I had only heard of Pasulkaa few weeks ago, and I am absolutely shocked by what strikes me as the most "un-academic" conduct I've ever seen (in a tenured professor, in an OUP publication). Secret sources with pop-culture nicknames? "Higher levels of spirituality"? I've not read any of her books, but, upon being prompted, found the Strange Arrivals interview with Toby Ball, and took a strong dislike to her characterisation of atheists, and her painting herself as a neutral observer when it was glarinngly obvious she had a strong agenda, and that "truth" or "scientific progress" were not the values at the heart of her work.
Maybe I lack a more profound understanding of the American disclosure discourse, and I certainly only have an interested layperson's understanding of Religious Studies, but Pasulka's work is utterly at odds with my understanding of scientific conduct.
I love your work, thank you so much for talking about this
Do you think the Vallee quote, juxtaposed with her accounts of letting these people meet her family, is her telegraphing that she realized she was already in too deep at that point? That's what I thought reading it. That she feels trapped. She knows her work is being coopted, and can only convey her true opinions in ways that play into the intelligence community's blindspots.
Through that lens, the book seems a bit like a cry for help. She's exposing the absurdity of the underbelly she's found herself in. It's a bunch of profiles that no one subject would take offense to (besides perhaps "Tyler"), but together they paint an... interesting picture.
The outcome is the same regardless. She will be used as a tool. But if she was writing from a place of coercion rather than naivety, then there may be clues embedded under the surface. I've been trying to listen to her interviews to get a better handle, but they all cover the same basic format and I end up zoning out. I'll probably try some transcription tools so I can skim for off-script portions
I think it is a complex question. I think she knows her work is being used, because she says as much throughout Encounters and other interviews. At one point this was said to be her last foray into the UFO field because it was "too dark," but I can't remember an exact source so take that with a grain of salt. That might be another hint that it's not as sunshine-rainbow-utopia as Encounters winds up seeming at times.
Interestingly, Tyler apparently stopped working with her in the midst of her interactions with another subject of the book, "The Gray Man," because he supposedly couldn't interact with foreign scientists. A lot of weirdness there that the review doesn't even touch on but it kept ballooning to an unwieldy wordcount.
I think in some ways it is an intentional, perhaps feigned naivete because this subject has resulted in broad exposure and book deals. Who can say no to that? However, the treatment of what intelligence agencies actually DO in ufology and elsewhere is so sorely lacking that I wind up just becoming disheartened by the whole ordeal.
I am unsure if this answered your question exactly but I would recommend listening to the podcast appearances. There are some weird nuggets in there that ring alarm bells for me as someone who thinks that intelligence agencies are far more active in the subject than most are willing to accept.
"the treatment of what intelligence agencies actually DO in ufology and elsewhere is so sorely lacking"
100%. Like at least recommend some further reading. The psyop stuff isn't some conspiracy theory, it's foundational. Completely bizarre to omit, given the shape of the book. we're in agreement there
I guess I'm just wondering if she believes she has more on the line than just the book deal. Iirc, she mentioned receiving a ton of threats during her initial research, only for them to later evaporate (presumably after she got cozier with the intelligence community).
There are a few possible reasons for her omitting the shady ufology background
1. Naivety -- she's drank the kool-aid. maybe even trusts that the powers that be are currently trying to do the right thing with "disclosure", and so is willing to overlook shadier elements
2. Fear -- she's afraid that the threats weren't empty. She's trying to shield her family and career by toeing the line, while slipping in hints here and there as to her precarious position
3. $$$ -- she's riding the wave, saying what the public wants to hear/what will sell the most books
It's most likely some combination of all three. But her choice to drop a bunch of shady but vague tidbits while totally avoiding specific historic shadiness makes me think that she's dropping hints that her hands are tied in some capacity
I don't know! Weird all around. I will say that, in the interviews I've heard, Pasulka did seem even more credulous than in the book. On the one hand, that would kind of make sense -- in a book, you have room to figure out ways to gesture toward your real sentiments without saying anything inflammatory, whereas a live interview is a more fraught.
On the other hand, the occasional more sobering inclusions throughout the book could be entirely the publisher's influence. Pasulka even mentioned in an interview (I think her Otherworld ep) that her editor encouraged her to leave the crash site scene open to interpretation because of the optics. I can totally see a world where the original draft was even more sunshine-rainbow-utopia than it turned out
Thanks again, def going to check out more interviews!
I intend to read your full review as soon as possible, but I’m preemptively commenting here to mention that Jason Reza Jorjani recently delivered a sort of exposé of Pasulka’s work, on the Break the Rules YT channel, as constituting an inverted appropriation of Jorjani’s work, and an ideological companion to a Catholic agenda regarding UFO/close encounter phenomena, which re-identifies “aliens” as “angels.” He also mentions Vallée in the discussion in a critical context — and I have had my own reservations for a while concerning his later work and presence in the field (sloppy research concerning the ostensible crash at Trinity being one of them). I know that Jorjani is a controversial figure, but this whole field is “controversial.” I think it’s a monologue worth listening to. You can find it here: https://m.youtube.com/live/_ReE5pLWuBQ?si=yK4YAkD3JKPpbdhS&t=72m6s
I did watch and it definitely appears that she is cribbing from Jorjani's work if what he's saying is accurate. I am not ultra-familiar with Jorjani's writings (for reasons I think are pretty clear) but the timing of his interactions with figures close to Dr. Pasulka is undeniable. I really ought to reread American Cosmic with the critical mindset I was lacking at the time.
I had only heard of Pasulkaa few weeks ago, and I am absolutely shocked by what strikes me as the most "un-academic" conduct I've ever seen (in a tenured professor, in an OUP publication). Secret sources with pop-culture nicknames? "Higher levels of spirituality"? I've not read any of her books, but, upon being prompted, found the Strange Arrivals interview with Toby Ball, and took a strong dislike to her characterisation of atheists, and her painting herself as a neutral observer when it was glarinngly obvious she had a strong agenda, and that "truth" or "scientific progress" were not the values at the heart of her work.
Maybe I lack a more profound understanding of the American disclosure discourse, and I certainly only have an interested layperson's understanding of Religious Studies, but Pasulka's work is utterly at odds with my understanding of scientific conduct.
I love your work, thank you so much for talking about this
Do you think the Vallee quote, juxtaposed with her accounts of letting these people meet her family, is her telegraphing that she realized she was already in too deep at that point? That's what I thought reading it. That she feels trapped. She knows her work is being coopted, and can only convey her true opinions in ways that play into the intelligence community's blindspots.
Through that lens, the book seems a bit like a cry for help. She's exposing the absurdity of the underbelly she's found herself in. It's a bunch of profiles that no one subject would take offense to (besides perhaps "Tyler"), but together they paint an... interesting picture.
The outcome is the same regardless. She will be used as a tool. But if she was writing from a place of coercion rather than naivety, then there may be clues embedded under the surface. I've been trying to listen to her interviews to get a better handle, but they all cover the same basic format and I end up zoning out. I'll probably try some transcription tools so I can skim for off-script portions
I think it is a complex question. I think she knows her work is being used, because she says as much throughout Encounters and other interviews. At one point this was said to be her last foray into the UFO field because it was "too dark," but I can't remember an exact source so take that with a grain of salt. That might be another hint that it's not as sunshine-rainbow-utopia as Encounters winds up seeming at times.
Interestingly, Tyler apparently stopped working with her in the midst of her interactions with another subject of the book, "The Gray Man," because he supposedly couldn't interact with foreign scientists. A lot of weirdness there that the review doesn't even touch on but it kept ballooning to an unwieldy wordcount.
I think in some ways it is an intentional, perhaps feigned naivete because this subject has resulted in broad exposure and book deals. Who can say no to that? However, the treatment of what intelligence agencies actually DO in ufology and elsewhere is so sorely lacking that I wind up just becoming disheartened by the whole ordeal.
I am unsure if this answered your question exactly but I would recommend listening to the podcast appearances. There are some weird nuggets in there that ring alarm bells for me as someone who thinks that intelligence agencies are far more active in the subject than most are willing to accept.
And NOT in the crash retrievals and serious ufological study sense, more in the complex psychological operation sense.
"the treatment of what intelligence agencies actually DO in ufology and elsewhere is so sorely lacking"
100%. Like at least recommend some further reading. The psyop stuff isn't some conspiracy theory, it's foundational. Completely bizarre to omit, given the shape of the book. we're in agreement there
I guess I'm just wondering if she believes she has more on the line than just the book deal. Iirc, she mentioned receiving a ton of threats during her initial research, only for them to later evaporate (presumably after she got cozier with the intelligence community).
There are a few possible reasons for her omitting the shady ufology background
1. Naivety -- she's drank the kool-aid. maybe even trusts that the powers that be are currently trying to do the right thing with "disclosure", and so is willing to overlook shadier elements
2. Fear -- she's afraid that the threats weren't empty. She's trying to shield her family and career by toeing the line, while slipping in hints here and there as to her precarious position
3. $$$ -- she's riding the wave, saying what the public wants to hear/what will sell the most books
It's most likely some combination of all three. But her choice to drop a bunch of shady but vague tidbits while totally avoiding specific historic shadiness makes me think that she's dropping hints that her hands are tied in some capacity
I don't know! Weird all around. I will say that, in the interviews I've heard, Pasulka did seem even more credulous than in the book. On the one hand, that would kind of make sense -- in a book, you have room to figure out ways to gesture toward your real sentiments without saying anything inflammatory, whereas a live interview is a more fraught.
On the other hand, the occasional more sobering inclusions throughout the book could be entirely the publisher's influence. Pasulka even mentioned in an interview (I think her Otherworld ep) that her editor encouraged her to leave the crash site scene open to interpretation because of the optics. I can totally see a world where the original draft was even more sunshine-rainbow-utopia than it turned out
Thanks again, def going to check out more interviews!
I intend to read your full review as soon as possible, but I’m preemptively commenting here to mention that Jason Reza Jorjani recently delivered a sort of exposé of Pasulka’s work, on the Break the Rules YT channel, as constituting an inverted appropriation of Jorjani’s work, and an ideological companion to a Catholic agenda regarding UFO/close encounter phenomena, which re-identifies “aliens” as “angels.” He also mentions Vallée in the discussion in a critical context — and I have had my own reservations for a while concerning his later work and presence in the field (sloppy research concerning the ostensible crash at Trinity being one of them). I know that Jorjani is a controversial figure, but this whole field is “controversial.” I think it’s a monologue worth listening to. You can find it here: https://m.youtube.com/live/_ReE5pLWuBQ?si=yK4YAkD3JKPpbdhS&t=72m6s
I did watch and it definitely appears that she is cribbing from Jorjani's work if what he's saying is accurate. I am not ultra-familiar with Jorjani's writings (for reasons I think are pretty clear) but the timing of his interactions with figures close to Dr. Pasulka is undeniable. I really ought to reread American Cosmic with the critical mindset I was lacking at the time.