The Ubatuba Magnesium

What the files hold

Project Blue Book entered the event on its list “1 - 17 SEPTEMBER 1957 SIGHTINGS”, below the sightings it evaluated, under “ADDITIONAL REPORTED SIGHTINGS (NOT CASES)”: “Early Sep / Ubatuba Beach / APRO Bulletin”, with the evaluation column left blank (NAID 28971479, image 20). A second copy of the list, with handwritten numbers, is image 171 of the unit NAID 28921348.

A search of the Blue Book series in the National Archives catalogue for “Ubatuba” on 15 October 2026 finds four file units. Besides the two copies of the list, they hold:

• two issues of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, the bulletin of the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization of Alamogordo, New Mexico, filed in the unit titled “Albuquerque, N.M., January 1958” (NAID 28976909): March 1960, with the letter (image 27) and the analyses (image 29), and May 1960, with the Air Force’s request for a sample (image 36);
• a letter of APRO to the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) of 20 April 1960 and ATIC’s memo of 4 May 1960, filed in the unit titled “Peoria, Illinois, August 1953” (NAID 28956049, images 36, 37).

No copy of the column in “O Globo”, no laboratory report and no analysis by the Air Force is in them. The US releases of 2026 do not mention Ubatuba.

The letter

APRO tells the story in March 1960: “On September 14, 1957, Mr. Ibrahim Sued, a social columnist for the Rio de Janeiro daily newspaper, ‘O Globo,’ included in his column the text of a letter he had received from a reader.” As the bulletin gives it:

“Dear Mr. Ibrahim Sued. As a faithful reader of your column, and an admirer of yours, I wish to give you something of the highest interest to a newspaperman, concerning the flying saucers. If you believe they are real, of course. I also didn’t believe anything said or published about them. But just a few days ago I had to change my mind. I was fishing together with some friends at a place near the town of Ubatuba, Sao Paulo, when I saw a flying disk. It approached the beach at unbelievable speed, an accident seeming imminent—in other words, a crash into the sea. At the last moment, however, when it was about to strike the water, it made a sharp turn upwards and climbed up rapidly in a fantastic maneuver. We followed the spectacle with our eyes, startled, when we saw the disk explode in flames. It disintegrated into thousands of fiery fragments, which fell sparkling with magnificent brightness. They looked like fireworks, in spite of the time of the accident—at noon. Most of these fragments, almost all, fell into the sea. But a number of small pieces fell close to the beach and we picked up a large amount of this material—which was as light as paper. I enclose herewith a small sample of it.” (image 27)

“Unquote. The signature was not legible. Mr. Sued had never written about the UAOs before.” Dr. Olavo T. Fontes, “APRO’s Brazilian representative”, read the column, called Sued and saw the sample at his home (images 27, 29). The bulletin adds: “In his fully documented report, Fontes stated that ordinarily he would have sent someone to Ubatuba to more thoroughly investigate the incident, but inasmuch as he had the stuff in his hands, he decided to conduct a scientific analysis.” (image 29)

The analyses, as APRO reported them

Everything in this section is APRO’s account; none of the reports it names is in the files (image 29).

• Spectrograph, 24 September 1957. Fontes took part of the sample to the Mineral Production Laboratory, which the bulletin calls “a Brazilian government lab”. It quotes a report “No. 15 001”: “Spectrographic analysis of unknown material. Protocol: 571/57. Origin: Ubatuba, Sao Paulo. Sender: Dr. Olavo Fontes. The sample received included two fragments of metallic appearance, grey color, low density, and weighing, each one, approximately 0.6 gr. Report of the analysis of one of the fragments: The spectrographic analysis showed the presence of magnesium (Mg) of a high degree of purity and absence of any other metallic element.” It is signed, by the bulletin, “Luisa Maria A. Barbosa, Chemist-Technologist ‘N’”.
• A second run, 24 October 1957, on the same spectrograph, by Elson Teixeira, “a former chemist at the Laboratory”.
• The Brazilian Army. “The Brazilian Army, after hearing about the case, dispatched Major Roberto Caminha to talk to Dr. Fontes, who turned over a sample of the material to the Army on the 4th of November. Dr. Fontes was not informed of the results of the test.”
• X-ray diffraction, at the Laboratory of Crystallography of the National Department of Mineral Production: “Examination of the material by X-Ray diffraction showed that the substance was magnesium, apparently absolutely pure.”
• Radiation. “A Geiger counter and an Atomic Scaler were used to determine whether the fragments registered any extraordinary amount of radiation. No abnormal amount was found.”

APRO’s conclusion: “On the basis of this study, it is highly probable that the metallic chunks picked up on a beach near Ubatuba, Sao Paulo, are really fragments of a flying disc. The object which exploded above the beach at Ubatuba, Brazil was made of 100% magnesium, which is not within the technology of our times. APRO rests its case.” And below it: “(Editor’s Note: The documented report, plus spectrographic film, X-Ray diffraction analysis film and Dr. Barbosa’s report and the chemist’s report, are on file at APRO’s headquarters.)” (image 29)

What the Air Force asked for

On 20 April 1960 APRO’s director wrote to ATIC “in reference to some residual material which was recovered from a UFO which exploded and burned at Ubatuba Beach, Brazil during September 1957”, enclosed the bulletin, “which gives an account of the Ubatuba incident in general terms”, and wrote: “A technical report of a very thorough nature is being prepared by Dr. [redacted]. We will forward a copy to your office when it is finished if you wish.” (NAID 28956049, image 36)

ATIC answered through the Air Force’s information office, in a memo of 4 May 1960 to Major Tacker:

“2. ATIC is interested in any physical evidence or data which will assist in determining the cause for a UFO sighting. It is suggested that APRO be requested to forward a sample of the material and the technical report concerning the Ubatuba Beach case to ATIC. The names and specific qualifications of the persons involved in the analysis should accompany the report.

3. A search of reference material in the AMC technical library failed to reveal the name of [redacted], Dr [redacted], or any of the persons mentioned in the article on the incident carried in the APRO Bulletin.

4. For your information, the details of the Ubatuba Beach sighting closely parallel the circumstances of a case which took place near Maury Island, Washington 21 June 1947. This case is discussed on Page #31 of the book ‘The Coming of the Saucers,’ by [redacted] and [redacted]. The Air Force conclusion is that the Maury Island case was probably a hoax.” (NAID 28956049, image 37)

The letter Major Lawrence J. Tacker sent APRO, as the bulletin of May 1960 prints it, carries points 2 and 3 and not point 4: “will you please forward a sample of the material and technical report concerning the Ubatuba Beach case to ATIC for analysis and/or evaluation. Names and specific qualifications of persons involved should accompany the report. A search of reference material in the AMC technical library failed to reveal the name of Mr. Ibrahim Sued, Dr. Olavo T. Fontes, or any of the persons mentioned in the article on the incident carried in the APRO Bulletin.” (NAID 28976909, image 36) The Maury Island case is in this database: The Maury Island Fragments.

APRO answered in the same issue. Disputing the Air Force’s explanation of another sighting, at Biggs Air Force Base, as a bolide, it asked: “On the basis of this, can we entrust our precious bits of pure magnesium to the U. S. mails?” (image 36) No later paper on the sample is in the units the search finds.

Where it was

The letter puts the place “near the town of Ubatuba, Sao Paulo”, at a beach; the Blue Book list and ATIC call it “Ubatuba Beach”. The pin is OpenStreetMap’s point for the town of Ubatuba (relation 298203), rounded by us to 23.43° S, 45.08° W; it marks the town, not a beach.

Why this scores where it does

Witnesses: 0. One letter whose “signature was not legible” (image 27). No document names the writer or the friends he was fishing with, and no one is recorded going to Ubatuba.

Radar and optics: 0. None.

Physical trace: 1. By APRO’s account there were fragments, and in 1960 APRO still had them. Nothing but the letter ties them to a beach near Ubatuba, and no analysis of them can be opened.

Multi-channel: 0. Everything about the event comes from the one letter, as APRO reproduces it.

Documentation: 2. A Blue Book list, APRO’s bulletins of 1960 and the correspondence of that year. No paper of 1957 is in the files.

Anomaly: 1. The anomaly rests on APRO’s reading of analyses that cannot be checked; ATIC set the story beside a case the Air Force had concluded was “probably a hoax”.

Data today: 1. The Blue Book files are public. The column, the letter, the laboratory reports, the films and the Army’s result are not in them.

The overall is 0.6: class D, testimony only.

What would settle it

• Ibrahim Sued’s column in “O Globo” of 14 September 1957, and the letter itself.
• The papers APRO said were “on file at APRO’s headquarters”: “The documented report, plus spectrographic film, X-Ray diffraction analysis film and Dr. Barbosa’s report and the chemist’s report” (image 29).
• The result of the Brazilian Army’s test, of which “Dr. Fontes was not informed” (image 29).
• The “technical report of a very thorough nature” APRO offered ATIC in April 1960 (NAID 28956049, image 36).