New Jacques Vallee Interview:

[Christopher O'Brien]

[Vallee hasn't granted many interviews lately, so I was gratified to see this latest interview re-posted @ Open Minds. —chris]

FULL interview HERE:

Jacques Vallée has held many titles over the years; astronomer, computer scientist, venture capitalist, author, and more. He has researched UFOs for decades and has written several books on the topic. The lead character on the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind was inspired by Vallée. We recently received this interview from Nagib Kary who runs the French UFO website Ovnis-Direct.com. Kary and several associates asked questions of Vallée in February and recently translated the interview into English. Kary has graciously asked Open Minds to re-post their insightful interview.

Questions from Fabrice Bonvin:
Fabrice is a Swiss ufologist, writer, psychologist by training who deals especially with the relation between ufos and ecology and the psychological impact of apparitions on witnesses.

Q1: How do you see ufology and ufological activity in 15-20 years ? What will fundamentally change — or won’t ?

We shouldn’t be surprised if we see an increase in these manifestations as humanity goes on to a new step of systematic exploration of space. But the question should be addressed to the phenomenon itself: It has shown that it was diverse, adaptable and unpredictable. It also showed that it was fundamentally interested in our technological progress and our technical prototypes.

Q2: Who is the thinker, the intellectual or the researcher you admire the most and why?

Maybe you have noticed it while reading Science Interdite: I found a great source of inspiration in Aimé Michel, a remarkable spirit by the strength of his vision and the deep humanity of his intellect. The fact that such a thinker has been ignored and even despised by the intellectual elite in France is not a compliment to our country. However, the limited number of people who have known him have had a great privilege. According to Aimé, Ufos were only a mystery among others. He was a universal thinker.

Q3: What is the current scientific discipline which would be able to benefit ufology and its achievement?

I can think of two disciplines whose application is urgent: computer science of course, with data-mining , and medicine which has never been applied to a real study of long term effects on witnesses of close encounters. Beyond this, of course, physics must take the subject as an “existence theorem” to understand physical reality in a broader sense.

Q4: How are consciousness and Ufos related? What role does consciousness play in Ufo manifestations?

We have seen ufos as classical spaceships for a long time, in accordance with science fiction in the forties and fifties. This interpretation persists, especially in France where recent breakthrough of parapsychology are not well known and where psychic effects reported by witnesses are considered either as evidences of mental weakness or as electromagnetic side effects. Yet, as documentation improves, we find out that the physical aspects of the phenomenon are as negotiable as its psychic effects: it is as if it took control of a given area, including witnesses’ perceptions. It is that aspect that discouraged Aimé Michel.

Q5: Do governments (and especially the USA) hide information about Ufos on the public (according to you and your experience)?

There are two levels to that question: (1) governments (and not only the USA) keep some information they think most sensitive, especially reports which come from the military. It seems that since 1947 this policy has been viewed as legitimate, in the interest of populations and in the hope of discovering technological breakthroughs. (2) The most difficult question is to know if breakthroughs have actually taken place. To my mind, the phenomenon has probably resisted all analysis, classified or not. The issue of opening all the files is going to arise again but it’s not as simple to understand the Ufo phenomenon as to dismantle a MIG or to secretly copy the space shuttle.

Q6: What advice would you give to the ufology community?

I don’t think I have personal advice to give. It is obvious that we won’t make real progress in an environment of petty squabbling. It would be best to avoid accusations that discourage researchers from working together. The phenomenon is accessible at a local level, so the possibility of field study and fast exchange of data is wide open. That would be more useful than speculating on inaccessible, hypothetical secrets in the drawers of governments.

Q7: What are your biggest regrets in your ufological career?

I sometimes wonder whether things would have taken a different course if I had accompanied Allen Hynek to Detroit during the swamp gas case. It was the biggest opportunity to pose the question of the reality of the phenomenon before the American general public and the scientific community. Together with Bill Powers’ advice, we could have presented a realistic and urgent vision of the issue which would have been understood by the media.

