THREE DISCURSIVE FALLACIES AND TWO YEARS OF RELATOLOGICAL IMPROVISATION

By Carlos Ferguson

“When one reads in the press the categorical denials of any scientist about the UFO phenomenon, all those who have seen UFOs or who have been investigating them for years are perfectly within their rights to consider those statements as stupidity and their author as an undocumented loudmouth. “Skepticism is rationally healthy, dogmism is the property of imbeciles, even if they are Nobel Prize winners.” (Fernando Jimenez del Oso)

“When a man of science establishes that something is possible, he is probably right. When you state that something is impossible, you are probably wrong.» (Arthur Clarke)

PREFACE

A few hours ago we witnessed another example of misinformation and discursive fallacies, by a scientist in front of a media outlet.

Furthermore, he made a passionate defense of the current official Argentine office that supposedly investigates aerial phenomena to clarify them (although these only refer to possible «UFOs» and not to other aerospace phenomena).

Since the public (to whom we are exclusively grateful), and some valuable press men, consulted us about it, I decided to make this short article to clarify some concepts.

HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF WITH A TITLE

Protected by the supposed discursive supremacy of a man of science, the neuroscientist who appeared in a mass media hours ago, displayed a host of inaccuracies on a subject that he is completely unaware of.

On the contrary, to the fallacies exposed, he added a message based on totally partial and fragmented data, surely not completing a basic step of the scientific method: the adequate review of the literature.

In reality, his information was based on questions of preference to the official office, and a simple expression of desire or belief.

Perched on the shield of scientism, some of these representatives can perform a very poor role, showing the characteristics of dogmatic rationalism.

This does not detract from his own professional activity, but we are not talking about it, but about the issue when it transcends what is called “scientific dissemination.”

This is the set of activities that interpret and make scientific knowledge accessible to society.

For this reason, every disseminator (and especially a scientist) has a responsibility in such dissemination: to do so with the truth, with the strictest acuity and depth in the subject that will be transmitted to the population. Otherwise we only remain in occasional propaganda stories.

We have seen great scientists in the 50s, 60s and 70s, who were against the UFO issue, and many of them had already made the same errors of prejudice and lack of basic reading in the treatment of the UFO phenomenon.

Suffice it to mention Dr. Donald Menzel (1901 – 1976), who was one of the first theoretical astronomers and astrophysicists in the United States and director of the Harvard Observatory.

Involved in the UFO issue, he dedicated himself as a scientific communicator to providing explanations for UFO cases.

An event that occurred in 1948 in which pilots intervened in the United States was “explained” by Menzel first as a “mirage” and then transformed into a “meteorite.” The idea was to “close” the cases at any cost.

Menzel “explained” more cases in various ways, in addition to mirages and meteors:

A – “Reflectors playing with thin layers of fog”

B – “The Sun”

C – “Reflection of the lights of the houses on the ground and the fog”

D – “Horizontal mirage”

E – “Refracted image of balloon”

Etc.

Dr. James Mac Donald in Physics masterfully destroyed all the explanations that Menzel tried to give to some North American and international cases.

In January 1963, astronomer Donald Menzel visited several Latin American countries, including Argentina.

In Buenos Aires he answered questions from journalists from the newspaper “El Mundo”, and expressed, among other things:

“Flying saucers are nothing more than the product of an optical refraction of certain natural phenomena that occur in the Earth’s atmosphere…If I have the authority to talk about flying saucers, it is because I have training in astronomy.” (end of quote)

As the great journalist of the newspaper “El Mundo” Jorge Pineda (we would say the best journalist who faced the UFO issue in Argentina) remembers well, at the end of the conference, “only a handful of listeners came up to ask him questions,” and he did not manage to desired effect. (QUOTE 1)

Based solely on the information that suited them, they tried to tear down cases and belittle witnesses, perched on the title hanging on the wall.

A few years ago, a “former ufologist” wanted to convince us that a scientist friend of his (who had written articles denigrating ufology) had actually done so because “he was unaware of the different aspects of the subject,” and that I was interested in a personal contact. Who are you writing this with? He came with him to a conference that I would give in Mar del Plata.

The scientist in question, among other things, had spoken of ufology as a “cultural cancer.”

But it happened that at the end of my presentation we were able to see him leave the place (he literally ran away so as not to have the promised talk).

