Are such stories due to overactive imaginations and hoaxes, or do some of them actually represent brushes with truly interesting phenomena? Perhaps each of those is true, as well as combinations thereof, at different times.
The popular John Keel contemplated similar notions as Vallée, reporting that early European settlers in America interpreted lights moving across night skies as witches on broomsticks carrying lanterns. Intriguing as it all may be, a reasonable argument could be made that the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is just as indicative of deeply held yet questionable beliefs.
One of the few items most members of the UFO community agree upon is that the modern-day era of UFOs took significant shape during the mid-20th Century. Reports of what came to be known as foo fighters, ghost rockets and flying saucers ushered in an age of assumptions that the earth was being visited by extraterrestrials. Despite wide acceptance and adamant proclamations, validation of an alien presence remains as elusive as ever.
Among the most damning aspects of the ETH is its overwhelming lack of direct evidence. It also doesn’t account for details of interesting cases such as the Mothman saga or reports of high strangeness where it is nonetheless boldly evident.
A lack of verification of visiting aliens does not necessarily translate into a lack of phenomena worthy of investigation. It may just mean the ETH is wrong, at least for the vast majority of cases to which it is typically applied, if not all of them. It is entirely possible we’ve jumped the gun in suggesting and drawing conclusions, as did our superstitious forefathers who were convinced the covert spread of witchcraft and its suspected satanic nature were responsible for misfortune and misunderstood phenomena throughout their communities. Parallels could certainly be drawn.
In order to view more recent circumstances in sharper focus, let’s consider how assumptions evolved. Let’s also take a look at some challenges that consistently hinder a search for truth. We’ll consider what we, as community members, can do to encourage best practices, and we’ll explore how integrating such information into our perspectives and research leads to a healthier, more functional community and reframes the debate.
Rocky Beginnings
Hoaxers have been a significant and constant wrench in the gears ever since the early days of ufology. In some instances, it was Uncle Sam failing to be entirely forthright about activities in the UFO arena.
The late-1940s were a time of tremendous flux and reorganization within the U.S. intelligence community. Whatever spy games and deception operations were afoot, the morphing of the Office of Strategic Services into the Central Intelligence Agency coincided with notable UFO cases of the era.
The former International Director of MUFON, James Carrion, demonstrated via official declassified documents that the 1946—1947 ghost rockets saga conclusively involved elements of deception.1 His research additionally showed that a classified operation, Project Seal, was actually shelved prior to being misrepresented as a continuing effort to develop an airborne weapon more powerful than the atomic bomb. The apparent propaganda campaign happened literally right alongside the UFO-related events of the summer of 1947 to the extent that one paper carried the “news” of the supposed airborne super weapon on the same page as a story about the Kenneth Arnold sighting. Such events should be considered worthy of deeper study.
As of this writing, Carrion’s growing list of intriguing circumstances include the work of Col. Carl Goldbranson, a high-level career intelligence officer whose specific area of expertise was planning and implementing deception operations. Interestingly, the colonel was corresponding with the FBI about flying saucers during what became that famous summer of ‘47, representing what we now know to be a link between deception planners and official UFO investigations.2
Whatever the reasons for such incidents, they deserve consideration. They may also be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Researchers noted the potential significance of such documents as a 1950 RAND (Research and Development) Corporation report compiled for the Air Force and titled, The Exploitation of Superstitions for Purposes of Psychological Warfare.3 Similarly, the activities have been widely noted of such skilled deception artists as British Maj. Jasper Maskelyne and an American officer by the name of Edward G. Lansdale. Maskelyne was a professional magician who proved to be remarkably successful at creating advantageous battlefield grand illusions during World War II. Lansdale was an advertising executive turned CIA man who applied his marketing skills to the exploitation of beliefs surrounding such topics as vampires and soothsayers. He is well known for his deception activities in Southeast Asia. According to the Journal of the American Folklore Society:
The Filipino army had not been able to evict a squadron of Huks from the area of a garrison town. A combat psychological warfare squad was brought in and, under Lansdale’s direction, planted stories among town residents of an asuang or vampire living on the hill where the Huks were based. A famous local soothsayer, they said, had predicted that men with evil in their hearts would become its victim. After giving the stories time to circulate, the squad set up an ambush on a trail used by the Huks and, when a patrol came by, snatched the last man. They punctured his neck with two holes, held the body upside down until it was drained of blood, and put it back on the trail. The next day the entire Huk squadron moved out of the area.4
Such darkly fascinating stories are numerous and span several divisions of the U.S. intelligence community and its allies. It could therefore be considered potentially significant that USAF Project Grudge concluded, “Planned release of unusual aerial objects coupled with the release of related psychological propaganda could cause mass hysteria.”5
The August, 1949, Grudge report went on to recommend, “That psychological Warfare Division and other governmental agencies interested in psychological warfare be informed of the results of this study.”
The editor of this book, Robbie Graham, has shown how the long arm of the CIA and its UFO-related interests reached well into Hollywood. Graham’s work includes exploring how two confirmed propaganda specialists were employed as a production chief and a script writer on the set of the 1951 extraterrestrial contact film, The Day the Earth Stood Still.6 It is reasonable to suspect the intelligence community had interests in influencing the movie and subsequent public opinion of its extraterrestrial-themed subject matter. While the specific purposes of such influence may be debated, its actuality is clear.
Interestingly, production of The Day the Earth Stood Still happened during the same era in history, 1950—1953, that Col. Edward Lansdale was running around the Philippines spreading stories about vampires among the Huks. He soon took his craft to Vietnam where he covertly engaged in “political-psychological warfare,” which included putting words in the mouths of astrologers and enrolling the assistance of soothsayers to exploit their followings.7 Lansdale, who eventually retired a major general, operated with the support and backing of Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles.
By 1953 the CIA covertly sponsored a scientific committee, the Robertson Panel, briefed on military intelligence related to UFOs. Air Force Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt, charged with studying UFOs via Project Blue Book, later wrote about the existence of the committee in his published work, causing the UFO community to push for the release of its resulting report. According to today’s CIA, the document offered was less than transparent, failing to disclose Agency interest in or sponsorship of the Robertson Panel. “As an alternative,” the CIA website currently explains, “the Agency prepared a sanitized version of the report which deleted any reference to CIA and avoided mention of any psychological warfare potential in the UFO controversy.”8
A now declassified CIA cable shows that the very next year, 1954, after forming the Robertson Panel, Agency assets in Guatemala were instructed to consider creating a UFO hoax. The intention of the deception was to serve as a public distraction from bad press cast upon the CIA due to its sponsorship of a coup in the Central American nation. “If possibl
e,” the CIA cable read, “fabricate big human interest story, like flying saucers, birth sextuplets in remote area to take play away.”9
Further jamming up the gears for UFO researchers is the fact witnesses have been retracting stories—and spooks have been inserting themselves in those stories—since the outset of the modern-day phenomenon. The chain of events that formed what many consider the cornerstone of ufology, the cases of the summer of 1947, is riddled with discrepancies and unanswered questions.
The Maury Island so-called UFO incident of June 21, 1947, in Tacoma, Washington, began with a fantastic story of falling saucer debris. An investigator of the case was none other than Kenneth Arnold, who soon reported his own celebrated UFO sighting, but not before he became enmeshed with the intelligence community. A primary witness in the Maury Island case later retracted their story, drawing the entire incident into heavy question.10 The unusual events of that summer included the Roswell Army Air Field issuing a press release stating the 509th Operations Group recovered a “flying disc”—and then issued another statement advising a “weather balloon” was what had been retrieved.
Where the rubber meets the road, we can’t say for sure if those specific 1947 events, which significantly shaped ufology as we know it today, even included a flying object of unusual origin. Possibly not.
We could go on at length, but, suffice it to say, the involvement of the intelligence community in the UFO controversy is well established and, in my opinion, suspect. To further complicate the search for truth, a vast number of hoaxes were perpetrated on the community by garden variety charlatans. While some episodes were more consequential and well known than others, scrutinizing false claims and unsupported assertions came to be standard operating procedure within ufology, at least among its more discriminating community members.
Investigative techniques and data presented as evidence in the UFO genre continue to stretch the limits of tolerance, even among many who consider themselves quite open-minded and to have experienced strange phenomena. Memory-enhancing techniques, conclusively discredited long ago by qualified professionals, are still promoted by organizations and investigators questionably claiming to prioritize scientific study, and a recent prematurely celebrated case turned out to be built upon nothing more than an old photo of a mummy in a museum (see Curt Collins’ essay in this volume). Such circumstances are all too common, drain valuable time and attention, and arguably characterize the genre more so than events of legitimate interest.
The UFO community appears to have been led astray since its very beginnings. It is entirely possible the ETH was built on false premises in the first place, leaving future generations of sincere researchers and interested parties struggling to gain traction on a poorly laid foundation. Beliefs seem to have been manipulated by a combination of deceptive opportunists, intelligence officials, and various demographics consisting of individuals harboring suspicious motives. Hoaxers, charlatans, and well-meaning yet misguided people influenced by such charlatans, swamped the genre in waves of alien-themed movies, books, conferences and dead-end claims.
A Fundamental Problem
Let us again consider that if the foundation of present day ufology was built on shifting sand and is unstable, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s nothing worth investigating. It doesn’t mean people don’t experience things they don’t understand, and it doesn’t have to mean none of it is interesting. It might just mean popular explanations are falling short in some instances. We might be looking in the wrong places for what answers are to be found.
If we’re going to reframe the debate, we might be wise to promote inclusion rather than exclusion, as well as promote tolerance rather than an atmosphere of closed minds—and that goes for offering those with critical questions a seat at the table along with everyone else. We want to attract competent community members with renewed ambition and fresh eyes, rather than repel them.
We might consider that understanding someone’s point of view doesn’t necessarily equate to agreement. Lines of reasoning can be understood without fully supporting or endorsing them in all circumstances. Whether or not we agree, there are some dynamics important to understand, and demonstrate we understand, while at least empathizing with why others might introduce them into a debate or discussion.
One such dynamic is that personal stories, interesting and entertaining as they may be, are often of very little value to the professional research process. That’s just how it is. Anecdotal evidence is problematic for reasons including that scientists form studies, which in turn form insights and paradigms, from repeated observations, not from single events. Clinical trials, for example, typically involve sets of research subjects whose conditions and activities are closely monitored so that important patterns can accurately be identified. Failing to follow such protocol increases the chances of forming faulty conclusions.
An example of faulty conclusions drawn from limited observations can be found in the early days of blood transfusions. Crude experiments produced hit and miss results, sometimes fatal, before researchers learned of blood types and the critical importance of their compatibility. The full ramifications of the procedure were better understood after more factors and their importance were revealed.
The value of personal stories is further questioned by the strides made in memory research. Qualified experts have demonstrated that memories are filled with errors. It is conclusively established. What’s more, the ways questions are asked can significantly alter responses.11 Such circumstances should be considered of great significance to a UFO community consisting of often minimally trained, overeager investigators who regularly employ hypnosis to solicit witness testimony. At the least, it is important to understand why such practices draw criticism, and to realize the burden of proof is upon those investigators to corroborate the questionable statements and arguably induced memories. Concerns are entirely reasonable and should be expected, particularly from individuals who stay current on material published by qualified experts.
Even without using hypnosis, it could be well argued that investigators typically put more weight on witness statements and interpretations than is warranted. This doesn’t necessarily mean witnesses are confused or fabricating their testimonies; certainly not in all cases, and it doesn’t even have to mean investigators are necessarily biased, at least not always.
I am suggesting it is problematic that, in the UFO community, patterns are often presumed to be identified from repetitive witness narrations. Then, it follows that characteristics of suspected paranormal phenomena are more widely accepted, based on those narrations and assumed patterns. This is risky and we should tread cautiously because the presumptions are derived from subjective witness reports. Specifically, there is no way to know, absent corroborating evidence, whether witnesses are experiencing things as they interpret, or whether they are actually misinterpreting experiences in similar manners. It is certain that in at least some instances we are seeing testimonies stemming from cultural influence, ill-advised investigation techniques and resulting false memories, not from unusual phenomena and alien-related activity. Therefore it stands to reason we should thoroughly explore the much more likely possibilities before accepting the thinly supported fantastic.
Each progressing episode and story passed around ufology increases the chances that future incidents will be interpreted in ways that support past perspectives. Think of water seeking its way through well-worn drainage ditches with each successive rainfall. In addition to such subjective perception and personal conditioning, witnesses are also likely to continue to interpret future events in preconceived ways due to peer pressure: The ongoing emotional support of investigators and community members who offer encouragement is understandably valued.
The future leads to the past, not just in identifying how assumptions will collectively be formed and premature conclusions will be drawn, but in understanding the roles that media, pop culture, and even the UFO community itself play in influencing how wi
tnesses will interpret experiences that haven’t even happened yet. The accepted paradigm doesn’t have to be accurate, just well-known, for it to serve as a bandwagon.
There is simply no substitute for verifiable evidence. Its absence in most UFO cases doesn’t necessarily mean nothing of potential interest is happening. Researchers might just be lacking in ways to get misunderstood phenomena under a glass. However, we, as a community, stand to be taken much more legitimately if at least acknowledging the problematic aspects of relying heavily upon witness testimony, unreliable investigative techniques, and similar activities that diminish credibility.
To be fair, anecdotal witness reports in any number of non-UFO subjects can, at times, involve circumstances that prove to be worthy of study, leading researchers to form better understandings of relevant phenomena. However, it could be emphasized that potential opportunities to gain insight into uncharted waters makes it all the more important to proceed carefully, refraining from swaying witnesses and being careful not to draw premature conclusions.
It could further be argued that the UFO genre includes many cases of reasonable interest, and all of the reported phenomena may not be attributable to hoaxes, misunderstandings and variations thereof. Perhaps so. Be that as it may, the combined influence of charlatans, spooks, and researcher bias is among the greatest challenges to the community, making it prudent to exercise healthy skepticism when engaging in UFO-related discussion and contemplation. To ignore that this is the case is, in itself, to enable the problem, failing to cultivate intellectual honesty while decreasing the likelihood of legitimate research being produced or more widely acknowledged.
UFOs- Reframing the Debate Page 8