Belgian UFO wave 1989-1992 – Part 2

This post is looking into the three other spikes of observations linked to the Belgian UFO wave of 1989-1992, namely the nights of 11-12 December 1989, 12-13 March 1991, and 26 July 1992.

11-12 December 1989: second spike of observations

In their 1991 book on the Belgian UFO wave, the SOBEPS investigated 26 sightings that occurred on the night of 11-12 December 1989. This time the observations could be grouped into three particular geographical areas: around Liège, around Namur, and near Mons on an axis parallel to the Sambre and Meuse rivers (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  82). It was, generally speaking, on the same general east-west axis as during the 29 November 1989 peak of sightings, but shifted further west. The observations occurred between 1735 (5:35pm) and about 0300 (3am). The first three observations were around Liege (between 1735 and 1800 – 5:35pm and 6pm), then it was in the vicinity of Mons that the next five sightings occurred (between 1800 and 1900 – 6pm to 7pm), and then 7 observations around Namur (between 1845 and 1910, 6:45pm and 7:10pm). The remaining 9 observations that occurred after 1900 (7pm) were in the general area of Liege, except one near Mons, one in the Netherlands (near Maastricht), and one in Luxemburg.

The observations were deemed credible and without obvious explanations by the SOBEPS, with the exception of two cases. About half of them occurred while the witnesses were driving, while most of the other ones happened when the witnesses were at home. The shape of what was observed was described in different fashions. In six cases, the object was described as either a cupola or a helmet. In three cases, it was perceived as a triangular object with rounded edges at each corner of the triangle, while for two observations the witnesses talked about an elongated triangle. In one case, it seen as having a rectangular shape, while in another one it was egg-shaped. In nine cases, the witnesses could not see a particular shape in the night sky, however they reported seeing three bright white lights positioned in a triangular shape, and among those five had also a red light in the middle of the white lights positioned in a triangular position. However, this pattern of white lights in a triangular position has been perceived in four other cases where the shape could be perceived. Combined together, the triangular shape and triangular light position are accounting for 14 of the 24 observations for the night. This is a significant pattern, but there are still significant variations. In a few other cases, green, yellow, and multi-color lights were noticed.

In terms of noise, in six cases the description mentions that the object was noiseless, while in two cases a little vibration noise was noted. The object was observed at low altitude in 11 cases at least, but the most interesting feature is the slowness or stationary behavior of the object in at least 13 cases. This type of behavior made several witnesses rejecting on their own the possibility that it was a plane, and at least four witnesses who had a very good look at what they were seeing rejected that it could be a helicopter. Several witnesses described the object as being very large, as big as a jetliner (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  82-113).

This second night of multiple observations had similar characteristics to the first night of 29 November 1989, namely bright white lights, a triangular shape, slow or stationary object, making little or no noise. However, like the first night there were still valid variations to the pattern.

Probably the most interesting case of this night was the one reported by the Lieutenant-Colonel André Amond, of the Belgian Army. Around 1845 (6:45pm), he was driving with his wife to the Gembloux rail station, in the vicinity of Namur. He saw what he called “panels” in the sky with white lights, with at the centre a red rotating light. He estimated that the panels were at 200 to 300 meters up in the sky. He stopped at a high point and looked at the object moving slowly, for 2 to 4 minutes. Then the object turned and only one light was visible and came towards them. His wife became nervous and asked to leave. He also found that the object was a bit “aggressive”, but it was noiseless. As he started the engine the bright light disappear and it was replaced by three light, not as bright as the first one”, in a triangular position, with a red light in the middle. He estimated the distance between the lights at being around 10 meters. Also, he noted that in spite of the full moon, he could not distinguish a particular shape. The object made sharp but very slow turns. The white lights disappeared, and only the red one remained until it faded away into the night sky. The total observation was between 5 to 8 minutes. He noted that the complete silence, the large size and slowness of the object were very unusual, and he rejected the possibility that it could be a plane or a helicopter. He wrote a report on his experience and sent it to the Belgian Ministry of Defense (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  90-92).

Among the cases investigated, it is also important to note that some were most likely explainable by human-made helicopters. Among them is the case of the night observation at Jupille-sur-Meuse near Liege. The SOBEPS presents in details this case in their book (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  101-111), and an English description can be found here. In a report produced by the late RenaudLeclet, a convincing case is made that it was probably a Belgian or German (NATO) Sea King helicopter.

12-13 March 1991: third spike of observations

There were 27 cases investigated for that day by the SOBEPS (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  259-282). This time the quasi totality of the observations occurred near Bierset (suburb west of Liège) near the then military airport, which has been handed over to civilian authorities later during the 1990s.

The observations occurred between 2000 (8pm) and 2300 (11pm). Approximately half of them happened while the witnesses were driving, and the other half from their residence. Similar descriptions to previous reports were provided by the witnesses. However, there were a division between the cases were a strong noise was heard (8), and others with little or no noise (13 cases). The strong noise was assimilated to plane about crash or to take off, or to the noise made by an AWACS. Given that the witnesses were living near a military airport, they were quite cognisant about the noise made by AWACS. Yet, in spite of the noise, what they saw did not had the shape or the behavior of a plane (something, again, they are used to observe given their proximity to the airport). There were no plane crash, and the Belgian Ministry of Defence confirmed that all AWACS were away in Turkey at the time, as part of a NATO mission to defend that country during the Gulf War (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  280).