A lot of water has passed under the bridge, as the Americans would say. If I look back, it is obvious that professionally speaking, I wasted my time when I came back in France in late 1967. Should I regret it? I wouldn’t have written Passport to Magonia anywhere else than in Paris. Moreover, I wouldn’t have experienced May ’68 on the spot! …

REST OF INTERVIEW HERE:

 

[Charlie Prime]

Cool!

Thank you Mr. Chris.

 

[Ufocurious]

Thanks for the link.
I really like Jacques Vallee because his own bafflement, after years of research and deep thinking, keeps reminding us how elusive and complex the UFO field is. And how important is to keep our minds open instead of settling for a specific theory.
I watched the TED-X presentation. It is really good.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Vallee just did a new audio interview July 2014 on Coast to Coast with Knapp. I did a post about it in case you want the main points and can't get the audio. Here is the link:

Jacques Vallee C2C July 2014 Interview | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Burnt State]

The Kaleidoscopic UFO
The theme that lingers in much of Vallée's work regarding the UFO phenomenon is that of manipulation. It is a very confusing experience that seems to have nestled neatly into the cultural human psyche for the last 70 years or so, some say centuries longer. But in this last good stretch from WWII onwards the camouflage and presentation has always been made made up of things we could mostly describe, that appeared familiar yet quite strange. Like turn of the century airships or contemporary lighter than air gigantic, triangular craft, we can recognize it somewhat and talk about it, fulfilling their goal of making us think.

But their manipulation of our thoughts and experiences are tied to their manifestations that have this familiarity to them. For example they can fly, hover, ping off of radar and even dissolve in mid-air. They do things that our aviators can't quite just yet, but we're working on it. They've left a lot of clues to follow.

Deeper manipulations of cult belief systems, 3rd party control systems, militaristic covert propaganda systems, carnivalesque alien art display systems...these all work to affect us, seduce us and even direct us. UFO's are here to change us.

P427 – The author’s quotation :

« The Ufo phenomenon looks like a kaleidoscope which has three separate levels: a physical and technologic level; a sociologic level; and finally a personal level, subliminal, which plays with subtle shades of human psyche. The first aspects seem to show evidence of extraterrestrial origins; the second one would be within the competence of human mythology and anthropology, if we refer to the societal dimension only: this is the explanation which meets with the advanced skeptics’ approval, contrary to Menzel and Klass who are content with denying everything outright. The third aspect is the most disconcerting : it suggests clues of a darker manipulation from terrestrial and very material origins »

Q5 : Have you achieved new discoveries on the third aspect of the Ufo phenomenon over the last years?

We are faced with this third aspect when we carry on case studies in the field. Everything is happening as if the phenomenon was able to manipulate its environment (including its human environment) in order to hide its real nature. To my mind, the camouflage uses terrestrial elements and it is not simply a bureaucratic « cover-up » as it has naively been believed for a long time.

What's always refreshing about Vallée is his own unapologetic conviction that there's much more to the UFO phenomenon than just a bureaucratic cover up. No, the manipulation that he sees is taking place on a much grander scale, where the perpetuation of the UFO narrative is done by many arms & branches of the collective human culture. It's a very sophisticated design he seems to suggest, something that knows us & our terrestrial ways, and mostly it is something that we just can't help being entranced by, the way any good kaleidoscope will. And more than making us think it is a very transformative experience for many.

Perhaps where we might want to sink even more energy into are those stories where the familiarity is not entirely there, but the strangeness is so strange that we don't quite have words for it. My favourite UFO witness narratives have folks stumbling for a vocabulary that they can not find; because, what they saw has no real human frame of reference. That's what I would call "alien".

 

[Burnt State]

This is an excellent 2003 article: Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena
by Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Abstract: The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors. Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations, (2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability problem.

Not only does he tackle this six angled phenomena but he explores some of the anthropocentric, abduction and absurdist features of UAP's.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...Not only does he tackle this six angled phenomena but he explores some of the anthropocentric, abduction and absurdist features of UAP's.

Here, here! now THAT's what you're talkin about!

