THE 17 REGRETTABLE BEHAVIORS OF THE CURRENT ARGENTINE UFOLOGY (on some Myths of Ufology: “selected areas”, “declassifications”, “there are no more cases”, “pseudo postmodernism”, “the return of those contacted”, what unites to theorists, detractors and popularizers)


There is a good ufology, with very few fellow researchers and theorists, some pioneers, who have made history within the subject.

In this Manifesto I will focus on the current moment of the Argentine ufological participation environment, aimed at the general public, so that they are attentive to some of these signs or attitudes.

In every talk, in every press release, in every contact with the public through the networks; We receive questions.

More than 90% of them refer to topics that have nothing to do with practical and theoretical Ufology.

The reason is simple: the theorists, disseminators, detractors and contactees are 95% of the UFO participants.

Based on what they spread, the public asks about this avalanche of rumors.

Have UFOs attacked a base in Argentina? Have there been direct official declassifications? Is it true that there are no more cases of UFOs? Are there selected areas? Is what this or that says true?… Are you a researcher? These are some of the many concerns that arrive daily through all media.

Given this, there are 3 alternatives:

1 – Reply all (as we have done for decades)

2 – Do not respond

3 – Answer them, but also point them out to the public and the media; What are the different variants and attitudes of the UFO participants, to differentiate us from it.

Option 1 is usually exhausting because it has no end (but we have never stopped doing it).

Option 2 is to leave the land free.

Personally I am doing 3, which allows me to give more details.

Some believe they see this as a criticism of others, but the concrete thing here is to differentiate ourselves as much as possible from those positions, which have only achieved total discredit of the issue.

And it is not about believing in the absolute truth, but about talking about theoretical and field work tools.

On the other hand, that 95% of those mentioned frequently hide behind the motto of being or calling themselves “researchers”, when they are not.

Given this, some “defenders of free participation” come out talking about the right that we all have to get involved in something.

But what is at stake is not a question of rights.

What ratifies the investigative step are the background, studies and works presented over time (and also the ethical attitudes).

It is not about sympathies or friendships, but about data.

It is time to take off the masks of attitudes.

Therefore, the final recipient of this is the public that wants to read it.

In no way do we talk about that 95%, because there will never be changes in an environment that has resisted for decades.

You can ignore this reading.

And although the person writing this is still inside UFOlogy (devoting hours a day to statistics), I am now out of reach of the UFO participants.

In fact, I continue to reject articles in different press media (print, radio or television), where any participant from that 95% appears.

We do not allow ourselves to be seduced by the desire for articles in the press, along with figures who refer to the phenomenon as accomplished “experts.” To participate there would be to equate oneself along the same lines.

Second preliminary clarification: when we come to the foreground in almost 50 years of activity on the subject, some readers ask us for names. But this is not a witch hunt, nor is it about putting pressure on those who want it.

This has nothing to do with cowardice as an uninformed person points out.

Whoever writes this, over the years, has constantly given samples and names. In the coordination of the Argentine Ufology Network (RAO) for 16 years, and even today, I repeatedly exposed countless people by name and surname, more than any other researcher (I publicly challenge anyone who says otherwise). .

And not only with the people who are in the environment, but also with those who officially present themselves as “researchers.” In the last 3 or 4 years I have been the most critical of what is happening at the official level, and giving names and surnames.

But what we want to highlight here are the attitudes, because names change or pass, and what is useful here is to notice unethical behaviors, manias and attitudes.

For years we already had several people who spoke of “United Ufology” and who, while working together, patted each other on the back and constantly put radios on the steering wheel from behind.

There are many fakers disguised as researchers, and it is not exclusive to Argentina, but today we will talk about what happens in our own place.

And it is not a personal or particular issue, as those who do not play for their ideal and prefer to continue with the round of cronyism have sometimes suggested.

In the latter case, when someone also mentions us by name and surname, we will know how to go directly to confront them.

In summary: the best way is to point out to the public and the press in general (who are just delving into the topic or who are already there and want to know more), some of the reasons why we believe that Ufology is the way it is.

More than names, the important thing is to show attitudes, facts and results, and for everyone to draw their own conclusions (whoever fits the suit should wear it).

It is the public that must also investigate, inform itself and see where some unpresentable issues in Ufology come from, although it must be recognized that the majority does not do so. But we are raising awareness about it.

A third and final clarification: we have pointed it out many times but it is worth doing so in this Manifesto: it is false to imagine that “Ufology” is a compact block of people who do the same thing.

When the public, on some occasion, has pointed out why we do not all pull in the same direction, they are sometimes unaware of many details that we will expose here today, and that will show regrettable things.

There are irreconcilable tendencies because there are irreconcilable interests, at least for the person writing this.

You cannot be complicit in deception, title fraudsters, violators of the anonymity of witnesses, sensationalism, etc.

The so-called “Ufology” is a heterogeneous group where many are included, and use that name (called ufologist), for unholy purposes.

By the way, it is easier and “diplomatic” not to say some things and act distracted. That attitude has been a general code in the ufological environment, but it is not like that. We will not be complicit in false cronyism.

It is not about “differences of opinion between the people involved in the issue about what they believe (that is everyone’s business), but rather about basic human attitudes and ethics.

We are not politically correct, but for years we tried to change.

The public will be able to verify – throughout the article – that there is no single type of “Ufologist”.

Finally – and as the great Hynek said – some of us who have been doing this for almost 5 decades (in my case), have earned the right to say and express what we have noticed in all this time. That’s enough time to do it, regardless of who it is.

Having said that and leaving it clarified, let’s move on to the matter.

This is an extensive note. Each reader can read it in its entirety, or depending on the topics, go directly to each point.

Some titles have short text and others much more.

You can start reading it today and continue at another time, but it was important to develop all the aspects that we will mention.

An anecdotal detail: in the Quiniela (Lottery) the number 17 is “misfortune”. This number is not in vain, as we will point out.

We are faced with 17 regrettable attitudes of local ufology.

We will deal here:

The 17

Is it possible that believers, popularizers, detractors and theorists without casuistry agree, when it seems that they have antagonistic positions?

It seems possible and unites them more than an aspect, like a circuit that feeds on itself.

It is – in general – a discourse with a political or religious or sensational overtone, which has only managed (at least in Argentina) to waste decades wandering without result.

On this topic, no one has the absolute truth about UFOs, but there are methodological steps that many participants do not comply with, and without them it is totally impossible to generate genuine and minimally critical information.

The brilliant Jacques Vallée tells us:

By the way, in Argentina there is a caveat to this phrase: the vast majority of ufological participants do not operate with updated data (or do not even have it), but in their theoretical narratives they presume as if they had it.

Why can we establish this?

The answer is simple: having collected, organized and classified hundreds of cases over the years, achieving the greatest volume of data on Argentine landings, allows us to see a very complete panorama.

This work of more than 30 years, today bears fruit not only in terms of revealing or ratifying constants of the phenomenon, but also in the actions of people within this topic.

A simple example is enough for us: we have often heard statements from the ufological participants themselves, speaking of “about thirty specific cases.”

Statistical reality debunks such speculations: where one thinks there are thirty cases, there are almost 500.

In the 90s, the “siren song” of some was to imply that field research (as we had conceived it) was something obsolete and out of fashion.

These were the beginnings of picking up microphones and speculating instead of working.

The answer of reality would come shortly after. There was a dismemberment of the investigators and some were already beginning to affirm that there were no cases to investigate. In reality, the opposite was happening: more and more researchers were going into «winter quarters,» some of them «tired that the research topic is taking us nowhere,» they said.

Thus came the impressive wave of 2002, with dozens of cases (the year with the highest activity of third-type encounters in all of Argentine history), and like a “tsunami”, it overwhelmed everyone, without the possibility of reacting.

This left us a lesson – in the hands of some – that the reality of the cases was overwhelming and we were not prepared to receive it.

Today the situation is worse. And we don’t know when another year like 2002 will come.

The Argentine casuistry from 1991 to 2007 (Argentine Ufology Network) showed us two predominant years of UFO activity: 1994 and 2002. The latter, with a flood of complaints that passed as a «tsunami» for researchers. (Graphic C.Ferguson)

In Argentina we have always looked for official documentation, although it is popular that the famous archives of Captain Pagani and others have disappeared.

