Parasociology

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (part 4)

2011-12-05T11:59:00.000-05:00

This post continues the analysis of the qualitative dimension of El-Zeitoun events of 1968-1971.

The Clouds and Smell of Incense

The New York Times article of 5 May 1968, one of the few mainstream newspaper outside Egypt publishing on the events, noted that “on three other recent occasions the apparition was seen and each time was preceded by the appearance of shining white clouds shaped like doves” [1]. This short comment is instructive, as it shows that the “light birds” were also understood as being clouds by some witnesses. But there was another phenomenon involving clouds where the entire sky above the church was covered with clouds, and it was also accompanied by a smell of incense.

Palmer reported that "one should, perhaps, include as 'lights' the mysterious clouds that are sometimes seen to hover high above the church even when the rest of the sky is cloudless. On one night, Bishop Gregorius stated, there poured from the sealed stained-glass windows of the high dome, such clouds of incense that it would take 'millions' of censers to produce a like quantity. The incense cloud settled over the throng standing around the church" [2]. Bayless adds a few more details in noting that “he [Bishop Gregorius] describes the appearance of clouds of deep reddish incense which billowed in huge quantities. It rose to a height of 30 to 60 feet and was clearly visible above and around the church against a colorless sky” [3].

Zaki described that “sometimes clouds like a thick fog would roll in towards the church as if they were being channeled down the streets in all directions to completely cover the church. They seemed to absorb the incense and its fragrance and carry it to the crowd of people and spread it over them like a canopy… The sky above would turn to a deep reddish-purple…” [4]. She also added that this it was a pleasant fragrance [5].

Michel Nil interviewed Father Boutros, the parish priest of Zeitoun, in 1978. He noted that there was at various occasions clouds accompanied with thunder and a smell of incense [6]. Finally, in an interview in 1980, a witness (Mona Mikhael) told Bayless that “other times we used to see clouds of incense. First, you would see a type of white cloud and it would cover all the church, all the area surrounding the church from above. […] I never smelled anything like it in all my life. It was a very, very beautiful odor. The cloud remained for 10 or 15 minutes and disappeared” [7].

This unusual phenomenon remains difficult to explain, but it is not unprecedented. For instance, during the 1906 earthquake of Valparaiso in Chile, “other spectators saw red-violet patches in the sky during the earthquake” [8], which can be linked to the “violet low-level oscillation of air molecules or the emission of ignited gases from fissures in the ground during earthquakes” [9]. Such events seem also to have common characteristics with what has been termed “electrochemical glow discharge”. As Devereux mentioned in his research on earthlights and seismic activity, “through various electrochemical reactions the expulsion of considerable amounts of gas into the air (bubbling through groundwater or out of fissure in the ground) accompanied by pungent chlorine or sulphurous smells could be caused. Such smells have been noted by witnesses involved with earthquakes, ball lightning and UFOs” [10]. (For specific examples, please see UFO Evidence).

We have here another indication that seismic activity might have contributed to the overall events at Zeitoun. The production of large quantities of gas, and the red-violet color associated with such clouds point in that direction. Yet, the issue of a pleasant smell of incense instead of the foul odor of chlorine or sulfur remains problematic. It is particularly problematic in that incense is, by definition, a substance void of sulfur.

Some might argue that given the euphoric state of the witnesses, who were also believers, their capacity to judge smell was impaired, and they projected a more consistent religious meaning to the smell they experienced. This may be so, but there were many other people (non-believers) who would have reported something else. In fact, a smell of sulfur or chlorine might have caused a panic in the crowd. Others may invoke phantosmia (olfactory hallucination) and parosmia (distorted sense of smell), but these conditions are usually linked to head injury and respiratory infections. This explanation would require that Egypt was undergoing an epidemic of such health conditions, something that is quite improbable.

Another possibility would be that all those who reported on the Zeitoun events have censured their reports about unpleasant smell, because it would not point towards a divine event. Yet, as there are no data pointing in such direction, one has to look somewhere else.

It is clear that religious experiences are at times associated with “smell of holiness”. In the Roman Catholic world, one pays attention to “the sign of ‘sweet odor,’ a phenomenon in which the body or the tomb of a saint emits a sweet odor. In the Old Testament, a sweet-smelling odor was a metaphor used to indicate a person pleasing to God and holy in His eyes. Usually, the odor is unique and cannot be compared to any known perfume. Cardinal Lambertini posited that while a human body may not smell bad, it is highly unlikely, especially in the case of a dead body, for it to smell sweet. Therefore, any odor of sweetness would have to be induced by a supernatural power and be classified as miraculous” [11]. This is certainly a good description of what the believers in Zeitoun were thinking, even if it was not about the body of a saint. This explanation, however, is beyond rational proof.

Lastly, there is the possibility of a collectively shared clairalience psi experience (acquiring information through smell outside normal means). It would be tantamount to Warcollier’s famous studies of collective telepathic experiences through “contagion” [12]. But there is very little research on the topic beyond compilations of anecdotal accounts. So, in the end the jury is still out, but the smell of fragrance is definitely one of the anomalous dimensions of the Zeitoun events that seismic activity cannot account for.

Phosphorescent-like luminosity

Another common qualitative description was some sort of glowing aura or phosphorescent-like luminosity in the sky and around the church. Palmer reported that "the large dome atop the church is sometimes illuminated by the heavenly lights, and on one occasion, as described by Bishop Samuel, the light which poured out from beneath one of the smaller domes gradually covered the entire church in light" [13]. Michel Nil, from his 1978 interviews, was told by Ragaï Louis that he saw the church illuminated from above as if it was from a fluorescent light [14], while Victor Fakhri described the same phenomenon as a phosphorous light on the church’s wall and dome [15]. As well, witness Sami Goubran described a very strong light, as if it was “a million of watts,” emanating from the church and lightening up the entire neighbourhood [16]. Bayless was told by the witness Mona Mikhael that “another time…like the sky was open. A very, very wide kind of light. Not very radiant” [17].

Yet again, this type of phenomenon is associated with seismic activities. Devereux noted that “streamers and aurorae-like displays across the sky, balls of light, glows in the atmosphere, sparkles of light on hillsides, ‘slow’ lightning – and occur in association with, but by no means all, earthquakes. They appear before, during and after quake activity, and sometimes at distances of tens of miles from the epicentre of such seismicity” [18].

The issue is becoming a familiar one. Indeed the witnesses’ descriptions reinforce the notion that the events of Zeitoun were enabled by seismic activity, but they can hardly explain why such luminosity was centered on the church for an extended period of time.

Scintillating lights, “stars”, and other precursors to the apparition

As it was already mentioned before, the main apparition was oftentimes preceded by sparklingly lights. As Palmer noted, "the light have been described by spectators as 'a circle of bright spotlights' on one occasion; as 'falling stars' on another occasion, and even as a 'shower of diamonds of light' swirling in the path of Our Lady's movements. A brilliant crown, all of lights, has been seen over the figure of Our Lady, giving her a majestic and glorious appearance" [19]. Zaki witnesses a similar phenomenon, as she wrote that “on my fifth night at about 4:15 a.m. I saw four yellow flashes or flames covering the front of the church. Following this about 4.30 Virgin Mary appeared ‘full figure’”[20]. She added in a different text, “again I saw a flash of yellowish-orange light shape like a big flame and covering the whole front of the church and lasting about five seconds. It was repeated twice (four times in all)…” [21]. Hilda Goubran told Michel Nil in 1978 that at the time of the apparitions there was stars and pigeons associated with the apparitions [22]. Anzy Morid told Bayless in a 1981 interview that he saw “sparkling lights” prior to the apparition in April 1968 [23].

Once more, Devereux in his study of light phenomenon associated with seismic activity quotes a report from the 1872 edition of Nature that his reminiscent of Zaki’s observations: “[…] following the great earthquake shock of a Californian earthquake recent to 1872, two witnesses observed ‘sheets of flame on the rocky sides of the Inuyo Mountains’ about half a mile from the Eclipse Mines. ‘These flames, observed in several places,’ the report continue, ‘waved to and fro, apparently clear of the ground, like vast torches. They continued for only a few minutes” [24]. Further, he quote a report from a 1902 paper in Nature discussing “flickering flashes” associated with eruption of Mont Pelee [25].

There are other analogous phenomena associated with the pre-apparitional phase that could be highlighted. For instance, Therese Gadallah told Michel Nil that she saw a large red ball transforming itself into the Virgin made of white light [26], and Vivian Goubran made the same observation about a red ball [27]. The Nature article of 1902 about Mont Pelee eruption also noted a large red ball in the sky [28]. A number of witnesses also described the pre-apparition phase as being a shining column of light transforming itself into the Virgin [29]. Similarly, rays and beams of light were also noticed with seismic activities [30].

The description by witnesses of the events surrounding pre-apparitional moments are quite diverse in nature, but they all have counterparts in descriptions of light-related phenomena associated with seismic and earth activities. These represent further indications that there is a valid correlation between earthquakes in Egypt noted by Persinger and the Zeitoun events. But this also raises additional questions about why such a vast array of earth-based phenomena, which tend to occur separately in one off events, are concentrated geographically and qualitatively around that church in Cairo’s suburbs? Clearly, geology and physics do not have any sound answer to offer for such improbable combination of events.

The next post, moving away from the earthquake-light phenomena nexus, will look into the apparitions as described by the witnesses.

Notes for Part 4

[1] New York Times. (1968) “Visions Of Virgin Reported In Cairo”, New York Times, Sunday, May 5.

[2] Palmer, J. (1969). Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ., p. 12.

[3] Bayless, Raymond. (1981). "Marian Apparitions at Zeitun, Cairo," Journal of the Southern California Society for Psychical Research, p. 10.

[4] Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi, p. 12.

[5] Idem.

[6] Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Ed. Tequi, p. 72.

[7] Bayless, pp. 27-28.

[8] Devereux, Paul. (1989). Earth Lights Revelation. London: Blandford, p. 22.

[9] Devereux, p. 24.

[10] Devereux, p. 51.

[11] Rev. William Saunders. (2006). “The Question of Incorruptibility”. Arlington Catholic Herald, [reproduced online at http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0839.htm], access 28 November 2011.

[12] Warcollier, R. (1928). L’accord télépathique. Revue métapsychique, 4, 286-306; and Warcollier, R. (1962). La contagion mentale au groupe télépathique. Revue métapsychique, (sole issue of 1962), 37-43.

[13] Palmer, p. 12.

[14] Nil, p. 43.

[15] Nil, p. 85.

[16] Nil, p. 76.

[17] Bayless, p. 27.

[18] Devereux, p. 19.

[19] Palmer, p. 12.

[20] Zaki, p. 7.

[21] Zaki quoted in Johnston, Francis. (1980). Zeitoun (1968-1971): When Millions Saw Mary. Chulmleigh, England: Augustine Pub, p. 21.

[22] Nil, p. 83.

[23] Bayless, p. 29.

[24] Devereux, p. 21.

[25] Devereux, p. 24.

[26] Nil, p. 78.

[27] Nil, p. 80.

[28] Devereux, p. 24.

[29] See Bayless, p. 24; Kamel, Youssef G., John P. Jackson & Rebecca Jackson. (1996). A Lady of Light Appears in Egypt. Colorado Springs: St. Mark's Avenue Press, p. 77, 79.

[30] Devereux, p. 24.

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (Part 3)

2011-10-31T14:56:00.001-04:00

The events of Zeitoun - the qualitative view

As discussed in the previous post, it is difficult to depict an accurate picture of the events of Zeitoun in terms of their objective scope and magnitude. However, the existing written material provides a relatively rich corpus describing the qualitative dimension of the events. Although this corpus was essentially created by believers, it is significant enough to offer important points of reference for anyone interested in analyzing the events, even from a non-religious perspective. However, to be able to use this material properly, the non-religious perspective needs first to be put in its proper perspective.

The most significant criticism put forward against the religious interpretation of the events was the article published by Persinger and Derr, which attributes the anomalous activities to geomagnetism, in light of the tectonic strain theory [1]. Persinger and Derr were able to establish a relatively significant correlation between seismic activities in the region and the events in Zeitoun.

This criticism is important as it provides an important clue to understand what happened in Zeitoun, but it is far from being enough to close the case, as a pseudo-sceptic article written by Bartholomew and Goode implies [2]. Persinger and Derr’s article is problematic on a number of levels. First, as discussed in the previous post, the exact number and dates of occurrence for the apparitions at Zeitoun are not known, and hence their correlation analysis could only be done with a very incomplete dataset. Second, as Persinger admits, the tectonic strain theory cannot account for specific anomalous occurrences, but only for clusters of occurrences [3]. Last, but not least is how one can account for a geomagnetic phenomenon happening nearly one hundred times, at the same place, over a three year period, and only at night? Any answer to this question is clearly beyond the tectonic strain theory.

If the religious interpretation of events is not satisfying for those who are not taking a religious approach, it is also clear that a pseudo-sceptic interpretation where the tectonic strain theory is stretch beyond its explanatory power is not warranted either.

What can be proposed, however, is that geomagnetism provides an important enabling condition for the phenomenon to occur, but it is not sufficient in itself to fully explain the phenomenon. As discussed previously on this blog, electromagnetism and geomagnetism oftentimes tend to be associated with UFO and psi events [4]. It is in this context that the qualitative descriptions of the events of Zeitoun are useful, as they point towards the notion that geomagnetism was indeed involved, but that “something else” needs to be included in the explanation. That “something else” might actually be what has been discussed on this blob, and elsewhere, as a “social psi” effect [5]. But first, let’s look at the qualitative data.

There are six main qualitative aspects than can be identified about the Zeitoun events: (a) the so-called light “birds”, (b) the smell of incense, (c) the clouds, (d) phosphorescent-like luminosity, (e) the scintillating lights or “stars”, and (f) the main luminescent object (i.e. the apparition).

The light “birds”

Many witnesses reported that there were luminous objects that traveled through the sky of Zeitoun [6], which were at first construed as “birds” but were clearly not birds. Their actual nature remains unknown to this day. They were described as follow:

"Another phenomenon witnessed by the spectators is the appearance of bird-like creatures before, during, and after the apparitions, and sometimes on nights when there is no apparition at all. These creatures in some ways resemble doves. They are larger than doves; they are larger even than pigeons. Whence they come or whither they go no one can determine. It is known, says the keeper of the Cairo zoo, that pigeons do not fly at night. But these can hardly be any kind of natural bird.

First of all they fly much too rapidly. They fly without ever moving their wings. (Only one spectator interviewed thought he saw one bird flap its wings.) They seem to glide before, into, and around the apparitions. They never come to rest on the roof or trees, and on some occasions have been seen to disintegrate in the sky like wisps of cloud.

Varying in number on different nights, they have appeared singly, in twos, threes, and larger groups. Always in some kind of formation, the creatures fly in triangle, sometimes in the formation of a cross. Once twelve of them flew six abreast in two rows.

Not only are these birds spotless white; they themselves emit light. They are like electrically illuminated birds which can be seen both in the brilliant light of the apparition and in the darkness of the sky above the apparition. They disappear as mysteriously as they appear and without sound of any kind."[7]

Another description is from Bishop Gregorius on the apparitions that took place between 27 April and 15 May 1968:

“Before the apparitions took place some birds that look like pigeons--I don't know what they are--appear in different formations. Sometimes two appear on the dome just as if they had come out of it. However, the dome is closed; the windows do not open. They might be seen flying eastward, then wheeling about and flying to the west, and while one watches them, they suddenly disappear. […]

They do not flap their wings; they glide. In a flash they appeared; and disappear the same way. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They stay quite near and are close to the church when they vanish. Whatever formation they take, they keep. Sometimes as many as seven of them fly in the formation of a cross. They appear and disappear in this formation. They fly very swiftly. They are not light on one side, but are completely lighted. One does not see feathers at all--just something lighted. They are radiating creatures, larger in size than a dove or a pigeon. Sometimes as one of them flies lower, it gets larger and larger. People realize these are not pigeons." [8]

Lastly, let’s mention that there is a famous photograph of these “birds” taken by Wagih Risk (shown below). However, the photograph was analyzed in detail by Vern Miller of the Brooks Institute of Photography of Santa Barbara, California in the 1990s, and it became clear that although it was a genuine picture of the phenomenon, the individual object’s shape is likely to have been altered to look like “birds” [9].

In themselves, these objects seem unexplainable, but if one keeps in mind that in April and May 1968 there was significant seismologic activity in Egypt [10], then a different picture emerges. Strange lights in formation have been noted in the Idu Peninsula (Japan) during the earthquakes of November 1930 and in 1957 during an earthquake in Leicestershire, England [11]. It is interesting to note that some of the early UFO sightings involving some sort of “flight formations” have an earthquake dimension as well. The famous Lubbock sighting of 25 August 1951, in northern Texas, were interpreted by some as being “birds”[12], and there was some significant seismic activity in the area in June of the same year [13]. The famous Washington D.C. sightings of 19-20 July 1952, where UFOs in formation were observed on radar screen, occurred just one day before a major earthquake in California with a magnitude of 7.6 [14]. Another case is the one of a pilot who saw seven objects in formation while flying between New Zealand and Australia on 13 January 1965 [15], which occurred at the same time of a wave of earthquakes in New Zealand [16]. More recently, UFO flight formations were reported in Chile on 12 and 25 September 2011 [17]; there was also a 5.9 earthquake near the coast of Chile on 14 September 2011, and another one of 5.6 magnitude on 28September 2011 [18].

Lastly, we can compare the “flight formations” of Zeitoun to the description of the famous UFO sighting of Kenneth Arnold of 24 June 1947. As Devereux noted,

“a brilliant flash of light occurred, centered on an area where Arnold saw nine bright lights. These traveled in an undulating fashion between (in all) three peaks of the Cascade mountains, hugging the terrain, frequently giving off brilliant blue-white flashes, usually preceding a change of motion. As Arnold obtained a closer view of them, the lights showed themselves to be generally discoid in shape, though with variations which may have been due to shape-changing characteristics, or difficulty of definition at long distances on Arnold’s part. The light varied in intensity, and maintained a rough formation. […] The location where the incident took place also speaks volumes. The Cascades Mountains are located directly on a tectonic plate margin.” [19]

A number of preliminary remarks need to be made here, before going further. It is clear that the science of earth-generated luminous objects is still in its infancy. Persinger proposed what he called the “tectonic strain theory” to explain the presence of luminous objects in the sky, as discussed above. The tectonic strain theory allows for objects to be seen far away from the epicenter of a seismic event, and it can happen a few days before or after such event. On the other hand, Devereux and his earthlight theory can only account for light near a geological fault. Both theories are based on different assumptions, and so they are not mutually exclusive but both have a limited empirical base to support themselves.

From a qualitative standpoint, the so-called “birds“ flying in formation share interesting resemblances with UFO events that occurred in space or time where geomagnetism seems to be more active than normal. This does not mean in any way or fashion that those “birds” should be considered as coming from outer space. Quite to the contrary, it points to a common enabling set of conditions that is generated from the Earth.

Yet, as stated above, both the tectonic strain theory and the earth light theory cannot account for the concentrated nature of the Zeitoun events. To have “birds” flying in formation at the exact same place for months is beyond pure geophysics. As well, why luminous lights would travel in formation is also beyond the explanatory power of these two theories.

The study of the qualitative dimension will be continued in the next post.

Notes for part 3

[1] As proposed by Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr. (1989). “Geophysical variables and behavior: LIV. Zeitoun (Egypt) apparitions of the Virgin Mary as tectonic strain-induced luminosities”. Perception and Motor Skills 68(1): 123-128.

[2] Bartholomew, Robert E. and Erich Goode. (2000). “Mass delusions: prominent cases over the last 5 centuries”. Skeptical Inquirer 24(3). [On line at http://www.skeptically.org/skepticism/id11.html], accessed 17 Aug 2011.

[3] Persinger, Michael A. (1985). “Geophysical variables and behavior: XXVI. A response to Rutkowski's critique of the tectonic strain hypothesis for UFO phenomena”. Perception and Motor Skills 60(2): 575-582.

[4] For a substantive discussion on this issue, please refer to “The Materiality of UFOs” on Internet at: http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20090308225/Ufological-Information/The-Materiality-Of-UFOs.html

[5] Ouellet, Eric. (2011). “Social Psi and Parasociology”. Australian Journal of Parapsychology 11(1): 73-88.

[6] Among others see Palmer, Jerome. (1969). Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ.; Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Ed. Tequi; Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi.

[7] Palmer, pp. 12-13.

[8] Palmer, pp. 24-26.

[9] Kamel, Youssef G., John P. Jackson & Rebecca Jackson. (1996). A Lady of Light Appears in Egypt. Colorado Springs: St. Mark's Avenue Press, p. 223.

[10] See Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr.

[11] Devereux, Paul. (1989). Earth Lights Revelation. London: Blandford, pp. 22.

[12] Clark, Jerome. (1988). "The Lubbock Lights", in The UFO Book. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, pp. 342-350.

[13] Northrop, Stuart A. and Allan R. Sanford. (1972). “Earthquakes of Northeastern New Mexico

and the Texas Panhandle”. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 23: 148-160.

[14] See Housner, G.W. (1953). “Analysis of the Taft accelerogram of the earthquake of 21 July 1952”. Office of Naval Research, 5^th Technical Report (N6 onr-244). Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, p. 16.

[15] See http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/content/1965---Pilots-Sight-%E2%80%98V-shaped%E2%80%99-UFO-Formation/83.aspx

[16] Gibowicz, S. J. (1974). “Two earthquake swarms on the Kermadec Ridge”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 17(4): 913-927.

[17] See http://onlysecrecy.com/videos/latest-ufo-videos/ufo-sighted-over-santiago-chile-25th-sep-2011/4316/

[18] From a query on IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions of Seismology) at http://www.iris.edu/data/.

[19] Devereux, p. 54.

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (Part 2)

2011-10-12T18:01:00.000-04:00

The data issue

The events that occurred in Zeitoun, Egypt, are now over 40 years old. This makes it an historical case. Although many witnesses should still be alive today, they could be quite hard to find (and it would certainly be costly to try to find them out). Furthermore, as shown by the field investigation conducted by Michel Nil [1] in 1978, only 10 years after the events, many witnesses could not remember some key details such as the dates that the anomaly occurred. Hence, conducting a field investigation, at this point in time, would be of dubious value, and so focussing on existing material remains the most sensible option.

The written data is, surprisingly, also difficult to find. Although there are many Internet sites that discuss the events, they are taking their information pretty much from the same source; an Internet site maintained by a group of believers linked to the Coptic Orthodox Church at www.zeitun-eg.org. Like in the case of UFO websites, many unsubstantiated claims are uncritically carried from one website to the next. The case in point is the alleged visit to St. Mary’s Church in Zeitoun by the then Egyptian president Nasser [2]. According to Michel Nil, there are also few publications in Arabic about the Zeitoun events, and most of them are relatively short brochures [3]. The situation of publications in other languages is not much better [4].

In this context, the literature in English and French on the topic can be considered as a representative source of data for this study. After reviewing this literature it appears that there are only few substantive original sources that document the events: (a) the English version of the report from the Coptic Church investigation [5], (b) Jerome Palmer’s 1969 book Our Lady returns to Egypt [6], Francis Johnston’s When Millions Saw Mary [7], and (d) Pearl Zaki’s Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969 [8]. It is to be noted that these texts were produced by believers, and that their intent was less about providing a detailed documentation of the events, and more about “proving” that the phenomenon was indeed a manifestation of the Virgin Mary. But it is also important to note that the notion of “proof” for these believers has a somewhat different meaning that in the scientific context.

Although they documented objective aspects like the description of the events, the miraculous cures, statements from the authorities, and newspaper clippings, the focus is very much on the witnesses’ inner experience of seeing the Virgin Mary. This focus should not surprise anyone, as any religious belief is fundamentally based on mystical experience (this is quite similar to many UFO books, which are written by believers in the ETH, and have a narrative constructed to “prove” the ETH by focussing on technological aspects). Lastly, let’s underline that these publications also cover with great care the process of official acknowledgement by the Coptic religious authorities (once more, the parallel with UFO books is striking, except that the authorities in this case reject the acknowledgement of the ETH as an explanation, so the believers continue to lobby for recognition, and a spend a lot of energy trying to show that there is a significant cover-up).

Once more, given that such anomalies tend to put the mainstream press and scientific establishment in an uncomfortable position, ignoring the events is a preferred strategy for these people who have greater access to the public discursive space. This explains why only believers do care writing about such anomalies. Other texts about Zeitoun add a few more details and a few more original interviews with witnesses, but they are largely built on either one of the main sources listed above. Furthermore, the limited amount of sources about these very public events is likely due to both linguistic challenges, and Western-centric and pro-Roman Catholic attitudes.

The events occurred in an Arabic-speaking country, making the collection of data quite difficult for most researchers who are not fluent in Arabic. But more important, the events occurred in the context of Orthodox Christianity, not Roman Catholicism, and most researchers in Marian studies are either priest in the Catholic Church or at least grew-up in a Catholic environment. If one acknowledges that the Virgin was indeed paying substantive attention to the Orthodox Church, then the Roman Catholic claim of being the “only true religion” can be indirectly challenged. Furthermore, these apparitions were not “typical”, in that they were no communication between the entity and one or a few young people (usually teenage girls). In fact, there was no obvious message communicated in Zeitoun. These factors are likely to make the events “less interesting” for those who are working within the “normal” frames of reference found in Marian studies, something that Michel Nil also noted [9]. A parallel can be made with UFO research where a great deal of writing can be found on a very thin case like Roswell, while a very well documented and fascinating case like the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1990 is essentially ignored outside the French-speaking world. Clearly, what makes an anomaly worth of interest is very much dependent on social and cultural factors rather than the intrinsic “objective” qualities of the phenomenon.

Lastly, let’s note that there is at least one advantage of doing a research on an historical case many years after the fact: there is another and much more recent case that can be used for comparison purpose. On 11 December 2009, in a neighbourhood of Giza (not far from Cairo) a similar apparition occurred and it was filmed in color. It is usually referred to as the “Lady of Warraq”, and the film is easily accessible on the Internet [10]. What is found in that film (made from a cell phone camera) matches a number of pictures taken during the Zeitoun events as well as many descriptions that were transcribed in a various written sources. More on this particular event in a later post.

The events of Zeitoun – the quantitative view

Among the surprises I had researching this case is that there is no complete list of apparitions. The Coptic Church investigation identified 27 apparitions during the period of 2 April 1968 to 4 May 1968, with a number of nights having more than one apparition occurring [11]. Other sources noted that there was a decline in the number of apparitions throughout 1968 to one or two a week [12]. The frequency went down to once a month by early 1970, according to Johnston [13]. However, based on Zaki’s research, between 21 August 1969 and 11 June 1971 there were 17 apparitions [14]. According to Johnston, the last apparition occurred on 29 May 1971 [15].

In light of this rather sketchy data, if one makes a count there should have been over 90 apparitions, although the period going from mid-1968 to mid 1969 had to be extrapolated based on qualitative comments [16].

The Count:

2 April - 4 May 1968: 27

5 May - Mid-1969: 50 (?)
Mid-1969-mid 1971: 17

Approximate total: 94 apparitions

I had to build from scratch a list of apparitions using information found in the various documents consulted. I have only 34 apparitions that I can link to a specific source, roughly 36% of the estimated total. They are:

Date	Sources
2 April 1968	Many (Among others, Zaki pp. 4-5)
3 April 1968	Brune, p. 7
6-7 April 1968	Kamell et al., p. 56; Nil, p. 117
8-9 April 1968	Palmer, p. 15, Kamell et al., p. 60; Nil, p. 114
10 April 1968	Bayless, p. 7, Kamell et al. P. 66; Nil, p. 115
11 April 1968	Brune, p. 8; Nil, p. 115
12 April 1968	Nelson, p. 6; Nil, p. 115
13 April 1968	Johnston, p. 6; Nil, p. 44
19 April 1968	Bayless, p. 25
27 April 1968	Johnston, p. 7
29-30 April 1968	Palmer, p. 21; Johnston, p. 19; Bayless, p. 9; Nil, p. 115
4-5 May 1968	Johnston, p. 5; Bayless, p. 10; Kamell et al. P. 71
6-7 May 1968	Palmer, p. 32
9 May 1968	Palmer, p. 35
13 May 1968	Johnston, p. 29
15 May 1968	Johnston, p. 7
28 May 1968	Palmer, p. 50
30 May 1968	Johnston, p. 28
31 May 1968	Bayless, p. 24
1 June 1968 (2 app)	Palmer, p. 48; Johnston, p. 8; Bayless, p. 10
4 June 1968	Nil, p. 98
8-9 June 1968	Johnston, p. 5; Bayless, p. 9
13 August 1968	Zaki, p. 7
15 August 1968	Nil, p. 80
11 September 1968	Nil, p. 80
6 October 1968	Nil, p. 120
5 January 1969	Palmer, p. 32
4 April 1969	Egyptian Gazette
6 January 1970	Johnston, p. 25
14 February 1970	Johnston, p. 25
6 March 1970	Johnston, p. 25
12 September 1970	Johnston, p. 25
29 May 1971	Johnston, p. 25

Another issue about this count is what is actually meant by “apparition”. The phenomenon was not consistent in its visible characteristics. It ranged from the “full-blow” apparition to only a subset of it. For instance, Johnston states that the phenomenon was:

"generally preceded by mysterious lights, flashing and scintillating silently over the church like a canopy of shooting stars. One witness described them as a 'shower of diamonds made of light'. [...] Minutes later, formations of luminous doves would appear and fly around the floodlit church. Eyewitnesses described them as 'strange bird-like creatures made of light' which flew with astonishing swiftness without moving their wings. They always maintained a definite formation and disappeared suddenly like melted snowflakes. Shortly after, a blinding explosion of light would engulf the church roof. As it dwindled, it shaped itself into the brilliant form of Our Lady. Invariably, she would be seen in a long white robe and veil of bluish-white light [17].

Zaki met a nun who counted 17 “apparitions” for the period between mid-1969 to mid-1971, while she also counted luminous birds on 24 nights, and lights, stars and other luminous phenomena on 85 nights for that same period [18].This illustrates quite well that the count is very much dependent on how the various witnesses defined the notion of “apparition”. Hence, the above count should be taken as an illustration more than as a reliable count.

It is also interesting to note, even if one should not be surprised by it, that the number of witnesses followed the general pattern of the apparitions. There were only a few witnesses the first day, as it was a completely unexpected event. It eventually grew to a very large gathering. Nil interviewed a witness stating that there were about 100 people on the night of 13 April 1968 [19]. Nelson estimated that there was between 1,000 and 1,500 people on 15 April 1968 [20]. After that the phenomenon was discussed for the first time in the mainstream press, through the 23 April 1968 article in the Arabic-language newspaper Watani , the crowd grew significantly. The Bishop Athanasius estimated that there were 100,000 people on the night of 29/30 April [21]. It finally reached an estimated 250,000 nightly onlookers after a few weeks, according to Johnston [22]. By the end of 1968, it was estimated that the crowed was down to 10,000 people nightly [23]. By June 1971, there were only a handful of people according to Zaki [24]. It should be noted that it is notoriously difficult to estimate properly the size of a crowd, especially at night, and the higher figure might have been over-estimated. However, this provides a good illustration that not only the phenomenon was a very public event, but also the interest in the phenomenon can be correlated directly with its intensity. Graphically, with the limited information available, the apparitions and crowd pattern for the entire 3-year period would have approximately the following shape:

Note that the crowd numbers are in increments of 10,000 people, and the time line in 3-months increment starting in February 1968 and ending in August 1971. Also, the apparent crowd decline preceding the apparition decline is only a product of the limited information available, and it should not be inferred from this graph.

From a quantitative view of the Zeitoun events, there are two additional observations that can be made with a fair degree certainty. First, the events seemed to have been very intense at the beginning (during April and May 1968), but started to decline sometime after the official investigation ended and the phenomenon was declared authentic by the Coptic Church on 5 May 1968. Second, the phenomenon was resilient enough to last for 3 years, with a declining cycle of occurrences and intensity.

References for Part 2

[1] Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Éditions Tequi.

[2] I could find only one source on this point, and it is an undated interview with an unnamed witness by Father François Brune about two undated visits by Nasser to Zeitoun. He apparently signed the Church’s Visitors book, but this book is now missing. From Brune, François. (2004). La Vierge de l'Égypte. Paris: Le jardin des livres, p. 21. Given the rather imprecise nature of this information, it is almost impossible to corroborate it.

[3] Nil, p. 113-114.

[4] DeVincenzo, Victor. (1988). "The apparitions at Zeitoun, Egypt (1968): an historical overview". Journal of Religion and Psychical Research 11(January): 3-14, p. 4.

[5] Gregorius, Bishop Anba. (1969). St. Mary's transfigurations at the Coptic Orthodox Church of Zeitun, Cairo. Cairo: al-Mahabba Bookshop.

[6] Palmer, J. (1969): Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ.

[7] Johnston, Francis. (1980). Zeitoun (1968-1971): When Millions Saw Mary. Chulmleigh, England: Augustine Pub,

[8] Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi.

[9] Nil, pp. 152-154.

[10] For internet links and references, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Warraq

[11] Anonymous. (1977). « Apparition miraculeuse de la Sainte Vierge à Zeitoun ». Le Monde copte, no. 1 [online at http://eocf.free.fr/text_zeitun_monde_copte.htm, consulted 2 September 2011]; Bayless, Raymond. (1981). "Marian Apparitions at Zeitun, Cairo," Journal of the Southern California Society for Psychical Research 2: 6-34, p. 8.

[12] Johnston, p. 19.

[13] Johnston, p. 25.

[14] Quoted in Bayless, p. 21.

[15] Johnston, p. 25.

[16] Based on the assumption of a gradual decline from twice a week to once a month, and calculated as twice a week for the first 3 months (26 occurrences), once a week for the next 3 months (13 occurrences), once every other week for another 3 months (about 7 occurrences), and once a month for the last 3 months (3 occurrences), an approximate total of 50 occurrences can be proposed for the period ranging from mid-1968 to mid-1969.

[17] Johnston, p. 4.

[18] Quoted in Bayless, p. 21.

[19] Nil, p. 44.

[20] Nelson, Cynthia. (1973). "The Virgin of Zeitoun". Worldview 16(9): 5-11, p. 5.

[21] Bayless, p. 16.

[22] Johnston, p. 5.

[23] Johnston, p. 19.

[24] Quoted in Bayless, p. 22.

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (Part 1)

2011-08-28T16:50:00.000-04:00

Introduction

On 2 April 1968 around 8:30 pm, a group of Muslim workers at a local public transit garage in a Northern suburb of Cairo known as El-Zeitoun noticed a woman on the top of St. Mary Coptic Church across the street. She appeared to be dressed in white, and they thought she was a nun (Brune, 2004: 7).They thought that she was about to commit suicide, and shouted at her to not jump. Nothing happened. Then, a few moments later a number of women who were walking in the street also noted the woman on the top of the Church, and one of them loudly exclaimed in Arabic that it was “Our Lady” (i.e. the Virgin Mary). At this time, one person ran to contact the emergency services while another one went to get the priest in charge of St. Mary Church, Father Youssef Ibrahim. There was now a crowd gathering in the street, enough to block traffic. But before the emergency services or the priest were able to see the “lady”, it disappeared. All this commotion lasted only a few minutes (Zaki, 1977: 4-5), but according to other accounts there was a second apparition around 3:00 am the same night (Brune, 2004, 7). What unfolded in the weeks and months to come became known as the Zeitoun Marian apparitions, eventually witnessed by thousands of people and leading to a formal recognition by the Coptic Church authorities of a true apparition.

Marian apparitions, or more accurately anomalistic events interpreted as Marian apparitions, are neither a new nor a marginal phenomenon. From the Fourth century to the present, there have been over 21,000 recorded Marian apparitions, and more than 200 of those occurred in the 20^th century (Horsfall, 2000: 375-376). Some of them can be qualified without a doubt as a “social events” given the number of witnesses, and the amount of press coverage received. In particular, let’s note the events in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917; Garabandal, Spain, in 1961; Medjugorje, Former Yougoslavia, 1981; and Lubbock, USA (Texas), in 1988. This type of events, irrespective of how they interpreted, fit well the notion of Socially Relevant Anomalies (SRA) [1]. Then, we can ask ourselves if Marian apparitions could be studied as expressions of social psi effects?

To answer this question, this article proposes a case study of the Zeitoun apparitions and proposes a parasociological analysis, similar to the analysis done of UFO waves, to assess whether the notion of social psi could be a useful one to look into SRA of the Marian type. First, an overall description of events and an assessment of their anomalistic nature are proposed. Then, the events are analyzed using the Model of Pragmatic Information to assess if the general notion psi can inform the unfolding of events. Finally, a parasociological analysis is done based on the five basic methodological criteria described in a previous post.

[1] In a previous post, I used the expression Socially Ostentatious Anomalies, but after suggestions from colleagues, the expression Socially Relevant Anomalies is more accurate, and will be used from now on.

Unashamed Self-Advertisement

2011-08-08T11:46:00.000-04:00

A shorter French version of the 1952 UFO case study, using von Lucadou’s MPI to analyze the data, has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Bulletin Métapsychique of the Associatation Métapsychique Internationale (AMI), France’s main parapsychological organization. The notice is:

Ouellet, Eric. (2011). « Le Modèle de l'information pragmatique et les OVNIs ». Bulletin Métapsychique 9 : 10-13.

It can be found here : AMI site

Also, some recent material from this blog has been transformed into an article and published in the peer-reviewed journal Australian Journal of Parapsychology, run by the Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, the main parapsychological organization in Australia. The notice is:

Ouellet, Eric. (2011). “Social Psi and Parasociology”. Australian Journal of Parapsychology 11(1): 73-88.

It will be available soon on: Informit

P.S. These journals own the copyrights on these articles, as it is the norm with academic journals. So, even if you order a copy, I do not get any royalty.

Fringe•ology – Book review

2011-07-22T12:18:00.000-04:00

This post is another review of a relatively new book, written by journalist Steve Volk on the paranormal and his experience of it. The full notice is:

Volk, Steve. ( 2011). Fringe·ology: How I tried to explain away the unexplainable – and couldn’t. New York: HarperOne, 321 p. ISBN: 978-0-06-185771-3

The majority of people who became interested in the paranormal may have started out of curiosity, but in the end, most of them are consciously, or not, engaging in some sort of spiritual quest. They try to make sense of themselves, others, their lives, the world, and their place in the world. This book is very much a reflection of this common path, but contrary to many books on the same topic it is very informative and well-balanced. I certainly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a sound and fair introduction to the paranormal.

A middle-of-the-road approach

Steve Volk’s book covers a number of topics related to the paranormal such as near-death experience, psi and remote viewing, consciousness and alternate perceptions of reality, UFOs, ghosts, prayer and meditation, and lucid dreaming. The main thread in the book is Volk’s quest for better understanding the paranormal, and particularly his own experience of living in a house “with a ghost”. The book is written for the larger public, where there are many personal descriptions of his encounters, discussions and interviews with key researchers in the broader field of the paranormal. Yet, along those descriptions, Volk introduces the reader to the main issues and challenges linked to a particular aspect of the paranormal, in a plain but informed language. Furthermore, the book has also at the end a list of sources for each chapter, with many of the key texts on the topic, showing that he did his homework.

The main message of the book is that when it comes to understanding the paranormal, a middle-of-the-road approach is the only one that is really helpful. In numerous occasions, Volk presents the views of the “extremists”, namely the reductionists and materialists’ view where there is nothing paranormal and the New Age view where anything is accepted uncritically as paranormal. Both ways lead to dead-ends. The reductionists miss important and well-documented evidence, and more importantly miss how relevant the paranormal might be in the life of many people. The New Agers, on the other hand, will construct views of life and the world that have little connections to reality, and where scammers of all shapes and colors can exploit people without any shame.

It is also interesting to read that the paranormal can be presented as something helpful and useful, not just a mere curiosity. People who experience near-death experience are oftentimes transformed for the rest of their life; people who practice meditation and prayer do find improvement in their life; lucid dreaming can indeed help people with serious psychological wounds such as PTSD, etc. Yet, Volk remains in the middle-of-the-road with these issues too. Maybe it is purely psychosomatic, maybe there is something else, but there is no way to know for sure. In such a situation where something does work but it is not understood, all we can do is to keep an open mind and try to understand. As Volk wrote, he wishes that the war between the “extremists” be over, so that we can study the paranormal free of the belief systems of both the debunkers and the New Agers, and yet in a way that is rigorous. I certainly share the same wish.

The UFO chapter

The chapter on UFOs is, unfortunately, weaker that the other ones. It is based essentially on Volk’s research and interviews with people involved in the Stephenville UFO incidents of 2008. Although the description of the events is informative and balanced, the main thrust is not really about UFOs, but about how a community came to interpret an unusual event as being either truly extraordinary or a misunderstanding. Volk shows well how the believers, the MUFON investigators and the debunking journalists, polarized the situation in a way where a middle-of-the-road approach could not really emerged. In the end, an informal truce was declared within Stephenville where people are “allowed” to accept either interpretation. This chapter certainly illustrates that paranormal events are also social constructions, and whether something is “declared” paranormal or prosaic is more dependent on social dynamics than on the actual evidence. The same analysis could have been done on a famous haunting story, which would be more in line with the other chapters of the book. So the UFO chapter, although not bad, is bit off topic.

Conclusion

The book concludes, in essence, that the paranormal is indeed a fringe aspect of reality, difficult to measure (most often not even measurable) but “real” enough to not go away. People can make the paranormal whatever they want because there are no ways to determine for sure what it is all about. In other words, it is a liminal phenomenon, stuck in between reality and fiction. If people can make the paranormal what they want, then why not making it into something useful, helpful and meaningful (without having to pay tons of money to a “guru” or a scammer to know how you should go about it). This is common sense, but when it comes to the paranormal, words of common sense need to be repeated often and loudly.

Overall, it is a well-written and well-research book on some aspects of the paranormal. It is written in a way that will please most readers, and keep them interested through the 321 pages. The author’s resolute stand for a middle-of-the-road approach is refreshing and much needed. I would not be surprise if this book is transformed into a television documentary about a journalist’s quest to understand the paranormal.

Wonders in the Sky – Book Review

2011-06-17T10:40:00.000-04:00

This post is a review of Jacques Vallée and Chris Aubeck’s Wonders in the Sky. The full citation is:

Vallée, Jacques and Chris Aubeck. (2010). Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained aerial objects from antiquity to modern times. New York: Penguin, 508 pages. ISBN 978-1-58542-820-5

The well-known ufologist Jacques Vallée, after a long absence from the ufological scene, published another major book with Chris Aubeck. This is an important event given the very steep decline in serious ufological research observed during the last decade. Although it is a well-researched and substantive book, with proper references (a rarity in ufological literature), it may actually be the last significant book of serious ufology; an approach that seemed to have run its course.

A useful reference book

Vallée and Aubeck, with the support of many volunteers from several countries, have gathered 500 cases of UFO-related observations that were put in writing and dating from 1460 B.C. to 1879 C.E. In each case, the exact source is provided, with at times a short discussion to explain how the original source was translated. As well, they have included about 80 cases that were considered as interesting but that were considered as hoaxes, obvious misperceptions, tall tales, or off topic because they were “religious visions”.

The introduction is essentially a discussion about the existence of the UFO phenomenon prior to the 19^th century, something that Vallée and Aubeck consider as a little known fact, and a crack at Stephen Hawking who considered that only “weirdoes and cranks” report UFO sightings. The end of the book provides a short analysis about the physical trends that could be extracted out of the material gathered. For those who read Passport to Magonia, the book structure will appear familiar. There are several reproductions of ancient drawings and paintings illustrating the cases under analysis.

As Vallée and Aubeck acknowledge, some of those cases have very little information, but they offer an overall picture that the UFO phenomenon has a long history. From the point of view of providing references for further research and study, it is certainly a useful book. As well, the authors and their network of volunteers have put a lot of work and energy in making this book. They should be congratulated for that. As a reference book, it should be added to the book collection of anyone interested in UFOs.

The fallacy of inductive thinking

In spite of being a valuable reference book, Wonders in the Sky suffers from all the usual problems linked to ufology as a research endeavour. To start with the introduction, the issue of whether the UFO phenomenon predates the 19^th century, and that only weirdoes see UFOs, is a rear guard battle. As Vallée and Aubeck noted, Van Daniken made the idea of ancient UFOs quite popular in the UFO buff circles since the 1970s. As well, many popular books on UFOs make at least passing references about pre-1947 UFO sightings. So, who are they trying to convince?

The issue of weirdoes has been beaten to death in ufology, and Jimmy Carter’s sighting report is a well-known argument in this story. The real discussion should not be about who report sightings, as much as who is talking about UFOs. Unfortunately, many vocal UFO buffs are indeed weirdoes and cranks, and they have deeply discredited ufology since its early days. This is an old and well-known issue. To bring Hawking in this fray does not help in any shape or fashion. Ufology books tend to be nostalgic of the days where ufologists saw themselves as pioneers of a new science, facing adversity from all fronts. This one shares this feature as well, although only moderately. The sad reality of the early 21^st century is that UFO-related issues are increasingly facing indifference rather than hostility.

A more substantive problem, however, is that this book (like most UFO books) proclaims to be “fact based” (or inductive), yet it fails to realize that any fact is actually an artefact. A fact is a tiny slice of perceived reality that is transcribed in some form. Reality being way too vast for the human mind to absorb, it has to be cut down into tiny pieces about what is relevant. And this where the problem is: how to determine which piece of reality is relevant. In the end, what is a fact comes down to conceptual and methodological choices about what is relevant. Different choices will bring different “facts”. Hence a fact is indeed an artefact of human decision-making. In other words, a fact-based or inductive approach will never be purely objective because it is contingent on decisions made about what is relevant.

Wonders in the Sky, contrary to many UFO books, at least provides some discussions about how the authors came to select or reject the cases they have. The criteria, however, are for the most part the typical ones found in ufology: objective physical phenomenon, reliability of the witness/source, lack of motive to make up a story, etc.

The real criteria are actually not discussed directly. The introduction, like Vallée did in most of his previous books, does not state directly his conceptual framework informing his methodological choices. It is left ambiguous. Yet, if one reads carefully between the lines (and has read read his previous books), his framework is that the truly anomalous UFOs are effects produced by some sort of psycho-social-physical technology emanating from some sort of intelligence. Once this conceptual decision is taken, then a number of fact selection criteria are put in place. First, only cases that seem to have an anomalous physical dimension are included, which in turns excludes for instance synchronistic subjective events that might be UFO-related. Second, the necessity of having a “technology” of some sort involved implies that somehow flying objects are a discrete category to be separated from other anomalous events such as sea monsters, or hauntings. Lastly, the decision of involving a foreign form of intelligence then precludes the possibility of including “self-referential” anomalous events such as “religious visions”.

Jacques Vallée has long complained that he was the only one not knowing what UFOs are. That may be so, but he, like any other UFO researchers (using the extra-terrestrial hypothesis or not), needs some sort of deductive hypothesis or framework to determine which slice of reality is deemed relevant. Good and sound scientific research is expected to present and justify these deductive assumptions in a clear and explicit manner. After all those years, I still do not understand why Vallée feels the need to hide behind the fallaciousness of inductive thinking.

Did ufology’s yardstick was moved ahead?

The authors declare that their research as led them to four major conclusions: (1) anomalous aerial phenomena had a major impact on witnesses; (2) each epoch has projected its own worldviews into the interpretation of these phenomena; (3) they have impacted human civilization in important ways; and (4) older cases can inform contemporary research. Unfortunately, the analysis in the Conclusion chapter does not demonstrate those findings, except for the no. 4. The reader is called upon to figure out him/herself how Vallée and Aubeck came to such conclusions.

The majority of the cases presented in the book are essentially unexplainable oddities reported by various people throughout time. In some case, it may have had a major impact on the witness (like religious conversion), but in most cases it was just an odd thing. Hence, conclusion no. 1 is not warranted with the material presented. I suspect that this finding is simply an import from the authors’ research on contemporary UFO experiencers (which again can be open to discussion as how widespread this finding is). With very few exceptions, the conclusion no. 3 is absolutely not demonstrated in the book, and certainly no serious sociological analysis is provided to substantiate it. This one is clear import from Vallée’s non-avowed conceptual framework, and from that point of view it is no different from “inductive” ETH ufologists who see extra-terrestrials everywhere. Finally, conclusion no. 2 is certainly sound, but the book implies rather than demonstrating it (as well, this is no big news).

In the end, it is possible to say that this book is interesting but failed to provide ufology a desperately needed fresh start. It might not have been the intent of the book, but clearly ufology is getting in a bigger “mess”, as Vallée is keenly aware. The greatest opportunity missed by this book is that by looking into pre-modern eras the authors could have really set aside their unfortunate and implicit notion of technology to understand UFOs, and started to look into ancient anomalies as simply human events. As well, as Vallée has been aware for quite a long time, ufology and parapsychology would greatly benefit from talking to each other; this would have been a golden opportunity to do so.

Jacques Vallée is in my opinion the best researcher in the world of ufology. In this second decade of the 21^st century, he also appears to be one of the last remaining few serious ufologists. He published probably what is to be his last major book, in an atmosphere now much less contaminated by the moronic Roswell/Majestic hysteria. Unfortunately, not even the greatest ufologist can save ufology from itself.

Socially Ostentatious Anomalies

2011-05-19T11:42:00.002-04:00

As part of establishing a clearer path for the parasociological project, it is clear to me that the object of study needs further clarifications. Although social psi remains the central concept, psi is by definition not directly observable as it is about acquiring information or altering matter without using known means of information exchange or matter modification. In other words, the concept of psi is built on the notion that it is manifestation of “something” without observable cause-and-effect. Psi can only be approached through indirect means.

Parapsychologists have devised 2 generic classes of object for study that seem to express the presence of psi effects, namely extra-sensory perception (ESP), and psychokinesis (PK). In both cases, they describe phenomena that are observable. In the case of parasociology, a proper research object would be something combining a socially observable event that is considered as defying conventional explanations. I propose, as a heuristic conceptual tool, the notion of Socially Ostentatious Anomalies (SOA) for the main object of study for parasociology, or for those who are found of methodological terminology SOA as the main unit of analysis. Under the concept of SOA, many phenomena can be studied, such as UFO waves, Marian apparitions, sea and lake monsters, etc. Right now, the concept of SOA does not include phenomena that are much more localized such as haunting, poltergeists, and various “private” apparitions. This last set of phenomena should still be studied by parasociology (especially by investigating the hypothesis that such phenomena are psi effects requiring a “community of believers”), but their more localized social dynamics require developing analytical tools akin to micro-sociology, which is left for now to future research.

A first attempt to use SOA

In the third post on the Canadian 1966-67 UFO wave case study, I noted that UFO waves seem to be following a pattern based on solar cycles, namely that they tend to occur during the ascending phase of solar activity, near the maxima period, and this was happening at every other solar cycle, based on 3 data points. I extended the hypothesis by introducing other SOAs, namely Marian apparitions, and found something intriguing.

One of the most famous Marian apparitions investigated by the Catholic Church was the one in Lourdes, France, that occurred between February and July 1858. This occurred during the ascending phase of the solar cycle 10, relatively near to the maxima.

Another very famous Marian apparition, also investigated by the Church, occurred in Fatima, Portugal, between May and October 1917. This event also happened during the ascending phase of the solar cycle, in this case no. 15, near the maxima.

A further look shows that there are time periods where SOA seem more likely to occur, which brings more parallels between UFO waves and Marian apparitions, although not linked to a particular period of solar cycles. The ghost planes wave of late 1933 over Sweden occurred less than a year after two sets of Marian apparitions in Belgium, in Beauraing and in Banneux in early 1933. Both were investigated by the Church. The UFO wave of 1966-1967 was followed by the apparitions at Zeitoun, Egypt, in early 1968, and was investigated by the Coptic Church.Finally, the October 1973 UFO wave was preceded by the Marian apparitions at Akita, Japan, starting in June of the same year. It was investigated by then Monsignor Ratzinger, who is now the present Pope Benedict.

As discussed in the Canadian case study, the UFO waves of 1947, 1967, and the one in Belgium in 1989-90, also occurred during the ascending phase of the solar cycles near the maxima, for cycle 18, 20, and 22, respectively. By looking at SOA, and not only UFO waves, we have now 5 data points.

Given that SOA are relatively rare events, this brings a number of interesting questions about the possibility that SOA are enabled by similar conditions, which still remain unknown for the time being. If this is a correct assumption, then it is further indications that SOA are indeed of a similar nature, even if they “express” themselves through a wide variety of shapes and forms.

One possible commonality between UFO events and Marian apparitions seems to be the electro-magnetic impact of solar cycles, which is in line with some findings about the nexus between UFO events and electro-magnetism, as discussed in the Materiality of UFOs.

At this time, to be fair, I cannot find other SOA that could be related to the Airship wave of 1897-98 (middle of declining phase of cycle 13 (1890-1901)); the British Airship wave of 1909 (declining phase of cycle 14 (1902-1913), but still in maxima plateau); the Foo Fighters era (late phase of cycle 17, and early phase of cycle 18 (1944-1954)); the 1952 UFO wave (middle of declining phase of cycle 18), and the 1958 UFO wave (maxima of cycle 19 (1954-1964)). So, it is obvious that although there might be a pattern emerging, not all the variables are known at this time.

What to expect for 2012?

As discussed in the Canadian case study, the near maxima ascending phase of the present solar cycle (no. 24) will happen towards the end of 2012. Yes, at the same as the presumed “end of the world”, based on a seriously ignorant understanding of the Mayan archaeology. What is more interesting is that I can make a parasociological testable hypothesis that the end of 2012 will be propitious for SOA to occur. However, as the parapsychologist Walter von Lucadou noted about psi effects, a phenomenon can only act “as it pleases” as long as it is not observed too attentively. In other words, observation removes indeterminacy in a system, and thus creative quantum entanglements are less likely to occur. Given that a lot of people will expect something “big” to happen in December 2012, then it will be difficult for SOA to occur, as a variety of systems will be observed attentively. So, here is my modified parasociological hypothesis: in the second half of 2012, should a SOA occurs, it will be completely unrelated to any “end of the world” symbolism. UFOs and Marian apparitions have both a history of being associated with millenaries views, and I do not think they are good candidates for SOA in 2012. In fact, we may see a new and creative form of SOA, or may be a low key one like Nessie reporting back to duty may emerged.

In any event, this testable hypothesis has been laid openly and justified based on the parasociological approach, and no one can say that parasociology is not falsifiable.

Eric Ouellet (c) 2011

Back to the basics: parasociology and parapsychology

2011-05-16T14:23:00.001-04:00

Jacques Vallée has long been complaining that he was the only not knowing what is behind the UFO phenomenon. The good news is that is not the only one. Indeed, the UFO phenomenon is a mystery, and in spite of the best attempts of many people, it still remains a mystery.

The real issue, in my opinion, is that the empirical inductive approach towards the UFO phenomenon has reached its course. Observations of the physical aspects of the phenomenon (shape, color, speed, etc.) have not yield any new significant knowledge since the 1970s. I think that the craze during the 1980s and 1990s about Roswell and governmental conspiracies was in part propelled by the fact inductive approaches were not fruitful anymore. The conspiracy approach, a variation of the ETH, was a hypothesis that generated new questions, and encouraged people to seek new types of data (especially classified government documents). Unfortunately for the proponents of the conspiracy hypothesis, it also reached its course as no new knowledge of substance was generated.

Similarly, the observation of paranormal effects in UFO events, explored by people like Vallée, Keel, Randles, Mack, and others also reached its course by the year 2000 (altered state of consciousness, poltergeist events, telepathy, premonition, vision, etc.). The ground-up approach of taking witnesses’ testimony and trying to find out pattern has yielded as much as it could. To keep approaching the phenomenon with the same set of questions and data will, invariably, lead to the same unsatisfying answers.

To have different questions, leading to analyze a different set of data, and look at older data from a different angle, requires sound new hypotheses. Hypotheses are not things that someone would take out of a hat. They require to be fully justified based on existing knowledge, on rational analysis, and their fundamental assumptions laid open for transparent scientific debate.

Trying to prove a hypothesis is not equivalent knowing what the phenomenon is, but one has to be careful to not fall into the trap of projecting results where there are no results. It is why any new hypothesis has to be fully explained and justified in a transparent way. Deviations from the original intent can be identified immediately.

Parasociology and sociology

Émile Durkheim, the founder of modern sociology, is well-known for defining the discipline as being a "science of institutions", and about "their genesis and their functioning”, in his classical book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895). He further defined institutions as "collective ways of action and thinking" that exist on their own right, outside the individuals, and which have a coercive influence over individuals' consciousness, acting from the outside in.

From this classical definition, it is clear that the "paranormal" can be considered as a social institution. It is made of collective beliefs and practices which tend to impose themselves on individual consciousnesses. In the case of UFOs, for instance, the belief in ET and governmental conspiracies has shaped the field. It is very hard to have a sound discussion about UFOs without having believers telling you how wrong one can be if he or she does not share those beliefs. They can even become aggressive at times. In other instances, this can lead to bizarre and yet very dangerous cults, as Jacques Vallée showed many years ago in Messengers of Deception.

The few sociologists who studied the paranormal, borrowing a lot from the social study of religion, focused on those shared collective beliefs and ways of acting, and in essence considered the paranormal as another social institution (but a close cousin to religion).

The parasociological approach, on the other hand, is not about looking at a particular social institution, like the various sociologies that emerged over time (sociology of the family, of religion, of gender, of organization, of economic structures, of labor, etc.). Its basic premise is that there is something akin to “social psi” having an influence on societies, which can affect any “collective ways of action and thinking” (i.e. any institution). Hence, the main focus of parasociology is to develop both methodologies to assess the presence of such “social psi”, and a consistent and grounded conceptual framework to generate testable hypotheses. The UFO phenomenon has been selected as a particular empirical object to develop the methodologies and conceptual framework for reasons already explained before. A useful way to extract some of the key assumptions behind the parasociological approach to UFOs is by comparing it with some of the assumptions of parapsychology.

The limits of parapsychology as a model for parasociology

The general concept of psi has been developed by researchers in parapsychology, and therefore parasociology has to rely substantively on parapsychology. But it is important to underline that there are limits to such reliance. Andrew Nichols provides an interesting discussion on what is parapsychology, and this can be used to contrast it with parasociology.

1. Parapsychology is concerned with individual experiences that are considered as paranormal by both the experiencer and society.

Parasociology is not particularly concerned with individual experiences, but it is rather interested by events that are socially observed and considered as paranormal. Of course, it is individuals who perceived paranormal events, but the social reception and the context allowing such events to occur are situated beyond the individual. I understand that this view maybe disconcerting for those who do not have training in social sciences, because it is not intuitive. But science is about going beyond the surface of things.

2. “Parapsychology asserts that such experiences are not, in and of themselves, indicative of psychopathology.”

Parasociology, also, does not consider that a society experiencing paranormal events is a necessary sign of collective delusion, although social delusion can accompany paranormal events. Furthermore, if social psi might be the outcome of social tensions, it does not have to be the case all the time. I look at the UFO phenomenon metaphorically as a grand scale poltergeist (RSPK), which implies that some sort of tensions would be the main driver. A wider array of possibilities needs to be investigated, such as a “dialogue” between the social unconscious and the collective consciousness that takes a paranormal form on some occasions (like an objectified social dream).

3. “Parapsychology asserts that paranormal-type experiences are often a source of personal transformation or healing to the individual”

Parasociology, in theory, is open to the notion that paranormal events can change societies, especially in creating or reshaping religion as a social institution. However, this has not been the present focus of parasociology as it is seeking to establish, first, the possibility of “social psi”. Furthermore, the parallels between individual transformation and social transformation are dubious, especially in the context of large and complex societies. The UFO phenomenon certainly participated in the enlargement of the paranormal institution in Western countries, but did it really transform societies? Not really, as we are still dealing with something quite marginal, socially speaking. Yet, the notion of possible social impact on a particular sub-group should be integrated into parasociology in the future.

4. Parapsychology accepts that “transpersonal consciousness incorporates other individuals, living and deceased, as well as objects and/or locations which are meaningful to the individual. This transpersonal stratum of consciousness is the source of genuine paranormal experiences, whether experienced consciously or subliminally”.

Parasociology, as a sociological endeavor, does not see the world as an aggregation of individuals, as psychology and parapsychology tend to do. The social unconscious and the collective consciousness have dynamics of their own that cannot be reduced to individual experiences, be it transpersonal or not. However, parasociology assumes that social psi emanates from the social unconscious and that it can emerge, at times, into the collective consciousness. This view is profoundly modern and sociological in nature, as it assumes that the social realm determines the social. The main addition to this view from parasociology is that not all the social realm is observable by using the traditional methodologies of the social sciences. In other words, if the UFO phenomenon is an expression of the social unconscious, then there is no need to seek an extra-social explanation for it (like the ETs, the Gods, etc).

5. “Parapsychology asserts that the prudent use of certain techniques (e.g. trance induction, automatisms) may facilitate access to the transpersonal unconscious”.

Parasociology assumes that there are social conditions more favorable to the emergence of social psi effects, but such conditions remain to be researched. Furthermore, given the very significant logistical and ethical challenges linked to societal experiments, parasociology does not rely on experimental approaches, and has to rely on spontaneous and historical cases.

6. “Parapsychology assumes no stance on the question of physical measurement or recording of paranormal phenomena. There is no conclusive evidence that physical measures or recording techniques (photography, audio-recording, etc.) are capable of detecting paranormal energies or entities.”

Parasociology does not pay much attention to the physical dimension of paranormal events, although the presence of physical anomalies is considered as a useful indicator. As well, social synchronicities, which would be considered as a form of social psi, do not necessarily require any physical anomaly to be present. There are many UFO observations that are ignored by ufologists because they turned out to be caused by conventional objects, yet when one looks more carefully, these observations can be synchronistic to either paranormal events or other “genuine” UFO observations. Hence, the parasociological approach rejects the primacy of the physical UFO reality to study the phenomenon. A much wider net needs to be cast to get useful data.

7. “Parapsychology is a scientific approach [...] However, humanistic parapsychology also incorporates psychological/spiritual development...”

Parasociology does not espouse any “New Age” beliefs, nor does it accept teleological assumptions about “growth of humanity”. Parasociology remains centered on the original intent of sociology to understand the genesis and functioning of social institution, irrespective of the values one may project into them.

8. “The task of parapsychology is threefold. [...] parapsychologist seeks to determine whether this assertion is factual, or if the experience is subjective in nature. Next, the parapsychologist analyzes the gathered material, seeking meaningful patterns relating the event to the percipient=s personal history, mythological concepts, etc. Finally, the parapsychologist offers counseling and advice to the percipient [...]”

The first two tasks of parasociology are similar: (1) asserting the factual or subjective nature of a paranormal event, (2) in light of what is meaningful in a given society. However, parasociology unlike psychology, does not have a clinical aim to offer counseling. A parasociological explanation, assuming that it would be accepted by the larger society may play a role in diffusing a difficult social situation (like a state of panic). But the skeptics are already playing that role. The main difference of a parasociological approach would be a more sensitive and sensible way to diffuse social tensions emerging out of a paranormal event. Yet, given that the “voice of reason” is usually ignored in most fights between skeptics and believers (especially prevalent in the UFO world), any social role for parasociology remains essentially theoretical at this point.

9. “Parapsychological Counseling is client-centered and non-directive, i.e., paranormal experiences should be studied within the cultural and social context in which they occur.”

Any equivalent for parasociology would be to offer advice to governmental agencies about the relativistic nature of paranormal events; leaving decision-makers determine what would be the best course of action. It was more or less the position taken by Hynek, and in some of the early assessments of the UFO phenomenon (like the 1948 Lipp Report). Here too, such potential for parasociology remains essentially theoretical.

10. “Parapsychology supports no specific religious interpretation of paranormal experiences, and makes no assertions with regard to the question of conscious survival after death, nor does it assert the literal existence of an objective “spirit world” or of non-corporeal entities, extra-terrestrial beings, etc.”

Actually, here I disagree with Andrew Nichols. What distinguishes parapsychology from the older psychical sciences is the rejection of non-human entities to explain paranormal events.

Parasociology, as discussed before takes the same approach as parapsychology, and for the same reasons. Involving non-human entities in the explanation prevents any possibility of a scientific approach. Given that non-human entities can call the shots at will, then there is no possibility of establishing patterns as one would do in natural sciences; and given that they are not human, we cannot make any hypothesis based on our common humanity as one would do in social sciences. Non-human entities, as a conceptual notion, lead to a scientific dead end by definition. The parasociological approach remains part of the overall project of the modern scientific institution.

Parasociological methodology – a first approximation

2011-05-13T15:55:00.000-04:00

After investigating at length the parapsychological literature (particularly the one about spontaneous macro psi effects like poltergeist phenomenon (RSPK)) and explored in detail a number of UFO wave cases, I found a few methodological criteria that appear particularly useful to explore parasociological hypothesis. These criteria still remain, of course, wide and allow competing analyses to emerge without being able to determine firmly which one is the most accurate. However, it should be seen as a step forward in that it provides some rigor and discipline to parasociological analysis, and can open the way to find additional criteria that would narrow down the number of possible competing analyses to explore the genesis of UFO events.

It is important to remember that these criteria for investigating possible parasociological effects (or social psi effects), are all attempting to circumvent the significant problem of absence of observable causal relationships between the social and the physical realm. They are:

1. The observation system is social.

This means that the UFO phenomenon received enough attention from the general public to be noted. This is usually done through the mass media, but it can also be done through governmental agencies collecting data about UFOs, in which case the observation system would be the state. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology, where a psi phenomenon is considered to be the outcome of an emotional intent, which are making psi activities meaningful events. The key question is meaningful for whom? The range of visibility of psi phenomenon can be a good indicator to assess to whom is destined the psi effect, i.e. to whom the information is destined. Hence, a social psi event should be destined to society at large, or its governance if the state is the observation system.

2. Chronological proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur around the same time as a meaningful social event. It can be a few days before or after a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. But such event is usually not known publically at the time. Chronological proximity can only be found out after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are believe to be emerging from the unconscious, which is by definition not observable; like the feeling of “something will happen” but not knowing what it is. At the social level, there are individual actions that will have a significant social impact, but their scope and nature cannot be known yet, but can be “felt”.

3. Geographical proximity

This means that a UFO event or series of UFO events should occur in a geographical area that is around a particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Like in the case of Chronological proximity and for the same reasons, such event is usually not known publically at the time. This criterion is based on the same notion that psi effects are information destined to “someone”, and that “someone’s” attention needs to be grabbed.

Symbolic relationship

The UFO event or series of events carry symbolism that can be related to particularly meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge. Such symbolism, however, is the one of the unconscious and can be quite subtle in nature, oftentimes only comprehensible through lateral forms of thinking, and usually much after the fact. This criterion is based on a number of findings and theories emerging from parapsychology where psi effects are the outcome of unconscious processes, and that the language of the unconscious is fundamentally symbolic.

Internal validity through mutually reinforcing criteria

These four criteria should reinforce each other. The yet unknown meaningful action or event that would carry an important emotional charge should be considered as being such (i.e. meaningful and emotional) by the people who are part of the social observation system. The symbolism found in the event can also be found in the geography (e.g., name of the place where observations are made) and the chronology (e.g., a particular anniversary in the same timeframe). The “message” carried through symbolism is meaningful for the observation system if it can decipher it. Etc.

That's all folks! - Well, not really

2010-11-15T14:14:00.002-05:00

UPDATE

13 May 2011

Dear all,

After discussing off line with a number of people, I decided to get back on. However, I will post not as regularly as I did. There might be weeks where I will have many posts, and then a break for a couple months, depending if I have something to report.

Best,

Eric

Dear readers,

After debating with myself for quite sometime now, I decided that it is time to put the parasociological project to rest.

As discussed in my post of 26 september 2010 "Parasociology: to be or not to be", the obstacles against the parasociological project are formidable, whether they are epistemological, conceptual, empirical or social. Someone else, more talented than me, will have to pursue this line of inquiry.

I would like to thank all those who provided comments and constructive criticism. I really appreaciated your support.

I will let the blog on for quite a while, so it will remain available for those interested in using the material therein.

Farewell,

Eric

54th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association

2010-10-30T10:16:00.000-04:00

54th Annual Convention

of the Parapsychological Association

Curitiba, Brazil

August 18-21, 2011

Program Chair: Marios Kittenis, Ph.D.

Local Host/Arrangements Chair: Fábio Eduardo da Silva

The Parapsychological Association (PA), will hold its 54th annual convention in Curitiba, Brazil on August, 18-21 2011. PA members, associates, and students from around the world will gather to present and discuss their latest research findings regarding psi (or ‘psychic’) experiences such as extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, psychic healing and survival of bodily death. The convention, which is open to the public and academia alike, will offer a rare opportunity for attendees interested in that wide range of human functioning popularly known as the ‘psychic’ or ‘paranormal’ to hear the latest and most advanced scientific thinking about parapsychological topics.

Fábio Eduardo da Silva, who is a doctoral student in parapsychology at Universidade de São Paulo with Dr Wellington Zangari, will be the Local Host and the Arrangements Chair of the PA convention. Research Fellow at Aston University, Dr Marios Kittenis, who did his PhD on distant brain correlations under the late Prof. Bob Morris at Edinburgh University, will be the Program Chair for the event. The convention will be held in English, but simultaneous translation will be available for Portuguese-speaking attendees. Attention U.S. attendees: travel from the U.S. to Brazil requires a visa. Information about travel requirements can be found at the Brazilian Consulate.

In addition to holding the largest contingent of PA members outside of the US and Europe, Brazil contains a rich diversity of groups and individuals that engage in a range of paranormal approaches to healing. Curitiba, Brazil is a modern city that has attracted attention around the world for its innovations in sustainability and urban planning. Running alongside the PA convention, visitors to Curitiba may also attend UNIBEM’s 7th Psi Meeting (see last year’s details) and the 6th Journey into Altered States, which will provide attendees an opportunity to explore the experiential dimensions of Brazil's rich pro-paranormal culture in Curitiba.

Additional details about the 2011 PA convention will be released at www.parapsych.org as they become available.

The collective memory of Maurice Halbwachs

2010-10-21T11:08:00.001-04:00

This post is exploring the concept of collective memory proposed by the classical French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs. This concept opens a number of interesting possibilities for the study of the social unconscious and social psi.

Maurice Halbwachs (1877-1945) was a sociologist closely associated with the founders of the discipline Émile Durkheim, and especially Marcel Mauss. He was also an activist engaged in defending the rights of the working class and a socialist. Because of his political opinions, he was eventually deported to Buchwald by the Nazis during the occupation of France, where he died in March 1945. He is known for a number of sociological researches on the working classes between the two world wars, but he is also known for his concept of collective memory.

Collective memory

Halbwachs continued the work Émile Durkheim about the notion of collective consciousness. This notion became useful in sociology to describe mass phenomenon such as the transformation of worldviews during the industrial revolution, from a rural and agrarian setup to an urban and industrial context. Changes in collective behaviour are always accompanied by changes in collective thinking (and it is not necessarily useful to determine which one comes first). The same concept has been refined later on by people like Serge Moscovici to study smaller changes in group thinking/group behaviour like the adoption of psychoanalytical ideas by ordinary people in France during the 1950s. Moscovici described these lower level aspects of collective consciousness as social representations, but it is clear that he is continuing the work of Durkheim and Halbwachs.

For Halbwachs, the key question was how can we demonstrate the causal relationship between the collective consciousness, which can be found through relatively straightforward narrative analyses of common texts from a given society (newspapers, novels, speeches of respected people, etc.), and individual consciousnesses. Although people like to think they are free thinkers, their thinking is very much shaped by ways of thinking found in the society in which they live. The obvious example of this sociological phenomenon is strange lights in the sky were only construed as “alien spaceship” when space travel became part of common worldviews in the Western world. (For more on this, please refer to the seminal work of Bertrand Méheust on UFOs and science fiction). It was Durkheim who proposed that there was some sort of unconscious social memory (where the representations of the collective consciousness are “stored”) that influences the thinking and behaviour of individuals. Halbwachs went further in trying to define this concept of social memory and to show empirically that it is useful for understanding social behaviours.

To do so, he first challenged the prevalent ideas about memory in psychology (which was then, in France, very much materialist and much closer to neurology – and curiously this neurologic view of memory is quite dominant today in the English-speaking world). Memory, according to Halbwachs, is necessarily a social construct. When one remembers something it is always in relationship to his/her experience with others and codes of social conducts. The first thing people remember is whether the event X occurred while they were with others or by themselves. Furthermore, individual memory tends to be selective, as certain events are more important than others. But the degree of importance is assigned based on the social context (distinguishing what is exceptional from what is routine is always a matter of social situation). Furthermore, he anticipated the neurological research on memory in that as social beings, our views change as the social context around us changes too (child, young adult, parent, retiree, homeless, wealthy, etc), and our memories are re-constructed based on the present social context. Although Halbwachs lived before the age of ufology, his findings about the social nature of memories should be a reminder to anyone interviewing witnesses many years after an event.

Once again, an event that was construed at first as mysterious and unexplainable shortly after it occurred can become "explained" as an alien encounter or a Marian apparition once this idea becomes a common one in the collective consciousness. The alien or Marian “explanation“ of the event is not an explanation but rather an expression of new collective representations. These explanations are expressions of their time and society. In other words, individual memory is also a social artefact.

The social nature of individual memories helps explaining how social memories are constructed. Collective in various societies also retains only specific social events because they were socially meaningful at the time, but as time passes some events disappear from the common social representations while others have their meaning changed. A clear example is colonialism. Up to the 1950s, the exploits of colonial adventurers where celebrated across the Western world (and in the United States, John Wayne impersonated those adventurers on the silver screen), where now these adventurers are either forgotten, or represented as the bad guys killing innocent people (once again, in the United States the best example is probably George Custer, from falling hero to unsuccessful actor in a genocide campaign). Memories, whether individual or collective, are reconstructions based on present social identity, social conventions, and social values and norms.

Mechanisms of collective memory

Halbwachs looked empirically as to how the actual memory selection within a collective and the transmission from the collective to the individual occur. He focussed on three social institutions: the family, religious communities, and social classes. His work was both quantitative and qualitative, and essentially showed how socialization of collective memory is done through these institutions. The process is very much similar to the one of transmission of myths explored later on by Claude Lévy-Strauss.

From the point of view of parasociological research, it is a useful reminder that the social unconscious, (for more see), where it is assumed that social psi could emerge, is constructed through the early phases of a collective memory creation. It would be at this very moment that particular emotional “imprints” occur, while the actual social processes of keeping the memory alive brings an evolution as to how events are perceived and interpreted.

As a short but important digression here, the concept of “imprint” has been developed by the biologist Konrad Lorenz and used by others to assess some deep cultural differences between various countries. Although controversial, Clothaire Rapaille turned this idea into an effective management consulting model for large businesses. Ultimately, this notion of “imprint” is linked to the notion of collective unconscious, as it is a way to describe what remains in terms of affects.

Overtime, the discrepancy between the imprint and the ongoing memory reconstruction might cause a significant gap, leading to either transitional or abrupt “corrections”, which in the latter case (and only in some particular instances) might take the form of a social psi event.

If one looks back at the French 1954 UFO wave, it is possible to see the French defeat of Dien Bien Phu in May and the subsequent peace accord in July as causing a significant social imprint about the “end of colonialism is near”. And it is important to note that colonialism was the key prism used by Europeans to establish their collective identity (linked to the infamous notion of the "white men's burden). Yet, by then the French government started to worry about its most important colony, Algeria, leading to significant increases in social investments in the colony by early November 1954. This led also to the famous quote by François Mitterand “Algeria is France”, and a long protracted conflict to keep the colony, which eventually France lost, not because of military defeat—they actually won on the ground—but because the French society had enough of colonialism. The peak of the UFO wave occurred at the junction of these events, in fact at the very moment when the FLN was created in October 1954—unknown to public—until the FLN insurgents' campaign started in November.

Collective memory, social unconscious and social psi

Halbwachs classical research on collective memory offers an interesting sociological hypothesis to assess the content of the collective consciousness and how imprinting events may cause serious dissonance in the social unconscious. These situations of significant imprint do not occur that often in a society. In other words, not all social events create imprint having a significant impact. As well, not all imprints cause necessarily significant and abrupt social dissonance. This helps to narrow down the number of social events that may be linked to social psi effects like UFO waves, and turn this into researchable hypotheses.

For instance, it is clear that 9/11 was an imprinting event in the American society, but it not was dissonant, and it was not associated with any obvious social psi effect. The events of 9/11 were a reminder that many people in the world have very negative opinions about the United States (something known by many Americans—to the point of putting Canadian flags on their backpack when travelling). Terrorism being the most extreme form of such negative opinion.

And so, the country was at war again. Yet, the United States is at war since WWII. First, it was at war against Germany and Japan, then against communism up to 1990, then against the drug cartels up to 9/11. The so-called “war on terror”, an expression calling upon the collective memory and yet re-interpreted in light of current events, is very much a continuation of “normalcy”. If there is a counter reaction to all this, it is a conscious one through the so-called “Truthers movement” that sees 9/11 as an American engineered conspiracy to find another war. 9/11, a horrific event with a significant emotional charge, was congruent with the social consciousness, memory and unconscious of the American society. The lack of substantive UFO events before 9/11 is consistent with this lack of dissonance.

The 1954 French UFO wave

2010-10-03T20:04:00.001-04:00

This post proposes a mini case study of the 1954 French UFO wave. It is in part inspired by the work of Aimé Michel in his book Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery, published in English version in 1958 [1]. However, instead of analyzing the events as recollected by Michel through his orthoteny hypothesis, the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) will be used as a background model [2]. Furthermore, some interesting parallels can be established with the previously posted case studies of the 1952 Washington D.C. events and the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67.

The data

In an online article [3], Donald A. Johnson uses the UFOCAT catalogue and note that the number of UFO sightings for the year 1954 is 3,015, of which about 58% occurred in Europe. The wave was indeed worldwide, but it had a particular peak in October with nearly a third of all sightings (961) in Europe alone. Of those 961 European cases, 750 occurred in the skies of France, with one particular peak on 3 October and another one on 15 October with about 80 sightings for each date. Hence, it is fair to say that the wave was centred over France, although it was not exclusive to France.

If one looks at the report using the Hynek classification, then it is nearly 28% of all sightings for 1954 that can fit the close encounter (CE) category. According to Johnson, the number of CE1 in October for France and Belgium was 96, 53 CE2, and 78 CE3, for a total of 227 CEs. In other words, almost one-third of all French UFO cases for October 1954 were CEs. This proportion is comparable to the one found in the previously posted case study about the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67 where just above one-third of cases where CEs. However, in the Canadian cases there was more CE2 than CE3.

These numbers are interesting because it is always difficult to identify what constitutes a UFO wave. In both the Canadian and French cases, the number of CE is around 30-35%. This provides an interesting benchmark to assess the intensity of a UFO wave. From that point of view, UFO wave are getting very rare because CEs are almost completely gone from sightings as Chris Rutkowsky noted on his blog recently.

The overall 1954 UFO wave as well as its French portion were following the usual pattern of a slow start ramping up in August and September, peaked in October and steep drop in November. The numbers for Europe and France, based on Johnston’s figures, are as follow:

Month / Europe / France

Jan / 24 / 15
Feb / 9 / 4
Mar / 5 / 1
Apr / 12 / 7
May / 24 / 5
Jun / 22 / 7
Jul / 45 / 12
Aug / 109 / 42
Sep / 305 / 217
Oct / 961 / 750
Nov / 193 / 84
Dec / 47 / 15
Year / 1,756 / 1,159

This distribution is similar to the 1952 wave where in that case the peak was in July. This distribution also replicates von Lucadou’s findings about RSPKs. This general tendency for recurrent anomalistic phenomena can be explained in part by social factors. As a phenomenon is reported in the general press, an accumulation of news clipping can create a sense that there is something going on. Then natural phenomena are reported as UFOs, and hoaxers feel compelled to do their part as well. The mass media can create such snow ball effect, but also can create the demise of a phenomenon by expecting more and more until it cannot “give” anymore, then the press and its readership looses interest. This usually leads to a quick decline in sightings. This effect is well known to those who in communication studies under the name “bandwagon effect” [4].

The key here is to remember that the bandwagon effect can explain the reporting effects and overall distribution, but it cannot explain the relatively high number of CEs. To see a strange light in the night (NL) or a far away object in the sky during the day (DD) has a different qualitative nature than seeing “things” up close. Mistakes are quite possible when it comes to NL and DD, but much less likely for CEs. The only way that the bandwagon effect would extend to CEs is to imply that they are hoaxes and lies. Interviews with multiple witnesses, coming from a wide variety of background and who have no objective reasons to lie, do not warrant such speculations. Hence, a significant number of CEs, assuming they are properly investigated and classified, constitutes a key indicator for the “paranormal” variable in the case of UFOs.

As stated in many previous posts, both Fodor [5]about RSPKs, and Batcheldor [6] for group PK, found that hoaxes and tricks can actually help inducing psi effects by making them unconsciously believable. From a parasociological standpoint, the variations in intensity of paranormal phenomenon and the level of public interest for such phenomenon should be seen as co-variations (or inter-dependent variables) rather than as a zero-sum game. This is where the “true” believers in the psycho-social hypothesis fails to explain anything by speculating that a phenomenon must be either true or false; empirical evidence shows that anomalistic phenomena are mixed realities.

One or two (or more) systems

One of the interesting findings of my analyses of the 1952 events over Washington D.C. and the 1966-67 Canadian UFO wave is that there seems to be more than one system at play when it comes to UFO waves. Given that all these waves, including the one of 1954, are more or less worldwide, it seems that there are global conditions for UFO wave to emerge. These conditions also enable events to occur in sub-systems, like the concentration of sightings in France in October 1954, that develop their own dynamics. It is not possible to determine if the UFO worldwide events are caused by a dynamics of the same nature as the ones more local, nor is it possible to determine if they interact. In other words, the reasons for a concentration of sightings in France can be enabled by the worldwide conditions, while still having its own independent dynamics. In any event, as for the Canadian wave, a multi-system approach appears to be suited for understanding complex phenomena that are both local and global.

The issue of dates

The dates in a UFO wave appear to be even more important in light of the events of October 1954. October 1954 is the month when the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) was created by a group of anti-colonial insurgents in Algeria. As we now know, the FLN waged an extensive political and armed struggle to free Algeria from French colonial rule. This led to a bitter conflict involving more than 500,000 French soldiers, countless victims in Algeria and something that shook deeply the French society. Although the French Army won on the ground, the FLN won the political battle about immorality of colonialism and Algeria gained its independence in 1962. What happen in October 1954 was not known to the French public, and even the FLN actions of November 1954 did not appear to be anything threatening.

Hence, like what was found in the Canadian case studies, intense UFO sightings occurred while key decisions are taken that will have a very significant impact for the collective future but that they are not yet known to the larger public. It is also possible to note that the Global Consciousness Project observed serious deviations in their networked random generators in the hours prior to 9/11. These various cases can be interpreted as the collective unconscious made aware of impeding threat and uses paranormal means to express it.

Some may argue like Kottemeyer [7] that it is the lost of collective self-esteem that is behind major UFO waves. He noted that the French defeat in Indochina was the likely source of the French 1954 UFO wave. But the dates do not add up for Indochina. The battle of Dien Bien Phu was in May 1954, and the war was officially over by July. The war in Indochina was far from the preoccupations of French people, while Algeria was another story. Algeria was administratively part of metropolitan France, and had over 1 million of non-Muslim citizens who eventually became refugees in France. As well, in Indochina the French Army was made of volunteers and colonial troops, while in Algeria it was mostly made of conscripts and reservists. The Algerian conflict was, in many ways, very close to home. Kottemeyer’s hypothesis is interesting but it does not fit the 1954 French wave.

Going beyond RSPKs

If collective precognition of decisions leading to major social and political events is an important condition to have large scale paranormal events, then the analysis of the 1952 wave would require some adjustment. This is one of the implications of the findings from the 1954 and 1966-67 UFO waves. There are, however, no apparent major decisions taken in the United States in July 1952 that would have substantial consequences for the future (and the same can be said about the 1957 American UFO wave). The only significant event in 1952 that is synchronistic to the phenomenon remains the Democratic convention. Maybe a more general condition of “what cannot be said publically” either because it is a premonition or some people are muzzled would be more accurate. It would not contravene with the general principles upon which the MPI is built, but it would require generalizing the findings of the MPI. The implications are that paranormal events remain linked to social dynamics, be it small or large scale, but the dynamic for RSPK is just a particular application of the MPI. The reason as to why pragmatic information cannot be expressed through normal means (e.g. angry and unable to express emotion teenager) should not lead us to create special models for every occasion. Hence, UFO events may not be large scale aerial RSPKs after all, but rather they are non-normal expressions of unconsciously held information.

References

[1] Michel, Aimé. (1958). Flying Saucer and the Straight-Line Mystery. New York: Criterion Books.

[2] For a good overview of the MPI please see, Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004.

[3] Johnson, Donald A. (2009). “The Worldwide UFO Wave of 1954”. On Internet at http://www.ufoinfo.com/onthisday/papers/Worldwide%20UFO%20Wave%20of%201954.pdf.

[4]See the references at the end of this entry on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect

[5] Fodor, Nandor. (1958). On the Trail of the Poltergeist. New York: Citadel Press.

[6] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.

[7] Kottmeyer, Martin. (1996). “UFO Flaps”. The Anomalist 3 (1995-1996): 64-89.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Parasociology: to be or not to be

2010-09-26T17:19:00.006-04:00

Today's post is an editorial reflecting on parasociology, which may be an impossible science.

The problem of proof in the study of anomalies is a particularly difficult one. As discussed in many previous posts, one of the common characteristics of these so-called paranormal phenomenon is their elusiveness. Whether it is UFOs, Bigfoot sightings, ghosts, poltergeists, lake monsters and various other types of apparitions, and micro psi effects, they never leave irrefutable proof that such phenomena exist. The evidence is made of witnesses accounts or weak statistical deviations from normal and, at best, faint and equivocal physical evidence open to interpretation. This is the ontological part of the problem.

Then there is the epistemological part. All forms of knowledge, to be considered as such, require that a community vouch for it. The stronger, in social and political terms, the community is, the stronger their sanctioning will be for a given knowledge. In the modern world, one of the strongest communities that determines whether something should be called knowledge is the one built around the social institution of science. Anomalies are often associated, by default, with superstitions and religious thinking, both of which are at the core of what science rejects. Any social institution needs to be legitimized to survive and justify its special powers it has over a given society. Modern science maintains its social legitimacy by “protecting the uneducated masses” from superstitions. From a sociological standpoint, the sceptic movement plays a normative role in trying to protect the legitimacy of science, so it can preserve its special power of determining what is knowledge. As long as the study of anomalies is associated with superstitions, social recognition is not likely to occur. That is the epistemological problem from the “right flank”.

The epistemological problem from the “left” flank is that the main support for the study of anomalies is coming from “true believers” who have all the appearances of superstitious people. The study of ghosts, past lives memories, poltergeists, near death experiment is very often motivated by people trying to prove the survival of the soul after death. The ETH approach in ufology, the study of Bigfoot, lake monsters, and various other types of apparitions is very much similar to ancient studies of angels and demons. The fact that many people in these fields mimic the scientific method does not change anything, it is only mimickery. Hence, the closer one gets to the true believers the more he or she will face rebukes from the scientific establishment. Yet, if one does not seek the other metaphysical goal of “protecting the uneducated masses”, then it will not get the support of the scientific establishment either. Anyone who wants to study anomalies without seeking metaphysical goals on either side has indeed very few friends. This reminds me of someone else.

Some may argue that the way out of this conundrum would be to develop a new and fresh empirical database that integrates elusiveness in the data collection and that can show parasociological cause and effect. Unfortunately, cause and effect in the social realm are not of the same nature as in physical sciences. Macroscopic phenomena can only be assessed in broad strokes, and the linkages to specific situations are always open to interpretation. Then, if one adds that specific situations have a physical dimension, like a series of UFO sightings, then we may face a situation of “a bridge too far”.

And then, just to make matters worst, one of the most interesting approach to study psi phenomena is based on the notion of non-local correlations, which is based on the very idea that there are no directly observable cause-and-effect when it comes to psi. The relationship can only be found through a detailed assessment of how events unfold, which of course can be assessed in many different ways. The circle is fully squared. I might just blow-up the bridge, that might be too far any way.

The time might not be right for dealing with the UFO phenomenon, and here I mean try to explain, not just describe or fantasizing about visitors from out space. Jacques Vallée is about to release a new book with co-author Chris Aubeck. Even Vallée seemed to have given up explaining and produced a book making yet another listing of famous sightings. I sincerely hope that I am wrong on this one.

In any event, maybe parasociology should be construed as something along the lines of cultural studies, rather than parapsychology, where multiple interpretations is part of the “normal business”.

More lessons from pioneers – The World of Flying Saucers

2010-08-29T14:38:00.007-04:00

This post is looking into another pioneer of UFO research, but this one was the “Dr. Evil” of ETH ufology: Donald H. Menzel. He published a major book on UFOs in 1963, looking back at 15 years of ufology, and most of what he wrote could be applied today, now looking back at (almost) 65 years of ufology. Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil.... The full notice is:

Menzel, Donald H. and Lyle G. Boyd. (1963). The World of Flying Saucers: A scientific examination of a major myth of the space age. New York: Doubleday.

Flying saucers are real! (but first you have to believe in ET)

Donald Menzel (1901-1976) was much vilified by the ETH ufological community (even today, nearly 35 years after his death), but it is to wonder how many ETH believers even bothered to open one of his books. Menzel’s main concern was the lack critical thinking in the world of UFOs, and not so much to prove that every single UFO sighting can be explained by a down-to-earth explanation. In other words, it was first and foremost a matter of education, not of ufological method. If one fails to understand his central argument, then one does not understand what Menzel was writing about.

This lack of critical thinking is described in his book as the “saucerdom”, a world where anything not readily identifiable as a known flying object is immediately considered as a spaceship visiting planet Earth. In the saucerdom, the full meaning of “unidentified” or “unknown” is ignored so that flying objects are immediately re-identified as spaceships. In a colourful way, he described this issue as follow: “When told there’s a horse in the bathtub, for example, the sensible man realizes that the visitation, while not impossible, is extremely improbable. Therefore he does not immediately begin speculating on the color of the horse, where it might have come from, what its purpose may be, and whether it will wreck the bathroom. Instead, he adopts the scientific method and first goes to find out whether the horse is really there” (p. 3).

A number of ETH ufologists have pointed out that they do investigate and they found “something” in the bathtub, hence considering Menzel’s argument as irrelevant. But these ETH ufologists missed the point, some of them purposefully. The point is that many people in the general public are willing to accept any story about “spaceships” on its face value. More importantly, without such credulity in the public many ufologists would not have been able to have a career simply because there would be no one to buy their books. In other words, for most ETH ufologists it is in their vested interest to keep the saucerdom alive, because they depend on it. Hence, for Menzel, one should not count on the ETH ufologists to show intellectual integrity; it is against their objective interest.

The saucerdom, 50 years later, is doing quite well with the hundreds of fake UFO pictures and videos posted on the Internet annually, which always find an audience to believe them as true. Menzel was dealing with a real issue, and that issue has not gone away. If there is a critique to formulate against Menzel, however, it is his naive faith in reasoned discussions. The saucerdom is a belief system, and like any belief system it is impervious to any amount rational facts, proofs, or analyses.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence of evidence

The second key issue that Menzel was dealing with was the lack of evidence to prove the extra-terrestrial origin of UFOs. As he wrote, “in the study of UFO phenomena this question of ‘evidence’ is crucial. The careful investigator tries always to distinguish sharply between an observed fact, which is evidence, and an interpretation of that fact, which is not evidence no matter how reasonable it may seem” (p. 4). And indeed, 50 years later we are in the same situation: “no data in these [military] unsolved cases suggest that the UFOs had an interplanetary origin or that they constitute a threat to the security of the United States. When Air Force investigators have determined that a UFO report does not represent anything of interest to Intelligence, their primary duty ends. However, since many UFO puzzles are of interest for scientific or technical reasons, the investigators try to find the specific explanation of each case and, if it has attracted public attention, give the final solution to press” (p. 275).

What does this mean is that when you have a “stubborn unknown,” military investigators are short of facts too, and they provide what they think to be the best interpretation. In other words, this is not the “truth” but educated speculations. Menzel was often accused by ETH ufologists of using the notion of thermal inversion to “debunk” cases, but he was simply doing educated speculation. ETH ufologists (the serious ones, anyway) are doing the same: educated speculations. The very existence of “stubborn unknown” is created by a lack of evidence that might decide which speculation is the most likely. This simple issue was quickly lost in the fray.

The lack of evidence of the ET origin of UFOs, and the fact that they do not represent a threat to national security is a conclusion that has been re-confirmed by many other governments since Menzel passed away, in particular Canada, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Russia, and Chile. Each of these countries, through their own agencies, research agendas, and set of cases came to a similar conclusion. If it is not good enough to say that we have evidence of absence of evidence, then nothing will be good enough. This brings us back to the saucerdom as belief system; let’s not waste our time engaging in reasoned discussions with people who do not care about reason (in spite of claiming to the contrary).

Open Minds, Closed Skies (and your taxes)

In his later years MEnzel became much flexible, probably unconsciously, as he was certainly frustrated by being unable to engage in serious discussions with people in the field of ufology. Surrounded and constantly attacked by quasi-religious believers he responded in kind: nothing in ufology is worth considering. His exasperation was understandable, but it undermined his cause. Yet, Menzel, originally, was much more open minded that he was portrayed by ETH ufologists. He wrote that “the creative scientist, eternally curious, keeps an open mind toward strange phenomena and novel ideas, knowing that we have only begun to understand the universe we live in. He remembers, too, that Biot’s discovery that meteorites were ‘stone from the sky’ was at first greeted with disbelief, and he hopes never to be guilty of similar obtuseness. But an open mind does not mean credulity or a suspension of the logical faculties that are man’s most valuable asset” (p. 289). He was seeking to have a level-headed debate, but he was not heard.

Menzel was also exasperated by the conspiracy theories that were already having lot of credence in the saucerdom in the early 1960s. As Menzel wrote, “the Air Force has found no evidence of any kind that anyone has ever seen, heard, smelled, photographed, touched, or in any way detected a trace of an interplanetary spacecraft. Extraterrestrial visitors have not yet arrived, and may never arrive. If and when they do, our Air Force wants to be the first to know. [...] The Air Force cannot afford to guess what is in our skies. They want to know” (p. 289). What Menzel is saying here is that the military are not the enemy, and that they investigated UFO sightings for pragmatic reasons. Yet, if you find nothing after investigating for quite some time, then it is time to do something else. The military and various government agencies are not “Scooby Doo and the Gang” on public treasury payroll. How hard is it to understand? Scrapping publically-funded UFO shops after years of absence of evidence is just common sense, as it is to make the data available to those interested in studying anomalies. The Project Blue Book cases have been available for 35 years. Other countries have done the same since.

Concluding remarks

Menzel tried to keep discussions about UFO with the realm of reason, and as much as possible based on serious factual investigations. He certainly showed that the Project Blue Book’s finding that about only 5% of UFO sightings are true “unknown” was essentially correct. His debates with others also showed that those “unknown” remain “unknown” and that multiple explanations can co-exist, and that when one explanation is prevailing it is not because of the strength of the explanation but because of various psychological and sociological factors. In this context, his education campaign predictable failed for the reasons discussed above.

In this last year of the first decade of the 21st century, the saucerdom is very much alive and kicking, but as the writers of the RRRGroup noted on their various websites, there is very few substantive replacement to the old guard of ufology (all approach confounded). As well, as Chris Rutkowski Canada’s “UFO central”) noted, the phenomenon is becoming quite shy with almost no more new cases of close encounters (from 1 to 3). The direct impact of all this is that nowadays there is very little research conducted on UFOs, from an ETH perspective or otherwise.

The key, in my opinion, is not to wait that the phenomenon becomes more ostentatious, as it may never do. As well, it is critical not to repeat old mistakes. Any new research agenda should not try to engage the saucerdom; Menzel showed how futile this is. As well, Vallée in an interview noted that ufology is now back to something akin to the days of the “Invisible College”, but this time researchers are not hiding from the scientific establishment; they are hiding from the saucerdom. In light of Menzel’s experience, this seems to be the only meaningful approach for the foreseeable future.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Lessons from the pioneers – The Straight-Line Mystery

2010-08-22T12:27:00.006-04:00

This post continues with having a second look at older thoughts and approaches that might be useful to the development of parasociology. Today, I am looking into Aimé Michel’s book on the French UFO wave of 1954. Michel was a “non-fiction” mystery writer, and was among the firsts in Europe to have a serious look at the UFO phenomenon. His first book, The Truth about Flying Saucers (published in English translation in 1954), was meant to be a wake-up call about the reality of UFOs. His second book about the Straight-Line Mystery was written in 1957 and published in English translation in 1958. Michel passed away in 1992. Michel is often mentioned in the works of another Frenchman, Jacques Vallée, and the two were good friends and were members of the so-called Invisible College. According to Vallée, Michel was one of the few in the early days of ufology to keep a cool but open-minded approach towards the phenomenon; an attitude that Vallée wanted to emulate. The full notice is:

Michel, Aimé. (1958). Flying Saucers and the Straight-Line Mystery. New York: Criterion Books.

It is all about the attitude

If one goes back in the 1950s, without the Internet, personal computers, or even without cheap long-distance plans, Michel did outstanding work, and Vallée’s admiration towards Michel is easily comprehensible. But, it is really for the attitude he brought to the study of UFOs that Michel should be remembered. His book is prefaced by a French Air Force General, (General L. M. Chassin) who was occupying a senior position in NATO HQ at the time (before France withdrew from the NATO unified command, and now has reintegrated). Clearly, people in government and the military are not the enemy; they were as baffled by the phenomenon as civilian researchers.

The most interesting part of his book is in the introduction, as he explains his approach and method. It is fascinating to read, more than 50 years later comments he made about what is going on in ufology that could apply very well today. No wonder there has been much progress since. Michel wrote: “Hitherto the only ‘study’ of saucers that has been possible has been the analysis of the reports of witnesses after sightings. But this is not the scientific method. The analysis of testimony properly belongs to the law courts and to history, which attempt to weigh human uncertainties; for the present at least, science cannot apply its methods there. This is not a deliberate refusal to do so, but merely an acknowledgement of the fact that science has its limitations” (p. 13).

In other words, it was clear for him, and it is for me, that the actual content of UFO sighting reports is not what will give us the answer to the phenomenon. This idea, as obvious as it may be, is still not fully understood in present-day UFO buff circles. I read, not that long ago on the web, a comment from an experienced UFO researcher where he is dreaming of digitizing all UFO reports from various key ufological organizations and do an extensive content analysis to figure out if we can deduce the propulsion system of UFOs. Not only this would be a gigantic waste of money, but this would not provide any answers, because it is based on what it is: reports by people of strange events very often collected by people who have a very narrow view as to what is relevant and what is not when it comes to UFOs.

Along the same train of thought, Michel continues by stating “if we study these five observations [that he mentions a few lines before] as isolated events, we are driven to the same inevitable conclusion that for ten years [i.e. 1947-1957] has blocked scientific study of the saucer phenomenon: if witnesses really saw what they described, it was a prodigious event, perhaps the most stupendous event in human history; but unfortunately, there is nothing to prove the truth of their accounts.” (p. 14).

Once again, I can only agree with Michel (50 years later), UFO events studied as isolated events will never yield anything. Yet, 50 years later it is still the norm in ufology. It is fundamental that one look into the phenomenon from a wider perspective, propose some hypothesis and try to validate such hypothesis. Michel proposed the notion of “orthoteny”, trying to show that UFOs travel in straight-lines when all the reports are studied as a collective event. There is no point here to dwell into the critiques against Michel’s approach. Indeed one has to fudge a bit the locations to find straight lines, and what he found does not occur in other UFO events. But the key here is the attitude of trying to go beyond the surface of individual sightings, and put the phenomenon into a larger context. This is actually the real scientific approach. The David Hume-style bottom-up empiricism (i.e. thinking that the “truth” can be extracted by dwelling into isolated cases) that exists in ufology has been rightfully described as pseudo-scientific. I really do not comprehend why it is so hard to understand.

In any event, it is quite clear why Vallée used Michel as a role model when he got seriously interested in UFOs in the 1960s. Vallée, although I do not agree with his control system explanation (as a sociologist I can say that what describes is very much something explainable through normal sociological analysis), has maintained an approach that is truly scientific in that he went much beyond the appearances of individual cases.

The early paranormal hypothesis

Michel is probably one of the firsts to propose a paranormal approach to the phenomenon, and he certainly had a fair bit of influence on Vallée in this respect. He was very much aware that even in his own research there are no substantive evidence beyond witnesses accounts to determine what these flying saucers are. As he wrote, “Is contact real, but invisible? This is our last, and most fascinating hypothesis. For it must be admitted that such a thing is not impossible. If contact between “them” and us were to occur on their level, rather than on ours, then, no matter what we do, it will forever remain imperceptible to us, just as most of our relationships with animals are altogether undiscoverable by them. Therefore, the answer to the question, “Why have we not had visitors from space?“ is perhaps this strangely simple one: “There seem to have been none because only our eyes see them, and not our consciousness, which is blind to them” (p. 230).

This text written in 1957 shows that the ETH had competition from day one and this competition came from someone who was displaying serious research efforts. As well, Michel’s last hypothesis summarizes, in my opinion, what Jacques Vallée will try to demonstrate in his ufological career from 1960 to the mid-1990s. The influence is quite clear. However, as stated in my last post, the PNH remains beyond verification because “they” would call all the shots. Michel understood this from the unset when he wrote: “no matter what we do, it will forever remain imperceptible to us”. This is the true challenge of the paranormal hypothesis.

Once again, what is important here is not such much whether this type of paranormal hypothesis is correct or not, even if it would be verifiable. It is rather this attitude of trying to look beyond the surface of a phenomenon; to seek deep patterns and dynamics and how they relate to other realities. If we are to understand the UFO phenomenon, it is imperative to maintain the scientific attitude to look beyond the surface displayed by people like Michel and Vallée.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The key hypotheses in ufology

2010-08-15T13:28:00.003-04:00

This post proposes a discussion on the various hypotheses in ufology, to clarify where parasociology stands on the issue. It is motivated by the writings of some people on the web who wrote some time ago that parasociology is a bizarre approach to UFOs. Well, I think these statements are made from a position of ignorance. Such ignorance, in turn, is probably enabled by the fact that most comprehensive overviews of what is going on in the field of UFO research are so misleading than one is likely to remain ignorant. For me, a key contributor to such a lack of clarity is the very unsatisfactory nature of typologies about ufological hypotheses. Most of the existing typologies do not go to the bottom of those ufological hypotheses, and they exclude a number of them. Ultimately, they depict a very warped and incomplete portrait of what is going on in ufology. The typology proposed under the label “Ufology” in Wikipedia is a prominent example of this.

The notions of hypothesis and typology

A hypothesis is essentially a temporary answer to a research question, which one tries to prove or disprove through reasoned investigation. In the case of UFOs, the main research question exists in various forms, but all versions of it are about the nature and origin of the phenomenon, which remain uncertain to this day. Hence, any hypothesis about UFOs is about ontology; to provide a temporary answer about what these things are to guide research and investigation. A typology, on the other hand, is a classification system that is based on the fundamental underpinnings of what is being classified. It is not a serendipity listing of what exists on a particular topic, which would be incomplete by definition as there are always new items to add to the list. Hence, a typology of ufological hypotheses requires looking into the fundamental underpinnings of these hypotheses.

The fundamental underpinnings

All hypotheses about UFOs, (i.e., statements by those who consider that phenomenon remains unexplained) are based on two sets of fundamental underpinnings. The first one is about the objective versus subjective nature of the phenomenon. Are UFOs real objects or are they real only in the mind of people? The second set, which is closely related to first one, is whether the phenomenon is the product of non-human entities or human sources. In this light, the key hypotheses in ufology can be regrouped in 4 generic hypotheses, although they should be seen as being part of spectrum rather than air-tight categories.

Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH)

The first one, the best known and most popular, and yet the one with least amount of evidence to support itself is the Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). Put on a spectrum, it is the hypothesis that implies the highest degree of objectivity in the phenomenon (the “nuts and bolt” approach being its most extreme version). Older ETH ufology tends to be at the extreme, where there is little room for anything else but the “nuts and bolt”. Newer ETH authors admit (grudgingly) that there might be something a bit more subjective as the phenomenon might have also a paranormal aspect. Paranormal events being always unclear, fuzzy and on the borderline of normal perception are by definition more subjective than a physical “flying saucer”. Stanton Friedman is a good example of this position. A little bit further away from the extreme is the “ETH at the 2nd degree”, a concept developed by European ufologists who consider that UFOs are still physical spaceship, but the aliens can only connect to us through paranormal means given that there is so much psychological and cultural differences between us and them.

Paranormal Hypothesis (PNH)

Then, moving further away from the objective extreme is the Paranormal Hypothesis (PNH). The PNH implies that UFOs and aliens are paranormal manifestations produced by non-human entities (but not aliens from outer space). Given that UFOs are considered paranormal manifestation by the PNH, and that paranormal perceptions are always mixed up with the psychological and cultural frames of reference of the witnesses, the PNH accepts that the phenomenon requires to be understood also as something subjective. Authors like Jacques Vallée, John Keel, and Mac Tonnies are representative of this approach. The nature of the non-human entities can vary considerably from intra-terrestrial, inter-dimensional, to time-traveller and mythical intelligence.

Parapsychological Hypothesis (PPH)

Then, getting closer to the subjective end of the spectrum by explaining the phenomenon mostly through interactions between psi effects and psycho-social factors is what I call the Parapsychological Hypothesis (PPH). The PPH does not reject the notion that there is a material reality to UFOs, but it hypothesized that it is the product of the human mind, unconsciously using its psi capabilities. In this case, we cross the threshold human/non-human, as the PPH is defined by excluding the notion of non-human entities to explain the phenomenon. This is my approach, and the one of people like Bertrand Méheust, John Spencer and Hilary Evans.

Psycho-social Hypothesis (PSH)

Finally, there is the psycho-social hypothesis (PSH), which implies that there is no objective reality behind the phenomenon, but only subjective psychological and sociological constructions based on misperceptions and make-beliefs. This is the approach used by the more sophisticated debunkers.

Graphically, the typology can be represented as follow:

Typology as a useful tool

Typologies in science are not only created to provide comprehensive descriptions; they are also useful tools to assess research and establish priorities. The selection of the PPH as my approach to the UFO phenomenon is not only a matter of preference; it is actually a reasoned choice, because out of the four primary hypotheses, the PPH is the most promising one.

The ETH is, in theory, a verifiable hypothesis in that if a piece of material or organic tissue is found to be not from this world, then it can be validated. The problem, of course, is that the ETH ufologists have been banging their respective head against a wall of failure for over 60 years. They are literally waiting that the proof “fall from the sky” (or from a brown envelop...). Such attitude is not a scientific one. When a hypothesis fails to deliver after ongoing testing it means that it is not a valid approach and something else needs to be tried. To continue in such circumstances becomes a matter of faith and belief and no more of reasoned investigation.

The PNH is an interesting one, and it has the merit of highlighting the well-documented and central role of the paranormal dimension of the UFO experience, which is mostly ignored by representatives of the ETH, and by the PSH. The fatal flaw of the PNH is that it cannot be tested as it implies the existence of non-human entities that would call all the shots on how, where and when they can be seen. This is not testable from the point of view of the natural sciences, as the object requires a degree control and repeatability, and it cannot be tested from the point of view of the social sciences because we cannot use what we know about humans to understand the intents and motivations of the alleged non-human entities, given that they are not human. A non-testable hypothesis is not a hypothesis, it is speculation.

The PSH highlights important psycho-social dynamics that are clearly part of the overall phenomenon, but its representatives blatantly ignore the well-documented material evidence about UFOs. This fact alone fully undermines the validity of the overall hypothesis. The PSH, very much like the ETH, is closer to a belief system than reasoned investigations.

The PPH, on the other hand, is respectful of both the material and paranormal dimensions of the phenomenon by integrating them into the analysis. Furthermore, the parasociological version of the PPH is also able to integrate the psycho-social dynamics identified by the PSH, yet without ignoring the material reality of the phenomenon. Finally, contrary to the ETH and PNH, the PPH offers the possibility of being testable by using our knowledge of human beings from a variety of disciplines like (parapsychology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, cultural studies, etc.). All in all, the PPH is from rational standpoint the best bet for improving our understanding of UFOs.

In light of a clearer understanding of what is going in UFO research I return the question: who is bizarre here?

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Reading Notes – Holographic Paradigm

2010-08-10T12:13:00.000-04:00

This post is renewing with presenting my reading notes about books or articles that might be useful to the advancement of the parasociological hypothesis. These reading notes are, once again, about an older book but still part of many contemporary debates: the holographic “revolution”. The book is an edited collection that re-groups the key texts (mostly from the philosophy journal ReVision) from the early discussions about the holographic universe.

In the 1970s, two scientists developed separately the idea that the universe might be a hologram. The first one is the neurologist Karl Pribram, who discovered that the brain is organized in a non-linear way when it comes to storing information. His research, in many ways, fuelled the idea of virtual database that is now a current way of storing information in computer programming. What it means is that brain cells are not only carrying information, but also contain information about how information storing is actually structured. To take a simple example, if one finds a datum he/she may also find elements or traces of its “address”, and thus it gives him/her an idea about the size and how many dimension the entire information has. For instance, “x4x, xxx, 9x9” does not tell us where the datum fits exactly, but it can tell us that it is a three-dimension construct and each dimension has up to one thousand possible spots. Holograms that we can see in movie theatres are constructed that way. Not only there are elements of images, but each element has a “tag” so that the full image can be re-constructed to become meaningful. Hence, the “tag” itself carries also precious information about information structuring.

The second scientist is David Bohm, a theoretical physicist, who explained the paradoxes of non-locality in quantum physics by showing mathematically the possibility of a 5th dimension. This additional dimension is more than just one more layer to the matrix of reality. Like in the case of the brain, objects and other realities of our ordinary 4 dimensional world also carry information about how information is structured in the higher degree matrix with 5 dimensions. In both cases, by sampling enough brain cells or objects, one can gather some useful information about how these fit in the greater scheme of thing. This is the holographic paradigm: any reality is contingent to a higher degree of information organization. This notion, without surprise, has also attracted the attention of those mystically minded, as it implies that there is a higher realm of reality “managing” reality at a lower level. The full notice is:

Wilber, Ken (Ed.). (1985). The Holographic Paradigm: Exploring the leading edge of science. Boston: Shambala.

The Holographic Paradigm and social sciences

The book provides input from various people (including one social scientist) but without making any references to the knowledge produced by the social sciences. Once more we have a “leading edge science” book where psychology, physics and philosophy are used to support the argument for a new look at the world, but without using sociology and its sister sciences. It is very regrettable because the holographic paradigm has been part of the social sciences since day one, although described under a different vocabulary. People are not just people. They belong to higher orders of information structuring by their gender, ethnic origin, language, social class, level of education, etc. This is so obvious to any social scientist that one is wondering where the big fuss is.

For instance, qualitative social scientists, and for that matter any good management consultant, know that you do not need to interview everyone in a community or an organization to get a good understanding of what is going on. Only a few well selected people usually will do. Why? Because people also carry information about how life is structured in a community or organization (who is the boss, who holds the power, the key histories or narratives one needs to know to be part of the group, what’s in and what’s out, etc, etc , etc). Human communities are holographic. Sociologists know quite well that the social realm is a higher degree of structuring information that can be accessed by sampling enough individual about it. The Holographic Paradigm is actually old news for the social scientists. Maybe that’s why they were ignored, as they would remove the “edge” to the news. To be fair, however, there was a “fad” in the 1980s and 1990s in the social sciences about studying the social realm through the vocabulary of the holographic paradigm. For what I can assess, this has not gain much traction, probably because, in the end, it is old wine in a new bottle.

The Holographic Paradigm and parapsychology

In the book, there is, unfortunately, only one and very short text from Stanley Krippner dealing directly with the impact of the Holographic Paradigm on parapsychology. It would have been good to get a more extensive reaction from Krippner and the parapsychological community. In any event, the notion that the universe is holographic is certainly a useful one for parapsychologists. This notion is very much in tune with the Jungian concept of “Absolute Knowledge” and the Laszlo’s notion of Akashic field, speculating that knowledge exists in other forms, free of time and physical constraints, which can be access through ESP. Similarly, the introduction of a notion of higher order of information structuring can help to explain various time paradoxes found in parapsychological experiments, especially for retro-psychokinesis. But as parapsychology depends very much on positivist recognition from the institutional scientific community, the holographic paradigm remains very difficult to verify empirically. If it is possible to make a sound argument about the holographic nature of the brain, quantum physics, and the social realm that does not mean that the rest of the universe is holographic. That is where parapsychology stands on this issue for the time being; an interesting but hard to test idea.

The Holographic Paradigm and parasociology

Parasociology, as an attempt to fuse parapsychology and sociology together, is in mixed position with regards to the Holographic Paradigm. Societies can be easily described as hologram, as discussed above, but to really use the holographic approach to its fullest extent, one has to stipulate some sort of meta-social hologram. According to the theory, this meta-social hologram would be one degree (or dimension) higher in terms of abstraction, away from the empirically observable social realm, that describes another level of information structuring. To me, this sounds very much as a re-description of the notion of social unconscious. The main difference, however, would be that by borrowing from parapsychology the social unconscious would become information also freed (or at least partially freed) from time and geographical constraints. This is an interesting idea, but yet again this not that new. The parasociological notion of social unconscious is partly built on Jung’s concept of collective unconscious, which is explicitly described by Jung as timeless and unconcerned with geography. All in all, it is still old wine in a new bottle. Furthermore, the possibility of empirical verification is not improved by using the holographic approach. Ultimately, the holographic paradigm adds weight to the possibility that such an approach may explain many aspects of reality because it is found in different realms (biology, physics, social sciences), but it is still quite far from becoming a theory of everything.

Concluding remarks

Brain cells, and photons going through a splitter, are relatively simple carriers of information, and using a holographic approach to reconstruct how they fit in a larger scheme is certainly an effective approach. But what about complex datum, like a single human being, who has so many possible “tags” to so many possible larger psycho-social constructs? This is simply not very effective, and ultimately (strangely) it is a very reductionist approach – something the Holographic Paradigm claims to steer away from.

From a parasociological perspective, UFO events are like any other human events: they are composite events. The symbolic, psychical, emotional, social and physical forces at play to create such events are difficult to distinguish from each other. Furthermore, it may not be useful to distinguish them in a detailed way because we may loose from sight the “tag” that links qualitatively different realities together (e.g., the social unconscious and balls of light). Holographic thinking, in the end, is very much an expression of mathematical thinking where everything can be reduced to numbers (qualitative unification). Unfortunately, reality cannot be unified this way as qualitatively different realities cannot be subsumed into each other. All those who tried such qualitative unification have failed, and the Holographic Paradigm is very likely to face the same end if it does not steer away from mathematical thinking.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The 'C' Influence collective blog

2010-08-09T10:07:00.002-04:00

This is a short post to announce that I am also participating to the new collective blog entitled "The 'C' influence". This blog has a more philosophical flavour, but it is fully about understanding various aspects and dimensions of the paranormal. The UFO theme will be specifically addressed at some point. There is a link to the site on the side bar, and here below. I hope readers will enjoy this new blog as well.

The 'C' influence

The parasociological hypothesis in a nutshell

2010-06-29T12:39:00.008-04:00

Here is a short post where I am trying to summarize my efforts to make sense of what parasociology is all about.

******

I am also taking a break for the month of July, and I wish everyone a good and safe summer.

******

Parasociology is mostly about studying and understanding the sociological dimension of anomalous phenomenon, by integrating the concept of psi within its core analysis. Hence, it is starting from the key findings of parapsychology, but aims at extending them outside the realm of individual psychology. Below is a short description of the parasociological hypothesis.

At the individual level, parapsychologists who have studied spontaneous paranormal cases tend to think that there are mutual interactions between the subject (experiencer) and the phenomenon. For instance, in the case of poltergeists (RSPK), people are seriously impacted by the disturbances and oftentimes ascribe the phenomenon to an “evil spirit” or some sort of non-human entity. Yet, it is pretty clear that the main person around whom the phenomenon is occurring is influencing its nature, namely his/her deeply buried anger and frustration appear to be what gives the phenomenon its violent character. It can be graphically represented as follow:

At the social level, sociologists who have studied controversies, which includes paranormal claims, have found that such events put in motion a social dynamics where the meaning attached to the phenomenon is debated, and usually determined by the social and political status of the key actors involved, and by the existing social and cultural pre-dispositions. For instance, the case of cold fusion was determined by the scientific establishment as a hoax, while in fact there was something like cold fusion going on, but at a very low level. In the paranormal world, the children who saw the “lady” in Fatima did not know what to think of it at first. But through various social dynamics involving a debate between the Church and the republican lay authorities, it was deemed to be the Virgin Mary who appeared to the children. Hence, the phenomenon impacted social dynamics already occurring in the Portuguese society of 1917.

The question is whether there is a parallel to be made with the individual level, where society would also influence the shape of the phenomenon, so that the interaction is also mutual at the sociological level? For instance, during the 1896-97 airship wave in United States (and Canada), the phenomenon was first described as strange lights in the sky, but it was reported by the press, nationwide, as “airships”. Could the social expectations to see an airship in the sky influenced the phenomenon so that it took an airship shape in the days and months that ensued? This question illustrates the core of the parasociological hypothesis. Graphically, it looks like this:

If one accepts that the parasociological hypothesis is a valid field of inquiry, then one should also look into the possibility of mutual interactions between the individual and sociological levels. Some of those interactions, in fact, have been studied already. For instance, the individual-level reactions to a poltergeist outbreak can create social debates in a society about what is the “true” nature of paranormal events. Conversely, if in a particular society some views about the paranormal are already accepted, then it is likely to impact the individual reactions. The clear case is the one of Marian apparitions, which tend to occur among Catholic communities. Strange and bizarre events, which meaning is not that clear to the witnesses, will eventually become interpreted as Marian apparitions because of strong cultural views about such apparitions.

Another set of interactions that should be investigated out of the parasociological hypothesis is the possible mutual interactions between the individual and social layers of a phenomenon. For instance, how an individual UFO close encounter relates to an overall UFO wave occurring at the same time? Or, how a set of Marian apparitions to a few children relate to a series of anomalous lights and healing in the community around? How a particular haunting relates to an overall high rate of hauntings in a particular region (England and Scotland)? These challenging questions have received little attention so far by researchers interested in the paranormal. Graphically, this can be represented as follow, with the dotted lines showing relationships requiring some serious conceptualisation and empirical research:

It is also possible to think of other mutual interactions. For instance, can the particular shape an individual-level anomalous phenomenon have a direct impact on the social dynamics about the interpretation of an anomalous phenomenon ? Landmark cases like the Barney and Bettey Hill UFO abduction incident clearly had an impact on how UFO abductions are construed socially later on. But what about the interaction in the other direction? For instance, could the extra-terrestrial “flavour” and shape of a close encounter be determined by socially shared views about extra-terrestrial visitations and not by the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of the experiencer? This question is at the center of the debate between the French Bertrand Méheust and François Favre about whether we have UFO witnesses of a relatively objective (i.e. of a social origin) parapsychological phenomenon or do we have only “psi subjects” living and influencing directly the phenomenon’s shape. There is very limited research on this issue.

The last set of mutual interactions, between a social-scale phenomenon and individual psychological make-up and dynamics, is also split in terms of research. The impact of those large phenomena on individuals has been studied by people like Jacques Vallée in his seminal book Messengers of Deception. UFO wave can have an impact on UFO-related cults and their capacity to recruit new members. Similarly, Marian apparitions led oftentimes to create religious fervour among people who had little interest in religion before the events. If the relationship is taken in the other direction, could it be possible that the individual psychological make-up and dynamics of some individuals have a defining impact on the shape of a social-scale anomalous phenomenon? For instance, in one of my researches on the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67, there are some indications that the phenomenon was “responding” to a major politician’s series of key decisions, which were to have a very significant impact on the Canadian society but could not have been known at the time the phenomeon was unfolding. This is another area requiring much more investigation.

The overall parasociological hypothesis creates a relatively specific research programme, enough to keep many people busy for a long time. Graphically, it can be represented by all the dotted arrows shown below:

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 5)

2010-06-24T13:28:00.005-04:00

This post proposes an analysis of the remainding clusters of sightings identified earlier for the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67. It is also the last part of this case study. However, I am introducing the clusters in a somewhat different perspective than previously announced, as I found an unanticipated consistency within the best-known cases of Falcon Lake, Duhamel crop circles, and Shag Harbour. These three cases will be considered as part of the same cluster, the reason for which is explained below. Hence, this post is covering the rash of closer encounters of the third kind of summer 1967 and the best-know cases lumped into the label the “National Tensions.” An overall evaluation of the case study is proposed at the end of this post.

The summer 1967 “visitations” cluster

Between the end of July and late August 1967, six closer encounters of the third kind (CE3) were reported by the private observation system. Given the rarity of CE3 in general, this concentration is unusual and can be seen as a form of “insistence” by the phenomenon to be “noted”. The basic information on the sightings is as follow:

(1) At the end of July, in St-Stanislas-de-Kostka, Quebec, an “11-year old Denis Léger said a flying object, ‘resembling a round and shiny saucer,’ followed him for about 5 minutes, at 20-foot altitude, as he rode his bicycle. The bottom was made of glass 3 or 4 inches thick, and he could see three persons inside, one seated at one end and the others at the other. ‘They were small and black.’”[1]

(2) On 12 August, in St-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick, a “dozen teens saw ‘huge, black monster’ descend from light craft in woods. Being dressed in black, with black face and goggles. They didn't approach, and it quickly disappeared.”[2]

(3) On 14 August 1967, in St-Charles, New Brunswick, “an unidentified woman from St Charles reported sighting a similar figure [to that of St-Louis-de-Kent] in the woods near the same road. Richibucto RCMP searched the area although they located a man dressed in black; there was no apparent connection with the encounters.[3]

(4) On 15 August 1967, in Port Perry, Ontario “a farm area a young boy heard a loud oscillating sound, going over a nearby hill he saw a landed disc shaped craft on four metallic legs, it was actually hovering just above the ground. On a platform around its perimeter, were seated eight to ten little men about three-foot tall, they wore tight fitting brown clothing. A depressed 12-foot circular area was found on the ground later.”[4]

(5) On 15 August, in Welland, Ontario, a “family observed two bright lights traveling across the sky, through a pair of binoculars several figures could be seen moving in one of the lights. Both lights flew at high speed away from the area. No other information.”[5]

(6) On 23 August, in Joyceville, Ontario, while “driving from his home in Toronto early in the morning, Stanley Moxon saw a green light in a field off the road ahead of his car; he turned off his headlights and swung onto a side road to get closer. Turning his lights on again, he saw a huge craft shaped like two saucers put together, and two human like entities about 4-feet high in white uniforms and helmets. They "seemed to be at work around the machine;" when they were discovered, they quickly jumped into the object, which took off silently at tremendous speed.”[6]

Taken together, these reports seem unrelated and unexplainable. As well, as there is only scant information about each of them, it is difficult to make a detailed analysis. Yet, if one looks beyond the surface, there are a number of commonalities. All the reporting was to stay local. In cases 1, 2, 4, 5, children were involved, and given the inherent bias against younger witnesses, these cases were not likely to reach the public observation system. In the cases 3, and 6, it was reported by adults who had the reflex to seek the local police (note that the RCMP plays the role of the local police in rural areas of New Brunswick, as part of an agreement between the province and the federal government), and these local police forces have little to do with the national public observation system. From a parasociological standpoint, this is an important clue as the phenomenon did not appear to seek the attention of the larger society. Furthermore, the possibility to even observe a CE3 cluster was not possible then. One case surfaced in 1968, and two others surfaced in 1979.

It is therefore possible to think that separate local parasociological effects could be held responsible for those events, but that they shared a common enabling factor or factors. From a symbolic perspective, there is an idea of “children” inherent to these sightings. In 3 cases, the entities were perceived as being of child-size (1, 4, 6). The sighting (1) was followed by another one, a year later by the same witness plus other children.[7] In most cases, the entities did not engaged with the witnesses but were either scared or oblivious to presence of witnesses (child-like behaviour?). Could the “Flower Children” of the “Summer of Love” (i.e. 1967) enabled symbolically some parasociological effects? It is impossible to prove but it is an interesting possibility.

The 1967 national tensions cluster

The three most ostentatious cases from the Canadian UFO wave of 1966-67 occurred in 1967. They are, in chronologically order, the Falcon Lake incident of 20 May, the Duhamel crop circles of 8 August, and the Shag Harbour “crash” on 4 October. When the Department of National Defence (DND) got rid of its UFO files by transferring them to the National Research Council (NRC), these three cases were specifically highlighted in a November 1967 letter as meriting particular attention, and that DND would like to be kept abreast of any findings by the NRC.[8] Clearly, the phenomenon was able to get the attention of the public observation system.

Once again, we have three cases that on the surface seem to be disconnected, and unrelated. When taken in isolation and separately, they seem profoundly absurd and meaningless. Although these cases were better investigated than most other cases of 1966-67 because the public observation system stepped in, nothing worth of mention emerged from their analysis. Yet, if one applies a parasociological analysis, then a different image emerges that is actually consistent with the other clusters reported by the public observation system: Canadian national tensions are symbolically found across these cases.

Falcon Lake incident

The details of this incident are available through many sources, but here is a copy of the synopsis prepared by DND in its letter to the NRC:

“A Mr Steven Michalak of Winnipeg, Manitoba reported that he had come into physical contact with a UFO during a prospecting trip in the Falcon Lake area, some 90 miles east of Winnipeg on the 20 May 1967. Mr. Michalak stated that he was examining a rock formation when two UFOs appeared before him. One of the UFOs remained airborne in the immediate area for a few moments, then flow off at great speed. The second UFO landed a few hundred feet away from his position. As he approached the UFO, a side door opened and voices were heard from within. Mr. Michalak stated that he approached the object but was unable to see due to a bright yellow bluish light which blocked his vision. He endeavoured to communicate with the personnel inside the object but without result. As he approached within a few feet of the object, the door closed, he heard a whining noise and the object commenced to rotate anti-clockwise and finally rained off the ground. He reached out with his left gloved hand and touched the object prior to its lifting off the ground; the glove burned immediately as he touched the object. As the object left the ground, the exhaust gases burned his cap, out and inner garments and he sustained rather severe stomach and chest burns. As a result of these he was hospitalized for a number of days. The doctors who interviewed and attended Mr. Michalak were unable to obtain any information that could account for the burns to his body. The personal items of clothing which were alleged to have been burned by the UFO were subjected to an extensive analysis at the SCNF Crime Laboratory. The analysis was not able to reach any conclusion as to what may have caused the burn damage. Soil samples taken from the immediate area occupied by the UFO by Mr. Michalak were analyzed and found to be radioactive to a degree that the samples had to be safely disposed of. An examination of the alleged UFO landing area was tested by a radiologist from the Department of Health and Welfare and a small area was found radioactive. The radiologist was unable to provide an explanation as to what caused this area to become contaminated.
Both DND and RCMP investigation teams were unable to provide evidence which would dispute Mr. Michalak’s story.”[9]

A few more elements emerged from the private observation system. A 1968 analysis and a 1979 re-evaluation showed that the radioactive contamination was likely from natural uranium ore and associated radon gas emanations.[10]

From a symbolic perspective this events has several clues to offer. First of all, the location is an interesting one. Falcon Lake was named after Pierre Falcon, a French-speaking poet of Métis origin who lived in the 19th century (1793-1876). The Métis people were made of people having both European (mostly French) and North American Native ancestry. They lived in Western Canada, mostly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Their history is a sad one, as they were victim of the racist attitudes of the British authorities, and many got their land confiscated to be given to British settlers. They defended themselves in several occasions but were defeated by the British Army and the white settlers. As well, the French-speaking heritage disappeared overtime, to become almost fully anglicized. Pierre Falcon actually wrote songs and poem describing the fight against the English-speaking settlers and the injustice the Métis people were facing.[11]

There are other symbolic clues in the events. Michalak did meet people speaking a language that he did not understand. He was burnt in the forest, which is actually how Pierre Falcon described his compatriots the “Bois-Brûlé”.[12] Radioactivity was not known in the 19th century, so this clue might be a bit more subtle. In the 1960s, they were no uranium mining in Manitoba. The closest ones were in Northern Saskatchewan, and in Ontario in Elliot Lake, all far away from Flacon Lake.[13] Elliott Lake was a key uranium mining town then, and was another mixed French-English community of Northern Ontario. Finally, it is worth noting that on 19 May 1967, the Premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, came back from an official visit from France, where he was received as a Head of State[14], a prelude the famous “Vive le Québec libre!” of De Gaulle a few weeks later.

Duhamel crop circles

In 1967, crop circles were a novelty. The association between UFOs and crop circles is not a new one, as there was the notion of “saucer’s nest” in the 1950s from some US UFO investigations. But it was something quite different for Canada then. The event was considered as UFo one because “For several weeks before the crop circles appeared, Duhamel been plagued with strange occurrences. Reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) had made it into the local papers weeks before the crop circles were discovered.”[15] The official synopsis describes the events as follow:

“On August 8th 1967, a Mr. K. Patrige, of Camrose, Alberta, reported the finding of a number of circular impressions in a pasture in the vicinity of the town of Camrose, Alberta. An investigation was conducted by an officer from Canadian Forces Base, Edmonton, in the company of Dr. G. H. Jones, of the Defence Research Board Experimental Station in Suffield.
All the marks exhibited the same general appearance; a ring six inches in width, with diameter varying from slightly over 31 feet to 36 feet. No evidence of heat was evident, but a definite impression in the ground, which was soft from recent rains, indicated distinct pressure. Some slight evidence of movement in a radial manner along the marks was visible in that the grass had been pressed down in a definite direction.
No evidence that would lead to the conclusion of deliberate interference or involvement of any person was found, nor was there any trace of chemical or radioactivity in the area.”[16]

This noted UFO incident is also linked symbolically to the Métis people. It was a Métis settlement in 19th century, originally called “La Boucane”, named after the first Métis settlers, and renamed after the French-Canadian Roman Catholic Bishop of Ottawa Mgr. Duhamel.[17] Like a crop circle, they left their mark, but soon it will disappear both physically and from memory.

Veronica Laboucane and Jean Baptiste Laboucane, Duhamel, Alberta, circa 1912

The official 1967 report does not mention Duhamel, and interestingly the Wikipedia site for Duhamel does not mention its French and Métis origin.[18] They have effectively “disappeared” from mainstream history.

A key document that emerged recently was a draft letter signed 2 August 1967 by René Lévesque announcing his resignation from the Liberal Party of Quebec to the then leader of the Party, which would eventually occur on 14 October 1967 and set in motion a series of major events in Canada (as discussed in the previous post). A paragraph in this letter is highly symbolic and could have been applied very well to the Métis of Duhamel:

“C’est bien ainsi que l’ont compris tous ceux qui ne nous aiment pas. Il y en a un grand nombre au Canada, même parmi nous, de ces gens qui endurent les Canadiens français à condition qu’ils soient bien sages, qu’ils ne se prennent pas pour «d’autres» et qu’ils confirment périodiquement l’image rassurante qu’on s’acharne à se faire d’eux: la pittoresque survivance indigène appelée tôt ou tard à se perdre gentiment dans le paysage."[19]

[It is in this way that those who do not like us have understood it. There are many people in Canada, even among us, who tolerate the French-Canadians only at the condition that they be quiet, that they do not think they are important, and that they confirm periodically the reassuring picture painted of them: this picturesque survival of indigenous people called, sooner or later, to gently disappear from the scenery] (My translation).

The Shag Harbour “crash”

The Shag Harbour case is arguably the best known UFO case from Canada. It has been dubbed by some as the “Canadian Roswell,”[20] and the case was among those under evaluation during the Condon committee’s investigation. This case also attracted the attention of both the public and private observation systems, as it was so ostentatious. Here is the official description of the events:

“An RCMP corporal and six other witnesses observed what they believed to be an unidentified flying object off the south-west coast of Nova Scotia, Canada on the 4th October 1967. The object was described as approximately 60 feet in length and was flying in an easterly direction when first sighted. During their observation, the UFO descended rapidly to the surface and made a ‘bright splash’ as it struck the water. For some time after the impact, a single white light remained on the surface. The RCMP corporal endeavoured to the floating white object, but unfortunately, before he could reach the location the object sank. A search of the area failed to produce any material evidence which could assist in explaining or establishing the identity of the object. An underwater search conducted by divers from the Department of National Defence also failed to locate any tangible evidence which could be used to arrive at an explainable conclusion.”[21]

The public observation system was also able to add to this description. In the evening of 4 October 1967, the pilots of an Air Canada liner Saint-Jean in Quebec (south-east of Montreal) saw the following event, as reported later to the authorities: “Flying on top of layered clouds, well below us. The Captain drew my attention to an unusual set of lights to the south. One large bright white light and six small ones. It looks like a large kite about 20 deg. above the horizon at 90 degs from the aircraft. While we were looking at this set of lights we saw a big fire ball that started as a very bright white light and grew into a large red ball. It then turn violet in color, then light blue. We saw two of these. I checked the clock. The first one was at 19:19 EDT the second at 19:31 EDT. At 19:35 EDT one large pear shape cloud glowing pale blue was drifting slowly eastward.”[22]

As well, the private system was able to get the following additional details[23]. According to Ledger and Styles, several witnesses in the area around Halifax saw strange lights moving towards the southwest along the coast, between 21:00 ADT until 23:00 ADT. Then observations moved to Lunenburg, and then Waymouth, to finally have the last observations around Shag Harbour[24]. A very interesting report made by several witnesses described the descent into water of several objects as a “falling-leaf motion” from the Cape Sable Island[25].

This last observation is particular interesting as it is a motion noted in a number of poltergeist events. But even more interesting is that not only the overall event started in Quebec, the French-speaking province of Canada, 10 days before René Lévesque’s critical political move, but it occurred in another area of past French-English tensions. The Cape Sable Island was also the point of departure of several deportation ships, bringing in harsh conditions the French-speaking Acadiens away from their land, so that English settlers can have them.[26]

Symbolically, we have something emanating from Quebec and showing the color blue in the sky (blue being the color associated with the movement seeking the independence of Quebec), that sinks into the sea in a place where British cruelty towards the French-Canadians has been enacted by sending people to their lost by sea. The fact that an agent of the state witnessed it is also indicative that the phenomenon was seeking the attention of the public observation system. As well, it “crashed” near one of the nods of the underwater submarine detection network, put in place in the context of the Cold War against Soviet intrusions. The phenomenon “took no chance”, it had to be noted by the public authorities, and like in any macro psi event, when observation becomes too intense, the phenomenon does not have any indeterminacy to keep going. The Shag Harbour incident marks the decline phase of the 1966-67 Canadian UFO wave. As well, like in most RSPK (or poltergeist) events, those for whom the message is intended did not understand it.

Discussion

This parasociological analysis of the Canadian 1966-1967 UFO wave was quite instructive. First, it provided an analysis with a fair degree of internal validity that some of the key events can be explained as social psi effects linked to the deep tensions found in the Canadian society then. The concordance between geographic locations, dates of UFO events, and dates of significant social events with the key symbolism found within particular cases is striking. These cases, when taken alone do not make sense, but when they are linked together within a proper analytical framework, they start to make sense. It would be interesting to do a similar analysis of the American UFO wave of 1966-67 and linked it to the many racial riots and tensions experienced in 1966 and especially in 1967. However, I think it is a task for an American researcher to do.

When thinking about the UFO events related to the national level, and therefore noted by the public observation system, I cannot help but making the comparison with the seminal and in-depth research conducted by Nandor Fodor about the Thornton Heath poltergeist.[27] Like with the UFO wave of 1966-67, the strange and bizarre events surrounding Mrs. Forbes were incomprehensible, absurd, and beyond explanation, even to dedicated and experienced psychical researchers. Fodor went further and looked where no one else bothered to investigate. Not only he gathered evidence and evaluated them, but he also proposed an analysis based on the symbolic content of those poltergeist events. Through a detailed symbolic review of the evidence he was able to make sense of what happened in Thornton Heath, as it was the symbolic expression of Mrs. Forbes’ unresolved trauma of being sexually abused when she was a child. From that perspective, UFO waves can be explained in part as of a macroscopic poltergeist, as John Keel believed. The only difference is that we, the humans, are the ultimate cause of the events.

The events that were noted by the private observation systems are much more difficult to interpret, in great part because they were not approached from the “broader” perspective, leaving very little data to work with. Some were investigated in more depth, but with the passing of time, such information can become extremely difficult to find. In some cases, like the APRO reports, the evidence is locked up into private hands not willing to share them. Furthermore, if these sightings were intended to be observed by the private system, then the message should logically be intended to a private audience, making the investigation that much harder as one has to get detailed knowledge of local unconscious issues.

It is important to underline that there are many sightings of the 1966-67 wave that are beyond any meaningful research because they were likely to be meaningful only to the witnesses themselves. Again, with the passing of time, and limited reporting content this becomes an impossible task. Some other sightings are likely to be misperceptions and hoaxes, but too much time has elapse to make any valid evaluation on them. However, these others sightings (including hoaxes) could be seen as synchronistic events that participated in creating a social psi event by keeping the attention on the phenomenon..

UFO wave, to conclude, appear to have at least distinct four layers: the global, national, local and individual ones. Each of them deserve its own separate analysis as it carry its own distinct meaning, yet all of them can “ride” on the same macro psi effect at the same, creating a very confused picture. In the end, however, the key to make sense of all of them is to look seriously into their respective symbolic dimension. Hence, should there be another major UFO wave in North America (or elsewhere), we now have a more refined methodology about what we need to look for.

References

[1] From http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1967.shtml. Itself based on Saucers, Space & Science, fall 1968.

[2] From http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1967.shtml.Itself based on a newspaper article from the Moncton Times, August 17, 1967.

[3] From http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1967.shtml. A RCMP police report is quoted as the original source.

[4] From http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1967.shtml. John Brent Musgrave. (1979). UFO occupants and critters: The patterns in Canada. N.L.: Global Communications, is quoted as the source, but Musgrave does not provide his own sources. See http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=John%20Brent%20Musgrave.

[5] Same as reference 4.

[6] From http://www.ufoinfo.com/humanoid/humanoid1967.shtml. Itself based on a local police report, and was investigated by APRO. The APRO report is likely to be unavailable for further information.

[7] See http://www.ufologie.net/ce3/1968-07-28-canada-ststanislasdekostka.htm

[8] See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2502-e.html

[9] Original available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2502.01-e.html

[10] Rutkowski, Chris and Geoff Dittman. (2006). The Canadian UFO Report: The best cases revealed‎. Toronto: Dundurn Press, p. 77.

[11] See http://www.shsb.mb.ca/paysriel/media/modules/md204-chanson/md204-17-pdf.pdf

[12] Idem.

[13] See http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html

[14] See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_au_Qu%C3%A9bec

[15] See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-1200.01-e.html

[16] Original available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2502.02-e.html

[17] Fro more see: http://www.telusplanet.net/dgarneau/alberta3a.htm; http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~abcamros/; http://www.edukits.ca/francophone/en/elementary/infomania_text_french.html

[18] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhamel,_Alberta

[19] From http://fondationrene-levesque.org/documentation/ecrits-de-rene-levesque/textes/projet-de-lettre-adressee-a-jean-lesage-2-aout-1967/

[20] Rutkowski, Chris and Geoff Dittman. (2006). The Canadian UFO Report: The best cases revealed‎. Toronto: Dundurn Press, p. 94.

[21] Original available at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2502.03-e.html

[22] From Canada Archives, at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4669&page_id_nbr=204&record_id=4669-204-7193&interval=20&PHPSESSID=furspoo0jlegq3khtpfc446k22

[23] For a detailed account of this case, please refer to Ledger, Don and Chris Styles. (2001). Dark Object: The world’s only government documented UFO crash. New York: Dell.

[24] Ledger, Don and Chris Styles. (2001). Dark Object: The world’s only government documented UFO crash. New York: Dell, pp. 13-27.

[25] From UFO DNA at http://www.ufodna.com/uf05/uf6/056206.htm.

[26] For more information, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Sable_Island; and
http://www.acadian-home.org/cap-sable.html

[27] Fodor, Nandor. (1958). On the Trail of the Poltergeist. New York: Citadel Press.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 4)

2010-06-15T14:36:00.007-04:00

This post presents the two mini waves that occurred in 1967, one around Hamilton, Ontario, and the second around Sudbury, also in Ontario. Like in the previous post, they have been noted by different observation systems, namely the private one for Hamilton and the public one for Sudbury. What they have in common, however, is that they provide a few more symbolic clues because they were somewhat more ostentatious from a phenomenological standpoint. There are still very few clues to work with because they were not investigated from a “broader” perspective (i.e., including investigating about witnesses’ life story especially relating to the paranormal, what was going on in the community but not openly discussed, other non-UFO paranormal events occurring around the same time, etc.). The “narrow” perspective (i.e., limiting the investigation essentially on the superficial appearance of the phenomenon, and limiting the interactions with the witnesses to establishing whether they were saying the truth) was the norm for both the private and public observation systems.

The phenomenon becoming somewhat clearer?

The private observation system

The Hamilton/Caledonia area in Ontario experienced a mini wave of its own in January and February 1967, with a short but intense second outburst in June 1967 (including a prominent CE3 experience, and one of the rare Canadian “Men-in-Black” reports).

The winter sightings revealed close to nothing, except that the phenomenon seemed to insist. The observations can be summed up as follow: night lights or day discs were observed over a two-week period on 29 January, 2, 6, 10, 11 and 15 February. The phenomenon has shown some more intensity on 3 February. Although it was a night light, it moved in a zigzag way, with very high rates of speed, and had a white and orange color. From a phenomenological standpoint, this shows similarities with the movement of objects observed in RSPKs, as discussed in previous posts, and has the appearance of earthlights.

The phenomenon, however, became closer to confirmation at the end of the first phase of this mini wave, which is consistent with what the MPI predicts. On 14 February, a “disc with red blinking lights forces car off road, returns to hover, then land on snow nearby. Landing marks later found in snow. An object was observed. It buzzed a witness. One object was observed in snowy weather by a male witness on a road for a few minutes”[1]. Traces in the white snow can be reminiscent of many things, but given the second set of sightings it may mean “getting dirty”.

Then, the phenomenon had a short but intense outburst four months later on 15 June 1967. A close encounter of the third kind occurred near a factory by the Dofasco employee Carmen Cuneo. He described seeing three objects near the ground for about 20 minutes, two in a disc shaped, and the other in a cigar shape. The latter was described as being as big as a transport plane. He then saw three occupants, no more than 4 feet tall in uniform and wearing helmets with four lights at each corner of the front part. They were looking around the ground.[2] When it comes to confirmation, however, the story becomes blurry. Some source states that Cuneo ran to get other people to look at what he saw, and upon arriving they only saw the objects moving away in the sky, but no one could confirm seeing the occupants.[3]. Another source states that there was nothing left when the others arrived.[4]

In any event, the objects left marks on the ground, and most importantly an oily substance. The substance was brought for analysis and was found to be ordinary lubricating oil.[5] Like in all CE2 events, and as noted by Jacques Vallée on many occasions, the physical traces appear to be absurd. But it might be in fact the only valuable clue in this story.

Then, Cuneo was apparently threatened by Men-in-Black, and told to not discuss further his sighting. It is to be noted that Men-in-Black were reported several times during the second half of the 1960s in the United States. But that part of the story is quite murky. The UFO DNA site states that he was physically visited on 20 June 1967, quoting the CUFOS database.[6] A MUFON bulletin of 1978 reports that Cuneo received a phone call from what was interpreted as Men-in-Black, on another day.[7] Some websites situate the event in 1976, leading one to wonder if it was a numeral inversion from 1967 to 1976 that was then reproduced by several other sites. In all cases, however, the threats were just that. They did not materialized into anything, as noted for almost all Men-in-Black events. As Rojcewicz observed about Men-in-Black experience, they share the same narrative structure as meeting the Devil, where one is diverted from the truth in subtle ways. [8] In the case of the Men-in-Black, the threat that never materialized has usually for effect to reinforce the witnesses’ belief that an “alien in spaceship” event occurred, which pushes them to report even more the event as an ET encounter. This is congruent with the parapsychologist Jule Eisnbold’s observation that the unconscious creates also “defense mechanism” to protect its psi abilities.[9] This in turn can be translated in Generalized Quantum Theory as maintaining or protecting the indeterminacy in the system by ensuring the ongoing displacement towards an imaginary agent, thus preventing effective confirmation.

This mini wave has indeed left very few clues, preventing confirmation, but at least one symbolic trace is worth serious consideration: the oily substance. From a symbolic standpoint this is “pollution”. The Hamilton area in the 1960s was indeed very polluted, especially the air. For instance, at the end of the two-month labour strike at the main steel mill in 1969, air pollution level was just started to be close to normal healthy levels.[10] This pollution issue was in fact so problematic, that the main industry in the area opened a research centre dedicated to find less polluting ways of producing steel, while still expanding its production (and therefore pollution levels).[11] Some of the key pollution from the production of steel is indeed oil coming from the coke burning.[12] The opening date of the research centre was 8 June 1967, with many dignitaries present[13]; one week before the Cuneo’s close encounter.

Another important issue is the area. Although a stronghold of the labour union movement (still to this day) it was also witnessing the very early stage of its de-industrialization. During the 1950s, most of the textile mills closed. Then, in 1964 a major cigarette factory moved to a different region and a scale factory closed. In 1966, the Studebaker car factory plant closed as well. And soon in the 1970s, a string of industrial closures occurred in the region. In fact, only the steel industry was still strong at the time.[14] In many ways, the industrial and economic prosperity of the region was also in the hand of a very polluting industry; something that people might have been aware unconsciously, but not willing to talk about overtly. This difficult situation can provide parasociological tensions enabling psi effects to occur. The limited clues available seem to point in that direction.

The public observation system

The Sudbury area experienced also a mini wave between September and November 1967, with an interesting sighting on 4 October, the day of the Shag Harbour incident, and another one on 11 October, also the date of a second set sightings near Shag Harbour.[15] It is important to note that only the public observation system seemed to be aware of this mini wave.[16]

Most of the sightings are not spectacular in themselves, but combined together they create an interesting picture. There was a series of night light and day disc sightings around the Sudbury area, namely on 29 August – observed by a Laurentian University professor; 1 September – reported by amateur astronomers; and on the 9, 22 and 28 September 1967 with very few details recorded by the public observation system.

The 4 October sighting is interesting because it was quite ostentatious even if the public system did not produced a significant report on it. The object was described as very bright with red and green lights on of each side, with a pulsating white light in the middle. One would think that this looks like a plane, but it had no tail, and was evaluated as being 200 feet long. The observation lasted 2 hours (a very long time), and the object moved back and forth over the city. It was quite low above the ground. By then, it was the most ostentatious sighting in the area.

The following sighting, on 11 October, was observed by several independent witnesses. The Sudbury police received numerous reports, and at one point their radio system went down. One witness heard a loud noise from the sky, but did not see anything. There was also one sighting by the private observation system in October, but the date is unclear. It was reported that there was significant radio interferences associated with the sighting of an object almost landed in a field, and producing a whining sound.[17] This description shares many similarities with the events of 11 October recorded by the public system.

It is interesting to note that on 14 November the Canadian Forces HQ asked to get all the reports from the Sudbury police about these sightings. The public observation system was looking much more closely. As predicted by the MPI, this is also when a phenomenon starts to decline. There were four more sightings of night lights in 1967 around Sudbury after that, but they were not as ostentatious as the October sightings.

Hence, October was the time when the phenomenon really “insisted” to be noted by the public observation system. Like everywhere else, Sudbury was going through major transformations during the 1960s.[18] But the date concordance with two quite ostentatious events in Shag Harbour in Nova Scotia points towards a wider set of parasociological parameters that may extend beyond the local community.

One event that will have very significant impact on Canadian national identity in the years to come was the departure of René Lévesque from the Liberal Party of Quebec on 14 October 1967, three days after the last key sigthing. He will create the Movement Souverainté-Association in November 1967, and then merge his organization with another one to create the Parti Quebecois in 1968, dedicated to make Quebec an independent country from Canada. In 1976, he will win the provincial election in Quebec and form the provincial government. In 1980, he will organize a referendum in Quebec to secede from Canada. He will be defeated, but in 1995 his successors will almost succeeded with 49.9% “yes” in favour of secession.

As well, the 1960s were quite significant for Canada in terms of collective identity. The country was finally coming of age symbolically, away from the British empire, by getting its own flag in replacement of the colonial one; its own National Anthem in replacement of the British “God Save the Queen”; the federal government became officially bilingual French-English; and it was also the Universal Exhibition of 1967 (Expo 67) in Montreal, a major showcase for Canada at the time. The well-known journalist Pierre Berton wrote a book in the 1990s, looking retrospectively, and considered that 1967 was that last good year of Canada. The reaching “adulthood party” was over for Canada after that. According to Berton, "in that sense, 1967 was the last good year before all Canadians began to be concerned about the future of our country." [19] From a parasociological standpoint, it is possible that unconscious worries were occurring during the collective euphoria.

Furthermore, as noted by Berton, “The most significant event of 1967 was Charles de Gaulle's notorious "Vive le Quebec libre!" speech in Montreal [in July]. It gave the burgeoning separatist movement a new legitimacy, enhanced by Rene Levesque's departure from the Liberal party later that year.”[20] Going back to Sudbury, which is also a bilingual English-French community, it would have been seriously affected by a potential secession of Quebec from Canada. Quebec is the heart of French-speaking Canada, and the French-speaking communities outside Quebec would have been in a much weaker position. The lost of the radio signals, combined with lots of noise, can be symbolic of a community isolated from the rest of French-speaking Canada and submerged in lots of English “noise”. The harmonious and more equalitarian relationships between the English and French communities of Canada were a major (if not the main) preoccupation of the federal government in the 1960s. That same government was also running the public observation system. There is a potential parasociological link.

But could the synchronistic events of 4 and 11 October, also noted by the public observation system in Nova Scotia, be linked to a possible national unconscious worry about the future of the country, and the core national dynamics between the English and French-speaking Canadians? As it will be discussed in the next post, the Shag Harbour sightings were preceded by sightings over Quebec, as if it originated symbolically from there.

Discussion

These two mini waves offer some more material to work with, but the parasociological analysis still remains quite tentative. A greater amount of empirical material using the “broader approach” would allow building a much more robust set of cases studies with greater internal validity (i.e., many elements supporting each other in the explanation). However, some clear methodological considerations emerge at this point. Beyond using the “broader approach” to investigate cases, a rash of sightings (which may include a number of honest misperceptions and hoaxes linked by synchronicity to the rest of the rash of sightings) should be prioritized over “one-shot” sightings, as it is more likely to be the expression of a community. Similarly, close encounters of the second and third kind can yield a wealth of information if the investigator looks for all the symbolic clues.

References

[1] From UFO DNA website, at http://www.ufodna.com/uf13/uf7/137861.htm

[2] From http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/property/

[3] Idem.

[4] See http://www.projectcamelot.org/Alien_Digest_Vol_4.pdf

[5] See http://ufo-joe.tripod.com/books/gateway116caldonia.html

[6] See http://www.ufodna.com/uf10/uf3/103395.htm

[7] From http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/property/

[8] Rojcewicz, Peter M. (1987). “The ‘Men in Black’ experience and tradition: Analogues with the traditional devil hypothesis”. Journal of American Folklore 100(396): 148-160.

[9] Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Book.

[10] Rouse, Wayne R. and John G. McCutcheon. (1970). “The effect of the regional wind on air pollution in Hamilton, Ontario”. Canadian Geographer 14(4): 271-285.

[11] From http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/industrial/stelcomain.htm

[12] See http://www.istc.illinois.edu/info/library_docs/manuals/primmetals/chapter2.htm

[13] See http://stelcoresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/opening-of-stelco-research-centre.html

[14] See http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/industrial/history.htm, and http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/industrial/timeline1979.htm

[15] See http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=179

[16] All public data are from Canada’s National Archives at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/index-e.html?PHPSESSID=i7oot3o84vvh2162bk2qurt4o5

[17] From UFO DNA at http://www.ufodna.com/uf10/uf1/101169.htm

[18] http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1270773

[19] See http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780770427764&view=print

[20] Idem.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The Canadian UFO Wave (1966-67) (part 3)

2010-06-10T11:31:00.007-04:00

This case study is taking much longer than anticipated, as I have been quite busy in my “day job”. In any event, this post provides a short commentary about the Global observation system, in order to situate the Canadian layer. Then, it proposes a short analysis of one of the six main clusters found about the UFO wave over Canada in 1966-67. The other clusters will be analyzed in additional postings.

Global observation system

Before discussing the Canadian observation systems and what was observed, it is important to underline that the first layer of any analysis should be the global observation system. In 1966-1967 there was no global observation system per se, but there was extensive worldwide news shared through an automated telex network running on both phone lines and increasingly on microwave towers. If news agencies reported on UFOs, then such information was available quickly around the world. The 1960s were also the years of tumultuous social change around the world. The post-colonial regimes in the developing world were still trying to establish themselves and make sense of this emerging “brave new world”. In the Western world, there was a major cultural revolution occurring. The outcome of this revolution was, as we now know, a shift from conservative towards more liberal values and norms. Needless to say, it was a major identify shift in the collective psyche. From a social unconscious perspective, these changes in identity were providing enabling conditions for social psi effects to occur on a global scale.

As noted before in previous posts, the level of solar electromagnetic activity appears to be related to UFO waves.[1] However, this correlation is less than clear when it is looked at more closely. For instance, during the 1952 wave, solar activity was in the decline phase of the solar cycle 18, while the 1954 European wave occurred during a low sunspot period between cycle 18 and 19. Yet, the 1947 wave occurred during the last part of the ascending phase of cycle 18. As one can see, the correlation is difficult to establish. But it is still noteworthy to underline that the 1966-67 UFO wave occurred in similar conditions to the one of 1947, i.e. in the last part of an ascending phase of a solar cycle. As well, the Belgian UFO wave of 1989 also occurred during the ascending phase of solar cycle 22. And for those interested in the December 2012 story, note that the time period is also the one where the solar cycle 24 will be ascending near the maxima of sunspots. Please see charts below.

From http://www.solen.info/solar/, and the NASA chart from

Solar Terrestrial Activity Report at: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif.

In any events, the physical enabling factors linked to solar activities remain undetermined. But if there is a major UFO wave in 2011-2012, then this would give us 4 data points pointing towards a possible physical enabling effect linked to a particular phase of the solar cycle, and occurring at every other solar cycle (18, 20, 22, and 24). However, let’s underlined that such social and physical effects, in view of the Generalized Quantum Theory, are only enablers for the sub-systems; they do not determine how such sub-systems will behave. Hence, from a global observation system perspective, all that can be said at this point is that there were social and possibly physical enabling conditions for a UFO wave in 1966-1967.

UFO clusters in Canada in 1966

The Canadian public observation system was already in place in 1947, as there were UFO reports produced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Department of National Defence (DND). The first attempt to provide a wider overview of the phenomenon was a “one-man” authorized initiative led by the civil servant Wilbert Smith, known as project Magnet in the 1950s. Smith became a firm believer that UFOs were of extra-terrestrial origins, but his project was shut down for lack of evidence. Smith, however, was allowed to use government scientific equipment to continue his investigation outside work hours. Smith passed away in 1962. A parallel project called Second Storey was created by a mix group of scientists and military personnel to review UFO cases in government hands. This last project did not lead either to any substantive conclusion about the nature of the UFO phenomenon, but it was considered as being not a major threat to national security and it was also shut down. [2]

By the 1960s, the public observation system was not unified, as reports were received by a number of different agencies like the RCMP, DND, National Research Council (NRC), and the Department of Transportation (DOT, but now known as Transport Canada). The formal transfer of files from DND to the NRC, and the enrolment of University of Toronto professors in 1967 led to as close as it could be to a unified public overview of the UFO phenomenon. This was never match in Canada ever since. The UFO phenomenon, then, got the attention of some important people. On 5 April 1966, in a now declassified Cabinet memorandum, the Prime Minister Pearson asked to be briefed on the UFO phenomenon given the “interest shown in Parliament”.[3] From a parasociological standpoint, the phenomenon was able to attract the attention of the state. But how it occurred is more interesting, yet difficult to fully assess.

The “public” summer 1966 Maritime mini wave

The first observable concentration of effects occurred in the Maritime Provinces (namely New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) in 1966 between 16 June and 8 August, at a time where the Prime Minister of Canada had shown an interested in UFOs. The sightings can be described like many RSPK effects, where there is a mixture of known and unknown causes attributed to the phenomenon. The sightings of June 16, 1966 in Glace Bay is likely to be a flare[4], the Penticton sightings of July 21 was described as a fireball[5], the Moncton sighting of July 22 was interpreted as a balloon, and the July 28 sighting at Summerside Canadian Forces Base was construed also as a fireball[6]. It appears that there is here a mixture of honest mistakes that could synchronistic in nature and earthlights sightings.

These events occurred around the same time of two unusual sightings. The first one occurred on July 22 near Fredericton and was described by some as a ball of light, and as a triangular stationary object by others, yet at a height where jets would normally fly.[7] The second one occurred on the same date over Halifax, which was perceived as a cigar by some and as a triangle by others and descended quite low. After verification no helicopters was in the area.[8] In both of these cases we have something quite strange, yet it cannot be confirmed either way as a normal or non-normal object. This is one of the key conditions for psi effects to occur according the Generalized Quantum Theory.

As von Lucadou underlined, “According to Rössler (1992), objects which cannot be labelled create non-classical properties. In spontaneous psi-experiences the number of possible semantic states is open but in experiments it is fixed by the experimental setting. [9] The implications is that spontaneous psi events must remain ambiguous in nature (i.e. cannot be confirmed either way; indeterminacy in the system must remain) for any psi effects to continue occurring. It is also interesting to note that this mini wave follows the same patterns as described in the MPI of increase, peak with very strange phenomenon, and then declines to disappear.

The next key question is to evaluate whether there is a parasociological field that can be linked to these events. The authorities were “informed” by the phenomena because it was observed by the public observation system, to include the last sighting at a military base. What could have been the possible symbolic message conveyed? Once more, such question can only be answered through the interpretative tools of the social sciences and humanities. But access to detailed data about older events is a significant challenge.

What can be said is that it is interesting to note both triangular sightings on July 22 occurred near the provincial capitals of both provinces involved (Fredericton for New Brunswick, and Halifax for Nova Scotia). This provides an interesting clue about the possible political nature of the symbolic message. Beyond that it requires in depth research on the local situation at the time, and about the local social unconscious, which is usually not discussed publically, and can only be hinted by various symbolic clues.

One possibility could be the identity tensions linked to the rise of official bilingualism in Canada. For instance, Prime Minister Pearson’s interest for UFO in Cabinet occurred a few days apart from his announcement in the Parliament in April 1966 that the Canadian government shall be officially bilingual. Similarly, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (also known as the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission) proposed that New Brunswick become officially bilingual. This became a reality in 1969 under the leadership of the Acadien Premier of New Brunswick Louis Robicheau.

The “private” summer 1966 mini wave in British Columbia

Around the same as the Maritime mini wave, there was one also occurring in British Columbia. But this cluster of close encounter identified for the summer 1966 was for the essential observed by the private system. At a more general level, however, this synchronicity of observations between the East and West coasts is interesting, as it gives an impression of a “coast-to-coast” message (coast-to-coast being Canada’s official motto, written in Latin on Canada’s Coat of Arms).

The cluster is made of a CE3 event that occurred in Qualicum Beach (on Vancouver Island) sometime in July 1966. The entities lit the witness, without creating an effect and then vanished. It can be said that the clusters started “strongly”, and had an ET flavour from a phenomenological standpoint. On 30 July, the NRC (so the public observation system) had one report from this cluster of a metallic grey circular object in Richmond, just south of Vancouver. On 2 August, a disc shape object is seen up-close in Vancouver by two different witnesses. Finally, on 6 August 1966 UFOs are seen in the sky of Esquimalt, on Vancouver Island. All the sightings occurred within a radius of 100Km, in the most populated area of BC (Vancouver area and the east coast of the Vancouver Island). It is also interesting to note that there was also a rash of Big Foot sightings in July 1966[10] mostly centered on Lulu Island/Richmond in the suburb of Vancouver.

Given the fragmented nature of the private observation system and the limited amount of data available for each case it is quite difficult to push the analysis much beyond this. It is especially unfortunate that the data is so limited that it is void of most if not all its symbolic clues. This reinforces the critique put forward by people like John Keel and Jacques Vallée about the importance of looking beyond the actual phenomenon when investigating UFOs. In this context, it is even more difficult to identify a possible parasociological cause to this concentration of sightings, as there is no symbolic lead that can be followed. If one looks at the key public events of 1966, there is nothing leading to any particular “parasociological dynamics”[11].

Discussion

Investigating historical UFO cases from a parasociological standpoint is a difficult task because it requires detailed knowledge about the local life, issues, tensions, and challenges, which are likely to not be discussed at the time of the events because they are unconscious. The importance of seeking and recording symbolic leads cannot be overstressed if one is to make sense of UFO events.

At a more general level, however, a “coast-to-coast” symbolic signal could be observed, if one combines the data of both observation systems. This has interesting implications from a Generalized Quantum Theory perspective. This pragmatic information carried through a psi effect could not be observed by either observation system alone, and hence it could imply that these UFO events had multiple symbolic layers. It could have, at same time, one geared towards the individual witnesses, another that would be “regional” (observable by a particular system) and a “national” one (observable only as an indistinct and ongoing mass of sightings, or much after the fact by regrouping all the data together). To make an analogy, a psi pathway (as discussed in the theoretical framework posts) could work like a line of fibre optic where several signals can be sent simultaneously through different wavelength bands.

[1] See for instance, Foshufvud, Ragnar. (1980). “Unidentified flying objects – A physical phenomenon”. Pursuit 13(2); Poher, Claude and J. Vallée. (1975). “Basic patterns in UFO observations". Annual Conference of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautic, Pasadena, California, 20-22 January, and more generally studies on psi and electromagnetism (2003). Roll, William.G “Poltergeists, Electromagnetism and Consciousness.” Journal of Scientific Exploration 17(1): 75–86; Etzold, Eckhard. (2005). “Solar-periodic full moon effect in the Fourmilab retropsychokinesis project experiment data: An exploratory study”. Journal of Paraspychology 69(2): 233-261.

[2] For a detailed account of projects Magnet and Second Storey, please refer to Bray, Arthur. (1979). The UFO Connection. Ottawa: Jupiter Publishing.

[3] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2401-e.html

[4] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4668&page_id_nbr=73&record_id=4668-73-7085&interval=20&PHPSESSID=o97lq43rc9iaemj334l6ujr916

[5] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4668&page_id_nbr=80&record_id=4668-80-7091&interval=20&PHPSESSID=1o4vnen23b8b859b9oueovahh4

[6] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4668&page_id_nbr=84&record_id=4668-84-7095&interval=20&PHPSESSID=t4n0ms84tg2u5vvfu38fs2u313

[7] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4668&page_id_nbr=82&record_id=4668-82-7093&interval=20&PHPSESSID=3k4si42dsmblct491dsi7p1fq3

[8] http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/001057-119.02-e.php?isn_id_nbr=4668&page_id_nbr=79&record_id=4668-79-7090&interval=20&PHPSESSID=589dsmqutk9qbl8ohmoso73aa1

[9] Lucadou Walter von, Hartmann Römer, and Harald Walach. (2007). “Synchronistic Phenomena as Entanglement Correlations in Generalized Quantum Theory”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(4): 50–74, p. 60.

[10] See http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/cb/bc.html

[11] See http://regardingplace.com/?p=8382

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 2 - Appendix)

2010-05-06T13:20:00.013-04:00

The Canadian UFO wave 1966-67 (part 2)

2010-05-06T12:53:00.006-04:00

This post provides the data found about the UFO wave, and a general discussion about the preliminary findings. The layered analysis, strictly speaking, will be provided in the next post.

Data set

Although a number of ufologists have hailed the 1966-1967 UFO wave as the “mother of all UFO waves”[1], and some had their ufological career launched in its wake[2], very few comprehensive study of this wave has been produced. As far as I can see, there is no comprehensive data on the Canadian portion of this wave. Hence, the first challenge is to establish a comprehensive data set to have empirical material about the wave. There are a few books on UFOs in Canada[3], which emphasize a few selected cases. As well, there are many websites that provide information of various cases.

This is not surprising as it reflects the fragmentation of the private observation system discussed in the previous post. However, there are a few more comprehensive databases available, which only partly overlap. The data set for this case study was therefore produced by combining together those databases. Given the fragmentation of the private observation system, it is likely that the database I produced is not complete, but I am fairly confident that it represents over 90% of the reported cases in Canada for the period between 1 January 1966 and 31 December 1967. The databases used were Richard Hall’s study of the 1966-67 wave[4], the Government of Canada Archives[5], the websites UFO DNA (at ufodna.com), and Water-UFO (at waterufo.net). The choice of these databases was based on their apparent comprehensiveness, the identification of sources, and how systematic the data were coded. About a dozen sightings were not included, as they were explainable by conventional means, or there was not enough information to make any judgement.

The overall results are as follow:

Total sightings for 1966: 122
Total sightings for 1967: 233
Total for 1966-1967: 355 sightings

Preliminary analysis

As it is the case for the vast majority of UFO sighting reports, there is very little information to work with. The impact on the primary observation systems (i.e., the witnesses) is rarely recorded unless there are physiological effects or very ostentatious psychological impacts. As well, the potential impact of the observation system on the observed system is never looked into. Given that most of the data were recorded in the 1960s, this situation is not surprising as Keel and Vallée’s ideas about the centrality of the witnesses were only barely emerging at the time. Although, even today’s report are rarely prepared in the spirit of Keel and Vallée’s advice about the centrality of the witnesses’ personal history. Given these circumstances, it is impossible to assess a potential psi effect for every single case except for the few cases that were investigated in greater depth (like the Falcon Lake incident). This is a basic limitation found in the vast majority of the ufological material. However, basic statistical trends may be useful to assess if something is occurring at the higher level observation systems, i.e., the private and public systems.

Another issue to keep in mind is whether the sightings could be explained through conventional means or not. The problem is the same as for identifying psi effects. There are too little information available, and not enough resources to investigate. Using the findings of the project Blue Book, it became a rule of thumb in ufology to expect that 95% of sightings are caused by conventional causes. This assumption has never been really tested afterward because the private observation systems cannot afford to do so, as they are relying essentially on volunteers. This rule of thumb might be true if one does a longitudinal analysis over many years, but it appears to be less true when applied to a narrower set of data.

This is a first general finding of this case study: the 1966-67 UFO wave in Canada is likely to have a much greater percentage of “unexplained” cases compared to the total number of sightings. It is to be noted that Hynek had the same observation about the 1952 wave (242 unexplained for about 400 sightings or about 60% unexplained[6]). In other words, a key characteristic of a UFO wave is not only having more sightings, but also having a greater percentage of “unexplained” cases. In other words, a UFO wave is not only quantitatively different but also qualitatively distinct from a “normal” year. In the case of the Canadian portion of the 1966-67 UFO wave, this can be noted by the relatively high number of cases that can be qualified as “close encounters”, according to Hynek’s classification system. Although some close encounters can probably be explained by conventional means, given that they imply a much closer look, or physical evidence, or high strangeness, it is reasonable to expect greater fidelity. The Canadian data is as follow:

Year CE1 CE2 CE3 Total CE % of cases
1966 29 7 2 38 31.15%
1967 53 25 11 89 38.20%
Total 82 32 13 127 35.77%

Close encounters constitute nearly 36% of all cases. Even with a very conservative estimate that only one in three would be truly “unexplained”, it would still be about 12% “unexplained”, or over two times more than the 5% “unexplained” of the rule of thumb. However, even if all 36% would be “unexplained,” it is still almost half of the 1952 UFO wave rate. This is consistent with the notion that the 1966-67 wave was less ostentatious than the one of 1952, even if the overall number sightings across the world was much higher.

In the light of this finding, particular attention was paid to the closer encounters. This in turn led to the identification of 6 particular clusters of sightings that will be the focus of the layered analysis. These clusters are:

(a) Concentration of nearly half (15 out of 38) of the close encounters over the early summer of 1966 (between 1 June and 8 August), with a concentration in the last week of July. It is important to note that both the public and private observation systems were on it, but only the public system caught the end of July concentration.

(b) The Hamilton/Caledonia area in Ontario experienced a mini wave of its own in January and February 1967, with a short but intense second outburst in June 1967 (including a prominent CE3 experience, and one of the rare Canadian “men-in-black” reports). This was essentially noted by the private observation systems.

(c) The Sudbury area experienced also a mini wave between September and November 1967, with an interesting sighting on October 4th, the day of the Shag Harbour incident. It is important to note that only the public observation system seemed to be aware of this mini wave.

(d) At the end of July and August 1967, there was a concentration of CE3 experiences (6 out of 13), or almost half of all CE3 reports for the entire UFO wave. In this case, only the private observation system was potentially aware, although this should be expected as CE3 cases were implicitly outside the mandate of the NRC (National Research Council).

(e) The Shag Harbour incident is also noteworthy because of the simultaneous high quality sightings in Sudbury and in Quebec, as well as a very interesting case from the Nova Scotia sharing many similarities with a RSPK event. In this case both the public and private observation systems were on the lookout.

(f) The famous Falcon Lake incident of 20 May 1967 appears to be geographically an isolated incident. But a closer look reveals that it is located within a cluster of 12 close encounters between late April and late May 1967 (or about 10% of all close encounters for the entire wave). This cluster was essentially observed by the private system.

The raw data

Given the technical limitations of blog websites, the raw data summary tables will be provided in a separate post.

Notes for this post

[1] Expression used by Richard Hall, and echoed by the Karl T. Pflock in a book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/reviews/reviews_18_4_pflock_2.pdf

[2] Like Canadian ufologist Jean Casault http://ovni-ufo-ufologie-extraterrestres-le-blog-des-repas-ufologiques.over-blog.com/article-jean-casault-ufologue-quebecois-publie-un-nouvel-ouvrage-47967218.html.

[3] Namely, Bondarchuk, Yurko. (1979). UFO Canada. Scarborough: Signet; Bray, Arthur. (1979). The UFO Connection. Ottawa: Jupiter Publishing; Rutkowski, Chris and Geoff Dittman. (2006). The Canadian UFO Report: The Best Cases Revealed‎. Toronto: Dundurn Press. Campagna, Palmiro. (1998). The UFO files: the Canadian connection exposed. Toronto: Stoddart.

[4] Hall, Richard. (2004). Alien Invasion of Human Fantasy? The 1966-67 UFO wave. Washington: Fund for UFO Research.

[5] Accessible online at http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo. Also the website Canadian X-Files at http://ufo-joe.tripod.com provides a useful index to search the government database.

[6] Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, 1977, p. 264.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The Canadian 1966-67 UFO wave (Part 1)

2010-04-26T15:33:00.002-04:00

This post is the first one about the UFO wave that occurred in Canada in 1966-1967. Other countries, especially the United States, were also experiencing a UFO wave at time. As it will be explained below, the Canadian portion of the wave can be studied as a discrete portion of a wider event. This case study is in many ways an extension of the 1952 Washington D.C. case. The same foundational approach will be used, namely system theory and the Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI) developed by Walter von Lucadou to study recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK) events, also known as poltergeists. However, given that the scope of the 1966-1967 UFO wave is much more complex than the 1952 events, the MPI will be used in the wider context of the Weak or Generalized Quantum Theory (GQT), as the MPI is a special case of the GQT[1]. The implications of the GQT will be described through the case study. First, some key conceptual and methodological issues requiring some discussion.

Psi displacement on a grand scale

As stated in the previous post, it is difficult to define what constitutes a UFO wave, even when it is actually occurring. The 1966-1967 wave is a clear illustrative case. John Keel was one of few who wrote about the UFO wave as it was occurring[2]. But for many the full realization that there was a major UFO wave unfolding came afterward, as the late Richard Hall noted in 1978 MUFON conference[3]. Similarly, the Canadian John Magor wrote an article in 1969 entitled “1967 Canadian UFO Wave: The Year We Were Invaded Without Knowing It”[4]. Magor noticed that people in Canada were aware that something was going on, but they did not really grasped the magnitude of the event. Furthermore, as a number of ufologists have underlined, by 1966 the Project Blue Book was only the shadow of itself, and for all intent and purpose there was no central repository for reporting UFO sightings. According to Hynek’s evaluation of Project Blue Book reports, there were only 36 “unidentified” for 1966 and 19 for 1967[5]. This situation certainly made the recognition of a UFO wave even more difficult.

If one looks at UFO waves as discrete events, then it is obvious that the 1966-67 wave was different from the American wave of 1952 and the European wave of 1954. The phenomenon was much more ostentatious in the 1950s than it was in the 1960s. Otherwise, people would have been aware that a major UFO wave was unfolding. Moreover, the 1952 wave seemed to have an epicentre (i.e., Washington D.C.), while the 1966-1967 wave clearly lack such epicentre. This is an important clue that should point our understanding of the UFO phenomenon, once more, towards a parapsychological (or parasociological) explanation. As it is well-known in experimental parapsychology, expected psi effects tend to decline over time but new ones are found after the fact through post-experiment review of data and among variables that were not suspected at first[6]. This is called the displacement effect.

Emergent properties of a large system

The MPI has been developed to study RSPKs, but there are some differences between RSPKs and UFO wave that require further analysis, especially in the context of a psi phenomenon that has been displaced. Poltergeist events, or RSPKs, tend to occur in a particular city, cause quite a mess, but then stop. The next one may appear years later usually in a different city, but creating similar psycho-social and physical effects. In other words, the larger observing system (i.e. the city) is rarely the same one. Or to put in the terminology of experimental parapsychology, there is also a new experimenter. In the case of UFOs, however, given that they were usually investigated by the armed forces and other national security agencies of a country, the observing system does not change over time, and therefore one should expect an accumulation effect in the observing system not present in RSPKs. Such accumulation, according to system theory, is a key condition to observe emergent properties of a system. Beyond the displacement effect discussed above, there were other important emergent properties linked to the 1966-1967 wave.

The first emergent property was the transition from a “public” to multiple “private” observation systems. By the 1960s, the public observation system came to suffer from “UFO fatigue,” so to speak. What is meant here is that in the 1950s the state, both in United States and Canada, was the main observational system with the project Blue Book and project Magnet (plus an ad hoc accumulation of data by various governmental agencies), respectively. By the 1960s, the state is not as active in the UFO data collection. In the U.S., the project Blue Book is much less active, and the pre-ordain Condon Report conclusions to get finally rid of the UFO issue is set in motion, leading to the formal closure of project Blue Book. In Canada, National Defence finally transferred their UFO files to the National Research Council in September 1967[7], who passed the buck to a group of University of Toronto professors (to create a Canadian version of the Condon Committee)[8]. They investigated a number of reports, but eventually closed the project in 1969 in the wake of the Condon Report conclusions[9]. The ultimate outcome of all this is that the observation came to rely solely on private citizens organized in UFO clubs and associations such APRO, NICAP, CAPIC and many others. By the 1970s, the observational system was essentially privatized, and very fragmented, but in the 1966-1967 the observational system could be described as being in a state of transition between a public and private and fragmented observational systems. From the point of view of the MPI, this situation implies that multiple pragmatic messages could be observed with several different intended audiences.

Another emergent property in the context of the MPI is linked to the fact that the suppression phase (as discussed in the 1952 case) never actually stopped because the public observational system was country-wide and had to deal with on-going sightings over many years. The lack of cooperation between the public observational system and the slowly emerging private systems is a well-known story which led to fuel conspiracy theories becoming mainstream ideas. Such phenomena have been studied extensively by social scientists, in different contexts, and there is nothing unusually about it when applied to the case of the UFO community. The more a dominant view is trying to suppress a minority view, the more it empowers the minority view to become the mainstream perspective[10]. By 1966-1967, the theories of conspiracy were fully part of the UFO world in the emergent private observational systems. In Canada, such views were also well entrenched by the 1960s[11]. Hence, even if today the suppression is almost completely gone from the public observational system, the perception of such suppression remains. From the point of view of the MPI, this conspiracy context becomes an integral part of the experience and should be present from the surprise phase. The prediction is therefore that the pragmatic message will be displaced from starting as having the shape of a conspiracy (to get attention) towards something that stubbornly refused to be a conspiracy (to express the pragmatic information) in spite of the best efforts of the conspiracy-minded investigators. This prediction is consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT, as it will be discussed in the next post.

A third emergent property is linked to the fragmentation and privatization of the observational system. This new system, nested within what remained of the public system, developed over time its own orthodoxy, and engaged also in suppression as it wants to manage a reliable system too. Hence, a double system and MPI logic emerged, where the suppression in the new system is based on suppressing anything that is not consistent with the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). It is in this context that Jacques Vallée’s famous phrase declaring that he is a “heretic among the heretics” can be understood. This third emergent property was slowly getting in place in the 1960s, through the partial rebuttal of Jacques Vallée’s work on Magonia, James MacDonald’s assertion that there is something parapsychological about UFOs, and of course John Keel’s own rejection of the ETH. As in the case of the conspiracy theory emergent effect, the ET-like nature of the sightings attracted attention but “stubbornly refused” to be confirmed, also consistent with the “non-transmission” axiom of the GQT.

This ETH-based suppression came into full swing when the Roswell story started to gain significant traction in early 1980s. It is interesting to note that the private observation systems are now also suffering from “UFO fatigue” (or should I say fatigue from a persistent “lack of evidence about ETs”), as discussed in several previous posts. This translated in the last 10 years into what Jacques Vallée, once again, eloquently stated in a public conference: “there is very little research conducted today about UFOs, they are just waiting that the government reveals everything”. The private observation systems are now the shadow of themselves (BUFORA, SOBEP, to name a few), and it is unclear if there is a transition towards another observation system. It is ironic that the once despised public observational system is now begged for help by the private observational systems (Wall Street did not invent this...). If it is not transiting, then it is likely that UFOs will become part of the modern folklore like the medium séances of the 19th century, and the ghostly horse-drawn coaches and cavaliers of the 18th century. However, other psi phenomena that would be more consistent with prevalent social conditions would replace UFOs.

These emergent properties shed a different light on the notion of decline, so central in the study of psi phenomena. In the experimental setting of parapsychology, there is a well-known phenomenon of decline where psi effects are strong at first, but then decline in statistical observations. In the case of parasociological spontaneous cases (like UFOs), it is actually the “experimenters” (i.e. the observational system) that declines. Although not a new idea[12], this issue of experimenters’ decline is an important one for understanding the macro-psi effects, and it deserves more research.

Methodological implications

The issues discussed above have a number of important methodological implications for the study of the 1966-1967 UFO wave. First, it is critical to identify which observation system is being involved in which sightings. The analysis has to distinguish between the public and private ones to understand the local dynamics at play. From that point of view, distinguishing between the American and Canadian public observational systems is meaningful, and makes the analysis more manageable by focussing on the smaller system (i.e., the Canadian one). Similarly, private observational systems were also emerging in Canada, and could also be distinguished and studied separately from the American one. In other words, it requires a layered analysis.

A second set of methodological implications is linked to the first one. Layered systems do not mean that the there is a deterministic top-down impact cascading at each level of the system. As von Lucadou stated, “entanglement can arise in situations in which global observables pertaining to a system as a whole are not commuting with certain local observables pertaining to parts of the system”[13]. In other words, the layered analysis should avoid any forms of reductionism. Lastly, the role played by the notions of conspiracy and the ETH at the onset of various sightings should be carefully evaluated as framing the initial psi effect. There are particular predictions linked to these two idiosyncrasies that can be made and must guide the analysis. Namely, it is to identify both the initial carrier and content of the pragmatic information, as well as the displacement role of these idiosyncrasies in the application of the MPI.

References

[1] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007). “Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(4): 50-74, p. 60.

[2] Keel, John. “North America 1966: Development of a Great Wave”. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 13, #2, Mar.-Apr. 1967.

[3] Hall, Richard. “1967: The Overlooked UFO Wave and The Colorado Project”, MUFON 1978 UFO Symposium Proceedings, pp. 51-74. [Available online at http://www.nicap.org/papers/78hall-wave67.htm]

[4] Available online at http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc683.htm

[5] Hynek, Allen. (1977). The Hynek UFO Report. New York: Dell, p. 264.

[6] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 64.

[7] See http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/ufo/002029-2501-e.html.

[8] Spurgeon, David. (1967). “U of T aerospace institute plans full-scale study of UFOs”. The Globe and Mail (September 20), p. 1.

[9] Tennyson, Rod. (2009). “The UTIAS UFO Project”. The UTIAS Newsletter 2009(2): 3. [Available online at www.utias.utoronto.ca].

[10] See in particular, Moscovici, Serge. (1976). Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press.

[11] For instance, the journal of the Canadian Aerial Phenomena Investigation Committee had a number of vitriolic editorials against “official secrecy”, as reported in Colombo, John. (1991). UFOs over Canada: personal accounts of sightings and close encounters. Toronto: Hounslow, pp. 84 and ff.

[12] Discussed by Einsenbud about Kirlian effects and thought-photography that shown very interesting results, but were abandoned by the experimenters before a decline effect occurred, in Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, pp. 111-129. As well, George Hansen in (2001). The Trickster and the Paranormal. Philadelphia: Xlibris, pp. 178-182, noted paranormal research organizations (including the UFO ones) tend to have an ephemeral life and this appears to be an integral part of the activation of the trickster archetype, believed to be directly linked to psi effects.

[13] Lucadou, Walter von et al. (2007), p. 52.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Primer for the Canadian wave case study

2010-04-14T11:25:00.002-04:00

As discussed in several previous posts, it is difficult to assess what constitutes a UFO wave. There are a number of methodological challenges linked to the very notion of UFO wave.

Reporting issues
One of the main challenges is that not all UFO sightings are reported, and there can be a number of reasons for that. The first one is that people can be afraid of being turned into ridicule. This fear, however, seems to be much less present in the 21st century as the UFO phenomenon is much more entrenched into the popular culture. The second reason is linked to the first one, and it is about the lost sensitivity about UFOs. A lot of people are rather indifferent to the phenomenon, and unless it is a very usual experience, many people will simply shrug off the sighting and say it is probably a plane (or something like that). A third reason is the unprofessionalism of a number of ufologists that over time really gave a bad name to the field, and many people prefer not to report rather than having to deal with someone that might be a bit too weird for their liking and might turn their UFO experience into a circus. A last issue is that the general public is probably better now at identifying aircrafts and satellites in sky than before, hence there are probably less incentive to pay closer attention to the sky.

On this last point, I had an instructive personal experience. I live in an area where there have been a number of sightings of triangular UFOs. I actually “saw” one a few weeks ago. It was a regular plane on a long landing path towards the international airport, but at night it looked like triangle at the angle I looked at it. Also, “it made no noise” (a famous “smoking gun” in the ETH world). Yet, anyone living not too far from a major airport knows very well that a plane does not have to be that far in the sky to not be audible (especially true for newer jetliners). Based on the prevalent wind patterns, my area is bound to have “triangular UFOs” on a recurrent basis. I can see that some people who are not used to aircrafts may be considering that it is a UFO, but in this day and age of skies having, literally, daily aircraft traffic jam, informal knowledge about aircraft is much more common compared to the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. But such knowledge is never perfect. We may be now in a reverse context, where there is a number of UFOs that are misconstrued as IFOs.

Limited investigative capabilities
A second challenge is that only a small percentage of UFO sightings are actually investigated. Here too there are some obvious reasons for this. Almost all investigations are now conducted by volunteers from UFO organizations and clubs, and they have very limited resources to go around investigating. So only a few are investigated. Then, there is the selection process to maximize the use of limited resources, oftentimes based on unconscious criteria. The usual criteria are: either “easy” cases (not requiring much time, money and travel), or cases which fits the basic assumptions underlying the ETH. Reporting bias in ufology is a long standing issue, and there is no improvement on the horizon.

Fragmentation
A third and last challenge is the fragmentation of information. Given that there is no central repository for investigated UFO cases, then it is much more difficult to really assess if there is a UFO wave while it is occurring. It is usually much after the fact that the existence of a UFO wave can be identified by gathering data from multiple sources. The 1966-67 UFO wave is representative of this pattern.

UFO waves as social realities
The net result is that UFO waves tend to be identifiable in real time only when the phenomenon “insists” long enough around a given area to get the attention of the mass media. The 1973 wave in the United States, Belgian wave of 1989-90, and the 2008 mini wave in Pennsylvania are good examples of this process. Although there is a physical reality behind UFO waves, they are for all intent and purpose social realities. It is so simply because we can only notice them when there is a social process of mass communication occurring, which in turn shapes the very content of a UFO wave. The objective reality of UFO waves is not directly reachable. It can only be grasped through our socially shared subjective processes. Studying UFO waves is first and foremost a sociological task, but taking such an approach is not tantamount to say that it is all in the head of the witnesses.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 3)

2010-03-13T14:22:00.004-05:00

This post, the third and last part of the tentative model presentation, describes the key elements of the model. It is in many ways a synthesis of many ideas found in a number of previous posts. The tentative model will be tested in the near future through another case study about the 1966-1967 UFO wave, especially emphasizing the Canadian portion.

Social memory
The concept of social (or collective) memory is not a new one in the social sciences. The French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs was one of the first to use it to study the working class of the 1920s and 1930s. He looked into the shared memories of people in the labor movement, especially about major events such as major strikes, and how such memories were transmitted over time and how certain elements of their collective history are kept while others are forgotten (in other words, collective memory is also selective, and such a selection is also a sociological process in itself). He used multiple methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative to assess the content of memories and evaluate how much they are spread across a given population.

This concept is critical for the proposed model because it offers ways of establishing a baseline to distinguish between the conscious and unconscious elements of social psyche. For instance, the older science fiction stories that Bertrand Méheust[1] identified as providing the basic narrative for UFO reports and experiences were not part of the collective memories anymore in the 1940s and 1950s. Yet, those stories were not so old that no one would be aware of them; they were in the collective unconscious. Methodologically speaking, a number of empirical methods can be used to assess the content of social memory, but the main ones remain focus groups and text analysis.

Social unconscious
As discussed in numerous posts, the content of the social unconscious[2] provides both the content for social psi events (fairies and demons in the past, good and bad aliens today; airships yesterday, spaceships today). But if psychoanalytical parapsychology[3] is right, it is also the source of the tensions or desires leading to a social psi effect. I just found an interesting author that looks into the social dimension of the unconscious, Clotaire Rapaille, who runs a major marketing business build on uncovering collective archetypes. He wrote a book on Culture Code and I will review it in the near future. His methodology is very similar to the one used by Ginach[4] and by those practicing group analytics[5], discussed in previous posts, using focus group to “extract” the content of the commonly shared unconscious, as well as text analysis.

The challenge in investigating spontaneous psi effects, as Batcheldor and other parapsychologists [6] have found, however, is that consciousness needs to be bypassed. Hence, the very fact of studying the unconscious can bring elements to the consciousness and preventing psi effects to occur, or reducing substantially its potency. The outcome of this is that the unconscious in the case of UFO studies might be only researchable post-facto by looking into how new representations are created.

It is interesting to note that those who study collective creativity in business organization underline that creativity is an emergent phenomenon and occurs when people from different parts of an organization meet and discuss. In the normal non-psi realm, the problem becomes part of the collective consciousness of the organization and a creative solution is negotiated.[7] Yet, the seeds of the solution were already present unconsciously, spread across various components of the organization.

In the case of spontaneous psi effects, people do not talk to negotiate a solution so there are no directly observable emergent effects. Yet, a “psi solution” (so to speak) emerges through creating something that will surprise everyone, and yet it is their collective creation. It is in those terms that psi effects can be construed as acts of creation.[8] In the case of UFOs, at least in the early days of the phenomenon, this non-local (in the sense of quantum physics) type of “solution” implies odd symbiotic relationships between various groups like the civil servants and the military in the 1952 Washington case. Similar strange symbiotic relationship seemed to have occurred between the Roswell believers and elements of the national security apparatus, as described at length by Gregg Bishop [9]. The same might have occurred between the Catholic believers and the rationalist republicans of Portugal during the Fatima events of 1917 [10].

Could it be that the decline in the social interest in UFOs, intimately linked to a lack of major UFO events for many years, be symptomatic of a degradation of a basic symbiotic unconscious social relationship at the centre of the UFO phenomenon? To be more specific, on one hand the authorities are more open than ever before about UFOs (France, UK, Canada, Russia and others declassifying and making available lots of UFO documents), and on the other hand the excesses of the Roswell ufological hysteria just turned off so many people interested in UFO and conspiracies theories that the “biggest story of our time” is no more. Could the symbiotic relationship simply collapsed due to the power of indifference? Difficult to say, but it is a hypothesis generated by the model.

Social consciousness
This concept is as old as sociology itself, and has been described extensively by the classical French sociologist Émile Durkheim. The importance of this portion of the model is once again to distinguish what remains below the threshold of the observable. The tension or desires found in the social unconscious should not be found in the discussions and debates of a community in any great extent. The relative absence of a thorny issue in the public realm, but possibly found in the margins, is thus a key indicator for potential social psi effects. It is also important to note that the content of the social unconscious can be about a future event having strong emotional power, like in the case investigated by John Keel in the Mothman Prophecy [11]. In such case, it cannot be known publically as it has not occurred yet.

The key methodological outcomes of this is that once the investigator has found something in the social unconscious that could be at the source of social psi effects, then he or she has to confirm that it is not present in the social consciousness of the concerned community.

Social representations
The concept of social representations has been developed by yet another French social scientist, Serge Moscovici. Social representations are more focused elements of the social unconscious, and are outcomes of social creativity. Moscovici’s main interest was to study how certain views and ideas move from being the purview of a few to be held by the many (for instance the language of psychoanalysis became part of everyday conversations through the 1950s and 1960s), and the associated translation process of jargon becoming everyday concepts (what he calls common sense). One of the key issues is that if some ideas and views resonate with already existing socially shared but unconscious views, they are more likely to be adopted. Moscivici and his followers use both focus group and text analysis as a key method to uncover social representations and the translation processes.

Once again, for spontaneous social psi effects, the new social representation (i.e., the specific solution or creation) remains below the threshold of the unconscious and coagulates in what I call the social psi pathway. The production of psi effects, even in a spontaneous context, remains something rare and probably difficult to do. However, once some forms are created it is easier for psi effects to repeat themselves through the established forms. In other words, once the notion of flying saucers has been established, it provided a common form-pathway that can ease the production of psi effects. The key for the tentative model is that social representations do not get translated into what it is, but it is translated into something else (like a UFO). This notion is very similar to the notion of displacement, so central to understand poltergeists [12].

The same can be said for ghosts, Marian apparitions, but also of the séance setting of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The pathways are collectively shared social representations (or idiosyncracies) that can be used as “platforms” for social as well as individual psi creativity for various types of unconscious tensions or desires. Hence, investigating the internal symbolism of a social psi effect is likely to be only useful at the early stages, when a new form emerges. Once the pathway is established, it can serve a variety of underlying tensions or desire in producing psi effects. The concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake [13] is here quite useful to describe the pathway development process, and Sheldrake as shown that psi can behave as a morphic field. The more something is used the stronger and established in its form it will be; hence the enduring forms found in UFO reports.

Social behavior
This is the most ostentatious part of any sociological study. Yet, in the case of studying social psi effects, the behavior that would lead to resolving the unconscious tensions or desires tends to not occur right away. Even if the psi effect has a comprehensible symbolic meaning, it is usually ignored or completely misunderstood. Once a pathway is established, then the symbolic meaning becomes extremely hard to decipher as the form used becomes institutionalized (like Barney Hill’s challenges with racist America being at the source of his experience eventually becomes the prototype of the Greys, which has nothing to do with racism in later psi events).

Should the social behavior resolves, even only partially, the underlying social tensions or desires leading then the psi effect should ceased immediately. This is seen in poltergeist cases when people realize that it is their inter-personal issues that are at the source of the phenomenon. In the 1952 Washington UFO incidents, the military got involved and interested (too much would say some people), and the UFO story was even able to displace from the headlines the coverage of the Democratic Convention for a day; this was the beginning of the end for that UFO wave.

In general, spontaneous social psi event tend to be an alternative channel for social communications that is rather symptomatic of a collective inability to communicate about difficult underlying social issues or tensions.

Notes
[1] Méheust, Bertrand. (1978). Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes. Paris: Mercure de France.
[2] Studied by people like Leledakis, Kanakis. (1995). Society and Psyche: Social theory and the unconscious dimension of the social. Oxford: Berg; Main, Roderick. (2006). “The Social Significance of Synchronicity”. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 11: 36-53; Machotka, Otakar. (1964). The Unconscious in Social Relations: An analysis of unconscious processes in personality, society, and culture. New York: Philosophical Library.
[3] In particular, Eisenbud, Jule. (1983). Parapsychology and the Unconscious. Berkeley: North Atlantic Book; Fodor, Nandor. (1959). The Haunted Mind: A psychoanalytical look at the supernatural. New York: Garrett.
[4] Ginach, Michal. (2004) “War Against or For Terrorism?: The underlying fantasy behind the Israeli pattern encounter with the Palestinian”. Discourse of Sociological Practice 6: 1-12
[5] For instance, Dalal, Farhad. (2001). “The social unconscious: A post-Foulkesian perspective”. Group Analysis 34(4): 539-555; Powell, Andrew. (1991). “Matrix, mind and matter: From the internal to the eternal”. Group Analysis 24(3): 299-322; Zeddies, Timothy J. (2002). “Unconscious experience in social and historical context”. Group Analysis 35(3): 381-389.
[6] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122; Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse; Owen, Iris M. and M. Sparrow. (1976). Conjuring up Philip: An Adventure In Psychokinesis. Harper & Row; Reihart, Philip B. (1994). “PK induction: An extension of Batcheldor approach”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 88: 137-145.
[7] For a good overview of this literature, please see Watson, Elizabeth. (2007). “Who or What Creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity”. Human Resources Development Review 6(4): 419-441.
[8] See in particular, Favre, François. (1978). “Caractère généraux des apparitions”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/cargenapp.htm]; (2004). "Psi et intentionalité". Unpublished text available on Internet at http://www.sciencesphilo.fr/uploads/doc/psi_et_intentionnalite.pdf; Viéroudy, Pierre. (1978a). “Vagues d'Ovnis et psi collectif”. Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_VAGUEOVNIS.htm]; (1978b). “Les témoins d'Ovnis sont-ils des sujets psi ?” Revue de Parapsychologie 6 (July). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA06_TEMOINSOVNIS.htm]; (1983). “Signification archétypique des apparitions OVNI”. Revue de Parapsychologie 15 (August). [Available on Internet at http://gerp.free.fr/PA15_VieroudyOVNIS.htm].
[9] Bishop, Greg. (2005). Project Beta: The story of Paul Bennewitz, national security, and the creation of a modern UFO myth. New York: Paraview.
[10] Fernandes, Joaquim and F. D’Armada. (2005). Heavenly Lights: The apparition of Fatima and the UFO phenomenon. San Antonio: Anomalist.
[11] Keel, John. (1975). The Mothman Prophecies. New York: Tor.
[12] Lucadou, Walter von. (1995). “The Model of Pragmatic Information (MPI).” European Journal of Parapsychology 11: 58-75; Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004.
[13]Sheldrake, Rupert. (1981). A New Science of Life. London: Victoria Works; (1987) The Presence of the Past. New York: Bantam; (1991). The Rebirth of Nature: The greening of science and god. New York: Bantam; (2006). "Morphic Fields". World Futures 62: 31-41.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The psi circuit: A tentative model (part 2)

2010-02-26T11:47:00.003-05:00

This post is describing in greater details the proposed model to study the social dimension of psi effects, and UFO events in particular. The emphasis is placed today on the overall architecture upon which the model is built, and the rational for such architecture. The next post will look in more details at the individual elements of the model.

Architecture

Split between the empirical and the interpretative
The overall architecture of the model is based on a synthetic view of a number of researches in parapsychology, and especially research on psychokinesis (PK). One important finding in parapsychology is that psi effects are most likely the outcome of unconscious mental processes. This conclusion was expressed by the founder of the discipline, J. B. Rhine, already in 1954[1], and remains one of the most enduring issue in parapsychology. The issue is that if unconscious processes are at the centre of the phenomena, then it becomes very difficult to study it. North American psychology is particularly adverse to the study of the unconscious, as cognitive psychology (emphasizing conscious perception) and behaviourist psychology (emphasizing a “black box” approach through an input-output stimulation view of the human mind) are the dominant perspectives. North American parapsychology also suffered from this problem, and it can be clearly noted by the undervaluing of researchers who focussed on the unconscious such as Fodor Nandor and Jule Eisenbuld. In spite of these internal debates within psychology and parapsychology, any models of psi (and social psi included) need to locate the most dynamic portions of the phenomena under the threshold of empirical observation.

It is for this reason that the proposed model for social psi has a built-in ontological assumption that divides between empirical sociology (i.e., what can be observed through social behaviour), and what requires interpretation to understand such behaviours. The interpretative sociology has a long history and is well-established but it would be beyond the scope of this discussion to present such history here. Suffice to say that there are many sociological tools available, developed by classical sociologists such Max Weber, Georg Simmel, and more recent ones like Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer, Alfred Schutz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, as well as all the research conducted in the present field of “cultural studies". The key here is to not ignore what is beyond the threshold of direct observation, which would otherwise lead one to the same trap as the one positivist psychology found itself, and in my opinion the greatest barrier to the advancement of parapsychology.

The role of consciousness
The proposed model is also synthesizing some of the key findings on PK research. If unconscious processes are at the centre of psi effects, then consciousness is very much in the way when it is time to produce psi effects. It is for this reason that most parapsychologists think that spontaneous psi effects are stronger than the ones produced in laboratory or experimental settings, and that “ongoing psi on demand” is all but an impossible task. Batcheldor[2] noted that in his group PK experiment he had to use all kind of tricks to get people mind off the experiment (like using humour, playing illusionist tricks, etc.) so that the unconscious can act without interference from the consciousness. Pamela Heath, in her extensive survey of PK research[3] found that the suspension of the intellect, altered states of consciousness, dissociation, openness to emotions, meditative states were keys to produce PK effects. Once again, the conclusion is that consciousness has to be circumvented.

This fundamental issue in parapsychology is represented in the model by the difference between the red and green lines. The red line represents spontaneous psi effects which are circumventing consciousness, while the green line represents the conscious task to produce psi effects in experimental conditions that is then setup in a way where the unconscious is given a chance afterward to circumvent consciousness. Batcheldor was able to do so in his group PK experiment, although it was not easy. It is less than clear if a social-level experiment could be produced in such a way. The fact that an action would be socially known as being “an experiment”, and then finding “social-level distractions” afterward to make the social consciousness “forget” about the experiment so that a social psi effect could occur might be impossible. In other words, given the nature of social relations and social communications, I think it is nearly impossible to do social psi experimentation. The only exception would be to use unethical deception (for instance hooking up with a group of UFO believers, feeding them with believable stories about UFOs having a very particular content, and then see if some of that content emerges in future sightings where a degree of objectivity can be assessed—like multiple unconnected observers). [4] The net result, however, is that there are serious reasons for limiting research on spontaneous social psi. In turn, this has serious consequences. Predictive statements cannot be verified experimentally (the preferred approach in Western science), but only through confirming after the fact how a social psi event unfolded. This is essentially the approach used in the 1952 Washington case study.

Circular nature
The model was not presented as circle essentially due to my very limited artistic abilities. But once a psi effect occurs, it can modify behaviour, which in turn becomes a new element of one’s memory about psi. If one sees a UFO, or has a telepathic feeling, it is very likely that he or she will have a much different attitude in the future about UFOs or ESPs. The circular nature of psi is certainly validated through the well-known notion of declining results in parapsychology. When someone tend to guess correctly more often than normal, then his or her confidence is boosted which in turn is both helping the process in reinforcing the unconscious belief in psi and disabling the process by causing stressful expectations to perform. The more loops in the circuit are completed, the less likely someone will perform because the conscious stress eventually overrides the unconscious belief. In cases where expectations to perform are neutralized, then it is boredom that replaces stress but with the same declining results in the end.

In the case of spontaneous psi, however, the circuit works somewhat differently. A psi event will reinforce the belief in the paranormal, which reinforces the unconscious belief that there is “something” to it. Yet, this “something” has to be attributed to a non-human force or entity so that there is no stress related to performing (it is not me but “it” that does that), and no boredom as it is seen as something extraordinary. This issue is clearly addressed in von Lucadou’s model with the notion of “displacement”, and discussed at length in the 1952 Washington case study. From a social psi perspective, it is critical for spontaneous social psi effects to continuing occurring to have a community of believers, be it about aliens, ghosts, demons, etc., to create such a displacement. In the proposed model, this translates in the creation of new social representations, or the reinforcement of existing representations. UFOs, which are simply Unidentified Flying Objects, were rapidly equated with extra-terrestrial visitors in spite of having very little evidence to support such a view. But without such social representations, a “semi-permanent” displacement towards the non-human to explain social psi effects cannot occur at the social level. In other words, contrary to von Lucadou’s model which is dealing with small groups of people’s (family or co-workers) belief that a ghost is responsible for the events and where the events eventually dissipates , social-scale phenomena like UFOs need to be continuously reinforced by an ongoing active belief system (what would be in von Lucadou’s terminology an “ongoing displacement”). That’s one of the key differences between the individual level and the social level.

This synthesis from parapsychology plays in particular ways at each step of the circuit, and these will be discussed in the next post.

[1] Rhine, J.B. (1954). “The science of nonphysical nature”. Journal of Philosophy 51: 801-810.
[2] Batcheldor, Kenneth J. (1984). “Contributions to the theory of PK induction from sitter-group work”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 78(2): 105-122.
[3] Heath, Pamela Rae. (2003). The PK Zone: A cross-cultural review of psychokinesis. Lincoln: iUniverse.
[4] For those who are strong believers in conspiracy theory, such an experimental scenario might be the most realistic one about UFOs, science, and governmental authorities.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

The social psi circuit: A tentative model (Part 1)

2010-02-15T09:08:00.005-05:00

This post is proposing a tentative model to explain social psi effects based on the literature surveyed up to this point, and some afterthought emerging out of the historical case studies presented here. The model is presented as a “circuit” because there is an apparent recurrent component to psi effects.

Preliminary remarks

There is one challenge linked to parasociology in general, and UFO studies in particular, that needs to be highlighted. Knowledge is usually produced by alternating between induction and deduction, or by observation and conceptualization. New data are required to validate or modify concepts and models which are necessary if one is to produce more than mere description (i.e., producing an explanation). Concepts and models are required to assess which data are relevant, as data about the entire reality cannot be collected without being quickly overwhelmed (i.e., distinguishing between the signal and the noise). Overtime, there is a synergy between more accurate observations and better conceptualization, ultimately leading to better explanations. This is the ideal model of scientific knowledge production.

The reality, however, is that there are cultural preferences within the Western world about induction and deduction. Namely, in the English-speaking world there is a clear preference for induction (i.e., the portion starting from observation and moving very slowly towards conceptualization). People who are from cultures that are linked to those of continental Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) tend to have a preference for deduction (i.e., it is more important to spend energy to have good concepts so that most of the noise is removed when it is time to observe). Deduction also means to adapt existing concepts developed and tested for comparable problems so that one avoids re-inventing the wheel. For those who are familiar with philosophy of science, it is illustrated by the David Hume versus René Descartes fault line, which has been at the source of many misunderstandings. In the end, however, both induction and deduction are needed to make sense of the world around us.

This brings us to UFO studies. In the United States, most of UFO research is very much influenced by the cultural preference for induction, sometimes taking the shape of a militant ideology. The problem of such approach is that one is at serious risks of never moving beyond description, and so never reaching a sound explanation. This problem is even further compounded if one relies on the highly speculative notion of extra-terrestrial visitations for an explanation, over which “visitations” we have no control anyway. Hence, induction would be at the mercy of somebody else’s incomprehensible idiosyncratic wishes.

Parasociology, as discussed here, is very much influenced by a preference for deduction. This may cause “cognitive dissonance” to many interested in UFOs. But this choice for a more deductive approach is not just a cultural preference. Since the late 1940s, there have been a lot of observations and reports about UFOs, probably in the hundreds of thousands. Although the quality of such observations varies considerably, it is fair to say that there is a very healthy amount of good reports out there. But the question that everyone should ask is: what kind of serious conceptualization did occur to further refine observations since? Unfortunately, the answer is not a whole lot. More observations of the same are not what is needed at this point, as it cannot bring a qualitatively different type of data. This can only serve to reinforce the present situation where many have given up and essentially camped on the position saying “what else could it be but ETs?,” and then waiting for ET to show up and or the government to “reveal everything” (assuming they really know something worth of mention). In other words, ufology is stuck, and it has been stuck for quite a while. A major dose of serious deductive work, as described above, is now required before engaging in further observations. It is how I interpret Jacques Vallée’s point stated in a 2006 interview:

“SR: What are your thoughts on the state of ufology in 2006?

JV: It’s a mess. There is valuable research going on, but it is carried out by individuals working with almost no financial or logistical resources. The few scientists who are still actively involved are forming a new version of the old “Invisible College,” communicating privately to stay away from the sensationalism that has taken over the field. As for what remains of the organized groups, they are not playing the role of disseminating information, conducting field research or encouraging critique and open debate. They are little more than lobbies for a particular point of view. This is a pity, because periods of low UFO activity like the current one present the best opportunity to do quiet research. By centering the whole discussion of the phenomenon on highly-charged, but poorly-researched issues like Roswell and abductions, ufologists have lost credibility, alienated the scientific public and opened the floodgates to hundreds of Internet sites where the wildest rumours circulate. No wonder serious researchers are going underground!”[1]

Parasociology is dedicated at getting UFO and paranormal research out of the underground, but ufology has to be ready for a new type of research. Once again, let’s emphasize that deductive work is not based on pure speculation, as most inductive-thinking people tend to believe. It is based on borrowing and adapting research on what is known about other realities that share similar characteristics to what is to be studied. This way we can move from the known and go towards the unknown, and avoid re-inventing the wheel, whenever possible. The most difficult part of all this, however, is that when “similar characteristics” are compared, it is not necessarily at the observation level, i.e., on the superficial level. It is oftentimes at the deep or “structural” level where the similarities can be found, and this requires a fair bit of lateral thinking. A simple example is the physics of weather. On the surface, snow, drizzle, fog, wind and drought have little superficial resemblance, but it is the same physics that explains them all at the deep structural level. Parasociology approaches the UFO phenomenon with the same spirit that weather physicists are approaching climate issues, (and I would say that climate issues are as controversial as UFO research...).

So, the following model should be seen as an attempt to synthesize existing knowledge established in a number of various fields where there are structural similarities with paranormal phenomena, UFO included. As well, this model should also be seen as a step towards better identifying the signal from the noise, to be verified in future empirical research. Hence, deduction, like induction, should not be an end in itself. We need both.

Foundational notions

The proposed model is based on research and observation conducted by a number of serious researchers, and is trying to move from the known in order to move towards the unknown. Without repeating the content of all previous posts dealing with reviewing the literature on the nexus paranormal-UFO phenomena, it is important to highlight what is known.

The paranormal-UFO nexus

Jacques Vallée’s research is well-known in ufology. He found that many witnesses had paranormal experience before, during and after a sighting. Furthermore, the narrative structure of encounter with what has been construed as non-human entities shares a lot of similarities with folkloric myths. John Keel, coming from a different angle, considered that UFO phenomena are difficult to distinguish from other paranormal phenomena, and that it is probably wiser to see them as part of continuum rather than being discreet realities. The younger Jerome Clark provides also an interesting overview of the observational similarities between UFOs and paranormal phenomena. On the other side of the Atlantic, John Spencer and Albert Budden also found many similarities between the two, confirming empirically the findings of Vallée and Keel. Jenny Randles is famous for her concept of “Oz Factor”, which is essentially about altered states of consciousness (ASC) found in many UFO events. According to many parapsychologists, ASC is considered a key psychological state in psi events. A few parapsychologists, in particular Scott Rogo and Manfred Cassirer also ventured in the UFO territory and found extensive similarities. French authors François Favre, Bertrand Méheust, and Pierre Viéroudy coming from very different directions also found that “paranormality” is at the centre of the UFO experience, also confirming findings by researchers in the United States and the United Kingdom. There are a number of other less known researchers who came to similar conclusions, also based on empirical research.

The fact that the few researchers who cared to explore the paranormal-UFO nexus found so many similarities shows that it cannot be ascribed to coincidence or wishful thinking. There is a serious empirical base behind their assertions. Ignoring it is simply moving away from scientific work.

The social dimension

Many of the above researchers could not help but also notice that there is a social dimension to the paranormal side of the UFO experience. Once again, Vallée was deeply impressed at how the UFO phenomenon changed the life of so many people in such a deep way, and that many appeared to gain psychic abilities. The younger Jerome Clark was one of the first to push for an exploration of the social unconscious and the UFO phenomenon, as there are clearly “social constructions” embedded in the UFO experience that closely intertwined with the paranormal dimension. Randles, through her research, reinforced the notion that the apparent technology perceived in UFO tend to be just a few years ahead of technological progress on Earth, and therefore social representations seem to play a key role in the experience. Méheust provided the most serious analysis to date about the intimate link between social representation (i.e., science fiction) and UFOs. Viéroudy found a number of strong correlations between major social events and UFO waves. On the social dimension too, there are other lesser known researchers who came with similar findings.

The weaker link in this case is from parapsychology that has not spent much energy trying to understand the social dimension of psi. The notable exceptions are the small group experiments conducted by Batcheldor, Owen and Sparrow, and the Globe Consciousness Project. This last research effort has been described by leading parapsychologist Dean Radin in Entangled Minds as a first step in investigating “social psi.” However, it is fair to say that parapsychology has been able to show that there is enough evidence to seriously consider that psi effects is likely to occur at different levels: individual, small group, and large group.

Joining forces

In light of the above research about both the paranormal-UFO nexus, and social dimension of UFO and paranormal events, it appears clear that ufology would benefit from investigating in more depth how its social dimension intersects with the paranormal one. In other words, ufology, parapsychology and sociology should join forces, as existing research points towards an unexplored research potential to uncover. The question is then how to go about it? It is where a trans-disciplinary model becomes useful and critical to generate research hypotheses.

Graphic Representation

Below is the model’s graphic representation, which will be explained at length in the next post. However, let’s note that it is integrating the previously presented PEMIE model, which also take stocks of what is known about the materiality of UFOs.

[1] The rest of the interview can be found at http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3252.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

E-mail contact

2010-02-13T08:34:00.002-05:00

Just a short notice.

Someone tried to reach me through the e-mail parasociology@gmail.com, and the e-mail did not reach me.

If you e-mailed me and I did not respond, it is due to the e-mail account. I respond to all my e-mails. If you experienced this problem, please re-send, or post a comment on the blog to alert me.

Thank you