Is it possible to have Jacques Vallee back on the Paracast?

[mike_thoth]

Hi,

In recent weeks the show has had many guests which are strongly advocating for real science to be involved in researching this amazing mystery. Real, hard statistical analysis & the development of new database structures & overall investigative strategy coming from CNES. Could we have Vallee back to discuss the recent conerence in Paris, at least if he is available.

 

[Burnt State]

Hi,

In recent weeks the show has had many guests which are strongly advocating for real science to be involved in researching this amazing mystery. Real, hard statistical analysis & the development of new database structures & overall investigative strategy coming from CNES. Could we have Vallee back to discuss the recent conerence in Paris, at least if he is available.

Did you see his TED talk in Geneva on The Age of the Impossible: Anticipating Discontinuos Futures where in the middle of nowhere he drops the bombshell of the audience being able to fill in what those unanticipated UAP's are in the next few years? He has a radar image of three objects up on the screen at the time and is very nonchalant about it all. Is he referring to the database project which he expected great answers would come from? Was he signaling to someone? I'd love to hear him explain what he meant by that statement.

 

[mike_thoth]

Hi Burnt State,

Yes I certainly did see the presentation & the comment at the end was not lost on me. The implication is the impossible in his examples will, within a few years become accepted.

I have only heard him mention his database work in previous interviews, Capella being one of his contributions. During his discussion with George Knapp several months back, after the conference in Paris he advised that proper work was being done by private scientists & professionals. Another interesting remark was analysis of the French Gepan study where they had learned some very interesting facts, perhaps pattern analysis or statistical data gleamed from careful studies of the data. One of his goals was to try & replicate the results of Gepan scientists using his own data, very exciting stuff.

Personally I am relieved that scientists around the world are potentially going to work together, outside 'mainstream ufo groups' (my emphasis). No assumptions, no bias, let's take those 6 or 7 question types he mentions & lets get some bloody answers.

That's why I was hoping to have Gene & Chris to have him back, to elaborate on the data collected & the ongoing studies done by scientists. So exciting, let's hope he will oblige if he comes back on.

Mike

 

[Burnt State]

It was a very strange moment as all the other concrete examples he gave were discussed, and were all practical real world stuff. But the UFO moment was very brief & almost coded, like he was trying to slip something in - strange stuff given his usual deliberate explanatory approach.

It certainly sounds like there is in fact a cadre of scientists still working on the problem, but they are being funded & are outside the pathos of failed UFO organizations that have neither the money nor the human power to mount the kind of projects that Vallée is currently involved in.

So, who are they reporting to? Is this at the level of world government or is it still a Bigelow enterprise?

 

[Constance]

Funded in France perhaps, where there is an organization like NARCAP that is most probably state-sponsored (unlike NARCAP in the US) in addition to a long history of scientific involvement in government-funded ufo research. I think the US and French NARCAP had a meeting sometime in the last year.

 

[Constance]

More here: Richard Haines | NARCAP.org

 

[Constance]

And more here: News

 

[mike_thoth]

I am not sure Vallee & the group report to anyone in particular, at least I don't know if this is the case. GEPAN would have paid for the scientists to fly in for the conference but from what I hear there was a general acceptance that with a little effort this work can be done now with little money. It would be nice for them to have funding from somewhere, but if it were from Bigelow then any facts learnt would be property of Bigelow.

I wonder whether it were possible to contribute to the work being done in order to keep the study open, or perhaps there is a way to contribute computing power for data crunching and analysis the way SETI & other organisations have, it would be interesting to ask him some of these questions.

There is an interesting article here regarding the conference written by Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos, The Future of UFOLOGY. UFO FOTOCAT BLOG: 2015/03/03

Vallee, in one of the recent interviews, I think on Coast to Coast mentions one of the goals being to prove what the phenomena represents, be that ETH or any other. He says he could prove any hypothesis as long as he is allowed to select the data. I thought this was a great point and one that the UFO community has yet to learn. Cherry pick the data, and you can prove any hypothesis, this is what the debunkers do, pick a straw man case, demolish it, and then sit smugly as if they have proven the existence of god.

Its time in my opinion to actually move this discussion forward. It has been 70 years at least in a modern sense and what has been proven by the UFO community regarding the nature of these objects?

 

[Burnt State]

Vallee, in one of the recent interviews, I think on Coast to Coast mentions one of the goals being to prove what the phenomena represents, be that ETH or any other. He says he could prove any hypothesis as long as he is allowed to select the data. I thought this was a great point and one that the UFO community has yet to learn. Cherry pick the data, and you can prove any hypothesis, this is what the debunkers do, pick a straw man case, demolish it, and then sit smugly as if they have proven the existence of god.

Its time in my opinion to actually move this discussion forward. It has been 70 years at least in a modern sense and what has been proven by the UFO community regarding the nature of these objects?

Isn't that the general problem with Ufology that if you cherry picky the data you can in fact make righteous attempts at proving ETH or IDH or the psycho-social theory? It's such a complex field with so many diverse possibilities I would be most interested in simply seeing some categories confirmed in terms of what percentages are space debris re-entry vs. plasma vs. sentient control of an actual manufactured object etc..

But regarding progress I think that one refreshing feature is the shared open mindedness of more theorists/investigators that are no longer bent on proving the mostly unfounded ETH or bust. Just looking through their roster of topics you can see that everything is being considered, treated and that data strategies are being applied. Given the volume of cases collected over decades you would think better statements could be made at this point in time, but so far it's still a field married to speculation and confabulation with a minority of detailed work getting accomplished.

I heard Duensing say that Vallée had written the software to analyze cases for Bigelow, but he cited no source for that claim. But if Papa Jaques is inviting people over to his apartment as part of the conference in order to share strategies, then at least we know that critical ideas are being expanded, distributed and engaged. Great article - thanks. Do you know if other presentors have summations or articles published anywhere?

 

[technomage]

Maybe there is an invisible college working on the problem, after all.

I personally think the ETH (and several other hypotheses, like the crypto-terrestrial and interdimensional hypotheses) can probably explain all of the data, not just some of it, but this is based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject.

 

[Constance]

Isn't that the general problem with Ufology that if you cherry picky the data you can in fact make righteous attempts at proving ETH or IDH or the psycho-social theory? It's such a complex field with so many diverse possibilities I would be most interested in simply seeing some categories confirmed in terms of what percentages are space debris re-entry vs. plasma vs. sentient control of an actual manufactured object etc..

I too would like to see some evidential filling in of the categories you name in your last sentence. I think most researchers today do realize that it's necessary to check for satellite and other re-entries before going too far with some ufo investigations. I think NARCAP in the US and France (seeking to expand their efforts and research to other countries) are very likely to make progress in ways to distinguish plasmas and other natural phenomena from solid aerial objects in the atmosphere. Vallee is right, of course, in saying that with preselected data he could 'prove' any hypothesis concerning ufos. Clearly there are too many data points and possibilities and influences involved in the perception of UAP to ever be boiled down to a single hypothesis for the entirety of 'the ufo phenomena', so that effort seems to be futile. Nevertheless all productive approaches and avenues should be pursued to arrive at as much knowledge as we can obtain about these phenomena.

 

[Burnt State]

I too would like to see some evidential filling in of the categories you name in your last sentence. I think most researchers today do realize that it's necessary to check for satellite and other re-entries before going too far with some ufo investigations. I think NARCAP in the US and France (seeking to expand their efforts and research to other countries) are very likely to make progress in ways to distinguish plasmas and other natural phenomena from solid aerial objects in the atmosphere. Vallee is right, of course, in saying that with preselected data he could 'prove' any hypothesis concerning ufos. Clearly there are too many data points and possibilities and influences involved in the perception of UAP to ever be boiled down to a single hypothesis for the entirety of 'the ufo phenomena', so that effort seems to be futile. Nevertheless all productive approaches and avenues should be pursued to arrive at as much knowledge as we can obtain about these phenomena.

The article mike_thoth posted suggests that data mining might not yield much unless proper filtering can be applied to known strong cases. It certainly connects back to the skeptic thread you bumped in terms of how science coud be applied and which types of cases should be used. Perhaps science is still discovering things like types of plasma and potential upper atmosphere life foms. I see that 30 years later Hessdalen is getting a report at this event - I would love to know the contents of that presentation.

 

[Soupie]

I heard Duensing say that Vallée had written the software to analyze cases for Bigelow, but he cited no source for that claim.

Perhaps it comes from this paper of Vallee's which was available at the end of the blog entry mike_thoth linked to.

http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fileadmin/documents/15_VALLEE_full.pdf

"In the United States the National Institute for Discovery Science (“NIDS”) and the Bigelow Aerospace Corporation have initiated a series of special catalogues to safeguard their own reports from public sources and from their staff. The author was tasked with the development of a data warehouse consisting of 11 separate data bases to support this research. The project is known as “Capella”."​

 

[mike_thoth]

Yes that is the one 'Capella'. I was just thinking last night about the scientific establishments refusal to actually look at this phenomena. You hear so many scientists pointing out that the evidence is anecdotal and that person x is not a trained observer of the sky. Good sober statistics would at least be testable using other databases around the world.

There are loads of questions that I would love to put to Vallee;

Have there been any patterns found in the CNES data that are compelling? He has made comments previously that there are patterns in there.

What have scientists found regarding Hessdalen & do these correlate to other high activity areas like Col de Vonce.
Taking pictures that show little or no detail, is there a way to combat this? He has commented that he feels the phenomena cloaks itself in a way that makes imaging of the object very difficult.
What is the role of consciousness on a sighting? Is it possible some sightings are witnessed through the 'minds eye' when our brain is perhaps in an altered state.

I don't think this initial study will be able to provide all the answers, I think Vallee accepts that. But what excites me is ANY ANSWERS!!

Imagine if we could using this data predict the date, time & location of a future UFO flap area? What happens if we are then able to predict this and fill the area with equipment & tech, trained observers & cherry pick a few debunkers like Bill Nye or Seth Shostak & dump them in a field with a great view (I kid, really). Would the phenomena react to the fact it is being watched?

There is also his comments relating to the taking of pictures, the lack of any real observable structure behind the phenomena. He is convinced that the phenomena cloaks itself in some way that stops our cameras from getting clear pictures. I know he mentioned in one of his books that he and his son designed a camera that was (and I am paraphrasing here) put inside a rock to obscure it but did not pickup anything useful at the time. Others have designed specialist equipment to get good images but they too have failed. I'd love for him to elaborate on this point and several others but the thought of having even answers of any type is exciting.

I am apparently not the only person on this forum that is fed up with this field of study where for most of the time we don't learn anything new in between turf wars, arguments about old cases & accusations of cover up. This is why the public was not invited to the CNES meeting and only scientists. This in itself fills me with hope that some people have the right idea, many people dislike Carrion for his views, but his views on Mufon & the lack of real science being done is bang on the money. It’s a refreshing point of view, lets ignore the true believers in the ETH & try & stick to the facts. Let the facts paint the picture, not the picture painting the facts.

 

[Burnt State]

Defining "science," "research" and the lack of investigation and holding to belief systems, no matter how bizarre or unfounded, is a problem. The commercialization of the discussion is an even bigger distraction and long time socializing agent in the culture. Now the discussion has been adapted into a folklore of the time. Hoaxers, hybrid alien babies and disinformation agents are all unnatural extensions and distractions.

But yes, it seems like the Invisible College exists and that they work in concert with a lot of different agencies from diverse areas. There's a lot of hope and potential in that approach, but I doubt it will get filtered down or rearrange other perceived priorities in UFO culture.

When you read through a publication like Magonia, that has sponsored a lot of creative thinking on the subject, it seems that much has been forgotten over decades. There is no real true college of study for any individual new to the field. In fact the masses of information are often conflicting, unverified and the tendrils of speculation are legion. How is anyone to even begin to sift through such a massive historic collection of materials published on the subject?

Long dead are many of the original thinkers in the field, the original doubters and original scientists. It's a quagmire to be certain. A great thread would be a very pared down list of core resources to help launch people on less speculation and more concrete discussion. Another thing that needs to be put aside is the use of the word, "all" as so many people seem bent on defining it all as "definitely this" or "definitely not that" instead of being open to the total complexity of the situation. I would think that the more we come to know about the phenomenon, like most scientific inquiry, the more we will come to understand just how complex this problem is.

 

[technomage]

We should be able to identify a certain reliable set of data elements that we can get from most incidents, put them into a multi-dimensional database where we can perform analysis of the data, then data mining looking for patterns, and then predictive analytics to identify what is the most likely criteria to be able to predict future events with some higher than chance probability.

 

[Constance]

Perhaps it comes from this paper of Vallee's which was available at the end of the blog entry mike_thoth linked to.

http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/fileadmin/documents/15_VALLEE_full.pdf

"In the United States the National Institute for Discovery Science (“NIDS”) and the Bigelow Aerospace Corporation have initiated a series of special catalogues to safeguard their own reports from public sources and from their staff. The author was tasked with the development of a data warehouse consisting of 11 separate data bases to support this research. The project is known as “Capella”."​

Here is a thoughtful response to Vallee's proposal from Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos:

"This Special Blog Edition is released to deliver a strategy paper. Basically it is a constructive response to the research strategy proposed by Dr. Jacques Vallée in the GEIPAN’s workshop, Paris, July 2014. I consider that enough evidence has been collected in the last ~70 years to plan a global-scale evaluation program that fixes reasonable limits to what seems to be a never-ending study of the UFO enigma."

UFO FOTOCAT BLOG: 2015/03/03

 

[mike_thoth]

I too would like to see some evidential filling in of the categories you name in your last sentence. I think most researchers today do realize that it's necessary to check for satellite and other re-entries before going too far with some ufo investigations. I think NARCAP in the US and France (seeking to expand their efforts and research to other countries) are very likely to make progress in ways to distinguish plasmas and other natural phenomena from solid aerial objects in the atmosphere. Vallee is right, of course, in saying that with preselected data he could 'prove' any hypothesis concerning ufos. Clearly there are too many data points and possibilities and influences involved in the perception of UAP to ever be boiled down to a single hypothesis for the entirety of 'the ufo phenomena', so that effort seems to be futile. Nevertheless all productive approaches and avenues should be pursued to arrive at as much knowledge as we can obtain about these phenomena.

I think we are all in agreement here. Potentially there are so many data points, levels of subjectivity in a persons perception that it must be difficult cleaning up the data, reviewing it to ensure that it is accurate before it is made part of the database. How does a person know the good data from the bad, and given the phenomena's propensity to evade us, who knows what will happen should we be able to map its behaviour even in a small amount it will probably change and defy us for another 500 years!

 

[technomage]

Each data element can have an associated reliability factor added that would help determine to what extent it can be trusted. For example, if we have a data element that identifies if the event occurred in the daytime or the nighttime, that is a highly reliable data element, so a high reliability rating can be assigned to it. We would want as many of these as possible and would represent the "hard data". We could still store "soft data" as long as we identify it as such. An example of soft data would be: "what was the size of the object (if it had some potentially measurable dimensions)". I can't even estimate the size of my front yard, let alone a UFO, so this question would definitely be a "soft data" question. However, if we change it to use size categories instead: (e.g. size of a car, size of a house, size of football field)), we should be able to get more reliable data since we're not asking the observer to be as precise.

 

[mike_thoth]

That is a good point, there will always be room for data when the certainty is not 100%.