The 1952 UFO wave and Washington D.C.: A case study in parasociology (Part 3)

This is the third and last part of the case study. The first and second part explored the July 1952 UFO incidents over Washington D.C. using Walter von Lucadou’s MPI. One of the key elements of the MPI is the focus person, at the centre of poltergeist events (RSPK). On the surface, the 1952 UFO events do not seem to have one. However, a more in-depth look, using a parasociological approach, can help to find the missing piece of the 1952 puzzle.

The focus persons of the 1952 events: the symbolic clues

The events of 1952 left several symbolic clues that require further exploration. First of all, the 1952 wave, given the reporting structure, was essentially an American event as the sightings were from the United States and where U.S. troops were stationed (with a few exceptions). From a MPI perspective, the pragmatic information (or message) was destined to people in the American people. As well, the events got the attention centred on Washington D.C., and from a MPI’s perspective it is a good indication that the focus was on D.C. and therefore the focus persons should be in or around D.C. As von Lucadou wrote about RSPKs, “whether he fools his environment or uses psychokinesis, the agent can be assured that all eyes will be on him (or the phenomena) during the surprise phase.”[1]

Another important element is the choice of disturbances. The message was conveyed using strange objects in the sky near the capital of a superpower engaged in a Cold War against another superpower (the Soviet Union). It is quite clear that the message was aiming for the attention of people in the military, as they would be necessarily involved in such circumstances. The fact that the phenomenon “insisted” (i.e. lasted two weekends) is also an indication than the larger society was the another audience for the message. But like in many RSPK events, the environment does not understand the message. Once again, as von Lucadou noticed, “but does the environment understand his cry for help? Naive observers search for all possible causes to "explain the unexplained", but they do not recognize its meaning.”[2] Instead, aliens in flying saucers and weather inversions are sought for by the naive observers and the critical observers, respectively.

It is also important to note, in light of Bertrand Méheust’s seminal research on science-fiction and the UFO phenomenon[3], that the selection of objects that could pass for spaceships might be indicative that the focus persons belonged to the “Amazing Stories” generation, i.e. white males who were teenagers and young adults in the 1930s and early 1940s. It is also the same generation who was conscripted to fight during the Second World War.

Another very important part of the symbolic message is the timing. The Washington D.C. events matched the timing of the Democratic National Convention that occurred in Chicago, and selected Adlai Stevenson as the Democrat’s presidential candidate. The convention spanned from 21 July to 26 July, hence two nights before the first UFO incident and the night after the second one. It is very important to note that the both GOP and Democratic conventions were televised and covered by 3 of the 4 national TV networks of time, and when half the American population had a TV set.[4] The symbolic timing of the UFO incidents, given the important political events occurring at the same time, is suggestive of “don’t forget about me” for the 19-20 July incidents, and of “hey, you forgot about me” for the 26-27 July incidents.



Finally, as von Lucadou described, there are active and passive RSPKs. The active ones tend to bring the destruction of mundane objects (the boiling pot of anger), while the passive ones tend to be expressed via various messages to attract people’s attention to the plight of the depressed individual who cannot speak up. The 1952 Washington D.C. incidents were certainly not destructive, and imply that we should look for a bunch of depressed people who were somehow muzzled.

Putting the pieces together

The generic portrait of the focus persons, given the available clues, would be adult white males who are likely veterans of WWII, living near and around Washington D.C., who felt depressed and muzzled, trying to get the attention of the military, the Democrats, and society in general.

Although any interpretation is always a risky task, the “best guess” for the focus persons would be the World War II veterans hired in the Federal Public Service after the War through the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944. The act had many sections, but one was involving that “Preference would apply to civilian positions — permanent or temporary ;— in all departments, agencies, bureaus, administrations, establishments, and projects of the Federal Government, and in the civil service of the District of Columbia.”[5] In other words, D.C. was indeed a hub of WWII veterans working in the Federal Public Service. Needless to say, the vast majority of those people were adult white males under 40 years of age.

The next question to answer is whether these people were depressed and muzzled. The early 1950s were the days of McCarthyism and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the Federal Public Service was one of the first targets of this anti-communist witch hunt. At the time, the public servants were under the so-called loyalty program instituted by President Truman, and where one could lose his or her job quite easily if they were suspected of any unwarranted sympathies. Indeed depressing, especially for people who risked their life for their country just a few years before and who then were under intense suspicion of treason. And, of course, as public servants they could not really speak up. Depressed and muzzled was a fair description of the early 1950s public service climate.[6]

Even more interesting is the dates of implementation of the loyalty program. It was instituted by the Executive Order 9835 of 21 March 1947, and was publicly announced in December 1947. However, the existence and content of the Executive Order was discussed in the press at the end of May 1947.[7] It is a notable synchronicity that the modern UFO era started just three weeks later in June 1947 in Washington (State) after the military were seeking help...[8]



Another important issue is that the McCarthyism era started to decline when McCarthy wanted to extend his witch hunt into the military during the Army–McCarthy hearings of 1954. McCarthy went too far. After that attempt, he was censured by the Senate, a rare thing in the U.S. political system. Could it be that the WWII veterans unconsciously knew, already in 1952, that the military was above the witch hunt and they were seeking its help?

