tratan de algún programa injustificado y ya disuelto.

* AARO considera que la afirmación inexacta de que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos está realizando ingeniería inversa de tecnología extraterrestre y ocultándosela al Congreso es, en gran parte, el resultado de la información circular de un grupo de individuos que creen que es así, a pesar de la falta de pruebas. AARO señala que, aunque las afirmaciones de que el Gobierno de EE.UU. ha recuperado y ocultado naves espaciales se remontan a los años 40 y 50, los casos más modernos de estas afirmaciones provienen en gran medida de un grupo consistente de personas que han estado involucradas en diversos esfuerzos relacionados con los UAP desde al menos 2009.

Esto alude al Dr. James T. Lacatski y a sus colaboradores en el programa de la DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) AAWSAP/AATIP (2008-2012), cancelado por sus pobres resultados y por una orientación ovni/paranormal no alineada con los objetivos originalmente establecidos. El informe afirma claramente: "Muchos de estos individuos estuvieron involucrados o apoyaron un programa cancelado de la DIA y el subsiguiente pero fallido intento de restablecer este programa bajo el DHS [Departamento de Seguridad Nacional], llamado KONA BLUE".

* AARO evalúa que los avistamientos de UAP y los informes de estos avistamientos a las organizaciones del Gobierno estadounidense y las afirmaciones de que algunos UAP son naves extraterrestres y que el Gobierno estadounidense ha conseguido y está experimentando con tecnología extraterrestre se han visto influidos por una serie de factores culturales, políticos y tecnológicos.

* Varios factores -nacionales e internacionales- influyeron muy probablemente en avistamientos, informes y en la creencia de algunos individuos de que hay pruebas suficientes de que algunos UAP representan tecnología extraterrestre.

* AARO estima que una parte de los avistamientos desde los años 40 se ha debido a identificaciones erróneas de sistemas experimentales y operativos espaciales, aéreos y cohetes nunca antes vistos, incluidas las tecnologías furtivas y la proliferación de plataformas de drones.

La sección IV, "Relatos de los programas de investigación del Gobierno de los EE.UU. sobre ovnis desde 1945", repasa en 13 páginas la implicación oficial de América del Norte en el asunto de los platillos volantes, los ovnis y los UAP. Teniendo en cuenta la ingente tarea que suponen los múltiples proyectos y actividades relacionadas con los ovnis y la investigación realizada en 78 años, la exposición de los antecedentes y resultados de cada una de las "aproximadamente dos docenas de trabajos de investigación independientes", realizados desde 1946 hasta la actualidad, es una síntesis más que aceptable (a pesar de pequeñas inexactitudes) de todo lo que han hecho las distintas administraciones estadounidenses para esclarecer este asunto con mejor o peor fortuna. Además, AARO ha entrevistado a unas 30 personas que afirmaban tener conocimientos sobre la supuesta implicación del Gobierno de Estados Unidos en la explotación de tecnología extraterrestre o poseer conocimientos sobre UAP que supuestamente han perturbado instalaciones nucleares estadounidenses en el pasado.

En cuanto a los hallazgos propios desde su creación el 15 de julio de 2022, se resumen del siguiente modo:

De todos los informes que AARO investigó y analizó, ninguno representa tecnología extraterrestre o de otro mundo. Un pequeño porcentaje de casos presenta características potencialmente anómalas o preocupantes. AARO ha mantenido al Congreso plena y actualmente informado de sus hallazgos. La investigación de AARO sobre estos casos continúa.

El informe de AARO presenta, entre otras, algunas conclusiones clave:

- Ninguna de estas investigaciones (incluidos los estudios académicos tanto nacionales como extranjeros) llegó a la conclusión de que alguno de los informes UAP indicara un origen extraterrestre.

- Todos estos programas y trabajos concluyeron que la gran mayoría de los informes de UAP podían resolverse como causados por objetos ordinarios, fenómenos naturales, ilusiones ópticas o identificaciones erróneas. Sin embargo, muchos de los casos siguen sin resolverse.

- Incluso con los significativos avances en los sensores terrestres y aéreos, la aparente incapacidad de recopilar datos suficientes y de alta calidad para el análisis científico sigue plagando las investigaciones.

- AARO no encontró pruebas que sugirieran que la USAF [Fuerza Aérea de los Estados Unidos] tuviera una política destinada a encubrir evidencias relativas a conocimiento, material o interacciones extraterrestres.

La sección V del informe, " Evaluación de las afirmaciones de los entrevistados sobre la implicación del Gobierno de EE.UU. en programas UAP ocultos”, representa el núcleo del estudio encargado por el Congreso, es decir, la comprobación de los presuntos denunciantes (“whistleblowers”). Hasta el 17 de septiembre de 2023, AARO había entrevistado a unas 30 personas. De ellas, AARO vio cómo surgían dos relatos fundamentales. El relato principal alega que "el Gobierno de los EE.UU. y sus contratistas de la industria poseen y están probando tecnología extraterrestre que se ha ocultado a la supervisión del Congreso y al mundo desde aproximadamente 1964, y posiblemente desde 1947 si se incluyen los acontecimientos de Roswell. La narrativa afirma que este programa UAP posee hasta 12 naves espaciales extraterrestres". A este respecto, se concluye: AARO no ha encontrado pruebas empíricas que respalden estas afirmaciones.

El otro relato es que "un grupo de avistamientos de UAP ocurridos en las proximidades de instalaciones nucleares estadounidenses ha provocado el mal funcionamiento y la destrucción de misiles nucleares y de un vehículo experimental de reentrada". La investigación permitió llegar a conclusiones sobre la mayoría de las afirmaciones hechas en estas narraciones. Las "alegaciones no resueltas" se recogerán en el Volumen II. Las conclusiones de AARO hasta la fecha son las siguientes:

- No se ha descubierto ningún acuerdo oficial de confidencialidad sobre UAP.

- Se niega formalmente la participación de un ex funcionario de la CIA en el traslado del supuesto material recuperado del accidente de un UAP .

- Se considera que la Estimación Especial de Inteligencia Nacional “sobre ovnis” de 1961 no es auténtica.

- La prueba de material de observación de extraterrestres es un probable malentendido con la actividad auténtica de un programa sin relación con los UAP.

- Alegación (falsa) de que un exmilitar estadounidense tocó una nave extraterrestre.

- El UAP con características peculiares se refiere a un programa secreto (Special Access Program) auténtico sin relación con los UAP.

- Se confirma un estudio sobre la revelación [disclosure] extraterrestre; pero no está patrocinado por la Casa Blanca.

- Las empresas aeroespaciales niegan su implicación en la recuperación de naves extraterrestres.

- La muestra de la supuesta nave extraterrestre es una aleación metálica terrestre corriente.

El tema de los denunciantes (“whistleblowers) resulta bastante absurdo. Los supuestos testimonios han resultado ser falsos o haber sido malinterpretados por terceros. El principal denunciante, David Grusch, se ha negado a declarar ante la AARO. Todo el mundo puede hacerlo sin temor a sanciones o algo peor. Ahora está protegido al 100% por la ley para contar lo que quiera. ¿Por qué se esconde? ¿Falta de confianza en AARO? Una pobre excusa. Es muy consciente del escaso valor de su testimonio y no quiere que le pillen en una falsedad. ¿No? ¡Demuéstrenme que me equivoco!

Las supuestas afirmaciones de este tipo son rumores sin fundamento, como ha puesto de manifiesto la primera investigación oficial, tras el debido seguimiento e investigación. ¿Seguir llamándolas auténticas sin la más mínima prueba? El poder de la fe.

De especial interés para FOTOCAT, el inventario internacional de avistamientos de ovnis en los que se han obtenido fotografías, películas, vídeos o imágenes digitales, es la subsección "AARO investiga antiguos casos UAP sin resolver”. En ella se trata una filmación obtenida a las 06:08 horas del 22 de septiembre de 1964 en Big Sur, California. Sólo datándola en 1964 y sin más detalles, el informe señala: "AARO no ha sido capaz de recuperar la supuesta película del vehículo de reentrada de un misil balístico derribado por un UAP en 1964. AARO fue capaz de correlacionar la hora y la ubicación con una prueba de misil antibalístico, que podría haber sido la génesis de esta observación." Este caso ha creado mucha literatura, tanto a favor como en contra, y, para mí, la mejor investigación civil fue la realizada por Kingston A. George, analista de operaciones en 1964 de la 1st Strategic Aerospace Division y experto precisamente en imágenes Orticón4, que concluyó que fue el resultado de un despliegue defectuoso de dos vehículos de reentrada señuelo durante el lanzamiento de un cohete Atlas.5

Imagen fotográfica Orticón, extraída del video.6

En la Sección VI, "Investigación de programas sensibles del Gobierno de Estados Unidos citados", encontramos detalles interesantes sobre el intento fallido de James Lacatski (el científico de la DIA que dirigió el programa AAWSAP/AATIP) de vender su programa mascota al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) después de que la DIA lo cancelara por falta de méritos, tras habérsele concedido nada menos que 22 millones de dólares, gastados en 38 artículos de apariencia científica pero altamente especulativos y en investigaciones paranormales en el Rancho Skinwalker en Utah propiedad de Robert Bigelow, de Bigelow Aerospace, el contratista que consiguió el contrato de la DIA.

