In 2017, the (in)famous “2004 Nimitz Flir1 Video” was released by To the Stars Academy (TTSA). Commonly known as the “Tic Tac Video,” it was taken during an encounter in November of 2004 with an object resembling a white Tic Tac off the coast of California. The story has been repeated ad nauseum, but if you need to catch up, I’ve linked to the TTSA website for your convenience.

1) The Nimitz Report

2) An interview with the pilot who took the footage

​I admit that this event, all the attached witness reports, anonymous whistleblowers, and documentation is a massive tangled web. I, like so many others, are unsure where it begins and ends. However, right smack dab in the middle of this web (of mythological proportions) is not TTSA or AATIP or AAWSAP or any other acronym under the sun, but some unknown individual who, in 2007, brought this incident too light for the first time.
 
I want to state that I have no evidence beyond what is already online. Moreover, I wish to thank the illustrious Isaac Koi for acting as my sounding board and allowing me to bounce ideas off of his brain, and providing some great insight.
 
I will begin at the end. In 2017, TTSA brought the video back out of the murky depths of the ether. Providing details, reports and some insight, the TicTac Video began making the Ufological discursive circuit. On their website, they claim,
 
“this footage comes with crucial chain-of-custody (CoC) documentation because it is a product of US military sensors, which confirms it is original, unaltered, and not computer generated or artificially fabricated.”
 
Ok, so “chain-of-custody” according to TTSA’s definition, is simply that the footage is authentic because it came from military FLIR hardware. What is missing, however, is the CoC documentation which explains HOW To the Stars got its hands on this video. So, we can argue the video is authentic. What we do not know is where the video came from.
 
Who pulled the video from the F-18’s FLIR camera? Who uploaded it to the Nimitz’s computer system? Who pulled that file and made a physical copy? Who authorized its potential declassification and release? Who gave it to TTSA? While these questions may seem immaterial to the believers, these questions are essential to sorting out the story. Moreover, what seems to continuously be swept under the rug in this narrative is the fact that TTSA was not the first to release this video. 

Let’s rewind to 2007. On February 3rd, an Above Top Secret Forum user, ‘thefinaltheory,’ posted a story in which he describes his time on the Nimitz in 2005 (note the year). Describing an alleged UFO encounter, thefinaltheory explains that he accessed the Nimitz computer system and made a copy of several files including FLIR footage from the gun camera of an F-18.
 
Quote (Raw, no edits):

“I logged on to the top secret computer network *NOTE! I edited the name of the network out due to a suggestion/safety* and did a search of our File Server drive for the most recent modified files. This scanned all users, regardless of rank. Nothing was hidden from me. I especially looked for new files and those that were modified around the time of the "sighting". 

I found many videos and powerpoint breifs (navy standard) and written reports and even message traffic that was being passed through our radio division. It was all there. I couldnt believe it at first, but then our ship called in the Air Force because even the captain didnt know what the hell was going on. 

I burnt all these files to a disk and stashed it somewhere, unfortunently I dont have it anymore....I've forgotten where i put it... though i think it might be out of state at a close relatives house...ugh... 

well here is what the video was: 

It was taken directly from the cockpit camera of one of our ships fighter pilot jets F-18 I believe but cant be sure. It was in black and white and showed the altitude, the pilots "nickname" and the tempurature and all those little critical stats. 

The UFO was floating extremely still in mid air, this was 30,000 ft above ground level. It looked literally and i mean LITERALLY just like a disk, no stupid traingles or any gimicky things like Independence Day or whatever. It looks exactly how the goverment wants you to NOT think it looks like. It's simply put, a disk. 

So it was floating, the figher pilot tried to get numerous locks on the UFO but everytime the cross hairs tried to hone in the crosshairs scaled back and forth. I dont know how to put it into words well, but I know what i saw. Crosshairs move in and move back out, it couldnt get a lock whatsoever. 

After about I say 10 seconds or so the UFO started to move. It moves in ways that we have never seen before, it spontaniously moved in a half circle upward and paused once again. Then it suddenly teleported about five times all over the pilots screen. The movement is instant and cannot be followed. It simply put, is amazing and so fast the eyes cant see it. 

There was a bright light and suddenly it dissapeared, out of sight.”
 
Being that it was 2007, no one really paid any attention. It was just another UFO story on the UFO forum. 

The next day, on February 4th, thefinaltheory posted a second thread including a link to the video (known as “F4” due to its download name) as well as a “cut and paste copy” of a corresponding report. While not official, the report was dated November 14th, 2004 (note the date, which now correlates to the Nimitz event). There is no way to confirm the report, and to most at the time, it was deemed a hoax. Furthermore, it doesn’t jive totally with the current testimony made by the pilots. I don’t want to wade into those waters. I leave it for other researchers to make heads or tails of.
 
Here is the link for the video as provided by thefinaltheory in 2007. 

https://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg

As was pointed out by Isaac Koi, in 2007, the website was hosted by a German film company. Again, at the time, most took this to be an elaborate hoax. User thefinaltheory never provided any documentation regarding the video. If you wish to see the video now, you can access it via the Wayback Machine. I have also downloaded a copy from that link and uploaded it here.

​To convolute this story even further, a second forum user, cometa, came forward, and according to the dozen pages of forum content, aided thefinaltheory in uploading the video file to the German Vision Unlimited server. In other words, according to cometa, the German film company basically allowed the video to reside on their server, so people could view it. Cometa’s profile was disabled by ATS admin. He created a second profile, cometa2.
 
To add to the mystery, thefinaltheory’s account was created the day of his initial post, and she/he only created two threads, the two cited in this blog post. The last login was in May of 2009. Cometa was a well-established user when he aided thefinaltheory. Again, we can speculate that thefinaltheory and cometa are the same person. Or they aren’t. It doesn’t matter. Much of the content from thefinaltheory and cometa, such as the event logs and reports, have come out in the last year via TTSA and other individuals. I leave the researchers with more time to cut through it and sort out what is what. 

Moving on. Some examination was done comparing the original video from 2007 (referred to as F4) and the TTSA TicTac video on Metabunk. According to the video’s metadata, there are some differences. Most importantly, the metadata on the two videos, according to the poster elevenaugust, suggests that the videos were edited and cut differently with different software. This would make sense. Whoever edited the 2007 F4 footage would have different software than TTSA in 2017. Furthermore, the video was edited using North American NTSC formatting, and not using the European PAL format. This proves nothing, but it suggests that the German film company was merely a hosting service, and not responsible for creating/editing/cutting the film. Begs a big question though; who edited the original F4 and why is it identical to TTSA’s 2017 TicTac video?
 
My last point regarding the content of the footage is a quote from the Metabunk user elevenaugust.

“1- In comparison with the TTS video, it [F4] lasts longer, 1’16.717 vs 1’16.209.
2- There are two missing frames in the beginning of the f4 video.
3- There are three missing frames at the end of the TTS video.”
 
So, the 2007 F4 video and the 2017 TicTac video are basically the same. We can account for the changes in the metadata because the TTSA version has text explaining the video’s content. TTSA clearly edited the video to provide context. This could account for the differences in metadata, higher resolution, frame rate changes, etc.

Moving forward in time to 2017 and TTSA’s re-release of the F4/TicTac video; we are left in an interesting situation. According to the TTSA,
 
“While there have been leaked versions on the internet, the CoC establishes the authenticity and credibility that this (TTSA’s TicTac, emphasis mine) version is the original footage taken from one of the most advanced sensor tracking devices in use.”
 
Ok, according to what? The 2017 TicTac video is the same as the 2007 F4. Herein lies the essential problem; while the video may be authentic, in that it is from a military F-18, how do we know that TTSA’s released video is not simply a copy of the video released in 2007? We have no chain-of-custody documentation proving that the DoD or any government agency gave the video to TTSA or its contractors. All we can do is speculate. Everyone, from the ardent die-hard fans to the staunch overzealous debunkers, is speculating. No one, apart from the contractors and employees of TTSA, are holding any cards. This is why “chain-of-custody” is important. I’m all for taking TTSA at its word, but, as the Lannisters remind us, “words are wind.”
 
Since no chain-of-custody documentation has been provided, as I stated above, no one knows who pulled the video from the F-18, from the Nimitz, or the DoD archives, or anything. Why is the TTSA version “credible” and “original” when it came out a decade after the 2007 F4?  Furthermore, the content of the footage is identical. Why is F4 not “credible” and “original?” 

​​Without any of the chain-of-custody documentation, this all smells a bit off. I’m not saying that the video is a fake; rather, I’m questioning why and how it was released, and to what end. At this point, you should have some questions running through your head.
 
Does this mean that TTSA’s version of the video is different (that is, from a different source, and not the alleged stolen copy), yet for some reason, edited and cut identically to the 2007 F4? If TTSA does have an “original” and “authentic” copy, why edit it to be the same as the footage released a decade earlier? Moreover, if this is the case, then records will exist for its declassification and release to TTSA or one of its contractors. We could also speculate that the DoD does have the original uncut footage, but only released aspects of the video already in the public domain to TTSA. It is also possible that a DoD staffer saw the post on ATS back in 2007 and downloaded a copy of F4 for DoD records. If the video was declassified/released to TTSA, or one of its contractors, years later, then all they were potentially given by the DoD was a copy of F4.
 
It may be the case that TTSA’s 2017 TicTac version IS the 2007 F4 video. This would obviously account for why it is identical beyond some cosmetic editing. If that is the case, why does TTSA insinuate that their version is “authentic” in relation to the “leaked versions” on the internet? Perhaps an unknown source provided the video to thefinaltheory in 2007 and to TTSA in 2017?  
 
With all this being said, let’s assume that TTSA has all the proper CoC documentation, and are simply choosing not to release it. Capitalism is king after all. Perhaps they are saving it for a future release? Perhaps they will include it in some future documentary film? I get it. It’s a for-profit company. The only people who know what TTSA has and does not have is TTSA. If all that CoC paperwork does exist however, we are still left with our original leaker, thefinaltheory.
 
We need to appreciate that whoever thefinaltheory is, he or she got to the finish line first. A decade before the vast majority of the world got the 2017 TicTac, a single post on ATS in 2007 brought the Nimitz event into the light. While it was a whisper, and not a bang, the implications are massive. Beyond the basics of thefinaltheory’s identity, which I would love to know, is how they got the footage.
 
According to the ATS post, thefinaltheory burned a copy to a disc while serving on the Nimitz and simply snuck off with it. Apart from the legal implications, wouldn’t the computer system on the Nimitz track who accessed what, when and if they made copies? As pointed out by CPO Kevin Day in an interview on Phenomenon radio, every time someone uses radio communication, a log is made, and an audio copy is recorded and saved for future reference. Would not logging in and accessing top secret files on the internal computer system, and yanking those files for copy, also be tracked? 

Perhaps thefinaltheory was court marshalled for espionage, or, maybe got away with stealing Top Secret Naval data (which would be damn impressive). Perhaps, as the story goes, it was illegally stolen from a computer onboard the Nimitz. Perhaps thefinaltheory fabricated the story. When you read the account, it does sound a little absurd. Therefore, if the only known source of the original 2007 F4 video was dishonest, then what does that say about the video itself?
 
Again, this is why the actual chain-of-custody documentation is essential. Without it, all TTSA can do is ask to be trusted and taken at their word. Luis Elizondo concludes his latest blog post by stating,
 
“Humans have only been able to accomplish all that we have because we are able to receive and process new information, and adapt to new realities. As for the topic of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, we have a choice. We can allow our beliefs to fill in the gaps or we can continue to doggedly pursue data in hopes that what we know informs what we believe.”
 
Ironically, the UFO community is being asked by Mr. Elizondo’s current employer to believe. The F4/TicTac video is authentic not because we know, but because we believe. We are being asked to have faith in TTSA and its various contractors. As Mr. Elizondo proclaims, we ought to “doggedly pursue” the data. I agree with Mr. Elizondo, and that is why the chain-of-custody documents for the TicTac video need to be made public. That paperwork is the “data” which will give us the knowledge to “inform” our beliefs.
 
There are very few people who actually have an answer, and this web is continuing to be spun. With every Twitter post, internet radio interview, and news article, the Nimitz event is being lionized as one of the most important UFO events in history. It very well may be. Half a dozen contractors and Tom DeLonge know how to unravel this tangled and curious web. As for the rest of us, all we know is that at the center of this web sits a little forum post, a man named cometa, and his buddy, thefinaltheory.

​-MJ Banias

A friend sent me a link to a recent French study which links Creationist beliefs to those who believe in conspiracy theories. The research study basically asserts that faith in a higher power which created a universe for humanity is no different than those who believe in the Moon landing being faked or that the government is covering up the existence of aliens and UFOs. It is an interesting study, and while I mostly agree with it, we ought to be cautious buying into it wholeheartedly.
 
As I read this study, I was reminded of a quote from one of my favourite books, “Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency” by the late Douglas Adams.
 
“Don't you understand that we need to be childish in order to understand? Only a child sees things with perfect clarity because it hasn't developed all those filters which prevent us from seeing things that we don't expect to see.” 

I want to focus on this idea of “filters.” I also want to touch on the myth of objectivity in science and link it all back to UFOs and the UFO community which, discursively, often engages in conspiracy theories. 

The study hinges upon a common philosophical concept called Teleology. In simple terms, teleology is the idea that all things function towards some goal or end result. While big in Ancient Greece, teleology today is in contention with modern scientific ideology. For example, as the article presents, “the sun rises in order to give us light.” This statement contains a teleological bias or error. The sun does not rise to give light, rather, it “rises” due to the Earth’s rotation, axis, and that it is a star whereupon we are gravitationally stuck. In simple terms, it has nothing to do with “us” nor “giving.”

Aristotle argued that the purpose of an acorn was to grow into an oak tree. We can argue that this is not really true. The acorn simply is, and its state changes due to DNA and biology. The acorn, objectively, has no purpose or goals. The acorn has no destiny. It is simply existing as an acorn. As the study points out, the belief that a divine creator formed the planet out of mud and placed it on the back of a turtle is a teleological bias. Similarly, believing that the American government or some Deep State cabal faked the September 11th attack, murdered JFK, or is hiding dead aliens in a bunker also hinges upon the same bias. They view all things moving towards a specific end result, or a plan devised to lead to a certain result, when that may not really be the case.
 
The study itself was simple. The researchers,
 
“…conducted a survey of 157 Swiss college students designed to ascertain conspiratorial thinking, teleological thinking, as well as their abilities to analytically reason. They also analyzed a survey of 1,252 members of the general French population to look for a link between creationist beliefs and conspiratorial thinking. Lastly, the researchers recruited 733 more subjects to complete an online questionnaire to test whether creationism, conspiracism, and teleological thinking are correlated.”
 
What they concluded was that the teleological bias that “everything happens for a reason” is common amongst creationists and conspiracists. As the study’s author stated,
 
"By drawing attention to the analogy between creationism and conspiracism, we hope to highlight one of the major flaws of conspiracy theories and therefore help people detect it, namely that they rely on teleological reasoning by ascribing a final cause and overriding purpose to world events…We think the message that conspiracism is a type of creationism that deals with the social world can help clarify some of the most baffling features of our so-called 'post-truth era’…Because teleological and animist thinking are part of children’s earliest intuitions about the world and are resilient in adulthood, they thus could be causally involved in the acquisition of creationist and conspiracist beliefs. However, our results do not rule out the possibility that acceptance of such beliefs could, conversely, favor a teleological bias.”
​
As I mentioned before, I generally accept the findings of this study. It makes sense. However, I wish to problematize a few key ideas which this study alludes to.
 
Before I continue, allow me a brief aside. Science, which I love by the way, will contend that it is an objective act or practice which leads to ‘truth’ and knowledge, and to understanding the reality we live in. Science is progress. The obvious and ironic point of contention here is the teleological bias which presents itself in the very function of science; science is end driven, it has a purpose which leads somewhere. The notion that science generates ‘true’ knowledge or leads us towards ‘true’ knowledge, while other things do not, is a teleological claim. It’s cute.
 
While exploring teleology in science is interesting, the study itself makes the assumption that science is objective, and therefore free of bias. I wish to address two specific sociological experiences which seem to cast doubt on the above idea; the ‘objectivity’ of science dwells purely within two very subjective realms; language and cultural paradigm. I then want to link this back to the UFO community and how it often engages with science.
 
Language, in really simple terms, is a series of filters. We use our senses, which naturally filter data from the ‘objective reality’ around us and transmits them into a series of sounds and symbols. That symbolism of language, letters and numbers, but more importantly, what words themselves come to mean through our cultural and social backgrounds also filter data and, in turn, meaning. Trying to think of any object, concept or idea without its specific symbolic representation floating around your mind is impossible. Now imagine trying to communicate those things to someone else without the use of symbols; good luck.

​To keep this Ufologically relevant, let’s look at owls as an example. Owls, biologically, are birds. They fly. They are predators. They typically hunt at night. With all that information, consider your ideology here. Owl as predator and hunter versus owl as flying bird. They draw two very different interpretations, two different feelings, two different symbolic states of what an owl is, or perhaps more appropriately, can be. Toss some Ufological mythology into the mix, and owls become symbolic of alien abduction and/or contact, messengers between realms, screen memories, or a link between humanity and The Phenomenon. Owls, like anything else, coexist within multiple symbolic meanings, from simple biological bird to complicated mythological archetype.
 
Science, whether it likes it or not, functions within a linguistic reality. The study’s author uses the expression ‘post-truth era’ in the summary of the paper. That expression is hugely complex, not just politically, but symbolically. Furthermore, what do we mean by truth? Does this assume that there was an era of ‘actual’ truth where nothing was questioned? The current political situation within the United States also gives significant symbolic impact to the term, whereas fifty years ago, it would have meant something totally different. The very use of that phrase only adds credence to my claim; no discourse or practice is objective.
 
Another example often thrown around is the expression “anti-science.” Again, what symbols and myths are generated with this expression? Flat-Earthers and climate change deniers could be considered ‘anti-science,’ but what about someone merely being skeptical of scientific dogma and the current paradigm which suggests science is ‘the way, the truth, and the light.’ Is being critical of scientific ideology tantamount to being opposed to it? Last time I checked, criticism does not equate to open rebellion.
 
What we see here is that the scientific community, particularly established bodies of power within that community, have used the symbolic and mythological power of language to generate meaning in order to retain power. “Post-truth era” and “anti-science” are political and social terms designed to target those who are critical of established scientific ideology. The people and groups who fit into those two categories are considered irrational, yet “rationality” by its very nature depends upon consensus by the majority, and is not always objective. Many things we do on a daily basis are irrational, yet we have all agreed to do those things, therefore they have become rational. No one looks at you funny when you buy bottled water or decide that you need to own an automatic assault rifle, yet both acts, it could be argued, are irrational due to various reasons.  
 
"Anti-science" creationists, conspiracy nuts, and scientists all work within the same framework. Language governs all of them. It creates filters which alters meaning away from objectivity but into the realm of mythology. The problem is that the more words you create and the more ideas you generate, the more filters get put up. As philosopher Jacques Derrida reminds us, language “differs” (I know what something is based upon everything it isn’t) and “defers” (The more words and symbols I add when I communicate, the more those words and symbols adjust meaning). The more information and data you have and provide, the more your ideological framework jumps around. Seeking ‘the truth’ is like walking down a path where every single movement of your body generates an infinite amount of more paths. Where scientists, creationists and conspiracists differ is that they all simply choose different paths. Where they are identical is that they all believe that their path is the correct one. 

This leads me to cultural paradigms, and I am reminded of author and scientist Rupert Sheldrake. I am not a scientist, so I cannot comment on the validity of his scientific claims. His peers consider him a parapsychologist and he is often charged with dabbling in pseudo-science. While he very may well be a terrible scientist (I honestly do not know), the criticism hurled at him points to a clear dogmatism, and therefore symbolic mythology, present in the scientific community. An editor of the science journal Nature once charged him with “heresy” because his work openly criticized the scientific community.  
 
As Sheldrake points out in his book, The Science Delusion, science and scientists are not the problem. Rather, it is the economics of science and the bodies which govern it. Disrupting the status quo within the scientific establishment leads scientists on a path towards professional death. Exploring concepts and ideas, even if the evidence points in that direction, that deviates from the standard and accepted ideologies will not be funded or, at times, even allowed to continue.
 
Sheldrake points out in the book that unconventional ideas are typically pushed aside because journals are only willing to fund research that gets a “high citation index” which really only benefits established scientific fields.  What this all leads to, according to Sheldrake, is an “innovation deficit.” Scientists are not allowed to follow their data or evidence if it contains deviation or abnormalities, nor if they wish to study something off the beaten path. To the mainstream, any anomalous data is flawed, or the scientist has clearly lost their mind. What this leads to a slowdown in scientific development and innovation.

​I am not suggesting here that science is wrong or bad. Such a statement is silly. Nor am I saying that Flat Earthers are ‘as correct’ as, well, everyone else. The Earth is not flat. Climate change is happening. I can go on. I love science.

​What I am trying to get at here is that the idea and act of science, and more importantly, the power structure of science, is entrenched within the same cultural frameworks as everything else. It has its own series of filters, ideologies, social and cultural pressures, paradigms, financial concerns, and desire to remain as the arbiter of human knowledge and understanding. Science and those who do it hold all the power. Those who disagree and challenge that power are considered irrational, stupid or ‘woo woo’ (which are all mythological and symbolic ideologies, and not based in any objective evidentiary truths). This includes those of us out here in the fringes, as well as those scientists who are also pushed to the edges due to their interests.
 
Within UFO discourse, we see science holding this curious dual position. On one hand, Ufologists often want science and scientists to be more involved in the process. MUFON allegedly investigates UFOs using scientific means, and one often sees great excitement when academic scientists get involved in the UFO debate, especially if they support ‘the cause.’ On the flip side, UFO discourse is quick to point out that science is elitist, embargoed by secret cabals, and, at times, the tool of skeptics and debunkers. Nowhere are the symbolic and mythological paradigms of the illusion of scientific authority more debated than within UFO circles.

​We are at a curious place. The UFO community has plenty of scientists working in it, some of them engaged in Tom DeLonge’s To The Stars Academy, while others seem to be working alongside other investors or on their own. Have they found a little niche for themselves, pursuing the un-pursuable?  Have they broken out of the established paradigm, appreciative of the fact that science is not so clear cut as their high school teachers may have taught them? Or, perhaps as that one editor of Nature put it, are they heretics?
 
Bearing the study in mind, the UFO community regularly engages in conspiratorial thinking. On the various online UFO forums and social media outlets, To The Stars Academy has often been labeled as a government program, or involved in purposeful perception management to disinform the public. Robert Bigelow’s NIDS and BAASS programs were also the target of such talk as well. While not directly, the study points to the fact that the UFO community does often suffer from teleological bias. Yet, at the same time, the very debate which circles around UFOs bluntly asserts my earlier points that while science may hold a lot of cards, it doesn’t hold all of them. While it claims higher truths and objectivity, it unfortunately dwells in the same muck as the rest of us. We ALL are governed by our symbols and ideologies.

​​To The Stars and Bigelow’s former programs, while connected to the government in certain ways, are not necessarily conspiratorial disinformation or intelligence programs. There is no actual evidence which proves some grand conspiracy, but only little circumstantial foot prints which one can follow in any direction. What actually occurs is the conspiracist “feels” something is going on, when really, it could be nothing more than simple coincidence.
 
The UFO community is a mixed bag. It is a curious collection of science and conspiracy, attempts at truth surrounded by myth. What becomes ever more difficult is deconstructing that jumble of symbolism and meaning into simpler parts. To be honest, it is impossible. The more we attempt to deconstruct, the more constructs we tend to form. UFOs, real and not, force us to question not only our own teleology, but also the teleology of science and other established power systems. Whether this is by citing conspiracies or scientifically driven ‘objective truths,’ we tend to end up in the same place. As Dirk Gently points out, we end up with filters on top of filters. This begs a big question; do all of our Ufological disputes, rivalries, and back biting simply all lead us down the path towards symbolic illusions? If so, the zealot believers and conspiracy theorists, and the skeptics and debunkers all seem to be pulling meaning from a place of teleology.  

-MJ Banias

While the release date is unknown, The History Channel is promising its new series, "Project Blue Book," will be out sometime in the winter.
 
For those of you living outside of the Ufological universe, according to The History Channel,
 
“’Project Blue Book’ is based on the true, Top Secret investigations into Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) and related phenomena conducted by the United States Air Force from 1952-1969. The series is inspired by the personal experiences of Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a brilliant college professor recruited by the U.S. Air Force to spearhead this clandestine operation (Project Blue Book) that researched thousands of cases, over 700 of which remain unsolved to this day. Each episode will draw from the actual case files, blending UFO theories with authentic historical events from one of the most mysterious eras in United States history.”
 
The project is headed up by none other than Robert Zemeckis, the guy who did "Contact" and "Back to the Future," and stars Aidan Gillen (Littlefinger in "Game of Thrones") as the father of modern UFO research, J. Allen Hynek.

​The show is being sold as a fictional series, but one that looks at real Blue Book cases in an attempt to bring awareness to the UFO phenomenon. While the fans of "Ancient Aliens" and other similar programming are undoubtedly excited, I think many within the deeper UFO community are perhaps a touch concerned.
 
So, being that I am a generous fellow and want to ensure History’s newest show doesn’t suffer the same fate Littlefinger did in "Game of Thrones," (oops, should have said “spoiler alert”) here are the three things the series must do to reach the hearts of the UFO community. 

1) Take the phenomenon seriously. 

Most of us in the UFO subculture have basically thrown aspects of our life away. I am officially “that guy who is into UFOs,” and it generally sucks. Sure, people still accept you. Sure, you still get invited to parties. However, every time anything UFO related pops up, everyone stops and looks at you, hoping you chime in so they can all have a good laugh behind your back. Personally, I have it easy. My wife accepts my weirdness and my kids are young, so they are convinced UFOs are just part of everyday life (#softdisclosure). My co-workers have come to accept it, or generally could care less. Life is sweet.
 
However, I know a few people who have lost grant money for academic projects, spouses, and their jobs for even being slightly involved in UFO discourse. Depending on your employers and your industry, it can be pretty dangerous out there. So why put up with the all the crap? The phenomenon, assuming it exists, is undoubtedly the most important scientific, philosophical, theological, social, and cultural pursuit there is. Gaining actual insight into the possibility that there exists an intelligent objective and real “Other” outside of ourselves changes everything. Such a discovery would affect all aspects of existence; humanity is no longer the sole arbiter of the decisions regarding its station on Earth, the Cosmos or reality itself.
 
Assuming they had the brain capacity, imagine how Neanderthals in Europe felt when Homo Sapiens rolled in. What is the word for when complete and utter fear cohabitates with relief and need? They realized they were not alone (Praise be to the gods!), and then realized they were not alone (Oh hell no!).
 
Once you begin to pursue this question, this reality, then your grip on daily life becomes a little more tenuous. You begin to look awry at the world around you. Some of us hold on as best we can, but I know others who have slipped away and are different people now. Poof. Gone. Regardless of your personal opinion on this, as some may chalk it up to mental health or stability, the phenomenon has an impact, and often, a very serious one.
 
With all that being said, let’s avoid, or at least tone down, the tropes of conspiracy, secret “men in black,” and government cover-ups. MJ-12 is so 1980’s; let’s just keep that nonsense to a very minimum. Tell real stories and try hard to keep them authentic; these things change people’s lives, and not always for the better. 

2) But don’t take the phenomenon TOO seriously. 

If you can laugh about it, you can talk about it. That is a fundamental truth. I’m going to assume that this series will follow an “X-Files” model. Different stories each episode, yet an over-arching plot line that will wrap up by the final episode. Classic. Awesome.
 
Keeping in mind what I stated above, I am friends with a lot of ‘UFO people.’ Most of them are ‘normal’ everyday folks who drive their kids to gymnastics and drink beer. A few, however, are totally wild and wacky. If there is a box to live inside, they lost that box somewhere on the side of a desert highway and walk a very strange path. Do they take themselves seriously? Hell no! They know they are a little ‘out there’ and they love it.
 
Nothing is funnier than a Ufologist or UFO investigator who thinks they are Fox Mulder. We all know some of these folks. They walk around in their black utility vests, armed with a pistol, and drive SUV’s full of evidence collection bags and latex gloves. They mean well, but God help them, they need to relax a bit. You would never have seen Hynek rocking a .357 ready to blow a Grey’s head off.
 
Trying to attract a popular audience is fine. Go ahead. Everyone loves pulp fiction. Have fun. Just try not to make the UFO community look like a bunch of fools who take themselves incredibly seriously. We laugh. A lot. Mostly at ourselves. 

​3) Move beyond the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis 

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Popular media is stuck on the ideology that flying saucers are piloted by aliens from other planets. The mainstream adjusts slowly, I suppose, to strange things. The vast majority of people are tourists when it comes to the UFO enigma. They try a bit of the local cuisine from time to time, dabble in a touch of this or that, and then move on to the next thing. Scratching the surface of the Ufological narrative usually leads a person just deep enough to reach the “nuts and bolts biological aliens” idea. Being tourists, they don’t go much further down, and they certainly do not begin to piece together the varied tales, stories and “evidence.” In truth, no hypothesis really works. Whatever is going on, it is well beyond anything we can imagine.
 
With all that being said, my dearest producers at History Channel, please recognize that your role in all this is that of the gatekeeper. The mythology you weave through the stories you ‘green light’ will dictate a lot for the UFO community. Everyone starts off exploring UFOs somewhere. “Project Blue Book” will undoubtedly bring a bit of new blood into the UFO community; please try to educate as much as you try to entertain. I know you have superiors, corporate bosses, parent corporations, CFOs, VPs of Marketing, and CEOs. You need to make a profit, I get that. You need ratings. Just avoid sanitizing the UFO for a mainstream TV audience palate. Tell an authentic and grass roots tale as best you can. Damn the man.
 
UFOs, as a cultural and mythological phenomenon, are incredibly complex. There are narratives on top of meta-narratives. Social and political events affect interpretations and ideological frameworks which in turn shape the phenomenon itself. It is, as Carl Jung called it, “a living myth.” To really simplify what could be pages and pages of philosophy, please, for the love of God, let the plot for your show be more complicated than aliens in jars from a crashed flying saucer in the desert. In ‘truth,’ and I use that word loosely, the UFO phenomenon is much richer, convoluted, absurd, and complicated than aliens in space ships from Zeta Reticuli. Many of my friends and peers in this field have dedicated decades to the study of UFOs. They know the whole alien thing is just one theory, and most likely, not the correct one. Don’t rehash that same old story. We’ve had it. It’s done. Gone. Let it die quietly without a bang, and hell, no whimper either. 

Three simple things can go a long way. We love you, History Channel. You kids are alright. Sure, "Ancient Aliens" is pretty ridiculous at times. No UFO researcher worth their salt has ever “suggested” ancient astronauts are responsible for the Pyramids. However, you and your company have gone all-in on the UFO thing and I can respect that.
 
I’m sure there will be some disagreement with me on a couple things from some colleagues, most likely about my claim that "Ancient Aliens" is only ridiculous “at times,” but they are just posers. They watch it. Everyone secretly loves Tsoukalos with his crazy Swiss hair and body building expertise. I would totally buy that guy a beer. Actually, scratch that, he’s rich so he can buy me a beer.
 
I hope this helps, and I hope you take some of my advice. I definitely don’t speak for the whole UFO community, but as someone who kicks around Ufological circles, I have a pretty good handle on the situation. Oh, and well-done casting Gillen. That guy basically made "Game of Thrones" the best. Now that Littlefinger is dead, I could care less what happens to Westeros. Full disclosure (easy Bassett), I hope the White Walkers win…

-MJ Banias

For those who pay attention to the comings and goings of individuals within the UFO community, MUFON has lost another one of its prized members. Primarily to its own inability to do anything right regarding public relations or ethics, Chris Cogswell, its newly appointed Director of Research, has chosen to leave the organization only a few short months after taking the job. Cogswell, being a man of reason and clearly in possession of a moral backbone, has taken issue with MUFON’s inability to cut one of their top brass, John Ventre, loose.
 
For many on the outer rim of the UFO community, they may recognize Mr. Ventre from his multiple appearances on MUFON’s “tell-all” TV show, Hangar 1. For those who dove a little deeper into the subculture’s pool, they may recall an incident which occurred in May of 2017 when Mr. Ventre vented publicly, on Facebook, his disdain for a show called “Dear White People” and his curious, albeit incorrect, belief that “whites” invented everything.  

​Michael Horn, the Authorized American Media Representative for Billy Meir, recently ‘called me out’ during one of his YouTube shows. He suggested that my current book project is a waste of time, and that my work studying the UFO subculture is a foolish enterprise. He criticized me for not believing in Meier’s claims concerning his alleged contact with the Plejaren, and that I had not done ‘true’ research into the case. He claims that the extent of my research concerning the Meier case comes from all the fraud UFO researchers who suggest that Meier’s evidence is hoaxed. You can view those alleged frauds here and here. I do not want to engage with Meier’s claims. I personally do not care.
 
Rather, I’d like to discuss Mr. Horn’s need to compel belief in Meier, and perhaps in turn, himself as his torchbearer.  
 
Horn is the “world’s leading expert on UFOs,” according to George Noory. His About page also lists a long pedigree of being basically everything, from martial arts expert to the inventor of the “first portable neck pillow.” Compared to him, I am but a small player in the UFO world (and the travel pillow industry), and I haven’t really invented anything of consequence. However, I do have a soapbox.

​Horn’s claim revolves around his fundamental belief that the Billy Meier case is the only true case of ET contact, and that all other UFOlogical work is wasted on frauds, fakes, and useless lights in the sky. 

Apart from literally alienating everyone else who has had a UFO sighting or contact experience, Mr. Horn spent a bulk of his criticism concerning my poor research skills, and that of the broader UFO community. 

I do not take issue with Meier’s evidence, and Mr. Horn’s defence of said evidence. They can believe whatever they want. Where things became problematic for Mr. Horn was when I informed him that, regardless of his claims of real evidence, I did not accept Meier as some messianic prophet. My “personal criteria for belief” were not met by Mr. Meier’s photographs, stories, and prophetic visions. That is usually how it goes in situations like this; it always hinges upon belief, and not necessarily what can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Perhaps I am merely the Doubting Thomas to Mr. Horn’s Simon Peter, while Meier is Horn’s Christ-like figure. I demand to ‘place my fingers in the holes in his hands’ before I assume Meier is telling me the truth. 

​Mr. Horn claims that Meier and his ‘belief system’ are not religious. However, when I simply asserted that I had no interest in discussing the Meier case, and that I did not buy into Meier’s claims, Mr. Horn pursued the issue with significant vigour and zeal. I do admit that I did mention to another person in an e-mail, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Meier did seem like a ‘cult leader,’ and maybe that was unfair of me. However, by making a claim that Meier is the ‘only true contactee’ and is the only person receiving true prophetic visions from an alien race sure sounds like religious and cult-like messaging. Adding to this, Mr. Horn’s constant need to defend Meier, and be his messenger, only adds to the feeling that there are theological and religious motifs at play. To be clear, while Meier may not be a cult leader, he sure ‘feels’ like one.
 
I recently read an interesting article by Dr. Massimo Teodorani concerning the UFO community’s ‘need to believe versus know.’ He writes,

“UFO iconography is a drug at all effects, and can be used to switch minds in many ways, also to collect proselytes to make up new fanatic religions, but more generally to give people a sort of psychological medicine with which people can escape from the hard reality of everyday, where the continuous competitions of present society often obscure the human and spiritual dimension: people need to retrieve the very nucleus of their soul. This intimate need is clearly legitimate, but it is also risky: in fact persons who are not well rationally grounded are very easily subject to manipulation: it seems that most persons in the world are just in this condition, especially at our epoch. When critical thinking starts to lack, who leads this society has at his disposal a huge mass of sheep, ready to follow alleged miracles, saviour aliens and related gurus. The less people think in a grounded way the least this people are conscious of what is happening at their shoulders. This is the effect of UFO iconography.”
 
Whether Horn reads this or not, I’d like to be perfectly clear on one thing. I am simply choosing to stay critical. Yes, I am critical of Meier’s ‘evidence.’ I am critical of all ‘UFO evidence.’ As Teodorani points out, the UFO icon, the UFO image, beckons us to believe, as if the flying saucer (or Beam Ship in the Meier case), will lead us to some supposed truth. Meier and Horn simply want me to “retrieve the nucleus of my soul,” and see their beliefs as being the only beliefs.
 
Perhaps the fundamental issue at hand is that Meier is no longer authentic, but merely an icon, an image. As historian and philosopher Daniel Boorstin pointed out,

“We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them…They are the world of our making: the world of the image.”
 
Meier, somewhere in his experience, be it true or false, is no longer himself, but lost adrift in the image he has created of himself, and that others have created for him. As with any saviour, any messiah, he or she must shed themselves, their own reality, to become that illusion which their followers need and want. Much like Plejaren Beam Ships and flying discs, Meier is no longer grounded in the self, but has been removed from it; a ghost, an illusion, both present but also not. 

I struggled with writing this post. I fear diving into the abyss and facing the wrath of Mr. Horn. A person, no matter what they think, can be rational, and appreciate that I simply do not believe. I have doubts, and this being the 21st century, they should be fine with that. However, if Mr. Horn is no longer the man he once was, he is an image, a symbol of some new faith, which must defend itself at all costs, then reason no longer matters; rather, it becomes a battle of ‘them versus us.’
 
I stand, ultimately, at the precipice. I hold my breath. Mr. Horn pushed me here when he publicly recounted the content of private emails between us; the real question is whether he is willing throw himself at me again. Regardless of the struggle on the way down, we both know what is waiting for us. Rock bottom.
 
Unless he uses his expert martial arts to grab onto the cliff’s edge before he topples over with me. Damn it! Look at those moves. This is going to hurt…
 
 
- MJ Banias

Michael Horn attempted to comment on the above post. Unfortunately, the comment box only allows a certain amount of characters before cutting off a comment. I have spoken with Mr. Horn, who was quite understanding and reasonable, and I will post his entire rebuttal below which he sent to me via e-mail. It is only fair that he be able to address my article concerning Meier and himself. 

My intention at this time is not to respond with a point by point counter argument. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't want to hit "rock bottom" by engaging in an argument which will fundamentally hinge upon faith in a prophet's words. 

I appreciate that Mr. Horn is advocating for something (and even someone) he as dedicated a major portion of his life to. I also appreciate that Billy Meier, and Mr. Horn, have been targets of ridicule and attack by the broader UFO community. To Mr. Horn, my article is undoubtedly another shot across the bow to which, understandably, he must shoot back. 

While Mr. Horn wholeheartedly denies my claim that Meier "feels" like a cult leader, I do stand by my words at this time. Should my 'feelings' change, I will be the first to admit it. However, many religions, both Ufological and not, have been founded upon alleged evidence and prophesy. Is Meier a cult leader? I do not know, and I leave that for better researchers than I to sort out. I think that this battle has already been waged however, and a simple Google search of Billy Meier will lead to many websites and books that have gone back and forth on this claim; perhaps most notably the 'UFO Prophet Blog'.

I wish to conclude by saying that Mr. Horn, since the writing of his response below, has extended an olive branch of sorts. He considers Billy Meier's message to be incredibly important, and fights for it with significant vigour because he thinks our very planet depends on it. I hold no ill will towards Mr. Horn regarding of the contents of his rebuttal. As many of my readers know, I take some interest in the UFO phenomenon itself but my true passion and focus is on the UFO community itself, its interactions and ideologies. My interest in the Meier case is more anthropological and cultural, and not truly in the evidence (be it legitimate or not) regarding Meier's contact with extraterrestrial beings. 

We are all seekers of truth, and we all take solace in the truth in different ways. Regardless of where you, the reader, stands concerning the Billy Meier case, I, and undoubtedly Mr. Horn, invite you to do what you see fit to find that truth. We will not all walk the same path, but let us remember to be respectful of every path so long as it is honest and well intentioned. 

​- MJ Banias

***********
Mr. Horn's Response 

MJ,
If only you’d used a fraction of the energy you did in making quacking sounds here to actually research and substantiate your claims, you might not have ended up, self-admittedly, standing on a box of…soap.
I will insert corrections to your silly inaccuracies.
MJ: Michael Horn, the Authorized American Media Representative for Billy Meir, recently ‘called me out’ during one of his YouTube shows. He suggested that my current book project is a waste of time, and that my work studying the UFO subculture is a foolish enterprise. He criticized me for not believing in Meier’s claims concerning his alleged contact with the Plejaren, and that I had not done ‘true’ research into the case. He claims that the extent of my research concerning the Meier case comes from all the fraud UFO researchers who suggest that Meier’s evidence is hoaxed. You can view those alleged frauds here and here. I do not want to engage with Meier’s claims. I personally do not care.
 
MH: I have never criticized anyone for “not believing in Meier’s claims concerning his alleged contact with the Plejaren”, since I have never asked anyone to believe…anything. $200 to your favorite charity for showing the contrary. We are strictly evidence and fact based in our approach, research, claims, etc. You just don’t have what it takes to address that, as we’ll see, repeatedly throughout your article. 
 
MJ: Rather, I’d like to discuss Mr. Horn’s need to compel belief in Meier, and perhaps in turn, himself as his torchbearer.  

MH: Again, young amateur that you are, you talk about “belief”, a non-existent element in all of the evidence, information, analyses, etc.
 
MJ: Horn is the “world’s leading expert on UFOs,” according to George Noory. His About page also lists a long pedigree of being basically everything, from martial arts expert to the inventor of the “first portable neck pillow.” Compared to him, I am but a small player in the UFO world (and the travel pillow industry), and I haven’t really invented anything of consequence. However, I do have a soapbox.
 
Horn’s claim revolves around his fundamental belief that the Billy Meier case is the only true case of ET contact, and that all other UFOlogical work is wasted on frauds, fakes, and useless lights in the sky. 
 
MH: Again - and now it must be called out as a blatant, unsubstantiated, deliberate…lie – I have expressed no “beliefs”, fundamental, or otherwise. Obivously, I have every email I sent you.

MJ: Apart from literally alienating everyone else who has had a UFO sighting or contact experience, Mr. Horn spent a bulk of his criticism concerning my poor research skills, and that of the broader UFO community. 
 
MH: While I make no apologies for “alienating” evidence-less people, lease present actual, credible, testable evidence for “everyone else” who has had a “contact experience”. And why aren’t you rebutting  my criticism with actual…evidence that you or anyone else in this field knows what they’re talking about?

MJ: I do not take issue with Meier’s evidence, and Mr. Horn’s defence of said evidence. They can believe whatever they want. Where things became problematic for Mr. Horn was when I informed him that, regardless of his claims of real evidence, I did not accept Meier as some messianic prophet. My “personal criteria for belief” were not met by Mr. Meier’s photographs, stories, and prophetic visions. That is usually how it goes in situations like this; it always hinges upon belief, and not necessarily what can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Perhaps I am merely the Doubting Thomas to Mr. Horn’s Simon Peter, while Meier is Horn’s Christ-like figure. I demand to ‘place my fingers in the holes in his hands’ before I assume Meier is telling me the truth. 
 
MH: “Believe”…again? “Messianic prophet”? Please substantiate. Your “personal criteria for belief” are irrelevant, ignorantly so, as is “it always hinges upon belief, and not necessarily what can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.” Especially since, incompetent attention-seeker that you are, you didn’t read and avail yourself of these:
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/08/18/billy-meier-beyond-reasonable-doubt/
https://theyflyblog.com/2017/09/25/its-1964-all-over-again/
MJ: Mr. Horn claims that Meier and his ‘belief system’ are not religious. However, when I simply asserted that I had no interest in discussing the Meier case, and that I did not buy into Meier’s claims, Mr. Horn pursued the issue with significant vigour and zeal. I do admit that I did mention to another person in an e-mail, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Meier did seem like a ‘cult leader,’ and maybe that was unfair of me. However, by making a claim that Meier is the ‘only true contactee’ and is the only person receiving true prophetic visions from an alien race sure sounds like religious and cult-like messaging. Adding to this, Mr. Horn’s constant need to defend Meier, and be his messenger, only adds to the feeling that there are theological and religious motifs at play. To be clear, while Meier may not be a cult leader, he sure ‘feels’ like one.
 
MH: Mr. Horn, that’s me, indeed pursued the issue…since you had already told someone the case was a fraud, that it was a cult, etc. Need I again point out your dishonest “belief system”? As far as “sounds like religious and cult-like messaging… feeling that there are theological and religious motifs at play”, would have the decency – since you lack the journalistic and professional ethics – to substantiate your precious little…feelings?
 
MJ: I recently read an interesting article by Dr. Massimo Teodorani concerning the UFO community’s ‘need to believe versus know.’ He writes,

“UFO iconography is a drug at all effects, and can be used to switch minds in many ways, also to collect proselytes to make up new fanatic religions, but more generally to give people a sort of psychological medicine with which people can escape from the hard reality of everyday, where the continuous competitions of present society often obscure the human and spiritual dimension: people need to retrieve the very nucleus of their soul. This intimate need is clearly legitimate, but it is also risky: in fact persons who are not well rationally grounded are very easily subject to manipulation: it seems that most persons in the world are just in this condition, especially at our epoch. When critical thinking starts to lack, who leads this society has at his disposal a huge mass of sheep, ready to follow alleged miracles, saviour aliens and related gurus. The less people think in a grounded way the least this people are conscious of what is happening at their shoulders. This is the effect of UFO iconography.”


MH: Why didn’t you spend your time reading the actual evidence in the Meier case, instead of trying to use someone else’s comments, which contain no mention of Meier,  to attack it?
 
MJ: Whether Horn reads this or not, I’d like to be perfectly clear on one thing. I am simply choosing to stay critical. Yes, I am critical of Meier’s ‘evidence.’ I am critical of all ‘UFO evidence.’ As Teodorani points out, the UFO icon, the UFO image, beckons us to believe, as if the flying saucer (or Beam Ship in the Meier case), will lead us to some supposed truth. Meier and Horn simply want me to “retrieve the nucleus of my soul,” and see their beliefs as being the only beliefs.
 
Perhaps the fundamental issue at hand is that Meier is no longer authentic, but merely an icon, an image. As historian and philosopher Daniel Boorstin pointed out,

“We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them…They are the world of our making: the world of the image.”


Meier, somewhere in his experience, be it true or false, is no longer himself, but lost adrift in the image he has created of himself, and that others have created for him. As with any saviour, any messiah, he or she must shed themselves, their own reality, to become that illusion which their followers need and want. Much like Plejaren Beam Ships and flying discs, Meier is no longer grounded in the self, but has been removed from it; a ghost, an illusion, both present but also not. 
 
I struggled with writing this post. I fear diving into the abyss and facing the wrath of Mr. Horn. A person, no matter what they think, can be rational, and appreciate that I simply do not believe. I have doubts, and this being the 21st century, they should be fine with that. However, if Mr. Horn is no longer the man he once was, he is an image, a symbol of some new faith, which must defend itself at all costs, then reason no longer matters; rather, it becomes a battle of ‘them versus us.’
 
I stand, ultimately, at the precipice. I hold my breath. Mr. Horn pushed me here when he publicly recounted the content of private emails between us; the real question is whether he is willing throw himself at me again. Regardless of the struggle on the way down, we both know what is waiting for us. Rock bottom.
 
Unless he uses his expert martial arts to grab onto the cliff’s edge before he topples over with me. Damn it! Look at those moves. This is going to hurt…
 
MH: Honestly, “stay critical” and this poor guy “struggled with writing this post”? My question is, why did he…give up the struggle so easily?
 
I know that my calling out these effete, pretentious and clearly inept poseurs, like MJ, who view the Meier case as another opportunity to present their spineless, wimpy and unsubstantiated tripe, offends the overly-sensitive. Maybe a bucket of cold water over their collective heads would drain the crap out and wake them up to where in hell they really are.
 
Look around, young clowns, that this world that is descending on – and doubtlessly offending – your poor, precious sense of reality is precisely what Meier and his Plejaren friends have been trying to warn us – you - about, in hopes that we/you would truly want to assure our own future survival.
 
Within not too long a time, coming events will so reframe our realities and priorities, that we’ll be left to wonder WHY on earth we ever let this historically significant matter be hijack by timid, boring academics, refugees from some misguided college course on “How to Master the Art of Hack Journalism”.
 
If MJ wants to actually research, learn and/or engage in debate – shockingly traumatic experiences for Snowflakes and Millennials to be sure – let him do so. After all, he’s inheriting the world much warned about and I worry that he’s quite  ill-prepared to live in it.

“We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality. We demand them. And we demand that there be always more of them, bigger and better and more vivid. They are the world of our making: the world of the image.”
                                                                                                                      -Daniel J. Boorstin, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America   

I have argued in the past that UFO discourse, debate, and inquiry has been relegated to the taboo fringe due to contemporary hegemonic power systems, such as late Capitalist ideology. To continue exploring the cultural theories that direct Ufological ideology, I wish to explore the alien abduction/contact question, and focus on the broader UFO community’s acceptance of this phenomenon as being an act of defiance against the status quo power systems which hegemonically govern Western ideology and society.
 
I appreciate that there are many people within the UFO community and subculture that do not accept the abduction/contact phenomenon as being objectively real, and therefore, legitimate. The intention of this article is not to explore the reality of abduction and contact. To be honest, the ‘truth’ behind the phenomenon does not matter. What matters, at least from a critical standpoint, is that the phenomenon, in UFO circles, does have a broad acceptance of being authentic, and, for all intents and purposes, is “real.”
 
To avoid further compartmentalizing the UFO subculture into various camps of belief, we can generally appreciate the relativism that surrounds the abduction/contact narrative. Those within the UFO community who have not totally ‘alienated’ experiencers generally approach the phenomenon with a “whatever floats your boat” attitude. In other words, “everyone is entitled to an opinion.” This relativist attitude is quite common within UFO discourse, as the UFO/UAP phenomenon is ideologically tied to the abduction/contact phenomenon.

Furthermore, the attitude generally follows a subjectivist metaphysical line of thinking. The common argument goes something like this:
 
What is the difference between believing in God and believing in aliens? People believe in Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Samsara and various avatars, messianic prophets of all sorts, reincarnation, and a whole assortment of other deities. Is not the belief in extraterrestrials, interdimensional beings, or some other alien intelligent Other the same? Humans have a variety of religious and spiritual beliefs which are generally respected. In fact, as our species begins to piece together more information about the cosmos, and the discoveries of dozens of exoplanets which could potentially harbour life, doesn’t the science basically justify the possibility of life elsewhere in our galaxy, and that it is well within the realm of reason that it is coming here?
 
The theology, while controversial, is just that, theology. It matters not, especially since we can look at the ebb and flow of UFO/ET religions over the last several decades with crisp hindsight. I do not support a theological belief in aliens, however, the ideological “catch 22” here does have a certain level of truth to it.
 
An interesting cultural phenomenon is that with all the various religions and beliefs out there, assuming that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth, or some other similar ideology, is culturally taboo. Mainstream cultural ideology has no problem with faith in the various, albeit appropriate and allowable, religious deities, but faith in an alien Other, that is considered wholly unacceptable.
 
The abduction/contact narrative is, in simple terms, countercultural. Furthermore, the tacit support for the people who experience these events, and the general acceptance of this phenomenon by the UFO subculture, is an overt act of dissent towards established cultural and social ideologies. This relativistic position challenges the taboo, and the mainstream culture as a whole. It is a saber rattling performance, a haka (to borrow from the Maori of New Zealand), which generates an ideology for the disenfranchised. A sort of, “people are abducted by aliens, and I’m OK with that” mentality.
 
Supporting the abductee/contactee creates the appearance of radicalism, and attempts to subvert the scientific, academic, political and economic power systems designed to maintain the cultural and social status quo. It tries to force the mainstream consensus reality into the proverbial corner, and provide a view into a world consisting of individuality, unique thought, and ‘authenticity.’
 
“Damn the man.” Well, sort of. As I stated above, “it tries.”

​This worldview without judgement, supported by the UFO community and the abductees/contactees, is not what it seems. Similar to the mechanisms of late Capitalism, and the constructs of contemporary power systems, this anti-establishment position generated by the UFO community is an illusion.          
 
To borrow an idea from the French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, concerning ‘hyperreal’ states, we, as a society, struggle to interpret what is real and what is not. In his famous work, Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard writes,
 
“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning. (79)”
 
It is not that we lack information regarding the phenomenon, as a search of the MUFON database or YouTube will provide a large collection of abduction/contactee stories; rather, it is that we struggle with the ability to distinguish between real and ‘unreal.’ We cannot differentiate the experience from ‘the image.’
 
The abduction/contact narrative is hyperreal, it exists because there is information regarding it; YouTube videos, blog posts, books, TV shows, documentaries, podcasts, and late night radio shows. However, it also does not exist, as it is not a shared or common human experience. When faced with a story of abduction and/or contact, we, individually, must decide its reality, yet the ‘act of decision’ is objectively impossible. The story, the narrative, is not simply the telling of an event, but a vast collection of technological data, interpretation, and a subject with very little judgeable information flooded by opinions of ‘experts’ on both sides of the debate. In other words, the abduction/contact story is not the event itself, but the collection of ideology which surrounds that event. One cannot separate one instance of abduction/contact from the rest; there is no place to stand from which to do that, as no one can shed their ‘knowledge’ concerning the phenomenon. We cannot remove ‘the image’ from the picture.

The act of support by the general UFO community for the abduction/contact narrative is ultimately a simulacrum. It is pretend, not because members of the community do not mean it, but because they want it to have meaning. The UFO community inundates the abduction/contact narrative with other illusions and ideologies, compounding it, influencing it, and only widening the expanse between real and ‘hyperreal.’ Charges of government conspiracy, insidious hybrid baby breeding, Disclosure, secret space programs, and many other scenarios complicate the narrative. The ‘information’ spins and churns and collapses on itself only to spin and churn and collapse again, ad infinitum. Similar to the lights and sounds of the Las Vegas strip, the city becomes lost in the fantasy, and the fantasy becomes the city itself; the two cannot be separated. This relativist support for the abduction/contact narrative is, in totality, tied into the web of information, but essentially meaningless.
 
Where does this leave us?
 
The problem with ideologies is that they cut both ways. While the UFO community may look upon mainstream power systems, such as modern Capital or Government, with disdain and mistrust, the community itself does not have some special access to ‘truth’ or ‘reality.’ While mainstream society and culture may be a hyperreal state of constructed  illusions, the UFO subculture, and the politics it supports, is also illusionary. As the famous X-Files quote suggests, “The truth is out there.” That is to say, it is not in here with us, the UFO community. It is and forever will be “out there.”
 
With all of this, we still see the UFO community, and the abduction/contact narrative relegated to the fringes of general society. Regardless of the illusion, contemporary power systems require their ideological constructs to keep them functioning. The abduction/contact narrative, while ideologically motivated, still challenges the status quo. While it is merely the swapping of one ideology for another, albeit a more democratic ideology perhaps, current social, political and economic interests do not want a trade to occur.
 
The support for abductees/contactees among the general UFO community, that posturing haka, is still dangerous for the status quo. While we may never be free of ideology, perhaps some ideologies are “better” than others. This acceptance of those who interact with an alien Other shows a glimpse into the world of stark individuality, and a world where even the most alienated can find a place and voice within society. Is it perfect? No. Is it less worse? Maybe.
 
Do people get abducted or make contact with an intelligent Other? I personally do not know. Strange things do happen, and I’ll leave it at that. Whether it happens or not, the ideologies behind the abduction/contact event are truly what shape it, more so than the event itself. We cannot have the experience alone, that is impossible, rather we have ‘the image’ first, and the experience comes after.  

-MJ Banias

[Featured image: Alien Abduction (2014 film)]
​

​Keel himself went on to claim that he received many phone calls while investigating the Mothman legend from a person said to be Indrid Cold. This story, this very bizarre story, leads us down an interesting path in UFO discourse. Many other people came to have experiences with a strange man bearing a huge grin, and their tales vary from stark contrast to identical similarity with the Derenberger event.

Before us lies odd situation, one that calls into question the Ufological divide that exists between scientific and the mystical. What is the difference between the two? What series of arguments can one make to suggest one side is right, and the other is wrong?

The sides would both use scientific language, such as “look at the evidence” or “use logic and reason” to establish their cases. They would dive into the realms of psychology, citing deep seeded genetic archetypes established by evolution. They dive into religion, Buddhist and Hindu philosophies, and even provide historical evidence to prove that the UFO phenomenon is spiritual or scientific, or some mix of the two. They would provide big data, UFO sighting information, shapes, sizes, colours, and the rest. Whatever form the debate takes, it will ultimately run into the ever present brick wall; what differentiates the mystical from the scientific? What objective fact present in UFO discourse will shout, “Eureka!” and end the debate?

Nothing. There is no fact. No objective truth. That is the point of Indrid Cold. No member within the UFO community can claim with any objective truth that one Ufological event occurred, and the other did not. There is no fundamental difference between a witness seeing odd lights in the sky defying the laws of physics, and one man on a lonely stretch of highway bumping into a grinning man in a shiny suit. What is the difference between twenty people staring up at a strange disc hovering over Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in 2006 and twenty people having telepathic conversations with a man named Cold over several decades? Even the physical trace evidence can be called into question, is typically inconclusive, and is often fraught with issues concerning provenance and legitimacy. Does our interpretation of truth simply boil down to what sounds less crazy, and what fits more nicely into our consensus reality? It can be argued that both events are equally mind boggling. Yet, what evidence do we have for either case that proves one is true beyond the shadow of a doubt? What evidence exists that, without question, proves there is a UFO phenomenon, and it is caused by X? ​

Jeff Ritzmann’s definition of the archetypal trickster as that which “disobeys the rules and conventional behaviour” is the cornerstone to the UFO question. The debate rages around the extraterrestrial hypothesis, co-creation, mysticism, the psychosocial hypothesis, and many others because the UFO itself is that which “disobeys the rules.”

I do not claim that the Indrid Cold case is legitimate or a hoax. I honestly don’t care. What does matter is the symbolism of Indrid Cold, and that these three events lined up for me to write this post. Cold did not literally visit me in my basement as I watched Breedlove’s film that evening, but in a way, he did “tell” me something as his eerie visage appeared on the screen before me.

He showed me, as Ritzmann says, to explore the idea of being a “boundary crosser.” I do not believe in one UFO reality over another, and the luxury of my work within UFO discourse is that very freedom. Critical theory and philosophy allow me to dwell in many thought worlds, in the various systems of truth, and there are essentially no limits to logic experiments of the mind. This is the beauty of working with, what many have come to call, “exophilosophy.”

Some will argue that these thought experiments are useless, and only add to the “pile of bullshit” that is UFO discourse. Perhaps. To those who make that argument, I would ask them to provide tangible evidence that their scientific or mystical approach has made any headway. The filing cabinets and internet databases of sighting reports, cold case files, rehashed UFO events, charts, tables, declassified documents, hypnotherapy evaluations, psychological reports, and testimonies from ‘credible’ witnesses are all well and good, but they still form one big pile...and I don’t have to tell you what it all smells like to me. The razor cuts both ways.

Whatever is responsible for the UFO phenomenon, much like the trickster, it seems to sow chaos. Much like Derenberger on that night in November, we find ourselves in an unsettling place trying to figure out what is going on. As every second passes, we are left with only more questions, and significantly fewer answers. Praying that some light can be shed on this bizarre moment, we are greeted by a strange grinning man named Cold.

​-MJ Banias
​