Like I wrote already, Vallee - like myself - thinks it’s best to gather all the evidence we can and see where it points us after we study it. Any hypothesis is premature until we do the science.
Entertaining various hypotheses as a purely intellectual exercise is fine and well but the hypothesis cannot come before the evidence.
John Keel arrived independently at many of the ideas Vallee utilized for the IDH.
The IDH is still one of the least popular hypotheses in UFOlogy and when Vallee began writing about it he was already a known figure and it was not well received.
It addresses a key flaw of the ETH - that we have had too many sightings if the phenomenon is part of some extraterrestrial survey of our planet.
I have several issues with Vallee myself, all too specific for a general level conversation as is being had here.
Entertaining various hypotheses as a purely intellectual exercise is fine and well but the hypothesis cannot come before the evidence.
John Keel arrived independently at many of the ideas Vallee utilized for the IDH.
The IDH is still one of the least popular hypotheses in UFOlogy and when Vallee began writing about it he was already a known figure and it was not well received.
It addresses a key flaw of the ETH - that we have had too many sightings if the phenomenon is part of some extraterrestrial survey of our planet.
I have several issues with Vallee myself, all too specific for a general level conversation as is being had here.
Last edited:
I can respect the argument being made here and understand where it comes from but it seems to skirt the philosophical origins of science to forward a line of interrogation John Mack described as “ontological fascism”. I did more research on N-rays and my first thought on the work was that perhaps the radiation bursts (with or without the prism) were interfering with the ocular organ itself, causing the effect incorrectly attributed to the interaction these “rays” were having on the DUT. I didn’t delve any more deeply than that to see if that was indeed the case.
Last edited:
I had an opinion on this subject long before that article was publishe after taking the trouble to research evolution and watching some TED talks and reading what academics had to say on the subject.
No offense, but when people refuse to look at the hard science and not acknowledge the minuscule probabilities involved, they’re open to fantasies.
"Anecdotal, testify and reality don't mix well"
I saw one of those recent "first person pilot accounts", the one where he describes the unknown as a "Tic-Tac"....this is anecdotal, the "I saw it!". It was appalling watching this guy talk, nothing concrete. Testifying is the "prosecutor " asking rapid-fire specific, detailed facts. Very often these anecdotes contain no facts, those under duress wind up making them up on the fly.
Reality with facts punches irrepairable holes in the anecdotal narrative, always collapsing a timeline, a particular perception or train of thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
I saw one of those recent "first person pilot accounts", the one where he describes the unknown as a "Tic-Tac"....this is anecdotal, the "I saw it!". It was appalling watching this guy talk, nothing concrete. Testifying is the "prosecutor " asking rapid-fire specific, detailed facts. Very often these anecdotes contain no facts, those under duress wind up making them up on the fly.
Reality with facts punches irrepairable holes in the anecdotal narrative, always collapsing a timeline, a particular perception or train of thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
That "guy", to whom you so derisively and ignorantly refer, is Carrier Fighter Squadron Commander(Ret.), Fravor. If you knew anything about his incident, which, you obviously don't, you would know that he, and his Wingman, (so, a total of FOUR eyewitness Naval officers) were diverted from a training mission, to the object by shipborne Aegis radar.
A pile of nonsense, masquerading as cogent analysis. Your post reads more like a plea for attention, than something which protrays any rational thought process. Try again - next month.
Let’s not insult each other.
Clearly half the people in the argument are correct, the other half not.
As to which is which, we may never know and so be it.
Clearly half the people in the argument are correct, the other half not.
As to which is which, we may never know and so be it.
It's the half that couldn't keep an open mind. Believing in something without questioning is wrong regardless even if you're turned out to be right at the end.
This seems a bit contradictory. Where do you understand that it comes from, if it is detached from the philosophical origins of science?
Ah, the classic 50/50 phrase. Isn't that one of those things said when no research was done?
Unfortunately the DoD has all the "evidence and data", and something telling they are not releasing anytime soon.
Ah, the classic 50/50 phrase. Isn't that one of those things said when no research was done?
There are experts at googling wiki and then quoting an opposing view, knowing little of the underlying subtleties of the subject at hand, simply for the sake of argument.
Thankfully, that is not entirely the case. There is alleged debris that has been recovered and has been put under analysis. The results may be inconclusive (or even disappointing) but at least we have some actual science being conducted where the results will be made public.
That’s not what is meant by the verb “skirt” but regardless I don’t have the energy to get into a substantive philosophical debate about science as I think it would be counterproductive to the evolving conversation on in this thread.
Again: (PPT) What do we Know about the Material Composition of UFOs? | Jacques F Vallee - Academia.edu
But you are the one who claimed that someone made extraordinary claim about UFO and therefore they need extraordinary proof. Then when asked who made such claim, you went silent.NOW we are talking
When you posted "Let’s not insult each other.
Clearly half the people in the argument are correct, the other half not.
As to which is which, we may never know and so be it.", you weren't referring to this thread? OK.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member