UFO Mystics - Nick Redfern and Greg Bishop

Researchers Nick Redfern and Greg Bishop are researchers who blog their thoughts on ufology and cryptozoology at their website, UFO Mystic. Both have been involved in anomalies research for more than 15 years. Greg recently published the well-received book 'Project Beta' (Amazon US and UK), which investigated how intelligence agencies may have been active players in the mental disintegration of researcher Greg Bennewitz. Nick has published many books on ufological and cryptozoological topics, the most recent being '3 Men Seeking Monsters' (Amazon US and UK), 'Body Snatchers in the Desert' (Amazon US and UK), and 'On the Trail of the Saucer Spies' (Amazon US and UK).

TDG: Thanks for your time guys. Starting with the obvious question - how did each of you get involved in ufology/anomalies research to begin with, and how have your views (on both the phenomenon, and the current state of research) evolved up to this point in time?

Greg Bishop: I have no idea. I started by reading all the UFO/ Fortean books in my local libraries when I was in grade school, then lost interest until I was about 25. At that point, I had a very difficult time with life events and was ridiculously depressed all the time, then I read an article on Wilhelm Reich by Robert Anton Wilson in a now-defunct zine called Phenomena, and my life changed for the better. You might say that UFOs and other strange stuff saved my life.

For many years, I was content to absorb the information and believe that aliens from other planets were visiting us, abducting people, and hiding saucers in remote underground bases. After a few years, I realized that there is little or no objective and/or reliable evidence to support these rumors, and continually turning the scenarios over in your mind while obsessing on the sometimes mutually exclusive "facts" can drive you nuts. I also noticed that people who believe completely in one version of UFO events would defend that narrative to the exclusion of other, just as unbelievable stories. It was like living in an insane asylum without walls.

In 1991, a couple of friends and I started a magazine called The Excluded Middle. My reasons for doing this were many, but it was mainly because it allowed me access to meet and interview almost anyone who interested me. You might be surprised to know that the single greatest influence on my thinking at that time was Dr. Dean Radin, the parapsychologist who I was privileged to meet and interview in 1996. After a five hour interview in which he carefully explained his view of reality, causality, and the illusion of time until he was sure I "got it," I felt that his view at least partially explained some aspects of the UFO enigma.

Although we didn’t talk about UFOs as such, he explained that his research seemed to show that time is only a construct invented by humans to make sense of events that were of concern to our physical bodies in a four dimensional reality. Since words are also an artificial construct, it is difficult to use them to describe something that we cannot perceive with our senses and enculturated reality. I took this advice a step further to start to understand UFO events as something that seems to "pop in" to our perception occasionally from this non-time/non-space area, where everything and every-time exists, has always existed, and will always exist. It’s just so far from our "common sense" understanding of things, that it seems like magic (or the paranormal.)

Nick Redfern: My interest in UFOs began in 1978, when I was thirteen. At that time, I hadn't really given the subject any more thought than the average person does - or does not. Like most 13 year old boys in suburban, central England in the late 1970s, I was more interested in punk rock/new wave music, girls, and football (soccer that is - not the rugby-with-pads "football"!). Actually, not a lot has changed in the intervening 29 years (laughing)!

But it was in '78 that my father told me a story that related to his time working in the British Royal Air Force on radar. He recalled how, in September 1952, on several occasions, unidentified objects were tracked on the radar scopes over the North Sea performing all sorts of incredible movements and speeds. Aircraft were scrambled to intercept these things, but the pilots couldn't get close enough to make an identification, and were finally forced to return to base. Everyone involved was sworn to secrecy and told not to speak outside of official channels about what had occurred. Well, when my dad related this to me, it really got me thinking about the subject, and I then began reading books, subscribing to some of the small magazines and newsletters that existed back in the UK then. From there I began doing some research on local cases, hooked up with UFO groups, began doing a bit of writing and it all took off from there.

My views have definitely changed over the years. Like many researchers of UFOs, I suspect, I came into the subject believing that the evidence suggested that ET was among us and that Government agencies were keeping this data from us. However, over time my views began to change and I came to realize that the ET theory wasn't strange enough to explain the facts. There were, for example, supernatural and occult tie-ins with many cases.

