Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of UFOs

[Laird]

Done.

I just reread Vallee's paper more thoroughly and came up with what I think is a deeper and more complete reassessment.  

Abstract of Vallee's paper:

"Scientific opinion has generally followed public opinion in the belief that unidentified flying objects either do not exist (the "natural phenomena hypothesis") or, if they do, must represent evidence of a visitation by some advanced race of space travellers (the extraterrestrial hypothesis or "ETH"). It is the view of the author that research on UFOs need not be restricted to these two alternatives. On the contrary, the accumulated data base exhibits several patterns tending to indicate that UFOs are real, repre-
sent a previously unrecognized phenomenon, and that the facts do not support the common concept of "space visitors." Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH: (1) unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth; (2) the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have
originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel; (3) the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race; (4) the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and (5) the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives, three of which are proposed in outline form as a conclusion to this paper."

Comment: Point (1) that unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth can be easily explained if the beings are deliberately interacting with humans in order to study us and/or to change us in some sort of control scheme. Point (2) that a humanoid body plan is not likely to have evolved on another planet, is questionable since there have been several studies that concluded that the humanoid body form is the most efficient body plan for sensory and brain placement, tool use and locomotion of an intelligent being on an Earth-like planet, and cosmological fine-tuning seems very much to have designated Earth-like planets as the very most likely abode of the origination and evolution of life in the Universe. The sub-point that the supposed UFOnauts aren't biologically adapted to space travel ignores the high possibility that genetic alterations could have achieved tolerance of zero gravity conditions and high radiation environments. Point (3) about abduction reports not fitting the Earth model of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race ignores the possibility brought up later here that UFO encounters with interaction may be designed more for the purpose of behavioral/psychosocial and control purposes. Point (4) that UFO encounters are not just a contemporary phenomenon fits with the hypothesis that the phenomenon may be essentially a long-term investigation into psychosocial and technological development with possible long-term control purposes. I agree with point (5), that radically different and richer alternatives need to be explored as to the nature of the being themselves and their apparent vehicles, which may in reality be some sort of "ultranatural" beings from other continua, dimensions or times. Such a possibility doesn't prohibit the previous hypotheses regarding their possible motivations and plans.

Some key excerpts from the body of the study, with more comments:

"If it can be established that the phenomenon has indeed existed throughout history, adapting only its superficial shape but not its underlying structure to the expectations of the host culture, then we are unlikely to be dealing with extraterrestrials doing a survey of the earth. Nor are we dealing with advanced prototypes. Again, a more sophisticated class of explanations than both the ETH and the advanced technology hypothesis must be sought.
......................................................
Physical Considerations
As witnesses become less reluctant in the reporting of their experiences, the notion that UFOs are "somebody else's spacecraft" (in the words of Friedman) with the implication of a technology powered by advanced propulsion systems becomes less tenable, and possibly less appealing scientifically than other notions. But the alternative explanations, notably the (human) psycho-sociological hypothesis, also find themselves severely challenged."

Comment: I don't know about this. Who are we to question how hyper-advanced extraterrestrials whose technology and science are millions of years ahead of ours (and therefore appearing to us somewhat as "magic") might choose to take the long view of a many-century historical survey of the Earth society and scientific development either as a purely scientific manipulative study where reactions of the relatively primitive beings are elicited by deliberate displays and recorded for analysis. This would begin in ancient historical times as rather infrequent appearances and testing displays. As human science and technology develops in the twentieth century the UFO beings might get increasingly interested until with the advent of nuclear weapons and space travel they might decide to make much more active and thorough surveys and interactive manipulative psychosocial evaluations of human society. Hence the vast increase of the visitation phenomenon since WWII.

I agree with the remark that the human psycho-sociological artifact hypothesis (such as manifestations of the collective unconscious), are "severely challenged".

"The phenomena to be explained include not only strange flying devices that are described as physical craft by the witnesses but also objects and beings that exhibit the ability to appear and disappear very suddenly, to change their apparent shapes in continuous fashion and to merge with other physical objects. Such reports seem absurd in terms of ordinary physics because they suggest a mastery of time and space that our own physical research cannot duplicate today. However, if these sightings can be confirmed either by direct observation, by photographic evidence or by the weight of statistics they may represent an opportunity to test new concepts of physical reality at a time when many theoreticians are grappling with the possible existence of N-dimensional universes, with N greater than 4.
........................................
In the mid-70's I proposed to approach the UFO phenomenon as a control system, reserving judgment as to whether the control would turn out to be human, alien or simply natural. Such control systems, governing physical or social events, are all around us. They can be found in the terrestrial, ecological and economic balancing mechanisms that rule nature, some of
which are well understood by science. This theory admits two interesting variants: ( 1) An Alien intelligence, possibly earth-based, could be training us 1 towards a new type of' behavior. It could represent the "Visitor Phenomenon" of Strieber (1987) or some form of "super-nature," possibly along the lines of a "Gaia" hypothesis. (2) Alternately, in a Jungian interpretation of the same theme, the human collective unconscious could be projecting the phenomenon psychically."

