I'm not going to say much about abductions, which I find mostly dubious, except that the topic came up briefly. But there are plenty of UFO sightings that imply the anti physical effects that Vallee refers to -- apparently solid objects blending together into one object, for example, beams of light that behave more like objects, etc. Vallee is not a scientist. Well, he must have fooled the University of Chicago for a long time then. And NASA who hired him as a consultant. And IBM who used him as their chief of computing security. And his views on time and our general conception of time and space which, he thinks, is a cultural artefact of our preference for expressing relationships using diagrams on graph paper. Frankly, given that nobody really knows what time is, I think he makes a valid point. As soon as we make a graph of time on one axis and physical dimension on the other, we can't help but think that the two variables are somehow equivalent -- when clearly they are qualitatively totally different. As for UFOs not being a psychological problem! Well, I'm sure many sceptics who feel that all witnesses are either lying, crazy or hopeless cases, would disagree with you. As would some of the psychologists who have taken an interest in the phenomenon -- e.g. Jung. I suppose you feel that UFOs are basically solid space craft, behaving according to early 21st century science models only a tad more advanced. Well, early on Vallee actually developed a neat argument that landing reports were consistent with the observation of solid objects by showing that estimates of the size of landed UFOs varied in a way predicted by the psychological law of perceptual constancy. So there is one way that knowledge of psychology can contribute to our understanding of sightings. Can you point to any equivalent contribution from physics?