Jacques Vallee: Wonders in the Sky

The Trickster theory was more compelling than I thought it would be. I just listened to the George Hansen Round 1 podcast and read the Introduction to his book. He got game. Good job Paratopia!

In the book's introduction Hansen proposes nothing less than a grand unifying theory and provides a stimulating initial argument in support of it.

I'm not sure where he's totally headed with it, but I suspect he's going to become more well known.

And I doubt that he's nailed it, but the questions on the weird end of the spectrum are getting so much better that maybe they are finally starting to suggest answers.

Critical listeners/readers will of course have some serious questions as to his interpretation/conclusion on many points. "Not so fast on some of that," we say…and I guess that's what the book is for. I definitely wanna read it.

The interview is a great way to get some kind of feel for the man, I'd say read his introduction before the podcast if you haven't heard it yet, because it is complex. He's coaxed on the 'cast to expand a little more than he's willing to on the book's website and hints (maybe?) at where he's ultimately going with the hypothesis.

Abstraction resists definition like nothing else, so to be fair, that's part of his admitted hesitancy to try to expand & explain in 60 minutes or a 1,000 words.

If the phenomena is hyper-intelligent and has indeed been with us since pre-history, then these questions seem deliciously pertinent. Of course, then again, maybe it has been just the subconscious, or even collective unconscious, all along :~)

Now, I gotta go catch up on this Hot thread. Everyone is making me think.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Kandinsky
[...] There's perception combined with expectation on part of the observer/participant, a manifestation that manipulates and affects our physical reality, and there's an interaction between the entities and the participant, with each party displaying evidence of self-centered consciousness and will. How can something imaginary have its own consciousness? I'm sure I don't know, but then I don't really know how my consciousness works, either

Good point, and to me it suggests that Manly Hall's explanation of thought-forms might be an accurate description of that particular phenomena?

reply to post by jritzmann


Fastwalker sighting from May 1984? Klass excelled himself on this one. It was probably a SR71 they do fly between 60,000 and 100,000 feet..... the satellite orbits at about 22,000 miles from Earth and the object came in from deep space passed in front of the satellite then turned and sped back into space.


At 1400 hours zulu time, an object was spotted by a USDSP satellite and tracked as it sped first directly toward the Earth and passed if front and within 15 miles of the USDSP satellite. It suddenly and without impact or contact with other devices or obstructions curved outward, away from the Earth. It was tracked for another 9 minutes until it then disappeared.

I'd further note, you'd think a simple search for fast walker UFO would find this easily. Not so, really helps to have the actual date and even then, there is far less than you might expect to find. Plus note, the wiki page has been deleted.

reply to post by FireMoon


That's very intriguing depending on the possibility of a false return?

reply to post by The GUT


The funny thing it is a bit of a mystery all round. I first heard of it a few years back but the only documentary i have ever seen it mentioned in is one that virtually debunks the whole of Ufology and then finished with a couple of however.....Even stranger it was one of those documentaries that, at times was as factually erroneous of some of the believers stuff, the old trick presenting only the duff evidence and leaving out crucial testimony etc. So quite why they chose to put this in at the end i will never fully understand.

There does seem to be a suggestion, although it is just that, that when a request under the FOIA was put in for records post the cold war, that this particular "contact" was slipped in by someone in house when it shouldn't have been. That is, someone leaked it under the auspices of the FOIA request. That Klass's attempted debunk was so lame , he spent a good while talking about how they had to re calibrate because it was too sensitive and they didn't want to just track Russian fighters, it does seem he was backing off from calling it a false return. Now given Klass was about as honest as Nixon that strikes me as doubly strange. it suggests Klass was scared that if he called it a false return he was liable to be called out on it and proved wrong. in public.

To my knowledge and i could be wrong i have never seen a rebuttal stating this could be an asteroid by using the trajectory and showing how the course is wholly commensurate with some sort of gravitational bounce using the earth and it was pure coincidence.It begs the question, why Klass never had one of his stooges do it .

I don't know, however there is an interesting correlation between the quality of sightings and the distance certain factions keep from them. Anyway, to matters of a less concrete kind

Originally posted by jritzmann
the common definition doesn't work, however it's the one most people jump to right off the bat

that's most likely due to the fact that we've had the stereotypical ET/UFO image/concept crammed down our throats for the last 60-70 years or so. most people could really care less about this phenomenon unless it has affected them somehow personally, thus the masses simply have subconcious visions of whatever they may be exposed to through the media. and we all know the paramaters of that gambit.
whether we like it or not, in most circumstances that is the initial exposure we have all had and continues with the general populous of children today. i guess basically what i'm trying to convey is that i'm a chick & i still had Star Wars figures mixed in with my Barbies and remember seeing ET in the actual movie theater.

I don't think we can take the ETH off the table by any means - but I do think we have to start directing as much effort in other directions. Interested parties would rather it seems, not do that. In fact, you'll get a hell of a lot of resistance from die-hard ETH'ers.

Well, as far as the ETH i suppose anything is possible, albeit some things are more unlikely than others.
And as far as the die-hards, i liken it to someone who has been blissfully married for a significant amount of time, only to find out that their spouse has deceived them in some way throughout their entire marriage. And even several times throughout that marriage people made stray comments about their partner's fidelity, but the very notion itself was simply inconceivable because from their perspective there was always more evidence in favor of the spouse they THOUGHT they had, as opposed to the spouse that person ultimately turned out to be.
in either case, someone is being forced to reassess the things they held to be certain for a significant amount of time.

[There are many reasons when you really step back and look.

True that, however i would speculate that many ETH'es/'ers/however you'd pluralize that, have no desire to do that. they are too comfortable in their certainty.

[This means I'm referring to "aliens" in the common context of flesh and blood, and their "craft" actually nut and bolt objectively "real" devices.
-In 60+ years alone of modern age UFO research - not one nut, nor one bolt (speaking metaphorically)

i believe manifestation is possible, however it is something that is contingent---upon exactly what, i have no idea. Therefore, i believe that it/they/whatever can be tangible in the since of a perpetuating, mutable force. Something that has to be experienced more so than photographed or measured.

[-If beings can get "here" from "there" then it's safe to assume they have technology vastly superior to our own. Yet in abductions to landing cases they use hand tools and needles, probes, etc. This is absurd on the face of it and doesn't coincide with the level of technology - there's a distinct disconnect that almost borders the theatrical.

IMO, that is the entire point. If not entire, then at the very least, 'theatrics' is the bulk of intent---insomuch as a desired emotional effect. Your postulation points that out very well. ie: the safe assumption of a vastly superior technology being diametrically opposed to the virtually medieval treatment of persons during reported interactions.

[-The phenomena seems to follow trends of manifestation based upon our own level of culture.

yes, the encounters seem to be consistently subjective in perception

[-There is on many occasions 2 or more witnesses that saw the same event, and perceived radically different phenomena. (i.e. - one man sees a disc in the air, the other saw a bar or square. Both UFOs, however radically different, suggesting this is filtered through cultural filters.

yes---subjective perception to achieve a desired emotional and psychological effect

[That's just some reasons I don't accept the ETH as the end-all answer. I see this an an infinitely more complex phenomenon than little doctors from another star system coming here in "craft".

Agreed and the very notion of the craft themselves seems completely absurd, IMO. Almost as if the crafts are more so for our benefit, rather than theirs/its/whatevers.

I'm almost afraid to ask........,
but here goes......
what are some opinions on Philip Imbrogno & Peter Sturrock?

reply to post by stupid girl


I've pondered the shape and form long myself and for debates sake, the possibility of a benign stealth technology could also be mooted as an option? We always seem to see that which is just beyond our contemporaneous grasp? Not so much shock and awe as puzzlement and ooooo that's pretty?

As for the link between high magick and the phenomenon, I have a problem with the word *demons* as it is wholly pejorative and based on a philosophy that has a problem with the innate cyclical nature of the universe? Modern magick has a definite core that is , shall we say, a tad childish in its' seeming deliberate attempts to shock those of the monotheistic cults. In fact, it could be said that, the whole of its' true meaning can be summed up in its' most enduring phrase... "As above so below"?

reply to post by jritzmann

See, that's the problem. No physical trace, radar report, nor sighted object can be qualified as coming from an "extraterrestrial" source. That's an interpretation - not based upon the data. That kind of "evidence" is ultimately open ended and vague - even if accompanied by a sighting account by sober, credible people.

Maybe not proven extraterrestrial, but they certainly encourage questions of who, what and where from? Vallee, his mother and a neighbour in Cergy Pontoise saw a hovering disc. He later claimed to have seen satellite data of 'incoming traffic' at CNES. There does seem to be a solid, physical aspect to many incidents that shouldn't be hastily overlooked or exchanged for 'thought forms.'

