776. Jacques Vallée

• Source: link
• Publisher: Podcast UFO with Martin Willis
• Published: 2026-08-20
• Captured: 2026-09-04
• Transcript: Official platform auto-transcript, preserved verbatim
• Analysis: ../../queries/2026-09-04-who-was-vallees-gilbert

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Thanks easing, Welcome to podcasts UFO and Martin willis your

(00:23):
host tonight's live show. It's a real treat for myself
and hopefully all of you out there, because we're going
to be joined by the uf the legendary UFO researchers,
Jaques Vala. He's going to be discussing his latest book,
Forbidden Science seven and it's basically Jacques's final volume of
personal journals covering the extraordinary period between twenty twenty and

(00:46):
twenty twenty five. And we did have COVID during that
time as well, so when this also discusses when the
UFO topic moved to the congressional hearings, government discussion, but
it's still a very complex, perplex issue. We're going to
be talking about all that, and I feel fortunate to

(01:07):
say this is the fourth interview that I've had with
Shock over the past fifteen years. I feel he's a
fine and highly respected, groundbreaking person in this topic and
he's helped move the needle for decades, and I hope
that a lot of people out there have read some
of his books. There's some amazing books that he's written

(01:28):
over the years, and we're going to be talking about
his reflections on that too as we go along here today.
So next week, just a couple of things. Next Tuesday
at eight pm Eastern, my guest will be Scott Geerin.
He's the author of Hiding in Plain Sight. It's a
book about unidentified phenomenon in our atmosphere with lots of pictures.
As I mentioned last week, Scott as someone who fell

(01:51):
three thousand feet when his parachute was basically ruined as
canopy was ruined, and hit the ground at one hundred
miles an hour and lived to talk about amazing person.
So next Thursday, I will be at the Moufon Symposium,
but I'll still have our regular Thursday show at a
pm Eastern, and I'll be joined by x the excellent
Australian UFO researcher Grant Levic. That's a pre recorded show,

(02:15):
had to pre record because of the time difference. So
if you are attending the MoveOn Symposium, please come over
and say hello.

Speaker 2 (02:22):
I'll be all over the place.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
I'll be running a panel and different things there behind
the scenes, but you can reach out to me at
my contact information pod Martinette PODCASTUFO dot com. I'm really
excited to meet Alex Dietrich and a number of other people.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Classfond from Sweden. It's going to be there.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
I've been talking to him for years, so I'm excited
to see him as well. Be sure to check out
PODCASTUFO dot com for this week's really amazing blog. Another
one by UFO history buff Charles Lear been five years
now he's been writing for us. This one's titled in
nineteen sixty four UFO Humanoid Report, and that happened on

(03:02):
April twenty fourth, nineteen sixty four with a New York farmer,
Gary Wilcox, and it had the egg shaped craft just
like Ronnie's and morrisaw the same year, four foot tall humanoids,
same thing, but he did claim that they claimed that
they were from Mars, which I think is pretty interesting.
All right, so it's time to bring our guests in.

(03:24):
Welcome to the show, Jacques. So good to have you here.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
Thank you for inviting me. Indeed, this is a unique time.
You mentioned we've done this show before, but this is
the first time we do it. As the subject becomes official,
it's officially recognized that the phenomenon is real, so it's new.

(03:49):
It's a new era.

Speaker 1 (03:51):
Yes, I know, you've seen all these years that you've
done research, You've seen all the seemingly steps forward and
then steps back.

Speaker 2 (04:01):
A lot of people weren't around.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
That watch the show, listen to the show that saw
things as recently as the roswell slides and things like that,
things the goof ops that are made along the way
that has people pointing fingers, don't listen to us type
of thing. And now it seems like things are more
serious than ever. And so I know we're going to
be talking about your book, but also I want to
ask you questions about all your journey along the way.

(04:25):
But so did I read somewhere where it was nineteen
fifty seven or is that when you had your encounter
that you had.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
It was earlier than that. It was about nineteen fifty
five or so, in close to Perris. I wouldn't call
it an encounter because the object was maybe hol for
Kiddle Miller away in the sky. But this was very clear.
This was in the middle of the afternoon, the blue sky.

(04:57):
I was with Letty mother, who had seen it f
This was during the summer holiday and she was just
working in the garden and I joined her. There was
an object in the sky, which I can only describe
as a as an oval or disk scene on the

(05:18):
side with a small dome on top, clear dome. It
was very dispaintingous. Guy was not moving and it lasted
a number of minutes. I think I don't have a
clear memory of what I did afterwards. I probably went

(05:42):
back into her house to try to get my father's attention,
was working on something inside. The next day I spoke
to a friend of mine from home from the school,
and he had seen it from his house, which which
was about another half kilmet up the hill from us,

(06:06):
and he had binoculars and he looked at it. He
had time to go get his binoculars, and I got
him to draw it, and what he drew was essentially
what I had seen, three witnesses at the same time.
Perfect weather, blue sky, middle of summer. What can go wrong?

(06:26):
What can go wrong? Is nobody had any idea what
it was. My father, who had a long military experience
he was a judge, but he had been in the war,
said there are new aircraft types being tested and being deployed.

(06:48):
Those were the early days of the jet aircraft of
all kinds. Then he said, maybe this is a type
of a new type of aircraft. So I took that advice.
We never reported it, and I wasn't really very interesting.

(07:08):
I followed the subject, it was in the prence, but
I wasn't thinking of doing any kind of research about
it until my first job a few years later when
I graduated from the Sorbonne and my first job was
at Parish Observatory and we were getting letters from the public,

(07:30):
and being an official organization, we had to respond to
the public, and so occasionally I would call these people
on the phone to really understand what he had seen,
and that convinced me that there were in fact usos
and it restarted my home interest in it. And then

(07:51):
being within the French government, I had access to some
of the military reports from before from the fourties in
the early fifties, and also the Kilt reports from within
the astronomical community, which will not published. So that's when

(08:13):
I selled to compile in a catalog just to do
elementary statistics, and over the years that has grown up
into a very upset of catalogs, actually a data warehouse
that is being studied right now by different people.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
Nice, wow, I've you just look at your bookcase is
very intriguing. That's and when I was there, it was
just amazed at how many books you have, what a
collection and a very interesting and the books you've written
Passport to Magonia, it's just that's like a legendary book
at this point. But I'm going to just try to

(08:58):
throw you a few different questions, maybe no one's ever
asked you before. If you could go back to writing that,
would you change anything? Or if you have the knowledge
that you have today and you could go back and
change something in that book, would you change anything in
that in Passport?

Speaker 3 (09:20):
In fact, I've been working for many years where they
are remarkable research in Spain is English mers, but he
works in Spain named Chris Obek. And oh yes, I've
published a collection of cases from eight scholed Wonders in

(09:44):
the Sky and it was published in England and in
the US and translated into several languages, especially German and French.
And that catalog is a number of cases from all
of the history. Yes, I've gone back into those were
not just legends. There were observations that for one reason

(10:10):
or another, socially or in terms of the breach of
religious traditions, people could not really talk about the reality
of way it's what they had seen, and it became
a fairy tale. It became a story that the children remembered.

(10:30):
And when you look back at the archives and the correspondence,
which thanks to the web, we can now do a
lot better. And we continued to find those original documents
that match those sightings, and that includes spheres, yellow shares
or white spares of up to three feet in diameter

(10:55):
going through the countryside, not in connection with name or anything.
So those I'm not a normal physical phenomena that we know,
but they match what people are reporting today and this
goes back to the fifteenth or sixteenth century, okay in Europe.

(11:16):
And then we had Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
I was lucky enough to have Chris on and I
really fascinated about anything historical anyway, and so that that
was a really nice show to have him on it.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
I was involved in some type of chat with.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
All the information coming in all the time, and boy,
there's a lot of research, a lot of people really
doing a lot of heavy duty research on the early
documents and things.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
It was very nice. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (11:43):
Network that included people in Russia. He still do of course,
people in Spain and France and Latin American. So so
we had a network of about fifteen active researchers and
it took us full ten years to write that book.

Speaker 2 (12:03):
Wow, wow, I believe it. Oh, by the way, here's
your book. Thank you for sending it along. Thank you
and very nice.

Speaker 1 (12:10):
And one of the things I think of is, I
know that in this book there's mentions of consciousness and
the connection there.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
And I recently, just a.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
Couple of days ago, two days ago, I had a
gentleman on and he came up with a you know
how everyone just has different ideas, and it's really worth
listening to these different ideas of what the phenomenon may be,
I believe, And he had something that I had never
heard before. And he's a philosopher, but he said something

(12:42):
along the lines where it could be like an energy
that's always been here, that presents itself and then goes
away type of thing.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
And I thought that was a novel idea.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
I hadn't heard that one previous because I'm always trying
to understand the consciousness connection type of thing.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
So what your thoughts are on that.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
There is an energy? Of course, that's what we see
it manifesting as light in the electromegating spectrum, so that's
an energy. It's also an energy in the sense that
it leaves traces in the grow. He must mean something

(13:25):
at a different level of an energy, like what we
call the life energy, which we don't really define very clearly,
but it's what animates us. Then of course it's a
mix of different functions it in that sense. Does he

(13:50):
mean we're conscious energy or just a physical energy? But
physical energy, we have a lot of it around.

Speaker 2 (13:58):
I believe what he said.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
I'd be glad to send you more of what's his
ideas were. And the one thing that I really liked
about him he says, I'm probably wrong, but I like
when people talk that way instead of this is the
way it is. But basically that it was. It's kind
of something that's always been here, that has a high intelligence,
that can manifest and come into our spectrum for a moment,

(14:23):
and then he thinks that some of the phenomena may
be something along those lines.

Speaker 3 (14:28):
Well, there is a lot of science fiction for the
last fifty years or more about that of there is
a book called The Black Cloud. But if you were
a black cloud of ionized matter, ionized energy, and drifting
through space, and you will need to look like a

(14:49):
folksmagen who would stop you there is The book was
written by a prominent English astronomer as science fiction, saying,
if you have a lot of energy, you can manifest
in any form you want. The problem with usos is
when they leave traces, we can measure they leave and

(15:12):
as I've looked a lot at energy related to different cases,
and so has doctor Heinex, so have many of our
colleagues in the field, because that's what you can measure.
We have we have instruments that measure energy, they especially
light energy, and then we can measure pressure on the ground,

(15:35):
and then we can measure what energy it takes to,
for example, kill a planet that might be an about
when we know the dimensions, and in many cases we do.
Now we've made a lot of progress over fifty years,
both in methodology and in actual data. So that's a

(15:57):
body of research that we're passing on to the next
generation and I'm delighted to see that. So my role
in the future, that's why I called this book final
with God. I see my role in the future as
being a resource to the new researchers coming into a

(16:18):
field well, hopefully with some basis in science or research
or engineering where they can, they don't have to redo
the road that we traveled in a long further now
seventy years and fortunate to see this day when things

(16:39):
have become open. I've been asked to rejoin the scientific
board of the French Space Committee the CNEES, which is
a space agency in France, or we'll be spending more
time in Europe working with my colleagues there.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
Nice, very nice.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
Now there are some long time listeners here that a
few of them have posted questions, so I'm just going
to put them up. We can get to them now
and then through throughout this So do abduction scenarios reflect
the phenomenon's deceptive nature or the limits of human perception?

Speaker 2 (17:18):
Translating the truly anomalous?

Speaker 3 (17:22):
The problem with abductions, and of course I've followed that.
I think it's from the beginning until the Very and
Bowley Hill case, I wasn't and I'm not a psychologist,
I'm not a psychiatrist so on, but I consulted with them.

(17:43):
Then the conclusion was that this seemed just completely out
of the range of things people as dreams, people have
dreams that people get up in the middle of the night,
still sleeping, and so on, and they may put sieve
things that are about of their dream. All of that

(18:03):
is known. There are nightmarees that can continue to have
an influence during the day that will be very strange,
and those are known in the psychology literature in psychiatry.
But what was described the turning point for me was

(18:25):
better about the Hill because the book was excellent. They
were credible witnesses, and I had a chance to meet
with them at length several times, and I had a
chance to talk to the psychiatrists who had done the

(18:45):
regression separate regression. So the problem is a lot of
people have been doing hypnosis who should not have been
doing hypnosis because it's not the best way to help
these people. I've had letters from people who are hypnotized

(19:06):
many times by some of the euthologists who are not
licensed in any way to practice hypnosis. And hypnosis is
both the medical and the psychological condition that's not completely
understood by medicine or by psychology. And work with others

(19:31):
it and it can be used. It's admissible in California
in court under certain very strict conditions, and professional conditions.
Those are not the conditions that we read in the
US or bost somebody says, you are now under my
control and tell me how manys Okay, that is absolutely wrong.

(19:56):
And the problem is that what people have gone through
that you cannot re hypnotize them professionally. Then I have
letters from people who are outsited in some of those
books saying the author only took the pobbles could be
interoperating as aliens, but there were a lot of other things,

(20:19):
and he doesn't want to talk about these other things,
and they came out under hypnosis and he doesn't talk
about it, and send me to a doctor who does
hypnosis professionally, and I have to answer, I can't do
that because the first hypnosis froze some conditions. And if

(20:39):
you are rehypnotized, you're going to go back to particular
wrong hypnosis. So people should not be hypnotized. They should
they certainly can talk to a professional psychologist or professional psychiatrist,
asking them what are the techniques that could help them,

(21:03):
depending on their condition, some of them all terrified. Now
way is that you can you can treat that without traumatized,
without adding to the trauma. And then then you may
want to use they may want to use hypnosis in
certain cases. Now I've looked into about so many cases

(21:26):
of abduction. I've convinced myself that these people had a
an experience that is real to them, and that I
cannot explain.

Speaker 4 (21:39):
Part of the citing I had in nineteen fifty five,
I don't remember consciously, and I've struggled with that.

Speaker 3 (21:52):
I've never written very much about it, but now I
think I can. I should go back to it and
confessed that because at the end of that observation I
don't remember what I did. I don't remember it clearly,
So I took that as a sort of methodology test.

(22:15):
Then I went to two hypnotists. The first one was
a professor of psychiatry at UCLA, doctor Price Williams, who
was a very distinguished writer and psychiatrist. He hypnotized me
and I was immediately paralyzed on the lips and during

(22:39):
the induction. He saw that when he brought me out
and he said, maybe we'll do it again another time,
but I don't want to continue under those conditions. Those
are the things where the apertures just keep going. And
the same cases where somebody was who was really close
with heart attack after that, and uphologists ran away and

(23:02):
not the patient there. Now, there are those horror stories
in the field, so when the skeptics refused to look
at them, they may have an argument that we need
to engage. The second time was recently a couple of
years ago here in San Francisco, with again the licensed

(23:24):
hypnotest who is able to testify in court and professionally,
and we did three sessions and I got deeper into
the trance, but when it came time to essentially recreate
the conditions of the sighting, it became very confusing and

(23:47):
we really didn't get anything, and he had to bring
me out. That's part of one type of experiences that
I had. There is no question there was the US
or there What role did it play in motivating me
to look into this way I did? I don't know.

(24:08):
I've met other people who were in serial situations. Doctor
Nolan at Stanford has made no mystery that as a
child he had experiences, not so much of he has
not talked as far as I know, about a similar condition,
but it's talked about objects in the sky and confusing

(24:31):
situations with actual short beings around him. When when you
can open up, open up the confidence well with people,
will you you find you've discovered those But it's a
long whin they answer. That's a complex question. It takes,

(24:53):
it takes a complete answer.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
I also agree with the part about the when you
talk about hypnotism and someone leads someone say like you
said about the aliens instead of letting them talk like
how many aliens were there, and that's considered leading.

Speaker 3 (25:11):
You'll planting. You'll planting an idea.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
And the thing that really happens with memory, I'm sure
you know this is whenever you're remembering something, you're rebuilding
what you thought about last time. And so that's how
that works in hypnotizing. If someone was hypnotized and.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
Then remember this, they'll remember it again.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
So yeah, that is a if it's not done right
in the beginning, you can't really undo it.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
That's what it sounds like.

Speaker 5 (25:39):
And there are other ways of helping elish people, other
techniques like you can induce and deepen without saying you
are a go medicaltrol.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
What tell me about the shape of the object, which
is a brutal, irreversible way to do it, which is.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Worth So this is just an unusual question that I
thought of. If the phenomenon functions partly as a control
system that adapts to human beliefs and expectations, like it
possibly could have over the many centuries, would the current

(26:18):
disclosure movement itself be changing the phenomenon.

Speaker 3 (26:23):
Sure, it already has because in Washington, the people testifying
before Congress and right I have the courage to come
up and speak about what they have experienced. But most
of them come from a military or intelligence environment that's

(26:47):
very structured, very disciplined, and somewhat narrow. So I to me,
most of the observations that are in my books come
from a farmer in the field, or somebody driving on
the road, or a child playing in the field. Those

(27:08):
are not classified. Those are not And I respect the
people who say yes, But the miniature cases are better
because there is an instrument. The instrument is calibrated very well.
If it's an aircraft, you know exactly where you were,
and you know your speed, you know conditions. It's all.

(27:30):
You have a new wax above you, and you have
people a radar on the ground below you. Everybody knows
what happens, and you know the time exactly. You can
measure it. Yes, but you are in something that's moving
very fast. You can only see through the windows you
have that are designed for essentially for combat, and your

(27:54):
instruments are designed for combat. They are not designed as
scientific instruments to measure the environment. To me with farmer
in the field, this is I'll take both. I sell
the I'm fascinated with what the professional pilots have reported.
We just compiled a new catalog of pilot cases with

(28:21):
people in France that covers the twentieth century from nineteen
hundred two thousand. That is twice the size of the
catalog that the project in Las Vegas, the Classified Project,
a PASS project, or the ass or SUP project. They
published the results of their statistics about pilot scientings. We

(28:46):
just finished the catalog that's twice that size. So we're
going to write an unclassified scientific paper comparing their results,
which were authorized for this closure, with the new results,
which all from twice as many cases of pilot sitings.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
As we call it, excellent, that's great.

Speaker 1 (29:12):
This is a person has been asking this question quite
a bit right from the very beginning, and it's about Gilbert.
I'm not sure exactly, I'm sure you know exactly what
he's talking about. But do you have more details about
Gilbert himself.

Speaker 3 (29:26):
I have more details that people were kind enough to
share with me because they thought I should know about.
And that is about structured contact with an entity, not
the ones that were found at as Well or Trinity

(29:50):
or its Socorro or in Brazil recently. That I seem
to be very adapted to conditions on Earth. They walk
on Earth pretty much normally. We don't work normally on
the moon. Okay, so these are humanhoods. They breathe the air.

(30:10):
We can read the expressions in their eyes, and those don't.
They may be aliens in some way, but there is
a higher level identity that, according to Gilbert, Gilbert is
not the name the right name. Are in contact with

(30:34):
us for a number of years, for at least twenty years,
if not go and how seeing looking for interaction with
us in structured ways? They don't you know, they're not
using our language. So the problem is to build an

(30:58):
interface where we can begin to understand each other. That's
what he told me. This is not first firsthand. I
have not been in that lab, and it's really for
him to describe that. I've seen the rest of it,

(31:18):
including the detailed of the protocols and the actual language
interaction with the reaction of that entity. But it's not
for me to publish it. It doesn't be odd to me.
And I'm hoping that he'll decide to publish it soon
because that would be timery. It's another level beyond what

(31:42):
people are talking about in Washington now, which is tissue
samples and all of that, which to my understanding comes
from what has been found after landing. This is different.
This is the control level of the higher level, and

(32:02):
it's looking for interaction with us. And if that can
be verifine, and again I know only a small portion
of it from one person, if it's very fine, we
have to change. And that's a problem I have with

(32:22):
the reports now that come from Washington or come from
my colleagues in science. We're going to be studying this well.
There is no way to study this without change. It's
going to Spain to learn Spanish. When you come back
and you've learned Spanish, your mind has changed because you

(32:44):
have another way of thinking and formulating things around you.
There are words in Spanish that we don't have in
English or in French, and there are words in Spanish
cook very similar to English words or to French words,
and they mean something completely different, including describing a ufo

(33:07):
close encoundar is a good example, Carol, So, I was
in an investigation in Mexico, was and they what the
person said was translated, this was a close en caundar.
So he asked how far away was yet? And they
said it was no more than a kirometor away. If

(33:27):
it was a calemeter away, that's not the close encounterdar
in length. So the but maybe the witness felt close
to it, Okay, but that's not in terms of physics,
it's not close. We have to be very careful and
the experience changes us. And when we get seriously, when

(33:49):
the new cadre of scientists get seriously into the dirt
and into the fives, and I wish them well, they
would change the perception of their own disciplinae. Under the
Batch project with mister Biggerow, we hired about forty people

(34:15):
to work in part on the database I was building,
but also to run investigations to check some of the
data that when they took a database, we ended up
with two hundred and sixty thousand cases. These people came
were all trained as investigators. Some of them retired from

(34:38):
the FBI, retired from the police, retired from intelligence agencies.
And they were doing this because they had always had
an interest in the subject. But after two years, it
took them two years to really understand what it's all
about and what the questions are. There are really important questions,

(35:03):
and how you deal with the witness. The witness is
not a perpetrator. The witness is not anonymy. The witness
is not a spy. The witness is complex. It takes
two years. If you take somebody, they may have a PhD.
I don't care in what discipline, it's going to take

(35:24):
them two years before they can be useful in this research.

Speaker 1 (35:30):
Very interesting and that whole situation with Bass researching. Was
there anything that really came out of that that was
really stands out?

Speaker 3 (35:44):
Yes, I don't know the status of the database. I'm
longer involved. The project was supposed to lust five years,
was to be funded continuously for five years, and that's
how we projected the different steps in the technologies which
we will building. The project was cattle so and I

(36:08):
never knew the real reason the subject was kendal to
two and a half years I don't know the disposition
of the database. I have my own database from before
that I worked with in a new way though fortunately
thanks to the new computer types, I can do that
pretty much by myself, with just the people.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
And I've heard Bigelow about Bigelow talking lately, and he
claims that he knows a lot of things. But these
can't be anything that's classified, right, he wouldn't have a
clearance for to know things that we couldn't know.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
I was clear during the project. All of us were
cleared at the same level in research. I see, but
I'm not. I don't consider myself a whistle blower. I
mean I respect the process, even if I don't understand
the process. I mean involved in other projects in the parapsychology,

(37:15):
and I think it's a you know, it's a reasonable process.
I don't know how you can just say we'll disclose it,
which that doesn't make any sense. The system doesn't work
that way. You should I sake you from where I sit.
I think we should disclose a lot of the things

(37:39):
that don't impinge on the security of the country or
the safety of the systems we have. But it's that
decision is way over my head.

Speaker 1 (37:52):
Now, I'm going to just ask a couple of questions
about disclosure, because it always comes up with any anyone
when you're talking about this, and I know if you've
always support a greater openness, but you also warn about
dangers ahead, like the difference between responsible disclosure and reckless disclosure.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
Can you go into that a little bit.

Speaker 3 (38:13):
I have not found two people who had the same
definition of disclosure. So what Let's have disclosure, but the
day after disclosure you have ten different interpretations of what
people love it. Do they want access to the places
where there may be tissue sampols bodies? Do they want

(38:38):
to take out of USO? Do their not to study it,
which would be reasonable. Do they want to do they
want to know everything that we think we know about
where the entities come from, or what they want. That's

(39:00):
already very confusing when people look at the moon now
and there's a marketplace that's being created on the web
for everybody and his brother to say, I took a
picture of ammonia esterday with my range telescope and I
saw evidence of structures. Maybe get the same area from JPL.

(39:22):
You can get it for a few bucks and JPL
has taken it from satellites that were a few hundred
or a few thousand kilometers from the surface of them,
and they have the detail at the nearest CNI mill
we have exquisite maps of the Moon. But this finds

(39:43):
an audience. People want to believe that there are houses
on the Moon, or domes or whatever. And in fact,
at one time when we did not have those satellites,
there were things that astronomer's soul on the Moon that
could being interpreted is those and then when we got

(40:04):
the next level of resolution of the by then they
were not photographs. There were images, computer images like the limits.
Images that are not photographs. Okay, everybody says liberal photographs
from the Limits those are not photographs. The being photographs

(40:28):
those are again, well, the digital images are the it
that we measure. We again, we have to be very
careful with bits. We can't just run away with bits.

Speaker 1 (40:46):
Yes, yes, I agree, I think it does feel things feel.
I don't know how you feel about this, but to me,
I think things feel a little different. I feel as
though there's more people coming on board all the time.
It's been that way ever since two thousand and seventeen.
But I still feel that it's like when someone like

(41:08):
doctor Phil think of him, however, you will a lot
of people look to him. And now he's saying that
the government is putting out new files, but they're holding
things back, which I actually mentioned to Earlson during a
live forum, basically, where's the good stuff? So I'm just
going to ask you in general, what do you think
about the drops and where that's been heading.

Speaker 2 (41:31):
Drop the file drops?

Speaker 3 (41:33):
Well, what strikes me is that there is a contradiction
in the statements. We have all these statements coming out
that they including from the whistle broders, that we know
a lot about this phenomenon, that we know all of it,

(41:57):
and then we have these images that had not been studied.
So if it's so important, there are war observations, and
there are immediately some questions who of this, where were they?
If it's a photograph, what kind of camera, what else happened?
And so on?

Speaker 6 (42:17):
Those are if it's very important, and this happened eighteen
months ago and it's just disclosed, now, how come there
was no follower.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
If it's dangerous, if it's a threat, if it's coming
from space, if it's another another dimension or another form
of intelligence. How can we get the original beta with
no research? Now that's the case. That's the case. Now,
Doctor Noble with somebody by highly respect says there are

(42:53):
a few cases in there that merits scientific attention, and yes,
I think it's right. But the bulk of it, which
is what the public is seeing, is and research. It's
moll data. So if it's data, it means there wasn't
anybody back there in charge of following up. And it's

(43:18):
probably from my experients processing the Air Force fives US
Air Force fives way back wave, doctor Heinech for a
number of years. Recent of that is explainable. Okay, So
who is going to take the time to go through
all this? Where is the budget going to come from

(43:38):
to do that? Because you have to go back to
the original business. But remember the Bass project was closed
fifteen years ago, so for fifteen years there has been
no adjudication of the cases, including the good cases. And
then a lot of quote my witnesses that were in

(44:01):
the database that I compiled and then I turned over
to the government century to the best project. Many of
them have died in those fifteen years. I can't go
back and interrogate them or do a follower. They're not there,
so we have this gap. So from my point of

(44:21):
view as as an information scientist with last fifteen years, Okay,
so it's great that they are dumping the five in
the open. You're write the number of people are coming
in and may help sort out the good for the bad.

(44:43):
That's where you start. So I think that's encouraging. Again,
I'm very encouraged by what happens now. But I can
tell you I said, I'm rejoining the French Project. The
French Project has existed since nineteen seventy five continuously. It's
fell of the French Space Agency with professionals in charge,

(45:07):
and that database has been studied consistently since nineteen seventy five.
Now that's a database that I can work with my
colleagues today. So that's the kind of thing we have
to build in this country that we don't have it.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
In a way, it seems like it would be sort
of to pacify the public and the call for this information.
But you're right, and a lot of these things that
there's nothing attached to it. We can't see any other
information just with videos. I'm talking about the videos right now,
but the reactions I understand why it's redacted because of

(45:48):
the sensitive instrument readings and things like that, but.

Speaker 2 (45:52):
Still there's nothing attached to it enough for someone to research.

Speaker 1 (45:56):
These are military, so I'm sure they're going to hold
back whatever information they have, but there can It doesn't
seem like they can go anywhere from what we're given.

Speaker 3 (46:06):
Basically, I follow doctor Rode when he says there are
a few cases that we can use to test hypotheses
or to build a model. There are a few cases
they are better document. So that's the place to sell you.

(46:33):
We don't have the staff to go study everything that
some people are in the field to reinvestigate, look at
possible traces and everything else, so we have to sell somewhere.

Speaker 1 (46:47):
So I'm going to talk a little bit now just
about your wife's work and so as far as your
early conclusions, do you feel that some of them have
aged really on, some of them not as well.

Speaker 3 (47:01):
At the beginning, I was an enthusiastic young astronomer with
a master's degree and later with a PhD. And I
saw things in terms of what was going to happen
with space science and sophisticated satellites. We were going to
go to the morel and so I saw it. I
saw the phenomenon in that gud room by space objects

(47:26):
and they come from they come from outside. They appeared
to come from outside. Then when you start looking at
case by case in detail, thanks change because they don't
appear as we said at the very beginning, they seem

(47:47):
to match their behavior to their environment at the time.
We have good data from the nineteenth century, in the
early twentieth century before people called it UFOs that were
the behavior of the phenomenon was but the physics was similar.

(48:09):
So when you look at the physical in viarience, which
is what scientists would look at, what is it that
didn't change? That's why who can begin to start the
rest of it is dressing on the salad, and you
have a choice of dressing. So when I do that,
it doesn't have to come from space as we as

(48:33):
a space craft. It can come from Also, astrophysics has
moved way beyond euphology in terms of thinking about it.
And I remember in nineteen sixty three coming out of
the Big Dome that Madal Observatory in Texas with doctor

(48:55):
DeVoe Career was a chairman of the astronomy Department that
every state of Texas, and we had a magnificent Taxas
sky there from the top of a mountain had dawn,
and we were done with the observations, and I asked
him what do you think of the current theories about

(49:16):
the expansion of all this and so on? Then he
laughed and he said, you know what, based on the
measurement we do in spectral it is expanding. But he says,
I think what we're going to find when we look
at the disposition of galley of systems of galaxies around

(49:40):
the sky. Remember, we had just published the first catalog
of galaxies from both northern and the Southern sphere, which
he compiled to a great extent with his team and
other teams. So we were at the cutting edge there
at that time in sixty two of thinking about the

(50:03):
structure of the universe. And they that we were the
observing guys and they were the theoretical guys. And the
question in astronomy is always how do you reconcide too?
And he said we can. We're in a bubble. Let's expanding.

(50:24):
The question is how many other bubbles are and those
other bubbles could be getting smaller, and our bubble is
expanding and he said, you want a comparison, just take
a sink, fill it with warm water and pull soap
in it and r it around, and you'll have bubbles

(50:45):
and bubbles of soap. He says, that's the unit. We're
inside one bubble. Now, I've never forgotten that that lesson
as we were on top of a mountain in Texas,
because we had the universe around us. That's the lab.
You go to the top of the well, can you

(51:06):
you look up and anybody can do it. That's the science.

Speaker 2 (51:14):
Yeah, yeah, excellent.

Speaker 3 (51:16):
So so I think he was right. Our little plot
of the universe that we call our universe. Okay, again,
before we had the the Earth was the center of everything.
Now we know we're on the outskirts of town, but
we think about our universe and yes it according to

(51:39):
the measurements. Then if we're right about acceleeration, the speed
of light and the everything else which is not obvious.
But if they're right about the theory they expects, the
question is what else is there? And that's the question
he was asking because he was a cosmologist, not just

(52:01):
a stronger you can get one day.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
We're getting towards the end here, and I just had
a couple of questions, and one of them is was
there ever a moment where you wanted to abandon.

Speaker 2 (52:15):
This topic like it was just difficult.

Speaker 3 (52:19):
Yes, much till the end of the abrupt end of
the BUNS budget I became. I became very disingented with
I heard the feeling there was no place to go
because the world of the classified world is very complex.

(52:41):
It doesn't give the guidance. It's divided into many different factions,
which finds for many for budgets for things they cannot
communicate to move themselves. No, you remember when there was
a project to merge the CIA with the FBI. Well,

(53:01):
you can't do that because they each have their own
sources of information that will be exposed. I do that
because they are looking at different things. Sometimes they overlap,
but with completely different missions. And today we've got fifteen
agencies of that size, some of them bigger than the CERY,

(53:26):
some of them with extraordinary instruments, and that are class
a day. And I was very discouraged by that. I thought,
what can the sanitists do If they give us a problem,
we can work on the problem and with classification or
without classification. But the really big problems. I'm not just

(53:51):
when we disclose that the phenomenon is real. If I
go back to some of the places again in Arkansas,
I look at home an to the farmer and I
tell him. The Congress says, there was really something here,

(54:12):
you see, doctor Valley. I told him there was something
there because I saw it. I already knew that this
is not new in traces are still there. I got
very discarried. I'm ashamed of that, ashamed of that period.
Imst lost sight of the work I should do as

(54:37):
a scientist. So there were still there are no things
I could do. For one thing, I have that catalog
of cases and now I'm but now that the subject
is open, I don't want to keep doing the same
things I was doing before, because building new people picking
it up in new ways with new tools. So I'm

(54:59):
not going to read do once in my separate books.
I'm going to be doing something else. And there are
things that intrigue me that I never had the time
or the results us to go after today. It's a
pretty small body of things, but those are things nobody

(55:19):
else seems to have bothered with, and or at least
in the way that where I have the AE opportunity
to approach it. So I will be doing that. I
will be designing methodology and assembling the knowledge with other
people I know to go do that.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Excellent.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
I thought of this closing question to ask you, so,
after all these years of your investigation, what do you
now believe the most important question about the phenomenon that
researchers are still failing to ask.

Speaker 3 (56:02):
I think the most important question is is a question
of phenomenon? Is asking us what do you think is
the nature of reality? There are a number of people
around here in Sirico Valley who have started to think
of that in new ways because we can simulate reality

(56:24):
to the point in five years, so we will be
able to do that that you will not be able
to recognize the real reality from the fictitious or the
official reality. And that's already true. For training pilots. We
put them in conditions so similar to emergency conditions that

(56:45):
the control of an aircraft in the device, essentially in
the machine, and that exercises all their senses and their
brain exactly like being in the cutpit in that condition
in real life. So already do that in a small way.
But the question is are we living in the reality

(57:07):
that can be manipulated. Then if if we're facing an
advanced civilization that knows how to do that, and remember,
cylical value is telling us we are on the verge
of being able to do that on other fairly out scale.
So if if that's true, then our methodology, our scientific methodology,

(57:33):
is not the light me phodology to use. So we
have to go back and we have to change it.
And that's a very interesting problem. But it's not a
problem that people we can people say, oh, we'll use
a microscope, and we'll use a laser, and we'll use like, yes,
we should do all that, but that's in a way

(57:56):
that means we're entering a game that somebody else that's
designed and what else do they do? And that's where
I want to go, what else do they do? Because again,
in terms of control systems, so you had a question
about control systems earlier that I didn't answer very well.

(58:17):
But in terms of control systems, there are I've looked
into that because for one thing I learned about control
systems in engineering and physics, there are open systems and
they are cluse systems. And the big question is what
kind of system are we when we look at the universe.

(58:39):
Are we prisoners on the earth? Are we what we're
designed by somebody else, is for purpose or a reason?
Or are we free to do whatever we want? There
is a very interesting quote in my book. I cannot
take credit for it. It's copied it from an interview
that somebody it the men who gave the interview. It

(59:03):
was in some obscure photography magazine and I found it
and it's a few pages and I never forgot it.
The man is both a cosmologist working cosmologists contributed from
colleago I history and so on, and a an anthropologist.

(59:25):
That's a very rare combination. So he's looked at early
man and primates and what the different neonderchil And called magnum.
It's different types of humanoids before us, and we think
of ourselves as being the top forever. But he says,

(59:48):
going back to being the cosmologists, is if another massive
pubject crashed like the one that crashed seventy five million
years ago century in the Gulf of Mexico and wiped
out all the dinosaurs. It didn't just wipe out the dinosaurs,

(01:00:09):
it wiped out eighty percent of the species on the earth,
and then unfortunately wiped out a dinosaur, and that we
evolved somehow out of what was left. That could happen again.
So you cannot take the human form for grain. And

(01:00:30):
so I spoke to professors of biology in the Sorbonne
in Paris and so on, and they say, the reason
where the big guys on the earth isn't so much
or intelligence, it's an act. Intelligence is just what enables
us to use our environment a little bit better then

(01:00:55):
the other species. So they don't we're not eaten by them,
and we eat them. Okay, that could change in two minutes, right,
and there will be another maybe some maybe the rats
will evolve. The rats are have a stupefying sense of

(01:01:18):
community and smiles, but they cannot use tools, although they
use premative tools, but they don't invent sophisticate tools, so
we need them. But they could evolve if we will
lug alone incredible ability to survive on this anything, improve

(01:01:40):
their radiations more nuclear about me, So think about it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
Yes, thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
It's been a real pleasure having It's always been enjoyable
speaking with you.

Speaker 3 (01:01:55):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:56):
Yeah, I really appreciate that.

Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
Let's do it again after disclosure, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:02:01):
And I'm really glad that you hung in because when
a lot of times people have walked away, I was.

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
Just speaking to someone that was really, really involved.

Speaker 1 (01:02:08):
Actually he met you and years ago and he got
turned off by the subject and walked away, and now
he's coming back. But I'm glad that you stayed with it,
and you've done all the work that you've done. You've
been a real asset to the whole community. So thank
you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:02:26):
All right, take care.

Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
All right everyone, So don't forget to come back next Tuesday.
We have Scott Girard and Grant Lovick on Thursday, both
at eight pm. Thanks so much, and remember to keep
your eyes to the skoy yp