El resumen de esta sección es que, después de verificar "numerosas" afirmaciones de programas que supuestamente involucran la explotación de UAP:

AARO concluye que muchos de estos programas representan programas sensibles de seguridad nacional auténticos, actuales y antiguos, pero ninguno de estos programas ha estado involucrado en la captura, recuperación o ingeniería inversa de tecnología o materiales de otro mundo.

Bajo el título “Nexo de los defensores de la acusación de ingeniería inversa UAP por el Gobierno de Estados Unidos”, el informe afirma por enésima vez:

AARO no encontró pruebas empíricas de que ningún proyecto de investigación UAP desde 1945 -extranjero, nacional, gubernamental, privado o académico- haya descubierto información verificable sobre la recuperación o existencia de seres o naves extraterrestres. Aunque AARO continúa llevando a cabo entrevistas, documentación, y persiguiendo pistas de investigación, el trabajo de AARO ha dado lugar a la refutación de la mayoría de estas denuncias utilizando la información verificable contenida en tales denuncias.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, director del AARO entre julio de 2022 y diciembre de 2024, autor del informe.

El reciente comentario de John Greenewald en YouTube sobre este informe7 presenta una peculiar línea de razonamiento. Frente a la abrumadora aseveración de AARO en el Resumen Ejecutivo de que "Ninguno de los programas mencionados por los entrevistados son programas de ingeniería inversa de UAP, y todos los programas auténticos han sido debidamente notificados e informados al Congreso", entre otras afirmaciones confirmatorias, su creencia es que, si estos programas hubieran existido, AARO no tendría acceso a ellos. "Creo que se quedarían en el mundo negro", dijo, no sólo para el público, sino para el propio Congreso. Admiro el duro trabajo realizado por el proyecto Black Vault de Greenewald al desenterrar toneladas de documentos oficiales sobre ovnis y UAP pero, francamente, ésta es una enorme afirmación anti-educativa, cercana a la conspiración: no tenemos forma de conocer la verdad. Esto conduce a la investigación a ninguna parte. Esta es una mala excusa para dejar que las conspiraciones sigan volando y eso es muy grave. Por favor, pongan los pies en el suelo.

No es de extrañar que este informe confirme los análisis recientemente dados a conocer por el periodista del New York Post Steven Greenstreet,8,9 o por el ecologista evolutivo Dr. Luis Cayetano10,11 en el sentido de que un puñado de individuos ha tenido una gran influencia para convencer al Congreso de Estados Unidos de que impulse una legislación orientada a los UAP, con escasa base real y gran dosis de creencia. El informe dice: "AARO investigó y entrevistó a numerosas personas y programas, y siguió numerosas pistas. Ha determinado que las actuales alegaciones de que el Gobierno de los EE.UU. está ocultando tecnología y seres extraterrestres proceden en gran medida del mismo grupo de individuos que tienen vínculos con el cancelado programa AAWSAP/AATIP y con la investigación paranormal de una organización del sector privado. [Se refiere a Bigelow Aerospace]. Estos individuos han trabajado entre sí constantemente en varios estudios relacionados con los UAP." (Énfasis y nota entre corchetes son míos).

Palabras contundentes y aplastantes. Todas y cada una de las fantasiosas alegaciones han sido demolidas. ¿Qué más se necesita para darse cuenta de que todo es fruto de creyentes empedernidos, de conspiracionistas y de activos “influencers” sobre ovnis? Como era de esperar, los grupos pro-alienígenas no están contentos con este informe y han expresado su amarga desconfianza con el Departamento de Defensa de su Gobierno. Sabemos que siempre estarán descontentos a menos que oigan lo que quieren oír. Pero la leyenda que sostienen nunca ha ocurrido. Y esto será afirmado por cualquier Gobierno que exista en Estados Unidos, un gobierno demócrata presidido por Biden o un gobierno republicano presidido por Trump.

La sección VII abarca el "Contexto histórico de la investigación sobre UAP desde 1945", y determina, en resumen, que:

AARO considera que los incidentes de avistamientos de UAP comunicados a las organizaciones del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, las afirmaciones de que algunos constituyen naves extraterrestres y las afirmaciones de que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos ha conseguido y está experimentando con tecnología alienígena, son muy probablemente el resultado de una serie de factores culturales, políticos y tecnológicos.

El título de la sección VIII es "Pruebas y desarrollo de los programas espaciales y de seguridad nacional de EE.UU., muy probablemente responsables de una parte de los avistamientos de UAP". Parte del resumen de la sección dice:

Consideramos que la mayoría de los avistamientos de UAP en las primeras décadas de las investigaciones sobre UAP fueron el resultado de una identificación errónea de fenómenos y objetos ordinarios, basándonos en los hallazgos de AARO de sus propios casos hasta la fecha y en los hallazgos de todos los anteriores proyectos de investigación. Sin embargo, consideramos que una parte de estas identificaciones erróneas fueron casi con toda seguridad el resultado del auge de las nuevas tecnologías que los observadores habrían reportado comprensiblemente como ovnis.

Por último, llegamos a la Sección IX: "Conclusión". Esta es clarísima:

Hasta la fecha, AARO no ha descubierto ninguna prueba empírica de que algún avistamiento de un UAP representara tecnología extraterrestre o la existencia de un programa clasificado del que no se hubiera informado debidamente al Congreso. Los trabajos de investigación han determinado que la mayoría de los avistamientos han sido resultado de una identificación errónea de objetos y fenómenos ordinarios. Aunque muchos informes sobre UAP siguen sin resolverse, AARO considera que si se dispusiera de datos adicionales de calidad, la mayoría de estos casos también podrían identificarse y resolverse como objetos o fenómenos ordinarios. [Énfasis mío]

Puede parecer una suposición desproporcionada, pero tiene una base empírica. AARO ha llegado a la conclusión, analizando sus propios informes, de que cuanto mejor documentado está un caso mayor es la probabilidad de que exista una solución sólida. En otras palabras, si no se ha encontrado nada extraordinario en los mejores avistamientos, ¿por qué habría de aparecer en los informes de baja calidad? Por principio, si se hubieran encontrado elementos extraordinarios en estos informes, no estarían catalogados como de baja calidad.

Es absolutamente simplista la forma en que ciertos divulgadores y podcasters hablan a sus oyentes de pago de "extraterrestres" en el contexto de los avistamientos de UAP. No se dan cuenta de los profundos requisitos que ello implica: pruebas sólidas e incuestionables más allá de toda duda razonable. Pruebas científicas comprobadas y vueltas a comprobar por múltiples e independientes instancias verificadoras. Esos comentaristas utilizan la fantasía extraterrestre de forma trivial y temeraria, basando sus especulaciones en simples rumores y habladurías. El razonamiento de AARO no sólo es impecable, sino que se ajusta a la corroboración de investigadores homólogos.

En la citada reseña sobre este informe del AARO, John Greenewald se preguntaba bastante sorprendido qué han hecho o logrado a lo largo de los años los enumerados programas estadounidenses sobre platillos volantes, ovnis o UAP. La respuesta es sencilla: la falta de resultados positivos se produce si se busca algo que no existe, o simplemente se espera que haya algo más de lo que muestran los hallazgos internacionales en bruto. El 98% de los informes tiene una explicación convencional12, el residuo restante no contiene nada extraordinario y, en consecuencia, es razonable asumir que comparte la misma naturaleza.

El grave problema de quienes critican este informe es su enfermiza falta de confianza en su propio Gobierno: no creen en lo que el Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos defiende públicamente. A menos que oigan lo que quieren oír, el resto no les convence. Si las afirmaciones sobre platillos estrellados o ingeniería inversa son desmentidas formalmente por las empresas aeroespaciales relacionadas y se califican como papel mojado, ¿qué se puede hacer para desmentir un falso testimonio? No tiene sentido. Si mañana el Departamento de Defensa anuncia que han estado torturando a pequeños alienígenas retenidos en las instalaciones del Pentágono durante décadas, ¡espero que nieguen esto también!

AARO presentará al Congreso estadounidense la totalidad de sus conclusiones en dos volúmenes. El actual Volumen I contiene las conclusiones de AARO desde 1945 hasta el 31 de octubre de 2023, según el mandato recibido, y el Volumen II incluirá los resultados de las entrevistas e investigaciones realizadas entre el 1 de noviembre de 2023 y el 15 de abril de 2024, espero que para finales de año.

No fue una sorpresa leer la airada respuesta de Christopher Mellon, exsubsecretario adjunto de Defensa para Inteligencia en las administraciones de Clinton y (GW) Bush. Mellon es actualmente uno de los defensores más acérrimos de la bandera alienígena/UAP. Uno de esos personajes que cuando estuvieron en el Gobierno no hicieron nada por aclarar o reducir la censura a la cuestión ovni. Al contrario, agregaron sellos de secreto siempre que fue posible, y cuando se retiraron usan sus credenciales para atacar a su gobierno por una supuesta falta de transparencia13. No quiero ocultar su intento de desacreditar el informe AARO, una crítica que ha sido respaldada por otros activistas de los ovnis, a quienes ni siquiera se atreve a mencionar por su nombre. Pero creo que debe leerse porque es una buena condensación del estado de discusión pro-UAP y porque es cierto que pone de manifiesto algunos fallos históricos del informe, aunque probablemente solo detectable por hiperexpertos en la materia14.

