In his Facebook posting Burkes refers to a series of
articles, Science, Counterintelligence and UFOs, by American ufologist Val
Germann (Valentine H. Germann). They were written in 1997 and posted on UFO
Updates. He describes himself not as a UFO researcher but a UFO analyst, trying
to comprehend the big picture of what is going on. Initially Germann makes this
basic statement: ”There is… significant evidence to suggest that the ”UFO” is
the product of another, non-human, intelligence operating on earth with
humanity… evidence for another intelligence operating on the Earth was so
impressive that not to accept it was tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.”
This is the ABC of ufology and the conclusion many
serious researchers share after years of field investigation and study. But
then comes the tricky part, what is the best way to deal with this rather
revolutionary discovery? Most mainstream, critical and scientifically oriented,
ufologists answer - more scientific research, an appeal regularly featured on
blogs, articles and Facebook postings. A natural and reasonable proposal when
faced with unexplained phenomena. For us who have been involved in ufology most
of our lives this is only one side of the coin, necessary of course, but
science is not enough, which has been pointed many times by Jacques Vallee,
John Keel and other prominent researchers.
Val Germann gives an overview of
this problem in the introduction to his articles:”
If there is any one constant in UFO research it is the never-ending call
for ufology to become more scientific. Over and over again those of
us investigating the phenomenon are urged to seek the hard, scientific
proof that will once and for all establish UFOs in the world of mainstream
science. The assumption behind all of this is that the best way to
study UFOs is through science and the scientific method. But is
this assumption correct?
I
maintain that it is not always correct and I state this even though I am
involved in the sciences myself and have a great love for science and
great respect for many scientists. But the truth is that science and
the scientific method are dependent on certain assumptions that may not
apply to the study of UFOs, especially if they are in fact the products of
another intelligence.
This does not mean
that science and technology are of little or no use in investigating UFOs,
not at all. But it does mean that the assumptions of science are not
always relevant where UFOs are concerned… since we may be dealing with
another intelligence in studying the UFO, we should consider adding
the counterintelligence model to our intellectual arsenals. It
costs nothing to do this and the benefits might include
the clarification of many issues that have been quite baffling in
the past”
Because of my many years of investigating and
studying physical contact cases I have become keenly aware of this dilemma in
research methodology. How do you deal with the complicated contactee
experiences of Richard Höglund or Anna, that I have summarized in several blog
entries? Or the aliens-among-us encounters documented by Dr. Andy SixkillerClarke? When investigating this type of contact claims you of necessity must be
as much a scientific UFO researcher as a UFO detective. But first of all as in
all UFO research you must document what empirical evidence there is in support of the
reality of the encounter or contacts, as I have done in the Höglund case.
Val Germann recommends that the ufologist study the techniques and history of Intelligence work including counterintelligence and apply this knowledge when dealing with the more complicated and controversial UFO cases. From the flood of material and documents the researcher must sift out what is a) interesting, b) significant, c) correct information. The social and psychological problem of this endeavor is that the ufologist may find himself in pretty deep water, discovering aspects of reality that are exceedingly controversial and almost impossible to communicate to the general public:
Val Germann recommends that the ufologist study the techniques and history of Intelligence work including counterintelligence and apply this knowledge when dealing with the more complicated and controversial UFO cases. From the flood of material and documents the researcher must sift out what is a) interesting, b) significant, c) correct information. The social and psychological problem of this endeavor is that the ufologist may find himself in pretty deep water, discovering aspects of reality that are exceedingly controversial and almost impossible to communicate to the general public:
”He can steep himself in the subject, try to collect
everything relevant, and then be fearless in where that material leads him. This
may sound like ”no big deal”, but for those who take the work seriously it is
anything but trivial. In many cases the information relevant to the UFO can
lead down rabbit holes where no respectable person would want to go. But down
the hole the investigator he must go or he will not have the perspective needed
to judge the relevance of information.”
In spite of years of research and study Val Germann
makes it very clear that he does not know what UFOs are, who is operating them,
what they are doing here or why they are doing it. In the final segments of his
articles Germann analyzes three different scenarios which purport to explain
aspects of the UFO phenomenon.
”1. The Keyhoe scenario, in which ”others” from
another solar system are here because they may need the Earth as a new home due
to problems with their current planet.
2. The Lear scenario, in which a number of groups of
”others” are here, some with special needs, which elements of our elites have
proceeded to meet under the rubric of a ”secret deal”, a deal involving the
abduction of and experimentation upon U.S. citizens. In addition, this deal has
lately gone bad and led to friction and even violence between our ”dealers” and
”them”.
3. The Strieber
scenario, in which the ”visitors” are here to help us, to transform us, up to a
new level of consciousness as we prepare to take our place in galactic
civilization.”
Germann has chosen to analyze these scenarios
because if there is any truth in them they would mean major future changes in
human attitudes and culture. Not necessarily positive changes though.
Discussing the Lear scenario the author states: ” What would happen if the
public ever found out the truth! It could make the French Revolution look like
a kindergarten picnic.” As for the Strieber scenario I doubt that many
investigators who have read his books would agree that his visitors are here to
help us in an evolutionary perspective. Based on Striebers encounters this
looks more like a case of the Stockholm syndrome.
In his last article Val
Germann has some harsh, but in my view, relevant criticism of mainstream
ufologists: ”Almost from the beginning ”ufology” has been, in my opinion, just ”horsing
around”, ignoring the real issues by endlessly chasing after lights in the sky
and piling up reports of same… Many of you are wasting your time piling up those
piles of ”sightings”. The ”proof” you seem to want has existed for four decades
if you simply will accept it and move on! But, no, today´s ufology seems to want
to reinvent the stone axe for the umpteenth time. Why?”
This is a psychologically interesting problem, also
addressed by Jacques Vallee. I find the same lamentable situation in Sweden, a
sort of scratching-the-surface-ufology. An inordinate amount of time, money and
publishing is spent on very ordinary and uninteresting sightings,
misidentifications and statistics on these cases. While at the same time there
are many very intriguing and poorly documented close encounter and contact
cases which no field investigator seeems to care about. These cases end up
buried in the AFU archive. I have pointed out this situation for many years but
with very little effect. Perhaps ufologists are simply lazy, as it takes a lot
of research and field investigation to go into the really difficult aspects of
the UFO enigma. But I often wonder – where are the serious UFO detectives,
heretics who like the Invisible College could band together and really try to
understand the depth and profound mystery of the UFO phenomena?
There are many interesting theories and challenging
claims in the articles by Val Germann. But in my view he omits one important
scenario which is also associated with his controversial statement: ”In this
writer´s opinion any force that contacts human beings in the secret, one at a
time, is by definition a sinister force”. This quote indicates that Germann
adheres to the common view that anything done in secret, whether alien or other
contacts, conspiracies etc. must be evil. It is obviously the mindset of today
that very few investigators can think in terms of friendly visitors or
benevolent conspiracies, not in a naive way but as a reasonable alternative.
In his analysis Val Germann has completely left out the experiences of the first wave of physical contactees of the 1950s, contacts indicating, as I have suggested, a psychological test made by a group of benevolent visitors with access to Vimana technology. To the three scenarios suggested by Val Germann I would add the Esoteric Scenario. By using data from the Esoteric Tradition as a working hypothesis or paradigm the various entities and visitors can be studied in a new perspective also including the ethical or evolutionary implications of the contacts. The Esoteric Scenario also has the advantage of giving hope, even for this little planet of sorrow in the universe.
