73 replies to this topic

[karl 12]

For folks who are interested in pilot UFO sightings, there's a pretty remarkable incident described at the links below in which three 'domed discs' flew alongside a private aircraft over Lake Tequesquitengo in Mexico, May 3rd, 1975.

The case has lots of interesting factors including a daylight close range pilot sighting, electromagnetic interference effects and witness intimidation but perhaps the most intriguing is the radar confirmation of the objects by Mexico City Airport flight control who reported three unexplainable radar blips near his plane executing sharp manoeuvers - later on,  the control tower staff also confirmed three objects 'merging into one' and speeding towards Mount Popocatepetl.

There's an written interview below with the pilot in English but unfortunately the pilot transmission and video interview are in Spanish so if anyone wants to help with the translation it would be very much appreciated.



Incident:

Quote

May 3, 1975: Near Mexico City, Mexico

Quote

1:34 p.m. local. Carlos Antonio de los Santos Montiel, 23, was flying a Piper PA-24 from Zihuatenejo to Mexico City at about 15,000 feet (4.5 km). While passing over Lake Tequesquitengo, he felt a strange vibration in the plane. Then he saw to the right, pacing alongside, a 10-to 12-foot (3 meters) in diameter disc with a dome on top. Another appeared to the left of the plane, and a third disc appreached head-on, dropping beneath the plane. Carlos felt a jolt as if the object had collided with his plane. He pulled the landing gear lever, but it failed to operate. The plane felt as if it were being pulled or lifted, and the controls refused to re­spond. Although badly shaken, Carlos notified Mexico City by radio, describing what was happening. At the same time air control radar was showing unexplained objects near his plane that were capable of sharp turns, unlike normal aircraft. Finally their blips merged on the radar screen and sped away toward Mt. Popocatepetl. After the objects left, Montiel was able to lower his landing gear manually and to land safely. Aviation personnel who know him testified to his sobriety and trustworthiness.

(Page 134, The UFO Evidence, Volume II, Hall)

NICAP Case Directory

---

Mayday Call - Pilot transmission:

Quote

Quote

Recording of the Mexican pilot Carlos Antonio de los Santos Montiel’s Mayday call to Mexico City Benito Juárez International Airport, Mexico City, Mexico

---

Newspaper Report:

Quote

“Pilot In Small Plane Terrified – Air Controllers Spot Image Of UFO On Radar”

Article

---

Radar information:

Quote

May 3, 1975. 43 miles from Mexico City Airport.

Quote

Airport Terminal Radar Controller, Julio Intrian Diaz, registered the blip of Carlos's plane on radar, the UFO executing a 270-degree turn in a radius of three or four miles at a speed of 450-500 nautical m.p.h.

link

..

[karl 12]

In the free E-book below by Rubin Uriarte it states that, as well as the radar confirmation from two different flight controllers, there was also a report of a separately located witness piloting a Government Lear jet who witnessed the three objects hovering around the other aircraft - there's also two interviews with the pilot of the Piper PA-24 (Spanish and English) as well as a good summation of the case from Patrick Gross.

Quote

Separate Pilot Witness:

Quote

Nearby, a Learjet aircraft registered as XC-SAG and in use by an agency of the Mexican Government made visual contact with De Los Santos' plane and the three mysterious objects hovering around it. The pilot of the Learjet radioed back to the Mexico City tower to confirm what he had seen.

E-book Excerpt

---

Video Interview (Spanish):





---

Interview:

Quote

Perhaps one of the most shattering UFO events of the year 1975 involved the near-abduction of pilot Carlos de los Santos Montiel as he flew his small aircraft over Central Mexico. The case received worldwide attention and Mr. de los Santos told his story to a number of major researchers and at several UFO conferences. Thirty-five years after the event, Ana Luisa Cid reopens the case..
  

Quote

ALC: Did the UFOs cause you any physical harm?

Carlos Antonio: No, considering that they were only 2 meters distant from me, suspended over the small plane’s wings for 18 minutes.


ALC: Were you punished for going public with your experience?

Carlos Antonio: No. When someone said on TV that my pilot’s license had been revoked and that I’d vanished, it was all a lie.


ALC: Why did you fly to Zihuatanejo? The likeliest course of action would have been to stay at Lazaro Cardenas, your original location, before returning to Mexico City.

Carlos Antonio: Because I didn’t like that town and the nearest one (by private plane) was Zihuatanejo, Guerrero..


ALC: What are your thoughts about the incident, 35 years later?

Carlos Antonio: Well, it was something I experienced and it was real. An incident that I am still at a loss to explain. I don’t know where they [the objects] came from, or what their intentions were. Sometimes I think they were curious and that they approached us for this reason, although it could also be that they saved me from some unpleasant situation. The small plane looked good, but it was very old, from 1958. So who knows? Maybe it was about to stall in mid-air, or I was about to lose a wing or the tail section. Or have some other accident...I don’t know.


ALC: Did the objects remove you from your route?

Carlos Antonio: No. I remained within the air corridor. What they did was lift me higher, which is dangerous, since my cabin wasn’t pressurized.


ALC: What do you say to those who claim you suffered from hypoxia and that you “imagined” all of this?

Carlos: Well, they don’t know what they’re talking about. When you experience hypoxia you feel sick, naturally. You’re dizzy and your visual field shuts down, but you don’t hallucinate.


ALC: Furthermore, radar can’t suffer from hypoxia. The objects were detected.

Carlos Antonio: Just so. Two different air traffic controllers detected three unidentified echoes on their screens. Both the route controller and the approach controller.


ALC: In some illustrations of sketches that you allegedly made, I see that the 1975 UFOs had an antenna on their upper part. Is this correct?

Carlos Antonio: This is not correct. They had no antennae. They had opaque grey fuselages and a sort of windshield, but without rivets and completely smooth. I’m going to draw them for you (makes drawing). And don’t think that it’s the only incorrect item of evidence circulating around there. I’ve also seen the date set down incorrectly. Some put May 2nd and other May 13. Not at all – it was May 3rd, 1975. What I would like to make clear is that my personal and professional reputation is safe thanks to the testimony of air traffic controllers. They had the three objects on their screens, making 270-degree turns in a very tight radius of action.

link

..

[karl 12]

Summary:

Quote

What we have here is a case where almost all of the aspects of the UFO problem are involved.

Quote

This is a UFO observation report by a pilot.

This is a UFO close encounter.

This is a daylight UFO observation.

This is case were the reported UFOs are observed at close sight and are solid objet of obvious artificial construction.

This is a report of a near air collision between an aircraft and UFOs.

This is a report of UFO that have a behaviour which is suggesting intelligent control.

This is a case of physical effects on an aircraft.

This is a radar/visual case, where a visual sighting is confirmed by independant people detecting the presence of the objects on a detection device.

This is a case where the UFOs fly away in direction of Mount Popocatepetl, obviously a hotbed of UFO reports and allegedly some sort of hideout for extraterrestrial aircraft.

This is a case where a pilot reports his encounter publicly.

This is a case where the witness has been medically checked and interviewed. If Hynek could not speak to Los Santos Montiel, at least Jerome Clark and others could.

This is a case where the witness stood firm with his account over time.

This is a case where the witness reports that he has been repeatedly intimidated by unidentified people probably from a foreign country (UFO folklore call them "Men in Black").

link

---

Other Links:

NARCAP Reports
Realtvufos
UFO Evidence -Radar cases

[1963]

Hi Karl!

That's another cracker that you've turned up there my friend.  

It seems as solid a case for the ETH as any other imo!...And I'll bet that Mr Montiel has had less tense days!  


Cheers Buddy.

[tipotep]

Interesting Karl , thankyou for the information .

It will be interesting to see how the skeptics can explain this one ?

TiP.

[bmk1245]

tipotep, on 31 January 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Interesting Karl , thankyou for the information .

It will be interesting to see how the skeptics can explain this one ?

TiP.

Too many unknowns.
Here is simple example: you have an answer x=42 (UFO sighting, event) to some math problem, but you don't know what was the problem (what caused sighting), and how you got 42. It might have been 21+21 (alienz), 12+30 (human factor plus weather), 84/2 (over exaggerations), etc etc. If you can prove 21+21 (alienz) is the only and only solution, be my guest - prove it.

[karl 12]

Thanks for the replies and links, this UFO incident certainly is a freaky one and the radar confirmation aspect makes it all the more compelling- the pilot's voice in the Spanish aircraft transmission realy does sound quite scared and there's part of a translation for the Mayday call below in which it states he was actualy crying when he contacted Air Traffic control..

Quote

Lake Tequesquitengo UFO

Quote

Almost instantly, he was shocked and scared even more, which caused him to cry and was badly shaken. He communicated with the Air Traffic Control Center and told them what was happening. The communication was more or less like this:

"To Mexico Center, to Mexico Center, this is Extra Alpha Union, mayday, mayday, mayday"

and did not received a response. Again, he kept trying to establish communications by repeating

"mayday, mayday, mayday"

and this time he did receive a response as follows:

"Go ahead, Extra Alpha Union, this is Mexico Center, what is your emergency?"

He answered them:

"I am flying with three unidentified visual objects around me, I am crying, I am very nervous, I do not know what to do".

There's more information at the link below about the case like physical effects on the aircraft and the flight characteristics of the objects - it also states the UFOs flew alongside the plane for 18 minutes and, due to the pilot's emergency landing, Mexico City Airport had to be closed for 1 hour and 17 minutes.

There's also this nice sketch of the incident although the pilot in the interview stated the objects did not have antennas:

Quote

PRUFON Link

Cheers.

[karl 12]

1963, on 31 January 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Hi Karl!

That's another cracker that you've turned up there my friend.  

Hey 1963, good to see you mate -the Mexican case certainly is a bit reminiscent of the Flight N3808H incident from five years later, the pilots also described a 'weird' and 'strange' object which made the aircraft change course three different times only this time they were both never heard from again.


The Disappearance of flight N3808H, Puerto Rico, 1980


The change in altimeter readings for the Mexican case also sounds remarkably similar to the Coyne incident from two years earlier -the UFO in this case was described as cigar shaped, metallic object with a red light at one end and a white light at the other emanating a 'distinctive green beam' -  I suspect you've watched it before but the part where Lt Colonel Coyne describes the altimeter readings is found at 1:45:

Quote

Quote

While the object was still visible, Jezzi and Coyne both noted that the altimeter read 3,500 feet with a rate of climb of 1,000 feet per minute. Yet the collective (steering mechanism) was still in the full-down position set during the descent..

The Coyne incident, Mansfield, Ohio, 1973

Cheers!

[aquatus1]

Quote

"I am flying with three unidentified visual objects around me, I am crying, I am very nervous, I do not know what to do".

This is not a correct translation.  He says:

"I am flying with three unidentified visual objects around me.  I am flying with three unidentified visual objects around me.  One dove toward the plane and struck the bottom portion of the plane.  It's stuck on the landing gear."

He doesn't sound panicky at all.  He is repeating his emergency and describing the impact using correct terminology.

[tipotep]

bmk1245, on 01 February 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Too many unknowns.
Here is simple example: you have an answer x=42 (UFO sighting, event) to some math problem, but you don't know what was the problem (what caused sighting), and how you got 42. It might have been 21+21 (alienz), 12+30 (human factor plus weather), 84/2 (over exaggerations), etc etc. If you can prove 21+21 (alienz) is the only and only solution, be my guest - prove it.

I'm sorry , do you want me to proove something ?

Your math and logic is not the easiest to understand  

What I find interesting in this case and a " few " others like it , the fact that they have the pilots account , an independant witness unknown to the pilot and the radar confirmation , to me that seems enough to atleast to class it as a UFO sighting , unless , of course someone can proove the evidence to be incorrect ?

Tip.

[bmk1245]

tipotep, on 01 February 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

I'm sorry , do you want me to proove something ?

Your math and logic is not the easiest to understand  
[..]

Well, when question

tipotep, on 31 January 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

[...] It will be interesting to see how the skeptics can explain this one ?

comes from believer, it certainly means "So, debunkers, how you will prove it weren't aliens, huh?" If I'm wrong in your case, I apologize.

tipotep, on 01 February 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

[...] What I find interesting in this case and a " few " others like it , the fact that they have the pilots account , an independant witness unknown to the pilot and the radar confirmation , to me that seems enough to atleast to class it as a UFO sighting , unless , of course someone can proove the evidence to be incorrect ?

How about clear weather turbulence plus inversion layers plus scared mind of young pilot playing tricks on him?

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 01 February 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Too many unknowns.
Here is simple example: you have an answer x=42 (UFO sighting, event) to some math problem, but you don't know what was the problem (what caused sighting), and how you got 42. It might have been 21+21 (alienz), 12+30 (human factor plus weather), 84/2 (over exaggerations), etc etc. If you can prove 21+21 (alienz) is the only and only solution, be my guest - prove it.

why not do this the other way, list all the possible combinations for the equation and then we can pick those apart and see what we are left with.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 03 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Well, when question
comes from believer, it certainly means "So, debunkers, how you will prove it weren't aliens, huh?" If I'm wrong in your case, I apologize.

really? it certainly means huh? nope, like I said earlier lets look at the possbilities and cross them off one at a time...lets leave aliens out of it for a while otherwise it makes your job too easy.

bmk1245, on 03 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

How about clear weather turbulence plus inversion layers plus scared mind of young pilot playing tricks on him?

scared mind of young pilot? or do you mean pilots? there was another witness not just the one pilot.....so I assume the same mind tricks are catching then?


from Karls earlier post:

Quote

Separate Pilot Witness:


Quote

Nearby, a Learjet aircraft registered as XC-SAG and in use by an agency of the Mexican Government made visual contact with De Los Santos' plane and the three mysterious objects hovering around it. The pilot of the Learjet radioed back to the Mexico City tower to confirm what he had seen.

also one other quick point BMK....this infectious mind trick, quite long lasting also isnt it? 18 minutes?

Edited by quillius, 03 February 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 03 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

[...] scared mind of young pilot? or do you mean pilots? there was another witness not just the one pilot.....so I assume the same mind tricks are catching then? [...]

Can we see independent verification of the second pilot's visual? Not just claims by Carlos Montiel that second plane was diverted to take a visual (which most likely was used in Ruben Uriarte's book OP has linked as free... like hell it is...). What was the position of the second plane relatively to Montiel's (altitude, distance), when "second pilot saw UFO's"?

quillius, on 03 February 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

[...] also one other quick point BMK....this infectious mind trick, quite long lasting also isnt it? 18 minutes?

18 minutes or 10 minutes, or maybe less?
Was there just one bleep on radar or three? Did Montiel ate breakfast (in the same 2003 Mufon article), or not? And, again, what about the second plane?

[tipotep]

bmk1245, on 03 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

Well, when question
comes from believer, it certainly means "So, debunkers, how you will prove it weren't aliens, huh?" If I'm wrong in your case, I apologize.



How about clear weather turbulence plus inversion layers plus scared mind of young pilot playing tricks on him?

Can clear weather turbulence & inversion layers cause a false radar read ? Not being sarcastic ... genuine question ?

Im not trying to say it was "alien" but more that its "Unexplained " , I dont discount the fact that it could be man made but the thing that bothers me is that if it was man made I doubt they would fly close enough to civilian aircraft to be seen , let alone 3 of them forcing a plane to change course .

Just on the second plane....

Quote

Can we see independent verification of the second pilot's visual? Not just claims by Carlos Montiel that second plane was diverted to take a visual (which most likely was used in Ruben Uriarte's book OP has linked as free... like hell it is...). What was the position of the second plane relatively to Montiel's (altitude, distance), when "second pilot saw UFO's"?

Quote

The pilot of the Learjet radioed back to the Mexico City tower to confirm what he had seen.

If it is just Carlos Montiel making the claims , wouldn't the tower have a record of this confirmation ?

TiP.