UFOs
The UFO Experience – “Although I Am Only a Child, Please Believe Me”
A gentleman named Jordan Hofer, with whom I’ve had a stimulating exchange of comments in connection with my post “Drawing Dirty Pictures – Philadelphia UFO, January 1974,” tells me he has no objection to my calling attention in a new post to some of the points raised in our conversation. So that’s just what I’ll do.
Jordan’s a research specialist in anthropology for MUFON, the Mutual UFO Network. He’s the author of the book Evolutionary Ufology: A New Synthesis, scheduled for publication next year; also a Young Adult novel on a UFO theme, Saucerville, scheduled for this October.
Jordan writes: “I taught human evolution at Oregon State University for seven years before the recession hit and my position was cut. Around that time my best friend of 33 years had a very clear sighting of a large, black, equilateral triangle, with white flashing lights at each apex, fly low and slow over his house, emitting a deep thrumming sound that rattled his windows. He was astonished, to say the least. The sighting deeply affected him. He had told fellow coworkers about his sighting and was called a liar to his face. He was in need of a friend who would believe him, take him at his word of what he witnessed. I was skeptical at first, but my loyalty soon won out (especially after I left the confines of academia) and I joined him in his search for an answer to what he had seen.”
I was deeply moved by Jordan’s story, and I told him so.
“As you may gather,” I wrote in my reply, “I am fairly committed to disbelief in the physical reality of UFOs. (Except in the banal sense that the planet Venus, mirages, etc. have a physical existence.) The history of the past 65 years of UFOlogy seems to me to demonstrate this. Yet we do have stories like your friend’s, which it’s impossible to disbelieve without outraging all that makes us human.”
Several months ago, at a lunch with my old friend Professor Rachel Elior, a scholar of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, I expressed the view that people experiencing journeys through the seven heavens of traditional Jewish cosmology, seeing angels, demons and the like, are hallucinating. A graduate student who was there accused me of “epistemic violence.” The charge seemed to me nonsensical. After all, when people report seeing things that we know don’t exist—like those seven heavens—surely they’ve got to be hallucinating, don’t they? (Unless they’re lying. And I don’t like calling people liars.)
Especially if we accept the point I gather Oliver Sacks made in his recent book Hallucinations, which I’m sorry to say I still haven’t read–that it’s simply not true what we often think, that having hallucinations is a mark of insanity.
But would I have the courage to maintain this remorseless logic, in the face of someone like Jordan’s friend?
One of the things that makes J. Allen Hynek’s 1972 book The UFO Experience such an affecting human document, is that this broad-minded, warm-hearted scientist seems continually to have struggled with this question. He quotes the “frank and artless remarks” of children who’ve seen UFOs. “This is the truth, and there is no hoax implied since that is a serious offense at this school.” “ … we give you our Scout’s Honor that this is not a hoax or optical illusion.” (Though of course if it were an optical illusion, the three Boy Scouts who saw it presumably wouldn’t have been aware of that.) “Although I am only a child, please believe me.” (Referring to a sighting, of a cigar-shaped object, made on January 19, 1967; all quotes from p. 14 of Hynek’s book.)

UFOlogist J. Allen Hynek (1910-1986), in his cameo appearance in Steven Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977)
Hynek also tells an awful story of the fate that befell an Ohio deputy sheriff named Dale F. Spaur who, in the early morning hours of April 17, 1966, chased in his patrol car a UFO “big as a house” and so bright “it’d make your eyes water.” Spaur wasn’t the only person who saw the object, or even who chased it; there were three other witnesses. Which makes what happened to Spaur all the more appalling.
“This,” Spaur told Air Force investigator Hector Quintanilla, “I have never seen nothing like it before or after or in the wildest far-fetched imagination. I know you can have an optical illusion or even see something moving or like if you look through a piece of glass or something … I can go along with this. But nothing this big. In my wildest dreams I don’t think I could have ever imagined or seen anything like it” (p. 106).
The outcome?
“Subsequently, Spaur was singled out for unbearable ridicule and the pressure of unfavorable publicity. The combination of events wrecked his home life, estranged him from his wife, and ruined his career and his health. He is no longer [as of 1972] with the police force, and, it is reported, he subsists by doing odd jobs” (p. 108).
I doubt if Dale Spaur is still alive in 2013, but it’s possible. I’ve often thought about what I would say to him if he confronted me, and my disbelief in UFOs, with his story. I know you’re not lying, I would tell him. (Although, to tell the truth, I don’t really know that.) And if you were hallucinating it wasn’t because you’re crazy but because the human mind has potentials we hardly begin to suspect, and hallucination is probably one of them. The bottom line is that I don’t have the slightest idea what you saw or what made you see it. I don’t think it can be a visitor from outer space, because if it was we’d surely have unequivocal proof of the presence of such visitors by this time, which after all is nearly a half-century after your experience. And there doesn’t seem to be any urgency in figuring out what you saw, because a half-century later we still don’t know what it was, or what any of the really baffling UFO cases were, and we don’t seem to be any worse off for that ignorance …
Except, of course, for poor Dale Spaur.
How lucky Jordan Hofer’s friend was, to have had a friend like Jordan!
And remember the little boy who saw the cigar-shaped object on January 19, 1967, and begged the gentlemen of the Air Force UFO project to please believe him, even though he was only a child?
There’s postscript to that one, too.
Go to the “Welcome” post on this blog, and sift through the “responses” to it.
And wonder.
by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+
“Outtakes of a UFO Investigator” – Danny Takes Flight
It’s time.
Five of my writer friends have read the manuscript of The Color of Electrum, sequel to Journal of a UFO Investigator. They’ve given me their comments. Another friend, a firefighter, has also read it, looking for errors of fact or plausibility. He’s done me a great favor–given that The Color of Electrum is a thriller that turns on the theme of fire, in which Danny Shapiro is caught in the sights of a murderous arsonist.
So it’s time for me to start in on the final draft. The one I’ll send my agent in the next couple of months.
The process has gotten me to thinking, about the many, many drafts Journal of a UFO Investigator went through before it reached its final form. In this and future posts, which I’ll schedule for the first week of each of the next several months, I’d like to share with you some recollections of that long and often painful process of editing, trimming, and rewriting. I’ll also share, in the form of free downloads, some of the episodes that got cut from the novel.
Let’s make a new book out of these episodes–a book that I don’t think that will ever be published, at least in the conventional way. A book, nonetheless, that I think will be fun to read.
Call it, maybe, Outtakes of a UFO Investigator?
Says the invaluable Wikipedia: “An outtake is any take of a movie or a television program that is removed or otherwise not used in the final cut. Some of these takes are humorous mistakes made in the process of filming (commonly known to American audiences as bloopers). Multiple takes of each shot are always taken, for safety. Due to this, the number of outtakes a film has will always vastly outnumber the takes included in the edited, finished product.” And so it was with my novel.
A lot of what I cut, in the course of Journal‘s 14-year process of evolution, really was the equivalent of a blooper. But there were also a lot of stories that I think were really good, stories about Danny Shapiro’s real life as a teen-age “UFO investigator,” which had to go when the focus of the book shifted–as it needed to–to what was going on inside Danny during his UFOlogist days in the early and middle 1960s. Most of these “outtake” stories were slightly adapted versions of things I really did, or that really happened to me, when I was a teen UFOlogist.
Like the time when I was 15 years old, director of the “New Jersey Association on Aerial Phenomena.” And I, and my father with me, really did take flight …

Click on the picture to download "Outtakes of a UFO Investigator" (PDF). Cover art by Rose Shalom Halperin.
Did you enjoy this episode of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator? Either way–tell me about it! Post a comment here or on my Facebook Fan Page,
https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator.
Click here to read Chapter 2 of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator. Click here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.
Click here to read Chapter 3 of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator. Click here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.
Click here to read Chapter 4 of Outtakes of a UFO Investigator. Click here to read the blog post to which it’s attached.
by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+
Drawing Dirty Pictures – Philadelphia UFO, January 1974
A little boy goes into a psychologist’s office. The psychologist gives him an inkblot test, telling him “These are some pictures I’ve drawn. What do you see in them?”
What the little boy sees is sex. Sexual organs. Couples engaged in sex acts. In picture after picture.
After the fifth or sixth picture, the psychologist bursts out: “Young man, you’ve got a problem!”
“Why me?” the boy demands. “You’re the one who’s drawing all these dirty pictures!”
– Joke from my junior high school (as middle school used to be called)
So is it me? Or the picture?
To the right you’ll see a witness sketch of a UFO, observed over Philadelphia in January of 1974. What that UFO looks like to me … Do you see it too? (But to be fair, I’ve already suggested to you the direction my thoughts are going. You can’t be unbiased now.)
Is it my own dirty mind that’s putting it there? (Sorry, sexy mind; such things aren’t dirty anymore, as they were back in junior high.) Or is it really in the drawing, a clue to what that UFO really was?
By which I mean, what it meant to the man who saw it.
I’ll give you the facts–as old E.J. Ruppelt said in his classic Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. You decide.
For these facts, I depend on an article by Matthew Graeber entitled, “The Cat and Mice Game,” in the November-December 2009 issue (Vol. 1, no. 4) of the journal SUNlite. I’ll summarize Graeber’s piece and give some quotations from it. But I’d encourage you to consult the article itself, available on the Web. (Go to http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite1_4.pdf and scroll down to page 20.)
The date: night of January 15, 1974. The location: a field on the grounds of the Philadelphia State Hospital at Byberry. This psychiatric hospital, with its grisly history of patient abuse and neglect, no longer exists. It was closed in 1990, demolished in 2006 (Wikipedia). At the beginning of the 60s, the name of the place was proverbial to those of us who grew up in its vicinity. “Aaaah, they oughta send you to Byberry!” we used to taunt each other on the school bus. Does the sighting’s taking place near Byberry have some significance? (And I don’t mean the significance it would have in some predictable, stupid joke about “loonies” seeing UFOs.)
The initial observer was a 23-year-old auto mechanic who wouldn’t allow his name to be used. Graeber calls him “Tim.” Later Tim was joined by his 22-year-old wife “Sarah” and her parents, whom he’d called from a pay phone. While the sighting was going on he also phoned Graeber, who set forth into the wintry night and futilely circled the area in his car, looking for Tim and his in-laws. Graeber was in the right place, he later discovered. But he never saw the witnesses, and never saw the UFO.
The UFO was a low-flying object, carrying lights though apparently not itself luminous. It flew slowly, noiselessly, at times hovering in the air. Sometimes it seemed close enough to touch the branches of the trees. Tim told Graeber’s wife, over the phone, that “the UFO was actually approaching his family as they were parked, and when he would turn his auto’s headlights on, the object would retreat back into the darkness. There were also times when the UFO would playfully blink back at the auto’s headlights as if in response.” As if it had some special connection with Tim and his in-laws; as if it were a part of them that had appeared to them in the sky.
Wait a minute! I can hear you saying. There wasn’t any UFO! This was obviously a nasty prank at Graeber’s expense (you say), to send him on a wild-goose chase into the frigid, snowy night. In his article, Graeber offers cogent reasons for thinking this isn’t so. Whatever was or wasn’t flying around the skies over Byberry, it certainly seems that Tim and Sarah and her parents–all of whom Graeber was able to interview the next day–were honestly convinced they’d seen something they weren’t able to explain.
The four witnesses sketched for Graeber what they’d seen. And here comes the really strange part. Tim’s drawing was so different from the others’ as to seem like he’d seen an entirely different object.
The illustration on p. 23 of Graeber’s article is based on their sketches. “Tim’s UFO was a cylindrical object while his wife and her parents were certain it was a double convex disc-shaped object”–like two soup bowls fastened together at the rims, with a Saturn-like ring around it and a bulb-like protuberance at its top. (In other words, a pretty conventional flying saucer.) “To compound the discrepancy, their UFOs lighting placement and coloring didn’t match Tim’s UFO either. Additionally, Sarah and her parents were positive the UFO had a revolving rim, while Tim’s UFO hadn’t such a pronounced feature.
“When I brought this discrepancy to the attention of the group they seemed to be genuinely surprised and dismayed about the whole thing. Tim simply couldn’t believe they thought the UFO looked as they had sketched it. While Stan shook his head in disbelief at what his son-in-law thought the object looked like.
“I had never encountered such a vast difference in a simultaneously observed multi-witnessed event. It seemed to me that if the incident were a hoax, the hoaxers probably would have been able to tell the same story about what the object supposedly looked like. One would think that would be one of the first things they would discuss and agree upon. Yet, here it was in black and white, three of four observers sketching a double-convex disk with a dome and revolving rim, and the fourth witness saying it was a cylindrical craft. Yet, all had observed the same UFO at relatively close range (50 yards being the closest estimate) with the aid of two automobile’s high-beam headlights.”
As Graeber interviews the family, he gradually gets to know them better. It comes out that Sarah is pregnant. It comes out that she and Tim live with her parents. It comes out that she and Tim aren’t exactly married.
Think back to the mid-70s, if you’re old enough to remember them. Among wide and growing segments of our population, it was accepted as natural and appropriate for unmarried couples to sleep together, live together. (A big change from ten years earlier; the sexual revolution came in between.) Unlike today, it wasn’t accepted for unmarried couples to have children. You made sure to use birth control. When that failed, there were big decisions to be made. Fast. Under pressure.
Now think of Tim and Sarah. Contraception has failed them. It’s no great leap to imagine that this failure has pitted Tim on the one side, against Sarah and her parents on the other, over what Tim ought to do about it. In the sky, Tim sees a mirror of his own life crisis.
Look at his drawing; ignore the labels; tell me what you see.
What I see is a penis detumescing, shooting out sperm, sheathed in a condom that’s ruptured precisely where it needs to stay intact. This is Tim’s UFO. Sarah and her parents, mirroring their (assumed) three-against-one conflict, agree it was something entirely different.
So what did these people see in the sky? (And why didn’t Graeber, driving around the same area, see anything like it?) More important–by what psychic mechanism did the mundane, agonizing, grinding tension of an unwanted pregnancy come to be translated into celestial vision, seen by four people at the same time though not in the same way?
And why at Byberry? Does this reflect Tim’s perception that his life had turned insane? That the home he had to share with his girlfriend’s parents, and the painful conflict that could never be quite escaped, was a kind of madhouse? I can’t answer these questions. But if you’ll grant that I’m seeing in Tim’s drawing what’s really there, and that it’s an uncanny reflection of his real-life situation, then we have no choice but to ask them.
“Generally speaking,” Graeber writes, “UFO witnesses would be cooperative with our investigators … but, when the subject of psychology came up many terminated their participation. I think they felt their personal life was not part of a random encounter with a UFO, and to imply it might have been was often felt to be an insult of some kind.”
Or, they knew unconsciously that the encounter wasn’t “random.” That a psychological inquiry would turn up something they preferred not to face.
At first, Graeber says, Sarah and Tim agreed to answer his psychological questions. But then Tim changed his mind. This about-face, and his insistence on strict anonymity, suggest there was something about the sighting Tim was deeply ashamed of–that he, and perhaps his in-laws too, wanted to communicate yet keep hidden.
Conveying yet concealing … that’s the function of the UFO.
Graeber writes: “I have taken the position the UFO experience is the observer’s encounter with the unknown [a reciprocal encounter--recall how the UFO responded to the witnesses--DJH]–and it really doesn’t matter what the researchers (Pro or Con) think of the experience–it’s much more a matter of how that sudden, shocking and unsuspected encounter was perceived by the witnesses– How it may have affected them on both conscious and subconscious levels of their being (e.g., how the experience impacted their model of the real world and their place within it).”
And the other way around.
by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+
Kennedy Assassination, “NJAAP Bulletin”
Thanksgiving, 1963. The saddest Thanksgiving in recent memory. It fell on November 28, the week after the nation had sobbed together as we saw our handsome, beloved young President Kennedy laid to rest.
(Actually, Kennedy wasn’t particularly beloved back then. Lots of people detested him. But in the wake of his assassination we mostly forgot about that.)
The Sunday before Thanksgiving, millions–my family among them–had watched horrified as the murderer was himself murdered, live before the TV cameras. And we wondered just what in hell was happening to this country.
I wondered; I grieved. Then I went back to my typewriter, to continue preparing for the event that for me made that week super-special.
This was the appearance of the NJAAP Bulletin, the official publication of the New Jersey Association on Aerial Phenomena, the scientific research society of which I’d become Director the preceding summer when my predecessor had gone off to college. I was still in eleventh grade, so I figured I had two years of directorship before I did the same. “Volume II, Number 2″ appears on the Bulletin‘s masthead. But it was the first issue published during my administration, and I’d written it all.
I’d also typed up the mimeograph stencils (remember those? and the way they smelled?). I’d drawn onto the stencils the diagrams accompanying my “Special Article” on the mysterious craters that had been popping up in Great Britain, and the map of England, Scotland, and Wales onto which I’d plotted those craters. And one night, I’d guess the Monday before Thanksgiving, my aunt let me into the office where she worked and we ran off on the mimeograph machine copies of the Bulletin, to be sent to the entire NJAAP membership.
It probably didn’t take too long. NJAAP had a total of about 25 members.
The next day after school I collated and stapled the Bulletins, folded them, wrote the addresses on the backs. I mailed them out on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving–49 years ago today–and settled back, tired but content with my achievement, to enjoy the sorrow-darkened holiday as best I could.
Click on NJAAP Bulletin, and you can read the whole issue. I’ll quote only the headlines:
“UFO’S SEEN OVER PHILADELPHIA, DETECTED ON TWO SEPARATE RADARSCOPES
Cover-up of Reports”
“EDITORIAL”
“ORTHOTENIC CORRECTIONS”
“PUBLICATION OF NICAP REPORT ‘ASSURED’”
“‘BONFIRE’-LIKE OBJECT SIGHTED OVER PHILADELPHIA”
“Special Article: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECENT CRATER ‘EPIDEMIC’ IN GREAT BRITAIN”
“FAMED AUTHOR, NATURALIST JOINS NJAAP PANEL”
(This last referring to Ivan T. Sanderson.)
And at the bottom of page 8, a single sad sentence: “NJAAP joins the nation in mourning the tragic and untimely death of President John F. Kennedy.”
It’s kind of funny. I’d convinced myself that the world was on the brink of some unimaginable transformation. The UFOs, I thought, were probably hostile; we UFOlogists were the true scientists and prophets of our age, trying to alert the mocking throng and the bigoted intellectual establishment to the scary things zooming around our skies. Any day, any week, they’d land, reveal themselves, and very likely set about the conquest of Earth. So my friends and I believed, or at least told ourselves we believed.
Yet in truth UFOlogy was a cozy cocoon. Inside it, I felt secure. I knew the rules; I was in control. Then along came this assassination and tore open my little shelter, let in a blast of reality. Of times that were a-changing–that would continue to change, as the 1960s played themselves out–and mostly for the worse.
It wasn’t fair. UFOs should have protected me. How could a thing like this happen? Yet it had.
