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

by Spartacus01

NOTE: If you compare what I say in this essay with what I wrote earlier in this thread, you’ll notice a clear shift in how I view pre-1947 UFO sightings. Up until last year, I used to take those early reports much more seriously. But, as I’ll explain in this essay, my perspective has changed quite a bit. I’ve grown increasingly skeptical of those accounts, and I now strongly believe that extraterrestrials first arrived on Earth in 1947. Before that year, I do not think alien spacecraft were present in Earth’s skies.

For those unfamiliar with Jacques Vallée, he’s a French-American scientist and UFO researcher with a background in astrophysics and artificial intelligence. In his early work, Vallée supported the extraterrestrial hypothesis. However, over time, he developed a much more complex and unconventional interpretation of the phenomenon. According to Vallée, UFOs are not physical craft from other worlds, but rather manifestations of a paraphysical phenomenon originating from another dimension. In his view, the so-called “aliens” people encounter are actually interdimensional entities that coexist alongside our reality. These beings, he argues, deliberately take on the appearance of extraterrestrial visitors as part of a long-term effort to influence human perception, culture, and even our evolution. Vallée worked closely with J. Allen Hynek, and eventually convinced him to reconsider the extraterrestrial hypothesis later in his life.

In 1990, Vallée published a paper titled Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects, where he presented several objections to the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft. Since I support the extraterrestrial hypothesis and do not share Vallée’s conclusions, I’ve decided to offer responses to each of his arguments. So, let’s go through them one by one.

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 UFO sightings can be explained as misidentifications of man-made vehicles, hoaxes, or natural phenomena, and this is something just about every serious UFO researcher agrees on, regardless of what hypothesis they favor. The number of cases that remain genuinely unexplained is much smaller. If we focus only on those, Vallée’s argument that “there are too many sightings to be extraterrestrial” starts to fall apart. Instead of looking at the total number of reports per year, he should be looking at the small percentage that cannot be explained using conventional means.

But even if we were to ignore the numbers entirely, there’s still no contradiction in the idea that an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might carry out repeated visits to Earth over time. Think of a scientist observing an anthill: would he glance at it once or twice and then move on forever? Of course not. He would return regularly, studying the colony’s behavior over an extended period. The same logic could apply to extraterrestrials observing us. If they’re interested in our biological, cultural, or technological development, it would make perfect sense for them to conduct frequent observations rather than limit themselves to a few flybys.

It’s also worth pointing out that, while credible UFO sightings and close encounters involving humanoid beings were relatively common between 1947 and 1997, reports of that nature have become much more sporadic in recent decades, at least when we’re talking about truly convincing, unexplained cases. For example, we no longer see the kind of mass UFO sightings that were frequently reported in the 1960s and 1970s. Given this trend, it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that extraterrestrials arrived on Earth in 1947, conducted an intensive study of humanity over the course of several decades, and then sent most of their fleet back home around 1997.

If that hypothesis is correct, then Vallée’s argument loses even more ground. It would mean that the majority of UFO activity was concentrated within a specific historical window, rather than spread out evenly over time. In that case, the idea that “there are too many encounters per year for them to be alien” would not really apply, since the phenomenon would not be ongoing, but rather tied to a particular period of observation.

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 currently have no direct access to alien ecosystems and no way to observe what forms complex life might actually take elsewhere in the universe. Because of this, any claim about what extraterrestrial beings should or should not look like is entirely speculative. Vallée’s objection would carry more weight if we had concrete data about the environments of other planets, which could help us make informed guesses about which types of biological forms are likely to evolve under different conditions. But since that kind of information is far beyond our current reach, it is unreasonable to say that the humanoid form is any more or less likely than any other.

In the absence of actual knowledge about alien biology, dismissing the idea of humanoid-looking extraterrestrials as improbable has no solid foundation. It is pure speculation and lacks the data needed to back it up. Until we can study alien ecosystems up close, we cannot say what is or is not likely to evolve out there.

Imagine trying to figure out the ingredients of a traditional Indian dish by looking at it from far away through a pair of binoculars. You would not be able to smell it, taste it, or examine it closely. Under those conditions, accurately identifying the ingredients would be nearly impossible. Why? Because understanding something as complex as a recipe requires direct interaction and close observation. The same idea applies to life on other planets. To make solid predictions about what kinds of life might evolve elsewhere, we would need to observe those planets up close and study their environments in detail, which is something we are currently unable to do.

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 is a fair point, and I fully acknowledge its importance. However, it does not automatically rule out the possibility that some UFOs could be extraterrestrial craft. What it does challenge more directly is the notion that alien abductions are truly 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 reports can be explained without invoking extraterrestrials at all. Even researchers who take the phenomenon seriously agree that many abduction experiences are better understood through psychology: hallucinations, sleep paralysis, vivid dreams, and other mental states are often enough to explain what people report.

For the relatively small number of cases that do seem to suggest some kind of external influence, there is still no need to immediately jump to the conclusion that aliens are involved. For example, researcher Martin Cannon has suggested that some abduction experiences might actually be the result of covert human experimentation. According to him, intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, have explored advanced mind control techniques, including hypnosis, brain implants, and remote manipulation using electromagnetic frequencies. These experiments, documented in projects like MK-Ultra, could explain many of the strange sensations, memory lapses, and other elements often reported by alleged abductees.

In short, there are multiple ways to account for the abduction phenomenon that do not require extraterrestrial involvement. Vallée’s argument, while valid in critiquing the logic of abduction narratives, does not disprove the broader idea that some UFOs might be alien spacecraft.

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 major problem with using pre-1947 sightings as evidence against the extraterrestrial hypothesis is that, before the rise of UFOlogy, there was no reliable way to verify such accounts. Back then, stories of strange aerial phenomena were published in newspapers or passed around in books, but they were never investigated with any real rigor. There were no witness cross-examinations, no radar confirmations, no physical trace analysis, none of the tools that modern UFOlogists use to separate credible reports from rumors or misinterpretations. It was only after 1947, when both governments and private researchers began taking the UFO phenomenon seriously, that real investigative standards were applied to sightings.

Because of this, we have no reliable way of knowing whether most early reports were genuine, misunderstood natural events, or outright fabrications. Take, for example, the airship sightings of the end of the 19th century. Considering the sensationalist tendencies of newspapers at the time, it is quite plausible — and perhaps even likely — that many of these stories were either hoaxes or heavily embellished for dramatic effect. Similarly, when ancient Roman writers described “flaming shields in the sky,” we cannot say with confidence what they actually saw. Some of these accounts could easily have been caused by natural optical effects, such as sundogs, atmospheric refraction, or other unfamiliar phenomena. Others might have simply been narrative flourishes added by the authors to enhance their historical accounts.

It is also possible that some of the glowing aerial phenomena observed by ancient Greeks and Romans were natural events that remain unexplained even today. In fact, several UFO researchers have proposed that many glowing spheres reported in both ancient and modern times may be natural atmospheric phenomena. For instance, Paul Devereux has argued that areas near fault lines or rich in certain minerals might generate electromagnetic fields capable of ionizing the surrounding air, creating plasma-like luminous objects. This idea is backed by research showing that quartz-bearing rocks, when subjected to intense pressure, can emit light. Based on that, it is plausible that some of the strange lights reported in antiquity — as well the Foo Fighters observed over Germany and Japan during World War II — could be explained by this mechanism.

In light of all this, Vallée’s argument does not hold up to scrutiny. The fact that people described strange things in the sky before 1947 does not disprove the extraterrestrial hypothesis, because we have no way of confirming whether those early sightings were real or even anomalous. If anything, they are largely irrelevant to the discussion, since they cannot be reliably investigated or verified. Serious UFO research should focus on well-documented cases that have been examined with modern investigative tools rather than vague, ambiguous reports from ancient or pre-modern sources.

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 appear to manipulate space and time does not necessarily mean they originate from outside our physical universe. More likely, it indicates that they are equipped with technology far beyond anything we currently understand.

For example, the seemingly instantaneous appearance and disappearance of these objects does not have to mean they are literally materializing or vanishing. It is entirely plausible that they are moving at such extreme speeds that they become imperceptible to the human eye. Since it takes about 13 milliseconds for our eyes to register a visual image, an object accelerating to speeds of 50,000 or 100,000 km/h within that tiny window could easily seem to vanish instantly. Similarly, an object decelerating from that speed to a complete stop could appear to suddenly materialize. In other words, what we perceive as a sudden disappearance or appearance might just be a result of acceleration and deceleration that exceeds our perceptual limits, not some interdimensional event.

In the same way, reports involving time distortion — like witnesses experiencing hours passing when only minutes have gone by — could be the result of advanced technology interfering with human perception. Whether intentional or not, this interference might cause people to lose track of time or experience it differently.

So, suggesting that UFOs operate outside the framework of conventional space-time is premature. It ignores simpler, more grounded explanations. The way something appears to human observers does not always reflect its true nature. Just because these objects seem to defy the laws of physics does not mean they actually do, and certainly does not mean they are coming from another dimension. Before turning to exotic theories, we should first consider the possibility that we are simply witnessing technology that is far more advanced than our own.