Friday, April 06, 2007

Jacques Vallee on "Abductionology"

In his book Confrontations: A Scientist's Search for Alien Contact, Dr. Jacques Vallee had some eminently sensible things to say about research into the alien abduction phenomenon. While pointing out that blanket dismissals like those of the late Phil Klass go too far, he was extremely critical of the "methodology" of leading abductionologists like Budd Hopkins and David Jacobs.

I recommend that anyone who has not read Confrontations find a copy somewhere and read it. In the meantime, I'll provide a few well-thought out excerpts which should resonate today more than ever.

First, Vallee on the usefulness of lie detectors tests:
As for lie detector tests, which are routinely used by ufologists and the media to "prove" that UFO abductees are "telling the truth," their effectiveness is practically nil, as a long list of scientific references would show... A recent Harvard Medical School study has shown that truthful people flunked polygraph tests more often than actual liars. A possible explanation is that innocent people react to the stress of the test, while the guilty do everything in their power to remain calm. (p. 158)
Vallee went on to talk about the need to understand the overall context of the abduction phenomenon:
There is another very important aspect to the entire abduction problem that has never been considered seriously by American ufology, obsessed as it is with immediate facts and first-order explanations. By ignoring this other aspect, we reduce considerably our chances of understanding the entire question. What I am referring to is the simple fact that abduction stories are not specific to the UFO phenomenon and certainly did not begin with Betty and Barney Hill in 1961. I pointed out in Invisible College that the structure of abduction stories was identical to that of occult initiation rituals. Several years before, I had shown in Passport to Magonia that contact with ufonauts was only a modern extension of the age-old tradition of contact with nonhuman consciousness in the form of angels, demons, elves, and sylphs. Such contact includes abduction, ordeal (including surgical operations), and sexual intercourse with the aliens. It often leaves marks and scars on the body and the mind, as do UFO abductions. Reaction to the publication of these facts was curious. In the United States, many ufologists simply denied them or ignored them. As late as 1988 Budd Hopkins summarily rejected the Magonia data as "folklore of obviously uncertain authenticity." (pp. 159 - 160)
It should be noted that not all American ufologists ignored these facts - Kevin Randle details them in his excellent study The Abduction Enigma, which he co-wrote with Russ Estes and Dr. William Cone. But Kevin is in the minority.

As noted above, Vallee discusses the problems with the use of hypnosis (something I've talked about here in the past - see The Alien Abduction Cult and The Abduction Phenomenon and Hypnosis), but does he dismiss it out of hand? No. Instead, what he does is point out that the real problem is with the use of hypnosis by untrained ufologists like Hopkins and Jacobs who have an agenda to pursue. Vallee's recommendation?
Can help be provided to the traumatized witness who has experienced a close encounter and possibly an abduction? Absolutely. He or she should be directed to a qualified, professional hypnotherapist who is open-minded on the question of the UFO reality and who has reached no personal conclusion regarding the nature and origin of the phenomenon. And the ufologist should only be in the room at the request of, and under the control of, the therapist. Any other procedure, in my opinion, is unethical and unprofessional. Besides, it runs the risk of polluting the delicate, complex abduction database with fantastic and spurious material. It can drive UFO research over a very dangerous cliff. (p. 159)
Vallee wrote this is 1990. Alas, few in ufology listened, and ufology was driven over that dangerous cliff, with predictable consequences: further marginalization by the legitimate scientific community, a withering of public interest as the stories of abductions (and crashed flying saucers, abductionology's evil twin) became commonplace (see Robert Fulford on Abductions for a recent sample of media reaction), and more often outrageous, all of which has led to a loss, as Vallee said elsewhere, of the true "signal" amidst the "noise", while most ufologists in the United States either openly embraced the very things Vallee warned them against, or through their silence signalled tacit acceptance.

Which, unfortunately, for the most part remains the status quo today.

Paul Kimball

18 comments:

BoyintheMachine said...

Paul,

Have you researched the 'Romanization' of native Celtic Gods pre-, and post-conquest? If not then I think you should, as it demonstrates a valid psychological phenomena which occurs when one culture, with a superiority-complex, attempts to assimilate a percieved inferior culture.

The Romans, noticing certain similarities with native Celtic Gods to their own Pantheon, decreed statements similiar to; "Whom you know as Lugh, is the EXACT SAME god we know as Mercury. You simply fail to know his true name or proper rites."

So was the Celtic God Lugh Identical to the Roman Apollo? Of course not.

The Celtic religion was unique and was not a degenerative, watered-down version of Roman pagan religion.

So, applying the concept of 'Romanization via Assmiliation' to Valle and his 'theories' of Abduction/Abduction Researchers & Abductees, what if anything can we conclude?

We can conclude that Vallee's opinion that claims of Alien Abduction are the exact same thing as claimed abduction by Fairies, Witches, or even non-related things such as interactions with various gods or spirits, is absolutely false and can be attributed to Vallee's own, unique mind-set. Just as with the Romans, Valee is focusing on the few similarities between these truly unrelated things, ignoring the many numerous differences. Thus, his writings are nothing more than clever propaganda.

As you may know, I am not a fan of Vallee. I used to be. Unfortunately I realized far too early in the game that he wasn't contributing anything to our knowledge. Instead, it seems he endulges in deceit and trickery perhaps equaled only by the UFO phenomena itself, whether he consciously realizes it or not.

-Jason

Anonymous said...

Vallee is absolutely correct in pointing out the similarities to be found in folklore but it seems as if this thinking has formed something of a splinter school that assumes the displayed technology is solely and completely an illusion for our present minds' benefit.

I have yet to find any swaying evidence one way or another. Does an Irishman in 1500 AD have the vocabulary to describe a dial, switch, display monitor or hologram? Who is to say the appearance of a winged demon was not an illusion consistent with and presented for their time while we are presented with the true appearance? How do we reconcile the the constant presence of seemingly mechanical flying contraptions described in the Book of Enoch, the Hindu Vedas, etc.? If purely illusion why are not flying men with golden bird wings consistently presented to our ancestors?

I do suspect that the phenomena is more complex than simply one of aliens with technology like ours but better. That being said, until we know more, every element must remain on the table. Just as Vallee cautions us about the assumption of a purely technological answer it seems obvious to me that this argument cuts both ways.

RDB said...

Although I've only exchanged a few e-mails with Jacques Vallee, my former partner in crime, Chris Aubeck, knew him better than I, at one point attending a conference in Porto, Portugal with Jacques (I could have gone, but that's a long way and a lot of money for a stuffy conference). Anyway, not only has Jacques been ignored about many things, he has actually been actively browbeaten out of the ufo community, to the point where he's practically a pariah among the "big boys" (Jerry Clark, in particular, comes to mind). Yet, at the same time, the Magonia database is practically a religious document in the ufo community (although the Magonia Exchange project exceeded it in sheer volume of material by many orders of magnitude - not that anyone is interested).

Vallee was and is an original thinker, and the minute he walked away from the ETH and "dared" to begin "brainstorming" on the nature and scope of the UFO phenomenon, all the old boys raised their legs and pissed.

Sorry to be vulgar, but it's true. You're average "ufologist" is an idiot, and wouldn't know an original thought if it hit him square in his white arse.

Paul Kimball said...

Jason:

We can conclude that Vallee's opinion that claims of Alien Abduction are the exact same thing as claimed abduction by Fairies, Witches, or even non-related things such as interactions with various gods or spirits, is absolutely false and can be attributed to Vallee's own, unique mind-set

I disagree completely, and I think you're mischaracterizing what Vallee, and Randle, and others, have said here. The similarities are not few, and there is a logic to drawing comparisons between the "big picture" aspects of, for example, alien abductions and the Old Hag, or the succubus, or whatever, and then searching for a possible rational explanation.

I don't agree with everything Vallee has said or written by a long-shot, but with respect I think you're dead wrong to dismiss him so easily.

Paul

Paul Kimball said...

Anonymous:

Just as Vallee cautions us about the assumption of a purely technological answer it seems obvious to me that this argument cuts both ways.

Absolutely, which is what I tell ardent EDH proponents every time I run into them. It's all just hypothesizing - the ETH, the EDH - and just because Vallee has made many valid points about the ETH (and he has), doesn't mean that we should simply substitute another hypothesis as othodoxy in its place. But I don't think Vallee has ever suggested that we do that.

Paul

Paul Kimball said...

Vallee was and is an original thinker, and the minute he walked away from the ETH and "dared" to begin "brainstorming" on the nature and scope of the UFO phenomenon, all the old boys raised their legs and pissed.

Yup. The same thing has happened recently with Mac Tonnies, and before that with Nick Redfern, and Greg Bishop, and, well, anyone who dares to challenge American ufological orthodoxy (and yes folks, there is such a thing), and it's been played out with the same culprits.

Paul

RDB said...

I should clarify a couple things here: When Chris Aubeck and I started the Magonia Exchange project, we did so with the belief that the distinction between what we called "post-Arnie" (i.e, post Kenneth Arnold's, 1947 sighting)sightings and "pre-Arnie" sightings was largely an artificial one; it is a fact that humans have been seeing and recording strange phenomena in the sky for millenia, and that in many cases, variations in the descriptions of phenomena between then, and now, were cultural in origin.

We believed that by further digging into the annals of bygone days that we might be able to shed some light on the post 1947 "UFO phenomenon." I should stress that the approach was NOT based on the assumption, a la ancient astronaut aficianados, that extraterrestrials have been visiting the planet for aeons, and the only reason our forebears described them as "signs and portents" was because they had no basis for calling them "ETs," because their culture was steeped superstition and religion.

Curious, isn't it, that the post 1947 take on UFOs, e.g., ETH spacecraft, is the "right one," in the minds of those who accept it - rather than being just another cultural variant on an unknown phenomenon. In fact, this is why the folklore of a bygone day threatens so many ufologists; allow too much of that it, and it might suggest to some people (those who buy sensational UFO books)that the UFO phenomenon, post-1947, is just "more of the same" of what came in the centuries before 1947...

Consequently, in the venues where Christopher and I attempted to get individuals to take notice - Project 1947, Sign Historical Group, and even the UFO UpDates list, people simply were not interested. Almost universally, the party-line was "since those who made the reports cannot be interviewed,it cannot be established whether or not the reports were of 'genuine' UFOs." AS IF, being able to interview a witness establishes the nuts and bolts physicality of a UFO sighting, period.

I pointed out on numerous occassions that according to that rationale, we should exclude virtually all time-honored historical documents, since there is no way to interview the witnesses. But to no avail.

So, when I say, "the Magonia Exchange project exceeded the volume of the Magonia database by many orders of magnitude" that's not bullshit, by any means. Vallee himself said he was amazed at the amount of material that was being generated by the project (which was international in scope, having members all over Europe, and in Australia). In fact, the project still exists, and probably has much more material than even when I left.

Modern ufology is not interested. They like to rehash the old, and chew on the "work" of David Jacobs and Budd Hopkins. To allow in all that material from pre-1947 could rock the status-quo, and heaven forbid that anyone should offer any take on UFOs other than that which the "old hands" advance, and the unwashed masses find the most palatable.

Anonymous said...

But I don't think Vallee has ever suggested that we do that.

Agreed. I've never picked up that suggestion directly from reading his books; It's more from the followers...but then again they weren't going to be doing any new research anyways. I'm not a Vallee expert but my handle on him is that his central heresy is that the phenomena behaves more like a "control system" than what 1960's science thought proper aliens should be. Since then I think the borders of science have expanded quite a bit and are admitting some damn freaky shit into orthodoxy these days.

My only point to the pure EDH and pure ETH people is that neither side has convincingly explained to me why the phenomena can't be a control system AND aliens in space ships AND from the 10th dimension AND sending their AI minions to manipulate Bessie's DNA. It seems downright retarded to splinter off into denominations when we still don't know shit for sure.

Paul Kimball said...

Anyonymous:

It seems downright retarded to splinter off into denominations when we still don't know shit for sure.

Exactly so.

Paul

BoyintheMachine said...

"I disagree completely, and I think you're mischaracterizing what Vallee, and Randle, and others, have said here. The similarities are not few, and there is a logic to drawing comparisons between the "big picture" aspects of, for example, alien abductions and the Old Hag, or the succubus, or whatever, and then searching for a possible rational explanation."

Paul, may I ask why you chose to connect abduction w/ 'the old hag'?
I would truly like you to focus on this, as it is specific to my criticism.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the belief that 'The Old Hag' is identical to 'Sleep Paralysis' is of modern origin.

More recently, skeptics have claimed 'Sleep Paralysis' is behind Alien Abduction. Many people agree with them. Unfortunately, there is a problem. The problem is these skeptics are misusing/abusing science in order to promote their belief [propoganda]. The lie being told is basicly thus, "Because I am a Professional this-or-that, I can use science to prove 'The Old Hag' = 'Sleep Paralysis = Alien Abduction. Case Closed."

A critical thinker should be well aware that the only connection between these three things are in the minds of those who choose to PERCIEVE such.

Yes, the notion that these things are connected is intruiging, but it is simply a notion. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproved. Therefore, Science says it must be ignored. The majority of Vallee's work is ignored not because he is rebel-genius who causes us to question Ufology. Instead, he is ignored because none-to-few of his theories/opinions/beliefs can be proven or disproven.

"I don't agree with everything Vallee has said or written by a long-shot, but with respect I think you're dead wrong to dismiss him so easily."

Paul, I haven't dismissed Vallee at all. Vallee doesn't want the UFO phenomena solved. He is attempting to keep it hostage in a 'ghost universe' where no solution to the phenomena could ever be discovered.

"Going off on a tangent is a quality of genius, ONLY IF such tangent merges with the original line of thought at some point futher along the querry, disemminating the novelty it has thus gained. Otherwise, tangent-taking is simple madness disguised as genius, or in the very least, futility masked as purpose, frivility confused for fortitude.

You can easily tell the two apart as the person entranced by tangent-taking exists forever in a state of mental bliss, as the false universe he inhabits exists merely to acknowledge and proclaim his truth. He who uses tangents correctly, however, can often be distinguished by the look of gloom in their eyes, due to discovering the world is not nearly as wonderful as first believed, the shadow of man percieved a bit more darker than at first glance."

-Jason Gammon "Hell Hounds & Monster Men"

RDB said...

"Going off on a tangent is a quality of genius, ONLY IF such tangent merges with the original line of thought at some point futher along the querry, disemminating the novelty it has thus gained.

What is "the orginal line of thought" in ufology? It looks to me like the epitome of heterogeneous. There are multiple takes, many of them mutually exclusive, most not testable/falsifiable, many unscientific/illogical.

ETH:

- ET visitation, reason unknown.

- Reconnaissance/Scientific Study

- Reconnaissance/Scientific Study, including study of humans via abduction

- Abduction, probes, exams, extraction of genetic material, motivation unknown.

- Abduction, probes, exams, extraction of genetic material. Motivation: creating hybrids, possibly because they can no longer reproduce on their own (problematic from the standpoint of biology, and probably unecessary for a star-faring culture)

- Abduction, probes, exams,extraction of genetic material: Motivation - taking over the earth with hybrid species - also problematic.

- Any of the above, plus underground bases.

- Any of the above, plus underground bases, plus oceanic bases, +/- USOs.

- Contactee philosophies. Space Brothers.

- Exopolitics. Space brothers, solution of all of earth's problems.

(to the above two, add multiple alien races, with various motivations)

(also add to any of the above government conspiracy to cover up/collusion with aliens for various reasons)

Liberally add New Age spin: Portals, Age of Aquarius, Nibiru, the Nephilim, Intergalactic wars, panspermia, Christian spinoffs, apocalyptic scenarios, Theosophy, ancient astronauts, Mayan Calendar stuff,remote viewing, trance-channeling, walk-ins, starkids, lunar bases, martian bases, non-terrestrial regoliths, revisionist history etc., etc., ad nauseum...

Manner of starflight:

"Technology indistinguishable from magic."

"Exotic propulsion technologies." Ad hoc hypotheses, fringe science ideas. Friedman blathering on about nuclear rockets and 1 g acceleration, while neglecting to address relativistic effects,and problems related to nuclear propulsion.

Wormhole: neglects problematic aspects of wormhole travel. Same science which predicts them "disables" them.

Liberally throw in distortion of scientific ideas:many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, locality, special and general relativity, gravity waves, particle forces, tachyons, time and space warps, zero point energy of the vacuum, electromagnetism.

Also throw in blatant junk science: free energy, PSI,
--------
Non-ETH

Time travelers: Alien or Future "humans." Ad Hoc, causality violation, time paradox.

Interdimensional beings. Ad Hoc. Evidences fundamental misunderstand of nature of spatial dimensions.

Crypto-terrestrial: Actually less problematic than the others, because it only requires that they exist "side by side with us;" it does not violate known physical principles, does not require hypotheses beyond that which could account for ability of "aliens" to remain "hidden" in our midst. Ad hoc, hower.

Inner earth beings. Bogus science; fundamental misunderstanding of earth geology.

Elementals: Magonia stuff.

Psychotronic mind control. (Add: Illuminati, Masonic power structures, black governments, MK Ultra, collusion with aliens, various paranoid speculations)

Space animals.

Psychic projection of mental imagery onto external enviroment.

Earthlights.

Misperception of natural/man-made phenomena: 90+ percent of all sightings.

Hoaxes: Relatively small percentage, but possibly on the rise (e.g., O'Hare). Possibly more than has been estimated.

Spirit phenomena: Ghosts, orbs, angels, demons.

And there's more. From person to person, group to group, various spins.
------
Then there's the psycho-social hypotheses...

Otherwise, tangent-taking is simple madness disguised as genius, or in the very least, futility masked as purpose, frivility confused for fortitude.

Dr. X said...

Dr. Jacques Fabrice Vallee seems to be continuously, repeatedly, and in some cases intentionally misunderstood and misquoted, especially by those who don't understand him or who don't know him very well, like Jerry Clark of CUFOS. He doesn't need me to defend him, and would probably wish I wouldn't, but I feel compelled to make some comments:

It's an ego and philosophical difference, essentially. Jerry Clark, long ago, was an advocate of Vallee's early positions on ufo phenomena, but there was an intellectual disagreement about their divergent interpretations of the potential nature(s) of ufo phenomena as time went on, and when Vallee began to explore alternative possibilities, CUFOS and Clark, et al, disagreed, became "opponents", and Clark/CUFOS have remained rigid and somewhat inflexible in their opinions and interpretations, as I see it. I'm sure there's a lot in the background of this conflict I don't know, but Vallee is not a gossip, as I've asked him about it and he will not discuss it.

They do not like or respect Vallee, which is, to me, an intellectual failure. Clark is the loser in this disagreement, IMHO. Stuck in the past. Too literal-minded. CUFOS IUR journal even did kind of a hatchet job on Vallee's speculations about the significance of the "Pentacle" memorandum in a 1993 IUR article by Jenny Zeidman and Dr. Michael Swords. They couldn't even resist the occassional ad hominem. They missed the clues Vallee put out there in "Forbidden Science".

Now, I'm not saying Vallee was completely correct, as I have found some relatively minor research and speculative errors, but what was suggested in the Howard C. Cross' letter about trying to delay the Robertson Panel/CIA's simplistic, denial-laden "analysis" (Cross was a scientist at the Battelle Memorial Institute during their "Secret" level classified study of all the Project Blue Book cases on behalf of the USAF's Air Technical Intelligence Center or ATIC, which was initially partially declassified in 1955 and became PBB Special Report #14, which Dr. Leon Davidson, Dr. Bruce Macabee, and Stanton Friedman have all written extensive monographs and papers about--see fufor.org's or Bruce's sites if you want to read more or buy a copy of their papers) vs. the goals of BMI's study of 1951 to 1953, sent to Col. Miles E. Goll of ATIC, remains extremely provocative and highly intriguing. And the US government has lied and covered this up. This is provable. See "The Pentacle Memorandum" in the www.cufon.org "other documents" file for some details.

My speculation? Generally as follows:

None of us can prove what ufos or uaps really are, and Vallee is one of the few to openly admit it. So, it's all speculation and theory until _undeniable proof_ is available. Which will not happen any time soon, despite Strieber's, to put it politely, "wishful thinking". We may very well be dealing with a very advanced, sophisticated non-human intelligence of some kind, and if they wished to make themselves overtly, formally known, they could easily do so.

We are not ready for that. We may never be. It is up to us to overcome our own self-destructive tendencies, or we don't get to "join the club". The "others" don't wish to have the human race become delirious, grasping "co-dependents".

We have to evolve, succeed, venture past the solar system eventually, and stand on our _own_. I think their occassional "displays" suggest that, and indicate to those who can see it that "they" are around and present, but it would be of no real utility or good purpose to become obvious. It would be damaging to the human race, among many other negative impacts, for a formal and open presence to be made known, either by the "them" or the "government".

The trick, or the puzzle, is how do we find out how to prove "their" existence to our own satisfaction and scientific proof. If we can do that, and avoid yet another holocaust, world war, or ecological self-destruction, we may be on the cusp of "knowing" and being acknowledged ourselves in a more formal manner. Until then, forget it. And I remind you I could be completely and utterly wrong. This is just a current speculation on my part. MHO.

----------------------------------------

An aside or parenthetical comment:

To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentson when he and Senator Dan Quayle were running for vice-president for each party, participating in the 1992 presidential debates "I knew Jacques Vallee. Jacques Vallee was a friend of mine, and you 'Z,' are no Jacques Vallee." And I still know him and consider him a friend and valued acquaintence.

[Ref.--(http://www.juntosociety.com/vp/quayle.html)]:

[The two vice presidential candidates met for their debate and the topic of Quayle’s youth and experience was brought up. Quayle responded by looking in to the camera, and carefully explained that he was about to the same age as John Kennedy when he entered the Senate, and was now close the same age as Kennedy when he started his presidency.

Looking like an impatient schoolteacher about to reprimand an insolent student, Senator Lloyd Benson of Texas, responded, “I knew John Kennedy, John Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you Senator, are no John Kennedy”.

The audience burst into applause and laughter, and the stunned Quayle meekly responded, “That was uncalled for Senator”. It was the highlight of the debate for the Democrats, and soon became a national joke.]
------------------------------------------

I personally consider Vallee the most gifted ufo/uap visionary and theorist alive or dead. I have had some quite intriguing and exciting conversations with him and Fred Beckman, who, at the University of Chicago in the early to mid 1960's was kind of Vallee's early mentor and long-term friend and research associate. (See Vallee's "The Invisible College" and "Forbidden Science" for references).

I have not been in contact with Vallee for almost a year, since I'm working on something he and I are both fascinated about, and I chose not to bother him until I am ready to present him with my documented findings for peer review and analysis prior to publication. I guess you could say I'm applying for or apprenticing for membership in the Invisible College with my research efforts and prospective writings. It will be a few years before I publish, however.

Realize this: Vallee is an incredibly busy man, with his venture capital business particularly, and considers time the most precious and limited "commodity" in existence--and at his age, he has the means, money, and desire to spend his remaining time in the most productive and meaningful ways possible. The UFO phenomenon is now secondary, compared to his business ventures and his family.

He's paid _his_ dues. His preeminence, and ufo/uap research and publications, somehow seems to make lesser people jealous and angry at times. Mores the pity for them. For the most part, he just ignores them, as he has no time to waste. He is one of the very few true geniuses I have had the honor to come to know. He may very well be the most intelligent, subtle, and facile human being I have ever met. A conversation with Vallee is simply a delight. And, he's a nice guy, too, if you treat him with the respect he is certainly due. He does have a touch of French arrogance on occassion, but I understand it and why.

For those who want to really try to understand the subtleties and intricacies of the ufo/uap phenomenon from Vallee's perspective, they should start with his and Eric Davis' "Incommensurability" paper for nids.org, and also read his trilogy of ufo books, Dimensions, Confrontations, and Revelations from the late 80's and early 90's. His first UFO book was "Challenge to Science". Jason (Boy in the Machine) would do well to pick up and _thoroughly_ read Vallee's "Passport to Magonia--On UFOs, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds". Throw in "The Invisible College", if you can get a copy--check ebay. His last non-fiction book, which is an edited compilation of journal entries from 1957 - 1969, is "Forbidden Science". Very important. Especially his 1992 comments and speculations at the end, after the journal entries. Don't forget "Messengers of Deception - UFO contacts and cults", although, like his later book, "UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union: A Cosmic Samizdat", these two are among his lesser books. Read these, and then you may begin to realize the depth, intelligence, breadth, and very cogent early insights Vallee has brought to the "ufo community". He is _the_ man.

I'd say Brad Sparks is second in this "rating game", and probably the #1 researcher, better even than Vallee. Sparks knowledge is encyclopedic, to say the least. I wish he would publish his extraordinarily lengthy findings in book form, and sooner rather than later.

Sorry for the length of this post, I just wanted to say Vallee has been overlooked by the "mainstream" ufo "community", in part due to the shifting nature of his theorization and complexity of his "psychosocial" interpretation (which does _not_ mean ufos/uaps are imaginary, at all!) and he doesn't deserve it.

Get hip while you still have the chance. He will seen many, many years from now as the Galileo of his time in regard to the ufo/uap matter, IMHO.

BoyintheMachine said...

Dr. X:

"Jason (Boy in the Machine) would do well to pick up and _thoroughly_ read Vallee's "Passport to Magonia--On UFOs, Folklore, and Parallel Worlds".

I've already read it as well as 'Confrontations.

"Get hip while you still have the chance. He will seen many, many years from now as the Galileo of his time in regard to the ufo/uap matter, IMHO"

Scarry. Ever heard of the saying;

"What's popular isn't always right, what's right isn't always popular."

Vallee is extremely popular at this current time.

(I would suggest you research Parallel Universes, using modern research. The majority will be non-inhabited or uninhabital, with journey to such being impossible, or according to Hawkins, only a one-way journey at the very least. This would imply that Earth is teeming with vacationers who can't possibly leave.)

-Jason)

BoyintheMachine said...

"What is "the orginal line of thought" in ufology? It looks to me like the epitome of heterogeneous. There are multiple takes, many of them mutually exclusive, most not testable/falsifiable, many unscientific/illogical."

1.) The original line of thought in Ufology is detemining the identity(-ies) of the phenomena via Scientific Standards. This is how it SHOULD BE.

2.) Crap is crap and it's everywhere. No sense trying to destroy Ufology just because it currently stinks. Help clean it up.

3.) There are many 'theories' about this or that aspect of the phenomena. It is expected and routine for any field. Some are credible. Some are not. Some are 'gray.' Many times the theory is sound and the reader fails to understand, thus interpreting it as 'nonsense.'

4.) Navigation of Ufology requires critical thinking and intelligence. Those not possessing such traits often veer off the path whether by enthrallment or by anger/frustration. Often such individuals express the ego-centric need to have it, let alone the phenomena itself, cater to their own pre-concieved whims or expectations.

5.) Placing blame where blame is due: Those individuals who author books/speak at lectures, etc....who clearly are milking the phenomena, and the interested public. These people rarely contribute anything to our knowledge. Their 'work' flip-flops between being bland and sensational, yet amazingly they always seem to find a way to stay on the fence they sit upon. They found a way to get money without having to take any risk. "If it's real I get paid. If it ain't real, I get paid!" -It is these people who are the true problem. (Not pointing any fingers) Why? Because this isn't how science works.

-Jason

Dr. X said...

Dear Jason,

I would like a day or so to consider what you've said here and elsewhere, like your blog, before I respond to your comments regarding Vallee, which I find at least based in some misunderstanding or perhaps misconceived, as far as what he's done and his various angles on the ufo/uap phenomena.

But, to be fair, I want to truly understand your point of view, as it's not uncommon. Vallee has told me as much himself a couple times when we've discussed the "ufo community" and the many conflicts that arise therein, between different interpretations and their advocates or theorists, and worse, the personality conflicts and ad hominem attacks different ufo "personalities" or "celebrities" so casually toss at each other at times.

Perhaps I should start this process by asking you first just what is it about Vallee and his speculations and/or research findings that you disagree with? What is the basic issue or basis for your, in a sense, dismissal of Vallee and his POV? I'd really like to know, in detail. Perhaps here is not the proper forum. But if you would take a little time, think it through, and post on your blog, I'd like to respond.

I should say Vallee is not perfect, and I never said so. In fact, we have had occassional conflicts over approach, style, interpretations, and other relevant issues. There's something in Forbidden Science that I have investigated that Vallee, in a way, has admitted belatedly being somewhat wrong about, and should have been more careful in his statements and conclusions about.

And it's not a small issue. It's quite significant, at least to me.

With that, I will take pause and I await your response, either here or on your blog. Please post here at least a short note when and if you decide to do that, if you will.

I thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Dr. X

Dr. X said...

Uh, Jason? Are you there? Boy in the Machine, what do you say to my modest proposal and suggestion. I'd really like to know.

TLC said...

When commenting about one UFOlogist's theory on the UFO phenomenon versus another, we must consider the background and experience of those UFOlogists. Dr. Vallee, having a richer perspective on science and technology than most, is not comparable to another UFOlogist who has no experience in any scientific discipline. Not to discredit anyone who is in the UFO field that is not a scientist, but we have to realize that those scientific UFOlogists do have more to offer in their given discipline(s).

It is also worth noting that Vallee's experience reaches back almost to the beginning of UFOlogy. His theories and ideas are more than valid. This is not some guy off the street who read a couple of books on UFOs. This is a person who spent many hours, days, months, and years out in the field talking to people about their experiences.

TLC said...

I might also add that Vallee has challenged us to look at the UFO phenomenon from many different angles, not just the E.T.H. I find it very suspicious when any UFOlogist suggests that the E.T.H. is the single answer, given that the evidence to support that is zero.