LANDING OF A UFO IN “LAS ARRUBIAS”, NAVARRA
The events that we are going to narrate below, occurred on the night of November 25, 1 969.
The detailed description of this observation is of great importance for several reasons:
1º Having taken place at a time of few UFO observations
2º Present irrefutable evidence and real testimonies.
3º Being the direct witness of the landing, a person who can be described as a scientist, since he is a Doctor Engineer, a specialist in electronic and mechanics.
4. The fact that, prior to said observation, he flatly denied his belief in the UFO phenomenon, for which he was never positively interested and in relation to which he even created controversy
5º Several of the people who carried out investigations and studies at the scene were qualified Engineers and Technicians, a condition that also applies to the main investigator, who is the one who has provided us with all the data we list below.
On the aforementioned date, Dr. Engineer Mr. Ricardo Sáez (we are not authorized to indicate the name of the direct witness of this landing, so we use a pseudonym), who was going to the offices of the important mining company “Potasas de Navarra, S. A.”, located not far from there, for
professional reasons. Visibility was normal and the weather was good and dry.
It would be approximately 10 pm on November 25 and Mr. Sáez was traveling along a local road that he knew perfectly well because he used it with great frequency. Being in the place called “Las Arrubias”, in the town of Beriain, between Esparza and Arlegi (about 8 km from Pamplona), he observed, with natural surprise but without losing his calm, in the hollow of a field dedicated to cultivation , an object of lenticular shape, very luminous and whose diameter the witness estimates is about 8 meters. The color of the object was fluorescent yellowish and the light was steady and non-blinding. The object’s appearance was metallic and its contours were perfectly delimited.
The object appeared standing and supporting itself on several legs perched on the ground, although the witness cannot be sure what the exact number of them was.
The witness claims to have the impression that they were jointed legs, not explaining the reasons for such an assessment.
For a few seconds he was able to observe the object perched on the ground, as explained, and about 200 meters from the witness, who, to better observe it, slowed down his car, which apparently did not suffer any alteration in its engine or in your lighting system. The position of the car was prominent with respect to the place where the object was perched, that is, the latter was located on a lower plane than the vehicle occupied by the witness. Almost immediately upon sighting the object, I can see the Lord. Sáez that it was ascending vertiginously following a diagonal line. It diminished in size due to the progressive increase in distance, and then “suddenly disappeared into thin air”, according to the witness statement literally reproduced. In total, the observation lasted from 10 to 15 seconds.
The height of the object in its thickest part would be about 2 meters and the height of the legs on which it rested was approximately another 2 meters. The witness did not see windows, doors, or any dark speck or stain of a lighter hue than the rest of the object, whose color and appearance was uniform and totally homogeneous.
During this observation, the witness did not perceive any noise, that is, everything developed quickly and in absolute silence.
We estimate as a curious fact and worth taking into account the fact that the object landed exactly on top of the place where a small fountain is born that gives rise to a stream with a very small flow.
The foregoing refers to the data provided by the observation witness himself, that is, by the person who witnessed the UFO landing. Let us now see, with the necessary detail, everything related to the result of the examination of the various and deep marks left by the object in the place of its landing, as well as the examination of the remaining material evidence that attests to the contact of the object with the ground, with the Earth, with our Planet.
As we were told before, the examination of the marks left on the ground and other material evidence of this landing case was carried out, fortunately, and in the first place, by a group of technicians and engineers who, before anyone else, had exact knowledge of the details of the event and the place where it occurred. This is explained by the fact that they were friends and colleagues of the witness Mr. Sáez, who were informed by the latter two days after the event occurred.
It so happens in this case _which has already happened in others, but that does not stop drawing attention_ that the witness Mr. Sáez flatly refused to visit the landing site again, although he remained at all times without incurring any contradiction, of the veracity of their statements.
The careful and detailed examination of the terrain where the event took place was carried out 8 or 9 days after the observation occurred, and is noteworthy and to be taken into account that the weather
on those days he went through various alternatives, even rains and small snow precipitations, despite which, the marks of the feet and other material evidence were still perfectly visible.
The principal investigator in the area of this landing — one of the few people who was able to examine the terrain when no one had searched it yet — had previously been in contact.
with the C.E.I. (Center for Interplanetary Studies) and is a serious, cultured and responsible person, whom we consider one of our most valuable collaborators. We have received the following information from him: “I observed a small stream around which large and deep traces were seen with exceptional clarity, similar to those produced by an incandescent press pressing on the ground. In summary, I saw the following:
_Three ovoid tracks whose largest diameter was about 65 cm. and two ovoidal footprints with a diameter greater than about 50 cm.
_The plants (thick and fine grasses) on which the apparatus has rested appeared transformed into brittle charcoal.
_The surrounding snails were white; when touched they crumble.
_As the artifact came to rest on the grass, the tracks were perfectly framed, to the extent that the grass appeared as if it had been subjected to a flame cutting operation.
_I went to an agricultural technician to determine if the cause could have been an agricultural burn or similar. When he saw the area he was perplexed and told me that it had not been caused by any burning or agricultural cleaning work.
_Not content with this, I located the owner of the land, who assured me that since October had not visited his field and, of course, knew nothing and had made no burning during the year.
Our informant continues in these terms:
“Many people have seen the footprints and it has been notably admired. The landing zone has been visited and trampled by several hundred people and it can already be discerned nothing on the ground.
The relief of the area is totally irregular, with unevenness between tracks of approximately 60 cm. This may perhaps explain that some footprint was somewhat blurred or semi erased.
The depth of two of the marks is about 10 cm. The remaining three tracks were less clear.”
Our kind communicator concludes his interesting testimony, with
the following manifestations:
“Eager to save evidence of the landing, I took out, days after the discovery, ten color slides of the footprints and the area, and kept some samples of charred grass. The slides obtained were duly developed and have turned out to be frankly good and interesting. They undoubtedly constitute a tangible proof that allows us to reconstruct the geometric structure of the apparatus .”
As the reader will be able to judge, this is one of the most thoroughly investigated and explained, concurring in it circumstances that make it worthy of being taken into account in any serious study related to the investigation of the UFO phenomenon.
Casas Huguet
NOTE: The illustrations are copies of those made by the witness
This investigation is extracted from nº1 of the information service of the C.E.I. (Center for Interplanetary Studies) of which I was a member in 1968. STENDEK Vol. 1 nº1 June 1970
It is suggested in some publication that there are indications that it is a joke. If so and there is no more data, where did these signs and an absurd joke come from? Why?