When I participated as the first civilian advisor of the Air Force on UFO matters (2011 to 2017), we had the opportunity to visit the general archive of the Air Force in San Miguel (October 8, 2012), in search of some material on the subject. .

The copious file of thousands of pages did not contain a single piece of information on the matter.

And many ufologists who support the conspiracy believe that they are hidden for some reason.

The truth is very different: Argentina has stood out for not keeping bibliography archives, film libraries (only a few cases) and various catalogs of any kind. It is enough to see what happened with the “San Miguel” film studies to realize the general apathy. And not to mention the libraries.

By the way, it is desirable that something appears, but the passage of time, and the lack of official files, are the guideline that is practically impossible. There are no saved files.

What can be found are some internal communications, which some embellish as “declassification.”

And this is not just an Argentine problem.

The great Jacques Vallée defines this a little in an anecdote that occurred in the United States, and tells us:

In an excellent article titled “On declassifications and other herbs” colleague Alberto Brunetti shares these criteria that we are outlining: what is usually promoted as “UFO declassifications” in Argentina are not. (QUOTE 2)

It is not about criticizing those who want to obtain something, because the action of searching is always redeemable, but rather you have to call things by their name, even if some people don’t like it.

In Argentina there have been “official statements”, but never a declassification, in the true sense of the word.

Those who promote the opposite will continue in their position, but we are not writing to them to change, but to the public so that they know what is happening.

San Miguel (Buenos Aires – Argentina) – 8 de octubre de 1012 (C.Ferguson)
Two images of the author of the note, in the search for UFO files in the Argentine Air Force library, on October 8, 2012 in San Miguel – Buenos Aires. Not a single document referring to the topic was found. (C:Ferguson)

The issue of “chosen” areas has been promoted by believers, detractors, popularizers and theorists. And also by the Press.

Each one, from their position, has praised it (as a reality, as a sociological phenomenon or as a first).

And they have all fallen into the same methodological error: they have not examined the data as widely as possible.

These partial visions are generally based on one or several elements, and with this they try to extend it to the general.

In short: they are positions of extreme naivety and need to believe (and this is not only for the so-called contactees).

It is enough for some media to publish two cases in a row somewhere, for –immediately– the generators of scoops to appear, speaking of the area as “chosen”.

In this way, in recent times we have attended more than 30 “chosen areas”.

But this is not the opinion of Ferguson or anyone else, we are not talking about preferences, hunches or accommodative positions.

It is the statistics that demonstrate the forcefulness of the data, and this entails archiving work, dynamism in the comparison of data and time.

And from this we can conclude that there have been no chosen areas for a long time.

There are recurring areas over a given period of time.

UFO activity occurs occasionally at a certain time and sector, such as Flap, but then ceases (usually not abruptly).

This situation makes many participants (or the media) believe that the repeated presence of cases for a few days is synonymous with a “chosen place” or a new “extraterrestrial sanctuary.”

The position of believers, as well as popularizers and theorists, is to assign these areas an assessment with pseudo-mystical connotations.

In short: the unsustainable is sustained, without taking a step back.

When we study geographical areas (dividing the national territory into 4 of them), it gives results based on 70 years. This gives “preferences” of the phenomenon, which is surely influenced by the issue already discovered by Vallée (Negative Law of Population Density). The south of the country has preponderance there.

But assuming that there are “eternal zones” of predilection for the phenomenon is an absurdity that statistics overwhelmingly demolish.

What leads some to continue insisting on this position?

The answer can also be very simple: various interests, tourism, commercial, etc.

There are even tourist areas that, relying on old cases, seek to revive the theme, to evoke in present form an endless mystery.

And then it is impossible to take a step back.

Finally: just as there are no chosen zones, no one can affirm or speak of “Bases”, except in an imaginative way.

The physical solution to the phenomenon is another of the tourist messages that some want to implement, for which there is no support element to date.

Once again, the statistics show a totally different path towards invention for some.

There are no statistically «chosen» areas, except for occasional «Flaps». The press, tourist interests and even ufological participants frequently misinform on this issue. The Capilla del Monte area (Córdoba – Argentina) is one of those promoted areas.

The words of the remembered Willy Smith are forceful: the majority of theorists in Argentina never started from general casuistry, but from some isolated case, and they want to put the cases in a “bottleneck” of their hypotheses or speculations.

Theorists without casuistry (which we already addressed in another article), add to the lack of investigative action of detractors, believers and disseminators.

They are all united by verbal or written discursive proliferation, only to issue supposed “judgments”, as consummate “experts”.

That is, as in many other topics (even historical), theorists put together a story that is only based on their opinions, but they are not accompanied by adequate statistical studies.

Many who presume to be theorists begin the other way around, putting together a story first to accommodate the cases in it, ignoring the totality of the data. (C.Ferguson – image Gerd Altmann)

It turns out that the problem is not theorizing, but rather doing it based on information and catalogs from 40 years ago, with a distorted idea of ​​ufological reality.

Some of them are professionals, but they have never dedicated themselves to a ufological work system. Therefore, there is no desire to create catalogs, unless we want to force some new “theory”, or continue with the comfortable eternal narrative.

The time and dedication factor is contrary to your position: everything must be said and resolved quickly.

His idea of ​​“discovering the underlying structures” (which never went beyond wishful thinking) is not done by stirring spoons or relying on titles, but by working on thousands of statistical reports.

Back in the 90s they reiterated their discourse that field research (as we understood it) was something obsolete, that it was taking us nowhere. They came to propose something “new” and “revolutionary”: a constant theorization based on partial assumptions.

Some theorists without casuistry believe that a simple chronological compilation is the same as a classification with thousands of mathematical operations and years of work.

With countless excuses not to get to work, they maintain that “there must still be thousands of cases that are not recorded,” and that any attempt will continue to be a limited sample (SIC).

Such reasoning is totally illogical: the larger the sample, the greater the chances of understanding the phenomenon and its operational capacity. 10 cases will never be the same as 2,000.

In fact, there are dozens of direct and indirect variables to analyze in Argentine ufology, and so far, the vast majority of theorists (including popularizers and believers) have not focused on any of them.

They prefer to dedicate themselves to a single case, which never represents the most complete sample, in an elusive phenomenon.

In Science everything must begin with questions, and it is the key to curiosity.

From there, we must form a catalog as extensive as possible, to discover the points that must be clarified and not remain only eternal questions.

This catalog is not closed, but must always remain nourished with new data that qualifies an event.

Understanding this as a simple chronological order is ignoring basic points to undertake a study.

And that process of accumulation and immediate classification never stops for a true researcher.

One last point: in my opinion, the greatest current theorist on the subject is Dr. Jacques Vallée.

Virtually everything that many point to as “new ideas in ufology” are “updated” and recreated Vallée concepts.

«Practically everything that many point out as «new ideas in Ufology» are Vallée’s concepts «updated» and recreated. Without a doubt we are facing one of the greatest researchers and theorists» (C.Ferguson)

In Argentina we have two great theoretical thinkers: Prof. Oscar Uriondo and Lic. Ángel Díaz.

Both – like Vallée – have not theorized based on personal hunches or speculation, but mainly on statistics.

Mr. Díaz – the result of countless statistical works – is a theorist with casuistry and knows how to apply it. Therefore, he was the only one who could predict (with probabilistic calculation) the wave of 2002, defining it as a “great wave” six years earlier! (QUOTE 3)

And not only that: he is the only great current Argentine theorist, with his psychodimensional hypothesis (the only one, in my opinion, that includes all the variables of the phenomenon and is based on in-depth studies).

The rest “play it by ear”, as they say in the jargon.

Left: Professor Oscar Uriondo in 2003 / Right: Mr. Angel Díaz in 2000. In Argentina we have these two great theoretical thinkers. Both were proposed by the author of the note to join the official Air Force Commission in 2011. The current head of that office prefers some foreign advisors since 2017, with no other history than being his friends. With this, the «identification commission» loses two great national researchers of absolute prestige. Díaz performs in-depth statistics, which allow him to provide theoretical data on UFO activity. This is how he predicted the 2002 wave 6 years earlier, even defining it as «great Activity.» (Photos C.Ferguson)

The emulators of Pichón Riviere (a French psychiatrist who became an Argentine citizen) abound.

