Exopolitics Comment #11
Disinformation, Extraterrestrial Subversion & Psychological Reductionism –
A Reply to Dr Richard Boylan
On January 1, 2004, I released my most recent Exopolitics study paper which focused on the strategic management of the extraterrestrial presence by clandestine government agencies and the danger of subversion of these agencies by extraterrestrial races [http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper-7.htm]. I argued the need for a grass roots initiative to effectively deal with the complexity and multifaceted nature of the extraterrestrial presence as the key for a new strategic approach to extraterrestrials visiting the Earth. On January 4, I learned of a trenchant critique of my study paper by Dr Richard Boylan who manages a large Yahoo list with over 1100 members, and who has studied the UFO phenomenon since 1989. In a post titled “Michael Salla and Disinformation,” Dr Boylan made a number of claims on the integrity of my research to the effect that it is part of a disinformation effort sponsored by government agencies to subvert genuine research into the extraterrestrial presence [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DrRichBoylanReports/message/912]
Dr Boylan’s message contained a number of factual inaccuracies about the nature of my relationship with the university with which I am currently affiliated, suggesting that I was being paid to do exopolitics research for a subversive agenda in a University Peace Center that has the goal to implement a ‘new order’. In a reply to these factual inaccuracies on January 5, I asked him to immediately forward to his list, Dr Boylan in response to my reply did not retract his assertion that my university affiliation was a cover for a disinformation role in UFO research [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DrRichBoylanReports/message/913]. In my reply to him, I offered to conduct a public dialogue on our divergent approaches to research on extraterrestrial affairs since in my view we had important methodological differences that accounted for our diverging conclusions, but he declined to participate.
This paper is my personal invitation for a public debate with Dr Boylan about the true nature of the extraterrestrial presence, developing reliable criteria for determining disinformation from credible testimony/evidence, understanding evidence on subversion of national security agencies by extraterrestrial races, the need to avoid ‘psychological reductionism’, and the most reliable foundations for exopolitical analysis of the extraterrestrial presence. Dr Boylan is invited to respond and to support his extraordinary claims regarding my research with solid arguments and evidence rather than personal accusations that do little to further the study of the extraterrestrial phenomenon. If UFO/exopolitical research is to emerge as a mature discipline then it is up to researchers to meet high scholarly standards in how they frame their arguments, support their assertions and engage in critiques of one another’s research. In conducting such a public debate, solid criteria need to be developed in how to identify disinformation, possible extraterrestrial subversion, and how to deal with the diverse evidentiary material available for UFO/exopolitics research.
Developing Criteria for the Use of Witness/Abductee/Whistleblower Testimonies on the Extraterrestrial Presence
In my recent study paper, The Failure of Power Politics as a Strategic Response to the Extraterrestrial Presence, I researched the strategic response by policy makers to the existence of a variety of extraterrestrial races with a range of agendas in interacting with the Earth. These agenda ranged from assisting humanity in making the transition to a peaceful and evolved interplanetary culture, to subverting humanity for the exclusive benefit of visiting extraterrestrial races. In a variety of study papers that will shortly be published as a book, Exopolitics: Political Implications of the Extraterrestrial Presence (Dandelion Books, 2004), I draw upon the extensive testimony found in a range of sources, whistleblowers, abductees, remote viewers, archeological investigators, and telepathic communicators with extraterrestrial intelligences. These sources point to the conclusion that the extraterrestrial presence is multifaceted, with races having a range of agendas and activities that they pursue. In my Study Paper #7, I argued that policy makers became very aware of these diverse extraterrestrial races and decided to respond using a strategic doctrine known as ‘power politics’ or realpolitik as championed by Dr Henry Kissinger and his supporters in the secret national security system set up to respond to the extraterrestrial presence.
The criteria I have used in assembling these sources for my exopolitical analysis in this and earlier papers have included the following:
Coherence – testimony is marked by absence of conflicting statements and internal contradictions;
Consistency – testimony is consistent with two or more independent sources;
Motivation – individual is motivated to disseminate information for legitimate purposes rather than out of a desire for recognition, monetary compensation, or political advantage;
Integrity – individual displays high degree of principle in responding to intimidation, harassment or other negative behavior,;
Independence – individual is not unduly influenced by government intelligence agencies and/or extraterrestrial races;
Evidence – is there physical evidence to substantiate the claims of witness/whistleblower/remote viewer;
The above criteria are helpful guides for any competent researcher in determining the validity of a particular category of testimony or evidence concerning the extraterrestrial presence. Due to these criteria having a mix of objective and subjective features, there is a need for the competent researchers to deal with the available material using an inclusive or broad disciplinary approach. A restrictive or parsimonious approach as to what does or doesn’t constitute credible evidence/testimony for extraterrestrial researchers is too controversial and untenable due to the inherent difficult of making conclusive statements about the range of testimonies that witnesses/contactees/whistleblowers make available. The subject matter is often so exotic and government interference with evidence, witnesses and whistleblowers is so pervasive that excluding some categories of evidence is untenable and methodologically unsound. While the above criteria may not satisfy the parsimonious researcher seeking a restricted pool of date from which to draw reliable conclusions, the criteria provide a safety net for ensuring reliable and accurate information for research into the extraterrestrial presence. As far as the political implications of this presence are concerned, this leads to the field I have described as exopolitics.
The “Failure of Power Politics” was referenced with over 50 citations that could be checked by the reader for the accuracy of my analysis and the claims I was making, and application of the above criteria for the individual referenced. In my view, the study paper broke new ground since it was the first time in the history of UFO/extraterrestrial research that the strategic doctrine used in the management of the extraterrestrial presence has been identified for the general public. Dr Boylan’s message, coming three days after the release of the study paper, was certainly puzzling and raised many issues in my own mind as to the motivation for his trenchant critique and questioning my integrity as a political scientist doing exopolitics research. I had earlier engaged in personal correspondence with Dr Boylan where the issue of our divergent methodologies in understanding the extraterrestrial phenomenon was raised. I contrasted my ‘inclusive’ approach based on a political science methodology in dealing with diverse evidentiary sources, with his own ‘parsimonious approach’ based on his own personal experience, disciplinary competence as a psychologist, and ‘insider contacts’ which struck me as a methodologically unsound approach to UFO/extraterrestrial research. The arbitrary nature of Dr Boylan’s personal experience, privileging of competencies found in the psychology discipline, and ‘insider contacts’ raised serious questions in my mind over the arbitrary nature of these and their suitability as a sound methodological basis for determining what sources were or weren’t reliable for making assessments on the extraterrestrial presence.
Extraterrestrial Subversion – Fact or Disinformation?
In his response to my paper, Dr Boylan explained his position as follows:
Furthere, [sic] after an initial neutral article or two, Salla gradually adopted a propaganda-laden style of writing, citing the most extreme nut-cases in ufology intermixed with citations from respectable researchers. The resultant stew looked like scholarly writing, with footnotes and bibliography, but has served to be but the latest sophisticated distraction from serious and competent research.
In this passage Dr Boylan regards my and others efforts to cast light on the extraterrestrial subversion and manipulation that has occurred on Earth as ‘propaganda’. This is a common response by Dr Boylan who makes the argument that the extraterrestrial presence is EXCLUSIVELY benign and that national security agencies are in the business of distorting this benign presence by distributing disinformation through either naïve UFO researchers or their intelligence assets. The goal of this disinformation in Dr Boylan’s view is “sophisticated distraction from serious and competent research.” In personal correspondence with me Dr Boylan suggested that it was an ‘anthropomorphic error’ to suggest that extraterrestrials had a similar spectrum of motivations and behaviors to that found in humanity. Dr Boylan therefore saw that the wide range of human motivations and behavior had no relevance to understanding extraterrestrial motivations and behavior. In short, humans were a deeply troubled and conflicted sentient race, whereas visiting extraterrestrials were exclusively harmonious, peace loving and genuinely wishing to assist humans in respecting the environment, abandoning destructive weapons and evolving in consciousness.
Dr Boylan argues that the extraterrestrial race most commonly associated with the abduction phenomenon, ‘Grays’, have a benign orientation which is entirely outside of the human experiences of manipulation, deception and exploitation that humans have practiced upon one another. His advocacy of the benign nature of the Gray abduction/contact phenomenon and hybrid human-extraterrestrial program are certainly open to debate given the uncertainty surrounding this phenomenon which in the US alone is estimated to involve hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians apparently abducted against their will. Furthermore, Dr Boylan has recently become more forthright with his view of a historic Reptilian presence on the planet which he also believes is EXCLUSIVELY benign and is responsible for the establishment of human civilization as described by the Sumerian scholar Zecharia Sitchin. His conclusion concerning the benign nature of the Reptilian presence is contrary to the views of many other researchers who have focused on the activities of the Reptilian race.
The basis for Dr Boylan’s sweeping generalizations about exclusively benign extraterrestrial behaviors and motivations comes from his field work and psychological counseling with abductees/contactees, from numerous interviews with whistleblowers, and ‘inside contacts’ within the military-intelligence community. As far as his contactee/abductee field work is concerned, Dr Boylan’s analysis of ‘contactees’ reporting on the negative aspects of the extraterrestrial presence is that these are explained by unresolved earlier ‘human-caused traumas’ of the contactee rather than extraterrestrial behavior. In a paper available on his website and titled “The Differential Diagnosis of Close Extraterrestrial Encounter Syndrome” Dr Boylan makes the case that all negative extraterrestrial encounters is a result of anxiety suffered as a result of the contact experience which in mild cases can be ‘cured’ in six or less sessions, but in more severe cases that involve the residual effects of ‘human-caused trauma which he describes as “Complicated Close Extraterrestrial Encounter Syndrome,” he recommends “longer term psychotherapy” (http://www.drboylan.com/diffdxce4a.html ).
Dr Boylan’s conclusions regarding the negative aspects of abductions/contacts runs contrary to the extensive fieldwork conducted by other researchers into the abduction phenomenon such as Dr David Jacobs, Dr Karla Turner, Budd Hopkins, Whitley Streiber and others dealing with contactee/abductee reports. While these researchers lack the sophisticated psychological training that Dr Boylan and Dr John Mack possess in their counseling and therapy of individuals who have undergone the abduction/contact phenomenon, this does not exclude the findings of these researchers who exhibit great integrity and scholarly standards in their work. In short, the UFO/abduction research community is deeply divided on this issue of the benign versus the malevolent nature of extraterrestrials abducting/contacting humans.
Yet Dr Boylan insists that the extraterrestrial presence is benign and that those abductees/contactees describing malevolent extraterrestrial behaviors are exhibiting psychological symptoms of ‘human-caused traumas’ that require long-term psychotherapy. Researchers supporting the testimonies of abductees/contactees reports of negative extraterrestrial behavior are subsequently, in Dr Boylan’s view, either disseminating disinformation or unwittingly encouraging contactees/abductees to mix ‘human-caused traumas’ with the extraterrestrial contact experience. Dr Boylan’s insistence on the benign nature of the extraterrestrial abduction phenomenon glosses over some troubling aspects of it, the abduction of individual s against their free will, intrusive medical experiments, physical implants in abductees/contactees, and evidence of a human-extraterrestrial hybrid program whose true purpose and scope is uncertain.
It is certainly true that not all aspects of the extraterrestrial abduction/contact phenomenon is disturbing as confirmed by the work of Dr John Mack, and more so by the extensive reports of benevolent interactions with extraterrestrials dating from George Adamski in the 1950s/60s, Billy Meier from the 1970s, and more recently James Gilliland in the 1990’s. Furthermore, while SOME anxiety in the contact/abduction experience can be traced to ‘human-caused traumas’ as Dr Boylan rightly points out, this does not to exclude the politically relevant malevolent dimension of the extraterrestrial interaction with abducted/contacted humans. In short, Dr Boylan’s analysis of the negative aspects of the contactee/abduction phenomenon is still subject to intense debate both within and between different scholarly disciplines. His attempt to reduce ALL negative behaviors attributed to extraterrestrials to the residual effects of ‘human-caused trauma’ in contactees/abductees that requires psychotherapy is very suspect and highly dubious as a valid social scientific hypothesis. Dr Boylan is proposing a form of ‘psychological reductionism’ where all purported negative extraterrestrial behavior can be reduced to psychological processes, rather than a phenomenon that has political or sociological relevance. Dr Boylan’s approach to those individuals claiming malevolent extraterrestrial behaviors has uncomfortable parallels with the ‘psychological treatment’ imposed on political dissidents during the Communist era who were confined to mental institutions. Dr Boylan’s field work, psychological credentials, and ‘insider contacts’ are impressive, yet his views on the negative aspects of the extraterrestrial presence are very controversial and certainly do not provide a definitive basis for a rigorous methodology in determining disinformation from credible witness testimonies.
As far as whistleblower testimony is concerned, Dr Boylan rests much of his accounts on the whistleblower testimonies of individuals such as Dr Michael Wolf and Col Steve Wilson. He also has a number of anonymous military-intelligence ‘insiders’ who advise him, leading Dr Boylan to reach the generous self-assessment that he has reliable ‘insider contacts’ to make authoritative statements concerning the nature of the extraterrestrial presence. Since Dr Boylan is not able to publicly confirm the full extent of his ‘insider contacts’, the evidence and testimonies provided by these needs to be treated cautiously. As far as the testimonies of Wolf and Wilson are concerned, Dr Boylan embraces their views that extraterrestrial affairs has been hijacked by a reactionary group of xenophobic policy makers they describe as the ‘cabal’. The ‘cabal’ in the view of Wolf, Wilson and Boylan and ‘insiders’ are the reason why the extraterrestrial presence has not been disclosed to the general public, and why environmentally friendly extraterrestrial technologies are not disseminated to the general public. In short, every egregious aspect of the extraterrestrial presence is attributed to the activities of this ‘cabal’.
While there is extensive evidence pointing to the existence of such a cabal, and my own exopolitics research agrees with Dr Boylan’s conclusion in this regard, the critical question is whether or not there is an extraterrestrial element behind this cabal. In short, is the cabal itself a front for extraterrestrials that have subverted its key personnel and/or key national security agencies dealing with some extraterrestrial races? Dr Boylan strongly disagrees with this and regards such a claim as disinformation, yet there is extensive research that there is an extraterrestrial element supporting the operations of such a ‘cabal’, and/or other reactionary national security organizations implementing policies of shooting down extraterrestrial visitors, harming the Earth’s environment, preventing extraterrestrial technologies flowing into the public arena, and subjecting private citizens to a range of invasive electronic technologies. In my own citing of researchers claiming that some extraterrestrial races have subverted key national security organizations, Dr Boylan has the following to say in his critique:
What is one to think of a purported academic who cites with a straight face the rantings of the notorious and certifiable Milton "Wild Bill" Cooper, paranoid conspiratorialist? Or the patent disinformation propaganda of the anonymous "Branton" and his lurid Dulce Wars fiction? Or the anti-Star Visitor tracts of Air Force counterintelligence disinformation operative John "Val Valerian" Grace? Or the unsupported fiction of Preston Nichols's Montauk stories? Or the Queen-of-England-is-a-reptlian-alien-in-disguise delusional material of the formerly-cogent David Icke?
To this list Dr Boylan omitted to mention other well known researchers/whistleblowers elaborating on the negative/subversive activities of extraterrestrials such as Phil Schneider, Col Phillip Corso, Dr Courtney Brown, Ingo Swann, Paul Bennewitz, Dr David Jacobs, John Lear, Bill Hamilton, Budd Hopkins and Whitley Streiber. While one needs to remain vigilant as to the extent to which disinformation has been used to undermine or discredit researchers, one should not simply dismiss the extensive evidence of a large number of individuals simply because it goes outside of one’s own biases or preferences about extraterrestrial activities and agendas. This is not only professionally remiss, but also very disrespectful of individuals who have suffered numerous hardships due to their efforts to disseminate the information they had on the extraterrestrial presence.
Dr Boylan has offered no reliable criteria for why the testimonies of such individuals should be dismissed in understanding the extraterrestrial phenomenon, other than his own personal experience, ‘insider contacts’ and ‘psychological reductionism’. His psychological toolbox involving concepts such as ‘Complicated Close Extraterrestrial Encounter Syndrome’ to label and treat those claiming negative extraterrestrial behavior is not only highly controversial, but also extremely frightening if such a doctrine were to be put to widespread practice in a post-contact world. Dr Boylan lays the conceptual basis for a repressive post-contact world where all dissenting from his view of extraterrestrials being exclusively ‘benign’ would be ‘encouraged’ to receive prolonged psychotherapy. As mentioned earlier, Dr Boylan’s approach to credible testimonies and evidence is a methodologically suspect means of making authoritative statements about who is or isn’t disseminating disinformation as opposed to reliable material on the motivations and activities of extraterrestrial races.
Essentially, there is a major problem here that will continue to generate intense controversy, but to entirely dismiss the testimony and evidence of other competent researchers on the negative aspects of the extraterrestrial presence is not only a major methodological error, but carries with it very dangerous policy implications. These policy implications are very significant in terms of how the national security system is to respond to the diverse activities and agendas of extraterrestrial races, and the role the general public has to play in this. In my Study Paper #7, my view was that the exclusion of the general public from all knowledge of the extraterrestrial presence is a strategically flawed approach and needs to be immediately rectified. Dr Boylan did not recognize the validity of this argument despite the evidence I provided suggesting that this indeed has been the strategic policy of national security agencies under the stewardship of Dr Kissinger. Dr Boylan’s trenchant critique effectively serves to divert attention away from Dr Kissinger who has been the master strategist for managing the extraterrestrial presence, and who was the special focus in my study paper. The relationship between Dr Boylan and his ‘inside contacts’ in the military-intelligence community raises the pertinent question of whether there was any link in my critique of Kissinger’s ‘power politics’ and the extraterrestrial presence, with Dr Boylan’s own critique questioning the methodological bases of my paper and the integrity of my research. Was Dr Boylan offering a de facto response on behalf of ‘insiders’ unable to do so publicly?
Dr Boylan’s criticism of a more ‘inclusive’ methodological approach to understanding the extraterrestrial presence and its policy implications is unsound. His own ‘parsimonious’ methodological approach to UFO/extraterrestrial research which is based on him as the principal authority for adjudicating genuine from non-genuine exopolitical testimony/evidence is untenable. Dr Boylan’s liberal use of the term of ‘disinformation’ for my own exopolitical research and of researchers who differ in their conclusion to him is very suspect. Dr Boylan’s transparent effort to reduce ALL negative descriptions of extraterrestrial behavior to ‘human-caused traumas’ that lead to what he describes as ‘Complicated Close Extraterrestrial Encounter Syndrome’, is very disturbing and needs to be resisted as a form of ‘psychological reductionism’. The negative aspects of the extraterrestrial presence should not be viewed exclusively as a psychological phenomenon; but is simultaneously a political problem that requires an exopolitical response. Dr Boylan has so far ignored the obvious need for developing sound criteria for what might or might not qualify as disinformation, and how various witness, whistleblower testimonies might be included in the development of a reliable pool of material for further exopolitical research. The criteria I offered earlier are a solid basis for assessing the validity of witness and whistleblower testimony.
There is extensive evidence supporting the view that subversion of national security agencies, corporations, educational institutions and even the UFO research community by extraterrestrial races with questionable agendas is a significant problem. Trying to explain away the subversive or malevolent aspects of the extraterrestrial presence in terms of the residual effects of ‘human-caused traumas’ is highly dubious and amounts to a crude form of ‘psychological reductionism’ that is rejected in mainstream academic scholarship. There are numerous political aspects to the extraterrestrial presence that are independent of psychological processes, thereby requiring exo-political methodologies as a response to the extraterrestrial presence.
Dealing with the evidentiary bases of research into the extraterrestrial presence is going to be very difficult and complex, and requires a degree of maturity and courtesy in dealing with researchers having different opinions and disciplinary approaches. A more scholarly approach to the study of the extraterrestrial presence in general, and for exopolitics in particular, is urgently needed in order to deal with the debates and controversies in these fields. Personal accusations and liberal attributions of disinformation from one researcher to another have no place in exopolitics and the scholarly study of the extraterrestrial presence.
© Michael E. Salla, PhD
January 7, 2004
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.