La Nave de los Locos - No 24

Magazine Overview

This issue of "La Nave de los Locos" (The Ship of Fools), number 24, from July 2003, is dedicated to "Classics of Ufology - 1." It aims to provide a rational debate on ufology and related phenomena, featuring articles that revisit seminal cases and explore potential explanations.

Editorial

The editorial defines a "classic" as something that endures, leaving teachings or evoking memories. It applies this to UFO cases, noting that some discussed in this issue occurred 56, 55, and 53 years prior but are still talked about in books, magazines, and online forums. The editorial highlights the Kenneth Arnold case as the most classic, initiating ufology. It also mentions the Thomas Mantell case and the Paul Trent photograph, critiquing those who seek to maintain a halo of mystery around such events. The editorial announces changes in the magazine's periodicity and previews upcoming content, including a chapter from "Elementos de Ovnilogía," an article by Raúl Núñez on a Chilean ufologist, and a piece by Mariano Moldes on the Nahuelito lake monster.

Article: Un Vuelo Fantástico (A Fantastic Flight) by James Easton

This article details the famous 1947 sighting by pilot Kenneth Arnold. Arnold, a former American football star working in fire prevention, was flying his Call-Air plane near the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. While searching for a missing C-46 aircraft, he observed nine unidentified flying objects moving in formation. Initially thinking they were geese due to their speed, he then considered military aircraft but noted the lack of tails. He timed their movement between two mountains, estimating their speed at over 1,200 mph (1,931 km/h). Upon landing in Yakima, he shared his experience with Al Baxter, who then told others. This event is credited with planting the seeds of the "flying saucer" myth. Arnold's description of the objects' movement as "like a Chinese kite tail" or "like speedboats bouncing on the waves" was later misinterpreted as their shape. Early newspaper reports described them as "flat like a pie" and "bat-like" or "crescent moon-shaped." The article notes that Arnold referred to them as "ships," suggesting he already considered them non-terrestrial. His sketch resembled a shoe heel, but later descriptions and drawings indicated a more crescent-like profile and a darker edge, possibly an "ala" (wing).

The article explores the possibility that Arnold observed secret military aircraft, specifically Northrop's "flying wing" designs like the XB-35 and YB-49, which had a similar shape. However, it points out that these prototypes were not widely tested or publicly known at the time of Arnold's sighting. The German Horten brothers' "flying wing" designs (Ho-IX/Go 229) are also mentioned as having a similar appearance.

Article: The "Flying Saucer" Hypothesis and Pelicans

This section delves into the theory that Arnold's sighting might have been a misidentification of American white pelicans. The article highlights that pelicans are large birds with a wingspan of up to 3 meters, predominantly white with dark wing edges, and can appear highly reflective, especially against snow. Their flight pattern, involving undulating movements and gliding, could be mistaken for something unusual. Several ornithologists and birdwatchers, including Michael Price, Don Baccus, and Richard Rowlett, support this hypothesis, noting that pelicans can fly at high altitudes and in formation. Mike Havener, a glider pilot, confirms that pelicans can maintain speeds comparable to gliders. The article suggests that Arnold's estimation of distance and speed might have been flawed, and the reflective undersides of the pelicans' wings, particularly when illuminated by sunlight off snow, could have created the "metallic" or "mirror-like" reflections he described.

Article: A Second Encounter and Arthur C. Clarke's Perspective

Kenneth Arnold reportedly had a second sighting five days later, describing "small objects" that were "undulating and shining with a matte amber color." He compared them to "ducks" but noted they were too fast to be ducks. The article suggests these might also have been birds. The author questions why Arnold, a pilot, failed to recognize these as birds. The article then introduces Arthur C. Clarke's 1958 essay "Things in the Sky," where he discusses the Arnold sighting and the possibility of misidentification. Clarke recounts an experience in Brisbane, Australia, where he observed "brilliant silver discs" that turned out to be seagulls reflecting the sun. He concludes that many UFO sightings can be attributed to birds reflecting sunlight under specific lighting conditions.

Article: Pelicans in Spokane

This section presents a newspaper clipping from July 12, 1947, from Spokane, Washington. It quotes Captain Gordon Moore of Northwest Airlines, who claims that "flying saucers" are actually pelicans or possibly geese or swans. Moore and his co-pilot, Vern Kesler, reportedly investigated sightings and concluded they were "real... true pelicans." The article notes that if Moore and Kesler hadn't identified the objects, their sighting could have become another famous UFO case, potentially bolstering the inexplicable nature of Arnold's experience.

Conclusion and Legacy

The article concludes by reflecting on the legacy of the Kenneth Arnold sighting. It suggests that while Arnold's account was treated with skepticism and humor, the "flying saucer" archetype, stemming from his description, has influenced many subsequent UFO cases, including Roswell, the Trent photos, and George Adamski. The article implies that if Arnold's sighting was indeed a misidentification, then the foundations of much of ufology are based on questionable evidence.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine consistently adopts a skeptical yet open-minded approach to ufology. It emphasizes rational debate and seeks to debunk or provide plausible explanations for UFO phenomena, often by examining early, foundational cases. The editorial stance appears to favor scientific and logical explanations over sensationalism, aiming to demystify UFO sightings by connecting them to known phenomena like bird behavior or misidentified aircraft. The magazine also highlights its commitment to providing in-depth analysis and historical context for these classic cases.

Title: LA NAVE DE LOS LOCOS
Issue: Nº 24, Año 4
Date: Julio de 2003
Publisher: LA NAVE DE LOS LOCOS
Country: Santiago de Chile
Document Type: Magazine Issue

Article 1: PELÍCANOS... ¿O NO? by Bruce Maccabee

This article critically examines James Easton's hypothesis that Kenneth Arnold's famous 1947 sighting of "flying saucers" was actually a flock of pelicans. Maccabee argues that Easton's theory has significant flaws.

Key Arguments Against the Pelican Hypothesis:

• Light Reflection: Arnold described intense flashes of light, like an electric arc or sunlight off a mirror. Maccabee contends that distant pelicans, even with white surfaces, could not produce such brilliant reflections. He refutes an expert's suggestion that snow and ice reflection could illuminate the underside of the birds' wings, stating Arnold was not positioned to see the underside and that the snow itself was not described as particularly bright.
• Visual Angle and Distance: Arnold observed the objects to his north, while he was flying east. The pelican theory struggles to explain how Arnold could have seen the underside of the birds' wings or how the birds, if far away, would appear as mere dots. Maccabee calculates that for pelicans to be visible as distinct shapes, they would need to be much closer than Arnold's estimated distance of 25 miles (40 km).
• Flight Path and Speed: Arnold's plane was flying east, while the pelicans were hypothesized to be flying south. Maccabee's calculations show that Arnold would have outpaced and moved past the pelicans, making it impossible for him to see them flying north of Mount Rainier or south of Mount Adams as he described.
• "Gloss" Effect: While Arthur C. Clarke's observation of seagulls appearing like metallic mirrors is mentioned, Maccabee dismisses the "gloss" effect as inapplicable to Arnold's case because Arnold's viewing direction relative to the sun and objects did not allow for such a phenomenon.
• Speed Discrepancy: Arnold estimated the objects' speed at 1,200 mph, while pelicans have a maximum speed of about 80 km/h (50 mph). This vast difference makes the pelican explanation highly improbable.

Conclusion on Pelican Hypothesis:

Maccabee concludes that the pelican hypothesis, despite attempts to support it with ornithological opinions, fails to adequately explain the details of Arnold's testimony, particularly the nature of the light flashes and the relative positions and speeds of the objects.

Article 2: RECORDANDO A KENNETH ARNOLD: PLATILLOS, PULGAS Y PELÍCANOS by Manuel Borraz (Spain)

This article offers reflections on the Kenneth Arnold sighting, emphasizing its significance and the enduring mystery surrounding it.

Key Points:

• Sole Witness Testimony: The entire case relies on Arnold's account, making analysis akin to interpreting a sacred text. The interpretation of his testimony often reflects the analyst's preconceived notions.
• "Fleas" as Objects: Borraz highlights that Arnold described objects near the limit of visual resolution, suggesting they were akin to "flying fleas." If they were any further or smaller, they would have been invisible.
• Birth of the "Flying Saucer" Era: While Arnold's sighting is considered a landmark, Borraz notes that the term "flying saucer" was a media creation, not an accurate description of the objects themselves. The term "UFO" later became a broader descriptor.
• Atypical Shapes: Borraz points out that the shapes described by Arnold remain atypical compared to objects reported in subsequent decades.
• Enduring Mystery: The fact that, over half a century later, there is no consensus on the identification of Arnold's objects suggests a fundamental issue with the data or the interpretation. Borraz questions whether attempts to find a conventional explanation are futile.
• Supersonic Speed Implication: Borraz notes that if Arnold's account is accurate, the objects must have exceeded the speed of sound, yet no sonic boom was reported, which would have been a significant event.
• Pelican Hypothesis Controversy: Borraz acknowledges the pelican hypothesis (referencing Easton's article) and the heated debate it has generated in online forums, leading to the coining of the term "pelicanist" for debunkers. He notes that while attractive, the explanation still leaves loose ends.

Article 3: EL CASO MANTELL by Christopher D. Allan (USA)

This article details the classic case of Captain Thomas Mantell, the first pilot to die while pursuing a UFO, and explores the various explanations and controversies surrounding it.

The Incident:

• On January 7, 1948, Captain Mantell and three other pilots of the Kentucky National Guard were diverted from a ferry mission to investigate a large, round, white object sighted over Kentucky.
• The object was observed by multiple witnesses, including personnel at Godman Airfield, for approximately two hours.
• Estimates of its size ranged up to 250 feet (85 meters) in diameter, with some describing it as having a reddish sheen or a cone shape.
• Mantell pursued the object, reporting it was metallic and of tremendous size, and ascended to 20,000 feet before losing contact.
• His F-51 fighter crashed near Franklin, Kentucky, killing him. His wingmen, who had turned back due to lack of oxygen and fuel, landed safely.

Early Explanations and Controversy:

• USAF Initial Stance: The USAF's initial silence and later statements fueled rumors, including claims of enemy action, disintegration of Mantell's plane, radioactive debris, and the sighting of "beings" inside the UFO.
• Venus Explanation: An astronomer, Dr. Walter Lee Moore, suggested the object could have been the planet Venus, which was bright and visible in the sky. The USAF issued a press release favoring this explanation.
• Balloon Explanation: Later, the USAF also proposed that the object might have been a weather balloon. Sidney Shalett's articles, written with USAF cooperation, downplayed the UFO aspect, suggesting Venus or a balloon launched from Minneapolis.
• Donald Keyhoe's Stance: Keyhoe, a prominent advocate of the extraterrestrial hypothesis (HET), argued strongly for a spaceship explanation, dismissing other possibilities. He claimed the USAF possessed secret recordings and photos of the UFO.
• Project Blue Book Archives: Ruppelt, director of Project Blue Book, later revealed that the USAF's summary report from December 1949 was misleading. He discussed the case with J. Allen Hynek, who admitted the summary was equivocal.

Later Developments and Skyhook Hypothesis:

• Hynek's Calculations: Hynek concluded that Venus, while bright, was too close to the sun to be clearly visible in daylight and could not account for Mantell's sighting.
• Skyhook Balloon Theory: Ruppelt became convinced the object was a large, secret "Skyhook" balloon, possibly used for reconnaissance or cosmic ray research. These balloons were high-altitude and classified.
• Camp Ripley Launch: Documents later surfaced indicating that Skyhook balloons were launched from Camp Ripley, Minnesota. One launch occurred on January 6, 1948, the day before Mantell's incident, making it a plausible candidate.
• Charles B. Moore's Involvement: Charles B. Moore, known for his involvement in the Mogul project (used to explain Roswell), was involved in launching these balloons. He was sure the Clinton County Air Base was not used for Skyhook launches until 1951, suggesting Camp Ripley was the more likely origin.
• Other Explanations: Alternative, non-extraterrestrial explanations like "mock suns" (Menzel) and "Jupiter mirages" (Campbell) are mentioned but dismissed as redundant given the more plausible balloon explanation.

Conclusion on Mantell Case:

The article suggests the Mantell case is likely resolved as a sighting of a secret Skyhook balloon. The confusion and controversy were exacerbated by the USAF's handling of the case, including misleading statements and resistance to public inquiry, which contributed to the climate of secrecy and distrust surrounding UFO phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine "LA NAVE DE LOS LOCOS" consistently explores classic UFO cases, presenting detailed analyses and challenging conventional explanations. The editorial stance appears to favor critical examination of evidence, questioning official narratives, and acknowledging the enduring mysteries within the field of ufology. The articles highlight the role of witness testimony, the influence of media and government agencies, and the ongoing debate between debunking efforts and the pursuit of extraterrestrial or unknown explanations. The issue emphasizes the importance of thorough research, as seen in the detailed breakdowns of the Arnold and Mantell cases, and touches upon the historical development of UFO investigation and the impact of secrecy.

Title: La Nave de los Locos
Issue: Nº 24
Date: Julio de 2003

This issue of La Nave de los Locos announces significant changes in its publication schedule and pricing, alongside an in-depth exploration of UFO investigation methodologies and a critical re-examination of a classic UFO case.

Aviso a Nuestros Lectores (Notice to Our Readers)

The editorial staff informs readers that, due to labor and financial reasons, the magazine will transition from a bi-monthly to a quarterly publication. This change, effective from the May 2000 issue, means the magazine will now be released every four months. The editors explain that the decision stems from a desire to improve printing quality, having been dissatisfied with previous service providers, which led to increased costs and financial strain. They acknowledge that the magazine is not a profitable venture but state their commitment to quality. To address the financial situation and the difficulty of meeting bi-monthly deadlines with increasing delays, they are adjusting the publication frequency, slightly increasing prices, and aiming for financial equilibrium. The new schedule will see issues released in November, March, and July. The November and July issues will contain 52 pages, while the March issue will have 88 pages. The price for a single issue will be $500, and for a double issue, $1,000. Subscription prices in Chile are also adjusted to $3,000, down from $4,000. Existing subscribers will receive their remaining issues as per their original agreement. Readers with inquiries are directed to the provided email address.

Elementos de Ovnilogía: Capítulo IV - Patronización de la Metodología de Investigación de Campo y Posterior Estudio de las Denuncias de OVNI

This extensive section, authored by Lic. Milton Hourcade, details a comprehensive methodology for conducting field investigations of UFO (OVNI) reports. It references various established UFO research organizations like APRO and MUFON, as well as influential handbooks. The author stresses the importance of prompt investigation, ideally within minutes or hours of an event, and emphasizes the necessity of personal interviews with witnesses, ruling out investigations conducted solely via mail or phone.

Key Principles of Investigation:

• Timeliness: Cases must be investigated as soon as possible.
• Personal Interview: Direct interviews with witnesses are essential.
• Objectivity: The focus is on determining what actually happened, not on the credibility of individuals.
• Witness Factors: Investigators must consider potential sources of error, such as ignorance, misperception, suggestion, media influence, or family/friend circles.
• Questionnaire Design: Questionnaires should be general to avoid leading the witness and should allow witnesses to provide all relevant information freely.

Investigator Team and Equipment:

• Team Composition: The size of the investigation team will depend on the nature of the case, with a minimum of two people for a basic team. A standby team is recommended.
• Essential Equipment: Investigators need a folder with various interview forms, a basic form for all cases, and specialized forms for specific types of events (e.g., FVS, RV, EC). Identification documents are also required. Maps, aerial photographs, notebooks, pens, recorders, compasses, measuring tapes, cameras, and other tools are listed.

Investigation Process:

1. Locate Witnesses: Identify and interview the witness(es).
2. Separate Witnesses: If multiple witnesses exist, interview them individually.
3. Gather Information: Request a general account of the event (recorded), complete a basic questionnaire (including date, time, location, apparent size, trajectory angles), obtain names and contact information of other witnesses and references.
4. Personal Data: Collect personal details of the witness(es) (name, age, civil status, profession, education level).
5. On-Site Reconstruction: Conduct measurements of angles, distances, and timing at the location.
6. Testimony Verification: Review all testimonies for completeness and internal consistency, and conduct cross-examinations if discrepancies arise.
7. External Data: Collect police reports or other official documentation.
8. Close Encounters (EC): For EC cases, the team splits, with one part handling external data collection and the other continuing on-site investigation.

Specific Procedures for Different Types of Evidence:

• Artifacts: Secure artifacts for examination, document their type, brand, model, age, previous issues, repair history, energy source, and any anomalies during the event. Arrange for expert technical examination.
• Vehicles: Document vehicle details (make, model, year, usage), previous repairs, and any effects from the OVNI event (e.g., battery, spark plugs). If the vehicle had a radio, record reception details and any interference. Conduct magnetic mapping and radioactivity checks. Arrange for technical review.
• Animals: Document species, age, breed, prior treatments, and any injuries. Photograph the animal and its lesions. Arrange for veterinary examination.
• Vegetation: Document type, age, previous issues, and treatments. Photograph affected specimens. Arrange for botanical study.
• Witness Afflictions (EC): Photograph any physical conditions presented by witnesses. Recommend obtaining medical history and interviewing treating physicians for a diagnosis.
• Landing Traces/Marks: Create a detailed map of the area, photograph the traces, measure dimensions, check for radioactivity, and collect soil samples for comparison. Note temperature and magnetic variations.
• Optical Instruments: Examine any optical instruments used by witnesses, noting their condition and any important details.
• Photographs: Document camera details (make, model, settings), film type, and laboratory processing. If negatives or slides are available, secure them. Determine if the witness is a professional or amateur photographer.
• Filming/Recording: Follow procedures similar to those for photographs and artifacts.
• Radar Captures: Collect data on radar operators, instrument details, location, antenna specifications, and any photographic, video, or digital recordings of the radar screen. Determine if the observation was continuous or intermittent and if any transponders were involved.

Dossier Clásicos de la Ufología: Una Investigación de las Fotografías de McMinnville

This article by Robert Sheaffer re-examines the famous McMinnville photographs taken by Paul Trent on May 11, 1950. The photos depict a disc-shaped object. The investigation, initially conducted by Dr. William K. Hartmann as part of the University of Colorado's UFO project (under Dr. Edward Condon), concluded that the witnesses' account was consistent with the photographic evidence. However, Sheaffer presents a critical analysis that challenges this conclusion.

Climatic Conditions:

Witnesses claimed the sky was overcast at the time of the sighting (around 7:30 PM after sunset). Hartmann's analysis of the photographs seemed to support this. However, meteorological records from the McMinnville station indicate that the sky was perfectly clear on May 11th, with only a few clouds noted earlier in the day. There was no report of overcast skies between 9:00 AM on May 10th and 10:00 AM on May 12th. This discrepancy between witness testimony and official weather data is highlighted as a significant inconsistency.

Lighting in the Photographs:

Sheaffer argues that the lighting in the photographs is inconsistent with a post-sunset, overcast sky. The shadows cast by various objects (garage wall, fuel tank, barn, pole) all point in the same direction, indicating a light source to the east. This lighting is described as consistent with daylight when the sun is in the east. While Hartmann acknowledged that shadows represented a possible discrepancy, Sheaffer elaborates on this point.

Maximum Size of an Illuminated Body:

By analyzing the shadows, particularly those on wooden planks, Sheaffer attempts to estimate the angular size of the light source. He uses a formula relating shadow size (u), object size (a), distance (d), and angular radius of the light source (theta). Measurements from the Trent photos suggest that the wooden planks are approximately "2 by 6" (3.8 x 14 cm), and the shadows cast are consistent with a strong light source from the east, likely the sun. The analysis suggests that the light source is not diffused by clouds, as the shadows are sharp and distinct.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue reflects a commitment to rigorous investigation and critical analysis within the field of ufology. The editorial stance, as evidenced by the notice to readers, prioritizes quality and transparency, even if it means operational changes. The detailed methodology section underscores a belief in systematic, evidence-based research. The re-examination of the McMinnville photos demonstrates a willingness to challenge established conclusions and seek objective explanations, even if they contradict initial interpretations or witness accounts. The magazine appears to advocate for a scientific approach to UFO phenomena, emphasizing careful data collection, analysis, and consideration of all possible factors, including environmental conditions and potential witness misperceptions.

This issue of "La Nave de los Locos" (Issue 24, July 2003) delves into several intriguing topics within the realm of ufology and unexplained phenomena. The main articles focus on the analysis of the controversial Paul Trent UFO photographs, the scientific assessment of the plesiosaur hypothesis for lake monsters, and an exploration of the 'Friendship Island' mystery.

Analysis of the Paul Trent UFO Photographs

The issue critically examines the photographs taken by Paul Trent, which purportedly show a flying saucer. The analysis, based on shadow measurements and astronomical data, suggests that the shadows are consistent with direct sunlight. The article concludes that the object's small angular size and intense brightness indicate the shadows were caused by the sun, making it unlikely to be an extraordinary flying object. The time of day the photos were taken is estimated to be around 8:20 AM on May 11, 1950, with the sun at approximately 25 degrees elevation. The distribution of sky brightness also supports this timing. Furthermore, the possibility of dirty or damaged camera lenses is raised as an explanation for the object's appearance, suggesting that the apparent anomalous brightness might be due to light scattering rather than the object's intrinsic properties or great distance.

The Plesiosaur Hypothesis for Lake Monsters

The article debunks the popular hypothesis that lake monsters like the Loch Ness Monster and Argentina's 'Nahuelito' are surviving plesiosaurs. It argues that these lakes are too young geologically for such ancient creatures to have survived. The anatomy of plesiosaurs, adapted for open seas, is deemed unsuitable for freshwater lakes. The author suggests that sightings are more likely misinterpretations of natural phenomena, such as floating vegetation, or known animals like otters or coypus seen in unusual ways. The iconic image of a plesiosaur with a long neck is described as a product of contemporary iconography rather than scientific accuracy.

The Friendship Island Mystery

This section explores the 'Friendship Island' phenomenon, which gained attention in Chile. The author, Raúl Núñez, discusses how the topic was initially handled by Chilean ufologists and media. He recounts the early stages of the investigation, involving figures like Josep Guijarro and Cristián Riffo. The article touches upon the complex dynamics and personal rivalries within the ufological community surrounding this case. It also introduces various characters involved, including Rodrigo Fuenzalida, described as a central figure who promoted the Friendship theme, and psychiatrist Mario Dussuel. The author expresses skepticism about some of the claims and individuals involved, suggesting that personal agendas might be at play. The section also mentions the possibility of connections to Nazi and Mormon hypotheses and critiques the late emergence of interest in the topic from some Chilean researchers.

Other Topics and Conclusions

The issue also briefly touches upon other related subjects, including the work of investigators like Philip J. Klass and William K. Hartmann. The author concludes that the testimonies regarding supposed UFO sightings are not strong evidence for the existence of extraordinary flying objects. He emphasizes the importance of scientific skepticism and the need for corroborating evidence beyond mere witness accounts. The article suggests that many UFO cases, when exposed as hoaxes, should lead to a healthy skepticism regarding future reports of seemingly improbable phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are skepticism towards extraordinary claims, the critical analysis of photographic evidence, and the debunking of popular cryptozoological and ufological hypotheses. The editorial stance appears to be one of cautious investigation, prioritizing scientific methodology and evidence-based reasoning over unsubstantiated beliefs or apologetics. The magazine encourages a critical approach to UFO phenomena and related mysteries, urging readers to distinguish between evidence and speculation.

'La Nave de los Locos' issue number 24, dated July 2003, is a Spanish-language magazine that delves into various unexplained phenomena, ufology, and critical analysis of related groups and literature. The issue features a personal reflection on Michel Jordán's views, an account of a sighting near the International Space Station, and an extensive review of Manuel Carballal's book 'Los Expedientes Secretos'.

Michel Jordán and the 'Friendship' Group

The issue begins with a commentary on Michel Jordán, noting his continued prejudices regarding Freemasonry in Chile, despite acknowledging the historical involvement of many South American independence figures in such societies. The author expresses a personal feeling of 'extreme mysticism' or 'frustrated relationship' with a religious collective, stemming from Jordán's advice to 'pray and ask God for guidance.' The commentary highlights that Jordán expresses truths about Chilean figures in the ufological scene that are not widely known. The author mentions living apart from such events but recalls periods in Chile being 'juicy in information' and sometimes overwhelming. A participation in a radio program in Barcelona about the 'Friendship' group is recounted, where Fuenzalida is described as defensive and unoriginal, suggesting a closing circle around certain topics. While acknowledging that 'Friendship' had a solid base and future project, the author states that circumstances made its beginnings obsolete and the organization was used for purposes different from its original ideals.

The author respectfully addresses 'our Supreme Creator or God, or the Energy that guides us,' suggesting that divine concerns are more significant than worrying about people who claim to go to a supposed island, leaving their families. The author believes a higher power could easily discern those who are 'sane sheep' from those who are 'a little crazy.' The commentary concludes with a plea for more honesty and less ego-driven protagonism in UFO matters, also expressing a wish for investigators lost in the 'limbo of Friendship' to be enlightened in their search for a 'famous little island,' and for humanity to be more humble and less egocentric.

UFO Sighting on the ISS

The magazine reports on an unusual event observed by astronaut Ed Lu from the International Space Station (ISS). While looking out a window, Lu spotted a small object floating nearby, which he described as a rectangular piece of metal approximately 5 cm long. The NASA officials investigated the incident using photographic evidence provided by the astronauts. The leading hypothesis is that the object is an identification tag that may have detached from an external power or data transmission cable. NASA officials stated that the object posed no threat to the ISS due to its very low relative speed. Despite these clarifications, some Chilean ufologists, referred to as the 'incombustibles of Ovnivisión,' attempted to claim the object was a UFO, a reaction that the magazine's authors found unsurprising.

Review of 'Los Expedientes Secretos' by Manuel Carballal

The bulk of the magazine is dedicated to a review of Manuel Carballal's book, 'Los Expedientes Secretos: El CESID, el control de las creencias y los fenómenos inexplicables' (The Secret Files: CESID, the control of beliefs, and inexplicable phenomena). The book, published by Planeta 2mil1 in Barcelona, Spain, spans 494 pages. The reviewer acknowledges the book's intimidating length but praises Carballal's ability to make it an agile read, despite some forced connections between chapters.

Carballal's ambitious work attempts to cover a wide range of topics, including child disappearances, alleged Virgin Mary apparitions, the use of psychics by intelligence agencies, the use of paranormal powers to locate abducted individuals, the Ummo case, and UFO crashes in Spain. The reviewer notes that while Carballal generally maintains a critical line in his UFO-related assessments, he sometimes falls into the trap of 'yes, but...' statements.

The review highlights specific cases discussed in the book. Regarding the disappearance of David Guerrero, Carballal's experiment led him to conclude that consulting psychics 'contributes nothing more than confusion and a waste of time in police investigations.' However, the review points out that a minority, like priest José María Pilón, has had success using pendulums for locating people.

Another point of contention is Carballal's evolving view on Israeli illusionist Uri Geller. Initially convinced Geller's powers were fraudulent, Carballal changed his mind after witnessing demonstrations. The reviewer contrasts this with James Randi, a skeptical magician who exposed Geller's tricks on television.

The review criticizes Carballal's repeated emphasis on his independent work and pursuit of truth, finding it unnecessary to state this so frequently. Despite this, the reviewer commends Carballal's storytelling and ability to convey atmosphere, especially given the vast number of topics covered.

The reviewer questions the book's primary focus, wondering if it's about UFOs, spies, paranormal phenomena, or Nazis, suggesting it might be a mixture of all. The book's aim may be to challenge accepted truths and encourage readers to question official statements. The review concludes by advising readers not to blindly believe Carballal's version or any other.

The review also touches upon Carballal's investigation into the ocultamiento of information regarding OVNI cases, his collaboration with a deputy to declassify UFO-related documents (which he suggests were experimental US aircraft), and the concern this raised among Spanish congressmen about the risk to the peninsula's inhabitants.

Furthermore, the book dedicates a section to the 'mystery of the cut hand,' detailing the story of Margarita Ruiz de Lihory, who mutilated her dead daughter. Carballal links this case, through convoluted circumstances, to the Ummo case, involving Nazi doctors. The review notes Carballal's extensive coverage of the Ummo affair, providing a summary for readers unfamiliar with this 'classic' of Spanish ufology.

The review contrasts the views of ufologists Antonio Ribera (who believed in the Ummo case) and Óscar Rey Brea (who became skeptical due to weak evidence). It also points out how media outlets facilitated the deception orchestrated by José Luis Jordán Peña, the main instigator of the Ummo case.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The magazine 'La Nave de los Locos' appears to adopt a critical and analytical stance towards ufological claims and related phenomena. It encourages skepticism and independent thinking, urging readers not to accept any single narrative, including that of the authors themselves, at face value. Themes of government secrecy, the manipulation of information, the role of psychics, and the psychological aspects of belief are recurrent. The editorial stance seems to favor a rational approach, questioning sensationalism and ego-driven claims within the UFO community, while still acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena and the importance of investigation.