He dicho que el informe AARO contiene una serie de errores en fechas y nombres y otras imprecisiones. Para mí, estos no son extraordinariamente graves. Porque no empañan la misión cumplida del informe: revelar la inexistencia de programas o proyectos secretos vinculados al Gobierno de Estados Unidos sobre la recuperación y manipulación de restos de supuestos accidentes ovni. Ese fue el núcleo de la investigación. Eso fue lo que afirmaron los denunciantes. Y eso es lo que se ha desmentido rotundamente. El objetivo del informe AARO no era escribir una historia de 80 años de ufología estadounidense. Para eso, tenemos cientos de libros. Hay razones menores para una crítica aceptable, pero una refutación total del informe del Departamento de Defensa es injusta y está cargada de insinuaciones ad hominem y mala fe.

Otro punto de vista mucho más razonable y justo, desde mi perspectiva, es el escrito por Tim Printy en su revista15:

Algunas de las críticas de los defensores de los ovnis están justificadas porque señalan errores. Otras son puramente quisquillosas con la historia descrita de los ovnis o muestran su desacuerdo con las conclusiones. Los defensores de Roswell no están nada contentos con que el informe parezca estar de acuerdo con la conclusión de que fue un globo de la Universidad de Nueva York el que creó los desechos descubiertos por Mac Brazel en junio/julio (dependiendo de qué versión de la historia se acepte) de 1947. Para otros, sus casos más importantes fueron ignorados o no mencionados. Sospecho que el motivo de la omisión fue porque, según recuerdo, AARO había indicado previamente que los casos más antiguos no eran una prioridad debido a la cantidad limitada de información disponible. La idea parece ser que no deberían asignar recursos valiosos a algo que no vaya a arrojar nueva información. Después de todo, ¿qué descubrirán sobre un antiguo avistamiento que no está disponible? Los datos de estos casos son limitados y, en algunos de ellos, son inexistentes o contradictorios. La mayoría de esos casos se han examinado a muerte y lo mejor que pueden hacer sus defensores es declararlos “no identificados”, lo cual no es mucho decir. La conclusión es que esos viejos casos, no importa cuán convincentes los encuentren los defensores de los ovnis, son inadecuados como prueba de algo. Los ufólogos necesitan mejores pruebas y AARO está tratando de encontrarlas. Hasta ahora, no han encontrado la evidencia cuya existencia la ufología defiende, lo que los enfada hasta el punto de arremeter contra AARO.

Para cualquier observador de la situación que se considere imparcial y sincero, como escribió The Guardian, este informe ha hecho que el mundo de la ufología cayera en picado16.

La última, pero no por ello menos importante, reseña pericial del contenido del informe histórico de AARO, la situación actual de la Oficina y su posible curso en el futuro queda expuesta brillantemente por Douglas Dean Johnson en su artículo “¿Qué es lo siguiente para AARO?”, publicado el pasado día 7 de junio. Amigo lector: ¡no te lo puedes perder!: https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/what-next-for-aaro/


(1) Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Volume I,


(2) https://www.aaro.mil/

(3) El informe lo firmó el Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick en octubre de 2023.

(4) Kingston A. George, Preliminary Report on Image Orthicon Photography From Big Sur, Operations Analysis Staff Study, 1st Strategic Aerospace Division, Vandenberg AFB, 13 de octubre de 1964.

(5) Kingston A. George, “’Buzzing Bee’ Missile Mythology Flies Again”, Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 33, Nº 1, enero-febrero de 2009, pp. 42-46,


(6) “Joel Carpenter and the Big Sur Case”, SUNlite, Vol. 6, Nº 1, julio-agosto de 2014, pp. 4-22, https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite6_4.pdf

(7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg4FKt2Pe7I

(8) Steven Greenstreet, “Spooky Hustlers: How wacky UFO activists and "crazy" ghost hunters duped Congress into hunting UFOs”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Wud0LzFQY&t=2177s

(9) Steven Greenstreet, “UFO "religion" influencing Congress to hunt aliens, says top Pentagon official”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RUoYqBewC8

(10) Luis Cayetano, “Mapping the UFO scene using association charts”,


(11) Luis Cayetano, “Wake Me Up Before You Go Go, Don’t Leave Me Hanging On Like a UFO”, blog UFO FOTOCAT 15 de marzo de 2023, http://fotocat.blogspot.com/2023_03_15_archive.html

(12) GEIPAN, “Forte baisse des CAS D sur les 10 dernières années”, 


(13) Steven Greenstreet, “Pentagon source: UFO activists INSIDE THE PENTAGON overly classified UFO data to make them seem more spooky”, https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1779165103365169637

(14) https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/

(15) Véase: “AARO on the backpage”, SUNlite, Vol. 16, Nº 3, mayo-junio de 2024, p. 1, http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite16_3.pdf

(16) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/22/ufologists-sean-kirkpatrick-pentagon-report-uaps


A Juan Pablo González, por su edición del texto en castellano.

Actualidad de AARO

El 6 de marzo pasado, el actual director interino de la Oficina de Resolución de Anomalías en todos los Dominios (AARO), Timothy Phillips, concedió un entrevista sin cámaras a los medios en el Pentágono1, en el curso de la cual informó de que el ejército estadounidense está desarrollando kits portátiles de detección de ovnis. Phillips también dijo que hasta la fecha se han reportado ~1.200 casos a AARO. En febrero de 2024, AARO cerró 122 casos de los que el 68% consistieron en globos o residuos transportados por el aire que fueron detectados por sensores avanzados.

Resultaría divertido si no fuera penoso, porque volvemos a los primeros tiempos de la ufología, cuando algunos técnicos fabricaban detectores magnéticos de ovnis para registrar la presencia de uno en sus proximidades. Al final no se consiguió nada. Ahora, con la última tecnología, creen que estos instrumentos capturarán el paso de UAP volantes. Si no existen parámetros anómalos verdaderamente comprobados en los ovnis o UAP (porque no existen anomalías como tales, afirmo), ¿qué se supone que deben registrar estos dispositivos? ¿Deben ser estaciones automáticas como las que se utilizan para filmar con éxito meteoros y bólidos, con zoom ajustado a baja altitud? Esto es una fantasía y un gasto ridículo, como lo dirá el tiempo, cuando se eliminen de las grabaciones los pájaros, los globos, los drones, las cometas, los aviones, etc.

En dicha conferencia de prensa, Phillips señaló lo siguiente con respecto a esos denunciantes-charlatanes (“whistleblowers”):

Éstos son algunos de nuestros hallazgos. AARO no ha encontrado evidencia verificable de que algún avistamiento de UAP haya representado actividad extraterrestre. AARO no ha encontrado evidencia verificable de que el gobierno estadounidense o la industria privada hayan tenido alguna vez acceso a tecnología extraterrestre. AARO no ha encontrado indicios de que se haya ocultado información al Congreso de forma ilegal o inapropiada. AARO evalúa que los supuestos programas UAP ocultos no existen o fueron identificados erróneamente siendo auténticos programas de seguridad nacional no relacionados con la explotación de tecnología extraterrestre.

Evaluamos que las afirmaciones sobre dichos programas ocultos son en gran medida el resultado de informes circulares en los que un pequeño grupo de personas han repetido afirmaciones inexactas que han escuchado de otros durante un período de varias décadas. Deseo enfatizar que creemos que la mayoría de las personas repitieron estas afirmaciones sin malicia ni ningún esfuerzo por engañar al público.

La página web de AARO continúa arrojando nueva documentación e informes de investigación. Las últimas incorporaciones a su archivo público en línea son la totalidad de documentos relacionados con un proyecto UAP que nunca nació y que James Lacatski, ex científico de la DIA y director del proyecto AAWSAP/AATIP (DIA, 2008-2012), intentó vender sin éxito al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS). Llamado KONA BLUE, se estableció como un programa potencial en julio de 2011 y finalizó en diciembre del mismo año2. El DHS no le vio ningún valor. AARO lo describió de la siguiente manera:

La Oficina de resolución de anomalías en todos los dominios (AARO) se enteró por primera vez del programa KONA BLUE a través de entrevistas realizadas como parte de su revisión histórica. Varios entrevistados identificaron a KONA BLUE como una sección sensible del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) establecida para proteger la recuperación y explotación de "productos biológicos no humanos". AARO investigó la información proporcionada por los entrevistados y descubrió que KONA BLUE era un Programa de Acceso Especial Prospectivo (PSAP) que se había propuesto al liderazgo del DHS pero que nunca fue aprobado ni establecido formalmente. KONA BLUE nunca recibió ningún material ni financiación, y no hay información más allá de la presentación de la propuesta marcada con el nombre KONA BLUE.

