American Cosmic

by D W Pasulka

  a third time, Eli interprets it as a calling from God and tel s

  Samuel to listen to it and to respond. Samuel’s experience

  then becomes an important religious experience that confers

  upon him the status of a prophet.

  There is an important, although not absolute, distinc-

  tion between the event and the subsequent interpretation

  of it, and how the event becomes embedded within a tradi-

  tion of meaning. Ann Taves has proposed a building- block

  approach to understanding how events become religious

  events. A variety of disciplines that include cognitive science,

  sociology, and history can help explain the processes by

  which people identify their experiences as religious, or as

  being related to UFOs. These reveal that human percep-

  tion is informed by a wide range of things, including what

  82 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  we think we know or should see. From childhood, we are

  trained on how to see, as well as on what not to see. One ex-

  ample in the book The Invisible Goril a and Other Ways Our

  Intuitions Deceive Us il ustrates this point quite humorously.

  The authors, Christopher Chabris of Harvard University and

  Daniel Simons from the University of Illinois at Urbana-

  Champaign, showed a group of subjects two videos of people

  passing a basketbal . They were asked to count the number

  of passes. In one of the videos a person wearing a goril a

  suit makes an entrance and walks slowly through the bas-

  ketball players as they pass the ball to one another. Chabris

  and Simons found that half of the subjects did not notice

  that an enormous goril a had passed through the scene. How

  could this be? How could someone miss seeing a huge goril a

  walk slowly through a basketball game, or anywhere for that

  matter?

  The cognitive science of media suggests findings that are

  even more disturbing than missing a goril a in one’s midst

  (although if the goril a were real, maybe not). What one sees

  on a screen, if it conforms to certain criteria, is interpreted

  as real, even if it is not real and even if one knows it is not

  real. Screen images embed themselves in one’s brain and

  memories; they can determine how one views one’s past and

  even determine one’s future behaviors. This research has dis-

  turbing implications with respect to belief. What we see, we

  tend to believe. The conventional means by which truth is

  established— that is, by evidence, credible sources, and his-

  torical y accurate corroborating testimony— is wiped off

  the plate with one rich, visual y stimulating and emotional

  image. The creation of a belief system is now much easier to

  accomplish than it was two thousand years ago, when people

  didn’t possess smartphones and were not exposed to the

  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 | 8 3

  ubiquitous screens of a culture that now teach us how to see,

  what to see, and how to interpret what we see.

  Jacques Vallee once told me emphatical y, “Trust no one.

  Do not even trust what you see.” Some years earlier, the well-

  known scholar Donna Haraway had asked me to think about

  what was happening in my brain and my mind when I looked

  at images on film, or in the minds of people who witnessed

  apparitions of the Virgin Mary. “What is happening in your

  mind, or their minds, during these events?” I hadn’t a clue

  then. But when Jacques told me not to trust what I was seeing,

  I knew what he meant. From my own research, I knew that

  digital media and media of all forms are manipulated to pro-

  duce a specific response that is desired by the producers for

  purely economic reasons. I was beginning to research the

  ways in which virtual and digital media were being used for

  political purposes under the auspices of information opera-

  tions: how the military employed media, social media, and

  all types of electronic media for purposes of national secu-

  rity. All of these media have played major roles in the cre-

  ation of global belief in UFOs and extraterrestrials. It is in

  the world of media that the myth is created, is sustained, and

  proliferates.

  ✦

  3

  IN THE FIELD

  The War Is Virtual, the Blood Is Real

  Believe no one. Believe nothing.

  — Jac q u e s Va l l e e , personal communication

  Space might be the final frontier, but it’s made in a

  Hol ywood basement.

  — R e d H o t C h i l i P e p p e r s

  “TALK TO ME FACE- TO- FACE, AND I will show you what

  I think of debunkers!”

  The threat, posted on social media, devolved from that

  point into a series of very specific descriptions of bodily and

  emotional harm. It was directed, by name, to Scott Browne.

  Scott reacted with bemusement, as he had seen it all be-

  fore. The crime? Scott had demonstrated that a photograph

  that a poster had claimed was a real UFO was actual y a

  Photoshopped object.

  “Debunker” is not the worst name one can be called

  in the field of ufology, but it is pretty close. It describes a

  person who doesn’t believe in the phenomenon and ac-

  tively discredits people who claim to have witnessed some-

  thing anomalous in the air or in space, including some

  trained observers, like pilots. Scott Browne has been called

  a debunker— and far worse than that. In fact, the names

  I N T H E F I E L D | 85

  he has been called are not fit to be printed. Yet they have

  been posted on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube, and in

  internet forums. Scott Browne is a hated man, for all the

  wrong reasons.

  Scott is a debunker and a true believer. He is a debunker

  because he is a true believer. He is a talented graphic designer

  and professional videographer, which means that he has the

  skil s to determine whether the objects in photographs and

  videos are truly anomalous, computer- generated imagery

  (CGI), or lens flares. These skil s happen to be the skil s of

  the new soldier, because today, wars are waged on several

  fronts and virtual reality — a misleading term— bleeds into

  the world of skin and bones. Physical and virtual worlds in-

  tersect and permeate one another. Scott Browne has seen

  the rise of the virtual UFO— and its profitable hoaxes— and

  he has intuited the disturbing consequences of its develop-

  ment: for all intents and purposes, the fabricated UFO is the

  real UFO. Yet Scott resists and fights its existence because he

  believes there is a real thing. He is a true believer. He and the

  trained observers in his international group, In the Field, be-

  lieve they have photographed the real thing. Significantly, he

  has had anomalous experiences suggestive of UFO activity

  from the time he was a toddler.

  As a historian of religion, I know a vocation when

  I see one. A vocation, from the Latin vocatio, means “to be

  called” to perform a special task, usual y a sacred mission. It

  has
traditional y been associated with religious orders, like

  the priesthood or the call to become a nun or a monk; it is

  also associated with the sense of being called to perform a

  task or to become an artisan or craftsperson. Scott has been

  gifted, or cursed, with a vocation, and like many vocations,

  it is uncompensated— at least monetarily. The rewards of a

  8 6 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  vocation are typical y spiritual, which may be hard to re-

  member when one is on the front line of ufology, attempting

  to bring common sense into an arena that is a true carnival

  of hoaxes, consumerism, and misinformation. The weariness

  of the fight, the threats, and the slights to his name and rep-

  utation have made Scott want to quit. In the short two years

  that I have known him, he has wanted to walk away from

  this work innumerable times. But he keeps coming back. He

  cannot stop his work, his sacred task. It won’t let him go.

  Scott is the creator and moderator of In the Field,

  an international study group of trained videographers,

  photographers, and graphic designers who also study the

  UFO phenomenon on a regular basis. The group is located

  on Facebook. Its members use their skil s to try to iden-

  tify anomalous aerial objects. By identifying CGI and the

  common lens flares that are often mistaken for UFOs, they

  also provide a public service. They rule these things out in

  the effort to preserve an accurate record of truly anomalous

  objects. They identify hoaxes and “out” hoaxer websites. If

  any of the members are found to have hoaxed a photograph

  or video, they are removed from the group. The members are

  bound by a code of ethics and a methodology. If they deviate

  just one bit from these codes, Scott deletes them. Several

  times I’ve witnessed hoaxers removed from the group and

  they always react with a whirlwind of vitriol and bitterness.

  I learned of Scott’s group from friends who told me that

  their videos were genuine— that is, they were recordings of

  authentical y anomalous phenomena. I wanted to join these

  skilled researchers to see what they had filmed. I wasn’t a

  videographer or a photographer, so I wasn’t sure that Scott

  would let me in, but one day I approached him on Facebook

  and asked if I could join. He asked about my credentials.

  I N T H E F I E L D | 8 7

  I told him that I studied UFO phenomena, and then, on the

  chance that he might respect Jacques Vallee’s work, I told him

  that I was a fan of Jacques and that I worked with him. That

  was credential enough; he immediately let me into the group,

  for which I am grateful. The work being done by its members

  and the issues that get raised demonstrate the processes in-

  volved in the formation of a dogma. The members aren’t

  dogmatists; in fact, they are just the opposite. Each of them is

  trying to stop (or at least slow down) a huge, indiscriminate

  tidal wave: the momentum of media coverage of UFO phe-

  nomena. The movement of the wave begins with a witness

  with a high- tech video camera who documents an anoma-

  lous phenomenon. Then, it gains momentum on the internet

  and social media. It becomes virtual, something dogmatic

  and orthodox— something, it seems, in which everyone

  believes, and something far removed from what it was, orig-

  inal y. This is how media technologies inform UFO belief.

  “What is your position on religion?”

  I am sitting across from Scott at a trendy coffee shop

  in Northampton, Massachusetts. Northampton reminds

  me of my original home in Northern California. The rich

  smell of good coffee permeates the air, and I am enjoying the

  break from the sweltering humidity of the North Carolina

  summer. Scott asks the question careful y. I can tell that he

  doesn’t want to offend me, but he needs to know my answer.

  He wants to know if my mind is closed, if I am dogmatic.

  The question is a fair one, and one that I get often. Because

  I am a professor of religious studies, many people natural y

  assume that I am religious. People in my field study religion,

  of course, but they are all over the map with respect to their

  personal beliefs and practices. Most of the atheists I know are

  also professors of religious studies. That is not me, however.

  8 8 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  “I believe there is a truth, Scott, but I am open about what

  it is. I go to a Catholic Church, but I started out as a born-

  again Christian when I was eleven years old, to the surprise

  of my parents. I believe in practicing those things associated

  with the traditional religions, like honesty, charity, things like

  that,” I answered.

  This answer seemed to satisfy him. I realized that he

  asked about my religion because he wanted to trust me but

  knew he couldn’t if I was clinging to a dogma that wouldn’t

  allow me to open my eyes and see what appeared right in

  front of me. The study of the phenomenon requires an open-

  minded, nondogmatic approach.

  Scott almost apologized. “I seem to have this ethic,

  this . . . UFO ethic,” he said.

  He didn’t know how much I understood, and appreciated,

  that ethic.

  “I formed the group because I had been studying the

  phenomenon, photographing it, taking videos, etc., of discs

  and other aerial objects, and I knew there were a lot of other

  people doing exactly what I was doing, who were from all

  over the world. We would post our videos in forums and

  groups on Facebook and in other places. The problem arose

  because our videos of authentic stuff would get posted side

  by side with videos that were obviously hoaxed. The owners

  of those videos would say things like, ‘This is a UFO from

  the Galactic Federation of Alpha Centauri’ or something like

  that. I was so discouraged, because I was trying to proceed

  to study the phenomenon in a way that was systematic, and,

  wel , none of us were getting anywhere. My question to those

  posters was, ‘How do you know where this is from? Did they

  tell you? What evidence do you have?’

  I N T H E F I E L D | 8 9

  “I talked about this with researchers that I trusted,

  like David Stinnett. They each also worked like I did: they

  went out into the field and captured objects on photos or

  on video that they then scrutinized. These were the people

  I wanted to talk to. I established In the Field basical y so

  I can meet these people, and I stipulated certain criteria for

  membership.

  “The group was formed for people who are actual y

  pursuing and witnessing the phenomena on a regular basis

  with video cameras and a variety of high- tech equipment. It

  is also for serious researchers who are interested in the study

  of what these observers are doing and capturing. There are

  three requirements to join:

  1. You must shoot your own footage/ stil s of anoma-

  lous objects on a regular basis and be able to present
<
br />   them to the group (YouTube or other).

  2. You must be familiar with the basics of the study of

  this phenomenon.

  3. You must keep an open mind with no precon-

  ceived notions about the nature of the phenomenon

  (angels, aliens, demons, galactic federation, etc.).

  I made sure to state that the group is not intended for

  those who wish to fuel the perpetual machinery of hoaxes

  and disinformation that make our work much more dif-

  ficult. We do three things: we observe and study; we

  document and capture; we share. I don’t accept anything

  that is CGI, false info, disinfo. We don’t want anything

  that reeks of a bad sci- fi movie. We encourage common

  sense.”1

  9 0 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  S C O T T ’ S E A R LY E X P E R I E N C E S

  When I asked Scott why he was interested in the phenom-

  enon, he spoke of his childhood. He was careful to say

  that the things that happened to him then may or may

  not be connected to his obsession with UFO phenomena,

  although he has an inkling that they could be. When he

  was barely three years old, he somehow disappeared from

  the family home. His father, a police officer, was frantic

  when he and his wife couldn’t find their son. He imme-

  diately issued a missing persons report, and a massive

  search was mounted for the toddler, involving the police

  department and the whole town. Scott was found, many

  hours later, in a nearby field. When his mother frantically

  scooped him up, he said that he had been talking with

  the cows that lived in the pasture. His mother, writing

  in her diary, said, “Scott gave everyone a scare at 5:30

  this morning when he decided to take a walk on his own.

  I was so worried! We are still not sure how he managed

  to get out of the house but some friends ended up finding

  him down the street coming from the field and he was so

  excited that he talked to the cows even though they were

  horses!”2

  Scott’s brother, who was two years younger, recalled

  experiencing recurring dreams about his older brother

  throughout his childhood. In these dreams, he would see

  Scott on a table, hooked up to machines, surrounded by

  people with big heads who were examining him. Scott also

  had recurring dreams, in one of which he saw a giant praying