Was Jacques Vallee wrong?

[ChrisPerridas]

I wasn't sure which category to place this. I think it may be UFO conspiracy, but I am not sure.



I found an old copy of Analog November 1976 at the used book store. Likely I read this when it first came out as I was an avid buyer of this 'zine, but if I did, I do not recall it.

James E. Oberg has a very long article in it, but right now I only want to discuss a small part of it. After decimating the "astronaut theory of UFOs" with detailed descriptions of his onhand and field research into the subject, and refuting many well know (at the time) claims by living astronauts, he turns to Dr. Hynek and Jacques Vallee.

He calls into question Dr. Vallee's accuracy on documenting critical facts. If anyone has the book he refers to below, I wonder if they can verify if Oberg is correct in his rebuke?

He had only a small amount of space to discuss Vallee, but here is what he said:

"Two of the most respected UFO researchers in the country are Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. Jacques Vallee ... in their latest book, The Edge of Reality ... they reveal the quality of their scientific research by publishing a "Table of UFO Sightings by Astronauts". Aside from misspellings, wrong dates, and completely discredited reports ... {Oberg discusses at length many unfortunate and embarrassing errors} ... the quality of their accuracy leaves much to be desired (Hynek disavows any responsibility for this section of the book). "

Then, Oberg goes into a few paragraphs about how astronaut John Young was completely misquoted by an AP wire story and by Vallee.

"John Young was asked about life in the universe ... 'there are so many stars that it's mathematically improbable that there aren't other life sources in the universe ...' ... the AP wire story from Seattle ... 'Astronaut John W. Young says odds are that unidentified flying objects do exist '... Vallee gives the quote as follows: 'Odds are that UFOs exist' - Astronaut John Young...".

Oberg seems to imply this is another flub by Vallee.

Now that I have the article and can use it to do Google searches, I see that the article is reproduced here for anyone who wants to read it in its entirety:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/analog_ufo.pdf

[Martin]

I think Oberg was once a member here. I remember the name?

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by ChrisPerridas

I wasn't sure which category to place this. I think it may be UFO conspiracy, but I am not sure.



I found an old copy of Analog November 1976 at the used book store. Likely I read this when it first came out as I was an avid buyer of this 'zine, but if I did, I do not recall it.

James E. Oberg has a very long article in it, but right now I only want to discuss a small part of it. After decimating the "astronaut theory of UFOs" with detailed descriptions of his onhand and field research into the subject, and refuting many well know (at the time) claims by living astronauts, he turns to Dr. Hynek and Jacques Vallee.

He calls into question Dr. Vallee's accuracy on documenting critical facts. If anyone has the book he refers to below, I wonder if they can verify if Oberg is correct in his rebuke?

He had only a small amount of space to discuss Vallee, but here is what he said:

"Two of the most respected UFO researchers in the country are Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. Jacques Vallee ... in their latest book, The Edge of Reality ... they reveal the quality of their scientific research by publishing a "Table of UFO Sightings by Astronauts". Aside from misspellings, wrong dates, and completely discredited reports ... {Oberg discusses at length many unfortunate and embarrassing errors} ... the quality of their accuracy leaves much to be desired (Hynek disavows any responsibility for this section of the book). "

Then, Oberg goes into a few paragraphs about how astronaut John Young was completely misquoted by an AP wire story and by Vallee.

"John Young was asked about life in the universe ... 'there are so many stars that it's mathematically improbable that there aren't other life sources in the universe ...' ... the AP wire story from Seattle ... 'Astronaut John W. Young says odds are that unidentified flying objects do exist '... Vallee gives the quote as follows: 'Odds are that UFOs exist' - Astronaut John Young...".

Oberg seems to imply this is another flub by Vallee.

Now that I have the article and can use it to do Google searches, I see that the article is reproduced here for anyone who wants to read it in its entirety:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/analog_ufo.pdf

Wrong about what...some quote from an astronaut about a comment on ufos? IMo it has no effect on Vallee's ideas about the ufo enigma as a whole. I have over 50 books on ufos on my shelf by many well known writers/ufologists and I'm willing to bet there are many errors/flubs in those as well.

Oberg is a hard core skeptic somewhere in Klass's league who's nitpicking here imo. Most ufologists (Friedman, Dolan, etc) and many astronauts (Mitchell, Aldrin, Armstrong, etc.) have gone on record as saying they believe ufos are real and possibiliy alien craft. Having said that I'm not defending the ETH per se but the fact that it means little when looking at the enigma overall.

So again how is this relevant or meaningful in the whole ufo arena?

btw...Edge of Reality was the first book where Hynek and Vallee started looking at the idea that not all ufos and events were simply the ETH.

[dr wu23]

Martin.
I think you are correct in that James Oberg did post here for a short while.

James Oberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ChrisPerridas]

"Oberg is a hard core skeptic somewhere in Klass's league"

You say that as if it is a heinous crime? What did these guys do to you? I know nothing of Oberg, and a little about Klass, but not much.

I think the claim is if person A makes careless multiple errors in things you can check, are they making multiple more errors in things that are uncheckable by the average reader? Things they personally claim or personally research?

But back to the original point. Did Vallee make the errors that Oberg says he did in the book?

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by ChrisPerridas

"Oberg is a hard core skeptic somewhere in Klass's league"

You say that as if it is a heinous crime? What did these guys do to you? I know nothing of Oberg, and a little about Klass, but not much.

I think the claim is if person A makes careless multiple errors in things you can check, are they making multiple more errors in things that are uncheckable by the average reader? Things they personally claim or personally research?

But back to the original point. Did Vallee make the errors that Oberg says he did in the book?

Meh....calling some one a hard core skeptic, and they both were/are, is not heinous in my book; it's an apt description.
Again I don't think some errors like he's referring to are very meaningful in the scheme of things and making an issue out of it imo is nitpicking.
I haven't read the piece you are referring to in a very long time so I can't help you with what he's on about.... for me it's a non-issue.

Maybe Dr Phil or Starman will want to get into it. It's a total waste of time imho.

[phillipkklass]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

Martin.
I think you are correct in that James Oberg did post here for a short while.

James Oberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's a noted debunker who will chime in on a lot of forums and a former NASA employee at Johnson Space Center where British hacker Gary McKinnon claimed they were brushing out UFO images.

I always found Jacques Vallée suspect because he's invloved with technology yet did not make the connection with UFOs and advanced technology in some of his books.

[orangekea]

ChrisPerridas, I read through the Oberg criticism, and tend to agree with Wu, calling this "nitpicking". Oberg, from pointing out hastily done paraphrasing, and substantially including "completely discredited" (=debunk-speak for "contradicted"/questionable) reports, invites the implication that Jacques Vallée's UFO-theory, which is extensively supported by reasoned and factual/witness evidence, must be similarly in error.

But making a few sloppy writing errors is fundamentally different from messing up ones scientific life's work. In fact our family physician has the writing skills of a three year old, I've found nothing but unknown hieroglyphs on his recipes, still he's managed to somehow not kill off any familymembers so far.

So, also thinking of earlier Oberg books, I think he's just doing some classic debunking, making the vaguest accusations (hoping they'll 'stick'), yet failing to make specific counterclaims or show factual error in Vallée's work.


orangekea

[ChrisPerridas]

Thanks for the observations and perspectives on this. I appreciate it !

[Carol Nistri]

Getting dates wrong is the single most made mistake when writing about past events.