BO

segunda-feira, 14 de agosto de 2017

UFO OVNI ETS · ‘Exeter Incident’ Solved! A Classic UFO Case, Forty-Five Years ‘Cold’

‘Exeter Incident’ Solved! A Classic UFO Case, Forty-Five Years ‘Cold’  USE TRANSLATE

  • Email

Special Report

James McGaha and Joe Nickell

Skeptical Inquirer Volume 35.6, November/December 2011

One of the great unsolved UFO cases—which provoked endless controversy between True Believers and Doubting Thomases—has at long last succumbed to investigation. The 1965 Exeter mystery is now explained.
U.S. Air Force KC-97 refueling tanker
It has been considered “one of the best-documented UFO accounts on record” (APRO Bulletin 1965) and “one of the most spectacular and best-corroborated UFO close encounters of all time” (Davenport and Geremia 2001). What journalist John G. Fuller would subsequently relate in his book Incident at Exeter (1966) began in the early hours of a September morning in 1965 near a small town in southeastern New Hampshire. It has never been satisfactorily explained—until now.

Exeter Incident

The story begins at 12:30 AM on September 3, 1965, at Exeter, New Hampshire. A policeman cruising on Route 101 came upon a woman parked beside the road. She told him excitedly that a flying object with red flashing lights had chased her for some distance. She pointed to a bright light on the horizon. The policeman, Eugene Bertrand, watched it for a short time and, unimpressed, left after reassuring the woman there was nothing to worry about.
Then at 2:24 AM, eighteen-year-old Norman Muscarello burst into the Exeter police station, “white, and shaking.” He had been hitchhiking along Route 150 toward his home in Exeter when he saw what he called “the Thing,” as big as or bigger than a house (Fuller 1966, 11). As Muscarello (1965) later described it in a signed statement:
A group of five bright lights appeared over a house about a hundred feet from where I was standing. The lights were in a line at about a sixty-degree angle. They were so bright, they lighted up the area. The lights then moved out over a large field and acted at times like a floating leaf. They would go down behind the trees, behind a house and then reappear.
Muscarello then described what would prove to be a powerful clue to the UFO’s identity:
[The lights] always moved in the same sixty-degree angle. Only one light would be on at a time. They were pulsating: one, two, three, four, five, four, three, two, one. They were so bright I could not distinguish a form to the object. I watched these lights for about fifteen minutes and they finally disappeared behind some trees and seemed to go into a field. At one time while I was watching them, they seemed to come so close I jumped into a ditch to keep from being hit.
Bertrand drove with Muscarello to the site just before 3 AM. The two walked into the field, and Bertrand himself witnessed the lights Muscarello had described. He stated, “At one time they came so close I fell to the ground and started to draw my gun.” The officer stated that there were “five bright red lights”; indeed they were “extremely bright and flashed on one at a time.” He added that “The lights were so bright, I was unable to make out any form” (Bertrand 1965). The pair ran to the police car. Bertrand radioed Patrolman David Hunt, who arrived and also witnessed the lights, which finally moved away, eastward, toward the ocean (Fuller 1966, 14).
Over the next several weeks, some sixty reports of UFOs followed in the area around Exeter. The case resulted in an article in Look magazine (February 8, 1966), the book by Fuller (expansively subtitled The Story of Unidentified Objects over America Today), and a host of articles, entries in UFO encyclopedias (e.g., Clark 1998, 364–67), and discussions in books (e.g., Hynek 1977, 154–66), as well as lectures, radio shows, and television documentaries.
J. Allen Hynek—the astronomer who began as an admitted “outright ‘debunker’” but became, by the late 1960s, a true believer in the reality of “the UFO phenomenon”—considered the case “a fine example of a Close Encounter of the First Kind” (1977, 1, 154), terminology he created. Hynek observed that the Pentagon was unable to explain the September 3, 1965, Exeter phenomenon and that “the scientific establishment” (a phrase dear to true believers) “in failing to deal with the evidence” was, like the Pentagon, “actually admitting that it has no explanation” (Hynek 1977, 165–66). In short, the object was still an unidentified flying object, implying that the mystery indicated something momentous. Skeptics were, of course, skeptical.

‘Solutions’

Not surprisingly, the Exeter incident provoked many speculations as to what the UFO might have been. Here are some of the proposals:
Astronomical bodies. As shown by a folder in the files of Project Blue Book (the U.S. Air Force’s UFO evaluation operation, 1952–1969), the Pentagon considered—and rejected—the possibility of “astro-stars/planets.” Supposedly, the witnesses had merely seen “stars and planets twinkling” due to a temperature inversion (a meteorological phenomenon in which a layer of warm air is trapped above cold night air and thus is capable of causing visual distortions) (Clark 1998, 365). The totality of evidence was incompatible with that hypothesis, leading Hynek (1977, 154) to declare, “The astronomical evaluation is completely untenable.”
Glare of airport landing lights. One air force officer hypothesized that the Exeter sighting merely resulted from the glare of landing lights at nearby Pease Air Force Base, a Strategic Air Command (SAC)/North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) bomber base. This possibility was tested by having both the runway marker lights and the approach strobes turned off and on during a fifteen-minute period, but observers saw no effect from the Exeter site (UFO Phenomenon 1987, 103–104).
An Air Force Operation. Blue Book suggested the incident might have been caused by planes from a SAC/NORAD training exercise dubbed “Big Blast,” which occurred on September 2–3, 1965. Blue Book noted that “the town of Exeter is within the traffic pattern utilized by Air Traffic Control in the recovery of these aircraft at Pease AFB [Air Force Base], N.H.” The exercise was active—according to Blue Book’s chief (Quintanilla 1965)—between midnight and 2 AM. However, Bertrand noted that he and young Muscarello had witnessed the flashing UFO “nearly an hour after two a.m. which would eliminate the Air Force Operation Big Blast” as an explanation (qtd. in Clark 1998, 366). Hynek (1977, 154) concurred.
Advertising plane. Newspapers in the Exeter area ascribed the lights to “a flying billboard”—an ad plane—owned by the Sky-Lite Aerial Advertising Agency of Boston. The Amesbury (Massachusetts) News thus claimed the UFO “has finally been identified!” But alas, that plane was on the ground between August 21 and September 10, and furthermore it bore no red flashing lights, instead having “a rectangular sign carrying white flashing lights” (Fuller 1966, 51).
Corona discharge from power lines. The late UFO skeptic Philip J. Klass agreed that the eyewitnesses had indeed seen something unusual, but he speculated that “the Exeter UFOs” (including the one seen by Muscarello and the two police officers) might have been “power-line coronas,” that is, clear-weather plasmas (luminous clouds of ionized air) that were generated by electrical charges emanating from high-tension power lines (Klass 1968, 12–25). This clearly did not explain the original Exeter incident, and Klass later backed away from his “plasma UFOs” theory (see Clark 1998, 366).
Prank with lighted kite. Skeptical UFO buff Martin Kottmeyer (1996) weighed in with the notion that a prankster flew a kite, most likely “a large box kite” with “five strobe flashers linked to a sequencer” that “hung along the kite-line rather than a tail” (thus accounting for the observed sixty-degree angle). However, not only is the kite hypothesis cut from whole cloth, but the imagined prankster seems to have gone to considerable effort for such a deserted place and time.
Other objects. Still other possible candidates were proposed—helicopter, balloon, civilian plane—but nothing seemed likely.
As Jerome Clark summed up in his The UFO Encyclopedia (1998, 366) after noting the case had received much notoriety, “The attention ensured that this particular close encounter of the first kind would be remembered in a way few have been. Still, by any standard the sighting remains puzzling and impressive.”

Perceptions

People misperceive—especially when they suddenly encounter something that is unknown, is seen under adverse conditions, and frightens them. Recall that at Exeter the unidentified lights were so bright that witnesses could not make out the shape of the UFO. Not knowing the craft’s size, its altitude, or its distance from the viewer—that is, with multiple unknowns—a witness has no basis for estimating any of these factors. And Exeter witnesses were indeed afraid: a woman who felt she was being chased by a UFO had pulled off the road; a teenage witness arriving at the police station was white and shaking; and one officer admitted he almost shot at the bright lights.
Consider that even something as distant as a meteor hundreds of miles away, passing out of sight behind trees, can seem to have landed in a nearby woodland—a common illusion. The brightness of the Exeter UFO’s lights (greater than that of a mere airplane and ultimately providing a clue to its identity) probably made the craft seem much closer than it really was.
Consider, too, that something that is frightening tends to loom large in one’s consciousness. Chad Marsolek of the University of Minnesota, an expert in memory distortion, describes a “weapon-focus effect.” This may cause an eyewitness who is focusing on something frightening (such as the barrel of a gun) to lose focus on other elements. As it happens, when people view a disturbing image they tend to be confident of their accuracy—even when their memory is wrong (Marsolek 2010).
All of these issues apply to the Exeter incident. However, much of what the eyewitnesses described was still accurate, as we shall see presently.

Solved!

For forty-five years the incident at Exeter remained unsolved. Then, while we were working together on some ongoing UFO research, one of us (Joe Nickell), an investigator and science writer, recalled the cold case to the other (James McGaha), an astronomer and former military pilot. We brainstormed the case, shared sources, and discussed details—soon agreeing that one particular element held the key to the solution. We might call it (with homage to Hardy Boys’ mysteries) “The Clue of the Sequencing Lights.”
U.S. Air Force KC-97 refueling tanker
As it happens, the military pilot of our team has actually docked with a craft like the UFO at Exeter, and he recognized the sequencing lights for what they surely were: those on a U.S. Air Force KC-97 refueling plane. To check his memory and obtain photos (figures 1–3), he visited an aerospace museum. Like seeing an old friend, he gazed on a mothballed KC-97 tanker (figure 1) whose fuselage is arrayed with a row of five red sequencing lights (figure 2). These would reflect onto the refueling boom (figure 3), which (according to the flight manual) when lowered is inclined at sixty-four degrees.
Figure 1. A U.S. Air Force KC-97 refueling tanker like this one became an unintentional UFO, sparking the “Exeter Incident” of September 3, 1965.
Just this type of craft operated out of Strategic Air Command bomber bases like that of Pease AFB and, indeed, would surely have been involved in a SAC/NORAD training exercise like that dubbed “Big Blast” of September 2–3, 1965. But what about the “fact” that this exercise—which was ongoing in the skies over Exeter at the time of the first sightings—had supposedly ended about an hour before Muscarello and officer Bertrand had their “close encounter”?1 It seems quite apparent that, although the particular exercise was reportedly over, there were still planes in the sky. Bertrand and Hunt, in fact, witnessed a B-47 jet at about the time the UFO disappeared (Fuller 1966, 67). Perhaps it had just refueled.
underbelly of the KC-97Figure 2. On the underbelly of the KC-97 are (closest to the camera) a set of three high-intensity lights and (farther from the viewer) the five red panels of sequencing lights. (These were described by eyewitnesses as “five bright red lights” that “flashed on one at a time,” specifically “pulsating: one, two, three, four, five, four, three, two, one.”)
The airborne refueling process of the KC-97 is both interesting and relevant. Briefly, it involved the KC-97 making long circuits of the rendezvous area. As the jet to be refueled began to approach, the boom was lowered and the receiver (sequencing) lights were turned on. However, when the jet was in very close proximity, the receiver lights were turned low; otherwise their extreme brightness would temporarily blind the approaching pilot. (The sequencing stopped as the aircraft hooked up.) There would be some jockeying as the two planes connected, and all of this could look exceedingly strange to an observer on the ground.
Thus, on one of its long passes the slow-moving KC-97 could have seemed to be “chasing” the first eyewitness on Route 101. It was subsequently seen by young Muscarello and, later still, Bertrand, with its boom down at its characteristic angle. This boom, which bore its own small wings (again, see figure 3), would actually flutter in the air currents (except when specifically being controlled by the boom operator), which no doubt explains eyewitness Muscarello’s statement that the UFO “acted at times like a floating leaf.” Most notable were the tanker’s five red lights, which were flashing—in the sequence accurately described by the two witnesses—one, two, three, four, five, four, three, two, one. The extreme brightness of the lights, rendering other features of the object indistinguishable from the ground, is further corroborative evidence of the UFO’s identification as a KC-97 refueling plane.
Underneath the KC-97Figure 3. Underneath the KC-97 is also a refueling boom (shown here in stowed position). When down, the boom is at an angle consistent with the sixty degrees an eyewitness reported (specifically sixty-four degrees, according to the flight manual). The sequencing lights would reflect onto the boom, which would flutter “like a floating leaf” when not controlled by the boom operator (note its small wings). (Photos by James McGaha)
Why did the Pentagon not solve the case at the time? Perhaps in the welter of paperwork the clue we found so significant went unseen by anyone who could fully grasp its import and who had time to devote to the case. Naturally, everything is much clearer in hindsight.
We believe this solves the so-called incident at Exeter. As to the weeks of subsequent UFO reports in the vicinity, they were beyond the scope of our investigation. (See Fuller 1966; Sheaffer 1986, 111–19.) As our work shows, “cold cases” may be solvable with perseverance and some luck, keeping in mind that luck is most likely to come to those who go looking for it.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank James Stemm, curator of the Pima Air and Space Museum, and Tim Binga, director of the Center for Inquiry Libraries, for their help with this investigative project.

Note

1. Hynek (1977, 154) misstated the situation when he wrote that “Operation Big Blast terminated more than an hour before the incident at Exeter began.” He should have said that the operation was in progress during the earlier sightings but had reportedly ended about an hour before Bertrand (1965) witnessed the UFO.
FONT-CSI

UFO OVNI ETS ·The Valentich Disappearance: Another UFO Cold Case Solved

The Valentich Disappearance: Another UFO Cold Case Solved

USE TRANSLATE
Valentich with a Cessna
  • Email

Feature

James McGaha and Joe Nickell

Skeptical Inquirer Volume 37.6, November/December 2013

What did he see? The missing piece of the puzzle in a strange ‘UFO’ case involving the crash of a young pilot off Australia has been identified.
What is known as the “Valentich disappearance” is a strange occurrence in the annals of UFOlogy, one never satisfactorily explained—until now. One of us (Nickell) was asked to look into the case for a television show, and he queried the other (McGaha) who came up with the missing piece of the puzzle (as perhaps only someone who was both a pilot and astronomer could do).
The story begins in Australia about 19:00 hours (7:00 PM), or shortly after sunset (6:43 PM), on October 21, 1978. A young man named Frederick “Fred” Valentich—who had left Victoria’s Moorabbin airport at 18:19 (6:19 PM)—was piloting a light airplane, a rented single-engine Cessna 182L (registration VH-DSJ) over Bass Strait, heading southeastwardly for King Island. When what he thought was another aircraft seemed to pass over him, he radioed Melbourne Air Flight Service, and spoke with controller Steve Robey. Here is the (slightly abridged) exchange (with punctuation and capitalization added), taken from the transcript of the audiotape (beginning at 19:06:14):
Valentich: Is there any known traffic below five thousand [feet]?
Robey: No known traffic.
V: I am—seems [to] be a large aircraft below five thousand.
R: What type of aircraft is it?
V: I cannot affirm. It is [sic] four bright, it seems to me like landing lights. . . . The aircraft has just passed over me at least a thousand feet above.
R: Roger, and it, it is a large aircraft? Confirm.
V: Er, unknown due to the speed it’s traveling. Is there any Air Force aircraft in the vicinity?
R: No known aircraft in the vicinity.
V: It’s approaching right now from due east towards me. . . . [Silence for 2 seconds.] It seems to me that he’s playing some sort of game. He’s flying over me two, three times, at a time at speeds I could not identify.
R: Roger. What is your actual level?
V: My level is four and a half thousand. Four five zero zero.
R: And confirm you cannot identify the aircraft.
V: Affirmative.
R: Roger. Stand by.
V: It’s not an aircraft. It is—[Silence for 2 seconds.]
R: Can you describe the, er, aircraft?
V: As it’s flying past, it’s a long shape. [Silence for 3 seconds.] [Cannot] identify more than [that it has such speed]. [Silence for 3 seconds.] [It is] before me right now, Melbourne.
R: And how large would the, er, object be?
V: It seems like it’s stationary.1 What I’m doing right now is orbiting, and the thing is just orbiting on top of me also. It’s got a green light and sort of metallic. [Like] it’s all shiny [on] the outside. [Silence for 5 seconds.] It’s just vanished. . . . Would you know what kind of aircraft I’ve got? Is it military aircraft?
R: Confirm the, er, aircraft just vanished.
V: Say again.
R: Is the aircraft still with you?
V: [It’s, ah, nor-] [Silence for 2 seconds.] [Now] approaching from the southwest. . . . The engine is, is rough idling. I’ve got it set at twenty three twenty four, and the thing is—coughing.
R: Roger. What are your intentions?
V: My intentions are, ah, to go to King Island. Ah, Melbourne, that strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again. [Silence for 2 seconds.] It is hovering, and it’s not an aircraft. [Silence for 17 seconds, open microphone, with audible, unidentified staccato noise. End of transcript.] ( Aircraft Accident 1982. See also Good 1988, 175–77; Chalker 1998, 964; Haines and Norman 2000; Baker 2000, 248)
Some versions of the transcript fail to match that of the accident report in important details. For example, instead of “[It is] before me right now,” one source (Chalker 2001, 629) gives “. . . coming for me right now.”
The communication ended about 19:12:49. Although an intensive air, land, and sea search was carried out until October 25, no trace of the Cessna was found. An oil slick discovered on October 22, some eighteen miles north of King Island, “was not established as having any connection with Valentich’s plane” (Good 1988, 178). The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation released its findings in May 1982, stating that “The reason for the disappearance of the aircraft has not been determined,” but that the outcome was “presumed fatal” (Aircraft Accident 1982). Suicide? Staged disappearance? Alien attack or abduction? Drug runners’ shootdown? Electrical discharge from a cloud igniting gas fumes? There were many “theories,” including those of “psychics” (Chalker 1998, 966–67; “Valentich” 2013). However, none seemed to explain both the disappearance and the lights. To understand what happened, we need to look more closely at Fred Valentich.

The Pilot

Fred Valentich was a twenty-year-old, inexperienced flyer with only about 150 total hours flying time and a class-four instrument rating (which meant he could operate at night but only “in visual meteorological conditions” [Aircraft Accident 1982]). He had twice been rejected by the Royal Australian Air Force, due to inadequate education. Having obtained a private pilot license in September 1977, he was studying part time for a commercial pilot’s license.
Unfortunately, he had failed all five of his exam subjects—not once but twice—and, just the month before, again failed three subjects. Further, his involvement in three flying incidents came to the attention of officials: once he received a warning for having strayed into restricted air space, and twice he was cited for deliberately flying blindly into a cloud, for which he was under threat of prosecution (Sheaffer 2013; “Valentich” 2013). In brief, Valentich may have been an accident waiting to happen.
Valentich with a CessnaValentich with a Cessna, similar to the aircraft he disappeared in.
Moreover, the young pilot was enthralled with UFOs, watching films and accumulating articles on the topic. Earlier that year, according to his father, Valentich had himself observed a UFO moving away very fast. And he had expressed to his father his worry about what could happen if such presumed extraterrestrial craft should ever attack (Sheaffer 2013; “Valentich” 2013). As we shall see, his deep belief in flying saucers may have contributed to his death—and not in the way some saucer buffs imagine.
Some thought Valentich might have staged his disappearance, but the evidence does not support that hypothesis (Good 1988, 180). Nevertheless Valentich did give two contradictory reasons for his flight to King Island: (1) to pick up some friends (as he told flight officials), or (2) to pick up crayfish. However, these reasons were found to be untrue (Aircraft Accident 1982; “Valentich” 2013). Valentich had not even followed standard procedure to inform King Island airport of his intent to land there (“Disappearance” 2013).
So what was Valentich really up to—in addition to wanting to log more hours of flying experience? Possibly he had decided to look for UFOs again but, rather than admit that, offered others more legitimate-sounding reasons for his flight. In short, he may not simply have encountered a UFO but instead went looking for one. If so, his “encounter” is not surprising. As a “True Believer,” observes Robert Sheaffer (2013, 27), Valentich was “probably inclined to assume anything is a ‘UFO’ if he could not immediately identify it.”
So what did the young pilot see? Having clear skies, he described four bright lights that he mistakenly (as he later admitted) first thought were an airplane’s “landing lights” (that is, white points of light). They were above him and—except for his own movements (more on this later)—seemed to be just “hovering.” Then twice and quite correctly, he realized “it” was definitely “not an aircraft.”
As it happens, a computer search of the sky for the day, time, and place of Valentich’s flight reveals that the four points of bright light he would almost certainly have seen were the following: Venus (which was at its very brightest), Mars, Mercury, and the bright star Antares. These four lights would have represented a diamond shape, given the well-known tendency of viewers to “connect the dots,” and so could well have been perceived as an aircraft or UFO. In fact, the striking conjunction was shaped as a vertically elongated diamond, thus explaining Valentich’s saying of the UFO that “it’s a long shape.”
As to the UFO’s other characteristics, the “metallic” or “shiny” appearance could have been due to the power of suggestion alone. Having connected the dots, Valentich would likely have gone on to fill in the area as solid, even “metallic.” We must remember that Valentich’s impressions are those of someone who was confused about what he was seeing.
The “green light” could have been part of this confusion also. Remember, Valentich’s first description of the UFO involved only four bright white lights; he made no mention at that time of a green one. It could actually have been nothing more than the Cessna’s own navigation light on its right wing tip. That green light—or its reflection on the windshield—could easily have been superimposed onto the UFO sighting.
A witness on the ground, who de­scribed having seen a green light just above Valentich’s plane, had not mentioned that aspect of his story at the time. However, many years later—after the green light was made public—he did mention the detail, but he is only identified by a pseudonym. Nevertheless, he said (in the words of his interviewers) that “Its color was similar to the navigation lights on an airplane” (Haines and Norman 2000, 26)! If the Cessna was indeed close enough to the land as to be seen by the man and his two nieces, there is a simple explanation: that the airplane’s attitude (a steep angle of bank) was such that its right wing tip was up, and so its green navigation light appeared above the Cessna. As the witness stated, the light was positioned “like it was riding on top of the airplane,” and it kept a constant position, according to the witnesses (Haines and Norman 2000, 26). But again, there are problems with the main witness’s description. As his interviewers acknowledge, his “recollection of the angular size of the airplane’s lights is too large by perhaps several orders of magnitude” (Haines and Norman 2000, 28). (Incidentally, misreadings by amateur writers have now converted Valentich’s “green light” into multiple “green lights” [e.g., “Disappearance” 2013].)
But what about the UFO’s movements when it was not “hovering”? It is now clear—since we have identified the UFO as probably a conjunction of four celestial lights—that it was not the UFO moving in relation to the plane but rather the opposite: the plane moving in relation to the stationary lights. There is actually evidence from the transcript that this is so. After the UFO has repeatedly seemed to fly over him, Valentich says, “What I’m doing right now is orbiting, and the thing is just orbiting on top of me.”
This points to what was really happening to the poor inexperienced pilot. Distracted by the UFO, he may then have been deceived by the illusion of a tilted horizon. That can happen when the sun has gone down but still brightens part of the horizon, while, of course, the rest of it gets gradually darker farther away. This imbalance of lighting can cause the horizon to appear tilted, so that, in compensating by “leveling” the wings, the pilot inadvertently begins—not to orbit (circle), but to spiral downward—at first slowly, then with increasing acceleration.
At a most critical time therefore, when he should have been in fully alert mode, paying attention to his instruments, he was instead engaged in something that was extremely distracting: flying while excitedly focusing on, and talking about, a UFO. This, as we can now see, was a recipe for disaster. With Valentich succumbing to spatial disorientation, his plane (like that of young John F. Kennedy Jr. over two decades later) began what is aptly termed a “graveyard spiral.”
Further corroboration of this may come from the pilot’s statement that the engine was “rough idling”—just seconds away from his final contact. The plane’s moving in a tightening spiral would cause an increase of G-forces with a consequent decrease in fuel flow, resulting in the engine’s rough running. Or, at that point, the Cessna may have already inverted, producing the same effect because that plane had a gravity-fed fuel system.
Not surprisingly, Valentich’s airplane going missing while he was radioing a UFO report prompted talk of extraterrestrials and abduction. Indeed, it spawned later reports of other UFOs allegedly seen on the night of the Cessna’s disappearance. These provoked a skeptical Ken Williams, spokesperson of the Department of Transport, to tell a reporter, “It’s funny all these people ringing up with UFO reports well after Valentich’s disappearance” (“Pilot Missing” 1978).
Just a month after the disappearance, the pilot of another Cessna sighted the outline of what he believed was a submerged aircraft, but on another pass over, he was unable to confirm that observation (Good 1988, 178). Now thanks to yeoman’s work by Australian researcher Keith Basterfield, who rediscovered the “lost” official case file, we have new information. As he explains, “parts of aircraft wreckage with partial matching serial numbers were found in Bass Strait five years after the disappearance.” (Qtd. in Sheaffer 2013, 27.)
Fred Valentich’s UFO has now been identified. That is, we can show that a group of four bright lights, consistent with his description, was within his sight at the time he was reporting his UFO. This is the long missing piece of the puzzle that awaited solving because the case required expertise from astronomy as well as aeronautics.
The identification underscores the inescapable fact that the disappearance was simply a fatal crash. Ironically, it might never have occurred but for the young pilot’s fascination with UFOs. If not actually the reason for his evening flight, as we suspect, the fascination nevertheless was part of why it ended tragically.
We can now reread the transcript of the exchanges between Valentich and an air traffic controller with a new understanding. In our mind’s eye we watch in horror as—distracted and disoriented—the young pilot unexpectedly enters the “graveyard spiral” that carries him to his death. n
FONT-CSI

UFO OVNI ETS · MEXICO-Yucatan residents claim to have UFO wreckage.

USE TRANSLATE.


Yucatan residents claim to have UFO wreckage

Probable UFO damage.
(Click on the image to enlarge)
According to news published on the Mexican site  johnnyoliverquintal.blogspot.mx , an unidentified flying object exploded on the Yucatan border with Quinana Roo in Mexico, and residents of the area would have recovered the debris from the object. "God knows what that is, because I do not know what it is.
According to the people of Ichmul, they are extraterrestrial beings, and they saw many lights in the sky and they were frightened thinking that it was the end of the world ... and according to them it was a flying saucer ... ", said Gloria Pool about the event.
The blast would have occurred on Sunday, September 22, at night, when many lights were reported being seen in the sky and one of them would have fallen, exploded and ruptured high voltage cables.
 The strange appearance provoked a riot among the inhabitants of the region and the residents assure that an extraterrestrial being died in the impact.
According to another website,  yucatan.com.mx , on Monday, the Municipal Police of the village reported that elements of the Mexican Army flew over the municipalities of the region in search of the alleged UFO. The helicopters would have flown at low altitude on Tuesday. It is said that the military took pieces recovered from the said object.
So far we have not received further information about the incident. Meanwhile, see some photos of the alleged wreckage below:



Alegado alienígena. Seria mera pareidolia?
(Clique na imagem para amplia-la)

Moradores examinam destroços Alienígena.
(Clique na imagem para amplia-la)

Destroços de uma Nave Alienígena?.
(Clique na imagem para amplia-la)


Vídeo: OVNI Caiu em Yucatan no México? 1/2

Vídeo: OVNI Caiu em Yucatan no México? 2/2

Fonte: johnnyoliverquintal.blogspot.mx,  yucatan.com.mx
Editado por: Arquivo X do Brasil

domingo, 13 de agosto de 2017

UFO OVNI ETS ·OVNI-Que sucedió en Tacuarembó en 1973?

sábado, 11 de octubre de 2014   -USE TRANSLATE


¿Que sucedió en Tacuarembó en 1973?

A continuación presentaremos el caso completo que acaba de salir hace menos de 24 horas por el canal ''History Channel'' en la serie ''Contacto Extraterrestre'' el cual trata en gran parte acerca de lo sucedido en Tacuarembó, Uruguay en 1973.
Datos publicados por la misma persona que lo investigó en su momento, Luis Burgos.



Introducción

El incidente de marras culmina con 11 años de seguimiento investigativo. Desde aquel 1977 que viajamos por primera vez a Tacuarembó, hasta 1988 con la OPERACIÓN RESCATE. Pero semejante espera tuvo su premio, ya que los 165 gramos de restos metálicos traídos desde Uruguay, sobre un total de 4,700 kilogramos recolectados, pasan a constituirse en un RECORD ARGENTINO DE PESQUISAS (y del mundo?), si nos atenemos a los menos de 20 gramos recogidos del promocionado caso Ubatuba, Brasil (1957) y de otros similares…


Comienza la historia...

Una tarde de mayo de 1973, en momentos que llovía a mares en las cuchillas uruguayas de Pueblo Achar, pequeña localidad rural del departamento de Tacuarembó, una gran explosión, "similar a la caída de un rayo", se percibió en los alrededores de la estancia arrendada por Isidro Tito, hecho que fue acompañado por un fuerte olor “como a cable quemado…”

OVNI a la vista...

Paralelamente, varios pobladores ubicados en distintos sitios del pueblo y caminos adyacentes, ven descender “como un globo de luz rojiza” que se perdió tras las cuchillas. En completo silencio y sin maniobras extrañas, el fenómeno no presentaba una caída libre y su tamaño era apreciable...

Las evidencias físicas

       
A la mañana siguiente, don Isidro Tito, sale a recorrer el campo tratando a la vez, de localizar la supuesta caída “del rayo de anoche”. Pero grande fue la sorpresa al toparse con extraño pozo con pedregullo que semejaba a un cráter. La formación consistía en un boquete de 50 cm. de profundidad, aún cubiertos por agua, en cuyo alrededor se levantaba un montículo de piedras que se esparcían en un diámetro de 6 metros. De sus bordes, se extendían 8 surcos de unos 30/40 cm. de ancho y 12 metros de largo. Parecía como el molde de “una rueda de un carro de caballos”. La impronta de estos rayos en el terreno no pasaba el par de centímetros. Tanto en el cráter como en dichos surcos se observaba un polvillo blancuzco, similar al talco y en los alrededores, se notaba gran cantidad de pequeñas partículas "como de hierro rallado" (limaduras).
Conocido el suceso en el pueblo, el Sr. Leonel Montes de Oca junto a los vecinos Rodríguez y Fagundez, todos interesados en la problemática OVNI, empezaron a investigar la huella, comprobando que poseía un interesante campo magnético, superior al que desde ya contiene el suelo zonal, compuesto de la rojiza losa basáltica debido al hierro.
Pero salvo los curiosos lugareños, atraídos por la historia de que según Montes de Oca y su gente había un OVNI enterrado, NADIE (léase bien, NADIE) se apersonó en aquellos desolados parajes y por lo tanto, el caso fue pasando al olvido...

 Los OVNIS siempre vuelven...


De allí nuestra Hipótesis Decimal. Pero lo concreto es que en los primeros meses de 1976, comienzan a visualizarse en varias localidades del Departamento de Tacuarembó repetitivas manifestaciones OVNI. Así las cosas, llegan reportes de Peralta, Curtina,  Arroyo del Medio, etc., que tienen su pico máximo en la segunda mitad del año, cuando una verdadera “invasión de Ovnis” se abate en la región. Pero había un epicentro. Y era Achar.  Y en Achar estaba el cráter de otrora. Y en los alrededores del cráter se formaba las 100 marcas de aterrizajes... Y estas huellas eran idénticas a las de otros descensos de platillos. Circulares, ovales y hasta una herradura de 18 metros, todas con un pasto verde intenso y la siempre presencia de hongos alrededor, adornaban un paisaje atípico. A partir de ese momento, el Fenómeno se extiende y llega al Departamento de Salto, también con las mismas características. Y nace por ende, el caso La Aurora. Pero eso es otra historia... con algo de SI, con algo de NO, con algo...

Y viajamos...

Una vez establecidos los contactos con Montes de Oca y preocupados por lo que nos contaba, decidimos llegar al lugar, sea como sea...
Pero... ¿qué nos decía don Leonel en sus cartas? Avistajes todas las noches, decenas de marcas en los campos, fotografías y hasta una película obtenida que había sido “retenida” por los militares, que ya a esta altura, estaban merodeando y tapando lo que afirmaban los vecinos de ese y otros pueblos, era parte de la correspondencia recibida, amén de la visita de un arqueólogo americano (?). En fin, el caso presentaba todo lo que se puede pedir.

Y llegamos...

Y después de largas peripecias por tierras uruguayas llegamos a Pueblo Achar a principios de 1977. Mis compañeros Daniel Galatro y Omar Becerro tenían las mismas expectativas que yo. La noche era tranquila. El micro que une la ruta Tacuarembó - Montevideo paró y nos bajamos en medio de una total oscuridad. No se distinguía una luz. Minutos después observamos luces que se acercaban. Y un grito: "¿Burgos?". Era Montes de Oca y "Pinocho" Rodríguez. Avisados por la Policía del pueblo, que habían recibido la comunicación desde Tacuarembó nos habían ido a recoger. Pero lo curioso es que hacía una hora y pico, “había pasado el Ovni de todas las noches”. Así de simple. Como tren que para en una estación diariamente. O quizás, mejor. De allí que estaban con los largavistas al cuello "para verlo mejor..."


Investigación In Situ

Por la mañana iniciamos las investigaciones. Decenas de testimonios de los avistajes coincidían en sus descripciones: "como una luna rojiza..."
Las huellas en los campos superaban las 100 y se constituían en un nuevo record mundial, luego desplazado por las 150 marcas de Atalaya, Provincia de Buenos Aires, en 1985. Algunas fotos si bien no eran determinantes, resultaban interesantes. Del famoso film, "ni rastros", y aún muchos vecinos mostraban cierta reticencia para declarar. Ocurre que el paso de los militares por la zona había hecho “olvidar” algunos avistamientos OVNI...
Así las cosas, concentramos el eje del estudio en las 2 pruebas de mayor consistencia: el cráter y las huellas. Atrás quedaban ya los relatos de objetos luminosos que subían y bajaban, que aterrizaban, los OVNIS transparentes, la noche en que un sinfín de "puntos de luz, similares a luciérnagas, que emitían rayos lumínicos" invadieron el pueblo, los contactos con extraterrestres, etc. En otras palabras, prácticamente ratificábamos lo que Montes de Oca nos había comentado...



El cráter

Si bien el paso de los años había deformado el pozo original, ya que no se notaban los surcos ni menos aún, polvillo y limaduras de hierro, comprobamos que el montículo de tierra conservaba su forma, inclusive con su centro de algunos centímetros de profundidad. Pero hubo dos confirmaciones significativas:

1. Las piedras del cráter, efectivamente, estaban “QUEMADAS” y se partían ante el menor esfuerzo, contrastando con el pedregullo del exterior, totalmente consistente, de gran dureza, propio del hierro de las cuchillas uruguayas.

2. En el centro del pozo la brújula se desviaba 40º al Este, o sea, aún tenía magnetismo.
Estos dos puntos, sumado a los continuos avistajes zonales y la concentración de marcas en la superficie nos daban pie de que "algo" podría estar enterrado y que ese "algo" también era preocupación de los OVNIS que revoloteaban desde hacía varios meses. Ocurre que la huella original era tan elocuente que invalidaba de hecho, la caída de un rayo (generalmente produce una V en el terreno), la caída de un resto satelitario (produce surco o hundimiento) y la caída a tierra de un meteorito (tal vez, lo mas parecido, pues produce una especie de cráter o pozo). ¿Pero que elemento produce una marca con 8 rayos de 12 metros cada uno, quema las piedras, libera un polvillo y limaduras, y magnetiza la superficie?

Las huellas

Del CENTENAR, la herradura de 18 metros de diámetro resulta la más jugosa. Al igual que todas, verde resaltante, de un espesor de 30 cm. y con hongos en derredor (los famosos Calvatia Lilacina), se levantaba con su abertura central desde una cuchilla, días después que desde una finca de las proximidades vieran posarse "una gran luminosidad..."
Pero animales e insectos zonales nos confirmaban la presencia anómala. Según don Isidro Tito, el ganado prefería más el pasto de la huella que el del resto del campo. Y este hecho lo comprobamos incluso, en otros casos de descensos donde las liebres se comen dicho pasto... y de paso lo mantienen cortito. ¿Cómo sabemos eso? Por la notable cantidad de excrementos que encontramos en las marcas, que disminuye en los alrededores.
También, otro fenómeno nos llamó la atención: un hormiguero había quedado dentro de uno de los bordes de la huella, pero dividido con una mitad en el borde y la otra, afuera. Ahora bien, las hormigas que vivían en la parte externa, abandonaron las celdillas y se fueron a las de la parte afectada. Con sólo observar el hormiguero se distinguía perfectamente la distinta coloración de la tierra.

Y nos volvimos

Con material para el análisis (tierra, piedras del cráter, hongos, etc.) y una suposición que cada vez se acercaba más a la realidad: “algo” había enterrado. Por ello, alentamos a Don Leonel y su gente, a que una vez conseguido los elementos de labranza necesarios, se dispongan a cavar el pozo... Sólo faltaba una muestra, para que el caso se convirtiera en casi perfecto...

Pero el tiempo pasó...

Y la escasa correspondencia que recibíamos (y no por culpa de Montes de Oca) se cortó a mediados de 1980 con una misiva proveniente de Tambores, otra pequeña localidad al norte de Achar. En ella, don Leonel nos informaba que se había mudado allí pero aquello que "suponíamos del cráter" había arrojado sus frutos: 4,700 kilogramos de material "duro como el acero y liviano como el aluminio" era el premio rescatado por esta gente uruguaya, merced a su esfuerzo y tesón.
De allí en más, una sola idea daba vuelta por mi cabeza: volver a Tacuarembó... y máxime ahora, donde me aguardaban unos gramos metálicos de ese OVNI de 1973. Pero el tiempo inexorablemente seguía transcurriendo y las cartas no llegaban a destino. En más de una oportunidad, estuvimos a punto de viajar, a punto, solamente.

Y 15 años no es nada...

Pues a mediados de 1988 organizábamos la denominada “Operación Rescate”. Quizás el título pareciera sensacionalista, pero la investigación posterior lo ratificaría. Ocurre que al no tener contacto epistolar con Tambores, no sabíamos siquiera si Montes de Oca aún vivía (físicamente), si se había trasladado o qué...
Por tanto, el 24 de Junio (¿les dice algo la fecha elegida?) partimos hacia Uruguay. Junto a Juan Izetta (FAO La Plata), Claudio Visso (grupo CIFEP), Daniel López y Mario Ceperda (FAO Buenos Aires) y la asesora en Psicología/Parapsicología, Ana Pirali, iniciamos la ida en el móvil de esta última. Luego de interminables horas de viaje, de soportar la pérdida del cambio de la divisa a dinero uruguayo, de admirar el paisaje de los cerros y puentes de la ruta Paysandú - Tacuarembó, y de algunas anécdotas, por fin llegamos a Tambores. Y no fue difícil encontrar a Don Leonel. Bastó con preguntar si había en el pueblo algún interesado en los Ovnis para que la respuesta fuera contundente: "Allí enfrente vive Montes de Oca. El suele andar con esas historias..."
Y luego de la emoción del reencuentro, de la increíble amabilidad de él y su familia, de las primeras conversaciones, nos instalamos en el hotel que da justo frente a su residencia, que también es Oficina del Correo de Tambores, o sea, su lugar de trabajo. Pero hete aquí un hecho curioso, que verán posteriormente su importancia: la calle principal del pueblo divide a los departamentos de Tacuarembó y Paysandú. Es decir, que Montes de Oca vivía en Tacuarembó y nosotros estábamos en Paysandú...
Por la noche, asado mediante, comenzamos con la reubicación de los episodios a partir de 1973, los que podemos resumir así:

1. Desde 1978 a 1985 hay un período prácticamente nulo en avistaje OVNI.

2. Este se reactiva a partir del invierno de 1985, pero siempre en menor medida que antes.

3. A los pocos meses de partir nosotros, allá por 1977, excavaron y extrajeron efectivamente, los restos metálicos en cuestión...

4. Estos elementos no conservaban, una vez extraídos, magnetismo alguno (?).

5. Por aquella época, una vez se apersonó un coronel israelí junto a miembros de su embajada en Uruguay (?)... año 1978.

6. Nos ratificó, una vez más, la presencia en la "Estancia Churchill", de la región, de una comisión científica china que no permitían entrar a nadie (?)... año 1976.

7. Que hubo en aquel tiempo, encuentros con seres extraterrestres y que inclusive, él mismo, había tenido una experiencia de ese tipo (por ser un tema complejo y que puede o no tener relación, lo dejo para otra oportunidad).

8. Que por Tambores también habían ocurrido algunos descensos y que aún estaban las marcas (hecho que comprobamos al observar una “herradura”, color verde, de unos 10 metros de diámetro, pegada a una alambrada, que debía tener cierto tiempo, pues ya se estaba borrando...).

9. Que solamente había un par de personas en el pueblo, interesadas en el tema, y que solía verse con la gente de Achar, distante a unos 140 km. al sur, pues estaban construyendo una edificación para el grupo investigativo, al que habían instalado un mirador para ubicar allí un telescopio (sin dudas, el espíritu investigativo seguía "vivo" en Don Leonel).

10. Que de los "metales" extraídos, le quedaban aproximadamente 1,500 kg. pues muchos se habían llevado pedazos...

11. Que le habían dicho que fueron analizados en el Ministerio de Agronomía y que resultó "un compuesto metálico con materia orgánica y restos poliníferos (?). 

Sorpresas policiales


Pasada la medianoche, Claudio, Daniel, Juan y los hijos de Montes de Oca con otros chicos, se fueron al baile del pueblo. Claudio, que llevaba la cámara fotográfica, tomó un par de fotos de la reunión (orquesta, baile, etc.) y jamás pensó que "ese error de juventud" (frase que creo haber oído antes) le iba a costar tan caro. ¿Por qué? Sencillo. A la mañana, se apersonó un policía y me dijo que tenían que presentarse Claudio y Daniel. ¿El motivo? Habían sacado fotos sin autorización (?)...
Personalmente pensé que sería un trámite simple. "Un tirón de orejas y nada más". Pero me equivoqué. No sólo estuvieron demorados, sino interrogados de los pies a la cabeza, hasta el colmo de enterarnos que debían ser trasladados hasta el Juzgado de Tacuarembó, ya que si bien el baile fue en jurisdicción de ese departamento, la sub-comisaría estaba en el departamento de Paysandú y por ende, ellos tendrían que ser juzgados en donde habían cometido la falta (?)...
Pero evidentemente, había "algo más" detrás de este atropello. El oficial de turno me confiaba que “si no dejaba dos rollos de fotos no iba a salir de Uruguay (?)…”
Luego de idas y venidas, de haberse arruinado el viaje en parte y de cambiar un rollo por otro sin usar (trajimos sólo uno) y entregárselo a la policía, tomé la decisión de partir junto al resto del equipo, no sin antes confiar en la ayuda que podía brindarles Montes de Oca a los chicos, ya que el Correo estaba frente a la sub-comisaría y con la palabra del oficial de turno de que al día siguiente, lunes, una vez tomada la declaración iban a partir.


El regreso

En ese estado de cosas, y con la “mano medio pesada” emprendimos súbitamente el regreso. "No vaya a ser cosa de que estos milicos se enteren de que tenemos algunas piezas metálicas..." fue el pensamiento, al unísono, de todos. Es evidente que nuestra presencia en el lugar, había motivado entre los policías cierta inquietud. No sabían muy bien que habíamos ido a hacer por aquellos parajes, ni pensaron jamás que teníamos los metales. Sin dudas, algo de Ovnis era su preocupación, pero no era para tanto, ya que de haberlo sabido "todavía nos están corriendo..."
Con el único rollo de fotos que nos quedaba, en un bolsillo de mi campera, y con los restos del objeto regalados por Don Leonel, en el otro, raudamente el auto se desplazò por la ruta hasta que… la alconafta se agotó. Se hizo de noche y con los metales y rollo en mis bolsillos, solicité a no menos de veinte automovilistas, "algunas gotas de combustible...". Y entre uruguayos y algún brasileño, nos facilitaron la llegada a Paysandú. "Si pasamos el puente, seremos felices", escuché que alguien del grupo dijo. Y pasamos, no sin antes las lógicas preguntas de rigor en la Aduana: "¿Qué llevan?". A lo que respondí: "Nada importante. Restos de un PLATO VOLADOR...".
Y con el coche semi-fundido llegamos a Buenos Aires. Atrás quedaban los chicos, al que dos días después largaron, no sin antes pasearlos de comisaría en comisaría, deambulando por territorio desconocido. Según Daniel, le hizo recordar la película “La noche de los lápices” (desaparición de estudiantes). Que paradoja resultó el viaje. Por un lado, "estos resabios de la dictadura uruguaya", y por otro, la amabilidad de la gente del pueblo de Tambores, más herrero que rural, con sus escasos 1500 habitantes y nacido a fines de siglo pasado con la llegada del ferrocarril, debiendo su nombre o bien a la forma de tambor de los cerros o bien a los ruidos percibidos en una cuevas entre el arroyo Blanquillo y el río Queguay, a unos 4 km. del pueblo, que semejan precisamente, a efectos tamboriles...


Los análisis

Una vez instalados nuevamente, el estudio se orientó a determinar el compuesto de las piezas, por lo que primeramente le hicimos nuestro propio análisis:

Nº de piezas traídas 3
Peso (gramos) - Medida (centímetros)
Pieza 1: 10,94 - 3,8 x 2,6
Pieza 2:  41,61 - 6,0 x 4,0
Pieza 3:  113,08 - 10,3 x 6,0
Peso total (gramos) 165,63
Porcentaje del total de 4,700 kg. 3,51 %
Detección de sometimiento calórico Positivo. Presencia de burbujas.
Detección de magnetismo Negativo. Contradice la comprobación de 1973 (?)
Detección de radiactividad Negativo
Elemento químico No determinado. Se asemeja al aluminio.

Con tan poco elementos de juicio y con muchas dudas e inquietudes, nos dirigimos a realizar en dependencias idóneas, los primeros análisis científicos, cuyo arancel fue de A 300 (Trescientos Australes)… ("nadie te regala nada en la viña del Señor...").

Institución Instituto de Geología Aplicada (INGEA) de la Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, de la ciudad de La Plata
Catedrático responsable Licenciado Raúl E. de Barrio, geólogo, matrícula 1418


Examen mineralógico
1. Rayos X
2. Microscópico-calcográfico

Rayos X: Análisis difráctométrico por método del polvo, en difractómetro marca Rigaku, con tubo de cobre y filtro de níquel, a 1000 cps de escala y tiempo 1.
En el diagrama resultante se observa nítidamente 3 picos de intensidad correspondientes al Aluminio, según la ficha A. S. T. M.
Otro pico de menor intensidad, correspondiente al Titanio y un tercer pico, de muy baja intensidad, con valores no determinados.

Estudio calcográfico de probeta pulida: Se realizó un corte de feta de la muestra e inclusión en resina sintética, a los fines de hacer su devastación y pulido final, con abrasivos especiales y pasta de alúmina.


Se identificaron tres fases sólidas:

1. Un material de alta reflectividad, baja dureza y color blanquecino, que corresponde al Aluminio y es la base fundamental de la aleación.

2. Un material de mediana reflectividad, duro, gris azulado, que correspondería al Titanio.

3. Un material duro, de mediana reflectividad, gris blanquecino-azulado, que correspondería a las menores proporciones de la aleación.


Como resumen, entonces, podemos decir, que:

1. Los elementos son ARTIFICIALES, o sea, fueron construidos en laboratorios...

2. Que fueron sometidos a más de 660º C, pico donde comienza a fundirse el Aluminio.

3. Que el primer punto “INVALIDA” la posibilidad de que se tratase o bien de ALGO NATURAL DEL TERRENO o bien de un METEORITO, o sus restos (ausencia total de hierro).


4. Se nos recomendó realizar análisis complementarios específicos.

Por tanto, pasamos a otra entidad científica:

Institución Facultad de Ingeniería de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Área


Laboratorio de Metalúrgica del Departamento de Mecánica
Catedrático responsable Ingeniero Alfredo C. González

Exámenes

1. Composición química

2. Análisis metalográfico


Análisis químico:

Al 84,70 % Aluminio
Mg 5,50 % Magnesio
Cu 4,50 % Cobre
Si 3,90 % Silicio
Fe 0,80 % Hierro
Pb 0,25 % Plomo
Ti 0,15 % Titanio
Mn 0,15 % Manganeso
Zn 0,05 % Zinc
Ni Trazas Níquel

Análisis metalográfico: Realizado con microscopio óptico en un aumento de 150 x y sobre una muestra sin ataque químico y otra atacada con HF al 0,5 %.
Como resultado se concluye que la estructura corresponde a una aleación fundida, con segregación dentrítica típico de este tipo de proceso.


Como vemos, este segundo análisis, si bien mantiene unas pequeñas diferencias con el primero, especialmente en la proporción de Titanio, corrobora lo de la aleación artificial fundida y da mayores precisiones.

Pero para una mayor seguridad de lo actuado, le realizamos por intermedio de un asesor científico de nuestra Fundación , el profesor José Marengo ( ya fallecido), que cumplía funciones en la Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA) de Buenos Aires, una tercera verificación, que ratifica las anteriores:

Institución
Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA)

Sección
Difracción de Rayos X, Laboratorio de Microanálisis

Técnica utilizada
Microsonda electrónica (SX 50)

Va = 20 Kv
Im = 30 nA
Xtal 1 = PET
Xtal 2 = TAP
Xtal 3 = KAP
Xtal 4 = ODPB

Resultados: Se realizó un barrido con cada uno de los detectores a lo largo de todo su recorrido, con el objeto de detectar la composición de una muestra metálica. Se detectó la presencia de Aluminio como elemento fundamental, comparando cualitativamente su concentración con la del patrón, siendo sus niveles aproximadamente iguales.

Como vimos, la etapa de los análisis concluyó, pero lo más resaltante es que muy pocas veces en Ovnilogía se muestran exámenes de esta índole, claros, sin misterios, firmados por sus responsables y las entidades, corroborados varias veces, en fin...
Los investigadores están acostumbrados a que les vendan, resultados sorprendentes y sensacionalistas. "Los análisis dijeron tal cosa...", se suele leer y escuchar. Pero ¿dónde los hicieron? ¿quién los avaló? ¿cuántas firmas responsables hay? ¿cómo comprobamos su veracidad? etc.
Señores, aquí tenemos una FACULTAD,un MUSEO y un ORGANISMO OFICIAL que dieron su veredicto.
¿Cómo que no hay nada extraterrestre? ¿O acaso ud. pensaba que los estudios iban a arrojar elementos "desconocidos" en la Tierra? O que algún catedrático me abrazara y dijera: Lo felicito, Burgos, esto es de otro planeta.
A no confundirse, tal vez jamás estos estudios concluyan así. Los que evaluamos o no, la hipótesis extraterrestre, somos los que investigamos los hechos. No debemos caer en el facilismo de lo misterioso, de lo enigmático, de querer introducir nuevos elementos a la Tabla Periódica de Demetrio Mendeleieff. El Universo se compone exclusivamente de esos elementos y sus derivados, con mayor o menor pureza...

No esperemos de la ciencia clásica declaraciones de "pruebas extraterrestres" pues ni estos metales, ni los famosos hongos, ni la mayor o menor radiactividad y/o magnetismo, prueban o comprueban lo extraterrestre”, que por otra parte, es UNA alternativa de las varias que se manejan, para explicar el origen del Fenómeno OVNI. Lamentablemente, en Argentina, son pocos los análisis serios efectuados sobre evidencias físicas y pocos los que pensamos así. El caso Tacuarembó, prácticamente perfecto, nos mostró la punta del ovillo.


Autor: Luis Burgos
fuente: http://luisburgosovni.blogspot.com.ar/