The Matrix - is it real?

[Randall]

So, what you are stating here is that your evidence is superior to Vallee's, is that correct?

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying personas aren't relevant to the analysis. Take Vallée out of the equation. If his rationale is sound it should stand on it's own without any propping up by his status. To evaluate the rationale:

1. Establish what we mean by the ETH. I've done that here.
2. Identify an existing reason why the ETH could not explain some particular facet of the UFO phenomenon. I've done that here.
3. Determine if the reasons given in 2. ( above ) stand up under analysis. I've also done that here.
4. To create valid counterpoint, provide valid reasons why the analysis in 3. (above) is faulty.

Referring to Vallée's expertise doesn't count as a valid reason because it is a logical fallacy, specifically an argument from authority based on deductive reasoning about a point of contention. The fallacy goes like this:

1. Person A either is or is claimed to be an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

More simply, the fact that someone is an expert doesn't automatically mean they're always right.

 

[Randall]

These are part of the foundations supporting multi-verse theory. Recursivity and fractals: the forced organization of chaos and infinite brane collisions from which new universes (bubbles) are borne. Some of which have the potential of supporting sentient life forms. I have a hard time thinking about beings able to travel to other bubbles, unfortunately we might be forced to also add such a possibility to the pile.

What really messes up ufology is the inability to focus on a specific type of potential traveler. IMHO, if you have to consider interstellar, inter-galactic and inter-brane travelers as part of the same basket you're in big trouble. What I like about Stanton Friedman is his solid focus on what he calls 'flying saucers' with a human story, anything else is currently way beyond our reach anyways.

Excellent point on Friedman. He's defined the topic in no uncertain terms and works within that framework. I can respect that. However at the same time I'm personally more open to other possibilities as well. Although the standard ETH tops the list of most-likely scenarios, the possibility that we're living in a VR type Universe cannot be ruled out by any logical process I've run across. Plus there are laboratory experiments that provide favorable circumstantial evidence for that theory. If it's true, then the "branes and bubbles" you mention can be thought of as different folders within the file system, and travel between universes would be as simple as cut and paste. Distance would be entirely illusory.

The problem for us is getting access to those commands ( if they exist ). This type of thinking would lend credence to ideas by some of the early thinkers like Vallée who proposed alternate dimensions. Alternate dimensions aren't logically possible, but alternate universes are, and more recently we're hearing Vallée focus on them instead of dimensions. This shows that he's continuing to evolve his thinking over time and hasn't become stagnant. In the context of other universes, some of his objections to the ETH make more sense. For example navigation by initiating a cut and paste operation would appear to us as instantaneous materialization or dematerialization. It could conceivably also explain other strange behavior that seems to defy the laws of physics as we know them.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ufology,
You better good an darn tootn' KNOW that I already know as much. Are you forgetting my position on the matter? The ONLY logical position is not to take one single position with respect to Fortean Phenomena. That goes for UFOs right down to to those pesky Bigfeets runnin' about. Why? Because having been around as long as I have in the field that I am in (over 30 big ones), which does in fact involve a great deal of data base research effected repairs, as well as experimental unproved (pre database revised submission) diagnostics, these being to effect repairs on early commercial automobile model releases, unity of causation is rarely a venue of demonstration that one can count on too many repeat performances from.

What I am doing my best to ask you is, what reasoned evidence precisely, as opposed to Vallee, have you submitted for official scientific testing, that has clearly demonstrated itself as being self evident in repeated experimentation? The results of which qualified the ETH as being superior to differing scientifically evaluated speculations. Pick any one speculation, please.

It's my opinion that you have no evidence, Ufology. However, that has nothing to do with Doc Jacques having any himself.

It's because I do not honestly believe that anyone possesses any real evidence with respect to specific interior observations, or exacting (or even unexacting) technical orientations, belonging to non/post, or pre human UFO technology. That's my belief anyhow, and therefore, I have no legitimate reason to contend that either of you is truly better qualified than the other with respect to mental capacity, or even the occasional cosmically channeled truth from beyond .

I can therefore, only, use exterior publicly acknowledged official stature, and institutionally issued and evaluated credentials, to attain a base personal alignment/preference for/from either of you with respect to the informational, or scientific developmental weight, that either of you carries. I have made more than clear on this forum, in what is surely the crudest manner I'm certain, yet absolutely and unequivocally as sincerely as I possibly could have been, several of my personal "pet guesses". I have also made abundantly clear that I do not feel I should EVER have to defend or prove what I contend, because it's ALL fully admitted guess work at this point. When I am ready to submit a paper for peer review, I'll be the first to let you know. I am not an officially recognized scientist like Vallee, I'm not even a passionate hobby level scientist, so I don't need that nonsense for the time being. I think, and I really mean this, I understand it's complete futility in the face Fortean Phenomena anyway. Can any of us truly claim that we have the answers to the UFO mystery, whose very unanswerable nature via our clearest observations of them, are their most definitive, and effective, calling card? I'm entitled to my Fortean opinion, because to date, to the very best of my understanding, no one has provided a single shred of proof for ANYTHING in terms of a single provisional absolute, or what would be a single individual instance of an indisputably discernible observation that would further constitute a precise understanding of the UFO Phenomena here on Earth, let alone where ever it is that some, or all, UFOs come from.

It's just like Gene stated in the most recent Paracast. Listen to the first 10 minutes of what I honestly think may be the best PC episode I have ever listened to, possibly only edged out by that last Skinwalker episode.

Ufology, lighten up my man. I have been stating emphatically since we began this little debate here, that IMO, neither one of us has any REAL clue. I like not knowing, and yet really wanting to know. However, if Jacques Vallee were to join us, I think we would both stand to learn a great deal more from him, than he stood to learn from either of us. That's just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. And you know, Vallee has never seemed like a "pusher" to me. One that breathed weight into his publicized reasoning by hoisting his credentials. Certainly not in an effort to press his position. Quite the opposite actually. Very gentlemanly, soft spoken, and indeed somewhat humble in personality, unlike that moronic scientific entertainer that is Richard Dawkins. What a windbag! It just so happens that because my pet guesses originate either solely here on Earth, or from realms thoroughly not yet understood, I identify with, and land a little hypothetically closer to, Jacques Vallee's camp.

 

[Randall]

Ufology,
You better good an darn tootn' KNOW that I already know as much.

Then why are you continuing without providing valid counterpoint?

What I am doing my best to ask you is, what reasoned evidence precisely, as opposed to Vallee, have you submitted for official scientific testing, that has clearly demonstrated itself as being self evident in repeated experimentation? The results of which qualified the ETH as being superior to differing scientifically evaluated speculations. Pick any one speculation, please.

Clearly you either don't get the reasoning or you're just playing some kind of mind game. There is no need to submit for scientific testing whether or not this universe exists because it's blatantly self evident. It's also blatantly obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of science that there is no real and verifiable evidence that clearly demonstrates any other universes exist, let alone that we can travel back and forth between them. So demanding scientific testing on those points in order to validate them is purely asinine.

It's my opinion that you have no evidence, Ufology. However, that has nothing to do with Doc Jacques having any himself.

Fine. Have your opinion. Now if you'll kindly excuse me, although I often profess not to be a believer, I do believe this is my stop.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ufology,
You did a wonderful job of dodging the bullet here, but hey, every now and then, even a blind squirrel gets a nut. The point here being that it seems you were satisfied to quickly hide behind your effort to pin the matter to my feet with self determined assertions that I was making a call to lifestyles of the famous and therefore sinfully influential. That I was offering up some weak kneed, applied pseudo starstruck JV devotee straw man. By switching the existing debate, that YOU proclaimed btw, between your support of the ETH, and Vallee's support for the EDH via the video that I NEVER would have provided had I known what a shit fit you would have, to, yes, in your own words, reduced to a performance of truly asinine proportions between us. One that you yourself incited distractingly as you switched the debate to one that should have never existed between you and I. Lame, deceptive, and ultimately, ill effective. Again, just one man's opinion.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, You did a wonderful job ...

Just one example of reasonably good evidence pertaining to UFOs that cannot be explained by the ETH. That's all I ask.

 

[Burnt State]

I paraphrase something Greg Bishop said on one of his more recent later podcasts. And that is that nothing about the UFO phenomenon makes rational sense. Absolutely nothing at all. The phenomenon itself seems to guarantee this. So we wind up either disregarding what is perhaps the greatest mystery in human history. Or--we are left postulating in a near vacuum with little more than personal testimony. And (I think) Vallee and others would be the first to say the UFO phenomenon is a subjective mystery writ large. Aside from photos and pics of questionable lineage, evaporating radar tapes and conspiracy theories (some well justified) we repeatedly wind up with little more than personal testimony. So well does it deny itself that we cannot say with certainty whether it obeys the same laws of physics nature demands of us. What we want so badly to be a workable science comes off as a kind of history of religion.

I will toss out a postulate. In order for this phenomenon to cloak and deny itself with the kind of seeming totality demonstrated over the past 70 years, it not only must have control of what happens. It must have control of what has happened in the past. Of course, this is just one opinion.

Sorry for being so late to this party, especially to yet another great Jeff Davis/ufology debate. With due respect to the ETH/EDH proponents I think that it is Boomerang's postulate and pre-discussion that is deserving of more discussion. As stated so cleverly in the spoken word video, the most interesting way of thinking about the phenomenon is Vallee's control system theory. His universe as 'informational construct' is also very appealing, especially for anyone immersing themselves in quantum reality and felt the frequencies of synchronicity. But when we look for things we get what we expect to see.

People who have genuinely witnessed/experienced something truly strange in the skies and on the ground reflect a quintessential human mystery and history. What Vallee brings to the discussion is systematic research and quality thought. The great anomaly here is why keep inserting yourself across human history or even across the last 70 years if you are not playing some god game with humanity? So instead of gnashing teeth about the source, why not try to gain a little more traction by talking about effect or purpose? Perhaps there is more to be gained in talking about what you know vs. a foggy trail of evidence that can't really prove one or the other despite convictions to the contrary or how O's razor slices the answer. What would Ockham say about purpose or effect of this tangled witness history?

So well does it deny itself that we cannot say with certainty whether it obeys the same laws of physics nature demands of us. What we want so badly to be a workable science comes off as a kind of history of religion.

As do the debates on this topic. The religious fervor that sometimes surrounds the ETH discussion needs to be more accommodating of ways to gain more traction on the subject instead of holding to the ETH as a primary tenet.

So are the effects of the matrix real - is this all a giant simulacrum? Certainly we know so little about physics right now (thinking about Dirca) that so much more is possible than the laws we hold on to. What I'd like to hear more about is why are they here? When you total the narratives (from contactees, abductees and witnesses) we have a very puzzling social impact of contraries - peace and light vs. indiffernt experimentation. That's probably just another distraction, and another part of the control system. I would like to know more about the why's than the how's or what's.

Addendum:
ufology: definitely Waters over Gilmore!
Jeff Davis: loved the video and the first person shooter, spoken word spitter that put together a very succinct metaphor to frame the debate - funny and diligent!

 

[Randall]

Addendum: ufology: definitely Waters over Gilmore!

I own the Pulse video and it's awesome. That's Gilmore. I also own The Wall concert and it's also awesome. That's Waters ... and a whole bunch of other cool people. For some reason I tend to prefer Gilmore in general, but they're both top-notch .

... With due respect to the ETH/EDH proponents I think that it is Boomerang's postulate and pre-discussion that is deserving of more discussion.

Hallelujah !

As stated so cleverly in the spoken word video, the most interesting way of thinking about the phenomenon is Vallee's control system theory. His universe as 'informational construct' is also very appealing, especially for anyone immersing themselves in quantum reality and felt the frequencies of synchronicity. But when we look for things we get what we expect to see.

Most UFO sightings are random occurrences. Nobody is either looking for them or expecting to see anything, and when we actually go looking for them and hope to see them, seldom are they found, so the idea that UFOs are just what we expect to see doesn't really fit with the evidence.

People who have genuinely witnessed/experienced something truly strange in the skies and on the ground reflect a quintessential human mystery and history. What Vallee brings to the discussion is systematic research and quality thought.

Generally speaking I would agree. But as I've pointed out already, his objections to the ETH are easily invalidated. That's not to imply that invalidating his logic automatically means the ETH is correct.

The great anomaly here is why keep inserting yourself across human history or even across the last 70 years if you are not playing some god game with humanity? So instead of gnashing teeth about the source, why not try to gain a little more traction by talking about effect or purpose? Perhaps there is more to be gained in talking about what you know vs. a foggy trail of evidence that can't really prove one or the other despite convictions to the contrary or how O's razor slices the answer. What would Ockham say about purpose or effect of this tangled witness history?

What would Ockham say? Well, the skeptics tell me he'd say UFOs are all misidentifications, fabrications, hallucinations, confabulations and all the rest. Anything besides an alien craft. Therefore there isn't any inherent or guiding purpose. It's all just random noise. However having studied the subject sufficiently to make it reasonable to believe otherwise, the purpose of UFOs ( alien craft ) would essentially be the same as for any other craft: To provide transportation. The purpose of transportation is to move something or someone from point A to point B, generally to accomplish some task. Certain things are required in order to make that happen. For example navigation requires exploration and the development of navigational data. So that would be one purpose. During the surveys they would encounter humans and unless the presence of humans accommodated their purpose they would soon learn it's best to avoid them. Curious creatures that we are, we'd soon be meddling in their affairs.

Since it's obvious they aren't openly interacting with us, we can assume that whatever their plan is, it doesn't involve the knowing or willful participation of the general population. So another purpose would be to establish protocols regarding detection and engagement, and that would require assessing our capability to engage them. This would explain the cat and mouse games and the elusive nature of UFOs in general. Then there is the aspect of mere curiosity. Unless the aliens were forced into leaving wherever they came from, or are looking to colonize, then they're here because of curiosity, otherwise they'd have no reason to go anyplace. This is all really obvious stuff that can be extrapolated from the evidence at hand.

As do the debates on this topic. The religious fervor that sometimes surrounds the ETH discussion needs to be more accommodating of ways to gain more traction on the subject instead of holding to the ETH as a primary tenet.

So are the effects of the matrix real - is this all a giant simulacrum? Certainly we know so little about physics right now (thinking about Dirca) that so much more is possible than the laws we hold on to. What I'd like to hear more about is why are they here? When you total the narratives (from contactees, abductees and witnesses) we have a very puzzling social impact of contraries - peace and light vs. indiffernt experimentation. That's probably just another distraction, and another part of the control system. I would like to know more about the why's than the how's or what's.

Just continue the extrapolation from above. Whether or not we're in a VR universe, and whether or not the aliens come from another VR universe outside this one, the majority of those answers still distill out the same. However knowing the answers to where they came from, and how they do it, would have enormous practical impact. In the meantime, knowing all the whys would be interesting as well, but the point is that if we also knew the where and how, we could go there ourselves and get the answers firsthand. That would be really cool .

 

[mike]

Not a fan of Vallee's hypothesis myself if its in the context of an answer that replaces the ETH, I can conceed it might sit along side the ETH in the greater reality, but imo we need look no further than the ETH as the simplest most likely explanation.

For me looking at the physical universe we reside it and its vast potential to repeat the very same model we observe here on earth Occams razor says the ETH is the simplest most likely explanation.

Though as ive said before i think our state of sentient evolution (ie fully biological) may be a filter that doesnt let us grasp some of the plot twists i suspect are in the story

To me the conclusions reached about the EDH and the factors cited to support them are akin to seeing a 747 land at JFK and concluding the passengers came from the sky, rather than another land mass.

I dont doubt for a minute that some forms of interstellar transport might utilise extra dimensional mechanisms, but that doesnt by extension mean the occupants come from, and evolved in that place, any more than our 747 passengers came from and evolved in the sky

 

[Randall]

Not a fan of Vallee's hypothesis myself if its in the context of an answer that replaces the ETH, I can conceed it might sit along side the ETH in the greater reality, but imo we need look no further than the ETH as the simplest most likely explanation. For me looking at the physical universe we reside it and its vast potential to repeat the very same model we observe here on earth Occams razor says the ETH is the simplest most likely explanation.

You used a key word when you said you're not a fan of Vallée's hypothesis, that being the word "fan". Even during his absence from the field, Vallée has remained a UFO celebrity, and although I'm more than willing to give him credit as an iconic figure in the field, and acknowledge the fine work he's done, I'm not so blinded by his status that I automatically subscribe to everything he says. His rationale against the ETH quite simply unsupportable. His original suggestion that they come from other dimensions is also logically unsupportable.

More recently Vallée seems to have realized this and has switched to the idea of alternate universes, and that idea fits nicely into this whole idea of a Matrix or more aptly a Super-Matrix or more generically the Computational Model or even more generically the Holographic Universe. Perhaps it is even possible that both the ETH and the Computational model are applicable. Perhaps by the time we develop technology that can do what UFOs do, we'll also have discovered how to travel between universes. Maybe it will even turn out that travelling between universes is easier than interstellar travel. But those are all still big maybes. The one thing we know for sure is that the universe we're in now exists, and that narrowing the phenomenon so far down within this vast realm to only that of Earth doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[Burnt State]

Ufology: I saw Roger redo The Wall in Toronto recently, easily one of the top three concerts I've seen and that's after a lot of concerts. I also was not suggesting that UFO's were the result of human expectations but that Vallee's more recent contention of the universe as an informational system (see his recent TED talk) was something tied to the experience of synchronicities and that patterns are simply things our brain likes to notice. While some Jungians contend that the UFO is the mandala and a human symbol I don't think that's what's going on. However, there are patterns that the UFO fits into historically as part of or history.

There are issues of transportation that could be argued, though observation seems to be a dominant part of the narrative, along with some type of challenge regarding our ability to communicate or respond back. It doesn't seem that 'they' are that interested in waiting around for us to be able to communicate back though, and so I return back to the control system theory that Vallee suggests.

Their presence can be described as ephemeral at best, yet their frequency, diversity and persistence seem to dominate our own slim observations of the phenomenon. There are few recordings of it that we can point to and derive meaningful analysis from outside of the ability for craft to maneuver in a manner that does seem to be more than 50 yrs away from what we can do. So given that we are very outside of the phenomenon's manifestation we are like goldfish in a tank that suddenly sees fingers poke through the surface of our watery medium, not to mention those faint glances of faces suspended in front of us, and the tapping vibrations of those fingers up against some invisible wall that contains us, that we can see out to but not fully comprehend. We wee fish, in a remote offshoot of a spiral arm of a galaxy, know little about our containers. It woud not surprise me at all to find out that the majority of UFO's are something that insects are behind, or that the consciousness of the planet itself is manifesting many of the lights In the sky that we see.

What are they up to in the sky above us, winking on, winking off? It reminds me of a discussion of Quebecois author Marie-Claire Blais first novel, where the central characters experience ther own consciousness and humanity as if their souls winked on and off. This was to describe our limited experience of us humans being fully aware, and that this full awareness of our reality is something that comes only in fits and starts.

 

[Randall]

Ufology: I saw Roger redo The Wall in Toronto recently, easily one of the top three concerts I've seen and that's after a lot of concerts.

Way Cool .

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Yeah, who is the ultimate 'programmer' and who even maintains the system?

And, just as importantly, what are the operator's intentions? Why expend all that computational power to simulate reality on an individual scale for billions of homo-sapiens? The answers, of course, are countless and as implied in the article, unless the programmer wants us to know, we never will, I suppose.

Peace.

J.

 

[Randall]

And, just as importantly, what are the operator's intentions? Why expend all that computational power to simulate reality on an individual scale for billions of homo-sapiens? The answers, of course, are countless and as implied in the article, unless the programmer wants us to know, we never will, I suppose.

Peace.

J.

Or maybe, as has been suggested in the past, God is dead and the machine is running on autopilot ... and therefore there are no intentions.

"And what doeth the saint in the forest?" asked Zarathustra.
The saint answered: "I make hymns and sing them; and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mumble: thus do I praise God. With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?"
When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: "What should I have to give thee! Let me rather hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!"
- And thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys. When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!"

 

[Burnt State]

And, just as importantly, what are the operator's intentions? Why expend all that computational power to simulate reality on an individual scale for billions of homo-sapiens? The answers, of course, are countless and as implied in the article, unless the programmer wants us to know, we never will, I suppose.

Peace.

J.

In the Ancestor Simulation Hypothesis I would think any future generations that descend from us in a significantly more advanced technological society would have the ability to run a simulation of our current proportions, artificially intelligent bio simulation constructs that we are, with not so much computational power, comparatively speaking.

Once you start harnessing just a fraction of the power our sun provides gratis you could easily run the earth circa 2013, introduce UFO's, Bigfoot just for kicks. You could dial back different regions every now and then, so some humans get to experience time slips and the occasional sighting of large winged prehistoric birds. Let's face it, paranormal activity is just a byproduct of our future generations running a large matrix hominid ant farm and messing with our heads.

 

[boomerang]

The religious fervor that sometimes surrounds the ETH discussion needs to be more accommodating of ways to gain more traction on the subject instead of holding to the ETH as a primary tenet.

The degree to which this topic evinces strong emotional responses in large numbers of people is a primary mystery in and of itself. This is often true of the well informed and the ill informed, the overtly enthusiastic and self-proclaimed indifferent alike. Belief, or even a strong interest in UFOs, has become traditionally synonymous with disconnect from reality. Even though whatever belief systems we might postulate are logically no more irrational than those purported by most of the world's established religions. Many of the religious have, as Nick Redfern and others point out, become overtly hostile to any belief in UFOs that is not compartmentalized within their particular mythology.

So one might ask--What is all this emotional affect really about ? Here is where the esoterics like Jung and Vallee may be especially helpful. Society often laughs at that which it fears. And it publicly laughs a great deal at strange things in the sky.

 

[Randall]

... So one might ask--What is all this emotional affect really about ? Here is where the esoterics like Jung and Vallee may be especially helpful. Society often laughs at that which it fears. And it publicly laughs a great deal at strange things in the sky.

Personally, I don't know why it matters so much to people whether or not they're ridiculed or laughed at for believing in UFOs. At this stage, I'm far less concerned about creating converts or convincing the government to disclose what they know, than just providing basic good quality information for those who have a genuine and constructive interest. Thankfully the Paracast has some really good people associated with it to help in that regard.

 

[Burnt State]

For myself, the emotional waves associated with he UFO phenomenon are tied directly to fear and wonder. The potential occupants of these craft represent the ultimate version of 'the other' and represent a great anchored weight of terribe awe in the human heart. They are also the penultimate mystery, representing a sentient life beyond our own simple homo sapien status. Are they our gods, parents or simply indifferent observers? Their seemingly lack of concern over our own emotional response to them makes them the source for our own unrequited obsessions.

Society does indeed laugh at what it fears and can not name. With all this emotion at play it is tempting to call upon Jung, to meander in collective imagery and unconscious instinct & desire. But I prefer Vallee's analytics that give me something more tangible to hold onto as at least there is something feasible to build upon with him. Now I'm just waiting for the right person to come along that will be able to interupt the control system, find a means to communicate with the great other or at least elicit some kind of response.

 

[boomerang]

Society does indeed laugh at what it fears and can not name. With all this emotion at play it is tempting to call upon Jung, to meander in collective imagery and unconscious instinct & desire. But I prefer Vallee's analytics that give me something more tangible to hold onto as at least there is something feasible to build upon with him.

As much as I am a fan of Jung's take on what makes us tick beneath the hood, he indeed doesn't give us many usable tools outside of an attempted understanding of self. It's hard to say how and to what extent depth psychology is applicable to either the mundane or the mysterious. But I will make that same old lame appeal to the fuzzy gods of the quantum with the observation that we are (I am) never a detached observer of anything. If there were ever a macro phenomenon of which the observer is an integral part, it is the UFO. I will gladly rescind this opinion when and if the UFO starts behaving as an objective phenomenon, even if one only drops so much as a ragged shred of sheet metal on the white house lawn. Or even if one black world official hands same to the press in a public ceremony. Come on guys--help us out of this quandary by making just one teeny tiny mistake !

As for Vallee--He seems a very astute historian with a burning desire to bring the UFO within the bounds of the rational. He has not succeeded. But neither has anyone else. He is most notable, IMO, for placing the UFO within the context of human history as opposed to post WWII history. He faces the highest of strangeness head-on without filtering those messy incidents that prevent most hypotheses from fitting into a tidy box. The closest I have seen him come to a rational hypothesis amenable to analysis is his TED talk about the UFO as expression of a universe in which information processing creates what we perceive as time and space. And it is only a theory.

As for the 'appeal to authority' issue--We don't find Vallee's oral and written work to be impressive because he is well credentialed. He is both well credentialed and personally impressive because he is a uniquely gifted individual possessing a first rate mind. There are thousands of such people out there, but precious few willing to openly devote time and effort to the UFO mystery.

 

[Randall]

For myself, the emotional waves associated with he UFO phenomenon are tied directly to fear and wonder. The potential occupants of these craft represent the ultimate version of 'the other' and represent a great anchored weight of terribe awe in the human heart. They are also the penultimate mystery, representing a sentient life beyond our own simple homo sapien status. Are they our gods, parents or simply indifferent observers? Their seemingly lack of concern over our own emotional response to them makes them the source for our own unrequited obsessions.

Society does indeed laugh at what it fears and can not name. With all this emotion at play it is tempting to call upon Jung, to meander in collective imagery and unconscious instinct & desire. But I prefer Vallee's analytics that give me something more tangible to hold onto as at least there is something feasible to build upon with him. Now I'm just waiting for the right person to come along that will be able to interupt the control system, find a means to communicate with the great other or at least elicit some kind of response.

A very thoughtful post.