Book Read Free

American Cosmic

Page 18

by D W Pasulka


  that they could see several degrees beyond the lateral extent of

  our vision.34

  In 1994, UFO skeptic and pop- culture expert Martin

  Kottmeyer announced a startling discovery. These “wrap-

  around eyes,” as they’d come to be known in UFO par-

  lance, had been seen by the nation’s television audience on

  February 10, 1964— twelve days before Barney’s hypnotic

  session— in an episode of the science fiction series The

  Outer Limits. The alien in an episode titled “The Bellero

  Shield” had the same sort of eyes. In other respects as wel ,

  the TV alien seemed to resemble the UFO pilots as Barney

  described them.35

  In 1991, not long after a flurry of works about alien

  abductions had been published by Mack, New York City

  artist Budd Hopkins, and others, the practice of hypnotic re-

  gression came under scrutiny. A book called The Hundredth

  Monkey and Other Paradigms of the Paranormal collected

  skeptical essays about “fringe science.” Several chapters fo-

  cused on UFOs and alien abductions. The authors of the

  essays included scientific luminaries such as Isaac Asimov

  and Carl Sagan. One chapter used the then- current scholar-

  ship on hypnotic regression to call into question the possi-

  bility of retrieving accurate memories of anything. Citing the

  work of Elizabeth Loftus, Robert Baker wrote:

  W H E N S TA R WA R S B E C A M E R E A L | 1 4 7

  Many people walk around daily with heads full of fake

  memories. There have also been a number of clinical and

  experimental demonstrations of the creation of pseudo-

  memories that have subsequently come to be believed as

  veridical. Hilgard (1981) implanted a false memory of an ex-

  perience of a bank robbery that never occurred. His subject

  found the experience so vivid that he was able to select from

  a series of photographs a picture of the man he thought had

  committed the robbery.36

  Elizabeth Loftus’s research revealed that memory is

  not like a video camera that dispassionately records what

  happens. Instead, it is a dynamic process more akin to the

  way knowledge is generated and preserved in our digital age.

  “Our memories are reconstructive,” she writes. “It’s a little

  like a Wikipedia page, you can change it, but so can other

  people.”37 Today, we must add that other things can also

  change it— like a movie or a video game. Maybe the human

  being is like a Wikipedia page, and we are not the sole editors

  of our own pages.

  The Hundredth Monkey was part of a backlash against

  the alien abduction cultural narrative, but hypnotic re-

  gression has persisted as a convention of alien abduction

  investigations. As scholars of film studies have begun to

  work with scholars of memory, the results may shed light

  on hypnotic regression and alien abduction. A recent edi-

  tion of the journal Memory Studies was devoted to scholar-

  ship on memory and film. The editors write: “Over the past

  two decades, the relationship between cinema and memory

  has been the object of increasing academic attention,

  with growing interest in film and cinema repositories for

  1 4 8 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  representing, shaping, (re)creating or indexing forms of in-

  dividual and collective memories.”38

  The issue devotes a section to Alison Landsberg’s idea of

  prosthetic memory, that is, memories that do not come from

  a person’s lived experience. The focus is on the “cinema, in

  particular, as an institution which makes available images for

  mass consumption [and] has long been aware of its ability

  to generate experiences and to install memories of them—

  memories which become experiences that film consumers

  both possess and feel possessed by.”39 What this means in

  the case of alien abductions is that when people access their

  memories, they are accessing both features of an experience

  and what they have seen that is similar to this experience–

  – which is often movies about extraterrestrials. I am not

  discounting the possibility that there is a real experience,

  but the experience is remembered with and through the vast

  corpus of media products about abductions and UFOs.

  As Impossible Factual and other specialist factual pro-

  duction companies create documentaries that target young

  audiences and splice extraterrestrials into visuals of real

  historical events, the cultural memory of these events will

  change. How it will change remains to be seen, but there are

  indications. The Jedi I met recently is a sign of how religious

  forms change over time and across material conditions. For

  the most part, potential abductees and their hypnotists no

  doubt proceed with the honorable intention of trying to

  access real memories of an event. Unfortunately, this isn’t al-

  ways true of other players in the alien abduction game field,

  who seek to commodify these narratives in the interest of

  commercial gain.

  David Halperin looks at the case of the Walt Disney

  Studios’ 1995 Alien Encounters from Tomorrow Land,

  W H E N S TA R WA R S B E C A M E R E A L | 1 4 9

  which was a television program and a theme park ex-

  hibit. Now defunct, it featured the testimonies of real alien

  abductees, carefully edited by the producers. (Apparently,

  some of the testimonies included explicit references to

  sex with aliens that never made it into the program or

  the theme park.) The producers used “experts” like artist

  Budd Hopkins, who used hypnotic regression to access

  memories of abductions, and included footage of military

  bases, thus lending the project an air of credibility. The

  program and park deployed many of the mechanisms and

  techniques that help foster belief, including employing the

  genre of the documentary, prompting Halperin to remark

  that it stank “of dishonesty and manipulation.”40 A closer

  examination of the production reveals what Halperin was

  writing about.

  The documentary opens with narration: “Intelligent life

  from distant galaxies is now attempting to make open con-

  tact with the human race, and tonight we will show you the

  evidence.”41 That evidence is presented via the mechanisms

  of belief— that is, formal techniques that lack real- world sub-

  stance. Michael Eisner, CEO of the Walt Disney Company, is

  featured in a realist montage. Standing within what looks like

  a military base, he says:

  In a top secret military instal ation somewhere in the United

  States, there are those who believe that the government is hiding

  the remains of an alien spacecraft that mysteriously crashed to

  Earth. But more and more scientific evidence . . . reveals that

  the idea of creatures from another planet might not be as far-

  fetched as we once thought.42

  The film then displays newspaper clippings, including

  one of former president Jimmy Carter’s testimony about his

  1 5 0
| A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  own sighting of an unidentified aerial object, as the voiceover

  cites scientific evidence for ongoing alien visitations. It even

  shows pictures of what appear to be cel s mutating, the impli-

  cation being that aliens are working with humans at the level

  of genetic engineering. The film also airs what it cal s “com-

  pelling footage of home videos” of what look like balloons—

  the type that Scott Browne identified in his research.

  The most disturbing aspect of the production— and what

  probably most provoked Halperin’s wrath— was its insistence

  that many Americans would likely experience alien abduc-

  tion in the next five years and that they could prepare for,

  even acclimate to, this inevitability by visiting the exhibit and

  ride at Disneyland. The ride, called “ExtraTERRORestrial

  Alien Encounter,” was produced by Disney “imagineers.” It

  is a vivid il ustration of how the mechanisms of belief can

  be adapted to a corporeal- virtual experience. As spectators’

  bodies are transported through the “ride,” they are treated

  to experts displaying evidence of alien encounters, some of

  which terrified the youngest participants: as Budd Hopkins

  shows children cards featuring aliens, they scream and hug

  their parents in terror. Halperin notes that Hopkins cal s this

  “moving.” Something said by one of the ride participants

  relates to what I heard from the computer programmer who

  is involved in creating immersive virtual environments and

  who sometimes has a hard time judging real memories from

  virtual ones: “I THOUGHT I DREAMT ABOUT GOING ON

  THE EXTRATERRORESTRIAL RIDE, BUT IT WAS REAL

  AND IT WAS TERRIFYING. I’M HAVING FLASHBACKS!” 43

  Things like this contribute to belief in fabricated UFO

  phenomena. They influence memory. In a context in which

  people have a hard time distinguishing credible sources from

  “fake news,” the implications are disturbing. A 2015– 2016

  W H E N S TA R WA R S B E C A M E R E A L | 1 5 1

  study by the Stanford History Education Group looked

  at the online reasoning of youth about civics and “the

  ability to judge the credibility of information that floods

  young people’s smartphones, tablets, and computers.”44 The

  researchers studied middle school, high school, and college-

  level young people. Many of the participants were unable

  to distinguish between sponsored content and content

  supported by legitimate sources. “The students displayed a

  ‘stunning and dismaying consistency’ in their responses,”

  the researchers wrote, “getting duped again and again”— and

  this despite the fact that the investigators weren’t looking for

  high- level analysis of data, just a “reasonable bar” of distin-

  guishing fake accounts from real ones, activist groups from

  neutral sources, and paid ads from articles. “Many assume

  that because young people are fluent in social media they are

  equal y savvy about what they find there,” the researchers

  wrote. “Our work shows the opposite.”45

  I recalled a story that Tyler had told me about his own

  involvement with the media.

  “Right before a shuttle launch, I told a prominent news

  reporter that his story reminded me of Scooby Doo and that

  it’s not very accurate. He told me, ‘That’s OK. I only have

  three minutes.’

  “I told him to give me an hour, and we could make that

  three minutes much more profound and better. He wasn’t

  interested.

  “You can bring them to water and even stick their heads

  into the water, but you can’t force them to drink. It’s like they

  don’t want to know and would rather go thirsty.

  “They say they do it because the public wants it served

  up that way, or the public is not that bright, or there’s not

  enough time— but it’s bigger than that. It’s a deep flaw in the

  1 52 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  way things are presented to the public, and no one wants to

  change or fix it.”

  Research from disciplines as diverse as cognitive science,

  history, and film studies reveals what Stanley Kubrick knew

  intuitively: media technologies are not external to our bodies

  or minds, but inhabit them in specific ways. Kubrick’s vi-

  sionary science fiction has proven to be a reality— not when

  it comes to space travel, but when it comes to foreseeing the

  screen as a type of conduit to consciousness.

  ✦

  5

  THE MATERIAL CODE

  From the Disembodied Soul to the

  Materiality of Quantum Information

  [The phenomenon] has a technological basis. But we

  cannot ignore the fact that the emotions it generates in

  the witnesses are religious in nature.

  — Jac q u e s Va l l e e 1

  Everything works, in my opinion, as if the phenomenon

  were the product of a technology that followed well-

  defined rules and patterns, though fantastic by ordinary

  human standards. Its impact in shaping man’s long-

  term creativity and unconscious impulses is probably

  enormous.

  — Jac q u e s Va l l e e 2

  DRIVING BACK FROM BIG SUR to San Francisco, Jacques

  Vallee, Robbie Graham, and I stopped for lunch at a dock-

  side restaurant in Santa Cruz. The sun sparkled on the waves,

  the day was gorgeous, and I was enjoying the coastline and

  the salty air. As we sat and gazed at the view, I realized that

  the restaurant was serving as a debriefing station. For the

  past week, we had been immersed in a smal , intensive

  seminar with people who studied UFO phenomena and

  religious events associated with the paranormal. There

  1 5 4 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

  had even been a sighting of a UFO while we were there,

  although none of us had seen it. A small group of sky-

  watchers, sitting on the rocky rim of the Pacific Ocean, had

  spotted a bright, shiny, starlike object dancing about in the

  sky on the night of our arrival. Jacques and I interviewed

  one of the people who saw and photographed the object.

  He had recently been through a life transformation and he

  interpreted the sighting as confirmation that he was on the

  right path.

  After lunch Jacques drove me to meet my brother in

  San Francisco. When he dropped me off, he gifted me

  with several of his books, one of which was The Invisible

  Col ege: What a Group of Scientists Has Discovered About

  UFO Influence on the Human Race. The invisible college,

  Jacques wrote, was J. Allen Hynek’s name for a small group

  of researchers, scientists, and academics who studied the

  phenomenon under the cover of anonymity. Hynek, an

  academic and an astronomer himself, in the 1970s was

  the scientific consultant to the US Air Force program to

  study UFOs, called Project Blue Book. The term “invisible

  college” harked back to the scientists who affiliated with

  Robert Boyle in the early 1700s, at a time when science

>   was considered a suspect and potential y demonic practice.

  The group is thought to have been a precursor to the Royal

  Society of London, the oldest established scientific institu-

  tion in Europe.

  In my brother’s car, I opened the book. Jacques had signed

  and dated it: October 2014. The copyright page showed that

  it was original y published in 1975 and had been reissued

  in July 2014. I was struck by the last paragraph of Jacques’s

  preface to the 2014 edition: “Because these questions are as

  T H E M AT E R I A L C O D E | 1 5 5

  open today as they were in 1975, we have decided to reprint

  this book and to place these burning issues before a new gen-

  eration of interested readers.” The book I held in my hands

  was a key, though I didn’t know it at the time.

  It was three years later, after my trip to New Mexico,

  after my work with Tyler and James, that the realization

  dawned on me. Jacques’s early work, which brought re-

  search on the proto- Internet together with remote viewing

  and extraordinary mind– body states, clarified a new frame-

  work for understanding the technological y sacred. On the

  one hand, the emergence of the internet and cyberspace

  spawned a lexicon that used sacred and spiritual termi-

  nology.3 Some computer coders even imagined that human

  consciousness could be downloaded into a nonbiological

  container, like a computer, and become unfettered, free,

  and even immortal.4 On the other hand, Jacques’s work

  was unique in that he highlighted how the UFO was asso-

  ciated with the sacred, but he also suggested that it worked

  like technology. His early work revealed that UFO events

  function like contemporary artificial intelligence, “under

  the radar,” and almost invisibly— as in the case of contem-

  porary social bots.

  Jacques’s concept of the UFO event as a technology is

  a recurrent theme in his work. For Jacques, secrecy and

  camouflage are integral to the efficacy and persistence of

  this technological phenomenon, in much the same way as

  technologies like social bots effect cultural change, that is,

  completely under the radar of consciousness. That is where

  it is most effective, and judging by the life and technologies

  produced by invisible people like Tyler, I final y understand

  how this is so.

  1 5 6 | A M E R IC A N C O SM IC

 

‹ Prev