 

[Soupie]

This is an excellent 2003 article: Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena
by Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Abstract: The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors. Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations, (2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability problem.

Not only does he tackle this six angled phenomena but he explores some of the anthropocentric, abduction and absurdist features of UAP's.

Excellent article. I'd love to read a longer article/book on this approach.

When the topic of the Incommensuarable Problem comes up, people typically argue that any intelligence that could navigate intergalactic space and/or multiple dimensions to "visit" earth _must_ be able to communicate clearly with us humans.

I have argued against that. Just because they have the means to "visit" us, doesn't mean they have the means to communicate with us effectively. I use the example of us and dolphins; we are certainly more technologically advanced then dolphins and have captured and studied them extensively, but we cannot communicate clearly with them.

Another interesting analogue is that when interacting with dolphins and other species, we do use mimicry not just in attempts to communicate with them, but also for their own psychological well-being and to manipulate them. I'm thinking of the absurd panda outfits Japanese zookeepers wear and the Eagle puppets used to feed Eagle chicks.

I'm not suggesting we're in a zoo per se, just thinking out loud.

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Constance]

Excellent article. I'd love to read a longer article/book on this approach..

Yes, it's a brilliant paper and also highly relevant to the 'Consciousness and the Paranormal thread', where I want to link it. We probably will eventually see a book-length development of all the ideas expressed here, and in the meantime we can pursue sources cited by Vallee and Davis. Others here may have read more recent papers and books along the same lines published since 2003. Many thanks to Burnt State for bringing this significant paper to the forum.

 

[SRL+]

It is a truly rare occurrence when either Amie Michel or Carl Jung is mentioned when in discussing aerial anomalies. Jung’s impression of the “UAP” phenomenon is….

“The information at the disposition of the public is so scant that one just does not know enough to decide with certainty about the physical existence of UFOs… As it is questionable in how far UFOs are physical facts, it is indubitable that that they are psychological facts. They have a definite and very meaningful psychology.”

“Jung’s primary concern in Flying Saucers is not with the reality or unreality of UFOs but with their psychic aspect. Rather than speculate about their possible nature and extraterrestrial origin as alleged spacecraft, he asks what it may signify that these phenomena, whether real or imagined, are seen in such numbers just at a time when mankind is menaced as never before in history. The UFOs represent, in Jung’s phrase, “a modern myth.”

Below: Ufology’s Psychosocial Hypothesis

Psychosocial hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Constance]

It is a truly rare occurrence when either Amie Michel or Carl Jung is mentioned when in discussing aerial anomalies. Jung’s impression of the “UAP” phenomenon is….

“The information at the disposition of the public is so scant that one just does not know enough to decide with certainty about the physical existence of UFOs… As it is questionable in how far UFOs are physical facts, it is indubitable that that they are psychological facts. They have a definite and very meaningful psychology.”

“Jung’s primary concern in Flying Saucers is not with the reality or unreality of UFOs but with their psychic aspect. Rather than speculate about their possible nature and extraterrestrial origin as alleged spacecraft, he asks what it may signify that these phenomena, whether real or imagined, are seen in such numbers just at a time when mankind is menaced as never before in history. The UFOs represent, in Jung’s phrase, “a modern myth.”

Below: Ufology’s Psychosocial Hypothesis

Psychosocial hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting post. I do think we are past the point now where we can accept the term 'myth' to cover ufo/uav/uap phenomena. We do have reason to think that there are both physical and 'psychological' {I would prefer the term 'mental} elements involved or expressed in these phenomena, and the Vallee-Davis paper indicates the development of scientific thinking in our time beyond physicalism, toward the investigation of phenomena that we cannot think as simply, or singly, physical. The reason why Jung's use of the word 'myth' above is unacceptable is that it suggests to too many people something 'imagined', or 'literary', not something 'real', and we're moving now into a region of thought and science in which the entire conception of the nature of reality is under revision. Myth can provide insights into how human minds work, but more relevant for future scientific theory, imo, are paranormal studies. Science will eventually have to consider the paranormal in expanding its description of the universe or multiverse or interverse we live in. Can't come too soon for me.

