• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Jacques Vallee C2C July 2014 Interview

Free episodes:

DissectionStalker

Paranormal Adept
I thought this C2C show was noteworthy, as it proves Vallee's interests in UFO's is pressing forward along two familiar fronts:

1) He continues to work with an unpaid group of researchers to gather historical accounts that relate to UFO's in some possible ways including abduction or entity-humanoid creatures and airborne objects. Anything predating 1880 is of interest. He expects there will be more published research about this within a few years too.

2) The need for new software databases and/or information systems that can analyze the UFO related information in new and novel ways to detect patterns that can not emerge without such analysis. This is a long running quest of Vallee's that probably goes back decades. Since he seems to be "retired" and living in France now, then I suppose he is devoting most of his free time to develop this before he dies. I hope so!

One thing I was a bit surprised about was Vallee's mention of Bigelow and the Utah area as being a "hot spot" for strange phenomena. (He does mention other global areas too including Brazil.) He has an NDA with Bigelow too, so Vallee will not share with the public all he knows. Same thing goes for other investigations he does. Meaning, this guy does withhold information and has a "need to know" basis for some of his knowledge sharing. I hope he totally moves away from this kind of knowledge base to allow for full information sharing with the public.

The other interesting thing of note in this interview is he mentioned the recent UFO Conference among invited scientists and Ufologists was sponsored by the French Government's own NASA agency -Centre National d’Études Spatiales, so he was optimistic at least his government was advancing these interests in an official capacity that might prompt further cooperation with other nations too.

Vallee is in his 70's now. I hope his health remains good, because he is an essential "mover and shaker" in this field of study that we need in a leadership role for years to come. I hope he will continue to play a public role in communicating the real importance to understand this phenomena, so it is not kept within the sole domain of the elites (for example: Bigelow) AND secret societies AND top secret programs AND those that want to Lord Over Us.
 
Last edited:
What did he have to say? I missed it.
I think if you carefully read the first post in this thread, then you'll have a good idea what subjects Vallee talked about.

The good news is he is still quite active in this field, and he still follows a lot of cases he has investigated. He even will take-on new cases too, but his idea is to follow a case over a long period of time. He is a big believer in field investigation AND long-term follow-up with important cases.

He emphasized the importance of developing new detection equipment that actually will capture the event for future study, and the need to analyze the data in new ways to uncover the hidden meanings of this phenomena.
 
Last edited:
What did he have to say? I missed it.

I listened to the whole interview and although Vallée's status as an icon in the field of ufology is indisputable, I'm not as big a fan as some, and I suppose I'll probably get booed again, but I didn't find anything particularly new in his approach. He was among the first, if not the first, to assemble a computerized UFO sighting database, and he would still like to see a bigger and better one of those put together. So would we all. So why hasn't he put one together over the last 40+ years? Fact is, Vallée took a rather long hiatus from ufology and became en entrepreneur. Although that adds to his interest as a character, his interest in ufology took a distinct backburner position.

He also mentioned his pet interdimensional theory, sometimes called the Extradimensional Hypothesis ( EDH ), which I've debunked in the past as nonsensical. I would have thought that by now, Vallée would have seen the problems with that theory himself. I guess not. Although to be fair, I have heard some differing explanations, so maybe it's a case where the nuances of the English language still pose a challenge for him. Even those fluent in English sometimes have a hard time clearly explaining the concept of dimensions as applied to ufology when put on the spot ( including me ).

IMO the emphasis on science was overdone, particularly in light of the fact that we have no valid material scientific evidence to work with, and that ufology has a huge historical and cultural element to it now. It's no longer simply a curiosity for academics and the military to ponder and explore. Ufology has evolved into a field that spans far more than the scientific method alone can be applied to.

I would have liked to have heard more about his association with Hynek and other historical icons, and how some of the start-up companies he's been involved with have done. Altogether it was still interesting to hear Vallée speaking on UFOs again. My personal impression is that because his mind is able to grasp the complexity of the UFO mystery, it naturally expects that there should be an equally complex answer. So although he comments about the "colored lenses" that others see the phenomenon through, he seems oblivious to his own intellectual bias. If I recall correctly, he has said that he would be personally disappointed if UFOs turn out to be extraterrestrial craft. Therefore it's not surprising that he's dreamed up his own personal fantastical non-ET possibilities.
 
Last edited:
So why hasn't he put one together over the last 40+ years?
He did with Bigelow, but it's an NDA "need to know" deal. That Sucks.

Now, at present, Vallee seems to like an unpublished DB that some French ufology scientists have developed, and he says he will try to replicate it too. You know, the scientific method of independent confirmation.
He also mentioned his pet interdimensional theory, sometimes called the Extradimensional Hypothesis ( EDH ), which I've debunked in the past as nonsensical. I would have thought that by now, Vallée would have seen the problems with that theory himself. [...] If I recall correctly, he has said that he would be personally disappointed if UFOs turn out to be extraterrestrial craft.
Don't forget, he bases this on truly long-term follow-up with people that have given him their personal accounts with encountering UFO's or "Aliens". And, he combines that experience with historical accounts predating 1880. This is one-way I think he uses to eliminate all the Military noise and PSYOPS and Hoaxing and Hollywood/TV, etc.

