UFOs- Reframing the Debate

by Robbie Graham

  Studies indicate that once the damage of accepting inaccurate information is done, it is extremely difficult to reverse. Research conducted at the University of Michigan showed that when misinformed people were exposed to corrected facts, they rarely changed their minds.12 Actually, they tended to dig their heels in deeper. Researchers found that facts did not cure misinformation, but, quite the opposite, often led to inaccurate beliefs being held even stronger.

  See a fundamental problem here? A great deal of completely inaccurate—and often, at best, unverified—information is widely accepted, then spread as if it were reliable. We then tend to form beliefs and make up our minds about things which haven’t actually been adequately explained. People subsequently not only reject revisions and corrections, but tend to embrace beliefs even more tightly when those beliefs are shown to be incorrect. To reframe the debate, effectively and competently, we must not only acknowledge that such dynamics are happening, but make consistent decisions to swim against the undertow and be more of the solution than the problem.

  It would be helpful to exercise some understanding when people choose not enthusiastically to embrace fantastic stories supported by witness testimony and various questionable types of less than convincing evidence. We might choose to remember that if we desire others to share our beliefs, it is our responsibility to demonstrate those beliefs to be accurate. Otherwise, people are completely entitled to believe or suppose differently. It is simply unreasonable to demand agreement without conclusive evidence. What’s more, it is after applying reasonable skepticism that the proverbial cream will rise to the top. If there are events of legitimate interest to be found, accurately identifying them will involve careful, systematic research, which rejects sensationalism and accepts critical review as an important and fundamental part of the process.

  Researchers, Investigators and Consumers

  As researchers, it would be very helpful to emphasize differentiating between suppositions and facts. I advocate presenting a proposed possibility—a potential explanation for a certain case, for example—then citing fact-based resources as supporting evidence. Cite facts, then present opinions of what the facts may indicate.

  Work could further be legitimized by relying more heavily upon sources recognized as credible within the professional research community. These include such resources as authenticated documents, newspaper clippings, journals and similar media that offer valuable use as reference materials. I accept researchers speculating as much as they want, but my respect is particularly earned when they differentiate between speculation and what can be demonstrated as factual.

  I also advocate aiming attention at specific circumstances, as compared to discussing wide scale topics in general terms. I am suggesting it is much more practical and potentially productive to consider a specific case in-depth, or even a single aspect of a particular case, than the validity of circumstances too broad to cover effectively. Get down to details. Certain time periods might be researched, or the work of a particular individual, rather than discussing and debating generalities while failing to drill down through more interesting details that might actually resolve select circumstances.

  As investigators, community members must cease employing conclusively unreliable techniques if there is to be any hope at all of gaining credibility and reframing the debate to a more sensible perspective. This cannot be overemphasized. The time for experimenting with hypnotic regression as a memory enhancing tool of alien abduction is long gone, much less relying on it as a primary investigative technique. There is no credibility to be found in either practicing or supporting such dated and potentially harmful activities.

  It would also be helpful if investigators encouraged one another to further educate themselves on such topics as memory, witness testimony and emotional trauma. The beliefs and hopes of investigators should not permeate their cases, and more effort could be invested in promoting objectivity if the UFO community is to earn the wider acceptance and respect it has long claimed to seek. Embracing and addressing points contained in the skeptical argument is part of the path to credibility, particularly as compared to averting from the issues.

  Among such points demanding reasonable attention is emotional trauma. To neglect to accept its substantial relevance to the UFO community, and to enable investigators to continue to gloss over it through intentional omission or lack of understanding, is detrimental to the wellbeing of witnesses, to the quality of information reported, and to a sincere search for truth.

  Emotional and psychological trauma is the result of extraordinarily stressful events that shatter a sense of security.13 It is not the objective facts that determine whether an event is traumatic, but the subjective emotional experience. Individuals suffering from untreated trauma are likely to undergo future traumatic events, and that is particularly the case among those who experience childhood trauma. Symptoms include confusion, anxiety and fear. Limited abilities to think critically are common, as are difficulties in keeping chains of events in accurate chronological order. Untreated trauma may cause individuals to misinterpret the original traumatic event and to find variations thereof to be happening over and over again.

  Emotional trauma may very well be among the most significant and least discussed aspects of the UFO community, particularly concerning reports of alleged alien abduction. It would be reasonable to question why community leaders and investigators are not more commonly encouraging people, who describe themselves as repeatedly experiencing traumatic events, to seek qualified treatment.

  To encourage proper treatment for trauma and, in effect, promote good mental health, qualifies the advocates as more competent and better informed to discuss the cases. Demonstrating a willingness to acknowledge the relevance of trauma shows commitment to accuracy, concern for witnesses, and helps create an atmosphere more conducive to authenticity and good quality discussion. That would be the case regardless of the origins of the reported experiences. It might indeed be questioned why trauma specialists and related mental health professionals are not more actively consulted. Their areas of expertise and understandings of behavior are extremely relevant.

  Another point deserving of more attention is physical evidence. Investigators could improve credibility and the quality of summaries of cases if they clarified the presence or absence of supporting physical evidence. Explaining what was done with any such evidence would also be very helpful, particularly as compared to emphasizing and dwelling on witness testimony. Advancing technology now allows cost-effective procedures conducted by qualified personnel for everything from photo analysis to forensic testing. It should be used. Reframing the debate includes taking advantage of such opportunities, following the trail of evidence to what logical conclusions it provides, and acknowledging when physical evidence is either entirely absent or if investigators questionably fail to pursue it.

  As consumers, personal responsibility can be taken in choosing to support writers and researchers whom, we feel, frame the relevant dynamics in reasonable and accurate context. We also have the choice not to support those we feel do more harm than good.

  There is unprecedented access to information and those who report it. Blogs, podcasts and websites addressing the UFO controversy are plentiful, as are books on the subject. A multitude of sites host book reviews and related discussion, and most researchers are readily available via personal web pages and various forms of social media. The witnesses, researchers and trendsetters of ufology are, in many cases, more accessible than ever before, and public discussion is certainly easy to find.

  I encourage taking advantage of such accessibility in order, morally and financially, to support those we value and those we feel conduct themselves responsibly. Not only will they appreciate it, but we are doing a service for community members who will read our discussions and reviews, both currently and in the future.

  In the same ways, support may be offered to those we feel worthy; we have the choice to refrain from attending events and buy
ing products from organizations and individuals whom we identify as failing to make constructive contributions. No organization or individual researcher should be considered the only game in town. An abundance of sources is now available to choose from for information and discussion, ranging from Fortean to skeptical, so we can offer our valued support wisely. Be heard.

  Similarly, intentional decisions could be made about the types of community we wish to cultivate. Consumers and witnesses would be well served to choose specifically what type of support they are seeking when they venture into the UFO community. Services offered by therapists and investigators, for example, are entirely different and should not be confused with one another. A therapeutic relationship with a psychoanalyst should be considered much differently from what one should expect from an investigator conducting what should be an objective inquiry into facts and evidence. It would be beneficial to identify whether one is seeking emotional support, as in the form of sharing experiences and receiving empathy and acceptance, or investigative support, in which critical thinking should be prioritized and a list of likely explanations compiled.

  Caution should be exercised in selecting sources for emotional support, be it through group meetings or private therapists, and consulting qualified professionals would be a wise choice. Working with an investigator should be given ample consideration as well.

  Consumers are completely entitled to ask a potential investigator, therapist or other service provider to state their objectives and clarify terms in writing, as well as means of recourse. Identify what is wanted and seek it from appropriate sources.

  Researchers, investigators, and writers, in turn, have responsibilities to clarify what they are seeking when interacting with others, as well as what they are willing and able to provide, and act accordingly. It would be helpful if they refrained from participating at events and conferences sponsored by organizations promoting sensationalism and engaging in less than best practices. Such efforts would contribute to improving the community and increasing its opportunities to gain respect.

  I contend that a great deal of information circulated around the UFO community—the vast majority—is simply incorrect or, at the least, unsubstantiated, while detrimentally accepted and promoted as common knowledge. I am suggesting the present community and its sizable list of urban myths evolved out of decades of cultivating and marketing stories to those of us admirably open-minded enough to be willing to consider them further, yet ultimately led astray. Some of the perpetrators were well-meaning, some were not, and some may have just been doing their jobs.

  If we are to find events of interest at the heart of what became a truly phenomenal social occurrence, we would be wise to drop preconceived notions to the best of our abilities. If we’re going to reframe the debate, we’ll be well served to know the history of how we got here, where we’ve been, what worked and what didn’t, and how to proceed both intelligently and competently. It’s not always easy, but things worth doing often aren’t.

  IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND: MOVING UFOLOGY BEYOND MATERIALISM

  Joshua Cutchin

  SIR BAR: Look you Sir, Truth may be blam’d, but never sham’d. I cou’d give you farther proof if occasion serv’d. But Truth is not to spoken at all times.

  ALD: Yet it concerns you to speak, and to prove what you speak, this is no jesting matter.

  SIR BAR: Well than, O’er shooes, o’er boots. And In for a Penny, in for a Pound.

  —EDWARD RAVENSCROFT, THE CANTERBURY gUESTS, OR, A BARGAIN BROKEN A COMEDY

  In the late sixteenth century, Tycho Brahe proposed a model of the solar system wherein all the known planets—five at the time—revolved around the Sun, while the Sun itself orbited the Earth.1 Referred to as the Tychonic System, the concept was not altogether new, having precursors in the fourth century B.C.2—nonetheless, this hybrid geoheliocentric model was closer to the truth than contemporary theories, which held the Earth as the fixed point around which the entire cosmos rotated.

  The Tychonic System maintained popularity among progressive scientists until the early-1600s when Galileo proposed his heliocentric model, wherein the Sun is the fixed point around which all other celestial bodies in the solar system orbit. Though persecuted by the establishment, Galileo’s proposition was eventually accepted.3

  Centuries later, Albert Einstein would christen him “the father of modern physics—indeed, of modern science altogether,”4 a sentiment Stephen Hawking would echo in his A Brief History of Time: “Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science.”5

  While Brahe is not exactly a minor footnote to history, at the same time he enjoys neither the accolades nor the man-on-the-street familiarity, which Galileo does in the twenty-first century. Brahe could commit to everything that made Galileo immortal except for the Earth’s rotation around the Sun. To do so would have been revolutionary. His significance to science would be enormous had he not engaged in half-measures and committed to a fully heliocentric model of the solar system.

  In for a penny, in for a pound, as it were. Ufologists take note.

  If there is such a thing as “mainstream ufology,” it focuses upon a “nuts-and-bolts” (N&B) interpretation of sightings in support of an Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). Advocates of this grounded approach assume—perhaps naïvely, though not entirely illogically—that an extraterrestrial civilization would mirror our own dreams, desires, and abilities as a species. Humans wish to explore the galaxy, therefore aliens wish to explore the galaxy; humans would accomplish this goal by building metallic flying machines, aliens would as well; humans would study and catalogue alien life, aliens vice versa. To make a gross reduction, it is a quaint mid-twentieth century proposition wherein little green scientists in physical spacecraft regularly visit Earth.

  In this model, the materialist paradigm—the dominant philosophical doctrine of science, wherein matter is the fundamental constant of reality and all other phenomena, including human consciousness itself, are illusory byproducts of matter—reigns supreme. N&B/ETH researchers hold that the UFO problem can and will be solved by physical evidence: burn marks at landing sites, a stunning video, a compelling photograph, a crashed flying saucer, an extraterrestrial body.

  While plenty of cases superficially support the N&B/ETH view, its materialist foundations are shaken when confronted with the High Strangeness characteristic of a majority of UFO close encounters. Alleged “alien” abductees report profound synchronicities manifesting in their lives, battle poltergeist phenomena in their homes, and occasionally encounter loved ones during their brief sojourn to the Otherworld.

  These pernicious data points serve as constant reminders that we are swimming in a very strange pool indeed. Of all the fantastic motifs reported by eyewitnesses, telepathy—the ability of aliens (or even just lights in the sky) to exchange ideas with witnesses via thought—is most common.

  “Of 124 cases with the means of communication specified, 98 (79%) involve telepathy, thought transference, or the witnesses being able to understand or ‘hear’ the beings without their mouths moving or any apparent auditory input,” wrote Eddie Bullard in his comprehensive 1987 work, UFO Abductions: The Measure of a Mystery.6 While no study of similar magnitude has been compiled in the intervening three decades, even a cursory survey of the literature suggests that this trend has not abated.

  “Regarding UFO contact, we would do well to recall that most contactees and abductees have claimed some form of telepathic connection with these other beings,” wrote Richard Dolan in UFOs for the 21st Century Mind. “In fact, such connections are often felt by people who have UFO sightings, without even experiencing the extra level of abduction or contact. In other words, these beings appear, somehow, to connect to us telepathically.” He later adds this aspect is “not fully appreciated by current science.”7

  At first blush, accepting the presence of telepathy in alien abduction cases seems as though it would be anathema to N&B ufo
logists of the ETH persuasion. After all, their position firmly seeks scientific answers to the UFO question, while telepathy is regarded as New Age bunk by the materialist establishment. In practice, however, most ETH advocates seem quite keen to declare this peculiarity a reality of the UFO experience.

  Prior to his death in 2011, Budd Hopkins suspected not only that extraterrestrials were responsible for the abduction phenomenon, but also that they possessed telepathic abilities. In 1981’s Missing Time, he sidestepped any possible contradiction by suggesting the telepathic component could represent extremely advanced technology.8

  Alien abduction researcher Dr. David Jacobs, though initially skeptical of telepathic communication in his early work,9 later warmed to eyewitness testimony of “Mindscans” and telepathy as a reality: “In virtually all abduction accounts, the communication between the aliens and the abductees is done through ‘telepathy,’ and not aurally through their ears,” he wrote in 1992.10

  Stanton T. Friedman—someone who has arguably done more than anyone else to legitimize UFO research while holding a firmly N&B paradigm—most overtly articulated his acceptance of telepathic communication in UFO encounters on a January 21, 2012 episode of Alex Tsakiris’s popular Skeptiko podcast:

  I’m convinced that any advanced civilization will know about telepathy and mind control and communication at a distance. It really came home to me when I was standing at the exact location where Barney Hill was standing when the saucer was over their car and he’s looking through binoculars at the crew on board.

  For no good reason, they jumped back in the car, very frightened, and they get off the main road, Route 3, and they go onto a secondary road. Then they go onto a dirt road—which Barney would never have done. And he winds up alongside the only place in the area where you could land a, let’s say 80-foot in diameter, flying saucer… It was clear proof to me that these guys were directing his actions.