by Manuel Carballal

It is too often that ufologists wield videotapes of unidentified flying objects as if these recordings constituted irrefutable evidence of the phenomenon. Undoubtedly, videos provide elements of judgement having considerable weight when it comes time to rule on a given UFO event. However, it is much too often that the rush to reveal the information on a given event leads UFO journalists (rather than ufologists) to make hurried determinations on the nature of a given UFO video to justify a sensationalist banner headline.

A choice example of this sensational manipulation of UFO footage, commercially released without any prior analysis, can be seen in the television programs of Mexican journalist Jaime Maussán. There can be no doubt that his efforts have contributed to the popularization of the UFO phenomenon among the Mexican masses as never before. However, we have reasons to suspect that a high percentage of the videos included in his series Los Vigilantes ("The Watchers") are recordings of conventional objects and even hoaxes.

When Maussán undertook the indiscriminate broadcasting of UFO videos on Mexican television in the early Nineties, we were able to witness an interesting interaction effect with the phenomenon. In other words, the number of UFO films obtained in Mexico was directly proportional to the number of UFO programs Maussán presented on Galavisión, which in turn led Maussán to have video material to undertake new programs and so forth. We can safely say hundreds of them. Over the past years, Jaime Maussán has broadcast an astounding number of UFO videos over his television programs. We will not pass judgement on the notable specials he has devoted to Area 51, sightings made by astronauts, the Meier Case, etc.--subjects worthy of individual treatment, and even though one may dissent from the statements made by some of them, or question the overall reliability of said subjects, we can nonetheless thank Maussán for gaining access to history-making information and eyewitness testimony, which are highly interesting as such. But this does not keep some of these videos from being not only misidentifications of conventional objects, but even outright fakes.

New York based researcher Manuel Fernández decided to test the credibility of the videos issued by Maussán by anonymously submitting to his attention a fraudulent video. To do this, he merely took an ordinary toy balloon, covered reflective silver paper, and filmed it at a given distance without the excessive zooming-in that would reveal the thread dangling from the "UFO's" underside. He also made the camera go deliberately out of focus and made sudden moves to feign nervousness. He later copied the video onto a second tape in order to conceal the moment at which an accomplice released the balloon and its telltale rising motion. He then mailed the video to Maussán.

A few weeks later, he was treated to the sight of his phony video included among many other recordings of alleged UFOs on the Mexican TV show. Any amateur researcher with the slightest bit of interest and a computer could have enhanced he image and discovered that it nothing more than a cute toy balloon.

In my opinion, the problem does not lie in the fact that Maussán broadcast hundreds of UFO videos without any prior analysis. There is nothing unlawful about this, and he has indeed given researchers a vast amount of "ufological raw material" for subsequent study by experts. There can be no doubt that had it not been for Maussán and his show Los Vigilantes, we would have never learned of some highly interesting cases which took place in Mexico during this decade. However, it is also true that the alien psychosis which gripped the town of Jojutla (Morelos) on October 31st of last year, when radio station XERT repeated Orson Welles' legendary experiment and broadcasted the story of an alien invasion based on H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, would not have been stoked. I am convinced the Jaime Maussán's UFO videos have sensitized the Mexican people to more readily accept news of an alien invasion as something credible. I think this is an excellent matter to reflect upon.

The journalistic treatment of UFO videos is not limited to Mexico, of course. It would be absurd to ask the news media to refrain from making commercial use of something that is as attractive to the public as "alien spaceships captured on video", since whether explicitly or implicitly, these images are merely films of objects --usually lights--that are unknown to the observer and seen at a given moment.

Between 1996 and 1997, for example, over a dozen of UFO videos were taken in Galicia alone during its famous "wave". Over a dozen that have found their way to our files, of course. There are many more out there, undoubtedly. However, never before in the history of Galician ufology had such a quantity of UFO images been obtained in such a short time span. Without any doubt, in Galicia, as well as in Mexico, the constant presence of news, programs and reports on the wave, broadcast on all local, regional and national networks, caused amateur cameramen to head for the hills each night, armed with their cameras, in search of the yearned-for piece of the UFO puzzle to be immortalized on video. Again, this is not necessarily evil. However, it is no less true than most of these recordings were "suspect". Without any doubt, the expectation created in the broadcast media itself--as occurred in Mexico--favored an excessive flexibility of judgement when it came to accepting alleged UFO images, and I even daresay that some of these films were knowingly falsified by TV professionals, swept away by the journalistic demand for this type of "news".

I will offer an example: Without a doubt, second only to the video recordings made by Mr. Bartolomé Vázquez in As Pontes (La Coruña), which have been seen worldwide, the most famous UFO images captured during the "Galician Wave" were the ones taken by Televisión Local Terra de Lemos in Monforte (Lugo). There are two recordings, taken on separate days, by this station's cameras. The first images were obtained when some residents of the village phoned the TV station, interrupting a live program, to report on the presence of an unknown luminous object in the sky. A cameraman reported immediately to the scene, securing images of the UFO which were remote but no less interesting. The images were transmitted immediately on the local news and were later rebroadcast nationwide on the program Esta Noche Cruzamos el Mississippi on the Tele-5 network. A few days later, and in the wake of the expectations created throughout the community by the visit of the "unidentifieds", a new film emerged. This time it was not one single phone call but hundreds that received in the newsroom of Televisión Local de Monforte to interrupt a news magazine discussing the UFO presence. As network director Da. Pilar Varela told us, the switchboard collapsed due to the dozens of incoming phone calls from residents allegedly seeing strange lights.

Once more, a cameraman whose name I shall omit, took to the streets with the intention of recording the object in question. He returned to the network a few hours later with the tape, which was broadcast immediately. This time, TV screens presented a much larger object (apparently) of a bluish hue, spherical in shape but with two very clear notches inside it. That image was also broadcast by Pepe Navarro, who availed himself of extremely generous adjectives to qualify it: a spectacular image! a very large spacecraft! look, look at this large unknown object that flew over Monforte!..

Shortly before and shortly afterwards, nearly identical images were obtained in Canarias, Zaragoza, Cáceres, etc. The majority of them featured a similar object, at least at certain points of the recording. However, the first manipulation lies in the choice of images, since none of the networks presented the recordings in their entirety--only those seconds in which the object can be seen occupying the greatest amount of space on-screen. As occurs only too often, size is mistaken with quality.

If Tele-5 or any other station would have presented these videos in their entirety (wishful thinking, given the limited amount of TV time), TV watchers would have noticed a series of erratic camera movements on the screen until the object is focused upon against all odds, given its small size, similar to that of a first magnitude star. Next, a series of close-ups and pull-backs made with the zoom lens become evident until finally focusing upon the object. These constant adjustments alter the object's appearance, causing it to increase in size due the image's deformation. This is what occurred in the second video taken at Monforte. The object taped is a diminutive spot of light that grows to massive proportions [...] producing another phenomenon that is customary in these video misadjustments: the appearance of tell-tale notches on both sides of the image, produced by an optical effect within the camera lens.

What I would like to convey here is that such a recording would be absolutely permissible had it been made by an amateur videographer. In such a case--at least according to my perception--it would entail no more than a recording error produced by the nervousness of the occasion. Hundreds of excited citizen had taken to the streets of Monforte, gesturing nervously at the sky, and the cameraman, who can barely recognize that luminous point in the heavens, manipulates the zoom by gaining and losing magnification [...].

But this was not the case. The author of the second video was a professional cameraman. The two of us know that on that evening, an object (perhaps Venus, perhaps a bona fide UFO), unleashed hysteria in Monforte. He took to the streets because his mission, as a professional TV journalist, was to capture the image of a UFO on tape, and he did so. However, at no time did he state that the alluring form which flooded TV screens nationwide was in fact a recognized optical phenomenon that bore no relation whatsoever to the real aspect of the object sighted over Monforte. To my understanding, this nuance alone qualifies the video as a hoax, inasmuch as it's a conscious manipulation of an image.

Some of these films, which are more than questionable, have already earned their place in recent ufological history and have been subjected to "comparative studies" with other similar films (equally manipulated, in my opinion); repeatedly used to illustrate articles, news items and reports. Images which I feel have been given a sensationalist, abusive treatment, such as Pepe Navarro's description of the object videotaped over Monforte de Lemos as a "very large spaceship".

Here's an example: the cover of issue number 7 (year II) of ENIGMAS magazine portrayed, under the customary buzzword "worldwide exclusive", a single frame of a video taken in Trujillo (Cáceres). The headline Gran OVNI filmado en Cáceres (Massive UFO filmed in Cáceres) was followed by the image of a bluish, circular object which drew the attention of all consumers from newsstands throughout Spain. The recording had been obtained on May 6th and had even been requested by functionaries of the Ministry of Defense due to its spectacular nature.

A few weeks after the story appeared, those in charge of the "Enigmas de actualidad" (Current Enigmas) column kindly furnished me an uncut copy of the video in question in order to subject it to analysis. The loaned tape was returned to the magazine a few days later to the ENIGMAS journalists along with my conclusions on the subject.

According to the tests conducted, the Trujillo film presented all of the characteristics of an astronomical object--possibly Venus--showing the all the signs of lack of focus, a tendency toward bluing, and the deformation of the image (including the aforementioned notch on the image's right side), which can be obtained by filming the planet Venus under conditions similar to the ones described by the witnesses. What I could see at first glance was a point of white light in the sky transformed by random manipulation of the zoom controls, into a "large blue object" showing apparent movement.

I won't categorize the descriptions given to the Trujillo object: "Giant UFO", "saucer-shaped', etc., with which I was in utter disagreement. I can well understand that a journalist's role is to offer a commercially attractive package. Ultimately, and sheltering those responsible for the news under their presumptions of innocence, neither I nor any other researcher had provided them with an image identical to the one shown on the video, obtained while filming the planet Venus under conditions similar to those experienced by the witnesses.

However, even after having provided my analysis of the video (absolutely free of charge, needless to say), not only was the evidence against the nature of the Trujillo UFO ignored--the image in question was repeatedly presented in successive magazine issues, portraying the Trujillo object as though it were a genuine UFO video (for example, see ENIGMAS #7, year III, pg.12). An opinion which I do not share, for obvious reasons.

I believe that the case of the Trujillo video also constitutes a fine example of the journalistic use of UFO films, and a new invitation to reflect upon the way in which information that goes against a good headline can be slanted in UFO journalism. Like someone said once in regard to journalistic ethics: "When choosing between a good headline and the truth, go for the headline..."

Fortunately, UFO videos don't always reach the media before analysts can get to them. Thanks to this, some recordings of "unidentifieds" which might have been labeled as giant UFOs, spectacular vessels etc. have instead been presented as what they really are: cute anecdotes concerning the human "psychology of perception".

A new case in point: a certain video presents an obviously three-dimensional, spindle-shaped object crossing the skies over Alicante in broad daylight. The witnesses, André and Yermani Grangier, a French tourist couple, were interviewed about the event by Pedro Amorós (president of SEIP). According to their testimony, they were in Alicante's "Valle del Sol" development when both they and their neighbors witnessed a dark object which momentarily reflected the suns light and moved slowly in the sky from north to south. There was no wind in the area, nor any nearby aeronautical facilities which could identify the object as a conventional airplane or helicopter. The video shows the UFO rotating on its own axis and curious protuberances on its top which in spite of the camera's zoom lens, cannot be seen with any clarity.

Pedro Amorós subjected the video to a number of computer analyses, filtering and processing the image until achieving the necessary clarity around the UFO's edges. To the surprise of all the parties involved, the UFO turned out to be a teddy bear-shaped toy balloon.

The moral in this case is that advanced computer programs, currently available to any PC user, provide researchers of the so-call the UFO phenomenon excellent tools which make the hoaxing of videos increasingly harder.

In other words, it is increasingly easier to discover which UFO films are genuine or not, provided that one really wants to find out, instead of merely having an attractive journalistic headline.