Wow. I just got to the money shot question in the interview. That. Is. AWFUL. Chuckleberry, it's a horrible question. Here you have a scientist of some repute explaining exactly why the lights on the moon aren't a huge mystery and your follow-up is "What about angels, demons? That sort of thing?"
Seriously?
If I ask Alexander Graham Bell how the telephone works and he explains it, do I follow up with, "Well couldn't it just be that the voice carries?"
No, douche, I JUST EXPLAINED IT. And sure, Vallee isn't 100% certain that the lights on the moon are related to gasses, etc., but that's a far better explanation than angels and demons.
"What about spontaneous regeneration?"
"Could the earth be flat?"
No, George, sorry.
Another thing I'm noticing here (this is the first I've really listened to him) is that Noory's questions are boring. Granted most of them are handed to him from Vallee or his people, but I'm sure that Billy Meier question was off script. There's not a better way to approach Meier than, "So what do you think about that, huh?"
How about, "You know, you talk about this phenomena in terms of an invisible college affecting our consciousness. Do you think this includes hoax cases and contactees, like Meier, that some think may have had an initial encounter even though he's clearly creating fraudulent footage? Is this intelligence manipulating hoaxers? What are the boundaries here, Jacques?"
Something like that, to my mind, will produce a new, interesting answer.