Among the “unplanely” behaviors of those noisy objects was the capacity to make sharp turns without changing their flat horizontal alignment with the ground. In some cases, the object was stationary and/or moving very slowly, and in most cases it had powerful white lights illuminating the ground. The shape was at time triangular and flat, circular, or triangular with a cupola on top.

The silent objects were almost all described as either stationary or very slow, and at low altitude. Powerful white light with a weaker red light was also a very common observation. The shape was not always visible, but oftentimes the white lights were in a triangular or “V” formation. When the shape could be seen it was mostly triangular, but in some cases it was rectangular, ovoid, or circular. It was oftentimes described as large as a jetliner. The object was seen near or over the nuclear power plant of Tihange by a number of witnesses, which is about 10 km away from the Bierset airport. A number of witnesses also reported that they felt as if they were observed by the object.

One of the interesting cases of this observation spike occurred in the small locality of Clavier. At around 2145 (9:45pm), a woman and her daughter saw a red-orange light ball slowly pulsating in the night sky. It was just above tree heights and at about 10 meters from them. It moved very slowly, without making any noise, towards the Tihange nuclear power plant. In a few minutes, it reached the power plant and turned left and disappeared in the night. Five minutes later, they saw a large, noiseless, slow, dark, triangular object with flashing light all along its contour taking the exact same path as the light ball they saw just before. The following night, the same event repeated itself (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991:  278).

26 July 1992: The last spike of observations

In their second book on the UFO wave, the SOBEPS presents the synopsis of 27 observations (involving 72 witnesses) that occurred on 26 July 1992, between 2200 (10pm) and midnight (Clerebaut, 1994: 53-77). The reports were coming from the general area of Malmedy to Waremme, with a number of them in and around Liege. The Belgian military confirmed that there were no military aircraft in the area where observations took place at time (Idem, p. 53).

Out of those 27 reports, one could be confirmed as being an aircraft, and two were night lights, offering limited information to analyze. The most striking feature of this last set of observations is the object’s shape. In 14 of the remaining 24 sightings, the witnesses reported seeing something in the shape of a lozenge or square oftentimes with four lights at each corner, while the triangular object and/or lights in a triangular formation accounted only for 6 cases. Rectangular shape was also noted in a few cases. The objet was at times perceived as being flat, while at other times it seemed to have a pyramid shape extension on the upper side. Some witness mentioned that the corners of the lozenge were curled up.

Another interesting feature was that in many observations, there was a flashing or gyrating light but it was a white light, not a red one as often noted since the beginning of the wave.  Once more, it was the “unplanely” behavior at the beginning of the sightings that attracted the attention of the witnesses. A number of them noted one or two unusually bright white lights in the sky that became four lights and a lozenge shape could be seen. The object was very often described as either stationary or very slow, at low altitude, large, and in a few cases the object was seen as making sharp turns that an aircraft cannot do. In about half of the observations, the object was described as noiseless, while in other ones a low pitch vibration noise was noted.

One of the most interesting cases involved a triangular shape object. At around 2220 (10:20pm), an off-duty military radar operator was watching at home the summer Olympics on television. It was in Fléron, an eastern suburb of Liege. He heard the dogs from the neighborhood barking in an unusual manner. He went to the balcony of his sixth floor apartment and saw two powerful white lights in the sky at about  1,000 feet above the ground, at a distance evaluated between one and two kilometers. The lights appeared to be stationary. He observed this scene for three to four minutes with his wife. The dogs continued to bark actively. He decided to go outside to have a closer look, and met neighbors in the street also wondering what was going on. Then he noticed that object was moving, and estimated it at about 60 km/h. He heard a light vibration noise that he compared to a washing machine noise. Then the object made a turn and he could see three white lights with one flashing in the middle. He could discern a large object shaped as an elongated triangle. The object disappears in the night sky (Clerebaut, 1994: 65).

Discussion

After the intense night of 29 November 1989, the observations of UFO continued although it declined in intensity afterward. There are a number of issues about the reporting that need to be pointed out. Given the intensity of the press coverage that started in December 1989, the increase in the number of observations is likely to be in part linked to people paying more attention to what is going on in the sky.

Another issues was that the majority of observations were coming from the French-speaking part of Belgium. The SOBEPS was clearly more French-speaking than Flemish (Dutch-speaking), but it still had Flemish people among its ranks. It is reasonable to think that the tense cultural and linguistic Belgian divide had an impact on reporting. Given the intensity of the international press coverage, one should have expected more observations from northern Belgium (Flemish community). The SOBEPS had reports from the Flemish part of Belgium for the period, but very few on the spike days noted before. Hence, the linguistic divide may have produced an incomplete picture of the UFO wave, but it appears reasonable to think that the geographic concentration of sightings during the spikes days represent a relatively sound reporting context.

When it comes to individual observations, it is impossible to assess them all. Yet, it is reasonable to think that a number of them were probably the fact of human-made objects (planes, helicopters, ultra-light planes, etc.). Nevertheless, there are many cases that are quite difficult to explain away. Furthermore, the SOBEPS received the unconditional help of the Belgian military so that more exotic airframes could be excluded as part of the potential explanation.

