UFO FOTOCAT BLOG: 2017/SEPTEMBER/01 (EN)

English language modifying: Martin Shough

FOTOCAT DATABASE STATUS

The FOTOCAT database continues to develop on daily basis, and presently it information 12,200 entries. I remind readers engaged on any research for which statistics on regional or yearly UFO/IFO stories are required, be happy to request me any case listings or case tabulations (if a pattern of photographic instances serves).

NEW PUBLICATIONS BY THE AUTHOR

Feedback to “The Nature of UFO Proof: Two Views”

Final June, commemorating 70 years for the reason that seminal case of Kenneth Arnold, June 24, 1947, I printed the essay “The Nature of UFO Proof: Two Views,” co-authored with Dr. Thomas Bullard:

Robert Sheaffer at Dangerous UFOs:

http://badufos.blogspot.com.es/2017/06/in-search-of-progress-in-ufology-at-end.html

I can not follow-up what number of websites and blogs have reprinted this text. I assume many. These are a couple of of these which requested permission for it:

Milton Hourcade (Uruguay), for UAPSG-GEAFI

Richard Vitello (USA), for the Novice Radio UFO Web

Brian Allan (Scotland), for Phenomena Journal

Tim Mendham (Australia), for Australian Skeptics

When somebody, like me, has walked from the credulity of youth to the skepticism of maturity, it’s plain to see that believers administer a fairly simplistic logic, whose backside line is that the “proof” resides in what’s hidden from us, or in catalogs which might be statistically tormented by spurious knowledge, or in incidents that may have an alternate studying. I refuse to consider that they apply the identical logic to their family, monetary, or enterprise selections.

Argentine Naval Intelligence UFO Report Types Disclosed

For an additional paper in progress, I’ve organized and launched on-line varied Naval Intelligence UFO report kinds from the Argentine UFO committee in pressure within the Sixties. These cowl the well-known 1963 touchdown case at Trancas and the Antarctic episodes of June-July 1965. Additionally, one other official questionnaire made public lately by Dr. Roberto E. Banchs, a distinguished, long-time UFO researcher from Argentina, regarding a detailed encounter case of 1962 at Necochea. I hope these paperwork shall be of historic curiosity to some UFO college students:

R.E. Banchs, “Formulario OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1962,”

V.J. Ballester Olmos, “Formulario OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1963,”

V.J. Ballester Olmos et al, “Formularios OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1965,”

In each case, an summary or presentation exists in English. The precise paperwork, scanned from originals, are naturally in Spanish.

Readers will shortly understand that UFO kinds for the 1962 and 1965 instances have been stuffed not by the witnesses themselves however by the sector investigators: a high-rank Police Officer-Public Notary in 1962 and Lieutenant Daniel A. Perissé (Argentine Navy) in 1965. It’s a rarity as a result of it deviates from what’s a standard process in all different international locations, so far as knowledge assortment from UFO sightings is worried.

UFO RESEARCH AND UFO REPORTS

The Aguadilla Video: The Flight of a Pair of Chinese language Lanterns

Unknown origin…object able to touring underneath water… [and] of splitting in two separate objects. This was the grandiose conclusion of a report signed by Robert Powell et al regarding the video taken 2013 within the Puerto Rican city of Aguadilla. Have they lastly acquired actual proof of the existence of extraterrestrials visiting the Earth? Ought to they convey the invention to the Nationwide Science Basis? Higher, not.

As a result of it took just some minutes viewing time for this acclaimed footage to be defined. Rubén Lianza is a army aviator with 3000+ hours flying time in 20 totally different sorts of plane, commodore of the Argentine Air Drive and head of CEFAE, the official committee for the research of airspace phenomena in Argentina. Whereas receiving final June some coaching on digital remedy of photos at IPACO (France), Lianza was introduced with the related video. Given his expertise as an Experimental Take a look at Pilot with many hours of airborne video making, chasing and recording totally different sorts of flying objects (from check prototypes to small drones, from airborne rocket launches to parachute delayed bombs), he shortly recognized the objects in flight, sure, objects, as a result of it was a few objects tied collectively (not one which divided in two). Within the following hours he acquired probative parts to fulfill his speculation and later was in a position to verify that the video merely exhibits a set of two Chinese language lanterns (fireplace balloons) launched to have fun a marriage within the space.

Left to proper: Rubén Lianza, François Louange and Jean-Paul Aguttes (director of GEIPAN) at CNES headquarters, Paris, June 2017. {Photograph} by Antoine Cousyn.

Robert Powell’s staff known as the “Scientific Coalition for Ufology” (SCU) has printed a response to Rubén Lianza’s principle and has positioned it on-line within the following hyperlink:

Commodore Lianza and his peer reviewers aren’t dedicated to a unending change of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. The scientific viewers (or simply the viewers with frequent sense) is meant to have honest judgement sufficient to grasp the pitfalls and flaws of any principle or its obvious rebuttals. Nevertheless, I’ve requested Lianza to write down a remark to SCU’s response. His article follows under these strains. With this I shut the topic throughout the current weblog, as I consider all of the pertinent info to achieve a last conclusion has been provided. For me, it’s apparent that (a) the flying object video-recorded in Puerto Rico was a set of two Chinese language lanterns and (b) the UFO proponents made a giant analysis mistake in estimating that the thing(s) submerged into the ocean’s waters.

Feedback on SCU’s Rebuttal

By Rubén Lianza (Commodore, Argentine Air Drive)

V.J. Ballester Olmos has despatched me Robert Powell´s response to my Aguadilla UFO report and requested me to write down an opinion about it. I’m certain his rebuttal deserves at the least a remark, however I used to be reluctant to take action to maintain my counter-rebuttal from changing into the start of a by no means ending ping-pong recreation.  I remorse Powell´s ”surgical” kind of rebuttal would pressure me right into a equally surgical kind of counter-rebuttal, particularly contemplating that my preliminary report (deliberately) has not abounded in technical explanations with a view to make it simply comprehensible by a broad spectrum of readers.

Frankly, I see nearly no distinction between Isbert´s video photos (prime) and the Aguadilla photos (backside), particularly the place one of many balloons could be seen showing behind the opposite in an nearly 3D notion on each movies.

Isbert´s worthwhile video additionally exhibits that, on infrared imagery, two or extra objects can generally seem simply as a single one (keep in mind that infrared signatures solely exceptionally can present the precise form of the complete object). The identical applies to each infrared movies:

However most vital of all, Chris Isbert´s video teaches all of us two vital details:

1) Two Chinese language lanterns can, actually, be launched tied collectively

2) Irrespective of how brief or lengthy the thread is, its light pull down is greater than sufficient to convey botH balloons collectively more often than not. It’s a easy bodily precept!

If somebody is having any doubt in regards to the second level above, please go forward and check out it your self. It really works with any sort of lifting pair of objects, both scorching air or helium balloons.

In his rebuttal, Powell (SCU) appears to fully ignore this easy bodily precept. The unlucky proof of this turns into obvious when he writes: “The second concern with a Chinese language lantern pertains to a query of why the IR digicam didn’t choose up the separation of the lanterns earlier within the three minute video. With two distinct warmth sources separated by a minimal of three toes (the width of a lantern) the MX-15 system would have detected the 2 warmth sources for a majority of the video”. Truly the legal guidelines of physics are telling us precisely the alternative: the balloons will stick collectively as a rule, and can turned separate, solely as an exception.

Placing theories earlier than the details: Again to SCU’s main misinterpretation of the thing(s) ditching into the ocean, I’ve little doubt in my thoughts that it was triggered as a direct end result of his early misinterpretation of the thing(s) flying behind bushes. SCU clearly put theories earlier than the details subordinating mathematical calculations to a easy and fallacious assumption:  “…we calculated (UFO) velocity solely at factors within the video when the thing both moved behind one other object… or on the instances when the thing entered the water”. Nevertheless, in any scientific work, measurements should be made based mostly on bodily parameters or at the least on details, not on theories.  By fully assuming that the thing handed behind bushes (merely not confirmed) exhibits us a noteworthy instance of placing principle earlier than details!

Evidently, a extra affordable technique to precisely measure the thing must be when it’s exhibiting its good form and full measurement and NOT its degraded form and minimal measurement. The latter could be relevant solely to an optical video, when the thing is enlarged by blurring, during which case a body with a smaller object would point out higher focusing.  However simply as I warned above, by no means decide each body in an IR picture with the identical utilized logic as with an optical one.

In its preliminary report, SCU dedicated the deadly mistake of generalizing the concept that the thing light as a direct results of being masked by foreground bushes after which translated that to a water masking. Of their rebuttal they wrote:  “…the one arguments as to why the disappearance of the thing is an phantasm have revolved round ‘may very well be’ and ‘might have’”.  It’s evident that Powell et al didn’t research all of the clues earlier than leaping into their ill-fated conclusion. As you’ll be able to discover within the following body, the thing´s picture fades away throughout the IR sensor´s view even when NOT having any bushes in entrance of it:

To understand how hasty a conclusion SCU made in regards to the object fading resulting from flying behind bushes, I’d urge the readers to assessment the Aguadilla video from frames 5990 via 6060 so you’ll be able to decide by yourselves. I wager you’ll NOT discover any bushes in entrance of the thing in these frames. The UFO is disappearing resulting from one thing else.   This must be proof sufficient to rethink a whole reexamination of all of the frames exhibiting signature degradation earlier than and after the above talked about ones. The primary lesson this “disappearance-without-trees” teaches us, is that this: if the thing fades with no bushes in entrance of it, then it might merely point out that the UFO by no means flew behind bushes throughout the complete size of the video!

