The UFO/Paranormal Coup

The line in the sand may likely fall in the middle

These days it's not hard to see it on social media outlets or hear it on podcasts and radio: the need to 'reform' UFOlogy, or the paranormal subject. While it's certainly an admirable idea across the board, and I certainly understand the drive to make it happen, there's one problem: it won't work. And I'm not denigrating anyone who's trying - years ago Jeremy and I tried to force the hand of the UFO community to examine itself while trying to make a totally new UFO field - one not based upon old, tired data but experimental thinking. Needless to say it never gelled, and while we made a modest impact in regard to the Hopkins/Jacobs/Regression Hypnosis problem, proponents of that garbage are still lecturing and appearing as guests on internet/radio programs.

George Hansen, speaking to Jeremy at a conference in New Jersey many years ago now was the first to make the point that we were blissfully unaware of at the time: that trying to reform or enact widespread change in regard to the paranormal isn't going to work, when the very thing you're trying to study exists within a context of anti-structure and marginality. It exists ensconced in the things one wants to change.

By examining the surrounding tenets of paranormal events (as we've been discussing on this blog) we see that the structured, repeatable, stable and routine (and others) are pernicious to the paranormal. We can't pretend we know why the paranormal is so steeped in chaos and change, and encompassed in marginal elements - we can only note that it is. Recognition of these patterns and documenting them is half the battle. Accepting and integrating them is the other.

Efforts at scientific data gathering are always to be encouraged - but scientific rationale of the data collected will see most of that information discarded because it doesn't align with modern day scientific scrutiny. Scientific data gathering doesn't currently allow for questions that would focus upon the anti-structural elements (among others) and I'm sure that there wouldn't be much use for questions or methodologies that immediately marginalize the thing you're trying to study. The entire premise may find itself well off the target it's trying to hit - because there's no sights on the gun.

On-site scientific data collection and analysis is also costly. As mentioned on this blog, the funding just isn't available, because the public at large doesn't support serious inquiry into these topics. In fact, the populace sides against this type of study - evident by the operating budgets of CSICOP vs MUFON, and their subscribers/readers. The interest is there, but the money doesn't follow. When a case involving a ranch that had significant strange activity was discovered - it was privately funded and all scientifically collected data that came from it has never been released to the public.

Michael Huntington in his paper, "A NEW UFOLOGY: A Critical Examination of the Current State of Ufology and Ideas for Reform" states:

"The UFO Culture needs to be less biased towards ETH, less New Age, less Cult-like, less money-oriented, less commercially-oriented, less celebrity oriented, and less biased against skeptical viewpoints and Mainstream Science/Academia. There needs to be better delineation of Ufology from the paranormal realm (Ancient Aliens, Bigfoot, Spiritualism, etc.) that now cross-pollinates and influences the UFO field."

This is a tall order, and one that's impossible for the UFO field to adhere to. First, to remove the cultish, wish-fulfillment, celebrity oriented mess that it is now means that entire structure has to be torn down. And that's not going to happen anytime soon. This in the end is what the public at large wants. Pouring over scientific data isn't fun. It's also not entertaining. It's hard work that requires thought, dedication and critical thinking. I only need point out Project CORE, a 2-year long preliminary study of those people who report paranormal events. CORE was anticipated for well over a year, involved 3 full-time working research scientists, myself and Jeremy Vaeni and over 200 participants - and was complete with a synopsis of results and full commentaries - it was largely ignored. It's initial year in public view after publication garnered page views of a little over 20. 

I believe it was so under viewed because it didn't make wild speculations or conclusions and was labeled as a first step. It also didn't ask questions that were predisposed to get us positive paranormal results (like the F.R.E.E. survey currently does. For instance, we didn't ask things like "Can you describe what group of ETs have you observed?"). The CORE survey questions were specifically formulated in tandem with working scientists to make the questions as balanced as possible, and afterwards those results were cross referenced probably more than most paranormal surveys ever have been. CORE answered the community call for science to get involved in this area - but in the end, the public simply wasn't interested. But even that, in the end, is something learned.

The preliminary look...

CORE is certainly not the first to experience the crickets - this as it turns out is not uncommon. It's part and parcel to how the field(s) work. Scientific or academic work is ignored, and sensational nonsense is elevated for all eyes to see. (Compare Project CORE's visibility to the Roswell Slides, the Haiti UFO Footage or the Linda Howe touted Drone fiasco.) Now while it may sound like I'm bitter about this (well ok, I am to a point) I recognize that this should in no way dissuade me from CORE Phase II. This is simply the way the field responds to this kind of work. It's no one's fault, and you have to expect that going in. Those that actually want to see attempts at scientific / academic work, specifically in UFOlogy are a minority in the grand scheme.

As far as 'less celebrity oriented'? Well, try and speak that to the droves of people who voraciously support UFO celebs. I respect Michael and his drive in this subject very much - but if one is going to call for the removal of celebrity and sensationalism in the UFO field, one should stop supporting that very thing by going to conferences - unless one is reaching for that same brass ring. (Although Mike is a travel writer, and that is ultimately content for him.)

The celebs and their devoted fans are another interesting wrinkle in the subject. Many fans will ardently defend their hero no matter how far afield they fly from their initial trajectory. It's part of the loss of critical thought so often seen in paranormal fields. Celebrities often fill a void for fans: they are the public mouthpiece that validates their own preconceived notions. This provides a shortcut to pseudo-confirmation for those who don't want to do direct study and experimentation of the phenomenon. They put all their marbles in one bag and defend it not always due to being enamored with the celebrity, but because the celebrity represents their beliefs. 

The one and only issue

As Dr, Tyler Kokjohn  wrote in Paratopia Magazine : 

"...the consumers of books, articles and videos play a unique and crucial role as the ultimate evaluators of quality. Your decisions will determine the evidentiary standards and research conduct that will prevail in this field."

Another quote from Huntington's paper reads:

"There needs to be better delineation of Ufology from the paranormal realm (Ancient Aliens, Bigfoot, Spiritualism, etc.) that now cross-pollinates and influences the UFO field." 

This is a good example of the self-defeating nature of 'reform' I mentioned earlier. Many reform proponents want to draw a line between 'paranormal' and 'UFO', when that line is exceedingly blurred by the study of UFOs in the first place. The crossover phenomena is something that I think many see these days. While it's not an end to explain anything, it's a thread that needs to be explored and studied. Even Jacques Vallee (a reclusive UFO  'celebrity') who's studied the phenomenon longer than most of us alive today, has largely dismissed the notion of an isolated UFO study, and has spoken about and studied crossover type phenomena. Segregation and isolation of the UFO subject from other areas of paranormal events would be a mistake, just as much as isolation from the study of consciousness and perception would be, Such things are obviously intertwined with the UFO sighting and encounters with assumed occupants. 

When it comes to collecting trace evidence of a paranormal event - sure, I'm all about sterile. non-contaminating, scientifically based collection and analysis. But this brings us to the question: when it comes to UFOs - how does one separate the strange, bizarre and confounding enigma from say, the top secret military / secret commercial project? The perception twisting alien visitation, from mental aberration? There is currently, no way to effectively establish the line that does need to be drawn. Could it be possible to implement a set of questions relating to anti-structure and marginality - making note of liminal situations, places and people to perhaps give a better picture to the phenomena vs mundane question? It might. But that would require UFOlogy to abandon long standing constructs - which it shows no sign of doing. When I've mentioned some questions that might do the trick to researchers, most often I hear "What's that got to do with anything?"

You're not going to get MUFON to see these surrounding consistencies or formulate cross  pollination questions - they've been putting people into investigator positions based on an open book test for years. If reform is the target, a start a serious test that isn't open book and is administered and graded by tough academic standards would be a good place.

Huntington's reform works for some aspects of the UFO research problem - don't misunderstand me, I value his attempt. But he's far from the first to suggest such a thing, and surely won't be the last. The notion has been going around for decades. And, like all the others who tried (myself included) it just won't happen. At least not in the broad sense desired. 

It's not about reforming UFOlogy (or the paranormal studies) - it's about accepting all the self-negating, and marginal aspects that come with it. It's about expecting hoaxes and recognizing them for what they are - but it's also about accepting that they often come in the same bag as the enigma we want to study (when is the last time you saw a hoaxer interviewed as much as a witness?). We need to see that many of the UFO celebs are people who couldn't get arrested in any other field - and see that in itself as an interesting consistency that needs to be studied. There are many interesting facets that deserve study - but they aren't going to provide a brass ring. My own opinion is that researchers need to stop pursuing an 'end' or resolution of the problem. To do so means you already have an 'end' in mind. Huntington is absolutely right when he says a more neutral stance is needed - but if one were truly neutral, it's likely that one wouldn't be in this to start with. 

In the end, reform talk is good for morale, and even some aspects of practical study - but the phenomena we're all trying to study routinely blurs the boundaries of acceptance, fact, legitimacy and absurdity. Reform must account for that - but many reform parameters are counter to it. It's not that the subject is a losing battle or not worth the effort - it's about re-focusing on what happens and to whom - rather than what we think or believe that it is. Observe, Everything. Reform...you.

Michael Huntington concludes his final paragraph with "Yes, Ufology is at a crossroad in it’s long history."

It's not at a crossroad, it is the crossroad. Crossroads represent a location between worlds. On that, I couldn't agree more. 🔻








Note: Michael Huntington's well-written paper on reform was apparently plagiarized and put up for sale by someone else just as I finished this post. I think the issue has been resolved. Ufology rolls on.

My thanks to Michael for writing the paper in the first place, and as soon as he has it posted publicly I'll link it here. 

There is Indeed, Something About You

Folks have written me asking about the literary Trickster themes and how they play into, or pertain to the phenomenon.

Wikipedia says of literary Tricksters: "In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a Trickster is a character in a story (god, goddess, spirit, man, woman, or anthropomorphisation), which exhibits a great degree of intellect or secret knowledge, and uses it to play tricks or otherwise disobey normal rules and conventional behaviour." Lewis Hyde describes the Trickster as 'boundary crossers'. We on this blog know what that means, and how it fits into the subject here. Tricksters disobey, violate social and natural order. More often than not, the Trickster figure will have loose gender boundaries or form variability that is slippery and indefinable. 

All of this certainly fits the Trickster archetype seen in people with connections to the paranormal. In Native American studies, we see that the clown, or Trickster is considered essential to any contact with the sacred. When sacred medicines like peyote, or the more than 200 known psilocybin mushroom varieties for example are used - the experiences are reported as 'carnival-like' or heavily laden with 'clownish' personalities. Stewardship of the sacred epiphanies are guarded by jesters. The Trickster seems to be holding the key to many of mankind's greatest questions - of course this suspicion may as well be a ruse.

I think it's a safe bet, that like our previous discussions about rituals - these themes in literature developed out of recognizing patterns in unique, often liminal life experiences or changes, and later in consistencies found in anthropological studies.

In the course of writing this blog I have personally seen a rise in the number of synchronous events. It's not unusual for me to have this happen when I'm re-engaged in the subject on some new undertaking. Not only have I wanted to write this blog for years, but I'm also finding that writing  in it flows out of me like nothing I've ever tried to do. It's also a catalyst for birthing new ideas - I'm finding that as I write and ponder, new connections present themselves in unexpected ways.

I'm not sure how many readers will know of the passing of guitar pioneer and virtuoso Allan Holdsworth on April 15th. Holdsworth was a incredibly gifted player whos influence transcended musical genres. Eddie Van Halen idolized Holdsworth, and players like the late blues/rock great Gary Moore and Journey guitarist Neal Schon called Holdsworth one of the most advanced guitar players of his time. 

Hearing the news I wanted to listen to some Holdsworth as I had been prone to do over the years, but found myself searching around for something I'd maybe not heard before. I was surprised to see that he'd played with the UK based band Level 42 in 1991 on the album Guaranteed.  Holdsworth wasn't a replacement for Level 42's guitarist, but had played with the band during some London residency gigs and was tapped to play solos on some of the Guaranteed tracks.

He wasn't a full member of the band, but he played on the record and his photos were included on the album art inserts. Guitarist Jakko Jakszyk was on the cover in the guitar slot. Holdsworth's involvement would be considered extremely liminal, as yet another guitarist would be tapped for the tour in support of the record. The guitarist slot seemed to be in a serious transitional phase.

Odd, I thought. So I search Google for Level 42 to perhaps listen to some of Holdsworth's solos on the tracks. A search returns a song at the top of the list: "Something About You". And even though Holdsworth didn't play on this album or track, I gave the video a click.

...and the Trickster smiled.

As I watched the video, I was struck by the content. The opening shot is a hallway. A liminal area between rooms in a building - where we see a blurry figure clad in a loud suit with a bowler hat and white gloves jovially bouncing around.

The tunnel and train: symbols of liminality

The next shot is the transitional: out of a tunnel, The scene is taking place on a train. A moving liminality, between outside and inside, between departure from one place and arrival to another.

Mark King, bassist extraordinaire and lead singer of Level 42 plays a dual central character (duality) - and the video opens with him asking another passenger for a cigarette (an indulgence of earthly pleasure) - only to be refused. He seems tense. The opening word of the song is sung aloud in the train compartment with the other occupants (other band members).

"How..."

This seems to draw surprise from the others in the compartment. But it's the only word he sings out loud in the measure. How, is indeed the question of all questions.

As the song progresses King examines each of the other passengers - as he looks sardonically at his initial target, the first vignette begins...

An Artist (creative type) argues and fights with his female companion as he hangs abstract works. A mirror is seen pass by the camera view, as the two continue to bicker. Above them both, unseen, is the man in the loud suit, making jester like moves. He is above them, symbolic for a higher point of view, or overseer - a place of greater perception.

As the female is framed with a dismissive smile we see the strange man in the mirror. Mirrors of course have place in a magical significance as'otherworldly' or just out of reach. Note that the female is shaking her head and gives an eye roll at the ridiculousness of rage exhibited by the artist - who is always in close proximity to the man in the loud suit no one seems to actually see.

Trickster in the mirror

I think you already know who the odd figure is. The Trickster. He takes pleasure and dances as the artist rages on in irrational anger, and the scene ends back in the train car - just as we enter yet another tunnel...

At the moment of threshold into the darkness, an unknown force blows papers and messes up hair - the Trickster (now in disguise as, or perhaps even in possession of Mark King) finds mild amusement in the irritation of the others in the car. Native American lore refers to spirits that are said to 'ride on the cold wind, searching for paradise and the Trickster can hear what they're saying'. It certainly seems as if King is hearing something as he narrows his eyes and sights his next target: the Rebel (a marginal, anti-structural personality).

The scene opens on yet another threshold - an arched entry into a circle driveway. The Rebel (a figure of a sort of danger), pulls up in his fast car as he opens the door. As the female steps halfway in but he doesn't let her enter by moving the car. He beckons her in and pulls the same provoking, illogical move. Frustrated, she slams the car door and shouts "Go on!", waving him away. He pulls out, seeming to take pleasure in her anger. He stops halfway out the circle - he looks back as she suddenly smiles, she gets in and they pull away.

Trickster in the threshold

What could be the cause of this irrational behavior that leads to conflict? The proximity to the Trickster, who we see standing in the threshold. As the man gained distance from him, he comes to his senses. The Trickster waves them goodbye, smug with the minor discord he's sown.

As we come back to the train car - King, once again as the Trickster eyes his next target. The man pulls out...musical notations. The Musician (another creative personality).

The quick vignette opens on a large room with an small orchestra exiting their places and music stands. A black and white checkered floor - a spiritual symbol representing duality - not good nor evil. Ancient mystics also used the checkerboard pattern for opening portals of energy. The similarity  or reference to our Trickster's suit is obvious. The musician walks to the female and immediately the conflict begins - the Trickster is watching again from above, not on the floor but not on the ceiling -  a balcony area. The liminal location providing the best vantage point. He laughs as the woman bolts away in anger

As the couple leave the proximity from the Trickster behind, their contention melts away - nearly as they exit the threshold. The Trickster, seeing the two reconcile - is not amused. He realizes he can be restrained or confined, or that his influence is limited. Back on the train the Trickster as Mark has an outburst, and is restrained to his seat by the other passengers as the operative word pours from his mouth:

"...confusion."

Confusion is a central aspect to Trickster theory.

By this point as I'm watching this video unfold, my mouth is gaping at how this went from Holdsworth's death to a complete Trickster bath in two easy steps.

The Trickster laughs bathed in bright white light. He's right in your face.

We come out of the tunnel yet again, this time into light. In one of the best vocals of the 1980's Mark sings the chorus. The Trickster Mark smiles as if he's still got the game well in hand.

And he does of course.

We flash to the rebel and his lady, standing in a rape field (connected with crop circle formations - a phenomenon rich with Trickster-like aspects - you can almost picture one in the background behind the couple) at night, illuminated by the headlights of his flashy sportscar.

Trickster taking 'stage'

The Trickster takes the center stage...and one should know by now what's coming.

As he approaches the car in somewhat of a rage, in a perfect representation of contact with the anomalous - the car goes dead. The Trickster flips his walking stick with a smile.

As the Artist and his lady ascend the stairs (note: between floors) of the studio or gallery, they are surprised by a gust of air out of nowhere and a shocked and scared look comes over them. At the same time the musician ascends another staircase in what seems to be a lighthouse (classically haunted structures, that features heavily with liminality/anti-structure) and simultaneously the couples are thrown into a high strangeness, fear inducing manifestation of some kind. We don't really see what they see - we see the Trickster figure in moments of anger - but if you think about it, we don't see the couples and the Trickster in the same frame. The Trickster enraged and present in front of all 3 personalities, screams "Nooooooooooo!".

Encounter at the field

Did the couples see a ghost, a UFO, or a strange angry man in a loud suit? We are left to guess. I find it compelling that the couple at the field are seen in the car with bright light illuminating them from above/front (UFO),

Back on the train, Trickster Mark lets out what looks like a maniacal laugh of triumph. As the train slows we arrive at the destination. Disembark. The Trickster in both forms (Mark King and the loud suit man) walks by us as we pass the female by - and realize that she is the same woman who's seen with all 3 personality types featured. Fade to black.

It's highly compelling that the couples encountered the strange manifestations of Trickster phenomena in perfect settings: the rape field at night, a rural area often associated with paranormal encounters with UFOs (and the reaction of the car going dead is a common one in such events). In the other two instances, on stairs or stairwells - a liminal place between floors. As we know from a past George Hansen interview, a place where more paranormal or ghost phenomenon is reported - or - that in some cases random number generators have shown odd readings indicating that something is off, or different about certain stairwells that have reports of ghost phenomena.

So, what to make of this? I'm struck by the amount of levels of chance and coincidence that have to occur for me to see this video, when all I was looking for was some music from a recently passed virtuoso. I'll point out here that the genesis of the series of events leading to the Trickster heavy visuals was a reaction to hearing of a death.

This video is also not just a typical Trickster story. While in literature and folk tales the Trickster does have powers of one sort or another, this video seems to connect to what we know about the Trickster and the paranormal - that paranormal events are in tandem with discord and conflict.

Blurring distinction

Note that the Trickster character in the video wears lipstick and eye makeup, and has a sort of androgynous quality even as the male sex seems to be dominant here. As we know, the Trickster is a shape-shifter, and blurs the distinction of male/female.

The video Trickster also resembles the main character in "The Entertainer" a film that stars Laurence Olivier as a failing third-rate music-hall stage performer who tries to keep his career going even as the music-hall tradition fades into history and his personal life falls apart. It's a film where Olivier's character is in a stage of chaos, discord, and over the top liminality. Was it deliberate to make the Level 42 character resemble the tragic Entertainer?  We may never know. 

I've written Mark King and asked him about the making of the video, and am currently seeking out director Stuart Orme to ask the same questions. Will I hear back from either? I don't know. This one may leave us wondering. 

Olivier's "The Entertainer"

But I cannot deny the weird set of events that led me to this video from a 1980's video that I probably flipped by hundreds of times (I was more a heavy metal guy than UK pop) on MTV. And yet here I am, writing a lengthy post (sorry) about the Trickster and a music video. I asked Seriah Askath of 'Where Did the Road Go' in a late night discussion - "am I really going to write a article on a Level 42 video??" thinking how absurd it seemed, but that the overwhelming thematic and synchronicity made it impossible for me to ignore. 

I'm beyond sure this is far from the only media that has a strange Trickster figure force. But I'm lead to wonder how much of the production examined here was deliberate - and how much was pure creative consciousness-flow from the writer/director? Did odd things happen on the set? During production? 

I'd so love to know more. But like many other aspects of this stuff it may remain a mystery. Either way, I hope readers find this interesting (as I wondered myself how many would) and worthy of reflection on the Trickster archetype in media. 🔻

My thanks to Seriah Askath for his guidance on the significance of mirrors in occultism.

Between the Lies: The Hoax and the Paranormal

Hoaxes run consistently through every paranormal interest. As technology advances, some of the fakes become increasingly complex, while others baffle as to how anyone could take them seriously in the first place.

It's often thought that these hoaxes are done for monetary gain. But when you look at the small sample of the population truly interested enough to get enough involved with any piece of 'evidence', you find that there's no real financial windfall to be had. For around 27 years I contributed to UFO research by way of visual data examination (as digital imaging has been my full-time profession my entire career). Over that time I probably looked at thousands of submitted photos and videos, and found very few to be compelling enough to remain 'unknown'. Just by virtue of being the guy who for years got visual data sent to him, I've found a lot of hoaxes and have spoken first-hand with many perpetrators of them. 

There is no key.

The interaction between myself and them was not always (in the end) terse and laden with conflict. More often than you'd think, I found people more than pleased to be released from the controversy of presenting their 'proof' to the public as legitimate. You would of course get the standard hoaxer who would curse at you and cease all communication with "I don't care what you think!" But I recall a significant amount of fakers that when caught replied with "I don't know what to say. I'm sorry to have wasted your time."

These people you could actually talk to and try to get in their heads a little about motivation. More often than you'd imagine the answer was for example, "I don't have a good reason other than I felt compelled to do it one day."  

I find it highly interesting that many hoaxers say they have no excuse for their trickery other than they 'felt compelled' to do it. Just as suddenly as they entered the field(s), these hoaxers left the momentary marginal spotlight and did not return to the UFO or paranormal fields again. It's been my experience that there are few aptly titled serial hoaxers in the UFO field, and most of the hoaxes are from one-off random people.

The 'feeling of compulsion' was noted across many fakers over years, who couldn't possibly know each other. This has also been noted in the crop circle controversy - people felt compelled to go make a crop formation, and sometimes in the process of doing just that, would witness light phenomena around them in the field.

The perfect place to hide: within the lie. Who would believe a hoaxer saying he saw phenomena as he was faking? It's between a lie, and the truth.

The internet has greatly exacerbated the hoax issue, giving world exposure from the hoaxer to the digital artist simply putting out composite video for his portfolio (never meaning for it to be taken seriously in the first place)

But let's look at what effect hoaxes have on people in the field: the discovery of a hoax, and the aftermath of the presentation that the data is demonstrably fake.

The Billy Meier case is a wonderful example, rich with fakery and trickster thematics. Anyone who's known me over the years remembers my close to 2 year involvement in demonstrating what kind of hokum this case is. The operative question is - should I have gone on that long with it?

Of course not.

(Note: while I write this blog now, in many instances I write from experience - I'm not ashamed to admit that I was as embroiled in these trickster effects as anyone in the past - until I realized that this part and parcel to the phenomena. In other words, once you know what to look out for - you can avoid certain obstacles, and almost predict timelines of action and outcomes.)

I found myself quickly at odds with Meier case believers - even long before my public examples of deception within the case. I gave a presentation in the late 90's to a conference in Washington D.C. and during the lecture mentioned that until we 'shelf things like the Billy Meier case, not much is going to be taken seriously by the public at large, much less anyone working in any branch of science'. 

After the lecture, I had a contentious encounter in the hotel with a gentleman who held a PhD in physics. 

"The only part of your presentation I take issue with is your statement about the Billy Meier case. I've done a lot of looking into that and I'd say you're completely wrong there." he said with a furrowed brow. 

"Well I've spent a lot of time on it too. And if you think those photos and films represent anything other than models and simple forced perspective you're dead wrong."  I replied. 

One of our mutual friends said something like "Bob has a doctorate in physics he's a..." I interrupted to say it was nice to meet him (as I shook his hand), but it didn't change my statement of the case or the evidence. I also went a step further "The difference between your stance and mine on this case is I can conclusively demonstrate and prove mine." (Knowing full well that he couldn't.)

"Bob", tended to get a bit intense as he railed my 'ignorance' and 'fear of the truth' and added "I don't know much about the photos, but the written information of prophecy is solid!" 

He didn't know much about the photos? Could this be serious? This is how Meier entered the field's eye - his clear, daylight photos of alleged UFOs. How could someone so obsessed with Meier's prophetic writings (which are also nonsense btw), be blissfully unaware of the volume of alleged UFO photos an film? 

This is yet another example of the complete loss of critical thought by accomplished scientists upon entering into the field(s) of the paranormal variety. We've spoken about this effect before here. 

Photographed Model. Was it real or Meieresque?

In later years I would get into discussions with accomplished meteorological scientist Dr. James Deardorff (another supporter of the Meier case) that were equally as absurd. I would eventually join a Yahoo group devoted to the Meier case, where I would present all matter of photographic demonstrations showing the photos to be faked. I was challenged that if they were simply models on a string, that I should be able to duplicate that easily. So I did. (Left)

The photo was a small model suspended on a string from my deck. Many of the members found the image of the model in the file section of the group and posted asking "when/where did Billy take this photo?" I then reminded them that this was the duplication that was asked for and posted days before. Several (and some prominent) members of the group left, and wrote me privately to say they couldn't believe how fooled they had been.

There are still people from all walks of life and profession that solidly believe the Meier case is the best evidence of UFO contact ever. By many more, it is considered the longest enduring hoax in UFOlogy. 

I use this case because it's such a great example of the repeated disconnect from critical thought exhibited when clearly faked (some laughably so) photos are presented as legitimate. 

But was my obsession with showing obviously faked photos to be...obviously faked photos, logical? No it wasn't. Taunting, duplication challenges, and sometimes even physical threats from believers only have so much effect - after awhile it just doesn't phase you. The depth and length of my involvement was irrational considering the painfully obvious fabrication of the case and it's 'evidence'.

You become so involved that you completely lose sight of the fact: no one with any critical faculties believes the case anyway. You are killing a mouse with a howitzer. It's overkill in the extreme.

Later with the epiphanies I would learn from George Hansen, I would recognize these patterns of irrational obsession with disproving hoaxes and hoaxers, and accept that such things are to be expected in the paranormal field.

But my experience of becoming overly-driven to expose that which everyone knows is already laid bare isn't unique. The relatively recent Roswell Slides and the Roswell Slides Research Group is another good example. When the photos of the 'alien' broke on the internet, it was clear that this was a museum exhibit, and not any alien scurried away in a top-secret lab somewhere. The slide showed a placard with blurred writing on it, that after being de-blurred by a member of the Roswell Slides Research Group, read: 'MUMMIFIED BODY OF TWO YEAR OLD BOY"

The group, of which I was a late coming member (I was first outside the group to verify the de-blur results, and after doing so was made a member) then published results. There was fierce push back from the proponents of the slides (of which Jaime Maussan seemed to be the main presenter), and the group went so far as to put up a website and endlessly argue the point with opponents on the opposing side.

I have to stress one thing: all this was over a slide of an alien, from a source that was dead. Could anything be more absurd from the very start - even before the Roswell Slides Research Group was formed? It was nice to have the placard de-blurred, but was it necessary to dismiss the slide? Of course not. The entire fiasco was absurd on it's face, right from the start. You were never going to prove an alien from a photo/slide. I deemed the slides 'anti-evidence' because that's exactly what they were.

Forgetting Maussan was the presenter, that Don Schmitt was also closely involved in the slides? His own former research partner Kevin Randle said of him in a "To Whom It May Concern Letter" on September 10, 1995:

"The search for the nurses proves that he (Schmitt) will lie about anything. He will lie to anyone… He has revealed himself as a pathological liar… I will have nothing more to do with him."

This seemed not to dissuade supporters. Schmitt had been back lecturing and writing books for some time after his background was exposed. Such short term memory loss in the field is another hallmark we'll address in a future post. 

Some members of the Roswell Slides Research Group to present day are still posting about Maussan's proliferation of long since dismissed fake videos and cases. It went on months after the slides had faded away, and there was plenty of talk on how nonsensical, ridiculous arguments and excuses from proponents of the slides should be addressed. 

The long-touted slides were still-born of course, and in my opinion the efforts put into responses past the de-blurred placard bordered on the absurd. Nonetheless, initial facts had no effect in dissolving attention from the circus.

These types of situations and actions are not unusual for the paranormal field(s). They happen over, and over again as a pattern you can almost follow as a script. You will see unusual obsession with some people responding to every little comment made (pro or con) on different cases that begins to border on the surreal. It's beyond the standard back and forth debate. And this doesn't exist on only one side of the argument - but with both the hoaxer and the debunker. I think that if you recall many debatable cases (or even the un-debatable ones) you'll see this schism of illogical, obsessive actions on both sides of the issue being discussed.

The phenomena operates in the pool of chaos and liminal periods, and when cases are effectively debunked and yet still believed as true by many - like it or not, it exists in a state between real, and fake. That 'limbo' period exists longer in the paranormal fields than any other interest. It often can exist there for decades (as the Meier case has, being one of the longest standing fakes on the face of the UFO subject).

I'm sure at one time or another we've all seen the cognitive dissonance that is so pervasive among those steeped in the paranormal. Often the particular focus is so aggressively defended from the start (an interesting wrinkle on it's own), that opposing parties are incapable of admitting that either they've been fooled on one side - or that the effort to disprove the obviously false was far and away overboard on the other. The paranormal seems to maneuver itself to force these kinds of self-introspection(s) on participants. 

It's easy once again to put this down to random psychological effects in people - but one cannot assume that all these repeated absurdities are happening as a result of deliberate and calculated logical thought. On both sides of the debate there exists a thin film of illogical obsession that often expends years of effort and aggravation, while the phenomena continues unabated. 🔻