I don't think he excludes ET's UFO's per se, but he expects "the control system" to be inter/multi-dimensional by being both mental and material phenomena that is of a "new physics" too -not presently understood. I mean, also, you don't expect ET's UFO's are getting here by known physics are you?

Ufology: Could you give us the link(s) to your "debunking" of Vallee's ideas. It would be very interesting to understand your thinking about this. Thanks. :)
 
Last edited:
This is such a beautiful post by Burnt State that I had to put it into this thread too. THANKS be to you Burnt State! :)

article-2385867-1B2F774D000005DC-828_964x633.jpg

The Kaleidoscopic UFO
The theme that lingers in much of Vallée's work regarding the UFO phenomenon is that of manipulation. It is a very confusing experience that seems to have nestled neatly into the cultural human psyche for the last 70 years or so, some say centuries longer. But in this last good stretch from WWII onwards the camouflage and presentation has always been made made up of things we could mostly describe, that appeared familiar yet quite strange. Like turn of the century airships or contemporary lighter than air gigantic, triangular craft, we can recognize it somewhat and talk about it, fulfilling their goal of making us think.

But their manipulation of our thoughts and experiences are tied to their manifestations that have this familiarity to them. For example they can fly, hover, ping off of radar and even dissolve in mid-air. They do things that our aviators can't quite just yet, but we're working on it. They've left a lot of clues to follow.

Deeper manipulations of cult belief systems, 3rd party control systems, militaristic covert propaganda systems, carnivalesque alien art display systems...these all work to affect us, seduce us and even direct us. UFO's are here to change us.


July%204%202013%20Kaleidoscope%20warp%205_000277.jpg



What's always refreshing about Vallée is his own unapologetic conviction that there's much more to the UFO phenomenon than just a bureaucratic cover up. No, the manipulation that he sees is taking place on a much grander scale, where the perpetuation of the UFO narrative is done by many arms & branches of the collective human culture. It's a very sophisticated design he seems to suggest, something that knows us & our terrestrial ways, and mostly it is something that we just can't help being entranced by, the way any good kaleidoscope will. And more than making us think it is a very transformative experience for many.
article-2385867-1B2F7EC4000005DC-538_964x626.jpg

Perhaps where we might want to sink even more energy into are those stories where the familiarity is not entirely there, but the strangeness is so strange that we don't quite have words for it. My favourite UFO witness narratives have folks stumbling for a vocabulary that they can not find; because, what they saw has no real human frame of reference. That's what I would call "alien".
 
Formulation and Predictions of the ETH
Brian Zeiler


Summary: The extraterrestrial hypothesis, or ETH, is formulated consistent with the accepted scientific framework for hypothesis induction. The null hypothesis to explain UFOs is that they are random, disparate misidentifications of atmospheric or artifical terrestrial phenomena. This is called the misidentification hypothesis. If rejected on sufficient grounds -- and due to the subjectivity we are probably facing a more Bayesian type of inference than an objective test approach -- then we accept the alternative hypothesis, which is that disk-shaped vehicles are in fact flying in our atmosphere.

The extraterrestrial hypothesis, or ETH, is formulated consistent with the accepted scientific framework for hypothesis induction. The null hypothesis to explain UFOs is that they are random, disparate misidentifications of atmospheric or artifical terrestrial phenomena. This is called the misidentification hypothesis. If rejected on sufficient grounds -- and due to the subjectivity we are probably facing a more Bayesian type of inference than an objective test approach -- then we accept the alternative hypothesis, which is that disk-shaped vehicles are in fact flying in our atmosphere.

Note that at this point, we are not concerned with the origin, since the alternative hypothesis is simply that the objects exist without regard to the origin of the objects. Put simply, we don't need to know the origin of the objects in order to determine their existence. In fact, nowhere in science is it necessary to establish the origin of a phenomenon prior to determining the very existence of the phenomenon. Yet skeptics contend that the objects cannot exist due to interstellar travel considerations, which is fallacious on two counts: first, for blending the two hypotheses into one by using the possible origin to debunk the very existence, and second, for establishing a rigid a priori probability of nearly zero for interstellar travel despite a lack of sufficient information to make such a determination.

After rejecting the null in favor of the alternative, which is that the objects exist, a rank-order series of hypotheses are formulated to hypothesize the origin of the objects. When guessing the origin, we see three elements that are observed in the majority of radar-visual cases:

Physical substance
Intelligent control
Propulsion technology beyond human grasp
This is why radar-visual cases are so unique in their evidential value. Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions to defend inducing the ETH; the question is the degree of corroboration for each of the conditions. When ranking possible origin hypotheses, Occam's Razor is the guiding principle here:
American or foreign government craft
Extraterrestrial craft
"Interdimensional craft"
Once one replaces the null with the alternative and looks for a hypothesis of origin, it is feasible to reject the first origin hypothtesis. It is absurd to think these are government craft, since the so-called "conspiracy" widens by a huge magnitude: the behavior of the flights are at variance with accepted flight-test procedures (e.g. chasing civilians), and the requisite physics for the observed propulsion would require enormous leaps in 1947 in all sorts of technology that the civilian community still has not grasped 50 years later.
The second hypothesis, that they are extraterrestrial craft, is the "Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis", or ETH. Note that this is a specialized sub-hypothesis within the broader, original "alternative hypothesis", which is simply that the "saucers" do in fact exist. Some researchers, like Vallee, reject this and move to the third hypothesis, though that is beyond the scope of this article.
Falsifiability is a difficult area because the very approach to the subject is more subjective and inferential (hence the Bayesian approach -- see Sturrock, "Applied Scientific Inference", Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 8, no. 4). The very nature of the problem -- the vagueness, the lack of replicability on demand, and the elusiveness -- does not lend itself with ease to direct and irrefutable falsifiability.

However, there are certain "proxies" for falsifiability. It seems reasonable to suggest that if there are extraterrestrial vehicles buzzing through our atmosphere, the organization with the means and motive to determine this, above all other organizations, would have determined this by now. This organization is, of course, the US military. If there are flying saucers, our military should show a high level of interest and conviction that this is the case. Indeed, they do, at both the individual level and at the organizational level, from 1947 through the present day, as revealed through Freedom of Information Act documents and summarized in our government pages.
Then there are certain other testable predictions based on the corollary that the military and intelligence would conceal this knowledge. And they have found sufficient cause to conceal it, as their early documents alluded with references to "public panic" and "policies of public information to minimize mass panic". So, do we see signs of official secrecy? What would those signs be? One is leaks. We do, in fact, see quite a few highly compelling leaks from such scientists as Dr. Robert Sarbacher, Dr. Eric Walker, and other military and intelligence personnel on the military quotes page.

Another means of indirect falsification would be the discovery of one or more new terrestrial phenomena that are merely atmospheric in nature, but can adequately explain the body of UFO evidence, from radar-visual to ground-trace cases to machine-like disk-shaped vehicle mirages.

The very nature and structure of this phenomenon renders our typical approach somewhat impotent, and we are mostly left with a Bayesian approach that questions whether the body of evidence we do have is more consistent with the objects existing or with the objects not existing. Looking at the aggregate body of anomalous radar-visual cases, ground trace cases, scientifically tested photos and films from the military and civilian communities, credentialed leaks, and evidence of military and intelligence duplicity, it is more likely that something is indeed going on rather than not -- no matter how falsifiable this hypothesis may be, it doesn't change the aggregate body of evidence. The evidence is far more consistent with the objects existing than not existing.

Our approach must accommodate the phenomenon -- not vice versa. If the phenomenon cannot accommodate our approach, there is no sense in convincing ourselves that the phenomenon must not exist. We must accommodate this elusive, sporadic, and unreplicable but nonetheless existent phenomenon by blending our approach between objective hypothesis falsification and Bayesian inference.

As for the inductive reasoning, the approach is identical in process and in validity to the Big
Bang hypothesis which also has no physical proof. Both induce a hypothesis to explain a set
of observations without violating known laws of physics according to our existing body of knowledge. Both also make predictions that have been corroborated, and both explain the observations superior to any alternatives. The misidentification hypothesis is an utter failure in both logical process and in explanatory appeal, as detailed in the page on skeptical logical trickery and as judged by the inability to explain the most challenging cases, but the ETH is scientifically valid and superior to the alternative. The problem with the misidentification hypothesis is that the cases it fails to explain, according to USAF's Project Bluebook Special Report #14, happen to be the types of cases that the best observers were most likely to report and that do not suffer from insufficient information, but rather appear to be from a wholly different distribution than the the eventually identified UFO reports, based on a chi square analysis.

The misidentification hypothesis has a gaping flaw in its ability to explain the observations, and the ETH is a scientifically valid hypothesis that is the simplest available to explain globally repeating, highly reliable observations by eminently qualified observers of solid objects under intelligent control with propulsion technology irreproducible by human knowledge. All possible predictions of the ETH have been corroborated, and the inductive process is every bit as valid as the process that led to the Big Bang hypothesis.

Illogical skeptics will complain that any hypothesis can be induced in this framework, such as a giant purple unicorns or flying cats. But the problem is that our current physics predicts that aliens exist, and we know that interstellar travel is possible; it may be difficult, but it certainly is possible, and many scientists like Tipler feel that it is almost inevitable. This is why the ETH is the simplest hypothesis after the misidentification hypothesis is discarded. Hypotheses in between, such as an "unknown atmospheric phenomenon", are too vague and specious to be of any value, since they are the logical equivalent of postulating an "undetected flaw" in the analysis of a radar-visual case; but most of all, such a hypothesis fails to explain daylight sightings, and only relies on nocturnal luminosity reports, which is a selective filtration of the observations. Therefore, only the ETH can be of value after rejection of the misidentification hypothesis.

