WHY IS THE VIRTUAL EXPERIENCE HYPOTHESIS "BAD NEWS" FOR THE UFO SUBCULTURE?
J. Burkes MD
What I have put forward is both very disturbing. It should also be humbling. If the Virtual Experience Hypothesis (VEH )is correct then..
1. Many/most UFO sightings are not of physical objects but are the products of non-human intelligence employing a kind of hologram type technology to project images into the sky that all observers can see, and /or project images into the visual apparatus of selected observers in a group so that only some but not others looking at the same patch of sky are able to see the UFO. This explains what I have witnessed again and again during fieldwork. So most of so called UFOlogy which as you may understand I believe is a pseudoscience, is naturally going to reject this because it contradicts the beloved "nuts and bolts approach" that says dutifully taking down sighting reports will teach you important details about "craft." No instead it teaches about the technology of producing illusion. Perhaps it is a kind of intelligence test that most UFO fans fail miserably.
2. A VE Virtual Experience of the Second Kind is a real time virtual reality mechanism a la the movie "The Matrix." So we have all the experiencers, the abductees and contactees fighting among themselves about the nature of the beings, "good or bad", when really what they are arguing about is the nature of the scenarios presented in a theater of the mind setting. Experiencers keep telling us it is real because "I was physically taken somewhere." What if they go nowhere? I suspect that experiencers oppose the VE-3 mechanism because if it is a thing of the mind they fear once again they are going to be labeled delusional. They are not of course but try to convince them that the VEH is true after these experiences become a central part of their sense of self. Once the ego is heavily invested in one self-image, people will suspend all reason to defend their sense of self.
3. The VE-3 or Virtual Memory is the most troublesome because one simply wakes up with false memories of an "on board" or face-to-face encounters in the bedroom with alien beings. The entire experience is an impregnated memory.
What all this suggests is that there is no such thing as a reliable witness under most circumstances. Unless there are a host of physical observations, multiple witnesses, multiple radar tracing all corroborating one another, there can be little evidence to hang your hat on. In other words WE CAN KNOW PRACTICALLY NOTHING ABOUT THE PHENOMENON WITH CERTAINTY.
What we are left with is perhaps a basic understanding of the technology of producing illusion and how UFO Intelligence has been in the belief business for centuries. They co-create with us encounters that to a large extent match our pre-existing notions about what the phenomenon should be. So now in the space age we have flying saucers piloted by alien astronauts. Curiously this message is reinforced just as we were getting out into exploring space in the 1940s with modern rocketry. In the 1890s the airship wave recorded sightings of blimp like objects just before large hydrogen filled Zeppelins were constructed. The pilots were thought to be not spacemen but genius inventors. And in the Middle Ages UFOs were the product of magicians,angels or demons, again matching the rather primitive fear based expectations of a highly repressive Christian theology. My solution to all this is simple. Engage flying saucer intelligence with the least preconceptions as possible. Doubt the ET hypothesis while going through the spiritual transformation that allows us to meet them under a wide range of circumstances, most important of which is fieldwork with multiple witnesses present and video cameras and all the other tools of science to measure various physical aspects of their technology, i.e. tri-field detractors, night vision glasses etc. We need to study it as a psychosocial phenomenon. How various new age belief systems, victim based "abduction" theories, and contactee cults forms with gurus all insisting that their narrow pet theories are the only ones that "make sense." I know I am asking much of the flying saucer subculture that doesn't have the benefit of full time, paid, open minded and highly intellectual researchers and most importantly analysts to go through the data. But this is the road ahead as I see it whether we like it or not.