Well actually ... saying that, "No legitimate consideration is any more valid than the next", doesn't really say anything. It's like saying, "All good answers are OK." You might try rephrasing that.
Actually, no. One would hope those he's engaging have the intelligence to filter as much to context. That's certainly not asking too much this deep into a thread is it?
I wasn't reducing Vallée's opinion to alternate universes, Jungian philosophy or New Age Pop Philosophy, I was simply pointing out that we don't need to stretch ourselves to those lengths in order to provide explanations when the ETH will do just fine.
You most certainly were, and to be more so dastardly, you did it via the back door of logic itself.
You reduced the man's ability to reason or defend his own objections, and/or reservations in support of the ETH, in a directly defensive posture. You did so by suggesting one should not have a need for such an incredible lack of credulousness as "new age" means to support the opposite or more precisely an alternative. Sorry, you may have meant it differently, but that's precisely what you stated and it's ridiculous to do so when the man in consideration is Jacques Vallee. His views were extremely clear here and no coloring or truth bending in lieu of the ETH is needed thank you very much. It's obvious that his well thought out research at this point indicated a strong interest in multidimensional possibilities in a clear self motivated directive to support an alternate to the ETH. A VERY WELL REASONED objection I might add. One that doesn't have a need for the attributes you did your best to offer as fair representations of the MANY WELL REASONED alternatives to the ETH. When one develops this unhealthy attachment of almost making a religion, or better yet, religious dogma out of what is an unidentified object, or where do aliens come from, they are in the process of building a wall. The following is a brick in that wall and no this is not a Pink Floyd song.
I've read Vallée's books, carefully considered his objections to the ETH, and there remain reasonable possibilities for explaining Vallée's objections without invoking alternate universes, Jungian psychology, or quasi New Age metaphysical pop-philosophy.
It's perfectly fair to refer to the observations Vallée made at his observatory as "Vallée's report". After all it was he who reported the incident to us in the first place, and I mention it here as well. Let's also be clear about Vallée's stance on the ETH. When asked to lay out his objection to the ETH, Vallée himself put it this way:
"I need to clarify something ... it's a big universe out there and the ETH may turn out to be part of the answer, or may even be the answer, I never said otherwise. What I said is that any theory that claims to explain UFOs has to account for a number of things that the current way of presenting the ETH doesn't account for." - Jacques Vallée July 1, 2008 ( Binnall radio interview )
Now if you go back and check, what I said, it was: "I've read Vallée's books, carefully considered his objections to the ETH, and there remain reasonable possibilities for explaining Vallée's objections without invoking alternate universes, Jungian psychology, or quasi New Age metaphysical pop-philosophy". So my comment isn't out of line at all. Vallée is well known for advocating alternatives to the ETH including alternate dimensions. He also sets up his argument against the ETH with his own particular set of parameters that he suggests is the "current view", but in reality it's a subset of the general ETH that makes certain assumptions that are favorable to his position. They do not however invalidate the ETH in general, as is often assumed by those who are less discerning.
I know what you stated, and IMO, I respectfully think it was a down right dense thing to state in respect to that which represents intelligent alternatives to the ETH. Parallel Universes or navigation apart from space/time is in no way likened to "New Age Pop Philosophy". That's silly, extremely so. Especially when considering anything coming from Vallee. Come on Ufology, you or I will never accomplish 1/100th of what Vallee has contributed inside and outside the realm of Ufology. The above quote you offer is what I myself have stated several times here on this forum, and what indeed ANY intelligent person that has a sincere intelligent interest in UFOs would contend. How could it be otherwise? Still in yet, we all have our suspicions, correct? What's quoted also in no way detracts from anything Vallee put forth in the little video assemblage.
I make no claim to being a ufologist of legendary status like Vallée, or being a scientist. However I do claim to have a good grasp of basic scientific concepts and I've studied ufology long enough, written enough about it, and pursue it often enough to be considered a fair ufologist, and I've found a possible explanation for the objects Vallée spotted in space. I can also provide reasonable possibilities that work within the realm of the ETH for any of Vallée's objections to the ETH. So your insinuation that my views are biased by my personal vested "gas fired" belief in the ETH is unfounded.
Lastly, none of this is to suggest that I don't have respect for Vallée. Quite the contrary. I've quoted Vallée myself recently for his comments on the treachery of using the word "unidentified" as part of the label we use to describe the phenomenon.
You're a good guy Ufology. Very intelligent and a real asset to Ufology. However, IMO, you need to loose some of the dogma baggage bro. Unidentified = Unidentified, UFO does not equal "flying saucer", although a flying saucer is definitely one type of UFO. Considering as many possibilities as there are does not in any way thwart the process of accurately discerning what all types of UFOs really are someday. ETH = just another hypothetical consideration.
Incidentally, and far more so on topic, I think Vallee's views in that video fit nicely into the OP's thread, don't you?
