Recently, a complaint by Dr Jill Tarter, of the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute, to a web site which headlined a
contribution from her describing SETI's work as "searching for UFOs", was
brought to the attention of the Internet UFO forum, UFO UpDates. Tarter
wrote that "SETI is scientific and credible, and UFO claims and studies
are not". This caused much foaming at the mouth and chewing of carpets
among the list's mainly American, mainly ETH, subscribers. Bob Young
defended Tarter against the attacks and was in turn attacked by Jerome
Clark for writing a favourable review of Curtis Peebles's "dishonest and
even plagiaristic book" (Watch the Skies!). Some ETHers got even more
bad-tempered. One wrote: "Welcome to the UFO Hall of Frauds, Dirtbags,
Dupes and Morons, Jill . . . "
Of course, Jill Tarter is right. If she reads a UFO book or attends a UFO
conference she is almost certain to encounter the ravings of the
ETH-obsessed and the lecture-circuit liars. In an article written some
years ago Tarter described searching for ETI signals as being like looking
for a needle in a haystack. The same analogy could be applied to an
outsider seeking genuinely scientific ufologists.
TEN YEARS AGO, January 1990, an essay of mine titled
"Entirely Unpredisposed" was published in Magonia. It brought together
three claims by ufologists that UFO and abduction case material was
without cultural provenance. No ready psychosocial explanations existed
for such things as the shape of flying saucers, the nature of the Greys,
or the Hill abduction case; they felt. This meant extraterrestrials newly
came to our world in 1947. These claims provided a dialectical opportunity
to showcase material I had run across in my enjoyment of science fiction
and discoveries I made in correspondence with fellow UFO buffs. The
discoveries were largely serendipitous things, the outcome of eclectic
recreational consumption of both science fiction and UFO literature rather
than concerted research. As many SF buffs hold ufology to be beneath
notice and UFO buffs tend to obsess on their subject to the exclusion of
SF, I was in a rare position to be aware of enough of both fields to see
the overlap that existed between them.
"Entirely Unpredisposed" was well regarded and it is one of my more widely
cited articles. It has prompted praise and has led to the flattery that I
am an expert in science fiction. I didn't care to disabuse people of that
notion though I knew that hundreds of SF buffs consumed far more and were
more intensely involved in the subject. That I had only scratched the
surface would be apparent to everyone these days if it wasn't for the fact
that Michel Meurger's book Scientifictions no. 1/1 (Encrage, 1995) is
available only in French and his "Surgeons from Outside" English piece is
trapped in the expensive Fortean Studies No. 3. More than I, Meurger has
shown the massive foreshadowing of UFO mythology in pulp science fiction
and cultural tradition. His work is to mine as a miner's long day is to a
pleasant stroll down the lane.
There has been some recent criticism of my
essay that I wish to comment on here. Anthony R. Brown, in the latest
issue of Magonia (October 2000), refers to the part of the essay dealing
with observations by me suggesting that Invaders from Mars was one of the
influences on Betty Hill's nightmare. He asserts I went "to extraordinary
lengths to claim that a specific film was the origin of their experience.
There are two important points that are never addressed in such
assertions. The first is that there is not a single case from the decades
of sleep and dream research where a film has been partially duplicated by
subsequent dreaming . . . dream imagery and story are always different
from the film. The emotional tone might be virtually identical in both
film and subsequent dream, but never the imagery and story."
Brown offers no sources for this claim but I know it is false from
personal experience. I've had movie imagery reflected in my dreams on more
than one occasion. Once, after seeing Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I
had a surreal dream of pods identical from the film being fired like
artillery shells in a war. Army trucks were also present like near the end
of that film. I also know it is false from reading Robert L. van de
Castle's Our Dreaming Mind (Ballantine, 1994, p. 241). He describes two
studies by D. Foulkes of individuals being shown a pair of films and
determining their effect on content. The first study indicated it was
extremely obvious to judges in 5 per cent of the dreams whether a western
or neutral romantic comedy had been seen. In the second study, Foulkes is
reported as saying 8 per cent of the dreams incorporated elements from the
pre-sleep film. Never say never.
I also recommend Kelly Bulkeley's The Wilderness of Dreams (State U. of NY
Press, 1994, pp. 188-9) for that author's discussion of a dream of being
dissected by an evil alien. The influence of the film Excalibur, recently
seen, was evident in the presence of knights in the early part of the
nightmare. Bulkeley also indicated having had heart-pounding dreams of
being chased by Darth Vader, whose source in movie imagery is beyond
doubt. Brown's claim was scarcely believable from the standpoint of
observations that have existed for over a century noting that dreams
incorporate imagery from memory in distorted form (Freud, Sigmund, The
Interpretation of Dreams, Avon, 1965, pp. 44-55). Given that films do
enter our memories, how could they be immune from use by dreams?
Brown's use of the phrase "partially duplicated" seems to indicate he
thinks my assertion of influence involves a precise replay of the film in
Betty's dream, but let me quote "Entirely Unpredisposed" to refresh his
memory. "The match between Invaders from Mars and Betty Hill's nightmares
is imperfect and obviously has none of the rigour of a mathematical
equation. Dreams and nightmares by their nature are almost never veridical
memories. Even if Betty Hill was really abducted it would be unusual for
her nightmares to be a photographic replay of her trauma. The felt
emotions would resurface, but it would bear only a metaphoric similarity
in its dramatic content. The most one would generally expect is snatches
of unique imagery to help in the piecing together of the sources the dream
spun off of. It is something of a wonder that enough elements exist of
this character . . . to make an identification that can be called
convincing."
It should also be noticed, contra Brown, that I don't assert
the film is the origin of Betty's nightmares. I note that Keyhoe's book is
also a source in that article. More recently I have spoken of the
incorporation of her fears of radiation contamination as a source of some
of the medical imagery (Magonia Monthly Supplement No. 12, February 1999).
There are numerous origins - emphasis on the plural - to her experience.
Greg Sandow, in his essay "The Abduction Conundrum" (Anomalist No. 7,
Winter 98/99, and Sandow's personal web site) offers another sort of
criticism. He indicates I am "completely unaware of how silly" I sound
when I point out some of the elements of abduction stories appeared in
earlier science fiction. He grants that anybody could "cherry pick" old
issues of Amazing Stories and emerge with elements of the abduction story.
His complaint is that I don't explain how they come together in the
current storyline of abductions being taken throughout a person's life and
using us sexually without explaining their designs upon us. I'm engaged in
"vulgar" Gotcha-type thinking, he proposes. "Kottmeyer doesn't make
predictions from his theory, doesn't give us any way to separate abduction
tales that might be influenced by media from those that wouldn't be.
Besides . . . the science fiction details could be veiled abduction
memories."
The concession that one can find the abduction elements in earlier culture
forgets that it was the Hopkins claim that one could not find those
elements in earlier culture that was being disproven. One doesn't need to
have a theory, amateur or professional, to prove such a point. Sandow
takes no notice that if he alleges early science fiction stories are
veiled abduction memories, he is undercutting the framework of
interpretation that Jacobs, Hopkins, and Bullard were using, i.e. the
aliens arrived in 1947 or thereabouts and nothing in earlier culture
existed because they were elsewhere. Strike out that assumption and their
claims of novelty have no point, let alone force.
In speaking of my not providing an explanation of the present storyline,
particularly the part about the abductors not explaining themselves,
Sandow is clearly parroting an argument made by Jacobs in his book Secret
Life (Fireside, 1992, p. 297). Sandow is saying I should have addressed in
a 1990 essay an argument that did not even exist till two years later.
Subsequent to reading Jacobs's book I did point out that some of this new
argument was demonstrably false. There are film aliens that never explain
themselves and many films have aliens interested in the subject of
procreation. This was discussed in my May 1994 essay "Spawn of Inseminoid"
(REALL News, 2, 5). The storyline about abductees being taken throughout
their lives is one I have not addressed largely because I was unaware
anyone thought it truly a matter of interest. Indeed I was under the
impression that this business of abductees being followed throughout their
lives was an embarrassment because it is so clearly a new storyline that
did not exist prior to Hopkins. It is inconsistent with the body of
abductions that existed before he came on the scene.
Sandow wants a way to separate abductions influenced by media and those
that are not. Easy. Have the abductees persuade the aliens to visit Seth
Shostak and Stephen Jay Gould. Persuade the aliens to give them copies of
their mission records, a universal translator, and a library of a hundred
books dealing in depth with such matters as alien zoology, alien
palaeontology, alien biochemistry, a medical text, art history, antique
guides to show they are up and up on being from an alien civilization. If
the mission records back the abduction claims then we will know which
accounts were real and beyond influence. Failing that, there are always
things like FBI room-sweeps for alien skin cells or scales, mass
witnessing of crafts, instrumental records like videotaped intrusions that
pass muster upon scrutiny by non-believers.
Sandow wants predictions. Jacobs's alien takeover by big bug aliens will
not happen. The apocalypses seen by abductees and supported by Mack will
not happen. Mainstream science will not enter ufology en masse and become
convinced of the existence of aliens who are spying on humanity or using
us as part of a hybrid programme. The general UFO culture will continue to
manifest all manner of paranoid themes. The government, being unable to
prove to ufologists they are not engaged in a massive cover-up, will
provide no confessions.
On the matter of the general proposition that psychosocial theorists do
not offer testable propositions, a position held by both Sandow and Brown,
I remind critics here that my article "Abduction: The Boundary-Deficit
Hypothesis" (Magonia No. 32) predicted "the final population of abduction
claimants would be biased in favour of a high proportion of
boundary-deficit personalities". I subsequently pointed out that there is
a test instrument developed by Ernest Hartmann that reliably discriminates
between people with thin boundaries and those who have thick or normal
boundaries (Kottmeyer, Martin, "Testing the Boundaries", Bulletin of
Anomalous Experience, 5, 4, August 1994). Low scores would falsify the
hypothesis. David Ritchey subsequently gave the Boundary Questionnaire to
14 abductees. The average score was 305 ("Elephantology - The Science of
Limiting Perception to a Single Aspect of a Large Object, Parts II & III",
Bulletin of Anomalous Experience, 5, 6, December 1994, pp. 11-16). This
was nicely in the range defined as thin-boundaried (Hartmann, Ernest,
Boundaries of the Mind, Basic, 1991, p. 254).
Brown avers that "hysteria is the foundation stone upon which the whole
Psychosocial model is built". This is untrue in regard to my thinking.
Anyone who has followed my writings would more properly tend to regard as
central my argument that paranoia underlies and shapes much of UFO belief.
This would be solidly falsified if the ETH could be solidly verified in
the ways mentioned above. Less definitively, it could be undermined in
many theorists' eyes if tests like the MMPI were given to believers and
the scores on the Pa (Paranoia) scale came out low. A look at studies of
abductees - presumably UFO believers - however tend to show the Pa score
above average. Sprinkle and Parnell gave two standard psychological tests
to 225 people who reported UFO experiences. Both tests found moderately
elevated scores on the Pa scale and those with communication experiences
were significantly more elevated (Parnell, June O. and Sprinkle, R. Leo,
"Personality Characteristics of Persons who Claim UFO Experiences",
Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 2 (1990), pp. 45-58). Rodeghier, Goodpaster,
and Blatterbauer got a Pa score consistent within less than a point to
Parnell and Sprinkle when they gave the MMPI to 27 abductees (Rodeghier,
Mark, Goodpaster, Jeff and Blatterbauer, Sandra, "Psychosocial
Characteristics of Abductees: Results from the CUFOS Abduction Project",
Journal of UFO Studies, n.s. 3 (1991), pp. 59-90). Those who adopt the ETH
position of course shrug this off with an interpretation along the lines
of - I admit this is caricature - "Well, you'd be paranoid too if aliens
were coming repeatedly in the night, sticking needles up your nose, and
stealing your sperm, ova, or embryo to make hybrids to save their dying
race." How does one argue against that?
Obviously, you don't. Instead you move on to do a history of the Greys and
show their origins in discarded theories of evolution and pulp science
fiction. Brown tells us that this teaches us nothing people did not
already know. Well, I contend it has! - if I may borrow his exclamation
mark for a moment. Hopkins, Jacobs, Mack, indeed no abduction researcher
has offered a history of the Grey concept in their writings so this is new
knowledge no matter how deep in denial Brown chooses to be. The fact that
Hufford, whom Brown suggests we should emulate, was interested in clinical
details like sleep paralysis rather than the origins and inconsistencies
of the surface content of Old Hag experiences only tells us Hufford was
already satisfied that nobody would challenge the axiom that Old Hags were
obviously not physically sitting on people's chests. Being able to say
that Greys are almost certainly fictional rather than real is clearly
relevant in deciding if the paranoia is of the
aliens-are-truly-victimizing-me sort or
distrust-skews-how-I-interpret-weird-things sort. I don't know that this
makes any difference to clinicians. I'm not a doctor nor do I pretend to
be. Clearly, though, many people watching this phenomenon are still
curious to know whether abduction experiences signify something that we
should be worried about as a real threat to humanity or whether they are a
tragically false belief we should hope people will eventually wake up
from.
I do not plan to offer any grand unifying theories of abduction
experiences in the near future of the sort that will solve all the things
Sandow demands and will demand of psychosocial theory. Such is impossible
without compelling grand unifying theories of dreams and nightmares to
build on, or compelling grand unifying theories of mythology, or
compelling grand unifying theories of cultural obsessions. I do know a
thing or two, however, about recognising false beliefs and fallacious
arguments. My curiosity indicated certain directions for explaining these
errors of belief and I continue to believe my contributions to
psychosocial thought have merit. That some readers reject and malign these
ideas is unfortunate, but life is diverse and universal agreement on
anything does not happen even among the angels (Jeffrey Burton Russell,
Lucifer, Cornell, 1984, pp. 36, 44. Angels and humans, unlike aliens,
occasionally tire of being servants, or so I'm told). I continue to hope
thoughtful people will catch on that this phenomenon will likely continue
to have no happy resolution for all concerned. If you have a need to be of
service to humanity, pick a pursuit more certain to serve good like
life-guarding, fire fighting, medicine, engineering, auto manufacture,
farming, et cetera. Keep your options open if you must, but diversify your
interests to include things that will ultimately be less a waste of your
time, money, and emotional investment.
Time will not only tell who is right in these matters; to a large extent
it already has.
"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank" - Dr Miles Bennell's instructions on how to look like a pod person, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Timothy Good.
Unearthly Disclosure: Conflicting Interests in the Control of
Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Century, London, 2000. £16.99
As usual, Timothy Good regales us with some interesting UFO yarns. His
technique must now be familiar to most readers. Take some sensational
reports, then select accounts of investigations by the more credulous
researchers. The work of more sceptical and probing investigators is
ignored or brushed aside. Of course Good takes the trouble to make contact
with many witnesses and investigators and - surprise, surprise - most of
them tell him what he wants to hear.
Even Good's boundless credulity is strained on occasion, though. He
devotes three chapters to the absurd stories told by the contactee Enrique
Castillo Rincon about his encounters with Nordics from the Pleiades,
admits that they are unbelievable, but concludes somewhat lamely: "Most
probably his narrative is a mixture of truth and fiction. Whatever the
case, he has provided us with a fascinating story and one which I believe
contains important new insights." He doesn't give us any indication of
what these insights might be, of course, and such remarks are typical of
his incisive analysis of UFO narratives. But perhaps he is reluctant to
indulge in "literary criticism".