Comment:  Explanation (2) involving the collective unconscious I think is dead in the water primarily because no such incredibly powerful psychokinetic powers have never ever been observed and studied in the field of parapsychology. In line with my previous comment above, I think Vallee's suggestion of "training" or  "control" might just be one of the ultimate purposes of this phenomenon where it is of alien beings overflying and deliberately interacting and displaying themselves, studying Earth humans over a long period of many generations. I alluded to this possibility for the extraordinary mass UFO interactive encounter in 1977 in Colomares Brazil, in the thread at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-m...razil-1977 .

"Conclusion
Exciting as an extraterrestrial visitation to earth would be, this paper has pointed out that in the current state of our knowledge UFO phenomena are not consistent with the common interpretation of this hypothesis. Neither do the observed patterns support the theory that all UFOs can be explained as combinations of natural effects, or as psycho-sociological processes. Therefore it is proposed that future research in this field could fruitfully explore alternative hypotheses, such as those involving either natural or
artificial control systems, earth lights or wormhole travel. The arguments raised here are not intended as a complete refutation of the ETH or the natural phenomena hypothesis. Until the nature and origin of UFO phenomena can be firmly established it will naturally be possible to hypothesize that extraterrestrial factors, including undiscovered forms of
consciousness, are playing a role in its manifestations. But any future theory should constructively address the facts we have reviewed. At a minimum, the idea of extraterrestrial intervention should be updated to include current theoretical speculation about other models of the physical universe."

Comment: I think this is a reasonable assessment of the situation; the ETH cannot be conclusively refuted - it may be part of the truth - but if it is somehow the truth it is probably much stranger than we may be able to understand at our level of development.

[Laird]

@nbtruthman, that was a valiant attempt at defending the ETH, but some of your attempted rebuttals of the numbered arguments rang a bit hollow to me, in particular, numbers one, three, and four (your rebuttal of two, on the other hand, seems sound, and could even be buttressed by your endorsement of intelligent design: if the designers found the humanoid design to work effectively on one planet, then it's perfectly plausible that they'd reuse it on others; five you did not even attempt to refute but rather endorsed, as I think is sensible).

I do agree with you though that despite Vallee's arguments, ETH remains defensible, although I approach that defence slightly differently: in brief, that the behaviour of these beings, especially as enumerated by Vallee in one and three, seems to make no sense whatever the proposed explanation, so the ETH is after all at no relative disadvantage, and it has, as you point out, significant relative advantages.

I agree with you that Vallee is right to assess as "severely challenged" the "(human) psycho-sociological hypothesis", and I also agree with your rejection of explanations "involving the collective unconscious".

However, I disagree with your entertaining of the "training" or "control" hypotheses, for reasons laid out by Sci in this earlier post: in brief, if they are "training" or "controlling" us, they seem to have had little effect despite apparently having the means to be effective.

This in part is why some of your enumerated defences, which rely on entertaining these hypotheses, rang a little hollow to me.

One might suggest that the sort of "deep weird" hypothesis proposed by Sci, or the djinn hypothesis proposed by Charles Upton, make (better) sense of the behaviour Vallee enumerates in one and three, but I'm skeptical of that:

If, for example, these entities are not really on a scientific mission to, say, collect reproductive material, or to study the biology of humans, then why put on a great facade as though they were? Too, the idea that they are a singular phenomenon manifesting according to the expectations of the time doesn't seem to me to hold water either, because - and correct me if I'm wrong - the "flying saucer" meme did not exist until the putatively singular phenomenon manifested in that way.

If the claim is that they're by definition "weird" or "deceptive", and thus that no explanation of their (bizarre) behaviour is required (beyond that), then why couldn't this claim also be applied to extraterrestrials visiting from another planet? Granted, it makes them more unusual than a straightforward understanding of the ETH would have them, but it doesn't seem obviously unsound, and, again, as you (@nbtruthman) point out, there are good reasons to consider at least some of the phenomena to be of a "nuts and bolts" type.

I agree, then, with your conclusion: "ETH cannot be conclusively refuted - it may be part of the truth - but if it is somehow the truth it is probably much stranger than we may be able to understand at our level of development".