For years we heard beautiful stories put together to try to sociologically justify the phenomenon.

That humanoids were more “aggressive” in countries where there were dictatorships, that in Argentina “grays” were not reported as in the US, that there were no reports of kidnappings in South America, that there are no longer discoidal or “saucer” shapes on current affairs, etc.

All of them collapse when performing a simple basic and critical analysis.

For years we listened to theorists without casuistry stating that in South America there were no complaints of «gray» entities, since that occurred in North American territory, and that everything was a socio-cultural product. (C.Ferguson – Image Omar Sahel)

In their discursive phase, theorizers without casuistry tend to make constant errors, taking particular cases as general.

And theorizing with partial and unqualified data is not a way to draw minimally valid conclusions.

“Reading a lot of books about UFOs” is not a premise for an opinion to have weight.

These errors may go unnoticed by the majority of the public, but not by a small group of ufologists who notice them and where we all know each other very well.

The “logical theorists” seem to overlook something key: the little we know about the phenomenon is due to exhaustive statistical studies.

The UFO raw material is the witness, but a sample of one case, or a score of regional cases, will never be representative of the general case. (QUOTE 4)

We already said before that some of these theorists claim to have only 20 or 30 cases of the third type, when to date there are 470 registered.

They also tend to make geographical analyzes of the phenomenon (and the waves), without having statistics to substantiate such things.

In this way, any generalization they make is erroneous and fragmented.

As I already said, in the 90s they were the promoters of the discourse of discouragement about field research, arguing that those of us who practiced this practice were “ufologists defending extraterrestrials.”

The reality is that a high percentage of us never talk about STDs, but this helped them spread the word that these roads were leading us nowhere.

Instead of theorizing about all the variables of the phenomenon and how to improve survey techniques, they began to imagine various narratives, which also got us nowhere.

The psychiatrist Pichon Riviere, who believed he saw UFOs as an issue of «crisis» or «social problem.» Another case of a person being uninformed for not carrying out a deep analysis of the topic, to give a quick «explanation». (Wikipedia photo)

We have other attitudes in Ufology, from those who, in their years of incursion, have only shown total disinterest in working together.

For years they have been the great promoters of failure and responsible for inefficiency.

For this reason, they usually group together in some organization (they create and create several with different names) to obtain exclusively their own benefit.

They have spread endless news without support, or based on partial details of a case, accommodating it to supposed constants that are totally unsustainable and false.

That is to say: they believe that “doing something about the issue” is equivalent to making statements.

After a sad routine of years where they never had the courage to be part of the common effort, today they take refuge in the posture of comfortable discourse, with absolute theoretical apathy. (QUOTE 5)

There are also lazy newbies. Characters who break into Ufology and, without obtaining information about cases and ufologists, attack the latter (like cardboard “guerrillas”), complaining from the spot. From the selfishness of the “old researchers”, from not sharing their material, etc.

It is curious to see that they do not even realize that some of us have published thousands of pages of cases, but of course, the lazy person (novice or not) is also lazy to search for material over time, and buy a book. (something that even a philatelist or modeler does).

Everything should arrive fast, simplified and given away.

Having just sat in the spectator seats, they claim a ridiculous “right” that they have never earned.

What they want – deep down – they will not say it openly: it is to achieve the most possible with the least possible effort.

And we’re not talking about money, by the way. But break your pants (on the field), or your brain (at the desk), leave behind your very poor role as “microphone showman.”

Lazy men and women (old or new) will continue to rest in the chair of quietism, protected by their unproductive ufological presence, and only making their tongues work, to try in vain to alter the past or defame.

The lazy men and women (old or new) will continue to rest in the lounge chair of quietism, shielded by their unproductive ufological presence, and making only their language work, to vainly try to disrupt the past, or defame.

Whom we quote repeatedly in articles and books, the great Jacques Vallée, refers to an anecdote that occurred in 1978, when, while investigating an event in the United States, some ufologists irresponsibly leaked details of the couple to the press (which had requested otherwise). The newspapers reproduced an incomplete and inaccurate story and witnesses were extremely shocked.

A few days later, the couple complained to them and their neighbors about “harassment by ufologists.”

This fact reminds us that some situations similar to those that happen in Argentina also occur abroad, although this is no excuse for them to continue happening here.

A few years ago (1990s), an event occurred in the province of Santa Fé, where a woman had experienced a very traumatic episode on a highway.

Shortly after, a local group came to her house to conduct a survey. The last straw came when some of them entered the witness’s car without her permission, with the idea of ​​»finding evidence of the case.»

This caused the witness much discomfort to this day.

We know of another case in Córdoba (1960s), where the ridicule that was made of the event was such (by some detractors and serial mockers), that to date, the woman never wanted to offer her testimony again, generating this a family conflict. . .

Very recently (in 2020), an event occurred where one of the witnesses had a crucial professional responsibility and had expressly requested to maintain her anonymity (Neuquén Case).

Those of us who carried out such an investigation (Mr. Ángel Díaz – Alberto Brunetti and the undersigned) strictly maintained that request.

We published the case and it was more than clear that the person did not want to appear, due to an issue that could have generated a work problem.

We said in the article: she “maintains her anonymity at her request” (QUOTE 6)

This seemed to matter little to those who later took charge of the case. Perhaps because they had not arrived before (they wanted exclusivity and scoop with the witnesses, but those witnesses felt comfortable with our investigation proposal), they exposed themselves publicly with name and document number.

Although she did not have work problems, she could have had them, but that mattered little to the person who – without codes – frustrated the witness’s request.

What would have happened if that person lost their job? (There were several cases in Argentine Ufology where this happened with witnesses who reported a case).

It is another low attitude, deeply at odds with the investigation and respect for the witness.

And the worst thing is that they call themselves “researchers.”

The double face of some shameless Ufological participants, who have no qualms about violating the privacy requested by the witness, for the sake of their selfishness and «scoop.»

By the way, we are not talking about paranoia or witch hunts. In fact, some idiot back in 2011 thought that my entry into the Air Force as an advisor corresponded to being a “sellout” to ungodly things (evidently he never met me, although he always came with a pat on the back and the knife in his hand). . on the other hand ).

Today – as in the past – we also witness the emergence of characters who, having recently entered the environment, without knowledge or research (a constant in all the variants of participants that we analyze in this article), begin to develop a modus operandi in A broad features, which we can summarize in this way:

A – Break in as an “expert” on different topics of Ufology, beginning to “judge” the researchers. Even in notes he will present himself as “investigator” and “expert in mysteries.” Nobody has seen them in any research, nor have they published their work anywhere (the general public does not usually ask).

B – Infiltrate and blend in on Facebook, creating several accounts or entering others, looking for contacts of researchers.

C – Also on Facebook they create fake profiles, which usually appear with STD faces, without ever including their name (we have data on several who use these childish things). There they will refer to different ufological topics experienced, in what we could call “ENI” (“unidentified experts”), of the networks.

D – Promote various discussions and rivalries. He will burst into the environment with the fantasy of being a “remover of quiet spirits.” His dialectical “guerrilla” will try to imagine that he is in the “Sierra Maestra”, attacking everything. Sometimes this will happen directly, but it can also happen through indirect tactics.

These types of informants (as Vallée points out) disguise themselves in the face of the naivety of many UFO participants, who do not usually compare antecedents of their activity on the subject, and accommodate them, without verifying anything.

Today – to cite an example – we have some cases in which certain individuals present themselves in networks and meetings as “ufologists” (sometimes “skeptics, disseminators and collectors of mysteries”), and who have passed through different places.

We are even alerting people who participate in meetings where these characters request their personal information (document numbers, profession, address, etc.).

These shameless chameleons do not blush when they present themselves as “ufologists” without having investigated a single case in their lives, but they do scrutinize everything related to the environment.

But from here we have detected them, even with data from some dark and disastrous past.

