Breaking News: vallee 40 years "behind the times"

[Wade]

so mr. bassett was on c2c last night (5/24/13) talking about the recent meet and greet in d.c. and at one point used the word extraterrestrials, or alluded to it. At the point george knapp tried to get stephen to cave in a little bit and maybe concede that there MAY be another explanation to our apparent visitors even daring to mention interdimensional or beneath the surface dwellers. stephen wasn't going to touch on a hollow earth possibility and maybe would consider the possibility of them maybe being from another dimension but when george mentioned vallee's name. stephen said that vallee was "40 years behind the time".

that's a quote

i can only assume that jacques forgot to include stephen on his christmas card list

 

[dyingsun]

Oh boy....I guess Bassett is trying to make a living off of this, he failed twice.First in his choice of Field, second, he doesn't even seem to have any interest in the matter other then 'Disclosure' ..ah well.

 

[Wade]

40 years behind the times my pale unblemished ass.

the next time that Stephen appears on the paracast or dmr I know along what lines my question will be.

 

[Randall]

When george mentioned vallee's name. stephen said that vallee was "40 years behind the time". i can only assume that jacques forgot to include stephen on his christmas card list

Dare I touch this one with 10kb pole? I'm not on Vallée's Christmas card list so if I agree that some of Vallée's work is dated, I'm not going to suffer too much. At the same time, simply being dated doesn't mean there's no relevance in his work. It remains classic ufology at it's best, and IMO should be required reading for Ufology 101. I'm also one of those who respect the pioneering efforts of those before me in the field, and I certainly wouldn't dismiss Vallée in such an offhanded manner. I've got all his books, subscribed to the Magonia Network, and still think he's an icon in the field.

 

[Wade]

Well that's pretty much my point, that's not to say that vallee is right but unless I missed something, Randall there has been no big paradigm breaking events that occurred in recent times that could render vallee obsolete which isn't what Stephen said of course...but he might as well had put it like that. Then again maybe I am reading too much into it. But I wonder if Stephen thinks Einstein is about 80 years behind the times.

 

[Wade]

more to the point what advances has bassett made that would put him in a position to determine vallees history of work? yes he had provided a platform and that's all well and fine but I really don't see Stephen with his finger on the pulse of ufology.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

By repeating the same stuff Donald Keyhoe talked about, that UFOs were spaceships and that the government knew the truth and kept it hidden, Bassett is 60 years behind the times.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Basset's trying to make a name for himself by going after one of the big-boys. He figures if he can bad-mouth and down-talk someone as popular as Vallee, people will start looking up to him. Imagine if you could come up with a law in physics which would disprove all of Einstein's theories? You would replace him part and partial. In Basset's narcissistic psychology, slamming other, much larger, more effective, and more critically minded researchers would put him on the fast-track to ruling this 'field.' That's the way I see it, in my humble opinion.

J.

 

[Ron Collins]

Bassett does as more to discredit the field of Ufology as then he does to forward it. Hence the field suffers from his involvement.

 

[Randall]

By repeating the same stuff Donald Keyhoe talked about, that UFOs were spaceships and that the government knew the truth and kept it hidden, Bassett is 60 years behind the times.

Touché Gene !

 

[Burnt State]

Bassett does as more to discredit the field of Ufology as then he does to forward it. Hence the field suffers from his involvement.

Because anyone, anywhere, anytime can call themselves a researcher, investigator & theorist of Ufology its open playing field will always look more like a sandbox than a serious research field.

 

[boomerang]

Bassett's unwaivering certitude regarding the exact nature of ufos is a red flag. Vallee apparently paused his research when he felt he was no longer learning anything new. Bassett seems to think there is nothing new, except what the government has not told us. Baloney.

 

[Randall]

Because anyone, anywhere, anytime can call themselves a researcher, investigator & theorist of Ufology its open playing field will always look more like a sandbox than a serious research field.

Well ... sort of ... but not exactly. Anyone, anywhere, anytime can also call themselves a researcher, investigator & theorist of Physics. The question is whether or not they are recognized by their peers as credible. In ufology, the mechanism by which we evaluate credibility isn't as clear cut as mainstream academia, but there are some standards. For example MUFON has a respectable UFO investigators course. USI members voluntary pledge that they possess a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon. The Paracast makes an effort to filter out the signal from the noise.

Sure, for some people, ufology will never look like a serious research field, but so what? What's with this great need to be accepted by people who lack the capacity to recognize that UFOs aren't simply fiction or fabrication? If social acceptance is what someone is after, then they should audition for American Idol or Bachelorette or whatever.

 

[Jimi H.]

I just think those with the anti-E.T. hypothesis have a massive problem supplying evidence.

Sure I can go with theorizing about extra-dimensionality, especially the day George Knapp et. al. supply a shred of evidence.

But until then, despite much perceived high strangeness (high speed/maneuvreability/cloaking abilities), the ETH has something resembling evidence (rader + ATC for instance), the others don't.

 

[Wade]

Well I will admit that the ID theory would have a little evidence problem compared to ETH in that with all the potential possibilities in our galaxy alone it would br hard not to favor a eth origin. But I don't think that radar returns of a ufo signal are indicitive of a eth origin it just means the target had substance. Also no one here would deny that there is a stronger basis for eth or for that matter et doesn't account for a percentage of the reports. Furthurmore even if 100% of the reports were et based that doesn't mean that vallee's control system .......or even "Fort's we are property" sentiment...is not without considetation but unfortunately George Knapp let Steiphen's proclamation just die and did not ask Bassett to expound on that statement or put it into context and hence I have my questions for Stephen locked and loaded the next time he appears.

 

[Burnt State]

Well ... sort of ... but not exactly. Anyone, anywhere, anytime can also call themselves a researcher, investigator & theorist of Physics. The question is whether or not they are recognized by their peers as credible. In ufology, the mechanism by which we evaluate credibility isn't as clear cut as mainstream academia, but there are some standards. For example MUFON has a respectable UFO investigators course. USI members voluntary pledge that they possess a genuine and constructive interest in the UFO phenomenon. The Paracast makes an effort to filter out the signal from the noise.

That's not enough for me. What I'd like to see is some agreed upon consistency, whether it's in research protocols, real science that stands on the shoulders of previous real documented science and theories that also interact with each other historically so that ideas can be advanced. I'd like something concrete to stand on. Instead there are many different figures frequently reinventing the wheel to suit their big idea so that their latest book can get sold.

I understand that in the history of North America there have been many different agencies that have attempted to do these things and that there have been some historic publications that have used science to name the truths and reasonable speculations up to this point. These agencIes have faded, and the big thinkers are mostly done. But, if I have to hear one more time about someone's Nephalim theory and how we are descendants of the serpent yadda yadda I'll be in danger of losing my last meal. Some parts of Ufology resemble a vomitorium with all the junk that is up chucked, chasing mythos circles of lost ancient aliens and the CIA documents of Noah's Ark and demons.

I'd like to see a breakaway group, not led by a Greer guru type, but by those willing to proclaim a more definitive and legitimate history, that is rigorously investigated by experts in their field, and proceeds from a trajectory charted by the few bright lights in the history of Ufology. Let them declare to be the true inheritors of the twisted morass that is Ufology and make a better, tastier pretzel that doesn't need mustard to go down well. Greer is currently bucking for pole position along with Bassett and Bigelow - each in ther own weird way. I'd like to see a different organization of committed folk come together to share the best of what's out there and start cleaning up the signal with some abrasive, scrub pads.

 

[boomerang]

This field does a better job of policing itself than most might think. Its just that you have to know where (and where not) to source. The internet is oozing junk science. But this doesn't lead most people to regard scientists as delusional. It's a matter of those of us who seriously study this subject proving a negative: that we are not insane.

A kind of breakthrough for ufology might come if and when mainstream academia takes it seriously. Academia could legitimately do so from an historical and sociological point of view. But it only takes a chuckle here and a snicker there to make funding evaporate into thin air.

 

[Randall]

That's not enough for me. What I'd like to see is some agreed upon consistency, whether it's in research protocols, real science that stands on the shoulders of previous real documented science and theories that also interact with each other historically so that ideas can be advanced. I'd like something concrete to stand on. Instead there are many different figures frequently reinventing the wheel to suit their big idea so that their latest book can get sold.

I swear to non-existent God that I try. But so far, just getting people to agree on a definition for UFO is next to impossible. The recent show with Ms. Kean illustrated this in no uncertain terms. People think it's tedious or overly semantic or unnecessary or boring or politically incorrect, and yet time after time after time we find ourselves back to square one face to face with this issue. If we can't even agree on that part how can we expect to build a solid foundation?

I understand that in the history of North America there have been many different agencies that have attempted to do these things and that there have been some historic publications that have used science to name the truths and reasonable speculations up to this point. These agences have faded, and the bg thinkers are mostly done. But, if I have to hear one more time about someone's Nephalim theory and how we are descendants of the serpent yadda yadda I'll be in danger of losing my last meal. Some parts of Ufology resemble a vomitorium with all the junk that is up chucked, chasing mythos circles of lost ancient aliens and the CIA documents of Noah's Ark and demons.

No arguments there. I deal with it at USI by dispassionately cataloging such things under Ufology Studies > History and Culture > Fringe Groups. That way we can acknowledge that such facets exist while at the same time putting them into perspective.

I'd like to see a breakaway group, not led by a Greer guru type, but by those willing to proclaim a more definitive and legitimate history, that is rigorously investigated by experts in their field, and proceeds from a trajectory charted by the few bright lights in the history of Ufology. Let them declare to be the true inheritors of the twisted morass that is Ufology and make a better, tastier pretzel that doesn't need mustard to go down well.

CUFOS is still doing a pretty good job of that, but USI ( the group I'm part of ) is more of what you might call "breakaway". I don't need to declare myself an inheritor of the twisted morass. The pretzel has landed smack dab on top of me and I'm doing what I can to chew my way through it, with or without volunteers or funding ... or mustard, and trust me, it gets pretty dry sometimes.
[/quote]

Greer is currently bucking for pole position along with Bassett and Bigelow - each in ther own weird way. I'd like to see a different organization of committed folk come together to share the best of what's out there and start cleaning up the signal with some abrasive, scrub pads.

I second that motion and still hope to see it in my lifetime, and even if it's not me who finally gets it to work, I'll still stand up and cheer for whoever does. In the meantime I shudder to think of the repercussions if by some fluke of nature one of those "cult of personality" types you and Chris mention succeeds in making an end run for it and scores verifiable first contact on the behalf of the public at large .

 

[boomerang]

No arguments there. I deal with it at USI by dispassionately cataloging such things under Ufology Studies > History and Culture > Fringe Groups. That way we can acknowledge that such facets exist while at the same time putting them into perspective.

You are in good company in this respect: Hynek, Vallee and so many more. I think what we want (besides logical answers ! ) is acknowledgement from those institutions at the top of society's pyramid that this "thing" is real. It's frustrating, because we seem to come a little closer all of the time but never quite get there. Or perhaps we will one day arrive and not immediately know it.

 

[Randall]

You are in good company in this respect: Hynek, Vallee and so many more. I think what we want (besides logical answers ! ) is acknowledgement from those institutions at the top of society's pyramid that this "thing" is real. It's frustrating, because we seem to come a little closer all of the time but never quite get there. Or perhaps we will one day arrive and not immediately know it.

OK let's set logic aside and try to fathom the irrational ( be prepared for a rant ). Historically we've always had leaders and followers, so it's normal for a certain cross section of society to need answers from their leaders. But why does official disclosure matter so much for the rest of us? What do those who already know UFOs are real expect to get from those who are told the same thing by some authority figure? Is it a desire for some kind of vindication for all the ridicule? Is it our need to point fingers and say "I told you so"? Would acknowledgement by our father figures in Government amount to a public spanking for all the bullies who've made fun of us? Is that what we really want to see? Would it really bring us any satisfaction? Hell yes! And Kean has mopped up on those sympathies with her pleadings to authority ... "oh please Big Brother just give one person ( wink wink ) a big stick to go and smack all those skeptics and silly ufologists with. I'm not like the rest of those idiots out there who believe in aliens. I'm a serious Journalist and winning a Pulitzer is the furthest thing from my mind ... really." I'm suddenly starting to feel a bit sick ... like I want to barf all over my beautiful hard copy of Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record ( get it here ).