“The way to perfection is full or errors. The way of virtue consists in recognizing them so they may not be repeated”
On November 17, 1972, Navy Captain Ruben R. Varela, Chief
of the 2nd. Division of the Naval General Staff sent official
communication # 237/17/XI/72 to the Chief of the 2nd.Division of the
Uruguayan Air Force General Staff, giving details of the report made by 1st.
Corporal Mr. Juan Fuentes Figueroa, related to the observation he made at the
Isla de Lobos Lighthouse of an object that landed on the ceiling of the
building that surrounds the lighthouse itself, on October 28, 1972.
The Centro de Investigación de Objetos Voladores Inidentificados
(Unidentified Flying Objects Investigation Center) – CIOVI-
knew about the case in August, 1973, when the Air Force gave it to the Center
to investigate and study. The Center started the investigation immediately.
In August of 1973, the Uruguayan armed forces had already
taken over the government of the country. This is the context in which the
report came to CIOVI.
Besides, this was the first report of an ECIII (Close
Encounter of the Third Kind) in Uruguay. There were some rumors of other
events, but they never got beyond that point.
Reviewing the case today, it has to be said that although
the investigation was done in a consistent way, with dedication and
determination and at considerable financial cost, the members of the Center did
not have enough boldness to take some complementary and indispensable steps. In the same way, no one thought about a
conventional solution to the case, given the strange circumstances –the place
and the time when it happened—and the lack of information that would have
allowed to satisfactorily solve the case.
Nevertheless, CIOVI was cautious in its final evaluation.
It was written in the report:
“Although this Center cannot affirm that there was an
Unidentified Flying Object at the Isla de Lobos on October 28, 1972, there is a
high degree of possibility that such event happened.”
The report ended saying: “From the investigation and
study done there is no stimulus –either natural or artificial-- that could
account for the case, except the one that the witness described.”
The Center always sustained that this case has a mere value
of a 50% given the fact that there was only one witness.
The time dedicated to the investigation, the reconstruction
in-situ, the questioning sessions, the search for additional information, the
complementary interviews to other people and the psychological tests applied to
the witness, plus the doubts the case has posed, proves why CIOVI only came to
a conclusion after an ordinary session on March 21, 1975, and an extraordinary
session on March 25 of the same year.
CIOVI affirms that UFO is a technical/operational
definition and that is always provisional, because what on a precise historical
moment is not known by the investigators, could become something known at a
later time and then it is possible to find an appropriate explanation to a
given case. The un-identified is no
longer such and then, the case reaches a conclusion.
In 1973 the members of CIOVI were not aware about a kind of
aircraft that could have explained what happened, and that fits the
descriptions given by the witness.
But we also have to recognize that --influenced by the UFO
cases known at an international level and having developed a work of Compared
Ufology— we were lead to emphasize
certain mistakes of perception about the characteristics of the Isla de Lobos
case. We also ascribed to the case some characteristics of cases from other
parts of the world, because we trusted in those other sources of information.
Currently, we have learned that the magazine “Flying Saucer Review” is not a
source of data in which you can trust. But we also have learned that there is
not an intrinsic value in the cases used by Dr. Jacques Vallee to sustain the
thesis in his book “Passport to Magonia”, nor are the cases referred in “The APRO Bulletin” (a
clearly pro-ET publication), neither the cases mentioned in the books: “Flying Saucers Uncensored” by U.
Wilkins; “Les
Apparitions des Martiens” by Michel Carrouges; “The Humanoids” by many authors; or “UFOs over the Americas” by Coral
E. Lorenzen.
1973 was another time for Ufology and also for CIOVI.
Maturity will start a couple of years later and it will
reach a peak with the publication of the book “Elements of Ufology” in 1989,
and –of course-- all that process is testified in the book “UFOs: The Secret Agenda” written
also by the author of this report. The book will be published at the end of
2005 by Spain’s Fundación Anomalía, because it was awarded with the
International Zurich Prize.
When we recently reviewed the folder of the case, in March
2005, we found two basic issues that were sidestepped then and that should have
lead us to look for something conventional. But in 1973 we didn’t know what
they could be.
The first issue, is –as the witness pointed out
opportunely—that three days later, he went to the roof of the building that
surrounds the lighthouse, and verified that the painting of the lighthouse that
usually is pealed out by the wind and covers the ceiling, was swept out. The witness said that he found the ceiling “Clean, clean, clean, as if they had blown on it”
(interview of August 18, 1973).
The second issue, is the most conclusive: the
sound. The witness perceived vibration –probably of the air—due to the fact
that he approached the craft as close as 27m50, and three kinds of sounds that
he describes perfectly well and that today make us raise our eyebrows, but that
then, were left aside, --we have to admit-- unforgivably.
In order to go sequentially, step by step, about what
happened, let’s start with the description of the situation given by the
witness:
The first sight and the door that opens: three crew
members
“I was in the service of the
Navy taking care of the lighthouse…at 10PM I went out to check the engine that
in those moments was working. We have already finished our dinner and then I
went out, I opened the door and I looked at the lighthouse terrace and I saw a
craft on the terrace, that seemed to be…. first I said to myself ‘but it
couldn’t be, a car over the house, on the terrace’ and then the first thing I
though was to go to my bedroom and take a pistol, a 32 caliber, and I went on
through the way that goes to the lighthouse approaching it, and as I approached
a door was opened and three individuals emerged from it”
The color of the craft, the hum, the take-off maneuver
and the exhaust
Later the witness declared that the object: “had a reddish color, something like burned...a mahogany
color, the thing, the metal plate of the craft, because the lights that were
below allowed to see it. At that moment I pointed with my weapon ready to
shoot, and I felt…I don’t know, like a vibration, something strange in my body,
eh…I heard a humming sound…. then I remained quiet until I saw they were
getting inside the craft, one after the other, the door closes automatically
and then it started to produce a sound, a sound, a sound, I don’t know,
something like, a whirring sound, something fantastic…it emitted a hum and
begun slowly to take…ehh, to take- off there from the terrace, until it reached
a height the half of the lighthouse approximately, --the lighthouse has a
height of 66 meters. It took an elevation until the half of the height of the
lighthouse and then it inclined itself pointing to the coast, to the beach
where there are big rocks, there are tremendous cliffs, and then it blew out a
ball of fire from below, something blinding, a ball of fire, like a flame of
all colors, reddish and white, and then from that moment, it took an
inclination at an angle of more than 45 degrees, --because it totally inclined
itself—and it let that puff of fire, and that whirring sound continued, and
then it took a fantastic speed going toward the beach, and I said to myself
‘well, there’s going to be an explosion, it’s going to smash itself, but it was
incredible, because you couldn’t hear anything else.”
The crewmembers went down giving their backs to the
witness and using a ladder
The witness also declared that the individuals: “opened a door and went out” and he
said later: “it seems that they went down
giving their backs” to the
witness. In
another moment of his deposition, when the witness saw them to get in the
craft, he said: “they take three
steps”. It is important to clarify that the witness sees
everything as a silhouette, without details, against the lights of the craft.
The noise at take-off, the exhaust. The flight begins
with an inclination
Later the witness said once again: “and then it is when it starts doing that sound that it is
going to take-off, that sound, that sound that it does, it is when it gets high
until half the height of the lighthouse, it rears up itself and ejects that
ball of fire, that big flame, (that) later keeps as a white ball and (the
craft) takes that incredible speed, very impressive.”
Cyclic sound, the exhaust noise
In the same declaration, the issue of the noise returns.
The witness talked about the humming sound and is requested to imitate it with
his voice, and then the witness said:
“It made beeoogh…beeoogh…
beeoogh (a cyclic sound that he
imitates onomatopoetically) as it is
clarified in the transcription of the recorded interrogation. A bit ahead the
witness said: “That fire has to have done
noise…that’s what I think, that the fire makes noise, the flame makes noise
when it is ejected powerfully”
These are the things the witness said during the first
interrogation session, done on August 18, 1973.
The use of a ladder, the pilot first
On a second interrogation session, done on September 1st.,
1973, the witness said that the door was opened to the left and closed to the
right, adding:
”. “These guys stepped up, I think, they stepped up a
ladder, they took some steps and the last that got off was the first to get
in.”
And again he mentioned: “The whirring sounds at the departure…that shrieking sound”.
Discussion and
hypothesis
It seems obvious, when reading again these statements, that
they point to a helicopter.
What the members of CIOVI didn’t know in1973, was that a
kind of helicopter that could explain the observation existed. Certainly, that
kind of helicopter was not used in Uruguay.
But since 1968, the Argentinean Air Force for instance, had this
particular kind of helicopter that allows us to explain the case due to its
characteristics.
This said, we do not mean that the helicopter implicated in
this case was Argentinean, but that is the closest geographical reference that
we have.
The Hughes 500
The kind and model that allows us to explain the case is
the Hughes 500, a small, versatile, light aircraft well suited for observation,
reconnaissance, surveillance missions, etc.
Making a little bit of history, the
Hughes model 369 had its origins in a US Army competition for a light
observation helicopter in 1961. One of three designs selected for development
was the HO-6 later known as OH-6A, which flew for the first time on February
27, 1963. The OH-6A Cayuse was selected in May 1965 for production, and is
widely recognized for its service in the Vietnam conflict. This version has subsequently undergone
development in its power plant and rotor configuration through the C & D
versions.
As the military version was proceeding, Hughes was also pursuing
commercial development of the Model 369. Known as the Hughes 500, the aircraft
originally had three versions - the basic 7-seat version, a 5-seat executive
version, and a utility model. The latter, powered by an Allison T-63-A-5A, was
known initially as the 500U, but became the 500C. An export military version,
the 500M, was also produced, and the company extended licenses for the
helicopter to be built in Argentina, Italy and Japan.
The Hughes 500 series is the world's most popular light
turbine helicopter. Its rugged construction, operational performance and
reliability puts the Hughes 500 ahead of the competition. Crisp handling and
maneuverability combine to make it the favorite of many helicopter pilots.
Technical data (taken
from airliners.net)
POWER PLANTS
500C - One 207kW (278shp) Allison 250C20 turboshaft driving a four
blade main rotor and two blade tail rotor.
530F - One 260kW (350shp) Allison 250C30 driving a five blade main
rotor and two or optionally four blade tail rotor.
PERFORMANCE
500C - Max cruising speed 232km/h (125kt), long range cruising
speed 217km/h (117kt). Initial rate of climb 1700ft/min. Hovering ceiling in
ground effect 13,000ft. Range 605km (325nm).
530F - Max cruising speed 246km/h (133kt), economical cruising
speed 228km/h (123kt). Initial rate of climb 2070ft/min. Service ceiling
16,000ft. Range with standard fuel and no reserves 422km (228nm).
DIMENSIONS
500C - Main rotor diameter 8.03m (26ft 4in), fuselage length 7.01m
(23ft 0in), height 2.48m (8ft 2in).
530F - Main rotor diameter 8.33m (27ft 4in), length overall rotors
turning 9.94m (32ft 7in), fuselage length 7.49m (24ft 7in), height to top of
rotor head 2.67m (8ft 9in). Main rotor disc area 54.6m2 (587.5sq ft).
SITTING
Typical seating for five, two in front bucket seats including
pilot, and three on rear bench seat.
Case
Analysis
1)
The perspective in which the witness saw the craft and its
dimensions
The
witness didn’t see the craft from one side but on an oblique position, which
keeps perfectly the measurements of the height of the craft calculated by the
Directive Counselor Mr. Germán Vázquez in 2 meters –the real is 2m48—during the
reconstruction in-situ of the case.
That
same oblique perspective reduces for the witness the size of the cabin, which
in he occasion was calculated with a length of 3 meters, being the total length
of the fuselage 7m01 and 4 meters that of the cabin.
The
superposition of both images (the helicopter and the drawing made by Mr.
Vázquez in 1973) is totally convincing.
2)
The
color of the craft
The witness said: “It had a color
a little bit reddish, like something…burned, it had a color…ehh…mahogany, the
thing, the metal plate of the craft”
Obviously the color will depend of the
painting used in the helicopter. Here we bring two examples that in certain way
can fit the description made by the witness.
In one case, it is a helicopter of the
Argentinean Air Force. In the other case, it is a helicopter used for tourism
purposes.
3)
The door
According with the witness the door opens
to the left and closes to the right.
This Hughes 500 picture exactly
illustrates what 1st. Corporal Juan Fuentes Figueroa declared.
4) The
ladder
The witness said: “they take three
steps”. “These guys stepped up, I think, they stepped up a ladder, they
took some steps and the last that got off was the first to get in.”
This picture of the helicopter used by
“Greenpeace” portrays perfectly that detail:
5) The sound of the rotor
The witness said: “It made beeoogh…beeoogh… beeoogh…” “The whirring sounds at the departure…that shrieking
sound”.
The onomatopoeia used by Corporal Fuentes couldn’t be more
precise, because it imitates quite well the whipping sound that is produced by
the rotary wings of the helicopter cutting the air when the rotor starts
moving, and then the increasing shrieking sound belonging to the engine turned
on.
6)
The
take-off maneuver, the rear fire exhaust and its sound
The witness said eloquently:
“and then it is when it
starts doing that sound that it is going to take-off, that sound, that sound
that it does, it is when it gets high until half the height of the lighthouse,
it rears up itself and ejects that ball of fire, that big flame, (that) later
keeps as a white ball and (the craft) takes that incredible speed, very
impressive.”
“That fire has to have done
noise…that’s what I think, that the fire makes noise, the flame makes noise
when it is ejected powerfully”
It is well known that at their departure helicopters tend
to go rear up until they stabilize themselves.
The Hughes 500 has a nozzle behind the cabin where the
flames would be seen. Have in mind
that this is a nocturnal case.
Two pictures help to illustrate. The one on the left shows
the nozzle and the exhaust. The one to the right shows the take-off maneuver.
The witness completed his description of the maneuver
saying that the craft “described like a
curve to the horizon and it was lost in the distance”
7)
Time
and total duration of the sighting
Once again we need to emphasize –particularly dealing with
details— this was a nocturnal case that started at 10:10PM. That the total duration of the sighting was
of one minute and three seconds, approximately, and that the witness saw the
craft over the roof of the building that surrounds the lighthouse for just 15
seconds.
The weather was good, with a clear sky and there was no
Moon. The New Moon was on October 26, 1972, just two days before.
8)
Final
considerations
As it was opportunely reported by Psychologist Licentiate
Pedro Cassou, who applied to the witness a total of 9 hours of psychological
tests in two sessions: “the
subject is not going to confabulate something by himself unless an external
event disturbs him in such a way that then yes…..the subject fails in an
adequate objective discrimination of the perceived object”. And this is exactly what happened that
night. Mr. Fuentes failed to adequately
discriminate the perceived object, but he didn’t confabulate anything. He truly
saw something over the roof of the building that surrounds the lighthouse that
caught powerfully his attention and that baffled him.
First he thought it was a car, but because it was
impossible, he was so impressed that run to get a weapon as to feel more
secure.
Maybe the individuals of the helicopter verifying the
reaction of Fuentes decided immediately to run away.
To all this considerations, it is necessary to add that the
witness had seen some TV programs conducted by he Argentinean Nicolás “Pipo”
Mancera, where the UFO issue appeared recurrently dealt in the most sensational
way possible, dimming the lights of the studio, speaking with tremulous voices,
using special effects, and recurring to the presentation of cases that have
been shown as frauds.
An example of this is the alleged ECIII (including a
message and images) of which two casino employees of the Mendoza Province (Juan
Carlos Peccinetti and Fernando Villegas) were supposedly witnesses on August
31, 1968; and the case which allegedly happened in Villa Carlos Paz, Cordoba,
on June 14, 1968, in which María Eladia Pretzel, who was 19 years old at that
time, said that she met at her home with an “extraterrestrial being” while she
was alone.
CIOVI had two other UFO reports of witnesses that often
watched the above-mentioned TV program. In both cases the witnesses were very
excited. Both cases had totally conventional explanations.
In one case, the witness, a commercial traveler, arrived at
a police station agitated and babbling.
After calming him the officers were able to write a document where the
witness said that a UFO has been following him on the road. That UFO was no
other than planet Jupiter.
In the other case, the witness arrived at his home very
afraid. The following day his wife noticed a strange and evasive behavior.
The witness went to a number of institutions, starting with
the American Embassy, then to the Army Command, the Planetarium, the Air Force
and finally met the people of CIOVI to whom the Air Force transferred the case
to investigate.
The witness mistook a yellow sweeper machine –near a
deposit for them-- and a municipal worker as a “UFO” and an “alien”. Later, he said the UFO was already in the
sky. He saw it when he arrived at his home, it was shining in the sky, and it
is in that circumstance when he received some “telepathic messages”. That
shining thing in the sky was the Moon.
These examples show clearly the suggestive power of a TV
program like that, on certain minds.
Conclusion:
Due to:
a) A thoughtful
review of the whole case;
b)
The
descriptions of color, size, shape, sounds and maneuvers given by the witness;
c)
The
date the Hughes 500 helicopter was built and its characteristics;
d)
The
comparison and compatibility of the description given by the witness with the
characteristics of the Hughes 500;
The
undersigning Directive Counselor, who investigated and studied the case in
1973, concludes that it was originated in the unusual observation of a Hughes
500 helicopter over the roof of the building that surrounds the Isla de Lobos
lighthouse, on October 28, 1972, made only by one witness: 1st. Navy
Corporal Juan Fuentes Figueroa.
The
Directive Counselor Mr.Germán S. Vázquez, who also investigated the case
originally and with whom the undersigning exchanged ideas, information, etc.
during the process of this study, shares this conclusion.
The
undersigning Directive Counselor refrains himself from speculating about the
reasons or motives why such a helicopter landed on that date, place and hour.
According
to what has being always a tradition in CIOVI, on Monday, April 25 of 2005.
Directive Counselor Mr. Germán Vázquez, tried to reach Mr. Juan Fuentes
Figueroa to tell him about the conclusion of his case. The phone call was
answered by Mr. Fuentes wife who
told Mr. Vázquez that her husband have
died three years ago.
CIOVI
deeply regrets the passing away of Mr. Juan Fuentes Figueroa. He was a very
good man who cooperated fully and unconditionally with all the stages of the
investigation of this case, and we suppose he would have gladly accepted the
conclusion of it, because he always wanted to know exactly what it was that he
saw.
Milton
W. Hourcade
Directive
Counselor
March-April
2005
