END OF THE DISASTROUS MANAGEMENT AT THE OFFICIAL CIAE OFFICE IN ARGENTINA
By Carlos Ferguson
“The final verdict of the Condon Committee’s work was not a study of actual unidentified flying objects, but primarily of easily identifiable objects…” (Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek)
While we acknowledge the enormous differences with the Condon project, we could say that the now former director of the CIAE (Aerospace Identification Center) attempted something similar, almost six decades later, without success.
After years of a lamentable and disastrous policy, the sad tenure of retired Commodore Rubén Lianza at the head of the CIAE office has come to an end.
Laden with prejudices and preconceptions about ufology, ufologists, and witnesses, his presence only delayed years of possibilities for what was developing in the first official office, a development that many are unaware of. (QUOTE 1)
Lianza was completely ignorant of ufology, its various branches, approaches, and academic research worldwide. He simply tried to lump it all together as a group of untrained believers.
Furthermore, he omitted a fundamental step of the scientific method: a thorough review of ufological literature. Had he done so (or been willing to do so), he would have discovered the large number of professionals in different fields who have produced top-notch work.
But that was asking too much.
His departure comes from contradictory sources. It is striking that in May he gave an interview to Cadena 3, assuring viewers of an excellent future for his office.
He also reiterated inaccuracies and erroneous data.
And the reporter (influenced or not) stated:
“The work of Lianza and his team is based on absolute neutrality, positioning themselves in an intermediate stance, without denialist biases or preconceived beliefs that could contaminate the analysis.” (End of quote)
Reality proved otherwise. There was no «team» or neutrality, but rather denialist prejudices based on absolute dogmatism.
SWIPE AWAY
“Those who hold public office think they know everything, believe they are capable of anything, and lose sight of their own ineptitude” (Dr. Eligio Ayala)
Advised by a couple of foreign pseudo-skeptics (and some locals behind the scenes), they modified the objectives of the first commission and, supposedly, focused exclusively on the photographic analysis of images.
But they also ventured into cases without images, such as the famous episode of pilot Jorge Polanco in Bariloche (July 1995). With that case (which involved 24 observers, a commercial and a military plane, and electromagnetic effects), they tried to offer an original, conventional, and “scientific” explanation, but with an anti-scientific stance: it was all due to a misunderstanding (with the lights of a nightclub), but they never called the main witness to testify about the event and preferred to discredit the case.
Even the most inexperienced ufologist wouldn’t refuse to speak face-to-face with the key witness.
But Lianza preferred to go to Bariloche, just to reinforce his outlandish version of the nightclub spotlight.
His «advisors» had already tried to derail the case in 1995, suggesting a possible confusion with «the moon and Mars,» a snowplow, and so on.
Those of us who served as civilian advisors on this Air Force commission, and who had witnessed its promising beginnings in 2011, saw in 2017 that it would all turn into a cover-up. One of Lianza’s favorite advisors is a character who investigates UFO cases in «8 minutes» and destroys witnesses.
Instead of being «in the middle of the road» (as the Cadena 3 article puts it), Lianza was already clearly veering off course in the worst possible way.
THE LIANZA METHOD: OBSOLETE
“History is a relentless teacher. It has no present; only the past rushes into the future.” (John F. Kennedy)
In the interview, the former director of the CIAE claimed to have adopted a different approach to the UFO phenomenon compared to other international centers. This is the only claim that can be accepted. And ironically, it is the one that points to his own failure.
The difference lay not in excellence, but in a narrow and limited vision that sought to pigeonhole ufology, allowing only cases with images to emerge (although, for strange reasons, he violated his own rule with the Polanco case).
The paths taken by GEIPAN (France) and CRIDOVNI (Uruguay) are real examples, both near and far, of how the UFO phenomenon can and should be approached. Not to mention what’s also happening with other organizations in the US.
In all these cases, the percentage of unidentified objects is similar (3% in some), despite having studied every aspect of the phenomenon.
The reality of this data exceeded expectations, both for him and his two advisors, who were never able to accept it.
THE LAST NOTE CRITICIZING UFOLOGY
“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.” (Karl Popper)
As is often the case, the former representative of the isolated CIAE office informs the journalists reading this article about some of his characteristic fallacies. (QUOTE 2)
He criticizes “traditional ufology,” which he defines as a “discipline without a defined object of study.”
He mentioned that all ufologists are “believers in extraterrestrials,” unaware that this is not the case.
It seems that the meticulousness he demonstrated in explaining simple cases of confusion was lacking when delving into precise information about ufology.
At the very least, we are dealing with an amateur.
Incidentally, taking just one example from his “research” and that of some of his collaborators, we show the tangible deficiencies in the Ituzaingó case (see link below) (QUOTE 3)
THERE IS NO SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH ON UFOs
«The best way to avoid finding evidence is not to look for it» (Jacques Scornaux).
The task that Lianza proposed in that office had always been carried out by a few ufologists (and without any budget).
Cases of confusion and fraud were also on the agenda of those interested in the subject. In my personal experience, I have detected 386 negative cases (errors and others) during our years of work on this topic, namely:
Contacts, suggestions, and dubious accounts = 180
Errors with reflections in photos = 84
Sensationalism = 41
Errors with meteorites, planets, stars, and the moon = 33
Frauds = 13
Errors with satellites and space debris = 8
Errors with spacecraft = 8
Errors with lenticular clouds = 10
Errors with airplanes = 5
Errors with balloons = 3
Errors with airships = 1
And several researchers have done the same.
Therefore, this is not extraordinary: detecting cases of supposed UFOs that later turn out to be objects of space interest is not something new that we owe to anyone, and even less so to Lianza.
The fundamental difference lies in the fact that Lianza never showed any interest in reports of low-altitude aerospace phenomena, nor in the physiological effects on witnesses, effects on animals, electromagnetic disturbances, traces or footprints, pilot reports, or incursions of aerial objects with a wide-ranging impact, etc.
Therefore, we face a gap in our knowledge on this subject, which other major commissions around the world do address. The study of UFOs must always be more ambitious than a photographic laboratory limited by dogmatism.
THE SHIELD OF INCOMPETENCE
“When ignorance and pride mix, the result is mediocrity.” (Solomon)
Nothing is more pathetic than seeing someone who, without knowing anything about a subject, its history, and its main characteristics, thinks they know everything about it.
Many already know that, in 2017, this individual used a trick to expel us ufologists from that commission, arguing that we lacked experience in image analysis (photos and videos).
And as if that weren’t enough, he added two “foreign advisors” with various titles: “researcher,” “journalist,” “expert,” etc. None of them required “image analysis experience,” which demonstrates a clear bias.
One of these advisors called Argentine UFO researchers “scum” and celebrated the death of a Brazilian ufologist. (QUOTE 4)
During these years, only a handful of us denounced his actions (QUOTE 5), while the vast majority of those of us dedicated to UFO research in Argentina remained silent.
They are the same cowards as always, bothered only by jealousy and envy because other ufologists had earned the right to be there.
They were also responsible for this individual remaining in charge of an official office for several years.
Every time the retired commodore appeared before the media to make biased statements about ufology and those of us dedicated to it, only that handful of us came forward time and again to refute his fallacies (readers can find several articles on this website).
Even one citizen, fed up with these situations in which other ufologists remained silent, decided to start a petition demanding action. (QUOTE 6)
Lianza’s stigmatization was not limited to ufologists (whom he falsely declared to the media as those who «believe in extraterrestrials or aliens»), but also extended to witnesses, whom he identified with the nickname «Don Zoilo» (a popular gaucho).
This is not simply a matter of differing viewpoints on a subject (as the complicit ufologists claim), but rather deplorable attitudes that transcend any difference in approach.
A PREMATURE ENDING
“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” (William of Ockham)
The end of this farce has arrived.
Sooner or later, time proved us right.
When faced with someone who dismisses statistics (considering them mere “accumulations of cases”), who doesn’t consult the literature, and who displays an alarming ignorance on the subject, it’s clear that the outcome was inevitable.
In that ending, he was overtaken by international events: the investigations of the French GEIPAN, the Pentagon, and even NASA, and the culmination of years of success and work by the neighboring and pioneering CRIDOVNI in Uruguay.
All of this contradicted the policies of the former head of the Argentine office, who remained stuck in the 1980s, with obsolete and completely outdated rhetoric.
And that ending can be summarized with a quote from William of Ockham: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” A photographic laboratory with personal decisions was unnecessary and obsolete.
Argentina deserves a change of course and to return to the path it should never have abandoned, the one the first commission was embarking on (from 2011 to 2015).
EPILOGUE
“He who sets himself up as judge of truth and knowledge is disheartened by the laughter of the gods.” (Albert Einstein)
The great Vallée pointed out:
“It is not the budget that counts, but the will to investigate in the field, with an imagination and diligence commensurate with the complexity of the phenomenon.”
And he adds:
“Only through the patient accumulation of exceptionally well-documented cases will the attention of the international scientific community be captured, and not through sensationalist media claims, nor through political pressure, nor through a movement demanding that the government ‘reveal the truth.’ This work has never been done by the government, nor by anyone else. Unfortunately, there are no shortcuts.” (end of quote)
In our case, we have humbly attempted to follow that path.
Today we see that our work is recognized and celebrated internationally in neighboring Uruguay (which has appointed me International Advisor for its UFO research organization), and that fills us with profound satisfaction.
And we see—once again—that time heals all wounds, and it is inexorable.
The path is now and forward. The dark past only serves to remind us of the futility of incompetence disguised as official office.
Nothing better than to conclude with what another great analyst, the pioneer Aimé Michel, told us when referring to the UFO phenomenon and the fiasco of Project Condon:
“A Copernican revolution of thought is brewing. Who will remember, afterward, that it was delayed by the inquisitors?”
Carlos Ferguson
Author Carlos Ferguson works in the education sector in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. He is also an art teacher and has dedicated himself to UFO research for 50 years, ever since, as a skeptic, he had a close encounter with a disc-shaped UFO at a distance of no more than 35 meters. He was the first civilian UFO consultant for the Argentine Air Force (2011-2017) and currently provides his services to Cridovni (an agency of the Uruguayan Air Force), making him the only ufologist in the world to have advised organizations in two different countries. He has completed courses in satellite technology, remote sensing, and geographic information systems. He is the author of seven books and the largest compilation of UFO landing cases in Argentina, including classified events. He has also conducted studies on pilot-UFO cases in Argentina, as well as on underwater objects and, more recently, on the physiological and electromagnetic effects on witnesses. Hundreds of talks and notes over almost five decades show him with a line of work adjusted to the parameters of statistics, and already outside the environment of the participants in ufology, maintaining some selective contacts.
QUOTES
QUOTE 1 = The first commission in the Argentine Air Force in 2011 had begun promisingly. Many UFO enthusiasts began to criticize and demand immediate results, without understanding anything about the matter within an official organization.
QUOTE 2 = Last note to Lianza on Cadena 3:
QUOTE 3 = The supposed “scientific” work of the official office is evident in this case that we have denounced:
QUOTE 4 = Milton Hourcade, a nefarious character whose practices we had already warned Lianza about, and who later ended up being hired as an “expert advisor.” Another “serial explainer,” who, in addition to calling Argentine ufologists “scum,” rejoiced at the news of the death of a Brazilian colleague (Ademar Gevaerd). All of this paints a complete picture of this deplorable individual. In a Uruguayan case called Isla de Lobos, we also exposed the shortcomings and inconsistencies in his attempts to explain it, such as the possible landing of an “Argentine military helicopter.” For those who want to revel in such nonsense and see our response, here is the link:
QUOTE 5 = The author of the article, Alberto Brunetti, and Luis Pacheco were the main whistleblowers regarding the fiasco of the second phase of the official office.
QUOTE 5 = Beto Cotton, on the change.org on the web.