By Carlos Ferguson (Argentina)
«I emphasize that my experience is that time and time again you find people who weren’t really interested in UFOs until they saw one themselves.» (Prof. James McDonald)
«They say these things appear to those who believe in them…and I didn’t believe.» (Witness from Mar del Plata, August 1968)
«I had always said they were lies» (Witness found by relatives in shock, looking at a fixed point, after a UFO approach, in the 1960s)
Studies on the greater Strangeness in close distances is something already defined years ago by great Ufology analysts.
What was always missing was to corroborate said data by applying the Argentine casuistry, and see if they endorsed what had already been done in other latitudes. We already have an extensive casuistry for this. Here are the results.
The Argentine Ufological update in 2022 and looking to the future, is crossed by the lack of theoretical studies on the casuistry that we are filing.
There is an interesting element for the theoretical analysis of the phenomenon. One more of the more than 60 variables to study, and which are covered by very few researchers.
These are those cases pointed out by Dr.Joseph Allen Hynek with a key weight factor: STRANGENESS.
Dr. Willy Smith (who was in close contact with Hynek for years), noted that this concept was introduced by Dr. Hyneck as an attempt to measure the «oddities» in a UFO report, taking into account the expendable terms of a UFO report. report. which are difficult to understand «a priori».
For some cases, such as a light moving at night, there is only one event to explain, the movement itself, while for a landing with associated physical effects and entities interacting with witnesses, the number of events to be explained. . explain is much higher, corresponding to an assessment of «high strangeness». Then it is possible to establish a scale of strangeness, although it is not as easy as it seems. (QUOTE 1)
We can synthesize as strange factors (according to Smith’s remembered UNICAT catalog) to:
A – Light anomalies
C – Dynamics
D – Physical effects – inconsistencies
E – Repeats of dynamic parameters
F – Detection of the object by instruments
G – Anomalous Effects
H – Entities
I – Kidnappings
Each one of them has subvariants that we will not analyze here, but that serve to describe the Strangeness, which is what differentiates them from conventional phenomena.
DISTANCE CORRELATION – STRANGERS…
This is how the aforementioned Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek defined it, in a talk with the Spanish researcher Antonio Ribera:
“If you see an object from afar, you may not know at the time what it is. As you get closer to it, you will distinguish details: first you will see its color, say blue, then you will see that it is a car, and later you will even distinguish the make -a Cadillac- and other details on its bodywork. In the case at hand, the exact opposite occurs. «Details of Strangeness» increase with proximity.» (end of quote)
In the 6-layer model proposed by Jacques Vallée and Eric Davies, the referred point would be layer 3, namely:
“Human observers tend to see UFOs (Uaps), while they are in their normal state. They perceive the objects as unconventional, but try to explain them as common occurrences, until they are faced with the inescapable conclusion that the object is really unknown» (QUOTE 2)
The Argentine ufological pioneer Prof. Oscar Uriondo, has mentioned in his excellent book «UFO ANOMALY» the interesting correlation between the distance of the witness to the UFO and the strangeness index of the report:
«The smaller that distance is, the higher that index is» . (QUOTE 3)
This result undermines the skeptical view that if UFOs were viewed in sufficient detail, they could easily be identified as natural phenomena or conventional objects.
Frequently the skeptical world uses this argument to support its dogmas and beliefs.
They say that it is all about misinterpretation by the witness, who believes he sees things that are not.
This speech assumes that all witnesses in close approach to a UFO are all confused.
But the situation that occurs with the witnesses is rather the reverse.
Witnesses of all socio-cultural conditions, and in different activities and hours, who are at the shortest distances in front of a UFO, not only do not recognize it with known elements, but also add a series of unsuspected effects.
And as if that were not enough, these witnesses do not often have any prior conditioning either.
Uriondo rightly points it out:
“It is not accurate that witnesses, when faced with the appearance of an unusual object, attribute intelligent or intentional behavior to it because they interpret what is perceived as an aircraft of some kind, generally as an alien spacecraft. In reality, the process is reversed, the intentional behavior is warned prior to any interpretation. Many times it is after a process of gradual assimilation (the so-called «ESCALATION OF HYPOTHESIS»), that witnesses end up accepting the reality of an unknown phenomenon, for which they find no conventional answers.» (end of quote)
Uriondo also points out:
“The statistical study of the data contained in the landing cases has allowed us to conclude that there is a curious correlation between the distance of the witness from the UFO and the STRANGENESS INDEX of the report. The smaller that distance is, the higher that index is. This result undermines the skeptical view that if UFOs were seen in sufficient detail, they could be easily identified as natural phenomena or conventional objects.» (QUOTE 4)
BRIEF EXAMPLE SUMMARY (LESS DISTANCE – MORE STRANGENESS)
I have chosen only a handful of cases from the Argentine casuistry that shows us this relationship. But there are thousands of events all over the planet:
November 18, 1991: Route 41 (BS.AS): Mr. Condesse and his wife were heading towards their home in Barrio Los Troncos when they saw a “vehicle” approaching at high speed from behind them. They slowed down the march and the surprise was to notice that that body ran over them. They descended to see what it was about and there they realized that it was an elongated luminous body. At the same time, he stood upright and walked away in the direction of Navarro. (Gifad Source)
October 3, 1993: Villa Dolores (CORDOBA): A witness observed a strange «cloud» that he attributed to a tornado. But moments later, he noticed that the supposed «cloud» descended and it was a discoidal body about 10 meters in diameter, with a metallic-looking axis at the equator. It had a dome and 2 circular windows and in the middle a kind of door or something similar. There were more witnesses to the event. (Source: Rao File)
July 31, 1995: San Carlos de Bariloche (RIO NEGRO): The famous case of Commander Jorge Polanco is another clear example. In the first instance (and at a great distance), it is a point of light, but in the closest approach, we are in the presence of a discoidal body of magnitude. (Source: Various press)
July 4, 1999: Dolores (BS.AS): A neighbor (civilian pilot of great respectability in the area) was going to carry out his work tasks in his truck, when when crossing the railroad tracks, he can see a great light that was heading to him. He thought of something conventional, but his approach; He verified that it was a kind of «flying boat», with a large number of white and yellow lights. In seconds, he took an impressive speed to the west and was lost there. (Source: Various press and communication with Carlos Ferguson)
May 2, 2000: Balcarce (BSAS): Hugo Macías (Public Relations of the newspaper La Capital de Mar del Plata), was moving along route 226 when he began to notice in the rearview mirror, the approach of a light that -in principle – attributed to a truck. Realizing the imminent impact on his truck, he grabbed the wheel, but the «light» passed over him. Along with the effects on his truck, he can clearly see that he was overtaken by a strange elongated luminous body (like a fluorescent tube), which was heading towards the mountains, gigantic in size. Macías had subsequent physical effects and there were more witnesses to the event, from other positions. (Source: Various press / Carlos Ferguson investigation)
November 7, 2007: Irene, c/Tres Arroyos (BS.AS): Some witnesses in an area near Oriente called Aparicio, observed a strange luminosity that was flying toward the Irene area. The police witnesses who approach the place, verify that the apparent light was now a kind of flying object that was approaching at a very low height, solid in appearance and ovoid in shape (5 meters in diameter), grayish in color and with a luminosity in its part former. (Source: Various press / investigation by Carlos Ferguson)
In all these events, and the thousands of cases on file (and worldwide cases), we will find that a high percentage; has witnesses who – when they see a UFO at a great distance – first attribute it to something conventional. And when the rapprochement occurs, they discover other totally strange aspects.
This also occurs with witnesses more prepared for vision such as pilots.
Likewise, in third-type cases, there are countless cases where observers describe seeing figures around or inside or coming out of UFOs in a particular way: «small figures like children but adults», «humans who were not human», «something strange that I cannot explain”, etc.
And the vast majority never refer to or define this as «alien.»
Everything is in contrast with the false speculation of dogmatic deniers who argue that UFO witnesses are predisposed to see what they see (that if they see something they cannot explain, they immediately label it as «ALIEN CRAFTS»).
But that argument is false, and is only mentioned by the deniers, who need to put together a story suited to their purposes.
Only a small percentage of witnesses manifest themselves as «interested» in UFOs.
CAN THE STRANGENESS – DISTANCE FACTOR BE CERTIFIED?
Is there a way to measure the degree of strangeness in terms of distance?
By the way, and it has already been carried out worldwide, although the Argentine study was missing.
For this, it was necessary to have a sufficiently large and minimally qualified flow of cases.
This is an important task, which can take years. And that was the case when I decided to face the hundreds of cases of landings in Argentina from 1947 to date.
We only had antecedents of catalogs that did not exceed 200 cases in the 70’s, and THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED.
For this reason, the task was twofold: not only to expand the data by updating it, but also to apply an international standard qualification system in each of the more than 2,000 cases that I have on file (it is not a task for the disseminators of «shocking cases», the «non-researchers», «retired ex-researchers», those disenchanted who never analyzed, those who call themselves «experts» and who do not have a single published theoretical work, etc.).
Later I focused on all the events where we have the most accurate distances possible. These are not estimates with doubts from observers, but rather those that have references to nearby objects (the UFO passing in front of trees, billboards, or various points, etc.)
Of the more than 2,000 data, the resulting figure was 455 cases (sufficient figure to be able to draw conclusions).
In this way, we can already prepare a minimal statistical study, which allows us to verify if the Argentine casuistry is consistent with what is happening worldwide, and certify – once again – if Hynek was right.
In the graph below we have defined the witnesses in range of distances from the witness to the UFO and the QUALITY DEGREE of those cases, defined in this way:
From 0 to 100 meters
From 101 to 200 meters
more than 200 meters
It is clearly noticed that the closest witnesses to the UFO (from 0 to 100 meters), are the ones that define a range of STRANGENESS preponderant with respect to the rest.
The curve doubles for events from 101 to over 200 meters.
It is more than clear that the witnesses closest to the UFO are the ones that define the most, the strange factors.
A – The study carried out allows us to certify that the Argentine casuistry conforms to international conclusions. The cases of witnesses closest to the phenomenon with certain distances, are those that have the highest strangeness score.
B – The Argentine witnesses – for the most part – initially tend to think that they are dealing with something conventional and NOT with «ALIEN VESSELS». This is consistent with international studies. This was stated back in 1966 by Dr.Joseph Allen Hynek himself (who at that time was an adviser to the US Air Force). In an article sent to the magazine «Science» (August 1966), Hynek said:
“Only a very small number of communications made to the Air Force or any other organization come from ‘true believers’. The truly disconcerting reports come from people who have never cared much about UFOs, if ever, and who often consider outside reports of this kind «bullshit, until they too have had a similar experience.» . (QUOTE 5)
It is interesting to note that these Hynek concepts were the product of years of research and in North America. In short: we are facing a situation that occurs in different latitudes and with the same social characteristics.
C – The arguments of the skeptics on duty (that witnesses see UFOs EVERYWHERE), completely collapses. Either they are uninformed about the cases or they use these arguments as a dogmatic belief, to invalidate the subject.
D – The bewilderment in the witnesses after approaching the phenomenon is usually complete.
E – In an overwhelming majority, the witnesses report that they cannot find an explanation for what they observed, without attributing it to something determined by the popular masses. There is no influence from Hollywood or the Press in most cases.
The UFO is annoying.
As the great analyst Aimé Michel pointed out:
«With UFOs, you don’t see any imaginable (aerodynamic) reaction.»
It is not only its form, but the whole.
In the Distance – Strangeness relationship, the global statistical result is conclusive: the cases of witnesses who are at a shorter distance from the phenomenon are the most strange.
This paper confirms that the same occurs in Argentina.
It is an unquestionable fact that confirms the surprise of observers at these events.
We are before a presence that breaks with the classic paradigms and manifests itself in an ostensible way, with characteristic features that are its own at all times and places.
Partial or total reproduction with prior authorization of the author / Initial drawing of the article: Thomas Budach – Pixabay
QUOTE 1: Dr.Willy Smith – “Strangeness” – Ufology Notebooks no.13, 2nd period, 1992.
QUOTE 2: “Incommensurability, orthodoxy and the physics of high strangeness: A 6-layer model for anomalous phenomena” – Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis – Web Jacques Vallée.
QUOTE 3: Uriondo, Oscar – “UFO Anomaly” – Editorial Dunken – Bs.As, 2006 – p.21.
QUOTE 4: Uriondo, Oscar – The scientific method and UFOs” – Lecture given at the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrano, on May 31, 1973 – Cefai, 1973
QUOTE 5: Frank Edwards – “Flying Saucers Here and Now”, Plaza and Janes, 1967. P.176.