Formulation and Predictions of the ETH - UFO Evidence
 
Jacques Vallee Interview from ourstrangeplanet.com

UFOs remain the chief enigma of our time. No matter what we read, no matter what our own experiences with the phenomena, the strangeness and absurdity of the reports keep us wondering just what is really going on. For some, the question is of the utmost importance, for others it is treated as an entertaining oddity. For those of us who have had some kind of encounter with UFOs, the experience will continue to be a critical question mark behind our taken-for-granted assumptions about the world. We may never find out what they are, but we certainly appreciate any reasonable suggestions as to their ultimate nature.
Many writers and researchers have devoted themselves to the task with varying degrees of success and sincerity, but none of them has come close to a comprehensive framework to accommodate the range of problems posed by this ancient dilemma. Some believe this incomprehensibility is a fundamental and essential aspect of the UFO phenomena and suggest we learn to live gracefully in the face of an unsolvable mystery. Others would hurry us into accepting their partial and biased theories that inevitably force us to disregard certain evidence in light of their own evidence and extrapolation.
While others have been satisfied with establishing mystery cults, or even cults of personality, Jacques Vallee has focused on historical and generally scientific analysis in the hope that persistence will shed some light on this elusive field. His books are widely discussed and have opened up new areas for consideration by the inquisitive.

Broadly speaking, Vallee vacillates from book to book between two seemingly inconsistent positions. On the one hand, in works like Passport to Magonia and Dimensions, he suggests the experience is both ancient and mythic, comparing alien encounters with the fairies of pre-Christian paganism. Frequently warm and generous, the creatures in these stories are seen as wonderful and magical beings continually involved with perplexing humans with the bizarre and nonsensical. In other works, such as Messengers of Deception and his latest book, Confrontations, Vallee would have us believe the UFOs represent something hostile and damaging: People get zapped with harmful beams and sometimes die. In Messengers, we must consider the possibility that the whole thing is a human contrivance designed to confuse and misdirect serious inquiries.

To his credit, Vallee makes no secret of his own ambiguities. If the entire field of research amounts to one big question mark, Vallee appreciates the logic of devoting as much attention to the question as he does to the answer realizing that, even though we may never fully understand the reality of the UFO phenomenon, we can at least begin to understand more about ourselves by the way we react to it.
Jacques Vallee's resume is an impressive one. Born in France, he was trained in astrophysics, and is a former principal investigator on computer networking projects for the Department of Defense. He first became interested in the UFO problem in 1961 while working on the staff of the French Space Committee, where he witnessed the destruction of tracking tapes of unknown objects. The following year, Vallee came to the United States and began working closely with Dr. J. Allen Hynek, the Air Force scientific consultant on the UFO problem.

Dr. Vallee is widely recognized as the premier investigative scientist in the realm of UFO research today. In addition to authoring numerous articles and books, Vallee served as Steven Spielberg's advisor during the making of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," and was the real-life model for the character portrayed by Francois Truffaut.

Dr. Vallee's research into the phenomenon has taken him to many countries around the world including France, Scotland, Australia, and Brazil. He currently resides in San Francisco with his wife and two children.

Your latest book, Confrontations, just came out this spring. Prior to that, you hadn't been in the limelight much. What was your focus during that time?
Jacques Vallee: People assumed I had gone off to a mountaintop to philosophize. The reason that I dropped out of the UFO scene is that I wanted to do UFO investigations, and I was tired of going to meetings where the same things were continually rehashed. What it came down to was just a lot of talk. I think we're a long way from understanding this phenomenon, and the only way we're going to understand it is to stop talking to each other, and go back and talk to the witnesses. That's what I wanted to do, and I wanted to do it first-hand. I wanted to be able to go to the site, meet the witnesses, and monitor what was happening over a certain period of time. So, I put the highest priority on first-hand cases that had not been reported to the press or to the UFO community because the moment the cases become part of ongoing discussion, they get polarized: the witnesses are bombarded with all kinds of questions; there are biases; the ego gets into it. I wanted to do a quiet kind of long-term research. In ten years, I accumulated over two hundred such cases. The book is really a summary of the more interesting of these cases.

And how were you contacted about these cases?

Jacques Vallee: Usually, through people who have attended my lectures or have read my books. I get several letters everyday now prompted by Dimensions, even though it's a year old. I pick the most interesting letters which, to me, are often from people who have a very visible position in life such as one from a vice-president of IBM. The last thing he wanted to do was to go to a UFO organization. He didn't want any publicity; he didn't want to see his name in any book, but he had a sighting which was very valid.

What conclusions has your research led you to?

Jacques Vallee: I feel that I could go before a committee of scientists and convince them that there is overwhelming evidence that the UFO phenomena exists and that it is an unrecognized, unexplained phenomenon for science, but something that I think I could prove. My personal contention is that the phenomenon is the result of an intelligence that it is a technology directed by an intelligence, and that this intelligence is capable of manipulating space and time in ways that we don't understand. I could convince a committee of my peers that the phenomenon is real, that it is physical, and that we don't understand it. I could not convince them that my speculation is correct; there may be alternative speculations. The essential conclusion I'm tending to is that the origin of the phenomenon of the intelligence is not necessarily extraterrestrial.

Would you say you tend toward a multi-dimensional interpretation that doesn't specify that these have to be some kind of humanoid-type creatures from another planet coming to earth physically? It seems that sometimes you talk about this phenomenon as being a kind of religious sentiment that wells up from the human spirit. At other times, you speak as though there's a potentially harmful force that is being imposed from without as a control system.

Jacques Vallee: Certainly. I think it's an opportunity to learn something very fundamental about the universe because, not only is the phenomenon or technology capable of manipulating space and time in ways that we don't understand, it's manipulating the psychic environment of the witness. I tried to introduce that idea when I wrote Invisible College. At that time, the UFO community was not ready for it. The New Age and the parapsychology communities interpreted my conclusion to mean that UFOs are devas from the dream world - that they are not physical, or that the physical aspect is unimportant. In truth, I think we are dealing with something that is both technological and psychic, and seems to be able to manipulate other dimensions.
This is neither wishful thinking nor personal speculation on my part. It's a conclusion that comes from interviewing critical witnesses, and then listening to what they have to say. And what they have to say is not that they've seen space craft coming down from the sky and then returning to the sky. More often, what they have reported is that they have seen something appear on the spot, take on a physical shape, sometimes even changing shape, and then disappear, sometimes faster than the eye can trace. On occasion, it will disappear in a closed space by either becoming transparent and then vanishing or by concentrating into a single point. An example that's often given is like turning off a television set; the image goes "zoom!" to a single point.

I don't have a good explanation for the question of why the technology seems to appear in a form that uses images from our own unconscious. I'd be kidding if I said that I understand that. There are cases of repeated observations where the phenomenon begins by being amorphous and then starts matching the expectations of the witnesses. There are two ways to deal intellectually with that: One is to say it's a phenomenon of the brain which is very good at reading recognizable images in amorphous things like clouds and ink blots. So, perhaps the witnesses are getting used to this phenomenon and are starting to read things into it. But that's not the only explanation. It may be that the phenomenon itself is using our reactions to it in order to turn into something that we expect or understand. We may be carrying a matrix of imagery that it somehow picks up. A good example of that is Fatima. The apparitions witnessed at Fatima did not start in 1917. They started two years before. Some of the same kids were involved, and there were also other witnesses. What they saw was a globe of light. Then they saw a globe of light with some type of being inside. Then they started calling the being an angel, and then the angel started communicating with them and gave them a prayer. It developed in stages, and culminated in 1917, but even then the virgin Mary wasn't seen by everyone who was present.

In contemporary UFO cases, you also have objects that are seen by part of the crowd but not by others. I was doing a radio program about a year ago, and somebody called from Sacramento and gave me exactly that type of report. He had been near a lake with his family, and he witnessed an object come over the lake and there were people around him that saw it, and there were people that just couldn't see it. What we're dealing with is a very interesting phenomenon that has both psychic aspects and physical aspects.

What's interesting is that the people that did see it would see the same thing, would they not? Or does that vary?

Jacques Vallee: Usually there is a consensus on the major aspects of the physical parameters of it, but people can disagree on, for example, when there is interaction with entities. Different people may be perceiving different things.
Plus, after you see something like that, you build consensus by an interactive process. You start matching things together.

Jacques Vallee: But there is a social, mythological aspect to it also, and that can be very tricky. I think it's important to bring this out so that people can be alerted to it, especially since the publication of Communion. There was a major marketing effort behind Communion which proved to be very successful. True, it's a powerful book, but Communion has also touched people who have never even read it because it also has a powerful cover. That face on the cover has become our society's standard for what aliens are supposed to look like. This standard has reached the point where any witness that doesn't report something that looks like the cover of Communion is dismissed as a hoaxer. People who see things that don't look like the cover tend not to be believed by Ufologists. Those sightings are not followed up, and they don't go into the database. So, scientific analysis tends to retrieve more and more patterns that correspond to those patterns that we expect in the first place. There's a self-fulfilling prophecy involved which is very tricky.
Are you finding in the cases that you've studied since Communion came out that a greater preponderance of people are seeing that type of being?

Jacques Vallee: Yes, but I've recently been looking at other cases in which the beings were radically different. Again, I use the word "beings" in quotes because we don't really know what they are.

As we approach the millennium, I would expect that we'll see phenomena reported that far exceed anything that we've seen yet if for no other reason because people expect things to change, and that expectation itself is fertile ground for these changes to occur.

Jacques Vallee: I think the way that we get into trouble studying UFOs is that we mix up the different levels involved. We mix up the physical level, the psychological level, and the mythological or social level. I want to clearly identify these three levels because we need a different type of mythology to deal with each level and each set of events. At the physical level, all we know now is that there are material, physical objects, at least part of the time. They leave traces; they interact with the environment; they throw off heat and light and probably pulse microwaves in very interesting ways. They contain a great deal of energy. I've included some energy calculations in Confrontations.

