Parasociology: An update

After over a year of active posting, it is time to provide a comprehensive update as to where parasociology stands. I think it is possible to say that the foundations, challenges and future opportunities are now better known, and that the research agenda is clearer. As well, it is possible to affirm that the case of UFOs and related phenomena remains a useful test case for the new discipline.

UFOs and parasociology

Most theories in ufology have a limited empirical base to support their arguments, and it is especially true for the ETH. The ETH being a materialist hypothesis (nuts and bolts spaceships and flesh and blood aliens) require a fundamental material proof, which has not been found so far. Any other discussions about what a spaceship or an alien could or should look like can only be conjectures in the context of such materialist hypothesis. This fundamental incoherence of the ETH should be enough for any serious researcher to stay away from what the ETH has produced so far. As well, most of the empirical data is at best shallow and purely descriptive and at worst built in a Hume-like empiricist construct that forgoes any non-superficial explanation. It is therefore critical for parasociology to start from what is known to investigate the unknown.

A number of serious ufological authors (Randles 1983; Hufford 1977; Schwartz 1983; Spencer 1994) have clearly showed that there is an ontological difference between seeing an unknown object in the sky and having an encounter with non-human entities (believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin). As well, these two types of experience are oftentimes quite different from a phenomenological standpoint. It is therefore important to distinguish them appropriately. Yet, if one looks at the existing evidence, it is not possible to clearly separate physical and psycho-social dynamics, as one or both can be present in their entire spectrum from CE1 to CE3.

Some dynamics part of a larger explanation

Electromagnetism
The research has found so far that a somewhat material reality is present, and that unusual electromagnetism is often at play. A number of authors have noted that electromagnetism, either natural or artificial, is often associated with UFOs as well as with other ostentatious psi phenomena (Braud & Dennis 1989; Brovetto & Maxia 2008; Budden 1995, 1998; Devereux 1982; Fort 1923; Foshufvud 1980; Hecht & Dussault 1987; Keel 1968; Klass 1966a, 1966b; Persinger 1975, 1979, 1987, 1990; Persinger & Koren 2001; Pelegrin 1988; Poher & Vallée 1975; Schaut & Persinger 1985; Shneiderman 1987).

Common Narrative Structure
Other authors (Evans 1984; Favre 1978; Graystone 1969; Harvey-Wilson 2001; Keel 1975; Rogo 1982; Vallée 1969, Viéroudy 1978b) have noted that sightings of ETs are showing the same deep narrative structure as other non-ET apparition experiences, which points towards a common psycho-social dynamics. They tend to agree that the content of such experiences appear to be idiosyncratic and that the invariant is the structure of the experience rather than the content. To reject their arguments would require that one must explain why Marian apparitions, CE3, hauntings, etc., have so much in common while the witnesses would be supposedly dealing with completely different types of non-human entities. I am not aware of any ET ufologists or spiritualists that can offer a valid critique to reject the arguments of the authors mentioned above. As far as our knowledge extends, it is possible to say that the witnesses are somehow stimulated by an external source and they then provide the content of the experience, either through psi effects or by means of post-event interpretation.

Psychokinesis as human activity
One possible counter-argument would be that we, human, can only detect non-human entities through psi means, and that those means are always mixing up the signal with our cultural and social referents. The problem with this counter-argument is that it is improvable, as discussed in the last post. As well, we know based on the research on PK and RSPK (Fodor 1959; Gauld & Cornell 1979; Geley 1924; Heath 2003; Houran & Lange 2001; Lucadou & Zahradnik 2004; Osty & Osty 1932; Owen 1964; Puhle 2001; Rogo 1977, 1987; Roll 1972, 2003; Roll & Persinger 2001), including the Philip Experiment (Owen & Sparrow 1976), that the human mind can influence matter, to include creating or teleporting object and temporary apparitions of non-human entities through psychokinetic means. The central issue here is that any explanation of these strange events does not require the participation of any non-human entities. This is part of what is known, while hypothesizing the existence of ETs, surviving souls of the death people, etc. remain to this very day only improvable hypotheses. However hard this may be to accept for the believers, this is reality.

Belief and acceptance of the paranormal
Another dynamics could be generally labelled as “belief”, but understood as a general acceptance, consciously or unconsciously, of the possibility of paranormal events. Such belief has been found critical in a number of ways and linked to the witnesses’ prior experience (Basterfield 2001; Basterfield & Thalbourne 2001; Heath 2003; Keel 1988; Lucadou 1995; Phillips 1993; Schmeidler 1952; Spanos et al. 1993; Wiseman & Smith 1994). At a sociological level, the role of prior plausibility structures has also been shown as important in providing the basic material for making sense of these experiences (Bishop 2005; Carroll 1985; Fernandes & D’Armada 2005; Goode 2000; Méheust 1978; David-Néel 1929; Winkelman et al 1982). Furthermore, as belief plays a key role, the distinction between fraud and genuine effect has been found as unhelpful, as fraud and cheating is often necessary to stimulate genuine effects (Batcheldor 1984; Fodor 1958, 1959; Hansen 2001; Reihart 1994; Schrenck Notzing 1913). It is also quite clear that the unconscious dimensions of such belief plays the most important role in producing such effects (Eisenbud 1983; Favre 2004; Fodor 1958, 1959; Jung 1958, 1964 Rhine 1954), and therefore witnesses can be active participants in these events without even be aware of it, while attributing the events to an external force (like ETs, Virgin Mary, ghosts, etc.).

Triggers
There are two types of triggers that have been identified to explan how involuntary psychokinetic effects are created. The first one has been covered in the RSPK literature cited above, and relates to micro social dynamics dysfunctions, as well as personal trauma (Reiner 2004).The second set of triggers identified is related to macro social dynamics, which have been described as either expressions of a collective unconscious or national gestalt (Broad 1953; Clark & Coleman 1975; Fodor 1959; Freixedo 1977; Fuller 1980; Kottmeyer 1996; Radin 2006; Vallée 1992; Viéroudy 1978a), as activation of archetypical numinosity and synchronicity (Brunstein 1979; Combs & Holland 1996; Fowler 2004; Jung 1958, 1964; Rojcewicz 1987; Viéroudy 1983), or as telepathically shared events (Gurney, Myers & Podmore 1886; Orme-Johnson et al 1988; Schwartz 1983; Warcollier 1928, 1962). The diversity of explanation to make sense of the macro social triggers points to the equivocal empirical knowledge on this issue. The question, however, is not a matter as whether such macro social trigger exists as the evidence pointing in that direction is quite strong, but it is rather how does it work?

Challenges and opportunities

To answer this last question, a number of avenues have been explored. One of them was to establish a closer linkage between the individual unconscious and a collectively shared unconscious. If the sociological notion of collective consciousness and the psychoanalytical notion of collective unconscious shared the same intellectual origin (Greenwood 1990; Staude 1976), the empirical evidence to link them is sparse. From a bottom-up perspective, the tradition called group analytic offers good evidence of the impact of the collective consciousness on the individual unconscious (Dalal 2001; Furth 1992; Weinberg, Nuttman-Shwartz & Gilmore 2005; Zeddies 2002), to include creating possible psi effects (Powell 1991; Thygesen 2008). From a top-down perspective, some social scientists showed that the collective unconscious influences the individual unconscious (Anderson 1983; Castoriadis 1975; Ginach 2004; Irwin 1994; Leledakis 1995; Lévy-Strauss 1963; Machotka 1964; Senghaas-Knobloch & Volmerg 1988). There are no known researchers, however, who attempted to provide an articulated explanation as to how the collective unconscious may create individual psi events. This issue remains the crux of the matter.

One of the key issues to move forward is to develop operational concepts for empirical research. Given the amorphous nature of what is described under the label “collective unconscious” and other similar labels, most methodologies can only provide approximations (Elias 1978; King 1996; Main 2006; Shewmaker & Berenda 1962). On the other hand, there are a number of PK phenomena (including UFOs) that can be pinpointed to specific physical events. Once again, there is here an obvious ontological discrepancy between two realms of reality which requires to be bridged. Psychoanalysis, anthropology and qualitative sociology have proposed to use symbolic interpretation to bridge similar gaps. It is a step forward, but it is clearly a one-way bridge that provides an incomplete answer. As Dean (2002) as shown, interpretation can be highly problematic and might be linked to the radically non-deterministic nature of human creativity, which in turn would preclude any bridging from epistemological standpoint.

There is, however, a promising lead in the concept of morphic field developed by Rupert Sheldrake (1981, 2006). It could provide the missing elements to complete the “ontological bridging”. It will be explored in a more detailed way in future posts.

Eric Ouellet ©2009

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

Reading Notes – Budden’s UFOs Psychic Close Encounters

This post is a review of Albert Budden’s book UFOs Psychic Close Encounters. This book was written prior to Electric UFOs, reviewed in a previous post. It is interesting to note that Budden is somewhat less “aggressive” in this older book. Although he puts electromagnetic effects at the center of the UFO phenomenon, he fully recognizes that there is a psi effect involved in many UFO encounters. He even mentions the concept of PK. It is difficult to know why his tone has changed just a few years later. The full notice is:

Budden, Albert. (1995). UFOs Psychic Close Encounters: The electromagnetic indictment. London: Blandford.

Centrality of electromagnetic effects

The central thesis in this book is very similar to the one he uses in his next book. UFOs, and particularly UFO close encounters, are produced by electromagnetic fields (EMF) that affect the brain. There are numerous possible sources such as natural balls of light, earthlights, telecommunication towers, abnormal geomagnetic fluctuations, etc. His argument is based on researches on electromagnetic sensitivity, particularly the work of Michael Persinger and Anne Silk. The effects of being exposed to high levels of EMF on the human brain and physiology are known. They range from hallucinations, blackout, skin rash and burns, joint pain, to dizziness and altered state of consciousness. In essence, Budden’s argument is that EMF are the material cause of close encounters, but the repertoire of images and notions we have in our mind fills the actual content of the experience. In other words, for Budden UFO close encounters are essentially a form of dream caused by an external, but natural, force. There is no non-human entities involved. To support his thesis, he provides a number of examples drawn from various cases, some of which he investigated himself. From that point of view, Budden’s argument remains the same in his next book. What is different, however, is that he tries to explain why more than one people would have the same “hallucination” and why there are physical traces. These two elements cannot be account for if one only takes into accounts the impact of EMF on the human brain.

PK, poltergeists and UFOs

In this book, Budden considers that the UFO experience can also involve, but not always, a degree of psi effects. On p. 15, he clearly states his thesis: “the unconscious – or more descriptively, the unconscious intelligence (UI) – that utilizes its reality-defying abilities (including psychokinesis, or ‘mind over matter’) to produce the effects of an advanced, magical technology in these ‘stage productions’, its motivating purpose being to establish and maintain an external social identity”. It is interesting to note that indeed, the unconscious being built as one learns how to live in society, social identity is at the core of unconscious processes. This is in line with the notion that people who are poltergeist agents are usually going through an identity crisis (like teenagers and young adults), and at the social level, as noted before, UFO waves seem to occur when the collective identity is challenged. Budden, however, does not make the connection with the collective identity, and the collective unconscious.

For Budden, the UFO experience is a just a particular form of poltergeist (or RSPK). The actual content of these events is different from the UFO ones, but they share the same structure. They involve (1) visionary experiences (aliens displaying magic-like technologies and strange apparitions and blood on the walls in the case of the more intense RSPKs); (2) it can have a contagious effect, but can be experienced by more than one person (involve PK effects) (it can also be construed as some sort of telepathically shared vision); (3) already psi sensitive people are more frequently witnessed of these events (it is something that Rogo and others noticed about UFO sightings, but it is less true for RSPKs. However, it is accurate it the case of hauntings, as some people seem to be more “sensitive” to “ghost” – i.e., they are more able to use unconsciously and unknowingly PK to produce ghost effects); (4) various physical side effects can occur; (5) smaller PK effects can be observed for sometime afterward; (6) physical object or entities can materialize and dematerialize, and existing objects can be assembled to create something meaningful almost instantaneously. On this last one, it has been documented that in the case of RSPKs objects can be assembled in a way that is symbolic. Budden quotes the case of Reverend Phelps in Connecticut where bedding sets were moved and assembled to imitate someone in praying position. For a clergyman, this was obviously very symbolic. In the case of UFOs, Budden does not provide any particular example of objects taken from the immediate environment in order to stage an effect through PK. However, he proposes that like in the case of Men in Black, and many other sightings of “aliens,” many usual earthly objects can be found such as helmets, uniforms, and other equipments that appear “low tech” (like the book, and the rolled map in the Barney and Betty Hill case).

Budden proposes that the main distinction between UFOs and RSPKs is one of interpretation by the witnesses: “one set of witnesses feel that they are encountering spirits of the dead and the other set, alien intelligences. It would seem, then, that when houses or buildings are saturated with ambient electrical fields, poltergeists occur; and when wider areas in the landscape are electromagnetically affected, UFO encounters occur. (p. 76). Once again, Budden offers a number of cases to support his views.

Another key idea is that the phenomenological intensity of RSPKs and UFO encounters is function of three cumulative variables, according to Budden. The first one is the electromagnetic sensitivity of the individuals involved. Some people are more sensitive to EMF, and some are actually extremely sensitive to them. The medical literature actually uses the notion of EMF allergies. The second variable is the intensity of the EMF encountered by the witnesses. The last one could be described as the overall psychic ability, PK in particular, of the individual(s) involved. On this last one, Budden does not provide many details, but certainly the notion that someone who has easier communications between his/her consciousness and unconscious would be an important factor to consider.

Dreams and UFO encounters

Like in the case of RSPKs, there are recurring themes in the UFO encounters that, according to Budden, can be only understood through their symbolic meaning, as they are products of the socialized unconscious mind. For instance, “the tall blond ‘Venusians’; the silver-suited humanoids; the ‘greys’; the robed ‘wise men’; the ‘watchers’; and the hairy dwarf—will be familiar to those in the UFO-study field. Just as we can do the same with dream types: the flying dream; the falling dream; the paranoid or being pursued dream; the wish-fulfilment dream; the erotic dream; the dream where you are being pursued but cannot escape due to paralysis; the anxiety dream; the exposed or nudity-in-public dream and so on. It is clear that entities/encounters and dreams share the same patterns of consistency; both are different but incorporate a range of basic elements in different permutations.“ (p. 70-71).

This is an interesting element, but Budden, however, does not go to the full conclusions of this statement. If UFO encounters are a form of materialized dream, then like dreams they can be interpreted based on the symbolism found in them. If a link can be established between the symbolic content and what’s going on in the interior life of the witnesses, this would certainly reinforce his thesis.

Some comments

This book is in many ways more interesting that his next one, Electric UFOs. Parapsychological research, especially on RSPKs, is integrated in his research. He is not the first one to establish that there are similarities between the two phenomena, but he providers further details as to how they are comparable. As well, his notion of looking at UFO encounters as dream opens the door to a number of interesting and testable hypotheses. But like in Electric UFOs, the role of EMF is given a too prominent role. Although EMF is most likely an important enabler, it is not present in all UFO sightings, and even less in the case of RSPKs. The other problem is that in many cases the witnesses, in spite of extensive psychiatric examination (see Schwartz 1983), do not seem to exhibit any particular psychological signs that are more common in RSPKs (and yet, not always universal in RSPKs).

In the absence of EMF and of particular personality traits, something else needs to introduce in the explanation. In the case of RSPKs, some parapsychologists think that it is the family or work environment dynamics that is problematic, and no individual in particular. Although there might still be a “focus person,” the personality of that individual alone is not sufficient to explain the psychological climate conducive to the production of RSPK effects. Hence, RSPK need to be understood as a collective psi event, and not only an individual one. Then, this brings us to question of UFOs. If RSPK and UFO encounters are just variations of the same dynamics, then there must be UFOs as collective psi event too. Most sightings, however, tend to occur when there is only a few individuals, oftentimes in an isolated area. In such cases, the notion of collective psi (understood as the psi of a small group) does not appear very appropriate. On the other hand, the notion of social psi, especially if there is a UFO wave occurring, appears more interesting. This is especially more interesting knowing that in many UFO waves, there is a symbolic content that can only be understood when the analysis is moved away from the individual level and brought to the sociological one. A clear example of this is the new trend in UFOs in the US and UK where UFO appear to be “organic”.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet

Heath’s on qualitative accounts of PK

As discussed in my previous post, I am reviewing Heath’s book with more depth. This post will be focussing on qualitative accounts of PK, and on some epistemological issues related to qualitative accounts.

In the first part of her book, Heath proposes a review of PK in various religions and cultures, to include miraculous feat such as levitation, stigmata, inedia (surviving without food), teleportation, bilocation (to be seen at two locations at the same time), fire immunity, luminosity, physical mediumship, anomalous healing, “ki” related super performance in martial arts, and poltergeists. To this list, it would have been interesting to add tulpas from the Tibetan tradition, as they have often been associated with non-ETH explanations of UFO sightings. Without going in detail for each of them, it is clear that such feats were recorded in many cultures and across time periods; very much like UFOs and like UFOs were interpreted differently according the local culture. One of the common themes found in these accounts is that strong beliefs and religious fervour seem to play an important role. Another one is the role altered states of consciousness as being an important enabler. This is certainly consistent with findings of modern parapsychology.

Qualitative research in PK research – A work in progress

An interesting opening statement by Heath is that “unfortunately, the database of qualitative studies is still a small one. [...] It is only in the last few years that we have started to see phenomenological studies and surveys of what PK performers say about their experiences (Barrett 1996; Gissurarson 1997a; Heath 1999). Clearly there is a great deal of work yet to be done in this area, as well as unexplored directions of research.” (p. xxvi).

This statement by Heath can be put in parallel with the work done by one of the pioneers of non-ETH ufology, Dr. Alex Keul. As stated by KWC Phillips, “Dr. Keul slowly began to work on the missing element in all the various and contradictory reports which came to his attention and, in so doing, came to the somewhat shocking conclusion that the missing factor was the human witnesses: that is, we knew next to nothing about them, let alone the enigmatic UFOs they were to report in large numbers. Even more fundamentally, we knew nothing of the void between the witness and the object perceived.” (Phillips, KWC. (1993). “The psycho-sociology of ufology”. In D. Barclay and T. M. Barclay, UFOs, The Final Answer? Ufology for the 21st century. London: Blandford, 40-64, p. 44.).

The state of research in PK and in the study of UFOs is in many ways similar. Although Keul’s efforts were very innovative, the dominance of the ETH approach had the effect of pushing his ideas under the rug. Given that one of my working hypotheses is that UFOs have a substantial PK component, then any advance in parasociology could be beneficial to parapsychology as well.

In spite of Heath’s innovative standpoint of working outside the usual parapsychological box (i.e. focussing on qualitative approaches), it is also clear that the author is still battling with the ambient positivist attitude in parapsychology. For instance, the author warns the reader that “accounts of miracles tended to mirror the needs and social beliefs of the age. [...] These stories may thus reflect cultural bias, rather than an accurate picture of either PK or fraud.” (p. 1). As a sociologist of science, I would not hesitate a second to turn the table and say that parapsychological accounts (i.e., articles in academic journals) tend to mirror the needs to prove the existence of psi according to the social belief that quantitative and positivist science is the only way to reach the “truth”. The exclusion in parapsychological accounts of the non-quantifiable reality of psi reflects a cultural bias, rather than an accurate picture of what constitute psi or fraud...

This bias is also found when she discusses “Spontaneous Nonrecurrent PK” (pp. 94-105). She clearly states that spontaneous cases of PK “are important not only because they allow us to learn about the range of what is possible, but also because, as Beloff noted, ‘it is the persistence of such spontaneous phenomena that has kept alive interest in the field among the broad public” (p. 94). Yet, in the same breadth she states also that “nonrecurrent spontaneous PK is impossible to study in the laboratory since it is (by definition) a solitary, uncontrolled event. Thus, it can only be speculated about in anecdotal and case study literature” (p. 94). This is a nice example of positivist epistemological bias from someone who is coming from North American psychology. Political science, sociology and anthropology, to name a few, also deal with solitary, uncontrolled events such as a coup d’état, the emergence of a new social movement, or cultural manifestations of all kinds. Archaeological findings and physical anthropology findings also fall into the same category, as a dig occurs only once, and what is declared as being observed can only be accepted if someone trusts the archaeologist or physical anthropologist. Does it make these sciences less scientific, and their objects of study less worthy of our research efforts? Or rather, it is the psychologists’ definition of science that is problematic? Other disciplines have developed extensive methodologies to handle “solitary and uncontrolled events” and developed knowledge that is not speculation about anecdotes. Once again, I would turn the table and say that parapsychology is suffering from an inferiority complex and thus it tries to be more scientific (i.e. positivist) than everybody else. In spite of great research efforts (like Heath’s book) Parasociology will have to be careful in dealing with parapsychologists and their epistemological bias.

Teleportation and alien abduction

Among the older qualitative accounts, teleportation seems particularly pertinent to the study of UFOs. It is a rare spontaneous event (although there are claims of people who mastered it), and appears to be more common among secular individuals, especially children (here read teenagers like in poltergeists phenomenon) (p. 37). People spontaneously disappear from one place and found themselves somewhere else without any memory as to how they got there. Altered states of consciousness and visions of angels were associated with such events. It was also interpreted as a sign of demonic infestation. This pattern clearly resembles cases of “alien abduction,” like the well-known story of Betty and Barney Hill. Heath, however, does not make the connection.

Several of the accounts proposed by Heath about teleportation are drawn from: Rogo, D. Scott. (1982). Miracles: A parascientific inquiry into wonderous phenomena. New York: Dial Press.

Poltergeists and Close Encounters of the Third Kind

It is interesting to note that older accounts of poltergeist activity include more than noise and objects moving violently in the air. Apparitions of various entities are also reported. Heath notes that “St. Paul of the Cross (1694-1775) was similarly said to have been assailed by explosions like pieces of artillery being discharged, vision of grotesque animals, the opening and shutting of the warming pan in his room, and being struck and bruised.” (p. 92). Heath also points out that the content of poltergeist events tend to be influenced by idiosyncratic cultural beliefs, “poltergeist agents vomited pins and manifested ’animal familiars’ in culture where witchcraft traditions exist, while in other cultures the agent created apparent demonic manifestations in conformance with their local customs and beliefs. If this is true, it makes an interesting comment on how we feel about technology, given recent poltergeist activity with telephones and electrical appliances going haywire”. (p. 93). Once again, Heath does not make the obvious connection between the space age, encounters with “aliens” from outer space, and the cultural component of poltergeists.

Spontaneous human combustion, balls of light and UFOs

Heath introduces the controversial notion of spontaneous human combustion (SHC). She provides a good tour of what is known about the phenomenon, and some of the possible explanations. One of them is the role of balls of light. This phenomenon “is capable of floating gently along, squeezing through keyholes and chinks in window frames, or down fireplace chimneys, and has even been said to be able to materialize inside rooms or airplane cabins. Furthermore, this natural phenomenon (which is thought to be electromagnetic plasma) can be small as a pea, or as large as a house, and may be violet, red, blue, or yellow, and may even change colors during its brief life”. (p. 100).

The explanation about balls of light is not sufficient to explain some of the more psychological characteristics associated with SHC. “Considering the similarity to the sudden and complete destruction of items by poltergeist fire, the possibility of an ASC [altered state of consciousness] involving a lack of pain, and the correlation with depression, we must consider the possibility of a mind-matter interaction.” (p. 101) But she recognizes that “it is possible that some individuals have a mind that is capable of triggering the combustion, perhaps by materializing or attracting ball lightning, through an electrical discharge of some sort, or even a form of nuclear radiation” (p. 101). Once again, if we link Michael Persinger’s research on the influence electromagnetism on perception and psi abilities, with some of the findings of Albert Budden on electric UFOs, and these comments from Heath about the PK dimension of SHC and balls of light, one can see a pattern of explanation emerging. Yet, once more Heath does not make the connection with UFOs.

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet

Reading Notes - Various authors on various topics

Today’s post is a bit eclectic, but there are several ideas useful to many aspects of parasociology. Three articles from scholarly journals are reviewed, without having a common theme. They are:

Etzold, Eckhard. (2005). “Solar-periodic full moon effect in the Fourmilab retropsychokinesis project experiment data: An exploratory study”. Journal of Paraspychology 69(2): 233-261.

Orme-Johnson, David W et al. (1988). “International Peace Project in the Middle East: The effects of the Maharishi technology of the unified field”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 32(4): 776-812.

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

Etzold’s article

The gist of this article is to show that solar activity, instead of lunar cycles, has more impact on casino winnings, which is understood has a form of psi effect (i.e., people wish to win and this happens more often than normal chance allows). The author also mentions some other researches that correlate high geomagnetic field activity with high PK effects like poltergeists. They are:

Braud, W.G. and S.P. Dennis. (1989). “Geophysical variables and behaviour: LVIII.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 68: 1243-1254.

Gearhart, L. And M. A. Persinger. (1986). “Geophysical variables and behaviour: XXXIII.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 62: 463-466.

Palmer J., S. Baumann and C.A> Simmonds. (2005). “Factors affecting the relationships between human intentionality and the hemolysis of red blood cells”. Proceedings of The Parapsychological Association 48th Annual Convention, pp. 119-130.

After doing extensive statistical analysis on several sets of data, the author concludes that the: “analysis at hand shows that the stronger parameter might be the direct influence of solar activity and not GMF [Geomagnetic field]. This might indicate a complex interaction of a direct solar influence accompanied by interactions of the moon with the earth’s magnetosphere during full moon.” (p. 258).

Etzold article is about physical and astronomical parameters that could be enabling PK psi effects. I found it interesting because it relates to some analysis of UFO waves. The Swedish researcher Ragnar Foshufvud took UFO sighting data selected by Hynek and compared them to sunspot cycle data (see Foshufvud, Ragnar (1980). “Unidentified flying objects – A physical phenomenon”. Pursuit 13(2)). He found that sightings increase at the beginning of the cycle when sunspots are getting to their maximum. A similar study by Claude Poher was able to correlate the rise of geomagnetic activity on Earth with increases in UFO sightings (see Poher, Claude and Jacques Vallée. (1975). “Basic patterns in UFO observations". Annual Conference of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautic, Pasadena, California, 20-22 January). It is yet another indication, but not proof, that UFO sightings and PK effects seem to share similar patterns, and thus they might share fundamentally the same origin.

Orme-Johnson et al’s article

Orme-Johnson and others’ article looked at first interesting, as it represents a pragmatic approach as to how collective unconscious could be affected by reducing social stress in conflict areas. But their study is problematic in a number of ways. The authors’ main thesis is that if a small number of people practice transcendental meditation (TM), social problems and conflict decrease. Then, the authors describe an experiment in Israel and Lebanon in the 1980s and think they found statistically valid correlations between TM and reductions in social conflicts. Although they never mentioned the concept of psi, it is certainly linkable to the Global Consciousness Project.

The problem is that it is a bunch of psychologists who really have no understanding of social sciences and social realities. They mention Jung and Durkheim’s approach to collective consciousness (which is incorrect in the case of Jung, as he developed the concept of collective unconscious) to say that “such theories will not have a major influence on mainstream psychology until they are empirically testable”. (p. 778). Yet, they are accepting without any critique TM, based on the Vedic religion. From an epistemological standpoint their argument is completely flawed. Sociological theories cannot be verified the same way as psychological ones because they are ontologically different. And, of course, their argument is asymmetric as they accept religiously based concepts (i.e., based on faith) while rejecting sociological arguments based on empirical research (even if such research is epistemologically different than what they are used to). Furthermore, their key concept of social coherence (i.e., less social conflict) is a prescriptive concept that sociologists have long rejected. Conflicts and violence are a normal part of human societies. As well, their approach is fundamentally reductionist “because the individual is seen as the unit of collective consciousness, restricted individual development can be identified as a fundamental source of collective stress as well” (p. 780). Sociologists have shown, long time ago, that a social fact like collective consciousness can only be understood if one looks at it as a social object (not as an aggregate of individual wills). But their greatest problem, in using their own perspective, is that there are a myriad of other social and political factors that would need to be controlled to be sure that TM has any effect on anything. And again, social and political factors can only be studied as social objects, not as aggregates of individual psychological issues. Finally, I think they use the wrong terminology when they introduce the notion of collective consciousness. If TM has any effect, it would be on the collective unconscious, as it is a phenomenon akin to psi effects.

Not a whole lot of useful information can be extracted out this article. However, it is a useful reminder that a psychological approach (i.e., using the individual as the fundamental unit of analysis) is not suited to tackle social objects. This, in turn, is also reminder that any linkage between parasociology and parapsychology will have to be carefully adapted to ensure effective epistemological and ontological correspondence or translation.

Rojcewicz’s article

The article by Rojewicz is interesting as it shows that “Men in Black” (MIB) sightings could be construed as a paranormal phenomenon. The author shows that many of the usual traits of MIBs are similar to traits found in descriptions of meetings with the devil (black being the key color, the entity knows things about the witness that only he or she knows, unusual speech, come in group of three, strange walk, strange synchronistic events, etc.). This echoes Jacques Vallée’s analysis of folkloric tales having similarities with the entities associated to UFOs in his book Passport to Magonia.

What is more interesting is that the author rejects the all too common condescending attitude in folklore studies where “the scholar knows ‘reality,’ and what the informants know is ‘folklore’.” (p. 157). Rojewicz suggests that MIB could be a form of tulpa, an idea taken from the Tibetan mystical tradition, which he defines as “materialized thought-form”. (p. 154). He cites the key book on this topic by Alexandra David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet (New York: Penguin, 1973). He also suggests that “MIB are materialized tulpoidal forms stabilized by collective fear—of ‘Big Brother,’ of terrorism and violence of hijacking, of all forms of personal intimidation.” (p. 154). This is no proof, of course, but it is yet another indication that UFOs are more likely to be a psi phenomenon (of a collective rather individual nature) than something explainable through the ETH.

Lastly, Rojewicz offers some methodological piece of advice that I find useful. He cites David Hufford. (1977). “Humanoids and anomalous lights: Taxonomic and epistemological problems”. Fabula 18: 234-241, stating that “believed accounts that look to repeating occurrence as their authority must be evaluated as to their objective nature before the question of their stability and distribution can be adequately be answered. There exists no good epistemological and ontological reasons to distinguish descriptions from explanations if the folklorist cannot seriously entertain the possibility that a real experience lies behind traditional belief.” (pp. 157-158). In other words, the content of discourses about strange phenomena must be assessed first in looking in the actual events that were reported. Otherwise, it is not possible to make any inferences about the structure of what is essentially construed as a “rumour”. However, implicit in this statement is that one does not need a unified materialistic explanation to understand folkloric traditions either (like the ETH). Folkloric traditions, like the ones about MIB and the devil, share many similarities pointing towards a common origin, but the content is not fully identical thus pointing also towards invalidating naive materialistic explanations (like the ETH).

Copyright © 2009 Eric Ouellet

Reading Notes Schnabel’s Remote Viewers

As a related topic to psi research, I read Jim Schnabel’s Remote Viewers: The secret history of America’s psychic spies (New York: Dell, 1997). Although this book is not about UFOs, it opens a window into how some portions of parapsychology has evolved over time. Hence, my comments are not some much about the spy story of the various projects that American intelligence agencies supported over the years, but rather about the background of all this.

The main organization behind the research about remote viewing was the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), a scientific think-tank connected to Stanford University, near San Francisco, California. The SRI is essentially an organization doing leading edge research on a contract basis for the U.S. government and the private sector. The SRI was closely involved with the electronic and telecommunication revolution that lead to the creation of the Internet. For instance, Jacques Vallée in his day job was working with the SRI to develop the telecommunication technologies that lead to the “electronic superhighway”. (Jacques Vallée did some work with SRI in the field of remote viewing as well). The SRI is very much part, hence, of the Silicon Valley community. One more point, the famous Bell Labs, also located in the Silicon Valley is the home of another important parapsychologist, Dean Radin.

Psi and people

One of the early findings of the SRI, as part of the remote viewing project, is that they are no particular traits or characteristics attached to people who have abilities in remote viewing. The only predictor, and it was a weak one, was that people who had psychic experience before, or simply believe in the paranormal tended to have more abilities. The SRI conducted later on psychological tests on people who had remote viewing abilities, and they found these people tend to be more intuitive, emotionally sensitive and prone to altered states of consciousness than the average population. Having an easy access to one’s own unconscious mind appears to be the key. This is in line with other research in parapsychology.

The SRI also conducted some research on psychokinesis (PK), with much less success. The only event that was really worth mentioning was the strange apparitions that occurred after they did work with the famous medium Uri Geller. These were unexplained, and were not pursued further by the SRI, although it was figured out that some of those apparitions were symbolic “notifications” about mundane events in the future. The SRI people, and others, figured out quickly that Geller was bending spoons with his hands, not with his mind (although he appeared to have genuine remote viewing abilities about future events).

The apparition events give the impression that Geller, inadvertently, activated people’s psi abilities and these in turn translated into involuntary psi effects. Like with many psychics (and shamans for that matter), there is always a mix of genuine psi abilities and trickery. Such a trickery, is not only useful to increase belief in the paranormal for people around, but to self-deceive the psychic himself/herself in believing in the paranormal (i.e., as we all do to, psychics and shamans are playing “little games” with their own unconscious mind). It appears, once again, that believing in the paranormal is an important component to enable psi effects to occur.

Psi and electromagnetism

It is interesting to note that the SRI conducted remote-viewing experiments where the viewers were inside a special chamber that prevents any electromagnetic emissions to go through. This had no effect on the experiment. Clearly, the idea that psi is some sort of low frequency signal does not hold. The US military did also some research on extremely low frequencies to communicate with their submarines, and found that it could only be a one-way signal from the ground base to the submerged sub, and that it required enormous amount of energy, while telepathic experiment could be done by ordinary remote viewers going both ways. The SRI also did some experiments on the impact of the Earth’s natural magnetic field variations and on the impact of thunderstorms during remote viewing sessions. These experiments were down in the wake of Persinger’s (Laurentian University) finding about the brain and electromagnetism. It was found that they had an impact on the quality of the remote viewing abilities, but such impact was too weak to make any significant differences. These researches, and others, show that Budden in Electric UFOs overestimated the role of electromagnetism on consciousness in the UFO experience. Electromagnetism appears to be yet another enabler, but not the source of psi effects.

Psi and time

One of the problems remote-viewers had was to identify if what they were seeing was actually in the present. Many successful sessions involved seeing scenes that were either in the past or in the future. This is further confirmation that psi is not only unaffected by space, but also by time. Yet, an interesting finding was that it was difficult for remote viewers to see specific numbers or words, such as lottery numbers. One of the explanations given was that they were seeing a probable future, and that the more specific (or probabilistic) an information is, the more difficult it is to find. As well, the further away they were looking into the future the more difficult it was. From that point of view, time was acting a bit like an energy field: the further away one is from the present, the more difficult it is to detect information; and the more tenuous (or highly randomized, e.g., lottery numbers) the information is the more difficult it is to detect. This is a bit odd that psi works like an energy field when it comes to dealing with time while it seems unaffected by spatial distance (and thus appears to be non-local correlations). However, in the case of PK, psi appears to behave like an energy field too. I am just wondering if these inconsistencies are not due to profound unconscious beliefs that emerge from our interaction with reality; matter and time seem so immutable to us that we cannot imagine them otherwise, and thus preventing psi effects to occur in a fully non-local correlation way. Clearly, there is a need to develop a phenomenology of psi.

Psi and consciousness

The SRI researchers found something that the philosopher Immanuel Kant already found 200 years ago. We need the clutter of our mind (words, culture, socialization personal experience, etc) to relate to the world around us, to name things, to make sense of reality. Yet, this clutter is also what prevents us to see the world without bias. It is what is called phenomenology by philosophers. The SRI people, in good positivist, empiricist, and materialistic researchers they were, did not make the connection with Kant, but figured out that the verbal, analytical and mathematical abilities were related to a specific part of the brain, while the unconscious and intuitive faculties were in a different part of the brain. Having to pass from one to the other had the effect of “disconnecting” the psi faculty while the brain was looking for analytical information to make sense of the raw sensations coming from the psi faculties.

Another interesting idea that emerged during that period was that psi in its ESP form seems to be quite similar to subliminal messages. Subliminal messages are flash messages (or very low volume in the case of audition), but long enough to be seen by the unconscious mind. These will be recorded by the brain, but only the key features are retained, not the details. Out of these finding about psi, the SRI developed a technique to assess and re-asses the message (while trying to avoid the analytical part of the brain to insert imaginary elements in the raw psi sensation in trying to make sense of it). This technique, however, did not seem to make any difference in the quality of the remote viewing. It appears that self-correcting intuitive processes remain the only way to depart “noise from signal” in remote viewing, and that it is relatively low success rate constitutes an absolute limitation. But the SRI people were not the first ones to have figure out this issue. René Warcollier, a French psychic researcher of the first half of the 20th century, had already written a book on the topic in 1946. Of course, our very American people at the SRI, did not read the parapsychology work done in other countries (except the Soviet Union, as it was part of a Cold War endeavour).

Other comments

The book is overall a good read, and provides a good overview of the ups and downs of the American remote viewing project. Although there are some rumours about the National Security Agency reviving the remote viewing activities, the project was formally disbanded. Many of the people who were involved went freelance, either as remote viewer for a fee, or as trainers in remote viewing (also for a fee). Some of them, like Russel Targ, gave a mystical/religious twist to remote viewing. Others work mostly with New Age oriented people or groups. From the point of view of sociology of science, it is interesting to note that the people who were involved in the field went from one extreme to the other, from the positivist, empiricist, and materialistic standpoint to a New Age outlook, where one should know, truthfulness, reality, and the like are not important issues. This is a reinforcing lesson for parasociology to ensure that it avoids both of these traps.

Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet

Reading Notes on Budden’s Electric UFOs

As discussed in a previous post, I planned to read Albert Budden’s Electric UFOs: Fireballs, electromagnetics and abnormal states (London: Blandford, 1998), and I just finished it. It is an interesting read, but the author does not deliver what he promises. He promises a unified theory that explains not only UFO sightings, but also alien sightings, ESPs, poltergeists and pretty much any other paranormal phenomena. In a nut shell, for Budden UFOs are various types highly magnetized balls of lights. Sightings of aliens, ghosts, and the like are magnetically induced hallucinations. ESPs are weak electrical signals that only the brain can capture, and poltergeists are brain-induced electro-magnetic effects. Given the grandiose tone of Budden’s book, a few remarks are needed before looking into what he can bring to the study of UFOs.

No unified theory and a lot of reductionism

Some of the fundamental assumptions of this book are, in my opinion, quite problematic. The author tries to situate his work within the greater context of UFO studies. He rejects the ETH, as there is no physical evidence to support it. Because the ETH is essentially a materialistic hypothesis, and its failure to deliver any physical evidence about extra-terrestrial presence disqualifies it. So far so good. He also rejects the so-called psychosocial hypothesis (PSH) that he defines as an:

“... approach which maintains that there are no physical stimuli behind unidentified flying objects (UFOs), alien-abduction experiences, hauntings, poltergeists, etc., but that such phenomena are created and maintained by belief systems, urban myth, rumour, group cohesion and other social constructs.” (p. 15)

He further states that: “I read sociology at university and am aware that, while these unusual consciousness effects generate sociological implications, because they involve human groups, they are not sociological in themselves, but bioelectromagnetic in nature” (p.16).

Lastly, he also mentions at a later point that he rejects approaches that are reductionist.

If I agree with him about his criticism of the PSH, because it does not take into consideration physical evidences, I must say that he is completely wrong in rejecting the existence of social constructs. As von Lucadou has shown through empirical research on RSPKs, the social environment is critical to understand what is happening. Another criticism that can be leveraged against Budden is his incapacity to explain how several individuals exposed to same electromagnetically event would have the same hallucination. In this regard, it is interesting to note that all the examples he gives in the annexes of his book are ones of single individual experiences.

As each individual has its own unique life story, images and fantasies, a high intensity electromagnetic field (EMF) would cause as many different forms of hallucinations. Without calling to his rescue some elements of psychosocial dynamics, it is impossible for Budden to stop his analysis at the physical level. Following Jacques Vallée’s work of UFO sightings, we know that the content of sightings/hallucination is culturally and era specific (e.g., the gray abduction scenario was particular to North America for quite a while; dwarfs and elves were seen in the past, aliens are seen nowadays, etc). His rejection of reductionism is very ironic, as his own approach is essentially reductionist!

No mention of parapsychology, psi or Einstein’s physics

Another problem is his statement that his approach is interdisciplinary (pp. 29-30), and that the epistemological gaps between disciplines must be bridged if one wants to understand the UFO phenomenon. In fact, the only sciences he really cares about are the physical and medical ones. Yet, his book is also about hallucinations and altered states of consciousness, which are neither in the domain of physics and biological/medical sciences. His research object requires that he bridges the real epistemological gap in science: the one dividing the natural and human sciences without reducing one to the other. Thus, in spite of putting a lot of emphasis on consciousness, he completely ignores psychology, and noetic sciences.

His failure to be truly interdisciplinary is even greater, as he claims to be able to explain all paranormal phenomena without mentioning a single word about research in parapsychology. Budden writes about psychic research and of “other ghost hunters” in a very critical way. But he does not seem to know that psychic research and parapsychology are quite different and that they are built on different assumptions. Scientific parapsychology actually tries to bridge the gap between physical and human sciences, and involves the work of people who understand how human consciousness works (psychological training of parapsychologists).

As well, his ignorance of the research in parapsychology brings him to a second failure when it is time to deal with the content of hallucinations. Psychosocial dynamics certainly provides the basic material for people to have similar hallucinations, but it cannot explain how people can have the same hallucination. A third component needs to be introduced, and this is the notion of psi, understood as correlating information non-locally. If he is not aware of their work, then his research skill should be questioned. If he purposefully ignored parapsychology, then his work should be considered as extremely biased.

My last criticism is about the very Newtonian approach he takes when discussing electromagnetism. Physicists and parapsychologists have shown that to understand psi effects, one really needs Einstein physics, and not so much Newton’s. Budden never envisions the possibility that some of his analyses would benefit from being reframed into a relativistic and quantum physics framework. As Budden claims that ESP are simply electrical signals received by people who are sensitive to EMF, he does not explain how the signal is coded and then decoded. The use of EMF to send signal by radio, TV, and other communication devices is only the physical support for the signal, but it is not its content. As well, as parapsychologists have found, psi does not seem to respect time barriers (observed by people acquiring knowledge of the future and of the past), and it does not respect distance (like in the case of remote viewing). An electrical signal, like any field in Newtonian physics, exists in a linear timeline and decreases by the square of the distance (e.g., a field with 16 units energy at distance of 2, will only have only 4 units of energy at a distance of 4). In Budden’s theory, premonition is impossible and long distance telepathy would be very unlikely. Yet, empirical research shows otherwise. The concept of non-locality, once more, explains much better paranormal phenomena than speculating about a weak electrical signal that would be captured by the human brain. Again, if he had read scientific parapsychology, he would know better.

In the end, one has to understand Budden’s approach as being materialistic and reductionist, in way similar to the work done by people involved in the ETH. However, I think Budden has still touched upon a number interesting point.

Useful and Interesting Points

Budden considers that UFOs and other paranormal phenomena are caused by either natural or man-made electromagnetic effects. With respect to UFOs, it is certainly coherent with what is known about the physical reality of UFOs. As well, with the work of researchers like Michael Persinger it is known that electromagnetic fields (EMF) can induce hallucinations. What Budden adds is that some people are more sensitive to EMF than others, and that they are more susceptible to have paranormal experiences. He also contributes to the discussion by identifying that some people become more sensitive to EMF by being exposed to EMF for prolonged periods (e.g., living nearby power lines, telecom towers, radio amateurs stations, etc).

Budden goes a bit further and states that people who have dissociative personalities plus sensitivity to EMF are the most likely to have paranormal experiences. Here I would add an important nuance to avoid espousing not only a reductionist approach, but also stereotyping people. Research in parapsychology tends to show it is rather people who have a lower threshold to connect with their unconscious mind that are more susceptible to experience psi effect. This includes people with dissociative personalities (which is considered as being a pathology), but also artistic, creative, and intuitive people who have no pathology at all. As well, it includes people who follow spiritual paths that can be described as “mystical” (e.g., Sufism, Shamanism, cloistered contemplative Catholic nuns, etc.).

This is an interesting idea, and this offers criteria to look into individuals who have UFO/alien experiences, but it is not sufficient to study UFO waves. Given the extended nature of some UFO waves and the wide array of people involved, it is unlikely that such criteria would provide useful explanations about waves. However, it may be useful to explain why some people would have more intense experiences than others during a wave.

The greatest contribution from Budden remains where his assumptions lies: the physical dimension of UFOs. Budden provides a detailed chapter on how balls of light and earth lights are created, whether naturally and through what he calls electromagnetic pollution. He uses the work of several authors, including the work done by the Hessdalen Project in Norway. He provides a technical analysis as to how these balls of plasma are created and concludes that three conditions are necessary to create fireballs: “1. Generate a lot of carbon or vaporized metal particles in a small region of space; 2. Create large electric fields in the same vicinity; 3. Rapidly elevate the temperature of the particles.”(p. 184).

These balls of light have different properties depending on the quantity of matter or energy involved during their creation (some will be short lived, a few seconds, others can last for hours; some will be very hot while others will be less hot; some will be highly charged electromagnetically while others will be less, etc.). The source of energy producing the EMF can be natural (e.g., geological fault) or man-made when different radio frequencies intersect at the same point. Lastly, these balls of light can be created in laboratory, and he quotes abundantly the Canadian John Hutchison. This offers some criteria to evaluate if such conditions exist in a sustained way so that it can produce a UFO wave.

Another potential contribution, but it remains implicit in his book, is a new explanation for the 90 degree turns observed in several UFO sightings, which on the surface appears to violate the laws of physics. But if UFOs are highly magnetically charged balls of plasma, and that they are created in part by radio waves at different frequencies but intersecting at the same point, then may be radio emissions can serve as temporary “rail road” for the UFOs. Some of the most common radio emissions are called square waves, very useful to send the binary signal at the heart of digital encoding. Hence, maybe those 90 degree turns are to be understood as some sort of short-lived and grand scale spectrometer “display.”



Copyright © 2008 Eric Ouellet