Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the show. I'm really excited about
Speaker 1: tonight's show. Once again, Jacques Vilet joins us. This time
Speaker 1: it's going to be about his latest book, Forbidden Science six.
Speaker 1: That's the journals between twenty ten twenty nineteen, and we're
Speaker 1: going to be talking about that and so much more.
Speaker 1: And so this show is a pre recorded show. And
Speaker 1: after following this at eight o'clock Eastern will be John
Speaker 1: Kerry Out, who I actually interviewed back in twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: about his CIA whistleblowing that ended up getting him in
Speaker 1: big time trouble. That was on waterboarding, but anyway, he
Speaker 1: had a USO amazing encounter. We're going to be talking
Speaker 1: about that with him later on, but for right now,
Speaker 1: I'm again very excited to bring in our guests, the
Speaker 1: one and only Jacques Vle Hello, Jacques.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome.
Speaker 1: And you're in sunny San Francisco.
Speaker 2: We're almost neighbors, just across the bridge.
Speaker 1: Yep, yep. I was in Tiberon, as I mentioned, you know,
Speaker 1: for nine years. It's so beautiful that whole area and
Speaker 1: very San Francisco is a wonderful cultural place. I was
Speaker 1: involved in a antiques it was called the North American
Speaker 1: Decorative Arts Association. We had these amazing meetings at the museum.
Speaker 1: There great great stuff going on in that city.
Speaker 2: It's so wonderful city because it cannot expand outside of
Speaker 2: that peninsula, so it has escaped all the bad problems
Speaker 2: of you know, very large American cities with lots of
Speaker 2: freeways all over the place. You know, you can you
Speaker 2: can live here without a car, practically.
Speaker 1: Yes, And you can't get north where I used to
Speaker 1: live in marin from like say, the airport unless you
Speaker 1: go through the city. You know, you always there's no
Speaker 1: highway going through it. You have to go through and
Speaker 1: you know, get there when you get there. But it's
Speaker 1: really you know, I have a friend that lived in
Speaker 1: the with the sunset district, and he told me he
Speaker 1: would go an entire summer and only see the sun once,
Speaker 1: and you know, pretty depressing. You know, the what is it?
Speaker 1: The coldest winter I ever spent was the summer in
Speaker 1: San Francisco, you know that whole marked Wayne thing.
Speaker 2: Well, you can you can just you know, go twenty
Speaker 2: miles south and it's fifteen grease warmer, So you have
Speaker 2: a choice of climate. I still like gou to go
Speaker 2: see doctor Norlan at Stanford once in a whif so, yep.
Speaker 1: And that's a pretty campus. I used to actually do
Speaker 1: benefit auctions there. That was a lot of fun. I'm
Speaker 1: very nice, nice area as well, but it's very warm there.
Speaker 1: You're right, uh quickly, and uh, well, I do miss
Speaker 1: the area. I'm going to be back there in a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, going to be actually interviewing a Berkeley
Speaker 1: professor that he's going to be teaching a course on
Speaker 1: UFOs and I'm going to be in San Rafel alive
Speaker 1: with him there, and then I'm off to speak at
Speaker 1: that UFO con which is you know the first part
Speaker 1: of April and San Uh where is that? It's right
Speaker 1: where the airport is there? You go Burling game, Burlin game.
Speaker 1: That's it anyway, So that'll be fun to be out
Speaker 1: there again and enjoy the beautiful weather. But so this
Speaker 1: book and h is number six, volume six, and boy
Speaker 1: is it is it is a lot involved. You have
Speaker 1: a very busy life. I know you do so many
Speaker 1: other things, but so and I listened. I have to
Speaker 1: tell you, I listened to a good part of the
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan you know interview that you did and I
Speaker 1: thought that was, you know, fascinating when you get into
Speaker 1: topics kind of off but related, but and also how
Speaker 1: put off, you know, he mentions that, and how fascinating.
Speaker 1: I've always wanted to meet Hell. So I'm going to
Speaker 1: start off with a kind of a difficult question because
Speaker 1: it's been posed to me. And when I was in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. A few months ago, are you hearing me
Speaker 1: clearly more or less?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Okay, So when I was in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: I had someone that I would consider a skeptic, but
Speaker 1: you know, I wouldn't call him a debunker typically, but
Speaker 1: he came up to me and he said that all
Speaker 1: UFO crash crash retrievals, all those stories about recovered craft,
Speaker 1: everything dead ends at hall put off, and I just
Speaker 1: wanted to get your opinion on that.
Speaker 2: Of course, you know, there are topics here that cycle
Speaker 2: through time, that come back again and again and again,
Speaker 2: and the UFO crashes is one of those one of
Speaker 2: those subjects over the years. You know, the reason I
Speaker 2: continue this journal is that there are very few references
Speaker 2: that look at at time at things that have happened,
Speaker 2: you know, since the fifties, since and I think we
Speaker 2: need to preserve that record. And the stories of crashes,
Speaker 2: you know, go back, go back to actually to fifty years,
Speaker 2: you know, and there is a lot of bad data
Speaker 2: about it and stories and weird tales, but there is
Speaker 2: also information underneath that has been gathered from people talking
Speaker 2: around different laboratories, different universities. And both two subjects are
Speaker 2: linked here, both the subject of the crashes and the
Speaker 2: subjects of creatures you know, seen in connection with it.
Speaker 2: So Roswell has emerged as one of the test cases.
Speaker 2: But Roswell has problems because nobody actually witnessed the crash itself.
