← Back to lettersOn 29/04/18, it was about a colleague with a paranoid mentality or a man with a strange sense of humor. I forgot the incident that I had, of course, extensively commented on with my wife in a sarcastic tone. But within four or five days (I remember it was before Christmas night of the previous year) (Note: Handwritten mention: 23-12-65, added in small print and interline) Our man reiterated his call once again in the hours preceding dinner. I decided to respond to him, undoubtedly influenced by the natural itch of curiosity. The incredible erudition of the mysterious communicator impressed me even more than the previous night. This time, I mischievously formulated a series of questions in fields as diverse as Histology, Renal Surgery, Biochemistry, and the technique of Electrocardiogram Diagnosis. I was so impressed by the conciseness of his answers and his precision in their scientific exposition, so confused and overwhelmed by the awareness of my own professional inferiority compared to my strange interlocutor, that after timidly congratulating him, I suggested that I wanted to know the true purpose of his calls. He insisted once again that he came from a distant star, noting that he understood my skepticism, that this was no joke, and that I should dismiss any idea of interpreting his attitude through a psychopathological lens. He then elaborated on the subject of secondary symptomatic delusions of some paranoid syndromes, aiming to demonstrate to me that possible arguments attempting to support a diagnostic interpretation of mental illness would lack value. I countered with the subsequent objection that no man of science could accept "a priori" such an assertion of such pronounced transcendence without it being supported by compelling scientific evidence. My interlocutor appeared understanding and satisfied. He simply agreed with my point of view and offered to provide me with a device or technical apparatus related to my profession of which I could not find the slightest reference regarding its existence on Earth. He requested, on formal promise, that the equipment would be returned intact, without me trying to mechanically access its interior or damage it, and that only I and my closest family members would have access to its manipulation. Such numerous reservations and restrictions made me suspect the possibility of fraud, but I chose to silence my suspicions and verbally accept the compromise he demanded of me. The calls began to worry me, and I spoke about it with two colleagues from the Faculty, who joyfully commented on the hypothetical origin of the mysterious colleague. On January 3, 1966 (I keep the wooden box and the postmarked package), I received a witness package postmarked in Madrid wrapped in plain gray paper. With the name and address of the sender, which I later verified were false, and with a typewritten address (Subsequently, the young "Perito Mercantil" mentioned to me that it had been written by him). Inside there was a prism-shaped device with rounded edges "like half a reed"; it appeared to be made of steel, although the surface covered with a transparent layer of varnish so hard that it was impossible to scratch with a carborundum crystal, made it impossible to accurately estimate the type of metal or alloy used. The device had approximate dimensions of 8 x 8 x 5.3 cms. The upper part featured a kind of square screen, seemingly made of glass or very hard plastic, with an opaline color. My attention was drawn to the fact that the metal or alloy of the box seemed to fuse with this translucent plate of the screen without any visible discontinuity. The base or bottom face of the device presented five orifices. One of them was square, while the others were circular in section and of different calibers.
Lettre Ummite#849