Talk:Jacques Vallée

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Needed correction[edit]

This article needs changing to Jacques Vallée, with the accent mark.

Regarding this bit: "As an alternative to the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis, Vallee has suggested other theories, including the interdimensional hypothesis. This hypothesis represents an extension of the ETH where the "Extraterrestrials" could be potentially from anywhere. The entities could be multidimensional beyond space-time, thus could coexist with humans, yet remain undetected." I don't think you can in all fairness attribute this 'Interdimensional Hypothesis' to Jacques Valee because it doesn't say, I don't think, what he has said. I think this term 'Interdimensional Hypothesis' is someone else's viewpoint. This is just a suggestion for semantic's sake :)

The name is routinely listed in English-language articles as Vallee. If the name is changed to Vallée it will have a different code (a % sign followed by a hex number) and almost no one will be able to find it. RickReinckens 05:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed routinely listed as Vallee, by uneducated people. Now in 2016, search engines are quite used to the fact that accents may be omitted by people searching for an accented name and adjust searches taking this into account, so there's no need to omit accents on that account. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur that it's alright what you call him. But you might want to reword the part of the article about the interdimensional hypothesis. I don't think he ever mentions that; he is a very rigorous thinker and is very careful with his theories. I think that the 'interdimensional hypothesis' is more accurately described as an interpretation by other people of his ideas (you might want to fact check and see where the first instance of this being used came from). Good researching m'dear -:)

Vallee's interpretation of the UFO evidence[edit]

I would like to add some comments regarding Vallee's interpretation of the UFO evidence. First of all, a few quotes from Vallee's books will serve to clarify his position on the phenomenon:

"The central question in the analysis of the UFO phenomenom has always been that of the controlling intelligence behind the objects' apparently purposeful behavior. For the time being, let me simply state again that the modern, globel belief in flying saucers and their occupants is identical to an earlier belief in the Good People. The entities described as the pilots of the craft are indistinguishable from the elves, sylphs, and lutins of the Middle Ages." Vallee, J. 1988, Dimensions, pp. 81-82.
"Superficially, the most appealing of the theories proposed is the extraterristrial theory which would regard the UFOs as probes from another planet. Yet it falls short of explaining the phenomenon in their historical development. Present day saucers cannot be evaluated without reference to the 1987 airship or to earlier sighting of similar objects. Then, too, the theory of simple visitation must be compared with the assumption that the visitors know far more physics than we do - so much more, in fact, that an interpretation in terms of physical concepts known to us is bound to end in failure and contradiction. A second major flaw in the theories proposed so far is found in the description of the entities and their behavior. As we will see below, any theory can account for some of the reports, but only at the expense of arbitrary rejection of a much larger group."
"To put it bluntly, the UFO phenomenon does not give evidence of being extraterrestrial at all. Instead it appears to be inter-dimensional and to manipulate physical realities outside of our own space-time continuum." Ibid., p. 136.
"I believe that a UFO is both a physical entity with mass, inertia, volume, and physical parameters that we can measure, and a window into another reality. Ibid., p. 224.
"Instead I believe that the UFO phenomenon represents evidence for other dimensions beyond spacetime; the UFOs may not come from ordinary space, but from a multiverse which is all around us, and of which we have stubbornly refused to consider the disturbing reality in spite of the evidence available to us for centuries. Such a theory is required in order to explain both the modern cases and the chronicles of Magonia - the abductions and the psychic component."
"I believe there is a system that transcends time as it transcends space. Other researchers have reached the same conclusion. Some have come away deeply discouraged by the realization best summed up early in this century by Charles Fort, the author of The Book of the Damned: "We are property" Scholars of this phenomenon, like Father Salvatore Freixedo in Latin America, John Keel in the United States, and Aime Michel in France, feel that we may be powerless before the complex and absurd capabilities of an alien intelligence that can masquerade as a Martian invader, as a primitive god, as the Blessed Virgin, as a fleet of airships. While I acknowledge their observations I remain confident that human knowledge is capable of eventually understanding the larger reality that the phenomenon represents. We should go on studying it - case after bizarre case, pattern after strange pattern." Ibid., p. 284.

Bivariate-correlator 12:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the above reference to "1987 airship," I believe the correct reference is: "The Mystery Airships were a class of unidentified flying objects, the best-known series of which were reported in newspapers in western states of the U.S., starting in 1896 and continuing into 1897." Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

these quotes above are worthy of insertion into the main article valkyree 15:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the remark "these quotes above are worthy of insertion into the main article." They answer some objections about what "what Vallee meant," give clarity and fulfill the request for "additional citations for verification" made at the top of the main page. If I had more knowledge and confidence in editing, I'd do it myself. (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jean 8:44 Disceptive Manipulative Non-Human Conciousness[edit]

Votre père, c'est le diable, et vous voulez vous conformer à ses désirs. Depuis le commencement, c'est un meurtrier: il ne se tient pas dans la vérité, parce qu'il n'y a pas de vérité en lui. Lorsqu'il ment, il parle de son propre fond, puisqu'il est menteur, lui le père du mensonge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this hasn't been done already but I used Google translate to translate the above words from French into English below (It is obviously less than perfect by the "Tion" at the beginning of the last sentence) I want to say this reveals what no one apparently wants to say and that is that Vallée is convinced that all these various phenomenon are demonic. It is the only explanation that fits every aspect of the multifaceted phenomenon:

Your father is the devil, and you want to comply with his wishes. Since the beginning, he is a murderer: he does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Tion when he discusses his own background, being a liar, he the father of lies. (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't reference the French quote, though you clearly suggest that it's from Vallée. If so, please reference its source. It's original source is John 8:44 from the New Testament though I don't know what version. The Phillips and CEV both start with "Your father is the devil," which is rather unique, most saying something like, "You are of your father the devil," but I couldn't match the rest, perhaps because it's source is Google Translate rather than a copyrighted version.
Regarding your point that Vallée thinks UFOs are demonic, it's my understanding that this is true (as was evidenced by the several quotes before yours) and was also true of his mentor and colleague, J. Allen Hynek. It is also my understanding that they reached this conclusion independently.
This gives credence that the Scriptures, which are dishonored by so many in our age, have again shown themselves as reliable and expose the folly of men to disregrard them. (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Appropriate[edit]

The redirect of Fatimah UFO Hypothesis to this page was appropriate. I am restoring it.Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved related text[edit]

I'll get back to this within a day or so for now the following text is from my talk page on this subject:

I have redirect The Fatima UFO Hypothesis again. It's a complete mess of an article. The non-proponent sources make no mention of the UFO theory (the article subject). The proponent sources are all published by Anomalist Books, which is not a reliable publisher. They do not have a reputation for fact-checking and related editorial oversight. Thus, while the article may appear well-sourced, it does not contain even a single citation to an on-topic reliable source. This brings up the related point that the article completely fails our notability requirements, as the topic does not seem to have received substantive coverage in independent reliable sources. I hope this helps better clarify why I have redirected the critically flawed article. Vassyana (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your edit again. If you have objections you should do so in the proper manner. There is a process for articles for deletions and you should know it better than me. This has been up for 4 months without objections to delete or redirect it without at least the usual 7 day discussion period is unreasonable. I may not have time to explain further right now but I will add more later on the talk page for the hypothesis or if there is an AfD request by then I'll add it there. There are plenty of sources cited by the authors of the trilogy plus original versions done by a different publisher and mention in other books as well some of which I can cite and more that I have heard of indirectly. This is notable and although it is considered fringe by many it is backed up by more research than either the skeptics or the religious people have done. Also it isn’t presented as fact it is presented as theory with a request for more research. This is as it should be you don’t figure out what is true by declaring you know it all and trying to stop the argument before anyone can prove you wrong. If either skeptics or believers decide what is or isn’t true without looking at the evidence this is pseudo science. Besides the advocates of this hypothesis don’t all agree on the explanation just that there is a legitimate mystery and it deserves more research. Zacherystaylor Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much info for UFO subjects?[edit]

I understand it's a big thing with Vallée, the UFO thing. He's partially famous because of it. But can we get more information on his other endeavors? It seems a bit lacking. Maybe we can narrow it all down? (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Links under "Research Papers"[edit]

Every one of the links under "Research Papers" is broken. They all result in a 404 File Not Found error. Does someone want to find more current links to these articles or get read of the links so people don't waste their time getting a bunch of errors?


ARDink (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)