This expansion of awareness needs also to be explored. Even to scratch the surface of the UFO enigma, we must move past the mentality that we are dealing purely with nuts and bolts, past the notion that the key to the UFO phenomenon lies in physical analysis. Jacques Vallée once stated that “Human beings are under the control of a strange force that bends them in absurd ways, forcing them to play a role in a bizarre game of deception.”6 Could this deception relate to human perception? The mind has perceptual limits—a filtering mechanism that, based on our awareness, shows us only what we can process in a manageable format. It works under restraints that have been carefully constructed throughout an individual’s life and throughout the long history of our species. Are those who witness UFOs breaking those perceptual restraints?
Awareness and perception are the heart of reality. We perceive things on a scale of either filtering that which we see, or widening our scope to accommodate more. When the scope is broadened, we are aware of our newly-enhanced perception, thus altering our former perception of reality. We have, in essence, created a new reality for ourselves. This could be the very reason the UFO phenomenon exists in the first place. Could it be possible that we have created a phenomenon that stretches the limits of our perceptual reality? It may be that our established modes of logic limit us so greatly that we can’t fully comprehend the monster we created. We must ultimately face the fact that, at some point, the awareness of that monster is going to shape and mold our consciousness completely, moving forward.
In a 2014 article titled Consciousness Inside-Out, science writer and anthropologist Eric Wargo states:
We are at a crux in our science and our culture when a new model is desperately needed to think about the relationship between consciousness and material reality. Much as I’m sympathetic with those who privilege consciousness against materialistic reductionism, I think a more nuanced and non-hierarchical relationship between mind and matter must be possible.7
The majority of witnesses I’ve spoken with, who’ve encountered UFOs, have described feeling as though their reality was somehow altered in the moment. Time seems to slow down, and the air around them seems different. Their senses seem either to heighten or to disappear altogether. It is as if their perception is fundamentally challenged and they are left with only a hazy memory of what they’d actually seen, having no meaningful frame of reference in which to place it. Whether or not this is partly due to whatever is in control of the UFO is speculative. It could very well be the tuner or limitation of the current awareness and perception of the individual. And, as Wargo points out above, we are left wondering if the materialistic make-up of the UFO is actually there in front of us to feel, smell, and hear, or if it is something “bending,” as Vallée puts it, into a contorted reality. While many UFO researchers argue that the question is no longer if UFOs exist, I argue that this still is in question. It’s a matter of how one views existence. Wargo goes on to say:
The word ‘exist’ comes from the Greek eksistere, ‘to stand forth.’ As mystics from time immemorial have insisted, the material world is a manifestation of consciousness—the self-world continuum experienced passively, as observed, rather than actively, as observing. These two aspects pass from one to the other at certain mysterious boundaries—in dreams, at death, and in paranormal phenomena (such as UFOs) that turn our outside into an inside (or vice versa) without our quite being aware how we made the passage.
This passage between established and newfound realities is where UFOs seem to float, hover, zip, coast, appear and disappear in and out of ambiguity. But even more interesting is the theory that that UFOs, as physical objects we perceive, have been created and manifested through our own pre-existing awareness of the UFO phenomenon to begin with. We believe that UFOs are coming to us under their own volition. But what if we were subconscious initiators, pulling UFOs in? This could explain why, even in the case of a mass sighting, individuals see the same object slightly different from one another, their previous awareness shaping and molding the object from their own set of reduction valves and evolving perception.
While the manifestation may begin with an individual source, what happens when hundreds, if not thousands of those individuals have the same thought? We call this collective consciousness. The term was introduced by the French sociologist, Émile Durkheim in 1893, and has since sparked much debate amongst sociologists, psychologists, and scientists, but it may very well tell us more about UFOs than any sighting report or radar tracking ever could. Let’s theorize for a moment that an extraterrestrial intelligence is responsible in part for some UFO phenomena. Given that we now live in an age where privatized space travel is possible on a grand scale, ambitions expand with every manned or unmanned journey. As more time progresses and our reach beyond the stars stretches further, we are collectively accepting that traveling to other planets is within reach. And so is the possibility of discovering other lifeforms. Because of this expansion in the collective consciousness, we may in fact be manifesting the extraterrestrial presence in more ways than we think. Keeping in mind that many claim and believe we have already been visited by non-human intelligences, is it possible that, as we journey outward into the cosmos, we are pulling this alien phenomenon closer to us in a convergence of sorts? They’ve accepted us into their reality, having presumably been monitoring us for decades, if not centuries or millennia. Is it now our turn to meet them halfway?
In his best-selling book, Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers, Vallée postulates:
There exists a natural phenomenon whose manifestations border on both the physical and the mental. There is a medium in which human dreams can be implemented, and this is the mechanism by which UFO events are generated, needing no superior intelligence to trigger them. This would explain the fugitivity of UFO manifestations, the alleged contact with friendly occupants, and the fact that the objects appear to keep pace with human technology and to use current symbols.8
It is possible, in Vallée’s opinion, that there may be no other half to the non-human equation. We may quite possibly be manifesting these events all on our own in a dream-like state and through alien-inspired interpretations. But why do we deny this possibility that we are in control? This Semmelweis reflex of sorts may depend on the lack of evidence, whether scientifically, philosophically, psychologically, or physically. But, to the contrary, what stark irrefutable evidence do we have otherwise of purely physical, nuts-and-bolts phenomena controlled solely by non-human intelligences? While many scoff at the idea of a metaphysical approach to the UFO phenomenon, which conjures images of “new agers” and “space brothers/sisters,” it very well could lead us to a new path. But is it a path worth taking?
When I learned of what several colleagues were to write about in this collection of essays, I noticed strikingly similar ideas and concepts to my own in terms of human manifestation of these phenomena. At first, this made me hesitate, fearing a stalemate in terms of bringing forth new contributions to the debate. But, pushing that small whisper of pride aside, I realized this is exactly the point—I wasn’t alone in my ideas. Not only did it excite me to find others researching this, but it made me feel that I was indeed on a path worth taking. A notable addition to this debate is that of UFO researcher and author Greg Bishop, who also theorizes that we may be manifesting UFO events unknowingly somewhere deep in the subconscious, and that perhaps some UFO experiences may be co-created in the moment by the observer and some anomalous intelligent stimulus. In conversation with me about this, Bishop explained that, “Our subconscious picks up many things of which our conscious minds are unaware. The fact that some people can suffer head trauma and suddenly become amazing artists or mathematicians, or speak a completely foreign language, means that either we somehow all have this ability anyway or we are constantly ingesting far more information than we can possibly use.” Could we then theorize that UFO experiences, which are often traumatic in nature, unlock these doors in the mind?
On
e of the biggest issues with looking at these phenomena is the investigator’s approach. Greg Bishop suggests that, “Investigators should start with no preconceptions about what they are seeking. The goal should be only to gather information from witnesses. They should also begin to ask questions about subjective impressions, such as “how did it make you feel?” Employing the skills of qualified mental health professionals should be a priority, with an idea towards helping the witness integrate the experience on their own terms, rather than those of UFO investigators on the one hand or scientists who wish to tell them that they were mistaken or that is was ‘nothing but’ on the other.”
So, while multiple contributors to this volume are peering into the consciousness aspects of UFO phenomena, the majority of researchers remain steadfast on a nuts-and-bolts approach to ufology. This is all fine and good. Perhaps the issue doesn’t even lie in the divergence between hard data and a mind-based deconstruction, but in the question of whether the UFO phenomenon can convincingly be linked to something extraterrestrial to begin with. Carl Jung once stated: “I’m puzzled to death about these phenomena, because I haven’t been able yet to make out with sufficient certainty whether the whole thing is a rumor with concomitant singular and mass hallucination, or a downright fact. Either case would be highly interesting.” This idea of mass hallucination can arguably be traced back to the inception of the modern UFO era. In 1947, Kenneth Arnold, an amateur pilot from Idaho, witnessed nine bright objects coasting along Mount Rainer in the southeast of Seattle, Washington. When interviewed by a local newspaper, he described the objects’ movement like that of a saucer skipping across water. Either lazy editing or a desperate attempt at a gripping headline, the newspaper mistakenly stated that Arnold had witnessed “flying saucers” in the air. Thus, the term had been coined, and thousands of reports began to trickle in of saucer-shaped objects plaguing the skies. Was this merely a case of hysteria, or were people truly seeing saucer-shaped objects? And, if so, were those saucers being piloted or controlled by non-human intelligences?
In his 2015 book, How UFOs Conquered the World, Dr. David Clarke explains that a hysteria of sorts could play a pivotal role in the entire phenomenal conjecture. What he has coined “The UFO Syndrome” weaves in and out of a mythological stance on UFOs and their possible occupants. Clarke believes that culture itself feeds the phenomenon, or the perception of it, in an endless feedback loop between stories passed down through media and genuine experiences. While Kenneth Arnold may indeed have seen something in the skies over Washington in 1947, it was a quote misconstrued that ushered in the entire flying saucer phenomenon (or syndrome) thereafter. Now, this is not to say that UFOs were not flying through our skies prior to Arnold’s sighting. But what we have now engrained so deeply into our minds as mechanisms piloted by non-human intelligences will forever hold a place in both cultural and individual experience. With the elusiveness of the UFO and the complexity of its study ebbing and flowing between believers and skeptics, Clarke mirrors some of the words of Bishop above, stating that the UFO syndrome “… is fueled not only by the vagaries of human perception, but also by a strong psychological and cultural attachment to the theory and the protective efforts of a community of advocates: the ufologists.”10
We can explore new paths all we want. What this comes down to are the ufologists, no matter how grounded in scientific method or how metaphysical or cerebral they choose to be. It comes down to those who decide to spend their time, knowledge, and resources studying the phenomenon. But instead of watching a phantom war between realists and dreamers, perhaps we might benefit from standing, if only for a little while, with one foot in each camp. Perhaps, in seeking to bridge the divide between the two approaches, we can bring new life to a field that dies time and again by our own hand and through our own blinkered perspectives. We must look beyond the strictures we’ve helped create, and bring life to a monster we want neither to destroy nor resurrect ever again. We must let it live on its own terms and in its own image. We may even look to James Whale’s brilliant 1931 film for inspiration, where the naive yet passionate Dr. Frankenstein asks: “Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn’t care if they did think I was crazy.”
Crazy or not, we must look at ourselves in a mirror so clear that the reflection staring back will lead us forward in ways we can only imagine. The reality of UFOs may bring us closer together than we ever thought possible, both here on Earth, and perhaps somewhere in the cosmos we’ve only begun to explore.
THE CO-CREATION HYPOTHESIS: HUMAN PERCEPTION, THE INFORMATIONAL UNIVERSE, AND THE OVERHAUL OF UFO RESEARCH
Greg Bishop
“If you look for the saucers deep within yourself, that is where you will find them.”1
—GRAY BARKER
In the first 60 years of looking at UFOs and many thousands of reports, we have not moved any closer to a provable theory of their origin. It appears that the goal of most UFO researchers and advocates at present is to make more people take the subject seriously, or at least consider that UFOs are not just the product of misidentifications, hoaxes, or hysteria. The problem is that most UFO enthusiasts seem to want to answer critics by using an idea (aliens from other planets) that doesn’t adhere to our classic standards for proof. The argument is at cross-purposes. The experience is not available on demand, nor is it amenable to normal scientific scrutiny. There is also the existential issue of a supposed extra-human intelligence and if it is connected to the phenomenon or even within our realm of comprehension.
For decades, the pursuit of so-called “respectability” and the nagging idea that the “perfect case,” well-documented by video, radar returns, and physical traces will convince doubters has been the holy grail of UFO study. There is already enough evidence in this regard and it has not made much difference to those whom the researcher hopes to impress. Perhaps a quest for a deeper and wider understanding of relevant and previously overlooked issues and their implications is what is called for at this time, and not the need to be believed or accepted.
The late UFO theorist Bruce Duensing wrote that there is really no apparent reason for non-humans to be visiting us, at least not in any way that makes rational sense, and that there may be an intention on the part of supposed “aliens” of presenting images and feelings that are specifically designed to be inscrutable to us.2 In this scenario, the option to choose our own meaning and intent may be forced on us for some unknown purpose. Is some intelligence communicating with us by holding up a mirror whenever we try to look too closely? If we subtract our own innate bias, cultural cueing, and psychology from the history of UFO reports, what is left? How much of the experience comes from the observer? The answer could range from “None at all” to “Everything.” There are many places where a UFO sighting (or any extraordinary experience) could fall on this spectrum.
The existence of an extra-human consciousness is assumed to be a possibility for the purposes of this discussion. We will also work from the premise that at least some reported interaction with apparent non-humans are genuine attempts at describing what witnesses have seen, and are not misidentifications, hallucinations, or hoaxes, although there is a case to be made for the blurring of these lines.
In 2008, I suggested a thought experiment that considered anomalistic encounters with supposed unknowns as a radical form of art which forces the viewer or witness to experience “art” that engages not only their senses, but, more importantly, their inner life. What if a hypothetical artist was so talented that the viewer’s life was changed deeply and permanently? What if this change was so insidious that even the artist didn’t consciously intend it and the effects varied with the individual, b
ased on the witness’ culture, psychology, upbringing, genetics, etc.? This artist would become famous not for what they were trying to communicate in their work, but for what was pulled out of each person’s individual makeup as a result of the experience. This may be what is happening during UFO close encounters. There is a massive backlog of apparent craft and beings seen, as well as a wide spectrum of individual reactions. This suggests either that countless types of strange entities are visiting us, or that the brain has some kind of creative control over what is experienced.
In 1952, Albert K. Bender convened the International Flying Saucer Bureau, which was one of the first civilian UFO research groups. In the premiere issue of his house newsletter, Space Review, Bender asked for members’ theories about the origin of the UFOs. Every last one of them stated something to the effect of, “I think the saucers come from other planets.” UFO research has been saddled with this idea ever since. With the background of fantasy and science-fiction and other cultural precedents, this is not surprising. As early as 1732, Voltaire’s fictional story Micromégas described ETs from Saturn as well as a planet orbiting the star Sirius, and pulp fiction of the early 20th century was rife with evil aliens. Even early U.S. government studies like Project Sign’s classified Estimate of the Situation in 1948 supposedly touted an interplanetary origin.
We labor under this heavy legacy, but it does not have to be so. A conscious effort should be made not to assign any origin or meaning to these encounters, because we may have been fooling ourselves for so long about what they are that we have backed ourselves into a corner. Although routinely ignored by the majority of researchers and other interested parties, the fields of psychology, physiology, and even the emerging discipline of information theory should be vitally important to anyone who is interested in the subject.
UFOs- Reframing the Debate Page 25