Although the loyalty program was instituted by President Truman, a Democrat, the new leadership in the Democratic Party was certainly not warm to McCarthy. The D.C. Democrats elected Averell Harriman as their delegate to the Convention, an uncompromising liberal.[9] As the Convention was about to start, Senator Kefauver was the leading candidate, but there was intense rumours that Adlai Stevenson would eventually announce himself as a candidate. Kefauver was head of anti-organized crime committee, and not known for being a liberal. On the other hand, if Stevenson was clearly a conservative,[10] he profoundly disliked McCarthy, as he showed during the electoral campaign of 1952. The suspense was lifted on the first day of the Convention, when Stevenson accepted his nomination as a candidate for the Democratic ticket. Stevenson was eventually elected as the Democrat candidate for the 1952 presidential election, and his acceptance speech pronounced at the end of the Convention is still considered as one of the most important political speech of American political history. Yet, this speech that “electrified the nation” did not talk about what he will do about McCarthyism, except this oblique remark towards the end: “Help me to do the job in these years of darkness, of doubt, and of crisis which stretch beyond the horizon of tonight's happy vision, and we will justify our glorious past and the loyalty of silent millions who look to us for compassion, for understanding, and for honest purpose. Thus, we will serve our great tradition greatly.”[11]

Like in most RSPKs and UFO cases, those for whom the message is intended do not understand it.

The physical traces

The July 1952 incidents left some physical traces through the radar tracking devices. Only a small minority of UFO cases show some sort of objective physical traces. Yet, to this day all those traces, without any exception, have never provided any explanation on the origin of UFOs. As Jacques Vallée noted already in 1977 while discussing some classical cases, “It seemed to be artificial sand created from grinding together stones of different origin. Well, to a physicist that may not mean too much. It’s an indication of something that turns out to be absurd. [...]In that sense, yes, there is physical evidence. But if you mean physical evidence in the sense that we’re going to discover somebody’s propulsion system from it, I would have to say I don’t expect that to happen”[12]. Indeed, Vallée could not be more correct; 30 years later nothing has changed. The real question is why Vallée was right then and still is now?

The answer is puzzlingly simple: like in the case of RSPKs events, the objective physical traces of UFOs are made of natural and human-made material available to the focus persons. In the case of 1952 Washington D.C. incidents, although we will never know for sure, the most likely candidates are earthlights. The witnesses described orange balls of light, and in a few cases they were seen as white-bluish. One witness saw something at dawn and it looked like silvery balls. These are the classical descriptions of earthlights, and are a very common culprit in unidentified UFO cases.[13]



In RSPK cases, no one questions the “ordinariness” of the objects that are moved or destroyed psychokinetically, even in the rare cases where materialization and teleportation are described by the witnesses. Now that we know better about a number of natural phenomena like earthlights, the same attitude should prevail for UFOs and their physical traces.[14] In the end, the material aspects of UFOs are of a secondary importance as they will not help us to understand the phenomenon, because they are not the phenomenon itself. What is crucial, what actually constitutes the phenomenon is the strange behaviours of the objects (in cases where there are objects), and the symbolic message that is carried through the strange behaviours.

Conclusion

John Keel was wondering at the end of the 1960s if UFOs might be just a large scale poltergeist. I think his intuition was right, although he came to assign the poltergeist to non-human entities rather than to the human capacity to influence matter psychokinetically. Forty years later, by integrating the most advanced model to understand RSPKs, we are getting closer to show that UFO waves are indeed explainable as RSPK, and this without invoking the involvement of improvable non-human entities (including the ETs). This is not the final proof, of course, and given the inherent elusiveness of psi phenomena, it is extremely unlikely that a positivist and materialistic proof can be ever produced. The best hope for an explanation is through indirect analysis, as models like the MPI can provide.

The linkages between parapsychology and ufology always have been a difficult one, even if in the 1970s there were some serious attempts to do so. One of the key issues of this linkage is, I think, the different levels of analysis. Parapsychology, as an extension of psychology, focuses on the individual. The UFO phenomenon, on the other hand, has clearly a sociological dimension if only because apparently identical sightings can occur within a few hours of each others, at several locations over a large country, or even several countries. The MPI is built on a social psychology foundation which makes it more amenable to study the UFO phenomenon. However, a truly sociological (or parasociological) perspective is required to provide a complete analysis, as in the case of UFOs the focus person can be a social group instead of an individual. This case study has at least shown that a comprehensive perspective that goes much beyond physical traces is required to study the UFO phenomenon seriously.