 

[boomerang]

This is an excellent 2003 article: Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena
by Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Abstract: The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors. Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations, (2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability problem.

Not only does he tackle this six angled phenomena but he explores some of the anthropocentric, abduction and absurdist features of UAP's.

The article is a prime example of Vallee as one of a small handful of intellectual and critical thinkers attempting to analyze this phenomenon with thought experiments asking the kind of questions that may yield something we can say with some degree of confidence. Vallee presides over a not-so invisible college of students who are mostly modest and few in number.

 

[SRL+]

Interesting post. I do think we are past the point now where we can accept the term 'myth' to cover ufo/uav/uap phenomena. We do have reason to think that there are both physical and 'psychological' {I would prefer the term 'mental} elements involved or expressed in these phenomena, and the Vallee-Davis paper indicates the development of scientific thinking in our time beyond physicalism, toward the investigation of phenomena that we cannot think as simply, or singly, physical. The reason why Jung's use of the word 'myth' above is unacceptable is that it suggests to too many people something 'imagined', or 'literary', not something 'real', and we're moving now into a region of thought and science in which the entire conception of the nature of reality is under revision. Myth can provide insights into how human minds work, but more relevant for future scientific theory, imo, are paranormal studies. Science will eventually have to consider the paranormal in expanding its description of the universe or multiverse or interverse we live in. Can't come too soon for me.

When looking closely at these “things”, they seem to unerringly put on a display or performance for the experiencer. There can be multiple experiencers who all recount contradicting aspects to the same experience, as their consciousness is immersed in some type of field. Also, there is not one shred of physical evidence which is that of a manufactured craft to date, as these “things” have been considered as physical, and non-physical, as in dematerializing.

The Modern Myth of Jung via Wikipedia:

"With his essay Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies (1958), Carl Gustav Jung can be seen as one of the founding fathers of the PSH. Some also say that because of his use of the concept of synchronicity in this book,[86] he is also one of the founding fathers of paranormal explanations of the UFO phenomena. ETH advocates sometimes say that while Jung approached ufos psychologically because he was a psychologist, he was also on record as stating that some might be true physical objects under intelligent control, citing in particular radar corroboration. They say Jung truly seriously considered the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. The Associated Press quoted him in 1958 saying, "a purely psychological explanation is ruled out." The flying saucers were real and "show signs of intelligent guidance and quasi-human pilots. I can only say for certain that these things are not a mere rumor, something has been seen. ...If the extraterrestrial origin of these phenomena should be confirmed, this would prove the existence of an intelligent interplanetary relationship. ...That the construction of these machines proves a scientific technique immensely superior to ours cannot be disputed." [87] Disciples of Jung have offered thoughtful rebuttals.[88]

Jung risibly complained about that 1958 newspaper piece for making him look like someone who believed ufos were physically real. “This report is altogether false.” Jung was completely uncommitted on the issue of whether they were real or unreal.[89] He tried to set the record straight. “I was quoted as a saucer believer. I issued a statement to the United Press and gave a true version of my opinion, but this time the wire went dead: nobody, so far as I know, took any notice of it, except one German newspaper… one must draw the conclusion that news affirming the existence of Ufos is welcome, but that skepticism seems to be undesirable. To believe that Ufos are real suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged… This remarkable fact in itself surely merits the psychologist’s interest. "

 

[boomerang]

The authors begin their dissertation with a frank admission that that our physics may currently fall short of the task at hand:

"This situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical reality as it does with the complexity of the data."

They also seemingly strive for a theory that resolves traditional shortcomings in UAP research by exploring the interface between consciousness and the physical universe. Vallee always takes great care in stating only what we can legitimately say based on current knowledge, and no more. My take on his paper is essentially found in his writings: Traditional methods of subject-object analysis may be inherently incapable of yielding solutions to the UAP mystery.

