Stavros Chatzopoulos, PhD

 

2023

​

Introduction

​

In the last 78 years since the historic account of Kenneth Arnold in 1947, the little evidence we have about UFOs suggest a series of assumptions regarding their possible origin. Of those, the two most fundamental are about the extraterrestrial or dimensional origin of the phenomenon.

Already from 1990, Vallée had observed that the main issue with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, from a ufological perspective, was not about the lack of a technological solution for feasible interstellar travel, but rather with some features of the phenomenon such as: (i) the large number of UFO sightings, (ii) the humanoid body structure of the visitors, (iii) the totally unpredictable behavior of the phenomenon, particularly in the reports of close encounters. (iv) The extension of the phenomenon to recorded human history, and (v) its ability to manipulate spacetime. In Vallée's opinion, those five factors suggest that UFOs cannot have a purely extraterrestrial origin.

​

The interdimensional hypothesis was developed in ufological circles (initially from Vallée in 1968) as an alternative explanation for the origin of the observed “objects” and to somehow explain the erratic behavior of the phenomenon, especially for sightings where the objects suddenly disappeared, right before the witnesses’ eyes (switch-off phenomenon). There are other hypotheses that are based on rather subjective foundations and will not be examined in this unit.

Since 1947, a mythology surrounding UFOs has been developed, which covers many and different anomalous phenomena. In short, the phenomenon about unidentified objects in the sky (NL – short for Night Lights or DD – Day Disks) needs not be related to sightings of landings (CE or Close Encounters 1,2,3). The same is true for nighttime abductions such as CE4 & 5. The cataloging and classification of numerous anomalous and unidentified phenomena under the general label "UFO" has created a serious problem for ufology, manifesting as a persistent lack of tangible evidence. A reader can understand that if the various phenomena that we call UFO don't relate to each other, it would be very difficult to gather material evidence which can prove that they are unrelated.

 

 

1.2 The apparent "trends" of the phenomenon

​

(I) The phenomenon appears to “manifest” depending on the technological development of the era. For example, in the folklore bibliography of UFOs, we can see mentions of flying objects with very different descriptions such as: flying chariots, flying pylons, flying ships (Vallée and Aubeck, 2009), flying airships (from the hypothetical wave of 1896, Cohen, 1981), flying saucers from the wave of 1947 (which were not actually saucers) e.t.c. Somewhat recently, Caravaca (2019) came forward with an alternative hypothesis (the Distortion hypothesis) according to which, the human observer during a CE3 distorts the description of the phenomenon, through a subconscious influence from some unknown agent. If this hypothesis is true, then the anomalous phenomenon remains the same, it is just that it is described differently, because of the technical terminology used by the witnesses depending on the time period when the sighting occurs.

​

(II) Experiences from UFO landings and interactions with their passengers, show clearly that something is not right about the assumption that the visitors follow an exploration plan. The behavior of ufonauts could be described as unsurprisingly repeatable, and one might even assume that it has as its sole purpose to confuse the human observer. Caravaca (2022) in his amazingly detailed book En la Mente de los Ovnis “In the mind of the UFOs”, demonstrates that sightings of ufonauts and their ships are unique and non repeated experiences neither the same ships nor the same ufonauts are ever seen twice, as would be expected of course, according to the extraterrestrial visitor hypothesis. This observation suggests that reports of third kind encounters (CE3) are unique to and perhaps generated by the individual witness.

Things grow even more implausible in cases of witness abductions (CE4) as it suggests that ufonauts have more limited technological capabilities, considering that they would have to analyze human anatomy from up close, with probably non advanced technological means. Technologically advanced civilizations, who wish to remain unseen, are supposed to have the means of remote electromagnetic detection of biological information.

 

The great variability of reports in relation to UFO landings and contact with their passengers, has led to theories that try to connect UFOs directly with a temporarily undetected paraphysical reality (Vallée, 1969 Caravaca, 2019, 2022).  Why witnesses of CE3, CE4 and so on, speak of an alien presence instead of say, a religious figure, like in numerous folklore reports from the 1700s 1800s and 1900s as analyzed by Méheust (1978), is not clear. CE5 accounts are not exactly as they seem. Witnesses live a personal experience with an anomalous phenomenon, which uses an alien presence as a theme, always as this is perceived by the witness. It is of particular interest to note that many accounts of CE3 have many common elements with science fiction stories published in the early 20th century. This remarkable coincidence was first discovered by the French folklorist Méheust, that he later fully developed in his book Science fiction et soucoupes volantes “Science Fiction and Flying Saucers” (1978).  Méheust could confirm that science fiction themes at the beginning of the 20th century, were the same ones used by witnesses before and after the beginning of organized ufology (1947). These are ship repairs, the use of beam pistols to immobilize the subject, the presence of silent discoid objects which are rapidly lost in the sky etc. The most interesting part in Méheust's research is that most of the witness in CE3 cases were not aware of such science fiction stories. This will be analyzed in more detail in chapter 3.

​

The general understanding is that the phases of the phenomenon's interaction with us changes, or at least that is what we think. As for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the theme of the alien presence is presented throughout time like this: first we had sightings of unidentified flying objects, later we had landings and close observations of their pilots, then UFO abductions etc. It is worth noting here that for a several decades now, we have had a noticeable lack of typical reports of the third kind (CE3), same with reports of discoid objects. Since 2004, after the incident with the USS Nimitz, we are now talking about UAPs (Unknown Aerial Phenomena) and cylindrical ships, shaped like Tic Tac mints.

​

 

1.3 The birth of ufological skepticism for the phenomenon.

​

The difficulty in evaluating information on the real nature of UFOs has created some interesting waves of skepticism among international ufological circles. A few years ago, an internationally recognized personality in ufology, Vicente-Juan Ballister Olmos, published a paper titled The Nature of UFO evidence: Two Views (2017).  This paper was exceptional and Olmos rightly asserts that "After 70 years of repeated reports, the available evidence should have been enough to prove the physical existence of the ships that travel in our skies, interact with our environment and communicate with us. Not at all. Take a look at what was dubbed as UFO from imaginative writers, while travelers from outer space were not proved by credible and hard evidence. We collected documents of ambiguous phenomena, with different appearance and behavior. The cases that seem the most interesting took place years ago, while none of the thousands of the alleged landings provided any evidence worth noting. As we move further back in time, the cases that once appeared compelling now seem more like anecdotes and tall tales, becoming less credible as evidence that we have been visited by aliens. Let me complete this elaborate chain of thought, which compresses five decades of a personal investigative journey on the subject of UFOs, with a line written in 1988 by a renowned British writer and researcher, Hillary Evans: If we benefit from this wonderful myth we have created, we must never forget the fact that it is only a myth.

A reader would no doubt notice that in his article, Olmos has been greatly influenced from the assumption that sightings such as NL, DD, CE1, CE2, E3, CE4 etc all correspond to aspects of the same phenomenon.

​

 

1.4 Processing origin theories.

​

There is little difference if UFOs are interstellar or interdimensional travelers. Currently both of these interpretations are considered science fiction.

The excessively high number of approaches makes both theories of origin problematic. Perhaps we could assume that interdimensional visits could be “easier” and that the large number of visits is due to a multitude of civilizations possessing a high level of technology that allows this type of travel. Caravaca's analysis on the other hand, highlights a very unusual fact: that we are never dealing with the visitors themselves. In this framework of reference, the phenomenon's origin cannot be determined by the number of the sightings, because a common and unidentified phenomenon is interpreted as something special and different according to the cultural background of each witness. Unfortunately, various terrestrial factors contribute decisively to the degradation of available data about UFOs, such as policies of misinformation and confusion targeting the general public and the researchers. Not only are there reports of secret earth based ships (which can be misinterpreted as UFOs), but also of existing microwave technologies that can cause aural and optical illusions. In this case witnesses can be manipulated into believing that unbelievable things are happening to them (staged encounters). More details on this topic follow in Chapter 3.

​

Surely such highly advanced civilizations, that wish to remain undetected, could use such microwave technologies to “stage a really good play” in the mind of any witness, always exploiting their cultural ideas and beliefs. Indeed, a number of CE3 cases could very well originate from such interactions. HOWEVER, things can easily get complicated because (i) we don't know how scenarios experienced by witnesses can be made and (ii) there are NEVER any common elements between different reports (as would normally be expected given the common cultural background). The abundance of CE3 reports strongly indicates that such accounts may arise internally within the witness, during states of altered consciousness, possibly as a result of contact with an anomalous phenomenon.

 

​

1.5 The future of contemporary Ufology.

​

It is very difficult to lay down guidelines in a field that does not follow conventional scientific rules. In the field of Ufology, the scientific model of repeatable observation is of little use, considering that the phenomena in their full state are not reoccurring, but instead they remain as a series of unique observations. Vicente Ballister Olmos was right when he remarked that,  77 years of research did not conclude with any particular hard evidence. And yet, our inability to find any kind of hard evidence during those 77 years, can very well be the product of wrong assumptions for the phenomenon itself.  For example, some scientists have suggested a new model of research, they call the science of consciousness. The Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation for Research into Extraterrestrial and Extraordinary Encounters, has already published the first volume of their work on the subject (Beyond UFOs: The Science of Consciousness and Contact with Non Human Intelligence, 2018) where the observations from UFO activity are viewed from a different perspective. The suggested paradigm uses as its communication medium the human consciousness and its interaction with potential non human intelligent lifeforms.

Taking into account our inability to find answers to the phenomenon and its many aspects, it is only natural for any researcher to wonder where contemporary Ufology could turn to. The obvious answer is this: Certainly not where it has been heading until now, and in this context there are the following suggested guidelines.

 

1.    Observations categorized as NL, DD, and CE should be treated as distinct phenomena. Moreover, we need to break free of the notion that every light seen flying at night can be an "alien ship" or the occurrence of an anomalous phenomenon. Unfortunately the data of this category (NL) is saturated from misinformation, the presence of possible unknown top secret weapons and (more often than not) the presence of natural phenomena. Typically a percentage of about 3% of all sightings is unexplained and potentially an occurrence of an anomalous phenomenon.

 

1.    It is best that we turn our attention to other important aspects of the phenomenon, for example, in the psychological state of the witness. This way we could understand the starting mechanism of these experiences (whether they are endogenous or exogenous).  This means that we should view CE3 reports primarily through the lens of folklore or anthropology. We should be cautious however, not to conflate the various scenarios and scenes from the narratives of subjects, with the essential anomalous reality of this phenomenon.

 

1.    It is necessary to accept the possibility that behind many kinds of unknown anomalous phenomena, there could be a non terrestrial intelligence, not typically "alien", that belongs to another spacetime continuum. It is quite possible that CE3 and CE4 reports are the result of a witness’s interaction with such an intelligence.

 

Notes

​

1.    This particular paper by Vallée should be read by everyone interested in contemporary Ufology, especially those who do not want to be stuck in the early assumptions of Donald Keyhoe, the “spiritual father of UFO”.

 

1.    The less known origin theories, such as time travelers (cf. the work of Michael Masters), are founded on interesting assumptions axioms which, in the opinion of the author, can be easily explained in a different way. For example, the time travelers theory is largely based on the fact that ufonauts are humanoid, something that is refuted by the work of Caravaca and our own analyses (see also Part B).

 

1.    It is highly recommended for the reader to search online for information on the Psychosocial Hypothesis (PSH) of the French school. Unfortunately the books of the main contributors (Meheust, Pinvidic, Scornaux, Mause) are only available in French.  The resolutions suggested for the explanation of CE3 reports are ranging from creative to humorous (at least from a scientifically orthodox approach).

​

Chapter 1 was based on the article of Mr. Chatzopoulos which was published in Vortex, Issue 3, July 2023, Locus-7 & Alloste Publications.

​

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

​

Stavros Chatzopoulos was born in 1957 in Athens. He is a professor (Department of Neurosciences) at the University of Ferrara, Italy.  He has completed studies in Electronic and Biomedical engineering, with focus in Hearing Science and Medical Audiology. His interest in the UFO phenomenon began in the early 1970s after his meeting with Giorgos Balanos and Omiros Karatzas. In 1975 he became a founding member of the Panhellenic Association for Researchers of Unexplained Phenomena (PARUP). Already from the early 1980s, following the research data of Jacques Vallée, he developed a model of paraphysical approach for the UFO phenomenon. 

He is an active member of the Italian Center of Ufological Studies (Centro Italiano Studi Ufologici - CISU), the European network EuroUfo.net and UAPcheck, the American Society of UAP Studies (SUAPS) and the Greek team of GRUFON-ERENZO. Dr. Chatzopoulos can be reached by email at sdh1@unife.it