Jacques Vallee: Wonders in the Sky

reply to post by jritzmann

LOL...nope. Because where that leads? Theory becomes ideology. That's the problem with a lot of the UFO interested public - they want answers because it burns not to know. The aloe for that burn, is that you see what surrounds the phenomena, and more importantly, that the ideologues have been laid down since man first saw something he couldn't explain in the sky. You realize personally that items such as the ETH often applied to this subject - don't fit. When you actually recognize this, it's revolutionary to you, and then you see this bigger picture.

Hiya Jeff, I've a few thoughts about whether the ETH fits or not. In the past few months (on the show), you've made it clear that you don't accept the ETH. Lately, you've extended that to calling it crap. This surprised me because you are all about being open to possibilities and ETH is a possibility that Vallee still accepts. If we rule out a reasonable hypothesis, aren't we enforcing a 'no-go area' on our mind's freedom to explore? Furthermore, if we throw out the ETH what do we do about the cases with air and land observers reporting sightings that are being confirmed by multiple radars? What about the cases Vallee has personally been involved in where apparent physical evidence is recorded? Vallee has made repeated references to Colm Kelleher and the Skinwalker Ranch also. Allegedly, there was a great deal of physical evidence (dead cattle and dogs, physical craft, indentations in ground).

If there is such physical evidence, then it's pretty damned interesting to ponder over and entertain the possibilities. If people are reporting solid craft, we ask...where do they come from? In my mind, I simply consider they come from 'elsewhere.' This way it's possible to rule some ideas out and still leave the doors open for other ideas. At the very least, the ETH isn't the stupidest idea ever. It holds some weight and can still be used a jump-off point for speculation...if you let it. If you really think about it, some of Vallee's more speculative ideas can fall within the ETH. Another surprising thing is that Vallee's original paper...5 Arguments Against the ETH doesn't actually 'debunk' the ETH and a couple of the arguments against aren't as strong as you'd think. Another surprise is how leading his argument can be...

It's possible to entertain the ETH in a more complicated form than 'they come from Zeta' in flying saucers. Yeah, I'm defending the ETH, but not from the position of an ETH devotee. It's a possibility that has merit. I enjoy Vallee's ideas too and read Dimensions and Revelations for the umpteenth time last month. Same goes for Michael Swords, Jerry Clark and others who are thought-provoking. 'The Phenomenon' could be phenomena that are wholly unconnected to each other. We could be collectively witness to a consciousness at play while different visitors from other places are visiting in a variety of forms.

The one possibility I don't want to entertain is that *nothing* is happening!

reply to post by Kandinsky


Going back to the farm we rehearsed on maybe this is a decent analogy.. We own the land in human terms, the dog owns the land in doggie terms, the robin that lived on the land owned the land in robin terms and the fox that used the land owned it in foxy terms. We traveled from elsewhere to the farm to practice to the fox, it would be beyond its comprehension, in terms of the distance, to understand where we come from. The robin owns not only the land but the 3rd dimension of height over the land as well but is, pretty much tied to that parcel of land in terms of its perception of it's whole universe.

The fox doesn't like day light and is sure it owns the land as it pads around at night and rarely if ever, sees the robin us or the dog. So everyone in their own consciousness and world sees the same land wholly differently, the same land is a different *reality* to all of them. Only the robin has freedom of access to all 3 dimensions under its' own power.. We are the only ones who can appear from, what is to all intents and purposes, to the fox and robin *another world*. There again, none of us can access the world of the robin unless we use machinery. We live cheek by jowl however, we all have a totally different perspective on what is, in the final analysis, a single reality.

Maybe the universe ain't so different?

reply to post by FireMoon
It's an idea worth considering isn't it? It kinda combines an interdimensional element with something like Mac Tonnies' cryptoterrestrials. In this light, many versions of reality occupy the same space and rarely meet. Kaku's descriptions of M-Theory also spring to mind...

I remember Terry Pratchett describing an Amazonian tree frog that is born, lives and dies in the rain forest canopy within a small pool of water. The extent of its world is what it sees and experiences from within a pool of water equivalent to a small glass. Our frog's world is just as important to it as our is to us and yet each (for sake of comparison) has no awareness of the other.

In the case of our speculative 'visitors,' at least one party seems to have the advantage over the other...in awareness if nothing else!

Originally posted by jritzmann
That's because you're looking for an answer. Stop doing that

Why would we stop for looking for an answer, because suppose our scientists had years back stopped with looking for answers, then we would never have achieved the same level [technological and such] as we are find ourselves in today don’t you think?