 

Of course, it is always possible to speculate that American classified flights were the explanation, and that the Belgian military did not know, or could not speak about it. Given that such speculations are improvable by definition (if one has access to classified material, one can’t speak publically about it no matter what is the content), then using logic is the only alternative. In view of the wide press coverage about UFOs then, that Belgium is a NATO ally, that truly exotic military planes are very expansive, that any accident in highly populated area like Belgium would cause a serious international scandal (and excuses for the Congress to cut military budgets), and that by doing so it might give information to the Soviet Union about those planes, one can only conclude that such speculations are, at best, completely ludicrous.

A better and more methodologically sound assessment would be, instead, to look into the witnesses themselves. The SOBEPS was very careful in assessing if they were dealing with genuine witnesses. It is of course impossible to have a perfect score in removing hoaxes, but the array of witnesses is quite impressive. They were coming from all walks of life, including people who were in position of authority (police officers, senior civil servants, doctors, military personnel) and who had an obvious incentive to be seen as upstanding citizens. From a sociological perspective, the witness population is consistent with the general demography, and the “credibility” factor is not an issue.

Another important point is the general practical knowledge of the witnesses regarding aircrafts. Many of them lived near military airbases, and were quite used to see military aircrafts in the sky such AWACS and jet fighters. As well, by 1989 the general knowledge about commercial jetliners and helicopters is much higher that it was just two decades before, simply because they are much more common than before. Hence, a key reporting issue is that most witnesses reported because they observed activities in the sky that would not match “normal aircraft” appearances and behavior. In other words, we know about those cases because something was considered being “off”, and that could not be explained away by the witnesses.

In old ufology, there is a tendency to regard witnesses as sincere, but ignorant. The tune is no different among the pseudo-sceptics (and thus implying that ufologists and pseudo-sceptics know better). Such view may have been somewhat true from the 1940s to the 1960s, but afterward this seems a very erroneous perspective, not to say a condescending one. Witnesses can be fooled by special weather, sound effects or elaborated hoaxes, but since the 1980s their average knowledge of aircraft behavior should not be questioned unless there is a good reason to do so. This, in view of the large amount of observations collected by the SOBEPS, should be enough to accept that what happened over the sky of Belgium was a genuine anomaly.

References

Bougard, Michel and Lucien Clerebaut. (1991). "Chronique d'une vague". In SOBEPS, Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique: Un dossier exceptionnel. Bruxelles: SOBEPS, pp. 51-296.

Clerebaut, Lucien. (1994). "Chronique d’une vague". In SOBEPS, Vague d’OVNI sur la Belgique 2: Une énigme non résolue. Brussels : SOBEPS, pp. 13-118.

Wonders in the Sky – Book Review

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.  

The key hypotheses in ufology

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

Book Review - The UFO Phenomenon

This post is reviewing a book published in 2009 (for a change...). I was please to find a serious book about UFOs that does not fall into the ETH mythology; such books are not often published. The author is an occultist, but his book is not too much influenced by his beliefs, and he should be congratulated for not letting his own views color too much his analysis. The full notice is:

Greer, John Michael. (2009). The UFO Phenomenon: Fact, Fantasy, and Disinformation. Woodbury: Llewellyn, 248 p.

Overview

In the first part, Greer’s book provides a very good overview of the history of the UFO phenomenon, and about how the ETH myth was created. He covers the most famous UFO sightings since the ancient Roman times to this the present period, and he concludes very soundly that “[s]ince the dawn of recorded history, in fact, human beings have been seeing weird things moving through the air, and those things have usually had a very close resemblance to the hopes, fears, and speculations of those who saw them” (p. 6).

He provides also an interesting explanation as to how science fiction and the lack of traditional religious belief in the later industrial age have set the stage for the UFO phenomenon. His argument is very close to Méheust’s, but he does not refer to him, and Méheust’s book is not in the bibliography either.

The rest of the first section provides a well-documented description as to how the UFO myth was developed over time. From the 1950s contactees, to the history of NICAP, to the Roswell and MJ-12 stuff, and the abduction narratives, Greer explains how the ETH mythology got firmer while it became clear that the phenomenon was becoming increasingly elusive.

As well, the book provides an interesting and accessible sociology of the UFO knowledge, exploring in a symmetric way the various hypotheses about the UFO phenomenon. I certainly recommend this book for any new comer to the world of ufology. The book is well-written, properly documented, and provides level-headed arguments.

The author, however, is first and foremost attacking two main views about UFOs: the ETH and the complete denial about the existence of UFOs, what he calls the null hypothesis. From this point of view, Greer’s book is moving beyond the familiar (and boring) territory of ufology.

The hypotheses in ufology

It is interesting to note that Greer is using an approach close to what can be found in sociology of science for his evaluation of the various hypotheses about UFOs. Among others, he is using Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm to understand how the ETH and the null hypothesis came about as the dominant views in ufology. Yet, both the ETH and the null hypothesis are fundamentally logical fallacies. As he wrote, “ [a]t the core of most arguments for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, as we’ve seen, is a bit of dubious logic claiming that if an unknown object seen in the air isn’t a hallucination, a hoax, or a misidentification of something more ordinary, it must by definition be a spacecraft piloted by aliens. The defenders of the null hypothesis, far from challenging this questionable logic, have simply taken it and stood it on its head, arguing that since an unknown object in the air can’ t be a spacecraft piloted by aliens, it must by definition be a hallucination, a hoax, or a misidentification of something ordinary.” (p. 129).

