Since I published the first article on the Lead Masks Case, many people have asked why I have not referenced the articles from Flying Saucer Review (FSR) magazine, published between 1967 and 1971 by Charles Bowen and Gordon Creighton. As the authors themselves state, their articles were based on reports from Brazilian newspapers, which were sent to them by correspondents in Brazil. As a local resident and native Portuguese speaker, this additional step is unnecessary for me, since I can consult the original articles in Portuguese. However, not wanting to omit any important information, I decided to read all three FSR articles.
Right from the start, I noticed several concerning inaccuracies. To be fair, some of these errors simply reflect mistakes present in the original articles. The issue here may be the sample size: when comparing dozens of articles on the same topic, it is easier to identify significant errors and eliminate unreliable sources. However, when only two or three articles are available, errors can easily slip through. Bowen refers to his material as a “mass of newspaper cuttings which poured into our office,” giving the impression that they had quite a few, rather than just a couple. Working with a translation from an unfamiliar language does not help either. In any case, some basic facts about the case were described incorrectly in the FSR articles; several names, dates, and geographical references contain errors that a local inhabitant would not make.
For decades, the FSR was the only English-language source on the case. As expected, other publications and documentaries were subsequently created based on the information it contained. This information spread much like the children’s game in which a statement becomes distorted as it is passed sequentially from one person to another. Even today, Bowen and Creighton’s articles remain the preferred source for most foreign publications introducing the Lead Masks Case. What follows is a breakdown of the problems I have identified in FSR. My intention is not to denigrate the publication’s reputation, but simply to highlight the inconsistencies found.
The first article, by Charles Bowen, was published in Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, in 1967. It is the most comprehensive of the three. The first couple of errors pertain to the explosion at Atafona:
… a beach at Atafona in the State of Espírito Santo. There, on June 13, 1966, a violent explosion had occurred
Atafona is located in the state of Rio de Janeiro, not in Espírito Santo. The explosion occured on May 12, 1966. The following day, May 13, at least one newspaper article reported the incident, so it could not have happened in June. It is worth noting that several Brazilian newspapers also mistakenly reported the wrong date.
The notes, undoubtedly the best-known piece of evidence in the case, were truncated and/or altered and also poorly translated. The source was probably an article from O Globo dated August 23. However, many other articles provided accurate transcriptions. This is how it appears in the article:
“Sunday, one capsule after lunch; Wednesday, one capsule at bed-time”, and “Be at the place arranged at 16:30. Take capsules at 18:30. After feeling the effects, protect half of the face with lead masks. Await the agreed signal”.
Two notes have been combined here. The first one was truncated. Translations may vary, but the correct transcription is:
Sunday 1 capsule after meal
Monday 1 capsule in the morning, while fasting
Tuesday 1 capsule after meal
Wednesday 1 capsule when lying down
The second and most notorious note was heavily altered. The original is not written in correct Portuguese and lacks punctuation or stops. Preserving its awkward form is important for context. A translation of the accurate transcription is:
16:30 be at specified place
18:30 ingest capsules after the effect
protect metals wait signal mask
FSR references articles from O Cruzeiro magazine dated September 9 and September 16. However, these editions do not exist. The edition Bowen is likely referring to is dated September 12, which is first of two articles that O Cruzeiro published on the case.
Gracinda’s full name is given as Senhora Gracinda Barbosa Coutinho da Sousa, which has led some people to mistakenly believe that Senhora is her first name. In fact, Senhora is the Portuguese word for “Mrs.” I believe Bowen was aware of this, but chose to use Senhora instead of “Mrs.” as a playful touch. Unfortunately, this did not clarify matters; I have even heard a North American podcaster refer to Gracinda as “Mrs. Senhora de Souza” (really!). Similarly, Manuel’s wife’s name is given as Dona Neli Pereira da Cruz. Here, Dona is another Portuguese honorific meaning “Mrs.”, or “Lady”. I am not certain Bowen understood this, however.
One of the most frequently cited passages from Bowen’s article concerns the book that police discovered in the workshop:
Also, a book on scientific spiritualism was found, with passages marked regarding masks, intense luminosity and accompanying spirits.
In all the articles I have researched, the only book on spiritualism mentioned as being found in the workshop is “Life on Planet Mars”, which was indeed filled with marked passages and handwritten notes. However, this book contains no passages regarding masks like those found with Miguel and Manuel. There are references to intense luminosity, but I am uncertain which passage in the book was translated as “accompanying spirits”.
Bowen states that when he tried to request more information about case from his correspondents:
Questions to our correspondents only elicited replies that the case had been killed, and that the security clamps were on. Why? Because it really was a genuine UFO case?
The Lead Masks Case was officially closed only in 1969, and, yes, in a rather unusual manner. However, in 1967, there was no evidence that mysterious actors were attempting to shut down the case or conceal it in secrecy. Perhaps their correspondents were venturing a bit too far into conspiracy territory.
The second article, also by Charles Bowen, was published in Vol. 14, No. 4, in 1968. It is a brief piece that adds nothing significant to the story. Its title, however, is a bit odd: “No Easy solution to the Morro Mystery”. Bowen decided to write Morro instead of Morro do Vintém. The problem is that Morro is just the Portuguese word for hill, while Vintém is the proper name. If he wanted to write a shorter form, the right choice would be “No Easy Solution to the Vintém Mystery” (the first article from 1967 was titled “The Mystery of the Morro do Vintém”).
The third article, by Gordon Creighton, appeared in Vol. 17, No. 4, in 1971. It repeats the same flawed transcription of the notes, along with translations of a few newspaper clippings. In the “Views from Correspondents” section, we get a glimpse into the perspectives of some of his correspondents in Brazil, which is quite revealing. They have now fully embraced a tinfoil hat mindset:
It was at this precise time that the big drive against all UFO investigators in Brazil began in earnest.
It would therefore have been very unwise indeed for any of us to have looked any further into the Morro do Vintém case just then. Ufologists in Brazil were even being linked with the activities of the terrorists, and consequently we were all most careful not to attract attention to ourselves!
That is baffling, to say the least. Creighton concludes this section with the remark:
… we must not overlook the evidence, already strong, from many other quarters, that the paraphysical or ultraterrestrial entities which could be behind the so-called “UFO Phenomenon” are not over-addicted to the practices of morality and virtue themselves, but are indeed using terrestrial criminal elements to do their work for them.
I do not know to which strong evidence he is referring, but apparently, his conclusion is that beings from other worlds may be hiring earthly criminals to carry out their evil plans. He then speculates that not only could the story told by Hamilton Dezani be a fabrication (which it was), but that Dezani himself might be a fictional character (he was not). Alternatively, if he were real, Creighton concludes, he might be enjoying himself at Copacabana Beach, after playing his part in the grand conspiracy orchestrated by the authorities to divert attention from the true explanation for the deaths at Vintém Hill: UFOs.
Conclusion
Do the articles in Flying Saucer Review contain errors? Yes. Should we then dismiss these articles as utter nonsense? No. The first article from 1967 still offers a gentle introduction to the case, provided we avoid the obvious pitfalls. However, the other two articles are not as useful. As Bowen explained, Flying Saucer Review relied heavily on the work of volunteers, especially when the case study involved a foreign country. If he had access to accurate and timely information, there would be a chance he could write a definitive article on the Lead Masks Case.