With the nation, I mourned. Then I went back to my bedroom and my typewriter and my UFOs, where it was safe.
At least for the time being.
“Journal of a UFO Investigator” is rooted in my experience as a teenage UFOlogist in the early 1960s. You can check out memories and photographs from that time on my Facebook Fan Page, http://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator.
Sadat in Israel – Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind
“We now show uncorrelated targets approaching from the north-northwest …”
–”Close Encounters of the Third Kind”
In reality, it was more like the southwest from which the alien craft made its approach. But otherwise, the climactic scene in the Spielberg movie–the one where the UFOs make a series of passes over the lighted runway, before the giant chandelier-disk glides to a landing–felt exactly like what I’d watched on TV the year before. Not a late-night science-fiction movie. The live news from Israel.
This is what I remember of that dizzy, near-messianic time 35 years ago:

Anwar Sadat of Egypt, between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and President Ephraim Katzir: November 19, 1977
My girlfriend at the time had told me, maybe a week before the event: Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin had invited Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to come to Israel and address the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament. Sadat had said yes.
My reaction: “Impossible.”
I’d spent most of the years 1973-75 in Israel, writing my Ph.D. dissertation. Two months after I arrived, Sadat and Syria’s Hafez Assad (father of the current dictator) together threw the region into war, by attacking Israel on Yom Kippur 1973. In the traumatic years that followed, Sadat gave what I thought was convincing evidence that the Egyptians had no interest in peace, but only in destroying Israel.
Why, the Egyptians wouldn’t even make eye contact, figuratively and even literally, with Israelis! In those days, a televised debate between Israelis and Egyptians had to be filmed with separate cameras, to spare the Egyptians the indignity of sitting at the same table as their enemies. And she wanted me to believe that Anwar Sadat was coming to Israel to address the Knesset!??!!
But she was right. Sadat had announced something like: “Do the Israelis want to know what we [the Egyptians] want? I will go straight to their Knesset and tell them!” And Begin had said: Please do. And Sadat had said: All right, I will.
I still didn’t think it was going to happen. Surely the aim was to trick Israel, soften it up for a surprise attack as on that dreadful October day four years earlier.
Saturday afternoon, November 19, 1977. In the Middle East, already evening. We sat together before the TV, watching to see what would happen. A landing field in Ben-Gurion airport–empty, deserted. Only a red carpet stretched out, leading to a vacant runway.
The time scheduled for Sadat’s arrival came and went. Nothing.
Then–all this is my memory, but indulge me–a news correspondent excitedly reporting a light in the darkened sky, to the southwest. Maybe a star? No. It was moving. Approaching.
It felt like only a few minutes before the landing. The alien object glided onto the runway before the TV cameras, slowing, then stopping. (See photo above.) On its side it bore the writing, in Arabic and English: ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT.
It might as well have announced its origin from Jupiter, or Zeta Reticuli.
The rear door of the plane hung over the end of the red carpet. Somebody must have wheeled an airport ramp up to the door–I don’t remember that detail. It opened. For a few moments I could see only blackness within.
I half-expected–though I knew by now this was crazy–that they’d come out with submachine guns, shooting. I must have been thinking of the opening of the Martian cylinder in H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds.
Instead Sadat came out, smiling, waving. As much at ease as if he’d been in his living room.
A 21-gun salute went off. An Israeli military band struck up the Egyptian national anthem. (I read afterward that they’d had a rough time learning, in a few days, a tune they never thought they’d need to play.) Sadat walked up and down the ranks of the Israeli honor guard, inspecting the polish of their buttons. I assume he found it satisfactory.
A Close Encounter of the Fifth Kind, so far unknown to UFOlogy. This is a meeting, accompanied by verbal communication, between hostile aliens with a view to bridging their differences and understanding each other as fellow-citizens of the universe. It’s a category I just invented. (I call it “Fifth Kind” because the Fourth Kind is already used for UFO abductions. Which are a very different matter.)