 

[SRL+]

Even though the ETH on its face sounds most logical, it doesn’t take into consideration that:

A space faring civilization has the need to revisit earth countless times in abducting humans, in the taking of tissue samples when they could easily land atop the Mayo Clinic and collect all the fetuses they could possibly need.

There are satellites equipped with sensors and optical instruments that have the capability to peer into the vastness of space. They relay information about the cosmos, including planets in which are countless light years away. The Mars Rover, relatively small and compact, is capable of sending vast amounts of data about Mars to us. So, why the need for spaceships, especially if there were to be highly advanced civilizations floating about out there?

These are but a few examples of Vallee type logic that at present, I can agree with.

 

[Soupie]

Even though the ETH on its face sounds most logical, it doesn’t take into consideration that:

A space faring civilization has the need to revisit earth countless times in abducting humans, in the taking of tissue samples when they could easily land atop the Mayo Clinic and collect all the fetuses they could possibly need.

There are satellites equipped with sensors and optical instruments that have the capability to peer into the vastness of space. They relay information about the cosmos, including planets in which are countless light years away. The Mars Rover, relatively small and compact, is capable of sending vast amounts of data about Mars to us. So, why the need for spaceships, especially if there were to be highly advanced civilizations floating about out there?

These are but a few examples of Vallee type logic that at present, I can agree with.

That's a strawman. The argument rules out the ETH based on an assumed motive. We don't know the motive(s) of UAP; we don't know that there even is a motive. Thus we certainly can't rule out the ETH based on an assumed motive. Well need facts/evidence to do that.

Furthermore, nothing in Vallee's paper rules out the ETH.

May the ETH be false? Sure.

 

[SRL+]

That's a strawman. The argument rules out the ETH based on an assumed motive. We don't know the motive(s) of UAP; we don't know that there even is a motive. Thus we certainly can't rule out the ETH based on an assumed motive. Well need facts/evidence to do that.

Furthermore, nothing in Vallee's paper rules out the ETH.

May the ETH be false? Sure.

Is this really to be considered as a strawman argument? A theory yes, a strawman argument, not so sure.

Five Arguments Against The Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying
Objects

 

[Soupie]

Is this really to be considered as a strawman argument? A theory yes, a strawman argument, not so sure.

Five Arguments Against The Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying
Objects

Again, the assumption presented is that the ETH = ET have visited the earth and abducted people to experiment on them. That assumption/hypothesis may be false i.e. ET may not be visiting the Earth to experiment on humans. However, this does not mean UFOs/UAP are not of ET origin.

Again, the idea that humanoid aliens have been visiting the earth to abduct and experiment on humans may be false. However, this does not mean the ETH is false.

As I understand it, the ETH is simply that UAP are ET in origin.

 

[SRL+]

I found this in which some may find useful. If not mistaken forum member Pcarr shares some thoughts in the comment section.

Dream of the Open Channel: What's not wrong with the ETH

 

[Ufocurious]

ETH is as valid as any other hypothesis. Jacques Vallee, IMHO, is keeping away some of his knowledge because it is too weird. And I don't think he discards ETH anyway. The fact that he comes to Brazil and do not talk about General Uchoa, our best ufologist ever, and that he calls Niteroi, the former capital of the state of Rio de Janeiro a suburb from Rio in his book, makes me suspicious of hard editing on his part. He is an academic, cannot show to peers stuff himself cannot theorise around. Plus, after all these year of investigation he has seen how negative the outcome of the ETH hypothesis can be: cults, mass suicides, and so on. IMHO opinion he is not only a very intelligent person, but also a good person that knows his opinions have followers, and he is VERY careful. And I think he is right in doing so.


Back in the early 90s I lived in Montreal and a friend of mine was dating a Rael's follower. Oh boy, the girl was a mess. And the only reason he was dating her, it is because they don't date, they have open sex, or something like that. I only remember a little, because even if she wanted to tell us how wonderful their living philosophy was, she was too messed up to even explain it in away we would bother to pay attention. Maybe she was not an example of how Raellians are, but if someone becomes like that because of ETs teachings I get Vallee's extreme care.