Spielberg Suspicions
While Steve preps the release of his 2026 UFO movie, we look back at UFOlogy's reactions to his past films.
As theaters around the country prepared for the release of Steven Spielberg’s 1977 blockbuster, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (CE3K), one of UFOlogy’s most influential newsletters issued a grave warning.
In an article for NICAP’s UFO Investigator, Dr. Richard Haines worried that the forthcoming movie might “contaminate” the integrity of UFO reports.1 He feared an influx of unreliable accounts would emerge after masses of people became inundated with scenes from the film.
It was a legitimate concern—Spielberg had just directed the most lucrative movie of all time with Jaws, and millions of movie-goers eagerly awaited his next film.
As a countermeasure to the “potentially biasing media event,” Dr. Haines issued three calls to action.
Action 1 was to contact local cinemas and request attendance data to correlate against any rise in UFO sightings. Action 2 called for investigators to have an “intimate familiarity” with the film in order to spot its influence in experiencer reports. The third Action was a call to UFO investigators to avoid bringing the movie up when interviewing witnesses. Adopting these standards could help negate the film’s harmful effects on UFO reports.
Researcher George Earley expressed similar alarm, wondering if we were on the brink of “a saucer sighting flap of unprecedented proportions which will be brought on by many overly imaginative film fans.”2 Witnesses influenced by the aliens and craft seen in CE3K would make the truth harder to detect. Earley also hit on a theme that would follow Spielberg’s UFO flicks for decades—the suggestion that they’re part of a carefully managed psychological operation disclosing the existence of extraterrestrials. As Earley speculated at the time: “Perhaps the government may be planning to quietly use this film to prepare the American people for the reality of alien visitors from other worlds in our galaxy.”
UFOlogy’s hand-wringing ultimately gave way to head-scratching. After Close Encounters, UFO reports didn’t surge, they “plunged to all-time lows virtually everywhere.”3
Prominent UFOlogist Jenny Randles argued that the dip was a result of society’s waning fascination with unidentified flying objects after seeing them on the big screen. “Spielberg’s movie fantasy allowed millions to let off psychic steam all at once by the mere act of going to the cinema.”4 Whatever the reason, the predicted onslaught of muddled UFO reports never materialized. Instead of breathing life into the subject, “Spielberg’s movie seems to have killed off the UFOs.”5
Maybe it was all part of the plan.
Accusing Spielberg of being in cahoots with a secret cabal to gradually leak the truth about aliens is a time-honored tradition that crops up any time the director yells “cut” on a new UFO film.
Some suspect his movies are part of the cabal’s push to re-brand aliens in a positive light. British UFOlogist Brinsley Le Poer Trench guessed that this “long term education programme” began in 1954 when space beings met with President Eisenhower.6 Afraid of the hysteria that would occur if the truth was discovered, both parties thought it best to slowly and strategically divulge the existence of ETs. They saw Hollywood as the perfect partner to help deliver their message. Indeed, Brinsley later reported that the visitors took an active role in the operation—allegedly visiting Spielberg on set to provide inspiration.
Predictably, Spielberg scoffed at the idea that CE3K’s good-natured aliens were intended to sway anyone’s feelings: “It’s strictly an entertainment film. I’m not out to educate the country or enlighten people, or make them reason any differently. But I would like them to look up in the sky a little differently, and with a little more curiosity, and with an open mind.”7
He also dismissed the idea that Disclosure would have a significant impact on behavior—a departure from today’s oft-repeated concerns about ontological shock: “If an announcement were made today that extraterrestrials had made contact with us, or us with them, it wouldn’t stun me. I wouldn’t suffer from social dislocation.” Admittedly, it sounds exactly like what someone who wanted to placate the masses would say!
In fact, if the goal was to normalize the alien presence, CE3K hit the mark with one investigator who gushed that it would “raise the public consciousness to such a level that UFOs will become an integral part of our lives.”8 Music to the cabal’s ears!
UFOlogy again turned a wary eye to Spielberg in 1982 as E.T. thrust the topic back into the mainstream. UFO writers repeated their earlier allegations, citing the film’s amiable aliens as evidence of the director’s involvement in a campaign to soften society’s perception of extraterrestrials. With its peaceful, nonhuman main character, and storyline sympathetic to the plight of off-world beings, some observers saw E.T. as a tool in the long negotiation between UFO secrecy and Disclosure.
The APRO Bulletin criticized both movies because of their pacifying effect on the masses. Whether intentional or not, putting the issue on the big screen implied that the UFO question was settled. Case closed. End of story. “They think they have been given the answer, via Spielberg, and that’s that.”9
Not only did the films artificially relieve collective tensions surrounding the phenomenon, but they did so while framing extraterrestrials as harmless space brothers: “The latter movies have established firmly in the public mind that ‘we’ (at least Steven Spielberg thinks he does) know that UFOs are kindly, benevolent wayfarers from outerspace.”
While APRO stopped short of claiming Spielberg was part of a covert psy op, they did decry the impact that Hollywood was having on “actual research.”
Other leading voices within UFOlogy weren’t as restrained.
When a National Enquirer poll revealed that only 21% of Americans would be “unhappy” about a UFO landing on earth, the paper turned to Brad Steiger and Dr. Leo Sprinkle for context. The duo pulled no punches in their assessment, explaining to readers that a coordinated effort to condition the population was afoot. E.T.’s “cute, loveable alien,” was an example of this scheme.10
Steiger implicated both human and nonhuman actors in the plot, labeling it a “public relations campaign from outer space.” Echoing Brinsley’s earlier speculation about CE3K, Steiger credited telepathic extraterrestrials for the film’s premise, claiming that “Spielberg had the seed of E.T. planted in his brain by aliens using psychic signals from space.”
Dr. Sprinkle agreed that intergalactic collusion was afoot, but he wasn’t bothered by the government’s deceptive approach. Convinced that the visitors were acting in our best interests, the psychologist was excited for the outcome: “Now love and friendship will replace fear and violence when an alien spaceship lands on Earth.”
UFO enthusiasts weren’t the only ones pushing the Spielberg suspicion. The LA Times interviewed eight experiencers (hand-picked by the lovely UFOlogist Ann Druffel) for their reactions to E.T. Most of the group believed that the movie was meant to prepare the world for Disclosure, seeing the film “as part of a much broader effort—involving Spielberg, the government, perhaps even extra- terrestrials themselves—to acquaint people with the likelihood (some say certainty) of alien visitation and to avert global panic when such a visit occurs.”11 They believed the PG-rated film was intentionally designed for children as a means to prepare the younger generation for ET’s arrival.
Spielberg was involved with other alien-related productions after CE3K and E.T., but they didn’t raise UFOlogy’s hackles to the same degree. This is a little surprising considering how the “visitors” are depicted in projects like Men In Black (evil aliens trying to conquer the world), War of the Worlds (evil aliens trying to conquer the world), Falling Skies (evil aliens trying to conquer the world), and Taken (aliens aren’t evil, but they still mess with humans).
What happened to the director’s trademark affable aliens? Did something change with the “education programme’s” go-to-market strategy? Were the powers that be telling us that these entities weren’t so friendly after all? UFOlogists didn’t seem fazed by Spielberg’s new direction, despite the potential implications.
Given his divisive track record on the subject, what might a new Spielberg UFO movie look like in an age of whistleblowers, crash retrieval claims, and Capitol Hill hearings? We won’t have to wait long to find out. The director recently completed filming his next sci-fi epic and it’s expected to land next June, 2026. The billboard is already up in Times Square and it leans into the “disclosure” angle.
Little is known about the plot, but reports confirm that it involves UFOs, with some scenes shot in New Jersey—home of last fall’s UFO/drone invasion. Snippets seen by Hollywood insiders show the main characters being chased by “menacing figures in unmarked black cars.”12 It’s possible the story involves government agents working to stop an extra- terrestrial revelation. Perhaps Spielberg will incorporate nods to government black projects, recovered tic-tacs, and transmedium vehicles. Who knows—maybe co-star Emily Blunt will forge a psychic connection with nonhuman craft using CSETI protocols!
With the film shrouded in secrecy, predicting Spielberg’s take on the UFO question is tricky, but a 2023 interview might hint at his current perspective:
➛ He does think that any aliens visiting earth would be friendly: “It’s about curiosity and science—it’s not about aggression.”
➛ He doesn’t think the government is telling us everything they know about UFOs: “There is something going on that is not being disclosed to us.”
Until the movie is released, all we can do is speculate about it’s impact. Will sightings artificially increase, or will UFOs become scarce like they were in the wake of CE3K and E.T.? Will public interest put renewed pressure on lawmakers, or will Spielberg’s updated interpretation satisfy the collective curiosity? Will Disclosure come from Hollywood, or Washington?
Whatever the outcome, Spielberg’s return to the skies guarantees that UFOs will once again loom large in our cultural imagination.
THE OBSERVER is a high strangeness zine. Click the image above to receive a free physical subscription.
Haines, Richard. “Warning: CE III Poses Potential Contamination.” UFO Investigator, Aug 1977, p. 2.
Earley, George. “Special Report: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” Beyond Reality, Mar-Apr 1978, p. 39.
Randles, Jenny. “Sighting Reports.” The UFO World ‘86. p. 15.
Randles, Jenny. Northern UFO News, Dec 1990, p. 2.
Randles, Jenny. Northern UFO News, Jan-Feb 1987, p. 16.
Trench, Brinsley Le Poer, “You and Me.” Journal UFO, Dec 1980, p. 23.
Klemesrud, Judy. “Can He Make the Jaws of Outer Space?” New York Times, May 15 1977.
“Close Encounters: A Celestial Hymn.” UFO Research Newsletter, Dec 1977-Jan 1978, p. 5.
“What’s Ahead for Ufology?” The APRO Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 4.
National Enquirer UFO Report, Pocket Books, May 1985, p. 152.
London, Michael. “Close Encounters with E.T.” LA Times Calendar, June 27, 1982.
www.screenrant.com/steven-spielberg-ufo-movie-footage-description
Glad to see a reference to Jenny Randles, the Grande Dame of British Ufology. All too forgotten.
Great article over all.
Good essay. I wanted to link an old article that used a graph of sighting reports and related it to Close Encounters. It showed a negative correlation. I thought it was Kottmeyer and it isn't him. It was someone details based like he was or Brad Sparks. The "social conditioning" thing is conflicting because it doesn't tell anyone how to separate standard alien action films from those allegedly softening us up for contact. I'm dubious. Then again, intelligence agents have been linked to Hollywood productions meaning where there's smoke...