Isla de Lobos is a small island a few miles off the Uruguayan coast, just where the River Plate meets the Atlantic Ocean. Its name means literally “island of the fur seals”, as these animals roam freely, and it is a lonely place where the only outstanding feature is the lighthouse.
The maintenance of this lighthouse is the responsibility of the Navy, and for that purpose a small garrison of 4 or 5 men is kept on the island. Their main task is to attend to the electric generators, as the actual operation of the beam is automatic. It is a routine and non-stressing job, and the tours of duty are 15 days in and 15 days out.
On the night of October 28, 1972, there were five men at the house which serves as headquarters for the Navy personnel: the witness, Corporal Juan Fuentes Figueroa; two enlisted men, Jose Gomez and Hector Gimenez; a telegraph operator, Jose Lima; and the sub-officer in charge, Francisco Cascudo. After dinner, the men sat around the table for a while, talking and playing cards, until at 10:10 PM it was time for Corporal Fuentes to inspect the generators, which are located at the base of the lighthouse proper.
As soon as Cpt. Fuentes started to walk toward the lighthouse, he noticed on top of the terrace some lights that shouldn’t be there. In fact, he thought first of a car, a complete impossibility, and his reaction was to return to the house and procure a pistol that he had in his room. To do this, he didn’t have to pass through the kitchen where the other men were, so he didn’t speak to them. As will be discussed later, this behavior is typical of the personality of the witness.
Own A Part Of Your Favorite Celebrity!
Carrying the pistol, he went outside again and started walking decisively but not fast toward the lighthouse, meanwhile removing the safety from the gun and cocking it. As he advanced, he noted that the object had several lights: some white, some yellowish, and a third color that he describes as violet, as in the “rainbow”. Those lights were sufficient to allow him a good view, and he saw that a figure was next to the object and that a second was in the process of descending. A third and taller figure started to descend almost at once, but at the same moment, the initial two figures noticed Fuentes progressing toward them. They had what appeared to Fuentes as a moment of communication, and all three of them faced him.
By that time, Fuentes was at about 27 meters from the object, which, we will recall, was on the top of a 6-meter terrace. Hence, the object was above him, and he started to raise his extended arm to shoot. He was never to complete his motion, as the entities prevented him, from doing so. Fuente, a man of limited education, tried in vain to explain to the investigators how this was accomplished. It was not telepathy, and he felt some physical effects, like a “vibration” and his hair standing on end; but more than anything else it was like a premonition, in his words like: “Don’t shoot because it is useless”. At any rate, he felt paralyzed and confused, and was unable to shoot.
The action continued rather fast: the entities reentered their craft, the tallest one first. Although Fuentes did not see steps or a handrail, he could see quite well the motion of the figures against the lights of the object, outlined by the light coming out through the open door. He is certain that there were steps, as while the entities were climbing up with their backs toward the witness, their motions were like those of a person pulling himself up with handrails.
The door closed sideways, and the craft started to move straight up, emitting a humming sound until it reached about 45 meters, as judged by the adjacent lighthouse tower. It then tilted, belched a blinding fireball from the bottom, and disappeared in silence at a tremendous speed toward the southeast.
The witness returned to the house, where the other men noticed him white as a paper and still with a gun in hand. When he said that he had seen a flying saucer, he was not believed, except perhaps by Sub-Officer Cascudo.
Corporal Fuentes was rather upset that his equals and his immediate superiors were dubious of his story, and was planning when he returned to Montevideo to go to one of the leading newspapers and make his experience public. However, before this was accomplished, he was ordered to report to a higher ranking officer, who carefully listened to what Fuentes had to say. He then disappeared into an office in which two members of the personnel of the American Embassy had been waiting.
According to Fuentes, they were officers of the “Spatial Affair Service”, (sic) and their presence in the Command Offices was not unusual. Fuentes was left waiting in the corridor, and after a while someone came out and offered him some drawings for inspection and asked him to select the one closest to what hi has seen. He did so and was dismissed. He never talked directly to the Americans, but from the conversation overheard through the door, he concluded that they were surprised at the short distance of Fuente’s observation. And I am amazed at the continuous interest shown by American Embassies in collecting information about a phenomenon that we have been told many times does not exist...
While the whole incident lasted about one minute, Corporal Fuentes had the object in direct view for more than about 15 seconds. It was well illuminated by its own lights, and it was fortuitous that the external lights usually illuminating the exterior of the installations were not in operation that night. If the floodlights had been on, they would have prevented a clear view by the witness, even blinding him at the location of the observation. As things turned out, he observed the entities in the background light of their own craft, and even if this prevented him from seeing facial details, for example, their outline and motions were quite evident.
When Corporal Fuentes started to walk toward the lighthouse, the first entity was already on the terrace, while the second was alighting from the craft. These two entities were about 1.50 m. (5 ft), while the third one, the last to descend, was 1.75-1.80 m. (6 ft). Thus, their heights were within the normal human limits (Fig. 2). Their silhouettes were dark, as if they were wearing heavy black rubber suits. The witness attributed their slow and deliberate motions to the weight of their suits, and thinks that his presence surprised the strangers at the beginning of an operation never to be completed. Their descent from the craft was done backwards, as if using a ladder not seen by the witness. Likewise, when they climbed back into the object, their motions were those of a person pulling himself up using handrails.
The most distinctive feature of the entities, clearly noticeable in the profile view that they offered to the witness, was the elongated shape of the back o their heads. It is not clear if this corresponds to the heads themselves, or it is was the result of some type of hood or garment.
The craft itself had the shape of an inverted bowl, with a diameter of between 4 and 5 meters. It had a dome on top and a rectangular aperture or door, used by the entities to descend (Fig. 3). It also had legs, which the witness saw clearly during the first stage of the departure. as the craft was slowly gaining altitude. Those legs did not fold like the landing gear of a plane, but retracted telescopically.
The surface of the craft was undoubtedly metallic, with a somewhat reddish color that Fuentes compared to mahogany. The most distinctive feature of the object was the antenna that topped it, shaped like a corkscrew and rotating.
The lights have already been described, and it only is necessary to add that they seemed to Fuentes like “little squares”, moving and flashing like “an advertising sign”.
This is a single witness sighting, and yet it has become the best case coming from Uruguay due to the in-depth investigation done by the members of C.I.O.V.I.. This paper is based on the information contained in their report on this case. (Ref.1).
The first stage of the investigation consisted of two lengthy interviews with the witness in his own home. The two interviews were recorded, and the transcripts do not reveal any discrepancies in the narrative.
This was followed by an “in situ” reconstruction of the events. with the participation of the witness. Sub-officer Cascudo, present on the island that night, verified that the initial version by Corporal Fuentes was similar to the subsequent descriptions relayed later to the investigating team. Sub-officer Cascudo, as well as other superiors of Corporal Fuentes, described him as a “simple and honest man, incapable of inventing a story of this nature”.
But indeed the most fascinating part of the CIOVI investigation was to request the assistance of a professional and to submit the witness to a battery of psychological tests that extended over a total of 9 hours, and that included, among others, Raven, Bender, Rorschach and PMK.
The result of those various tests dwell on positive and negative aspects of the personality of the witness, but when analyzed in the light of the narrative presented by Corporal Fuentes, they complement each other and tend to lend credibility to the story.
In what follows, the key elements of the psychological evaluation will be indicated with quotation marks, interspace with comments on how they relate to the particular facets of the case.
First of all, the witness is described as “sincere, uncomplicated and simple”. He expresses what for him is the truth, and he does that in a straighrforward manner, with no cultural burden distiring what he has to say.
The witness “has no tendency to fabrication or fantasy”, which if existing would damage his credibility. Moreover, he has “less that average intellectual capacity”, to which the psychologist adds that he “lacks an average imagination” and “has a remarkably poor knowledge of what is going on in the social environment”. All of these are pluses from the viewpoint of the credibility of the witness, and negate the possibility of him having created the whole story. And in fact, the investigators were able to determine that the ufological knowledge of the witness was practically non-existent.
From the emotional viewpoint, the witness is typified as “insecure, prompt to react anxiously and even aggressively” to an unexpected situation. That is exactly what the witness did when confronted with the impossible presence of a car on the terrace: his first reaction was to arm himself, although he could not explain later to the investigators what he intended to do with the gun. But he was following his training, and thus bolstered his confidence.
Another result of the psychological tests is that the witness has “a balanced psychic personality”, and it is “unlikely that he would confabulate by himself, unless an external event would upset him”. To summarize, his poor intellectual capacity and lack of imagination did not allow him to reason what was best to do when confronted with the unexpected, and instead of firing his gun or alerting his companions, he failed to do either, remaining paralyzed and confused. When he returned to the house, the other men noticed his trembling voice and his pale color, so there is no question that an external stimulus affected him deeply.
The conclusion, then, is that the psychology and personality of the witness are such that his reactions and behavior under the circumstances are totally compatible. Therefore, the probability that the witness is telling the truth is very great.
Of course, there is always an uncertainty about what percentage of the description of the witness corresponds to the physical reality of the object and the entities, but we can assert that in fact that Isla de Lobos is a remote place, moreover, a restricted area with difficult access, controlled by the Uruguayan Navy, and where no conventional explanations are viable, the inescapable conclusion is that this case is, using Dr. Maccabee’s coined word, a TRUFO. - Dr. Willy Smith (UNICAT Project)/ C.I.O.V.I.
-----
CASE REVIEW - 2005
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 - C.I.O.V.I.
Flying saucers uncensored
UFOs Over the Americas
The Cryptoterrestrials: A Meditation on Indigenous Humanoids and the Aliens Among Us
