posted on May, 13 2015 @ 03:56 PM
My natural language is spanish, so I recently watched the videos.
In fact, they arrived to destination a lot earlier of what's supposed considering the distance and the car they were driving. The original post, the
translated text from the original source, is wrong about this particular detail. In fact the original spanish source is ALSO wrong, that's why the
videos are necessary to clarify on the subject.
It means basically that they, along with the car, were 'moved' by something faster and left close to their destination, it's the only explanation.
There were witnesses at the departure and the arrival, in fact, some people accused them of 'cheating', but of course, it's simply impossible
considering the route, almost a rect line, between the two points.
This case is pretty compelling because it has PHYSICAL evidence impossible to deny, and corroborating witnesses on the departure, the arrival and
independant ones that ALSO saw the SAME light on the route and also got frightened, and later commented on the subject upon arrival, BEFORE knowing
what just happened to the original victims.
The point that it happened in Argentina in the 70s and not in the US like the Hill case, for instance, could explain the lack of general knowledge
about it. But without any doubt, this case clearly overpasses the Hills' and others in terms of corroborating evidence.