The event will take place at the National Press Club, a space traditionally associated with official statements and relevant debates
It has been 30 years since the news of the appearance of a supposed extraterrestrial in Varginha (MG) emerged. Since then, ufologists have used the episode as one of the pillars of their thesis that beings from other planets visit Earth. It is not difficult to imagine the size of the challenge: convincing the public of something that, for the majority, belongs more to the field of imagination than to evidence. The question persists: where is the evidence?
Taking advantage of the symbolism of the episode’s three decades, the movement’s organizers found an ingenious way to reposition the debate. On January 20, a press conference is scheduled in Washington to discuss the case. It’s not just about talking about Varginha’s ET again, but about covering the topic with traits of respectability capable of reducing initial resistance.
Persuasive communication
Nothing there seems casual. The event will take place at the National Press Club, a space traditionally associated with official statements and relevant debates. The organizer is documentary filmmaker James Fox, a well-known figure in UFO circles. These two elements, local and mediator, function as symbolic seals of credibility. Even before any argument, the scenario already suggests seriousness.
Persuasive communication teaches that when central arguments are weak or controversial, the strategy is often to reinforce them by accumulation. No decisive proof is presented; several pieces are presented simultaneously. It’s the effect of alluvium. Therefore, in addition to old reports, the event brings together the testimony of a Brazilian neurosurgeon and three young people who claim to have seen the creature: Liliane Silva, Kátia Xavier and Valquíria Silva. The professional title, added to the multiplicity of testimonies, seeks to compensate for the lack of objective proof.
Details that turn into arguments
The script continues with the evocation of facts that lend gravity to the episode: the mobilization of the Fire Department, the actions of the police, the isolation of the area. Added to this is the death of police officer Marco Eli Chereze, who participated in the investigations and died days later, supposedly as a result of an infection caused by contact with the being. Even without conclusive proof, the mere mention of it creates an emotional field that is difficult to ignore.
Another revealing point appears in the declared intention to pressure the United States Congress to evaluate the “evidence” presented. Here, language operates a subtle slippage. Pressuring is not participating. Congress appears as the symbolic target of the action, not as a confirmed actor. Still, for the hasty reader, and this is almost always how it is read, the association can suggest institutional involvement, as if parliamentarians were already at the center of the discussion.
Science explains
This type of narrative construction is supported by consolidated studies on belief and rationalization. American historian of science Michael Shermer, in Brain and beliefnotes that “intelligent people believe strange things because they have a better talent for rationalizing their beliefs for unintelligent reasons.” Intelligence, in this case, does not function as an antidote against error, but as an instrument to defend one’s own conviction.
Due to the need for intellectual protection, the individual starts to look for arguments that reinforce their thesis, even if they are fragile or unlikely. It is not about evaluating evidence neutrally, but about preserving a narrative that has already been accepted internally. Effective communication explores exactly this point: it offers enough elements for each person to construct, on their own, the justification they need to continue believing.
A curious debate
Regardless of whether or not you believe in Varginha’s ET, the organization of the event offers a clear study of how communication can shape perceptions even on highly controversial topics. The care with the setting, the choice of voices, the narrative construction and the calculated use of ambiguity show that, even in the face of incredulity, the form can precede the content.
The statements will be carefully prepared. The answers to press questions are predictable. The objective is not to end the debate, but to keep it alive, increase support and, little by little, move the topic from the field of improbability to that of reasonable doubt.
It’s not about aliens. It’s about how language, when used well, can make space even for what seemed impossible to take seriously. The question is not whether there is life outside Earth, but at what point do we start taking any narrative seriously when it comes packaged with the right symbols.
Follow on Instagram: @polito
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