Speaker 2: So in studying the literature you have to review a
Speaker 2: lot of the data and of course the beliefs that
Speaker 2: have been injected into the whole conversation. To me, the
Speaker 2: turning point was, you know, the investigation we did at
Speaker 2: Trinity with Paula Harris. Paula had started to interview two
Speaker 2: men who remembered that as children, they had seen a
Speaker 2: crash in nineteen forty five, two years before ras Well
Speaker 2: and all the you know, all the explosion of sightings
Speaker 2: and books in the literature and so on, and the
Speaker 2: case at Trinity is was fascinating to me she had
Speaker 2: already done four years of research. It was fascinating to
Speaker 2: me because there there were witnesses and there were the
Speaker 2: landscape itself sort of spoke about what had happened with
Speaker 2: an object coming out of nowhere, hitting a large communication
Speaker 2: tower and then crashing on that private ranch. So it
Speaker 2: had not been spoiled you know, by a lot of
Speaker 2: people going over the landscape that case. As you know,
Speaker 2: I wrote a book called Trinity that talks about that
Speaker 2: case and two other cases of not of crashes, but
Speaker 2: of landings that had a lot of scientific information attached
Speaker 2: to them, and the case at t at at Valenso
Speaker 2: and the case at SoCoRo that happened to be official
Speaker 2: government cases. So taking those three cases together you can
Speaker 2: form a good picture of what the you know, what
Speaker 2: the craft looks like and what the entitase looked like.
Speaker 2: So I think to me that was that is where
Speaker 2: that's a good starting place for new research, you know,
Speaker 2: based on what we know now about these that that nuclears.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Now there were I remember when that that
Speaker 1: book came out and I met Piela. I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly how you say her name is. She lets people
Speaker 1: call her Paula that I met her up at Shag
Speaker 1: Harbor a couple of years ago. Very nice, very nice lady. Now,
Speaker 1: I know that you took a lot of flack for
Speaker 1: that because a lot of people were saying that wasn't
Speaker 1: a real event. And I just wonder what makes you convinced,
Speaker 1: you know, I just wonder what convinced you that this
Speaker 1: was a real event really happened.
Speaker 2: So when you publish a book, you can't you have
Speaker 2: no standing to say to tell your critics that they're unfair.
Speaker 2: And so I mean, you publish the book, they have
Speaker 2: a right to criticize it. And one man in particular,
Speaker 2: took the time to do a lot of research into documents.
Speaker 2: Now I'm not a document analyst. I'm not doing that.
Speaker 2: I but I've spent a lot of time at the site,
Speaker 2: and I've spent a lot of time with Powell, going
Speaker 2: over her older records and talking to the witnesses that
Speaker 2: were there. I think the criticism was fair, frankly, and
Speaker 2: I have to admit that our critic did a good
Speaker 2: job of digging up documents that contradicted some of the
Speaker 2: things in my book. For example, there is a part
Speaker 2: in the book I talked about who went back to
Speaker 2: the crash site. When the father of the kid who
Speaker 2: had seen the crash went to the site with the police,
Speaker 2: you know, and the name of the policeman that he
Speaker 2: mentioned was wrong. That you know, our critic found that
Speaker 2: this man at the same time was still under uniform
Speaker 2: in Europe, you know, Europe was wrapping up the war,
Speaker 2: but the troops were still there, so that was right.
Speaker 2: And you know, obviously his memory was wrong. But when
Speaker 2: we went back to the story, he had been there,
Speaker 2: so the story, the facts of the story were correct.
Speaker 2: The name of the highway policeman was the wrong name. Okay,
Speaker 2: We found that highway policeman and he was involved later,
Speaker 2: but the witness, you know, fifty years later, mixed up
Speaker 2: the two names. We went to so I did a
Speaker 2: new edition of the book. After researching the case, we
Speaker 2: found more people who knew about the crash, We found
Speaker 2: more people who knew about the traces, and we found
Speaker 2: more people who remembered the whole episode, and they remembered
Speaker 2: the kids actually showing there was one panel from the
Speaker 2: craft blew out when it hit the communication tower. We
Speaker 2: know where that communication tower was, and we know the
Speaker 2: whole thing now about the story. They they there were
Speaker 2: fragments of fibers that that glowed, that glowed in the dark,
Speaker 2: in different colors and so on, and we found someone
Speaker 2: who remembered being given some of that to put on
Speaker 2: a Christmas tree. And I mean the the many of
Speaker 2: the houses didn't have electricity or had electricity only in
Speaker 2: one room, and the bedrooms were dark, and they used
Speaker 2: that those filaments to put on Christmas tree and they
Speaker 2: glowed all night. So we we found these people and
Speaker 2: they remembered that those times and so on. So in
Speaker 2: the new version of the of the book have gone
Speaker 2: h case by case by case through all the the
Speaker 2: the arguments of you know, our critics and doing additional research.
Speaker 2: For example, the one of the kids, when he grew up,
Speaker 2: became a businessman, uh in in in the state where
Speaker 2: the the governor of the state was involved with the
Speaker 2: Atomic Energy Commission, and she knew about his experience, and
Speaker 2: he claimed that she showed him a report on the
Speaker 2: case from the Atomic Energy Commission. Because uh the kids
Speaker 2: claimed that the object was put on the trailer and
Speaker 2: taken to Los Alamos. So if there are secrets, they
Speaker 2: are not in the Pentagon type of secrets. So the
Speaker 2: normal you know, normal clearance is would not apply unless
Speaker 2: you have the nuclear clearancies, you know, the p Q
Speaker 2: and other other clearancies on the nuclear side. Some people
Speaker 2: in the Pentagon have both, but most people in the
Speaker 2: military would have no reason unless they are attached to
Speaker 2: a unit that has to do with the atomic secrets,
Speaker 2: no reason to have access to those clearencies. So that
Speaker 2: would explain why, as opposed to Roswell, why the case
Speaker 2: at Trinity remained so uh essentially unknown, you know, until
Speaker 2: until Paula Harris did the research at the site. So
Speaker 2: the the new edition answers step by step by step
Speaker 2: answers all the questions. So the the argument from our
Speaker 2: critic was that, you know, the governor of the state
Speaker 2: of Washington would never disclose a secret document. You know
Speaker 2: that this would be against the law to one of
Speaker 2: her constituents because she was a governor. And that's not true.
Speaker 2: She did not disclose. She did not give him the report.
Speaker 2: She didn't tell him what was in the report. She
Speaker 2: said there was a report on that particular case. It
Speaker 2: was an official report of the Atomic Energy Commission. So
Speaker 2: that validation is true. And the critic, you know, went
Speaker 2: too far. He never said that he had read the report.
Speaker 2: So we went through every single one of those and
Speaker 2: explain them, and in the process, you know, Paul Heinech
Speaker 2: helped helped us trace another Another witness was actually the
Speaker 2: grandfather who is still alive. You know, he is in
Speaker 2: a in a hospital facility and his mind is clear.
Speaker 2: He said, sure. I mean, everybody knew that thing had crashed.
Speaker 2: So it's funny because Paul asked, well, you know, why
Speaker 2: didn't you go there? And the man, the old man,
Speaker 2: poor man, said, look, we had just been bombed by
Speaker 2: the first nuclear explosion in history, and we had other
Speaker 2: problems that going into the field to see, you know,
Speaker 2: a crashed object of some sort, and you people had
Speaker 2: problems with their family, people had problems with their ranch,
Speaker 2: and that's that's where the attention was. But everybody knew
Speaker 2: about what had happened.
Speaker 1: Well, well, I find that very respectful that you actually,
Speaker 1: you know, instead a lot of authors may have been
Speaker 1: a little bit arrogant. Well this is the way it is,
Speaker 1: but you actually took the time. You know.
Speaker 2: That's fair that people should criticize. It's not a question
Speaker 2: of I believe, I believe, I believe you know, I
Speaker 2: mean there is a this is you know with what
Speaker 2: we're trying to do is science. I mean in science
Speaker 2: you you criticize and you don't accept anything as true
Speaker 2: unless it has been reviewed by your peers and the
Speaker 2: experiment has been redone in slightly different conditions and so on.
Speaker 2: But what's interesting in the case at Trinity is that
Speaker 2: the object was an egg. It was Every paper or
Speaker 2: every book that talks about it shows a disc. The
Speaker 2: witnesses did not see a disk. They were very clear
Speaker 2: about the egg shape. They measured it. One of the
Speaker 2: kids actually pasted, pasted it and went inside. So we
Speaker 2: know a lot about that object. Now, the object that
Speaker 2: Socorro was egg shaped, the object that valensaw was egg shaped.
Speaker 2: In all three cases, beings were similar. They were short,
Speaker 2: and they were breathing air. They were the size of
Speaker 2: the kids. They were about three three and a half
Speaker 2: feet tall and they were breathing air. Now, what kind
Speaker 2: of extraterrestrial is that? Okay? Right? But they did not
Speaker 2: have a breathing yeah, breathing mask.
Speaker 1: Always thought of things like that, like wondered how that
Speaker 1: could possibly be. And if you know they are breathing air,
Speaker 1: it would seem like there'd be so many things at risk,
Speaker 1: you know, for diseases or whatever. Maybe those things don't
Speaker 1: apply to them or whatever. But yeah, that's always been
Speaker 1: a puzzle. And here we talked the egg shape one
Speaker 1: who maybe we'll touch on, you know, Jake Barber's you know,
Speaker 1: it wasn't actually his video, but a video that was shown.
Speaker 1: You know that that was interesting. But here's the thing
Speaker 1: when this is back in nineteen forty five, and then
Speaker 1: then Cape GIRARDU, Baby, I'm pronouncing that, Jerry, I can't
Speaker 1: remember how that's pronounced. Cape you know, nineteen forty one,
Speaker 1: what's it called? Let me just see Cape Girard something
Speaker 1: like that. Yeah. So, but here's the curious thing to
Speaker 1: me is, you know, we think of Kenneth Arnold as
Speaker 1: people saying, oh, well, you know the flying Sauca era
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty seven June, but this is prior to that,
Speaker 1: and what of these people, you know, what was their
Speaker 1: first impression of what they thought they were seeing? You know,
Speaker 1: I mean, could they go to the did they think
Speaker 1: it was extraterrestrial? They just were totally puzzled. Do you
Speaker 1: have any idea.
Speaker 2: Well, as you know, I've I've been criticized by the
Speaker 2: skeptics that I've been even more attacked by youuthologist for
Speaker 2: saying that the phenomenon was not new. You know that
Speaker 2: it didn't start that as well. It didn't start with
Speaker 2: Kenneth Arnold, and it certainly didn't start at Trinity. I
Speaker 2: think you can go back in history, and I have
Speaker 2: done that. I wrote a book called Passport to Magonia
Speaker 2: that went into the history, and more recently, you know,
Speaker 2: a book looking systematically at cases in the past, with
Speaker 2: a team of experts in you know, researching older archives
Speaker 2: and different languages, Latin and Greek and so on, and
Speaker 2: we've reconstructed a list of about five hundred cases, you know,
Speaker 2: going back, going back to antiquity, but being very careful
Speaker 2: to look at the context of every of every case.
Speaker 1: And.
Speaker 2: There are the the the idea of of an object
Speaker 2: crashing and entities interacting with the local population is not new.
Speaker 2: I mean, it has been in the archives, you know,
Speaker 2: for a long long time, and it's always interpreted sociologically
Speaker 2: in the context of the of the time, of course,
Speaker 2: and for a long time those were those gave rise
Speaker 2: to fairy tales and tales of you know, interacting with
Speaker 2: the devil and all of that, because it could only
Speaker 2: be in a in a religious context. Now it's not
Speaker 2: in a religious context. It's in a scientific context. But
Speaker 2: the reactions and social reactions are similar. So yes, you can,
Speaker 2: you can go back and you find instances of earlier crashes.
Speaker 2: The the point of pushing the modern era back from
Speaker 2: forty seven to forty five is that forty five was
Speaker 2: a watershed in history. I mean, the first atomic bomb,
Speaker 2: the first really major major war. You know that of course,
Speaker 2: after after the war in Europe. You know, I learned
Speaker 2: in school that the war was over when Hitler died.
Speaker 2: Well it's not true. The war went on in Japan,
Speaker 2: went on in the Pacific, and in fact, the major
Speaker 2: battle of the war was going to be in the
Speaker 2: north of Japan. So I've read all the new, the
Speaker 2: more mo recent history books that have come after the
Speaker 2: archives have been opened after fifty years, fifty years after
Speaker 2: the war, all the archives had been reconstructed and were opened,
Speaker 2: and some outstanding books have been published by historians, professional historians,
Speaker 2: and I've read them and they paint a completely different
Speaker 2: picture of the end of World War two. And you know,
Speaker 2: in the aftermath in America then what I learned in school,
Speaker 2: So you have to replace the UFO phenomenon into that
Speaker 2: new picture of what happened after the war and what
Speaker 2: happened during the war, including the fact that the leading
Speaker 2: American generals did not want to use the bomb, contrary
Speaker 2: to what people say, you know, they were they wanted
Speaker 2: to go ahead, and you know, and people in Europe say,
Speaker 2: you know, those Americans, they are always looking for the newer,
Speaker 2: bigger thing, and you know, in war, and Eisenhower went
Speaker 2: to see Truman in Washington to tell him that the
Speaker 2: army did not want to use the bomb. It was
Speaker 2: President Truman's decision, and they what I learned about, you know,
Speaker 2: American history is made more of an impact on me
Speaker 2: as I was writing that book, you know, with power.
Speaker 2: Then the UFO story itself, I had to relearn really
Speaker 2: the history of the war and you know, the history
Speaker 2: of you know, the country where I was born, in France,
Speaker 2: and the history of America. So I think it was
Speaker 2: a very rich you know, it's probably the book I've
Speaker 2: spent the most time on and the most attention. I've
Speaker 2: gone back back and forth to New Mexico. I've gotten
Speaker 2: to know New Mexico pretty well. Uh and uh, you know,
Speaker 2: it's it was a very rich experience for me and
Speaker 2: I soonly learned a lot about history.
Speaker 1: Right the book he wrote, Wonders in the Sky. I
Speaker 1: love that with Chris Auback, who's who's been on this
Speaker 1: show before and one of you know, one of my
Speaker 1: favorite guests. He was really great and that whole thing.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm I'm I'm in the antiques world, so
Speaker 1: history is a lot a big part of that, and
Speaker 1: I love history and that that book was really really
Speaker 1: quite amazing. And you know, there was the dispelled one
Speaker 1: that you hear come up now and then, and I'm
Speaker 1: trying to think of which one it was. Alexander the
Speaker 1: Great supposedly saw shields in the sky, but that only
Speaker 1: traces back to nineteen fifty two in some novel or
Speaker 1: something like that. So you know, the research involved in
Speaker 1: what you did must have been pretty intense.
Speaker 2: I've got a pretty good library research that, you know,
Speaker 2: And you know, I go back to Europe periodically from
Speaker 2: my investment work, and I always take the time to
Speaker 2: visit the you know, the libraries and there to look
Speaker 2: for new material. And it's it's fascinating too. You know,
Speaker 2: that's something you can learn all along throughout your life
Speaker 2: and I'm still learning and I like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know that's I love doing this because
Speaker 1: you know, there was a point at one time where
Speaker 1: I was a little bit discouraged, but it was because
Speaker 1: there was a lot of infighting, you know, which you've
Speaker 1: seen many times over the years. But other than that,
Speaker 1: this is just as exciting as when I first started,
Speaker 1: maybe even more. Well, we're in very interesting times right now.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: There's so many people that like, oh, you were in
Speaker 1: this before twenty seventeen, you know, like, oh yeah, and
Speaker 1: you know it was really I just want to just
Speaker 1: you know, talk quickly about this. But you know, we
Speaker 1: were involved in a group situation, you and I and
Speaker 1: several other people when it came to the passing of
Speaker 1: our great friend Lee Spiegel. And I still miss Lee.
Speaker 1: I think about him all the time. He was such
Speaker 1: a great spirit.
Speaker 2: I miss him because he was of course he single
Speaker 2: handedly all going is the testimony before the United Nations.
Speaker 2: You know, they went back in seventy eight and we
Speaker 2: were still talking about redoing it, you know, and it
Speaker 2: should be brought to the UN at some point, just
Speaker 2: to clear the you know, all the clutter and so on,
Speaker 2: and have a clear statement before the world, you know
Speaker 2: that this is real, this is happening. I doubt that
Speaker 2: the UN would actually do very much with it, but
Speaker 2: they they could certainly serve, which is what we proposed,
Speaker 2: you know, serve as a clearing house for people in
Speaker 2: different nations interested in sharing their information, you know, without
Speaker 2: the UN investing a lot of money and manpower into
Speaker 2: the problem itself, that it it's an ideal place for
Speaker 2: people to meet and exchange data, you know, peacefully, because
Speaker 2: if if the phenomenon is what we think it is,
Speaker 2: then it's yes, it is potentially a threat, and it's
Speaker 2: certainly a focus of intelligence and a focus of research
Speaker 2: for every country big and small.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, it's a it always like just for instance,
Speaker 1: when there's an there has been issues with disarming nukes
Speaker 1: and things like that, with these you know, with UFOs involved,
Speaker 1: how can that not be considered national security? I mean
Speaker 1: that's such a big puzzle. Like I remember the very
Speaker 1: first hearing they had, the people involved in that, the
Speaker 1: Oversight Committee whatever it was, had no idea about these
Speaker 1: type of situations that happened and you know that's it's
Speaker 1: such a puzzle. Yes, yeah, So going off a topic
Speaker 1: just a little little bit, because when the Wilson Memo
Speaker 1: first came out, I was totally thinking it was not right.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've gone back and forth, been on
Speaker 1: the fence over the years about it, and I just
Speaker 1: I've never asked you this, what is your opinion of
Speaker 1: the Wilson memo?
Speaker 2: You mean the memo about postponing the Air Force review
Speaker 2: with the five scientists in nineteen in the fifties, in
Speaker 2: the early fifties, that there were several things. You know.
Speaker 2: What happened essentially is that when I went through when
Speaker 2: I was working with doctor Heinek at Northwestern, I took
Speaker 2: time during a summer when the university was relatively quiet.
Speaker 2: Then I had my PhD in AI of all things,
Speaker 2: and I was working at the computation Center, and I
Speaker 2: had my office there, and I used my office as
Speaker 2: a repository for doctor Heinex files during the summer to
Speaker 2: essentially convert everything into computer into computer records. And in
Speaker 2: the fives there were other things that were not sightings themselves,
Speaker 2: but were related to the history of the field memos correspondence,
Speaker 2: the Air Force and so on, And there was a
Speaker 2: file that had to do with a meeting organized by
Speaker 2: the Air Force to review its procedures in processing UFO reports,
Speaker 2: and it was classified at the time, although a lot
Speaker 2: of information came out later and now we know that
Speaker 2: that is the meeting at which and doctor Heinek was
Speaker 2: one of the witnesses. He did not attend all the meetings,
Speaker 2: but he was called in periodically when they needed his
Speaker 2: input about the Air Force fires. And that the meeting
Speaker 2: that decided to split the research on UFOs into two.
Speaker 2: First continue with Project Bluebook, which was unclassified. Contrary to
Speaker 2: what everybody says, you know they talk about the secret files,
Speaker 2: they were not secret. The whole idea was this should
Speaker 2: be public public access and you know, just to monitor
Speaker 2: what people were seeing, unsure that the government was open
Speaker 2: to what the public was reporting. And then there was
Speaker 2: there would be a classified high technology approach using instruments,
Speaker 2: because the idea from the scientists in the group was no, never,
Speaker 2: we don't need any more cases from you know, somebody
Speaker 2: who's seen a light outside the window. We want we
Speaker 2: want to measure things. We've got instruments now in the
Speaker 2: Air Force where and elsewhere where. We can measure the
Speaker 2: intensity of light, we can track trajectories, we can compute
Speaker 2: all that, and that's what we should be doing, and
Speaker 2: that's how we're going to solve the problem. Well, that
Speaker 2: didn't work, but in the process, you know, the Air
Speaker 2: Force fives blossomed. What people didn't know was that most
Speaker 2: of the Battel Memorial Institute in Columbus had received a
Speaker 2: a large amount of money for the time to do
Speaker 2: a catalog of the Air Force fives and they produced
Speaker 2: a report called Report fourteen, which was admirable from a
Speaker 2: computer science point of view. Of course, computer science in
Speaker 2: those days was fairly primitive, but the statistics were you know,
Speaker 2: statistics were very well developed. And what I found in
Speaker 2: that file was a two page letter stamped secret from
Speaker 2: Battel to the organizers of the session of the conference.
Speaker 2: The conference was inviting the five leading physicists in the US,
Speaker 2: including a couple including a Nobel Price. So this was
Speaker 2: you know, this was serious science. It wasn't organized by
Speaker 2: the Air Force. It was organized by the Air Force
Speaker 2: on behalf of the CIA. Uh So that was that
Speaker 2: was new to me. I had always everybody has been
Speaker 2: told in all the published records. This was an Air
Speaker 2: Force meeting. It was a CIA meeting delegated to the
Speaker 2: Air Force. The other thing that was shocking was that
Speaker 2: battel who wanted to postpone the meeting. They said, we're
Speaker 2: not ready. Uh you're you're calling all these high level
Speaker 2: scientists and so on, but we we need more time
Speaker 2: to work on the data, to present them with something
Speaker 2: that's going to be scientifically uh sufficiently developed for them
Speaker 2: to put their attention on it and and reach some
Speaker 2: scientific conclude it's premature to do it now. Well, the
Speaker 2: Air Force and their sponsors wanted to get rid of
Speaker 2: the problem, which was was the whole point, and they
Speaker 2: they didn't care if they lied to Nobel Prize in
Speaker 2: physics in the process. Now that was so. I learned
Speaker 2: a lot by reading that, except that I wasn't supposed
Speaker 2: to read it. You know, it was secret. So I
Speaker 2: wasn't going to just you know, Russian publish it because
Speaker 2: I had no absolutely no right to do that. And
Speaker 2: I'm you know, I've always been very respectful. I can't
Speaker 2: tell the American government what to do with this problem. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's not my role. My role is as a scientist,
Speaker 2: especially as an information science guy to be part of
Speaker 2: the team that's going to look at the problem. And
Speaker 2: I think we can, we can go a long way
Speaker 2: to helping solve it, helping other people solve it. But
Speaker 2: there is a community of scientists that has certain rules.
Speaker 2: So by then I had been contacted before by someone
Speaker 2: who worked for Congress, in fact, worked for the Intelligence
Speaker 2: Committee of the Senate, which is really the top here.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's those other people who can decide what's
Speaker 2: really going to happen. And he was a legal expert
Speaker 2: from Washington, and he was working for the chairman of
Speaker 2: the Intelligence Committee of the Senate, and he contacted me
Speaker 2: about some other cases and I knew about in Europe
Speaker 2: where he wanted to have some corroboration about about what
Speaker 2: had happened, and uh so I contacted after that. I
Speaker 2: contacted him because I knew he had He had told
Speaker 2: me that he was reviewing yearly, he was reviewing all
Speaker 2: the classified projects in the Pentagon, in the d O D.
Speaker 2: So I told him that I had something that I
Speaker 2: didn't know what to do with that was stamped secret
Speaker 2: and I should be invited him to tell me what
Speaker 2: to how to treat it and he said, send it
Speaker 2: to me and I'll tell you. And I sent it
Speaker 2: to him and he declassified it so that now everybody
Speaker 2: can see it. One of the UFO groups for group you. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: they keep fighting among themselves and they fight against anyone
Speaker 2: who doesn't have exactly the same political orientation. You know
Speaker 2: that all the wars immediately said that I had invented
Speaker 2: that whole story. Well, I didn't invent it, because I
Speaker 2: have you know, a letter in my five it says
Speaker 2: that this was declassifying deposited in the archives of the
Speaker 2: Senate where everybody can go can go read it that
Speaker 2: you know, that memo exists, and it gives a frosts
Speaker 2: interesting light about the history of the whole field because
Speaker 2: if something like the Robertson panel, Doctor Robertson UH and
Speaker 2: its conclusions came from influence from the intelligence community trying
Speaker 2: to block not trying to open up the the science,
Speaker 2: but on the contrary, to channel it into areas that
Speaker 2: could be controlled and essentially hidden from the public while
Speaker 2: giving the public a way to report, you know, lights
Speaker 2: in the sky. That's a historic passage, it's a historic
Speaker 2: turning point, and it's interesting in asking then why would
Speaker 2: they do that. And again here I'm not jumping to
Speaker 2: conclusion that they just want to hide it. And I
Speaker 2: think there is something else, and I think what we
Speaker 2: see now, you know, under the current administration keeps reinforcing
Speaker 2: that idea that there is something else that cannot be told,
Speaker 2: just cannot be told. And I think at some point,
Speaker 2: you know, there were three times when the subject could
Speaker 2: have been open. The first time was, you know, in
Speaker 2: the early fifties. I was still in France in the
Speaker 2: early fifties as a young astronomer. There were franch astronomers
Speaker 2: who had seen UFOs and I knew it because I
Speaker 2: was working at Paris Observatory. Was never published anywhere, but
Speaker 2: I knew they existed. So I went to I had
Speaker 2: a friend in the French Air Force and he had
Speaker 2: access to the old fives of the French Airforce. Franch
Speaker 2: Airforce didn't know what to do with it. So there
Speaker 2: were about two hundred and fifty growing cases by pilots
Speaker 2: and so on in the late forties and early fifties
Speaker 2: in France. And I have never seen the light of
Speaker 2: day still except in a few cases that I've cited
Speaker 2: in my books. And this was before you know, the
Speaker 2: CNES and all the Space Agency and so on. So
Speaker 2: you know, I read all that, and I asked a
Speaker 2: friend of mine name Michelle, who had done research in
Speaker 2: France on those cases, you know, why why don't they
Speaker 2: go public about this? A Minute's really interesting? Scientifically it's interesting.
Speaker 2: And he said, well, you know, I I have lunch
Speaker 2: with a French Air Force officer who is in charge
Speaker 2: of the fives, Colonel clair One, and I'll ask him,
Speaker 2: you know, why don't they make this public? So he
Speaker 2: has lunch with the Carol and he asked him, and
Speaker 2: the Carol says, it's a great question. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: going to look into it. So we'll have lunch a
Speaker 2: month from now. You know, in France you always have lunch,
Speaker 2: you know, when you need to discuss something, usually in
Speaker 2: a very nice little restaurant somewhere. And so they have
Speaker 2: lunch again a month later, and Amy Michelle says, well,
Speaker 2: what did they say? You know, what did your superior sey?
Speaker 2: He said, I I went to see the American embassy,
Speaker 2: you know, and my counterpart from the American Air Force,
Speaker 2: and I asked them, why don't you guys open up
Speaker 2: the fires and on UFOs and the guy said, look,
Speaker 2: too many things happening in the world. Now, this was
Speaker 2: the fifties. I mean, this was you know, the problems
Speaker 2: with the Soviet Union, the atomic threat, everything else. Uh,
Speaker 2: you know, so many things happening in the world. We
Speaker 2: don't need one more subject that is going to worry
Speaker 2: everybody where. We don't have the answer. So okay, So
Speaker 2: that was there was no disclosure. There could have been
Speaker 2: a disclosure. If they had disclosed it at the time,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't have been a big uproar. You know, people
Speaker 2: would have said that ciniasting science. I mean, it's great
Speaker 2: if the air life. There were books in those days
Speaker 2: about life in universe and so and that's not new.
Speaker 2: I mean this was you know, there were many books
Speaker 2: and reports going back to Flamario, you know, in the
Speaker 2: nineteenth century and all that. I mean in France it
Speaker 2: was a common topic in science. You know, it wasn't
Speaker 2: a big thing. I wonder why it's a big thing
Speaker 2: today in the US. I mean, this has been, you know,
Speaker 2: obviously one of the great subjects in science. So that
Speaker 2: died and everything went underground. At the Robertson panel could
Speaker 2: have opened it up. I mean they could have said, Look,
Speaker 2: they had a Nobel price. They had four of the
Speaker 2: leading physicists in the country who had worked on the
Speaker 2: bomb with Oppenheimer, who had been there, you know, had
Speaker 2: been part of the American effort to win the World
Speaker 2: War two. They had enormous prestige. They could have opened
Speaker 2: up the fires, but there had done an exceptional job
Speaker 2: of documenting everything, all the statistics that could have been
Speaker 2: published instead of being closed again and kept secret for
Speaker 2: so long. Why they didn't do it, Well again, I
Speaker 2: think they will live to regret it not opening it,
Speaker 2: because then people were talking about you know, going into space,
Speaker 2: satellites and so on. It was you know, three years later,
Speaker 2: nineteen fifty sevens. But Nick, you know, people were ready
Speaker 2: for that. It was exciting. It was we were going
Speaker 2: to go into the universe, eventually to the moon, eventually
Speaker 2: men would fly in space and so on. So but instead,
Speaker 2: you know, they were afraid of the subject of what
Speaker 2: public opinion would do with it, and they clamped it
Speaker 2: down against the advice of Battel itself. They won't consultant. Okay, then, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, at the time of the Content report, the
Speaker 2: Content report could very much have said, look, there is
Speaker 2: something there. In fact, Professor Condon, which I got to
Speaker 2: know and respect on a personal basis. With doctor Heinek,
Speaker 2: we were the first ones to testify before the Content
Speaker 2: Committee uh In in Bolder. Uh I did say that
Speaker 2: there was that there was a problem there, that not
Speaker 2: everything was explained, but that there were more important things
Speaker 2: in science, and that this was, you know, the second
Speaker 2: there is subject that wasn't very important and that it
Speaker 2: could be dismissed by you know, in terms of American science.
Speaker 2: But you know, if you read the whole thing, one
Speaker 2: third of the reports that they investigated is unidentified. One third. Okay,
Speaker 2: nobody reads the video appendix. Okay, they read the conclusions
Speaker 2: and then they read, well, the New York Times says
Speaker 2: about it, and the New York Times said there's nothing
Speaker 2: to UFOs, and that killed the subject for ten years.
Speaker 2: I mean it killed it. I mean at that point
Speaker 2: I gave up on American science, and I had offers
Speaker 2: to go back to you to France, and I went back.
Speaker 2: I you know, my wife and I took our kid
Speaker 2: and we went back to France and then back because
Speaker 2: things changed. But essentially I was just completely disgusted with
Speaker 2: the with the whole thing. It seemed completely closed as
Speaker 2: it seems now. I mean we're back to those days.
Speaker 2: So there have been those three cases where it could
Speaker 2: have been honestly opened with the truth, told people, namely
Speaker 2: that we've got a phenomenon that's very, very big and
Speaker 2: that we don't understand the first thing about it. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's the truth, okay. In one sentence, Doctor Heineck had
Speaker 2: remained friend, you know, close to of course, Project blue
Speaker 2: Book and some of the some of the officers from
Speaker 2: the Air Force who led Project Blue Book. The one
Speaker 2: that he respected the most was a man named uh,
Speaker 2: Major Friend, who was a black officer from the Air
Speaker 2: Force who was, in doctor Heinez's estimation, the most uh,
Speaker 2: the most dedicated men who led the Air Force study.
Speaker 2: And he went back to a Major Friend and asked him, look,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't have the clearances you have, but
Speaker 2: you know, tell me what does this whole thing mean?
Speaker 2: And Major Friend smiled and he said it can only
Speaker 2: mean one of two things. Either they know what it is. Oh,
Speaker 2: they don't know what it is. And that was just
Speaker 2: so perfect, you know, and it's true today. I mean,
Speaker 2: what's going on with them with Congress and with the
Speaker 2: you know, the hearings and all these pilots standing up
Speaker 2: in front of the committee and so well, it means
Speaker 2: either they know what it is so they won't tell it,
Speaker 2: or they don't know what it is and they will
Speaker 2: pretend they know what it is. That's where we're still
Speaker 2: at that stage. So come on, I mean, let's level
Speaker 2: with the people and tell them this is new. We
Speaker 2: don't have any idea what it really is in the
Speaker 2: big system of things, and we need we need more
Speaker 2: scientists involved all over the world, not just closed up
Speaker 2: with secrets and pipes of secrets that are essentially when
Speaker 2: you get to the bottom of that that columns of secrets,
Speaker 2: there's nothing there is. There is a big question mark.
Speaker 2: The big question mark is the most secret thing.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, unfortunately we all have like four minutes
Speaker 1: or so. But something I've said a number of times
Speaker 1: in the show, and I just wondered if you agree
Speaker 1: with my thoughts or not. I do believe, well, let's
Speaker 1: talk about the United States government, and this is just
Speaker 1: my own theory. I do believe that they know more
Speaker 1: than we do, or some part that knows more than
Speaker 1: we do about what's going on. But my thoughts are
Speaker 1: is that they do not have the full picture, And
Speaker 1: because they do not have the full picture, how can
Speaker 1: they possibly say that they can protect us from herder
Speaker 1: it's not dangerous. So I just wondered, do you think
Speaker 1: that might be a fair statement or how do you
Speaker 1: feel about that?
Speaker 2: I don't think it's one thing. The topic can be
Speaker 2: looked at and can be classified in different different things.
Speaker 2: I think what they are looking at is what the
Speaker 2: military is looking at. I mean all the people who
Speaker 2: are emerging before Congress and so on in you know,
Speaker 2: people who are in uniform or were recently in uniform,
Speaker 2: running different projects, some of them classified and some of
Speaker 2: them still classified. But those projects had to do with
Speaker 2: gathering information from air force facilities, from radar, from pictures,
Speaker 2: not pictures, but images, infram read images and the like,
Speaker 2: which is you know, it's natural to keep that somewhat
Speaker 2: classified because the technologies themselves are classified. So that's in
Speaker 2: the complex thing. There is What about all the cases
Speaker 2: of the farmer in the field who sees something land
Speaker 2: and you know, he's going to call me because he's
Speaker 2: heard of my books, And I go there and he
Speaker 2: shows me the traces and he tells me the whole story.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's and I've gone, you know, all all
Speaker 2: the way through Utah from north to south and east
Speaker 2: and west, talking to ordinary people, not just on the
Speaker 2: Biggler Ranch, you know, all over the northern half of
Speaker 2: Utah with Professor Salisbury twice a whole week at the time,
Speaker 2: talking to talking to witnesses and having lunch with them
Speaker 2: and going over what they had seen. We only published
Speaker 2: a small a small sample of all that. It's all there,
Speaker 2: and that's not secret. I mean, I can take you there.
Speaker 2: And then there is there are the medical aspects that
Speaker 2: are not clear, that have not They have been researched,
Speaker 2: but their research has not been published, and it should
Speaker 2: be pursued. Of course it cannot the names of people
Speaker 2: cannot be published because under hipas But I have been
Speaker 2: part of enough medical research teams to tell you there
Speaker 2: are ways of extracting that information and actually publishing it
Speaker 2: for your colleagues and for other hospitals and so on.
Speaker 2: That has not been done. Okay, So that's that should
Speaker 2: be open. And then then there are the the the
Speaker 2: impact on consciousness on religion that doctor Crypel has preserved,
Speaker 2: you know at Rice University and all of that. I
Speaker 2: mean that is that is open. People can can go there.
Speaker 2: Uh my vives, I will be open in due time
Speaker 2: because I think they would serve no purpose in the
Speaker 2: current confusion right now. But eventually they you know, they
Speaker 2: are in good shape and they can be open. So
Speaker 2: it's not a question that this is all secret. You know,
Speaker 2: people know about this. People have seen those things all
Speaker 2: over the all over the world. You know you can
Speaker 2: you can go to Egypt and talk to people about it.
Speaker 2: You can go to Russia and talk to people about it.
Speaker 2: They know that I went to Russia. I found a
Speaker 2: kid who had translated two of my books into Russian.
Speaker 2: You know, they were in Sami's that form, but people
Speaker 2: were reading them. He never asked permission. I mean I
Speaker 2: would have given him permission, but you know those things circulate.
Speaker 2: People translated themselves and give it to their friends.
Speaker 1: That's great.
Speaker 2: So it's wonderful.
Speaker 1: Yes, And I hate to say this, we're out of
Speaker 1: time because I feel like we just scratched the surface
Speaker 1: and if it wasn't a hard out here we are, Yes,
Speaker 1: it wasn't.
Speaker 2: And we'll see if I changed my if I changed
Speaker 2: your mind.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know it was great. It was wonderful. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, and please have those people watching live
Speaker 1: jump over to the John Kayaku stream that's up next.
Speaker 1: And thank you so much. Jacques. It's been a real pleasure,
Speaker 1: always wonderful talking to you again. This could be four
Speaker 1: hours and I don't think we just get started. Thanks again.
Speaker 1: All right, everyone jump over to the next stream and
Speaker 1: remember to keep your eyes to the sky. We'll be
Speaker 1: back next week as well.