Jacques Vallee: Wonders in the Sky

I'm just wondering how many of you have read Jacques Vallee's new book co-authored with Chris Aubeck called "Wonders in the Sky". It's a pretty amazing piece of work, detailing 500 aerial phenomena events before in the industrial revolution. It puts a serious counterpoint to anyone thinking UFOs started with the 1940's - and shows that these objects have been seen for a lot longer than we'd think - and I don't refer to "might have been" cases or misinterpretations. These are well qualified and well documented events throughout history and are brought together under a strict methodology of inclusion in the book.

Great read that again turns this field on it's collective ear. About halfway through the book you stop looking at the question "what are UFOs?" and start asking "what are UFOs actually doing?"..or...what do we attribute them to doing based on our own perceptions (which is even more interesting).

Jeremy and I interviewed Dr. Vallee this past weekend on Paratopia, and it'll air this Friday, November 12th. He is as far as I'm concerned, one of the very few people to truly push the boundaries on this subject.

Originally posted by jritzmann
I'm just wondering how many of you have read Jacques Vallee's new book co-authored with Chris Aubeck called "Wonders in the Sky". It's a pretty amazing piece of work, detailing 500 aerial phenomena events before in the industrial revolution. It puts a serious counterpoint to anyone thinking UFOs started with the 1940's - and shows that these objects have been seen for a lot longer than we'd think - and I don't refer to "might have been" cases or misinterpretations. These are well qualified and well documented events throughout history and are brought together under a strict methodology of inclusion in the book.

Thanks for this post and your opinion jritzmann, I did not have the book in my possession yet, but reading the things you say here about it, and did listen to another interview with him about it, I think that that is just a matter of time.
It will confirm even more the opinion I already have, namely, that the UFO phenomenon [for me the ETH] is among us as long as humans are living on this Earth.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Jeremy and I interviewed Dr. Vallee this past weekend on Paratopia, and it'll air this Friday, November 12th. He is as far as I'm concerned, one of the very few people to truly push the boundaries on this subject.

I already did listen to a number of great interviews on your site and I won’t miss this one.

I've always been interested in the more unusual UFO reports; the flying circular platform with blue uniformed men aboard seen gliding over a village in the New Forest in 1915, for example.

This book may well be my birthday present. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

On my must-read list, too. Are Jaques Vallee's long-time assertions on the nature of the phenomena, finally becoming more mainstream? That would be great. I'm going to listen to your show (will be my first time)--sounds like I'm gonna like the topics and guests you pick. S&F.

Wow.
I can't even imagine being able to meet Dr. Vallee, much less chat-it-up with him.
I haven't read this latest collaborative effort, "Wonders In The Sky," honestly, I wasn't even aware that it had been released.
My favorite Vallee book is "Messengers Of Deception," which I think pretty much sums it all up in the title alone.

I think he is an incredible scientific mind and find it hard to believe that anyone can walk away from reading any of his work and not have their perception of UFO phenomenon forever changed.
All of his works as a whole, IMO, are damning to the sci-fi aspect of UFO phenomenon; but if someone were interested in his research and didn't have the time nor the desire to read the extent of his published material, the two books I highly recommend are, "Messengers Of Deception," and "Confrontations."
I think these two books best present his vision and research as a whole, with the rest of his publications being additional material supporting the premises of these two books.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to log on to Amazon to order a book........

reply to post by jritzmann
Given the 'consensual reality's' effects on my finances, Vallee's new book is gonna have to wait until Christmas at this rate...sigh...

Like anyone else, I've got mixed feelings about some of Vallee's work. Nevertheless, the guy has an unerring knack for making us think about things in different ways. Agree with him or not, sooner or later anyone interested in the UFO phenomena, high strangeness or anything else will bump into his ideas and find a new tangent or way of looking at the subjects.

I'm looking forward to the Paratopia interview with Vallee. Paratopia, Paracast, Dark Matters and BoA get a lot of airplay on my way to and from work. The 'strength' thing struck a chord...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
[Like anyone else, I've got mixed feelings about some of Vallee's work. Nevertheless, the guy has an unerring knack for making us think about things in different ways.

It's a bit frustrating, I suppose, because while he offers alternate hypotheses, it's not quite clear exactly how one would go about actualizing or testing them. I know he's a big believer in using the available data and analyzing that for possible clues and patterns, but it doesn't do a lot to bring any answers forward. I don't know how much his views have stayed the same over the years, but the notion of a hidden school of knowledge (Earthly, ET, or wherever) slowly bringing us into future awareness through hints and glimpses doesn't give us much to work with. I know he really doesn't offer "answers," but still. After decades of study, it's a shame how little we've progressed in the UFO field toward understanding what's going on.

But his writing is entertaining without striving for sensationalism, and I'm glad to see that the old man is still keeping a hand in the UFO game after all these years.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's a bit frustrating, I suppose, because while he offers alternate hypotheses, it's not quite clear exactly how one would go about actualizing or testing them. I know he's a big believer in using the available data and analyzing that for possible clues and patterns, but it doesn't do a lot to bring any answers forward.

That's because you're looking for an answer. Stop doing that - we don't know enough yet in the way of this complex phenomenon to hunt answers. We don't even know all the questions yet.

Another guest we had on, and all around brilliant man just like Jacques Vallee, is George Hansen. George would immediately say: "Why" is not a productive question to ask. What to look at is what surrounds the events, and it's effects after. You can't study this phenomenon because it's elusive. You have to study what surrounds it in every detail.

Between Jacques Vallee, George Hansen and Terence McKenna - if you read what they've put forth, have pushed this subject past the nonsense and offered sober reflections on many potentials and interesting connections. That's what this subject demands.

Originally posted by jritzmann
That's because you're looking for an answer. Stop doing that - we don't know enough yet in the way of this complex phenomenon to hunt answers. We don't even know all the questions yet.

Come on, not even a little?

Yeah, I understand. The whole phenomenon might not even be anything we can comprehend. But it would be nice to at least try to frame it in a way that we can work and progress with it. Give it some new definitions and see what the relationships are. That's science. I mean, I like lists of sightings as much as the next guy, but at some point it's just human to want to ask, "Okay, what does this mean?" Vallee and his associates are doing the research. And we're enough getting good reports and data to qualify as a decent sample, and enough to start creating some testable theories to see if they pan out. Let's move it forward a little.

Otherwise, why bother? "Oh, there's a flying saucer." [shrug]

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by jritzmann
That's because you're looking for an answer. Stop doing that - we don't know enough yet in the way of this complex phenomenon to hunt answers. We don't even know all the questions yet.

Come on, not even a little?

LOL...nope. Because where that leads? Theory becomes ideology. That's the problem with a lot of the UFO interested public - they want answers because it burns not to know. The aloe for that burn, is that you see what surrounds the phenomena, and more importantly, that the ideologues have been laid down since man first saw something he couldn't explain in the sky. You realize personally that items such as the ETH often applied to this subject - don't fit. When you actually recognize this, it's revolutionary to you, and then you see this bigger picture.

We got into discussion with Jacques about meaning ascribed by perception or relating the event - and this book doesn't just cover sightings - it also deals with abductions...that are clearly that.

You realize it's us (man) that has been trying to ascribe meaning rather than looking deeper, or at the finer points. For instance you read in the book about cylindrical objects moving slowly overhead releasing a mist - and after that, the Black Plague would erupt in that town (this is during the time of the plague). Most would say extraterrestrial population control. But consider that this is one report made by one person. This was his perception of the event. His way of ascribing meaning to the unknown.

In the end, this is all more complex than ET for many reasons. This is inextricably linked to us. And, one cannot remove the human element from the equation - we are perceiving it - yet it eludes.

You read this book and see that UFOlogy is still struggling with the same issues.

Originally posted by jritzmann
You realize personally that items such as the ETH often applied to this subject - don't fit. When you actually recognize this, it's revolutionary to you, and then you see this bigger picture.

Oh, I've read all of Jacques Vallee's books, and agree completely.

In the end, this is all more complex than ET for many reasons. This is inextricably linked to us. And, one cannot remove the human element from the equation - we are perceiving it - yet it eludes.

I still think a lot of this is because we haven't developed an appropriate vocabulary yet to frame the ideas. I've tried to explain to people my notions of perceptions shaping reality, and working beyond Euclidean geometry to include a point of view in the mix. But it always starts to veer towards sounding like witchcraft or Theosophy. It would be nice to come up with some better ways to describe what we're talking about in the UFO field so we don't all sound like hippies tripping out.

You read this book and see that UFOlogy is still struggling with the same issues.

Well, after more than a half century, it certainly hasn't gotten very far with the whole aliens from space notion. And the glimmerings around the outside edges of the field associated with such things as remote viewing, extratemporal states during abductions, descriptions of craft that are "alive" and linked with a pilot's consciousness to travel, time shifts, and so on, seem like much more fertile ground for exploration than Little Green Men.

The same reason I appreciated Art Bell was the same reason I couldn't listen to his show much. It seemed he didn't censor/deny any concept or theory, thereby leaving open the possibility that some real truth might pop-up some day. But by that very principle it became hard for me to listen to 3 or more hours of most of those theories.

So, after my initial reply here, I went to paratopia & I'm 25 mins in to 87 Jeff & Jer vs ETH. I'm liking it. My own experience compelled me to search for answers and finally to the conclusion that made sense to me. I guess that conclusion puts me pretty firmly in the high strangeness category, so it's good to hear it being discussed.

Blueshift, I'm pretty sure that Monsieur Vallee is still sharp, and if the quality of this new research is as academically sound as early reports suggest, then I would say he's made a massive new contribution to not only the overall benefit of ufology, but an impressive contention in furtherance of his hypothesis.

I'm not ready to follow all of his conclusions, far from it, but I do believe that his work is pointing towards our answer.

Kandinsky: Your open-mind and powerful writing always challenge me to think, and I really appreciate you for that whether I agree with your speculations or not. You truly make me think.

Good stuff here

Originally posted by FireMoon
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Well, if that's the case, then, my Western desire to push toward actualizing some of the concepts tossed around in the UFO fringes is also True. Different, but True. I suppose us Westerners could sit back and admire the natural balance of the universe and do nothing, but we can also push things to unbalance, which is also completely natural, and see what happens. Since neither is "wrong" or "right."

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Well, after more than a half century, it certainly hasn't gotten very far with the whole aliens from space notion. And the glimmerings around the outside edges of the field associated with such things as remote viewing, extratemporal states during abductions, descriptions of craft that are "alive" and linked with a pilot's consciousness to travel, time shifts, and so on, seem like much more fertile ground for exploration than Little Green Men.

People like yourself give me extreme hope in this utter mess of a "field". I'd encourage you to check out "The Trickster and the Paranormal" by George Hansen. That's a real brain bender for ya - but damned interesting.

Originally posted by The GUT
So, after my initial reply here, I went to paratopia & I'm 25 mins in to 87 Jeff & Jer vs ETH. I'm liking it.

Thanks for checking it out. Seriously, check out the George Hansen episodes and see what ya think. Really amazing insights that when put into practice? You actually see with your own eyes and ears. It certainly opened me up to seeing things differently...or at least asking questions I wouldn't have asked before. Jacques too, has had that effect on me in altering questions asked.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by FireMoon
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Well, if that's the case, then, my Western desire to push toward actualizing some of the concepts tossed around in the UFO fringes is also True. Different, but True. I suppose us Westerners could sit back and admire the natural balance of the universe and do nothing, but we can also push things to unbalance, which is also completely natural, and see what happens. Since neither is "wrong" or "right."

Maybe and i could be totally off course here, it's worth remembering the whole "Where does th atom go when you are not observing it?" debate. There's a sense and this is where i cannot understand either debunkers or believers that we only seek to confirm that we already suspect/expect. There are times when i want to ask people. Do you ever consider what the chimps in the zoo think of us?

I remember a few years ago we were at our practice place and one members dog was doing his ritual peeing on the fence posts around the property. My friend says.."he thinks he owns this place you know"..I replied.."In his world he does own this place, he has no other concept of ownership past what he perceives as his territory as a dog"

Furthermore, from the dog's perspective that farm land was probably as large a territory as he could possibly ever wish to own or even conceive of, to us we view it on a wholly different scale.

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks for posting the book, I just put a hold on a copy with the NYPL. I always enjoyed Vallee's books which are 180-dregree from the crap popular UFO authors write.

I didn't even realize this was out yet. I definitely know what my next paycheck is going towards. I'll definitely check out that Hansen book as well.

reply to post by jritzmann


From 1957 when I was introduced to UFOs by an Air Force captain until the early '60s I was a UFO enthusiast but not a believer, I just kept an open mind about the phenomena which was being witnessed by others. I developed a certain mind set composed mainly doubt due to the early history of UFOlogy from the 1950s which spawned fake after fake (Adamski). I read every book that was published but was never satisfied with the unbelievable contents. Hearsay, no evidence.

Then in 1965 I read Jacque Vallee's ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON: UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTS IN SPACE - A SCIENTIFIC APPRAISAL followed by PASSPORT TO MAGONIA: FROM FOLKLORE TO FLYING SAUCERS. I went through a mental transformation/expansion. I never accepted the ETH and Vallee dropped it as well.

All off the wall theories such as Vallee's interdimensional hypothesis are less accepted than the bolts and nuts theories but considering what we've discovered about other dimensions of sound and color it's not too far off for other dimensions of existence. I'm sure that one human future accomplishment is traveling backwards and perhaps UFOs are one method.

Vallée has suggested a multidimensional visitation hypothesis. This hypothesis represents an extension of the ETH where the alleged extraterrestrials could be potentially from anywhere. The entities could be multidimensional beyond space-time, and thus could coexist with humans, yet remain undetected. Vallée proposes that there is a genuine UFO phenomenon, partly associated with a form of non-human consciousness that manipulates space and time.

I find that much easier to accept than if there are beings in the UFOs that they're from other parts of the universe and are coming here in crafts. Some UFO videos show UFOs accelerating beyond human's ability to withstand the acceleration. But some videos also show UFOs dematerializing and materializing.

Where do they appear when they dematerialize here?