23 October 2011

U.A.P. in Cerro Largo, Uruguay?

Cerro Largo is one of the 19 Departments in which is politically divided Uruguay (see map).

A professor together with students were working on a ranch, and he took pictures of the field and the people.

When he came home and looked at the pictures he took, he discovered to his surprise, an object for which initially he has no explanation. As a matter of fact, looking at the photos he also speaks about two objects.

There is already a video on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91MCmt1f6n4&feature=youtu.be

The video belongs to the local TV Channel 12.

Regretfully, as we have pointed out many times, before someone puts a video in YouTube, the experts should be called, and only if there is no conventional explanation for what was photographed, then it could go through YouTube.

The members of UAPSG in Uruguay are taking care of this case. Hopefully we will bring you news as soon as we have.

¿F.A.I. en Cerro Largo, Uruguay?

Cerro Largo es uno de los 19 Departamentos en los cuales está políticamente dividido Uruguay (ver mapa).

Un profesor junto con estudiantes estaba trabajando en una estancia, y tomó fotos del campo y de las personas.

Cuando regresó a su casa y vio las fotos que captó, descubrió para su sorpresa, un objeto para el cual inicialmente él no tiene explicación. Y en realidad, observando las fotos él también habla de dos objetos.

Ya hay un videoenYouTube:


El video pertenece al Canal Local TV 12.

Lamentablemente, como lo hemos señalado muchas veces, antes que alguien ponga un video en YouTube, los expertos deben ser llamados, y sólo si no hay una explicación convencional para lo que fue fotografiado, entonces puede ir por YouTube.

Los miembros del GEFAI en Uruguay están haciéndose cargo del caso. Esperamos poder brindar novedades tan pronto las tengamos.

20 October 2011

Water detected in protoplanetary disc

The presence of water in a protoplanetary disc is a top important finding to understand the universe evolution and the formation of planet with the important element.

The Herschel Space Observatory just made that discovery, which opens new perspectives in astrophysics.

Here is the report published this Thursday, October 20, 2011 by the E.S.A., N.A.S.A. and the Leiden Observatory.

Read it in:


Detectan agua en disco protoplanetario

La constatación de la presencia de agua en un disco protoplanetario, es un hallazgo de suma importancia para comprender la evolución del universo y la formación de planetas conteniendo el importante elemento.

El Observatorio Espacial Herschel acaba de hacer tal descubrimiento, lo que abre nuevas perspectivas a nivel astofísico.

A continuación, una traducción efectuada por Milton Hourcade de la publicación realizada este jueves 20 de Octubre de 2011, por la Agencia Espacial Europea, en conjunción con la NASA y el Observatorio Leiden


11 October 2011


Comments on “The Great Soviet UFO Coverup” - by James Oberg.

Although the first time this document was published was in 1982 by MUFON, later reproduced by Richard Hall, nevertheless, I personally got in contact with it recently.

I have found it so revealing that I did not hesitate to get in contact with Mr. Oberg and request his permission to translate it into Spanish, permission that was gently conceded.

Therefore, for the first time, the Spanish speaking UFO investigators and students will be able to have access to this very important work of Mr Oberg.

Quite frankly, I think that first of all, this is a clear example of what a UFO study is and how much it is useful to know the truth.

Secondly, Mr. Oberg represents the rational attitude, the scientific approach that one has to have to deal with the Unusual Aerial Phenomena.

This paper of Mr. Oberg shows many important things that succinctly I will refer to

1) As I have sustained in “OVNIs: La Agenda Secreta” and more recently in my latest book “In Search for Real UFOs” what was initially done by the military intelligence in the USA, in the ‘40s and ‘50s, was taken by other countries later (e.g. France, 1954, USSR, 1967 and after, and currently China). Namely, that the idea of UFOs as extra-terrestrial spaceships has been used to cover-up tests, experiments and operations of aircrafts, balloons, missiles, rockets, and military satellite launches.

2) By revealing certain data and manipulate other, the real facts that gave place to UFO reports by the general public, pilots and even astronomers (!) are enough distorted or hidden so that from official sources and much more from private investigators and organizations, the whole UFO subject is plagued with useless data that nevertheless appears as part of catalogues and statistics that really mean nothing, and which value is zero.

3) This is the true confusion in which for decades the UFO subject have been immersed, with the kind approval of authorities that let the show go on, the eager participation of UFO enthusiasts, and the giving of lectures, writing of books, and producing pseudo-documentaries, all to sustain fantastic stories that when well studied crumble by themselves.

4) In the particular case here studied by James Oberg, it is shown the complicity of the Soviet authorities to let the people think they are seeing alien spaceships, as a way to hide prohibited experiments with military satellites capable to put in orbit H bombs. How they let the Gindilis Report to go on, how they allow Felix Zigel to report fantastic stories in the magazine “Soviet Life” as well as how they became alarmed when they realized that certain published data –although under the UFO umbrella—could lead to suspect that they could really deal with space launches and experiments. Something like the alarm sounded by the Robertson Panel in the USA.

5) The other thing to emphasize and underline is –as Oberg points it very well-- the naïveté with which the renowned Dr. J. Allen Hynek as well as the prestigious Dr. Richard Haines (then at NASA, and later as chief of NARCAP) took all the Soviet cases and the Gindilis Report, as well as it was done by USMC Major (Ret.) Donald Keyhoe, Dr. James McDonald, and William Moore.

6) When here in the West we put our trust on some of these men and accept as truth what they present as “true-UFO” cases, better we should be aware that they generally do not operate under strict scientific bases, although some of them are scientists. On the contrary, what they do is to easily use data without submit it to a rigorous analysis –as Oberg did— they reproduce it and waste a lot of praise to the data, as well as to argument with very persuasive words as to convince us of the quality of the data itself, and the reality of something “out of this world”.

7) Some of the polar launches made from Plesetsk sent rockets over Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. In one occasion the burning of one stage of a rocket was seeing by people from Uruguay, and also by a pilot of Aerolineas Argentina who was flying at that moment and took the expansion of gases as a giant approaching UFO. The case was commercially exploited in Argentina by some self-proclaimed “ufologist”, and repeated by others without any interest or initiative to analyze the data. In Uruguay, CIOVI was able to solve that report UFO report as belonging to a Soviet launch.

8) As has already being said, it is statistically demonstrated and was the criterion of Dr. J. Allen Hynek in his experience investigating UFO reports in the USA, pilots are NOT the best witnesses, and many times are the worst. The case of the launch of the Cosmos-194 satellite on December 3, 1967, and the “UFO” report of the pilot of an IL-18 (Ilyushin-18) is an eloquent example of how bad a pilot could be as witness. But it is also interesting to verify how the case was presented by Keyhoe and by Moore to make people believe in the extraordinary coming from outer space.

9) All in all, this magnificent study done by James Oberg points to the issues that are at the very core of the UFOlogy as it has been developed for decades. It is time to turn the page and start a new UFOlogy that honestly applies the scientific method and criteria, and that instead of collecting witnesses’ claims, confronts directly the phenomenon with appropriate instruments to detect, track, record, register, and measure the phenomenon. A UFOlogy that does not gather and accommodate data in order to sustain a particular viewpoint or hypothesis, but that just simply looks for the truth, whatever it could be.

See the document: