Debunking Jacques Vallee

[Heidi Lemmer]

A point to make here, if it's valid or not I'm not sure....did Vallee fill a gap for Ufology when science stuttered at the door opening? And are we just talking about frustration that science does not embrace this subject in a tangible way that we, who have bothered to explore, know it needs
By this I mean along the "nuts and bolts" avenue....to expand on radar, to explore other avenues of tracing our skys, etc.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Thanks you, Burnt. I honestly don't see where all this distortion and confusion is coming from. Vallee's books are, as I mentioned earlier, easy enough for any intelligent person to understand. His writing is always good and often elegant. There is no need for an interpreter. His ideas scare the shit out of a lot of people, but that's no reason to make up one's own version of what he is saying and then rail against it. Anyone coming here and attacking it had better be ready to back up their statements. So far I've seen nothing in this thread but bullshit from them.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Thanks you, Burnt. I honestly don't see where all this distortion and confusion is coming from. Vallee's books are, as I mentioned earlier, easy enough for any intelligent person to understand. His writing is always good and often elegant. There is no need for an interpreter. His ideas scare the shit out of a lot of people, but that's no reason to make up one's own version of what he is saying and then rail against it. Anyone coming here and attacking it had better be ready to back up their statements. So far I've seen nothing in this thread but bullshit from them.

Probably because you are only reading the replies you agree with.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Grow up.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Grow up.

Look, I believe my criticism of Vallee is apt. I also need to stress that I'm not against every single thing he has said. I only oppose his wild claims and his anti-ETH position.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Thanks you, Burnt. I honestly don't see where all this distortion and confusion is coming from. Vallee's books are, as I mentioned earlier, easy enough for any intelligent person to understand. His writing is always good and often elegant. There is no need for an interpreter. His ideas scare the shit out of a lot of people, but that's no reason to make up one's own version of what he is saying and then rail against it. Anyone coming here and attacking it had better be ready to back up their statements. So far I've seen nothing in this thread but bullshit from them.

Grow up.

Not sure this is needed unless there's something I'm missing between you and another poster......we ought to be able to explore and exchange ideas on any author, researcher, etc....without an attempt to shut the conversation down.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Check out this interview....Jacques Vallee - On Messengers of Deception | The Daily Grail
I think both sides of this mini debate are expressed in his answers.

Also this from his book Dimensions "A Casebook of Alien Contact"
It has become impossible to listen to the radio or watch television without being exposed to
testimony about encounters with strange aerial objects and their alleged pilots. While many of these
claims seem ludicrous, and some fit easily within the scope of psychopathology, a genuine sincerity
shines through most of the stories. Unless one assumes that the world is forever restricted to the
normal phenomena already known to science, it is difficult to deny that the witnesses have been
exposed to a deep, unusual, and even terrifying event, and that it involves a form of intelligence we
have not yet recognized.
The temptation is great, at this point, to jump to the first conclusions that come to mind. It is
annoying to be confronted with something unexplainable, especially when it is threatening and
questions everything we have been taught about the nature of the universe. So we grasp at straws.
Perhaps, we fantasize, we are being visited by beings from another planet. Perhaps our government
will soon reveal that some of our scientists know about "them" and can explain their motivation.
Perhaps everything will be all right.
Those of us who have studied this phenomenon for a long time (in my case, since the intense waves
of sighting of the fifties in Europe) have learned to resist the temptation to jump to premature
conclusions. If there was ever a situation in science that called for the careful sifting and screening
of data and for questioning and testing of every hypothesis, it is the situation presented by the UFO
phenomenon.
Readers of my previous books know that for the past twenty-five years I have advocated a serious,
long-term inquiry into the phenomenon. I consider the rich experiences presented by the witnesses
as an opportunity to do some good science and, even more importantly, to combine the efforts of
several sciences to explore an area of nature that is still a mystery. But I have carefully kept my
distance from the very vocal groups of researchers who claim that UFOs are interplanetary visitors;
such a conclusion is not only premature but is contradicted by several basic facts that become
apparent only when one takes a historical perspective of the field rather than studying a single case
at a time and trying to generalize from isolated events.
Part One of this book establishes such a perspective for the reader who may have been exposed only
to recent cases and is not aware that the phenomenon has been with us throughout recorded history
– not only in the form of signs in the sky, but also with a rich array of reports of contact with
strange beings on earth and even of abductions.
We are only beginning to relate modern observations of UFOs to some of the ideas that have shaped
our folklore, our religions, and our philosophies. It will take many years to reconstruct the links in
the chain of personal experiences and speculations that connect the vision of Ezekiel in biblical
times with the puzzling, moving, and often terrifying accounts of our contemporaries. But is is not
too early to begin.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Grow up.

We're getting to the edge here. Calm down, everyone, or this thread will be closed.

 

[Burnt State]

Let me counter those 5 points.

1. Who says that aliens are here to perform a survey of the planet? Why does Vallee presume to know what an alien being thinks or what it is motivated by?

2. I would venture to say that the humanoid shape is one that is favored by evolution/natural selection. Several species on earth have evolved to be bipedal, upright walking or moving creatures. However, there are other explanations such as that the beings that we see are creations and not representatives of the intelligence behind the UFO phenomenon.

3. Says Vallee. However, abduction researchers would gladly reject Vallee's proclamation.

4. Whether or not the UFO phenomenon is new or old is of no concern. Being an old phenomenon doesn't rule out the ETH or nuts and bolts.

5. Says who? Vallee yet again makes a proclamation. He claims that UFOs manipulate time, space and other dimensions. How the hell does he know this and where is his proof?

All of your counterclaims clearly address the fact that you have not read his material, nor the material that i've posted here regarding his scientific ideas and you also are entirely unaware of what the totality of UFO cases and encounters add up to.

So I suppose you can keep beating the anti-Vallée drum all you like but I'm done. If you can't take time to engage the simple summaries of his work or learn the nuances of UFO/UAP research history, including the close encounter history which is not defined by Hopkins, Jacobs & Leir so much as popularized by them (my goodness if you want anti-science targets there you go), then we can't begin to speak the same language.

You are only skimming the surface of thought here and not engaging in his ideas at all. He deals in thousands of cases and his specific scientific interpretations of the physicality of the core phenomenon is obviously something you did not take time to read about, or simply can't accept. When you invent the next internet, become a global thinker or venture capitalist and then take out some extra time to write revolutionary classics in UFO literature, then we can come back to this discussion, as it's a time wasting exercise at this point.

Please, just read the material - he's worth it, and don't misrepresent it as it exposes a number of limitations. Vallée did also produce what are considered to be the two defining pro-ETH texts, as well as evolve his thought to go further, but I don't hear that being acknowledged anywhere in this thread. This tells me that it's all about personal bias and I can't shift a bias based on faulty examination of the primary source. Good luck.

 

[Burnt State]

Check out this interview....Jacques Vallee - On Messengers of Deception | The Daily Grail
I think both sides of this mini debate are expressed in his answers.

Also this from his book Dimensions "A Casebook of Alien Contact"
It has become impossible to listen to the radio or watch television without being exposed to
testimony about encounters with strange aerial objects and their alleged pilots. While many of these
claims seem ludicrous, and some fit easily within the scope of psychopathology, a genuine sincerity
shines through most of the stories. Unless one assumes that the world is forever restricted to the
normal phenomena already known to science, it is difficult to deny that the witnesses have been
exposed to a deep, unusual, and even terrifying event, and that it involves a form of intelligence we
have not yet recognized.
The temptation is great, at this point, to jump to the first conclusions that come to mind. It is
annoying to be confronted with something unexplainable, especially when it is threatening and
questions everything we have been taught about the nature of the universe. So we grasp at straws.
Perhaps, we fantasize, we are being visited by beings from another planet. Perhaps our government
will soon reveal that some of our scientists know about "them" and can explain their motivation.
Perhaps everything will be all right.
Those of us who have studied this phenomenon for a long time (in my case, since the intense waves
of sighting of the fifties in Europe) have learned to resist the temptation to jump to premature
conclusions. If there was ever a situation in science that called for the careful sifting and screening
of data and for questioning and testing of every hypothesis, it is the situation presented by the UFO
phenomenon.
Readers of my previous books know that for the past twenty-five years I have advocated a serious,
long-term inquiry into the phenomenon. I consider the rich experiences presented by the witnesses
as an opportunity to do some good science and, even more importantly, to combine the efforts of
several sciences to explore an area of nature that is still a mystery. But I have carefully kept my
distance from the very vocal groups of researchers who claim that UFOs are interplanetary visitors;
such a conclusion is not only premature but is contradicted by several basic facts that become
apparent only when one takes a historical perspective of the field rather than studying a single case
at a time and trying to generalize from isolated events.
Part One of this book establishes such a perspective for the reader who may have been exposed only
to recent cases and is not aware that the phenomenon has been with us throughout recorded history
– not only in the form of signs in the sky, but also with a rich array of reports of contact with
strange beings on earth and even of abductions.
We are only beginning to relate modern observations of UFOs to some of the ideas that have shaped
our folklore, our religions, and our philosophies. It will take many years to reconstruct the links in
the chain of personal experiences and speculations that connect the vision of Ezekiel in biblical
times with the puzzling, moving, and often terrifying accounts of our contemporaries. But is is not
too early to begin.

By the time we get to Messengers he is starting to give shape, through scientific inquiry, to other aspects of the phenomenon such as contact. But remember that he started in the ETH camp with Anatomy of a Phenomenon and a Challenge to Science. It was his sheer depth of investigation that lead him to have different findings as expressed above in the article.

But here's a second challenge, as I received no answers to exactly who are in fact the Interdimensional and anti-science descendants of Vallée, so here's an easier one. Who is in fact the most scientific investigator if not Vallée? In caseloads he has surpassed MacDonald and he has consistently brought more multi-disciplined scientific rigor and procedures to the problem than any other individual that I am aware of. That's why the challenge to him expressed here in entirely spurious and ill-informed.

If the anti-Vallée critics can't point out his influential descendants or who is more scientifically rigorous than him then everything claimed here against the man's scientific contributions to the mystery falls apart miserably. I feel bad for all the people new to this discussion, reading this debate and getting confused about who is who in ufology, so let's help them out.

 

[Burnt State]

@Constance you had interjected a side avenue on psi work, which was something Vallée did in fact participate in scientifically with the core researchers in case you did not know that.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Jacques Vallee an 'anti-science' guy? If anything he was one of the first ones to point out our current materialistic Science would be incapable of truly grasping the reality of the UFO phenomenon, the same way it has failed to solve the 'hard problem' of human consciousness. That's why he advocated for the creation of a NEW Science --in that TedX Brussells talk I'm too lazy to link right now-- for the XXIst century which he called The Science of Information... although I'd prefer to call it The Science of Consciousness

To me the most ground-breaking thing the man ever proposed was that instead of living in a causative universe, in which the cause must always precede the effect in the typical, mechanistic fashion we've been conditioned to believe, ours may be instead an ASSOCIATIVE universe, in which things like synchronicities, precognition and other 'impossible' phenomena don't break the laws of physics.

Vallee is just as anti-science as those Medieval physicians who started to think disease was not the result of 'bad humors' in the body, which was back then the standard theory of Health


Saludos,

RPJ

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Jacques Vallee an 'anti-science' guy? If anything he was one of the first ones to point out our current materialistic Science would be incapable of truly grasping the reality of the UFO phenomenon, the same way it has failed to solve the 'hard problem' of human consciousness. That's why he advocated for the creation of a NEW Science --the Science of Information... although I'd prefer to call it The Science of Consciousness

Yay, heavy artillery reinforcements to battle the peasants w/ their torches, pitchforks and lack of research! Always good to hear from you RPJ. Your elegant brand of wisdom, spot on opinions and insightful analysis are always welcome and appreciated here. But be careful, you might actually inspire the naysayers to take the time to read and research before they open their uninformed yappy mouths! I'd bet that our "Boy" stuck in his machine hasn't taken the time to read a single Vallee book. Oh the hubris

