It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Mass sightings over Spain 1968>The French connection

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:35 AM
Before commencing on this post I wish to thank through this medium with my deepest gratitude to ArMap for his invaluable help and colloboration on this thread in the translations of both Spanish and French

Muito Abrigado ArMap

In my previous thread I presented information on events that occured on May 15, 1968 in Spain upon which ufology came of age and Spain was given a wakeup call that not only stirred that nation but others as well. Like for example France who was inadvertently dragged into this situation which also involeved the military, scientists, security inteligence agencies and other factions that we don't know or are unaware of. The train of events that follow speak for themselves when in contact with these French meteorological scientists from the CNES facility in Air-sur-L'Adour.

The National Meteorological Service corresponding bulletin for May 15, 1968 was as follows>>

At 00 hrs. the direction and force of the wind in the Cataluna zone were 23 knots and 320 degrees respectively at alevel of approximately ten thousand meters in altitud.

In that same area a search was in effect at 12h. hrs. giving these readings>>

From surface level [30,000 meters] the wind 190 degrees comming from the south with a force of 06 knots around 12 knots per hr.]

at a much higher altitude the wind was blowing in a direction of 340 degrees with a force of 33knots which translated means something very simple that of course the military hipothesis is dismantled

In this image Pierre Faucon indicates no French balloon crossed the Pirineos on May 15, 1968.


In this image Max Baron chief in charge of launching at CNES showing on a pc monitor the procedures and rigorous followup of each balloon launched from Aire-sur-L'Adour.


During that morning in the Cataluna region the altitud winds were always fro the northeast varing between 320 to 350 degrees. According to the level jotted down by the pani Radar [in Gerona] --at three thousand feet winds were between 00 and 12hrs. were blowing from the northeast [310 degrees] and from the south [190 degrees] at velocities between four and six knots.

And here we are where we are always the supposed "ballons" going beyond flying jets way above ten thousand meters ,why weren't they pushed by winds to the mediterranean ??

Like we have seen at those levels the wind currents were superior to sixty kilometers an hour. There is more --if this object like the inteligence sector defends was indeed a strtospheric balloon then what the devil was it doing at three thousand feet ?? when the stratosphere in Pamplona [region in Spain] starts above twenty six thousand feet!!! It could have sufferd a puncture is th militaries argument --well and good-- accepted then they would also have to admit that no balloon which has entered at a lost is capable of tacking flight and much less at a velocity displayed by that little anngel.

Lets refresh our memory . If this balloon was detected by E.V.A. [military radar instalation] at an altitud of four thousand feet. How do we exlpain that in a matter of minutes it placed itself at 60,000 ft.??

Normally the time comsumed in materializing a "scramble" between the authorization of lift off and getting the jets into the air ocilates between five and ten minutes tops. And like the inteligence analyst should know [all have been or are pilots] the ascending velocity of a real meterological [weather] balloon has difficulty surpassing 20 kilometers per hour!!

I insist -- who do they think they are fooling ?? there does not exist or will a stratospheric balloon once punctured go down one thousand meters from the surface to then situate itself at more than 20 kilometers in altitude.

And what about the other "balloon" observed at the north of Madrid? In form "similar to three paralel bodies" unknown to the meterologist.

How can it maintain itself immoble??

Max Baron chief launcher of CNES drawing on a whiteboard different components of a stratospheric balloon.

On May 15, of 1968 there were no stratospheric balloons launched.Most certainly MOA[military intel] does not mention this dateBut they do cite launching on the 14th at 16.21hrs. with a volume of 5,300 m.3 and at 14.35 m.3


Copyright © by (angelc01) 2008

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:48 AM
continuation of previous post--
Studies from the National Meteorological Service for the central region and at 1,000 meters established the following measurements.-- At 00 hrs. winds at 22 knots due northeast [330 degrees] the next reading at 12hrs. was practicaly similar.

>25 knots and 330 degrees in other words at that level some ten thousand meters any balloon would have been dragged imediately to lifting regions at almost 50 km. per hr. Obviously the object sighted from Madrid at 1030 hrs. would have great difficulty in displacing to Barcelona. The wind we must rememberwas from the northeast. Neither the second object --" the punctured balloon" had an opportunity to situate itself over the capitol of Spain. The currents at 3000 feet were blowing to the south (1900).

In consequence that morning May 15,1968 that we know of two UFO's moved around --forgive me -- two stratospheric balloons. In plain sight these meteorological parameters are within reach to whomever solicits them. Then how should we judge the celebrated considerations of MOA [military inteligence].

The behavior (velocity & trajectory says an official note) as the witness observations are induced or led to believe that they were stratospheric balloons.LOL-- One of the two ,either the military people who wrote this informative are incompetant - which I really doubt - or they pretend that public opinion does comunion on the wheels of windmills (being made fools of).

Even though the meteorological information in itself is suficiantely clear in demolishing all the ridiculous tendencies and conclusions of the inteligence section inmy spirit there was a floating doubt -- What if the MOA were right? Before taking the last part of said consideration seriously, there was supplied concrete data most assuredly from the Globe Launching Center in the French locality of Air-Sur-L'Adur -- this had a very important and specific weight.

A document that invalidates the "considerations" of the Operative Air Control (MOA). It comes from the files of the CNES, in the French locality of Aire-Sur-L'Adour. It is about the trajectory made by the " Flight 51 ", the stratospheric balloon sent on May 14, 1968 at 16.21 hours (Z). After reaching the established ceiling -34.000 meters- , it flies towards the Northwest. At 07.20 h. The separation is carried out at approximately 15 kilometers of the coast. The instrument set descends in parachute to the south of the city of Dax.

Well, consulted the files of the CNES, Pierre Faucon put in my malevolent hands the following and determinant information:

Flight number 51 of the 14.05.68. Liezi: Aire-s / Adour
BALLOON USED: 25 P 5, 57000 m3
PROGRAM: Ionosphèriques studies
CEILING: 34000 metres
SEPARATION at 07 h 20
AIRE-S / ADOUR, on May 31st, 68 2

3rd In the sixth and last sheet of paper of the file regarding this flight, Pierre Faucon went to show me a "detail" that was ruined definitively the thesis defended by the Spanish military:

Table of monitoring of the Flight 51

Monitoring Flight 51

Tables of monitoring -by radar and telemetry- of the "Flight 51", facilitated to J.J. Benítez by Pierre Faucon, leader of the Stratospheric Globes Launch Center of Aire-Sur-L'Adour, in The Landas (France). From the 07,20 hours (Z) - moment of the "separation" (Squidbage) -, it can be seen how the instrument set, equipped with a parachute, descends to level. To the 08:23 hours the last "radar contact" is registered with "ASA" (Aire Sur Adour). The course was 266 degrees, the distance -in straight line- to the Launch Center of 69 kilometers and the altitude of 6,000 feet (some 2,000 meters). Eight minutes later (08:31 h.), the communication is lost. At 08:47 the operation ends. Consequently, if the French globe stops existing as such at 09:47 (local time) -probably long before-, how could it appear over Catalonia at 11 o'clock and over Madrid at 11:30 hours?



"The stratospheric globe, launched at 16,21 o'clock h. of May 14, 1968, fell in French territory. More precisely, in the proximity of Dax. To be exact, five kilometers to the south of said city."

The question to the "sharp-sighted" of the MOA is elementary: If the French stratospheric globe finished its mission shortly after the 07,20 h. -at more than three hundred kilometers of the region of Barcelona and five hundred of Madrid-, what was the object detected about 10 h. by the radar of Paní in the mentioned Catalonian area? What was observed about 10,30 h. of that same morning of May 15, 1968 to the north of the capital of Spain?

As it is shown, everything but stratospheric globes.
In the dossier that is in my power -and that is at the disposal of the MOA- it can be seen how, through the monitoring by radar and telemetry, the operators from CNES controlled in every moment the evolutions of that globe launched in the afternoon of May 14, 1968. And according to that gathering of data, the famous "Flight 51" never abandoned French air space. We review the official documentation of the CNES:

After an hour and fifty minutes of ascent, our "friend", the stratospheric globe, reached its ceiling at 18,11 o'clock h. And it did it to little more than thirty kilometers to the southeast of Aire-surl'Adour. From there, pushed by the winds, took course 280 degrees (western), keeping in the predicted ceiling (34,000 meters) for thirteen hours and nine minutes. After the conclusion of the planned scientific experiences, the specialists caused the called phase of “separation". And the instrument set that hung of the globe descended to Eart, helped by a parachute. This "separation" -that constitutes the end of the experiment- took place first thing in the morning in the morning of the following day, 15 of May: to the already cited 07,20 (Z) and eighteen kilometers to the northwest of Dax. (Not to confuse the points of fall of the globe and of the instrument set. The map concocted by the CNES, that I include to avoid suspicions, does not leave place to the doubt: the globe in question did not cross the Spanish border at any time.)

And what occurred with the globe, once consummate the "separation"?
The professional hucksters and deniers of the Ufology can use that "continued flying and finished being strained in Spain".

But no. For several reasons. According to the CNES experts, upon activating -by radio- the mechanism of separation of the instrument set, the support (that is to say, the great globe) is rendered useless automatic and simultaneously. By means of an explosion or, what is more common, opening the "hoses" that free the gas. And the globe -pulverized or deflated- falls to land. By reasons of security, thus is contemplated in the air regulations, these gigantic globes could not be able to continue flying without control.

Reports of monitoring and boards of telemetry of the Flight 50

monitoring of flight 50

Synthesis of the development of the "Flight 50". As it can be appreciated in the "observations" was a matter of a "good flight". The globe and the instrument set fell in French territory. The MOA returned to "to be mistaken".

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:45 AM
Another well-researched and well laid out thread:
nothing but facts here: we need more thread like this one.
Your OP are an example of accuracy:
Star, Flag and i'm also going to digg this one.
Thank you for sharing all this with us mate

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by internos
Thanks Internos this is the positive side of many sleepless nights, and like the song says with a little help from my "friends".
This is truly an intriguing story because there are so many different aspects that include coverups, info tampering, misinformation and government false'hoods to boot. What else can I say?

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 05:47 PM
Star and Flag AC01! Excellent post because you have obviously researched it very well and laid out the facts for us. I suspect you have a wealth of knowledge in the meteorology department...? If so , I can see that this may be very useful in future/past unsolved scenarios. I look forward to seeing what else you're hiding up your sleeve.
Keep up the good work my friend!


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
Excellent presentation Angel.
Your research is always impressive. Star and Flag from me for sure.

This object was certainly no balloon. Thank you for researching that terrestrial possibility for comparison purposes.

I look forward to reading further information on this thread. I'll jump in the hunt myself this weekend when I have more time


posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by spikedmilk
Thanks Spikedmilk I will make sure the cards are well placed so when I deal the hand everyone will benefit from the casino royal. And on a seriuos note the idea of this post is to open minds using history as a baseline to better understand what's going on right now.

posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
Thank you WFA it seems that using balloons as an excuse to hide the truth has come a long way in different aspects of ufology and many years also.

The poor balloon has been a scapegoat for many in many a time.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:30 AM
These are some French Documents [transl. ArMap]


telemetry flight 50

Telemetric monitoring of the "Flight 50", pertaining to the stratospheric globe launched from Aire-sur-L'Adour at 14:35 hours (Z) of May 14, 1968. The experience concluded at 02:13 h. (Z).


Images taken from the instrument set suspended from the stratospheric globe.
To the left, upon reaching the ceiling, compared with the arch of the triumph.
To the right, upon being produced the separation, the parachutes are opened. The scientific instrument set descends and the globe deflates automatic and simultaneously. (Photographs courtesy of the CNES).


Besides, in the case that occupies us -the "Flight 51" -, admitting that that mass of 57,000 cubic meters (and not 53,000 as writes the MOA) not to have been able to be rendered useless or destroyed at the established moment, the existing winds at 102,000 feet would have finished dragging it to the interior of the gulf of Biscay. (See graphic of the CNES.) In fact, if we observe the chosen place for the phase of "separation", we will understand that said decision was not fortutious. The globe, simply, was scarce fifteen kilometers from the coast. If it had continued its march, the scientific team would be able to have descended in the sea.

Summarizing: if in the instant of the "separation" (07,20 h. Z) the French stratospheric globe travelled with course 280 degrees (toward the west), how was it able "to appear" at 10,30 o'clock h. (Z) in Madrid and half an hour before in Catalonia? And we do not forget that that May 15, 1968 did not occur any launches of globes...

Letter of Max Baron, certifying that the flight nº51 was recovered in the region of DAX (France).

Letter of Max Baron

Dear friends

You will find herewith the photocopy of the files of the two alone flights that I found for this period.

- Flight nº 50: it seems that this balloon went up normally to its ceiling, followed by a barometer failure, that did not allow the continuing of its flight by telemetering.

- Flight nº 51: this flight, with a scientific goal, to the profit of the Institute of Spatial Aeronomie of Brussels (Belgium) was equipped with a balloon of 57000m3. After 01H50 of ascent, this balloon maintained a ceiling of 34000M during 13H09, and the scientific experiment was recovered in the region of DAX (Landes).

After the separation, the balloon, that is equipped with a destruction system, as a rule is destroyed and descends by parachute, without being able to be localised with precision.


Note>>The telemetries discussed and explained by Pierre Faucon and Max Baron are exact to the letter pertaining to procedures and standards established by CNES concerning meterological activity and scientific surveying via stratospheric balloons as a medium for information on this subject.
Copyright © by (angelc01) 2008

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:52 PM
I'm going to sidetrack here for a moment with a link from truveo which shows a youtube video in reference to this post, being that some here on ATS are prone to watch movies and clips [no pun intended] in preference to reading .

IMHO literature in novels, poems, exct. be them fiction or nonfiction are the basis for movies, clips and short videos. without the expression of the wriitten word many of these would have no meaning what so ever.
Even if a picture expresses a thousand words.
We just have to find the right ones for that picture.

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by angelc01
I'm going to sidetrack here for a moment with a link from truveo which shows a youtube video in reference to this post, being that some here on ATS are prone to watch movies and clips [no pun intended] in preference to reading .

IMHO literature in novels, poems, exct. be them fiction or nonfiction are the basis for movies, clips and short videos. without the expression of the wriitten word many of these would have no meaning what so ever.
Even if a picture expresses a thousand words.
We just have to find the right ones for that picture.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 11:44 AM
sorry for the double post --I was Editing--

Models of stratospheric globes. (Courtesy of the CNES).

globe 1


gobe 2


globe 3


And I say: was I exaggerating when I qualified the analysts of the MOA of being manipulators? Before similar cataract of evidences the navigator was asked, with all the right of the world:

"If a pariah as Mister Benítez has had access to these unappealable reports of the French, why the Spanish Air Force has not done so much more?"

A phone call or a fax, in fact, would have been enough so that the kind and well arranged scientific of Aire sur-l'Adour had supplied them the same documentation that is in my unworthy hands.

There is something, nevertheless, that disconcerts anyone. The analysts of the MOA mention the CNES. And they succeed in the dates and hours of some launches of globes. But if do not there was official petition of information on the part of the Section of Intelligence of the Air Operating Command of Torrejón, how did they obtain that data?

I said it and I repeat it: excellent question.

The answer already was aimed. Months before the declassifying, the gentlemen Ballester Olmos and Plana, moved by very little clear interests, thought it proper to send to the Army of the Air, amen of reports, questionnaires, propositions and other trifles, a "listing" of the globes launched from Las Landas in the decade of the sixties. In the said "listing" they were limited to enumerate the already known: dates, hours and volumes, adding diverse "comments" that -practically- have been modelled by the intelligence service of the Spanish Air Force in their "brilliant summaries".

Obviously, these "rigorous and scientific pontiffs of the UFOS" had special care in not going deep in the development of said launches of stratospheric globes. The content of the French documentation would have dismantled their clumsy objectives, that nothing have to do with the defense of the phenomenon of the "not identified".

And the Section of Intelligence of the MOA -happy and convinced (?) of the seriousness of the information supplied by these "hypocrites" - gave for good the "listing", taking advantage of it to fortify its not less dark "order" :

"Lets dismantle the uncomfortable UFO matter. Lets confuse the public opinion."

And both should think:

Who, after twenty-five years, is going to bother in consulting the files of the CNES? Leave it thus. The "explanation" of the French stratospheric globes can stick. Is rational. Scientific. In other words: inspires confidence."

But they did not include the "Attila" of the Ufology. An alias that I should thank to another marvellous investigator "of easy chair" : Pedro Redón.

An "Attila" that tries to compensate his scarce lights with the practice of the principle of Ovid: do not begin a thing, or conduct it to good end."

Mister Plana (left) and Ballester Olmos, "suppliers" of information to the Military intelligence service in the UFO declassifying.That morning of May 15, 1968 -besides the exposed in the anemic declassified dossier - other facts occurred, also related to the UFOS that flew over Madrid and Catalonia. Or rather -and rigorously- , some events that started in the afternoon of the previous day, 14. And I do not discover anything new. In 1982, in my work Terror en la Luna (Terror in the Moon), these observations were already was spoken of. But the MOA and the "vampires" -how not- have ignored it Olympic...

That afternoon of the mentioned May 14, 1968, toward the eight, from Ciudad Condal, a series of citizens had occasion to witness the evolutions of a strange object. One of those witnesses -again the coincidence (?)- was Rafael Farriols, veteran investigator and prominent industrial, of tested seriousness. We listen to his testimony:

"... What we observed and photographed was a luminous spot of more or less triangular shape. According to its position and given its behavior, it turns out difficult to determine its identity. It could be a probe globe, being this the simplest explanation of the ones that we were observing. It could be another thing, one that we do not have the smallest idea, since its immobility in determined moments eliminated the possibility of natural phenomena known by all. It was neither a bird, since it was too high and was too large. It could very well be EPV (Extraterrestrial Piloted Vehicle), although we could not assure it. What is sure is that it was a UFO, that is to say, an unidentified flying object. We resist to believe that it was a probe globe, in spite of the fact that certain French weather services send with certain frequency tetrahedral shaped globes to the high atmosphere, with investigation purposes...”

Rafael Farriols.


Map with the locations of radars and air bases


continued on next post

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link Twenty minutes later -toward the 20:20 h. -, while Farriols, equipped with a telephoto lens, endeavored in photographing the object, this, that had begun to derive toward the northwest, enlarged its brightness and left horizontally in said direction.

"The velocity -declared Rafa Farriols- was three times that of the artificial satellites that we saw in that time."

Although, with what was already exposed on the part of the CNES the hypothesis of a stratospheric globe remains dismantled, a simple query about the weather prevailing at that time about ends disqualifying any weather-related explanation. The winds in height -from the 500 millibars- blew with course 360 and 340 degrees. That is to say, in contrary direction to which, exactly, the UFO took.

But, to the next morning -again in May 15-, the persistent object, becoming fond of Ciudad Condal, make an appearance for the second time. And around 10:30 hours, Carmela Terrades Villasán, wife of Farriols, in company of other friends, observed again the UFO at will. We recall that the weather surveys performed at 00 o'clock and at 12 o'clock, in the Catalonian region, for levels of 300 mb. (Some ten thousand meters), made unfeasible the parking of a globe: the currents blew of the northwest (320 degrees) and with a force of 23 knots (around forty-six kilometers per hour).

From my point of view, these important observations of Rafael Farriols and their group confirm what was already well-known -that there was no stratospheric globe- and something more: that the military have hidden information from the taxpayer. We see how, in the end, the lie moves away always limping...

According to the stingy report of May 31, 1968 of the Defense Command, the only military radar that detected a UFO in that day of May 15 was the EVA N.º 4, in the mount Paní, next to Rosas. Thus it is evident likewise in the "summary" of the MOA that heads the declassified record. Nevertheless, in the official documents -at the disposal of the citizenship- not a single mention to the registered incidents appears in the previous day, fourteen. Why? Is that they do not exist? Or perhaps they have themselves "misplaced" with the rolling of the years? Permit me to doubt it. Among others reasons because –precisely thanks to the good services of Farríols- I was able to have access to a communication, dated July 30, that year of 1968, in which a captain of the Army of the Air -whose identity, obviously, should be silenced- unveiled that the EVA 4 "HAD "HUNTED" A UFO May 14, 1968". I have here part of the significant and compromising writtings:


Official communications and electronics.

[Censurado].. The UFO of May 14 on Barcelona, was seen and verified on the radar screens of the Squadron (Mount Paní) and confirmed by an American airplane that went by there in flight toward Germany. At any rate, a couple of Sabres F-86 that took-off from Zaragoza, in flight toward the UFO, did not located it. The truth is that they did not take notice of us. .., but on the 15, in the morning, appeared another in Reus and Tarragona, to a height of 7,500 meters, that originated the takeoff of other two F-86 of Zaragoza, with more glints of reality, because there were two stations of radar that located them: that of Roses and that of Calatayud. Upon approaching, the pair in line of flight and to the same height, the UFO moved itself up, vertically, up to some 15,000 meters approximately, ceiling not reachable by the Sabres F-86. Order was given for the takeoff of a couple of F-104 from the base of Torrejón, and the same thing occurred again. Upon being approached by the jets the UFO rose again, this time at more than 22,000 meters, unattainable ceiling without special cabins. Speaking with the pilots, when they landed, they declared that it had the shape of a "mushroom" and metallic shine... ...Here, in Rosas, there is a French party, to the command of a captain, that confirmed that they had launched in this day no globe probes or anything like that. Since then nothing unknown has been detected again. ..”

Is clear that someone is hiding information. In what safe sleeps the sleep of the righteous the obliged report of the leader of the Squadron of Warning and Control N. 4 on the UFO of May 14, 1968? I bet double against simple that those papers, in these moments, are guarded in Torrejón... And why in the declassified record has not been included the participation of the radar of Calatayud? But the more amazing is that the Section of Intelligence that edits the "considerations" -in its eagerness "to dilute" the incident- even writes:

"NOTABLE ASPECTS: The fact that one of them (the UFO on the region of Barcelona) was detected by the radar and the other not (that of Madrid), should not be considered distinguishing neither very significant."

Well yes that we are good...

Lets see if I am capable of understanding it. The fact that a not identifying object -with the shape of three parallel bodies- stroll itself happily on the capital of Spain, violating the air space and not being detected by the defensive systems, does not have the slightest importance. The more lamentable of the outstanding deduction of the MOA is not that my taxes have no use at all. The sad thing is that, on top, they call me fool of hood...

Perhaps the MOA, at the moment of raising the secret on the UFOS, should have had present one of the sentences of the book of proverbs: "Even the fool, when silenced, is counted as wise.. . ".

Certainly, in the end, what happened with the enigmatic UFO observed from Moncloa, in Madrid, and by the personnel of the base of Torrejón?

The report of the Defense Command, upon being found mutilated, is presented doubly confused. Had it not been for the providential communication from the captain stationed at the Paní radar, we would not know whether the couple reactor F-104 that took off from Torrejon made were bound to the capital of Spain or following the one located on Catalonia . All seems to indicate that the "flying coffins" chose the second. But, I insist, what happened to the one formed by three parallel bodies? The only reference contained in that sheet and a half clarifies that the supposed "globe" gained altitude and moved away. That occurred between the 10:30 and the 11 hours (Z), approximately AND as only trail, in the last paragraph of said official report - in a writing full of errors -, there is an allusion to a passenger plane that sighted the UFO to the NE of Madrid. Continuing the thread of the text of the Spanish Air Force -by pure logic- it seems that both objects (the observed from Madrid and the reported by the DC-9 of Iberia) they were in reality the same object. Sincerely, I am not so sure. Lets see why.

According to the Command of the Defense, both the employee of the Nuclear Energy Board as the passenger that travelled in the DC-9 and that filmed the UFO described the object like a body formed by three parallel blocks. This is not true. At least with regard to the testimony of the pilots flying to Paris.

The commander of that inaugural flight was José Luis Gahona. With him travelled José Antonio Atauri (co-pilot) and Cecilio Yusta, radio operator. They left the airport of Los Rodeos, in Tenerife, at nine in the morning (local time of Canaries). And after doing scale in Malaga they resumed the flight toward France. Because it was an inaugural flight, the passengers were also exceptional. Iberia had invited -besides an abundant group of representatives of the media of the archipelago- the top civil authorities, the chief of the airport of Las Palms, the chief commissioner of police, the consul of France in Great Canary, the secretary of the Chamber of Commerce and a total of twelve directors of travel and freight agencies. And at the front of them all, the delegate of Iberia in The Palms.

"When we flew over Madrid, Control provided us the first news on the UFO."

I should clarify -although perhaps is not necessary- that José Luís Gahona, with its 22,000 flight hours, is one of the Spanish pilots with greater seniority and experience. It has flown in military jets and entered Iberia in 1963. Since then -in these thirty years- has had opportunity to fly all types of apparatuses. Nobody, therefore, with a minimum of common sense, can doubt of its aeronautics preparation. We continue with his testimony:

The commander José Luís Gahona, witness of one of the UFOS that strolled themselves on Spain in the morning of May fifteen, 1968. "I did not seize the movie", declared to J.J. Benítez.

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 12:42 PM
continued from last post>>
The commander José Luís Gahona, witness of one of the UFOS that strolled themselves on Spain in the morning of May fifteen, 1968. "I did not seize the movie", declared to J.J. Benítez.


An immense and brilliant UFO "coincided" with the IB-192 on the vertical one of The Rioja. (Illustration: J J. Benítez).


more info on CNES >The French Space Agency (CNES) has been supporting scientific ballooning since its establishment in 1962. Balloon flights have being performing at high success rates from launch sites in France, Spain and Sweden. In parallel, the comprehensive Research and Development program (R&D) has continued with advances being made in these related disciplines: materials, structure analysis, balloon manufacture, flight performances, telemetry equipment, recovery system, long duration flights, etc This paper presents three main areas of activities in the French balloon development program:

• - gondola activities as platform for scientific payload of open stratospheric balloon: mainly with the improvements and operations of pointing systems gondola in collaboration with the Observatory of Geneva;
• - the development of two new systems which improves the recovery conditions of gondolas after cut off;
• - the development of a superpressure balloon as part of Strateole project.

CNES, the French Space Agency, makes available to the French and European scientific communities a comprehensive ballooning capacity with vehicles adapted to different scientific objectives as required by the scientists, and world-wide operational services. In addition, it provides funds to French scientific groups to develop balloon-borne instruments and fly them either individually or in the frame of coordinated campaigns. The main fields of research presently covered by the French scientific balloon programmes are astronomy, stratospheric dynamics and chemistry for science and satellite data validation, and troposphere dynamics. This paper shall briefly present these capabilities as well as the programmes and campaigns carried out during the past two years. It will give more detailed information on some experiments using different types of balloons such as the THESEO 1999 and 2000 campaigns for the study ozone destruction processes, the CLAIRE and ARCHEOPS astronomy experiments, the MUTSI, INDOEX and MAP balloon campaigns using small pressurised balloons for atmospheric dynamic studies. The results of the third flight of the 2-meter PRONAOS IR and sub-mm astronomy observatory will be presented in a separate paper. Finally, this paper will also put emphasis on an original technical development named AEROCLIPPER, devoted to atmosphere/ocean experiments, as well as on future scientific and technological trends as defined by the French scientific community.

This is just to demonstrate that the French are very capable in this field and are forrunners in balloon launching and research and this fortifies what's discussed on my thread. Angelc01

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 05:41 PM
Hi there Angel, I thought I would apply some Math to your information, to make it clear for folks who need to see some clear explanation as to why this object was not a balloon, according to physics...

Originally posted by angelc01
Lets refresh our memory . If this balloon was detected by E.V.A. [military radar instalation] at an altitude of four thousand feet. How do we exlpain that in a matter of minutes it placed itself at 60,000 ft.??

So 60,000ft Minus 4,000ft = 56,000ft.
1 mile = 5,280 feet

So 56,000 Divided by 5,280 gives us a distance travelled at 10.60606 Miles.

This means that (allowing an estimate on the healthy side) given 10 minutes (which is likely more time than we're actually looking at here) this object would need to be moving at approximately 60 miles per hour to achieve roughly 10 miles in 10 minutes.

Originally posted by angelc01
the ascending velocity of a real meterological [weather] balloon has difficulty surpassing 20 kilometers per hour!!

Okay, so:
1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers
20 Kilometers per hour = 12.4274238 Miles per hour
Roughly 12.5 MPH = maximum ascension rate of a meteorological weather balloon.

This speed falls short of the necessary required speed by roughly 48 miles per hour. The object was basically moving 5 times faster than a balloon is capable of acending.

Originally posted by angelc01
I insist -- who do they think they are fooling?

Certainly not me.


Edited for spelling in a hurry

[edit on 20-4-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 06:31 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
Your mathematical analysis is well asserted WFA on this particular matter which some folk would find hard to believe, but once pointed out as you most eloquently have done in your summary how can one not understand. Thank you so much WFA for your input.


posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 07:52 PM
continuation from last post--tag-- morning of that May 15, 1968 was splendid. Blue sky. Perfect flight. We were flying at 30,000 feet and almost one thousand kilometers per hour.

As I tell you, Madrid Control called us. And it asked if we could divert some twenty degrees toward the west. That is to say, to the left of our course. Apparently, according to what they communicated, they had seen an unidentified flying object. And they spoke of some "fighters" that took off from Torrejón but that, apparently, did not found it. We accept the suggestion and turned. But we did not see anything.
And toward 13:30 hours, over Sierra Cebollera, in the province of La Rioja, far away and very high we discovered "something" extraordinarily brilliant.

Alerted as we were by Madrid Control we gave it special attention. And we were approaching, although always very by underneath. If we flew at ten thousand meters, "that" had to be, as a minimum, at eighteen or twenty thousand. And that may be a short estimate.
The light that it emitted was amazing. I can assure you that it was not the reflection of the sun.

After some minutes we notify the passengers. And the majority paraded to the cabin, contemplating that wonder. I remember that, also by public address system, I asked if someone carried a camera. Then one of the passengers was presented, with one of those movie cameras. A "super-eight", I believe. According to my clock, since we began to see the UFO until we arrived at their vertical, eight minutes elapsed.
It was immense. Huge. In spite of the difference of level I reckoned its diameter in more than a hundred meters. Possibly greater than a bullring.

It was perfectly spherical, with three or four supports or "legs" in its lower part.
Then, Atauri, the co-pilot, took the camera and filmed. And he did it while we had it forward and in our vertical. In this last phase he filmed it through the skylight of the DC-9. It was motionless. And if it moved itself, the movement was imperceptible.

The most striking was its lighting and dimensions. While Atauri filmed we converse with Madrid Control and we explained what we saw and how a passenger had offered his camera, to make a movie of the UFO. Later, upon passing it, we lost sight of it. And we continue the flight toward Paris.

And the passenger, as is natural, recovered the "super-eight".
Then, I do not remember well if it was the Spanish Control or the French, they asked us that we seized the filming. I told it to the passenger but he fully denied it, alluding, with all reason, that the movie and the camera were of their property. And there, practically, the story concludes. Days later, in the flight of return, I asked to Madrid Control and they notified me that the UFO, that had been detected in the radar, disappeared shortly after our encounter."

Up to here -in synthesis- the version of the commander Gahona. A version that does not coincide with the report of the Command of the Spanish Air Defense and neither with the "summary" of the Section of Intelligence of the MOA.
Just as previously declared, it does not seem that the object that "went to meet" (?) the DC-9 had a lot that to do with the observed from Moncloa and Torrejón. Neither the shapes, neither the hours, neither the places are coincidental.

All of them, however, including his "brothers" in Catalonia, do have something in common: for irritation and blush of the hypercritical they challenged the high altitude winds, remaining motionless or sailing against strong currents. The "flying bullring", for example, static at some twenty thousand meters on La Rioja, bore in those moments (between the 13:30 and the 14 hours) some winds that oscillated between the 25 and 35 knots. And all of them of northwest component (330 degrees).

Unless, of course, that the UFO discovered on Madrid at 10:30 o'clock h. (Z) had climbed, changed shape and awaited the Iberia flight over the Sierra Cebollera. And without wanting it I make good again the "darnaudiana" hypothesis. A theory that, in the case of the UFOS of the 14 and May 15, 1968 that flew over Catalonia, acquires a special intensity. Rafael Farriols was the first one that alerted me on this interesting individual. Curiously, the object photographed by him did not coincided with what was observed at plain sight or with the aid of the telescope. Although I know that seems of lunatics, both shapes did not keep relation. And to entangle all this "madhouse", there is the version of the pilots of the "fighters" that tried to intercept that same UFO, in the morning of May 15: "It resembled a mushroom", they commented upon returning to their base. It is coincidence that we are presenting the same problem stirred up in the sightings of June 3, 1967 on Extremadura?

Honestly, I think not. And I go back to the less bad thesis: those objects were (and they are) machines "not human", with a technology (?) so high that obliges us to silence. If the sovereignty of men -as defended Bacon- is supported in science is it not time to recognize with humility that, cold and objectively, that excellence does not go beyond our own nose?

And speaking of "noses", this case of May 15, 1968 -a "classic" in the Hispanic Ufology- has plenty of them... And "it has noses", above all, concerning the movie obtained from the DC-9 of Iberia. It would be an attempt against the truth if I did not relate what really happened with said film. The "history" -as we will see- puts in evidence, once more, what was written by the military.

What says the report of the Defense Command about that particular situation? Lets be scrupulous and recall that last and cynical paragraph:

"... Few minutes later, Madrid Control reported that a DC-9 airplane originating in Paris bound for Malaga had sighted the object to the NE of Madrid and that a passenger had taken a color movie of the same, seeming it to the passenger to be an object composed of three spherical parallel bodies. The Controller of the COC (Central of Operations of Combat, in Torrejón) suggested to Madrid Control in contact with the airplane, that they asked the Commander to seize the movie, thing that he already had done by his own account to put it at the disposal of the Defense Command, being lent the passenger freely to collaborate. The movie was sent to Madrid Control who at the same time remitted it to the Department of the Air, to the Leader of the National Service of Control that at the same time caused it to arrive at this Command.
Madrid, May 31, 1968."

In turn, twenty-four years later, the Section of Intelligence of the MOA, upon devising the corresponding "summary" on the event, is shown more cautious and -knowledgeable, perhaps, of the committed irregularities with the passenger and the movie of its property- prefers to give "a long change", merely practicing the "sport" of the half-truths...

"To the request of the Commander of the DC-9 -the MOA says-, a passenger filmed with a camera the "object", delivering subsequently the movie, so that it was delivered to the Defense Command."

As is clear from the words of the commander Gahona, the first phase of the "seizure" it is in keeping with comments made by the Defence Command in the letter of May 31, 1968. Torrejón -through the "hot line" that unites them with Control Madrid- "suggests" that the pilot of Iberia get the movie. From there, the version presented in the above-mentioned official report is a monumental lie.

The facts -just as they were related by the passenger in question, Mister González Retuerce, at the time director of the agency Interopa- occurred in a very different way.
The commander José Luis Gahona, in fact, tried it. But the providential passenger -in his perfect right- refused to deliver what was his. And he conserved the camera in his power.

At 15:30 o'clock, with a small delay, the DC-9 landed in Le Bourget. And the expedition was transferred to the Hilton hotel, in the French capital. The return to Canaries would occur on Saturday day 18.
But the Spanish military authorities were not willing to lose the battle. And that same afternoon, when the group arrived at the hotel, three officials of the Spanish Embassy in Paris awaited Mister González Retuerce. More speed, impossible. And one of them -in uniform- identified himself as the air military attaché of said Embassy. It was the colonel B. Martínez. And he was directly at issue requiring immediate delivery of the film.

".. The argument of the air attaché -confessed González Retuerce- was the prompter: "If you do not obey the order from Madrid we will be in the arduous obligation to withdraw your passport."

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by angelc01

Thanks for the thread, very well researched. I just have one comment, from the pictures I see that J.J. Benitez is one of your sources, I have followed his career for quite a while now, and although he was a great pioneer of the UFO investigation in Spain (along with the great Antonio Ribera), he does kind aggregate some 25% to a lot of his reports.

I can`t forgive him for showing on prime time the moon ruins footage supposedly taken by Armstrong on Apollo 11, when he knew it was fake.

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by Camilo1
Hello Camilo-- Yes I know sometimes investigators are blinded by the fame and money it is truly a shame but what can you do?? He has some good investigations but there are many other sources we can tap into to get to the truth.
Like a friend of mine says just keep digging.


posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:00 PM
more info on CNES>>

Behind the scenes of a zero-pressure stratospheric balloon launch
Aire-sur-L’Adour is one of 2 launch bases that CNES operates in France. A few days before launch, the science team prepares the gondola containing all the instruments at the launch site.

Launch day begins with a weather update. If the conditions are right, the launch team lays out the flight train on the ground.

This generally consists of the gondola and science instruments, as well as a radar reflector, parachutes for the balloon landing, and a small auxiliary balloon to lift the gondola off the ground until the main balloon is airborne

Once the balloon has completed its programmed experiments, which only take a few hours, its descent is remotely controlled by teams on the ground

[img]They must find a landing site where the balloon and its precious scientific payload can be brought safely and securely back to Earth.

During these tricky final 30 minutes of the descent, the balloon is braked by parachutes also opened by remote control from the ground.

tag- >>Angelc01

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in