Posted On: March 3, 2023

On January 3, 1975, the Moreno family was spending the summer at "Las Grutas" beach resort, a few kilometers from the city of San Antonio Oeste (Río Negro). They were staying in a chalet provided by a relative. .

That day they had planned to visit the Valdés Peninsula and to that effect they had got up at 6.30 am. But the day had dawned extremely cold and cloudy, with threats of rain, so they decided to postpone the trip for the following day. .

At approximately 9:15 a.m., Mr. Francisco Moreno was reading a novel at the desk located on the top floor of the villa, while his wife and daughter were cleaning the couple's bedroom, located on the first floor. .

It was then that something caught Mr. Moreno's attention. He heard a kind of buzzing sound, which he compared to that produced by a television set. At first he didn't think much of it, but the buzzing sound, very faint at first, gained some intensity and began to intrigue him. .

"At first I thought it might be a television, but given the time of day I immediately dismissed it. Then I thought it might be the vacuum cleaner, but the sound seemed to be coming from outside the house. It wasn't really a loud sound, it wasn't very loud but it was quite annoying.", Mr. Moreno told us verbatim. .

In the belief that the sound was coming from outside the villa, Mr. Moreno approached the only window of the room he occupied (facing the back of the house), and looked for the source of the strange buzzing sound. It was then that he saw an object suspended in the sky. .

"It was something like a dark gray pointed hat," Mr. Moreno responded to our inquiry. .

The object was suspended in the sky and Moreno had a feeling that this was the source of the buzzing sound. .

"When I saw it, I was paralyzed. But then I remembered the camera that I always carry with me and that I had left in my room. Then I shouted for my wife and daughter because I wanted them to see it too. I shouted at them to come and bring the camera.", the witness recounted. .

Both women heard Mr. Moreno's screams, grabbed the camera and hurriedly went upstairs to the top floor of the villa. 

"When they arrived and gave me the camera, I was calm. I was afraid that it would disappear from one moment to the next and I wouldn't be able to photograph it, so I took the camera and pointed it. I saw that the needle on the meter showed underexposure, so I corrected the aperture. The object still didn't move, but I was shaking so much that it was difficult to focus it correctly." says Mr. Moreno. .

Mr. Moreno pressed the shutter and got the first slide. He was using an Asahi Pentax 35 mm camera with normal optics (50 mm lens), 64 ASA Kodak reversal film, speed 1/125 and aperture 5.6. .

"Once I shot, I ran the roll and stared at the object. It was still, not moving, although it seemed to be swaying slightly. Suddenly it began to move, first very slowly and then speeding up. Then I raised the camera and took the second slide.", says Mr. Moreno.

"As it accelerated, the buzzing sound seemed to get louder and louder, although I don't know if that was the reason or if it was because the object was approaching the place where we were. Once I took the second photograph I tried to get a third, but from where we were we could no longer see the object, although we could still hear the buzzing sound, which became fainter and fainter.", Moreno recalls. .

Then Mr. Moreno and his family went to the outside of the house, more precisely to the street, but they could not see the UFO again.

"That device seemed to be moving quite fast, as it must not have taken us 15 seconds to reach the sidewalk and it had already disappeared. The buzzing sound could no longer be heard.", the witnesses reported.

The UFO began to move in a southerly direction, according to the witness.

Evaluation of testimonials:

None of the witnesses was categorical as to the dimensions of the object, nor with respect to the height or distance at which it was located. .

Mr. Moreno guessed that the object could have been at an altitude of 150 to 200 meters, and clarified that as it advanced it descended gradually. He believes that the object could have been about 300 meters away at the time of the first slide.

None of the witnesses saw reflections, lights or any other detail of importance. Both Mrs. Moreno and her daughter agreed that the upper part of the UFO was somewhat lighter than the lower part. They also agreed in the observation of the slight roll, observed before the UFO began to move southward.

All three witnesses agreed on the general shape of the object (see drawings) with slight differences, and are certain that it was not an airplane, a bird, a balloon or any other object known to them up to that day.

All three witnesses heard the buzzing sound and perceived its fluctuations. Mrs. and Miss Moreno only heard it when they entered the room from where the UFO was photographed.

The UFO remained in view of the witnesses for almost two minutes. Mr. Moreno believes that it will have been one minute from the time he noticed the buzzing sound until he discovered the object hovering in the sky, and almost a minute and a half from the time he saw it until he obtained the photographs. He estimates that there will have been a lapse of 15 to 20 seconds between each photo.

Evaluation of photographic material:

The film used (Kodak reversible 64 ASA) has undergone a normal developing process. .

The exposure was correct, as the slides were neither underexposed nor overexposed. The witness, Mr. Moreno, claims to have used 1/125 and f: 5.6, which is what is recommended by film manufacturers for "clear cloudy". .