References for part 3

[1] Lucadou, Walter von and F. Zahradnik. (2004). “Predictions of the Model of Pragmatic Information about RSPK”. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004 (99-112), p. 103.
[2] Idem.
[3] Méheust, Bertrand. (1978). Science-fiction et soucoupes volantes. Paris: Mercure de France.
[4] N.a. (1952). “Television in Smoke-filled Rooms”. The Economist (19 July): 166.
[5] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans'_Preference_Act.
[6] Schrecker, Ellen. (2002). The Age of McCarthyism. New York: Palgrave, pp. 25-27.
[7] For more, see http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/fall/agloso.html
[8] There is at least another example of a large scale paranormal phenomenon starting in the “in between period” of a significant radicalization of a state security apparatus. The apparition of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes, France, occurred on 11 February 1858, in between an assassination attempt against the emperor Napoleon III on 14 January 1858 and the implementation of a law that gave French police extensive powers to arrest and incarcerate anyone, without trial, suspected of not being loyal to the government (Loi de sûreté générale) on 19 February 1858 (and getting imperial sanction on 27 February 1858).
[9] N.a. (1952). “Democrats Wait for a Bandwagon”. The Economist (28 June): 888.
[10] N.a. (1952). “American Survey: Genral and GOvernor”. The Economist (2 August): 285.
[11] The full speech transcript can be found at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/adlaistevenson1952dnc.html
[12] Clark, Jerome. (1980). “A Conversation with Jacques Vallée”, in Curtis G Fuller (ed.), Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress, (139-152). New York: Warner, p. 142.
[13] For a more detailed discussion on what is known about the material dimension of UFOs, please refer to my post “The Materiality of UFOs” graciously reproduced on the PSICAN website at http://psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20090308225/Ufological-Information/The-Materiality-Of-UFOs.html
[14] For a more detailed analysis of the similarities between RSPKs and UFO events, please refer to Rogo, Scott. (2006) [1977]. The Haunted Universe. San Antonio: Anomalist Books.

Eric Ouellet © 2010

Essay on the Sociality of UFOs

This post is proposing a review of the literature surveyed so far on the social dimension of the UFO experience. However, contrary to most sociological research on UFOs, it is not focussing on the socially shared belief in UFO per se. It is not, either, assuming that the debate about the actual reality of the phenomena is to be ignored (or worst, ridiculed). Instead, this review is building on the post on the “Materiality of UFOs”, in which UFOs were described as PEMIEs (Psi/Electro-Magnetic Induced Experiences). In other words, it based on the assumption that the UFO experiences are caused, in part, by factors external to the experiencers that are beyond conventional explanations. It is also based on the assumption that social realities not only provide narrative contents for the experience but also that it might at the source of some of those external factors. The materiality and “sociality” of the phenomenon are therefore understood here as being two interdependent dimensions of the same experience.

The literature that addresses directly the social dimension of the UFO phenomenon is much less developed than the one about its materiality. It is not surprising. Not only the dominant Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) in the ufological literature tends to ignore the social dimension of the phenomenon because it is threatening its core beliefs, but also because many of those who wrote seriously about UFOs tend to have a background in natural sciences or engineering (e.g. Karl Brunstein, Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallée).

This particular literary context presents other challenges. There is also a useful literature that is not directly linked to UFO research. It is the parapsychological research on macro psi effects, which has a lot to offer, and reinforces in many instances the findings found in the limited literature on the social dimension of the UFOs. Hence, wherever it is appropriate, the parapsychological literature is also introduced within this discussion on the sociality of UFOs.

Central role of belief

It is now well established in parapsychology that the belief in the paranormal is an important enabler to produce psi effects. The famous sheep-goat effect identified by Gertrude Schmeidler (1952) is now known for over 50 years. If one believes in paranormal effects (sheep) he/she tends to have higher score in tests, while the disbeliever (goat) tend to have lower scores. It has been replicated numerous times, and it is clear that the cognitive dimension of believing in psi is the key to produce psi effects (Wiseman & Smith 1994). More recently, Heath (2003) also identified that a general positive attitude towards the paranormal is an important enabler for psychokinesis (PK). Batcheldor (1984) and Reihart (1994) also noted that self-convincing through trickery can also be an important way to reinforce beliefs and increase the potential for psi effects to occur. In the same vein, some studies found that a strong proportion of people who saw a UFO had other paranormal experiences before the sighting (Phillips 1993; Spanos et al. 1993; Basterfield & Thalbourne 2001). As well, Rogo (2006) and others have noted that UFO experiencers oftentimes have repeated experiences of sightings. Although more research is needed, it appears that the UFO phenomenon shares the same general characteristics as other psi-related phenomenon with regards to the centrality of belief in the paranormal. According to Spencer (1994), this is correlation is more pronounced in case of people experiencing close encounters. This is an important indicator pointing towards social dimension of the UFO phenomenon.

An interesting empirical illustration of this issue can be found in the Barney and Betty Hill story, as the witnesses provided substantial information about their inner state of being through hypnotherapy. Betty, although she appears to have no conscious interest in UFOs prior to her September 1961 experience, it was clear that from the onset she established that the light in the sky was a UFO (read here: aliens in a spaceship). She immediately linked that experience with the one of her sister Janet, who saw a UFO during the 1950s. Indeed, Betty called Janet on the day she arrived home to discuss her UFO experience. As well, a fact rarely underlined by ufologists is that Betty engaged in informal telepathic experiments with Barney before their UFO event (Fuller 1966: 243-244), and her family has a history of dealing with paranormal events (Schwartz 1983; 273-281). Lastly, she had other UFO sightings afterward in 1966-67 (Friedman & Marden 2007: 211-218). Barney, on the other hand, was clearly struggling to not believe it was an “alien spaceship,” and this inner struggle was obviously perceptible in the debate he had with Betty in the car while watching the UFO in the sky in 1961. This struggle was also obvious while he was under hypnosis with Dr. Benjamin (Fuller 1966: 33, 101, 108). Such a struggle was clearly indicative that he unconsciously accepted the possibility of an “alien spaceships”, but consciously he was trying to resist such “irrational belief”. In the end, they had a different experience. While Betty had a full experience with the aliens and the spaceship, Barney had his eyes closed for most of the event, as they told Dr. Benjamin while being under hypnosis.