I think we've made a lot of progress in the last few years in understanding the psychological and physiological level. There are some very clear patterns that range from sunburns to conjunctivitis. Sometimes temporary blindness occurs. Sometimes witnesses report a form of paralysis in which they have no control of their muscles during the time when the object is there. I think this has obvious medical implications that are very interesting. The witnesses are often disoriented. In Confrontations, I cite a case I investigated in which the people thought they were driving north when they were driving south. Such confusion in space and time too often contributes to scientists concluding that the witnesses aren't reliable. We don't know a lot about the effect of pulsed microwaves on the human brain. One effect might be hallucinations. You may end up having witnesses telling you incredible stories because they were subjected to very strange psychological side effects of something that was really there. I don't think that most of the UFO community is ready to deal with that. And I don't think the scientific community is ready to deal with that. Then there is a third level, the mythological or sociological level. At that level, the physical reality of the actual UFO is totally irrelevant. Proving that Jesus Christ never existed would have little effect on our society in terms of belief systems; at this point, the influence of Jesus would remain even without a historical Jesus.

Why did you decide to concentrate on so many case studies? We have thousands of case studies. What good is a hundred more going to do?

Jacques Vallee: I think that's a fair question. Number one, I didn't publish all the case studies. I just published selected ones that illustrate certain points. What I wanted to do was to start gradually from the physical side by focusing on cases that involved physical traces. What I wanted to do was to go back to basics, proceed step-by-step, and find out what we know about the phenomenon. To do this, I concentrated on cases that no scientist can refute. The first case in the body of the book is a case in which there were two French submarines anchored in the harbor at Martinique. The submarine tender and all the sailors and officers saw an object that came over the harbor and made three large loops before vanishing from the spot only to reappear five-minutes later. It then did the whole thing in reverse and went away. There were something like two hundred and fifty witnesses. I've had several personal conversations with one of the witnesses who was the first helmsman of the French fleet of the Mediterranean. He was somebody who had very good eyesight, and was a darn good observer. Not only did he see this, but he had time to go up to the tower and come back with six pairs of binoculars that he gave to his fellow officers. All of them watched the thing through binoculars. There is also a weather observatory on the hill overlooking the harbor, and all the people in the weather observatory saw it. You can't say that this didn't happen. You can't say that it was a meteor or a comet or any of that. I'm trying to use cases like that to establish the physical reality of a phenomenon, and then continue from there.
I also selected cases where I went to the site expecting to find something that would be easy to dismiss only to find a complex set of circumstances that ultimately led me to the conclusion that it was a real UFO case after all. I also included cases where I expected to find evidence pointing to a real UFO and found, instead, a trivial explanation. And, finally, there are cases where, frankly, I don't know what happened.

It would seem, in a sense that you are creating your own filtrating mechanism - selecting those case studies that do seem to establish patterns while discarding others irrelevant to your analysis.

Jacques Vallee: Let me clarify what I did. The cases I selected were chosen not because they said something about UFOs, but because they said something specifically about methodology. The question I was trying to answer was: How do we go about investigating those things, given the unique characteristics of the phenomenon? I purposefully selected cases of one type or another to illustrate the complexity of this kind of research. I think the main message that I wanted to get across is that, even after you've spent five or ten-thousand dollars investigating a case, you may not know anymore than you did at the beginning. I think that's something important for people to realiz
e.
Have you ever seen any flying disks?

Jacques Vallee: I've seen things that shouldn't have been there when I was tracking satellites at the Paris observatory. I saw them visually as part of a team, and that's really what started my research. Obviously, I had heard of UFOs before then, but I always thought that if there were UFOs astronomers would see them and would tell us, but my first job as an astronomer left me disillusioned. I was part of a team that was tracking satellites for the French Space Committee. We found ourselves tracking objects that were not satellites, and were not anything else recognizable either. One night we got eleven data points on one of these objects on a magnetic tape and wanted to run the tape through a computer and compute an orbit and see the thing again. To this day, I can't tell you that it wasn't some piece of technology that somebody had. It could have been some very bizarre piece of human technology, but what intrigued me was that the man in charge of the project confiscated the tape and erased it. That's really what got me started, because I suddenly realized that astronomers saw things that they did not report.
The important part of Confrontations is really in the last few chapters that deal with field investigations that Jeanine and I did in Brazil. We went to Brazil specifically to check stories of people being hurt by exposure to the light from UFOs. We spent about two weeks in the interior of the country going from village to village and talking to people. We just barely scratched the surface but in ten days we spoke with fifty people who had been hurt by those beams, some of whom had seen these objects just a week before we arrived.

Were they seeing the same kind of technological craft?

