UFO ACTIVITY AND ITS TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PRESENCE IN ARGENTINA
By CARLOS FERGUSON
“The problem is that, whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it comes and goes unexpectedly. There is no way to examine it systematically. It appears suddenly and accidentally, is seen partially, and then reported more or less inaccurately. We continue to rely on occasional anecdotal accounts.” (Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek)
One of the most interesting facets of the UFO problem has to do with the activity developed in the temporal and spatial presence of the phenomenon.
For those of us who work in UFO statistics, the subject involves many derivations, so it is key to handle the data in an objective manner and away from any preconceived idea.
The aspects to be evaluated in a statistical study clearly show that the key is to have all the information possible.
This may seem like a triviality, but it is not.
There are countless UFO participants and disseminators who mention facts or “UFO Constants” that are not, because they do not have the complete statistical information, or who even give up, stating that in any case, we will never know the real number of cases.
This type of attitude generates:
A – Fragmented information
B – Erroneous conclusions
C – Dissemination with misinformation
Personally, I have dedicated years to the statistical analysis of thousands of cases, with a compilation of Argentine events on: Landings / Pilots / Underwater objects / Photographic cases / zonal statistics of the cities of Mar del Plata and La Plata
In this case I focused on the catalogue of cases from the period 1991 – 2002 that we published in the bulletins of the former RAO (Argentine Network of Ufology, today “Network of Advisors for Ufology”).
It contains all the cases in their different variants (close encounters of all kinds) from the final decade of the millennium.
The total number of events recorded at that time is 1,150 cases, a sufficiently representative sample in quantity for the primary analysis.
I was particularly interested in analyzing one of the aspects, the one related to:
1 – The number of UFO reports in a 24-hour range.
2 – The number of UFO reports that occur in a given geographic area and their maximum temporal duration.
A clarification to the public so that they are not confused by biases. When we work with statistics of hundreds or thousands of cases, this does not imply that an investigator must have investigated them all, as some misinformed media suggests. (QUOTE 1)
On the other hand, it is important to note that in those 1,150 cases there was already a minimum filter a priori, and another 150 cases had been discarded due to confusion or fraud.
The statistics show us conclusions that have nothing to do with «hunches», speculations or recreational fantasies.
DAILY ACTIVITY OF UFO CASES IN ARGENTINA
The study of cases that occur on the same dates (and in some cases, the same hours) is nothing new. Aimé Michel, with his “Ortotenias”, already encountered this peculiarity.
Although a part of the study of the so-called “Ortotenias” (“lying in a straight line”) has been discussed and dismissed, it is important to note that this is a brave first attempt to understand the displacement of the phenomenon reported in the complaints.
He also destroyed the speculations of the famous psychiatrist Heuyer (French Academy of Sciences), when he said that the sightings were the product of «dual delusion» (an idea that spreads and infects in a form of contamination).
Our pioneer, Professor Oscar Uriondo, had already addressed the subject in his chapter “Topography of UFO manifestations” (QUOTE 2)
Let us see what happened in Argentina in a period where we have all kinds of complaints recorded.
From certain detractors’ positions it is often argued that the UFO is a phenomenon that can be explained as something false, as long as:
A – It generally has only one witness in a determined area
B – That the observations are independent of others, and that when they are not, we are surely facing a «confusion».
C – That the rumors and activity of the press originate the cases.
The three points – by the way – can be partially or totally countered with any serious critical analysis of the information.
Returning to the matter at hand, let us look at the statistical reports and their results in the period 1991 – 2002 (always in different geographic areas of the vast Argentine territory).
We have these records because they were carried out within the RAO (Argentine Network of Ufology), which for years filled the gap in annual case studies.
This is – as I have already mentioned – information that includes all UFO classifications (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th type), with contributions from some of the members, and news also collected from different media, and ordered chronologically by the undersigned.
The figure of over a thousand cases is more than important and with which we can work perfectly, having primarily ruled out another number of negative cases (confusions, frauds, sensationalism).
From this primarily positive universe, we were able to obtain the data on how many cases were reported in our country, in the range of 24 hours (one day).
Thus we have:
For only 1 report = 1,060 cases
For 2 reports = 72 events
For 3 reports = 11 events
For 4 reports = 4 events
For 5 reports = 2 events
For 6 reports = 1 event
That is to say: in the more than 4,000 days of the period under study, there was only 1 day where the phenomenon occurred in 6 different places in 24 hours.
Some of these events occur in nearby geographical areas.
Only as a speculative measure, I have established possible relationships in the areas studied, which we could define as:
A – Minimal
B – Medium
C – High
D – Very high
These last two categories (and, to be even more extreme, the last one), represent a challenge for the researcher. We are faced with the presence of “something” that was observed by people of different socio-cultural conditions in an objective manner and with little difference in time, in a different geographical area (these are the cases where skeptics usually resort to the argument of “confusion”).
And although there have been events of “mass observations” that have been able to be classified as confusions (natural or artificial), not all events can be explained with such a quick resolution.
TEMPORAL PRESENCE AS A FLAP OR WAVE
Historically we have had hotbeds of activity in different places and regions of Argentina.
Lic. Ángel Díaz had already carried out important statistical work in the early 80s. Mainly the one called “The Argentine UFO waves”, based on 750 events.
In it, he pointed out that there are waves in different years, but the most intense ones were those of 1962, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1974 and 1978. With the data update, we then have the years 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2002 (the latter being the most active, along with 1968).
The cities that stood out in these waves were Bahía Blanca (1962 and 1965), Punta Indio and Valle de Loretani (1965), Villa Constitución (1967), Mar del Plata (1965 and 1968), Venado Tuerto and Casilda (1978), areas of Córdoba (1986), Victoria (1991), and the great wave of 2002, in various places.
These activities can last a certain period of time (up to 2 or 3 months in each region), and not consecutively.
Dr. Jacques Vallée told us years ago:
“Observations are not distributed randomly over time: long periods pass without a new case being known, unless we examine very carefully the press of various countries. Then the problem reappears on the front page of the newspapers and takes on a “sensational” character, which makes sensible people move away from studying it. Other times, the Press gets tired of a topic that has been overexploited, and only through the patient preparation of files, several years after the events have taken place, is it possible to verify a sudden change in the density of testimonies during a given period” (QUOTE 3)
If we take into account that official UFO activity has already been going on for 78 years (since 1947), the number of waves or years of great activity in Argentina have been reported in approximately 10 years.
This is in contrast to those who argue that the phenomenon “has disappeared”. Those who argue this have never studied the subject of UFO activity in Argentina in depth, no matter how many years they say they have been in the subject.
It is very simple to see that only 13% of the total years show outstanding activity. And in previous or subsequent years there was a decrease in cases, which is something common (in Argentina and in the entire world).
THE PHENOMENON MAINTAINS ITS VARIANTS
The data are conclusive.
The characteristics of the phenomenon remain the same. What changes are some men with age, and some want to generate big announcements (once constant waves, to “zero activity” today).
But this is not about personal opinions or impressions in the style of “papal blessing”, but about data.
The person writing this has gathered a wealth of thousands of qualified cases, plus those published in the RAO at the time. We are dealing with PUBLISHED events and not thousands of events that someone says they have stored at home.
On the other hand, my statistical studies are exhaustive as to the source. That is to say: the fact that one no longer has contact with certain people in the UFO world did not prevent the collection of all the available data published at some time in all the media (radio, print, television, periodical publications, data on the Internet with a reliable source, books, personal research, etc.)
So they are not lists of cases “from friends” or for any interest or convenience. They are totals.
When analyzing what has happened since 1947 onwards, it is clear that – beyond greater or lesser activity – the phenomenon maintains all the variants.
It is totally false to argue that from the year 2000 onwards there have been no close encounters of the third type, for example. Even more so when the year 2002 showed us the year of greatest activity in reports of these cases.
Only someone who does not handle information properly can argue such things, and we extend this to the shapes of objects, etc.
It is clear that today we have many more phenomena that lead to the confusion of witnesses (this has always existed and today it has been accentuated by satellites, drones, etc.)
But there are events that continue to have the classic characteristics of the phenomenon, despite what some people think.
Only that to know it, you must have data and obtain it, and that implies working more than declaiming (which is what most people do today).
By the way, there is also what the philosopher Jaime Balmes once wrote in his work “The Criterion”:
“Unfortunately, what is needed is not always found and Man is too impatient to wait for the centuries that he will not see to provide future generations with the desired discovery. So it often happens that if one does not find, one pretends instead of building on reality… and takes as a rule what was nothing more than an exception…” (end of quote)
This is surely what is happening with the declaimers of lack of cases. They want to talk about rules and changes where there are none, except when they look in the mirror and see wrinkles.
DAILY REPEATED TEMPORAL PRESENCE
How many times does the phenomenon occur in the same place consecutively?
In the study period (1991 to 2002) and with more than 1,000 events, we only have 5, namely:
9, 10, 11 and 12 September 1993 = Pico Truncado (SANTA CRUZ) = between 8 and 10 pm
21, 22, 23 and 24 June 1997 = Salta (SALTA) = between 8 and 10 pm
19, 20, 21 and 22 April 1998 = Puerto Santa Cruz (SANTA CRUZ) = Dawn
27, 28, 29 and 30 January 2001 = Roque Sáenz Peña (CHACO) = 00.00 hours
11, 12, 13 and 14 June 2002 = Robles (SGO.DEL (ESTERO) = early morning and 9 pm
In all of them the UFO was perceived on 4 consecutive days (never more than 4), generally seen by several witnesses.
A historical precedent occurred in October 1958, when in Mal Paso (Santiago del Estero), a white object could be seen, suspended in the airspace for 4 consecutive days.
Another event was that of Polvaredas (Mendoza) from August 7, 1965 and for days (there were no exact records in this case).
We have some event where there were more than 4 days of sightings, but without being consecutive.
Does this obey these 4 consecutive days to some pattern of the phenomenon? Is it linked to a certain selectivity that it seems to have with complex cases with solitary witnesses?
It is risky to affirm it.
Colleague Angel Díaz has rightly pointed out:
“The exact space-time coincidence of the Phenomenon with the Witness is significant, when it leads to a contact (apart from the fact that some Witnesses are recurrent)…” (QUOTE 4)
An additional fact: the average duration of these sightings – unlike what some detractors claim as very fleeting – is not less than 20 minutes.
“PROLONGED” GEOGRAPHIC PRESENCE
The consecutive repetition should not be confused with a somewhat regular one, which has occurred in some circumstances, such as the province of La Pampa or in Mar del Plata in 1968.
In the period of study, a continuity of 2 to 3 months has generally developed (not consecutive).
There does not seem to be a geographic space where the phenomenon is constantly present permanently (“chosen zones”), despite some interests that promote it or even the press in general.
The phenomenon seems to remain for a period of time and move or disappear, which fits with the already proven reality of manifest evasiveness.
The temporal extensions are less than 7 months and cover 50% of the territory, as already pointed out by colleague Angel Díaz. (QUOTE 5)
Given this situation, speaking of some zones as “chosen” permanent, implies the ignorance of the author(s) of the true activity of the phenomenon.
There are no eternally chosen areas.
ANOTHER SPECULATION: «THERE ARE NO MORE FLYING DISCS»
This argument is often used by the detractors of the time, who believed that the figure of the «saucer» was a Hollywood invention or something typical of the literature of the 50s.
Supposedly, over the years, this shape would cease to exist as an «imposed fashion.»
Today, some «ufologists» who claim to be original mention the same thing, and affirm that «after the year 2000, discs are no longer presented.»
To confirm or not this, we have taken all the facts from the year 2000 onwards, in 15 different catalogues. We are talking about the studies of the Argentine Network of UFOlogy (year 2000 to 2008), and the statistics of cases of Pilots, Submarines, Photographs and landings.
In all of them, the shapes of the UFOs were detailed in 528 cases.
And from the analysis of the same, something conclusive emerges. In 229 cases we have descriptions of objects with typical shapes of discoid elements.
It is enough to see a brief summary of the witnesses’ own expressions:
“Two deep plates” / “inverted turtle shell” / “saucer with a dome” / “small saucer” / “like two plates joined together” / “gigantic saucer with perimeter lights” / “disc with lights” / “flat base with a dome” / “disc with landing gear” / “objects with turrets” / “flying saucer” / “perfect disc with lights on the sides” / “saucer with a dome” / “like a plate that went up and down” / “flying top” / “base like a plate” / “disc with coloured lights” / “solid disc” / “solid oval disc” / “saucer with a shine on the bottom and dark on the top” / “inverted plate with opaque lights” / “flying jellyfish” / rotating saucer” / “three-legged metal saucer” / “30-metre saucer” / “floating saucer” / “rough surface disc” / “in the form of a plate” (among others)
The graph (below) details the percentages we have, and this puts to rest some of the speculations typical of occasional YouTubers.
IS THERE ANY REGULARITY IN UFO APPEARANCES?
For years, attempts have been made to find some regularity in the apparitions.
But as with all subjects, when the methodical study becomes simple speculation or the dropping of theories like leaves from a tree in autumn, we are clearly faced with another sensationalist or baseless rumour.
One of the recent examples comes from someone who maintains that since the year 2000 there have been no reports of humanoid entities.
Such speculation is based on striking misinformation from someone who constantly calls himself a pioneer.
Having the largest catalog to date of this type of humanoid events in Argentina (almost 480 cases), we have that the greatest activity was even after 2000 (the year 2002, with 33 cases in the year, a record and surpassing the waves of 1968 and 1978).
How can anyone claim that since 2000 there have been no more reports of cases involving entities?
The graph is quite eloquent.
From the same sector it is stated that there is a decimal repetition in the cases. Supposedly every 10 years (without being able to corroborate it statistically), someone affirms such things.
That the phenomenon occurs again in the same place, has occurred, but not with the regularity that is intended.
We can take an interesting sample of personal catalogs, but they are exhaustive, complete and qualified.
We have:
List of the RAO (Argentine Ufology Network) = 1,635 cases
List of Underwater Objects in Argentina = 184 cases
List of Pilot cases in Argentina = 163 cases
List of photo cases in Argentina = 623 cases
List of Landing cases in Argentina = 1,818 cases
Total = 4,423 cases
We can determine the following:
A – Regarding the RAO case history (1,635 cases), we only have 56 events where the phenomenon is repeated after 10 years (3.5%)
B – Regarding the Underwater Objects cases, only in 12 of the 184 cases we have decimal repetition (6.5%).
C – Regarding the cases of Pilots in Argentina, only in 5 of the total of 163, decimal repetition occurs (3%)
D – Regarding the largest Argentine catalog to date (Landings), the cases that are repeated every 10 years are 89 out of 1818 (only 5%).
And if we add all the cases, the percentage of decimal repetition is 4%.
But there is something else.
The few cases that occur decimally can also be explained by their repetition in cities with a high population density or some active group, without which there would be nothing left.
The graph is compelling:
CONCLUSIONS
Ufologists continue to gather data suggesting that UFO sightings tend to occur in waves, but no particular pattern has been found that can even begin to puzzle scientists. (Dr. Richard Hall)
The case studies analyzed are extensive, and allow us to detect several conclusive conclusions.
1 – The temporary presence of the phenomenon in some areas occurs for a short time, which completely invalidates the hypothesis of “eternal chosen areas”
2 – In very few cases, the phenomenon seems to repeat itself consecutively for up to 96 hours, with no cases in Argentine history exceeding that amount (except with gaps or intermediate gaps)
3 – No theory or hypothesis that attempts to explain the UFO presence every ten years can be sustained, according to the percentage studied. That the phenomenon is repeated in several areas is unquestionable, but this supposed “law” is not fulfilled in any of the cases studied. If we add international cases to this, there is also no “decimal” presence in a significant percentage, so it is nothing more than simple speculation.
4 – On the same point above, what some claim is “the non-appearance of more cases of humanoids from the year 2000 onwards” can only be the product of someone totally uninformed of the real case law. Relying on “years of research” is not synonymous with handling up-to-date information. Just a simple review of the reports of humanoid entities from 2000 onwards shows us that their activity was reported much more than in any other period of the UFO history of Argentina, with 2002 at the top (33 reports).
Regarding these “occasional revisionists”, the great pioneering researcher Ángel Díaz, has made some recent reflections on some “ufological revisionists” and their misfortunes.
