The following is me basically thinking out loud after having interviewed Bruce Duensing for tomorrow’s Paratopia. It’s all a hypothetical, of
course, but I realized it would make for a fantastic experiment that any alien abductees/experiencers of high strangeness with ongoing experiences
could partake in. In fact, something like this would be interesting for ghost hunters getting EVP as well.
If the ufological enigma presents itself according to our cultural scripts, then it changed from visions of foot soldiers in the sky hanging over
great battles on the ground to spaceships, as illustrated in Jacques Vallee & Chris Aubeck’s fantastic book, Wonders In The Sky
Actually, no—we didn’t know what to make of the objects in the sky during WWII. It took a few years to call Foo Fighters alien craft. We saw these
unidentifiable things, Foo Fighters, and we renamed them based on our futurist projection.
In ye olde days, the present was not the only moment defined by war and slogging through territories—that was also the definition of the foreseeable
future. But with flight the imagination came untamed and we could envision a future of space travel—of anything, really, that we put our minds to.
So, this phenomenon doesn’t merely react to how we view our present state but how we see the future.
If true, then could it be that once we said there were spaceships, we assumed there were pilots, and when that happened, contactees happened?
Contactees, in this equation, are the psychological response to the public’s changing vision of the enigma. They were not interacting with it; they
were interpreting what they thought people wanted to hear about it. So, by my definition, contactees were nothing more than delusional people and
hucksters vying for public attention. In spite of the shallow contactee claims, the general public still wanted this to be aliens. Therefore, it would
be aliens but not as contactees defined the term, because the public rejected that.
In our scenario here, the phenomenon reacted by presenting us with aliens we could believe in. If we couldn’t believe in super ego space brothers
but still wanted aliens, it would give us something we deemed more realistic: an exaggerated id version of ourselves—a Westernized space humanity
that would tag us like we tag animals, experiment on us like we would experiment on them if we had the chance, and cull our vital elements to save
their self-imploded, dying race, indifferent to, or malevolent to, our needs.
They presented future us as we really saw ourselves, not as the peaceful utopians we wished we were.
If this enigma is an intelligence playing out scenarios according to our scripts, then it is not mirroring us. It is mirroring how
we see ourselves in the immediate future.
How can this be proven true or false?—By taking away the alien doctor script. Once you strip away context, this thing has to conjure anew. Conjure
anew based on how we see where we’re going.
But if we know that, then can it conjure anew based on where we see ourselves going anymore? Or, does something revolutionary take place in that
moment when the mechanics of the relationship are explained?
Perhaps that is the moment when we meet the enigma on its level.
Okay, so the above is one hypothesis out of a thousand. Unlike most of the others, this one we can test. If anyone reading this is an
abductee/experiencer with ongoing experiences, and you want to test this out, try the following:
When next you have any type of encounter with the enigma—be it an interaction with a being, poltergeist phenomena, or what have you… anything at
all… However you define your experiences?—Stop defining them as they happen. This is going to be tough to do, especially if there’s terror
involved or even a friendly scenario you don’t want to be unreal. But deny it anyway. Deny it to its face. Deny it boldly and mean it. Question what
it is with no preconceived answer in mind. Report the results to this thread.
And for you ghost hunters, do the same with EVP. Why not try telling the ghost you don’t believe it’s the spirit of so-and-so. What is it REALLY?
Keep nailing that question until something gives.
The experiment isn’t a new concept in and of itself—but what is new is the objective sense, if you will, of why you’re asking. I mean, Whitley
Strieber certainly asked his “abductors” what they were because he was personally baffled and scared and in awe, and he found the answer to be a
box within a box nested doll type of thing, where the intelligence would never reveal its true nature. And my partner in crime, Jeff Ritzmann, has
questioned entities as to their origin out of similar emotion only to receive a smirk and a brush-off like it’s a stupid question.
What if the question is the right question but the intention of the asker needs tweaking?
As brave as those men, and I’m sure countless others, were, it’s time to take it a step further. I maintain that the question is appropriate but
the confidence in why you’re asking is the real foundation upon which you receive an answer. Those “forget about it, kid… you wouldn’t
understand” shirks are unacceptable and I now wonder if voicing that and really meaning it is the final step in a breakthrough to what’s next.
What’s next had better be a meeting of equals. Anything less is more of the same game.
How do we get there?
Question everything. Deeply. To its face. Because you want to know the truth as an adult, not because you’re afraid and bedazzled and naïve as a
Then tell us what you find.