A RESPONSE TO JACQUES VALLÉE’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS

by Spartacus01

NOTE: If you compare the statements I have made in this essay with the statements I have previously made in this thread, you will notice a significant shift in my perspective regarding pre-1947 UFO sightings. Until last year, I took reports of UFO sightings that are said to have happened before 1947 much more seriously. However, for reasons that will be explained in the essay itself, I have become significantly more skeptical of those accounts. As a result, I have come to seriously believe that extraterrestrials arrived on Earth precisely in 1947 and that before that year, no alien spacecraft were present in Earth’s skies.

For those who might not know who Jacques Vallée is, he can be described as follows: a French-American scientist and a UFO researcher. With a background in astrophysics and artificial intelligence, Vallée was initially supportive of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, which suggests that UFOs are physical spacecraft piloted by beings from other planets. However, over time, he developed a more complex and unconventional interpretation of the phenomenon. He argues that UFOs are a paraphysical phenomenon originating from another dimension. According to Vallée, the so-called “aliens” that people encounter are actually interdimensional entities. These beings, he suggests, do not come from distant star systems, but instead exist parallel to our reality. He theorizes that these entities deliberately adopt the appearance of extraterrestrial visitors as part of a long-term effort to manipulate human perception, culture, and even evolution. Vallée worked closely with J. Allen Hynek and, over time, managed to convince him of the validity of his hypothesis, leading Hynek to reconsider the extraterrestrial explanation in the later years of his life.

In 1990, Vallée published a paper called Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects, in which he raised several objections to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Since I am a supporter of the extraterrestrial hypothesis and do not share Vallée’s theories, I have formulated responses to the objections he raised in his paper. So, without further delay, here are Vallée’s objections and my responses to them.

1. The sheer number of reported close encounters with UFOs far exceeds what would be necessary for any systematic physical survey of Earth by extraterrestrial visitors.

The vast majority of sightings can be explained as misidentifications, hoaxes, or natural phenomena, and this is something that every UFO researcher, regardless of their preferred hypothesis, acknowledges. The actual percentage of UFO reports that remain genuinely unexplained is much smaller, and if we focus only on those, the argument that there are “too many” to be extraterrestrial does not hold up. Vallée should not focus on the total number of sightings per year; he should focus on the percentage of sightings that cannot be explained through conventional means. But even if we were to set those numbers aside, there is no contradiction in the idea that an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might visit Earth repeatedly over time. Consider a scientist studying an anthill. Would he observe it only once or twice and then move on? Of course not. He would return frequently, examining the colony’s behavior over an extended period. The same principle could apply to extraterrestrials observing humanity. If they are interested in our development — whether biological, cultural, or technological — it would make sense for them to conduct a great number of observations rather than limit themselves to a handful of visits.

Finally, it is worth noting that, although credible UFO sightings and close encounters involving humanoid beings were frequent between 1947 and 1997, such events have since become sporadic — at least in terms of convincing, genuinely unexplainable cases. Today, for example, we no longer witness the mass UFO sightings that were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Taking this into account, it would be entirely reasonable to hypothesize that extraterrestrials arrived on Earth in 1947, studied humanity for a few decades, and then sent a large portion of their fleet back home around 1997. If this hypothesis were correct, then Vallée’s objection would be even weaker, as it would suggest that the peak of UFO activity was confined to a specific historical window rather than representing a continuous phenomenon. In other words, the idea that “too many” encounters occur each year would no longer be a valid argument against the extraterrestrial hypothesis, as it would not reflect an ongoing presence but rather a concentrated period of study and observation. If, between 1947 and 1997, genuinely unexplained UFO sightings and credible close encounters made up 10% of all reported cases each year, then after the Phoenix Lights, that number may have dwindled to only a tenth of what it once was.

2. The beings associated with UFO sightings are often described as humanoid. It is improbable for intelligent life forms from distant planets to independently evolve such a similar physical form.

We lack the ability to explore alien ecosystems and to observe what forms complex life might take. Therefore, any assumption regarding the appearance of extraterrestrial beings is inherently unfounded. Vallée’s objection would hold more weight if we had sufficient data about the environments of alien worlds, and if we could use that data to make extrapolations about which forms of life are more likely to evolve on other planets. But since such data is currently beyond our reach, it is unreasonable to claim that the humanoid form is either more or less probable than any other. Without a comprehensive understanding of extraterrestrial ecosystems, any assumptions regarding the likelihood of specific biological designs remain purely speculative and lack a solid foundation. Thus, dismissing humanoid-looking aliens as improbable is illogical.

If you wanted to determine which ingredients were used to prepare a traditional Indian dish, you would need to observe the dish up close and actually taste it. If, on the other hand, you could only see it from a great distance through binoculars and had no way of examining it closely or tasting it, identifying its ingredients would be nearly impossible. This is because making solid extrapolations about the ingredients used in a dish requires direct observation and firsthand experience. The same principle applies to habitable exoplanets. In order to make reliable extrapolations about which forms of life are more or less likely to evolve on those planets, we would need to observe them from close range and study their ecosystems in detail.

3. Many abduction reports detail behaviors by these entities that are illogical or contradictory if their intent were scientific study or genetic experimentation. For instance, repetitive and invasive procedures lack the methodological consistency one would expect from an advanced civilization conducting research.

This argument is valid, and I fully acknowledge its relevance. However, it does not necessarily disprove the notion that some UFOs might be extraterrestrial spacecraft. Rather, it challenges the idea that alien abductions are genuine extraterrestrial events.

It is entirely possible to argue that some UFOs are alien spacecraft without subscribing to the idea that aliens are abducting humans for experimentation. In fact, most alien abduction stories can be explained without needing to invoke any external intervention. Even pro-abductionist UFO researchers acknowledge that the majority of these accounts are the result of psychological conditions, such as hallucinations, vivid dreams, or sleep paralysis. These explanations are sufficient for most cases, and for those that do present enough evidence to suggest an external influence, there is still no necessity to assume the involvement of extraterrestrial beings. For instance, Martin Cannon suggests that certain abduction experiences could be the result of covert human experimentation, particularly involving mind control technologies developed by intelligence agencies. According to his research, agencies such as the CIA, through projects like MK-Ultra, conducted extensive studies into manipulating human behavior, exploring methods like hypnosis, brain implants, and remote manipulation via electromagnetic frequencies. Cannon proposes that this mind-control experimentation may lie behind certain abduction cases, where victims recount unusual sensations or memory gaps.

Thus, it is not necessary to invoke extraterrestrial intervention to explain the abduction phenomenon, and Vallée’s argument does not disprove the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

4. UFO-like occurrences have been documented throughout human history, long before the modern era of space exploration. This historical continuity implies that the phenomenon is not a recent development and may not be linked to extraterrestrial visitors.

One significant issue with using pre-1947 sightings as evidence against the extraterrestrial hypothesis is that, before the emergence of Ufology, there was no reliable method for fact-checking such reports. At the time, accounts of unusual aerial phenomena were published in newspapers or circulated in books, but there was no systematic investigation. There were no cross-examinations of witnesses, no radar detections, no physical trace studies — none of the things that modern ufologists use to separate solid cases from hearsay. It was only after 1947, when governments and researchers started actively studying the UFO phenomenon, that people began verifying and analyzing these sightings with real investigative methods.

Because of this, we have no means of determining whether many of the older reports were genuine occurrences, misinterpretations, or deliberate fabrications. Take, for example, the airship stories of the 19th century. Given the sensationalist nature of newspapers at the time, it is entirely possible — if not likely — that a significant number of these accounts were either hoaxes or exaggerated for journalistic effect. Likewise, when ancient Roman writers described “flaming shields in the sky,” we cannot assert with certainty what they actually witnessed. Many of these reports may have simply been the product of optical illusions, such as sundogs, temperature inversions, atmospheric refractions, or other visual phenomena unfamiliar to those who observed them, while others may have been embellishments inserted by the authors of those texts to add a sense of grandeur and drama to historical narratives.

It is also possible to hypothesize that some of the luminous phenomena observed by the Greeks and Romans were natural events whose nature remains unknown even today. In fact, many UFO researchers have proposed that numerous UFOs appearing as glowing spheres, reported both in ancient times and in the present, could be atmospheric phenomena that, while still unexplained, are entirely natural. For instance, Paul Devereux has suggested that certain locations — particularly those situated near fault lines or areas rich in minerals — may generate electromagnetic fields capable of ionizing the air, resulting in luminous, plasma-like formations. This hypothesis is supported by research indicating that quartz-bearing rocks, when subjected to significant pressure, can emit light. It is therefore possible that some of the unusual luminous phenomena recorded in antiquity, as well as some of the UFO sightings that occurred in 1945 and 1946 — such as the Foo Fighters that were sighted by many World War II pilots over Germany and Japan — may be attributed to this mechanism.

Therefore, Vallée’s argument does not hold up under scrutiny. The fact that people reported strange aerial phenomena before 1947 does not disprove the extraterrestrial hypothesis, because we have no way of determining whether those early sightings were real and truly anomalous in the first place. If anything, they are irrelevant to the discussion, since they cannot be properly analyzed or verified. Serious UFO research should focus on well-documented cases that have been investigated with modern methods, not on vague historical accounts that could mean anything or nothing at all.

5. Reports often include descriptions of UFOs exhibiting behaviors that defy our current understanding of physics, such as sudden appearances and disappearances, shape-shifting, or instantaneous movements. These capabilities suggest that the phenomenon might involve dimensions or realities beyond the conventional space-time framework.

The fact that UFOs can seemingly manipulate space and time does not necessarily prove that they originate from outside our physical reality. Rather, it simply indicates that they are equipped with extremely advanced technology.

For instance, the instantaneous appearances and disappearances of these objects do not necessarily imply that they are materializing or dematerializing in the literal sense. They could very well be moving at extreme velocities that exceed the limits of human perception. Given that the human eye requires approximately 13 milliseconds to register an image, an object accelerating to speeds of 50,000 to 100,000 km/h within that brief time frame would appear to vanish instantaneously. Conversely, an object decelerating from such speeds to a complete stop within the same timeframe would create the illusion of a sudden appearance. Therefore, the impression that UFOs materialize or vanish could be attributed to their extraordinary acceleration and deceleration capabilities, rather than to any form of interdimensional travel. Similarly, reports describing altered perception of time during UFO sightings — such as cases in which witnesses experience significant temporal discrepancies, perceiving hours passing when only minutes have elapsed — can be explained by assuming that alien technology has the capability, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to influence our perceptions, causing us to lose track of time.

Thus, the idea that UFOs operate outside the boundaries of conventional space-time overlooks more reasonable possibilities, and is based on flawed logic. The way something appears to us does not necessarily reflect its true nature, and the fact that UFOs seem to appear and disappear does not mean they are traveling to, or originating from, another dimension. It is necessary to consider more down-to-earth possibilities before jumping to conclusions.