Vallée's control mechanism and, if true, its implications for UFO disclosure

Background

This post explores the views of an AI-model on Jacques Vallée's theory of UFOs/UAP acting as a control mechanism (a "meta-frame" or "meta-system") on human cognition and belief systems. 

The conversation below between the AI-model ("C. S") and me ("J. T") is an excerpt of a longer conservation or session that included other but related questions about the UFO issue, disclosure, and so on. Therefore, I have selected and rearranged the most relevant parts and their order in the conversation below. Nevertheless, I hope you can make sense of and enjoy the conversation.

The structure of the conversation is:

1. What is Vallée's control mechanism and its relation to the "structure/agency"-interaction (or "duality") in sociology?

2. What are the implications of the control mechanism, if true, for official UFO/UAP disclosure?

3. Has scientist Beatrice Villaroel and collaborators found a way to test the existence of Vallée's control mechanism?

After the three main sections, I make a short comment on the AI-model's reasoning about Vallée's control mechanism, etc.

At some places in the conversation below, I have afterwards made some clarifications or comments about [ ] the AI-model's (Claude Sonnet 4.6) responses and underlined some significant parts. You should take the conversation with a grain of salt, in the sense that neither the AI-model nor I have a complete understanding of the topics covered or can predict the future. 

1. What is Vallée's control mechanism and its relation to the "structure/agency"-problem in sociology? 

J. T: Thanks for clarifying how niche construction in biology relates to the structure/agency issue in sociology. Let us get back to more speculative domains: Jacques Vallée has a theory of the UFO phenomena acting as a "control mechanism". How does the structure/agency problem map onto Vallée's theory of a control mechanism? And if the control mechanism hypothesis is correct, could it indicate that the UFO phenomena (what- or whoever is behind it) is doing some kind of niche construction?

C. S: This is a beautifully constructed question — you're essentially asking whether Vallée's control mechanism could be understood as externally imposed niche construction, which would reframe the entire UFO phenomenon in a radically interesting way. Let me work through this carefully.

---

Human origins- and nature: By chance or intentional influence?

Introduction

This post explores the likelihood of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ET hypothesis) regarding human origins or DNA-"tinkering" at some distant point in humanity's evolutionary trajectory. The ET hypothesis is an old idea in alternative theories on human evolution and cultural history (for example, the late Erich von Däniken), and is a common theme in the UFO community. Spielberg's new movie, "Disclosure Day," seems to hint at non-human intelligence having influenced (some parts of) humanity on a biological and an experiential level.  

A conversation between an AI-model (Claude Sonnet 4.6) and me will show some pros and cons of the ET hypothesis regarding human evolution. You can find the conversation under the next headline. Note that my prompts are marked as J. T. The AI-model's replies or reasoning are marked as C. S. 

Now, take the below conservation with a grain of salt. Practice critical thinking when reading both my prompts or questions and the AI-model's responses. For example, you can think of more relevant or sophisticated prompts or questions about the ET hypothesis to Claude (or another AI-model). I asked the AI-model about the ET hypothesis regarding human origins or DNA tinkering, with no prior preparation or strategy (which in hindsight did not generate the most sophisticated conversation).

The idea of "human as an invasive species" from my first prompt below comes from a recent Bob Lazar-interview (also with Luigi Venditelli) on the Joe Rogan Show. At the 38-minute mark, the video features Rogan and Lazar talking about government UFO secrecy and Rogan's "invasive species" idea about humans.

A scientist’s pursuit of the truth behind the UFO phenomenon

In my estimation, Dr James Edward McDonald (1920–1971) might be the greatest hero in the history of UFO-investigations.

McDonald’s courage in opposing the US government’s dismissal of the UFO issue as scientifically significant should act as a template for everyone who calls themselves a scientist and/or who claims to be a (sound) sceptic.

James E. McDonald (1920 - 1971), circa 1950.

His dedication and courage in pursuing the truth of the stigmatised UFO subject is inspiring. At the same time, tragic, since all the opposition he met from fellow scientists and politicians took a toll on him. James Edward McDonald took his own life in 1971; whether it was suicide is still an open question, according to some researchers.

I will not compose a biography of the life of James E. McDonald and his resolution transforming the UFO phenomenon into a valid matter for science and public conversation. Because there already exists an excellent biography, The Firestorm: Dr McDonald's Fight for UFO Science (2003) by Ann Druffell.

Instead, this post is a way for me to express appreciation for a human being who followed his instincts, his inquisitiveness, and who thoroughly employed the scientific method of uncovering the truth about reality no matter how that truth may be.

In a previous blog post, you can read about two current scientists' proposal to use McDonald's paper “Science in Default” as a template for a scientific approach to study UFOs.

However, I do not want to romanticise McDonald’s search for the truth and struggle to make the UFO phenomenon a legitimate scientific topic. His intense dedication — bordering on obsession or mania (?) — had devastating consequences for himself and his loved ones.

New incursions by unknown flying objects over protected facilities in Sweden

The geopolitical situation with the Russian-Ukraine war and Sweden's Nato membership makes it challenging to decipher the nature of the unidentified flying objects.

Two years ago, simultaneous incursions occurred by unidentified flying objects over at least three Swedish nuclear facilities. A similar simultaneous incursion by unidentified flying objects happened on the 9th of March 2024 in the south of Sweden.

What happened on the 9th of March 2024 and where?

According to the Swedish newspaper, Sydsvenskan, “several drones have been observed during the evening and night to Saturday on several locations in Skane” (“Skåne” is the most south region of Sweden). The news media company, TV4 Nyheterna, reports that “according to information given to TV4 Nyheterna, several big drones have been observed on several locations in Skane”. Some of those locations were the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck (closed since 2005 and today a protected facility), and Malmö Airport (Malmö is the biggest city in the south of Sweden, and the third biggest in Sweden). Other locations were the “drones” — or UFOs — were observed was in Svedala and Ystad (see the map below).

Several big “drones” were observed in several locations in the most south region of Sweden on the evening of the 8th of March and night to the 9th of March 2024. Most notable of those locations are the closed nuclear facility Barsebäck and Malmö Airport.

Both the Sydsvenskan and TV4 Nyheterna report that the police and defence department are working together on the investigation of the simultaneous incursions by several “big drones” over protected facilities/areas like Barsebäck and Malmö Airport. A spokesperson for the police of Region South, Sara Andersson, tells the Sydsvenskan that these kinds of simultaneous observations and incursions are “relatively unusual”.

Debunkers and (blind) believers of the UFO phenomenon: What's the difference?

Or how opposing factions in the ufo-community could relate to each other in a way that furthers everyone's understanding of the UFO issue.

I think there is a vital distinction between being a sound skeptic of the UFO phenomena and an unsound skeptic. The latter mindset you will find in individuals called “debunkers”. What do I mean by an “unsound skeptic” or a “debunker”? I'm talking about people who can't or won't consider other people's views and won't change their opinions even when faced with facts. To be fair, that definition can fit us all from time to time, but the key is that debunkers show a stable pattern of rigid cognition and close-mindedness.

Photo by Emiliano Bar on Unsplash

How can you have an open and reciprocal discourse on the UFO-issue with a debunker or a blind believer (a similar stable pattern of rigid cognition and close-mindedness, but in the opposite direction) in UFOs? 

In the following, we will explore one viable approach that might increase the chance of a constructive conversation with a debunker or a blind believer of UFOs. That approach is about validating and respecting the human behind the rigid thinking (ethical virtue) as much as evaluating what is being said (intellectual virtue). I hope and think that the approach will be intelligible along the way, since this text does not have an obvious structure.