The 1997-1999 NIDS/PEER Multi-Witness Abduction Study: The Edges of Phenomenality and Epistemology
Faculty Department
Philosophy
Presentation Type
Powerpoint
Location
Larini
Start Date
25-2-2026 3:15 PM
End Date
25-2-2026 3:30 PM
Description (Abstract)
Between 1997 and 1999, John Mack and the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER), in collaboration with the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), conducted the Multi-Witness Abduction Study to investigate whether the alien abduction phenomenon could be grounded in consensus reality. By identifying cases involving multiple witnesses—primary, secondary, tertiary, character, and effects witnesses—the study aimed to establish objective verification through independently shared perceptions. The researchers explicitly anticipated providing evidence for the objective reality of alien abduction. Nearly three decades later, the study’s outcome reveals a different significance. The final project summary acknowledged that the research failed to produce the intended objective verification. From hundreds of cases examined across four phases, only five were deemed strong enough for detailed analysis, and just one demonstrated close correspondence between primary and secondary witnesses, both before and during hypnotic regression. While this might suggest a negative result, such a conclusion oversimplifies the epistemic implications of the findings. Rather than disproving the phenomenon, the study exposes the limitations of objectivity as an epistemic ideal. All five cases demonstrate intersubjective features—shared perceptions that cannot be reduced to individual hallucination or pathology—yet they consistently failed to cross the threshold into stable objectivity or scientific consensus. Drawing on Bertrand Méheust’s notion of elusivity and on Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison’s historical analysis of objectivity, this paper argues that anomalous experiences challenge conventional epistemological frameworks.To address these challenges, I propose expanded models of shared experience: transsubjectivity, hyper-intersubjectivity, and disjunctive intersubjectivity. These concepts attempt to account for fragmented memory, missing time, altered states of consciousness, and divergent yet overlapping witness accounts. Ultimately, the NIDS/PEER study suggests that the abduction phenomenon occupies a liminal epistemic space, resists full epistemic closure and challenges the idea of a stable, singular shared reality– perhaps questioning the limits of using consensus as the measure of truth.
Keywords
UAP, abduction, phenomenology, intersubjectivity, epistemology
Related Pillar(s)
Spirituality, Study
The 1997-1999 NIDS/PEER Multi-Witness Abduction Study: The Edges of Phenomenality and Epistemology
Larini
Between 1997 and 1999, John Mack and the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER), in collaboration with the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), conducted the Multi-Witness Abduction Study to investigate whether the alien abduction phenomenon could be grounded in consensus reality. By identifying cases involving multiple witnesses—primary, secondary, tertiary, character, and effects witnesses—the study aimed to establish objective verification through independently shared perceptions. The researchers explicitly anticipated providing evidence for the objective reality of alien abduction. Nearly three decades later, the study’s outcome reveals a different significance. The final project summary acknowledged that the research failed to produce the intended objective verification. From hundreds of cases examined across four phases, only five were deemed strong enough for detailed analysis, and just one demonstrated close correspondence between primary and secondary witnesses, both before and during hypnotic regression. While this might suggest a negative result, such a conclusion oversimplifies the epistemic implications of the findings. Rather than disproving the phenomenon, the study exposes the limitations of objectivity as an epistemic ideal. All five cases demonstrate intersubjective features—shared perceptions that cannot be reduced to individual hallucination or pathology—yet they consistently failed to cross the threshold into stable objectivity or scientific consensus. Drawing on Bertrand Méheust’s notion of elusivity and on Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison’s historical analysis of objectivity, this paper argues that anomalous experiences challenge conventional epistemological frameworks.To address these challenges, I propose expanded models of shared experience: transsubjectivity, hyper-intersubjectivity, and disjunctive intersubjectivity. These concepts attempt to account for fragmented memory, missing time, altered states of consciousness, and divergent yet overlapping witness accounts. Ultimately, the NIDS/PEER study suggests that the abduction phenomenon occupies a liminal epistemic space, resists full epistemic closure and challenges the idea of a stable, singular shared reality– perhaps questioning the limits of using consensus as the measure of truth.
Short Biography
Kimberly S. Engels is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Molloy University. She is the research director of the John Mack Institute, a long time board member of the North American Sartre Society, and an advisory board member for the Society for UAP Studies. Her research focuses on phenomenology, existentialism, ethics, as they relate to marginalized experiences and ways of being in the world.