Those objects, and their effects, could every bit be military projects. I love it when UFO researchers and others state, "we don't have technology that can do that", when in fact they don't have any idea. They are not privy to every project on military black boards. That's the fact. So they don't know, and they can't know. So their statement is nullified the minute it leaves their lips.

The reverse of this argument has equal merit. People who attribute the UFO enigma entirely to secret technology also don't have any idea. Both positions are self-limiting and don't allow for overlaps. Black and white thinking for those guys?

In the end? That kind of evidence can't even be remotely drawn to the enigma we're discussing - because there's no way to qualify that.

Make any sense?

Yes and no.

The amount of normal people who've described physical objects and the various radar incidents indicate that something solid is occasionally being tracked in our skies. Incidents like Colares '77 describe physical injuries and solid craft. Vallee wrote about it in Confrontations and the official files were released a couple of years ago. There've been incidents of jets being scrambled to respond to incursions recorded on military and civilian radars in North America, South America, Europe and the Middle East. As you say, none of this provides enough evidence to conclude 'extraterrestrial.' Neither does it conclude that there's a paranormal consciousness at play.

It's indicative of 'something unknown' and can be taken on face value at the same time as other possibilities are considered that run much deeper into our psyches...

Off topic, well done to you and Jer for hooking Vallee. AFAIK he's only doing 3 radio interviews so you done good. It'd be interesting to ask him where the next change in the UFO field is likely to come from? We've had the solid ETH and then the consciousness hypothesis...what comes next?

reply to post by stupid girl


I don't know much about Peter Sturrock's work but I'm friends with Phil. I think his head is in the right place and I appreciate the different angles he's covering. I can also appreciate his having given up on ufology. It seems all the greats leave the field and do their own work only to resurface when they have something new to offer.

reply to post by Kandinsky


The reverse of this argument has equal merit. People who attribute the UFO enigma entirely to secret technology also don't have any idea. Both positions are self-limiting and don't allow for overlaps. Black and white thinking for those guys?

There's a separate sub group as well. Those who insist the TR3B exists refuse to believe in any possibility of ETH and yet they must know the only evidence for the existence of the TR3B comes from a single source who is most definite about its' Extraterrestrial parentage.

BTW I will track it down, but somewhere out there i have a quite detailed link that claims the 76 Iranian incident was picked up on the defense satellites and tracked for an hour. Found it... it's about half way down the page under the heading Satellite spot UFOs

www.ufodigest.com...

www.ufodigest.com...

reply to post by Blue Shift

I know that our minds can create something out of nothing. We do it all the time. And it's all heavily influenced by our anticipation, expectation and intention. If there was some way to use technology to amplify that process, the results might be a very similar to what we see in UFO studies. The creation and manipulation of alternate realities, time and space. Bridging that gap would be difficult, though. We're probably still a long way from incorporating consciousness into our equations, or incorporating a ghost in the machine.

Hiya Blue, I've wondered about some of the same things. As time and technology advances physical, virtual and perceived realities will possibly become blurry concepts with overlapping margins? The remote drones of modern warfare will inevitably generate remote cybernetic soldiers....avatars in a sense. From there, we're a short step from experiencing a reality that's removed from our physical location.

As you suggest, if consciousness can be cloned (like copying an mp3 file) and interlaced into technology, time and space could become something new altogether. In that speculative reality, perhaps some UFOs are a physical construct expressing the intentions of an internal consciousness? Technology would be an outlier on the very edges of what we'd consider paranormal and 'indistinguishable from magic.'


reply to post by FireMoon

There's a separate sub group as well. Those who insist the TR3B exists refuse to believe in any possibility of ETH and yet they must know the only evidence for the existence of the TR3B comes from a single source who is most definite about its' Extraterrestrial parentage.

There are some funny thought processes relating to the subject isn't there? There's a 50s interview with Long John Nebel and Arthur C Clarke. Clarke cheerfully says he fully expects that the Earth has been 'visited' many times over the millennia and then laughs at the 'believers.' He ridicules the idea that anything has visited the Earth in the 'past hundred years.' How does a man who conceived of satellites and wrote such great books have such a logic fart?! Neither contention was based on evidence!

You might want to read the statement of the pilot of the Iranian F-4 jet in that famous case...Parvis Jafari. There are more here...www.freedomofinfo.org...

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
It seems all the greats leave the field and do their own work only to resurface when they have something new to offer.

A true scientist acts as if they are perpetually working under a hypothetical premesis. To be faithful to that notion, they have to keep an open mind and be comfortable with having their working hypothesis be an evolving thing versus something which is written in stone.
These minds are the most valuable to the scientific community because when their standing hypothesis becomes challenged, is when we move forward in that respective scientific field. Re-evaluation is necessary, leading to new perspectives, ideas and possibilities.
Many who claim to be scientific researchers do not work in the parameters of this mindset, thus ideas and hypothesis become stagnant, blase', and stale.
It also serves to cause competition and resentment amongst these minds, creating a rift in their respective field because they are working against each other instead of with each other.

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

BTW I will track it down, but somewhere out there i have a quite detailed link that claims the 76 Iranian incident was picked up on the defense satellites and tracked for an hour. Found it... it's about half way down the page under the heading Satellite spot UFOs

www.ufodigest.com...

www.ufodigest.com...

Iran is absolutely one of the most interesting cases to me, and the satellite tracking aspect, if accurate, would make it some kind of slam dunk. Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts & cases here, firemoon, I'm truly enjoying them.

Colares 77 as mentioned by Kandinsky is another favorite of mine--both physical phenomena and HIGH strangeness. I'm certainly still keen on solid ETH type cases, but the thing is; I don't at all consider an other-dimensional hypothesis to preclude "their" ability to cross-dimensionally & physically enter our world.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
There does seem to be a solid, physical aspect to many incidents that shouldn't be hastily overlooked or exchanged for 'thought forms.'

Oh I don't say overlook anything. Don't think that I discount physicality - I don't. However, I've noted over the years that there's a physical and non-physical component - they're are "real"...but they don't have to be. This seems to be choice for the enigma, and not the rule.

Hence, why it might be that there is no definitive physical evidence. It can't exist here. I've said on many occasions (based only on my direct experience), that this phenomena seems to bring part of it's own environment with it as part of "being" here. A portion of it's localized reality, if you wanna call it that.

So, I wouldn't equate "ping a rock off it real", being the loophole for the ETH.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The reverse of this argument has equal merit. People who attribute the UFO enigma entirely to secret technology also don't have any idea. Both positions are self-limiting and don't allow for overlaps. Black and white thinking for those guys?

Far from it. The idea here is the data cannot be qualified either way (black project or phenomena?). So, for those laying the ETH on top of those cases as some sort of solid ground - it's more like castles in the air.

The issue here is the questions we ask in regard to sightings. UFOlogy has rarely asked the right ones, and so gives in to the preconceived notion. With the right questions, I think it's possible to at least get a lead on what is the enigma, and what isn't.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Hence, why it might be that there is no definitive physical evidence. It can't exist here. I've said on many occasions (based only on my direct experience), that this phenomena seems to bring part of it's own environment with it as part of "being" here. A portion of it's localized reality, if you wanna call it that.

I know it's kind of out of left field, but it's interesting how much this resonates with the stuff Phil Corso, Jr., (the son of the guy who wrote the book) has said in public appearances about the "Roswell" stuff, which may or may not have anything to actually do with Roswell, New Mexico. These are available on the Internet. His speech is very disorganized, and a lot of different information comes up randomly, but that makes it more interesting in some ways.

Anyway, one thing he says that human beings will never travel to Mars because long-distance space travel somehow separates people too far from their "reality," and they can't survive. An interesting notion, if nothing else. It also reminds me of the "silver strings" thing that Robert Monroe would talk about with his OBEs. Silver strings attached to your "soul" that keep you in place and alive in the world, and will stretch if you fly around out of the body. Different thing, but I'm reminded of it.

Corso also mentions that he understood that a lot of the Roswell stuff (artifacts, etc.) is no longer "here," like it went back -- or was taken back -- to wherever it came from. Also that a lot of the stuff was analyzed but couldn't realistically work. Ships that were baffling, with no logically workable propulsion systems, that sort of thing.

It's just an interesting thought that reality could so dependent on individual perceptions, observations and expectations that physical objects and even people could only partially or temporarily exist someplace they're not intended to be. But I've always said about UFO evidence that after a while, the strange and consistent way good proof always hangs just out of reach becomes a piece of evidence, itself.

reply to post by jritzmann

With the right questions, I think it's possible to at least get a lead on what is the enigma, and what isn't.

Hiya Jeff. This is so true, but kinda stating the obvious as well. Go back into the UFO literature, the 'zines, books and radio interviews and we've been asking as many questions as we can come up with...for decades. You know them well enough that I don't need to list them (thankfully!)

None of them have brought us closer to an answer in any sense that we can measure or give precedence to.

It's clear that you've come to the place where you are right now through experience and your own contemplation. That's fair enough. At the same time, the people who speculate from the premise of ETH have often applied as much thinking as you have. They also have experience to draw from. Their speculations are valid too.

It's possibly too early to rule anything out and we could be trying to put it all in one box when there's really a myriad of boxes...not all of which are connected.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Hiya Jeff. This is so true, but kinda stating the obvious as well. Go back into the UFO literature, the 'zines, books and radio interviews and we've been asking as many questions as we can come up with...for decades. You know them well enough that I don't need to list them (thankfully!)

None of them have brought us closer to an answer in any sense that we can measure or give precedence to.

Hiya,
Now actually there's a point: for decades we've studied the sightings, abductions, etc from a different perspective than what I'm talking about. Let's take a close proximity sighting for instance: You get down what they saw. Light, color, structure, movement, duration and everything else.

Now, you go the other direction - and if you actually ask these questions you'll find an interesting correlation - I guarantee it, if your witness is able to answer these questions honestly (part of getting them to confide in you past being some researcher).

-What were you doing at the time of sighting?
-Was your life out of it's normal routine?
-Were there any major changes in your personal or professional life just before, during or after the sighting time?
-How has this sightings effected your perception of reality, or what has it meant to you personally?

These are important questions to ask - you'll see what I mean when you get an honest answer out of witnesses. It's not about the sighting directly, it's about what surrounds it. That, is truly what we study in paranormal accounts.

Those questions will, give you direction mighty quick. Just ask them.

These items have likely been known about by researchers for some time - as well as other data that Jeremy and I have come to realize is being left out of public view. To me, this is UFOlogy's problem: researchers who don't put out the full disclosed story - but rather fit it into a narrative of their choosing.

reply to post by jritzmann

These items have likely been known about by researchers for some time - as well as other data that Jeremy and I have come to realize is being left out of public view. To me, this is UFOlogy's problem: researchers who don't put out the full disclosed story - but rather fit it into a narrative of their choosing.

At the same time, you also have to self-assess your own perspectives here. While you're content that the ETH has little or nothing to offer, are you more or less likely to be fitting events and experiences into your own narrative? As already mentioned, you've been pretty assertive that the ETH is laughable. From here, it looks like a bold position given the elusive nature of the things we're talking about. That isn't a criticism, it's a question.

You're favouring the concept of a pervasive intelligence that interacts with human consciousness in a way that alters the percipient's concept of reality. In this context, the percipient might not understand the anomolous experience, but is potentially altered as an outcome of having their beliefs challenged. A trait associated with this intelligence is a sense of humour...tricksterish. Some people (who expressed a preference), report negative connotations from the experience and others feel their lives have been enriched.

That's a lot of condensing and summarising I've just done so if I'm off-track about your views you can nail me on it.

Vallee's suggested that this notional intelligence is somehow drawing us forward as a race, effecting reality and forever remaining out of reach of comprehension. He gets misconstrued as claiming there are no physical craft, just incarnations of our perceptions in thrall to a paranormal agency. In reality, Vallee is certain of the physical technology of *some* of the UFOs and his fascination is circling the intelligence behind the technology.

I believe that UFOs are physically real. They represent a fantastic technology controlled by an unknown form of consciousness. But I also believe that it would be dangerous to jump to premature conclusions about their origin and nature because the phenomenon serves as the vehicle for images that can be manipulated to promote belief systems tending to the long-term transformation of human society.

Vallee Interview 2008


I recently read Joe Fisher's Hungry Ghosts book and those final chapters have added more speculation. You'd love it, Fisher's understanding of the paranormal warns of the inherent deception and led to him taking a long fall of a short cliff. He believed in reincarnation and had the approval of the Dalai Lama. Those later chapters dovetail into yours and Vallee's suggestions of a force or intelligence shaping human consciousness. It's one of those books that changes the reader...

I like your point about asking the questions and agree they could add more context to the details of a sighting or experience report. Certain precursors might begin to take the shape of a pattern? Perhaps there's a foreshadowing of events? My schtick here is to not rule too much out and keep turning over as many ideas and concepts as possible. Put them together and see if any fit? I'm not really disagreeing with what you do believe in, rather questioning what you don't believe in? It's been an interesting exchange of ideas in this thread