The next day–Sunday, November 20–Sadat spoke to the Knesset in Jerusalem. Again, I watched it on TV. He began his address, Bismillahi ‘r-rahmani ‘r-raheem, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” the formula with which nearly every chapter of the Qur’an opens. (Sadat was a devout Muslim.) It was no problem that he spoke in Arabic. Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language of Israel.
I watched as he spoke, as Begin delivered a speech in response. I remember one thing that each of them said.
Sadat: “You cannot be happy, while you are making others unhappy.” He was referring to the Palestinians. Israel wanted peace and recognition from the Arabs, and Sadat had come to offer it. Did not one group of Arabs under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians, deserve the same thing?
Begin: “History teaches that war is not inevitable, but peace is inevitable.”
Peace inevitable? Then tell me, please–what’s going on in Gaza, 35 years after the splendid hopefulness of that day? Why are the bombs falling? Why are children dying?
Why did the promise die?
Maybe let’s blame Begin and his government. They applauded Sadat but didn’t really hear him. They were too busy calculating to listen. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too–get a peace treaty with Egypt, and still keep control of the West Bank and the essentially rightless people for whom that was home. They were right. They could, and did. But it all turned to bitterness, choked on blood. And the hatred between Jews and Arabs is, if anything, worse than it was in 1977.
Maybe blame the Palestinian leaders. They could have responded to Sadat’s cue, delivered their own calls for peace and justice and freedom, appealed to the hearts and minds and consciences of the Israeli people. Instead they threw a prolonged hissy fit over Sadat’s “betrayal.” On Christmas Day 1977, as the Egyptian-Israeli peace conference in Ismailia, Egypt, was getting under way, a Palestinian spokesman delivered his own version of seasonal peace and goodwill. Jesus Christ, he said, “was the first Palestinian fighter killed by the Jews.” (New York Times, 12/26/77, p. 14.)
And maybe blame a little bit Sadat himself. It was the same Sadat who four years earlier had picked the holiest day of the Jewish calendar for a surprise attack on the Jewish state. When the first ecstatic rush of the Close Encounter had faded, people remembered that. Abusing what’s holy to other people is the worst kind of karma. It comes around sooner or later to bite you in the behind.
Sadat was gunned down on October 6, 1981, eight years to the day after his armies attacked on that terrible Yom Kippur. A few days after his death I saw a political cartoon in a US newspaper. People wander, baffled, through what appears to be a trackless, featureless desert landscape. They’re saying: “We want to follow in his footsteps–but where are they?”
The joke was that they’re in the middle of a gigantic footprint, so enormous they can’t even see it.
His successor, Hosni Mubarak, was–well, let’s be polite and say he wasn’t quite of Sadat’s stature.
But then who, in the Middle East, has been? Nobody I can think of. Not even Yitzhak Rabin (also assassinated), whom I respect for the same reason I respect Sadat. He looked the unwanted Other straight in the eye and was ready to talk.
And the Palestinians are still under military occupation, 45 years and with no end in sight. And Israeli parents have continued to recite the Kaddish–the Jewish prayer for the dead–over their soldier sons, and over those innocents blown to pieces by terrorist bombs.
“It’s the first day of school, fellas,” a scientist in “Close Encounters” tells his awestruck colleagues, as they struggle to understand the musical communications emitted by the UFO.
Too bad that’s where we seem to be permanently stuck.
You might be interested in my earlier posts on Israel. Click on “Israel” among the categories on the left of the screen.
And keep up with future posts at
http://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
UFOs and Apparitions – “They Weren’t There, But I Saw Them”
“I know they weren’t really there,” the lady told me. “But I did see them.”
She was talking about the UFO aliens she saw standing outside her home when she was a child, looking out through her bedroom windows. She’s a charming person, in her fifties although she looks much younger. I met her a couple of months ago, and she told me her story.
I believe both parts of her statement. No, the UFO beings weren’t really there. But yes, she did really see them.
Our conversation prompted me to reread a book I’d first read almost 30 years ago, Morton Schatzman’s The Story of Ruth (Putnam, 1980).
Schatzman, an American psychotherapist practicing in London, tells the story of a 25-year-old woman from the US who came to him in desperation. She was being persecuted by her father, a dreadful man who’d brutally raped her as a little girl. Only her father was still, physically, on the far side of the Atlantic.
What she was seeing was an apparition of her father, a being who looked and sounded and even felt so real that when he passed between Ruth and some object–let’s say, a portion of the far wall of the room she was in–he blocked it from her sight. As if she not only hallucinated his shape, but also the absence from her vision of whatever was behind the spot where that shape passed.
It’s an amazing tale. Not least remarkable are the parts where Schatzman, ever the dogged experimenter, tests over and over whether anyone else ever sees Ruth’s apparitions. (Because after a while she’s able to conjure up her apparitions, of her father and other people, in his office and elsewhere.) Mostly the results are negative; no surprise. But there are a few tantalizing clues that in certain circumstances Ruth’s visions can be shared, at least in part, by others. This may have implications for multiply witnessed UFO sightings.
As her therapy progresses, Ruth doesn’t lose her apparitions. She learns to control them, make them come and go at her will. To produce friendlier ones than her malevolent father.
Her husband Paul, for example.
Once when Paul is out of town and she’s feeling lonely, “I started making an apparition of Paul. When it appeared, it was nude and looked just like him. Neither of us said anything. I was lying on one side of the bed, and he lay down on the other beside me …”
I won’t repeat what follows. Suffice it to say that the apparition feels to Ruth absolutely real, solid, tangible. And male.
Under Schatzman’s guidance, Ruth gradually comes to see herself not as a half-insane victim of paranormal harassment, but as possessor of an extraordinary talent.
Extraordinary. Not unique.
Julian Jaynes, whose mind-blowing 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind I’m now reading for the first time, speaks of a young biologist’s wife who told him after one of his lectures “that almost every morning as she made the beds and did the housework, she had long, informative and pleasant conversations with the voice of her dead grandmother in which the grandmother’s voice was actually heard. This came as something of a shock to her alarmed husband, for she had never previously mentioned it, since ‘hearing voices’ is generally supposed to be a sign of insanity.”
Those labeled insane often do have hallucinations. Which is a bad thing. Or not?
“At a suspicion of hallucinations, distressed psychotics are given some kind of chemotherapy such as Thorazine, which specifically eliminates hallucinations. This procedure is at least questionable, and may be done not for the patient, but for the hospital which wishes to eliminate this rival control over the patient. But it has never been shown that hallucinating patients are more intractable than others. Indeed, as judged by other patients, hallucinating schizophrenics are more friendly, less defensive, more likable, and have more positive expectancies toward others in the hospital than nonhallucinating patients. And it is possible that even when the effect is apparently negative, hallucinated voices may be helpful to the healing process” (Jaynes, pp. 86-88).
Like Ruth’s visions.
Rereading Schatzman’s book in a cheap paperback edition (Zebra Books, 1981), I was disappointed not to find the passage that had most stuck in my mind from the hardcover. Did some editor eliminate it? Or did I hallucinate it?
In a footnote, perhaps, Schatzman quoted from Hamlet, Act III, Scene 4. Hamlet, in his mother’s bedroom, sees his dead father and hears his commands. To his mother he says:
“Do you see nothing there?”
The queen replies:
“Nothing at all; yet all that is I see.”
And Schatzman–if my memory is correct–asked: “How did she know, I wonder, that ‘all that is I see’?”
Excellent question.
Think about it, the next time you look out your window and don’t see UFO aliens on your lawn.
by David Halperin
Learn more about David Halperin on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/davidjhalperin
Connect to Journal of a UFO Investigator on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/JournalofaUFOInvestigator
and Find David Halperin on Google+















