• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Jacques Vallee


OK. Prove to me that there is no Santa Claus. You can't. Some negatives can be proven, but they are very rare in discussions of this type.

Of course there are such things as UFOs. For some people, the planet Venus is a UFO. When I was a teenager and besotted with the works of Ivan Sanderson, I initially mistook three helicopters for a formation of interstellar craft. It is possible that there are witnesses to that flight for whom those helicopters are still UFOs. I was lucky enough to be at a location which allowed me to eventually identify them, but if I hadn't been, who knows?

The Bentwaters case has been explained to my satisfaction as a nearby lighthouse, but I can't prove that it wasn't a pack of woodland fairies on magic motorcycles and neither can you. There are a million explanations, but only a very few make sense in our world. From my point of view, you choose a very far-fetched scenario to believe because that's what you want to believe. Wishing doesn't make it so.

We all make intelligent assessments of things that happened when we weren't there to witness them. Otherwise, our store of knowledge would be very limited. If anyone is corrupting the evidence with personal bias, it is you.

And you need to organize your thoughts a little better because some of your statements are difficult to decipher. The last sentence in particular. Go over it again and see if you can make it say what you want it to say. If you choose to take a lecturing tone with me I will happily play that game with you and I will win.

A lighthouse, lol. Yep, a lighthouse that drips molten fragments, a lighthouse that breaks into 5 white pieces, a lighthouse that was initially described by the debunkers who put forward the guess as something that was shining a beam through the trees but in reality only shines out to sea. A lighthouse that has failed to produce another sighting report before or since but somehow on that particular day managed to alarm an entire military base. Yes siree, makes perfect sense.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

This is what infuriates me so much about the scoffers/debunkers/sceptics; whatever you want to call them. They are always so eager to toss aside details to arrive at some preconceived notion. It is absolutely impossible to arrive at the conclusion of a lighthouse for this case when you factor in that the red light was said to be dripping what looked like molten metal, broke into 5 white objects that independently flew away into the sky, shone a pencil-like beam of light to the ground at their feet, etc. The only possible conclusions are that it wasn't a lighthouse or the witnesses were/are lying. And if they are lying the lighthouse isn't relevant anyway, the dishonesty is. To grasp at certain details (In this case a red, blinking light) and ignore others (The details I mentioned earlier) is to be intellectually bankrupt and can only lead to faulty conclusions. If details are to be arbitrarily cast aside at a third party's whim one can arrive at any solution they want to. For example, I can throw away the red, blinking light and replace it with a floating horse and use that to put forward the hypothesis that what they saw was a merry-go-round. If you are a witness to a crime and the police ask you for a description so they can create a sketch the details are very important, all of them. You can't simply pick and choose which accurate details to provide while inventing and/or ignoring others. To do so would result in an inaccurate sketch. All of the details need to be taken into account here, not just the ones you fancy. It's the same situation I was talking about in another thread where Dunning (Skeptoid) slipped a very important piece of information under the rug (Barney Hill seeing strange beings through binoculars) to arrive at a conclusion that pleased him. That isn't research nor is it even ethical. It's propaganda, pure and simple.
 
1.) Yeah right light house and I wonder have you ever been to Bentwaters the location in Suffolk ?

2) You insult these Cold War Veterans with this crappy concept of lighthouse theory but have you done your homework ?(May I suggest you listen to these professional shows of Paracast & Darkmatters archives carefully ! on the 'Bentwaters Case' ) and maybe its a good idea that you interview these Cold War Veterans and Mr Peter Robbins yourself?

3)USA /UK/NATO Nuclear Facilities which these Cold War Veterans oversaw your freedom and safety while you were in school/nappies.

Freedom comes at a cost to our Servicemen and Women ,
BF
 
No matter, how much I explain my experiences, with words and language.

I understand. And just to be clear, I am not doubting that you had an experience. I am questioning your conclusions about them. There is a difference. I also think you are engaging in "special pleading" for what its worth.
 
OK. Prove to me that there is no Santa Claus. You can't. Some negatives can be proven, but they are very rare in discussions of this type.

Of course there are such things as UFOs. For some people, the planet Venus is a UFO. When I was a teenager and besotted with the works of Ivan Sanderson, I initially mistook three helicopters for a formation of interstellar craft. It is possible that there are witnesses to that flight for whom those helicopters are still UFOs. I was lucky enough to be at a location which allowed me to eventually identify them, but if I hadn't been, who knows?

The Bentwaters case has been explained to my satisfaction as a nearby lighthouse, but I can't prove that it wasn't a pack of woodland fairies on magic motorcycles and neither can you. There are a million explanations, but only a very few make sense in our world. From my point of view, you choose a very far-fetched scenario to believe because that's what you want to believe. Wishing doesn't make it so.

We all make intelligent assessments of things that happened when we weren't there to witness them. Otherwise, our store of knowledge would be very limited. If anyone is corrupting the evidence with personal bias, it is you.

And you need to organize your thoughts a little better because some of your statements are difficult to decipher. The last sentence in particular. Go over it again and see if you can make it say what you want it to say. If you choose to take a lecturing tone with me I will happily play that game with you and I will win. Your post has gone and made me grouchy.

It seems that you are easily satisfied with ridiculous explanations that suit your naive and horribly flawed overview of paranormal subjects. You have exposed your self as a true debunker, with a sneering personality and with a preponderance for making pronouncements that make you look foolish and suit your personal viewpoint. You have nothing real to add to this debate except a tired debunker's pomposity and a willingness to dismiss any evidence that doesn't fit in with your narrow minded view.It seems that your greatest legacy in this discussion is how many times you seem to have woven in Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny into your posts, with the woodland fairies on magic motor cycles now making a long awaited appearance.


We all make intelligent assessments of things that happened when we weren't there to witness them.

Except maybe you. Especially if you are asking us to believe your ludicrous lighthouse explanation. This coming from a man who mistook a formation of helicopters for a UFO. Oh but i forgot. You were finally able to work it all out. Clever you!

My last sentence (previous post) was fine, nothing wrong there. If you have a problem with it, stiff shit. Maybe go back to listening to the commercials with your box of tissues, grumpy bum.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

I can understand why scientists don't want to get involved in this. Most of the time there is no science to be done, just a lot of listening to stories. The opportunity to do real scientific work presents itself only occasionally in this field and scientists want to be doing science all the time, not detective work 99% of the time and scientific experiments 1% of the time. But having said that it bothers me that they so often feel it is necessary to denigrate the people who are willing to take the time to look into it and also make broad, sweeping statements when in fact they don't know a damned thing about the data in question.

I totally agree.
 
My last sentence (previous post) was fine, nothing wrong there. If you have a problem with it, stiff shit. Maybe go back to listening to the commercials with your box of tissues, grumpy bum.

Ah, the personal attack. All out of ammunition? I say Bentwaters was mostly a lighthouse with some real human hysteria and misperception mixed in. I have been there. The lighthouse light is visible through the woods, very low, because the woods are at a much higher elevation than the sea. On the tape recording of the event, the guy describes when the unknown light flashes. The recorded timing of the unknown light matches exactly the timing of the lighthouse pulse. Case closed. Next!

As for your sentence, here it is:

Although the Skepto/debunkers suddenly try to convince everybody here that all that don't agree with them are doe eyed and believers, but not necessarily in that order.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

As for being a grumpy bum, if I wanted to be called names like that, I'd talk to my wife. You need to settle down, be thankful that your mom has a basement for you to live in and enjoy the free wi-fi.
 
Ah, the personal attack. All out of ammunition? I say Bentwaters was mostly a lighthouse with some real human hysteria and misperception mixed in. I have been there. The lighthouse light is visible through the woods, very low, because the woods are at a much higher elevation than the sea. On the tape recording of the event, the guy describes when the unknown light flashes. The recorded timing of the unknown light matches exactly the timing of the lighthouse pulse. Case closed. Next!

As for your sentence, here it is:

Although the Skepto/debunkers suddenly try to convince everybody here that all that don't agree with them are doe eyed and believers, but not necessarily in that order.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

As for being a grumpy bum, if I wanted to be called names like that, I'd talk to my wife. You need to settle down, be thankful that your mom has a basement for you to live in and enjoy the free wi-fi.

The lighthouse:


Pretty extraordinary. I can easily see how that could whip a bunch of servicemen into a frenzy. Heck, just the other day I thought that the gates of Heaven and Hell opened up and that a spiritual war was about to take place when a lightning bug landed on the hood of my car.
 
The lighthouse:


Pretty extraordinary. I can easily see how that could whip a bunch of servicemen into a frenzy. Heck, just the other day I thought that the gates of Heaven and Hell opened up and that a spiritual war was about to take place when a lightning bug landed on the hood of my car.

Exactly. Although remember, Wickerman, MacDaddy says that humans make terrible eyewitnesses so i guess we should all just drop whatever preconceived ideas we had on the matter and accept his lighthouse theory:) After all he's the go to guy on all things paranormal and UFOs.

MacDaddy said:
As for being a grumpy bum, if I wanted to be called names like that, I'd talk to my wife.

Please do. Talk to your wife. The more you talk to her the less time you may have to devote to infecting the forums with your condescending persona.
 
I found the Vallee interview short with ads which broke the rhythm of the interview. I don't know how many members replying to this thread have read his books, as I haven't yet. I have listened to every interview he has given in the English language. His findings in his research haven't changed a lot over the years, and he has never given a conclusion as to what the phenomenon is. Vallee states the phenomenon is physical. It has left trace evidence such as molton slag, aluminum, and sand. It has also been known to have left imprints in the ground. In a recent interview with George Knapp, Vallee mentioned that a crude model of the physics surrounding the phenomenon were beginning to emerge. The tools however to study this correctly are unavailable as of yet. One thing which I can agree on which Vallee had said is that the phenomenon seems to have a control system quality to it, in order to prehaps raise Homosapien's cosmic awareness. If this were not true perhaps there wouldn't be The Paracast or a dicussion thread on Jacques Vallee. The Earth is flat vs. the Earth is round debate is alive and well. Just be thankful we may be banished but not executed.
 
I found the Vallee interview short with ads which broke the rhythm of the interview. I don't know how many members replying to this thread have read his books, as I haven't yet.
I agree with your evaluation of the latest Jacques Vallée interview on the Paracast. It was too short (apparently due to time restrictions imposed by the guest himself), too fragmentary (I know Paracast needs money to survive, but the amount of commercials has gone from acceptable to irritating) and still too superficial regarding Vallée's work and ideas. The earlier Paracast with him was better. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for a definitive interview, one where really new questions are asked (I've heard most of the podcasts/radios shows made with Vallée and the same questions appear frequently). The man has been in this field for half a century and wrote more than a dozen books on the subject. It appears to me that few, if any, of his interviewers actually read all his books (I ask myself if some of them haven't just read his profile on Wikipedia and end their background investigation there).
 
I have been warned by the moderators that my first post was harsh and not contributing to the topic. I apologize to all. I mean no disrespect to my Crimson Tide compadre.

I guess that if there was a point to be made it was that people make mistakes. Sometimes a mistake can be perpetuated if it is not corrected. His statement that he grew up seeing black and white images of John Glenn orbiting the moon is a brainfart of the type that was being discussed on the board. Other people reading that could accept it at face value and now you have other people who think that it is a fact that John Glenn orbited the moon. This is how misinfo gets passed along and becomes part of people's psyche. It's very common you will agree.

There are thousands and maybe millions in India who will swear that the full version of the Indian rope trick is real. The full version of the trick has it that a boy climbs up a rope and the magician climbs up after him and when both are out of sight starts throwing down severed body parts of the boy. The real trick is very limited and you can see it on Youtube. But there are those who claim to have seen the full and impossible version of the trick and this causes others to say that they saw it too because nobody likes to be outdone. Just like there are millions of people who claim to be at Woodstock in the sixties or in the stadium when Doug Flutie threw his famous hail mary pass for Boston College. After a while what you have are a greater number of witnesseses to the event than could possibly be true. Getting back to the Indian rope trick, there are many in India who may actually believe that they saw the legendary version of the trick and many millions more who at least believe that it was ever done that way. This is the way the human mind works, we are stuck with it. I think that many ufo tales originate as fairly explainable minor incidents which get blown up and exaggerated in many retellings of the story. I have seen this happen too many times to be surprised anymore. Just my humble opinion.

Again I am sorry for my previous post.
 
I don't know how many members replying to this thread have read his books, as I haven't yet.

I would encourage you to get a copy of "Messengers of Deception." IMO a must-read for anyone seriously interested in this phenomenon.

The part where Vallee completely surprised me were his radical speculations about whether "paranormal" phenomena (God I loathe the term) were indicative that we live in an associative universe, rather than a causative one. Since this book was written in the late 1970s, I'm sure his ideas were very difficult to digest; but for us living in a post-modern interconnected world and savvy with HTML links, these hypotheses are very compelling.

PS: For the record, I'm one of the news admins working at the Daily Grail, and Daily Grail Publishing re-printed "Messengers of Deception" in 2008. But this does not change the fact that this is a great book :)
 
I'm still waiting for a definitive interview, one where really new questions are asked...it too superficial regarding Vallée's work and ideas. It appears to me that few, if any, of his interviewers actually read all his books.
Vallee is a master of the fillibuster plus he's plugging a book. He has been doing this for 50 years and is very smart and slick with interviews i.e., I asked him "You have hypothesized we are dealing with a control system If this is so, in a 1978 Fate magazine interview w/ Jerry Clark you were quoted as saying, “Assuming that there is a feedback mechanism involved in the operations of the control system; if you can change the information that’s carried back to the system, you might be able to infiltrate it through its own feedback.” Can you give us an example of how this could be done, and to your knowledge, has this approach ever been attempted?" He answered by re-explaining his idea of a control system and he completely ignored the part of changing the information and inserting back into the loop, etc.

Here are the questions I wanted to ask:

Why did you decide to 'jump back into the UFO fray' so to speak, after such a long, period of public silence on the topic?

Should we consider Wonders in the Sky to be Passport to Magonia Part II

Toward the end of his life Hynek is reported to have told his protégé Jerry Clark that after decades of research he had come to the conclusion that “elementals” were behind the UFO phenomenon. If this is true, what finally changed his thinking?

For decades you have championed an out-of-the-ETH box approach to the UFO mystery, have you been pulled back toward the ETH at all and, if so, why?

You have hypothesized we are dealing with a control system If this is so, in a 1978 Fate magazine interview w/ Jerry Clark you were quoted as saying, “Assuming that there is a feedback mechanism involved in the operations of the control system; if you can change the information that’s carried back to the system, you might be able to infiltrate it through its own feedback.” Can you give us an example of how this could be done, and to your knowledge, has this approach ever been attempted?

There are researchers that are convinced that the Nazi’s were able to develop circular craft in the 30’s and ‘40s and that the United States appropriated this technology at the end of WWII and continued to perfect this technology. Do you share this opinion and, if so, could these craft account for a percentage of UFO sightings?

Manifestation of the UFO Phenomena appears to vary from region to region around the world. For instance: South America seems to have some genuinely bizarre and terrifying reports as you and Bob Pratt pointed out concerning the cases around Colares, Brazil in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s. To his knowledge are there any other cases outside South America that have experienced this sort of "violent" interaction with innocent witnesses? Is so, what does this tell us about the phenomena’s agenda and why is it that many investigators/researchers simply ignore data that suggests hostility?

Many investigators are guilty of ignoring aspects of the phenomena that do not fit their concepts. (paranormal activity, confusion and disorientation caused by UFO). However does this not reflect frustration of investigators who for so long have clung to the material and physicallity of the objects in order to get the scientific establishment involved in the investigation. A sort of materialism that allows science a way of measuring the phenomena?

You have pointed out for years that UFO data arrives in waves. Are these waves changing over time, and if they are in what way or ways are they changing?

What role does the Gaian super conscious play in the manifestation of the paranormal and by association, UFOs?

Could paranormal and/or UFO phenomena be generated by this Gaian super organism that we are connected to? Are we witnessing an optimal survival program which the UFO meme could be part of?

Terrance McKenna postulated that shamanic or perhaps occult practices aided by psychoactive compounds are a viable investigative tool for investigating the paranormal. What are your thoughts regarded these compounds and the occult as an investigative tool?

In your previous interview on the Paracast you mentioned a hypothetical scenario where by a fractal being could possibly straddle dimensions. If that were the case, you cautioned not to project one’s conscious in that direction because it could come from anytime or place. How did you arrive at this hypothesis, and did the work of McKenna and others influence your thinking?

Is it possible that UFO's were build by ancient "People" not all that different from us, humans that once lived on this planet before our academically-accepted history?

What are your thoughts on the so called Ultraterrestrial theory or the idea of cryptoterrestrials living alongside us, but hidden?

Do you give a support or credence to the Vedas texts especially the "RIGVEDA" that suggest we that the human race is suffering from amnesia about our past history?

What is your opinion of remote Viewer data regarding the ETH phenomenon? i.e alien bases on the Moon, Mars and their supposed presence here on Earth?

What do you think about the alleged 'Ufo-government-coverup' and the Exopolitics movement?

SHERMAN RANCH

The “Skinwalker Ranch” case may be one of the most intriguing paranormal cases on record. Is it your opinion that certain location-specific locales appear to have a focused amount of unexplained activity that exhibits a variety and intensity of unusual events not found elsewhere? How would you ID and define these locales and what scientific protocols would you employ to effectively study these areas? Is the best approach a public coalition of scientific investigators, utilizing a wide range of expertise (Medical Doctors, Psychologists, physicists etc) under one transparent banner, or is private funding of research such as NIDS the way to go?

Yes or no answer.
Are you still serving on Bigelow’s board of directors? Were you were directly involved with the Sherman Ranch case [and have entered into a non-disclosure agreement?] YES OR NO. You have qualified accounts from the Sherman Ranch in several interviews and referred to Colm Kelleher and his team’s work. Have you had personal experiences at the ranch and personally seen compelling events? If NO, have you seen images and/or data from the investigations that suggest something truly high-strange, or “other” is going on there? Has the Sherman Ranch effort gleaned any useful scientific data from the research conducted there.

Is there any evidence of unusual magnetic field effects in the Unitah Basin data?

In the questioner’s opinion: “NIDS reporting from the Sherman Ranch falls short of academic requirements and formats. The vocabulary isn't reflective of an academic education in science. The terminology and references are basic and they read like an under-graduate's first year assignments. The subsequent 'non-disclosure agreements' have closed the door on addressing any of these questions or concerns. Dog-headed men smoking cigarettes in trench-coats and huge critters crawling through 'portals' requires a large suspension of disbelief.”

[Since you are unable to talk specifically about Sherman Ranch activity?], and you since you recently visited the area w/ Dr Frank Salibury, can you confirm or deny reports that unusual activity has been documented by law enforcement officials this past year in the region surrounding the ranch? I have sources there that claim strange humanoid creatures have been reported -- by locals —even allegedly photographed. Are these crypto-creature sightings indicative of some kind of physical high-strange reality that is centered in this particular region? Or are these sightings modern day versions of dwarves, werewolves, skinwalkers or bigfooted faeries that occur everywhere?

What is the current status of NIDS and BAAS?

We’ve heard through the grapevine that you have been consulting Ted Philips with his work at the on-going “Marley Woods” case in Missouri. Do you see any similarities between the types of phenomenal’ events that Ted is documenting and investigating, and the activity that has been investigated at the Sherman Ranch? If so, how have these similarities impacted your thinking about location-specific phenomena?

What is your greatest fear or concern associated with the truth behind the phenomena (other than we will never know the truth)? Similarly, what is your greatest hope?

Decades from now when people look back at your groundbreaking work, how would you like your work to be remembered?

I do my homework for these show, and when it comes to Vallee, I have read every book he has written (including his novel w/ Torme) with the exception of Forbidden Science Vol II. At a discounted price of $42, I'm waiting for the paperback version. I have read all of his books two or three times, Dimensions, Revelations and Confrontations three or four times and Messengers of Deception more times than I can remember...
 
1.) Yeah right light house and I wonder have you ever been to Bentwaters the location in Suffolk ? 2) You insult Cold War Veterans with this crappy concept of lighthouse theory but have you done your homework ?(May I suggest you listen to these professional shows of Paracast & Darkmatters archives carefully ! on the 'Bentwaters Case' ) and maybe its a good idea that you interview these Cold War Veterans and Mr Peter Robbins yourself? 3)USA /UK/NATO Nuclear Facilities which these Cold War Veterans oversaw your freedom and safety while you were in school/nappies. Freedom comes at a cost to our Servicemen and Women ,

My friend, I was in the army. I went active duty in 1975, but spent most of my military career in Germany and never saw any combat. I’m sure your combat experience makes you more qualified than me to speak for all Cold War vets. Still, I worked with a great many other soldiers and I have to tell you that we made a lot of mistakes in judgment and perception, probably at just about the same rate as civilian humans. No, I don’t think many of us are insulted by the “crappy lighthouse theory” because very few of us think of ourselves as godlike observers incapable of getting caught up in the moment and making mistakes. There are too many instances of friendly fire mishaps to give the lie to that belief.

I was never stationed at Bentwaters but I’ve been there. That doesn’t make me an expert, but I do have a feel for the terrain. The lighthouse light would have appeared fairly low in the forest because that area is at a much higher elevation than sea level. How come UFO buffs always leave out the testimony of other soldiers stationed there at the time who have stated that nothing much was going on? Only a very few soldiers claim that something paranormal happened and most of the rest kind of shake their heads and chuckle. UFO buffs are very selective about the evidence they report.

But to get back to your comments about my supposed disrespect of Cold War vets. I have known many blowhards like you who think that it’s cool to substitute pseudo-patriotic attacks for reasoned arguments. It’s not cool. It makes you look like a turd. You’re not a turd, are you? Then stop posting like one.
 
I've read a good deal of Vallee's stuff but certainly not all of it. I've read what I have which is the Alien Contact trilogy, Passport to Magonia, Challenge to Science, and Anatomy of a Phenomenon (Got these last 2 used around 15 years ago from Arcturus books along with several other ancient UFO books from Hynek and others for only $3-$4 each. Wonder if they're still that cheap for used paperbacks. I doubt it.). So that leaves several I haven't read like Messengers, Invisible College, etc. The Alien Contact trilogy are the only ones I've read more than once. I'd love to have all his stuff but I've been so utterly broke the last few years that I've been buying barely any books at all. Have around 150 UFO books (Have and have read Chris's first 2) but there's easily 1,000 I'd like to have.
 
I have read every book Vallee has written with the exception of Forbidden Science Vol II. At a discounted price of $42, I'm waiting for the paperback version. I have read all of his books two or three times, Dimensions, Revelations and Confrontations three or four times and Messengers of Deception more times than I can remember...
I don't doubt that fact and I'm truly happy that you did so. My remarks were oriented towards the group of podcasts/radio shows where Vallée has been interviewed and not specifically The Paracast. Nevertheless, the general feeling I got was one of disappointment (maybe I had set my standards too high for an interview with Vallée). The questions you present in your post are very good and I guess that the feeling of frustration must be even higher on you side, because you had the chance to talk with the man and, due to time constraints and other limitations that the guest might have imposed, you weren't able to pose most of the questions you had prepared. I also felt (and you Chris certainly must have also) that some answers were starting to get interesting (the guest was "warming up" as I sometimes say) and suddenly a commercial break had to be done. I understand that The Paracast has sponsors, but you certainly know that some questions demand long and articulated answers that can't come out in just 5 or even 10 minutes.
Don't take my earlier post personally, for it might contain unfair statements, but I do feel that you need to bring Jacques Vallée to the show once again and "interrogate" the man the way you want (and need) to do it. Let's hope the man won't disappear again from the public scene. Also, are you planning to do a show with Chris Aubeck?
 
The UFO book I want beyond all others (Just to be able to read the damned thing would satisfy me.) is Encounter by Kelly Cahill. I want to read that so bad it's like a mini-obsession, ha ha. All the time I'm checking library databases, used bookstores for an affordable (There are copies out there but they go for a FORTUNE. Sometimes I think about it despite the outrageous price but my last name ain't Gates.) copy, even the internet for a pirated digital copy. Nothing. :(
 
@Chris.

I agree with a lot of your points there. On the Paratopia show, Vallee described buying land and attempting to break the feedback mechanism to record the reaction of 'the phenomena.' Nothing happened, but I'm curious as to what he did to break the 'feedback mechanism' and why he didn't offer any details.

His support of NIDS and the accounts coming back from the Sherman/Skinwalker Ranch is begging to be questioned. Unfortunately all discussion has been suppressed by the Bigelow disclosure contract whereby involved parties are not allowed to discuss the site any more than they have. That's curious at best....suspicious at worst.

From that point, we have to accept on face value all the huge claims related to the site. Sure, I can believe their accounts...my imagination has no problems there. At the same time, should we believe them? On what authority? With what evidence? The combined testimony of all the reputed scientists that were allegedly involved has amounted to what? The site remains inactive and apparently guarded.

I was initially, and for several months after, mesmerised by the accounts and thought long and hard about them. I totally took them seriously. Since then, it's nothing but questions. If Skinwalker Ranch accounts remain unsubstantiated, they lead to questions about the veracity and integrity of all involved. That's big shit right there! The implications of dishonesty call into question some very big names in the field.

Don't take this as an attack on Vallee. It isn't. I'm just trying to express some of the doubts and thoughts I've had in the past year about Vallee and those involved at Skinwalker. His books have generated novel ideas, I love 'em, but we should all be wondering if he's part of a shell game.
 
Back
Top