This uncommon “disappearance” additionally teaches us a second vital lesson for future IR imagery evaluation. When for any cause the Aguadilla UFO IR signature fades, it wouldn´t disappear fully to the attention of the digicam, but it surely fairly will get “ghostly” dim and white.  The identical factor occurs as from body 6888 the place the complete body is stuffed up with background water.  The one distinction is that within the case of the frames exhibiting solely water behind,  the ghostly white spot was already zoomed in,  which, in flip, made it seem blurred, bigger and with a shade of gray nearly matching that of the background water.

This optical impact (and nothing else) is what confused Powell et al, who, by the way in which, by no means defined how on the planet a Thermal IR imager might proceed monitoring this object underwater, exhibiting precisely the identical IR “ghostly” hint because it yielded  when it was supposedly “behind” the bushes.

Pondering reversal by easy comparability: As said above, I’ve little doubt that the concept of a diving UFO was a direct end result of assuming that the pre-diving “ghostly” picture was resulting from masking by foreground bushes. However, as was proved above, there are a number of frames the place the “ghostly” picture exhibits up even with out bushes on the foreground. Right here I pasted aspect by aspect a few key frames exhibiting no substantial distinction between each “ghostly” traces of the UFO both on land or on the water. Are you able to now inform why it will get extra complicated within the second body? You guessed, some notably spotty areas within the background water present an nearly an identical hue to that of the ghost signature than within the first case (background land). The extra drawback on the second image (proper) is that now the entire body has been zoomed-in and the ghost signature seems twice as massive, extra blurred and with much less distinction in opposition to an already complicated background, though each have an nearly an identical degree of sign degradation.

As if all this weren´t sufficient, for well-established bodily causes present Thermal IR know-how is solely not in a position to observe objects underneath water. This was made very clear even by SCU on web page 28 of its report: “Infrared radiation is definitely blocked by water and about one millimeter of water absorbs just about all the IR generated by the thing.” I couldn´t agree extra with that and I’m very joyful the SCU staff talked about it, as a result of in my paper I discussed the potential for the airplane skimming the stomach of the cloud deck as a really life like reason behind the short-term fading of the UFO!  However then… with a view to justify one thing as unbelievable because the UFO changing into “ghostly” as a result of it’s now diving into the ocean, the SCU was pressured to maneuver in direction of a weird “rationalization”, by including: “When a strong object strikes underwater… a few of the water it displaces strikes in direction of the floor which then manifests as a shifting hump alongside the floor. Northrop Grumman is conscious of this phenomenon as one doable technique to detect submarines.”  

For what we´ve realized from the 2 side-by-side footage above, if in some totally different components of the IR video (with fully totally different backgrounds) two or extra frames present an identical ghost alerts, then it’s much more logical to attribute the origin of the degradation to a standard trigger.  In reality, SCU used the “bodily masks” single trigger argument (bushes within the first case and water within the second).  By cause, in frames not too distant in time, an identical masking results must be anticipated to be topic to comparable causation.  However on this case, water and bushes are erroneously thought-about an an identical trigger as a result of with an identical ghost photos on fully totally different backgrounds, anybody might provide you with the pointed questions: the place is the “shifting hump” of water within the image the place the ghost picture is flying over a clearing within the forest? Or, why is the water masking an identical to that of the bushes? Or much more damaging:  why is the water masking an identical to that which is attenuating the thing´s picture, when it flies with NO bushes within the foreground?

About this specific element Geoff Fast (IPACO) identified: “Within the report in query a primary ignorance of IR imagery is manifest.  I’ve by no means seen an IR goal tracked underwater, for good scientific causes”.

Imagine me, I’m not solely sorry to need to dig into this “surgical” exposé of the SCU rebuttal but additionally I really feel sincerely sorry that folks actually educated of their discipline of technical competence, as Mr. Powell and his colleagues certainly are,  spent (as they said within the authentic SCU report) greater than 1000 hours and a 12 months and a half, to conclude that the Aguadilla object was a single extraordinary UFO craft with the power to fade behind non-existent bushes, dive into the ocean, take off again to the air from under the waves and reproduce itself (by ultra-fast cell mitosis maybe?), when a much more prosaic rationalization exists for them: two heart-shaped wedding ceremony lanterns carried by the wind and quickly masked from the airplane flying at an altitude leading to skimming the stomach of the cloud base.

Such a very long time analyzing this case may need resulted merely due to the pointless prolonged methodology utilized by SCU. In its rebuttal, SCU emphasizes greater than as soon as that “…the one technique to do a correct evaluation is by trying on the angular sizes of the thing all through the three minute video.” With such an announcement, they appear to fully ignore the truth that for correct measurements, not essentially each body is appropriate. An IR picture could solely yield just some frames positively interpretable (like those utilized by the IPACO staff for angular measurement calculations, in my very own report).  Well choosing the right frames to use totally different options is a precept that I’ve realized after years of flight check knowledge processing which concerned video and excessive velocity movie interpretation.  Even in the very best optical movies some frames come out movement blurred, out-of-focus blurred and a few of them even present a mixture of each (which is usually the case for a lot of UFO footage). In an infrared video the non-exploitable frames are much more ample than even within the case of the worst possible optical video! So what’s the sensible that means of measuring angular sizes in all of the frames?  Certainly SCU would have performed a a lot better job by spending some additional time in search of suspect frames the place the idea of the IR signature fading resulting from foreground bushes would present some weak point (though if these frames have been, in flip, not fairly appropriate for correct angular measurement measurements). Selecting this or that appropriate body for this or that goal of exploitation is only a matter of fine judgment and customary sense!

It doesn’t shock me that Powell et al, after writing a 159 web page report, together with 12 Appendices and greater than 140 illustrations (a few of them with colourful 3D views), nonetheless couldn’t come out with a clear-cut kind of rationalization.  I might counsel to the individuals of SCU to rethink their knowledge exploitation technique and even their writing philosophy, at present seemingly based mostly on a philosophy of “the extra pages, the higher report.”  Information overabundance and an extended investigation time must not ever be imagined as an automated synonym of high quality. The proof of what I’m saying is that after 1000 hours trying on the Aguadilla video, SCU fully missed what frames 5990 via 6060 are exhibiting: a fading UFO flying over open fields, which fully disproves the ill-considered assertion in regards to the UFO´s IR signature degrading resulting from being blocked by foreground bushes.

Weak argument utilizing wind velocity: On one paragraph of the SCU rebuttal, it writes:  “The primary concern that forestalls a Chinese language lantern from being a doable rationalization includes the velocity of the lantern within the wind.” Their response to prima facie discard my heart-shaped lantern´s speculation relies on the producer´s marketed operational limits of about 5 knots (for a secure launch) when that night time the wind was blowing at simply 7 knots! As said above, once you can not debunk a easy rationalization utilizing some less complicated rationale, the one technique to transfer is in direction of a increasingly more difficult and wilder speculation. I ask the reader simply to consider it for a minute: had the wind velocity been blowing at 5 knots that night time, then SCU would have thought-about the 2 heart-shaped lantern principle extra probably, however for the reason that wind was blowing simply 2 knots quicker, now the thing can on no account be a lantern, changing into a unprecedented one, intelligently maneuvered, which might dive into the ocean, journey underwater on the identical angular velocity as when flying, and if all that weren´t sufficient, with such an unbelievable quick reproductive capability to make hen farmers develop into envious!

Due to this fact, solely 2 knots of floor wind could make such a BIG distinction. Powell et al merely can not think about for a second that the lanterns may need been launched from a wind-sheltered place, comparable to: behind bushes, behind a home and even within the patio of a few of the many mansions which lease their amenities for wedding ceremony events, the place milder winds would have allowed for lantern lighting and releasing.

One other fallacious assertion in Powell´s rebuttal says: “…Chinese language lanterns have issue remaining airborne in winds above 5 mph as a result of the perimeters collapse,” clearly exhibiting a sure degree of ignorance of primary aerodynamics.  The relative velocity of any free flying balloon to the airflow is, in the actual world, almost equal to zero. To study this by analogy, all SCU ought to do… is to throw a cork into a quick flowing river.

In its rebuttal SCU urges the reader “…to take a look at Lianza´s report for themselves and make a dedication if the 2 objects appear like a coronary heart.” I wager they´ll do, and within the subsequent few weeks and months they may “see” (in these frames that are exploitable) that the objects look, certainly, like nothing else however hearts with blunt bottoms.

When the graphics play in opposition to you: One other couple of great contradictions discovered within the SCU rebuttal come immediately from the studying of its graphics. The primary contradiction turns into obvious when SCU makes use of histograms exhibiting the thing and background pixel temperature distribution (Figures 2 and three). With that, they intend to steer the reader that my suggestion in regards to the UFO fading because of the airplane skimming the stomach of the cloud, is misguided. Powell et al attempt to exhibit that the fading of the UFO doesn’t have an effect on the background simply because the median of background pixel distribution adjustments from 144 within the first histogram, to 146 in the second.

However exactly on the second histogram they appear to fully ignore that every one the peaks of the background truly fall down on the time the thing disappears.  And, in fact, they don’t point out in any respect that there’s, actually, a background peak drop! To make issues much more absurd, they write: “…the pixel distributions solely impacts the thing and never the encircling water,” leaving all of us questioning if the height drops within the second histogram might truly be telling us what precisely Powell et al are desperately attempting to disclaim:  that the trigger that masked the UFO truly affected the general background as properly!

Because the background peak sign drop is so uniform, the untrained eye can solely see the disappearance of the UFO however not the general degradation within the background IR emission.  This general masking of the IR sensors misinterpreted as “differential” masking might be the essential cause that lead SCU to (erroneously) conclude, proper from the start, that the UFO light however the surrounding water by no means did.

