Isaac Koi

This website was the first generated by my self-improving AI system (Skynet), to summarise the top 100 UFO cases.

Before diving into the main investigation, it’s important to note that the Ummo case represents one of the most complex and extensive UFO phenomena in European history. This extraordinary case combines photographic evidence, physical artifacts, thousands of pages of alleged alien communications, and multiple witnesses—creating a narrative that has maintained interest for over five decades.

Historical Context and Background of the Ummo Affair

The Ummo affair began in 1965 when Spanish contactee Fernando Sesma, president of the Society of the Friends of Space in Madrid, claimed to have received communications from beings from a planet called Ummo. Unlike typical contactee narratives involving physical meetings or telepathic exchanges, Sesma’s contact was exclusively through mail and telephone conversations. He received lengthy, typewritten documents containing sophisticated information about Ummo, a planet that supposedly orbits a star called Iumma, located about 14.6 light-years from Earth1.

The Ummites claimed they had arrived on Earth in 1950 in response to a weak signal inadvertently transmitted into space by a Norwegian ship conducting ionospheric research in 1934. This detail is significant because researchers later verified that both the ship and its experiments were real historical events2.

The case took a dramatic turn on February 6, 1966, when a UFO sighting was reported near Aluche, Spain. Several witnesses, including a group of soldiers, observed an orange-colored disc-shaped object landing near an airfield. The most significant testimony came from José Luis Jordan Peña, who drew a sketch showing the craft had a distinctive symbol resembling the letter ‘H’3. This symbol would later become central to the Ummo narrative.

The San Jose de Valderas Incident

The most compelling evidence in the Ummo affair emerged on June 1, 1967, when a spacecraft was reportedly seen and photographed at San Jose de Valderas near Madrid. This sighting was particularly notable because it had been predicted in advance—Sesma had announced that an Ummite spacecraft would appear near Madrid on that evening1.

At approximately 8:20 pm, as predicted, scores of witnesses observed the craft. Most importantly, photographs were taken by two separate photographers who were allegedly unknown to each other3. One photographer remained anonymous, while the other later identified himself as “Antonio Pardo”4. The photographs clearly showed a disc-shaped craft bearing the same distinctive symbol that Jordan had reported seeing the previous year1.

In August 1967, the photographer Antonio Pardo contacted UFO author Marius Leuget, sending him two photographs. Pardo explained that he had been in the area with his family on June 1, had witnessed the UFO, and had seen another young man photographing it. Pardo claimed he too tried to take photographs but forgot to remove his lens cap for the first two pictures. Nonetheless, he managed to capture seven clear images, two of which he sent to Leuget3.

Physical Evidence

Adding to the intrigue, strange tubes were reportedly discovered at the landing site. These cylindrical objects, about 5 inches (13.5 centimeters) long, contained a liquid that evaporated upon opening and two mysterious strips of green plastic bearing the characteristic Ummo symbol3.

One of these tubes, along with its plastic strips, was submitted for laboratory analysis. The results indicated that the tube was made of high-purity nickel, while the plastic was identified as polyvinyl fluoride3. Significantly, this material had been developed by DuPont, but at that time, its use was allegedly restricted to military applications only2.

The Ummo Photographs: Examining the 1967 UFO Case and Its Legacy - Full-Text (SVG)

The Broader Ummo Communications

The San Jose de Valderas photographs represent just one element of the much larger Ummo phenomenon. Over the years, numerous individuals beyond Sesma claimed to have received communications from the Ummites. By 1983, the collected Ummo documents had reportedly grown to approximately 6,700 pages1.

These communications contained detailed information about Ummo society, science, and technology. The documents included complex discussions on physics, medicine, and various other scientific and philosophical topics. The technical sophistication of these papers suggested expertise that would be difficult for an average hoaxer to fabricate2.

Credibility Assessment of Sources and Evidence

Photographic Evidence

The San Jose de Valderas photographs constitute the most tangible evidence in the Ummo case. According to sources, these images underwent several analyses:

  1. The Spanish National Institute of Aerospace Technology reportedly examined the photos, though detailed results of this analysis aren’t provided in the search results.
  2. The Ground Saucer Watch organization conducted an analysis that identified what they believed to be a “suspension thread for the UFO model” in the photographs, suggesting a hoax involving a suspended model5.
  3. In 1996, at the request of researcher Rafael Farriols, the Guardia Civil (Spanish police) performed a more modern analysis of the negatives. This examination determined that what had previously been identified as either a “suspension thread” or a “ray emitted by the UFO” was actually just a scratch on one of the negatives5.

While the Guardia Civil analysis has been cited by Ummo proponents as evidence of “absence of hoax,” this conclusion is misleading. The analysis merely determined that one specific element (the apparent thread) was a photographic defect, not that the entire case was authentic5.

Furthermore, one source indicates that Rafael Farriols and his friend Llobet conducted a land survey of the locations where the photos were taken a year after the incident, suggesting concerns about the geographical accuracy of the photographs5.

Witness Testimony

The credibility of the key witnesses in this case is problematic:

José Luis Jordan Peña, who first reported seeing the Ummo symbol on a UFO in 1966, later confessed that the entire affair was a hoax he had orchestrated6. This confession fundamentally undermines the case, as Jordan was involved from the earliest stages.

“Antonio Pardo,” the named photographer, never established his identity beyond his communications with researchers. Some analysts suggest this name was likely a pseudonym54. The anonymity of the second photographer further complicates verification.

The testimonies of other witnesses to the San Jose de Valderas sighting have never been systematically collected or analyzed, leaving a significant gap in the evidence.

Physical Artifacts

The tubes and plastic strips allegedly found at the landing site represent potential physical evidence. However, several issues undermine their credibility:

  1. The chain of custody for these artifacts is unclear from the available information.
  2. While the materials (high-purity nickel and polyvinyl fluoride) were sophisticated for the time, they were not beyond human technology.
  3. The restricted military use of polyvinyl fluoride could actually support the hoax theory, suggesting possible involvement of someone with access to military materials rather than extraterrestrial origin2.

The Ummo Communications

The thousands of pages of Ummo documents present a paradox: they contain detailed scientific and technical information that seems beyond what an average person could fabricate, yet this complexity could also indicate the involvement of scientifically educated individuals in an elaborate hoax.

One intriguing account mentions a man who claimed to be the Ummites’ typist. According to this story, he had been hired by two tall, fair-haired men who initially claimed to be Danish doctors but later admitted to being extraterrestrials. To prove their identity, they allegedly showed him a small sphere that displayed scenes from his office on the previous day3. This testimony, if true, would be significant, but it remains unverified and problematic.

Skeptical Perspectives and Debunking Efforts

The Ummo case has faced substantial skepticism and several specific debunking efforts:

The Jordan Peña Confession

The most damaging evidence against the Ummo affair is José Luis Jordan Peña’s confession that he orchestrated the entire hoax. As one of the primary witnesses to the 1966 sighting and the first to report the Ummo symbol, his admission severely undermines the case’s foundation6.

Photographic Analysis

While believers point to the Guardia Civil’s finding that a specific element (the apparent thread) was just a scratch on the negative, this does not validate the photographs’ authenticity. Analyzing the San Jose de Valderas photographs based on standard principles of photographic evidence reveals several problems:

  1. The improbability of two independent photographers capturing the same event yet remaining largely unknown to each other.
  2. The convenience of the UFO displaying the exact symbol reported a year earlier.
  3. The predicted nature of the sighting, which could indicate preplanning rather than genuine prediction.
  4. The photos themselves have been “claimed to be hoaxed” according to multiple sources4.
  5. Dr. J. Allen Hynek’s Center for UFO Studies in Chicago, a relatively credible organization in UFO research, labeled the photographs as a hoax2.

Analysis of the Ummo Communications

The Ummo letters, despite their technical sophistication, contain elements that raise suspicion:

  1. The 15-year gap between the alleged arrival (1950) and the first communications (1965) is inadequately explained.
  2. The method of communication (mail and telephone) seems unnecessarily complicated for an advanced civilization.
  3. The extensive volume of communications (6,700 pages by 1983) suggests a long-term, sophisticated human effort rather than alien contact.
  4. The content aligns suspiciously well with human interests and understanding, despite supposedly originating from an alien culture.

The Ummo Photographs: Examining the 1967 UFO Case and Its Legacy - P1 (SVG)

The Broader Pattern of UFO Hoaxes

The Ummo affair fits into a recognizable pattern of UFO hoaxes identified by researchers. Common characteristics include:

  1. Blurry or low-quality images that obscure details7.
  2. Convenient circumstances that seem “too good to be true”—like the perfectly timed photographs of a predicted sighting7.
  3. Use of readily available materials modified to appear exotic7.
  4. Overly dramatic narratives designed to appeal to emotion7.
  5. Predictable shapes and designs that echo popular culture representations of UFOs7.

Influence and Cultural Impact

Despite its questionable authenticity, the Ummo affair has had a significant impact on UFO discourse and culture:

Impact on European Ufology

The Ummo case became one of the most significant UFO phenomena in Europe during the 1960s and 1970s. It was particularly influential in Spain and France, where it generated extensive research and literature6.

The case is notable for blending elements of contactee narratives with apparent physical evidence (photographs and artifacts), creating a more complex scenario than typical UFO reports. This complexity helped it maintain credibility with some researchers despite growing skepticism.

Documentary UFO Lore

The Ummo letters became part of a broader phenomenon of “documentary UFO lore” that included various allegedly leaked or mysterious documents circulating in UFO communities worldwide. This category included the Majestic-12 documents in the US and the annotated version of Morris K. Jessup’s “The Case For the UFO” known as the Varo edition6.

Such documentary evidence appealed to a growing desire for “proof” beyond mere sightings or witness testimony. The Ummo communications, with their pseudo-scientific language and detailed descriptions, satisfied this appetite for substantive documentation.

Continued Interest

The enduring interest in the Ummo case is evidenced by continued analysis decades after the original events. The 1996 Guardia Civil examination of the negatives demonstrates ongoing efforts to authenticate or debunk the photographs5.

Books about the Ummo affair continue to be published, including “UMMO And The Extraterrestrial Papers” by Global Communications in 2012, highlighting the case’s lasting appeal to certain segments of the UFO community2.

Evaluating the Evidence: What We Know and Don’t Know

After examining all available evidence, several conclusions can be drawn:

What We Can Reasonably Confirm

  1. The Ummo affair began with communications received by Fernando Sesma in 1965, followed by UFO sightings in 1966 and 1967.
  2. Photographs were taken at San Jose de Valderas on June 1, 1967, showing a disc-shaped object with a symbol resembling the one reported in the 1966 sighting.
  3. José Luis Jordan Peña, a key witness, later confessed that the affair was a hoax he created.
  4. The Guardia Civil analysis in 1996 determined that one specific element in the photographs (an apparent thread) was actually a scratch on the negative.
  5. The Ummo communications grew to thousands of pages containing detailed scientific and philosophical content.

Significant Uncertainties

  1. The true identity of “Antonio Pardo” and the anonymous photographer remains unknown.
  2. The chain of custody for the physical artifacts (tubes and plastic strips) is unclear.
  3. The full extent of Jordan Peña’s involvement and the potential participation of others in the hoax is not fully documented.
  4. The degree to which the scientific information in the Ummo letters was accurate or prescient has not been systematically assessed.
  5. The motivation behind creating such an elaborate and long-running hoax, if that’s indeed what it was, remains speculative.

Research Gaps and Future Investigations

Several avenues for further research could help resolve lingering questions about the Ummo case:

  1. Modern digital analysis of the original photographs (if they still exist) using advanced forensic techniques could potentially provide more definitive conclusions about their authenticity.
  2. Comprehensive linguistic analysis of the Ummo communications could help determine whether they were written by one person or multiple authors, potentially identifying patterns consistent with human rather than alien origin.
  3. Interviews with surviving witnesses or researchers involved in the original investigations could provide additional context and insights.
  4. More detailed investigation into José Luis Jordan Peña’s confession including when it was made, in what context, and how comprehensive his explanation was.
  5. Systematic evaluation of the scientific claims in the Ummo letters compared to the state of scientific knowledge in the 1960s and today, to assess whether they contained genuinely novel information or merely elaborate extrapolations of existing human knowledge.

Conclusion: The Legacy of the Ummo Photographs

The Ummo photographs and the broader Ummo phenomenon represent one of the most elaborate and persistent UFO cases in history. While the confession of a key witness and various analytical findings strongly suggest a sophisticated hoax, the case retains interest due to its complexity and the dedication invested in creating and maintaining the narrative.

As with many UFO cases, absolute certainty remains elusive. However, the weight of evidence leans heavily toward human rather than extraterrestrial origin for the Ummo affair. The case perhaps tells us more about human psychology, our capacity for creating and believing complex narratives, and our desire for contact with something beyond our world than it does about actual extraterrestrial visitation.

The Ummo affair stands as a cautionary tale about the need for rigorous evidence standards in UFO research, while simultaneously demonstrating the power of compelling narratives to maintain belief despite mounting contrary evidence. Its legacy lives on in the continuing discourse about UFOs and extraterrestrial contact, reminding us of the fine line between evidence, speculation, and imagination.

References1 Encyclopedia.com: Ummo Hoax3 Archive.org: UFO-Contact From Planet Ummo8 UNHCR’s Photo Quality Initiative9 JESP: Skeptical Hypotheses and Moral Skepticism10 Congress.gov: UFO whistleblower speaks11 Waseda.jp: On Authenticity in Photography12 Wikipedia: Kirlian photography2 Google Books: UMMO And The Extraterrestrial Papers13 Reddit: Discussion on UFO/UAP skepticism6 We Are The Mutants: The Spiritual, Political, and Ufological Significance of the Ummo Letters14 Wikipedia: UFO conspiracy theories15 National Wound Care Strategy: Digital Images in Wound Care16 Wikipedia: David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims7 New Space Economy: The Truth Behind Fake Flying Saucers5 UFOlogie.patrickgross.org: The claim that Guardia Civil authenticated alleged Ummo spaceship17 Media Storehouse: Letter from Ummo4 Album-online.com: UFO photographed by Antonio Pardo at San Jose de Valderas

⁂

The Ummo Photographs: Examining the 1967 UFO Case and Its Legacy - P2 (SVG)

1389101112213614151675174181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950

  1. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ummo-hoax ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. https://books.google.com/books/about/UMMO_And_The_Extraterrestrial_Papers.html?id=QbRKngEACAAJ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  3. https://archive.org/stream/354868604-ufo-contact-from-planet-ummo-pdf/354868604-ufo-contact-from-planet-ummo-pdf_djvu.txt ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  4. https://www.album-online.com/detail/en/ZjQ0MTRhMA/ufo-photographed-by-antonio-pardo-san-jose-valderas-spain-june-alb11782637 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/ummo/guardiacivil01.htm ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  6. https://wearethemutants.com/2019/02/12/an-immoral-experiment-the-spiritual-political-and-ufological-significance-of-the-ummo-letters/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  7. https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/02/16/the-truth-behind-fake-flying-saucers-understanding-ufo-hoaxes/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  8. https://www.unhcr.org/blogs/unhcrs-photo-quality-initiative-enhancing-photo-standards-in-refugee-registration/ ↩ ↩2

  9. https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/614/299 ↩ ↩2

  10. https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116282/documents/HHRG-118-GO06-20230726-SD006.pdf ↩ ↩2

  11. https://www.waseda.jp/flas/glas/assets/uploads/2021/02/QIAN_Yuchen_0771-07841.pdf ↩ ↩2

  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography ↩ ↩2

  13. https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/19cl4z6/genuine_question_for_hardcore_skeptics_re_ufouap/ ↩ ↩2

  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theories ↩ ↩2

  15. https://www.nationalwoundcarestrategy.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Digital-Images-in-wound-care-17Sept21.pdf ↩ ↩2

  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims ↩ ↩2

  17. https://www.mediastorehouse.com/mary-evans-prints-online/letter-ummo-604549.html ↩ ↩2

  18. https://bookshop.org/p/books/ummo-and-the-extraterrestrial-papers-timothy-beckley/8753307 ↩

  19. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ummo ↩

  20. https://philpapers.org/browse/dogmatist-and-moorean-replies-to-skepticism ↩

  21. https://studio.edx.org/assets/courseware/v1/4071650b6fd35ab6d2024c7ad2e1ff24/asset-v1:LouvainX+Louv21x+1T2020+type@asset+block/Martinus_Nijhof.pdf ↩

  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10205868/ ↩

  23. https://wearethemutants.com/2019/02/12/an-immoral-experiment-the-spiritual-political-and-ufological-significance-of-the-ummo-letters/ummo-ship-san-jose-de-valderas-madrid-1967/ ↩

  24. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/tech-journals/communications-extraterrestrial-intelligence.pdf ↩

  25. https://www.imi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NG_NAI_2_0_S.pdf ↩

  26. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/unhizk/arguments_against_pyrrhonian_skepticism/ ↩

  27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_objects_proposed_in_religion,_astrology,_ufology_and_pseudoscience ↩

  28. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/ummo-and-the-extraterrestrial-papers_timothy-green-beckley_antonio-huneeus/1911850/ ↩

  29. https://works.hcommons.org/records/bse5y-0f585/files/photographic_in_authenticity.pdf?download=1\&preview=1 ↩

  30. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/search-for-life/ufo-whistleblowers-tell-congress-we-are-not-alone-in-the-cosmos-video ↩

  31. https://www.lomography.com/magazine/60234-photography-philosophy-and-authenticity ↩

  32. https://www.geog.cam.ac.uk/facilities/cucap/ ↩

  33. http://whistleblower.house.gov/whistleblower-survival-tips ↩

  34. http://www.strangemag.com/ummo.html ↩

  35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object ↩

  36. https://sciencephotogallery.com/featured/alien-man-with-ummo-symbol-shining-on-his-forehead-oscar-burrielscience-photo-library.html?product=wood-print ↩

  37. https://www.millieswolfheart.co.uk/whistleblower-section ↩

  38. https://nehinstitute2018.galib.uga.edu/what-makes-photos-authentic-expert-analysis ↩

  39. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-scariest-ufo-hoax-or-alien-invasion-the-ummo-letters/id1549480640?i=1000670742934 ↩

  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14725860220137345 ↩

  41. https://cufos.org/PDFs/CUFOS_Bulletin/Bulletin015.pdf ↩

  42. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/8003912-ummo-and-the-extraterrestrial-papers ↩

  43. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ↩

  44. https://extraits.immateriel.fr/files/serve_book_preview/20958.pdf ↩

  45. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/tgei72/the_mystery_of_the_ummo_letters_from_a_supposedly/ ↩

  46. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38896790 ↩

  47. http://magoniamagazine.blogspot.com/2013/11/ummo-planet-of-anonymous-correspondents.html ↩

  48. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1844\&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review ↩

  49. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-highest-resolution-atomic-image-ever-captured/ ↩

  50. https://researchprofiles.herts.ac.uk/files/186805/902045.pdf ↩