Joseph Burkes MD 1994, revised 2026
INTRODUCTION: UFO intelligence demonstrated its virtuoso psi ability by creating visual “illusions” that witnesses interpreted as anomalous shooting stars. This capability to create such visual displays was demonstrated repeatedly during a night of fieldwork over three decades ago. If “illusory” anomalous displays of meteors can be produced, then UAP NHIs might be able to create displays of all classes of UFOs, including what witnesses perceive as “structured craft” and even “non-human beings.” The implications of this psi capability for the entire field of UFO studies should not be underestimated!
Date of Research: 11-7-94, approximate time 2AM.
Location: “Desert Site One” at the base of Queen Mountain, Joshua Tree National Monument, elevation approximately 4000 feet above sea level.
Site conditions: Slight overcast. Temperature dropping from mid fifties to low forties Fahrenheit.
Please remember that this particular research event at Desert Site One took place only 4 days before the first anniversary of our November 11, 1993 encounter. For details on that night of fieldwork go to:
On that date in 1993 at the same location, a fellow contact worker who I call “Misha” and I interacted with 2 anomalous nocturnal lights; one of which was clearly visible as a glowing disc. It came so close and was so bright that we became sun burnt at night.
One year later in November 1994 our experience was far more subtle and certainly less dramatic than the prior one. Nevertheless, it reaffirmed that our collaborative relationship with UFO associated non-human intelligences was still intact. More importantly, that investigation also revealed NHI’s willingness to demonstrate an important psi mediated mechanism of contact.
Sightings and high strangeness events. No structured “craft” were seen but a large number of shooting stars were intermittently observed in different parts of the sky. I noted a surprisingly uniform quality to the shooting stars that we were observing. Many of the sightings appeared to have the same brightness, hue and same length of trail. The luminosity of the shooting star like “objects” did not vary, in other words they did not glow or flare.
These uniform nocturnal sightings appeared to be possibly artificial. They reminded me of the stereotypic “shooting stars” that are displayed as part of a planetarium show. This highly uniform quality made me suspect that they were possibly manifestations of “ET” technology and not natural phenomena. Subsequent events tended to confirm this assessment.
At approximately 2AM Misha and I were both viewing the southern sky over Negro Hill. Over several minutes he reported two “shooting stars” separated by about 30 seconds in a portion of sky where I observed not a one. He stated that both appeared exactly the same.
Although I had started to use corrective lenses for reading, my far vision was and continues to be adequate for driving day and night and for sky watch activities without corrective lenses. The fact that I had failed to see the pair of “of shooting stars” while viewing the same section of sky, made me suspicious that something truly anomalous might be going on.
I positioned myself directly next to Misha. He pointed out the exact location (about 35 degrees up from the horizon) where the “objects” were observed, I intensely focused on that portion of sky. He said “There’s another one!” I saw nothing other than the few surrounding stars shining faintly in the background.
Misha told me that this third meteor that I again had failed to perceive had the same brightness, color, and length of trail and angle of entry as the preceding two other ones. After not being able to detect three of these “objects”, it occurred to me that this might be some kind of test of our willingness to interact, as well as a display of their (presumably the ETs’) ability to create visual displays preferentially between members of our team.
I asked Misha to request that I see what he had observed. He did so and within a few seconds I saw a pale “shooting star” slowly moving across a narrow section of the sky just above Negro Hill. It was in the exact location where Misha alone reportedly had witnessed the three other “meteors.” We quickly described to one another what we had just observed. It was a match! After making a request for a sighting, a sighting had transpired.
We looked at each other in amazement. The implications of what had just witnessed seemed quite remarkable. Here was a striking example of an anomalous visual display that was linked to non-human intelligence with one observer being able to witness the display and then both perceiving the “meteor” by merely asking for a sighting. But what if my observation was just a manifestation of chance. The “shooting star” had appeared immediately after the request by coincidence alone, without the action of a conscious mind.
Shoulder to shoulder, bundled up in all our winter gear, we stood there in the cold desert night air and gazed at the sky. I asked Misha to make another request. He didn’t hesitate. “Show Joe again”, he said. In less than 5 seconds, another stereotypic slow moving “shooting star” appeared in the exact same place as before. It appeared to be identical to my first sighting. Misha said it was the same as his previous four.
My heart pounding in excitement, and feeling a little awkward at the same time, I tried to address whomever was responsible for those lights. I said something like. “Please show us the light again. We are only human and we have this notion of ‘coincidence’. If you could show us again it would be much appreciated. It would reduce in our minds and in minds of others perhaps, that these visual displays are not simply the result of chance.”
There was a pause. We waited, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, and 15 seconds. Finally, as if to say to us, “Are you really serious, do you really need for us to show you another one?”; then the slow moving “shooting star” reappeared exactly as before. Each sighting of the anomalous moving light was identical to the last. It was as if we were watching the same film clip being repeated over and over again.
As mentioned above, it reminded me of simulated “shooting stars” that I had watched on the ceiling of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City when I was a child. The circumstances of these visual displays were different however. This night they had appeared in the middle of the desert at 2 AM and seemed to be linked to an unidentified conscious intelligence that chose to interact with us for reasons only truly known to itself.
Please remember that this particular research adventure at Desert Site One took place only 4 days before the first anniversary of our November 11, 1993 encounter. On that date at the same location, we had interacted with 2 anomalous nocturnal lights; one of which was clearly visible as a glowing disc. That 1993 encounter had lasted approximately one hour and forty-five minutes, and up till that time it was I believe the longest interactive encounter in the history of the CE-5 Initiative.
This 1994 experience was far more subtle and certainly less dramatic than the prior one. Nevertheless, it reaffirmed for us the likely probability that our collaborative relationship with UFO intelligences was still intact. More importantly they were revealing to us how visual “illusions” could be created by a non-human that certainly did not represent physical phenomenon but rather a simulation that could be displayed on request. In my opinion, the implications of this demonstration for the entire field of UFO studies should not be underestimated! They can create what from a physicalist perspective are “illusions” that witnesses perceive as “meteors.” They (whoever they turn out to be “ETs” “time travelers”, etc.) in my judgment can undoubtedly do the same for what appear to be structured objects that we identify as “ET craft.”
We had one more sighting that night. It occurred around 4:30 AM as we prepared to break camp. All our equipment was nearly packed and we were about to march off towards the dry riverbed that led to our vehicle in the wilderness parking lot called a “backboard”. The last UFO we saw was a jumper. It was a moving star like point of light that erratically jerked back and forth in a zigzag manner. It was quite similar to the two jumpers we had seen the year before, although its oscillations were less pronounced. This UFO appeared in the south about 25 degrees above the horizon behind Negro Hill.
It scintillated or pulsed in a very regular pattern. Although located near the horizon, the regularity of its pulsations distinguished it from ordinary stars, which will often scintillate as they approach the horizon. This is the natural effect on a star’s light as it passes through a greater volume of atmospheric dust when viewed on the horizon. The jerking movements were fine, erratic and appeared not to be the result of optical nystagmus. Optical nystagmus describes the tiny movements of the eyes when fixated on a point of light. It results in an optical illusion of movement. Inexperienced sky watchers will describe movement in most stars they stare at if they do so long enough. In the case of this jumper, its movements were judged to be real by the technique of fixating on an adjacent object, (usually this is a star) and then watching the point of light in question with peripheral vision. In this case the jumper still moved while being viewed in this fashion.
The video camera was already packed away and so we opted not to try to film the jumper. We fancied it was no accident that it showed up just as we are leaving. This pattern of a sighting at time of departure is a frequent occurrence during consciousness-based fieldwork. We accepted it as a fond farewell and set out on foot across the rocky terrain towards the riverbed that would be our trail to the wilderness parking lot.
Discussion.
This anomalous interactive experience can hopefully be instructive not only to other field investigators, but to all those interested in UFOs. The conscious based protocols used by the human initiated contact network instruct field researchers to respect the observations of coworkers, even when they might not see exactly the same things in the sky. We should accept the integrity and honesty of our coworkers even when our observations may vary greatly. This unfortunately is not always the case among flying saucer enthusiasts. There is an unfortunate tendency that I have observed in some sky watch groups that if one particular investigator doesn’t observe a certain object, then in a rather egotistical way that researcher denies that the sighting has validly.
This sort of routine dismissal is not an example of healthy skepticism but rather a reflex to doubt that in extreme cases are attempts to debunk. The reflex to deny the validity of others’ witnessed events is, in my opinion, all too common within the UFO subculture
In a certain sense the “ETs” may have been subjecting me to a kind of test by initially showing Misha the visual display and denying it to me. If I did not have a deep appreciation of my coworker, I might have been tempted to dismiss his sighting. He being 23 years my junior might have tempted Misha to dismiss my failure to observe the displays as the result of middle age infirmity. This was something he did not do.
Being aware of the possibility that UFO intelligence was present, I chose to interact with it. I requested that I be shown the “shooting star” and immediately was witness to what Misha had described a few moments before. If the human initiated contact network’s field investigators cannot trust each other and work in a spirit of cooperation, it is unlikely that we will be able to build the necessary strong ties with UAP associated non-humans with whom our network is engaged.
This field investigation contributed to my formulating what I would later call the Virtual Experience Model for UAP research. In my judgment, UAP non-human intelligences would not limit their creations of anomalous visual displays to “meteors.” I suspect that a considerable proportion of the multitude of global sightings are being produced by the same mechanism evident during our November 1994 fieldwork. I have designated Virtual Experiences of the First Kind (VE-1) to be of two classes:
A VE- type 1a is hologram like projections that can be photographed and seen by all present.
A VE type 1b is a visual display recreated possibly by electrically stimulating the sensory apparatus of the experiencer: either into the retina or possibly focusing on occipital cortex where visual data is organized for perception. This physical explanation however might not be correct. Instead, psi-mediated mechanisms might be operational and the alleged ETs can project psychically a visual display by means other than electrical stimulation of the brain.
This type of encounter cannot be photographed and can only be witnessed by the people that have been targeted or possess the necessary psychic ability to perceive the display. Others potential witnesses not targeted would not perceive the display. If, however, a request is made that these other witnesses be allowed to see the phenomenon, sometimes they too may have the sighting.
The Virtual Experience Model goes a long way in explaining some of the perplexing aspects of the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. UFO researcher/author Grant Cameron has pointed out that there is tremendous variation in the appearance of not only UFOs but also the beings associated with them. If beings and craft being perceived during encounters are hologram like projections, then there would be no need to produce a standardized appearing UFO. Thus, an infinite number of variations of hologram like displays could be produced.
Retired DIA scientist Dr. James Lacatski who was a project manager for the US Government’s AAWSAP project has described creating a data base of several hundred thousand individual UAP sightings. The detailed analysis reportedly showed that practically none of the “craft” were exactly alike. He has used the analogy that it is as if one were to drive down a busy highway and no two cars would be the same model.
If UAP are “reflective” as described by investigator John Keel and others, then their appearances could very well reflect the expectations of witnesses. It could conceivably be quite easy to manufacture a multitude of hologram like visual displays (VE-1a) that might reflect the perceiver’s expectations.
In a similar fashion, hundreds of phenotypes (category based on appearance) of alleged “ET” beings have been described in the NHI contact literature. Rather than a multitude of distinct “races”, perhaps we are witnessing individual variations of projected visual displays produced by consciousness-based mechanisms (VE-1b).
The question arises, are these “illusory” mechanisms of contact. When I first formulated the Virtual Experience Model, I was still working as a physician trained in physicalist science-oriented medicine. Physicalism here refers to the worldview that mass/energy is primary and Mind/ Consciousness are merely properties “emerging” from the brain’s neuronal activity. Thus, I designated the “Virtual” mechanisms as “illusory” because I deemed physical reality to be the “real world.” If, however, the wellspring of creation is not matter but Mind, then the Consciousness based mechanisms are closer to the base reality and it is our physical experiences that are illusory. In a certain sense, psi mediated encounters based in Consciousness rather than those perceived as purely physical, might be considered more “real” than physical ones.
My November 1994 field investigation served as an impetus for my formulating the Virtual Experience Model. This radical concept also includes the designations Virtual Experiences of the Second and Third Kinds that are described in other postings to social media on my web site.
For additional blogs on the Virtual Experience Model, the following links are provided:
Staging Psi-mediated Close Encounters might have practical advantages for UFO intelligences. Staging exclusively physical interactions could pose enormous risks including the transmission of deadly pathogens.
Two Cases Supporting the Virtual Experience of the Second Kind. This category postulates that UAP intelligences create a strong form of virtual reality during Close Encounters. This has been referred as a “Matrix Reality.”
The work that Andrija Puharich did with Uri Geller revealed a dramatic case of “Virtual Memory”, aka a Virtual Experience of the Third Kind.
In the blog linked below I discuss advances in memory science and their implications for both the Virtual Experience Model and the use of hypnosis on contact experiencers.
A blog analyzing an event at Skinwalker Ranch that supports the Virtual Experience Model. Dr. Kelleher was present when 6 observers using night vision equipment described seeing “completely different things.”
Contact Underground 