Un breve artículo, pero muy importante, recién publicado por AARO, tiene que ver con el paralaje. Este es un concepto tan básico como incomprensiblemente olvidado en el análisis de las observaciones ovni. El paralaje se define simplemente como el desplazamiento aparente de un objeto visto desde diferentes posiciones3. En un Artículo Informativo, que espero sea el primero de muchos otros artículos técnicos en el futuro, titulado “Efecto de la perspectiva forzada y la visión de paralaje en observaciones de la UAP”, se destaca, por ejemplo, lo siguiente:

en algunos casos, se sabe que los efectos de estos fenómenos provocan estimaciones inexactas del tamaño, la velocidad y la dirección de desplazamiento de un UAP. En consecuencia, estos fenómenos afectan a los datos derivados de un único sensor que se mueva muy rápido en relación con el objeto en cuestión4.

Durante muchos años, los investigadores civiles aficionados habíamos considerado la inmensa importancia de este efecto en la evaluación de los avistamientos de ovnis. El estudio de un caso notable donde el efecto de “ilusión de paralaje” fue clave para identificar al culpable que provocó el episodio ovni, fue el video infrarrojo de Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, tomado el 25 de abril de 2013, sobre el aeropuerto Rafael Hernández por un avión DHC-8 del Servicio de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras de Estados Unidos. El comodoro (equivalente a coronel estadounidense) Rubén Lianza, jefe del estudio ovni de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina, el Centro de Identificación Aeroespacial (CIAE)5, es autor de un esclarecedor y didáctico trabajo que llegó a demostrar con claridad meridiana que el objeto volador filmado desde el aire y que presentaba una aparente capacidad transmedio, era simplemente un par de faroles chinos convencionales en forma de corazón para fiestas de boda6.

Te sugiero, amigo lector, que prestes atención al siguiente ejemplo perfecto de ilusión de paralaje7. Esta ilusión no sólo te hace creer que el caminante se mueve "de costado" cada vez que el dron cruza su camino (cortando su recta de desplazamiento) sino que también parece caminar más rápido cuando el dron va por uno de sus laterales en sentido opuesto y hasta caminar "hacia atrás" cuando el dron se desplaza en su misma dirección, en el lateral opuesto. La ilusión de paralaje aquí se descubre fácilmente porque estás viendo las piernas del caminante y sabes que es imposible que camine hacia atrás o de costado. Pero notarás que se hace mucho más engañosa si vuelves a ver el video pero cubriendo el cuerpo y las piernas del caminante, de tal forma de ver sólo su cabeza. Esta ilusión de paralaje (que hace parecer que el objeto "acelera o desacelera" o que, incluso  se desplaza "lateralmente") engañó sobremanera a algunos investigadores ovni que inicialmente estudiaron el caso Aguadilla, pensando que era un objeto autopropulsado y con capacidad de maniobra, cuando en realidad, era un par de globos de aire caliente llevados por el viento, en una trayectoria rectilínea igual a la del ejemplo de nuestro caminante  del video. 


(1) https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3702219/media-engagement-with-acting-aaro-director-tim-phillips-on-the-historical-recor

(2) https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Records-Research/ Ver “History and Origin of Kona Blue” y “Department of Homeland Security (DHS) KONA BLUE Information Release”.

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

(4) https://tinyurl.com/5e5jxfm8

(5) https://www.argentina.gob.ar/fuerzaaerea/centro-de-identificacion-aeroespacial

(6) https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_cefae_2017.pdf, pp. 51-73.

(7) https://www.instagram.com/p/CAXOaNhA8v7/

Inusual bólido rasante avistado desde España

A las 23:59 horas del pasado viernes 29 de marzo (22:59Z) y desde varios puntos del norte, centro, noreste y este de España, fue vista una extraña luz surcar el cielo en movimiento rectilíneo. Inicialmente, según información facilitada a “20 minutos” por la Red de Investigación sobre Bólidos y Meteoritos (SPMN)1 del Instituto de Ciencias del Espacio (ICE)2, el objeto volante sobrevoló Gerona hacia Barcelona para adentrarse en el Mediterráneo y finalizar su recorrido al sur de la Comunidad Valenciana. El ICE señaló que se trataba de “un bólido artificial, posiblemente un misil balístico” de origen francés, lo que fue calificado de “algo preocupante”.3 El ICE barajaba dos hipótesis: que se tratara de un misil balístico o de una reentrada, pero inicialmente se decantaban más bien por la primera opción. De hecho, el profesor Dr. Josep María Trigo, como portavoz del ICE, expuso unas declaraciones con tinte crítico: “Sinceramente, me pregunto si algún responsable dará explicaciones sobre esta prueba que han hecho hoy sobre nuestras cabezas. ¿No se tendrían que anunciar?” Afirmaciones tan contundentes como innecesariamente alarmistas.4

Una de las estaciones de la red SPMN, la ubicada en Sant Mateu (Castellón) y operada por el aficionado César Guasch, captó espectaculares imágenes del meteoro.5

La verdad es que esta imagen no se parece a la que nos resulta ya familiar de este tipo de prueba. Algo más tarde, SPMN anunciaba que se trataría de una reentrada.6 Aunque sin dar más detalles, reconstruía la probable trayectoria del bólido. Personalmente verifiqué la posibilidad de ese otro tipo de bólido artificial, una reentrada. Consulté el catálogo del NORAD y ese día solo había constancia de una reentrada espacial: decayó del espacio la carga útil del satélite Capella-6 (Whitney), designación internacional 2021-041BE y número de catálogo NORAD 48605, que fue lanzado al espacio el 15 de mayo de 2021.

Sin embargo, como la reentrada anticipada del Capella-6 para ese día situaba su paso lejos de la zona de observación7, hice lo propio: consultar a los expertos. En correspondencia personal, el astrofísico de Harvard Dr. Jonathan McDowell no consideró este satélite como candidato para esta reentrada: The groundtrack of that satellite doesn't match the observation, afirmó8 (“la trayectoria terrestre de ese satélite no coincide con la observación”).

Como informó Julio Plaza del Olmo, el canal español de televisión Antena 3 televisión propuso una aberrante trayectoria para la visualización del fenómeno. El investigador Manuel Borraz ha creado la siguiente imagen que compara dicha fallida reconstrucción con la trayectoria estimada por la Red de Investigación de Bólidos y Meteoritos.

Consultados otros renombrados expertos internacionales se analizaron varias opciones, como la del satélite denominado Gunsmoke, pero este decayó a las 22:00Z del día siguiente9. Finalmente no encontramos ninguna reentrada que coincidiera con día y hora y pasamos a la tercera hipótesis, por cierto, la más sencilla vista la filmación de Guasch:un bólido natural. Como escribió Paul Maley: I find no reentry corresponding to this time. A fireball cannot be excluded as the source of the report10 (“no encuentro ninguna reentrada correspondiente a esta hora. No se puede excluir un bólido como fuente del informe”).

Un nuevo comunicado del SPMN descartó definitivamente la idea de un misil militar y planteó ahora una reentrada: "Los datos preliminares obtenidos hasta el momento nos hacen decantarnos porque el bólido fuese producido por la reentrada de un objeto artificial en órbita terrestre, como un satélite o el resto de un cohete espacial”11.

Por Joan Plana supe que, finalmente, la Fuerza Aérea alemana había señalado que el origen del fenómeno sería la reentrada de un satélite de la serie Starlink12. Pero, ¿no debería entonces quedar registrado en el listado del NORAD? Consultado nuevamente el Dr. McDowell, este indicó: I think they are just guessing. I see no Starlink reentries close to the stated place and time (Mar 29, 23:00 UTC over Spain). I still have no candidates for this event13 (“creo que están haciendo conjeturas. No veo ninguna reentrada de Starlink cerca del lugar y hora indicados (29 de marzo, 23:00 UTC sobre España). Sigo sin tener candidatos para este evento“).

¿Qué pudo ser, entonces, la bola de luz que atravesó miles de kilómetros en pocos segundos? El profesor A.J. Castro-Triado, del Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, estudió los varios videos obtenidos y determinó que la velocidad media del objeto era de unos 15 km/h, con lo que confirmó la definitiva naturaleza del meteoro: un bólido rozador.14 Son estos meteoros muy brillantes que penetran y luego salen de la atmósfera de la Tierra, esto es, la cruzan sin caer en forma de meteorito o desintegrarse como bólido. Castro-Triado señaló que “la ausencia de fragmentación nos permite sugerir la naturaleza metálica del meteoroide”.15 La Red de Bólidos y Meteoritos tiene ya consignado en su catálogo el suceso como “bólido esporádico rozador”16 de magnitud -9±1. Alberto Castellón, de la Sociedad Malagueña de Astronomía, produjo una exacta trayectoria de inicio y final del bólido.17

Por su parte, el 1 de abril, el Ministerio de Defensa, a través del nuevo Centro de Operaciones de Vigilancia Espacial (COVE), órgano que depende operativamente del Manco Aéreo de Combate (MACOM), emitió una nota informativa a los medios de comunicación, de la que extraigo algunos párrafos18,19:

Tras la alarma suscitada este fin de semana, el COVE lanza un mensaje de tranquilidad dado que “contamos con herramientas y profesionales que permiten determinar el tipo de elemento con precisión y rigurosidad”. ... Considera que se trató de un fenómeno natural, un ‘meteoroide rozador’, que no llegó a reentrar en la atmósfera terrestre… un ‘bólido espacial’ que, en ningún caso, tenía las características ni comportamiento de un misil balístico. Esta ha sido la conclusión del COVE en una primera aproximación al estudio del objeto y que se refrendaba poco después. ... Tras analizar el vídeo difundido mostrando un objeto con una estela luminosa en el cielo, y consultar con el consorcio europeo y otros actores espaciales, el COVE llegó a la conclusión de que “la naturaleza armamentística del fenómeno no era real” y, descartando también que fuera un satélite privado (de la empresa Starlink, como se sugirió), “la única información que damos como posible es que fue un ‘meteoroide rozador”, señaló el jefe del COVE, teniente coronel Manuel Olmos. ... Asimismo, se ha consultado con el Centro de Vigilancia de Alertas de Misiles Balísticos del Mando Aéreo de la OTAN, que “nos confirmó que no constaba ningún lanzamiento en ese espacio de tiempo”, añadió Olmos. ... Un satélite Starlink no llega a los 300 kilos, expuso como ejemplo Olmos, por lo que su masa en tan mínima que la atmósfera es capaz de desintegrarla “y por eso no se considera una alerta”.

Instalaciones del Centro de Operaciones de Vigilancia Espacial (Base Aérea de Torrejón).

Encabezamiento de la nota de prensa del COVE y su emblema.

Probablemente el más famoso de los bólidos rasantes fue el filmado por Linda Baker a las dos y media de la tarde del 10 de agosto de 1972 desde el Lago Jackson, en Wyoming. La bella fotografía se reprodujo en la portada de Sky and Telescope20 y fue objeto de varios trabajos científicos en revistas tan prestigiosas como Nature21 y Astronomy and Astrophysics22.

Jackson Lake, 10/8/1972. © Linda Baker. Imagen tomada de Sky & Telescope (Fair Use).


(1) https://www.spmn.uji.es/

(2) ICE, dependiente del Consejo Superior de Investigación y Ciencia, https://www.csic.es/es/investigacion/institutos-centros-y-unidades/instituto-de-ciencias-del-espacio

(3) https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5231714/0/detectado-posible-misil-balistico-sobrevolando-este-espana/

(4) https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5231732/0/josep-maria-trigo-csic-detectarse-posible-misil-espana-alguien-explica-prueba-sobre-nuestras-cabezas/

(5) Crédito: https://twitter.com/RedSpmn/status/1773977452752019602?s=20

(6) https://twitter.com/CSIC/status/1774162245385105825

(7) https://aerospace.org/reentries/48605

(8) Jonathan McDowell, email a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 31 de marzo de 2024 (00:23).

(9) Paul Maley, email a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 30 de marzo de 2024.

(10) Paul Maley, email a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 31 de marzo de 2024.

(11) https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5231777/0/csic-descarta-bolido-sobrevolo-este-peninsular-fuera-misil-objeto-artificial-reentraba-tierra/

(12) https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/5231799/0/alemania-confirma-bolido-sobrevolo-este-espana-satelite-starlink-elon-musk/#

(13) Jonathan McDowell, email a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 31 de marzo de 2024 (16:19).

(14) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-grazing_fireball

(15) https://twitter.com/RedSpmn/status/1774544928137208057

(16) https://www.ice.csic.es/news/citizen-science?view=article&id=335&catid=14 (29/03/2024, 22:59:21 TUC)

(17) http://meteoros.astromalaga.es/2024/03/30/posible-bolido-rozador-en-la-noche-del-viernes-santo/

(18) https://www.defensa.gob.es/gabinete/notasPrensa/2024/04/DGC-240401-visita-cove.html

(19) https://www.ccma.cat/324/era-un-meteoroide-defensa-tanca-les-especulacions-sobre-el-bolid-vist-divendres-a-catalunya/noticia/3284862/

(20) L.G. Jacchia, “A Meteorite That Missed the Earth”, Sky and Telescope, julio de 1974, portada y páginas 4-9.

(21) R.D. Rawcliffe et al, “Meteor of August 10, 1972”, Nature, 15 de febrero de 1974, páginas 449-450.

(22) Z. Ceplecha, “Earth-grazing daylight fireball of August 10, 1972”, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 283, 1994, páginas 287-288.


A Jonathan McDowell, Paul Maley, Julio Plaza del Olmo, Manuel Borraz Aymerich y Joan Plana Crivillén.

Pilotos y ovnis: El cuento de nunca acabar

El 31 de marzo pasado, la edición digital del diario ABC de Sevilla nos sorprendió con una historia de ovnis de un tipo que no habíamos vuelto a oír desde hacía bastantes años: un piloto militar había salido a perseguir un objeto volante no identificado. Con el subyugante título “Salida de emergencia de un Eurofighter tras un OVNI en Morón de la Frontera”, el ufólogo sevillano José Manuel García Bautista nos contaba un cuento del todo apropiado para las adelantadas Pascuas de este año. En resumidas cuentas, lo central de la información es la supuesta declaración escrita que un -presunto- piloto de la Fuerza Aérea española destinado en la Base Aérea de Morón (BAM) hizo -también presuntamente- al mentado. Fechada el “21 de XXXX de 2023”, la copio a continuación:

Me dirijo a usted en calidad de piloto de Eurofighter del Ejército del Aire español, con el propósito de informarle acerca de un incidente que tuvo lugar el día XX de XXXX de 2023 en la Base Aérea de Morón de la Frontera, y que considero puede ser de su interés. Esa mañana, nuestro escuadrón se encontraba en estado de alerta operativa cuando recibimos una señal de detección de un objeto volador no identificado (OVNI), en las proximidades del espacio aéreo controlado por nuestra base. Siguiendo los procedimientos establecidos, se activó de inmediato el protocolo de scramble, y mi unidad fue requerida para proceder con la interceptación y evaluación de la amenaza potencial.

En cuestión de minutos, despegamos a bordo de nuestros Eurofighter y nos dirigimos hacia la ubicación indicada, manteniendo la comunicación con el centro de control en tierra. Al llegar a la zona designada, observamos un objeto volador no identificado que exhibía un comportamiento errático y no respondía a las señales de identificación estándar. Siguiendo los protocolos de seguridad, procedimos con maniobras de aproximación y observación detallada del objeto, utilizando nuestros sistemas de radar y comunicándonos con el centro de control para coordinar la respuesta adecuada. A pesar de nuestros esfuerzos, el OVNI demostró una capacidad de maniobra que desafiaba las capacidades de cualquier aeronave convencional conocida, y finalmente desapareció rápidamente de nuestra vista a una velocidad que superaba con creces cualquier parámetro operativo conocido.

Tras confirmar la retirada del objeto no identificado, regresamos a la base y dimos inicio a un exhaustivo proceso de análisis de los datos recopilados durante la misión. Hasta el momento, no hemos podido determinar la naturaleza ni el origen de dicho OVNI, lo que plantea interrogantes significativas en cuanto a la seguridad y defensa de nuestro espacio aéreo. Deseo transmitirle que, como piloto militar, me encuentro comprometido con la veracidad y la objetividad en la evaluación de los eventos que presencio en el ejercicio de mis funciones. Este incidente desafía la comprensión de los fenómenos aéreos no identificados, y estoy a su disposición para colaborar en cualquier información adicional que pueda llevarse cabo al respecto. Agradezco su atención a esta comunicación y quedo a su disposición para brindar cualquier información adicional que pueda ser de su interés.”

En la Base Aérea de Morón se emplaza el Ala 11 del Ejército del Aire y en la actualidad dispone de un único tipo de aeronave, el poderoso Eurofighter Typhoon (C.16), a pesar de lo que indica la desactualizada web del EA al respecto.

Base aérea de Morón, fotografía aérea. Imagen tomada de Wikipedia.

La información publicada es enteramente ficticia. Por tres razones fundamentales:

El Ejército del Aire español dispone desde 1992 de un protocolo de actuación específico para la investigación y el esclarecimiento de informes de avistamientos ovni. Se conoce como Instrucción General 40-5 y se titula “Normas a seguir tras la notificación de avistamientos de fenómenos extraños en el espacio aéreo nacional”. Aprobada el 31 de marzo de 1992, dicha instrucción se distribuyó en junio a todas las unidades del Ejército del Aire para su conocimiento y cumplimiento. Me complace señalar que dichas normas se redactaron en base a varios formularios técnicos, españoles y extranjeros, genéricos y especializados (entre ellos el de la USAF norteamericana) que yo mismo entregué a los oficiales de la Sección de Inteligencia del Mando Operativo Aéreo (MOA) previamente a su redactado.

De haber ocurrido unos hechos de esa categoría, la IG-40-5 se hubiera activado automáticamente y se hubiera llevado a efecto la investigación pertinente que luego se elevaría al Jefe del Estado Mayor del Aire con la debida propuesta de clasificación o desclasificación, Hasta ahora, en las tres ocasiones en que se ha puesto en marcha esta Instrucción (dos en 1993 y una en 1995) todos los informes resultantes se han desclasificado y están disponibles en la biblioteca virtual del Ministerio de Defensa.1,2 Precisamente, el último de ellos, un avistamiento desde el aire en Morón.3 De ello se colige que, de haber ocurrido tal incidente, se habría investigado y, con toda probabilidad, hecho público. Lo cual no ha ocurrido.

En segundo lugar, es absurdo, o más bien estúpido, pretender esconderse tras un relato anónimo, cuando sería algo inmediato encontrar en la base a quien hizo tales manifestaciones si es que fue un piloto quien las hizo y los hechos pasaron como se han contado, y fácil si estos nunca sucedieron.

En tercer término la última razón, pero no por ello la menos importante, tenemos la respuesta dada por la Oficina de Comunicaciones, Relaciones Públicas y Protocolo de la Base Aérea de Morón a la consulta que se le hizo al día siguiente de la publicación. Lacónica y taxativa pero suficiente4:

Esta noticia es completamente falsa, gracias por su interés.

En realidad esto no tiene mayor recorrido, pero mi curiosidad fue más allá y les escribí, aduciendo mi “currículum” con el EA ‒contribución al proceso de desclasificación de los archivos oficiales del EA (1990-1999) y aportación a la web de Defensa5‒ para solicitar “el informe pormenorizado desarrollado en la BAM para alcanzar dicha conclusión”. La respuesta, también rápida pero más amable, apelaba esta vez a una instancia superior6:

Esta Oficina de Comunicaciones no está autorizada a satisfacer su petición, lo adecuado es que solicite dicha información a través de OFICOMDEF: prensa.defensa@oc.mde.es  Lamentamos el inconveniente.

Naturalmente, remití un email a la dirección de correo electrónico que me facilitaron. La respuesta que me llegó de la Oficina de Comunicación Institucional y Prensa del Ministerio de Defensa, simplemente me informaba de que “enviamos su solicitud al Ejército del Aire y del Espacio, puede consultarles a ellos en qué estado se encuentra la misma”7.

Confieso que, sin pretenderlo y en un exceso de celo, hice un demanda superlativa. Porque no existe tal “informe pormenorizado”. No puede existir. Si la noticia se colgó en la edición online del ABC a las 07:52 horas del 31 de marzo y el investigador español Julio Plaza recibió respuesta de la BAM a las 12:38 del día 1 de abril, apenas habían pasado 29 horas. No había transcurrido tiempo suficiente para realizar ningún informe exhaustivo de nada. Se respondió con la convicción y seguridad de que tales hechos nunca tuvieron lugar. Pero Defensa sí puede aportar justificación y evidencia suficiente para corroborar la afirmación de la base local.

Afortunadamente, tengo canal de diálogo abierto con el Capitán Manuel Ángel Cuenca López, jefe del Gabinete del Jefe del Estado Mayor del Aire (JEMA) y de la Oficina de Comunicación del Ejército del Aire y del Espacio (OFICOM), por haberme ayudado en anteriores investigaciones. A fecha de hoy sólo dispongo de un amigable email que espero sea prometedor8:

Estimado amigo:

Permítame que haga unas indagaciones a ver si podemos confirmar, con datos, la inexistencia del caso.

Un saludo.

Siguiendo con la crítica a la ‒nunca mejor dicho‒ desinformación publicada, vayan un par de detalles menores. Aunque se halla en el término municipal de El Arahal (en la andaluza provincia de Sevilla), la base toma su nombre ‒Base Aérea de Morón‒ de la cercana población de Morón de la Frontera. Denominarla con la coletilla “de la Frontera” es un error en el que no incurriría jamás un militar apostado en la base aérea. Por último, está el uso del término objeto “volador” en lugar del más usual en castellano: objeto volante.

Algo tremendamente significativo es el hecho de que el día y el mes del supuesto suceso se hayan ocultado. Esto no lo ha hecho la presunta (para mi inexistente) fuente militar, ya que rápidamente la jerarquía de la base sabría de quién estamos hablando (de haber ocurrido los hechos narrados) con solo leer la descripción de los mismos. Eso se ha hecho, probablemente por parte del autor del artículo de ABC, para evitar que los investigadores hiciéramos las averiguaciones oportunas y comprobáramos que tales hechos nunca ocurrieron. O sea, se ha pretendido abortar la investigación. Un ejemplo absoluto de falta de ética, habitual en el individuo intoxicador.

O el autor del artículo no tiene dos dedos de frente, se ha dejado “colar un gol” y está buscando protagonismo difundiendo el relato, o él mismo lo ha creado. Francamente, no sé lo que es peor. No debemos desdeñar otro precedente semejante del mismo autor hace pocos años, con la también cooperación tan ingenua como carente de filtro del ABC de Sevilla. En aquella ocasión, fue directamente la Jefatura del Mando Aéreo de Combate (MACOM) quien me aportó razones de peso para valorar en negativo dicha información9En cuanto tenga noticias satisfactorias del Ejército del Aire las volcaré en este blog.


A Manuel Carballal, Joan Plana Crivillén y Julio Plaza del Olmo, por compartir información.


(1) V.J. Ballester Olmos, “Los expedientes OVNI desclasificados – Online”,


(2) https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/i18n/consulta/indice_campo.do?campo=idtitulo

(3) https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/es/consulta/registro

(4) OFICOM Base Aérea de Morón a Julio Plaza del Olmo, 1 de abril de 2024.

(5) https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/i18n/consulta/registro.cmd?id=38366

(6) OFICOM Base Aérea de Morón a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 8 de abril de 2024.

(7) OFICOMDEF a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 15 de abril de 2024.

(8) Gabinete del JEMA a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 20 de mayo de 2024.

(9) V.J. Ballester Olmos, “OVNIS y militares, más desinformación”,


Casuística militar: Un descubrimiento inesperado

A raíz de la publicación de Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera1, el investigador catalán Joan Plana Crivillén ha descubierto un dato que agregar a la documentación existente sobre los informes ovni desclasificados por el Ejército del Aire español2Plana sabía que la (segunda) esposa de Ribera se llamaba Trini, pero no así su apellido, Broco, que aparece citado varias veces en mi reciente libro. Eso le abrió la espita del recuerdo ‒¡qué envidia tengo a los que tienen buena memoria!‒ y cayó en la cuenta de que ese es también el apellido de alguno de los testigos de un par de avistamientos militares, del centenar que manejamos durante la desclasificación. Esto escribe Plana:

Primero he buscado datos de la familia de Trini y he encontrado que ella era la mayor de tres hermanos, los otros eran Anastasio y Rafael, siendo su segundo apellido Gómez. El nombre de Anastasio Broco me sonaba. He rebuscado entre los archivos y ha aparecido un Anastasio Broco Gómez en dos lugares distintos:

- Como capitán del Ejército del Aire (EA), siendo uno de los testigos del caso 6 de agosto de 1962 en la base aérea de San Javier (Murcia), probablemente causado por la visión de Venus. El caso pertenece a los primeros archivados por el EA, cuyo expediente se desclasificó el 25/9/1992 por el teniente coronel Ángel Bastida.3

- Como teniente coronel del EA, jefe accidental del aeródromo de Agoncillo (Logroño, La Rioja), que firmó el informe oficial a la superioridad del caso 20 de julio de 1978 acaecido en dicho aeródromo. El expediente fue desclasificado el 15/2/1995 por el teniente coronel Enrique Rocamora. 

Por tanto, tenemos que Anastasio Broco Gómez, nacido el 20 de julio de 1929 en Ceuta, que ingresó en el Ejército del Aire en 1947, casado con Natividad Rubiano Villarejo, y que falleció el 4 de julio de 1981 en Logroño, era hermano de la esposa de Antonio Ribera. Me pregunto si Antonio y Trini conocían la involucración del cuñado y hermano, respectivamente en estos hechos.

Agradezco la amabilidad de Joan de facilitar estos detalles para publicación y archivo.


(1) Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera (UPIAR, 2024):



(2) Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, “Los expedientes OVNI desclasificados” (Biblioteca virtual del Ministerio de Defensa, 2017): https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/i18n/consulta/registro.cmd?id=42382

(3) https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/i18n/consulta/registroBMDB20160067972

(4) https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/i18n/consulta/registroBMDB20160071108


Entre 1968 y 1973 dirigí en el campus de la Universidad de Valencia el Círculo de Estudios sobre Objetos No Identificados (CEONI). Hace poco escribí algunas notas históricas sobre mis primeros años dedicado a la investigación ovni: “En el túnel del tiempo”1. En los apartados segundo y tercero de ese trabajo, “CEONI y la eclosión de la ufología organizada” y “Seminario de Información sobre Objetos No Identificados” di unas pinceladas de aquella entidad, germen de lo que en los años venideros Aimé Michel denominó generosamente “Escuela valenciana de ufología”. Anteriormente, en mi libro Expedientes insólitos dediqué un capítulo a la historia generacional de los ufólogos españoles y hablé también del CEONI2. Nunca se ha contado al completo aquella juvenil aventura del CEONI, fundamentalmente porque, terminada su andadura vital, me aboqué intensamente a proyectos de investigación que han consumido cincuenta años y que siempre han mirado primordialmente al futuro, no al pasado3. Yo mismo conservo muy pocos recuerdos y materiales de aquella época. De hecho, apenas tengo en mis archivos uno de los varios números del modesto Boletín que publicábamos y que acabo de subir al portal de internet Academia.edu, para gozo de los amantes de la historia ufológica patria4. Con motivo de mi reciente entrega de archivos biográficos al tándem Moisés Garrido y Claudia Moctezuma5,6, emergió un par de documentos que yo mismo había olvidado. Uno era una fotografía de grupo de algunos de los más de sesenta miembros activos del Círculo durante una reunión de trabajo en la sede de la organización, el laboratorio del Colegio Mayor Alejandro Salazar, de Valencia, ubicado en el sótano del edificio sito en el Paseo Valencia al Mar (ahora Avenida de Blasco Ibáñez). Garrido encontró la foto y la mejoró digitalmente. Ilustraba una entrevista que me hizo Iker Jiménez en 1998. La instantánea muestra, de izquierda a derecha, a Ballester Olmos, Miguel Guasp, Carlos Orlando de Soto, una chica y dos personas más desconocidas, Martí Gorris y Julio Massé.

El inquieto historiador de la ufología nacional José Juan Montejo encontró la fotocopia de una olvidada entrevista que salió publicada en la revista Avanzada de abril de 19707, que finalmente conseguí localizar en la Biblioteca de Catalunya, en donde aparece otra toma de aquella reunión, esta vez más nutrida, además de una foto en la que aparezco señalando en un mapa de España las localidades donde se habían dado avistamientos de “aterrizajes” de ovnis. Para dar una imagen de ingenuo cientifismo, algunos portábamos batas blancas (aunque también había productos químicos de los que protegerse). Sirvan estos párrafos como recordatorio de la etapa más primigenia de nuestro estudio personal de los ovnis.


(1) https://www.academia.edu/60865164/En_el_tunel_del_tiempo

(2) Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, Expedientes insólitos, Capítulo V, “Ufología y ufólogos”, Temas de Hoy (Madrid), 1995, páginas 237-259.

(3) Bibliografía cronológica de Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, 1965-2024,


(4) Boletín CEONI, enero de 1971, https://www.academia.edu/119695025/Boletin_CEONI_enero_de_1971

(5) http://fotocat.blogspot.com/2024_03_11_archive.html#es Bajar hasta “Agenda personal”, apartado (3).

(6) Moisés Garrido y Claudia Moctezuma, “Reunión histórica con la Escuela Valenciana de Ufología”,


(7) https://www.academia.edu/119697321/Avanzada_13_1_de_abril_de_1970

Otros recuerdos gráficos de antaño

Revisando fotografías en mis álbumes con otro propósito, me topé con una que no recordaba, y que me apetece exponer aquí. Algunos ya hemos perdido la barba, pero otros han perdido el pelo (¡y no precisamente porque lo tuvieran de tonto!). Fue durante una comida durante las jornadas de un ciclo de conferencias organizado por la revista internacional especializada Cuadernos de Ufología, en Santander (Cantabria) en diciembre de 1990. Los interfectos son, de izquierda a derecha, Ignacio Cabria, V.J. Ballester Olmos, Luis Miguel Ortega Gil, Luis A. Gámez y Félix Ares de Blas. ¡Qué bueno que, después de tantos años, aún sigamos en buena sintonía y relación!

Superbólido de origen cometario sobre España y Portugal

A las 00:46 del 19 de mayo de 2024, un impresionante bólido cruzó España y Portugal dejando un rastro que pudo ser filmado desde varias estaciones en tierra, además de por innumerables videoaficionados. Un excelente trabajo científico, firmado por E. Peña-Asensio y otros, se puede leer en esta referencia: https://tinyurl.com/4af24kbu

Y en la web mejicana de Luis Ruiz Noguez, Marcianitos Verdes, encontramos una exhaustiva recopilación de información gráfica de este espectacular meteoro:


Citas citables

Existe una correlación directa entre la cantidad y calidad de la información disponible sobre un caso con la posibilidad de resolverlo concluyentemente”. … “Cualquier evaluación definitiva sobre esos relatos debe ir acompañada por hechos probados”.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos, Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Volume 1, febrero de 2024,



(1) “The Trinity UFO Crash of 1945”, por Brian Dunning, de Skeptoid Media, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsrHvqjQjK8

(2) Isaac Koi, “First peer-reviewed" UFO journal - UPIAR now online (1976-1984)”,


(3) Larry J. Hancock, Ian M. Porritt, Sean Grosvenor y Larry Cates, “UAP Activity Pattern Study 1945-1975 Military and Public Activities”, https://zenodo.org/records/8213330

(4) “Enhancing Space Situational Awareness to Mitigate Risk: A Case Study in the Misidentification of Starlink Satellites as UAP in Commercial Aviation”, un trabajo publicado por ArXiv de la universidad de Cornell, 13 de marzo de 2024, sobre confusiones de pilotos que informan observaciones de UAP (FANI): https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2403/2403.08155.pdf

(5) Douglas Dean Johnson, “Gravity waves and Faraday rings-- or imaginary things? The Ray Stanford movie of December 4, 1980”, https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/gravity-waves-and-faraday-rings-ray-stanford/

(6) Curt Collins,The Legend of the President and the Alien Bodies”, https://thesaucersthattimeforgot.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-legend-of-president-and-alien-bodies.html

(7) Baptiste Friscourt, “The New Director of GEIPAN, France’s Official UAP Investigative Office, Discusses Science and the Study of Aerial Mysteries”, The Debrief, 24 de abril de 2024, https://thedebrief.org/the-new-director-of-geipan-frances-official-uap-investigative-office-discusses-science-and-the-study-of-aerial-mysteries/

(8) Elon Musk sobre extraterrestres: https://www.space.com/elon-musk-ufos-aliens-no-evidence-starlink

(9) Caroline Delbert escribe “Why UFO Footage Plays Tricks on Your Mind, According to the Guy Who Investigates It?”, en Popular Mechanics, 27 de febrero de 2024, https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a46755634/why-jellyfish-ufo-is-not-aliens/

(10) El controvertido ufólogo y científico de la Marina de los EE. UU., Dr. Bruce Maccabee, fallece a los 82 años de edad. Robert Sheaffer ha redactado un artículo sobre su obra en su blog: https://badufos.blogspot.com/2024/05/dr-bruce-maccabee-1942-2024.html

(11) ¿Quién es Richard Dolan? El escritor William G. Pullin finaliza así su “post”: “En mi humilde opinión, toda esta situación es indecente y una vergüenza para la comunidad de investigación ovni, de la cual el Sr. Dolan afirma ser un miembro destacado. Nunca cambiará, ni tampoco el lugar del Sr. Dolan en la industria del entretenimiento ovni, porque él tiene un asiento en la mesa de la autopromoción”:


(12) Entrevista a Bill Diamond, presidente y jefe ejecutivo del Instituto SETI: https://www.space.com/seti-chief-bill-diamond-ufos-alien-visitation

(13) Sobre personalidades peculiares que se mueven en los círculos ufológicos: “The Real Story Behind Danny Sheehan and Those $15,000 UFO "PhD" Degrees”, publicado por Jason Colavito, 7 de mayo de 2024: https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-real-story-behind-danny-sheehan-and-those-15000-ufo-phd-degrees

(14) “Looking for Alien Artifacts: Where are we?”, por Christopher Graney, 1 de junio de 2024, The Vatican Observatory, https://tinyurl.com/bdhenb2b

(15) Gretchen Stahlman’s “An analysis of the scientific literature on UAPs from 1967 to 2023”, https://sentinelnews.substack.com/p/gretchen-stahlman-an-analysis-of

(16) Julio Plaza del Olmo, “Los UAP aterrizan en el Parlamento Europeo”, https://www.academia.edu/116816844/Los_UAP_aterrizan_en_el_Parlamento_Europeo

En la web Factor 302.4 de Alejandro Agostinelli hay una versión ilustrada muy interesante:https://factorelblog.com/2024/04/04/uap-alert-y-un-buen-dia-los-plativolos-aterrizaron-en-el-parlamento-europeo/

(17) Informa Diego Zúñiga: la editorial Coliseo Sentosa acaba de lanzar el tomo 1 de Un marciano en mi buzón, la versión en español de An Alien in my Mailbox, extendida y mejorada. Serán dos tomos ilustrados y a todo color con todos los sellos postales vinculados a los ovnis que se han puesto a la venta en el mundo. Además, hay secciones dedicadas a la astroarqueología, el proyecto SETI y otros asuntos relacionados directa o tangencialmente con los ovnis. Más detalles en: https://coliseosentosa.blogspot.com/un-marciano-en-mi-buzon-tomo-1-ovnis-y.html

(18) El proyecto #ArchivoEOC acaba de superar más de 1.000 documentos audiovisuales sobre anomalías accesibles de forma gratuita en YouTube: http://elojocritico.info/category/taller-del-investigador/

(19) La correspondencia de Ignacio Darnaude a Moisés Garrido (cartas y emails) entre 1991 y 2011, en un dossier de 91 páginas editado por el proyecto Paradig+ XXI de Moisés Garrido y Claudia Moctezuma. Ideas, reflexiones y creencias de un pensador heterodoxo: https://mega.nz/file/nUcA1ZYB#8jl4d8kGg9orrGjVFvlbAvmfVjmwGn19snsymIwIAs0


Homínidos Humanos ¡Humanoides!

Fernando Jorge Soto Roland, Ediciones Coliseo Sentosa, 2023, 235 páginas. Desde tiempos remotos, la presunta existencia de homínidos aún no clasificados por la ciencia ha despertado la imaginación de los investigadores. En la búsqueda de estas entidades, a veces aparecen también humanoides. La mezcla es perfecta para dar comienzo a esta colección sobre criptozoología, en un libro del historiador argentino Fernando Jorge Soto Roland, quien ha dedicado décadas de su vida a indagar en diversas creencias. Desde expediciones en busca del yeti hasta seres misteriosos en Argentina, este primer recorrido es una invitación a sumergirse en un mundo extraordinario.

Del prólogo de Ignacio Cabria:

Desde el año 2015 Soto Roland ha ido elaborando en silencio una serie de estudios sobre las creencias contemporáneas, en los que se encuentran monstruos, extraterrestres, entidades del folklore y un amplio abanico de heterodoxias, y lo hace con las herramientas del historiador crítico. […] Fernando se deleita en contar historias divertidas –algunas casi ridículas-, pero no se aleja de la función del historiador, que es la de hacernos entender, y no evita justificar su metodología.


Skyward Gaze: The year UFOs captured the world

(Mirando al cielo: El año que los ovnis capturaron al mundo)

Del prolífico, veterano y riguroso investigador italiano Maurizio Verga, este libro en inglés cubre algunos temas interesantes del maravilloso año 1947: titulares de periódicos, publicidad basada en los platillos volantes, accidentes de platillos anteriores a Roswell, tiras cómicas y mucho más. Este libro de 142 páginas, de tapa dura, gran tamaño y profusamente ilustrado, versa exclusivamente sobre lo que ocurrió en América desde el primer día de la era de los platillos volantes y está disponible en Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CPW7F5HS/

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)

● “Solid Light or Lunar Light? The 1983 Jüchen Case Revisited”, artículo de investigación por Wim van Utrecht sobre un presunto caso de “luz sólida”.

● “An analysis of the Santa Ana (Rex Heflin) 1965 UFO Photographs”, análisis alternativo de las famosas fotografías del platillo volante que tomó Rex Heflin, por Jean Claude Néglais.

Las últimas novedades informativas acerca de los fraudulentos denunciantes (“whistleblowers”) y otras noticias del panorama UAP en USA.

La escena gubernamental UAP en Japón y en Australia.

Un avistamiento marítimo en el Pacífico norte en 1962 explicado como la prueba de un misil ruso.

Preservando la “cultura” ufológica: una entrevista a los responsable del AFU de Suecia.

Breves: sobre la filmación de un aparente UAP en Nueva York el paso mes de marzo, el satélite SONATE para detectar ovnis en el espacio, la reentrada en Colombia en 1983 de un “ovni boludo” (Luis Ruiz Gómez dixit), Servera y Plaza del Olmo escriben sobre el ovni más grande del mundo avistado en el Atlántico desde el aire, etc.

Aeropuerto neoyorquino de LaGuardia, 24 de marzo de 2024.

Esfera de titanio, San Juan de Arama (Colombia), 13 de diciembre de 1983.

Ruta del vuelo AEA 118, 12 de marzo de 1997.


Después de nada menos que 51 años, el pasado 14 de marzo me reencontré con José Martí Gorris, que fue secretario general del CEONI (1968-1973). Gracias al concurso de Gustavo Doménech le localizamos hace poco y rápidamente quedamos en vernos. Dos largas horas de grata conversación e intercambio de fotos y de recuerdos dobles, porque compartimos años en el colegio San José de los Padres Jesuitas de Valencia y en el Círculo de Estudios sobre Objetos No Identificados (CEONI), que fundé en el campus universitario de Valencia. Doy cuenta de nuestra reunión en la foto adjunta, tras un “esmorzaret” valenciano. Martí, a la derecha.

El 25 de abril tuve la grata oportunidad de recibir la visita de Luis Alfonso Gámez, periodista bilbaíno, escritor y en la actualidad presidente del Círculo Escéptico, quien vino a Valencia para dar una charla al día siguiente sobre “Extraterrestres de película”, que resultó instructiva y extremadamente amena, propia de un divulgador y erudito de su categoría. Fue también ocasión de volver a verme con mis colegas valencianos Jaime Servera, Juan A. Fernández Peris -que dio una clase improvisada sobre el “caso Manises” durante la cena-, a quien acompañó su esposa Amparo, y Javier Cavanilles. Luis Alfonso aprovechó para presentar su último libro: El anciano que murió haciendo el amor con un fantasma (Menoscuarto Ediciones, 2024). Estos encuentros y las conversaciones subsecuentes son siempre muy enriquecedoras, estés en la misma longitud de onda -como en este caso- o no. Hablar, siempre hablar, por encima de todo.

Luis A. Gámez, el tipo alto a la izquierda, y V.J. Ballester Olmos, en su estudio.

El pasado día 3 de junio fui invitado a asistir a la conferencia de Raúl Ferrero en el prestigioso Ateneo Mercantil de Valencia. Ferrero, licenciado en derecho y bróker de seguros de profesión, ha escrito mucho más sobre historia que muchos historiadores y, de hecho, disertó con autoridad sobre la Inquisición en Valencia. Ha investigado y es autor de obras sobre el folklore popular y la España mágica, la brujería, los autómatas, los herejes en Valencia, etc. Días antes Ferrero, acompañado de Gustavo Doménech -ambos me fueron introducidos por Moisés Garrido- vinieron a visitarme a mi domicilio con varios de mis libros, que les firmé con sumo gusto. No había tenido la ocasión de conocer a Ferrero antes y fue un verdadero placer hacerlo entonces. ¡Cuánta gente tan erudita como simpática y accesible hay en nuestro entorno!

Raúl Ferrero, a la derecha, con V.J. Ballester Olmos. Una acertada instantánea de su hija de 10 años en uno de los salones del Ateneo de Valencia, durante la presentación de su libro Valencia Hereje (Almuzara, 2024).

Y no puedo terminar este diario trimestral sin una foto familiar. Abajo, de izquierda a derecha, mi hija Laura, Fernando, Lucas y mi hijo Daniel.


Mi gratitud a los siguientes colegas que han aportado información a la presente edición del blog: Francis Ridge (NICAP, EE.UU.), Dr. Luis Cayetano (EE.UU.), Josef García (Alemania), Julio Plaza del Olmo (España), Jaime Servera (España), Joan Plana Crivillén (España), Isaac Koi (Inglaterra), Edoardo Russo (CISU, Italia), Mikhail Gerhstein (Rusia), Dr. Heriberto Janosch (España), Danny Ammon (Alemania), Dr. Jonathan McDowell (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, EE.UU.), Manuel Borraz (España), Paul Maley (EE.UU.), Pablo Petrowitsch (Chile), Comodoro Rubén Lianza (CIAE) y Luis Ruiz Nóguez (Marcianitos Verdes, México).


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/ycx5a5u4

UNILIBER: https://tinyurl.com/yeyrx7ph

AMAZON: https://tinyurl.com/4aewex7h

TODOCOLECCIÓN: https://tinyurl.com/y8j6nwwy

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, http://www.anomalistbooks.com/book.cfm?id=64

Avistamientos OVNI en la Antártida en 1965 (con M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio), 2013, http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?language=en&artID=182&st=1

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, http://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?language=en&artID=196&st=1

The Reliability of UFO Witness Testimony (editor) (con R.W. Heiden), 2023


Mi correspondencia con Antonio Ribera, 2024, https://www.upiar.com/index.cfm?artID=204


Seis artículos únicos a la venta:


Tapa blanda, 18,5x12 cm, ilustrado, 141 páginas, Abbé Th. Moreux, LES AUTRES MONDES SONT-ILS HABITÉS?, Gaston Doin (Paris), 1923.

Precio: 300 dólares USA, más envío.

Tapa blanda, 19x12 cm, 357 páginas, Camille Flammarion, RÊVES ÉTOILÉS (Ernest Flammarion, éditeur, Paris), 1914.

Precio : 400 dólares USA, más envío.

● Tapa blanda, 18x12 cm, 2 volúmenes, ilustrado, vol. 1, 257 páginas, vol. 2, 255 páginas, Camille Flammarion, LA PLURALIDAD DE MUNDOS HABITADOS (Casa Editorial Maucci, Barcelona), 1920.

Precio : 300 dólares USA, más envío.


Tapa dura, 31x23 cm, a todo color, la revista de 136 páginas HORIZON, número de mayo de 1959 que contiene el artículo original de Henri Lhote, “Discovering A Stone Age Museum”, 12 páginas a color describiendo por vez primera los hallazgos de las famosas pinturas de Tassili.

Precio: 300 dólares USA, más envío.

Tapa dura, 30x23,5 cm, ilustrado, 70 páginas. Derek De Solla Price, GEARS FROM THE GREEKS. The Antikythera Mechanism – A Calendar Computer From ca. 80 B.C. Science History Publications (New York), 1975.

Price: 150 US dólares, más envío.

Tapa dura, 19.5x23 cm, ilustrado, 92 páginas, incluye planos, gráficos, fotografías y extensibles. Maria Reiche, MYSTERY ON THE DESERT. Nazca, Peru. Maria Reiche (Stuttgart), 1968. Texto en tres idiomas: alemán, inglés y español.

Precio: 200 dólares USA, más envío.

Escribir a: ballesterolmos@yahoo.es


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