In other reports, UFOs would be seen in conjunction with other weird phenomena - Bigfoot encounters, paranormal encounters, synchronicities, etc. Today, I'm more of a belief (a word I hate to use, but it will suffice) that much of the collective weirdness that we see on this planet is inter-connected. I see that there is a genuine mystery and intelligence behind the UFO puzzle; however, I see it from more of a Keel/Vallee angle; with a phenomenon that camouflages its own origins; changes its appearance to suit the cultural expectations and beliefs of the people of the age it appears in; and is interested in 2 central issues as it relates to us: deception and manipulation.

I see nothing positive about the UFO presence, and suspect that whatever it is, it has no good intentions at all. I'm more in line with Charles Fort's "We Are Property" angle.

As far as the current state of research is concerned, I see good and bad. There are the old guard, who want to keep ufology where it was in the 50s - the "nuts and bolts"/Keyhoe type stuff. Fair enough if that makes them feel comfortable and safe. But comfortable and safe are not what ufology should be about. For example, I could not care less to hear another story about how someone thinks they were taken on board a UFO and have ova or sperm removed. Okay, it's very distressing to the person and they have my sympathy for the way in which it may have emotionally affected them; but having 10 or 10,000 such reports still does not resolve what is at the heart of the abduction issue, and why things are occurring. And it never will.

However, I'm far more interested when someone - such as Rick Strassman - says that DMT can actually be directly linked to abduction style experiences and may allow us to interact with the intelligence behind the phenomenon.

Why? Because that suggests a tangible doorway to the actual answers we seek, rather than just more and more identical testimony. So, I think there needs to be less conventional thinking of the line that: "It's all alien and the government is hiding the evidence in a secret hangar." And, instead, more thinking that delves into issues such as quantum physics, the works of Crowley and Parsons that (pun intended) can clearly open some doors on the UFO subject; as well as altered state research, ritual magic, and more - all of which are inter-linked with UFOs in my view.

Of course, the old-timers utterly cringe at such ideas - because it loosens the moorings on their old-time ufological safety-nets. Too bad for them. Ufology will never progress by standing still or going backwards.

TDG: Once we move into considering the phenomenon in terms of altered states though, the obvious question arises: is this all in people's head? DMT entities or Crowley's Lam may be fascinating in themselves, but how do we approach the topic in a scientific way?

Nick Redfern: As I see it, that is (and always has been) the biggest problem: namely trying to use scientific disciplines to resolve something that doesn't seem to adhere to conventional science, as we understand it. My personal view is that the reality behind the UFO phenomenon is somewhat Tulpa-based. In the sense that it appears in a fashion that is acceptable and "believable" to the culture and society of the period in which it manifests - such as demons and gods to the people of ancient times; or fairies and goblins in the Middle Ages of England; or long-blonde-haired contactee-style aliens in the 50s; and the emotionless, black-eyed Grays of today.

But I also believe that although we create the image Tulpa style, that there is a core intelligence behind the phenomenon also, that it is molded in its appearance according to our beliefs. I also believe that this suits the intelligence to allow its appearance to be molded, because I consider it to be deceptive in nature. But the biggest problem is as you rightly ask: how do we judge this scientifically?

I don't believe - currently, at least - that it is remotely possible to scientifically determine the validity of the Tulpa angle, or DMT-driven, manifested pixies. So that is why I tend to look for the answers in less rigid, conformity-driven areas. If DMT works, or invoking these things according to archaic rites works, then to me that is as valid as anything undertaken in a lab. However, I think many UFO researchers steer clear of such controversial areas, because they are fearful of it destroying their reputations with their peers. Fortunately, reputations mean little to me. Data, evidence, and a drive to find the truth - and to hell with whether people think I'm crazy or not - are all that matters.

But from there, we need to delve more into why precisely DMT and such rites and rituals work. So, ironically, rigid science may be the last place we will find the answers. Doubtless there will be some who will now consider me a witch or a warlock for digging into such areas! But what the heck: sixty years of looking for answers in a purely scientific realm has got us absolutely nowhere in terms of definitive answers.