This being stated, I might insist that the airplane flying skimming the “stomach” of the clouds shouldn’t be discarded as the actual reason behind the Aguadilla UFO short-term disappearances.

A second “graphical” contradiction turns into obvious when SCU assumes that the thing flies over the ocean. Truly, the 2 maps they added (Figures 4 and 5) present the thing flying in an nearly straight path proper over land.  In a graphics on the preliminary SCU report (determine 11, web page 22) they present multiple doable UFO floor observe, all of which confirms my principle on how troublesome it’s to find out the place of a flying object being filmed from an orbiting airplane (ice skaters´ principle).  Being the UFO location backed up by correct measurements utilizing the IPACO software program, it turned apparent that in each graphics proven in its rebuttal (Figures 4 and 5); the thing is in the identical space the place the IPACO calculations decided it must be on minute 01:24:44! It confirms that this floor observe is, based on each authors, the proper one. However then, if the thing was finally following this path parallel to the seashore, how is it doable to conceive it might all the sudden go away the trail and ditch within the water nearly a mile away?

Final however not least, a pair of Chinese language lanterns flying proper above an Airport is just not a great scenario and, for sure, on no account ought to or not it’s permitted.  I might encourage the UFO analysis neighborhood to train instinct by studying even probably the most refined clues about any UFO case. And the Aguadilla one shouldn´t be an exception. I convey this up as a result of in his type reply to me, Mr. Alan Tiphaine, Basic Supervisor of Villa Montana seaside resort, made clear that the launch of wedding ceremony lanterns was banned since two years in the past (2015). What was that resulting from? Within the very first paragraph of the preliminary SCU report, it states that the thing didn’t have communication with the tower:  “… to forestall a harmful scenario with departing and arriving plane.” Properly, that’s completely proper, however the identical scenario mustn’t solely be relevant to inadvertent UFO crews who didn’t learn the printed VHF frequency, however might additionally develop into a state of affairs critical sufficient to immediately ban the launches of wedding ceremony lanterns from Villa Montana!  With some instinct, even the extra refined items of the puzzle begin to get collectively.

I’ve been requested by my good friend V.J. Ballester Olmos to write down an opinion about Powell´s rebuttal to my Aguadilla UFO case fixing report. Although his rebuttal was written with an obvious surgical accuracy and a few good trying graphics (which, simply as we noticed, truly performed in opposition to him), he and his SCU staff don´t appear to ever be capable of take out of their heads an UFO performing the identical and even higher than the Skydiver craft within the fashionable science fiction TV collection UFO (Gerry Anderson 1970). I perceive that SCU defends its ill-fated UAP speculation in opposition to all odds, because of this it got here as no shock that the one supply which meant to debunk my two heart-shaped Chinese language lantern speculation was Mr. Powell and his group of collaborators. Quite the opposite, increasingly more readers are writing to me confirming {that a} pair of heart-shaped objects could be seen in a few of the IR video frames.  In fact, I wouldn´t point out their names to maintain them from being denigrated comparable to Powell did with Duarte, Fernandez and to some extent, with Bixler as properly, which doesn’t look to me like an moral scientific perspective.  Although Powell has been described to me as “fairly a pleasant man, full of fine will,” who merely defines himself as “open minded,” at the least in his current rebuttal he sadly resorted to the same old response dismissing scientific rationale and utilizing private assaults.

That is my final enter on this IFO occasion. Not solely in my opinion but additionally, most significantly, in these of my peer reviewers, this case has been solved past any affordable doubt. Now it’s the mainstream scientific viewers who has to evaluate what’s a suitable principle of these proposed: two heart-shaped wedding ceremony lanterns carried by the wind and quickly disappearing to the IR eyes of the digicam resulting from an airplane´s altitude skimming the stomach of the clouds (Lianza) or an flying saucers with the power to fade behind non-existent bushes, dive into the ocean, take off again to the air from under the waves and duplicate itself (Powell et al).

Please Depart Cooper in Peace

Final April, a Discovery Channel video publicized extravagant claims by late US astronaut Gordon Cooper:

House professional Jim Oberg’s clarifying response adopted instantly:

Cooper bought concerned in all kinds of bizarre tasks as soon as he did not get the moon flight he anticipated as his proper, and was eased out of NASA – however nonetheless loved TV gigs.  He turned spokesman for a corporation promoting magic engines that turned air into gasoline [until it was shut down by the Federal Trade Commission]. He claimed he saved the shuttle program from a deadly design flaw by relaying a telepathic warning from area aliens. He naively flacked for a number of bogus aviation funding schemes that price his associates and others who trusted him hundreds of thousands of {dollars} — and misplaced his personal financial savings in them, too. He described his capsule getting hammered by a meteor storm that no one again on Earth discovered even a scratch from — and he claimed to have taken pictures from area on which you might learn license plates. He packed a journey bag and his digicam when he was promised an area trip on an alien craft, however then claimed it was cancelled due to an extraterrestrial political spat. Keep in mind him and honor his glory days, do not exploit his human failings in his declining years — as this present provides all indications it intends to do. Shameful.

If the present claims that Cooper photographed the entire Caribbean space, it would not jibe with the precise flight path of the mission. Cooper solely handed throughout the northern fringe of the Caribbean on his 4th and twentieth orbits and was busy with different stuff — as proven on the transcripts — each instances.

As I wrote within the title of this part, I ask irresponsible media cease degrading the celebrity Gordon Cooper as soon as had and let him relaxation in peace. Don’t abuse his reminiscence simply to attempt to pile up pseudo proof on the existence of aliens.

UMMO

They are saying outdated rockers by no means die. It appears to use to sure UFO-related tales which finally emerge from the vault. The UMMO affair (extraterrestrials speaking with earthlings by way of postal mail) has been topic of a long-term dialogue since its inception within the Sixties. Eventually this can pop up once more. Within the meantime, I’m happy to report in regards to the end result of one of many Spanish researchers who has studied it extra in depth, Luis R. González. His work is just not very a lot identified internationally and I consider a few his main references deserve point out. See, for instance:

On this context, the article “Breve historia de Ummo” (Ummo: A Temporary Historical past) by José Juan Montejo, long-time specialist on this topic, requires to be cited as properly:

Hessdalen

A brief paper authored by Bjørn Gitle Hauge, Anna-Lena Kjøniksen, and Erling Petter Strand reads as follows:

Transient luminous phenomena has been noticed within the low environment over Hessdalen valley for a number of many years, first report is claimed to be 200 years outdated. The world is scattered with outdated copper, zinc, sulphur and iron mines. The river Hesja divides the valley, operating south to north. The river descends from 800 m altitude to 600m. In the midst of the valley, an outdated copper and sulphur mine feeds the river with its acidic sulphur air pollution. Eyewitnesses have reported lights rising from the river, however most stories are of lights abruptly rising in low altitudes over the valley, 1000m – 2000m altitude. Frequent colors are white, yellow, orange and blue. Inexperienced is absent. The optical spectrum of the white lights has been obtained a number of instances, indicating a steady spectrum. The luminosity of the Hessdalen lights has been debated, some speculating that the phenomenon’s radiant energy reaches as much as 1MW. A extra reasonable calculation performed by Teodorani in 2004 suggests 19KW. The reason for the massive distinction is because of uncertainty in establishing appropriate distance to the phenomenon. Latest discoveries performed by this staff, signifies that the radiant energy is normally a lot decrease. For the primary time in Hessdalen, footage with optical spectrums was obtained at a distance no more than 500m. Two comparable observations have been performed from the identical place, indicating a doable birthplace. Atmospheric knowledge and spectrum evaluation was additionally coinciding. Information from this brief distance commentary shall be introduced.

Discovering astroUFOs

The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa (California) of Sunday, February 19, 1961 printed on web page 1 this {photograph} with the next caption: “The UFO sighted by three Lakeport residents Thursday night time is proven on this uncommon {photograph} taken by one of many trio ‒Victor Sneed. They described the thing as greater and brighter than a star and pink, white and blue in shade. Mr. Sneed and his dad and mom, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Sneed, seen the thing for almost half an hour from the highest of Brewery Hill.”

February 16, 1961, Lakeport (California). ©. Victor Sneed. As printed.

Further knowledge discovered within the January 1961 version of The APRO Bulletin, web page 5, mentions that the sighting began at 9 p.m. and that the sunshine was hovering about 20 levels above Gow Mountain to the west. The household stated the sunshine disappeared 25 minutes later. As it may be checked within the accompanying stellar chart, Venus was precisely situated within the west (274º azimuth) at 7º of elevation with a really shiny look (-4.43 magnitude). The planet set at 9:36 p.m., across the time the Sneeds completed seeing an object that they miscalculated to be “10 instances as massive and shiny because the planet Venus”. The cropped newspaper image, clearly, is a superb magnification of the luminous hint left by the astronomical physique through the publicity. Not solely that, as a result of the planet was situated within the west, it was descending from left to proper, so the image was wrongly printed (inverted). Right here now we have each the sky map and the precise {photograph}.

February 16, 1961, Lakeport (California). © Victor Sneed. Precise look.

US Coast Guard UFO Information On-line

Through the years, a number of American ufologists approached the US Coast Guard authorities via the Freedom of Info Act to request documentation of UFO sightings occurred on rivers, lakes, harbors, bays, and so on. Robert Todd did it between 1975 and 1978 and Stan Gordon in 1988. But it surely was because of Barry Greenwood’s efforts between 1978 and 1990 that the entire UFO stuff archived by this company was lastly disclosed, instances reported from 1952 to 1989. Barry has taken the difficulty to scan 160 pages of paperwork acquired and I’ve uploaded them into the Academia.edu portal for common availability.

We will learn in regards to the well-known July 16, 1952 Salem, Mass. UFO {photograph} (simply inside lights mirrored on a window pane), the November 5, 1957 Sebago ship sighting on the Gulf of Mexico, the Pascagoula River humanoid encounter of November 6, 1973, and more moderen ones like Lake Michigan, July 28, 1978, Atlantic Metropolis, January 12, 1982 or Eastlake, March 4, 1988. Examine this hyperlink:

Formal Essay by Eddie Bullard

The CUFOS web page has simply hosted an excellent paper by Dr. Thomas E. Bullard, “Skeptical Successes and Ufological Failures: Alternatives in Uncomfortable Locations.” It incorporates three appendices of nice worth the place he evaluations two main UFO instances that have been enthusiastically backed-up by proponents, to lastly obtain forthright options, and sure features of “visible mythology” exhibiting up in some instances. The paper ends with this clear assertion: However the reality stays that ufology continues to attempt for scientific respectability and to strategy UFOs and related anomalies from a scientific standpoint. And I add: if ufology has not performed correctly its homework after 70 years with a richest wealth of the strangest sightings ever fancied, together with the supposed observations of touchdown of spacecraft with exploring occupants, what else is required to do a great job and retrieve the proof? Does somebody compos mentis consider that that is going to repeat sooner or later?  Dr. Bullard additionally affirms: As issues stand, too many standard occasions masquerade as anomalies and cross undetected to litter our databases and confuse our understanding. Deep pondering of such mysteries will lead nowhere until we make investments the effort and time to exclude the false mysteries from the beginning—rubbish in, rubbish out.

In my humble opinion, Bullard overlooks an vital variable within the equation: motivation for many (or many) influential ufologists is their perception that UFOs are indicators of extraterrestrial life and can proceed assigning mysterious origins to mundane stimuli. It’s a query of religion. And occasion catalogs will stay burying hardly one or two % probably intriguing stories within the mass of visible junk.

I whole-heartedly advocate this glorious work:

And the three case research that escort the principle textual content:

New Tutorial Paper

Just lately, Keith Basterfield suggested about an article by Brett Holman, entitled “Why I’m not a UFO historian,” a weblog entry dated June 24, 2017, clearly a well timed anniversary day. I came upon that the writer is a Ph.D. Lecturer in Historical past within the College of Humanities on the College of New England (Armidale, Australia). It’s good to see recent enter by well-informed teachers on the UFO concern, now that now we have a 70-year vary of expertise to judge. Could I choose a paragraph from his fascinating be aware: Whereas I respect the work performed by Undertaking 1947 and comparable teams, like Magonia Trade, in addition to some particular person researchers who take a rational strategy, ufology as a complete is a clown parade. Tagging alongside is an effective technique to lose your bearings. All of the raking over of outdated instances doesn’t appear prone to ever produce something of lasting worth. If there’s ever a breakthrough in what all these sightings actually are, it would come from exterior ufology: from science, almost certainly. I doubt it is something notably extraordinary, if there’s something left after misperception and hoaxing. His writing is right here to be learn in full:

A Uncommon Crash Picture

The Texan newspaper The Odessa American printed the next image on its Could 18, 1966 version. The {photograph} caption wrote:

Could 16, 1966, INTEL balloon payload crash close to Lesley (Texas). © UPI picture.

UFOs and Army, Extra Disinformation

The final instance of malice and disinformation in Spain concerning alleged UFO-motivated scrambles by Air Drive plane arose in August, when an web supply revealed a number of seemingly superb army interventions stated to have occurred in 2012. The so-called “info” was checked and proved blatantly false. See documented particulars within the Spanish part of this weblog underneath the title: “OVNIS y militares, más desinformación”.

Miscellaneous

(1) The Hessdalen {photograph} of December 21, 2013 is underneath technical scrutiny:

(2) Ricardo Campo, Ph. D. in Philosophy, researcher of the UFO phenomenon and writer, has simply went via two contact tales in La Tejita Seashore (Tenerife, Canary Islands) on June and October 1975 in these two well-documented articles (in Spanish):

(3)  False alarm on the Ontario Lake, Could 2017:

(4) Fernando Jorge Soto Roland, historical past professor within the Humanities College of the Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (Buenos Aires, Argentina), has written a dissection paper on the “Mothman” story. The underside line is unexpectedly easy: it was a gross lie, fed by pseudo-investigators, writers and media. This revealing essay (in Spanish) could be discovered right here:  

(5) Situation quantity 4 of Cielo Insolito (Uncommon Sky) is simply printed. It’s a e-newsletter on the historical past of UFO phenomena with absorbing articles in Italian and English:

(6) Ball lightning in Spain within the 16th century:

(7) It isn’t frequent to seek out papers on UFO statistics currently. With out prejudging about deserves of the writer’s database, methodology or conclusions, I’m happy to relay this latest work by somebody new to me, Adyson Wright: “Is UFO/UAP Sighting Frequency in Particular Locales In keeping with World Tendencies? Proof In opposition to Conventional Fashions for Alaska in Two Databases,”

(9) By default, back-dated, spectacular-looking photos are suspect. In 2015, French journal High Secret acquired anonymously (not a shock) some alleged UFO images taken aboard a US Navy ship on March 1971 close to the Jan Mayen Island, within the Atlantic Ocean, Norway territory. It has been lately ascertained that these are fakes, daughters of mom Photoshop. Gilles Fernandez and Wim van Utrecht took the canular to items, see right here:

 (10) Foremost UFO veteran Jan Aldrich has uploaded “A number of phrases in regards to the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek” within the Undertaking 1947 web site, a worthwhile article with insights in regards to the determine of this scientist and UFO researcher. That is the hyperlink:

(13) What occurs when a reporter mixes a 1973 UFO picture (a manipulated copy of the hoaxed Barra da Tijuca 1952 footage) with a 1985 Native Police UFO sighting (most likely resulting from a army plane night time mission train)? That assured press readers are cheated. That is what J.C. Victorio Uranga explains in his final put up (in Spanish):

LITERATURE

Maccabee and the Arnold Sighting

“Three minutes in June” (subtitled “The UFO sighting that modified the world”), has been printed Could 2017 by Richard Dolan Press, a 138-page e book devoted totally to the research of the pristine commentary by businessman Kenneth Arnold, at 3:00 p.m. of June 24, 1947 when he was flying a small personal aircraft from Chehalis to Yakima, each within the state of Washington. “A last judgement,” is how the writer characterizes the report written by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, an optical physicist who labored for the US Navy earlier than retirement. Maccabee is a kind of few scientists within the pro-UFO camp who’ve reportedly discovered unexplainable occasions in plenty of picture-film-video instances he has investigated. Writer of a e book on the UFO information of the FBI (years earlier than these have been launched on-line by the Bureau) and a novel on abductions, he’s additionally an completed piano participant. This textual content seems to be an prolonged and improved model of the paper Maccabee delivered to the 1987 MUFON Convention and I’m grateful to Bruce for e-mailing me a pdf file with the e book.

Bruce Maccabee on the piano, Grand Rapids (Michigan), July 1997. {Photograph} by V.J. Ballester Olmos.

Arnold’s aircraft place was close to the city of Mineral, 22 miles WSW of Mount Rainier, 80 miles West from Yakima, and alongside a flight path that might take him about 12 miles South of Mount Rainier (pages 19-20). What did Arnold see? 9 flying objects seen initially within the route of Mount Baker, about 120 miles North of Mount Rainier, flying at an incredible velocity. There have been three main geographical references in sight‒Mounts Baker, Rainier and Adams‒and based on the witness the 9 UFOs appeared “within the neighborhood” of the primary and roughly overflew the 2 others mountains in a common South course perpendicular to his flight line.

From Yakima, Arnold departed to Pendleton (Oregon) on a enterprise journey. The e book repeats the wrong legend that plenty of journalists have been ready for him on the airport (web page 42). But it was Arnold himself who determined to go to the workplace of the East Oregonian newspaper at Pendleton to report his commentary, as was came upon by Loren Gross in 1976. On web page 48, Maccabee tells this story as properly however doesn’t set the historic file straight concerning the “airport journalists.”  

The essential drawback with this case‒as with many others that appear unsolvable‒is that measurements of observing parameters are disputable in accuracy and topic to interpretation. Neither the info could be taken as actual ones, nor any subsequent calculations and estimates. For instance, concerning distance, timing, velocity, measurement, and so on. But Maccabee takes Arnold claims verbatim: objects have been crusing over a straight line shaped by the three cited mountains (when he was about 20 miles of from Mount Rainier), deriving an precise object dimension of about 80 toes entrance to again (web page 38). However what about if the objects have been situated a lot additional away, in the event that they have been fireballs, as an example? Arnold had the presence of thoughts to measure the time whereas the objects lined the “distance” between Mount Rainier and Mount Adams, 102 seconds. An unpublished research would scale back this time to solely 42 seconds, and this end result would change the calculated velocity and so the possible explicative hypotheses. However until this investigation is within the open it can’t be taken as a critical argument.

Arnold defined that on the time, a DC-4 airplane was approaching Seattle (62 miles from Mineral) on a South-North course, roughly parallel to the flight of the 9 objects, however in the wrong way. There are not any testimonies of a UFO sighting from the crew or passengers of the airplane. In all probability if it was a distant and spectacular sufficient phenomenon it ought to have been sighted by them as properly, however not if it was actually a more in-depth phenomenon to the only airman.

One of many issues with this superior episode is that the load of the proof rests on a sole witness. A report by Ted Bloecher on the 1947 UFO wave printed in 1967 mentions as much as 19 different sightings within the states of Washington and Oregon that day. An itemized research ought to think about the reported instances, dynamics or shapes, however the issue right here is that all of them have been most likely backdated and it’s troublesome to evaluate the influence of a copycat impact.

The primary pondering Arnold had when he noticed the objects was that they have been geese, however on the finish of it he modified his thoughts to a brand new prototype of jets in formation. Hardly one 12 months later, the duvet of the primary concern of Destiny journal of spring 1948 (containing an article of Arnold himself on his sighting) carried a full-color sketch of‒now‒an unambiguous spacecraft. The incident has remained a thriller. In 1952, Arnold co-wrote “The Coming of the Saucers” with Ray Palmer. There, he concluded that “the actual flying saucer…could be the most vitally vital reality of our time!” It isn’t most likely unfaithful to affirm he thought these objects have been interplanetary. In all probability underneath the affect of Palmer, the person who has been known as the inventor of the alien craft (Palmer was additionally the founding father of Destiny.)

In all probability probably the most debated aspect of this case has to do with the distant objects’ profile. It’s well-known that their celebrated appellation got here from the outline of their flight, not of their look: “they flew like a saucer would for those who skipped it throughout the water,” (web page 31) as Arnold described it to a journalist in Pendleton, he who named them “alien craft”. The curious factor is that it generated hundreds of thousands of supposed sightings of circular-shaped, lens-shaped and saucer-shaped flying objects everywhere in the world, whereas the “actual” type of the objects, based on Arnold, regarded one thing like “a pie plate that was minimize in half with a kind of convex triangle within the rear” (web page 110, see life like drawings in pages 35 and 41). In accordance to a college of thought, this transposition of flight sample to imagery requires an evaluation and rationalization. Nevertheless, issues are extra convoluted, as it’s also true that Arnold used the expression “pie-plate” to notice the objects’ form in a KWRC radio interview on June 26, 1947. It appears Arnold used the phrase “saucer” to explain each the approximate form and the conduct of the objects. I’m afraid this query continues to be within the air, unsolved.

A number of choices have been instructed to elucidate the sighting, none in an impeachable, irrevocable method. For Maccabee, UFOs are Alien Flying Craft, “gadgets not made by mankind however fairly by Non-Human Intelligences” (web page 2). This large leap from case story to proposition is just not sustained by proof, in my opinion. The work by Martin Shough on this occasion, which is the deepest research printed to this point, goes solely so far as concluding that there’s an inside constant state of affairs within the preliminary Arnold report however the precise existence of 9 flying discoids stays unprovable.

Was Arnold an ideal witness? His previous credentials have been unpolluted however he turned what we name a “repeater”, that is, when serial sights are reported by the identical particular person.  He reported six extra subsequent airborne and floor UFO observations from July 29, 1947 to July 9, 1966, claiming to have achieved footage of what would look like birds or balloons. He additionally developed freak concepts which he shared in articles and lectures. After his distinctive expertise, Arnold didn’t have the very best influences and was uncovered to esoteric learnings he couldn’t handle properly, shifting to fringe beliefs. In all probability an excessive amount of strain and new info pouring on him!

Within the concluding chapter, Maccabee explains why he has bothered to look at the Arnold case. His cause why says so much about what has occurred between 1947 and 2017, UFO-wise: “…chasing the will-o’-the-wisp generally often known as alien craft…for some 50 years, principally by learning the higher and more moderen sightings, and never discovering any actual solutions as to what the occasions characterize (i.e., not getting anyplace!)” (web page 103). For Maccabee, this case‒if totally understood, he asks‒incorporates all of the proof to show his extraterrestrial conclusion. However, I’m afraid we can not draw such conclusion from the info of the oldest case of all. For an actual breakthrough, at the least goal blueprints that may be scientifically analyzed should be accessible (both automated recordings or multiple-witnessed manifestations) after ruling out all standard prospects.

Maccabee (pages 15-16) writes that historians have been persuaded to neglect Arnold’s sighting by the unfavorable conclusions of Undertaking Grudge’s consultants (predecessor to Undertaking Blue E book). This concept is just not shared by French social anthropologist Pierre Lagrange, and a long-time scholar of the Arnold case, who opines: “Like many different historic occasions associated to fashionable tradition, Arnold’s sighting has by no means been actually taken into consideration by historians as a result of there was by no means any historic research that described exactly what occurred through the summer time of 1947 and the way it was linked to different features of the present context: political, cultural, army, aeronautical, and so on. Arnold’s sighting is like many different fashionable cultures’ tales (just like the witches craze of the 16th and 17th centuries), it wants critical historic investigations to grasp its true place in our mental and cultural historical past.” (Pierre Lagrange, e-mail to V.J. Ballester Olmos, June 13, 2017).

I belief the last word analysis on Kenneth Arnold and his sightings is but unwritten. In any other case, he could have taken to the tomb key secrets and techniques on a number of foremost features of the UFO commentary which might be nonetheless unclear. As a result of the Arnold air encounter popularly began the alien craft delusion (or the historical past of UFO phenomena), it’s key to be studied as a result of if a definitive resolution was discovered, the entire topic would collapse. It’s an incident that objectively deserves full consideration by researchers: ideally, scientists or engineers who stand unbiased of the UFO circle. I encourage this recent investigation. The paperwork are at hand to be consulted and probed.

PERSONAL LOG

(1) Personally at Loch Ness. Not exactly looking for the lake monster however on trip with my spouse, yours actually cruised by the well-known Loch Ness final July throughout a week-long go to to Scotland. We didn’t see Nessie however loved the nation so much. It’s an unforgettable vacation spot I do advocate you people!

(2) For Ye Olde Occasions Sake. My UFO co-worker and long-time good friend Jaime Servera has despatched me a few footage that painting conferences of the previous. The primary is a go to we rendered to the Manises Air Drive Base (Valencia) in June 1992 and the assembly we held with its boss, Colonel Sacanell. Jaime took the {photograph}. The opposite is a bunch picture dated January 1990 made in my former home. It exhibits collectively (from left to proper) Jaime, Juan Antonio Fernández Peris, myself and Javier Sierra. It’s at all times good reliving these good recollections.

Thanks

To the next colleagues who’ve sourced materials or evaluation to the present version of this weblog: Kay Massingill, Jim Oberg, Dr. Gilles Fernandez, Ole Jonny Brænne, Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga, Dr. Ricardo Campo, Dr. Alexander Keul, Roberto Labanti, Adyson Wright, Jaime Servera, Keith Basterfield, Luis E. Pacheco, and Igor Kalytiuk.

BOOKS BY THE AUTHOR

A Catalogue of 200 Kind-I UFO Occasions in Spain and Portugal

OVNIS: el fenómeno aterrizaje (UFOs: The Touchdown Phenomenon)

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

Investigación OVNI (UFO Investigation)

Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (with J.A. Fernández Peris) (Encyclopedia of UFO Shut Encounters in Spain)

Expedientes insólitos (Bizarre Recordsdata)

These can be found within the second-hand market, within the following search engines like google:

Norway in UFO Pictures: The First Catalogue (with O.J. Braenne)

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

HOW YOU CAN COLLABORATE WITH FOTOCAT PROJECT

There are a number of choices you’ll be able to comply with:

    · Volunteer work, onsite or remotely

    · Ship sighting stories, images, archives, bibliography, and so on.

    · Donations to assist defray analysis bills

2017/SEPTIEMBRE/01 (ES)

BASE DE DATOS FOTOCAT

La base de datos FOTOCAT continúa creciendo día a día. En la actualidad ya registra 12.200 casos. Aprovecho para recordar a aquelIos lectores que estén realizando algún trabajo que requiera estadísticas regionales o anuales de observaciones ovni/ovi, que no duden en solicitarme listados o tabulaciones de informes, si una muestra de casos fotográficos les sirve.

NUEVAS PUBLICACIONES DEL AUTOR

Comentarios a “La naturaleza de la evidencia OVNI”

El pasado junio, conmemorando los 70 años del iniciático incidente ocurrido a Kenneth Arnold el 24 de junio de 1947, publiqué un ensayo que lleva por título “La naturaleza de la evidencia OVNI: Dos visiones”, escrito con el Dr. Thomas Bullard:

Dado el precise estado polarizado de la ufología en el mundo (con escépticos y creyentes de varios gradientes), ya anticipé que este artículo-declaración provocaría pitos y aplausos por parte de sus lectores. Y así ha sido. Y me complace afirmar que más de los segundos que de los primeros. La audiencia del weblog (ha habido más de 12.100 visitas en dos meses y medio, más las incontables procedentes de otros sitios donde se ha reproducido) puede estar interesada  en cotillear acerca de algunas opiniones vertidas a través de correspondencia private; por ello he preparado una pequeña selección de emails condensados que alaban o critican este ensayo. De hecho, es un compendio de “quien cree que” en la ufología internacional. En algunos mensajes, también he añadido mi respuesta. Dado que los mensajes están en inglés, remito al lector interesado a la correspondiente sección de este weblog.

Cuando alguien, como yo, que ha transitado desde la credulidad de la juventud al escepticismo de la madurez, percibe que el creyente administra una lógica simplista: la evidencia está en lo que se nos oculta, o bien se basa en incidentes que pueden tener una lectura alternativa. Me resisto a creer que esa misma lógica la apliquen a sus inversiones financieras o decisiones domésticas o de negocios.

Formularios de la Inteligencia Naval argentina

Trabajando en otro proyecto, he tenido la oportunidad de reunir y publicar varios formularios ovni del comité que estaba en vigor por parte de la Armada argentina en los pasados años sesenta. Estos informes de la inteligencia naval se refieren al conocido caso de aterrizaje en Trancas de 1963 y a los episodios antárticos de junio-julio de 1965. Asimismo, otros cuestionarios oficiales hechos públicos recientemente por el Dr. Roberto E. Blanch, un destacado y veterano estudioso argentino; en esta ocasión, los documentos versan sobre un encuentro cercano que tuvo lugar en Necochea en 1962. Confío que esta documentación histórica militar sea de interés a los investigadores. Estos son los enlaces de acceso:

R.E. Banchs, “Formulario OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1962”,

V.J. Ballester Olmos, “Formulario OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1963”,

V.J. Ballester Olmos et al, “Formularios OVNI de la Armada Argentina, 1965”,

Los lectores se apercibirán inmediatamente que los formularios de 1962 y 1965 no fueron cumplimentados por los testigos, como es lo adecuado, sino por los investigadores de campo: por un oficial de policía de alto rango  y notario (1962) y por el teniente Daniel A. Perissé de la Armada argentina (1965). Esto supone una verdadera rareza ya que se desvía del procedimiento común en otros países, en cuanto concierne a la recopilación de datos de observaciones ovni.

INVESTIGACIÓN Y CASUÍSTICA

Aguadilla: el vuelo de un par de linternas chinas

Origen desconocido, objeto capaz de sumergirse en el agua y de dividirse en dos cuerpos separados. Esta fue la grandiosa conclusión a la que llegó un informe firmado por Robert Powell et al relativo a la filmación hecha en 2013 en la ciudad portorriqueña de Aguadilla. ¿Se ha conseguido al fin evidencia auténtica de la existencia de extraterrestres que visitan la Tierra? ¿Deberían comunicarla a la Nationwide Science Basis? Mejor que no.

Porque bastó unos minutos de visualización de este celebrado metraje para su resolución. Lo ha hecho Rubén Lianza, aviador militar con más de 3.000 horas de vuelo en veinte diferentes clases de aeronaves, comodoro de la fuerza aérea de Argentina y director del CEFAE, el comité oficial argentino para el estudio de fenómenos aeroespaciales. Mientras el pasado mes de junio recibía adiestramiento técnico sobre tratamiento digital de imágenes en IPACO (Francia), Lianza vio el video en cuestión. Dada su extensa experiencia como piloto de ensayo experimental realizando movies aéreos, persiguiendo y grabando diferentes tipos de objetos volantes (desde prototipos a pequeños drones, pasando por lanzamiento de misiles desde el aire o bombas lanzadas con paracaídas), le fue fácil identificar lo que tenía ante sus ojos. Sin lugar a dudas, lo identificó como dos objetos atados (y no uno que se dividiera en dos en un momento de la grabación). En las horas que siguieron recogió elementos probatorios para satisfacer su hipótesis y más adelante pudo confirmar que el video simplemente muestra un par de linternas chinas (globos impulsados por aire caliente) lanzados desde una playa cercana para celebrar una boda.  

Lianza ha escrito este informe con sus hallazgos: “Puerto Rico´s Aguadilla UFO captured by FLIR digicam from U.S. Customs and Border Safety airplane”. Está redactado en inglés y se lee en este enlace:

Los socios de Robert Powell se agrupan en la denominada “coalición científica para la ufología” (SCU) y han difundido una respuesta a la teoría de Rubén Lianza; se halla en línea aquí:

El comodoro Lianza y sus pares no están dispuestos a un interminable intercambio de refutaciones y contra-refutaciones. Al lector con formación científica (o sencillamente con sentido común) se le supone que tiene suficiente juicio para entender los fallos, errores o trampas de cualquier teoría o de su aparente refutación. Sin embargo, he solicitado a Lianza que me put together un comentario a la crítica que le hizo la SCU. Ha escrito su réplica también en inglés, por lo que sólo se encuentra en dicha sección del presente weblog. Con ese artículo cierro este tema en estas páginas, ya que creo que toda la información pertinente para alcanzar una conclusión se ha puesto ya sobre el tapete.  Para mí, resulta obvio que (a) el objeto volante video grabado en Puerto Rico es un conjunto de dos globos de aire caliente y (b) los proponentes de la interpretación ovni han cometido un grave error de evaluación estimando que los objetos llegaron a sumergirse en aguas del océano.

OVNIS y militares, más desinformación

Supongo que el ABC del periodismo enseña que las informaciones deben ser contrastadas y verificadas antes de publicarse. Y que la “información” anónima debe rechazarse, salvo en especialísimas circunstancias. El 30 de julio, un medio digital difundía un artículo del ufólogo sevillano José Manuel García Bautista con el contenido de una carta manuscrita remitida por un supuesto piloto del Ala 11 (Base Aérea de Morón de la Frontera), que, además de alabar sin recato el programa de radio del susodicho, relataba dos salidas en interceptación de aviones de esa base aérea: a las 03:40Z del 29 de enero y a las 02:20Z y 04:00Z del 8 de febrero de 2012. La carta daba pie a incluir una auto-entrevista del articulista (1).

Creía que en estos años, los “reporteros de lo insólito” habían aprendido algo. Pero no. Siguen con los sesgos y tics de siempre. Todo vale para colar un artículo. Si la información es falsa, ¡qué más da! Parece que no son conscientes de que, una vez escrita o en línea, ésta se reproduce aquí y allá y se asume como cierta. La bola se hace mayor y el mito pervive.

La noticia es harto sospechosa. He consultado a Joan Plana, especialista catalán en asuntos de Defensa, quien ha advertido varios gazapos (2). Sin ser exhaustivo, reseñaré que  algunos aspectos problemáticos del relato:

º El piloto cube haber tripulado Mirage F-III, Mirage F-1, F-18 Hornet y, en la actualidad, el EF-2000 Storm. Los pilotos de servicio de interceptación habitualmente son capitanes o tenientes, todos experimentados. Si el comunicante cube haber pilotado tantos modelos de aviones distintos (hablamos de un rango de 20 años), como mínimo debe tener la graduación de comandante, teniente coronel o incluso coronel. Es dudoso que fuera piloto de alerta con tan alta graduación.

º El caza Mirage III (sin la F que añade el redactor de la carta)  nunca estuvo basado en Gando, allí estuvo el Mirage F-1 entre 1982 y 1999, y desde ese año está el F-18.

º Se entiende del relato que los despegues de alerta fueron cada vez de dos aviones. Lo routine es que de los dos cazas en servicio de scramble sólo salga uno, y en caso extremo, el segundo. Dos a la vez es rarísimo.

º En el segundo de los casos que cuenta el fantasmal piloto, primero habla de ecos en la zona de Canarias y lo enlaza con dos alertas en la zona de Sevilla. Bastante absurdo. Además, cube que el segundo piloto period un teniente novato. “Me extraña mucho que a un piloto casi recién salido de la academia le dejen pilotar directamente un EF-2000, lo más sofisticado y caro del EA”, consigna Plana, quien señala finalmente: “En resumidas cuentas, un piloto del ejército del aire no cometería esos errores tan básicos”.

El anonimato lo justifica el remitente porque “Soy militar y como usted sabe, el hermetismo en todo lo referente al tema OVNI es férreo”. Miente como un bellaco el autor de la carta. No solo los archivos ovni del Ejército del Aire fueron desclasificados en su totalidad durante la década de los noventa (3,4) sino que recientemente el Ministerio de Defensa los ha hecho accesibles en su página internet (5). El EA español no sostiene ninguna postura de ocultación ni de censura en lo que a informes ovni se refiere; de hecho, hay habilitado un procedimiento para la investigación de aquellas observaciones ovni que se denuncien a las autoridades aéreas, la Instrucción Basic 40-5 (6).

Los datos que aparecen en la presunta carta los puede extraer cualquiera de Wikipedia, por ejemplo. La descripción de los supuestos avistamientos y la reacción militar es confusa. Y la falta de verificación del intermediario es culposa. La mencionada misiva se encuadra en la tradición de comunicar sucesos falsos a periodistas o ufólogos crédulos que los convierten en artículos para la prensa amarilla o diarios que carecen de los necesarios filtros para evitar informaciones no escrupulosas (7).

Nada más leer la noticia publicada, me dirigí a la jefatura del Sistema de Mando y Management (SMC), unidad de la defensa aérea española dependiente del Mando Aéreo de Combate, ubicada en la base aérea de Torrejón. Solicité las hojas correspondientes a dichas fechas de los libros de management de Pegaso, la sede central que coordina la vigilancia de nuestro espacio aéreo. Concretamente, solicité confirmación sobre pretendidos scrambles en las fechas citadas por el autonombrado piloto de Eurofighter.

A vuelta de correo electrónico, el common de brigada Rafael García Hernández, jefe del SMC, me responde (8):

Estimado Sr. Ballester:

Sólo he llegado a leer hasta la línea del artículo en la que habla de los aviones Mirage F III en Canarias en febrero de 2012.

Los aviones Mirage III, en sus versiones EE y DE que fueron las únicas del Ejército del Aire, fueron dados de baja el día 01 de octubre de 1992.

Creo que con ese argumento basta y sobra para refutar la opinión de un supuesto piloto o de un periodista que no se ha molestado en comprobar los datos básicos de una información.

Como contundente documentación complementaria, 48 horas después el common García Hernández tuvo la amabilidad de remitirme copia de los libros de management solicitados, en donde se recogen las anotaciones de la actividad aérea del Ejército del Aire, sobre todo las acciones de la Defensa Activa, como son las salidas en misión de interceptación de unidades de nuestra fuerza aérea. Aunque la calidad de la copia no es muy buena es la suficiente para comprobar que a las horas y días citados en el relato periodístico no hay anotado ningún scramble actual.

Como se puede comprobar fehacientemente, las anotaciones de los oficiales de guardia no reflejan salidas de aviones militares a las horas citadas. Concretamente, el 29 de enero de 2012 no hubo nada reseñable durante toda la jornada y el 8 de febrero no hay ningún apunte hasta cuatro horas y media después de la presunta segunda alarma y éstos aluden a misiones de entrenamiento rutinarias.

Todo apunta a que se trata de una tomadura de pelo a García Bautista, un  engaño que ha servido para comprobar los estándares (o falta de ellos) del autor del artículo. Incluso creo adivinar la socarronería del autor del mensaje, citando poblaciones como Barbate, Aznalcóllar, Gerena o Las Pajanosas muy entroncadas en la mitología ufológica andaluza de las últimas décadas del siglo XX, “sucesos ovni” que fueron tan espectaculares como mendaces. Volviendo a estos casos militares, nada hay de cierto en la “información” publicada y es más que seguro que su fuente no sea un piloto militar ni nada por el estilo. Y el descuidado articulista es reo de propalar información falsa.

NOTAS

(2) Joan Plana Crivillén, e mail a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 9 de agosto de 2017.

(4) V.J. Ballester Olmos, “Documentos oficiales on-line (IV): Desclasificación OVNI en España: El Mando Operativo Aéreo busca casos perdidos”,

(Teclear “Expedientes OVNI” en “Búsqueda”)

(6) Qué curioso que sólo sean ufólogos y periodistas crédulos a quienes se dirigen los supuestos testigos de los avistamientos más asombrosos, los “encuentros cercanos”, cuando el Ejército del Aire dispone desde 1992 de un protocolo de actuación para la encuesta de casos ovni. Desde entonces, sólo se ha activado en tres ocasiones, dos en 1993 y una en 1995  y sólo en una de ellas la fuente inicial fue civil. La interpretación parece evidente, el que inventa historias o las exagera es reacio a fabular ante la autoridad. Y no ante oídos proclives a dar por bueno todo lo que les cuentan con tal de pergeñar un artículo para la revista de turno o un guion para el consabido programa de misterio en radio o televisión. A eso se le llama ufología de manutención. Y esto no tiene nada que ver con el periodismo serio y, menos, con la práctica científica.

(8) GJSMC Rafael García Hernández, e mail a V.J. Ballester Olmos, 9 de agosto de 2017.

Por favor, dejen a Gordon Cooper en paz

En la sección en inglés de este weblog incluyo un artículo del experto en temas espaciales Jim Oberg, acerca de un programa difundido el pasado mes de abril por el canal de televisión Discovery con extravagantes declaraciones del ex-astronauta Gordon Cooper. El aprovechamiento vergonzoso de las debilidades seniles de este hombre, en professional del sensacionalismo barato, clama al cielo. Remito a los interesados al apartado correspondiente más arriba.

UMMO

Dicen que los viejos rockeros nunca mueren. Parece que lo mismo sucede con ciertas historias del mundillo ovni que se desentierran periódicamente del baúl o del sepulcro. La leyenda UMMO (extraterrestres que se comunican con el género humano vía correo postal) ha sido materia de extenso debate desde que se inició a mediados de los años sesenta. A pesar de que el originario de dichos escritos confesó su naturaleza fraudulenta antes de morir, aún hay creyentes en la realidad del planeta del signo Ж y de las andanzas de sus naturales en nuestro mundo. Tarde o temprano la cuestión resurgirá –como el Guadiana– y entretanto me gustaría sugerir la lectura del trabajo de unos de los investigadores españoles que más en profundidad y con más sentido crítico ha estudiado el asunto, Luis R. González (también conocido literariamente como Reinaldo Manso). Creo que merece la pena recordar aquí algunos de sus trabajos al respecto:

Astro OVNIS

El Press Democrat de Santa Rosa (California) del domingo 19 de febrero de 1961 estampaba en su primera página la foto que sigue, con esta leyenda: “El ovni avistado por tres residentes de Lakeport la noche del martes aparece registrado en esta inusual fotografía lograda por uno del trio, Victor Sneed. El objeto fue descrito como mayor y más brillante que una estrella y despedía colores rojo, blanco y azul.  El señor Sneed y sus padres, Sr. y Sra. Robert Sneed, contemplaron el objeto durante casi media hora desde lo alto de la colina  Brewery”.

En la página 5 del número de enero de 1961 de The APRO Bulletin encontramos información suplementaria. Cube que la observación comenzó a las nueve de la noche y que la misteriosa luz se cernía a unos 20 grados sobre la montaña Gow, que se ubica en dirección oeste. La familia declara que la luz desapareció 25 minutos después. Si buscamos el mapa estelar correspondiente, vemos que Venus estaba colocado exactamente al oeste (274º de azimut), a 7º de elevación y mostraba una apariencia muy brillante (magnitud -4.43). El ocaso del planeta tuvo lugar a las 9:36 de la noche, coincidiendo con el momento en que los Sneed dejaron de ver al objeto que magnificaron como “10 veces más grande y luminoso que el planeta Venus”. La fotografía recortada que publicó el diario, obviamente, es una gran ampliación de la huella luminosa dejaba por el cuerpo astronómico durante la exposición fotográfica. No sólo eso, dado que el astro estaba al oeste, iba descendiendo de izquierda a derecha, con lo que descubrimos que la foto se publicó invertida. Vemos seguidamente el mapa estelar y la imagen actual.

5/3/79, Canarias. Los mitos se resisten a morir

El pasado mes de julio, la edición digital del ABC publicó que un informe oficial ruso aseguraba que el avistamiento desde territorio canario del 5 de marzo de 1979 se debió a un objeto que surgió del mar. En efecto, así fue. Porque fue un misil de la marina estadounidense, como está ya archidemostrado. Ricardo Campo ha escrito dos precisos comentarios al respecto en uno de sus blogs, que vale la pena leer:

Contrariamente a lo manifestado en el diario, el mentado informe ni es oficial ni es reciente, es de 2008 y de dos militares y ufólogos rusos que recopilaron datos sobre avistamientos ovni en océanos, extrayendo casos de los viejos archivos de la Armada soviética. Pues bien, en un informe de 77 páginas, apenas hay cinco líneas dedicadas al caso Canario, concretamente éstas:

5 марта 1979 г. Атлантический океан, Канарские острова. Тысячи людей на острове Гран-Канария стали свидетелями необыкновенного явления. Из воды вылетел большой темный объект и устремился вверх. Через мгновение он ярко засветился и пропал из глаз, оставив за собой громадное светящееся облако.

Y la frase que ha dado origen a la “sensacional” noticia cube textualmente que “un gran objeto oscuro salió volando del agua velozmente hacia arriba”.

El pasado año, Campo ya tuvo que poner los puntos sobre las íes a otro artículo del mismo corresponsal canario del ABC, a raíz de una noticia manifiestamente mejorable dedicada esta vez al caso canario 22/6/76. Y yo me pregunto, ¿por qué será que cuando el periodismo toca el tema ovni suele ser para desbarrar?  ¿Pero qué les enseñan en la Facultad?

Nuevos ensayistas

Keith Basterfield nos ha puesto sobre aviso acerca de un artículo de Brett Holman, titulado “Why I’m not a UFO historian” (¿Por qué no son un historiador de los ovnis?), una entrada de weblog fechada el 24 de junio de 2017, obviamente una oportuna fecha aniversario. Averigüé que el autor está doctorado en Historia y es profesor de la College of Humanities de la universidad de New England, en  Armidale (Australia). Es refrescante ver como una renovada cantera de académicos bien informados se sumerge en la problemática de los ovnis, aportando opiniones remozadas, ahora que ya contamos con 70 años de experiencias que evaluar. Quisiera seleccionar un párrafo de tan acertado ensayo:

Si bien respeto el trabajo realizado por el Proyecto 1947 y grupos similares, como Magonia Trade, así como algunos investigadores individuales que adoptan un enfoque racional, la ufología en su conjunto es un desfile de payasos. Seguirles de cerca es una buena forma de perder la orientación. No parece possible que todo el barrido de los viejos casos produzca nunca algo de valor duradero. Si alguna vez hay un avance en lo que realmente significan todos estos avistamientos, vendrá de fuera de la ufología: de la ciencia, muy probablemente. Dudo que exista algo particularmente extraordinario, si queda algo después de las percepciones erróneas y los engaños.

Su escrito puede –debe – leerse desde aquí:

Los archivos ovni del servicio de Guardacostas americano

Durante años, varios ufólogos estadounidenses usaron la legislación FOIA (libertad de información) para solicitar a las autoridades del US Coast Guard cualquier documentación relativa a observaciones ovni ocurrida en ríos, lagos, puertos, bahías, and so on., la geografía de su competencia. Robert Todd lo hizo entre 1975 y 1978 y Stan Gordon en 1988. Pero fue gracias al compromiso y dedicación de Barry Greenwood entre 1978 y 1990 que se recuperó la totalidad de los archivos ovni de esta agencia. Son casos denunciados desde 1952 a 1989. Barry se ha tomado la molestia de escanear las 160 páginas de documentos recopilados y yo los he subido a web en el portal Academia.edu para conocimiento common.

Así, podemos leer informaciones originales sobre el conocido caso fotográfico de Salem, Massachusetts, del 16 de julio de 1952 (luces interiores reflejadas en una ventana), el avistamiento del 5 de noviembre de 1957 desde el buque Sebago en el golfo de Méjico, el encuentro con humanoides en el rio Pascagoula del 6 de noviembre de 1973, así como sucesos más recientes como los del lago Michigan, 28 de julio de 1978, Atlantic Metropolis,12 de enero de 1982 o Eastlake, 4 de marzo de 1988. Acceda a esta información a través de este enlace:

Un soberbio trabajo de Eddie Bullard

La página internet del CUFOS acoge un brillante estudio del Dr. Thomas E. Bullard, “Skeptical Successes and Ufological Failures: Alternatives in Uncomfortable Locations” (Éxitos escépticos y fallos ufológicos: Oportunidades en lugares incómodos). El ensayo contiene tres apéndices de gran valor donde pasa revista a dos importantes avistamientos ovni que fueron apoyados entusiásticamente por los defensores a ultranza de los extraterrestres y que terminaron teniendo rotundas explicaciones, así como a ciertos aspectos de la “mitología visible” que aparece en algunos casos.  Este trabajo finaliza con esta afirmación: Pero es un hecho que la ufología continúa esforzándose para lograr respetabilidad científica y encarar la anomalía ovni y otras relacionadas desde una perspectiva científica. A lo que yo añadiría, empero: si la Ufología no ha hecho correctamente sus deberes en 70 años que han visto pasar una rica variedad de fenomenología como jamás se ha podido soñar, incluyendo supuestas observaciones del aterrizaje de naves espaciales con tripulantes exploradores, ¿qué más se necesita para hacer un buen trabajo y presentar una evidencia incontrovertible? ¿Cree alguien compos mentis que esto va a repetirse en el futuro? Bullard sentencia también: Tal como están las cosas, hay demasiados sucesos convencionales enmascarados como anomalías que pasan sin ser detectados y atestan desordenadamente nuestras bases de datos y confunden nuestra comprensión. Un profundo estudio de tales misterios no llevará a ninguna parte a menos que invirtamos tiempo y ahínco en excluir eso falsos misterios desde ya—rubbish in, rubbish out.

En mi humilde opinión, Bullard pasa por alto una importante variable en la ecuación: la motivación de la mayoría (o muchos) de los ufólogos más influyentes es su creencia de que los ovnis son señales de vida extraterrestre y continuarán asignando orígenes misteriosos a estímulos mundanos. Es cuestión de fe. Y los archivos de casos seguirán sepultando el uno o dos por ciento de informes potencialmente intrigantes dentro de una enorme masa de basura visible.

Recomiendo la lectura de esta excelente disertación:

Sin olvidar los tres estudios de casos que acompañan  al texto principal:

Una rara foto de estrellamiento

El diario tejano The Odessa American publicó la foto de abajo en su edición del 18 de mayo de 1966. Y la acompañaba esta leyenda:

Miscelánea

(1) La fotografía tomada en Hessdalen el 21 de diciembre de 2013 bajo la lupa del examen científico:

(2) Contactos en Playa La Tejita: Ricardo Campo, physician en Filosofía, investigador del fenómeno ovni y escritor, ha estudiado en detalle dos conocidas historias de contactos y abducciones pretendidamente ocurridas en la playa de La Tejita, en la isla de Tenerife (Canarias) en junio y octubre de 1975, en estos dos bien documentados artículos:

(3) Falsa alarma en el Lago Ontario en mayo de 2017:

(4) Fernando Jorge Soto Roland, profesor de historia en la facultad de Humanidades de la Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (Buenos Aires), ha publicado un interesante ensayo en el que disecciona la leyenda del “Mothman” (hombre polilla). El resumen resulta inesperadamente sencillo: se trató de una gran mentira, alentada por pseudo-investigadores, plumillas sensacionalistas y medios de comunicación. Este revelador trabajo puede leerse en el siguiente enlace:  

(6) Rayo en bola en España en el siglo XVI:

(7) Ya no es routine hallar trabajos estadísticos sobre el tema que nos interesa. Por ello, y sin valorar el mérito de la base de datos del autor, su metodología o conclusiones, quiero traer a colación este reciente estudio de alguien que me period desconocido, Adyson Wright: “Is UFO/UAP Sighting Frequency in Particular Locales In keeping with World Tendencies? Proof In opposition to Conventional Fashions for Alaska in Two Databases” y que puede leer aquí:

(8) Un ufólogo australiano que desea pertenecer en el anonimato ha publicado este interesante artículo sobre un caso con intervención del radar desde un navío en 1954, “The Sea Fury Radar Incident Revisited”:

(9) Cualquier imagen espectacular, presuntamente anómala y presumiblemente antigua es sospechosa, por defecto. En 2015, la revista francesa High Secret recibió anónimamente (¿a que no nos sorprende?) varias fotos supuestamente tomadas a bordo de un barco de la armada estadounidense en marzo de 1971 cerca de la isla de Jan Mayen, en aguas atlánticas noruegas.  Hace poco se ha puesto de manifiesto, sin la menor duda, que se trata de verdaderos fraudes, hechos con la ayuda de Photoshop. Gilles Fernandez y Wim van Utrecht han dado con la solución, véase:

 (10) El notable investigador y veterano ufólogo Jan Aldrich ha puesto a nuestra disposición en web “unas pocas palabras sobre el difunto Dr. J. Allen Hynek (“A number of phrases in regards to the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek”) en la página internet del Undertaking 1947. Se trata de un valioso artículo que indaga en la figura de este científico e investigador ovni. Este es el hyperlink en cuestión:

(12) La primera tesis de postgraduado (M.A.) dedicada a los “platillos volantes”, concretamente a la cobertura de la prensa norteamericana de 1947, fue en Periodismo en la Universidad Estatal de Iowa en 1948. Con 147 páginas y titulada “The ‘Flying Saucers’ Episode”, la firmó Emil E. Wennergren. Sabíamos de su existencia a partir del extraordinario compendio de 282 tesinas y disertaciones doctorales publicada por el estudioso italiano Paolo Toselli este mismo año. Lo que ahora facilitamos es el enlace para descargarla on-line:

(13) ¿Qué ocurre cuando un reportero mezcla una foto ovni de 1973 (que no es otra cosa que una versión manipulada del famoso trucaje de Barra da Tijuca de 1952) con una observación ovni de 1985 por parte de la Policía Native (avistamiento debido probablemente a una misión nocturna de aviones militares)? Pues que los confiados lectores resultan engañados. A esto se refiere el estudioso vasco  Victorio Uranga en su último weblog:

(14) Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga repasa el opúsculo titulado: OVNIs: Paradigma del absurdo, de David Cuevas. Un verdadero paradigma…de la impericia:

(15) El periodista argentino Enrique Garabetyan entrevista al comodoro Rubén Lianza para la sección de Ciencia del diario Perfil:

(16) El licenciado en Comunicación Social, periodista, investigador y autor chileno Diego Zúñiga enjuicia un libro colectivo español en el weblog del estudioso mejicano Luis Ruiz Noguez:

(17) Se acaba de publicar este breve trabajo firmado por Gitle Hauge, Anna-Lena Kjøniksen  y Erling Strand: “Optical luminosity of the transient luminous phenomena in Hessdalen, Norway”,

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

Maccabee y el avistamiento de Arnold

“Three minutes in June” (Tres minutos de junio), subtitulado “La observación ovni que cambió al mundo, es un opúsculo que se ha publicado el pasado mes de mayo por la editorial de Richard Dolan Press. Con 138 páginas, se dedica por entero a un prístino suceso, el que aconteció a un comercial americano, Kenneth Arnold, quien a las tres de la tarde del 24 de junio de 1947 volaba en un pequeño avión privado de Chehalis a Yakima, en el estado de Washington. “Un juicio definitivo” es como el editor outline al informe escrito por el Dr. Bruce Maccabee, físico óptico que trabajó para la Marina de los Estados Unidos y que está aliado sin complejos con la naturaleza extraterrestre de los ovnis.

He redactado una breve reseña del libro ‒admito que el caso Arnold no es mi especialidad‒ en la sección en inglés del weblog, así que allí remito al lector interesado en este volumen.

(1) En persona en Loch Ness. Y no particularmente a la búsqueda del monstruo del lago sino de vacaciones con mi esposa, su seguro servidor ha navegado por el famoso Lago Ness el mes pasado durante una visita de ocho días a Escocia. No vimos a Nessie pero disfrutamos mucho del país. Es un destino inolvidable que les recomiendo sin lugar a dudas.

Mi gratitud a los siguientes colegas que han aportado información a la presente edición del weblog: Kay Massingill, Jim Oberg, Dr. Gilles Fernandez, Ole Jonny Brænne, Juan Carlos Victorio Uranga, Dr. Ricardo Campo, Dr. Alexander Keul, Roberto Labanti, Adyson Wright, Jaime Servera, Keith Basterfield, Luis E. Pacheco e Igor Kalytiuk.

LIBROS DEL AUTOR

OVNIS: el fenómeno aterrizaje

Los OVNIS y la Ciencia (con Miguel Guasp)

Investigación OVNI

Enciclopedia de los encuentros cercanos con OVNIS (con J.A. Fernández Peris)

Expedientes insólitos

Hay ejemplares en el mercado de segunda mano en los buscadores Iberlibro y Uniliber, en estos enlaces directos:

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

COMO PUEDE COLABORAR CON EL PROYECTO FOTOCAT

Hay varias opciones de colaboración a su disposición, a saber:

Trabajo voluntario, presencial o a distancia

    · Entrega de información sobre casos, fotografías, archivos, bibliografía, and so on.

    · Donaciones para ayudar a sufragar los gastos corrientes y de investigación