“The UFO phenomenon is an ideal laboratory in which to observe the effects of propaganda and misinformation. It represents an excellent opportunity to mask oneself behind independent researchers» (J.Vallée)

There is no shortage of speculation about the new paradigm generated by the attitude of the Pentagon and NASA regarding the UFO issue from 2022.

Given the confirmation by these organizations of a small percentage of “unidentified” cases (similar to that of serious studies in the world such as that of Geipan from France and Cridovni from Uruguay), detractors want to cling to what is still not clear. The origin was clarified to disparage said news.

They forget that for years they filled us with ink, paper and mockery against hundreds of witnesses, calling them fabulists, scammers, delusional people, alcoholics, etc.

The truth is that these detractors still cannot digest something key: their fight against UFOs plunged them into a first major defeat.

UFOs exist, the general population did not lie, much less the most qualified witnesses: the pilots.

Beyond the current deniers, we also have theorists without casuistry, who create speculations of concealment, forgetting a key detail: that is the same attitude that many UFO participants have with their own colleagues (or even with themselves). .

It is curious that many of those who declaim against the «Northern Empire», criticizing the attitudes of the interests of «capitalism», later end up selling themselves to the highest bidder or to those who betrayed them, with the sole purpose of being able to publish. a book, or even participate in a conference.

In short: they end up doing what they criticize and participating in conveniences without values or convictions.  

Another interesting detail: the author of this note was the first civilian advisor of the Argentine Air Force, who was later joined by 4 more participants. That income was a product of the move, unlike many others who were left sending emails or waiting for someone to knock on the door of their house.

When I had the initial meeting, I only had one premise: if it was not fulfilled, I would never have joined that Commission 13 years ago.

It was very clear: I would not participate in anything that was not open to the community.

By the way, the only organization that disseminated what was being done was the Air Force, and those of us who were there were clear about it. None of us could speak “on behalf of the Air Force” (and we never did).

Nor can we imagine a “flying saucer commission with green dwarfs or extraterrestrials,” as someone at an official level wants to imply. We only participate as advisors in one of the many areas that make up aerospace phenomena.

Important clarification: the current official «identification center» could also be included among the 17 misfortunes of Argentine Ufology, although in reality it is something unrelated to the environment. But its owner has claimed to have «investigated» ufological cases, although no one has ever seen him enter the environment. There are many articles on this website about all this deplorable activity of Rubén Lianza, so I will not delve into it now.

The irony is an official center that claims to «identify aerospace phenomena», which does nothing more than look at photos or videos, which implies that in reality we would be looking at a «center for the identification of aerospace photographs and videos» (C.Ferguson)

Returning to what was mentioned above, my admission and that of 4 civilians to that commission generated criticism, attacks beforehand, judging us that we were participating in the concealment. Several former friends and acquaintances sent emails to the Air Force, asking why we were there or simply to put us down.

Such behavior – which contains a lot of envy, jealousy, complexes and other herbs – manifested itself in various grievances.

We saw people speak who hadn’t done so in years, just to mention the annoyance they felt about us being there.

A lazy ufologist who for years did nothing in the Rao (Argentine Ufology Network), was the object of constant ridicule on the networks.

Others “asked for explanations.”

None of these phonies asked me directly how they worked there.

All of this happened in a space where we were openly participating to everyone.

What would they have said if we had entered secretly and without commenting anything to our companions?

Surely they would have “crucified” us more than they did.

Shortly after we learned that there was a commission that officially worked “behind closed doors”, and that several ufological participants were part of it (20 years earlier, in 1991).

People we had regular contact with, but who never said anything about it.

We found out all this when one of them openly confessed what happened in August 2013.

This shows us two totally different positions.

For my part, I continue to feel proud of that official participation, which was not done “in the dark” and “through the back door.”

And since some Sopenco believe that these statements are due to “resentment” for not continuing on the commission, we must tell the public something concrete: just as there was pride in being the first and participating in something that seemed hopeful, we have the same pride in not participate in the current one (even if we had met the requirements that the current operator of that office implemented, we would not have followed them).

Of the thirty emails that the current director sent, I only answered one, because it was addressed to me.

Ultimately, this has no other purpose than to show the flaws and misrepresentations that an uninformed person makes in an official suit. The rest is history. And we were part of it, no matter what. (QUOTE 7)

We would never have participated there (I can include here comrades Angel Díaz and Alberto Brunetti), in an official commission where someone told us that we should renounce our freedom to work or our ideals. We were never part of secret clauses and behind the backs of others. 

Of course: the same people who once sent emails and asked the Air Force for explanations (desiring and expecting our disaffection), today are part of the cowardly and complicit silence of official inaction.

Today they do not write emails and their tongues have remained silent in the face of a regrettable office that misinforms the media about what Ufology is and who is in it.

They talk about the “cover-up of the North” and Condon, and here they remain silent with the complicity of the lukewarm.

Therefore, before looking outside to cover up, we must first look at our own “dirty laundry” at home.

«It is curious that many of those who declaim against the «Northern Empire», criticizing the attitudes of «capitalism» interests, later end up selling themselves to the highest bidder or to those who betrayed them, with the sole purpose of being able to publish a book, or even participate in a conference.» (C.Ferguson)

We cannot fail to mention an attitude exercised by some whom we must call – in some way – “Ufochantas”.

The dictionary definition of “chanta” (in Argentina) is the following: “A person who usually deceives or defrauds others, often pretending to have influences that he does not have.”

The Ufochantas are characters who have never excelled in any research or theoretical activity, and who boast of having been everything.

In part it would be the most similar to those we already mentioned above, those who boast of being experts without having done anything.

In this case, your assumptions are higher.

Ufochanta mentions having been a factor in decisions at a historical level.

In his speeches he can claim to have visited countless places in classic cases (Trancas in Tucumán, Monte Maíz in Córdoba, Antarctica, the Maurice Masse field in France, or the footprints of Socorro in New Mexico).

Without blushing in the slightest, they can also claim to have been in meetings and made transcendental decisions for Ufology, with members of the Armed Forces, in conclaves of International Ufology, or in the United Nations (just for having taken a personal photo at the door). of the building), or having visited areas such as Area 51, the Daytona base, Roswell, etc.

They also swear to have “contacts” within the CIA, FBI, NASA, Pentagon, etc.

The character claims to know everything, they have always told him everything and he knows absolutely everything.

They usually create some bombastic title in pseudogroups that they generate to attract some people on the Internet.

The latter usually ignore that Ufochanta is nothing more than a vulgar resume creator.

The “sir” will always believe he is on the tenth step, when he has not yet climbed to the first, and speaks with a smugness (believe it or not), which leads him to continue being someone “essential” within the ufological world. . work.

He has no way to maintain his position, except to continue in an avalanche of achievements and merits that he has never demonstrated, not exempt from slander, defamation and annoyance against those who lift a finger in this.

Any attempt to confront something and announce it in advance will be “defeated” by the words of the Ufochanta, because he already knows in advance everything about the World and things, and their results. He criticizes everyone who does something, out of envy and his own inability.

He appears as an expert giving advice to researchers who have studied this for decades.

And his personality is such that he could advise NASA itself on astronautical engineering, with the same ease with which someone goes to buy a kilo of tomatoes at the supermarket.

Ufo charlatan is a character that could well fit into what the remembered and great Argentine actor Fidel Pintos did in “Polemica en el bar” in the 60s and 70s. There he represented the “sanatero” (the Argentine who talked a lot and said little). , and that he invented having been everywhere and having experienced every situation. Far from the comedy of the brilliant actor, the Ufochantas stand out for believing themselves to be «experts» not recognized by anyone. (C. Ferguson)

A strange attitude that has become fashionable is to question, attack and destroy some cases when witnesses and investigators have already died.

This modality is carried out by both detractors and ufological participants and is carried out in a simple way: trying to invalidate a case now that the witness is no longer in the world of the living, avoiding counter-evidence by the person who lived the experience. . .

This should not be confused with the attitude of examining an ancient event in light of possible alternatives, since that is what the method of science is all about.

We are talking about something else: the “ufonecrologists” who go exclusively to look for cases where they will not find testimonial opposition.

Sometimes, as soon as the witness disappears, they rush like birds of prey to “unravel the case.”

In others many years pass, since the idea is to “tear down all the classics.”

An example is the episode of Commander Jorge Polanco in Bariloche (July 31, 1995).

From the «official» side, an attempt was made in vain to denigrate him using the argument of a ray of light coming from a bowling alley, which would have been the cause of the case.

And although the co-pilot’s testimony was used for this purpose, the main witness himself (who was Polanco) never had his counterpart in the pseudo-investigation.

Unfortunately, the other two Gendarmerie pilots (now deceased) were also privileged witnesses, and especially Juan Domingo Gaitán, who was forceful in his statements before tragically dying in a plane crash.

And the only direct witness left (beyond other possible observers) was never interviewed by the ridiculous pseudo-official investigation. They want to «leave him for dead while alive.»

A deplorable «investigation» by the person in charge of the official office in Argentina (Ruben Lianza), where, having the main witness (Jorge Polanco) alive, he decides to look for a pseudo explanation to justify a confusion with a reflector, without citing him. These are the methods shown by those who claim to defend the ideas of the «rational.» The case, despite its regret, still stands. (C.Ferguson with Jorge Polanco – Mar del Plata – 2019)

This example serves many other cases, where now (not only the detractors but also the pseudo-ufologists of the scoops) try to defenestrate cases or researchers, who will not be able to have any answer.

In this excessive desire, they will never take all the information, nor will they carry out an inevitable methodological step of science: the adequate review of the literature.

Another example of the intellectual poverty of some UFO participants who do not know or do not want to find new events, and who look for «original explanations» for those who cannot defend themselves.

And –by the way– it is another example of cowardice.

This type of Ufonecrology is carried out by both detractors and ufological participants and is about invalidating a case now that the witness has died. A display of baseness and cowardice, worthy of vultures. (C.Ferguson)

Another endemic evil (and today almost massive) is the need for “ufological firsts” creations. They arise from an identical attitude of some media outlets or journalists.

However, we must not forget that the ethical commitment of journalism points to a responsible and thorough treatment of information, beyond the scoop as part of the fight for competition. (QUOTE 8)

The writer and journalist Gabriel García Márquez pointed out: “The quality of the news has been lost due to competition, speed and the magnification of the scoop” (End of quote)

In ufological paths, the issue is no different: the rigor of the data and compliance with the methodological steps are overcome with astonishing ease.

In ufology there has always been the need to get to the news first. This was because a case “contaminated” by the press was an almost lost case and had to be brought before the media.

From this point of view, arriving earlier is justifiable.

But it was unthinkable in ufology from the 70s to the 90s, to present an event without due details and research steps to the community.

That was equivalent to approving papers in Congress (which were the most important meetings at that time).

And there were also some absurdities at that time: from exhibitors who showed photos of supposed UFOs when in reality it was a fly in the photographic image, to some who with simple fishermen’s lights believed they saw “waves of UFOs” over the rivers.

The paths of today’s ufological participants are usually not aimed at rigor, but simply at being “first.” In a way, it has imitated certain fashions and customs of the “yellow press.”

Another of the resources of these popularizers is to promote «blackmail by emotion» (Ramonet already talks about it, pointing out as the characteristics of the audiovisual media, this blackmail, where it is enough to see to understand (Ramonet, I. The tyranny of communication . The current role of communication. Barcelona, ​​2002).

From such a perspective, the idea is only to satisfy the viewer and not to understand the importance of an event. And in that, looking for the emotional impact. There they will seek to make a witness prioritize what they felt much more than what they saw. From this perspective, the word «blackmail» that Ramonet uses would be totally accurate. Emotion supplants documentary.

On that train rushing without control, the nonsense continues.

Thus a Congress can be called «international» with only one foreign visitor.

Another example is announcing “shocking” cases similar to “urgent” news in the news.

There the promoters of the unusual (self-proclaimed “researchers or ufologists”) will give slight details of an alleged case, and will promise readers and listeners that, shortly; They will reveal more important information.

This is what happened with a recent event, which occurred on Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8 p.m., when an alleged UFO or several descended on the Espora Base, near Bahía Blanca.

Some of the things that they spread (and that some part of the public and the press asked us and asked for clarifications), was about:

Well, this beautiful fantasy was promoted by a couple of ufological participants in an irresponsible manner.

They promised to give more details “shortly” (almost 9 months have already passed).

Someone presented as “evidence” the video of a private house, where a dog was barking at the shots that were heard.

Those shots existed, but everything was far from being a response to the “War of the Worlds” by Spora.

From the base, the statement was definitive:

In the flow of the news, a large part of the public does not realize that those who promised them “more information” (as if it were a newscast), today act distracted and believe that the passage of time is on their side.

In cases where there are military or other bases, they will always be based on the classic slogan: “they hide the information.”

Thus the days, weeks and months pass like a fog that dissipates what is said, but not for the few of us who constantly remember it.

It is ironic to note that the same evidence that ufological participants demand from others is usually not presented by themselves.

The most likely thing here is that there is no information to give, unlike the speed they had to spread before microphones or texts, a fanciful story covered by the “scoop.”

A final variant in this item of scoops are those who present themselves as «producers» or «journalists», becoming «experts», «researchers» or «ufologists», when they have never applied any method in the survey to the witness (they only reported). , and they also do not have any theoretical work.

Its purpose is the news, to which we can add; the more shocking and sensational the better, always in the spirit of firsts.

With an air of “UFO intellectuality,” they will wander through the channels and radios, stroking their chins and making thoughtful faces, talking about “paths traveled years ago.”

Many of these producers who have become «ufologists» or «research experts» only seek media impact to obtain benefits. They are not interested in delving into serious material, but rather in mixing a mix of topics and interviewees, and they are the greatest generators of media confusion.
(Pixabay image collage by C.Ferguson)

Their oratory usually captivates some, they speak with a power of total conviction, that they are what they really are not.

 The seeker of the unusual (read “firsts”) will believe he sees waves of UFOs when there are none, humanoids driving taxis or conspiracies on every corner.

In the minds of these “mystery producers” a voice will calm their conscience: “I do what people want to see and hear,” they will say, even if what they do is something clownish and circus-like.

He is not interested in the subject as a fact to be clarified, but as an economic income.

The generation of information without responsibility in Ufology is one of its worst evils, and it is always due to the fact that; Those who promote it only see their own interests.

Irresponsible disseminators reported about a «UFO attack on the Espora Base» (September 2023) and «soldiers injured by lightning and hospitalized.» They stated that they would «soon» give more details, relying on an inconsequential video. Since then, they pretend to be distracted and no longer talk about the matter. They imagined the Argentine figurines «Flying Plates on the Attack» (1970s)

Linked to the previous point, we will give a single example: that relating to the form of UFOs reported by witnesses.

In general, they promote that the discoid shape of UFOs is a product of Hollywood’s impact on people in the 1950s, or earlier literary novels, and that “there are no discoid UFOs anymore.”

They also say that the word “flying saucer” is an obsolete and erroneous term.

Actually, they are the ones who stayed in the 50s.

The reason is simple and we point it out repeatedly in this article: their sources and casuistries are currently non-existent, because otherwise they would know that most descriptions worldwide still include the description of discoidal objects (and in Argentina they do not). affair).

They have had the same positions when pointing out that “there are no qualified witnesses,” which is the product of profound misinformation and ignorance. We have already demonstrated that there is a qualification of the witnesses superior to that of others (the pilots), measurable by applying a basic classification system.

And this has nothing to do with belittling the rest of the witnesses, nor with the pilots being infallible, but is based on parameters of degree of responsibility and professionalism.

The fact that they cannot distinguish something so elementary also shows that their theorizing is very primary and elementary.

What unites detractors and theorists without casuistry in this dialectical crusade?: non-work, non-examination and the ineffectiveness of persistent work with all the elements at hand.

That the generalization «flying saucer» is no longer used because it does not understand the rest of the UFO Universe does not imply that those forms observed in the cases do not continue. On the contrary, in decades and today, it continues to be the form most reported by witnesses in Argentina and the world (56% in Argentina). This destroys the speculation of those who say that the disc shape was a fashion imposed by literature or Hollywood. Images of photos from different decades in Yungay (Peru), Lake Tiorati and Oregon (United States), and in Argentina: Las Grutas (Río Negro), Diamante (Entre Ríos) and Capital Federal (Buenos Aires) (C.Ferguson)

The expression of the Cordoba witness is something that many witnesses have thought, although in reality, the UFO photograph or video is one more element, within the context of a case.

Nowadays there is a priority for the image, we live in a world that has largely supplanted texts and image analysis.

The Argentine pioneer and professor of Ufology, Prof. Oscar Uriondo, already told us:

Today, the official study behind the Pentagon images by pilots and soldiers from that country is to prioritize the images and testimonies. The first, based on technical elements that can prove an anomaly.

Even so, an image can never tell us anything about the precise origin of what is observed, although it could show us unusual characteristics.

Within ufology, this priority of images is managed by popularizers, believers and some detractors (who use or show false images of UFOs to argue that the phenomenon does not exist).

Images (photos or videos) have always been the “Achilles heel” of ufology, and represent only one of the dozens of variables that the phenomenon presents to us.

Nobody in Argentina discovered this – as some of these “record holders” – want to imply. Hynek and Vallé already said it more than 50 years ago (again, those who are based on false conclusions already discovered by others).

Even so, older photographs enjoyed more precise analysis of countless aspects.

Nowadays, and since 2008 (due to the massive appearance of mobile phones), we find hundreds of images that swarm the Internet, most of them the result of lens flares, birds, etc.

But there are two factors that have now been added, and that significantly complicate any analysis.

The appearance of drones and even “Starlink” type satellites is one of them.

Drones are a new confusion factor with UFOs (Image: Lars Nissen)

Soon we will also witness the appearance of images of so-called “artificial intelligence”, with falsified recreations, which will only provoke more widespread disbelief.

The general public obtains images and transmits them to the media or UFO participants. In the latter case, with the idea or hope that the researcher can shed light on what was seen.

The problem lies in a matter of humility: ufologists are not experts in images, nor do we have to be. We don’t have to be in other specializations either.

That is why Ufology is nourished by technical issues with those responsible, according to each case.

The resource of not being experts in images was the one used by the current official commission to remove us ufologists from there in 2017. By the way, that same office has not demanded such a requirement from its other external advisors, as is the case of a clown that in his own country he is not taken into account, and that he tries to “explain” cases from other latitudes like a vulgar opinionologist. (QUOTE 9)

Returning to the topic of images, it is clear that they will always be a documentary contribution, but not decisive.

And to the extent possible, two aspects should be added to this: a) technical support elements and b) witnesses, if any.

Images (photos or videos) have always been the “Achilles heel” of Ufology, and represent only one of the dozens of variables that the phenomenon presents to us. This is not new (as some puppet from Argentina wants to imply). Dr. Hynek was already talking about it in the 60s.

What is indicated in the phrase is forceful. It is only possible to arrive at approximate hypotheses by doing good statistical work.

For us to talk about good, we have to take many factors into account. We can review the most basic ones.

A – Statistics should be as complete as possible. This implies a long period (and if it is selective, the longest possible).

B – Must contain all events regardless of source. Nowadays there are UFO participants who only include in their lists the cases that suit them and avoid including those of other ufologists with whom they have enmity. These studies will always provide distorted or partial data.

C – They must be minimally classified, with international standards. A simple chronological compilation is only useful in that sense, but is not exhaustive.

Some boast of collecting for years, and release supposed “constants” that do not exist or have only been imagined by them.

They are the typical “serial imaginers”, who always search and believe they find “key” data that are nothing more than a meaningless anecdote.

When talking about behavioral patterns, ridiculous factors are included, which are never constant.

Their desire to be “discoverers” leads them to commit such nonsense.

But those of us who have compiled the most exhaustive statistics possible know that all this is due to dialectical sensationalism.

The statistical work never stops, it works with all possible sources, tries to classify (which can take years) and its review is constant.

You must also have great power of synthesis to outline in a few lines the most significant part of an event of –for example– 30 lines.

Checking disparate sources never ends, and it takes the most time, because sometimes we have data in one source that doesn’t exist in another. In a rating system, that can give a different score.

In short: statistics is the backbone of the UFO topic, which as an approximate element allows us countless work options.

Everything else is very superficial, anecdotal, simplistic, and only takes the cases to the scope of the scoop and “the shocking”, without documentary support.

In short: statistics is the backbone of the UFO topic, which as an approximate element allows us countless work options. By the way, for this it is key that it be exhaustive and objective, not like some serial deceivers do in Argentina.

Fabio Zerpa’s phrase at the end of the 80s already shows us that he was referring to the same people who today continue with their diatribe of “there are no more cases.”

In this simplification, these theorists without casuistry usually agree with the current detractors.

Bernard Shaw said that “fashion is a caused epidemic.”

But this trend of “there are no more cases” is nothing new, as we have already seen.

Supporters of no UFO activity make a particular chronological compilation. There are no cases of “others” in their statistics.

Such a methodological error immerses them in a UFO scene imagined only by them.

Always with the premise of selfishness and jealousy with other groups, they only incorporate their own cases, as if they were chosen «by the grace of the Lord.»

These same people claim to have “files” in Ufology, although they have only demonstrated one in particular: non-collaboration in their pathetic time at the RAO (Argentine Ufology Network), for 16 years. (QUOTE 10)

But as we saw, even before the creation of the RAO in 1991 they were already declaiming “there are no more cases.”

Today, 35 years later, they continue with their chatter of wanting to justify or reinforce things as enlightened.

Accommodation of the facts: serious methodological error worthy of deception or fraud.

There are key factors that theorists do not take into account when analyzing the temporary decrease in cases.

Which are?

A – Decrease yes, but in researchers

How are there going to be no lack of cases if there are no investigators?

From the 90s to the present there has been a pronounced decline in researchers.

There are several reasons that can influence this.

The economic crisis is always one of the main reasons to develop true research, and especially in a territory as immense as Argentina.

But that only explains part of it, and if it is due to crises, in Argentina we have always had them.

In reality, it was the appearance of the Internet that caused many groups to close in on themselves and fall into the trap of not prioritizing working together.

Many witness surveys began to be carried out remotely, with the limitations that this entails.

Priority was given to images (photos and videos), which represents an error within the study of the phenomenon itself.

The Internet has contaminated information and today the public and researchers themselves can be manipulated with “junk” material.

Since there are no regional researchers (and if there are, some without methodological support), the information has inevitably decreased.

And finally: the lack of a serious official study in Argentina, which, as often happens in our country, began with promises, to end in an egomaniacal personalist office.

All these factors – and some others – are part of the response to the aforementioned “degrowth.”

But when there was no internet or cell phones, investigators had to learn about cases through other means, which today do not seem to be the priority of those who begin.

That is why they look for “old” cases.

Only occasionally does a new event appear, plagued by a lack of information and without any evaluation criteria, for a simple fact: they do not apply any basic research techniques or criteria.

The massive appearance of the Internet generated advances and setbacks in the UFO study. Today, there is a shortage of researchers and priority is given to false or primary images and material. (C.Ferguson)

B – Lack of training and willingness to work together

Already in 1997, when conducting a survey within the Argentine Ufology Network (RAO), the lack of commitment was evident in the majority of the 18 respondents (in 7 questions).

In them, the vast majority responded in the third person, as if they were unrelated to the topic (I will soon publish an article about it).

This gave rise to the fact that years later, in 2003, I dedicated myself to carrying out statistical work on the cases of the Rao Archive, and seeing what data was missing or had been omitted in the cases sent by the ufologist members.

The surprise was great when we realized that – in the 8 items of Dr. Hynek’s “Strangeness and Credibility” test – there were considerable gaps.

We have all been omitted some information at some point, but within the RAO we had already passed the “Strangeness – Credibility” Test as a basis.

The alarming thing – in the aforementioned case – is that the missing data amounted to 54% (more than half).

The following graph (period 1991 – 2002) perfectly shows the gaps in red:

This image, already shown in a previous article, reflects a serious limitation when it comes to detailing UFO reports, with missing information (percentages in red) (C.Ferguson File)

No academic field would admit such a situation or material with such omissions.

But the vast majority preferred to close themselves on their laurels, always jealous of others.

Perhaps one of the reasons why an academic work could never be prepared within the RAO or others is due to the complexity of the ufological participants, and their refusal to adapt to collective work systems.

Some theorists who participated in the Rao stated that they did not have cases “to work with statistics”, but it is simply another great excuse: every year this complete list appeared in the month of January, with bulletins available to all members.

In fact, the RAO (which I was able to coordinate through democratic voting throughout its existence), was the second entity in Argentina (after the pioneer CODOVNI of Ariel Rietti and Cristian Vogt), to publish annual cases.

And RAO was the first who – in addition to the list of cases – presented a basic statistical analysis with graphs, prepared by the undersigned.

From 1991 to 2007 (the year the network ceased), the number of cases included in these reports amounts to more than 1,500. Therefore, arguing that there were no cases from which to draw data is another of many meaningless justifications.

Colleague Ángel Díaz already said it (in May 2001):

Díaz was right: the case material now allows us to work with more elements. But unfortunately only a couple of us followed those steps.

Those who participated in the RAO (or not) and claim that they did not have cases to work with are the usual excusers, who did not lift a finger to work on that data.

The same colleague from Río Ceballos noted a couple of years later:

The colleague’s key point is the one that refers to the lack of research, an evil that we suffer more harshly today than then.

With some new generations we are witnessing something worse: they enter the world of Ufology, directly as “Disseminators” (and also apologizing, once again), for not being “researchers”.

The idea is Streaming without filter. They don’t pursue the phenomenon but rather what people want to hear or create.

These beginners, for the most part, do not have training or basic information on the subject.

Critical UFO literature is rarely published anymore and we must delete the corresponding files.

Furthermore, current times make many look for immediate answers, with quick analyzes (firsts, whose driving force is usually zeal and figuration).

Some newcomers even go so far as to disparage the previous work of those of us who have studied the phenomenon, distancing current narratives from the specific context.

They write simplistic articles, or journalistic rehashes with catchy titles, or work for some news agency, sinning from a striking lack of data.

Field research has been underestimated, taking it as a distant and “old fashioned” fact, or also that it was “poorly done” (according to some uninformed people).

And as a “new” alternative, there are meetings to “socialize,” which do not have the character of any investigative plan, other than going out into the street and trying to capture the phenomenon photographically (in the best of cases).

Meetings of ufological friends are not bad in themselves, nor is “ufogastronomy”, but not as something predominant.

Passivity in a specific research work is the majority today.

Every year the bulletins of the Argentine Ufology Network (RAO) published the list of cases with minimal statistical graphs, made by the author of this note. Those who object that there was no material to work with are typical of those who look for excuses for their own lack of will. (C.Ferguson)

C – The press has taken the place of the researcher and the researcher has taken the place of the Press

Since there are no investigators, the press has taken their place with complaints. The general public does not recognize certain researchers and prefers to present their complaints to the media.

The survey level of some representatives of the press is limited, cutting data, omitting others and seeking only “the most shocking.”

The cases they address – in general – are almost lost.

And the participants in the UFOs – to make matters worse – have become pseudojournalists on duty.

The new «weapons» of the ufological participants, prioritizing aspects of dissemination and hobby before research. Communication is important and is another of the tasks of some UFO participants, but never the beginning of the activity. (C.Ferguson)

D – Alternative withdrawal of the phenomenon itself

This has happened before, but some theorists believe that they are the temporal axis of everything that happens simply by interpreting everything in the present tense.

But the phenomenon itself has had moments of greater or lesser intensity in other times.

It is enough to remember what happened in the 80s, where both in Spain and Argentina (and in many other places), cases had decreased significantly. But in the early 90s, activity increased again.

In Spain, Pere Redón said in his editorial for the publication “Stendek” (June 1981):

The phenomenon itself with its impulses of activity is responsible for these situations.

But here in Argentina we saw the usual detractors appear, and some who tried to talk about the «sociology of the phenomenon» stated that with the end of the millennium and the approach of the year 2000, we would have an «avalanche of complaints.»

This “sociological” analysis was wrong again. Because as we approached the year 2000, activity decreased again and only in 2002 did it return stronger than ever.

If we take into account the years where there was greater activity (waves), they were always smaller than the rest.

As an example, in Argentina we had great activity in these years:


From 1978 to 1994 we have a decline that lasted no less than 16 years (similar to the current one).

Therefore, nothing reasonably justifies that there should be significant activity every 3 or 4 years, and even less so, the fanciful hypotheses that constantly predict waves. (QUOTE 12)

In short: the ups and downs of activity also seem to be caused by the phenomenon itself.

Jacques Vallée has already demonstrated this by showing the pulses of activity, the product of his tireless collection of cases.

And the beloved and remembered Dr. Willy Smith also noted in the early 80s:

These people seem to be unaware of what Smith points out, simply because their ufological egomania is such that they do not notice the work of others.

The UFO phenomenon is not something that conforms to our desires.

But some always need massive cases, which leads to repeatedly promoting (non-existent) “waves.”

All of these 3 factors (and surely more) are what lead to this apparent quietism.

Of all of them, the only one that cannot be controlled is the last one, which corresponds to the phenomenon itself.

The history of the phenomenon has shown us pulses of activity. Sometimes the years of inactivity can encompass extended periods and are the only ones not controllable or influenced by us. (C.Ferguson)

The ufological contact groups had almost disappeared in Argentina and gave way to pseudo-beliefs with a certain tinge of similar images.

Their representatives seemed to have been “kidnapped” for a long time, but something happened.

After the Pentagon incident in 2020, its activity resurfaced again, as it did many years ago.

Directly or indirectly, this historical fact was enough for some to dust off the old discourses of the 70s and 80s, and return to the fray, “updating” the stories.

By the way: we are not talking about the general public, who surely has their own beliefs on the matter.

We talk about the references of this discourse, which usually promotes messages such as “chosen ones.”

The public that follows them does not seem to wonder why they would be “chosen” or what research they have done.

And also why such truths can only be spread after a common denominator: money.

They operate without any methodological criteria (they say they don’t need them, since «they know everything about them»), and before the media they usually present themselves (and protect themselves) as «experts» or «researchers.»

The general public finds within the environment a true “salad” of options, which only generate more confusion.

Jacques Vallée rightly says that behind these groups or characters messages and stories are spread that delay and stop any type of objective attempt to address the issue.

It is a discourse of personal desires (ideal for those disenchanted with traditional religions, or fervent anti-capitalists), which, like a “siren song”, seeks to seduce.

And just as they tend to promote “chosen places” (non-existent), also in their history they have shown us countless “predictions” that have failed miserably.

They are part of 95% of the total UFO participants (along with theorists, popularizers and detractors), but they are the ones who most use certain captivating verbiage to impact with a story.

In reality, their mentors are the closest thing to bad politicians: they promise (and don’t deliver), captivate (and deceive) and generate scoops (to maintain the mystery), and all of this, with a priority objective in many cases : money.

Vallée points it out well:

With the profusion of news from the Pentagon, the so-called «contactees» reappeared. Directly or indirectly, this historical fact was enough for some to dust off the old speeches of the 70s and 80s, and return to the fray, “updating” the stories. Drawing showing the first major contactee, the Adamsky fraud. (C.Ferguson)

A – UFO images (in considerable increase) remain a limited and weak element to confirm the phenomenon. No photo or video of a UFO will be proof or convince anyone, unless it has other measuring elements (this is what the Pentagon and NASA are looking for).

There have already been excellent photographs in the past, analyzed with the most precise elements, but the excuse of the detractors is that none of them showed any insignia that identified them as “aliens” (nor as a country’s secret weapon). Photography as the only UFO analysis is a crude deception.

B – In Argentina – to date – there have never been “UFO declassifications” in the literal sense of the word. Only some official recognitions or communications in specific cases of internal correspondence. For there to be a declassification there must be complete files that are open to the population, and these have not been left in any agency.

Everything indicates that those that existed in the 60s have definitively disappeared (due to laziness, disinterest, etc.), expanded or sent to other places, in an irrecoverable dispersion.

C – There are no “chosen zones” forever. Statistics demonstrate certain periods of temporal and spatial activity and, in general terms, the fulfillment of J. Vallée’s First Negative Law in geographical areas.

D – Contactists, detractors, disseminators, improvisers and theorists without casuistry, have another common rule: NOT to investigate, for different reasons and excuses.

The truth is that they never started, because the first thing in any analysis is to collect as much information as possible and classify it before starting “The End.”

Not having an adequate casuistry generates total outdatedness, as well as judgments and erroneous ideas assembled to the taste of each individual.

Don Ángel Díaz points it out well:

Nothing could be more accurate as a panorama: the latter is what has been happening mostly in the Argentine ufological environment.

E – In the history of the phenomenon, there have often been declines in activity. This is nothing new.

Stating that due to a drop in cases “there are no more cases” is just a kind of irrational belief, when statistics or the cases of others are not taken into account either.

With more or less activity, the complaints continue to arrive (at least, for those of us who receive them or look for channels to find out).

Could it be that instead of “there are no cases” what there is is a lack of interest or sagacity in finding witnesses?

F – “UFO laziness” goes hand in hand with the priority in the discourse and dissemination that the majority of UFO participants have entered.

There is an old political apothegm in Argentina, which we have modified to show it.

For the ufological lazy people “Better than doing is saying, better than performing is promising.”

G – The creators of stories without casuistry make repeated mistakes in the desire to shape and accommodate their “revolutionary” ways of seeing the phenomenon. But statistics – once again – destroy such imaginative speculations: saucer stories mostly still exist. Cases with reports of close encounters are very similar in all parts of the world, and there are also witnesses with a higher degree of responsibility and different qualifications.

H – Within the variety of UFO participants, we also have – as in other parts of the world – the so-called “infiltrators”, who take advantage of the naivety of many to obtain information, for different purposes and interests. Its modus operandi is clear and its ufological background is non-existent.

I – In the search and promotion of scoops, most UFO participants (disseminators) do not focus on the minimum steps of the methodologies.

Casas Huguet already masterfully defined it in the editorial of the Spanish publication “Stendek” (QUOTE 13), when referring to the attitude that ufologists should have:

In Argentina, believers, detractors, theorists and disseminators; They represent 95% (or more) of the total number of UFO participants currently. Therefore, the vast majority of UFO information that transcends is contaminated, biased, distorted and manipulated by different interests. (QUOTE 14)

As Casas Huguet points out, we are witnessing a parade of “accessory” aspects to which some want to attribute a “fundamental” quality.

This “secondary market”, as the brilliant J.Vallée says, is what is generating an unreal layer of data.

And the great French scientist adds:

By the way, those who present themselves as “researchers” or “experts” without being so, are responsible for deceiving the population. It is an ethical question that they do not seem to pay attention to.

It is no different from a fake “plumber” or “electrician” (or any activity).

In those cases, poor work will become apparent more quickly.

In ufology there is a “layer of protection”, where the intangible becomes an ally.

The differentiation between being and not being something seems diffuse, but it is not, at least for those of us who have been doing this for years.

“The cornerstone of UFOlogy (as a scientific discipline) is research and every organization or personal company that we carry out must have it first; she will pull everything else. To pretend the opposite, that is, that the predominance of other organizational activities (dissemination, exchange, bureaucracy, etc.) are a priority, is to condemn the Organization to ephemeral existence and failure” (Lic.Angel Díaz)

It is the responsibility of every thoughtful researcher to point out these things in ufology.

It is not about the need for conflict, but about the place in which we put the witnesses and the matter in general, and about assuming what we are.

And this can be done by pointing out attitudes, to clarify more to the population about these disastrous actions.

Ángel Díaz points it out well:

To this we could add the phrase of the great Aimé Michel: “To study this problem, you first need courage.”

The old researchers who today only divulge have lost the spirit of search. They think they have done enough and have given up.

Hopefully the new generations can join this spirit, and not be carried away by the “siren songs” of revelation itself, or by the “first fruits with colored mirrors.”

Meanwhile, from here we inform citizens, so that they can draw their own conclusions.

Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek told us:

These words (which even Hynek uttered in Argentina) were applauded by many, but were never put into practice.

As Hynek supports, to find what we are looking for we have to start at the beginning: search.

That is what many – even with years in the subject – have never done.

Carlos Ferguson

The author Carlos Ferguson works in the Educational area in the Province of Buenos Aires. He is also a professor of artistic drawing and has been dedicated to researching the UFO topic for 48 years, when, being a non-believer, he had a close encounter no more than 35 meters away with a disc-shaped UFO. He was the first civilian advisor in Ufology for the Argentine Air Force (2011 to 2017). He has courses in Satellite Technology, Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems. Author of 7 books and the largest compilation of landing cases in Argentina, with classified events. He has also carried out studies on cases of pilots and UFOs in Argentina, as well as underwater objects and the most recent, on the physiological and electromagnetic effects on witnesses. Hundreds of talks and notes over almost 5 decades show him with a line of work adjusted to the parameters of statistics.

QUOTE 1: Jacques Vallée – “Confrontations: a scientist’s search for extraterrestrial contact”, 2008

QUOTE 2: Article by Alberto Brunetti: “On declassifications and other herbs” – Link =

QUOTE 3: “UFO Activity: the complexity of periods”, Editorial of Lic. Angel Díaz – UFOlogy Bulletin no. December 16, 1996.

QUOTE 4: And in all this theoretical nonsense (new and old), the simplicity of not understanding or knowing differentiates that what is analyzed as a “qualified witness” is not to the detriment of the person or something discriminatory. This harmful and elemental way of seeing things undoubtedly points to a failed paradigm attempt to impose a cheap dialectical communism on ufology. The right to say something is confused with the content of saying it. From this perspective, theorists’ ufology is a colorful mirror.

QUOTE 5: The cases of the Argentine Ufology Network were distributed among all its members at the beginning of each year, with provisional data. It was achieved through the efforts of a few members. In them there were facts with a lot of information, and others, where some «record experts» threw out a miserable line with the following legend: «A UFO was seen at 2 in the afternoon.» Beyond that, no former member can claim that he had no raw material to analyze.

QUOTE 6: “UFO in Neuquén” (research by Carlos Ferguson – Angel Díaz – Alberto Brunetti)

QUOTE 7: In my book “Encounters between Pilots and UFOs in Argentina and the World”, I give details of my meeting with the person who managed that covert official commission, Commodore Mascietti. I was summoned by him to his house, only to hear a series of various inaccuracies about the phenomenon and about the UFO environment in general. In that meeting he never mentioned to me that there were ufologists participating, although he did express that he had regular contact with a former “ufologist” named Alejandro Agostinelli (who today also has contact with the deplorable official group). That meeting with Mascietti clearly demonstrated to me the profound ignorance of this person in UFO matters, and his complete confusion about it, and the different trends that exist in Ufology.

QUOTE 8: “The dangers of chasing the scoop”

QUOTE 9: Many ufologists have always detected confusion and photographic fraud in investigations. Having an official office with a budget to determine birds, sunspots and insects is not an analysis of aerospace phenomena per se, but rather a limited study of images. From an area like this they feel proud of it, and even suggest the need for more budget, which is absurd, when 100% of the cases are resolved.

QUOTE 10: One of these characters was who in 2011, when some of us joined as advisors to the Air Force, launched diatribes worthy of a failure, cowardly taking refuge in disqualifications that he surely would not dare say face to face. His time in Ufology has been a trail of false concepts, apathy and total absence of collective work.

QUOTE 11: Ufology Bulletin no. 31 – Lic. Ángel Díaz, Editorial – May 2001.

QUOTE 12: Some of these “serial condemners” (already cited in quote 5) stated with complete certainty that the UFOs returned to the same geographical location after 10 years, which demonstrates a very poor level of analysis, when we face the facts. or data.

QUOTE 13: “Stendek” no.26, December 1976

QUOTE 14: Some have never left their seat to conduct field research and cannot seem to conduct theoretical research properly, even by moving their wrist correctly with the mousse.