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Hi guys.....appreciate the cool headed responses....and for this I'll only speak for myself because the title of this thread wasn't something I embraced but the sentiment later expressed I could relate to, at least in a vague way that I might have said differently, and in fact tried to. I like Vallee. period. Yes it's true, some of you are very well read on his sequence of books. I respect that. I also respect that he evolved in his research and thus his writings. But here's the key thing for me, and Burnt, you come to mind on this. In past threads where I've hopped in and expressed a view on a case you've "Jack Vaelle'd me." Along comes a series of pictures of mythology, folklore and quotes. I understand that you really believe these connections exist and are a valid point to make within the context of what we are discussing. And here may be a difference that all of you might tolerate a bit better....I'm three years into this subject...a young babe in the woods , so to speak. What I am "stuck" on with a vengeance is the complete lack of science being applied in anything transparent (meaning with our knowledge that its happening) and instead case after case documented and dumped on a hard drive, in essence leaving us to argue the merits of the case and attack the witness.
So, when I hopped in this thread I thought, yah I feel that around here and have seen this elsewhere...we go from a solid case of witness, object, event to mythological, folklore type discussion. And that part of me that has been peeling back the layers in this subject is screaming, hey wait!!! What , where, how is the science...or at least the attempt? Instead what I see is a serious movement from governments ( I can only speak for the U.S) to squash all serious inquiry, or Bigelow buying up cases , probably the best ones and they never see the light of day. So naturally there's a few steps skipped for me. Blaring, major steps.
An example of what perks my ears up is Ray Sanford. He's someone who has discussed the actual object, propulsion, possible capture on camera of the object(s). So although we have the history, going back to origins of man, we have the various folklore to show the connections, we also have a "more Leslie Kean" type of approach of , we need to identify what these objects are and hope that a bodied government takes it seriously. It's very hard for me , after reading report after report to think of folklore, it's like we've skipped a step that my brain can't wrap around. Please consider my very honest answer politely as I approach this respectfully to all of you.

 

[Muadib]

Debunking Jacques Vallee? Why? Why not do something worthwhile, like debunking the many, many liars and charlatans that inhabit the field, instead of wasting your time nitpicking at intelligent, reasoned speculation from one of the deepest thinkers in this field?

Waste of a thread, imo.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Jacques Vallee an 'anti-science' guy? If anything he was one of the first ones to point out our current materialistic Science would be incapable of truly grasping the reality of the UFO phenomenon, the same way it has failed to solve the 'hard problem' of human consciousness. That's why he advocated for the creation of a NEW Science --in that TedX Brussells talk I'm too lazy to link right now-- for the XXIst century which he called The Science of Information... although I'd prefer to call it The Science of Consciousness

To me the most ground-breaking thing the man ever proposed was that instead of living in a causative universe, in which the cause must always precede the effect in the typical, mechanistic fashion we've been conditioned to believe, ours may be instead an ASSOCIATIVE universe, in which things like synchronicities, precognition and other 'impossible' phenomena don't break the laws of physics.

Vallee is just as anti-science as those Medieval physicians who started to think disease was not the result of 'bad humors' in the body, which was back then the standard theory of Health


Saludos,

RPJ

You are completely twisted around and don't realize it. Valllee PROCLAIMED that our science is no good and can't explain UFOs.

Anti-Science means "against science". Anyone who claims that our science can not explain UFOs and is arguing for something else to replace science is by definition anti-science. Vallee is not on the cutting edge. He, like Keel, is a demonologist.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Debunking Jacques Vallee? Why? Why not do something worthwhile, like debunking the many, many liars and charlatans that inhabit the field, instead of wasting your time nitpicking at intelligent, reasoned speculation from one of the deepest thinkers in this field?

Waste of a thread, imo.

I'm not sure if you even read any of the thread before replying. However, Vallee has caused damage to Ufology by shifting the stance from reality towards moving Ufology into the paranormal, supernatural and occult. You yourself might agree that UFOs belong in the paranormal/supernatural/occult category but such view would be due to the influence of Vallee. There was a time when UFOs were not considered to be part of such category.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Yay, heavy artillery reinforcements to battle the peasants w/ their torches, pitchforks and lack of research! Always good to hear from you RPJ. Your elegant brand of wisdom, spot on opinions and insightful analysis are always welcome and appreciated here. But be careful, you might actually inspire the naysayers to take the time to read and research before they open their uninformed yappy mouths! I'd bet that our "Boy" stuck in his machine hasn't taken the time to read a single Vallee book. Oh the hubris

Chris, your constant accusations that I am somehow not informed on Vallee is just a trite, silly attempt to have other people dismiss my criticism. By your very words you are implying that anyone who reads Vallee will automatically support him and his claims. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. You can not address anything I've written without getting angry and using insults.

 

[Burnt State]

Hi guys.....appreciate the cool headed responses....and for this I'll only speak for myself because the title of this thread wasn't something I embraced but the sentiment later expressed I could relate to, at least in a vague way that I might have said differently, and in fact tried to. I like Vallee. period. Yes it's true, some of you are very well read on his sequence of books. I respect that. I also respect that he evolved in his research and thus his writings. But here's the key thing for me, and Burnt, you come to mind on this. In past threads where I've hopped in and expressed a view on a case you've "Jack Vaelle'd me." Along comes a series of pictures of mythology, folklore and quotes. I understand that you really believe these connections exist and are a valid point to make within the context of what we are discussing. And here may be a difference that all of you might tolerate a bit better....I'm three years into this subject...a young babe in the woods , so to speak. What I am "stuck" on with a vengeance is the complete lack of science being applied in anything transparent (meaning with our knowledge that its happening) and instead case after case documented and dumped on a hard drive, in essence leaving us to argue the merits of the case and attack the witness.
So, when I hopped in this thread I thought, yah I feel that around here and have seen this elsewhere...we go from a solid case of witness, object, event to mythological, folklore type discussion. And that part of me that has been peeling back the layers in this subject is screaming, hey wait!!! What , where, how is the science...or at least the attempt? Instead what I see is a serious movement from governments ( I can only speak for the U.S) to squash all serious inquiry, or Bigelow buying up cases , probably the best ones and they never see the light of day. So naturally there's a few steps skipped for me. Blaring, major steps.
An example of what perks my ears up is Ray Sanford. He's someone who has discussed the actual object, propulsion, possible capture on camera of the object(s). So although we have the history, going back to origins of man, we have the various folklore to show the connections, we also have a "more Leslie Kean" type of approach of , we need to identify what these objects are and hope that a bodied government takes it seriously. It's very hard for me , after reading report after report to think of folklore, it's like we've skipped a step that my brain can't wrap around. Please consider my very honest answer politely as I approach this respectfully to all of you.

Okay, so yes I'm a believer in the rich imagery that defines our reality and is the subject of the narratives that guide our society. What we see is what we think we know. In this way the UFO is also a Jungian Mandela, as much as it is a craft, or a ball of energy in a very contained area that is affecting us biologically and messing with our perceptual apparatus. This is not a problem that has a single path leading to and from its point of origin. It is multifaceted and requires multiple approaches, something that the linear thinking of the ETH does not add up to. RPJ said it best in terms of causing us to think associatively about the problem. That does not mean we should abandon hardcore science where it can be applied, which is exactly what Vallée does. It means we need new ways of thinking about it.

But if as seen in the short video above where Vallée is getting interviewed he takes us through a step by step manner of thinking plurally about the problem, which may include holding paradox alive in your mind if it requires that. It is multifaceted, associative, and if there is in fact an intelligence behind it then it appears to be manipulating our culture, has been doing so for quite some time in fact, and is attempting to create a mythology in our society. So, if it is craft, energy, myth and mental probelem all at the same time, then this is not just about physical measurement. That is just one aspect of what is taking place, so it's worth paying attention to these different features of the UFO, as it continues to operate in our global society.

Now, while I would like to be able to talk routinely about physical evidence, how to measure that electromagnetic event and its effects on us, we just don't get access to that kind of information, but that's why I posted the ufoevidence article as it lists the various scientifically measured components. The best thing to do now with data collection is to complete accurate big data mining and descend upon fresh cases with legit expertise, create radar nets etc. but we have been told repeatedly by the PTB that this is not a public discussion for various reasons open to interpretation. Attempting to create a public legitimacy of the UFO discussion was attempted and failed & fizzled along with many other post-war era dreams in the confusion of the assertion of gov't and corporate control over free human thought

I would think that those who work in closeed circles about this problem will only release their findings when they are certain about it, or are allowed to depending on who is paying for the kinds of studies you want to talk about. The idea of seeing an enemy or an opposition to the 'right' way to think about it is also limiting. Big Brother may be actually indifferent and mostly unknowing about the reality of UFO's, or whatever that means.

Vallée challenges us to think associatively about the problem which means many perspectives at once. And as he in fact suggested, that yes, we have not only been co-creators of the phenomenon but that we have started to also create our own viewings of the phenomenon, where it is in fact occuring inside our heads in some cases. Some of the approaches to Abduction Phenomenon have been about confirmation bias instead of actual scientific investigation. It has been allowed to grow and flourish in the culture as a myth. Has this been healthy? Perhaps it needs more critical awareness to help minimize the spontaneous production of its mythological components. While it does not really appear to be very antagonistic at all, outside of its cultural agitation, it still requires us to think very differently about it if we are to know it any more clearly. Let me know if that made any sense.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Debunking Jacques Vallee? Why? Why not do something worthwhile, like debunking the many, many liars and charlatans that inhabit the field, instead of wasting your time nitpicking at intelligent, reasoned speculation from one of the deepest thinkers in this field? Waste of a thread, imo.

Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself!