THE WITNESSES IN THE ARGENTINE UFO CASUISTRY – BRIEF ANALYSIS OF AGE, QUANTITY AND SIGHTING AREAS

By CARLOS FERGUSON

Within the large number of variables to analyze in the UFO issue of Argentina, it was necessary to determine the question of the witnesses, in three fundamental aspects: their age, their quantity, and the areas where they are reported.

One of the works The first study of the type of witnesses was carried out by the Argentine ufological pioneer Oscar Uriondo, in his work called “The number of witnesses in UFO landings” (Stendek, 1978). There he focused on the unique witnesses, in a work of great statistical value.

In my case, from the collection and qualification of all the landing cases in Argentina, several studies have emerged that have been carried out for the first time in our country, related to the physiological effects on witnesses (burns, paralysis, effects on vision, etc.), electromagnetic (EM) cases, and several in relation to the distance of the UFO from witnesses.

All of them are largely unpublished and pioneering, for a very simple reason: the work of collecting and processing almost 2,000 landings in Argentina should have been done several years ago, with the help of several researchers.

But for various reasons (where the prevailing individualism stands out), it had to be started alone more than 30 years ago. But today it is yielding the expected results.

Every catalogue cannot be a simple chronological accumulation, but must have 4 basic steps: be complete, exhaustive, qualified and published.

As far as we know, in Argentina such requirements only exist in my 5 works (Landings, Pilots, Underwater Objects, and local statistics of Mar del Plata and La Plata). (QUOTE 1)

Today, with all the results, we can find an infinite number of variables to analyze and compare with what has been done in other latitudes.

All this exposes the false premises of some of the discouragers on duty, who often say that “the UFO subject is exhausted,” when in reality they never delved into the material.

Thus we can hear (even some “professionals” and people who “have been in the subject for years”), talking about only 30 or 40 cases of the third type when in reality there are almost 500.

Therefore, also in this work and in my books (with the exception of the great work done by Oscar Uriondo or Lic. Angel Díaz), we can talk about presenting pioneering data for Argentine Ufology.

The statistical work allows us to compare variables from Argentina with the rest of the countries. Today we can do it already having achieved minimally qualified and complete. (Combined images from Pixabay)

In the study presented at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in Pasadena (California, USA, 1975), the notable scientists Claude Poher and Jacques Vallée addressed this issue.

They began with the item “Number and age of witnesses”.

Out of 923 Type 1 cases (period 1868 – 1968), they detected that the data on the number of witnesses was found in 878 events.

There they tabulated the distribution of witnesses according to the interval of observations, confirming:

“It can be noted that only a little more than half of the cases involve solitary witnesses and this proportion remains more or less stable throughout the different periods”.

In the case of our largest qualified catalogue in Argentina, we found 1,628 events. When comparing the graphs, we see that there is clearly a notable coincidence in the items from 1 to 8 witnesses. The only difference is that in the Argentine cases, the number of witnesses classified as “Various” is greater than in the international study.

Surely there is nothing mysterious here, it is surely the case that the Argentine cases studied are greater in number.

The comparative graph with the statistical result of Poher and Vallée, with that made by the author of the note. (C.Ferguson Archive)

An additional fact about the number of witnesses in Argentina is the one that has to do with anonymity.

The study carried out –which we see in the following graph- shows us the striking situation where anonymous witnesses have equaled the number of witnesses with revealed identity.

This occurred from the end of the millennium, and there are several reasons that we can find to explain it.

The number of anonymous witnesses (which years ago was always lower), today can even exceed witnesses identified by name. Surely one of the explanations is due to the rise of sensationalist articles and the fear of ridicule, which has become more pronounced today. (C.Ferguson archive)

On the one hand, it is significant that when there was not yet the amount of media and diffusion on the subject, witnesses were not afraid to reveal their identity. The fact that a witness gave his name was also the way to endorse his reputation. But the situation began to change in the 1980s. There, the number of witnesses who preferred to remain anonymous increased, as did the number of media outlets that increased their coverage of the subject. As we know, it was during this period that the infamous UFO sensationalism appeared on the scene.

In the mid-1990s, the ranks began to even out and around 1999, the number of anonymous witnesses exceeded that of those identified, to this day.

This situation occurs with the total diversification of the media.

Some have suggested that the cases have decreased completely.

In reality, there are two key situations that these know-it-alls seem to ignore:

1 – Throughout the history of the phenomenon (at least, the modern one from 1947 onwards), it has fluctuated in pulses of activity. Only a neophyte can say that because it has a decline, the phenomenon “has disappeared completely.”

2 – The very diversification of transmission and diffusion channels, the Internet, and all the media, amplify some information (most of it false), and the witnesses and their cases are lost in such an avalanche of microphones. In other times, in the interior of the country, the cases were reproduced in local newspapers and from there to the major media in Buenos Aires, and then they became notorious. Today many witnesses spread it on local radio and media, and the news very rarely leaves there. On the other hand, what was pointed out above – the loss of prestige due to fear of ridicule generated by sensationalist media – makes many witnesses think twice before disclosing their information. (QUOTE 2)

The scientists Jacques Vallée and Claude Poher, who have contributed to Ufology, key statistical studies for the interpretation of the phenomenon (C.Ferguson Archive)

As for the age of the witnesses, it is known for 147 of the 923 in the Poher/Vallée study. This information is reflected in the age pyramid.

Poher and Vallée highlighted the “significant difference” between the ages of 20 and 40, presumably due to the fact that they might be more susceptible to being professionally harmed by the ridicule associated with reporting a UFO sighting.

They also mentioned that:

In the study I have conducted on UFO landing cases (the largest classified so far in Argentina), I have found 644 cases where we have the age of the witnesses (36% of the total cases of UFO landings in Argentina).

In the comparison with the study by Poher and Vallée we find broad similarities, as can be seen in the graph.

The French scientists rightly pointed out that a detailed study of the age distribution in old and recent cases did not show any significant difference.

In the Argentine case study the conclusion is similar: the observations are reported and cover all ages.

We know that in order to conduct economic and social studies, the population is divided into three large age groups (to determine those potentially active).

As a simple additional fact, we must remember that the average age in Argentina (over the years) has increased, as seen in the following graph, and has reached 32 years:

Today the average age is 32 years. (Source: National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina)

It is interesting to note that the average age of UFO witnesses in Argentina is 31 years (one year less than the average age of its population).

We are talking about groups from 0 to 14 years old; from 15 to 64 years old; and from 65 years old onwards. The group from 15 to 64 years old is considered as potentially active.

In the graph made by Poher/Vallée, the age distribution is highlighted, compared with the Argentine data, and we notice a remarkable similarity.

When we make the comparative graph with the distribution of the world population and Argentina, we see that the distribution of UFO witnesses in our country is in agreement with them.

In summary: the age patterns of UFO witnesses can be explained sociologically, but the phenomenon manifests itself in the entire age range.

The distribution curve of UFO witnesses in Argentina is similar to the distribution of the world population and our country. (C.Ferguson Archive)

Regarding the areas where the phenomenon is reported, Dr. Vallée had already shown in his study of the cases of the French Wave of 1954, the so-called “First Negative Law”, which says:

In such studies it had already been proven that 70% of the total number of reports were made in deserted or isolated areas.

The Argentine study shows us that these areas represent 81% of the total, a fairly consistent margin.

Furthermore, my additional study on the division of Argentina into 4 geographic regions coincides and confirms what Vallée had already discovered: the areas with the lowest population density are those with the highest number of cases per inhabitant per square kilometer.

There is no doubt that this is a characteristic of the phenomenon itself and occurs at all times and places.

The distribution of UFO landings in Argentina according to uninhabited areas, isolated homes or cities. (C. Ferguson Archive)

A – There are more aspects of study in UFO witnesses in Argentina than those I have already carried out based on the largest catalog of landings to date. It contemplates aspects such as profession, activity at the time of the event, etc. I will publish reports on all of them later.

B – As with many other data, the statistical study of the phenomenon shows constants that are not the product of a disparate, chaotic or regional phenomenon. In comparison with the pioneering work of Poher and Vallée, it is evident that there are universal constants and that we are not facing information chaos.

C – Regarding the number of witnesses, the number of cases with more than one observer in Argentina is significant. This dismisses some detractor speculations, speaking exclusively of “lonely” UFO witnesses.

D – Regarding age, it has also been exemplified that there is no age range that has not reported the presence of UFOs.

E – As for the areas where the phenomenon is reported, it fully coincides with Jacques Vallée’s First Negative Law (elusive to population density) and ratifies it.

F – As for the anonymity of witnesses (which already exceeds those identified), there seem to be specific motivations. The fear of losing prestige (due to the increase in sensationalist media), and the diversification of the press and popular media, which causes countless stories to get lost in the avalanche of fragmented misinformation. It is evident that the massification of folklore and ufological dissemination does not seem to have managed to overcome observers’ fear of ridicule.

Given this situation, even though the phenomenon itself has shown ups and downs in its activity, today the discourse of witnesses is lost in countless virtual spaces.

It is very likely that UFO activities do not depend only on the activity of the phenomenon itself, but on social and communicative factors very different from those we had 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Hynek’s words resonate today with stark realism and timeliness.

Witnesses often keep their experiences to themselves, so fearful is their confessions.

But today, the emergence of mass media and the disaggregation of information mean that many stories are lost forever.

If the few remaining researchers fail to reverse the situation, we will remain in the mire of dissemination without analysis and misinformation.

Our duty and responsibility as true Ufologists is to warn and point out to the public the mistakes that some lightly claim as “absolute truths.” And also to form new generations, far from the “dictatorship of likes.”

It is time to achieve changes, even with small work groups. We are committed to this path, and it will never be in vain.

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: When I was able to interview the great ufologist Willy Smith for the last time in Miami (USA) in 1999, he already had about 700 cases of landings (today there are more than 1800 primarily positive and more than 300 negative), but they were only ordered chronologically. I remember the words of the unforgettable Willy: “Your work is totally praiseworthy and remarkable, but if they are not subjected to some basic qualification, they only serve as anecdotes.” And he added: “I encourage you to do it Carlos, because otherwise, no one will do it.” Smith’s words put me in the middle of the storm, but it was inevitable. He has been the great mentor or incentive for it. Although there were previous catalogues, all of them had a chronological presentation, which does not take away from their commendable value. Those who talk about having thousands of cases that are not qualified and published are only part of the coffee speculators club.

QUOTE 2: On this last point – discredit – we have recently witnessed disgusting situations. For example, when a witness recounted an unusual experience – unfortunately to a sensationalist media – and within the ufological circles themselves, many supposed “ufologists”, “experts”, “broadcasters” dedicated themselves to ridiculing her. The current level of some who claim to be from the «ufological» environment is truly decadent.