TopBunk

Active Member
What is the origin of this photo?

Canary Isles sightings 1976...PNG

The photograph is widely passed off as an actual image of the event reported to have occurred on 22 June 1976 in the Canary Islands. It was apparently taken from Maspalomas on Gran Canaria. (this one is from a google image search for "canary islands ufo". Yet it appears this is the same photo that appears as a bad photocopy in the official report with a convoluted full page note which begins;

"This photograph does not belong to the case that concerns us in this report, but it does,
apparently to the previous 1/76."...

Source: https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.g.../consulta/registro.do?control=BMDB20160069082

It also appears with the identical note and a bad photocopy of it - and it's negative - on another report from 19 Nov 1976, again referencing a "1/76" report.

Link to side by side comparison of the 22/07/1976 and 19/11/1976 reports: Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bhTZwl-5zm7exbqf_JkoNPDsD-a7N0cz/view?usp=sharing


However the problem is I can't find this "1/76" report on the or anything about what it was supposed to be about, although I suspect it's similar distant SLBM test seen from the islands but unlike the 22/06 and 19/11 dates there's no corresponding record of a missile test for that day - that I know of.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Here's a bigger image. Maspalomas.jpg
Source:
Article:
On June 22, 1976, the launching of a Poseidon missile from the US Navy in the Atlantic range was sighted and photographed from the Canary Islands.
can you see a cape canaveral launch from the canary islands.? it says apogee 310miles... that's pretty high huh?

Article:
1976 June 22 - . 20:17 GMT - . Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: Cape Canaveral ETR. Launch Platform: SSBN 632. LV Family: Polaris. Launch Vehicle: Poseidon C3.
FOT-20? Follow-on operational missile test - . Nation: USA. Agency: USN. Apogee: 500 km (310 mi).
 

TopBunk

Active Member
Why is this particular image is still associated with the 22 June 1976 event by tabloids and skeptics alike?

Despite the compilers of the two Spanish gov reports - the source material - twice including notes pointing out that this photo is NOT showing what their reports are about.

Is it just a good image? An approximation (reflection and all) of what people said they saw on those two different dates?

If it was, as they say, a photograph of some event on "1/76" (January 1976) that could be seen with such luminosity from the Canaries the report compilers - working on their latest reports a few months later - must already know that this kind of thing is a known type of spectacle and be at least part way toward an identification of "el fenomeno".
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
a photograph of some event on "1/76" (January 1976)
i see nothing in that sad history report to suggest this pic was taken in january 1976.

that aside
Why is this particular image is still associated with the 22 June 1976 event by tabloids and skeptics alike?
read the last paragraph. (note i just typed freehand into translator without checking for typos.. but since it reads ok i must have had few typing errors...which is odd as im a fairly dyslexic typist in english!)


This photo does not belong to the case that concerns us in this report but, apparently, to the previous one 1/76

When that report was written, it was learned that a foreigner had photographed the phenomenon. all means were put to its location, with unsuccessful results.

After a few months of searching, a copy of said photo whose history is somewhat mysterious like the phenomenon itself was located by the Civil Guard of the area.

It seems that said photo came by mistake in the envelope of photos sent by a laboratory that works in this capital to a foreign subject who said it was not his and returned it to the hotel concierge, when he saw how strange it was, he stayed with her as a curiosity.

When this new investigation was opened, one of the witnesses said he was aware of the existence of the photo but that he had never seen it, that he was told that someone from the "Atlantic Garden" hotel complex had it, and this Investigating Judge appeared in that area, I ask the collaboration of the Civil Guard that quickly obtained the only original copy, which we surely possess throughout the island.

Due to its subsequent numbering, the laboratory was located, resulting in the "Heinze" laboratories, recognizing the process and elaboration of this copy as their own, but they could not give the name of the client because they did not know it at this point, nor the negative that is normally returned to the clients.

They assure that it is the processing of an entire reel and not an isolated negative and that no tampering or arrangement was introduced by that laboratory, the copy is not tampered with. There is the possibility of a trick in the negative but for this a photo studio is necessary, including a laboratory, since the trick in color is more complicated than in black and white.

So why send it to another lab? also for what purpose since said photo has not been attempted so far to market it, nor has it been studied in the press. Proof of this is the work and the time to be able to locate it.

From what has been said, you can specify neither the day nor the hour nor the exact place from where it was obtained, although it seems that it is the town of "Plya del Ingles" in the tourist complex of Maspalomas.

When it was shown to the witnesses and crew members of plane T-12:461-43, they recognized the phenomenon in its second phase immediately before it became a half-circle resting on the horizon.
Content from External Source
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bhTZwl-5zm7exbqf_JkoNPDsD-a7N0cz/view
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The photograph is widely passed off as an actual image of the event reported to have occurred on 22 June 1976 in the Canary Islands.
[...]
Link to side by side comparison of the 22/07/1976 and 19/11/1976 reports:
The event was on June 22nd (22/06), the report is dated July 22nd (22/07). Same day, different month.

Source:
Article: On June 22, 1976, the launching of a Poseidon missile from the US Navy in the Atlantic range was sighted and photographed from the Canary Islands. Source: https://fotocat.blogspot.com/2013/11/131104-en_4.html
 

TopBunk

Active Member
@Mendel I made a typo in [#1] it should read

"side by side comparison of the 22/06/1976 and 19/11/1976 reports".

The reports are available in full at the link in [#1].
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
@Mendel I made a typo in [#1] it should read

"side by side comparison of the 22/06/1976 and 19/11/1976 reports".

The reports are available in full at the link in [#1].
Ah, right. I got confused because I didn't see any dates in typewritten text, and one of the stamps is for 22 JUL 1994, which is the expected date but the wrong year. Thank you!
 

jplaza

Member
Ah, right. I got confused because I didn't see any dates in typewritten text, and one of the stamps is for 22 JUL 1994, which is the expected date but the wrong year. Thank you!
22 July 1994 is the date the file was declassified

In fact the first one or two pages are only an abstract of the original file, created in 1994 to justify the classified file can be released.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
a photograph of some event on "1/76" (January 1976)
i see nothing in that sad history report to suggest this pic was taken in january 1976.

I was assuming "1/76" meant January 1976, but it appears it's a case number reference rather than a date. However there's not much mention (that I can see) of what that case was about. Still why do they include this note about the photos origin?

"This photograph does not belong to the case that concerns us in this report, but it does,
apparently to the previous 1/76."...

Can anyone access a better, more readable, copy of the newspaper report reproduced on pages 105-106. Apparently it's from La Provincia 25 June 1976.
 

Mechanik

Active Member
can you see a cape canaveral launch from the canary islands.? it says apogee 310miles... that's pretty high huh?

Article:
1976 June 22 - . 20:17 GMT - . Launch Site: Cape Canaveral. Launch Complex: Cape Canaveral ETR. Launch Platform: SSBN 632. LV Family: Polaris. Launch Vehicle: Poseidon C3.
FOT-20? Follow-on operational missile test - . Nation: USA. Agency: USN. Apogee: 500 km (310 mi).
SSBN 632 was the USS Von Steuben (1962-1994), a ballistic nuclear missile submarine.
 

TopBunk

Active Member

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-02-20 at 14.38.34.pdf
    396 KB · Views: 65

jplaza

Member
I was assuming "1/76" meant January 1976, but it appears it's a case number reference rather than a date. However there's not much mention (that I can see) of what that case was about. Still why do they include this note about the photos origin?



Can anyone access a better, more readable, copy of the newspaper report reproduced on pages 105-106. Apparently it's from La Provincia 25 June 1976.
Look at document 0001
760622_Doc0001.png

It is signed by the Chief General of the Canary Islands Air Zone, and sent to the Air Force Chief of Staff (E.M. "Estado Mayor"). It reads:

I have the honor to send to V.E. [Your Excellency] report number 01/76, formulated by the Informant Judge, Commander (E.A. [Air Force]) D. ------, according to orders given in ciphered message nº 153, reference E.M. 3 nº 284-TS, dated 1st of the current [month], to which I include my own personal interpretation.
God bless V.E. for many years.
Las Palmas, July 21st , 1976
Content from External Source
The 01/76 report is the 22/06/76 sighting. The annex about the photograph seems then to have been attached to this report sometime later, but originated in other report. There where similar events on November 76, March 77, March 79.

Edit to add:

If you look at this other report (19/Nov/1976), it is numbered as 02/76. Some of the observers were the crew of a T-12 from the 461 squadron (T12 is the Air Force designation for the C-212 Aviocar), which is coincident with the annex of the June report:
Al ser enseñada a los testigos y tripulantes del avión T-12: 461-43 reconocieron el fenómeno en su fase segunda

When showed [the photograph] to the witnesses and crew of the plane T-12: 461-43 they recognized the phenomenon in its second phase
Content from External Source
The annex was originated during the investigation of the November sighting, and later included with the June sighting report, as the photograph seems to have been taken during that sighting.
 
Last edited:

TopBunk

Active Member
The annex was originated during the investigation of the November sighting, and later included with the June sighting report, as the photograph seems to have been taken during that sighting.
Ah, so they just collated the same note into the 22 June 1976 report but didn't bother to change (or didn't spot) the contradiction in the first line:
"This photograph does not belong to the case that concerns us in this report, but it does,
apparently to the previous 1/76.".

Also,
"For all that has been said, neither the day nor the hour nor the exact place from which it was obtained can be specified, although it seems that it is the town of "Playa del Ingles" in the tourist complex of Maspalomas (Gran Canaria)."
This sounds like a Metabunk challenge...
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Ah, so they just collated the same note into the 22 June 1976 report but didn't bother to change (or didn't spot) the contradiction in the first line:
"This photograph does not belong to the case that concerns us in this report, but it does,
apparently to the previous 1/76.".
maybe the guy who wrote the photo history was confused too. i noticed that there are no dates in the history, like "we acquired the photo from hotel employee on date x/xx/xx or we contacted the foto laboratory on x/x/xx. weird.
 

jplaza

Member
The thing is, at the beginning of 02/76 report (19 nov 76), the Judge writes that it was likely the same phenomenon than in june, so that both reports should be read and studied together. The Judge is also the one who writes the annex with the history about the photograph, and probably the one who put a copy in both reports. But it is curious he didn't put the date when he wrote it.

I guess the reports were archived and then forgotten. When the UFO declassification process begun 1992, the files were declassified and probably nobody remembered or even knew about the relationship between both reports.

Edited: Correct wrong information
 

TopBunk

Active Member
There's a number of Canary Island reports. Here's their reference numbers and event date.

01/7522 Nov 1974
01/7622 June 1976
02/7619 Nov 1976
01/7905 Mar 1979

The reports use roughly the same methodology, coded questionnaires with open ended sections, ranking of witness quality based on occupation, weather, flight details, etc and all include the familiar proposal to establish a Centro de Estudios de Fenomenos Aéreos or Aerial Phenomena Study Center

What's interesting is how they all draw the same conclusions - despite containing evidence and counterarguments within them - leading up to:
After analyzing this phenomenon, exhausting the possibilities of its cause, we have to seriously consider the need to accept the hypothesis that ships of unknown origin and driven by an unknown energy move freely through the skies of the Canary Islands. (Google Translate from 01/79, p0191 -0192)
The reports get increasingly detailed and there's seems to be a tension between the evidence - that looks more and more obvious as missile testing especially the photographs - and the authors' (the judge's) voice. It appears the illustrations accompanying some of the witness statements take pretty distinct artistic licence (especially those in 01/79 - to follow).

Screenshot 2022-02-20 at 21.06.22.png


This report can be considered as the continuation of the 01/76 and 02/76, made in this Zone
Aerial, although due to its dimensions and spectacular nature
Due to the enormous number of witnesses and photographic documents, the previous ones could be classified as the prologue, this the body and perhaps the next one that will be carried out will give us the solution to all our unknowns, the epilogue. (Google Translate)

Screenshot 2022-02-20 at 21.24.07.png
Since the previous Report has been lost, sent to V.E. oon written no. 453-X-5 of - dated June 22, 1979, I attach the only copy filed in this Office of Report no. 01/79 instructed on the occasion of the appearance over the airspace of this Zone of "Unidentified Flying Objects" (UFOs), on March 5 of last year.

I believe it is my duty to inform Your Excellency, that my personal opinion is that the phenomenon has been produced by two missiles of extraordinary power and caliber, launched from the area indicated in the report, and probably directed towards Siberia, which would make one suspect that It's about Soviet weapons. (Google Translate)

Screenshot 2022-02-21 at 22.32.17.png

Around 08:10 am on March 5, 1979, I found myself with the company carrying out repairs in the Vega de Acusa, after having had dinner with the people. At the height of the Mejorastabella Peak I saw a 60-degree glow come out if it were a fire, and I saw the North-East slope but as the seconds passed taking a kind of crown around the mentioned peak it continued to increase until it formed a semicircle of enormous size. This crown was made up of two colors, mainly the first ring made up of an attenuated red and the second of a very intense white, similar to neon tubes. Then, at the top of the semicircle, an unidentified object appeared, it seemed flat and flew horizontally for a few seconds, in a south-east direction, beginning to rise some jets of white smoke similar to what is seen on TV in Cape Canaveral and in a matter of 4 to 5 minutes it disappeared as if it were a propelled rocket leaving a wake. I was surprised not to make any noise. The duration of this entire phenomenon lasted approximately 5 to 10 minutes. (Google Translate)
Accompanying illustration to the above.
Screenshot 2022-02-20 at 22.27.28.png
Another illustration of a pilots encounter.
Screenshot 2022-02-21 at 00.43.31.png

(This one's for Jeremy Corbell fans)

..an object emerged in a pyramidal shape with an almost horizontal trajectory with an oscillating movement with relatively little speed. Changing direction towards the vertical apparently stopping and disappearing. (01/79, P.0052 Google Translate)
Screenshot 2022-02-20 at 22.56.34.png
Judge ruling out sub-launched missiles...

Screenshot 2022-02-21 at 15.41.02.png

A missile launched from a submarine

A missile launched from a submerged submarine may have caused effects similar to those studied here in the dark of night, but there is no doubt that they did not reach the proportions of this missile nor would its effects remain for so long after the firing.
(report 02/76).

I think it is unnecessary to write here the principles on which a rocket is based because I consider them to be of general domain, but I am going to write about the fuels they use to try to demonstrate that the wake left by the bolido in its ascent could not be the simple consequence of a combustion .

Propellants are chemical substances that react at high speed producing a large volume of gases at high temperatures without consuming atmospheric oxygen. liquid propellants are used in the first and second stage of the large rockets or their greater specific impulse, Saturn V, Vostok, Titan etc., they are rockets that are launched from the same place of their construction due to the impossibility of transporting them. The Saturn V weighs 2,700 tons.

Transportable rockets are made of solid propellants, that leave a trail more ostensible by leaving, sometimes, ashes that form smoke. But the smoke never emits light, nor does the trail reach a diameter greater than a few times the diameter of the cone.

The most modern rockets have magnetohydro-dynamic propulsion. propellants are plasmas at a very high temperature that are accelerated at their exit: or powerful electric and magnetic fields. But do not forget that they are in an experimental phase and that their thrust is so great that they are not able to rise from the ground. They plan to use it as an aid to... (01/79 p.0188 Google Translate)

...and a counter argument...
ESCLASIFICADO.png
The investigations that are being carried out on the alleged UFO sighted from these islands in the early hours of the 5th seem to show that it is a missile fired from international waters to the west of the archipelago. to get out of the way of the accumulation of hope
-
ASSUMPTIONS THAT THESE EVENTS ARE CAUSING AND PUTTING A STOP TO CERTAIN DISAPPOINTERS WHO ARE EXPLOITING THE GOOD FAITH OF THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, IT COULD BE CONVENIENT TO REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE FF. AA. OF THE USA. IN CASE THE PUBLICITY COULD BE PROVIDED ON A CERTAIN BASIS THAT THE PHENOMENON WAS PRODUCED BY THEM, ALTHOUGH SOME AVAILABLE DATA MAKES THE SUPPOSE THAT THE MISSILE COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED TOWARDS THE EAST, WHERE


IN MY CASE IT COULD BE A PRECISION TEST WITH A POSSIBLE FALL IN SOME POINT IN EASTERN EUROPE, AND THEREFORE FIRED BY A WARSAW PACT SHIP FINAL POINT.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
Still no closer to finding the photos true origin, but there's this:
Of the phenomenon of 6/22/76, the media released a color snapshot in March 1977 that has since enjoyed great popularity, although its origin has not been fully clarified...The photo in question was located by the Air Force after haphazard efforts, during the investigation of the case of 6/22/76. It was attributed to an unidentified foreign tourist, deducing from the night landscape in the background that it had probably been obtained in the area of Maspalomas (Gran Canaria). In November 1976, the photo was delivered by Lieutenant General Galarza to the journalist JJ Ben tez (who apparently took some additional steps to clarify its origin). The image shows a large circular bright orange-yellow spot. It is very likely that the most intriguing detail in the photo, a tapered line of light crossing the circle diagonally, has nothing to do with the photographed phenomenon (indeed, it seems to be a simple optical effect such as can be presented — is just an example— when photographing a luminous object through a double-glazed window under certain conditions). Note on the other hand that the available testimonials do not mention this feature at all.

Source (translated via Google Translate): https://www.academia.edu/43047669/Los_gigantes_de_Gáldar_y_los_avistamientos_canarios?pop_sutd=false
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Still no closer to finding the photos true origin
well this photos origin in its current usage is "it came from the military, who got it from a concierge, who got it from a tourist, who got it when the photomat delivered him the wrong photos. you already provided documentation that the photo is not from 6/22/76.

do you mean by origin, the name of the photographer and date the pic was taken?
 

TopBunk

Active Member
you already provided documentation that the photo is not from 6/22/76.
No, I think [#18] resolves that mystery. Seems it was taken on 22/6/76. Yes, still trying to find its true origin, photographer, exact position, additional photos etc.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
The story of this UFO sighting and close encounter of the 3rd kind is retold with many inconsistencies in:

  1. Reports of how many people claim to have seen two figures inside a strange craft.
  2. Reports of where the sighting of the strange craft took place.

By far the most viewed YouTube video about this event is
The Basement Office episode 10. (2 June 2020) with more than 1.8 Million views.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9esLdArkQ&t=1482s


It includes this sentence,

“...inside the orb he (Dr. Francisco Padrón León) sees two figures
and he wasn’t alone
a couple from the window of their house
a teacher
a police officer
a farmer
they all see two figures inside this giant orb
and their descriptions of these entities all match up…”

But there is no supporting evidence for this claim. Only the Dr and the Taxi driver describe seeing two figures and a third witness, a woman farmworker, “can’t be sure” about what she saw.

The others mentioned in this sentence, the couple, teacher, police officer, and farmer do not say they saw any figures at all in their witness statements. In fact they were in various locations miles apart on Gran Canaria island at the time.

Location of each witness based on the official report.


There are other reports such as this which suggest up to a dozen witnesses saw two figures inside a craft. Source: https://youtu.be/EJ3btBNa8Bg
this time with no source mentioned.

This article:
Source: https://www.infonortedigital.com/po...tres-vivian-entre-agaete-y-tenerife-ovni-1976
says the landing site for the object is here (28.1100221099114, -15.679686820919637)


Here’s how it looks on Google maps today. The field is to the left side of the road when driving towards Las Rosas where the Taxi was heading.
Supposed landing at Piso Firme and El Hornillo according to Info Norte Digital.com

However this doesn’t line up with the witness statements.
The Dr & Taxi driver say the object containing the two figures was 15 - 20 metres "in front of them and illuminated by the car headlights". The taxi driver said he thought the object might be resting on the ground. Yet the third person in the car said his view of the “25 metre wide by 20 metre tall” object was obscured by the hood of the car. (how is this possible?)


Source: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Gui...8e!2m2!1d-15.6723692!2d28.0997627!3e0!5m1!1e4

If we look at the route taken described by the Dr. they drove from the Dr's house in Guia, travelled 6km along the main highway between Las Palmas & Agaete, before turning off left onto a local road that climbs up hill and ends at Las Rosas - I’m assuming that this road hasn’t changed much in the 46 years and still looks like it does on Google Maps today since it's the only road to Las Rosas. The direction of travel for the Taxi here is roughly SW with the last 1.9km of their journey in the exact opposite direction to the lights that are being observed by the other witnesses who are looking North West toward Tenerife.

Also while on the highway before turning off, their view towards Tenerife would have been obscured by mountains.

Google Earth Visualisation of the drive from the Dr’s house in Guia to Las Rosas, Gran Canaria: Source: https://youtu.be/gxlzjXbwb5E

I had thought this might be a problem for explaining the encounter as everyone seeing the same thing because it appears they would be looking in the opposite direction to the other witnesses who are all looking roughly North West, yet they describe seeing an object in front of them, close to the ground and containing the two figures.

However, when you follow this road off the highway which is climbing up into the mountains there’s a very tight right hand turn toward its end (the Dr says in his witness statement that their encounter begins “toward the end of this local road”. This sharp turn up an incline of around 3% would have suddenly brought the car facing directly toward Tenerife aligning with most other witnesses point of view.

Google Earth Studio visualisation of the tight right turn toward the end of the road to Las Rosas with an overlay from Annex to the Spanish gov report showing the approximate size of the object seen over Tenerife.
Source: https://youtu.be/Zi_PBNMVKKM

There are many assumptions here but if this is correct I’d argue that of the 13 witnesses who gave statements for the military report 10 are looking in the same direction and at the same thing, but just 2 of them, the Dr. and his taxi driver, are interpreting it in a wildly different way, as much closer to them (15-20m away) and containing humanoid figures.

Most of the other witnesses describe the light as close to the horizon, estimates range from between 10 and 30 degrees, so if the taxi on on an incline (~3%) at this point in their elevated position looking over Gran Canaria toward Tenerife, I wonder if the object close the the horizon (behind Tenerife island) was below the line of the car hood, just out of sight to the person sitting a couple of feet behind in the rear of the car. This seems to support the idea that they’d just made a sharp turn, are on an incline, and are now looking toward Tenerife, and not further downhill in Piso Firme looking to the side of the road towards an onion field as is claimed above.

The third passenger only said there was illumination in the sky and didn't see any object, or figures.
CarHoodView.jpg
I suggest that this sudden change of direction of the observers and their apparent agitation, observed by their third passenger, caused them to misperceive the lights in the sky (believed to be a very distant missile launch).

The Taxi driver said he “had noticed a big ball a few minutes before” presumably by looking in his rear view mirror as they drove up the hill toward Las Rosas, this was not a view the Dr, his passenger, would have had.

The taxi driver also says "people were told to come out and see it, many came out and went home".

There is also a report that the figures they were seeing were “prickly pears” which, coincidentally perhaps, still grow at that exact location.


“the third witness who was travelling in the taxi suggested at first in view of
the phenomenon that it was "the prickly pears, illuminated by the car's headlights"
Source: https://www.academia.edu/43047669/Los_gigantes_de_Gáldar_y_los_avistamientos_canarios?pop_sutd=false

All quotes above are translations from the original Spanish. Each witness statement from the Spanish Gov report can be read here.
Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uNUyMGY6KE1dM1A6xcmejPGuUTa-n6_1WzfzmI2BuAg/edit?usp=sharing

The full report can be found here:
Souce: Spanish Gov report on the June 1976 UFO sighting https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.g.../consulta/registro.do?control=BMDB20160069082
 
Last edited:
Top