Greg Bishop: Everything is in people’s heads. Although this statement seems like an exercise in ontology, I believe it to be ultimately true. Everything "outside" our consciousness has to come through our senses and our predispositions as to what should be expected. This is due to our ancient need for self-preservation, and it has worked very well for millennia. The way I choose to look at it is that most things happening outside our heads are pretty robust - if we put our hands in a fire, they will get burned, or if we run an experiment hundreds of times, we should get the same basic results.

The problem with UFOs is that you can’t run any experiments. The sightings and encounters are the "experiments," and while we see patterns and may be able to predict what will transpire the next time someone sees an unidentified light in the night sky, the control of where and when rests with the phenomenon itself. This places UFOs outside of the current methods of science, so maybe it’s the methods of science that need to change to adapt to the phenomenon. See the journals or website of the Society for Scientific Exploration for more on how science may be evolving to meet the paranormal on more equitable terms.

Another aspect of this problem is the worship of science as the ultimate arbiter of what we accept as reality. Science is a great and powerful tool. It has propelled us to an unheard-of level of sophistication in just a couple of centuries, and to a place I couldn’t have dreamed of when I was a kid, in only a couple of decades. How did people ever get by before science came to save us? When we talk about UFOs and other weirdness, the answer is evident. People looked within to use their subconscious tools, and got similar and repeatable results.

In a study of which I am sure many reading this are aware, Dr. Rick Strassman administered DMT to a group of test subjects who experienced episodes which are almost exactly like those described by UFO abductees. While all did not have these experiences, a significant portion did, and not all of them were aware of the available literature on abductions. Does this not meet at least one of the criteria for scientific proof? The results were repeatable and basically offered a UFO encounter on demand. The problem is that our society takes a dim view of "altered states," especially those that are induced by drugs - like those that were self-administered by Crowley - and millions of others since the 1960s. This has to stop if we are to advance our understanding of existence and the non-human intelligences that inhabit areas that we can’t get to with our physical senses.

It might be surprising to those who have read Project Beta that I hold these beliefs, but I think that there is a reality to the UFO enigma. Thousands of witnesses can’t all be deluded or lying. Our minds are sense organs just like our eyes, ears, noses, and skin.

TDG: Sceptics will say though that these are all just hallucinations, and the commonalities are due to similarities in brain chemistry and/or influenced by culture. Scientists such as Michael Persinger have put forth theories to do with stimulation of the temporal lobe which allegedly explain all the aspects of entity experience. Martin Kottmeyer has done research into the sci-fi precursors to abduction experiences and their similarity. What makes you think that UFO/entity contact experiences are more than just hallucinations? Is this not just another type of UFO belief system?

Nick Redfern: I think that the important question relates not to whether these events are due to hallucination or not, but to the actual nature of what a hallucinatory experience may represent. The possibility that hallucination can actually be externalized and given a semblance of reality (perhaps in a Tulpa-like form) is something I do not dismiss, and have a lot of time for. And, with DMT research, some critics have said that the results of such studies are merely internal experiences on the part of the participants. But I don't see it as being that simple; perhaps it acts as a key (in simplistic terms) that opens the door to another realm or realms. And what if those realms straddle both physical reality and the world of imagination and can skillfully interact in both?

Perhaps this is why the UFO phenomenon changes so often (from Flying Saucers to Flying Triangles; from long haired Contactee-style aliens to Black-Eyed dwarfs). Not because it's "all in the mind" in a skeptical sense. But that perhaps our imagination and perception actually influence how the phenomenon appears to us over time. So, ironically, hallucinatory experiences may be an integral part of the mystery - but not in a dismissive way. Rather, in a way that allows us to actually "meet the phenomenon", so to speak, but in an altered state - which may very well be the most successful way of doing so.

Greg Bishop: It depends on what you consider as "reality." The fact that so many people have had the same experience is an issue in itself. Also interesting is that many of them (according to abduction researchers) have had identical experiences that include details which have not been published. Personally, I don't agree with researchers lumping every experience into the "E.T.s are coming from other planets to steal our DNA" scenario. It seems like a plain example of anthropomorphic chauvinism.

Researchers like Persinger and commentators like Kottmeyer add valuable facts and theories to the database, but I believe that they are mistaken if they lump everything concerning extra-human contact into the "nothing but" category. Kottmeyer suggests that we take cultural influence into account concerning the recollection of the experience (specifically the Hill abduction case.) I don't think he was suggesting that all abductions are the product of hallucinations based on science fiction.

Everything we experience is an "hallucination." Our view of the world and reality is due to brain chemistry and structure and is influenced by culture. As I alluded to in another response, our reality is constructed out of things that seem to be true most of the time. If something goes "wrong" with the brain, and someone experiences things that most of the population does not, they are "hallucinating."

All of our waking moments, the brain is taking sensory input and furiously trying to stuff it into "boxes" that conform to our expectations. Most of the time, this works fine. During the altered state of a UFO experience or contact, not so well. Granted, there are plenty of people who go 'round the bend and relate episodes that have little similarity to the majority of the contact database. It is difficult to get much valuable information from these experiences. Those with a "message for the world" tend to turn me off, since it is likely that the person's ego is getting in the way of any core experience, and influencing their conscious recollections.

If we were able to be in the room when an abduction takes place, I don't know if we'd see aliens walking through the wall, or the person simply twitching around on the bed. In either case, I believe that there is occasionally something important going on here involving interaction with non-human consciousness, and that this has been going on for millennia. As Nick said, DMT and ritual magick may be keys to opening up this realm, which exists and has always been there. The tools are available.

TDG: After the early years of ‘nuts and bolts’ theories, followed by Keel and Vallee’s ultraterrestrials/Magonia theories, and then the abduction period of the 1980s, the past decade has seen somewhat of a change of focus in ufology, with books by both of you illuminating the role that intelligence agencies and disinformation have played in the field (Nick with On the Trail of the Saucer Spies, Greg with Project Beta), not to mention Richard Dolan's UFOs and the National Security State. When you consider these ongoing programs of disinformation, and meld it with the amount of cranks, frauds and conmen that have littered the history of ufology, is there any respectability/solid cases left with which to work?

Greg Bishop: There are plenty. The results depend on the researcher. Those with a predisposed idea about what they will find, especially those caught in the "aliens from other planets" dogma, will only find what they expect, and will continue to be stonewalled by both the phenomenon itself, and those in positions of power (this includes government agents) who show and tell them just what they want to see and hear. Most researchers and cultists want to find that the government is hiding evidence of extraterrestrial visitors. I think that they are hiding evidence of their ignorance. Sure, some portions of and persons in the government know a lot more than we do, but I think that they know a lot more about the results of extra-human contact - not the why, the how, or the where.

By dangling the promise of "real proof" in front of the gullible, they use the UFO subject to direct our attention away from the core phenomenon and towards evidence that we are more advanced scientifically and technologically than most people realize. This is a way to concentrate and centralize power. In a minority of cases this may be a legitimate enterprise (national security, prevention of wars, etc.) Meanwhile, UFO researchers and the public are trapped into looking at the pointing finger rather than what it might be pointing to. This is what the intelligence people have been working on for decades, and it has been very successful.

In order to escape this trap, interested parties need to take a broad and patient view of the information coming from "inside sources," believing nothing, but retaining everything. This can be difficult, but the payoff may be the realization that these counter-intel people ultimately have little power over us and our perceptions, and that we may be able to find some answers on our own. As someone once said, (I’m paraphrasing here) - the things that are available as open source information are far more revealing than the classified stuff. The goal is not the journey, the journey is the goal.

Nick Redfern: I think there are a lot of good cases that still defy explanation and that still point to the presence in our midst of "something else." But, as above, it's not what it appears to be. The ET motif is convenient to it, for its purposes in our world today. One hundred years from now it may be manifesting as something else, but still playing its games of manipulation. There are many high-quality reports in some of the early FBI, USAF, and UK Air Ministry files from credible observers. However, I firmly believe based on my research that the Government - via disinformation - has actively, and somewhat ironically, actually subtly promoted the ET angle via "leaked" documents, whistleblowers, etc., because that theory is seen as less disturbing than the idea that there is a presence among us that utterly defies explanation and that seems to inhabit a world where reality, magick, rite and ritual, Tulpa-style activity, perception, cultural belief, and drug induced "hallucination" all seem to play a key and integral role.

So, for me, that's the important thing: that there are good cases out there - many, I think, in fact - but they aren't what they appear to be. And sifting through the lies and disinformation to get to the core of the mystery is tough. And those in the know want us kept as far away from the real picture as possible; and instead, they want us in the safe realms of either it's ET or it's all nonsense.

TDG: Nick, you ruffled some feathers in ufology with your book Bodysnatchers in the Desert, in which you suggested that the Roswell incident had no 'extraterrestrial' underpinnings, but was in fact tied to biological tests on human subjects and experimental aircraft design. While I found your arguments convincing, at the end of the book when I looked back over the main thesis - that deformed Japanese POWs were used in tests on prototype aircraft suspended from balloons - it just seemed a bit too 'out there'. In the intervening years since publication, have your conclusions or interpretations of the evidence changed at all?

Nick Redfern: Actually - and very interestingly - many people have commented on the issue of "deformed Japanese POWs were used in tests on prototype aircraft suspended from balloons." In reality, none of my sources said that. What they said was that between May and August 1947 there were reportedly 7 or 8 (and maybe more) controversial high-altitude experiments undertaken in the New Mexico desert in which POWs and handicapped people were used in high-altitude exposure flights and other experiments, and were simply loaded into gondolas attached to these balloons.

However, the flight that involved a hybrid type device - namely a huge balloon array with a flying wing type prototype aircraft fixed rigidly below it that could be detached at a certain altitude - had nothing to do with deformed people at all. Indeed, how could deformed or handicapped people fly such a flying wing after it had become detached?

If you look at pages 110 to 112 of my Body Snatchers in the Desert book, it's made clear that on the key flight/crash that led to the Roswell legend, that this device required a trained crew - brought from Japan (where the original device that led to the US version was created) and given one of those "offers you can't refuse." They were fully trained Japanese pilots/POWs and not in any way handicapped or deformed; so there were several things, apparently, at work in that period (again, see pages 110 to 112 for confirmation concerning the trained-pilot angle).

Do I still accept that scenario? Yes I do. For a number of reasons. Since publication of the book, various people have come forward with accounts that corroborate the "human experiment" angle. As one of many examples, Keith Basterfield, a well-respected Australian researcher confirmed on the Project 1947 List - and to me personally - that he was told (by a guy whose father worked in British Intelligence) of a scenario practically identical to that in Body Snatchers - but that Keith had received this account some 6 months before Body Snatchers was published.

I have spoken directly at length with Keith's source and consider him very credible. The only difference was that Keith's source wasn't aware of the specific Japanese angle, but everything else was there: huge balloon arrays, high-altitude tests, the use of handicapped people, and accidents in the desert, etc. Also, several old-timers who read the book told me that there was a connection with the bodies found at Roswell and activities at Fort Stanton, New Mexico in the late 40s.

According to the official website of Fort Stanton: "...Fort Stanton later became America's first federal tuberculosis hospital and first German internment camp during World War II. The Fort also served as home to Japanese interned during the war, persons with mental and developmental disabilities, and State prisoners recovering from substance abuse." Now take a look at this map and see how close Fort Stanton was to Roswell and where the debris/wreckage was found. Fort Stanton is denoted on the map by a red star.

Following on from the Fort Stanton leads, I have uncovered intriguing files (officially declassified to me) confirming FBI, US Air Force and Intel community interest in a child who died in 1949 in Lincoln County (where the Roswell debris was found) and who - it was suspected - may have been affected by deliberate bio-warfare. I have all the files on this and they show that all the data on the death of this little boy was shared with the directors of the CIA, Office of Naval Intelligence, FBI, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

So, there was definitely weird bio-related activity afoot only a few miles from the site of the "UFO crash." There are many other leads I've been pursuing that lead me to still state with confidence that if the truth of Roswell comes out, it will be shown to be inextricably linked with human experimentation.

So, my conclusion is that the UFO mystery on our world is largely comprised of 2 things: human-created activity that is then hidden by the Intel world behind a "UFO/ET" smokescreen; and an unidentified phenomenon/intelligence that appears extraterrestrial but that, in reality, has unidentified origins and unclear intentions, and seems to inhabit and originate in a strange realm, where ritual magick is far more likely to invoke it than sending radio signals into space ever will.

TDG: Continuing on with Roswell, in terms of the 'evidence', to me it has always seemed somewhat of an indictment of the approach that ufology (in general) takes. We have Brazel, a guy who has previously found debris on his ranch from military tests, finding more debris on his ranch. Surely, this should suggest to any researcher that they are likely dealing with a human - albeit probably top-secret military - solution to the mystery. Sure, the UFO memo, and later testimony of Marcel etc, offers much temptation to a ufologist to speculate on an extraterrestrial origin (and that should certainly be an option to consider, I'm not denying that). But many ufologists seem to want to latch on to that ET evidence, and ignore the simple facts such as Brazel's past experiences in finding debris. Your thoughts?

Nick Redfern: Yes, this is one of the most important factors of all in the Roswell controversy. Namely, that by rancher Brazel's own admission, prior to finding the "Roswell debris" he had found on the ranch-property the remains of 2 prior balloon tests launched by the military. So, what are the chances of a 3rd event occurring - where balloon-like materials were found - on the same location and it not be connected to that same military?

Frankly, I think that the idea that balloon-like materials from outer space could crash at the same place where 2 human-built balloons had previously crashed is absurd and stretching credulity way too far. But so many people so desperately want Roswell to be ET - and that is the problem. Frankly, I hate that "Oh, mommy, please let Roswell be alien" attitude.

Maybe aliens did crash at Roswell; but if they didn't, then the UFO community needs to have the strength to face that fact and move on to other cases. But so many people in the subject don't want to do that, because Roswell is the cornerstone upon which so much of present day UFO lore is based: a cover-up of the ETH, crashed UFOs, dead aliens on ice, "Hangar 18" type tales, Area 51 and claims of "back-engineering" etc. And if Roswell collapses, so does much of the lore. Too bad. Move on.

TDG: Okay, let’s move on then! What are your hopes (realistic or not) for ufology over the next decade?

Greg Bishop: My hope is that researchers will move away from the "nuts and bolts" theories of UFOs. That idea has run its course and hasn't gotten us any closer to the source of the phenomenon. There is good evidence that some in positions of power realized this a long time ago and have been covering up their ignorance with the appearance of omnipotence.

Those interested in UFOs should not confine themselves to the study of furtive gray beings who rape our women and unexplained lights in the sky. Study up on other aspects of the paranormal, like cryptozoology, ghosts, EVP etc. There are definite connections present, no matter how much those in each discipline would like to ignore each other. If you are so inclined, a look into intelligence operations and spycraft wouldn't hurt either.

Our views of how we perceive the world outside of our minds and how the mind interacts with that world will need to be changed if ufology is going to make any significant headway. 19th century science and Aristotelean logic (the methods by which most of ufology operates) sets the observer apart and above that which is being studied. If 20th and 21st century physics has taught us anything, it's that the observer sometimes affects events as much as the observed.

A radical idea: Someone should start a ufological movement that requires its officers and members to have ingested a psychoactive substance or engaged in some other sort of "mind-altering" experience! I believe that this may be an important aspect to "opening the doors" in regards to non-human intelligence. Their mere experience appears to open up paths to understanding that may operate beneath conscious awareness. It might be a new "Invisible College." The problem would be that the society at large would have to change apace with this new view of reality for any findings to have an impact. Stuck in the material world and forced to do things we often don't want to for our survival, most of the population will say "So what?"

Looking further into the future, I hope that ufology goes in a direction that irritates even me by the time I am as old as the old guard is now. It will mean that things are changing, and that is always a good thing.

Nick Redfern: My main hope for the next decade is that ufology will gradually move away from the standard "nuts and bolts" angle that has dominated it for 60 years. It dominated my thinking for a good while until I woke up about 10 years ago. Those who grew up in the Keyhoe era of Flying Saucers are reluctant to move on and embrace the high-strangeness type phenomena, and prefer to remain stuck firmly in the "good old days." It's a comfort zone for some of them; because the "other stuff" is seen as being too weird and unsettling. For them, it has to be ET, it has to be nuts and bolts, it has to be literal aliens abducting people for their DNA. These are the parameters that have been constructed, accepted, carefully nurtured, and promoted by the old guard of ufology, and that get people on seats at the conferences, and sell magazines. But this has got us nowhere in terms of actually understanding the core mystery. So I'm hoping that by 2017 we will have a radically different (and radical!) UFO research community that places as much importance on DMT research, Ritual Magick, and other things I've discussed in this interview, as it does on radar-visual cases and photographic analysis. And now I expect to be burned in effigy by outraged ETHers (laughing)!

Of course, 10 (or even 100) years from now, we could still be asking "What really happened at Roswell?" or "Did aliens kill Captain Mantell?" That would be truly depressing. The past is gone. The early years of ufology are long gone, and there is only so much now that can be learned from what has come before. Let's move forward, and think outside the box (because thinking inside it has got us nowhere in terms of actual answers). Let's see if we can encourage people to realize that much of ufology needs a good, radical overhaul. In short, ufology needs its own V for Vendetta.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Professorpan's picture
Member since:
4 June 2007
Last activity:
3 years 30 weeks

Excellent dialogue, guys.

I've written and lectured a fair bit about the subject. My artice, "Attempted Manipulation of UFO Manifestatons," can be found here:

http://www.charm.net/~profpan/2005/10/at...

The tryptamines are definitely part of the puzzle. I had some very unusual experiences while taking high doses of melatonin (another tryptamine), including a sleep paralysis incident, after which I awoke the following morning with a six-fingered handprint on my chest.

I'm always saddened by the reflexive nuts-and-bolts types who scoff at those investigating sleep paralysis as a way of understanding abductions/encounters. After all, sleep paralysis may be a deeper mystery than can be explained by materialist physiology.

Again, excellent stuff.

johnsaw's picture
Member since:
23 March 2005
Last activity:
42 weeks 4 days

Could UFOs and other weird phenomena be some kind of "reminder" (or "control", in Vallee's terms) mechanism to remind us that science, taken at its driest, or even at what many consider an acceptably "wet" level, though immensely useful, is not always an accurate way of emotionally perceiving everything? When we have feelings for someone, see fantastic scenery, etc., should we replace those feelings with the minutae of the findings of psychology and geology? Or maybe somewhere inbetween? By eliciting emotional reactions, not easily subject to as complete a scientific analysis as we'd like, "the weird" may be doing their job. The somewhat dreamlike quality of some weird phenomena may be, but only in part, an interaction between "them" (some sort of real conciousness behind this) and the parts of our brain that dream, that they may be stimulating, even though they often (usually?) appear in an actual, visible form during encounters. Brain stimulation alone can't often be an explanation, since otherwise we would have more encounters where the same incident was seen differently by each witness, unless it's possible to simulate exactly the same sensory impressions in any of us. There are some cases where each witness in an encounter reports something different, but not many, compared to the encounters where everyone present saw the same thing. I suspect the dreamlike visuals and behavior by "them" are inspired more by their knowledge of our psychology, than the other way around. But some individual "abductions" might be all in the mind, but due to outside brain stimulation, but it may be that, in a sense, the person involved really was taken away, but mentally, by beings who were almost every bit as present as if they had actually done what they were making their target think they were doing--a kind of virtual reality in which these beings were, in a real sense, inside that person's head, and not just due to his imagination.

On the other hand, attempts by "them" to make us feel emotions, seems to be largely limited to feelings of the weird; there's often a lot of awe too, but should awe be mixed with the weird? Is that useful, or could it mean they're trying to get us to believe less in science than we should? Or more? Also, humans place a high value, and justifiably so, on things like friendship, skills, honesty, etc.--I don't see much promotion of these things coming from "the weird".

Could one purpose of weird displays be to stimulate our learning capabilities--"We gotta figure out what THAT was!"--to reach beyond our grasp? That may be so, but why would "they" think enough of us wouldn't or don't engage in that anyway?

Puzzling, in other words.