Jeff Walker #64 @7317
Wed Jun 26 01:01:13 1991

 þ Ask_UFO                                                              #100
Dt: 18-Apr-91 10:44
By: Don Ecker
To: All
Re: Vallee responds

THE REALITY OF ABDUCTION
                                by Jacques Vallee


  The review of Confrontations (Vol. 5, No. 3) calls for a response
and a few comments.
   On the topic of abductions, Don states that "the evidence is
overwhelming that this mystery has affected possibly thousands of
individuals in a manner that far exceeds any possible psychosis."
I totally agree with that statement. Where did I ever say that
abductees were victims of psychosis?
  On the contrary, Confrontations gives several examples of
abduction cases that I have personally researched: the episode with
Mrs. Victor in Chapter 6 fits a classic pattern, I have said that,
in such reports, "I cannot agree with Philip Klass'conclusion that
the witness is making up the whole episode. The abduction
experience is real." Why is there such confusion, then, about my
position on this issue? Simply because I do not believe that
everything retrieved under hypnosis should be taken at face value.
  I have stated (and will continue to state) that much of what
passes for abduction research today is unscientific, unethical
garbage that reeks of standard cult recruitment techniques. My
appeals to more caution have infuriated some abduction researchers,
who have made up the story that "Vallee rejects all abduction
cases." Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do I
accept these cases, but I believe their evidence is much too
important to be treated in the superficial way evidenced in the
work of many "abductionists." I refer the reader to the ten-page
discussion of the issue in Confrontations, starting on page 170.
On the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs, my position is clear, too.
If the witnesses are telling the truth about the behavior of the
phenomenon, then it could be from anywhere at anytime. This
naturally includes other planets in outer space, and I have not
rejected this hypothesis; I only think it is insufficient. And
there are many other, possibly more promising hypotheses that have
not been seriously considered.
  How could I "close my mind" to the possibility of
extraterrestrial intervention? It is an hypothesis I defended
vigorously 25 years ago. But we cannot be dogmatic in front of the
data that has been accumulating during that period, much of which
now contradicts the first level ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis)
to which most of American ufology is still clinging. It is time to
open our minds to other possibilities.

Don rightly notices that I have not treated the issue of
"saucer crashes," notably Roswell, in Confrontations. This may seem
to be an important omission, but it was the result of a conscious
decision, which was clearly disclosed at the very beginning. In the
introduction, I took pains to state that I regarded three impor-
tant topics to lie outside the scope of the book. They were the
possible relevance of cult movements to the UFO phenomenon, cattle
mutilations and government intervention and "cover-up." There is
much to say, as everyone knows, about all three subjects, but a
scientist learns to focus on a single issue at a time. The
central theme in Confrontations was field research methodology and
physical evidence. I may develop the other topics in a future work,
and the Roswell crash (and other crashes) will then be treated
under the rubric of "Government intervention and cover-up " where
it rightly belongs.
  In the meantime I did describe in great detail the analysis of
physical samples reported to have come from UFOs, several of which
I have in my possession and can supply to colleagues who would like
to analyze them. I cannot make the same statement about the Roswell
material, and I do not know anyone who can. It would have been
inappropriate to mention Roswell in a book on the analysis of UFO
evidence, no matter how many people have become fascinated with
this particular story, because there is no Roswell material
available to be analyzed. Again it is a case of individual readers
projecting their own expectations into a very complicated topic,
and expressing their frustration when conclusions are presented
which differ from their own. There is very little I can do, as a
scientist, to alleviate this problem. But I am grateful to Don
Ecker for having set the framework for a useful and timely
debate.

                                 -Jacques Vallee-




=================================================================

--- ZMailQ 1.10 @9:1012/3.0
 * Origin: ParaNet Alpha Delta <sm> The Data Base (9:1012/3)

