by D W Pasulka
what amounted to the story of his life.
A N E W R E S E A R C H D I R E C T I O N
James knew that he had to embark on a research direction
that had no path, no predecessors, no mentors. Luckily,
he was already distinguished for this style of research. His
colleagues would scoff at the seemingly impossible ideas and
hypotheses he proposed at conferences, but then he would
“leave them in the dust” in the lab and make his ideas real.
James was already a pioneer. On the agenda now was a new
research direction in which he would grapple with his past
5 6 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC
and with one of the most significant questions in human
history. In fact, at this stage in his life, there was no other
agenda. Although he kept up with his day- job obligations
and grant proposals, the new agenda would dominate his life
and seep into every aspect of his thought processes.
James surveyed his colleagues. He didn’t know anyone
who was an experiencer, nor was he acquainted with Jacques
Vallee or anyone else who studied the phenomenon scientif-
ical y. All good science is done within communities of peer
review and analysis, so James knew he needed to find like-
minded researchers. But where? This was a field in which he
knew no one. He came up with a daring plan. He decided to
put himself on the map, to “out” himself publicly as being
interested in the phenomenon. He began by reaching out
about a spectacular case: some recently found material that
was claimed to be of alien origin. James said that he could de-
termine the truth of this claim. His plan proved to be a good
idea, and a bad idea.
Any serious researcher of UFO phenomena is aware that
many governments have engaged in programs of “perception
management.” There are good reasons for this having to do
with national security. Sighting events could have to do with
another government’s military program, or, if the strange
crafts are real y from off- Earth, they might be hostile. Or—
most likely— governments do not want to cause alarm and
they just don’t know what UFOs are. In the words of the phi-
losopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must be silent.”
In any case, there is an exhaustively documented his-
tory of perception management. Declassified documents
reveal that governments, including in the United Kingdom
and the United States, have often covered up and managed
J A M E S : M A S T E R O F T H E M U LT I V E R S E | 5 7
information about reported UFO events.1 One of the most
famous instances of this can be found in what is known as
the Durant Report, an account of the proceedings of the 1953
Robertson Panel, a US government committee convened to
study UFOs. Although the committee concluded that UFOs
in and of themselves did not represent a security risk, they
recommended a project of perception management that they
termed “training and debunking”: a mass- media education
campaign, enacted with the help of academics and media
moguls, to control public knowledge about UFOs.2 The re-
port concludes:
This education could be accomplished by mass media such
as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. Basis
of such education would be actual case histories which had
been puzzling at first but later explained. The Jam Handy Co.
which made World War II training films (motion picture and
slide strips) was also suggested, as well as Walt Disney, Inc.
animated cartoons. It was believed that business clubs, high
schools, colleges, and television stations would all be pleased
to cooperate in the showing of documentary type motion
pictures if prepared in an interesting manner.3
What this means is that the phenomenon is usual y
portrayed inaccurately, either intentional y by govern-
ment sources or unintentional y by producers and directors
creating products to appeal to consumer tastes. Only se-
rious researchers know this. Everyone else, for the most part,
assumes that what they see on television in documentaries or
in the newspapers is being reported accurately. James, a top
researcher in the hard sciences but not in UFO phenomena,
reached out to several public ufologists, one of whom
claimed to have access to an artifact that some claimed was
5 8 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC
supposedly not of this earth— or at the least not understood
in accepted science. James knew that if he gained access to
this artifact, he would be able to analyze it and determine
its origin. He also knew that his involvement would be
publicized and attract the attention of people who might be
serious researchers. His ultimate goal was to meet them.
James contacted the ufologists and they agreed to let him
examine the artifact. It certainly looked anomalous, and it
had features that were not readily explainable. The ufologists
would include James’s research in a documentary watched
by millions of people. James would conduct the experiments
at his university in his spare time, and the ufologists would
film him and report his findings— whatever they might be.
Advertisements and media about the documentary hyped his
participation and suggested that his findings would change
science. James, however, had only said that he would ascer-
tain whether the artifact was from Earth or elsewhere. He did
not assume that it was of an alien origin. But he did want to
know what caused it to have such anomalous features.
At one point during the experimentation, James became
convinced that the specimen was assuredly from Earth. Using
the tools of his trade, the data pointed strongly that it was
of human origin. His conclusions seemed lost on audiences,
however, and even on several ufologists with whom he was
working. Media focused on the artifact as having a non-
human, alien origin. The public thought James had con-
firmed that it was alien.
The media pronouncements on James’s research were so
confusing that he decided to work with a few credible, high-
profile science publications and newspapers to make a more
direct statement on the matter. These publications affirmed
that James had debunked the claim that the artifact had an
J A M E S : M A S T E R O F T H E M U LT I V E R S E | 5 9
alien origin and emphasized that he had in fact found it to be
of human origin. Yet, even this well- meant attempt to correct
the story missed the point. James is a scientist. He used his
skil s to show that something that appeared anomalous could
be understood within the parameters of natural processes.
He ruled out that the artifact was from “elsewhere.” It could
be understood by conventional science. That did not mean
he ruled out the reality of the phenomenon of UFOs. That
phenomenon, he believed, was very real. This artifact was
not an example of it.
/> T H E V I S I T
James’s reason for affiliating with the more public ufologists
was to achieve a goal— to meet serious researchers of the
phenomenon so he could carry on with his new research
agenda. He needed a community of researchers who played
by the rules of science and peer review. Soon after the much-
publicized event, he met with success. The serious researchers
actual y came to him, but his introduction to them was ex-
traordinary and frightening.
The title of the television series Punk’d had become a
part of everyday, ordinary vocabulary. Being “punk’d” by
one’s friends meant that one was the butt of a practical joke
while simultaneously being filmed and even streamed in real
time online or, worse, on television. It was, to some, an hon-
orary humiliation. James, who lived in a university town,
was aware of the show and had seen a few of his friends get
punk’d. When the men in black suits knocked on James’s
office door, he opened it and stared into two very grim, un-
happy faces. Who are these people? he wondered. The men
6 0 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC
asked if they could come in and talk to him about the arti-
fact and “other things.” James wondered, “What have I gotten
myself into this time?”
He invited them into his office, and they accepted the
invitation, not saying another word. The silence felt to James
like a vague sort of threat. He made a joke to lighten the
mood, but the men did not respond. After James offered
them some water, he decided that he would match their cold
demeanor.
“What is it that you want?” he asked.
“We want to know what you real y found out about the
artifact.”
“I already stated many times I can’t find any evidence it
has an alien origin.”
“We already know that. We want to know why you got
involved and what else you might know.”
After a moment passed, James came to the conclusion
that he was most likely being punk’d. Amused, and ready for
the charade to be revealed, he looked around for evidence of
a camera or film crew. There was none. Hmm. With neither
side knowing exactly what the other knew, there ensued one
of the most interesting conversations of James’s life. One of
the men turned out to be, like him, a top researcher at one of
the world’s most renowned universities, but with a long asso-
ciation with intelligence agencies. The other man was with a
large aerospace firm. What started as a disturbing encounter
became a meeting of minds.
The two visitors seemed grim and serious prima-
rily because their own research into the phenomenon had
proved to be very disturbing. They dealt with radiation
effects and other biological interactions of the phenom-
enon with humans, a subject of which James knew nothing.
J A M E S : M A S T E R O F T H E M U LT I V E R S E | 6 1
As they talked, he realized that the serious researchers he’d
been looking for had arrived, and they weren’t who he had
thought they would be. Instead, they were very much like
him and not public ufologists. They were not the “Men in
Black.” They weren’t interested in publicity. But they were
very interested in helping people who needed help. Over the
next several months, his two (ful y human) visitors exposed
him to a nontraditional path that was as much a science as
what he practiced at his “day job.” James had found his peers.
James related his story and his experience of the “men
in black” over wine at the conference dinner. I was riveted.
He explained, “I have seen things that our current theories
of science cannot explain, yet the evidence for them is very
real, as real as anything that the current theories support.
I tend not to throw out evidence, even if it doesn’t fit. In fact,
I think what has made me successful is this very strategy,
to not ignore what doesn’t fit, what doesn’t make sense.
That type of evidence, the type that causes researchers to
scratch their heads, is the type that is most attractive to
me, and what has taught me the most. So, I know we are
not alone. There is something here; what does it want? Is it
studying us? I don’t know. But it is here; there is no doubt
in my mind.”
T H E S C I E N T I S T
James gave his presentation to our little group the next day.
We filed into a small conference hal , which was lit by beams
of warm sunshine that streamed through its tall windows. We
filled our small white coffee cups and settled into our chairs.
James was ready with his computer. We made ourselves
62 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC
comfortable and prepared to hear the young scientist who
had arrived so flashily in his high- end chariot.
As James unveiled his first slide, we all squinted to deci-
pher the object pictured. None of us recognized what it was.
It turned out to be a photo of a massive molecular micro-
scope, something that none of us had ever seen before and
probably would never see again. It was giant— like no micro-
scope I had ever seen. It looked like a big, shiny, hospital CAT
scanner. James’s lab had built it. From that point onward, we
all knew that we were witnessing a level of research that was
beyond anything we had seen before. I wondered where this
presentation could possibly go from here.
Each one of us had studied the phenomenon and was
well acquainted with the relevant case studies, which were of
individual sightings or of a flap— a series of sightings of UFOs
by several individuals and even groups of individuals over
a span of a few days. These case studies provided evidence
of an aerial phenomenon that was anomalous. “Anomalous”
was the word indicating that we had ruled out its being
known aircraft or drones or blimps, that it was not attribut-
able to military exercises, and that it often left physical traces
such as burn marks on objects or grass— or people. Several
of us had already presented case studies from the historical
record that appeared to correlate with modern cases. It was
clear that there was a range of beliefs among the attendees.
Several presenters were of the opinion that the phenom-
enon was psychological and that it involved imaginary
projections, by people or groups of people, onto unexplained
external stimuli. An example of this could be that a group of
people spotted a blimp that they mistook for a UFO, and due
to their specific group dynamic they projected onto it the in-
terpretation that it was a hostile alien craft. The presentations
J A M E S : M A S T E R O F T H E M U LT I V E R S E | 6 3
made in this spirit were convincing. Other presenters were
convinced that the phenomenon was a form of nonhuman
intelligence that wasn’t necessarily extraterrestrial but may
be interdimensional or coexisting within our own universe,
&n
bsp; though in a different frequency. These presentations were just
as compelling. The questions we had been pondering were all
over the map: Was the phenomenon something that arose
within the social imaginary? Or was it secret advanced mil-
itary craft? Was it truly something nonhuman? We were all
academics, and even though we were researching something
that was considered to be on the “fringe,” we were well trained
to follow the conventions of our respective disciplines. The
standard baseline from which we all functioned was pretty
conservative: unless we had proof that it was nonhuman, we
would refrain from advocating that hypothesis.
Like a gust of fresh air, James’s opening statements com-
pletely and unequivocal y transcended our stoic provin-
cialism. As we examined his pictures of the microscope and
sipped our coffee, he blindsided us with this assertion: “We
will start by stating that the phenomenon commonly re-
ferred to as UFOs exists. The evidence supports that there is
a phenomenon, it interacts with humans, but we cannot as
yet explain it. However, we can identify its effects on humans
and the physical channels of communications through which
it operates. Through studying its modes of interaction with
us, we can gain considerable knowledge about it.”
This claim caused the hairs on our well- trained academic
necks to rise. We were now wide awake— and not because of
the coffee.
To scientifical y capture all these experiences or events,
argued James, the people predisposed to having them— that
is, to being contacted by nonhuman intelligence— must be
6 4 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC
studied. The literature shows that contact manifests as anom-
alous experiences, as telepathic communication with aerial
objects and beings, or as anomalous cognition (knowledge of
future events or other knowledge for which there is no con-
ventional explanation). It also manifests as random sightings
of aerial phenomena that sometimes interact with witnesses
through such things as “beams of light.” The Bible and records
from Catholic history and other religious histories are re-
plete with accounts of such events. James’s own experiences
and those he had recently learned about from his relatives
informed his theory, but he had also studied others who re-