Originally posted by jritzmann
we don't know enough yet in the way of this complex phenomenon to hunt answers. We don't even know all the questions yet.

Because where that leads? Theory becomes ideology. That's the problem with a lot of the UFO interested public - they want answers because it burns not to know. The aloe for that burn, is that you see what surrounds the phenomena, and more importantly, that the ideologues have been laid down since man first saw something he couldn't explain in the sky. You realize personally that items such as the ETH often applied to this subject - don't fit. When you actually recognize this, it's revolutionary to you, and then you see this bigger picture.

I fully agree with you that we don't know enough yet about this indeed extremely complex phenomenon, but there is no doubt in my mind a small group of people/scientists on this Earth who know already definitely enough to be able to explain at least a small part of that phenomenon, and that has in my opinion all to do with especially the ETH.

I really don’t understand why you say that the ETH often applied to this subject - don't fit.
I am very aware that it isn’t the only explanation for it all, but is has in my opinion definitely partly to do with it.

Originally posted by jritzmann

In the end, this is all more complex than ET for many reasons.

As I said above, I am convinced that the ETH is not responsible for the whole phenomenon, but sorely for a part of it.

Originally posted by jritzmann

This is inextricably linked to us. And, one cannot remove the human element from the equation.

I fully agree with you here.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If you really think about it, some of Vallee's more speculative ideas can fall within the ETH. Another surprising thing is that Vallee's original paper...5 Arguments Against the ETH doesn't actually 'debunk' the ETH and a couple of the arguments against aren't as strong as you'd think.

Hi Kandinsky, thanks for posting that link, I never did read that before and it looks very interesting to me, just as your whole reply.

For those of you interested, Jacques Valle has some articles up on Boingboing ( the most recent entry being last month)

boingboing.net...

I must add that many of the responses the crop circle articles elicited are less than favourable or highly insulting to Vallee. I thought that someone with his credentials will be treated with more respect but I guess I was wrong

reply to post by BedIntruder


THANK YOU for the blog link!

This thread is a pleasure to read and it's in the Alien & UFO forum. How is that possible?
Seriously, kudos and gold stars to everyone participating in this thread discussion, thus far.
Hopefully others that post in this forum will take note that civil discourse is truly possible.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Another surprising thing is that Vallee's original paper..5 Arguments Against the ETH doesn't actually 'debunk' the ETH and a couple of the arguments against aren't as strong as you'd think.

I did check those 5 Arguments out and agree with you Kandinsky, I do not find them really strong either.
But one must not forget that this article is from around 1990, so I wonder if he would still support those arguments today; I hope that that did come into question in the interview.

I found another interesting article regarding the above; perhaps you find it interesting and have you not read it yet.

Can the UFO Extraterrestrial Hypothesis and Vallee Hypotheses Be Reconciled?

William Bramley

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-9, 1992

www.scientificexploration.org...

Hi, Kadansky:

I'm not speaking for Jeff but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the ETH. I think what is crap is the current version of the ETH. If this enigma represents organisms or a society of them it doesn't matter to me where they were born, in this universe or the next. But the main version of what ETH means is something we can comprehend and relate to as rational post modern people. It's Star Trek. We have a galactic federation waiting for us to join them or we have alien jailers quarantining us or we have space doctors experimenting on us for their own reasons, creating hybrids, and so on. These are what we mean by ETH, yes? I mean generally. Ask anyone and they mean some version of space doctors/politicians/brothers.

In other words, we take aliens and create them in our image so we can understand them, we can "know" what they're doing, and in that--even if we ascribe malevolence to aliens--we can feel as if we're in control of the situation. Knowledge is power after all.

So I'd say, and I think Jacques' work points to, the fact that whatever they are, wherever they're from, they are TRULY alien to us as we currently understand ourselves. This leads me right back to my favorite go-to point, which is this: We have no idea what it is to be human. We must figure that out before we ask what this enigma is.

Is it possible that we live in denial about our whole nature? Can this here brain do a helluva lot more than we use it for now? Are we, in fact, blocking out the greater ecosystem were are embedded in by narrowing our sense of reality to rational and/or material structures?

You've heard Paratopia; you know my shtick by now.

All of that said, here's my new shtick: How long does an alien have to exist on earth for it to no longer be an alien? Because Jacques' work shows that something or some things has been here for thousands of years, perhaps since as far back as we go, perhaps further.

But even that question is a surface one, I think. Still, it's a good place to start. What do we mean by "alien?" What do we mean by "human?" If they are truly strange to us but not truly foreign and they are interacting with us for thousands of years whether we know it or not.... Why?

Again, I think the "crap" is limited to the current standard set of definitions we apply to the word "alien" and the motives we ascribe to "aliens," not to where a being was born. But let's keep in mind that even what I just wrote applies to one hypothesis of many. And it presupposes a society of organisms, or collective of them, from somewhere. There are other hypotheses equally tempting, as you know.

reply to post by spacevisitor
Hiya Space

Thanks, I've downloaded the Bramley pdf just now and will look at it later. I've got his 'Gods of Eden' book and a couple of interviews and haven't been able to get into his way of thinking yet.

I'm glad you agree about Vallee's arguments against the ETH, they aren't strong arguments at all. I was planning to write a thread that challenges them, but have lost the enthusiasm recently. I do hold him in high esteem without accepting his ideas as being the final word on the subject. We can both disagree with some of his ideas and find others thought-provoking.

reply to post by BedIntruder

For those of you interested, Jacques Valle has some articles up on Boingboing ( the most recent entry being last month) boingboing.net... I must add that many of the responses the crop circle articles elicited are less than favourable or highly insulting to Vallee. I thought that someone with his credentials will be treated with more respect but I guess I was wrong

Hiya B, a lot of the Boing Boing guys had never heard of Vallee and questioned his posts on crop circles anyway. My own impression of his blog was that he'd written it without making his knowledge current. There's a niche culture of circle-makers who'd be open to meeting Vallee and showing him their work in action. Nick Redfern has links to some of the guys and he could easily arrange a contact. He went in guns blazing and got blasted...

Vallee posted his thoughts that were based on very limited data. He was taken to task and might be more informed on the subject next time. This is only ATS and I've made the mistake of posting rebuttals from memory instead of checking my facts first. It's not nice being shredded over a post, but I deserved it! A guy signed up and made one single post to rip one of mine to shreds. That was the only post s/he ever made and they taught me to be more careful.

I've had my butt kicked a few times since...sigh...

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni
Hiya Jeremy, why do people who disagree with me insist on spelling my name wrong? Big question right there!

Seriously though, I listen to your show and I enjoy the banter you guys have. Some interviews are thought-provoking and that's the whole point as I see it...make people think. A lot of the views you and Jeff Ritzman share, I also share and I ask the same questions too. Where we might differ is in being prepared to entertain the possibility of many different conflicting ideas until we get more data and evidence to toss some of them out.

The old 50s version of the ETH is pretty simplistic. If you want to attack or dismiss that one, it's all cool. Doesn't mean it's improbable, but I agree that particular model is a long way shy from explaining the high strangeness of the UFO enigma.

Space doctors and federations are for other people to believe in. They aren't ideas that appeal to me. Exopolitics and other belief systems or ideologies are just that...conclusions looking for supporting evidence. They castrate discussion and sterilise the boundaries of thought where all the neat stuff is happening. That's not to say there can't be space doctors or federations of hugs & kisses aliens. Maybe there are? I hope it's not that simple and dualistic...

You dropped the 'P-Mod' bomb and I can relate to that also. Media and culture provide signifiers that we subconsciously refer to in interpreting how we perceive reality. Brecht wrote that 'art is not a mirror' and that applies to the UFO enigma as I understand it. Then we have the limitations of our national vocabularies and idioms to explain that perception to others using the cultural memes that we all read differently anyway. Communicating an experience accurately is undermined by subjectivity. It's frustrating when we're all trying to share an experience that can't help but be misconstrued by the listener's equally 'real' understanding of what is and what can be. It's that old cliché of blind men describing elephants...

It'd be just great if I could end this reply with a clear statement of where I stand on the subject of UFO enigmas and high strangeness phenomena. All I can think of is 'I'm open to many possibilities' and 'ask me later!'

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Hiya Jeff, I've a few thoughts about whether the ETH fits or not. In the past few months (on the show), you've made it clear that you don't accept the ETH. Lately, you've extended that to calling it crap. This surprised me because you are all about being open to possibilities and ETH is a possibility that Vallee still accepts.

Hi there-
I think Jeremy well illustrates what I mean by "crap" - the common definition doesn't work, however it's the one most people jump to right off the bat - the ideology goes from there. I don't think we can take the ETH off the table by any means - but I do think we have to start directing as much effort in other directions. Interested parties would rather it seems, not do that. In fact, you'll get a hell of a lot of resistance from die-hard ETH'ers.

Why it doesn't "fit":
There are many reasons when you really step back and look. This means I'm referring to "aliens" in the common context of flesh and blood, and their "craft" actually nut and bolt objectively "real" devices.

-In 60+ years alone of modern age UFO research - not one nut, nor one bolt (speaking metaphorically)

-If beings can get "here" from "there" then it's safe to assume they have technology vastly superior to our own. Yet in abductions to landing cases they use hand tools and needles, probes, etc. This is absurd on the face of it and doesn't coincide with the level of technology - there's a distinct disconnect that almost borders the theatrical.

-The UFO phenomenon seems follow a pattern of anti-structure.

-The phenomena seems to follow trends of manifestation based upon our own level of culture.

-There is on many occasions 2 or more witnesses that saw the same event, and perceived radically different phenomena. (i.e. - one man sees a disc in the air, the other saw a bar or square. Both UFOs, however radically different, suggesting this is filtered through cultural filters.

That's just some reasons I don't accept the ETH as the end-all answer. I see this an an infinitely more complex phenomenon than little doctors from another star system coming here in "craft".

I definalty have to get this book...is i something that can be found in chapters or indigo...i think any ufo sigthing before the industrail revolution would proabbly be more legit...and very hard to debunk...lol...there was no planes, led lgihts , sky divers etc...so if those dont exist explain what is being seen....wow...i really want this book...thanks alot

reply to post by jritzmann

I see this an an infinitely more complex phenomenon than little doctors from another star system coming here in "craft".

Me too.

At the same time, there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces. At the very least, it suggests that some component of the enigma may well be physical. If so, structured craft require manufacturing and that requires a society/culture/civilisation. If this is the case, it doesn't move us any closer to 'where' they come from or even give us much to base a hypothesis upon.

I can imagine a visiting intelligence from 'elsewhere' who are also trying to make sense of their own UFO/high strangeness enigma. In my opinion, the physical aspect of the ETH needn't mean that there isn't a remaining mystery at play.

We don't have enough information to put our money on one horse in the race.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by jritzmann

 

I see this an an infinitely more complex phenomenon than little doctors from another star system coming here in "craft".

Me too.

At the same time, there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces.
(snip)
We don't have enough information to put our money on one horse in the race.

You know evidence is the cement of convictions. Evidence is defined as "any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something". I include the definition because IMO there is no proof of physical traces of anything associated with UFOs. One of the most outspoken "investigators" is Ted Phillips that likes to point out his association with Allen Hynek as if that made his investigation results more solid.

I quote from the following source and add that all of Phillips' cases are dubious for no one has produced any real evidence for physical traces. Your last sentence wraps it up nicely.


www.project1947.com...
Ted Phillips' Physical Trace Catalogue
by Paul Fuller

"This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature."

reply to post by The Shrike
Hiya Shrike, by trace evidence I meant radar recordings that confirmed eye-witness reports. There's a few out there. Can a conscious perception of an underlying intelligence be seen by different people in different places and be registered on different radars? We don't know the answer to that, but perhaps their accounts of structured craft were the most accurate?

There are a few accounts of physical trace evidence in the Ted Phillips' sense that are worth being open-minded to in my opinion. Dechtmont Woods maybe? At the same time, part of me agrees with you that Ted Philips' recent activities leave a lot of questions. A mod on Paracast, Ron, is working on a new website for Ted and I'm suspending judgement until it goes live.

One of the reasons I don't get into arguments about this subject is for the same reason you pointed out...not enough evidence and we just don't know. Why bother to fall out with folk when none of us have the answers?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
[...]there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces. At the very least, it suggests that some component of the enigma may well be physical. If so, structured craft require manufacturing and that requires a society/culture/civilisation. If this is the case, it doesn't move us any closer to 'where' they come from or even give us much to base a hypothesis upon.

Oh, there certainly appears to be a physical component to the sightings, or how would it be possible for there to be landing traces and photos and so on? The suggestion is that true UFOs can possibly be generated as "real" through a combination of our observation and expectations, perhaps combined with the help of their observations and advanced technology.

We don't really have a good mechanism to explain that, though. Making live rabbits appear out of hats is "magic," a trick, and not a result of the magician and the audience manipulating matter and spacetime to create a rabbit from virtual particles and some Heisenbergian collapse of a rabbit-shaped wave function. It'd be a real kick in the pants, though, if UFOs employed something precisely along those lines to appear, move, and interact with our normal reality.

That's one of the reasons why over the past several years I've been interested in sorcery. People interacting with "demons" has a lot of the same characteristics as people interacting with UFOs and their occupants, although generally in a more controlled condition. That is, UFOs tend to surprise people, whereas sorcerers specifically go out and conjure up demons using a specific methodology. The generative factors seem to be very much the same, however. There's perception combined with expectation on part of the observer/participant, a manifestation that manipulates and affects our physical reality, and there's an interaction between the entities and the participant, with each party displaying evidence of self-centered consciousness and will. How can something imaginary have its own consciousness? I'm sure I don't know, but then I don't really know how my consciousness works, either.

I know that our minds can create something out of nothing. We do it all the time. And it's all heavily influenced by our anticipation, expectation and intention. If there was some way to use technology to amplify that process, the results might be a very similar to what we see in UFO studies. The creation and manipulation of alternate realities, time and space. Bridging that gap would be difficult, though. We're probably still a long way from incorporating consciousness into our equations, or incorporating a ghost in the machine. But we humans are clever. If anybody can figure out how to do it, we can. Maybe with the help of our stray creations from natural expressions of this same activity. Their flying saucers are interesting. Maybe they can clue us in on how to build a machine that would make the whole conjuring trick work every time.

And yet Vallee himself was part of the investigation in the Valensole landing and concluding the guy was most likely being honest about his experience. Plus the lavender where the craft was claimed to have landed shrivelled and died and refused to grow back for some years.

Then there is the Robert Taylor incident from
www.uforth.com...

Here they found Taylor's pick up truck and also ladder-shaped marks, of which Drummond noted, "marks on the ground which seemed to indicate that something had come vertically down and made impressions in the turf." They first wondered about the resemblance to bulldozer or heavy machinery marks, but surrounding them were forty shallow holes that matched the witness's story about the bouncing spiky balls. These marks followed the path of the mine like objects. The police fenced off the area. Photographs of the tracks were taken. They were totally baffled because the tracks were only in one grassy area. The ground in the place of incident was soft but no signs of the tracks having come from somewhere or having gone anywhere could be discovered. There was no indication of how any vehicle that caused the tracks could have arrived in the clearing without leaving the same tracks on its entering path. They looked for local manufacturer of any object who could have been flown there. Results of this investigation were again negative.

So there are cases where something *solid* seems to be very much involved. What that solid might be is anyone's guess.

For what it's worth i will add this. I have friend who had a CE3 some years ago and has photos of the *craft* that would send some on here into a flat spin. he told me that the *craft* in the picture he has is what we would term a * thought projection* but was told there are others who use craft we would understand as technology if totally alien (sic0 to us. Now he has no proof and just the photos however this i would say. in the wake of his CE3 he, without suggestion changed his direction in music completely from one genre to another and found the success he had sought for so long. He admits he doesn't even know why, he did it he just did. Again the whole perception thing comes into this. His partner, who was present, saw similar to him, but remembers virtually nothing else save a vague recollection of a presence. On the one hand, they are happy to back up his photos but they really can;t when it comes to his *meeting*.

That is a classic case where the sceptics would have a total field day, based on the evidence being wholly intangible save the photos and stories not being consistent. I suspect Vallee would love it, as it encapsulates so many of the complete paradox's UFOs so often present us.

There are times i sigh when i see the vitriol aimed at people for reporting something that seems outlandish. The truth is, to us as humans the very idea of UFOs is outlandish and here lies my beef with many debunkers. They don't exist, but if they did, i know what they would be, seems to sum so many people's attitude. They wouldn't make stupid phone calls to people etc etc.

I think this thread clearly shows there is a school of thought who think,not believe they exist, but as to exactly what they are? Well buckle up folks cos you think you think Alice in Wonderland was fiction?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
At the same time, there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces. At the very least, it suggests that some component of the enigma may well be physical. If so, structured craft require manufacturing and that requires a society/culture/civilisation.

See, that's the problem. No physical trace, radar report, nor sighted object can be qualified as coming from an "extraterrestrial" source. That's an interpretation - not based upon the data. That kind of "evidence" is ultimately open ended and vague - even if accompanied by a sighting account by sober, credible people.

Those objects, and their effects, could every bit be military projects. I love it when UFO researchers and others state, "we don't have technology that can do that", when in fact they don't have any idea. They are not privy to every project on military black boards. That's the fact. So they don't know, and they can't know. So their statement is nullified the minute it leaves their lips.

In the end? That kind of evidence can't even be remotely drawn to the enigma we're discussing - because there's no way to qualify that.

Make any sense?

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni

 

Hiya Jeremy, why do people who disagree with me insist on spelling my name wrong? Big question right there!

Sorry about the misspelling. If it makes ya feel any better, I don't think we actually disagree! We're both open to anything that isn't demonstrably false.