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



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


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

of the Dudignac Saucer of 1955.” This is the complete version of
the study carried out on the first photograph of a flying saucer in
Argentina, a shortened piece of which was included in the previous
edition of this blog:

My updated bibliography-1965 to 2021-can be consulted through the
following link:


“Tomato Man”
 in Retrospective

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

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

exchanging three letters with a gentleman in Tennessee, we received
from a him a letter in mid-December 1978 that came with an 8×10
glossy print of a lot of debris and the charred remains of some type
of body…the letter contained a challenge to identify the contents
of the photo. We promptly fired off a letter giving our guess that it
showed that remains of a light aircraft crash and its burned pilot.
The response came in early January 1979 in the form of a three page,
typed-single spaced letter detailing a fantastic odessey
a young Navy photographer flown to Mexico in 1948 as part of a team
to document the crash of a 90-foot diameter “flying saucer” and
its dead pilot. A fantastic adventure unfolded in those three pages
ending with the writers concern for his own security since he was
still in the service and fearful of prosecution for breaches of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certain remarks

the media by McIntyre are labeled as “misinformation to strengthen
his already weak case, by casting doubts on the photographic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific Bureau of Investigation Report
Mazzola, editor) for February 1981, touching upon this subject in the
cover and interior pages 2-3. It also reproduced a clipping from the
August 30, 1980, when the tri-UFO-group started spreading the story
and the pictures. This UFO fanzine displays a tremendously ridiculous
logo including the word POLICE and stars within an official-looking
badge and “investigative specialists” in the cover that makes
readers associate it to FBI. Well, they had their own “analyzation”
of the photographs, that concluded that they fell short from 2 to 8
years to year 1948, they were genuine “to their specific purpose
and then misinterpreted incorrectly by the researchers involved,”
measurements for the fur-covered
were 0.
to 1.12 m and from 23 to 34 kg of weight, the being wearing a helmet
made of see-through glass, two black hoses of 1.3 to 2.5 cm appear to
be attached to back of helmet, the military-looking outfit is
revealed not to be military after photo enhancement. Finally, their
opinion, based on the data relevant to the being, agreed with that of
Bill Spaulding/GSW. This was monkey business for the FBI, excuse me,
SBI of New York. The precision
deductions they were able to make from the photos from these amateur
investigators from their Staten Island “laboratories” is to be
“praised.” Their conclusions went as far as to suggest that
leaders “were duped into believing the photos to be
true….intelligence gathering agencies of the U.S. used this ploy to
continue ridicule of the phenomenon” or, as second alternative,
“researchers involved perplexed hoax…[for]…satisfying their
own egotistical motives.” I do not know what is worse. Anyway,

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


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

last article by Pilichis and Wilhelm, noted above, seemed to indicate
that the Coalition of Concerned Ufologists had
partnership. In 1982, Charles J. Wilhelm, director of OUFOIL,
released a 53-page report: “An Investigative Report Into the
Alledged [sic] Alien Body Photos.” In the Editorial, he wrote that
the previous report by the tri-group Coalition had been published in
haste, without OUFOIL being consulted during its make-up. Not only
that, in their checking of the story they had found several
discrepancies, in fact “a dozen flaws” which were ignored by the
other members of the Coalition. OUFOIL decided to release its own
report, marked as an “independent investigative report.” It
started with a section to meticulously dissect McIntyre’s
introduction in the Coalition report, basically stating that they
never had access to the supposed identity of the source for alleged
refused a copy of the agreement with the source
the claim that a microdensitometer test had been conducted was
questioned on the basis that only a print,
a negative, had been received at that time; the Kodak analysis
claimed by McIntyre was also put in doubt and a letter by Kodak dated
January 26, 1981 informed that “…the negatives you describe were
not sent to Kodak for analysis by either Dr. McYntyre [sic] or anyone
else.” It was even
that a MARCEL representative was ever sent to check the source
credentials on site, and finally it threw a serious accusation:
“Perhaps the real truth is that there is

at all. That the real source is Mr. McIntyre himself” [What an
unexpected twist of events!] OUFOIL characterization of the November
1980 Coalition report was: “full of

and just
hog wash”

(their emphasis).

is followed by a section to break-down the story itself. They
consulted White Sands Missile

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

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

as probable instigator of the whole affair is seriously considered by
background, motivation and actions.

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

Green Beckley is an old-timer of US ufology, a pioneer in the flying
saucer and paranormal
(emphasis added), what today would be called an “influencer” in
the terrain of nuts-and-bolt ufology. He casually had founded OUFOIL
in the early 1970s. He could not but contribute something to this
subject, and he did it with the article “Blockbuster Photos…Dead
Aliens Found in UFO Crash,” published in

# 9, pages 10-11 (ca. 1981). Introduced as “What may turn out to be
the most sensational photographs ever released in the United States
endeavors to show the charred remains of a humanoid being that was
found among the remains of a UFO that crashed near the Mexican border
more than three decades ago,” Green set out the narration as
initially presented by the tri-group report in November 1980, side by
side with an “exclusive interview” with Charles Wilhelm, when he
had not parted company yet with his two other colleagues. Wilhelm
still adhered to the original tale as told by the mystery source in
all terms with absolute credulity, as he described the “crashed
interstellar vehicle,” his numerous talks to the source, “his
true identity to become known in a near future,” and confirming
statements like these. Replying to a question on why they are sure
their informant is not lying, Wilhelm reassuringly declared: “We
checked this out for more then [sic] a year before we released our
findings.” Wilhelm next expands on reasons for accepting the
authenticity of their source’s credentials and about all the
background research they did: “we don’t have any reason to
suspect that he’s fabricating,” he admitted. For what we found a
little before, this is truly an extraordinary case of conversion from
believer to doubtful Thomas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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





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

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


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

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

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

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

camera with a 15” telephoto lens and 5.6 aperture. The statement
was also agreed by HM3 M.J. Reidel, as well as by Kelly. Another
cited witness was AA Stanley C. Chmielewski.

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

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

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

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

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

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

actual information appears in the Fold3 pages beginning as


New UAP Office

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

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


Cox’s “Been a long time comin’”:


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


Hourcade’s dissection:




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


with this, the opinion by Christopher Mellon, ex-deputy assistant
Secretary of Defense for intelligence, matters when he explains why
he believes USAF is awol on the UAP business, now when the subject is
located on a higher level:

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

that they are mundane objects? IFOs, in a word. Let us see how much
money USA is going to spend to arrive to this conclusion that we give
it for free.

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

news! Is the Pentagon planning to classify all he UAP Task Force UFO
data? See what Jazz Shaw has to say on HotAir, March 12, 2022:

at the European University: Two Approaches

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

frauds, and the examples of reports by mentally-unstable persons? I
am afraid that by default UAP will be correlated with space vehicles,
a terrible scientific mistake. Having said that, let them do their
work and assess their finding at the end of the course.

have consulted two respected and
German colleagues, and this is their feedback. Jochen Ickinger of

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

his part, Hansjürgen Köhler of CENAP
has commented the following:

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

this is not the only recent European initiative in terms of
university courses dedicated to UFO research. In Spain, and within
the framework of the Criminology and Security degree at the Camilo
José Cela University (Villanueva de la Cañada campus, Madrid),
Professor Dr. Heriberto Janosch has opened a workshop on “Aerospace
Identification” for students, with a duration of two months. The
importance given by the university is reflected in the 2.56 credits
granted, when one entire subject has 6.00. Participants will
investigate the activities of the French GEIPAN and the Argentine
CIAE using textbooks such as Allan Hendry’s
UFO Handbook

(Doubleday, 1979). Dr. Janosch, of Argentine and Spanish nationality,
is also a recognized YFO researcher, having coauthored in 2013 the
OVNI en la Antártida en 1965
sightings in Antarctica in 1965). The different approach with respect
to his German colleague is ostensible: in this case, the workshop
focuses on the explanation of the phenomena that the eyewitness is
unable to resolve on their own.

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

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

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

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

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







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


fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde el siglo XVIII hasta 1980
UFO Phenomenon in the Canary Islands, from XVIII century to 1980],


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







Air Force UFO Establishment

is the UAP task force for the Armed Forces of Argentina. Established
May 2011 as CEFAE, it was revamped and technologized under the
responsibility of Commodore Rubén Lianza in 2015, to be renamed as
CIAE (Center for Aerospace Identification) in May 2019. Lianza
publishes an annual report disclosing all UFO reports received and
analyzed during the year, plus occasional investigations on older
events. The latest annual report studies 45 reports that occurred
from 1991 to 2021. CIAE investigates those UFO sightings supported by
evidence (photography, video, or material), this is, only
substantiated claims. All of them have been technically explained,
distribution of causes being

birds & bugs (40%), balloons & airborne objects (18%),
optical artifacts (11%), astronomical (11%), astronautical (11%),
aircraft (7%), or ground facilities (2%). The 108-page monograph (in
Spanish) is an example of “scientific ufology”, and it can be
found here:



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


Incomprehensible in Ufology

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


A journalist’s view of GEIPAN UFO study:



Philip Mantle on Nick Pope:


The Spanish engineer and indefatigable UFO researcher Manuel Borraz
writes in the abstract of “Two Soviet Examples of Hartmann’s
“Airship Effect”:
fraction of witnesses to spectacular fireballs and re-entries of
space debris are known to describe a shape surrounding the string of
disintegrating fragments, sometimes interpreted as windows in a dark
aircraft. A brief summary of two Soviet examples follows, including
the proposed identification of the space objects involved.

An article not to be missed:


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

Jacques Vallée joins Avi Loeb’s Galileo Project:



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


Colavito on the pseudoscience practiced by notable ufologists:


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


Wikipedia about MUFON:


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


You Miss from the Spanish Edition

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:

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


to the following colleagues who have sourced material or analysis to
the current edition of this blog: Terry W. Colvin (Thailand), Joan
Plana (Spain), J.C. Victorio Uranga (Spain), Manuel Borraz (Spain),
Luis Ruiz Noguez (Mexico), Matías Morey (Spain), Brad Sparks (USA),
Diego Zúñiga (Chile),

Ickinger (Germany), Hansjürgen Köhler (Germany), Andrés Duarte
(Chile), Dr. Ricardo Campo (Spain), Julio Plaza del Olmo (Spain) and
Juan Pablo González (Spain).


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


El fenómeno aterrizaje

(UFOs: The Landing Phenomenon), 1978, 1979

OVNIS y la Ciencia

(with Miguel Guasp) (UFOs and Science),1981, 1989


(UFO Investigation), 1984

de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS

(with J.A. Fernández Peris) (Encyclopedia of Close Encounters with
UFOs), 1987



(Unusual Files), 1995

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




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


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


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


Belgium in UFO Photographs. Volume 1
Wim van Utrecht), 2017


Marfa Lights. Examining the Photographic Evidence (2003-2007)

(with M. Borraz), 2020



are several options you can follow:

  • Volunteer
    work, onsite or remote

  • Deliver
    sighting reports, photographs, archives, bibliography, etc.

  • Donations
    to help defray research expenses

can reach Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos directly by e-mailing to:



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



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


ensayo ha sido reproducido en varias revistas y webs de Europa y
América, como UAPSG/GEFAI (Milton Hourcade),
UFO Chronicles

(Frank Warren) y

(Brent Raynes), así como traducido al alemán (UFO INFO).
del platillo de Dudignac de 1955”. Se trata de la versión completa
del estudio llevado a cabo sobre la primera fotografía ovni
importante tomada en Argentina, un resumen del cual publiqué en la
anterior edición de este blog. Entero, se lee aquí:


Mi bibliografía actualizada, de 1965 a 2021, puede consultarse ya en
el siguiente enlace permanente:


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

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

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

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

con teleobjetivo de 15” y apertura de 5,6. La declaración también
fue firmada por M.J. Reidel, así como por Kelly. Otro testigo citado
fue Stanley C. Chmielewski.

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

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

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

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

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

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

lector puede acceder a toda la documentación desde las páginas de
Fold3, comenzando en los enlaces

la nueva oficina ovni del Departamento de Defensa

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

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


Cox, “Been a long time comin’”:


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


disección hecha por Milton Hourcade:


preocupaciones de los creyentes:


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


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


de sus afirmaciones es para tomarla en cuenta:

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

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

noticias! ¿Se plantea el Pentágono clasificar todos los datos ovni
de la UAP Task Force? Vea lo que ha escrito Jazz Shaw en HotAir el
pasado 12 de marzo:

en la universidad europea: Dos enfoques

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

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

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

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

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

no es esta la única iniciativa europea en cuanto a cursos
universitarios dedicados a la investigación ovni. En España, y en
el marco del grado de Criminología y Seguridad de la Universidad
Camilo José Cela (campus de Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid), el
profesor Dr. Heriberto Janosch ha abierto un taller sobre
“Identificación Aeroespacial” para los alumnos, con una duración
de dos meses. La importancia universitaria dada se refleja en los
2,56 créditos asignados, cuando una asignatura completa de grado
tiene 6,00. Los participantes indagarán sobre las actividades del
GEIPAN francés y el CIAE argentino usando libros de texto como el de
Allan Hendry,
UFO Handbook
1979). El Dr. Janosch, de nacionalidad argentina y española, es un
reconocido investigador del fenómeno ovni, siendo coautor en 2013 de
la obra
OVNI en la Antártida en 1965
notoria la diferencia de enfoque con respecto al colega alemán: en
este caso el
está enfocado a la explicación de los fenómenos que el testigo
ocular es incapaz de resolver por sí mismo.

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

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

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

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

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







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


fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde el siglo XVIII hasta 1980.


fenómeno OVNI en Canarias desde 1981 a 2015.








hacía falta que sobreviniera una pandemia para conocer las bondades
y ventajas del trabajo telemático. La investigación ovni a
distancia, que siempre hemos dado en llamar trabajo de gabinete (y
algunos cazurros “ufología de salón”), ha dado notables
resultados y repetidos éxitos en cuanto a la identificación de
casos se refiere. Nosotros ya experimentábamos con el estudio de
casos en remoto desde finales de los años ochenta. El GEIPAN
francés, por ejemplo, estima que el 90% de los casos puede
resolverse sin que haga falta una encuesta sobre el terreno. La
moderna tecnología informática, los cercanos recursos científicos
y los accesos ilimitados que proporciona internet ayudan
considerablemente en esta tarea.

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

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


de estudio ovni de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina

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



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

incomprensible en ufología

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

(1974), páginas 313-319. Recomiendo su lectura.


Un punto de vista periodístico sobre el GEIPAN francés:



Philip Mantle escribe sobre Nick Pope:


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


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

Jacques Vallée se une al proyecto Galileo de Avi Loeb:



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


Colavito sobre la pseudociencia de algunos ufólogos notables:


Ross Pomeroy opina sobre la creencia en las abducciones del Dr. David


Lo que tiene que decir Wikipedia sobre el MUFON:


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


Caída de meteorito en la provincia de Ciudad Real en la madrugada
del 15 de enero de 2022:

Detección de un bólido sobre el Mediterráneo occidental a las
19:20 horas del 18 de enero de 2022:

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



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

de Matías Morey Ripoll)

bajo la lupa
de Martin Kottmeyer)

(dedicado a
Mitología de una emergencia
de Pablo Vergel y Félix Ruiz)

(dedicado a
en Chile
de Patricio Abusleme)

contenidos en la sección en inglés

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:

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


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

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

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


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


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


El fenómeno aterrizaje
Plaza & Janés, 1978, 1979

OVNIS y la Ciencia

(con Miguel Guasp), Plaza & Janés, 1981,1989

Plaza & Janés, 1984

de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS

(con J.A. Fernández Peris), Plaza & Janés, 1987


Temas de Hoy, 1995

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




in UFO Photographs: The First Catalogue

(con O.J. Braenne), 2008


and Government

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


OVNI en la Antártida en 1965

(con M. Borraz, H. Janosch y J.C. Victorio), 2013


in UFO Photographs. Volume 1 (1950-1988)

(con Wim van Utrecht), 2017


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



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

dirigirse directamente a Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos al siguiente
correo electrónico:


Leave a Comment