Some of the most common alternative explanations are also presented by Greer. They include the intraterrestrial, cryptoterrestrial, time-travel, demonic, ultraterrestrial, and neurological hypotheses. For him, most of them are problematic, but they at least provide a wider look at the UFO phenomenon. Only the geophysical hypothesis (mostly the work of Devereux and Persinger) appears strong to him, although not completely able to explain the phenomenon. I certainly agree with him.

Solving the mystery?

The last section of the book is entitled “Solving the mystery,” and it is also the weakest one. Greer’s argument is three-fold. First, from time immemorial humans have seen apparitions, especially when in an altered state of consciousness, and this explains the complete lack of evidence about UFOs, as well as the phenomenological similarities between sightings (like the “ Oz factor” ). Second, there was a vast conspiracy by the military, and the U.S. Air Force in particular, to hide secret prototypes under the guise that they were UFOs (i.e., aliens in spaceship), which explains the physical traces when it is not caused by geophysical activities. Third and last is the cultural dynamics of UFO stories combined with the governmental conspiracies for hiding secret planes that provided the common content to the UFO phenomenon.

It is clear that the cultural dynamics described by Greer had a great role to play in providing the content of the UFO experience. As well, there is no doubt that some military establishments used the UFO phenomenon to hide secrets, which in turn just fuelled furthermore the UFO mythology. But the existing facts about UFO cannot be all explained that way. To paraphrase Hynek, I guess the U.S. Air Force is everywhere around the world, ready to produce hoaxes to hide its aircrafts.... No! This explanation can certainly cover a number of unexplainable sightings, but they cannot account for the ones that are truly unexplainable, especially when the UFO defies the laws of physics. A good example is the Belgian wave of 1989 where the secret American aircraft explanation has been proposed, but it still failed to explain the incredible UFO behaviour.

Another problem is about Greer not discussing at all the parapsychological (or psychical) hypotheses about UFOs, which is quite odd as there is a healthy corpus available. His notion of apparition is not very well-developed and he relies essentially on superficial comparisons with shamanism in a pop culture context to make his point. In the end, he does not explain anything on the issue of apparitions, while by integrating parapsychology he would have been able to provide some serious explanations about apparitions.

All this to say that, no, the mystery has not been solved as the section’s title implies.

Rear guard battles

The book, however, is more problematic from the point of view of those who are not new comers in the world of UFOs. Greer shows well why the ETH is so problematic. But ufology in its ETH version is on the decline, and more energy could have been spent on explaining the phenomenon rather than explaining what it is not. Similarly, the issue of the null hypothesis is overdone. There are very few people nowadays who reject completely that there are no UFOs (if not define as alien in spaceship, but just as what it is: unidentified flying objects). The fact that there are strange things in the sky that we cannot explain is nothing new, nor nothing hidden. Starting with the Project Blue Book of the 1960s, up to the present declassification of UFO archives by the many countries to include Belgium, Britain, Canada, Chile, France, and Russia (and there are probably others that I am not aware of), these various governments came to pretty much the same conclusion: there are strange things in the sky that we cannot explain, but they do not appear to be dangerous nor made of useful physical technologies, and therefore it would not be a wise use of public funds to investigate these aerial mysteries. Debunking the ETH and the null hypothesis, in 2009, is a rear guard battle.

To conclude, this book is an excellent introduction to the UFO phenomenon, especially for those who are new to the field. But for those who are not new, the book is not on the leading-edge, and is either superficial or focuses on the wrong issues.

Eric Ouellet © 2009

The ugly truth about ufology

This week’s post, exceptionally, has been graciously hosted on two RRRgroup blog sites. It can be found at either:

http://ufoprovo.blogspot.com/

http://ufor.blogspot.com/



Also, I will be taking a break for the month of August, resuming posting in September.


Lastly, I would like to invite people who might be interested to contribute a text (short or long) to Parasociology, or simply to provide comments, suggestions, and constructive criticism to contact me at: parasociology@gmail.com.

I will continue to monitor my e-mail during the month of August.

I wish you all a good second half of summer!!!

Reading Notes - various

I read an interesting book by Greg Bishop. (2005) Project Beta : The story of Paul Bennewitz, national security, and the creation of a modern UFO myth. New York: Paraview. If people still have a few hopes that maybe Roswell and the Majestic documents could be true, they will completely abandon the Roswell/Majestic conspiracy bandwagon after reading this book.

Believing as part of an objective phenomenon

Greg Bishop, in a journalistic type of book, tells the story of Paul Bennewitz who was victim of an influence operation by the US Air Force counter- intelligence in the early 1980s. Bennewitz unknowingly was getting too close to classified military research. Yet, even before the US Air Force got involved, he was convinced that he was tapping into alien signals used to exert mind control over humanity. In reality, he simply recorded signals from a research centre working on various projects in the context of the late Cold War. In a patriotic way, he approached the Air Force with his findings about alien signals, which in turn got the Air Force very worried; but not because of an alleged alien plot, but because there was a potential serious security breach about much more mundane research projects.

As Bennewitz could not be forcibly removed from his house near the base, and the counter-intelligence did not want Soviet agents to use Bennewitz as an involuntary spy, they organized a complex disinformation scheme to distract both Bennewitz and any potential Soviet handlers. The Majestic documents were released in part during this operation, and the story linking UFOs and alien nocturnal visitations was firmly established through the bogus signals sent to Bennewitz. It is also the story of Bill Moore who worked actively with the US Air Force to disseminate false information to the ufology community. Most of that disinformation was easy to uncover, or it was pure rumours without any verifiable references. The ETH ufological community was very much victim of itself by being so uncritical, so ready to believe anything that fits its worldview. For having worked within the defence establishment, and knowing people in the world of intelligence, I must say that Bishop’s book is very credible and plausible.

It is also interesting to note that Bishop, through interviewing the main people involved in that story almost 20 years after the facts, found a few instances where magnetized balls of light were noticed. Apparently, the US Air Force counter-intelligence and other intelligence agencies did not know what to make of these balls of light. Assuming this is not something added to spice up the story (hardly a first in journalist accounts of paranormal-related phenomena), this adds some more data to my project.

What is more interesting is that it tells how a bogus story can become a modern legend. Only one source, one receiver, a few distributors, and a story that feeds into what people are ready to believe, that’s all that is needed. The social dynamics of rumours, as Bishop’s book shows can be very powerful. As psi effects are more likely to occur if people believe in the paranormal in an uncritical way, and that socio-cultural contents tend to provide the basic material for many psi effects, I would say in a qualified way that Jung was right in choosing the title of his famous book: Flying Saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the skies.

The Bennewitz story certainly raises a number of ethical questions. Was all this necessary to protect sensitive military research in the context of the Cold War? Was there other more ethical ways to distract Bennewitz without revealing that top secret research was conducted? This hard to say, as each situation is unique. Certainly if Bennewitz would have been in the Soviet Union doing the same thing, he would have been arrested and sent to psychiatric hospital without explanations. The other question is: was it necessary to disinform the entire ufological community? This one is more problematic. I think that the counter-intelligence agencies were a bit too paranoid about possible infiltration of the ufological community by Soviet agents, and use it as a cover to spy on military research. It is true that Bennewitz with very limited means was able to uncover easily a lot of stuff (even if he did not interpret the information correctly – which a Soviet agent could have done by relaying the information to Moscow). In the end, I think that the counter-intelligence made things worse, as the distrust towards the US Air Force is such that the ufological community was able to get some politicians on the bandwagon, and forcing a few expansive investigations (e.g., GAO search for the Roswell documents, US Air Force own investigation on Roswell, repeated FOI requests).

As one can see, it is not possible to talk about “psychotronic” attempts to manipulate masses here, as Jacques Vallée and others have suggested. These events can be explained by a normal sociological analysis. In fact, if one needs a metaphor to describe this story, I would suggest the Greek tragedy: Bennewitz was victim of his own belief, the ufological community was victim of its own naivety, counter-intelligence agencies were victim of their own paranoia, and the tax payers had to foot the bill once again for little return on the investment.

Psi as the Fifth Dimension

Another interesting book I read recently is Karl Brunstein”s Beyond the Four Dimensions: Reconciling physics, parapsychology and UFOs (New York: Walker and Co., 1979). In spite of the title, however, this book is not really about UFOs. It is more in line with philosophy of science and sociology of science than with paranormal studies.

The author provides a very accessible description of the evolution of Newtonian physics into the Einstein’s physics. From this point of view, it is an excellent vulgarization book. Complex concepts such as non-locality, reversibility of time, relativity can be understood by people having little background in physics and mathematics. Also, the author is not naive and understands that science is a social construct and its evolution is intimately linked to social conditions. This is quite refreshing, as it comes from a physicist.

His book, therefore, is really an attempt to establish linkages between Einstein’s physics and parapsychology that is both cognizant of existing knowledge in both realms and of the social conditions necessary to make such a linkage. His main thesis is that psi effects are the observable, but extreme, outcome of the fifth dimension. What he proposes is essentially an analogy between physical sciences and parapsychology. In the normal physical world, we live in the four dimensions (the 3 physical plus time) of the Newtonian physics. But when we go to the extremes, the ultra small (e.g., sub-atomic particles, photons) or the ultra big (e.g., stars, black holes), then we need Einstein’s physics to explain the strange things happening. The analogy, then, would be that in the normal world of human affairs, regular psychology (and social sciences) are good enough to explain what is happening, but when we reach the extremes, different approaches are needed to explain the strange things happening. Brunstein sees parapsychology fitting such a role. I would add that the collective dimension of human affairs needs to be included, and that parasociology is therefore needed as well.

Brunstein goes a little bit further in stating that human consciousness constitutes the fifth dimension, interacting with the four others, and thus tries to provide an unified understanding of the universe. In the normal world, human consciousness interacts with the physical world by the application of human intent to the physical world (or to other human beings through the physical world – speaking is sound vibrations, gesture and writing are photons in movement, touch is physical force and electrical signals along the nerves, reproduction is bio-chemical reactions, etc), and this can be described by Newton’s physics, Jung/Freund’s psychology, Durkheim/Marx (and many others)’s sociology, etc. It is in the extreme world that we need to better understand how intent interacts with the physical world (and others’ consciousness). Brunstein proposes that psi is what can be measured when there are interactions in the extreme. From that point, he proposes that UFOs are psi “devices” of extra-terrestrial origin used to interact with us.

I am not so sure about UFO as “psi devices,” but he raises an interesting point about the extremes of human consciousness. I would propose that it is, indeed, the unconscious, where psi phenomena seem to originate according to most parapsychologists. The collective dimension of the extreme part of human consciousness would then be what is called the collective unconscious. This in turn provides further justification for a “special” discipline within sociology (or social sciences) to study the collective dimension of psi effects.

Brunstein’s book is very speculative, particularly the second part where he goes beyond scientific vulgarization. But it is an interesting read, and it can certainly provide some food for thought for those espousing the so-called “2nd degree ETH” (ETs are behind the phenomena but it is essentially a psi technology). I do not agree with the 2nd degree ETH, but it is in my view a step forward compared to the standard ETH.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

Materiality of UFOs

Although the research program is about UFO waves, it is useful to clarify other assumptions about UFOs in general. One of them is the materiality of UFOs and related issues. In spite of claims by some writers (see the magazine Magonia for examples) who believe in the so-called “psycho-social hypothesis” (PSH), UFO sightings include, at times, material elements that cannot be overlooked (e.g., radar trace, marks on the soil). Yet, material traces do not prove in any way that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin either. It is not my purpose, here, to engage in a debate with ufologists on how to interpret physical evidence, simply because most of them do not study physical evidence anyway. They try to infer out of selected witnesses’ reports what kind propulsion and technologies UFOs are made of. Instead, I propose a quick review of the serious research on the topic, i.e. study of physical evidence. This literature shows clearly that UFOs can be material, but are not crafts in spite the fact that they may appear as such to witnesses. In the world of UFOs, what you see is not necessarily what you get.

Research Findings on Physical Evidence

One of the problems in dealing with most of the ufological literature, especially since the Roswell affair, is that little efforts are made to separate previous scientific efforts put forward by governmental agencies from the public relations issues surrounding the research. Anyone who worked for a governmental research organization long enough knows that those are two separate issues. A relatively banal finding can be the object of a lot of public relations efforts because public officials are afraid that it might be misunderstood (e.g. UFOs). Conversely, major findings can lead to an absence of public relations effort because public officials cannot see its importance (e.g. when the hole in the ozone layer was first found). Hence, scientific findings, and what you do with the findings, answer to different sociological dynamics.

From a scientific point of view, some of the early research efforts were actually quite insightful. For instance, J.E. Lipp, Missile Division of the US Air Force, wrote a report as part of project SIGN in December 1948 to evaluate the validity of what we would call today the ETH. This report looks at the question in very balanced and straightforward manner, and concludes that it is unlikely that UFOs are extraterrestrial crafts. Interestingly, he notes like Jacques Vallée would do twenty years later that:

“One or two additional general remarks may be relevant to space ships as ‘flying objects’. The distribution of flying objects is peculiar, to say the least. As far as this writer knows, all incidents have occurred within the United States, whereas visiting spacemen could be expected to scatter their visits more or less uniformly over the globe. The small area covered indicates strongly that flying objects are of Earthly origin, whether physical or psychological.
The lack of purpose apparent in the various episodes is also puzzling. Only one motive can be assigned; that spacemen are ‘feeling out’ our defences without wanting to be belligerent. If so, they must have been satisfied long ago that we can’t catch them. It seems fruitless for them to keep repeating the same experiment.” (Extract taken from Steiger, Brad. (1976) Project Blue Book. New York: Ballantine Books, p. 213).

The conclusions of the Project Blue Book are also insightful, even if they are poorly understood by most ufologists. In a February 1966 report, one can read the main conclusion as follow:



This is perfectly true; there is not a shred of physical evidence (e.g., out-of-this world alloys, equipment, or organic tissue) available to this day. Again and again, UFOs are not a threat to national security (even if humans may over react and put themselves in danger by their very own actions when seeing a UFO). What is important to note is what the report does not say. It does not say that all UFOs sightings are explainable, and it does not say that they do not have a degree of material reality. Lastly, it does not say that UFOs are not worth of scientific study. All it says, is that the given the US Air Force roles and mandate, it is satisfied that there is no danger or any technological advance coming from UFOs useful to the US Air Force. As the US Air Force is not primarily a scientific research organization, it is perfectly understandable that they decided to let others spending their money researching UFOs.

By the mid-1970s, a clearer picture starts to emerge. For instance, in an interview with Jacques Vallée, he sums up very well what was known then:

“First, there is a physical object [...] All we know about it is that it represents a tremendous quantity of electromagnetic energy in a small volume. [...] The fact that is that the witnesses were exposed to an event and as a result they experience a highly complex alteration of perception which caused them to describe the object or objects that figure in their testimony.” From Fuller, Curtis G. (ed.) (1980). Proceedings of the First International UFO Congress. New York: Warner, p. 143.

Vallée, during the same Congress, also made another interesting statement:

“I did a semantic analysis of close encounters cases using a technique of full-text search on a computer in which portions of texts were coded according to what they were referred to. [...] All these people were describing light. They said, ‘The first thing that struck me was that I first saw a flash of light.’ Kenneth Arnold yesterday described something like that. The light is the overwhelming thing. It’s the origin of the sightings, it’s what attracts them to the object.” (Fuller, p. 405).

The official report about the Belgian Royal Air Force investigation of the 1990 wave is also very instructive. It is know that there were a large amount of sightings of triangular objects from witnesses on the ground during this UFO wave. But the Belgian Royal Air Force fighter pilots never saw any object, although they were able to lock their radar on the object several times, simultaneously to echoes registered by up to three NATO ground radar stations. The object also crossed the sound barrier without producing the usual choc wave. Witnesses on the ground, during the air chase, only saw a light or a group of lights. Obviously, the Belgian Royal Air Force had more questions than answers, but it appears clear that the UFO was material, but not necessarily solid.

In December 2000, the British government produced a secret report “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) in the UK Air Defence Region,” attempting to evaluate what are UFOs. The report was declassified and made available in 2006. Two key conclusions of the report are shown below:





Lastly, there is also one author that made a clear connection between all the elements emerging from the study of the physical evidence, and his book has a very revealing title:

Budden, Albert. (1998). Electric Ufos: Fireballs, Electromagnetics and Abnormal States. Darby PA: Diane Pub Co.

It is on my list of books to read.

Parallel Findings

Here are a few other researches that should be kept in mind, with respect to the materiality of UFOs.

First, there is the Hessdalen Project in Norway that studies the so-called “earth lights”. Earth lights are large balls of gas in plasma state emerge out from inside the earth, which are bright at night and look like a slivery flatten ball during the day. These are caused by seismic activity, and they are highly charged from an electro-magnetic standpoint. These were studied from a UFO standpoint Largarde in France, and Paul Devereux in the United Kingdom. As well, the Canadian Persinger also studied the impact on the brain and perception of high levels of electro-magnetism. Although earth lights can explain only a portion of the unexplainable UFOs (not all unexplainable UFOs occur in areas or time period associated with seismic activity), these researches unveil a key physical dynamics that is consistent with prior research on physical evidence. For more information, this article gives a good overview.

The second set of research is the flip side of the first one. If the human mind can be affected by strong electro-magnetic fields, research in parapsychology also shows that the human mind can also influence electrical fields. This is usually referred to as part of psychokinesis or PK for short. One can simply think about the numerous experiments with electrical random number generators (RNG). Dean Radin provides an excellent overview of this research in his book Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality. New York: Paraview, 2006. As well, there have been some researches on how the human mind can interfere with computer processes, and various electrical devices. For instance,

Hecht, H. and H. Dussault. (1987). “Correlated failures in fault-tolerant computers.” IEEE Transactions on Reliability R-36: 171-175.

Pelegrin, M.J. (1988). “Computers in planes and satellites. ” In W.E. Ehrenberger (ed.), Proceedings of the IFAC Symposium. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 121-132.

Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Reading: Wesley.

There is also a large literature, most of it from the popular press, that provides numerous anecdotal accounts of electrical problems linked to negative state-of-mind (e.g. frustrated person making electrical bulb failing), and electrical failure linked to haunting and poltergeists. Here is a sample of some of the scientific research related to this issue:

Brovetto, P. and V. Maxia. (2008). “Some conjectures about the mechanism of poltergeist phenomenon.” NeuroQuantology 6(2): 1-8.

Roll. William G. (2003). “Poltergeists, Electromagnetism and Consciousness.” Journal of Scientific Exploration 17(1):75–86.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

UFO as a paranormal phenomenon

UFO or UAP?

UFO, unidentified flying object, is used now to refer to sightings of aerial phenomena that remain unexplainable. Some proposed to use instead “UAP” for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, which is more neutral than UFO, as we do not know if we are dealing with objects. I prefer UAP over UFO, but the expression UFO is so entrenched in daily usage that it is easier to keep it.

Based on the research done by the US Air Force with the Project Blue Book, as well as other ufological research using a different set of cases, it is now accepted that about 80% of UFO sightings are actually explainable by either known natural or human causes. Another 15% cannot be explained because there is not enough data to make a proper assessment. This leaves about 5% of cases which are truly unexplainable. These statistics are not accurate simply because it is impossible to know if all sightings of UFO s are reported (and this appears very unlikely). So, these statistics are not to be used as “scientific law” but rather as a rule-of-thumb. UFO, here, refer to sightings that belongs to that last 5%, but that occur in groupings called wave.

A wave, here, is defined as several unexplainable UFO sightings occurring over the same particular territory, and over a limited time period. The key, however, to identify a wave is the social intensity of the sightings: UFO sightings are noted and discussed publicly. Hence, our definition of UFO wave is one that considers it as a social object. Otherwise, there is no parasociological analysis possible.

Paranormal and parapsychological hypotheses

The idea that UFOs are a phenomenon better understood as a paranormal or parapsychiological reality is not new. Here are some of the key texts and statements useful to understand the genesis of this approach.

One of the first to suggest this idea was Carl Jung in his famous book Flying Saucers: A modern myth of things seen in the skies, published in German in 1958 and translated in English in 1959. Jung saw the UFO phenomenon from the lenses of social psychology, in that UFOs are expressions of archetypes deeply engrained in the human brain. But he did not deny that some UFOs might be more than misperceptions, as they show signs of synchronistic behaviour, which in turn implies that they might constitute a psi phenomenon. Unfortunately, Jung’s thesis about UFO has been and remains too often misunderstood, as it is usually associated with the idea of popular rumours leading to individual misperceptions.

In 1966, a prominent American physicist, Dr. James McDonald, who was trying to get the issue of UFOs seriously studied by the scientific community, proposed that “UFOs might be
some type of unknown parapsychological phenomenon”. He was also dissatisfied with the hypothesis that UFO might be extraterrestrial crafts (a.k.a as the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis or ETH). However, he had to backtrack from this proposal, as he was facing even strong opposition from the scientific community.

In 1969, however, the paranormal approach to UFOs got a serious boost with the publication of Passport to Magonia: From folklore to flying saucers by Dr. Jacques Vallée. Vallée, who had already established himself as a serious ufologist, studied a series of cases describing encounters with enchanted beings and compared them with modern cases of close encounters of the 3rd kind (i.e., meeting the occupants of UFOs). He found that there were many similarities between them, and hence suggested that UFOs might indeed be paranormal or parapsychological phenomena.

The following year, John Keel, a writer and investigator specialized in mysteries, published Operation Trojan Horse. Keel suggested that something paranormal or parapsychological was an integral part of the UFO experience, and that maybe aliens were “ultra-terrestrials” or trans-dimensional beings. His book, however, was not well received at the time. In 1975, he had more success with the publication of The Mothman Prophecies. In this book, Keel relates the story of his investigation of a UFO wave experienced by a small West Virginia town, and the paranormal events surrounding it. The events occurred before the main bridge of town collapsed, killing many people. The UFO wave ceased shortly thereafter. Although Keel is a more nuanced in this book about the origin of UFOs, it is clear for him the UFOs, and the other paranormal events were premonitions of the bridge tragedy.

The same year, Allan Hynek, who was since the 1950s the official UFO researcher of the US Air Force, admitted that UFOs cannot be understood without incorporating their paranormal or parapsychological dimension (Ian Ridpath. “Interview With J. Allen Hynek”. Nature, October 4, 1975, Vol. 251, p. 369). Also in 1975, Jerome Clark published with Loren Coleman The Unidentified, where he clearly espoused the paranormal thesis about UFOs. It is to be noted, however, that he subsequently changed his mind, and became a key promoter of the ETH.

In 1977, Pierre Viéroudy published in France Ces ovnis qui annoncent le surhomme. This book proposes one of the best syntheses of the research done so far about UFOs and parapsychology, where he links Jung’s archetype, anthropological and sociological observations, models and theories from scientific parapsychology, and ufological material. He even conducted empirical research where he “provoked” the creation of UFOs and took some pictures of them. His empirical research, however, was never successfully repeated.

Also in 1977, Fate Magazine organized an International UFO Symposium in Chicago. The proceedings were published in the form of a book in 1980. The conference brought many “big names” of ufology like Allan Hynek, Jacques Vallée, Stanton Friedman, Jerome Clark, Kenneth Arnold, Betty Hill, etc. Two plenary sessions were devoted to the psychic dimensions of the UFO experience. Many interesting ideas were put forward. For instance, Berthold Eric Schwartz, a psychiatrist, proposed that Jung was right and that more serious research needs to be done. Schwartz eventually delivered by publishing in 1983 UFO Dynamics: Psychiatric and psychic aspects of the UFO syndrome, where he proposed a well researched analysis of UFO experience, using parapsychology as his basis and cases from his own practice as psychotherapist. Schwartz also proposed that there might be parapsychological expressions of the social unconscious that acquire for a time some degree of independence. David Stupple, a sociologist, also present at the Symposium, proposed a similar idea about the possibility of a temporarily “freed” social unconscious. Although, he does not appear to have pursued this idea further.

In 1979, Thomas Bearden from the defence establishment, presented at a MUFON conference "A Mind/Brain/Matter Model Consistent with Quantum Physics and UFO Phenomena", also using the concept of collective unconcious. The idea of a social unconscious will be discussed later at length, as it is an important entry point for parasociology.

The 1970s was quite fertile for ufology, and shown a fair degree of open-mindedness. Some, like Brad Steiger in his book Project Blue Book (1976), were even predicting that ufology was about to move into a new phase, implying that the paranormal/parapsychological approaches would become prominent. Steiger was only half right. Ufology changed (at least in North America), but only to become more than ever fixated with the ETH and “nuts-and-bolts” approaches, and sinking into ludicrous conspiracy theories, thus preventing any meaningful dialogue between government research establishment and the ufological community. The Roswell affair, first coming to light in 1978 interview with Jessee Marcel conducted by Stanton Friedman, and by a book by Charles Berlitz, The Roswell Incident, published in 1980. This situation was reinforced by, yet again Stanton Friedman, and his discovery of the so-called MJ-12 documents in the 1980s.

The poor state of ufology in North America that would emerge after the 1970s, as reflected in Vallée's comments presented in a previous post, reflects the failure of North American ufologists to remain scientific (i.e., their working assumptions evolved into a belief system).

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet