Speaker 1: Thanks easing, Welcome to podcasts UFO and Martin willis your
Speaker 1: host tonight's live show. It's a real treat for myself
Speaker 1: and hopefully all of you out there, because we're going
Speaker 1: to be joined by the uf the legendary UFO researchers,
Speaker 1: Jaques Vala. He's going to be discussing his latest book,
Speaker 1: Forbidden Science seven and it's basically Jacques's final volume of
Speaker 1: personal journals covering the extraordinary period between twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. And we did have COVID during that
Speaker 1: time as well, so when this also discusses when the
Speaker 1: UFO topic moved to the congressional hearings, government discussion, but
Speaker 1: it's still a very complex, perplex issue. We're going to
Speaker 1: be talking about all that, and I feel fortunate to
Speaker 1: say this is the fourth interview that I've had with
Speaker 1: Shock over the past fifteen years. I feel he's a
Speaker 1: fine and highly respected, groundbreaking person in this topic and
Speaker 1: he's helped move the needle for decades, and I hope
Speaker 1: that a lot of people out there have read some
Speaker 1: of his books. There's some amazing books that he's written
Speaker 1: over the years, and we're going to be talking about
Speaker 1: his reflections on that too as we go along here today.
Speaker 1: So next week, just a couple of things. Next Tuesday
Speaker 1: at eight pm Eastern, my guest will be Scott Geerin.
Speaker 1: He's the author of Hiding in Plain Sight. It's a
Speaker 1: book about unidentified phenomenon in our atmosphere with lots of pictures.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned last week, Scott as someone who fell
Speaker 1: three thousand feet when his parachute was basically ruined as
Speaker 1: canopy was ruined, and hit the ground at one hundred
Speaker 1: miles an hour and lived to talk about amazing person.
Speaker 1: So next Thursday, I will be at the Moufon Symposium,
Speaker 1: but I'll still have our regular Thursday show at a
Speaker 1: pm Eastern, and I'll be joined by x the excellent
Speaker 1: Australian UFO researcher Grant Levic. That's a pre recorded show,
Speaker 1: had to pre record because of the time difference. So
Speaker 1: if you are attending the MoveOn Symposium, please come over
Speaker 1: and say hello.
Speaker 2: I'll be all over the place.
Speaker 1: I'll be running a panel and different things there behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, but you can reach out to me at
Speaker 1: my contact information pod Martinette PODCASTUFO dot com. I'm really
Speaker 1: excited to meet Alex Dietrich and a number of other people.
Speaker 2: Classfond from Sweden. It's going to be there.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to him for years, so I'm excited
Speaker 1: to see him as well. Be sure to check out
Speaker 1: PODCASTUFO dot com for this week's really amazing blog. Another
Speaker 1: one by UFO history buff Charles Lear been five years
Speaker 1: now he's been writing for us. This one's titled in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty four UFO Humanoid Report, and that happened on
Speaker 1: April twenty fourth, nineteen sixty four with a New York farmer,
Speaker 1: Gary Wilcox, and it had the egg shaped craft just
Speaker 1: like Ronnie's and morrisaw the same year, four foot tall humanoids,
Speaker 1: same thing, but he did claim that they claimed that
Speaker 1: they were from Mars, which I think is pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: All right, so it's time to bring our guests in.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show, Jacques. So good to have you here.
Speaker 3: Thank you for inviting me. Indeed, this is a unique time.
Speaker 3: You mentioned we've done this show before, but this is
Speaker 3: the first time we do it. As the subject becomes official,
Speaker 3: it's officially recognized that the phenomenon is real, so it's new.
Speaker 3: It's a new era.
Speaker 1: Yes, I know, you've seen all these years that you've
Speaker 1: done research, You've seen all the seemingly steps forward and
Speaker 1: then steps back.
Speaker 2: A lot of people weren't around.
Speaker 1: That watch the show, listen to the show that saw
Speaker 1: things as recently as the roswell slides and things like that,
Speaker 1: things the goof ops that are made along the way
Speaker 1: that has people pointing fingers, don't listen to us type
Speaker 1: of thing. And now it seems like things are more
Speaker 1: serious than ever. And so I know we're going to
Speaker 1: be talking about your book, but also I want to
Speaker 1: ask you questions about all your journey along the way.
Speaker 1: But so did I read somewhere where it was nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty seven or is that when you had your encounter
Speaker 1: that you had.
Speaker 3: It was earlier than that. It was about nineteen fifty
Speaker 3: five or so, in close to Perris. I wouldn't call
Speaker 3: it an encounter because the object was maybe hol for
Speaker 3: Kiddle Miller away in the sky. But this was very clear.
Speaker 3: This was in the middle of the afternoon, the blue sky.
Speaker 3: I was with Letty mother, who had seen it f
Speaker 3: This was during the summer holiday and she was just
Speaker 3: working in the garden and I joined her. There was
Speaker 3: an object in the sky, which I can only describe
Speaker 3: as a as an oval or disk scene on the
Speaker 3: side with a small dome on top, clear dome. It
Speaker 3: was very dispaintingous. Guy was not moving and it lasted
Speaker 3: a number of minutes. I think I don't have a
Speaker 3: clear memory of what I did afterwards. I probably went
Speaker 3: back into her house to try to get my father's attention,
Speaker 3: was working on something inside. The next day I spoke
Speaker 3: to a friend of mine from home from the school,
Speaker 3: and he had seen it from his house, which which
Speaker 3: was about another half kilmet up the hill from us,
Speaker 3: and he had binoculars and he looked at it. He
Speaker 3: had time to go get his binoculars, and I got
Speaker 3: him to draw it, and what he drew was essentially
Speaker 3: what I had seen, three witnesses at the same time.
Speaker 3: Perfect weather, blue sky, middle of summer. What can go wrong?
Speaker 3: What can go wrong? Is nobody had any idea what
Speaker 3: it was. My father, who had a long military experience
Speaker 3: he was a judge, but he had been in the war,
Speaker 3: said there are new aircraft types being tested and being deployed.
Speaker 3: Those were the early days of the jet aircraft of
Speaker 3: all kinds. Then he said, maybe this is a type
Speaker 3: of a new type of aircraft. So I took that advice.
Speaker 3: We never reported it, and I wasn't really very interesting.
Speaker 3: I followed the subject, it was in the prence, but
Speaker 3: I wasn't thinking of doing any kind of research about
Speaker 3: it until my first job a few years later when
Speaker 3: I graduated from the Sorbonne and my first job was
Speaker 3: at Parish Observatory and we were getting letters from the public,
Speaker 3: and being an official organization, we had to respond to
Speaker 3: the public, and so occasionally I would call these people
Speaker 3: on the phone to really understand what he had seen,
Speaker 3: and that convinced me that there were in fact usos
Speaker 3: and it restarted my home interest in it. And then
Speaker 3: being within the French government, I had access to some
Speaker 3: of the military reports from before from the fourties in
Speaker 3: the early fifties, and also the Kilt reports from within
Speaker 3: the astronomical community, which will not published. So that's when
Speaker 3: I selled to compile in a catalog just to do
Speaker 3: elementary statistics, and over the years that has grown up
Speaker 3: into a very upset of catalogs, actually a data warehouse
Speaker 3: that is being studied right now by different people.
Speaker 1: Nice, wow, I've you just look at your bookcase is
Speaker 1: very intriguing. That's and when I was there, it was
Speaker 1: just amazed at how many books you have, what a
Speaker 1: collection and a very interesting and the books you've written
Speaker 1: Passport to Magonia, it's just that's like a legendary book
Speaker 1: at this point. But I'm going to just try to
Speaker 1: throw you a few different questions, maybe no one's ever
Speaker 1: asked you before. If you could go back to writing that,
Speaker 1: would you change anything? Or if you have the knowledge
Speaker 1: that you have today and you could go back and
Speaker 1: change something in that book, would you change anything in
Speaker 1: that in Passport?
Speaker 3: In fact, I've been working for many years where they
Speaker 3: are remarkable research in Spain is English mers, but he
Speaker 3: works in Spain named Chris Obek. And oh yes, I've
Speaker 3: published a collection of cases from eight scholed Wonders in
Speaker 3: the Sky and it was published in England and in
Speaker 3: the US and translated into several languages, especially German and French.
Speaker 3: And that catalog is a number of cases from all
Speaker 3: of the history. Yes, I've gone back into those were
Speaker 3: not just legends. There were observations that for one reason
Speaker 3: or another, socially or in terms of the breach of
Speaker 3: religious traditions, people could not really talk about the reality
Speaker 3: of way it's what they had seen, and it became
Speaker 3: a fairy tale. It became a story that the children remembered.
Speaker 3: And when you look back at the archives and the correspondence,
Speaker 3: which thanks to the web, we can now do a
Speaker 3: lot better. And we continued to find those original documents
Speaker 3: that match those sightings, and that includes spheres, yellow shares
Speaker 3: or white spares of up to three feet in diameter
Speaker 3: going through the countryside, not in connection with name or anything.
Speaker 3: So those I'm not a normal physical phenomena that we know,
Speaker 3: but they match what people are reporting today and this
Speaker 3: goes back to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, okay in Europe.
Speaker 3: And then we had Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: I was lucky enough to have Chris on and I
Speaker 1: really fascinated about anything historical anyway, and so that that
Speaker 1: was a really nice show to have him on it.
Speaker 2: I was involved in some type of chat with.
Speaker 1: All the information coming in all the time, and boy,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of research, a lot of people really
Speaker 1: doing a lot of heavy duty research on the early
Speaker 1: documents and things.
Speaker 2: It was very nice. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Network that included people in Russia. He still do of course,
Speaker 3: people in Spain and France and Latin American. So so
Speaker 3: we had a network of about fifteen active researchers and
Speaker 3: it took us full ten years to write that book.
Speaker 2: Wow, wow, I believe it. Oh, by the way, here's
Speaker 2: your book. Thank you for sending it along. Thank you
Speaker 2: and very nice.
Speaker 1: And one of the things I think of is, I
Speaker 1: know that in this book there's mentions of consciousness and
Speaker 1: the connection there.
Speaker 2: And I recently, just a.
Speaker 1: Couple of days ago, two days ago, I had a
Speaker 1: gentleman on and he came up with a you know
Speaker 1: how everyone just has different ideas, and it's really worth
Speaker 1: listening to these different ideas of what the phenomenon may be,
Speaker 1: I believe, And he had something that I had never
Speaker 1: heard before. And he's a philosopher, but he said something
Speaker 1: along the lines where it could be like an energy
Speaker 1: that's always been here, that presents itself and then goes
Speaker 1: away type of thing.
Speaker 2: And I thought that was a novel idea.
Speaker 1: I hadn't heard that one previous because I'm always trying
Speaker 1: to understand the consciousness connection type of thing.
Speaker 2: So what your thoughts are on that.
Speaker 3: There is an energy? Of course, that's what we see
Speaker 3: it manifesting as light in the electromegating spectrum, so that's
Speaker 3: an energy. It's also an energy in the sense that
Speaker 3: it leaves traces in the grow. He must mean something
Speaker 3: at a different level of an energy, like what we
Speaker 3: call the life energy, which we don't really define very clearly,
Speaker 3: but it's what animates us. Then of course it's a
Speaker 3: mix of different functions it in that sense. Does he
Speaker 3: mean we're conscious energy or just a physical energy? But
Speaker 3: physical energy, we have a lot of it around.
Speaker 2: I believe what he said.
Speaker 1: I'd be glad to send you more of what's his
Speaker 1: ideas were. And the one thing that I really liked
Speaker 1: about him he says, I'm probably wrong, but I like
Speaker 1: when people talk that way instead of this is the
Speaker 1: way it is. But basically that it was. It's kind
Speaker 1: of something that's always been here, that has a high intelligence,
Speaker 1: that can manifest and come into our spectrum for a moment,
Speaker 1: and then he thinks that some of the phenomena may
Speaker 1: be something along those lines.
Speaker 3: Well, there is a lot of science fiction for the
Speaker 3: last fifty years or more about that of there is
Speaker 3: a book called The Black Cloud. But if you were
Speaker 3: a black cloud of ionized matter, ionized energy, and drifting
Speaker 3: through space, and you will need to look like a
Speaker 3: folksmagen who would stop you there is The book was
Speaker 3: written by a prominent English astronomer as science fiction, saying,
Speaker 3: if you have a lot of energy, you can manifest
Speaker 3: in any form you want. The problem with usos is
Speaker 3: when they leave traces, we can measure they leave and
Speaker 3: as I've looked a lot at energy related to different cases,
Speaker 3: and so has doctor Heinex, so have many of our
Speaker 3: colleagues in the field, because that's what you can measure.
Speaker 3: We have we have instruments that measure energy, they especially
Speaker 3: light energy, and then we can measure pressure on the ground,
Speaker 3: and then we can measure what energy it takes to,
Speaker 3: for example, kill a planet that might be an about
Speaker 3: when we know the dimensions, and in many cases we do.
Speaker 3: Now we've made a lot of progress over fifty years,
Speaker 3: both in methodology and in actual data. So that's a
Speaker 3: body of research that we're passing on to the next
Speaker 3: generation and I'm delighted to see that. So my role
Speaker 3: in the future, that's why I called this book final
Speaker 3: with God. I see my role in the future as
Speaker 3: being a resource to the new researchers coming into a
Speaker 3: field well, hopefully with some basis in science or research
Speaker 3: or engineering where they can, they don't have to redo
Speaker 3: the road that we traveled in a long further now
Speaker 3: seventy years and fortunate to see this day when things
Speaker 3: have become open. I've been asked to rejoin the scientific
Speaker 3: board of the French Space Committee the CNEES, which is
Speaker 3: a space agency in France, or we'll be spending more
Speaker 3: time in Europe working with my colleagues there.
Speaker 2: Nice, very nice.
Speaker 1: Now there are some long time listeners here that a
Speaker 1: few of them have posted questions, so I'm just going
Speaker 1: to put them up. We can get to them now
Speaker 1: and then through throughout this So do abduction scenarios reflect
Speaker 1: the phenomenon's deceptive nature or the limits of human perception?
Speaker 2: Translating the truly anomalous?
Speaker 3: The problem with abductions, and of course I've followed that.
Speaker 3: I think it's from the beginning until the Very and
Speaker 3: Bowley Hill case, I wasn't and I'm not a psychologist,
Speaker 3: I'm not a psychiatrist so on, but I consulted with them.
Speaker 3: Then the conclusion was that this seemed just completely out
Speaker 3: of the range of things people as dreams, people have
Speaker 3: dreams that people get up in the middle of the night,
Speaker 3: still sleeping, and so on, and they may put sieve
Speaker 3: things that are about of their dream. All of that
Speaker 3: is known. There are nightmarees that can continue to have
Speaker 3: an influence during the day that will be very strange,
Speaker 3: and those are known in the psychology literature in psychiatry.
Speaker 3: But what was described the turning point for me was
Speaker 3: better about the Hill because the book was excellent. They
Speaker 3: were credible witnesses, and I had a chance to meet
Speaker 3: with them at length several times, and I had a
Speaker 3: chance to talk to the psychiatrists who had done the
Speaker 3: regression separate regression. So the problem is a lot of
Speaker 3: people have been doing hypnosis who should not have been
Speaker 3: doing hypnosis because it's not the best way to help
Speaker 3: these people. I've had letters from people who are hypnotized
Speaker 3: many times by some of the euthologists who are not
Speaker 3: licensed in any way to practice hypnosis. And hypnosis is
Speaker 3: both the medical and the psychological condition that's not completely
Speaker 3: understood by medicine or by psychology. And work with others
Speaker 3: it and it can be used. It's admissible in California
Speaker 3: in court under certain very strict conditions, and professional conditions.
Speaker 3: Those are not the conditions that we read in the
Speaker 3: US or bost somebody says, you are now under my
Speaker 3: control and tell me how manys Okay, that is absolutely wrong.
Speaker 3: And the problem is that what people have gone through
Speaker 3: that you cannot re hypnotize them professionally. Then I have
Speaker 3: letters from people who are outsited in some of those
Speaker 3: books saying the author only took the pobbles could be
Speaker 3: interoperating as aliens, but there were a lot of other things,
Speaker 3: and he doesn't want to talk about these other things,
Speaker 3: and they came out under hypnosis and he doesn't talk
Speaker 3: about it, and send me to a doctor who does
Speaker 3: hypnosis professionally, and I have to answer, I can't do
Speaker 3: that because the first hypnosis froze some conditions. And if
Speaker 3: you are rehypnotized, you're going to go back to particular
Speaker 3: wrong hypnosis. So people should not be hypnotized. They should
Speaker 3: they certainly can talk to a professional psychologist or professional psychiatrist,
Speaker 3: asking them what are the techniques that could help them,
Speaker 3: depending on their condition, some of them all terrified. Now
Speaker 3: way is that you can you can treat that without traumatized,
Speaker 3: without adding to the trauma. And then then you may
Speaker 3: want to use they may want to use hypnosis in
Speaker 3: certain cases. Now I've looked into about so many cases
Speaker 3: of abduction. I've convinced myself that these people had a
Speaker 3: an experience that is real to them, and that I
Speaker 3: cannot explain.
Speaker 4: Part of the citing I had in nineteen fifty five,
Speaker 4: I don't remember consciously, and I've struggled with that.
Speaker 3: I've never written very much about it, but now I
Speaker 3: think I can. I should go back to it and
Speaker 3: confessed that because at the end of that observation I
Speaker 3: don't remember what I did. I don't remember it clearly,
Speaker 3: So I took that as a sort of methodology test.
Speaker 3: Then I went to two hypnotists. The first one was
Speaker 3: a professor of psychiatry at UCLA, doctor Price Williams, who
Speaker 3: was a very distinguished writer and psychiatrist. He hypnotized me
Speaker 3: and I was immediately paralyzed on the lips and during
Speaker 3: the induction. He saw that when he brought me out
Speaker 3: and he said, maybe we'll do it again another time,
Speaker 3: but I don't want to continue under those conditions. Those
Speaker 3: are the things where the apertures just keep going. And
Speaker 3: the same cases where somebody was who was really close
Speaker 3: with heart attack after that, and uphologists ran away and
Speaker 3: not the patient there. Now, there are those horror stories
Speaker 3: in the field, so when the skeptics refused to look
Speaker 3: at them, they may have an argument that we need
Speaker 3: to engage. The second time was recently a couple of
Speaker 3: years ago here in San Francisco, with again the licensed
Speaker 3: hypnotest who is able to testify in court and professionally,
Speaker 3: and we did three sessions and I got deeper into
Speaker 3: the trance, but when it came time to essentially recreate
Speaker 3: the conditions of the sighting, it became very confusing and
Speaker 3: we really didn't get anything, and he had to bring
Speaker 3: me out. That's part of one type of experiences that
Speaker 3: I had. There is no question there was the US
Speaker 3: or there What role did it play in motivating me
Speaker 3: to look into this way I did? I don't know.
Speaker 3: I've met other people who were in serial situations. Doctor
Speaker 3: Nolan at Stanford has made no mystery that as a
Speaker 3: child he had experiences, not so much of he has
Speaker 3: not talked as far as I know, about a similar condition,
Speaker 3: but it's talked about objects in the sky and confusing
Speaker 3: situations with actual short beings around him. When when you
Speaker 3: can open up, open up the confidence well with people,
Speaker 3: will you you find you've discovered those But it's a
Speaker 3: long whin they answer. That's a complex question. It takes,
Speaker 3: it takes a complete answer.
Speaker 1: I also agree with the part about the when you
Speaker 1: talk about hypnotism and someone leads someone say like you
Speaker 1: said about the aliens instead of letting them talk like
Speaker 1: how many aliens were there, and that's considered leading.
Speaker 3: You'll planting. You'll planting an idea.
Speaker 1: And the thing that really happens with memory, I'm sure
Speaker 1: you know this is whenever you're remembering something, you're rebuilding
Speaker 1: what you thought about last time. And so that's how
Speaker 1: that works in hypnotizing. If someone was hypnotized and.
Speaker 2: Then remember this, they'll remember it again.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that is a if it's not done right
Speaker 1: in the beginning, you can't really undo it.
Speaker 2: That's what it sounds like.
Speaker 5: And there are other ways of helping elish people, other
Speaker 5: techniques like you can induce and deepen without saying you
Speaker 5: are a go medicaltrol.
Speaker 3: What tell me about the shape of the object, which
Speaker 3: is a brutal, irreversible way to do it, which is.
Speaker 1: Worth So this is just an unusual question that I
Speaker 1: thought of. If the phenomenon functions partly as a control
Speaker 1: system that adapts to human beliefs and expectations, like it
Speaker 1: possibly could have over the many centuries, would the current
Speaker 1: disclosure movement itself be changing the phenomenon.
Speaker 3: Sure, it already has because in Washington, the people testifying
Speaker 3: before Congress and right I have the courage to come
Speaker 3: up and speak about what they have experienced. But most
Speaker 3: of them come from a military or intelligence environment that's
Speaker 3: very structured, very disciplined, and somewhat narrow. So I to me,
Speaker 3: most of the observations that are in my books come
Speaker 3: from a farmer in the field, or somebody driving on
Speaker 3: the road, or a child playing in the field. Those
Speaker 3: are not classified. Those are not And I respect the
Speaker 3: people who say yes, But the miniature cases are better
Speaker 3: because there is an instrument. The instrument is calibrated very well.
Speaker 3: If it's an aircraft, you know exactly where you were,
Speaker 3: and you know your speed, you know conditions. It's all.
Speaker 3: You have a new wax above you, and you have
Speaker 3: people a radar on the ground below you. Everybody knows
Speaker 3: what happens, and you know the time exactly. You can
Speaker 3: measure it. Yes, but you are in something that's moving
Speaker 3: very fast. You can only see through the windows you
Speaker 3: have that are designed for essentially for combat, and your
Speaker 3: instruments are designed for combat. They are not designed as
Speaker 3: scientific instruments to measure the environment. To me with farmer
Speaker 3: in the field, this is I'll take both. I sell
Speaker 3: the I'm fascinated with what the professional pilots have reported.
Speaker 3: We just compiled a new catalog of pilot cases with
Speaker 3: people in France that covers the twentieth century from nineteen
Speaker 3: hundred two thousand. That is twice the size of the
Speaker 3: catalog that the project in Las Vegas, the Classified Project,
Speaker 3: a PASS project, or the ass or SUP project. They
Speaker 3: published the results of their statistics about pilot scientings. We
Speaker 3: just finished the catalog that's twice that size. So we're
Speaker 3: going to write an unclassified scientific paper comparing their results,
Speaker 3: which were authorized for this closure, with the new results,
Speaker 3: which all from twice as many cases of pilot sitings.
Speaker 2: As we call it, excellent, that's great.
Speaker 1: This is a person has been asking this question quite
Speaker 1: a bit right from the very beginning, and it's about Gilbert.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly, I'm sure you know exactly what
Speaker 1: he's talking about. But do you have more details about
Speaker 1: Gilbert himself.
Speaker 3: I have more details that people were kind enough to
Speaker 3: share with me because they thought I should know about.
Speaker 3: And that is about structured contact with an entity, not
Speaker 3: the ones that were found at as Well or Trinity
Speaker 3: or its Socorro or in Brazil recently. That I seem
Speaker 3: to be very adapted to conditions on Earth. They walk
Speaker 3: on Earth pretty much normally. We don't work normally on
Speaker 3: the moon. Okay, so these are humanhoods. They breathe the air.
Speaker 3: We can read the expressions in their eyes, and those don't.
Speaker 3: They may be aliens in some way, but there is
Speaker 3: a higher level identity that, according to Gilbert, Gilbert is
Speaker 3: not the name the right name. Are in contact with
Speaker 3: us for a number of years, for at least twenty years,
Speaker 3: if not go and how seeing looking for interaction with
Speaker 3: us in structured ways? They don't you know, they're not
Speaker 3: using our language. So the problem is to build an
Speaker 3: interface where we can begin to understand each other. That's
Speaker 3: what he told me. This is not first firsthand. I
Speaker 3: have not been in that lab, and it's really for
Speaker 3: him to describe that. I've seen the rest of it,
Speaker 3: including the detailed of the protocols and the actual language
Speaker 3: interaction with the reaction of that entity. But it's not
Speaker 3: for me to publish it. It doesn't be odd to me.
Speaker 3: And I'm hoping that he'll decide to publish it soon
Speaker 3: because that would be timery. It's another level beyond what
Speaker 3: people are talking about in Washington now, which is tissue
Speaker 3: samples and all of that, which to my understanding comes
Speaker 3: from what has been found after landing. This is different.
Speaker 3: This is the control level of the higher level, and
Speaker 3: it's looking for interaction with us. And if that can
Speaker 3: be verifine, and again I know only a small portion
Speaker 3: of it from one person, if it's very fine, we
Speaker 3: have to change. And that's a problem I have with
Speaker 3: the reports now that come from Washington or come from
Speaker 3: my colleagues in science. We're going to be studying this well.
Speaker 3: There is no way to study this without change. It's
Speaker 3: going to Spain to learn Spanish. When you come back
Speaker 3: and you've learned Spanish, your mind has changed because you
Speaker 3: have another way of thinking and formulating things around you.
Speaker 3: There are words in Spanish that we don't have in
Speaker 3: English or in French, and there are words in Spanish
Speaker 3: cook very similar to English words or to French words,
Speaker 3: and they mean something completely different, including describing a ufo
Speaker 3: close encoundar is a good example, Carol, So, I was
Speaker 3: in an investigation in Mexico, was and they what the
Speaker 3: person said was translated, this was a close en caundar.
Speaker 3: So he asked how far away was yet? And they
Speaker 3: said it was no more than a kirometor away. If
Speaker 3: it was a calemeter away, that's not the close encounterdar
Speaker 3: in length. So the but maybe the witness felt close
Speaker 3: to it, Okay, but that's not in terms of physics,
Speaker 3: it's not close. We have to be very careful and
Speaker 3: the experience changes us. And when we get seriously, when
Speaker 3: the new cadre of scientists get seriously into the dirt
Speaker 3: and into the fives, and I wish them well, they
Speaker 3: would change the perception of their own disciplinae. Under the
Speaker 3: Batch project with mister Biggerow, we hired about forty people
Speaker 3: to work in part on the database I was building,
Speaker 3: but also to run investigations to check some of the
Speaker 3: data that when they took a database, we ended up
Speaker 3: with two hundred and sixty thousand cases. These people came
Speaker 3: were all trained as investigators. Some of them retired from
Speaker 3: the FBI, retired from the police, retired from intelligence agencies.
Speaker 3: And they were doing this because they had always had
Speaker 3: an interest in the subject. But after two years, it
Speaker 3: took them two years to really understand what it's all
Speaker 3: about and what the questions are. There are really important questions,
Speaker 3: and how you deal with the witness. The witness is
Speaker 3: not a perpetrator. The witness is not anonymy. The witness
Speaker 3: is not a spy. The witness is complex. It takes
Speaker 3: two years. If you take somebody, they may have a PhD.
Speaker 3: I don't care in what discipline, it's going to take
Speaker 3: them two years before they can be useful in this research.
Speaker 1: Very interesting and that whole situation with Bass researching. Was
Speaker 1: there anything that really came out of that that was
Speaker 1: really stands out?
Speaker 3: Yes, I don't know the status of the database. I'm
Speaker 3: longer involved. The project was supposed to lust five years,
Speaker 3: was to be funded continuously for five years, and that's
Speaker 3: how we projected the different steps in the technologies which
Speaker 3: we will building. The project was cattle so and I
Speaker 3: never knew the real reason the subject was kendal to
Speaker 3: two and a half years I don't know the disposition
Speaker 3: of the database. I have my own database from before
Speaker 3: that I worked with in a new way though fortunately
Speaker 3: thanks to the new computer types, I can do that
Speaker 3: pretty much by myself, with just the people.
Speaker 1: And I've heard Bigelow about Bigelow talking lately, and he
Speaker 1: claims that he knows a lot of things. But these
Speaker 1: can't be anything that's classified, right, he wouldn't have a
Speaker 1: clearance for to know things that we couldn't know.
Speaker 3: I was clear during the project. All of us were
Speaker 3: cleared at the same level in research. I see, but
Speaker 3: I'm not. I don't consider myself a whistle blower. I
Speaker 3: mean I respect the process, even if I don't understand
Speaker 3: the process. I mean involved in other projects in the parapsychology,
Speaker 3: and I think it's a you know, it's a reasonable process.
Speaker 3: I don't know how you can just say we'll disclose it,
Speaker 3: which that doesn't make any sense. The system doesn't work
Speaker 3: that way. You should I sake you from where I sit.
Speaker 3: I think we should disclose a lot of the things
Speaker 3: that don't impinge on the security of the country or
Speaker 3: the safety of the systems we have. But it's that
Speaker 3: decision is way over my head.
Speaker 1: Now, I'm going to just ask a couple of questions
Speaker 1: about disclosure, because it always comes up with any anyone
Speaker 1: when you're talking about this, and I know if you've
Speaker 1: always support a greater openness, but you also warn about
Speaker 1: dangers ahead, like the difference between responsible disclosure and reckless disclosure.
Speaker 2: Can you go into that a little bit.
Speaker 3: I have not found two people who had the same
Speaker 3: definition of disclosure. So what Let's have disclosure, but the
Speaker 3: day after disclosure you have ten different interpretations of what
Speaker 3: people love it. Do they want access to the places
Speaker 3: where there may be tissue sampols bodies? Do they want
Speaker 3: to take out of USO? Do their not to study it,
Speaker 3: which would be reasonable. Do they want to do they
Speaker 3: want to know everything that we think we know about
Speaker 3: where the entities come from, or what they want. That's
Speaker 3: already very confusing when people look at the moon now
Speaker 3: and there's a marketplace that's being created on the web
Speaker 3: for everybody and his brother to say, I took a
Speaker 3: picture of ammonia esterday with my range telescope and I
Speaker 3: saw evidence of structures. Maybe get the same area from JPL.
Speaker 3: You can get it for a few bucks and JPL
Speaker 3: has taken it from satellites that were a few hundred
Speaker 3: or a few thousand kilometers from the surface of them,
Speaker 3: and they have the detail at the nearest CNI mill
Speaker 3: we have exquisite maps of the Moon. But this finds
Speaker 3: an audience. People want to believe that there are houses
Speaker 3: on the Moon, or domes or whatever. And in fact,
Speaker 3: at one time when we did not have those satellites,
Speaker 3: there were things that astronomer's soul on the Moon that
Speaker 3: could being interpreted is those and then when we got
Speaker 3: the next level of resolution of the by then they
Speaker 3: were not photographs. There were images, computer images like the limits.
Speaker 3: Images that are not photographs. Okay, everybody says liberal photographs
Speaker 3: from the Limits those are not photographs. The being photographs
Speaker 3: those are again, well, the digital images are the it
Speaker 3: that we measure. We again, we have to be very
Speaker 3: careful with bits. We can't just run away with bits.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, I agree, I think it does feel things feel.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you feel about this, but to me,
Speaker 1: I think things feel a little different. I feel as
Speaker 1: though there's more people coming on board all the time.
Speaker 1: It's been that way ever since two thousand and seventeen.
Speaker 1: But I still feel that it's like when someone like
Speaker 1: doctor Phil think of him, however, you will a lot
Speaker 1: of people look to him. And now he's saying that
Speaker 1: the government is putting out new files, but they're holding
Speaker 1: things back, which I actually mentioned to Earlson during a
Speaker 1: live forum, basically, where's the good stuff? So I'm just
Speaker 1: going to ask you in general, what do you think
Speaker 1: about the drops and where that's been heading.
Speaker 2: Drop the file drops?
Speaker 3: Well, what strikes me is that there is a contradiction
Speaker 3: in the statements. We have all these statements coming out
Speaker 3: that they including from the whistle broders, that we know
Speaker 3: a lot about this phenomenon, that we know all of it,
Speaker 3: and then we have these images that had not been studied.
Speaker 3: So if it's so important, there are war observations, and
Speaker 3: there are immediately some questions who of this, where were they?
Speaker 3: If it's a photograph, what kind of camera, what else happened?
Speaker 3: And so on?
Speaker 6: Those are if it's very important, and this happened eighteen
Speaker 6: months ago and it's just disclosed, now, how come there
Speaker 6: was no follower.
Speaker 3: If it's dangerous, if it's a threat, if it's coming
Speaker 3: from space, if it's another another dimension or another form
Speaker 3: of intelligence. How can we get the original beta with
Speaker 3: no research? Now that's the case. That's the case. Now,
Speaker 3: Doctor Noble with somebody by highly respect says there are
Speaker 3: a few cases in there that merits scientific attention, and yes,
Speaker 3: I think it's right. But the bulk of it, which
Speaker 3: is what the public is seeing, is and research. It's
Speaker 3: moll data. So if it's data, it means there wasn't
Speaker 3: anybody back there in charge of following up. And it's
Speaker 3: probably from my experients processing the Air Force fives US
Speaker 3: Air Force fives way back wave, doctor Heinech for a
Speaker 3: number of years. Recent of that is explainable. Okay, So
Speaker 3: who is going to take the time to go through
Speaker 3: all this? Where is the budget going to come from
Speaker 3: to do that? Because you have to go back to
Speaker 3: the original business. But remember the Bass project was closed
Speaker 3: fifteen years ago, so for fifteen years there has been
Speaker 3: no adjudication of the cases, including the good cases. And
Speaker 3: then a lot of quote my witnesses that were in
Speaker 3: the database that I compiled and then I turned over
Speaker 3: to the government century to the best project. Many of
Speaker 3: them have died in those fifteen years. I can't go
Speaker 3: back and interrogate them or do a follower. They're not there,
Speaker 3: so we have this gap. So from my point of
Speaker 3: view as as an information scientist with last fifteen years, Okay,
Speaker 3: so it's great that they are dumping the five in
Speaker 3: the open. You're write the number of people are coming
Speaker 3: in and may help sort out the good for the bad.
Speaker 3: That's where you start. So I think that's encouraging. Again,
Speaker 3: I'm very encouraged by what happens now. But I can
Speaker 3: tell you I said, I'm rejoining the French Project. The
Speaker 3: French Project has existed since nineteen seventy five continuously. It's
Speaker 3: fell of the French Space Agency with professionals in charge,
Speaker 3: and that database has been studied consistently since nineteen seventy five.
Speaker 3: Now that's a database that I can work with my
Speaker 3: colleagues today. So that's the kind of thing we have
Speaker 3: to build in this country that we don't have it.
Speaker 1: In a way, it seems like it would be sort
Speaker 1: of to pacify the public and the call for this information.
Speaker 1: But you're right, and a lot of these things that
Speaker 1: there's nothing attached to it. We can't see any other
Speaker 1: information just with videos. I'm talking about the videos right now,
Speaker 1: but the reactions I understand why it's redacted because of
Speaker 1: the sensitive instrument readings and things like that, but.
Speaker 2: Still there's nothing attached to it enough for someone to research.
Speaker 1: These are military, so I'm sure they're going to hold
Speaker 1: back whatever information they have, but there can It doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like they can go anywhere from what we're given.
Speaker 3: Basically, I follow doctor Rode when he says there are
Speaker 3: a few cases that we can use to test hypotheses
Speaker 3: or to build a model. There are a few cases
Speaker 3: they are better document. So that's the place to sell you.
Speaker 3: We don't have the staff to go study everything that
Speaker 3: some people are in the field to reinvestigate, look at
Speaker 3: possible traces and everything else, so we have to sell somewhere.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to talk a little bit now just
Speaker 1: about your wife's work and so as far as your
Speaker 1: early conclusions, do you feel that some of them have
Speaker 1: aged really on, some of them not as well.
Speaker 3: At the beginning, I was an enthusiastic young astronomer with
Speaker 3: a master's degree and later with a PhD. And I
Speaker 3: saw things in terms of what was going to happen
Speaker 3: with space science and sophisticated satellites. We were going to
Speaker 3: go to the morel and so I saw it. I
Speaker 3: saw the phenomenon in that gud room by space objects
Speaker 3: and they come from they come from outside. They appeared
Speaker 3: to come from outside. Then when you start looking at
Speaker 3: case by case in detail, thanks change because they don't
Speaker 3: appear as we said at the very beginning, they seem
Speaker 3: to match their behavior to their environment at the time.
Speaker 3: We have good data from the nineteenth century, in the
Speaker 3: early twentieth century before people called it UFOs that were
Speaker 3: the behavior of the phenomenon was but the physics was similar.
Speaker 3: So when you look at the physical in viarience, which
Speaker 3: is what scientists would look at, what is it that
Speaker 3: didn't change? That's why who can begin to start the
Speaker 3: rest of it is dressing on the salad, and you
Speaker 3: have a choice of dressing. So when I do that,
Speaker 3: it doesn't have to come from space as we as
Speaker 3: a space craft. It can come from Also, astrophysics has
Speaker 3: moved way beyond euphology in terms of thinking about it.
Speaker 3: And I remember in nineteen sixty three coming out of
Speaker 3: the Big Dome that Madal Observatory in Texas with doctor
Speaker 3: DeVoe Career was a chairman of the astronomy Department that
Speaker 3: every state of Texas, and we had a magnificent Taxas
Speaker 3: sky there from the top of a mountain had dawn,
Speaker 3: and we were done with the observations, and I asked
Speaker 3: him what do you think of the current theories about
Speaker 3: the expansion of all this and so on? Then he
Speaker 3: laughed and he said, you know what, based on the
Speaker 3: measurement we do in spectral it is expanding. But he says,
Speaker 3: I think what we're going to find when we look
Speaker 3: at the disposition of galley of systems of galaxies around
Speaker 3: the sky. Remember, we had just published the first catalog
Speaker 3: of galaxies from both northern and the Southern sphere, which
Speaker 3: he compiled to a great extent with his team and
Speaker 3: other teams. So we were at the cutting edge there
Speaker 3: at that time in sixty two of thinking about the
Speaker 3: structure of the universe. And they that we were the
Speaker 3: observing guys and they were the theoretical guys. And the
Speaker 3: question in astronomy is always how do you reconcide too?
Speaker 3: And he said we can. We're in a bubble. Let's expanding.
Speaker 3: The question is how many other bubbles are and those
Speaker 3: other bubbles could be getting smaller, and our bubble is
Speaker 3: expanding and he said, you want a comparison, just take
Speaker 3: a sink, fill it with warm water and pull soap
Speaker 3: in it and r it around, and you'll have bubbles
Speaker 3: and bubbles of soap. He says, that's the unit. We're
Speaker 3: inside one bubble. Now, I've never forgotten that that lesson
Speaker 3: as we were on top of a mountain in Texas,
Speaker 3: because we had the universe around us. That's the lab.
Speaker 3: You go to the top of the well, can you
Speaker 3: you look up and anybody can do it. That's the science.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, excellent.
Speaker 3: So so I think he was right. Our little plot
Speaker 3: of the universe that we call our universe. Okay, again,
Speaker 3: before we had the the Earth was the center of everything.
Speaker 3: Now we know we're on the outskirts of town, but
Speaker 3: we think about our universe and yes it according to
Speaker 3: the measurements. Then if we're right about acceleeration, the speed
Speaker 3: of light and the everything else which is not obvious.
Speaker 3: But if they're right about the theory they expects, the
Speaker 3: question is what else is there? And that's the question
Speaker 3: he was asking because he was a cosmologist, not just
Speaker 3: a stronger you can get one day.
Speaker 1: We're getting towards the end here, and I just had
Speaker 1: a couple of questions, and one of them is was
Speaker 1: there ever a moment where you wanted to abandon.
Speaker 2: This topic like it was just difficult.
Speaker 3: Yes, much till the end of the abrupt end of
Speaker 3: the BUNS budget I became. I became very disingented with
Speaker 3: I heard the feeling there was no place to go
Speaker 3: because the world of the classified world is very complex.
Speaker 3: It doesn't give the guidance. It's divided into many different factions,
Speaker 3: which finds for many for budgets for things they cannot
Speaker 3: communicate to move themselves. No, you remember when there was
Speaker 3: a project to merge the CIA with the FBI. Well,
Speaker 3: you can't do that because they each have their own
Speaker 3: sources of information that will be exposed. I do that
Speaker 3: because they are looking at different things. Sometimes they overlap,
Speaker 3: but with completely different missions. And today we've got fifteen
Speaker 3: agencies of that size, some of them bigger than the CERY,
Speaker 3: some of them with extraordinary instruments, and that are class
Speaker 3: a day. And I was very discouraged by that. I thought,
Speaker 3: what can the sanitists do If they give us a problem,
Speaker 3: we can work on the problem and with classification or
Speaker 3: without classification. But the really big problems. I'm not just
Speaker 3: when we disclose that the phenomenon is real. If I
Speaker 3: go back to some of the places again in Arkansas,
Speaker 3: I look at home an to the farmer and I
Speaker 3: tell him. The Congress says, there was really something here,
Speaker 3: you see, doctor Valley. I told him there was something
Speaker 3: there because I saw it. I already knew that this
Speaker 3: is not new in traces are still there. I got
Speaker 3: very discarried. I'm ashamed of that, ashamed of that period.
Speaker 3: Imst lost sight of the work I should do as
Speaker 3: a scientist. So there were still there are no things
Speaker 3: I could do. For one thing, I have that catalog
Speaker 3: of cases and now I'm but now that the subject
Speaker 3: is open, I don't want to keep doing the same
Speaker 3: things I was doing before, because building new people picking
Speaker 3: it up in new ways with new tools. So I'm
Speaker 3: not going to read do once in my separate books.
Speaker 3: I'm going to be doing something else. And there are
Speaker 3: things that intrigue me that I never had the time
Speaker 3: or the results us to go after today. It's a
Speaker 3: pretty small body of things, but those are things nobody
Speaker 3: else seems to have bothered with, and or at least
Speaker 3: in the way that where I have the AE opportunity
Speaker 3: to approach it. So I will be doing that. I
Speaker 3: will be designing methodology and assembling the knowledge with other
Speaker 3: people I know to go do that.
Speaker 2: Excellent.
Speaker 1: I thought of this closing question to ask you, so,
Speaker 1: after all these years of your investigation, what do you
Speaker 1: now believe the most important question about the phenomenon that
Speaker 1: researchers are still failing to ask.
Speaker 3: I think the most important question is is a question
Speaker 3: of phenomenon? Is asking us what do you think is
Speaker 3: the nature of reality? There are a number of people
Speaker 3: around here in Sirico Valley who have started to think
Speaker 3: of that in new ways because we can simulate reality
Speaker 3: to the point in five years, so we will be
Speaker 3: able to do that that you will not be able
Speaker 3: to recognize the real reality from the fictitious or the
Speaker 3: official reality. And that's already true. For training pilots. We
Speaker 3: put them in conditions so similar to emergency conditions that
Speaker 3: the control of an aircraft in the device, essentially in
Speaker 3: the machine, and that exercises all their senses and their
Speaker 3: brain exactly like being in the cutpit in that condition
Speaker 3: in real life. So already do that in a small way.
Speaker 3: But the question is are we living in the reality
Speaker 3: that can be manipulated. Then if if we're facing an
Speaker 3: advanced civilization that knows how to do that, and remember,
Speaker 3: cylical value is telling us we are on the verge
Speaker 3: of being able to do that on other fairly out scale.
Speaker 3: So if if that's true, then our methodology, our scientific methodology,
Speaker 3: is not the light me phodology to use. So we
Speaker 3: have to go back and we have to change it.
Speaker 3: And that's a very interesting problem. But it's not a
Speaker 3: problem that people we can people say, oh, we'll use
Speaker 3: a microscope, and we'll use a laser, and we'll use like, yes,
Speaker 3: we should do all that, but that's in a way
Speaker 3: that means we're entering a game that somebody else that's
Speaker 3: designed and what else do they do? And that's where
Speaker 3: I want to go, what else do they do? Because again,
Speaker 3: in terms of control systems, so you had a question
Speaker 3: about control systems earlier that I didn't answer very well.
Speaker 3: But in terms of control systems, there are I've looked
Speaker 3: into that because for one thing I learned about control
Speaker 3: systems in engineering and physics, there are open systems and
Speaker 3: they are cluse systems. And the big question is what
Speaker 3: kind of system are we when we look at the universe.
Speaker 3: Are we prisoners on the earth? Are we what we're
Speaker 3: designed by somebody else, is for purpose or a reason?
Speaker 3: Or are we free to do whatever we want? There
Speaker 3: is a very interesting quote in my book. I cannot
Speaker 3: take credit for it. It's copied it from an interview
Speaker 3: that somebody it the men who gave the interview. It
Speaker 3: was in some obscure photography magazine and I found it
Speaker 3: and it's a few pages and I never forgot it.
Speaker 3: The man is both a cosmologist working cosmologists contributed from
Speaker 3: colleago I history and so on, and a an anthropologist.
Speaker 3: That's a very rare combination. So he's looked at early
Speaker 3: man and primates and what the different neonderchil And called magnum.
Speaker 3: It's different types of humanoids before us, and we think
Speaker 3: of ourselves as being the top forever. But he says,
Speaker 3: going back to being the cosmologists, is if another massive
Speaker 3: pubject crashed like the one that crashed seventy five million
Speaker 3: years ago century in the Gulf of Mexico and wiped
Speaker 3: out all the dinosaurs. It didn't just wipe out the dinosaurs,
Speaker 3: it wiped out eighty percent of the species on the earth,
Speaker 3: and then unfortunately wiped out a dinosaur, and that we
Speaker 3: evolved somehow out of what was left. That could happen again.
Speaker 3: So you cannot take the human form for grain. And
Speaker 3: so I spoke to professors of biology in the Sorbonne
Speaker 3: in Paris and so on, and they say, the reason
Speaker 3: where the big guys on the earth isn't so much
Speaker 3: or intelligence, it's an act. Intelligence is just what enables
Speaker 3: us to use our environment a little bit better then
Speaker 3: the other species. So they don't we're not eaten by them,
Speaker 3: and we eat them. Okay, that could change in two minutes, right,
Speaker 3: and there will be another maybe some maybe the rats
Speaker 3: will evolve. The rats are have a stupefying sense of
Speaker 3: community and smiles, but they cannot use tools, although they
Speaker 3: use premative tools, but they don't invent sophisticate tools, so
Speaker 3: we need them. But they could evolve if we will
Speaker 3: lug alone incredible ability to survive on this anything, improve
Speaker 3: their radiations more nuclear about me, So think about it.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It's been a real pleasure having It's always been enjoyable
Speaker 1: speaking with you.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Let's do it again after disclosure, okay.
Speaker 1: And I'm really glad that you hung in because when
Speaker 1: a lot of times people have walked away, I was.
Speaker 2: Just speaking to someone that was really, really involved.
Speaker 1: Actually he met you and years ago and he got
Speaker 1: turned off by the subject and walked away, and now
Speaker 1: he's coming back. But I'm glad that you stayed with it,
Speaker 1: and you've done all the work that you've done. You've
Speaker 1: been a real asset to the whole community. So thank
Speaker 1: you so much.
Speaker 2: All right, take care.
Speaker 1: All right everyone, So don't forget to come back next Tuesday.
Speaker 1: We have Scott Girard and Grant Lovick on Thursday, both
Speaker 1: at eight pm. Thanks so much, and remember to keep
Speaker 1: your eyes to the skoy yp