As bad as I think this film is, it did reflect the sometimes monstrous/sometimes laughable "absurdity" of the ufo/abduction scenario. I put "absurdity" in quotes because the phenomenon follows no sensible, coherent pattern - not because I think the phenomenon is bogus.
Perhaps the first (among few) ufologists to write about ufological absurdity is Jacques Vallee, who took a global, rather than a narrowly American, view of ufo reports.
Vallee found that the entire body of reports, when viewed statistically - and as objectively and widely as possible - point to some unknown "Trickster"-like intelligence, closely related to the earth, and enmeshed in the development of human consciousness. Later on, (the late) John Keel would come to similar conclusions. Both researchers felt that the "UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft piloted by aliens for the purpose of research and experimentation" Model was the result of a mainly American bias toward "nuts and bolts/technological" explanations. The reality of the reports, however (say Vallee and Keel), points well beyond the mere "flying saucers from outer space" perspective, and to a much more mystical, puzzling,and paranormal realm.
Vallee's examples of ufological absurdity include almost endless, repetitive reports of witnesses coming across a landed "ufo" and observing dwarves in space suits "collecting soil or plant samples with shovels." Typically, when caught in the act, the dwarves hop into their craft and take off, presumably to share their botanical booty with other diminutive aliens on the home planet.
The problem with these reports is not that they are any more doubtful than those of non-landed craft, but that they seem to be deliberately presenting a scenario for human consumption. They seem to be conforming to, and encouraging belief in, "little people who are star-scientists gathering physical data about other planets" - which doesn't really make a lot of sense granted their rather primitive methods in contrast to their apparently advanced "space travel technology." The same rule is applied to "alien hybridization experiments undertaken with abductees": the number of "experiments" seems much too large, and the methods too primitive - and lacking a learning curve - to really be the activities of "space scientists."
Vallee also demonstrates the high unlikelihood of the ET hypothesis in regard to the total ufo picture. Both the "craft" and the "aliens" behave less like space scientists than they do spirits, imps, poltergeists, phantoms, ghosts, fairies, and paranormal entities of all kinds. In fact, one of Vallee's first books was "Passport to Magonia," which drew strong parallels between ufological phenomena and human notions of magical realms.
Vallee links the most impressive "Marian apparition" of the 20th century - Fatima - to common shared attributes of "ufos" and "aliens." He makes a good case for Fatima as a remarkable, striking ufological event "in the raw" - before it was domesticated by the Church and downgraded into a standard Marian appearance. Jerome Clark and Loren Coleman follow Vallee's - and Carl Jung's ideas - in their book, "The Unidentified," which further explores the ufological absurdity/weirdness factor.
When Whitley Strieber published Communion, he wrote of an experience that included most of Vallee's, Keel's and Clark/Coleman's absurdist/paranormal phenomena. The total ufo field cannot be limited to a simple, "rational" technological explanation based on extraterrestrial scientific investigation. It is simply much too weird for that. Both Strieber's book and the present film exemplify, and contribute to, an absurdist/paranormal understanding of ufos.
reply
share