SHAMEFUL «RESOLUTION» OF THE ITUZAINGÓ CASE BY THE OFFICIAL OFFICE OF THE CIAE (By Carlos Ferguson)

Given the turn this case has taken, after several details have emerged in recent hours, we have decided to publish this case exclusively.

Finally, I would like to point out that the opinions expressed in this article are strictly personal and do not involve any entity of which I am a member. (Carlos Ferguson)

«As we know, Occam’s razor states that, among several possible explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is usually the correct one. But there is no doubt that, if applied incorrectly, one can fall into the fallacy of assuming that the simplest explanation is always the true one, even when there is no evidence to support it or when other, more plausible explanations exist».

«Skeptics who openly deny the existence of any unexplained UFO phenomenon in the name of rationalism are primarily responsible for the rejection of science by much of the public». (Dr. Jacques Vallée)

THE SHAMEFUL «RESOLUTION» OF THE ITUZAINGO CASE

Among the variety of simple and confusing photos shown by the director of the CIAE (Center for Aerospace Identification), there are many with which we ufologists are very familiar.

From time to time, we also receive images of alleged UFOs that depict the presence of birds and insects (both day and night). The vast majority of these are materials provided by witnesses to determine what might be being reported, and they do so without any publicity (without malice).

This has happened, continues to happen, and will continue to happen with the rise of images, although, as I mentioned before, most of this material ends up on social media or in the press in general.

Among the cases of confusion that the official CIAE office presents each year (most of them easily detectable), we find in the «2015 Case Resolution» report an event that always caught my attention (and that of other colleagues to whom I explained the incident).

We are talking about an image taken in Ituzaingó (Corrientes, Argentina) on January 2, 2015, by Sergio David Canteros.

Canteros was with his children on the coast of the Paraná River when he took some photos without noticing anything unusual.

Upon reviewing them shortly afterward, he noticed in one of them the presence of a dark gray sphere that appeared to be moving.

We have a body with sufficient wide angle. At the bottom of the shot, we see the green grass and vegetation beyond.

In the image, we can see that sunlight hits the upper left side of the object, consistent with the time it was taken.

Upon learning that there was an «official office analyzing photos,» Canteros sent the image while awaiting results.

The most striking thing was the conclusions with which the CIAE (then CEFAe) provided the «possible explanation» for the case.

It is important to clarify that although the author of this article was still an advisor to F.Aérea, along with Angel Díaz and Alberto Brunetti, we were not consulted, nor did we participate, nor did we validate any of the annual reports until our departure in 2017.

For the Ituzaingó report, Director Lianza relied on other «collaborators,» as we see in the conclusions below.

There we can read:

Conclusion: The photographed object is consistent with a small ball, thrown a short distance from the camera.

In communication with the witness, he stated that he was heading to the beach with his children, who were only carrying bicycles, and added, «He didn’t have a ball with them.» This sighting reaches its maximum level of strangeness only when considering the witness’s account of how the object appeared and disappeared (according to him, suddenly and without moving in any direction). The witness reports that upon arriving at the scene, «the object wasn’t there and that (after seeing it and taking a photo) when he lowered his camera, the object had already disappeared.» Strangely enough, this part of the story suffers from the flaw of also fitting with a scenario of a ball thrown into the air.
Although the high shutter speed (1/909 of a second) may have «frozen» the object in the sky, however…the enlargement of the image and the pixel analysis show that the sphere exhibits an almost imperceptible vertical movement consistent with the top of a parabolic trajectory.
CEFAe Analysis: With the collaboration of Vicente Juan Ballester Olmos and Ariel Maderna.

This pseudo-conclusion describes what the witness described as a story that meets the «defect of fitting the ball thrown in the air scenario» (SIC).

Defect? Thrown into the air from where and by whom? How does that object fit there?

We are told nothing about it, except for the phrase «an almost imperceptible vertical movement» and the «top of the parabolic trajectory.» And that’s it, that’s where it all ends.

As I’ve pointed out, in this event (which does not correspond to any insect, bird, or satellite), it was important to delve deeper into a «conclusion» that appears to be just a simple personal inference.

We searched for the photographer-witness for a long time, unsuccessfully, until we were recently able to find him, and there we learned several things:

1 – The exact area where the photo was taken was «Paseo Los Pioneros,» opposite the «Zanjón Loreto» Municipal Nature Reserve, with dense vegetation and a stream in front. (See photos below.)

From where the photo was taken to the edge of the ravine, there are several meters of distance (no less than 15/20 meters – image below).

2 – As I mentioned before, the area allows you to see the treetops beyond the ravine. Unlike other coastal areas, at the point where the photo was taken, we only found lush vegetation, a product of the nature reserve, a ditch, and a small river in front of us a few meters below (see photos below).

The possibility that someone there could have thrown a ball from below the ravine, and it would have exceeded the ground level by several meters, is absurd, because the ravine is several meters deeper. Trees and palm trees surround the ditch, and all on a steep slope.

3 – A woman contacted the official office, asking about the circumstances under which the shot was taken. Canteros says that upon reading the report, he was surprised by the phrase «the witness spontaneously added that they did not have a ball with them.»

He states that this never happened and that – in fact – the person who asked him about the ball was the same person who contacted him. This detail is not minor, since presenting the subject of the ball as initially stated by the witness would imply that he could also have participated in the conclusion reached, which is not true. Another false statement in the conclusion is when it says the witness saw the object and took a photo. Canteros denies this, and discovered the object later.

4 – Canteros waited in vain for an email with the conclusions from the official office. He claims to have arrived at them out of his own concern some time later, after seeing his case «explained» on the website as a «thrown ball,» along with other cases. However, he did receive a «private» email from Lianza, which is striking (the main details of which readers will see below).

5 – Apparently, no one from the official office asked the witness for additional photos of the possible sequence. This represents another serious specific omission, because it is essential to compare the image with others taken before and/or after the shot.

In our case, we were able to obtain the entire sequence simply by contacting the witness (photos below).

6 – And if anything else were needed – in an “explanation” that is a true fantasy – he says that the “ball” was “thrown a short distance from the camera” by someone imaginary (which, in light of the above, does not hold water). Canteros rules out the possibility that someone behind him threw anything.

In a report that claims technical rigor, implying that someone nearby threw a ball into the air warrants more than just asking the witness whether they had been carrying a ball.

THE IMPROVISATION OF THE SELF-PROCLAIMED «SOLUTION EXPERTS»…

What is the cause of the improvisation in the aforementioned Ituzaingó case?

Apparently, it all stems from another glaring analytical error. As simple as it is elementary, every «investigator» should recognize it: not asking the witness the exact location where the image was captured.

Had they done so, they would have realized (both Lianza and his advisors, who participated in the absurd conclusion) that the «ball thrown into the air a short distance from the camera» is a weightless argument when evaluating the exact area where the image was captured.

Continuing to draw analogies between UFO and Forensics, in the concepts of the latter we can read:

«The precise location of the incident is crucial information for any investigation, as it can influence the reconstruction of the events, the identification of suspects, and the collection of evidence.» (end of quote)

To obtain exact data about an area, you don’t need fancy programs. You can access information with a simple Google Maps, so there’s no excuse. The data is there, as long as you look for it.

Here, we’re not talking about the object’s origin as something mysterious, nor are we speculating about it, but rather about the ability or interest in being able to determine reliable data from visual evidence.

Although the vast majority of cases received by the official office involve confusion with birds (some of them very obvious), it’s striking that when we find an object there that doesn’t correspond to any bird or insect, they don’t delve into more key details and instead seek a quick «explanation.»

This is truly an information gap.

STRANGE PRIVATE EMAIL: THE PHOTO IS NOT FAKED

After the article was published, the author of the photo, Canteros, confirmed another key and fundamental piece of information. He recalled receiving an email from the head of the official office, Lianza, and was able to retrieve it from his inbox.

In it, retired Commodore Ruben Lianza specifically stated that he had sent it from his personal email and not from his official one, to «prevent it from being seen by the rest of the staff.» (?????)

This detail is completely anomalous and striking.

Why was this communication intended to be private? What was the reason other people on the internal network shouldn’t read this request?

And furthermore, in that email, Lianza confirms to the witness that the photo «is not faked.»

This last point also speaks in favor of the witness.

And since the head of CIAE constantly refers to «Occam’s razor,» we recall the opening line of this article, where he says that when the concept is applied incorrectly, one can fall into the fallacy of assuming that the simplest explanation is always the true one, even when there is no evidence to support it.

We don’t know the origin of what was captured in Canteros’s shot, but it’s clear that the «conclusion» of the ball being thrown into the air by someone nearby has no evidence to support it, and is a beautiful exercise of imagination without any weight. The object is there and continues to defy conventional explanations. (QUOTE 1)

CONCLUSION

“The diligent skepticism of some militant detractors is also inspired by the need to maintain political control. To prevent a true scientific study, it is enough to maintain a certain threshold of ridicule surrounding the phenomenon. (Dr. Jacques Vallée)

“The belief that the so-called ‘UFO debris’ will disappear over time is nothing more than a myth.” (Dr. Willy Smith)

In this report, we have revealing data that show us:

A) The weak “research” without delving into basic and elementary data, worthy of a schoolchild.

B) Confirmation that the image is not doctored and is not a case of confusion with the usual ones that Lianza and his office use (birds, insects, satellites, etc.).

C) The strange communication in which the head of the official Lianza office not only tells the witness the authenticity of the shot, but also does so from his personal, unofficial email address so that «other staff members don’t know about it» (???). This last point is striking and illogical when the work is being carried out in an official capacity.

D) One of the CIAE’s external advisors (Ballester Olmos) is another figure who endorses the «ball» conclusion. As far as we know, he has no specialization in images and defines the phenomenon as a «myth created from literature, the press, film, and television.» This position leads him to conclusions like those in the Ituzaingó case, where, faced with a case without a fake case and that doesn’t fit basic explanations, he now has a completely flimsy interpretation without evidence, which pretends to have an air of «resolution.» (QUOTE 2)

Not asking the witness about the exact location of the shot, nor requesting additional photos, demonstrates a striking Lack of interest in any basic research, and a complete lack of information. These are mere speculations protected by «the State.»

E) The «resolution» of this case is a disgrace. Since there was no manipulation and it couldn’t be classified as a mistake with a bird, insect, satellite, or anything else, there were only two alternatives: admit it as UNIDENTIFIED or try to «get out of the mess» in the best possible way and offer any alternative explanation. Evidently, the latter was chosen.

This is what Hynek called a «chain of conjecture» (if it’s not this, it’s that, and if not, it’s that…). (QUOTE 3)

Lianza had already stated in a newspaper article that his task was to «Transform UFOs into OVIs.»

Perhaps because of this case (and another that occurred in Quilmes in the same year, 2015), he had declared to various media outlets (such as «Espacio Misterio de Año Cero» and «BBC Mundo» in 2016) that the percentage of UNIDENTIFIED individuals in the official office was 2%, but later changed his statement and lowered it to 0%.

In short: Lianza’s «expert» acolytes and «space cadets» write things like «last-ditch efforts,» trying to convey «responsive genius» to close all cases, but in reality, they are failing.

EPILOGUE

«Ufology» could well be called «No Interpretation.» (Retired Commodore Rubén Lianza, head of the CIAE)

And speaking of «No Interpretation,» the retired commodore should implement it in what he calls «case resolution.» Because in this episode, the throwing of the magic ball by an unidentified person is simply an unsustainable interpretation.

The CIAE and its head do NOT investigate UFO reports in a comprehensive or exhaustive manner (if there was a possibility of doing so at the official level, it ended in 2015, upon his arrival as head of the office).

Unlike other official commissions around the world, in Argentina no one handles reports from every witness (including cases involving aerospace experts, such as pilots). Much less handles reports from electromagnetic disturbances, effects on animals or physiological effects on witnesses, or possible marks or footprints on the ground.

Therefore, its limited area of ​​work cannot even be compared with other commissions that are genuinely interested in answering aerospace issues and the testimonies that give rise to them.

The logo of the current CIAE has a Latin phrase that says: «Cognoscere causas mysteria solvit» («Knowing the causes solves mysteries»). But from here on, we add: «dummodo investigentur» («as long as they are investigated»).

It is evident that we are dealing with formalities intended to be presented with the word «of the State» or the «definitive,» and that collapse like castles in the air.

The approach used in that office (beyond possible techniques) is based on prejudices and views from 60 years ago, and is selective in its treatment. In short: a complete stagnation behind the scenes of current history.

Furthermore, in this case we see strange actions by the head of the official office, in that he sent a private email to a witness (when he had every option to do so through official channels), the reasons for such an attitude being unknown.

For our part, it is our responsibility to raise awareness and publish data to expose these blunders, especially when they seek to present themselves as «the rational alternative» to the «irrationality of self-proclaimed ufologists.»

This case is not closed, and we are already in contact with researchers who will be able to expand on this information.

Carlos Ferguson

Special thanks to Sergio David Canteros for the data and material provided.

All editing done by the author, with images from Pixabay – Partial or total reproduction is prohibited without the express authorization of the author.

The author, Carlos Ferguson, works in the Education area in the Province of Buenos Aires (Argentina). He is also a professor of artistic drawing and has been dedicated to researching the UFO topic for 48 years. As a nonbeliever, he had a close encounter with a disc-shaped UFO at a distance of no more than 35 meters. He was the first civilian advisor on Ufology for the Argentine Air Force (2011 to 2017). He has courses in Satellite Technology, Remote Sensing, and Geographic Information Systems. He is the author of seven books and the largest collection of landing cases in Argentina, with classified events. He has also conducted studies on cases involving pilots and UFOs in Argentina, as well as underwater objects, and, most recently, on the physiological and electromagnetic effects on witnesses. Hundreds of talks and notes spanning almost five decades show him pursuing a line of work tailored to statistical parameters. He is dedicated to daily statistical work, but completely outside the sphere of UFO participants, maintaining some selective contacts.

QUOTES

QUOTE 1: By stating that we do not know the origin of the object detected in the photo, it is to be hoped that some idiot won’t come forward and insinuate that we are talking about little green dwarfs lurking around there. We are very clear about what we are saying.

QUOTE 2: The opinion of the other foreign advisor to the CIAE (Ballester Olmos from Spain) is evident when, in critiquing my book «Encounters between Pilots and UFOs,» he stated that it had no weight because not all the cases had been investigated by the author. Such nonsense even contradicts his own bibliography. In a couple of statistical books from Spain and Portugal, the vast majority of the cases were sourced from other researchers. This demonstrates a completely biased stance toward his friends and a repeated criticism of those who are not. In short, his analytical approach is biased and dogmatic. Over the years, what had been a good start to his research has transformed him into just another skeptical believer, losing all credibility.

QUOTE 3: An example of a «Chain of Conjecture» was described by Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek, referring to a case that occurred on May 19, 1960, in Dillingham, Alaska. It was a disc-shaped, metallic body, approximately 7 meters in diameter, accompanied by a humming noise. Several witnesses saw it, and all agreed on its shape and characteristics. It was stationary, and as it rose, a sucking sound was heard, tearing up some of the grass and two 20-liter cans. As it rose, it almost touched the power lines and then ascended at a very high speed. The weather was excellent, with a light breeze of 20 kilometers per hour.

The BLUE BOOK report read: “No logical explanation for the phenomenon has yet been presented. It is obvious that an object was sighted. While it is not possible to determine whether all the details of the observation are correct, there is no reason to doubt its essential accuracy. In any case, there is no evidence that a common object, such as an airplane or a balloon, was the cause of the observed phenomenon.”

However, it adds: “There was a WX balloon with a radar reflector crossing the area at the time of the observation.”

And Hynek wonders: It is not specified where the information regarding the weather balloon came from, nor is the time of launch given. But BLUE BOOK accepted the claim about a weather balloon and completely disregarded the reports of witnesses who saw the object less than sixty meters away. They also ignored the sucking noise, the sound of uprooting grass, and the described movement of the 20-liter cans. And finally, they disregarded the statement submitted by the local Information Officer.

It’s almost possible to imagine the chain of conjectures in BLUE BOOK: «There was a weather balloon around that time… well, that’s what it must be!»

This anecdote, recounted by Hynek, clearly shows the modus operandi of some dogmatic naysayers when «investigating» cases.

QUOTE 4: On countless occasions, the «case solvers» believe themselves to be experts at overturning events. But when we’ve observed their «counter-surveys,» «reinvestigations,» and other such nonsense, we’ve encountered astonishing forms of «resolution.» An example we’ve mentioned occurred in Mar del Plata in the late 1980s, when a «former ufologist» appeared before a case and, in just 8 minutes, determined (only for him) that it was false. A few years earlier, in «Parque Sur» (Rosario), the same individual had done the same thing, albeit taking 10 minutes (he lowered his operational «record» by 2 minutes). This is the level of those who criticize Ufology, as limited as the 10 minutes they devote to what they call «counter-investigation.»