Díaz (who has been handling statistics for years), has pointed out concepts that are not wasted:
He tells us:
A – Characteristics of some revisionists
– Mediocre research (with the appearance of a good researcher)
– Florid discourse
– Unstable UFO Environment
– Relative low number of cases
– Lack of knowledge of world cases
– Criticism of prominent researchers
B – On the Casuistry of 8 to 10 years ago:
– Quantitative: It has a variable level, decrease in 2024
– Qualitative: In the period of the last 8 years almost all the typologies of the UFO Phenomenon are verified
Conclusion = It is the kind of revisionists who could not stand out in the research/dissemination of the UFO phenomenon and take advantage of this impasse of the activity to discredit the phenomenon (in which they always doubted) (A. Díaz).
EPILOGUE
The research and study of the subject of the temporal and spatial appearance of the phenomenon is open.
It is incredible that some people point out that the UFO issue “has already been exhausted” and that there is nothing more to delve into, when in reality there have been few analyses in Argentina on the subject, with a few honourable exceptions.
Those who maintain this want to find answers without making the slightest effort.
Here we have an important area to work on, but to do so, we must have the largest amount of information, and not fragmented material.
As Ángel Díaz has pointed out, we must take into account that the phenomenon presents its advanced physics component (appearance and disappearance), or even simultaneous appearance.
This adds a total complexity to the subject, which does not prevent us from continuing to try to glimpse the question of the UFO presence and its operational development.
Already in 2001, the colleague from Rio Ceballos pointed out:
“Today we know more about the structure of the geographic-temporal activity (the development, composition and behavior of the Waves on the ground)…we have been able to identify new Groupings of Activity Pulses (Waves) in the past, which remained ignored or confused. Now we know better the Typical Profile of the activity curve of the Waves, the Periods of occurrence, the relationships with the Activity, etc.” (QUOTE 6)
Díaz has always worked on this type of probabilistic studies, with notable success. (QUOTE 7)
Likewise, the notable Argentine ufological pioneer Oscar Uriondo, pointed out to us in his work “The intentionality in UFO behavior”, some aspects related to the displacement of the same, which are also related to their temporal continuity before us.
The situation of not being able to determine “where the UFO goes when it moves away”, is one of the most frustrating.
All this puts us in a position of helplessness, a notorious inability to understand the essence of the phenomenon.
Studies on temporal and spatial presence in Argentina have just begun.
The bombastic headlines of some, collapse like a house of cards, when we confront them with concrete data.
It is time for new generations of true researchers to emerge, to counteract such promoters of misinformation and confusion.
Today, from the Cruz del Sur UFO Project (quote 8), with regional studies as one of its objectives, we will continue to expand our knowledge on this very interesting subject of Ufology.
Carlos Ferguson
The author: He the first advisor to the Argentine Air Force (2011 to 2017) in Ufology. Carlos Ferguson works in the Logistics areas of the Ministry of Education (Province of Buenos Aires – Argentina), and administrative tasks. 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, had a close encounter no more than 35 meters away with a disc-shaped UFO. 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.
QUOTES
QUOTE 1: Some time ago, a former ufologist from the Old World, reading one of my books (Pilots), disparaged it, claiming that “the author did not investigate all the cases.” Incredibly, he himself has written books with statistics that, by the way, he never investigated thoroughly. Claiming such nonsense as a requirement is another way of discouraging studies and work.
QUOTE 2: “The scientific problem of UFOs” – Oscar A. Uriondo – Plus ultra, p.86, Buenos Aires, 1968)
QUOTE 3: “Unusual phenomena in space” – Jacques and Janine Vallée – Editorial Pomaire, p.125, 1966.
QUOTE 4: Ufology Bulletin No. 26 – October 1999 – Editorial, Lic. Ángel Díaz.
QUOTE 5: “Clusters of UFO Activity Pulses”, Angel Diaz – Ufology Bulletin No. 51 – May 2006.
QUOTE 6: Ufology Bulletin No. 31 – Lic. Angel Diaz, Editorial – May 2001.
QUOTE 7: “UFO Activity: The Complexity of Periods”, Editorial by Lic. Angel Diaz – Ufology Bulletin No. 16, December 1996. In this article, Diaz predicted the wave of 2002, and not only that, but he labeled it a “big wave” (which it was), and all 6 years before it happened!
QUOTE 8: Cruz del Sur UFO Project – Details: