Why did I send my colleague the description of this event? Am I suggesting that St. Francis’ wounds and sighting of an aerial object, which occurred in the thirteenth century, were the result of a UFO encounter? I am not. Am I suggesting that modern accounts of anomalous aerial phenomena are sightings of angels, which is what Brother Leo called the spinning, living aerial object? No, I am not stating that, either. These conclusions would be too simple, and would probably be wrong.
What I am suggesting, however, is a research strategy that takes into account the real social and cultural effects of sightings like St. Francis’ and Brother Leo’s. I am not suggesting that, as researchers, we can know exactly what St. Francis saw, or experienced, or what modern experiencers see or experience. What we can know and study, however, are the cultural effects produced by these experiences. In my field, it is very obvious that this particular experience resulted in one of the longest and most enduring religious devotions and beliefs: the stigmata event of St. Francis, in which billions of Catholics believe. This is not insignificant. These events produce real effects. Their cultural impacts are substantial.
This brings me to the contents of this brilliant book. Each of the contributors in this volume is sharply aware of the futility of concluding. Instead, they offer strategies for understanding—understanding the phenomena, and understanding its social and cultural effects. In this way, their work is sophisticated and relevant. It is relevant because the latest research on belief in UFO phenomena places it on par with belief in God. More young people believe in UFOs and in the potential existence of extraterrestrial life than believe in God. Let that sink in. Roughly eighty percent of young people, and about sixty percent of older people, are believers.
Several essays in this volume consider the role of belief in the evolution of modern ufology, and how subcultural interpretations of anomalous events in fact tell us more about ourselves than about the phenomena. Of course, these contributors are not the first to have focused on the social effects of belief, instead of trying conclusively to solve the UFO riddle. Dr. Jacques Vallée, many years ago, proposed this very strategy to a closed group of global leaders at the United Nations. In that meeting, he stated that among its physical effects, and its potential objective nature, there is yet a third, more pressing aspect of the phenomenon to study. He wrote, “The third aspect is the social belief system which has been generated in all the nations represented on this committee by the expectation of space visitors.” He also told the committee that the belief proliferates regardless of the objective nature of the phenomena. He continued, “The belief in space visitors is independent of the physical reality of the of the UFO phenomenon.”1 Although Vallée doesn’t reject the objective nature of UFOs, he suggests that researchers seriously turn to the study of the phenomenon from the perspective of its effects on human society. Regardless of its physical, objective nature, its social effects are very real.
Ironically, what appears to be a “cop out” with respect to assessing the objective nature of the phenomenon is most likely the most effective means by which to understand it. Leaving behind the “nuts-and-bolts” approach and embracing the complexity of how the phenomenon affects and shapes belief frees researchers and allows them to gain a broader view of the mechanisms of the phenomenon. This view sheds light on its nature and reality. Although this might rankle hard core nuts-and-bolts theorists, it is the case that the phenomena commonly referred to as “UFOs” have been, and currently are, inextricably associated with religion and religious beliefs. The history of religion is, among other things, a record of perceived contact with supernatural beings, many of which descend from the skies as either beings of light, or on light, or amid light. This is one of the reasons why scholars of religion are comfortable examining modern reports of UFO events. Professor Jeffrey J. Kripal articulates this well. In his work, he has sought to reveal “how the modern experience of the alien coming down from the sky can be compared to the ancient experience of the god descending from the heavens.”
These “contact events,” which are the perceived interface between the human and the intelligent non-human being from the sky, spawn beliefs and interpretations. These beliefs and interpretations develop into communities of belief, or, faith communities. Kripal notes, “Some of the remembered effects of these fantastic states of mind have been taken up by extremely elaborate social, political, and artistic processes and have been fashioned by communities into mythical, ritual, and institutional complexes that have fundamentally changed human history. We call these ‘religions.’”2
In analyzing the contact event and the subsequent interpretations that spawn beliefs about it, a researcher needs to keep a few things in mind. First, as in the history of religions, a contact event is not automatically a religious event, and the spotting of an unidentified aerial object is not automatically a “UFO event.” These experiences become religious events, or UFO events, through an interpretive process. The interpretative process then goes through layers of shaping and sometimes active intervention before it reaches masses of people, and is finally solidified as a religious event, or a UFO event, or both. The processes are the same.
The strategy of “not concluding,” or bracketing the question of what the phenomenon is, exposes the intricacies of how belief in the phenomenon works. Moving from a fixation on the objective nature of “what it is,” allows one to focus on the social mechanisms that foster belief and how belief impacts human society. One can call it the work of angels, or demons, or UFOs, but those labels reveal more about the communities who use the labels than they do about the phenomena. Researchers can glean interesting data when they leave aside the potential cause and attend to the social effects that arise from belief in the phenomena.
The various formations of belief in UFOs can be traced as cultural processes that develop both spontaneously and intentionally within layers of popular culture and through intentional institutional involvement. It is important to remember that the actual objective nature of the events that inspire the interpretations and beliefs fade in comparison to the reality of the social effects. If one takes seriously Jacques Vallée’s proposal that the phenomenon either is, or operates as, a control mechanism, then identifying its mechanisms—or how it controls—becomes a worthy matter to study. Here is a speculation: studying its social effects can help determine, as much as is possible, the nature of the phenomenon.
Whatever is the “UFO,” whatever the triggering event, be it a misidentified aircraft, meteor, or a real extraterrestrial craft, one can agree that today it is the subject of mass belief. Leaving off the question of what it is, researchers can focus on the belief—how it forms, and how it impacts and influences history and human culture. The beauty of this volume is that it brings together both nuts-and-bolts materialists and those who favour more oblique approaches. Unusually, and refreshingly, it represents both objective observers of the UFO conundrum and subjective experiencers of it. The combination of these perspectives is necessary to better understand the phenomena. The non-dogmatic, self-reflective, and critical approach of each of these authors is urgently needed in the field of ufology, right now. They are its hope and its future.
—Diana Walsh Pasulka, Ph.D.
PROFESSOR AND CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, WILMINGTON
AUTHOR OF AMERICAN COSMIC: UFOS, TECHNOLOGY, BELIEF
(OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS)
INTRODUCTION
Ufologists speak often of “The Truth.” It’s out there, they insist, and it must doggedly be pursued for the benefit of all mankind. But rarely are ufologists truthful with themselves. There is, of course, no such thing as “ufology,” not in any meaningful sense of the term. If “ology” refers to a branch of knowledge or learning sprung from organized research, then ufology is a broken twig.
The UFO field has produced thousands of dedicated researchers over the years, and reams of literature; but to what end? What can we claim to know
conclusively today about the underlying nature of UFO phenomena that we didn’t know in the late-1940s? UFO study has always suffered from major organizational and methodological problems. It has also become dangerously self-referential. Few researchers are prepared to think critically.
Today, as ever, the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) is the most popular ufological theory. It has become so popular that the already-flimsy architecture of the field has morphed into “exopolitics”—a movement born of the Internet and based on a blanket acceptance that UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles, that the government knows this, and that, in time, “Truth” will break free and a new age of human enlightenment will begin. It is a myth, spun partly by external design, but largely by the UFO community’s profound need to believe that universal truth is tangible, and within arm’s reach. Today’s UFO conferences bear an increasing resemblance to the spectacle of the Megachurch, where the cult of personality attracts thousands of believers, all hopeful their prophets can move them just an inch closer to UFO salvation.
If ufology is a New Age religion, then “Disclosure” is its Holy Grail—that ever-imminent announcement from officialdom that we are not alone in the universe, and, moreover, that “They” are among us. The problem with the Disclosure mindset is that it declares an end to the UFO enigma and discourages us from further study of the phenomenon, and of its cultural and societal effects. Why study when we can simply wait? All we need do is talk about UFOs in online forums and occasionally send a petition to the White House. Eventually, our leaders will see fit to share with us the aliens’ world-changing information and technologies, ushering in a new era of cosmic consciousness. It’s only a matter of time. Disclosure requires little more than our passive spectatorship.
The ultimate irony of the Disclosure movement is that, by imagining all answers to the UFO mystery to be out of public reach, deep in the bowels of the national security state, it places power into the hands of officialdom, while disempowering the individual. Modern “ufology,” therefore, is no longer about asking challenging questions. Rather, it is about fitting predetermined answers into an established quasi-religious belief system.
If ever we are to further our understanding of the UFO enigma, we must fundamentally reframe our debate. We must wipe the board clean and fill it with new ideas, new theories, even new language. We must be willing to start from scratch when the field stagnates. We must be critical, sober, and free from dogma—ready to rinse away the residue of our own beliefs.
With the above in mind, in April 2016, I began approaching a select few individuals in the UFO research community—free-thinkers and iconoclasts—with a proposal for a volume of original essays presenting alternative perspectives on UFOs and the UFO subculture. Just under a year later, I find myself writing this introduction for the near-complete manuscript. It all came together relatively quickly and smoothly, if not without the usual amount of effort and sacrifice that goes into such an endeavor. All those who chose to write for this volume have committed to it wholeheartedly, and I have been inspired daily by their enthusiasm for the project.
I know I speak for all contributors here when I say this book was a challenge to write. I know it was a challenge to edit, and I also know it will be a challenge to read. Whether you’re a “skeptic” or a “believer” (for lack of more nuanced terms), this book will irk you. And that, of course, is the intention. Indeed, it is structured such that it may provoke maximum discomfort in the reader and push cognitive dissonance into overdrive. For the first half of this volume, the essays spar back and forth between pro-and-anti-materialist approaches. Some of our contributors advocate extreme skepticism of any UFO claim, while championing traditional scientific methodologies—the dispassionate pursuit of objectively verifiable evidence—while other contributors see limitations in such an approach, preferring instead a more oblique path of engagement with what they see as a consciously oblique phenomenon. Other contributors explore why modern UFO accounts seem often to overlap with other mysterious phenomena, or how the UFO can be utilized as a looking-glass for profound introspection, one reflective of personal belief, stress, or trauma.
For all the unconventional theories presented herein, none of the contributors would be so bold or naïve as to discount the possibility that some UFOs are representative of extraterrestrial intelligences. We are suggesting, however, that today’s UFO field is sorely lacking in meaningful debate and is close to the point of stagnation in its uncritical thinking and lazy acceptance of what may seem like the most logical theory for inexplicable aerial anomalies, but which, when tested against the full depth of data, falls desperately short as an exclusive hypothesis. To quote SMiles Lewis in this volume: “I advocate for a multi-theory interpretation of the UFO phenomenon. I don’t think there is any one explanation that accounts for all the data. I think there are a number of things going on simultaneously.”
Many of these “things” undoubtedly stem from what Susan Demeter-St. Clair refers to as “the one clearly tangible vehicle central to any UFO story”—the human witness. The role of the witness in UFO events typically is overlooked by UFO investigators, whose focus often is on what the witness has seen, rather than why they have seen it, or how they have interpreted it. The assumption, strangely, is that UFO witnesses are almost always independent of their anomalous experiences. Multiple essayists in this volume urge a fundamental redirection of UFO research, from the external to the internal—by seeking to understand the daunting complexities of human cognition and consciousness itself, we may better understand the UFO, and, perhaps more importantly, better understand ourselves.
If by some slim chance this is the first UFO book you’ve ever picked up, I’m afraid you’ve thrown yourself in at the very deep end of the pool, but that’s all the more reason to push on with it; if you do so, I feel confident in stating that the wider ufological waters will seem clearer and more navigable.
Chris Rutkowski’s opening essay is a trial by fire for any reader who considers themself a UFO experiencer. He pulls no punches in his characterization of a substantial portion of the UFO community as “zealots.” I know for sure that some readers will be inclined to set this book aside after just a few pages of Rutkowski’s essay. Don’t do that. If his perspective does not fall in line with your own, simply accept that from the outset, proceed with an open mind, and then ask yourself if any of his observations are objectively untrue. Rutkowski’s essay is incisive and, to my mind, necessarily harsh. It is not, as some will undoubtedly see it, a piece of debunkery. Rather, it is a product of its author’s frustration at those UFO enthusiasts whose wholesale rejection of all evidence at odds with their own beliefs justifies his view that ufology is more a religion than a science.
I’ve frontloaded this book with pieces on religion because the religious aspects of UFO belief are undeniable (again, this observation should not be interpreted as a dismissal of UFOs as an objectively real phenomenon. No one in this book attempts to make such a case). Make no mistake, ufology is a New Age religion; with this in mind, its followers should take caution, for many if not all strains of religious belief have been exploited throughout the ages by elite power structures for reasons of cultural and societal control—a case made by several authors here.
If UFO “believers” can pass the test of Rutkowski’s essay—if they can override their cognitive dissonance—then they have the resilience and critical thinking to see them through all the essays that follow.
Next up, and in sharp contrast to Rutkowski’s, Mike Clelland’s essay is a deeply personal meditation on the author’s direct experiences with UFOs and what he considers to be some form of non-human intelligence. Those of a traditionally skeptical bent may be inclined to skip Clelland’s essay. Don’t do that. Clelland’s value in this volume is that he is unusually self-aware and self-analytical in the presentation of his experiences. He is certain he has interacted with anomalous phenomena in mysterious ways, but he steadfastly refuses to reach solid conclusions as to
the ultimate nature and purpose of these phenomena. Clelland is an “experiencer” who shuns zealotry and who wears with discomfort any ufological labels that might be used to categorize him. He is compelled to share his story, and he wants us to hear it, but he also wants us to know he is incapable of objectivity in this arena. If more experiencers could adopt Clelland’s considered approach, perhaps some bridges could be built between opposing ends of the UFO research camp.
Clelland’s observations are largely subjective, and he places great value on the experience of the individual UFO witness. In contrast, the observations of our next contributor, Jack Brewer, are rooted in rationalism and the scientific method. Brewer seriously questions the value of UFO witness testimony, noting “…personal stories, interesting and entertaining as they may be, are often of very little value to the professional research process.” He goes on to qualify this statement in considerable detail.
Brewer’s essay is broad in scope and among the most constructive in this volume. It highlights numerous problems currently hampering serious UFO research, and then provides possible remedies and solutions. Again, it is the work of a man with a deep interest in the UFO mystery and a deep frustration at the lazy assumptions and shoddy practices of a great many—perhaps the majority—of UFO researchers.
Next in our line-up is Joshua Cutchin. Continuing with our back-and-forth approach, Cutchin’s essay is a bold rejection of traditional materialist solutions to the UFO riddle and a challenge to “nut-andbolts” researchers to engage with “high-strangeness” aspects of UFO phenomena from unconventional—even esoteric—perspectives. He encourages that we embrace uncertainty, noting: “Moving beyond materialism is about honestly confronting the fact that we know nothing for certain about UFOs, yet choosing to be inspired rather than frustrated by this realization, leading to a type of non-dogmatic gnosticism.”
UFOs- Reframing the Debate Page 2