Observed the slides under a Zuhio microscope at 300x magnification, it is observed that the grain is normal for a 64 ASA film and that they are perfectly distributed over the entire length of the frames. Nothing strange has been detected at the edges of the object and the grain is the same there as in the rest of the film. .

Focus definition is excellent in both photographs. Although in the first one the edges of the object seem somewhat blurred, this could be due to reflections on the surface of the object, or to a slight haze that hindered visibility (remember that the sky was totally overcast, that the time at which the photographs were taken was 9.15 am and that the sea coast is about 300 meters from the witnesses). .

Mrs. and Miss Moreno state that the object was somewhat lighter at the top than at the bottom. But the photographic film does not have the sensitivity of the human eye and, due to the effect of the contrast offered by the clouds, the object appears as a uniform dark gray color. Given the time of day, the sun must have been behind the roof in the foreground, giving a superior brightness to the clouds in that part of the sky. 

The absence of reflections on the surface of the UFO may also be due to this circumstance, although these cannot be totally ruled out in the first photograph. 

As can be seen in the respective enlargements of the first and second photographs, the shape of the object is the same, i.e. the object's axis has not changed with reference to the camera lens. 

However, while in the first photograph the object appears perfectly symmetrical in relation to its axis, in the second photograph there is a slight difference in the edges of the "dome" and the "base" on either side of the axis, which may be due to the fact that the object was moving and accelerating.

Possibility of Mystification:

It is very difficult for anyone, even for those with adequate technical knowledge, to make a judgment about the authenticity of a photographic document such as the one in question. In fact, it will never be possible to know with total and absolute certainty whether these photos are authentic or not. .

It should be clarified that, when we say authenticity of a photograph, we are referring to whether the photograph in question has been obtained as the witness claims to have taken it. Once this aspect has been elucidated, it is necessary to analyze what the photograph shows and here there are two options: either it is only a false interpretation of "something known" (conventional flying objects, birds, defects in the film used, traces of the developing process, reflections in the camera optics, etc.) or, on the contrary, the object that the analyzed photograph shows is a UFO. .

In the specific case of the slides obtained in "Las Grutas" we believe that there is no room for "false interpretation", at least we have never seen an airplane, bird or balloon with such strange characteristics, nor film defects or traces of development that are repeated exactly in two consecutive frames. So if Mr. Moreno's photographs are authentic, they show a flying saucer.

Research: Guillermo Roncoroni and Gustavo Álvarez.

Source: "Cuarta Dimensión" (Fabio Zerpa).

Post from user Mordrenix at UFObelievers at reddit.com.

Posted On: March 3, 2023

On January 3, 1975, the Moreno family was spending the summer at "Las Grutas" beach resort, a few kilometers from the city of San Antonio Oeste (Río Negro). They were staying in a chalet provided by a relative. .

That day they had planned to visit the Valdés Peninsula and to that effect they had got up at 6.30 am. But the day had dawned extremely cold and cloudy, with threats of rain, so they decided to postpone the trip for the following day. .

At approximately 9:15 a.m., Mr. Francisco Moreno was reading a novel at the desk located on the top floor of the villa, while his wife and daughter were cleaning the couple's bedroom, located on the first floor. .

It was then that something caught Mr. Moreno's attention. He heard a kind of buzzing sound, which he compared to that produced by a television set. At first he didn't think much of it, but the buzzing sound, very faint at first, gained some intensity and began to intrigue him. .

"At first I thought it might be a television, but given the time of day I immediately dismissed it. Then I thought it might be the vacuum cleaner, but the sound seemed to be coming from outside the house. It wasn't really a loud sound, it wasn't very loud but it was quite annoying.", Mr. Moreno told us verbatim. .

In the belief that the sound was coming from outside the villa, Mr. Moreno approached the only window of the room he occupied (facing the back of the house), and looked for the source of the strange buzzing sound. It was then that he saw an object suspended in the sky. .

"It was something like a dark gray pointed hat," Mr. Moreno responded to our inquiry. .

The object was suspended in the sky and Moreno had a feeling that this was the source of the buzzing sound. .

"When I saw it, I was paralyzed. But then I remembered the camera that I always carry with me and that I had left in my room. Then I shouted for my wife and daughter because I wanted them to see it too. I shouted at them to come and bring the camera.", the witness recounted. .

Both women heard Mr. Moreno's screams, grabbed the camera and hurriedly went upstairs to the top floor of the villa. 

"When they arrived and gave me the camera, I was calm. I was afraid that it would disappear from one moment to the next and I wouldn't be able to photograph it, so I took the camera and pointed it. I saw that the needle on the meter showed underexposure, so I corrected the aperture. The object still didn't move, but I was shaking so much that it was difficult to focus it correctly." says Mr. Moreno. .

Mr. Moreno pressed the shutter and got the first slide. He was using an Asahi Pentax 35 mm camera with normal optics (50 mm lens), 64 ASA Kodak reversal film, speed 1/125 and aperture 5.6. .

"Once I shot, I ran the roll and stared at the object. It was still, not moving, although it seemed to be swaying slightly. Suddenly it began to move, first very slowly and then speeding up. Then I raised the camera and took the second slide.", says Mr. Moreno.

"As it accelerated, the buzzing sound seemed to get louder and louder, although I don't know if that was the reason or if it was because the object was approaching the place where we were. Once I took the second photograph I tried to get a third, but from where we were we could no longer see the object, although we could still hear the buzzing sound, which became fainter and fainter.", Moreno recalls. .

Then Mr. Moreno and his family went to the outside of the house, more precisely to the street, but they could not see the UFO again.

"That device seemed to be moving quite fast, as it must not have taken us 15 seconds to reach the sidewalk and it had already disappeared. The buzzing sound could no longer be heard.", the witnesses reported.

The UFO began to move in a southerly direction, according to the witness.

Evaluation of testimonials:

None of the witnesses was categorical as to the dimensions of the object, nor with respect to the height or distance at which it was located. .

Mr. Moreno guessed that the object could have been at an altitude of 150 to 200 meters, and clarified that as it advanced it descended gradually. He believes that the object could have been about 300 meters away at the time of the first slide.

None of the witnesses saw reflections, lights or any other detail of importance. Both Mrs. Moreno and her daughter agreed that the upper part of the UFO was somewhat lighter than the lower part. They also agreed in the observation of the slight roll, observed before the UFO began to move southward.

All three witnesses agreed on the general shape of the object (see drawings) with slight differences, and are certain that it was not an airplane, a bird, a balloon or any other object known to them up to that day.

All three witnesses heard the buzzing sound and perceived its fluctuations. Mrs. and Miss Moreno only heard it when they entered the room from where the UFO was photographed.

The UFO remained in view of the witnesses for almost two minutes. Mr. Moreno believes that it will have been one minute from the time he noticed the buzzing sound until he discovered the object hovering in the sky, and almost a minute and a half from the time he saw it until he obtained the photographs. He estimates that there will have been a lapse of 15 to 20 seconds between each photo.

Evaluation of photographic material:

The film used (Kodak reversible 64 ASA) has undergone a normal developing process. .

The exposure was correct, as the slides were neither underexposed nor overexposed. The witness, Mr. Moreno, claims to have used 1/125 and f: 5.6, which is what is recommended by film manufacturers for "clear cloudy". .

Observed the slides under a Zuhio microscope at 300x magnification, it is observed that the grain is normal for a 64 ASA film and that they are perfectly distributed over the entire length of the frames. Nothing strange has been detected at the edges of the object and the grain is the same there as in the rest of the film. .

Focus definition is excellent in both photographs. Although in the first one the edges of the object seem somewhat blurred, this could be due to reflections on the surface of the object, or to a slight haze that hindered visibility (remember that the sky was totally overcast, that the time at which the photographs were taken was 9.15 am and that the sea coast is about 300 meters from the witnesses). .

Mrs. and Miss Moreno state that the object was somewhat lighter at the top than at the bottom. But the photographic film does not have the sensitivity of the human eye and, due to the effect of the contrast offered by the clouds, the object appears as a uniform dark gray color. Given the time of day, the sun must have been behind the roof in the foreground, giving a superior brightness to the clouds in that part of the sky. 

The absence of reflections on the surface of the UFO may also be due to this circumstance, although these cannot be totally ruled out in the first photograph. 

As can be seen in the respective enlargements of the first and second photographs, the shape of the object is the same, i.e. the object's axis has not changed with reference to the camera lens. 

However, while in the first photograph the object appears perfectly symmetrical in relation to its axis, in the second photograph there is a slight difference in the edges of the "dome" and the "base" on either side of the axis, which may be due to the fact that the object was moving and accelerating.

Possibility of Mystification:

It is very difficult for anyone, even for those with adequate technical knowledge, to make a judgment about the authenticity of a photographic document such as the one in question. In fact, it will never be possible to know with total and absolute certainty whether these photos are authentic or not. .

It should be clarified that, when we say authenticity of a photograph, we are referring to whether the photograph in question has been obtained as the witness claims to have taken it. Once this aspect has been elucidated, it is necessary to analyze what the photograph shows and here there are two options: either it is only a false interpretation of "something known" (conventional flying objects, birds, defects in the film used, traces of the developing process, reflections in the camera optics, etc.) or, on the contrary, the object that the analyzed photograph shows is a UFO. .

In the specific case of the slides obtained in "Las Grutas" we believe that there is no room for "false interpretation", at least we have never seen an airplane, bird or balloon with such strange characteristics, nor film defects or traces of development that are repeated exactly in two consecutive frames. So if Mr. Moreno's photographs are authentic, they show a flying saucer.

Research: Guillermo Roncoroni and Gustavo Álvarez.

Source: "Cuarta Dimensión" (Fabio Zerpa).

Post from user Mordrenix at UFObelievers at reddit.com.