The psycho-social dynamics

Another important social dimension of the UFO phenomenon is the actual psycho-social dynamics surrounding the event. Such dynamics has several layers with their own distinct internal logic; as well as showing interdependencies among the various layers.

The shared psi event at the local level

One of the interesting speculations of Berthold Schwartz (1983) is that the context of multiple witnesses of UFO sightings appears to be a telepathically shared psi event. Such event could occur irrespective as whether the UFO is a materialized phenomenon through PK effects or simply a transfer of images and feelings through ESP without having any particular material basis. This phenomenon of telepathically shared psi effects is known for quite some time in parapsychology, and can be traced back to the landmark study of Gurney, Myers and Podmore (1886) Phantasms of the Living. Warcollier (1928, 1962) also noted that images can be communicated to a wider group through telepathic means. Favre (1978) also proposed a similar set of ideas for various types of apparitions, to include UFOs and alien sightings. This notion of telepathically shared psi effect certainly requires further research, but it is an interesting hypothesis to investigate as it highlight that psi induced events are not only related to the individual but it is also a micro social event.

The active nurturing of the phenomenon

Spencer (1995) notes that UFO events, and close encounters in particular, appear to be very strange and hard to describe events, but that witnesses ultimately end up interpreting them as “aliens-in-spaceship” events because it provides a convenient set of notions to describe something that is beyond description. Some authors have found that experiences very similar to the UFO ones have been interpreted in other cultures in different ways (Harvey-Wilson 2001, Vallée 1969). However, it is important to note that for such interpretation to emerge, the social and cultural conditioning existing in Western societies about the ETH is required especially through the diffusion of the science fiction genre. In other words, if a society provides appropriate “plausibility structures (Goode 2000), then we can collectively nurture such conditions to interpret psi events as “aliens-in-spaceship” events. In this regards, it is important to underline that historically witnesses first talked about strange objects in the sky, and it was only after a few years of speculations about the possibility that they might be of extra-terrestrial origin that close encounters with aliens were reported.

In parapsychology, Walter von Lucadou (1995) and von Lucadou & Zahradnik (2004) have develop an interesting model to understand the social dimension of poltergeist events that could be borrowed to study UFO events. Although their model is more akin to social psychology (i.e. small groups), there is a number of links that can be made with the sociological dimension of nurturing the “aliens-in-spaceship” scenario. For them, it is clear that a poltergeist is a psi event that tends to last longer because the focus person and his/her immediate entourage are confirmed in their belief that there is an evil spirit in their house. Among the people who play an important role in reinforcing such particular belief are what they called the “naive observers” (i.e. self-appointed psychics and parapsychologists). The naive observers are in a way shielding the phenomenon from disbelief so that the focus person and his/her entourage continue to maintain the conditions necessary for the poltergeist event to occur. One cannot escape thinking that the ETH ufologists play the same role as the naive observers, but at a societal level. Von Lucadou’s model appears to be even more applicable to the repeat abduction scenario, as individual ufologists who study particular cases only reinforce the belief by the experiencer that they were abducted by aliens.

One could also see some interesting similarities between what Spencer found about the mythmaking process of UFO construed as “aliens-in-spaceship” and the parapsychological experiment of creating from scratch a ghost by Owen and M. Sparrow (1976), as described in their famous book Conjuring up Philip. Nurturing plausibility structures, therefore, can be construed as working both at the small group level, as well as at the societal level. Furthermore, it can be speculated that when the two levels are in line, with respect to their content, then there is a reinforcing effect. The active participation of people, either as individual, circle of believers, or socially shared belief, appears to be key in producing psi effects.

Social anxiety and UFOs

The notion that UFOs represents some sort of reaction to socially shared anxieties constitutes the core of Jung’s (1958) analysis of the UFO phenomenon. However, it appears that this issue can be analyzed from two distinct angles. First, Pierre Viéroudy (1977) and Martin Kottmeyer (1996) found a correlation between national crises and UFO waves. As well, it can also be said that UFO-like events such as the Marian apparitions in Fatima in 1917 were occurring during a national crisis, i.e. the first deployment of Portuguese troops on the Western front (matching almost perfectly the spread of the apparitions), which was completely occulted by ufologists who studied the events (such as Fernandes and D’Armada 2005). Jacques Vallée (1992), who visited the USSR in its last days, speculated that the UFO wave they were experiencing at the time might be caused by the incoming national crisis.

Second, it is also possible to see the UFO phenomenon as the expression of a general anxiety about technology and its impact on our lives (Méheust 1978). In this case, the phenomenon appears to have developed a dynamics of its own, where it is quite difficult to predict sightings, as they may be linked to a multitude of factors hard to measure and monitor.

The macro social dynamic and the collective unconscious

The notion that UFOs would be an objectified expression of the collective unconscious is not a new one, and was contemplated by Jung (1958). A few other authors have made such a suggestion (Freixedo 1977; Viéroudy 1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1983; Méheust 1978; Stupple in Fuller 1980; Rojcewicz 1987), but none of them has pursued it to any significant extent. What these authors imply is that collectively, through shared unconscious processes, we produce macro level PK effects (including materialization) that are partially autonomous from the individual witnesses. As well, our commonly shared frames of reference provide a specific content to these PK effects (i.e., drawing from existing plausibility structures). UFOs and aliens are thus understood as PK effects specific to our technological world dreaming of deep space exploration. To understand how the collective unconscious could be producing PK effects, one has to search into a literature further remote from the study of UFOs and parapsychology.

Collective unconscious and social unconscious

These two terms have been used interchangeably, and in the sociological literature it appears to not cause much problem if one is doing so. However, psychologists do make a distinction between the two. The collective unconscious is a concept directly linked to Carl Jung and his followers. Although there have been some attempts to link his concept to sociological analysis (Staude 1976, Greenwood 1990, Main 2006), it remains essentially a psychological concept. The problem with Jung’s concept is that it is a very rigid one that identifies a number of specific archetypes (deep genetically rooted ways of thinking and feeling) which have failed to be empirically tested when it comes to socially-shared ways of thinking and feeling. Societies have shown instead very wide diversity in this regard. Yet, Jung’s concept is still useful because it opens a door to the study of paranormal effects through the notion of synchronicity (see Main 1997 for a detailed discussion). For Jung, synchronicity is a correlation between two events that are not linked by a cause-and-effect chain, but that are meaningful to each others. Jung proposes that synchronicity is an expression of the collective unconscious “making thing happen”.

Hansen (2001), a parapsychologist, proposed that paranormal events are a particular expression of the collective unconscious under the archetype that Jung named the trickster. The trickster is a metaphorical description of our dealing with ambiguity. As the human mind is not able to comprehend the entire reality, we have to make assumptions, to speculate, and belief in a lot of things to go through life. The net result is that our relationship to reality is always marked by a fair degree of ambiguity. The trickster is therefore this common human experience of having other parts of our mind challenging in unexpected ways the conscious but improvable assumptions we made about reality to deal with its inherent ambiguity. For Hansen, psi effects occur when the trickster archetype is activated because it creates a liminal zone between old certainties and new certainties. Within that liminal zone, for a brief period, everything becomes possible, including psi effects. It is in this context that Hansen considers that UFO events occur when the trickster archetype is activated within the collective unconscious at the social level. Although Hansen provides an interesting analytical approach to the UFO experience, it remains too generic, like all other attempts to link Jungian archetypes to the sociological analysis.

To develop a less generic approach to understand the impact of the collective unconscious, there are a number of avenues that remain to be explored. For instance the work of sociologists like Castoriadis (1975) and Leledakis (1995) on how social innovation occurs through the unconscious and the imaginary, and the work of people involved in group analytics such as Powell (1991), Dalal (2001), Zeddies (2002), and Thygesen (2008), may provide further thought to develop a more comprehensive model as to how the collective unconscious work. Such a model may, in turn, help to understand the processes behind the generation of social psi.

A proto-model

Based on the literature surveyed so far, it is possible to propose a tentative modeling of the social dimension of the UFO phenomenon. It appears that all three usual levels of analysis (i.e. individual, group, and society) have a part to play in various PEMIE events. It is not to say that they always play a role in each case, but they all can potentially play a role. It could be speculated that the most spectacular PEMIE events such as major Marian apparitions would occur only when the three levels are aligned cognitively and emotionally.

The proposed model could construed as a concentric graph moving from the most concrete elements of the experience towards the most subtle and yet most structuring elements. As well, two distinct sets of variables seem at play. One set I would qualify of cognitive, which includes individual beliefs, small group nurturing of the phenomenon, and the societal plausibility structures. The second set is more in line with other enablers to psi effects such as individual sensitivity to the paranormal, telepathic sharing, and social anxiety within the collective unconscious.



This remains, of course, only a tentative first cut at modelling UFO events based on the literature surveyed. However, it appears quite clear that the social dimension of the UFO experience cannot be ignored, and it appears to play a fundamental role in defining the phenomenon.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet

Essay on the Materiality of UFOs

Parasociology is a sub-discipline of sociology dedicated to the study of how social dynamics and psi phenomena interact. UFO waves were selected as an object of inquiry for reasons that were essentially pragmatic; data are easier to access given the ostentatious nature of the phenomenon. Although this new sub-discipline of sociology is not focussing on the materiality of UFO per se, as it is not a physical science, it is still important to establish what is known about it. From a phenomenological standpoint, UFOs are perceived as being material, and they leave at times undeniable physical traces. The material aspect of UFOs constitutes, therefore, a fundamental characteristic of the phenomenon which must be integrated into any research about UFOs, sociological or otherwise.

Having this key principle in mind, the following review of the literature about the materiality of UFOs is proposed. It is not presented, however, as a complete review of the literature, as many texts in ufology are quite difficult to find. Nevertheless, it is substantial enough to identify with a fair degree of reliability the main ideas about the materiality of UFOs in the literature. As usual, the (author year: page) system is used and one should refer to the Bibliography post for the complete notices.

Materiality of UFOs and its context

Modern ufology, since its “official” beginning in 1947, has been mostly absorbed with finding material proofs to substantiate the reality of the UFO phenomenon. Very early on, it was hypothesized that UFOs were spaceships coming from another planet in the popular literature. A long list of publications about those alleged visitors and their strange machines, dating back to the late 1940s, could be proposed here. Such review of literature would certainly re-confirm the already well-known fact that the quest for the material proof of UFOs was very much driven by the overwhelming dominance of those interested in proving right the so-called Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). As well, such review would re-confirm that the ETH is essentially a materialistic, and at times a very simplistic, hypothesis. This review would also re-confirm that this body of literature has not been able to provide any tangible evidence to support its central ontological assumption. It would also emphasize that since the 1980s it tends to be much more interested in proving that governmental authorities are secretly in possession of such material proof, which is even further removed from providing useful evidence to understand the material dimension of UFOs. Ultimately, it would also re-confirm that after more than 60 years of ETH ufology, the material proof about the extra-terrestrial origin of UFOs remains as elusive as ever. It is in this context that a more useful and meaningful review of the literature must focus on the non-ETH literature.

This review, therefore, is following the steps of those researchers, like Allen Hynek (Ridpath 1975), who found the ETH disappointing and decided to explored other hypotheses about the materiality of UFOs that can take into account their fundamentally elusive character. It is interesting to note that as early as 1948, many “human” characteristics to the UFO phenomenon were identified (such as culturally determined nature of sightings), raising serious doubts about the validity of the ETH (Steiger 1976: 202-214). With these analytical choices in mind, this review of the literature emphasises as much as possible texts based on empirical research, whether they be case study analyses, quasi-experimental research, or laboratory-based investigations.

Through this review of the literature, three major themes about the materiality of UFOs were identified. The first one is about the clear link between UFOs sightings and electromagnetic energy. The second theme, although not about UFOs per se, was brought by UFO researchers who noted that psi effects and electromagnetism tend to be linked in similar ways as the UFOs and electromagnetism link. The last one is essentially a logical continuation of the second theme. It was observed that psychokinetic (PK) effects, such as poltergeist phenomena, tend to share a lot of similarities with the UFO experience. Among those similarities, stands the controversial issue of materialization and dematerialization of manufactured objects born out of the psi abilities of the human mind.

Materiality of UFOs – The electromagnetic dimension

The notion that UFOs are related to electromagnetic balls of plasma goes back to the mid-1960s. Philip Klass, well-known for his rejection of the ETH, showed that the there are evidence that UFOs could be sightings linked to balls of plasma (Klass 1966a; 1966b). Two years later, other ufologists who were less acrimoniously opposed to the ETH found that not only these natural, but poorly understood, magnetized balls of light could be mistaken for UFOs, but there are some patterns emerging linking UFO sightings, geological faults and geomagnetic fluctuations. In 1968, the American John Keel (1968) and the French Ferdinand Lagarde (1968) noted independently that UFO sightings tend to be over represented in areas where there are known geological faults and where there are geomagnetic anomalies. This finding was in fact confirming Charles Fort (1923) older findings, who noted that there was a strong correlation between balls of light and earthquakes, which are known to occur more frequently where there are geological faults. Lagarde eventually wrote a book on the topic a few years later (Lagarde 1973). This picture became more complex during the 1970s, as not only geomagnetism appeared to be involved in producing UFO sightings, but also solar activity cycles appear to play a critical role. It was found, in particular, that there was a significant correlation between UFO sightings and high levels of solar activity (Poher & Vallée 1975). This was confirmed a few years later by the Swedish researcher Foshufvud (1980) using an extensive data set provided by Allan Hynek. Another interesting study done during the 1970s was performed by Jacques Vallée. He proceeded to do a computerized content analysis of a large number of UFO sighting reports and found that in almost all cases such event started by the perception of a light (in Fuller 1980: 405). This finding was adding credibility to the notion that balls of light and UFOs are linked, as it was consistent with the phenomenology of UFO sightings.

By the early 1980s, Paul Devereux (1982) published an important research, based on extensive empirical work done in the United Kingdom. He was able to establish through in-depth cases studies the full connection between balls of light (which he calls earthlights) and the phenomenology of UFO sightings. In parallel, Michael Persinger from the mid-1970s to the end of the 1980s published a number of research findings in scientific journals (mostly in Perceptual and Motor Skills) and a book (Persinger & Lafrenière 1977) linking the psychological and neurological dimensions of UFOs sightings with unusual occurrences in geomagnetic activities. His research was later summarized in two comprehensive publications (Persinger 1990; 2000). During the 1990s and early 2000, other researches using the case study approach were able to further confirm the link between UFO sightings, electromagnetism (including human generated electromagnetism), and modified human perceptions (Budden 1995, 1998; Partain 2001). It is also noteworthy to mention that the Hessdalen Project in Norway was established in 1998 to study scientifically these balls of light, and it was able to collect interesting and quasi-experimental data on the “behaviour” and appearances of these balls of light. Finally, it is interesting to note that the British government commissioned an official report on UFOs, and its main conclusion is that UFOs are made of balls of electromagnetic plasma (United Kingdom 2000).

There seems to be little doubt that a number of previously unexplainable UFO sightings became explainable through these researches on balls of light. It is also important to underline that these findings are not only embedded in existing knowledge in physics, but they are also consistent with the fundamental elusiveness of the phenomenon. These findings, however important that they may be, are mostly useful for interpreting UFO sightings seen from afar, particularly the Night Light (NL), Day Disc (DD) and Radar Record (RR) of the famous Hynek’s typology. Persinger and Budden’s researches on the impact of electromagnetism on human perception could probably account for some Close Encounters (CE), especially in cases where there are round or burned marks on the soil (CE2), and mechanical malfunctions of electrical equipment (CE1). However, these are not sufficient to explain the stranger cases where large manufactured objects are perceived by more than one witnesses, and the even stranger cases where witness enters in contact with non-human entities (CE3).

Materiality of UFOs – The electromagnetic dimension and psi effects

Michael Persinger was actually aware of such criticism, and his research was part of a large effort to study extensively how electromagnetism can affect human perception, and not only in the case of UFO sightings but also in the context of other paranormal events. Persinger was also interested to understand if geomagnetism plays a role in enabling psi effects. He found that, indeed, when the human brain is exposed to high levels of electromagnetism, the normal processes of the human mind are disturbed, and it can have a number of effects such as hallucinations, altered state of consciousness, falling unconscious, visionary experience, and maybe enhancing psi abilities. (Persinger 1975, 1979, 1987; Persinger & Cameron 1986; Persinger & Koren 2001; Roll & Persinger 2001; Schaut & Persinger 1985). His research was corroborated by a number of other researches in parapsychology who also established that the human mind can be influenced by electromagnetism and lead to psi effects, as well as the human mind can affect electromagnetic systems. (Brovetto & Maxia 2008; Braud & Dennis 1989; Etzold 2005; Hecht & Dussault 1987; Pelegrin 1988; Roll 2003; Shneiderman 1987). Devereux (1982) also noted that earthlights appear at times “responding” to the mental intents of UFO witnesses. Others like Budden and Partain, cited above, noted the same patterns in their own research.

What this corpus shows is that ufological and parapsychological events appear to share common characteristics when the witnesses are exposed to electromagnetic forces. Among these common characteristics is the fact that electromagnetic forces can induce altered states of consciousness (ASC) among the witnesses, fact well documented by Jenny Randles (1983) in her research on the UFO experience (what she termed the “Oz Factor”). Similarly, ASC has been clearly identified as an important enabler to produce psi effects in parapsychology (Heath 2003: 109-124). These additional findings can explain a number of CE cases where hallucination and dreamlike perceptions could have played a role in CE1 and CE3 cases, while still being able to account for the elusiveness of the phenomenon. But there are still many high strangeness sightings that do not seem to fit the electromagnetic explanation, as there were no natural or human-made sources that could be identified. As well, there are still a number of cases where there are physical marks of manufactured objects on the ground (CE2), and other sightings where there were multiple witnesses who had the same “hallucination.”

Materiality of UFOs – The psychokinetic dimension

The idea that UFOs could be the product of psi effects, particularly as an outcome of PK effects, is not a new idea. In fact, the notion that the human mind could create manufactured objects, as well as non-human entities, can be found in the Tibetan research of Alexandra David-Neel (1973), and originally published in 1929. The link between UFOs and PK, however, appears in the literature during the 1970s. In 1975, John Keel published the Mothman Prophecies based on his investigation of a UFO wave in West Virginia. He noted that poltergeists effects, and other paranormal events, were occurring at the same. However, he ascribed the ultimate source of the phenomenon to non-human entities. A few years later Brunstein (1979) proposed a similar analysis in book still cited today. In 1976, Owen and Sparrow published their famous Philip Experiment, where a ghost and poltergeist effects were created from developing a fictional character. Although it was not about creating “aliens”, their work reinforced the notion that apparitions of non-human entities are likely to be the product of the human mind. François Favre (1978) established that there are a number of common characteristics between various types of apparition (e.g., UFOs, ghosts, ghost ships, fairies, etc.) that can be explained from a parapsychological perspective. His conclusions are similar to the ones of Jacques Vallée (1969) in Passport to Magonia, with the notable difference that he was able to provide evidence that such apparitions can be explained without hypothesizing the existence of non-human entities.

The idea that UFOs could be the direct result of PK effects emerged in parallel in the English and French literature. In 1977, Scott Rogo publishes (Rogo 2006) a book where he identifies a number of similarities between the poltergeist phenomenon and the UFO experience. Using well-documented cases, Rogo found that materialization and dematerialization, teleportation, encounter with alleged non-human entities, objects moving in a zigzag motion, on a square angle, and through a slow left-and-right motion like a falling feather were common to both poltergeists and UFOs. As well, he underlined other researches about Marian apparitions where balls of light interacting with the crowd. Also in 1977, Pierre Viéroudy (1977) published a book in France where he provides the results of his own empirical experiences where he was able to create a mini UFO wave through “exciting” his and other ufologists’ unconscious mind. He directly linked his experiment with the production of unconscious psi effects, hypothesized from a parapsychological standpoint. However, he did not make a direct connection with poltergeist phenomena. Some of these ideas were also confirmed to some extent through the cases studied by Budden (1995). Heath in her seminal book on PK (2003) provides an overview of the state of the research on this topic. Although she never established the connection with the UFO experience, there are many similarities between the PK and the UFO experience, some of them already mentioned above. It is also interesting to note that some folklorists established a connection between the “Men in Black” syndrome in ufology and parapsychological creation of non-human entities (Rojcewicz 1987).

The PK effect could explain most, if not all, the cases where there are multiple witnesses having the same perception and experience, and where there are marks on the ground of manufactured objects, while accounting for the elusiveness of the phenomenon. However, this part of the literature is still controversial. The main reason for such controversy can be explained by the lack of research on PK materialization. Although there is an older corpus of research on materialization (Geley 1924; Osty & Osty 1932; Schrenck Notzing 1923), this line of research has not been pursued recently. From an institutional standpoint, many parapsychologists do not feel comfortable engaging in such a radical topic. As well, most parapsychologists, for the same reason, do not research UFO sightings either. On the other hand, the non-ETH ufological community is relatively small, and very few feel comfortable to engage on issues that are perceived as belonging to parapsychology. In other words, it appears that UFOs as PK materialization is a topic that is through the crack.

Discussion

This review of the literature has identified three main complementary thrusts in the research about the materiality of UFOs. As stated above, these researches have not been pursued actively since the year 2000. One of the key reasons for this lack of research is certainly the lack of quality data. UFO investigations are conducted essentially by ETH ufologists, who will not look into the broader context in which a sighting is made, because of their basic ontological assumption. The electromagnetic contexts, both from natural and artificial sources, as well as the neurological, psychological and sociological broader conditions are also ignored by these ufologists. (With the exception of a few elements used to show that the witness was psychologically sane and had no history of or motives to telling lies). Hence, the necessary data to investigate the few known clues about UFOs (i.e., electromagnetism and psi effects) are not collected. This has for direct consequences that almost all ufological data are essentially useless to the advancement of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon. The most promising avenues are simply ignored. It is to wonder if ETH ufology is not suffering from wilful blindness.

The research about the psi-electromagnetic paradigm is not only suffering from a lack of valid data, however, but also there are some serious ontological issue that remain unresolved. The main problem is that it is difficult to separate what is caused by electromagnetism from what is caused by psi effects. For instance, natural balls of light and the balls of light produced by Viéroudy are phenomenologically identical. As well, in the famous Barney and Betty Hill story, it starts with a light in the sky, and it ends with an orange ball of light, with a dreamlike encounter with a manufactured object and non-human entities in the middle. One could think that was a ball of light that induced hallucinations. Yet, if one takes into account that Betty and Barney had to some extent the same hallucination and that Barney “knew” that the object was set to capture them, all of this with some strange physical evidence, it becomes impossible to distinguish the cause and the effect between electromagnetism and psi effect. Electromagnetic fields can induce hallucination and psi effects, while the human mind can modify electromagnetic systems through PK. The relationship appears to be fully circular. Yet, it is quite possible to have a natural ball of light construed as a UFO without having any psi effect. Similarly, it is also possible to have macro-PK effect (such as in the case of poltergeist phenomenon) without having electromagnetism involved. It is obviously clear that more research is needed to understand how electromagnetism and psi effects relate to each other in the context of events construed as paranormal.

What do all this mean for parasociology and the study of UFO waves? First, it is possible to state that there is a substantive body of literature to support psi/electromagnetic hypothesis, and although it does not provide a positivist type of proof about the material nature of UFOs, it can account for both the elusiveness of the phenomenon while addressing the issue of materiality in the context of what is known in physics, neurology, psychology, and parapsychology. In other words, its external validity remains to be better established, but its internal validity is relatively solid. A second observation can be made also about the potential for expanding this approach to other phenomena. There are similarities in the deeper dynamics between UFOs, poltergeists, Men in Black, tulpas, Marian and mythological apparitions as discussed above, but there are also several similarities between poltergeists and hauntings (Rogo 2005; Houran & Lange 2001). What seems to distinguish these events is not in the phenomena themselves, but in the social context in which they emerge. This finding constitutes an important opportunity for parasociology to contribute to the study of all these phenomena, not only UFO waves. For, if a specific socio-cultural dynamics can be linked to each of these particular expressions of the psi/electromagnetic hypothesis, then both sociology and parapsychology would benefit from such an integrative approach. The deeper inner dynamics of psi events could be studied by being able to go beyond descriptive approaches that are limited, by definition, to typologies that can only be superficial in nature.

For the purpose of parasociology, however, it is proposed to use a generic concept to describe these various types of paranormal events: psi/electromagnetic induced experience (PEMIE). The generic nature of the PEMIE concept allows for comparisons between different sociological hypotheses. In other words, it is construed as a variable. As it is also about human experience, its actual phenomenological content is not reified, and establishes PEMIE as an interdependent variable. In other words, the content of PEMIEs should vary as social and cultural variables vary. Ultimately, in the light of this review of the literature, PEMIE provides parasociology with a core conceptual framework empirically testable.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet