Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jacques Vallee: Wonders in the Sky

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by The Shrike
Hiya Shrike, by trace evidence I meant radar recordings that confirmed eye-witness reports. There's a few out there. Can a conscious perception of an underlying intelligence be seen by different people in different places and be registered on different radars? We don't know the answer to that, but perhaps their accounts of structured craft were the most accurate?

There are a few accounts of physical trace evidence in the Ted Phillips' sense that are worth being open-minded to in my opinion. Dechtmont Woods maybe? At the same time, part of me agrees with you that Ted Philips' recent activities leave a lot of questions. A mod on Paracast, Ron, is working on a new website for Ted and I'm suspending judgement until it goes live.

One of the reasons I don't get into arguments about this subject is for the same reason you pointed out...not enough evidence and we just don't know. Why bother to fall out with folk when none of us have the answers?

Can you even imagine how our lives would be changed the instant evidence for aliens is produced? Something not of this earth? Mindblowing and would put all earthlings on notice. We wake up now in total confidence that our day is going to progress pretty much like yesterday, for the average person of course. And our lives continue sort of uneventful because all that is happening is that UFOs are being seen in the sky and not landed although I'm sure that comment will be challenged. I don't know what to make of the tales associated with landed craft such as the guy that got "steam-heated" with a resulting pattern on his belly. We put up with all kinds of humans because we're all humans. But let a non-human make him/herself approachable and life will never be the same again. Since it hasn't happened, yet, all we can do is discuss possibilities.

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by FireMoon
For what it's worth i will add this. I have friend who had a CE3 some years ago and has photos of the *craft* that would send some on here into a flat spin. he told me that the *craft* in the picture he has is what we would term a * thought projection* but was told there are others who use craft we would understand as technology if totally alien (sic0 to us. Now he has no proof and just the photos (snip) Again the whole perception thing comes into this. His partner, who was present, saw similar to him, but remembers virtually nothing else save a vague recollection of a presence. On the one hand, they are happy to back up his photos but they really can;t when it comes to his *meeting*.

That is a classic case where the sceptics would have a total field day, based on the evidence being wholly intangible save the photos and stories not being consistent. I suspect Vallee would love it, as it encapsulates so many of the complete paradox's UFOs so often present us.

There are times i sigh when i see the vitriol aimed at people for reporting something that seems outlandish. The truth is, to us as humans the very idea of UFOs is outlandish and here lies my beef with many debunkers. They don't exist, but if they did, i know what they would be, seems to sum so many people's attitude. They wouldn't make stupid phone calls to people etc etc.

I think this thread clearly shows there is a school of thought who think,not believe they exist, but as to exactly what they are? Well buckle up folks cos you think you think Alice in Wonderland was fiction?
edit on 10-11-2010 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2010 by FireMoon because: grammar

As I said recently on another thread (I think) years ago I saw photos that were taken by a group of people, tourists I think, which showed non-visible things of a variety. If you're very conscious in your concentration you might not see certain things that become "visible" when you're mentally relaxed. I know that psychedelics might not count as a subject for discussion in an Alien & UFOs forum but psychedilics allowed me to see the invisible such as afters which were there all of the time but the conscious mind blocks them out so that you can live a "normal" life not distracted by all of the other possible dimensions that once in a while intrude on our consciousness. Sometimes a camera will penetrate that "veil" and show something not seen with eyes. One just never knows.

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Kandinsky
At the same time, there are plenty of descriptions of structured craft and various physical traces. At the very least, it suggests that some component of the enigma may well be physical. If so, structured craft require manufacturing and that requires a society/culture/civilisation.

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.

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.

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?
edit on 10-11-2010 by jritzmann because: (no reason given)

Of course what you say makes sense, lots of sense. Except for the military connection. If we (Americans, that is) had any kind of sophisticated anything we wouldn't be losing so many in the "war". I can say, just from common sense, reason, and logic that "we don't have technology that can do that". We can't while life goes on the way it has daily. I don't have any idea, as you say. But I don't see anything human associated with UFOs. ALL of our planes need wings or they'll fall from the sky. The triangles reported are, to me, human because triangles are aerodynamic. And all of the triangles reported do not zoom around as UFOs do. We ain't got it.

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 12:39 AM

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

I don't mean to belittle Philip Imbrogno based on the results of one book but in my opinion Philip was taken when he published NIGHT SIEGE – THE HUDSON VALLEY UFO SIGHTINGS, co-authored with Bob Pratt (1987). I say that because the videos available show what eventually was a group of jokesters small craft pilots playing an aerial joke. Anytime that an educated person is taken, such as John Mack was also taken by a fake student, it makes me wonder what happens to these peoples' minds that they can be easily fooled.

Peter Sturrock? See my book review from 2000 at
The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Hardcover)

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Blue Shift

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.

The Shrike: I don't know Corso, Jr., but I don't think he knows what he's talking about regarding traveling to Mars or any other celestial body. A crew has each other for support. They're professionals. They're traveling in a home away from home. Their reality is their surroundings and their mental states. While Monroe mentions the "silver strings" also known as the "astral cord", and I'm a Monroe follower and have been since his first book, I don't know about the "strings" because all humans would have these "strings" and if you think a photo of contrails from space is mindblowing, then all of those billions of strings would just have to untangle instantly, so tangle/untangle constantly! And what happened to the "strings" of those who passed on?

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.

The Shrike: When it comes to Roswell "debris" I don't accept anything Corso Sr. and Jr. say 'cause they weren't there and are not speaking from first-hand experience. Also, in 2003 I accompanied my brother-in-law, a professional photographer commissioned by Popular Mechanics to photograph the Roswell debris kept in the archives at College Park, Maryland. My brother-in-law had an assistant but I came along for the ride and saw and handled what is left of the Roswell debris which consists of a balloon train remnants.

Popular Mechanics ROSWELL COVER h1q2NO4&hl=en&ei=4-PcTNbAIoO0lQfkwcHZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Popular Mechanics article h1q2NO4&hl=en&ei=4-PcTNbAIoO0lQfkwcHZDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

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.

edit on 12-11-2010 by The Shrike because: Clarity.

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by The Shrike

I suspect we might well be singing from the same song sheet on this one. My own experiences are such that i just know we are not the only intelligence however, I understand that in no way constitutes proof in a scientific sense. That said, it is interesting that Crick came out and admitted about the dream and DNA being a cover story. He actually saw the double helix whilst under the influence of '___'. For myself all I can say is i had a similar experience, only in my case, it was about how space wasn't anywhere near as *empty* as it was classically portrayed. I remember the first photos from the Hubble telescope and just smiling and my then roomie saying."Ok, you can wipe the smug smile off your face "

What is interesting is that, both of us "saw" that which we, in all probability, were most intellectually interested in.. I am also aware that the experience literally, changed me on a very subtle but permanent way. I have posted this on here elsewhere however it bares repeating in the context of this thread. In a conversation with a Shaman i asked them about the *Greys* . Their reply didn't surprise me at all, that they have known of them for hundreds of years.

I wonder how many abductees have ever asked themselves this question. Was it maybe me that, when dreaming first crossed into their *space* thus alerting them to my presence and that the following experiences are me misconstruing an attempt to communicate.? That, unable to fully assimilate the idea of contact with another sentient life form they have constructed the whole abduction scenario as a way of coping with it?

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by The Shrike
Peter Sturrock? See my book review from 2000 at
The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Hardcover)

Thus far, my favorite reads are Imbrogno & Vallee.
IMO, they present their ideas in an easy followable (if that's even a word) and intelligently presented format.
Many of the books I've read over the years which have been published/written by independent researchers, have the tendency to wax eloquent and get lost in their "inner conversation with themselves," if you will.

posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 05:51 PM
What are people's thoughts on the Mr Janus and Sir Peter Horsley meeting and episode? I wonder where is fits into the pantheon of Ufology. I guess part of me has wondered whether it was a *sting* to see how far up the chain and how far people could be swayed by possible contact with *them*. . That said, there is something singularly strange and very *British* about the whole affair. A polite invite round for tea and muffins over which the aliens reveal themselves?

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by FireMoon
It's an interesting account. Taken on face value, could Earth be a backwater truck-stop? A seedy motel or desert oasis in space? Who's to say? If it was so, it would explain why our provisional 'visitors' are apparently complaining to the management that the food's contaminated and the water tastes bad! It'd be cool if that was the case.

The timing of the meeting is interesting as it falls within the early days of the US tactics of UFO denial and debunkery. The CIA's Robertson Panel had only been commissioned some two years earlier and recommended 'reducing the gullibility' of the populace. Superficially, this has nothing to do with a meeting in London in 1954 or does it?

In 1952, Churchill fired off a memo asking, 'What does all this stuff about flying saucers amount to? What can it mean? What is the truth?' The reply he got was a summary of the conclusions in the 'Flying Saucer Working Party' document and basically informed him that it was all misidentifications and that 'the Americans' had lost interest in the subject (not true!). The FSWP document conclusions relied heavily on the word of the US RAND and Project Grudge report...which in itself was a preordained exercise in debunkery. The US therefore held influence over the perspective taken by UK interests relating to UFOs.

So if we flash forward a couple of years to this meeting in 1954, we're left with some possibilities of the meaning behind it. By 1954, the contactee movement was well under way and declassified documents show how various intelligence agencies had agents and contacts monitoring. They were scared of the Commie sentiments expressed by the space brothers. I mean 'world peace' who in their right mind would want that!?

Some of the contactees claimed to have been into outer space on craft. I wonder if Janus was a contactee or perhaps a US/UK agent simply covering their bases? Let's say Horsely granted Janus access to the Duke of Edinburgh? That'd be a major weakness in Horsley's credibility and reliability. He'd be a threat to national security. Then there's the chance that US interests were double-checking if the UK knew anything more about UFOs? Adamski was protected by the FBI so people with such stories clearly served a purpose to somebody in the upper echelons...

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:58 AM
Just as a side note, the episode with Jacques is posted over at
No question for me, our best interview to date. I'm kinda in a rush to get out the door right now, but I'll be back to respond to ya Kan.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:08 PM
I listened to the free portion of the Dr. Vallee interview and really enjoyed it. I thought you guys did a great job setting the context in your opening statements. While some of the hypothesis is obviously and understandably debatable, I don't believe it's debatable anymore that this phenomena has been with us at least as long as our surviving historical records have.

I also thought that it was a nice creative touch to have guest readers for the book excerpts, even if the translation of older speech patterns made them somewhat awkward as in the case of the Chinese "Pearl" object.

Numerous interesting points & definitely well-spent time as far as my opinion.

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:36 PM
Just wanted to add this link to the thread.. well worth a gander all sorts on here on just about everything imaginable.

Documentary Heaven

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:22 PM
I picked up this book the day before and so far I have gotten to page 164, case: 197. It is a very interesting and compelling read and it is a wonder I have no other books by Jacques Vallee in my collection of ufological literature. I do have passport to Magonia saved on the computer from a website....may have to finally read it after finishing this one.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:52 PM
Hi all

Great thread.

My co-blogger and I have just finished digesting Vallee and Aubeck's "Wonders in the sky" and our take, including a look at the two Australian cases cited in the book, may be read at:

I have been following Vallee's work since the late 1960's and love the fact that he pushes the boundaries of our subject. Many people are not aware that he has published two books which are his diaries from the beginning of his interest, to 1979.

These are:

1. "Forbidden Science" Volume 1. 1992. North Atlantic Books. Berkeley, CA.

2. "Forbidden Science" Volume 2. Journals 1970-1979. 2008. Documentica Research LLC. ISBN 978-0-615-24974-2

Copies available from:

Both gave me further insights into his thinking.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:53 PM

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.

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.

I just finished reading the book after reading very favorable reviews at Amazon. I didn't need to read the reviews to know that Vallee would produce interesting material. I've known so since 1965 when I read ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON which helped keep me on the straight and narrow regarding the "mythical" extra-terrestrials, and every book following that one. While I never doubted the reality of UFOs, not having had a sighting until the early '80s made me always wonder what it was that people were really seeing. Then I found out to my satisfaction. Then I met Vallee in 1978 at the United Nations and posted here the photo that I took of him.

This book is not really a "reading" book, it's more of a reference, sort-of limited as acknowledged. I know that 500 sounds like a lot but it gets boring rapidly because the accounts only achieve making you wonder and wonder. I also don't like the reliance on religious sources although he had to deal with what was available. But quoting from the bible over and over disappointed me. Religious control never ends!

The best parts of the book are the in-between reports summaries. And for you Wikipedia critics the authors use it, intelligently! As should all of you, always verifying what you read there.

Add this book to your library although when you might pick it up again is ...
edit on 29-12-2010 by The Shrike because: Correct grammar.

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:09 PM
This what I miss when I'm gone for months.

A great thread that reminds me of the days when i first found ATS, before the NRMs and politics dominated the forums.
edit on 29/12/10 by MikeboydUS because: p

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:55 PM

For those who want to read more on Vallee and his current thinking, see the new (2010) book "Authors of the Impossible" by Jeffrey J Kripal. Published by the University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45386-6. My co-blogger has just reviewed the book at:

Happy reading.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:21 AM

Originally posted by keithb

For those who want to read more on Vallee and his current thinking, see the new (2010) book "Authors of the Impossible" by Jeffrey J Kripal. Published by the University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-45386-6. My co-blogger has just reviewed the book at:

Happy reading.

I disagree with this opinion as stated by Vallee IF he created it:
"Vallee "...remains convinced that the UFO phenomenon will never be solved by the believers or the rationalists...he thinks that we have to reject the dogmatisms of both religion and science and confront the phenomenon on its own terms..." (p.158.)"

There is no solving of the UFO phenomenon in his terms, i.e., "by the believers or the rationalists". The UFO phenomenon is independent of humans believing in them or trying to rationalize them. UFOs are, Period. There is no solving to discuss or consider. When and if UFOs, that is their controllers, desire to interact with humans it can be to a believer or a rationalist or whomever. We don't know what "their" criteria is going to be to finally contact us in an open manner. Besides, we have no inkling as to whether all UFOs are from the same source or like the United Nations, there is a mixture. This is the part that the believers in ET don't seem to consider: the variety of UFOs could mean that they couldn't all be from some planet "out there". We humans have a variety of aircraft and automobiles. But we're still one similar looking race; all humans look alike. But do all UFO "controllers" look alike?

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:13 PM
Glad I found this thread. I've read a couple of Jacques Vallee's books and I'll have to read the others. Looking
forward to a good read.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by jritzmannBetween 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.

I would like to add Joseph Campbell to the list. His pioneering work provides a solid, scholarly background in comparative mythology which clears up misconceptions about religion which in turn helps one to integrate the work of Vallee and others.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in