Imagine a world in which billions of videos are created every day around the world. Despite known flaws in human perception, despite commonly-understood optical illusions, in this imagined world, there are no videos that seem to show something inexplicable.
Wouldn’t that be remarkable? That might point to some sort of outside interference, some Eldritch force organizing our thoughts and perceptions to soothe us. Something like the Mother in Peter Pan:
It is precisely this sort of strange video–weird, initially confounding–that convinces me there’s no Eldritch force at work. In a random universe, there sure as shit better be some weird stuff that I have trouble understanding.
West notes that these sightings are occuring at the edge of the detection zone; he calls this region the Low Information Zone. I can confidently make a prediction; there will always be UFOs/UAPs in the Low Information zone, moving further and further away as our sensors improve; eventually they will be out past Pluto, and we may as well stop worrying about them now.
They certainly all fall into ‘insufficient data’; the simple reason, that satisfies Occam’s Razor, is that they are all too far away to be resolved with certainty. And that will continue for ever.
“Star Cows”– essentially the space dwelling equivalent of animals– has been suggested tongue only half in cheek as an explanation for the strange behavior of UAPs
If these phenomena are non-sentient flying organisms, as some have suggested, then how do they figure out how to remain in our Low Information Zone? Perhaps our sensors are ‘Star Cow’ repellants; switch on a radar system, an infra-red sensor, or a smartphone and the Star Cows all clear off out of range.
They must have very sensitive hearing to know when a passive sensor like a camera is operating. Or perhaps they do it by sense of smell.
This goes back a few days but is worth a comment. If there was indeed any meaningful pattern to investigate, it would be investigated. Science at its core is driven by curiosity, by the natural human urge for discovery and understanding. The problem here is that there is no pattern. In your OP you mention as allegedly related phenomena “UFO sightings, apparitions and visions, poltergeist phenomena, telepathy and high-strangeness, and patterns in religious or folkloric encounters”. The only commonality here is that all the allegations are nonsense and most of them easily explainable. It shouldn’t be surprising that a few are not, because that’s just the nature of our world. The error is in believing that diverse unexplained incidents have any sort of connection, and that the commonality is a single profound or mystical phenomenon.
Jacques Vallée seems to be working from the same playbook as Erich Von Daniken, the author of the discredited and disreputable Chariots of the Gods? and twice-convicted fraudster. In the book, Von Daniken strings together a mix of fabrications along with actual facts which he distorts and misinterprets and which he alleges “prove” that extraterrestrials visited the earth thousands of years ago. The various facts he cites have no relationship, do not form a “pattern”, and for the most part are readily explainable. IIRC, he even manages to throw in the Roswell incident and the Bermuda triangle for good measure.
What Carl Sagan said about Von Daniken applies equally to Vallée, at least when the latter is engaged in some of his more preposterous flights of fantasy, namely that this sort of pseudoscience “… is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking.”
Ah, like James Bond’s car that became a submarine. I really liked that as a kid.
As I said, people conflate incidents where one had FLIR, one had radar, and one was seen by pilots. Did it happen the way it is presented?
Ah, the great CT dodge. It wants us to see it, but just barely. It wants to communicate with us, but in ways we can’t understand. God works in mysterious ways, it’s not for you to understand, how dare you question his methods. Now go sacrifice Isaac on the altar, don’t worry, God will give you a new son later if you are worthy. (No wait, it was Job that got a replacement family.)
“See, evidence against my conspiracy is actually evidence for my conspiracy.”
Not really, what I have seen of that evidence is what other pointed out better: it is more likely that the sensors detected different items, it remains a fallacious argument.
If someone can explain the core, recurring features not every outlier, but the patterns across credible cases: sensor data, transmedium movement, observed intent, then yeah, I’ll reassess.
But right now, most explanations only handle isolated fragments. They don’t engage the shape of the phenomenon, just its edges.
I’m not asking for perfection, just a model that fits better than the one we’ve got.
Alright, here’s the difference between a fair challenge and a rhetorical trap.
You’re not asking for data. You’re asking for certainty on your terms and anything that doesn’t fit cleanly into that box gets mocked as faith, fantasy, or conspiracy.
The “conflation” argument? That’s fine to raise. But when multiple sensors across multiple events line up radar, FLIR, visual confirmation that’s not people mixing stories. That’s convergence. If you think every instance is stitched together by error and exaggeration, that’s your model to defend.
And no, I’m not saying “it works in mysterious ways.” I’m saying: maybe we’re not the center of the interaction. Maybe the phenomena behave in ways that don’t fit our logic because they weren’t built to. That’s not a dodge. That’s a willingness to sit with complexity instead of forcing it into a punchline.
If you’rer standard is “anything unexplained is automatically unworthy of exploration,” you’re not defending science, you’re defending comfort.
You don’t have to believe in The Phenomenon.
But lets not pretend mocking it is the same thing as explaining it.
They’re not explaining “fragments”, they’re explaining actual incidents, including the one that you put forward as your strongest case. They’re not explaining “patterns” because as I just finished saying upthread, the “pattern” is all in your head.
When there’s nothing to explain, mockery is all that’s left.
What if the “pattern across credible cases” is that people are credible?
The strongest case you gave us is explicable–highly persuasively, in my opinion–as being a couple of heart-shaped lanterns launched from a nearby resort that specializes in wedding ceremonies and that offers lantern-launches as an amenity.
Are you suggesting that there’s a “patternj across credible cases” of UFOs that are actually heart-shaped lantern launches?
Are you suggesting that there’s no such lantern pattern, but that extradimensional aliens or whatever are so likely that in this case they’re a likelier explanation than heart-shaped lantern launches?
Are you suggesting that this–your strongest case–isn’t a part of that pattern at all?
What exactly are you getting at, by offering this case as your best evidence?
I’d like to offer this grid as an example of the phenomenon. Observe the gray squares at the intersections!
It’s true that if you focus on any one intersection, you’ll see that there’s no gray square there. But that’s irrational. We shouldn’t be trying to examine the intersections as isolated fragments. It’s the pattern of gray squares that we should look at. We must engage the shape of the phenomenon.
As others pointed before, it is more likely that we are going into Joseph Cambell territory, as in rather than ‘the tridimensional being did it’, it is our human mind who is doing that, not aliens nor ultra dimentional beings.
“When Campbell explores contemporary examples of living myth as he does in Creative Mythology , the fourth volume of the monumental series the Masks of God , the UFO phenomenon finds no place either. Indeed, in the context of Dante, the Bhagavad-Gita, James Joyce, Immanuel Kant and the like, a discussion of UFOs would be grossly out of place.”
Look, saying “if there was a pattern, science would be all over it” sounds nice, but it’s not how it works. Plenty of real things were ignored or laughed at until it was safe to take them seriously. Science may be driven by curiosity, but institutions aren’t. They’re driven by funding, politics, and not looking ridiculous.
You’re throwing Vallée in with Von Däniken like they’re pulling from the same bag of tricks, but that’s lazy. Vallée isn’t talking about aliens building pyramids. He’s saying: hey, weird stuff keeps happening, and maybe it’s not all unrelated. Maybe our categories, UFOs, folklore, visions, whatever, aren’t as separate as we think.
And yeah, some of it is nonsense. Absolutely. But brushing it all off because it doesn’t fit a clean box? That’s not rationalism, its just being uncomfortable with uncertainty.
Quoting Sagan’s takedown of Von Däniken doesn’t really apply here unless you think everything weird automatically equals grift. Vallée’s biggest offense seems to be suggesting there’s a deeper layer worth looking at.
You don’t have to believe him. But if your response to persistent anomalies is “there’s nothing here, go away,” that’s not skepticism it’s just avoidance with better branding.
You were given a very good explanation for the account you provided, and a proper response sure would be nice. I’ve got to ask: What exactly would it take to falsify this premise? If you cannot (or will not) answer this, then I really can’t see any reason to discuss the premise at all.
What if you don’t believe him, or this premise, because the incidents have been investigated and found to be extremely wanting? Is that proper skepicism?
First off, I’m not married to Aguadilla being definitive. I offered it because it’s multi-sensor, government-sourced, and still debated over a decade later. If someone wants to make a serious case that it was heart-shaped lanterns moving at 80+ mph, submerging in water without impact, and splitting cleanly into two mid-flight, sure, let’s put that explanation on the table and test it.
But this isn’t about proving one video equals aliens. It’s about saying: look, over decades, we have recurring reports, often from military personnel of objects:
-moving in ways we can’t replicate,
-avoiding detection with surprising precision,
-and sometimes interacting with our systems.
That’s the pattern.
Not heart-shaped lanterns, not one-off errors but a long-term, cross-cultural persistence of weird aerial encounters that refuse to be easily pinned down.
Aguadilla isn’t the hill I die on. It’s just one of the better ridgelines on the way up.
So if you’ve got a better explanation that fits all the data, cool. But don’t confuse me being open-minded with me being reckless. I’m not pushing a belief, I’m pointing to a gap. And I want to know what’s in it.
To some extent that’s true for many institutions. But not all. If these claims had any credibility at all, they would certainly attract the attention (and funding) of institutions like DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But of course they have not, because it’s unsubstantiated nonsense.
Von Daniken may be the more egregious fraudster, but what he and Vallée have in common is the claim that a disparate set of alleged phenomena – most of which aren’t even real – are intimately connected by some profound underlying phenomenon unknown to science, and doing so with absolutely no evidence whatsoever – not even a working hypothesis. That’s not science. It’s naive to pretend it’s anything other than pure mysticism and uninformed wishful thinking.