Within Biscay UFOs
What Really Happened at Gallarta in 1977?
Gallarta's 1977 close-encounter story became Biscay's landmark UFO case because witnesses, traces and official attention converged.
On this page
- The first reports from the spoil heap
- Witness claims and alleged encounters
- What the official file actually recorded
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
Gallarta’s 1977 UFO story matters in Biscay because it is the province’s one clearly documented case in Spain’s declassified Defence UFO archive, but its best evidence does not support the most dramatic version of the tale. The official record identifies the case as “Avistamiento de fenómenos extraños en Gallarta (Vizcaya): 13 de Febrero de 1977”, file number 770213, with 93 pages of material from 1977–1979 and a declassification note dated 18 January 1995.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
The story began with alleged landing marks on a spoil heap and a claim by naval engineer José Luis Lozón that he had seen a large, silent, shiny object rise from the area. It then expanded through Juan Sillero, Lozón’s father-in-law, who described repeated close encounters with landed craft and humanoid visitors. That is why Gallarta became Biscay’s landmark case: witnesses, traces, press attention and Air Force interest appeared to converge. Yet later investigation by military officers and the local research group Colectivo Iván found contradictions, weak corroboration and a mundane explanation for the supposed ground marks.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The first reports from the spoil heap
The setting was not a remote mountain pass or an airfield, but a mining landscape around Gallarta, in Biscay’s old iron-mining zone. That matters because the first physical “evidence” was not a light in the sky, but marks on an industrial spoil heap: irregular holes or impressions which were later interpreted by some reporters and investigators as possible landing traces. The local terrain made the case visually persuasive, because disturbed ground, mineral stones, heavy vehicles and artificial embankments could all look unusual to outsiders while still having ordinary industrial causes.
The first widely reported spark came from La Gaceta del Norte on 24 March 1977, which described numerous marks on a Gallarta spoil heap as possible UFO landing traces. The press account also introduced José Luis Lozón, a naval engineer and technical director at a Bilbao shipyard, who said he had seen an object more than 20 metres across rise at high speed from the site. In later recounting, the object was described as mushroom-like, highly reflective and similar in appearance to stainless steel.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Lozón’s claim had the ingredients that often push a local UFO report into a larger story: a named adult witness with a technical profession, an apparently specific place, and alleged physical traces. His account was also framed as strange because he reported no engine noise despite the object’s rapid ascent. The same press coverage said local people had heard intense night-time noises, such as buzzing, from the spoil heap area, though that kind of claim is much weaker than a dated, independently corroborated observation.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The Air Force file followed from that public reporting. According to Magonia’s account of the case, the press story led the Spanish Air Force to open file 770213, using 13 February 1977 as the case date because that was when Lozón’s sighting was said to have occurred. The Defence archive independently confirms the same Gallarta title, date, file period and issuing body: the Air Operational Command, General Staff, Intelligence Section.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Witness claims and alleged encounters
The Gallarta case became famous because it did not remain a simple “object seen taking off” report. Once the Air Force investigators looked into the story, attention shifted to Juan Sillero, Lozón’s father-in-law, a 50-year-old carpenter who lived near the spoil heap with his family. Sillero’s reported experiences changed the case from an alleged landing trace into a full close-encounter narrative.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Sillero reportedly described five encounters. In the first, he said he woke after hearing a voice call his name, noticed his animals were disturbed, went outside and climbed towards the spoil heap. From the edge of the slope, he claimed to see a disc-like craft buzzing and rocking as if trying to land. After it touched down, two tall beings in suits emerged.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The later episodes became more elaborate. Sillero said that on another night he was invited aboard the craft, where light came from the walls, large screens were visible, and a leader communicated telepathically. He claimed the visitors came from another galaxy and said they wanted to help because Earth was leaving its orbit and tilting too far. In another episode, he described a larger craft, a small exploratory vehicle and visitors interested in stones from the spoil heap.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
These details are important because they make the Gallarta story memorable, but they also weaken it as evidence. The more elaborate a single-witness account becomes, the more it depends on corroboration: other witnesses, photographs, physical material, radar records matching the time and place, medical examination, or at least consistency across interviews. In Gallarta, the opposite happened. The most extraordinary claims came from one central witness, while the people closest to him did not confirm seeing the spectacular events he described.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The case was further amplified by well-known UFO writer Juan José Benítez, who treated Sillero’s story favourably in 1977 press coverage. That public promotion helped move Gallarta from a local Biscay oddity into Spanish UFO lore. But it also created a split that still shapes the case: believers tended to emphasise the alleged landings, radar echoes and fighter responses, while sceptical investigators focused on the unreliable witness chain, the lack of independent observation and the later explanation for the ground marks.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
What the official file actually recorded
The official importance of Gallarta is beyond dispute: it is present in Spain’s Defence UFO collection. The Defence Ministry says the national declassification process began in 1991, that a physical copy of the material was deposited in the Air Force Central Library in 1992, and that the digitised collection contains 80 files and about 1,900 pages concerning unusual aerial phenomena in Spanish airspace between 1962 and 1995.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
The same Defence presentation explains that the files typically include summary pages, the place and date of the sighting, a summary of the facts, considerations, conclusions and classification proposals, followed where available by witness interviews, incident reports and meteorological information. This is useful context for Gallarta: the file’s existence means the case was investigated and preserved, not that the Air Force endorsed the extraordinary claim.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
The Gallarta catalogue entry gives the strongest official anchor. It names the case, identifies the authoring body as Spain’s Air Operational Command and General Staff Intelligence Section, gives the publication period as 1977–1979, describes the file as 93 pages with illustrations, graphs and plans, and notes that it was declassified under JEMA 236 on 18 January 1995.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
A later press guide by El País explained that Spain’s digitised UFO files do not mean “UFO” equals extraterrestrial craft. It noted that many files point to ordinary explanations such as meteorological phenomena, balloons or inconsistent testimony, and stressed that the term simply refers to something not identified at the time of observation. That distinction is essential for Gallarta: the file makes the incident historically important, but it does not turn the claims into proven fact.[Verne]verne.elpais.comOpen source on elpais.com.
Why the physical evidence did not hold up
The alleged ground traces were the case’s most reader-friendly evidence: they seemed tangible, local and photographable. The problem is that they did not survive investigation as persuasive landing marks.
According to Magonia’s summary of Colectivo Iván’s investigation, the marks were irregular and many had stones nearby whose shapes matched the holes. The group traced the marks to Adrián Tramón, a retroexcavator operator, who said he had made them while extracting mineral stones. Sillero later admitted in writing, on 18 May 1980, that the marks photographed and published by Benítez in La Gaceta del Norte and Ya had been made by Tramón.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
That admission is one of the most important pieces of the Gallarta evidence chain. It does not automatically disprove every sighting claim, because an ordinary explanation for ground marks does not logically explain every reported light or experience. But it removes the case’s strongest physical prop. Without the alleged landing traces, the story rests far more heavily on witness testimony, and that testimony was already under pressure from contradictions and lack of corroboration.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Colectivo Iván’s fieldwork also exposed a practical problem: if large craft had repeatedly landed or hovered near homes, one would expect other people to notice. The group reportedly visited Sillero nine times and found contradictions in his story. They also noted that neither his wife and children nor neighbours reported seeing the dramatic events, despite some claims placing craft near or above the family home. Even drivers of rubble-transport lorries passing near the supposed landing area day and night were said not to have seen anything comparable.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
For a balanced reading, the spoil-heap evidence should therefore be classed as weakened, not merely “disputed”. It began as the part of the case that looked most objective, but the later explanation by a machinery operator and Sillero’s written admission turned it into evidence against the landing interpretation.
The radar and fighter-scramble argument
The strongest remaining pro-Gallarta argument is not the humanoid story; it is the claim that, on several nights in February and March 1977, unidentified radar echoes were detected over Biscay and fighter aircraft were sent to intercept twice. Benítez presented this as support for the reality of the Gallarta events, citing a letter from the head of the 3rd Air Region.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
This is the one part of the case that deserves careful handling. Radar returns and fighter scrambles, if accurately reported, are not the same kind of evidence as a single person’s story about beings inside a landed craft. They show that military systems may have registered something unexplained, or at least something unresolved at the time. They also explain why the case remained attractive to UFO writers long after the close-encounter testimony had been criticised.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
But the radar argument has a major weakness: it does not securely connect to Sillero’s encounters. Magonia notes that Sillero did not give precise dates for his meetings with the visitors, while the military investigators continued to regard his account as a product of imagination. If the dates cannot be matched, then the radar material may show separate unidentified or ambiguous aerial events over Biscay, not confirmation of repeated landings on the Gallarta spoil heap.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
That distinction is central to the evidence. A radar echo can strengthen a sky-sighting case when it is time-matched, location-matched and independently documented. It does much less for a close-encounter story when the most extraordinary claims are not precisely dated, not independently witnessed and not supported by surviving physical traces. In Gallarta, the radar strand keeps the file interesting, but it does not rescue the full contact narrative.
How investigators judged the witnesses
The official and sceptical investigations did not merely say “unexplained”. They raised doubts about the people and the story structure. Magonia reports that the Air Force interviewing officers were struck by the fantastic tone of Sillero’s account, and that Lozón himself told them Sillero had been completely normal before the alleged encounters but that he now doubted his mental health.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The military assessment became sharper as the inquiry developed. On 27 June 1977, the reporting judge attributed the events to the carpenter’s imagination and considered him “somewhat outside the normal”. In August, the head of the 3rd Air Region informed the Air Staff that the information supplied by Lozón and Sillero was not credible, and that Sillero’s condition did not offer guarantees of mental balance.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Colectivo Iván reached a similar conclusion outside the military chain. Its members found contradictions during repeated visits, failed to obtain corroboration from nearby witnesses, and ultimately treated the case as a fraud or fabrication. A later tabulation of Spanish Air Force UFO files lists several Gallarta entries in February, March and April 1977 as close encounters of the third kind and rates them as fraud, with Félix Ares and the Air Force named in the responsibility line; the 13 February 1977 daylight-disc entry is rated more cautiously as having suspicious testimony and low reliability.[elojocritico.info]elojocritico.infoOpen source on elojocritico.info.
Lozón’s credibility was also questioned. Magonia reports that he was connected with a cosmic-fraternity study centre associated with Italian contactee Eugenio Siragusa, which placed him close to contactee-style UFO beliefs rather than as a neutral accidental observer. That does not prove he lied, but it matters when assessing whether his interpretation of an unusual sighting was independent, cautious and well controlled.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Why Gallarta still matters in Biscay’s UFO history
Gallarta matters not because it is Biscay’s strongest proof of an extraordinary craft, but because it shows how a local case can become a landmark through the convergence of place, press, personality and official paperwork. It has all the elements readers associate with a classic UFO case: a dramatic setting, alleged landing traces, named witnesses, humanoid claims, military inquiry, radar rumours and later arguments between believers and sceptics.
Its evidential value, however, is uneven. The official file is real and significant. The press coverage was real. The Air Force took the reports seriously enough to document them. Some radar-related material may have existed as a separate military concern. But the central close-encounter story depends heavily on Sillero, and the best later evidence weakened rather than strengthened his account.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa+2Magonia]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
The case also illustrates a common problem in UFO history: one part of a story can be documented while another remains unsupported. Gallarta is sometimes remembered as “the Biscay case in the Defence files”, which is accurate. It is much less accurate to treat that file as official confirmation of landed craft or extraterrestrial visitors. The archive records an investigation into unusual claims; it does not certify the claims as true.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
Later media treatment has kept the legend alive. A 2016 Cuarto Milenio page, for example, presented the case around Sillero’s claim that something landed by the spoil heap and left more than 80 large holes, while also framing the story as one of silences, rumours and pressure. That kind of retelling helps explain the case’s cultural afterlife, but it should be read alongside the earlier investigative finding that the published holes were ordinary extraction marks rather than reliable landing traces.[Cuatro]cuatro.comArchivo Cámara: las luces de GallartaArchivo Cámara: las luces de Gallarta
Best current assessment
The most careful assessment is that Gallarta 1977 is an important but weakly supported UFO case. It is important because it is Biscay’s standout entry in Spain’s declassified Defence archive and because it attracted unusually rich attention for a provincial sighting. It is weak because the physical traces were later explained, the central close-encounter witness lacked corroboration, investigators found contradictions, and the official military view did not accept the testimony as credible.[Biblioteca Virtual Defensa+2Magonia]bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.esOpen source on gob.es.
The 13 February Lozón sighting is harder to dismiss with the same certainty as Sillero’s later encounters, because it is a simpler claim and was the trigger for the file. But it, too, remains low-reliability rather than strong evidence: the object was not independently documented in a way that can now be tested, and Lozón’s proximity to contactee-style UFO circles complicates his status as a neutral witness.[Magonia]magonia.comEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – MagoniaEncuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
The radar and fighter-scramble strand is the most intriguing unresolved fragment, but it does not prove the Gallarta landings. Without precise date matching to Sillero’s alleged encounters and without stronger independent documentation tying the radar returns to the spoil heap, it is best treated as a related but insufficiently connected military anomaly.
Gallarta therefore belongs at the centre of Biscay’s UFO history, but as a cautionary landmark rather than a confirmed mystery. It shows how an extraordinary local story can gain authority from official attention, and how that authority can be misunderstood when the archive’s existence is mistaken for validation of the most dramatic claims.
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Endnotes
1.
Source: magonia.com
Title: Encuentros en la tercera fase en Gallarta – Magonia
Link:https://magonia.com/2016/11/07/encuentros-en-la-tercera-fase-en-gallarta/
2.
Source: elojocritico.info
Link:https://elojocritico.info/los-archivos-ovni-del-ejercito-del-aire-desglosados-quien-que-como/
3.
Source: cuatro.com
Title: Archivo Cámara: las luces de Gallarta
Link:https://www.cuatro.com/cuarto-milenio/programas/archivo-camara-luces-gallarta_18_2286405072.html
4.
Source: magonia.com
Title: Juan Sillero
Link:https://magonia.com/tag/juan-sillero/
5.
Source: magonia.com
Link:https://magonia.com/tag/felix-ares/
6.
Source: magonia.com
Title: Juan José Benítez
Link:https://magonia.com/vendedores-de-misterios/juan-jose-benitez/
7.
Source: magonia.com
Title: Vendedores de misterios
Link:https://magonia.com/vendedores-de-misterios/
8.
Source: magonia.com
Title: Historias – Página 4
Link:https://magonia.com/historias/page/4/
9.
Source: bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es
Link:https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/es/consulta/busqueda_referencia.do?campo=idtitulo&idValor=395886
10.
Source: bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es
Link:https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/es/consulta/indice_campo.do?campo=idtitulo
Source snippet
› Listado de títulos...
11.
Source: bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es
Link:https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/exp_ovni/es/micrositios/inicio.do
12.
Source: verne.elpais.com
Link:https://verne.elpais.com/verne/2016/10/25/articulo/1477394008_803441.html
13.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Link:https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind
Additional References
14.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Former Military Radar Technician Reacts to Newly Declassified UAP Evidence
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbC6dFb35Jo
Source snippet
The Pentagon declassifies UFO files and allows the public to draw their own conclusions...
15.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd1EkYFVnOU
Source snippet
UFO: TRUMP OPENS the PENTAGON FILES | RTVE News...
16.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Javier Sierra: The secret report on UFOs in Franco’s Spain
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lSEWzNb2rc
Source snippet
Former Military Radar Technician Reacts to Newly Declassified UAP Evidence...
17.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Confrontation with humanoid at Rosas base | Tales from the Dark Side
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHptSb_Xcp4
Source snippet
Javier Sierra: The secret report on UFOs in Franco's Spain...
18.
Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/reel/DR4SVtDAdE6/
19.
Source: scribd.com
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/168518253/Desclasificacion-Ufo-Spain
20.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/gallartaayeryhoy/posts/820901100923548/
21.
Source: zenodo.org
Link:https://zenodo.org/records/10588466/files/Reliability_III-3_Campo-Perez.pdf
22.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancientastronauttheory/posts/2040915959759086/
23.
Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancientastronauttheory/posts/1512848342565853/
Topic Tree