The next day he published an article in a newspaper without citing me, and referring to a series of inaccuracies that he said he had seen at “a conference” (mine).

In the note he stated that photographs had been shown of supposed UFO tracks that are simple “fairy rings” (a common disease in the countryside).

By the way, he lied deliberately and blatantly. In my lecture I showed photographs of footprints of charred or scorched earth, and also some of “fairy rings” to show the difference between the two.

But true to her dogmatic story, he had cut off what was good for her.

His “scientific dissemination” became a simple propaganda harangue. There was no interest in that topic to see the different aspects.

And by the way, we did not believe it beforehand, neither he nor the already known intermediary, who had already made several of these attempts in ufology, to make people fall into the trap (false letters from Ummo sent to investigators, alleged statements of a film director implying that his film explained a famous case in the 60s, etc.).

We have a responsibility to inform the public about these errors, so that we can separate the wheat from the chaff and see how these issues that have nothing to do with the word “science” are handled.

Getting to the point, who appeared hours ago on a massive channel, he basically mentioned 3 aspects.

1 – Gives the “explanation” of one of the Pentagon videos…

2 – Attack on the case of Jorge Polanco (Bariloche, July 31, 1995), endorsing a crazy version of a reflector…

3 – He states that “everything that happens in the sky of Argentina” is analyzed by the Ciae (Aerospace Identification Center)…

We will not go into details about each aspect addressed since we have links to material for it and we would tire the reader.

Also, the goal of this note is not to refute what everyone wants to believe (and believing is literal). We don’t care about that at all, and that’s him and those who support him.

But we do have to clarify to the public and the press (good journalists who read us), that we are faced with 3 discursive fallacies of a scientific communicator who biases his message, by not knowing in depth the topic he addresses us, which implies misinformation.

FIRST FALLACY: THE PENTAGON CASES “ARE ALL EXPLAINED”…

We have already pointed out in other articles that the detractors on duty try to establish the non-resolution of the UFO origin, implying in their media propaganda that there are no Unidentified cases in the Pentagon (and later NASA) study, which gave foot to the AARO office (The All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, established within the organizational structure of the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the United States charged with investigating and analyzing unidentified flying objects).

To do this, they use a strategic argument that we already know well: they say that there is no evidence that aliens are here, and with such speculation they ignore (deliberately or not) that there are still Unidentified cases, which cannot be explained.

In the aforementioned presentation, an attempt was made to “explain” an event again (video of the meeting of the crew of a US Navy F/A-18 aircraft).

To the unsuspecting viewer, this could mean that the Pentagon, NASA and AARO have all their cases solved.

This is not the case, despite those who wish for it.

But in their desire to have everything resolved (as happens with the official office), it seems that by magic, here we already have the resolution of what the highest military and scientific organizations of the world’s largest superpower cannot achieve.

By the way, to dismiss the version of those who believe they already have everything defined, just go to the AARO page, and readers will be able to verify that both the video that was shown hours ago on TV and other cases remain Unsolved, even though The origin of such events cannot be determined.

We leave the link to the AARO page below in the quotes, so that even the uninformed (with or without a university degree) can get upset. (QUOTE 2)

SECOND FALLACY: THE IMAGINARY REFLECTOR….

For some time now, the official Argentine office and some of its defenders have sought to repeat as dogma, a kind of need or desire to “end” one of the biggest cases of Argentine ufology: the Polanco case (July 31, 1995). ). ).

It is not something new, because some of the advisors close to the official office have already tried it for years, always without success.

At that moment they wanted to “close” the famous episode, with “masterful” and absurd causes.

Just list some of them:

1 – “Conjunction of the Moon and Mars” (Sic)

2 – “Snow grooming machine”

3 – “Reflections of the snow”

4 – “Gendarmerie distraction maneuver”

This last one deserves a section. This was another case in which an astronomer scientist appeared on a channel as a scientific communicator, “explaining” the Polanco case as a “distraction maneuver by the Gendarmerie to cover up social issues.”

It is striking that those who dedicate themselves to the study of the physics of the Universe, planets, stars, galaxies, can know and talk about a deception or cover-up by some of the country’s federal forces, to «cover up» social issues. . . . . . He is another typical example of a scientific popularizer who, protected by a title, says anything, and with unlimited responsibilities (unfortunately, a large part of the Argentine Justice system does not function, otherwise, he should have been summoned to testify to substantiate such nonsense).

We will not delve into the Polanco case, on this website there are several links (see below between quotes and a file with notes by Professor Oscar Uriondo), and articles by colleague Angel Díaz on the subject.

But I do think it is important to point out the curious thing that the official office that only handles photos and videos, makes an exception in this case, to address it in a very particular way: mutilating the testimony of the main protagonist. that is, never interview or survey him.

The other two key witnesses (the Gendarmerie pilots) have already died. One of them (Juan Domingo Gaitán) was categorical in his statements, but the official office is not interested in all that, but rather in the inconsistent story of Polanco’s co-pilot (Dortona), who, as we have already noted, today changes part of his story initial.

The neuroscientist who appeared on TV hours ago once again used this pseudo explanation as an argument to invalidate the case.

He spoke about reflectors on Cerro Catedral (Bariloche).

To this they have added the version of a new reflector (“Rocket” nightclub). As we know, the employee of that nightclub (last name Rivero) claimed to have manipulated the reflector, in a time range of that night but without specific time precision.

On the other hand, imagining that a searchlight has been pointed between two planes flying in the area and the presence of neither of them has been noticed is something impossible.

The testimony of the Gendarmerie pilots was also forceful and contrary to the absurd hypothesis of the reflector used by the official office, and based on the co-pilot Dortona.

Let us remember that Dortona (who in 2018 stated that he had only seen “unusual lights”), three years after the case (in 1998), had spoken of a “fuselage with two lights that would be the beginning and the end of it.” , with a very bright amber light “larger in the middle of the other two, and that at times seemed to vary in intensity, shaped like an inverted cup.”

In short: the searchlight “hypothesis” will continue to be a “workhorse” for repeaters friendly to the official office, but it is a “low-light searchlight”, which is collapsing from now on.

It is as if in a police case (in which Ufology has very similar study edges), we only took the statement of one of the witnesses of a crime, but not the main one.

In legal matters we would find ourselves facing regrettable sentences with judges like this (we are lucky that these people have never dedicated themselves to legal aspects).

His approach to this event is a perfect example of what you should never do when investigating a case.

It must be the only event in the world where an official office says “to investigate” without taking the direct testimonial statement of its main protagonist. Why doesn’t Commodore Lianza want to interview the witness Polanco?

Aimé Michel already said it about the old Condon project:

“Condon (eminent physicist) judges based on documents, without personally interrogating any witnesses, without going himself even once to the observation sites. He concludes that there is no strange phenomenon, and any mind that follows him in his conclusion (that is, that believes he can decide without direct study) almost infallibly follows him in his conclusion: there is nothing. (end of quote)

The difference is that almost 60 years have passed since this, but it seems that some forms remain, and in different geographies.

The head of the official Argentine office – saving the distance – has copied the worst historical model.

THIRD FALLACY… THE BIRTHDAY OF INACTIVITY

In the interview, the scientific communicator made a blunt statement: “Everything that flies through the sky” (in Argentina) will be investigated by the official Ciae office. Seconds later he pointed out that he specializes primarily in photographs and videos.

If something was really wrong with his statements, it was the latter, and it is proof that even a scientist uses a “magical story.”

But there is no such magic and we do well to remind the public what that office does not do.

Otherwise, we once again misinform public opinion.

The claim that the Ciae organization is in charge of everything that flies is another absolute fallacy that the public and the media should be aware of.

And here we link it with a new anniversary that shows it to us.

In days (July 26 to 30) it will be 2 years since the incursion of “unidentified aircraft” into Argentine territory.

This is not a photographic case (the Polanco case was not either), but we are facing an event of unusual magnitude, which anywhere on the planet would have caught the attention of the competent authorities of the aerospace study.

We have more complete details of the case in this quote. (QUOTE 3)

But we will briefly say something regarding this very important event:

A – It is a totally current case (not from 3 or 4 decades ago)

B – It didn’t happen in one night but in four

C – There were proven captures with front-line radar (not just one night)

D – The event generated some border controversy with Chile

E – Argentine Deputies and Senators requested reports on the matter

These considerations already make this event transcendent and it is assumed that every organization called Ciae (“Aerospace Identification Center”) should focus its attention, just as it does to show us things that ufologists have already known very well for years.

On the other hand, within what is manifested as the competence of the Ciae, the spokesperson for this office points out in its article 2:

“Establish as a task “organize, coordinate and execute the investigation and analysis of events, activities or elements present or originating in the aerospace sector of interest; identify its causes and report the conclusions to the relevant organizations that require them” (end of quote)

What is expressed there as “of interest” is public interest (not personal interest of the head of the official office), because that office is maintained with costs that are covered by all taxpayers.

In this sense, the immediate question is:

The entry into Argentine aerospace for 4 consecutive nights, with radar captures, and which generated requests for reports and a surrounding controversy, is this not an aerospace event of interest to address? Doesn’t such an event justify more sophisticated research than the discovery of photographs of birds and dragonflies?

Not only do we maintain that this is the case, but we even think that it should have been done immediately, in collaboration with other organizations.

More than 700 days after this significant event, the official Ciae office has not mentioned a word about it, like many other cases (including photographic ones).

This clearly demonstrates that it is not true that “everything aerospace can be identified by that office”, far from it.

These types of expressions – rather – are part of the narration of conjectures, protected by “the official.”

Behind the scenes, there is reality.

BUT THERE IS NO COMMISSION?

“Edward Condon pays with his reputation for twenty years of service in the Air Force. You can lie to all of them for a while, to a few all of the time. Twenty years around the world is impossible.» (Aimé Michel, 1968)

“I knew that the Condon Committee was a joke and that the science was elsewhere” (Dr. Jacques Vallée)

A few days ago – within the UFO anniversary itself (June 24 and not July 2 as some media reported) – they made several notes to me.

In two of them (an Argentine journalist and a Latin American journalist) they agreed on a topic. I will briefly summarize the dialogue with the foreign journalist:

Journalist: At least they have an official commission that investigates cases in their country…

Answer: “Here there was an official Commission that was going to be in charge of complaints about Aerospace phenomena, from 2011 to 2017, of which I was an advisor, but I must tell you that since then, there has not been a commission that studies the complaints of the witnesses. Only photos and videos. Ufologists have always done it, without any budget.

Journalist: But don’t those from that official office go to places where there have been UFO reports?

Answer: “Never. Only the photos are studied and not all, but those that are received there by email. The vast majority of photos are always confusions, but if there is one that is not, or a trick, they can find some additional “explanation”: “they could have thrown something into the air” (although they never go to the place later). They “explain” all cases.

Journalist: So today no one is in charge of officially investigating the cases as happens with other commissions?

Answer: At the official level, no one. Only a few ufologists who continue to prioritize theoretical and field research. Therefore, it is only a partial and minimal study of the complaints. And since this official office claims to have solved 100% of the cases, it is not very clear why it suggests that it needs more budget. If something is completely successful, it does not need resources of any kind.

This dialogue we had contained a forceful reality: an office dedicated to images (photos and videos) is not in a position to be able to analyze more than that.

It is striking that it focuses on the account of a single witness of a case that occurred decades ago, and leaves aside a current event, with technical contribution from radar capture, or others.

If this office cannot address specific events in Argentina, much less can it “resolve” episodes in other places (such as the case of the US Navy), which still continue to be a challenge for defense organizations and scientists of the superpowers.

It is really pathetic to see your boss explain the cases that the North cannot yet, and also brag about having started studying things before the Pentagon.

Such a degree of arrogance is not surprising, since it is unaware of the basic historical aspects of ufology and yet refers to them with “certainty”, constantly making errors, prejudices and generalizations. This is another example of storytelling in official dress.

And since we make an analogy with Condon, it is worth remembering what Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek himself told us:

“The final judgment on the work of the Condon Committee was not a study of truly unidentified flying objects, but largely of easily identifiable objects” (end of quote)

This is what we are seeing in Argentina, almost 60 years later, and beyond history and current reality.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific dissemination is essential to transmit to the average citizen information about the advances that Science makes daily.

However, every scientific communicator also has a responsibility: to report truthfully, or to clarify doubts, in episodes of which he is unaware.

The scientific task itself implies that one must be informed (and not only by a source or by friends), but truly conscientiously, taking the fundamental methodological step: the review of the appropriate literature.

Otherwise (and even with the best title hanging on the wall), we are simply improvising and speculating without any basis.

Aimé Michel summarizes all this with this quote from her article “The Principle of Banality” (1974):

“What is called scientific certainty is the collective agreement of specialists on a point of their specialty. The least that can be said is that there is total disagreement among scientists who have studied flying saucers. Note that the opinion of those who speak without ever having studied the problem, directly or indirectly, has as much value, but no more, than the opinion of a historian on a question of physics: a significant value in the question of methods (which are common to all sciences), but weak or absent in factual issues related to the specialty under discussion, and about which non-specialist academics are part of the public and do not know more than it. (end of quote)

Precisely, in the case of the one who appeared in the media hours ago, it is a «non-specialist scholar», who takes the dubious official office of Argentina as a reference source, wanting to point out that it is a «world example».

In a way the latter is real: it is a “world example” but of everything that a commission should not do, which with public contributions only completes what any photographic laboratory would do.

This is not responding to the general population, but to the few who can send a photo there for analysis.

Meanwhile, dozens of witnesses in simple or even complex cases remain abandoned to their fate, while only inconsistent formalism is applied from an office.

Titles do not always bear the seal of “absolute truth.”

We have already seen it in countless historical examples, where the “untitled amateurs” gave a sovereign “beating” to many scholars and detractors.

Simon Newcomb was a great astronomer with an excellent diploma hanging on the wall of his office and a few months before the flight of the Wright brothers he had prophesied that “no machine heavier than air will be able to rise to the heavens.”

In a short time his certainty completely collapsed.

The Wrights (bicycle manufacturers and without completing their formal studies) destroyed “graduated scientific security.”

In this regard, the great scientific popularizer Asimov noted:

“Unfortunately, Newcomb’s error is very common among scientists. In love with a formula, he insisted on taking it beyond the limits to which it is applicable…”

And even worse was the case of Dr. Richard Van del Riet Woolley (Astronomer Royal of Great Britain), who in 1957 expressed: “Cosmonautics? “Totally absurd.”

A few days later, the Russians launched their first Sputnik.

EPILOGUE

“The first quality required of a wise man is curiosity; he must be able to allow himself to be surprised and encouraged by the burning desire to discover.» (Erwin Schrödinger, physicist and philosopher who made important contributions to the fields of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics)

We do not see that quality in some men of science. They think they have it all figured out and that they are at a higher level.

And although all dissemination is part of the essential task of Science, the problem is finding a negative quality in it: arrogance.

We already have most politicians talking about expediency.

It seems that some in scientific communication imitate such forms.

That is why it is important to go out to the crossroads when the occasion requires it.

Fortunately we have this website that is read by an average of 900 people a day, and each time we communicate these situations to people with good press.

It should be the task of all ufological participants, but most are absorbed in personal conveniences and coffee chats, or in cowardly formalities.

But a handful of us are coming out to show the inconsistencies of the Menzels and Klasses who have become less than Argentina.

As the great Aimé Michel noted:

 “Ufology is destined to become the main source of knowledge of the future. It will cause a true earthquake, a cataclysm by forcing our reason to face phenomena that by nature surpass it, and thus adapt to its complete relativity. It’s Copernicus, but worse! Copernicus forced us to admit that our body is not at the center of the universe. UFOs reveal to us that our thinking is not there either. Who will remember, later, that he was delayed by some inquisitors?

Carlos Ferguson

The author Carlos Ferguson works in the Educational area in the Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. He is also a professor of artistic drawing and has been researching the UFO issue 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 of the Argentine Air Force (2011 to 2017). He has courses in Satellite Technology, Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems. He is the author of 7 books and the largest compilation of landing cases in Argentina, with classified facts. He has also carried out studies on cases of pilots and UFOs in Argentina, as well as on 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. He is dedicated to daily statistical work, but completely outside the environment of ufological participants, maintaining some selective contacts.

Its partial or total reproduction is prohibited without the express authorization of the author.

QUOTES

QUOTE 1: Diario El Mundo, Jorge Pineda, “Flying saucer process”, fourth note. June 17, 1964.

QUOTE 2: AARO (All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office) Unresolved Cases Link

https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery/

QUOTE 3: “Aerospace “identification” Center (Ciae): a year without answers regarding unidentified aircraft in Tierra del Fuego” – Carlos Ferguson

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/7035

QUOTES ABOUT THE BARILOCHE CASE:

Carlos Ferguson

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/2785

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/4977

Oscar Uriondo

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/86

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/87

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/88

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/89

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/90

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/91

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/92

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/123

Lic. Ángel Díaz

https://www.carlosferguson.com.ar/archivos/2680