Jacques Vallee: Pretty much. There was a whole variety of objects, but the ones that emitted these beams were classic in terms of shape. They were boxy, rectangular objects that either didn't make a noise or made nothing more than a hum, like the noise a refrigerator makes. They came over at night, and the beam was a light that not only burned them but pinned them down. When we asked people in Brazil about the phenomenon, we discovered that they didn't see it as something that comes from another planet, but something that comes from another spiritual plane. That's the way they put it, but they offered no further explanation than that. They seemed to be just as puzzled by it as a scientist would be. There was this one fellow who was blind and had developed psychic powers, and I tried to push him. I asked him what kind of spirits he thought he was encountering, but he was very straightforward and humble. He said he could invoke the gods of his tradition, but these things were something else. It was like, "yes, these things exist, but they are beyond my reach."

In our culture, that explanation would be regarded as even more absurd than the activities of extraterrestrials.

Jacques Vallee: It is absurd, just like the explanations by our culture are absurd. But absurdity doesn't mean meaningless. The absurd is a signal that has a property of taking you out of your normal thinking process and making you aware of other forms of thinking that you didn't know existed. It's forcing you to perceive reality at a different level. Zen koans, for example, are absurd, but they are intended to be absurd in a way that stops your normal thinking process. They make you aware of your mental process by stopping it.

And what type of mental state is that creating in these villagers?

Jacques Vallee: Terror. The day after an encounter witnesses were very often extremely weak and could hardly walk. They would be taken to a doctor if there was a doctor close by. I spoke with some of the doctors, one of whom had treated thirty-five such cases in the mouth of the Amazon.

What do you think of that? That's such a concentrated activity in one area.

Jacques Vallee: You find the same thing right now in the Soviet Union, but nobody will talk about it.

Were people getting hit by beams of light in the Soviet Union?

Jacques Vallee: Yes, but I have not heard of cases with actual injuries in the Soviet Union although I have heard of reports of beams melting the asphalt. I spent a week with a French journalist in the Soviet Union just six weeks ago. We heard about a case in January where an object hovered close to the ground and a beam came out and melted the asphalt in front of a nuclear power plant in Viljandi? Vlorë?. Varanage is not a little city lost in the snow somewhere. It is a city twice the size of San Francisco. It's a major industrial center.

The Western newspapers gave the impression that the witnesses were kids. Well, there were some sightings by kids, but there was a total of over a thousand witnesses in Varanage. In one of these sightings, an object hovered at rooftop level close to some apartment buildings for a long period of time and was seen by five hundred people, most of them adults. There is a very intense concentration of cases around that area, and of course, this has been sensationalized by the Soviets themselves. It's hard to tell now which reports are real and which are not.
There were many cases with entities described that were not like the cover of Communion. Some entities were described as very small and some were described as very tall.

Jacques Vallee Interview | Our Strange Planet
 
This FIND is from Burnt State:
THANKS...
This is an excellent 2003 article: Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness: A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena

by Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

Abstract: The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors. Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations, (2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability problem.

Not only does he tackle this six angled phenomena but he explores some of the anthropocentric, abduction and absurdist features of UAP's.
 
This is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POST from Mike Quoted just below...
My main question; why is it that the so called Pentacle memo gets so little mention anywhere in this field of study? I have not read Carrions book, but this is not a question for him. The First time I read this document around 10 years back when I was 23, a cold chill took me. The study proposed was utterly brilliant, far reaching & exactly what any unit would need to get better intelligence & data.

The proposition also suggested performing fake events to learn how civilians reacted but also to calibrate real witnesses on the ground. In other words, fake sightings to learn from the observational limitations of normal people in order to quickly deploy calibrated military witnesses into zone experiencing a flap.

This for me was far reaching but it comes together nicely in Jacques Valle's fiction novel, Fastwalkers.
Thank you VERY MUCH for posting this. EXCELLENT points!

I'm shocked a quick search on Pentacle (and "Stork") GOT NOTHING on this forum!!! What THE HELL is going on??? It just shows to me an unbelievable amount of BLIND FAITH lives in the world of ET-UFO's. This is truly a POWERFUL RELIGIOUS FORCE that has "taken over" many aspects of modern society -now worldwide too! It's worth TRILLIONS of dollars over the decades, when you consider all aspects of the Entertainment Industries AND the Military Industrial Complex.

Promoting ET-UFO's is worth Trillions of dollars... and WE ARE TO BELIEVE this is NOT... WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...we have this phenomena!

Seriously???
 
Found on the Internet:

A missing Pentacle

On Sunday, June 18, 1967, Vallee tried to restore some order in the files and “found a letter which is especially remarkable because of the new light it throws on the key period of the Robertson Panel and of Report #14”. This was the report that was also at the core of Leon Davidson’s enquiries and which made him conclude that the US government were using UFOs as part of a psychological warfare exercise.
Jacques Vallee

The report Vallee found was stamped, in red ink: “SECRET – Security Information” and dated January 9, 1953. Vallee has nicknamed the man who signed it “Pentacle”, arguing it was not up to him to reveal his name. Since, others have named Pentacle. What was never withheld was that the memo was addressed to Miles E. Coll at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, for transmittal to Captain Ruppelt, the government’s lead investigator – as far as the public was concerned – on UFOs.

Vallee read how the opening paragraph established that prior to the top-level 1953 Robertson Panel, somebody had analysed thousands of UFO cases on behalf of the US government. The document noted that the majority of these case reports were found lacking in several aspects, and that the panel should thus ideally be postponed. Failing such postponement, a list had to be created about what the five specialists that would serve on the panel could and should not discuss. To quote Vallee: “the representatives of this top-level research group were against convening the Robertson Panel!” But in the end, they could not stop the formation of the panel, which was chaired by HP Robertson, physicist from California Institute of Technology and would go down into history as “the Robertson Panel”. The other four members were Luis Alvarez, Nobel prize in physics; Lloyd Berkner, space scientist; Sam Goudsmit, nuclear physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and Thornton Page, astronomer.

When Vallee read the memorandum, he noticed that there were references to a Project Stork, which Vallee had not come across before. The project seemed to be a key determinant in what the panel could discuss – and what not, i.e. what would be kept away from the panel. By preselecting the evidence, the conclusion the scientists would reach could thus be known in advance. It is a well-established practice that is employed in all government enquiries, but which continues to bedazzle the public, who realise the commission’s conclusions are never in line with the truth. This is largely not the fact of the commission, but of the evidence the commission is presented with. If you do not get to see a smoking gun, you can you comment on it?

Of more interest was that the project Stork team had identified pockets of high UFO activity and recommended that these should be specifically studied. But they also added that many different types of aerial activity should be secretly and purposefully scheduled within the area. To quote Vallee: “what these people were recommending was nothing less than a carefully calibrated and monitored simulation of an entire UFO wave.”

Go to link to read the rest of this:

A missing Pentacle



.
 
Found on the Internet:

A missing Pentacle

. . . Of more interest was that the project Stork team had identified pockets of high UFO activity and recommended that these should be specifically studied. But they also added that many different types of aerial activity should be secretly and purposefully scheduled within the area. To quote Vallee: “what these people were recommending was nothing less than a carefully calibrated and monitored simulation of an entire UFO wave.”

The concluding sentence in the Pentacle memo:

"In the future, then, the Air Force should be able to make positive statements, reassuring to the public, and to the effect that everything is well under control."

On the basis of a two-week secret simulation of a localized ufo wave, the fact and conclusions of which would not be shared with the public? Does not compute for me. Who would be kidding whom? Worse, it appears that the author of the Pentacle memo (H.C. Cross) intended to kid the Robertson Panel too since they would not be informed about the proposed two-week experiment on the basis of which Cross assured the Air Force it could assure the five scientists that "everything is well under control." The goal of Cross's memorandum was to have the Air Force postpone the Robertson Panel meeting until ATIC could better control what information would be presented to the panel. The Air Force did not comply with Cross's recommendation, probably because it would continue to be responsible for the defense of the skies. Recall that this memo and the scheduled Robertson Panel occurred on the cusp of 1952-1953, the winter following the enormous ufo wave of 1952, which had the Air Force scrambling. Cross and those he worked with on secret Blue Book projects at Battelle must have feared that if the five scientists saw the best evidence they were compiling at Battelle, there would be no hope of quelling concern about ufos. He needn't have worried though, since some of those scientists were already involved in Battelle's project of managing public perceptions.

From Coppens’s take on Vallee’s take on the Pentacle memo:

As late as the 1990s, Vallee still shied away by withholding Pentacle’s name. Vallee concluded that “the discovery of the Pentacle document had a major impact on me. It gave me an uncomfortable insight into the practices of government agencies and the high-powered consultants who serve them. […] It was the main raison for my return to Europe in 1967. It made obvious some unsavoury aspects of scientific policy at the highest level. It provided quite an education for an idealistic young astronomer.” In short, it shattered his innocence.”

Putting it in the best possible light, of course. How might things have turned out differently if both Vallee and Hynek had stood together and disclosed the signs of the deepening coverup?

The question before us is what does one think --or hope to think -- Vallee meant by his remarks in the 1990s? What do you think he meant?

The next question is: who was ‘Pentacle’? 'H. C. Cross'. Who was H. C. Cross? You'll find some answers here:

http://ufocon.blogspot.com/2009/05/roswell-metal-scientist-curious-dr.html
 
More from CUFON re the Pentacle business, including a few letters from Vallee to individuals in the ufo research field, for example this closing of a letter from Vallee to Barry Greenwood:

". . . In reading Forbidden Science, you should recognize that the book is a Diary, not an analytical report or a memoir. Therefore many important inferences, many relevant details, can only be found by reading between the lines. Your preliminary analysis of the Pentacle memo is not unfair, but it is somewhat simplistic, and it takes it out of context. I invite you to go back for a second, closer reading."

One gets tired of reading between the lines, doesn't one? Why not a new edition with substantive footnotes and annotations?

The "Pentacle" Memorandum
 
Back
Top