UFOs 'Escort' Mexican Aircraft -

[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:

May 3, 1975: Near Mexico City, Mexico

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGFInOL9pS8

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:

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

Article

---

Radar information:

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

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.

Separate Pilot Witness:

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:

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..

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:

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

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]

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..

Lake Tequesquitengo UFO

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:

PRUFON Link

Cheers.

[karl 12]

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:

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]

"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]

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]

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

Your math and logic is not the easiest to understand

[..]

Well, when question

[...] 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.

[...] 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]

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]

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.

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:

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 February 3, 2012 by quillius

[bmk1245]

[...] 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"?

[...] 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]

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....

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"?

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.

[DONTEATUS]

I guess these guys have never Flown in Mexican air space before ? What goes up in Mexico is some times a UFT`s

Unidentified Flying Tortallias !

[1963]

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:

Cheers!

Hi Karl!..Thanks for the reply and info matey!

Coincidence has it that I started a thread over on AU about 'possible active pilot abductions' the other day in which I cited the only four cases that I had found that fitted this criteria...Felix Moncla, Jr. and Robert Wilson Over Lake Superior 1953,....William Schaffner Over The North Sea 1970.,...Frederick Valentich Over Bass Strait, Victoria, Australia 1978 .,...Jose Maldonado Torres and Jose Pagan Santos 1980 Puerto Rico

And whilst searching for an accompanying video clip for the 'Torres/Santos case', I came across an old AU thread that you had made with the actual voice recording of Jose Pagan Santos, and borrowed it !..(hope you don't mind buddy!)..ps..do you know of any other such cases?

By the way Karl, I am' familiar with the Coyne incident(probably down to you my friend), and still find it a fascinating and credible account by a believable and competent witness!

Cheers Buddy.

[quillius]

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"?

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?

Hey BMK, I see tipotep has answered the questions regarding the independant verification by the second pilot.

as for the question on bleeps on radar...apparently it was noted by two different controllers. And yes they both not only registered three 'bleeps' but also that they eventually merged into one before moving off.

So bmk, what equation combinations does that leave us with?

edit to add: 1963, sounds like the Coyne incident is worth a read then!

Edited February 6, 2012 by quillius

[bmk1245]

Can clear weather turbulence & inversion layers cause a false radar read ? [...]

Clear air turbulence is not visible on radars, only wet (with some precipitation) could be seen on weather radars. And atmospheric conditions as well as terrain do play their role in false alarms.

[...] Just on the second plane....

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

Can I see/hear pilot from another plane seeing UFO around Montiel's craft?

Hey BMK, I see tipotep has answered the questions regarding the independant verification by the second pilot. [...]

Nope, he didn't.

[...] as for the question on bleeps on radar...apparently it was noted by two different controllers. And yes they both not only registered three 'bleeps' but also that they eventually merged into one before moving off.So bmk, what equation combinations does that leave us with? [...]

Lets see

ALERTA reports a radar "echo," indicating an object (in addition to the Piper plane) "was moving at better than 900 kilo-meters per hour (about 550 mph)."

LA PRENSA belatedly reported a week after the incident that "a mysterious signal was recorded on one of the radar' screens at the Mexico City Center," but did not elaborate.

The ENQUIRER reported that "two of them (the objects) made an impossibly sharp turn which baffled air traffic controllers who were tracking them on radar."

(from Skylook, Aug. 1975)

So how many echos controllers did saw, huh? One, two, three?

[quillius]

Lets see

(from Skylook, Aug. 1975)

So how many echos controllers did saw, huh? One, two, three?

if we pick on wording used by these reporting mediums then we will always find discrepencies, I believe it was two blips, one being the plane of carlos. It seems this is consistent apart from 'the Enquirer' so its basically a very weak line of defence you are taking there BMK.

I will investigate this case a little more.

as for weather causing the RADAR blips, if the case rests on this alone then granted, likewise if we are talking about just the report of the pilot then he may or may not be lying....together though i.e. RADAR and pilot give us a better standing from which to start dont you think?

[bmk1245]

if we pick on wording used by these reporting mediums then we will always find discrepencies, I believe it was two blips, one being the plane of carlos. It seems this is consistent apart from 'the Enquirer' so its basically a very weak line of defence you are taking there BMK.

[...]

as for weather causing the RADAR blips, if the case rests on this alone then granted, likewise if we are talking about just the report of the pilot then he may or may not be lying....together though i.e. RADAR and pilot give us a better standing from which to start dont you think?

Thats the point - we have crappy sources only, and NO hard data.

[...] I will investigate this case a little more.[...]

Good luck. Here are few more sources: article by Por Ana Luisa Cid, same article on her website, and fragments from Los Ovnis y la Aviación Mexicana (all in spanish)

One document I managed to put into more readable text, you'll find a way to translate.

A solicitud del Cap. P.A. Carlos Antonio de los Santos Montiel, queremos hacer constar lo siguiente:

El dia 3 de Mayo de 1975, siendo las 1800Z Hrs., la aeronave matricula XB-XAU piloteada por el Capitan antes citado, reporto en la frecuencia de 128.5 MHz al Centro de Control de Mexico, en la condicion de emergencia, objetos voladores no identificados a su alrededor.

Desido a esta situacion el Centro de Control procedio a darle atencion especial a dicha aeronave, ya que habia reportado una condicion de emergencia.

Posteriormente al aproximarse al Valle de Mexico se procedio a expedir instrucciones a la aeronave a volar de tal manera que pudiera ser detectada por el radar, lo cual se logro aproximadamente a una distancia de 35 M.N. al sur del Aeropuerto, obligando al piloto a mantener una altitud de 15000 pies y de efectuar diferentes maniobras, con el objeto de mantener y verificar su identificacion en el radar, ya qui por encontrarse en una area montanosa se dificultaba una detection continua de las aeronaves que sobrevuelan dicha area.

Posteriormente y a informacion proporcionada por el Capitan al mando de dicha aeronave, los Controladores responsables en esos momentos de la posicion de control terminal observaron tres ecos no identificados y muy proximos a esta aeronave, los cuales y en el momento de proporcionar informacion del piloto de que dichos dichos objetos se alejaban de su aeronave, fueron observados en la pantalla de radar que estos se alejaron con un rumbo aproximado de 90, no sin antes haber hecho un viraje de 270 a la derecha a una velocidad muy alta y ocupando en su maniobra un espacio

muy reducido, lo cual causo extraneza en los Controladores debido a que consideraron que ademas de no existir ningun otro trafico reportado en las proximidades de la aeronave, ningun otro tipo de aeronave conocido podria efectuar dichas maniobras y alcanzar un desplazamiento tan alto.

Debido a la situacion de emergencia reportada por el Capitan al mando de la aeronave antes mencionada y la fenomeno que se presento con respecto a esto, los Controladores involucrados elaboraron un reporte detallado a esta Empresa de lo sucedido.

Por lo anterior y debido al tiempo transcurrido entre la fecha de dicho incidente y la actual, esta Empresa no se encuentra en condiciones de proporcionar copia del reporte antes mencionado. Sin embargo, deseamos ratificar el informe de dichos Controladores, debido a su gran experiencia y profesionalismo que siempre man demostrado en el desempeno de sus funciones.

Expedimos la presente para los fines pertinentes.

(here we have tres ecos again, but coming not from the first hand)

Edit: spelling

Edited February 8, 2012 by bmk1245

[tipotep]

Here is some info I got from the linked newspaper article ...

Two air traffic controllers said they saw the radar image of a reported unidentified flying object that terrified the pilot of a small plane .

Julio Interian and Emilio Estanol said Thursday they watched on two separate screens from the control of Benito Juarez International airport as "an unidentified object " sped along at the side of a tiny Piper plane.

The planes pilot , Carlos Antonio de los Santos Montiel,23. said three UFO's accompanied him for about 10 minutes as he flew at 15,000 feet towards the airport Saturday

" I observed the plane from the moment it was over Tequesquitengo until it landed. " Interian told newsmen . " When it was over the Ajusco I noticed another mark on the screen move rapidly away from the plane . The two controllers said it was at that very moment that De Los Santos Montiel radioed that the UFO had left him .

There is some inconsistency as the pilot claims he has 3 ufos around him but the radar data was only showing one blip, as far as I can deduce without being able to read Spanish in the other articles to confirm this .

I think the important thing to remember is that they had verified radar contact on two separate screens and both tower controllers went on record saying that they both had witnessed the blip ( blips ? )

This is a hard topic to research due to the language barrier but I’m pretty confident that the radar confirmation was genuine and can't be dismissed , unless someone can prove that both traffic controllers were lying ?

Confirming the second plane witness is a bit more of a challenge , It doesn’t mention it in the English article quoted above , I guess this would need to be confirmed with the traffic controllers official report , if only I could speak Spanish !

Article Here

Tip.

[aquatus1]

Okay, that is a very interesting article. And convenient in that each paragraph is actually an entire sentence, which makes references much easier.

The 2nd sentence states that the pilot declared an emergency due to UFO surrounding his aircraft (This was in the video clip previously posted, which an article incorrectly translated the pilot's declaration as "I am crying and confused." Not even close.)

The 3rd sentence is the tower acknowledging the emergency and focusing on the craft.

The 4th sentence is quite interesting as well. The tower instructs the craft to fly in a specific pattern so they can catch it on radar. It explains that this is a mountainous region, and it was often difficult to maintain regular radar contact with crafts. The craft finally appeared on radar when they were 35 Nautical Miles out.

The 5th sentence states that the tower confirmed by radar the pilot's claim that he was surrounded by three objects, which moved away from the main craft as the pilot was claiming that the objects were leaving. This is a little in conflict with the previously posted video where the pilot claims that one of the objects struck the bottom of his craft and another was either stuck on the wheel or flying in formation right next to it. Objects this close to a craft would not be seen separately on a radar.

The 6th paragraph states the controllers filed this report with the administration due to the unusual nature of it.

The 7th states that the newspaper was not able to obtain a copy of the formal report, however does wish to express their trust in the tower personnel who reported this story, in light of their professionalism in carrying out their job (this is not an uncommon phrasing in newspapers; partially polite, partially emphasizing the whole "These are professional opinions, not random opinions from people off the streets).

The 8th promises a follow-up.

[bmk1245]

Kudos, aquatus

Although you stripped quillius of the joy in fiddling with on-line translators/dictionaries

[bmk1245]

[...] This is a hard topic to research due to the language barrier but I’m pretty confident that the radar confirmation was genuine and can't be dismissed , unless someone can prove that both traffic controllers were lying ?[...]

Its not about controllers lying. We don't have their statements, we only have what others did write about their experience. Thats a big difference.

Here is full Skylook article

When you compare all sources (BTW, nowadays language barrier is much lower with on-line translators/dictionaries), there are so many inconsistencies; to put it simply - puzzle tiles do not fit.