Somewhere in the Skies - Jacques Vallée: Forbidden Science and Scattered Castles

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

On episode 396, we are joined once again by the legendary Jacques Vallée to discuss his sixth and final volume of his book series, Forbidden Science 6: Scattered Castles. Vallée takes us through the past decade of his life, his research, and his revelations and discoveries as he continues his journey to find answers to UFO phenomena and beyond. A journey that took turns he never expected and opened his eyes to new theories, destinations, and possibilities. Purchase the book: https://a.co/d/bATt8Hz Book Ryan on CAMEO at: https://bit.ly/3kwz3DO Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: http://www.buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Discord: https://discord.gg/NTkmuwyB4F Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/ryansprague.bsky.social Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomewhereSkies Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/somewhereskiespod/ Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Store: http://tee.pub/lic/ULZAy7IY12U Read Ryan’s articles at: https://medium.com/@ryan-sprague51 Opening Theme Song by Septembryo Copyright © 2025 Ryan Sprague. All rights reserved Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/somewhere-in-the-skies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at Redfin.com. Own the dream.

At first, I didn't think it was real. I woke up to this blinding light and I was transported to another place. Pluto TV. Then I heard a voice. Come with me if you want to live. There were thousands of movies and shows and they were all free.

The truth is our scene. It's just so beautiful. On Pluto TV, free streaming of Terminator 2, Fringe Arrow, the 100 N-EX-Files may cause excitement, loss of sleep, and sudden belief in extraterrestrials. No credit cards or alien encounters necessary. Pluto TV, stream now, pay never.

Today on the show, we welcome. Welcome back Internet Pioneer, Computer Scientist, Venture Capitalist, Author, UFO Researcher and Astronomer. Jacques Vallet to talk about his sixth and final volume of his Forbidden Science book series, subtitled Scattered Castles. You are now somewhere in the skies with your host, Ryan Spray. You know something happened in Washington yesterday? Yes. Is that something you'd like to talk about? with

an representative Anna Luna reading the statement that statement that all investigations

would be begun to reveal the number of statements, a number of facts about the assassination of President Kennedy, about two

other major historical things and of course the problem of unidentified flying objects. Right. So that being said, I think my book comes at the right time to help inform the, you know, the proceedings

because we, as you know, So, probably in science talks about what we did in terms of the research with Beigolo and Derbass and so on. And the research that I continue to do in Brazil and Argentina and other places where I wanted to go back and get additional information. So I think those are the news. the new things. Absolutely. Well, that's a perfect place, I think, Jacques de start. So I will officially welcome you to the show.

Welcome back to somewhere in the skies. It's been a while. I believe I had just actually moved here to Scotland. The day I moved here is the day I got to my first ever interview with you. So that was a memorable moment. And now we are some two years later having this conversation. with your brand new book, Forbidden Science, Six, Scattered Castles. And we were just talking in the preamble there about what happened yesterday in Washington.

I do want to circle back to that. But, Chuck, before we do that, let's talk about the brand new book. If you don't mind, this just released recently. You can purchase it online. We will put links to that in our show notes as well. but yes, first and foremost, welcome back to the show. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

It's my pleasure, as always. The subtitle of the book really caught my attention. So, you know, very simple question for you. Scattered Castles. What is the meaning behind the subtitle of Forbidden Science Six, if you don't mind? It's a designation for Arant. a repository of classified files. The name itself is not classified.

Otherwise, I couldn't use it on the cover. But this is where you go if you want to find out if there is a specific project on a particular topic. and it's used, of course, primarily by people who are classified secret or top secret have the access. And these names, these classified projects in the U.S. always use two words that are picked at random by a computer. So you don't know, you know, you don't always, you don't know what will come up. And I thought that configuration of scattered castles was a perfect title for my book, because we have little castles that are institutions that are keeping different parts

the enigma and they are scattered all over the globe and they need at some point, we need to communicate with them. Interesting. That actually reminds me of the recent revelations brought forward at the most recent congressional UFO hearing of this program allegedly called Immaculate Constellation. So, you know, everyone is speculating, what did these, what do these mean? So I'm glad you sort of clarified that for me that there's not necessarily a specific meaning behind it within the government, let's say. But it's the meaning you give it, such as the subtitle of your book and what that means for forbidden science, right? Most classified projects have two words, and those words are picked at random.

So this is just the repository. Immaculate Constellation, I think, was a specific classified program. Okay. Interesting, interesting. Well, so you mentioned these different institutions, classified programs. Now, Forbidden Science 6 really starts with you having sort of this, I guess you would say, a profound revelation that the work you're working on, this classified program, wasn't really unraveling the mystery as you had hoped in terms of the approaches that were being taken and whatnot. And this would eventually lead you to globally begin to explore the phenomena in many different ways, travel all across South America, Europe, Russia, even to try to continue to unravel these mysteries.

So I guess my first question for you would be, what was that program, if you don't mind giving us any information you can on what that program was? And where did you go? I think a lot of it is known now. There have been several books already published on the program itself, and those books were touching on information that had been declassified. You know, the books were reviewed and published with the understanding that this was ready to be released. There are still parts of the program that have not been released.

They are still covered by, you know, they are still classified, including the part that I was partially responsible for, which was the development of the database. A large amount of a, and again, some of the books already published have described what I did and what the project continued to do. But the content is still classified. So I'm not at liberty to discuss it.

I believe that eventually all of that should be open. Certainly now that the Trump administration wants to see things in the open. I think it could be open. There are several exceptions to that. The files that we developed contained a large number of medical records. Those medical records currently should be kept classified, but they are also protected in the U.S. by a regulation for privacy of the patients.

So, you know, if you said you had an operation, I have no right to ask for the records from that operation. It's private to you and your insurance company and your doctors. So we have a large number of cases where the witnesses were injured, where the witnesses saw a doctor or were treated, including some cases of people on the ranch, on the, you know, Nevada, on the Utah ranch. And those should not be public until they can be sanitized by typically removed.

by typically removing the name of the patient from the files, and then they can be. That's what the French do. The French files are completely available. They are put on the Internet, but the privacy of the witnesses, even those who are not medically related, but the privacy of the witnesses is preserved.

And very often they change the names of the location. So the location itself is preserved. Now, if you want to know more, then you have a good scientific reason to know more, that can be made available. And I don't see why we cannot do the same thing in the U.S. eventually. But I would be very concerned if those files were released because of the impact on the patients or the witnesses themselves.

Right, exactly. And, you know, we did have a member of the security team that worked on the ranch on our show, a gentleman Chris Bartel, who did have, you know, alleged physiological effects after being on the ranch and such things. but however, like you mentioned, you know, those things are ethically, uh, cannot be shared, at least yet. Yet this is the type of information that scientists or, you know, people in the medical field that might want to look into the effects of UAP on human beings, uh, the type of information they would want.

So you're sort of caught in this, this like catch 22 of we want the information, but it's not available, and I can understand how that could be frustrating, to say the least. Physical injuries, that's another topic that you explored in the book when you went to, you know, I guess I'll point out specifically Brazil, you know, so many cases out of Brazil where physical injuries, people were harmed, even some died from some of these encounters. You've investigated that throughout the years. Now, I guess my question for you is, do you think this is intentional on behalf of the source of these phenomena, or is this just, you know, happenstance in terms of our interaction with these phenomena? Where do you lay on the physical effects on human beings?

Many of the traumatic injuries happened in South America. And there seems to be a cultural bias there where the interactions are much more violent. And where, I mean, those are fairly well documented now. As you know, I've gone four times to Argentina, four times to Brazil, always with people who spoke the local languages and knew the areas. We formed a team to go there to overcome the cultural differences.

And there we, you know, I looked into and I published a number of cases of casualty of death in Brazil and cases where people were injured. I have published photographs of some of the injuries, both on male and female patients. And to some extent, those have been followed up. And we need to do the same thing in the United States under standards that are good medical standards.

the same thing has happened in France no death to my knowledge in France but many cases of injuries and there there is one thing I can talk about and you know about the project we had in Nevada the the concern that I have is that

there were a number of stove pipes. There were, you know, people looking at the physics, people looking at the biology, people looking at the sociology, all the messages, all the technical aspects, or the analysis of the residue, analysis of archetypes, and so on. As you know, I've done someone like myself with Dr. to Nolan at Stanford, Dr. Storot at Stanford, and others. And I've shared some of that with my friends and colleagues in France, where I am now, they've given me some of the material from cases in France

that I've taken to analyze in the U.S. And vice versa. I mean, that's the way science has to work. It's not just one measurement. You have to replicate measurements in different. different lamps and with different equipment. Overall, what I can say, I'm very proud of the work that our team did

under, you know, Mr. Bigelow, under Bass and Bigelow Aerospace Space Systems. And before, under NIDS, I think the, The team did a great job. I think there were brilliant people involved in all those areas, in physics and in biology and other areas. And it was well run. The problem that I discovered, you know, with a classified project,

is that there is very little. sharing once we get started with the different parts of the team. So I've discovered since the project was essentially cut off and terminated, it was terminated after only two years. The project should have been a five-year project. And we had, of course, you know, the work we were doing had a specific program in steps to go into implementing artificial intelligence on top of the database that we built, which was really a data warehouse with 260,000 cases from all over the world.

And I brought in my files into that to get the whole thing started. So a lot of the cases were cases that I already knew. that were in an unclassified category, and then it became part of the data warehouse, which was classified and still is. I discovered since the project termination that some of the people who were using the database were interested in extending the range

of the data in areas where I had data that wasn't in the project. And I never knew that I needed it. Now, that has to do with the way those classified programs are run. And it makes sense if you're developing, say, a new satellite, and the satellite has five components, you know, an optical component, and electronic component and so on. So the optical people work by themselves, and they have, you know, some standards they have to meet,

and the electrical people on the radio people have their own standard, and they work against those standards, and then somebody puts their own together, and they launch the rocket, okay? And that's fine. And the data goes to different places. But in what we did, we did, you know, overall research on a very complex set of phenomena

where we should have been able to communicate. And the communication was, to a large extent, did not happen. For example, the people who were primarily interested in the medical data were not briefed on the trips that the team took to Brazil to investigate some of the cases in Brazil. So there was a lot of information that was lost. Now, I had gone to Brazil three times, and in the new book, you know, in book number six of forbidden science,

it talks about my going back to Brazil now to find out what was missing from the research that was done by Bath. And I was able to reconstruct some of the missing parts by going there myself. But I went there with Brazilians and with Americans who had worked in Brazil, spoke Portuguese and so on

and had access to the things I was interested in. So I knew where I was going and I knew there was information where I was going. And that's what's in the book. I did the same thing in Argentina and discovered that in Argentina

there were samples that Dr. Sturrock had Stanford. I had never known about. We had very, very little information, you know, just little, very small pieces of material we could work with at Stanford. But I came back with a lot more material from Argentina that we're now working on in the lab.

So those things have to continue, and they don't need to be classified. frankly. And I'm delighted that now the new administration in Washington wants to open the windows and the doors and let people communicate and especially let scientists communicate on the record. And the way it should be. Yeah. Swing those doors wide open. I hear you, Jacques. of well okay so Argentina, Brazil. Now this book covers, you know, basically 2010 to 2019 of your journals, your travels, and the things you discovered along the way with your independent research and work with several others.

Do you have any very memorable journal entries or moments that really stick out to you? in this volume that you'd be willing to share with us. Any, you know, the highlight reel, I guess, as we would call it. There would be many, one of the areas where I was eager to go after the, you know, I was prepared to work for another three years. with the team of the project. There were many things that I was ready to bring in, and especially the AI component.

So I had already developed an AI system for my own for screening cases in 1986. I published it in 1986. In 1986, the web did not exist. So how could you do it? AI. Well, the network existed, and I had access, as you know, to the network from the beginning of the network from my days at SRI. So I knew how to use that and so on. So we could have done a lot more. Well, after two years, that project was shelved, and then I was free to go on with my own

research. A lot of things I wanted to do were in the parapsychology angle. And I started working with a number of my friends, including people from SRI, who had been part of the parapsychology program. And the Ingo Swann, who had been one of the leading. biosecology subjects at SRI, you know, in the project of Dr. Putoff and Dr. Targ at SRI, had recruited me as a subject for something he wanted to do outside of the project. He wanted to develop a better protocol for remote viewing. Now, the remote viewing, the concept of remote viewing came from a discussion I had with Ingo Swann at the beginning of the project. Ingo Swann wanted to find out if there was something in science, some methodology,

that he could bring to parapsychology. And in those days, you know, parapsychology was guessing at some symbols that were hidden in a box somewhere and so on. And he didn't want to do that. He wanted to do something new. And we had a seminal discussion where I told him, look, do you know how a computer uses data? And he said, no, I'm not, you know, I'm an artist and a psychic, but I'm not an engineer. And I told him, I took him through a very quick overview of how computers use data. So in this computer, there is data that's fixed.

For example, today's date is in a cell in this computer. And it's not going to change until tomorrow until midnight tonight. And it's fixed and everybody knows where it is. You know, it's in cell number 10,027. There is other data that comes and goes because I've written the program, that uses, for example, names of people for interviews, and that name will change every day and so on, and I can look it up,

but it's going to change based on the program that remembers the schedule. So those are in the name changes, but the location can also change. So from day to date, it may be in a different location in the computer. But my program can find that location. It goes there and it gives me the name.

This is direct everything, essentially. However, there are also cases where my program doesn't really know that cell number. But I'm going to compute the cell number. And the program is going to then go and get it into that cell number, which is going to be a result of the calculation. And that's called indirect in dressing. It's not direct. I don't know the number.

But the program is going to get the number and go there and get the information and bring the information to me. And then there is another problem where the range of things is bigger than the memory of the computer. And then it's a form of addressing which has to guess, to go through a random process to go and discover where the information is.

And that's called indirect addressing. And the... That engue, that, Ingo fell in love with that series, because to him this is what consciousness does. You know, it can go to those different levels. And there is a level where you're just plunging into a range of things that are not in front of you, but are somewhere else.

And you still have a way of proceeding within, you know, within that range and find that device. So we started, that's the way the remote viewing program got started from that conversation between Ingo and me. I don't think the agency knew that but that was at the time was not written down anywhere the I mean that conversation Ingo wanted to refine and I'm getting to your question forgive me of course they're rebels this is great Ingo wanted to refine that and he had a special program by himself where he was going to define the process by which he could train people in remote viewing. And he wanted to use me as a subject. Now, I'm a mediocre remote viewer, but I understand the process.

And I was, we did a number of experiments. I did a number of experiments with both Yuri Geller and Ingo and others, and I had done some experiments in France that convinced me that I could understand the process. I could not use it reliably if you're looking for the solution to a crime, for example. I wouldn't be the best person to do that. But Ingo thought that I did it well enough that he could use me as a subject in developing the different stages of his method. The first method was just getting an overall impression. The first level of the method was beginning to get specific impressions of, for example, names of things,

and colors, music, sound, wind, things like that. And then you would go deeper and deeper into details, always recalling the information and reprocessing it. So that's the way it works. So we had a long table in a room that was classified, and most of the SRI didn't know how that room was used. It was only used for that project. And he had coordinates, which were based on that initial discussion we had,

we used coordinates as the way to name, to have a handle for the site. And the, you know, it was a little bit like scattered castles, might be, you know, the coordinates. But at that time, he was still using longitude and latitude. And we would get up, I had another job at that point. I was doing venture capital, I was doing investing. But I would go twice a week, you know, in that lab with him, and we would work on it the whole morning.

And over the whole morning, we would do four or five different sites of the, of different difficulty. One time I go there at 8 o'clock in the morning. He's sitting at one end

of the table and sitting at the other end. All I have is a pencil and some paper and he had some pencil a number two pencil always

and some paper was very you know very rigid very structured and he takes a file, opens it up, and reads longitude and latitude. And I become sick, St. Sean. And he says, Jacques, I mean, what happens?

And I say, well, I don't know where you're sending me, but it's very uncomfortable. And he says, well, tell me what you feel. And I feel, well, I have vertigo. I'm very cold. I'm scared. I'm scared that I'm going to fall. And there is wind around me. And it's very cool.

And I'm very uncomfortable. And he says, you're on top of a mountain in the Andes. Whoa. He says, we're done for this morning. We're going to stop there. Because you love it. I mean, you went to the site.

Yeah. And I wasn't supposed to go to the site. I was supposed to draw something that might have been, you know, at a little peak. And then at the next level, you would have said, how do you feel? And I would have said, well, it's kind of cold. you know, and we would have done, this was level one, level two, level three.

I was at level seven, essentially. I was there. And I said, well, Ingo, I'm on the role here, you know, I got it. Why don't we continue with other sides? He said, no, you're going home. Because I don't, I want you to remember that. I want you to go home with that feeling because you got 100% of it. You were at the site.

And I've never, you know, it's one thing I've never, I've never forgotten. And I know the process. I know how the process works. I know what you have to do to make it work. Now, my problem is that. you know, at heart, I'm a computer programmer. You know, I'm a hacker. So I'm very rational and very structured in what I do.

I like things to be neat. I like things to have, you know, structure and so on. And this is, I understand why Ingo was so good, because Ingo was an artist. And he was working, he was getting at the same reason. that he was getting at the result in a much richer way that was less structured. And he wanted to combine the two. He wanted to bring structure to it to teach it to people.

And I've never forgotten that experience. There was another experience which is more, you know, more recent that I have not completely recovered from. I had continued to look at how a psychology could be used to, frankly, to get to contact.

And so I had spoken to people who had research the same thing and could. And to create the conditions where you could have you could make something happen.

And this was in San Francisco, not here in Paris. It was in San Francisco, and we did a number of structured environments that might be susceptible, and I talk about that in the book, might be susceptible to bringing that kind of,

of experience of contact. And nothing much had happened. Vague impressions and so on. And then one night, I'm asleep. All of a sudden, I'm out of my body. Now people, psychics describe going out of their body with a structured way and so on. And people who can apparently teach

that, I had never taken those courses. I had spoken to them, Bob Monroe and others. I had met and I had discussed the process and so on. But this was not under Michael Tronk. I mean, something

had just taken me and moved me to a place in my apartment in San Francisco where I was in front of an entity. I was the entity was not threatening, but it was large.

It was, I thought of it as, frankly, as a living being in front of me, as strong as I am, with no particular features on it, but clearly ready to communicate. There was a sense of complete communication, but again, I was out of my body, so it wasn't going to be hearing or I was in that presence. I was very scared, even though it was not threatening,

but I had never anticipated that. And I think I was so scared, that projected me back in my body. My body woke up, and I was in tears, and I was just completely surprised, you know, by what had happened. The Summer in the Sky's podcast is free to listen to you every week. But if you would like to help support the show, we have a very active Patreon page,

where you give what you think the show is worth. In return, get early access to the main show, bonus episodes, and priority to ask our guests your listener questions. Your support truly makes the show continue and grow. So to learn more and to join, visit patreon.com slash somewhere skies. There was no question that was asleep. My body was asleep the whole time. My mind wasn't. So it had essentially extracted. me, you know, to present that situation. Now,

I write about that in the book. There was more, and obviously I want to explore it more, but I don't want to lead the reader into any theory about what happened, because

I don't understand what happened. I've spoken to people who went out of their body, you know, specifically for research. Certainly part of some of the people at SRI, you know, who worked with Tag and Putoff and so on. And later with Ed May, you know, had that ability to move out of their body.

But I had no prior experience of that. So I need to work on it myself. It's only changed my view of what these people were describing. Right. I can have an open ticket to that area. So to me, that has become much more interesting than doing programming on, you know, databases and so. there are other people who do that very well. You know, I respect my colleagues suddenly in the information science on AI.

You know, I have a PhD in AI from 1967. AI has a long history. You know, it's just not the kind of AI. It was the first generation AI that it worked. I mean, you could ask questions in English about a database and get an immediate answer instead of writing a program and running the program to compute the answer.

You know, my program could be addressed in English. It was a program about astronomy. You could ask a complex mathematical question about a catalog of stars and get an answer back instantly, you know. that maybe I should revive that program. It would run on,

you know, on any computer. Yeah. It would be fun to, to show it as sort of level one AI. But at that time, they were only for AI programs in the world, you know,

two at Harvard, one at Stanford, and mine. So I was part of that first generation of AI. So I knew it can be done. I know. how it can be done and so on. So, but I think the parapsychology angle is going to be much more interesting

because now we have to communicate with whatever entity is involved. You know, it's not just a matter of, you know, picking up samples and looking at how much carbon there is versus lead and uranium or something. We need to do that. And as you know, I've donated all my collection of samples, physical samples, to Dr. Nolan, and we're working together on that collection to improve that methodology and try to get more specific, you know, technical answers about that. But I think the psychic angle to me now is where I want to continue to go. Interesting.

Well, to sort of play off of that, Chuck, yeah. I mean, the work with Gary Nolan is one thing, and it's vital, it's essential. It's important to understand, you know, let's say, what the tool is made of, how the tool works. But then you flip it on its head and you go to this more. psychic approach or let's say even metaphysical to an extent to understand the motivation behind what the tool is and why it's being used.

What is the motivation behind the intelligence of those fragments you discovered or the craft or the trace evidence left behind? So I guess to kind of play off of that, do you think as the methodical person you are trained with AI, using protocol for such things, math, all of this stuff, it's very rational, it's very structured. Do you think by using a protocol or a process that you could revisit that experience you had in your bed that night to commune with this entity? Is that something you think you can do or no? The work that I've done in AI, as I said in 1967, between 1967 and now a lot of people have developed AI programs to implement things in your car. I mean, your car is, the programs in your car are not the classical programs that, you know, 2 plus 2 gives 4 and so.

there are programs that analyze your behavior as a driver that remembers how you've driven before, can detect if you're in a hurry to go somewhere, if you're making mistakes, it will adjust if you're making some mistakes. If you're falling asleep, it will wake you up. It will detect all that, and it will work with you without you being aware of what's going on, in the engine that adapts the capability of the car to your state of their physical state and your intellectual state to some extent. It doesn't know why you're disturbed.

It could be a number of things, but it knows that the way you're sitting in the car, the way you're using the wheel and so on, is different from what you usually use it and it will adapt its own behavior to that to anticipate things. It knows where the yellow line is or the white line, and if you go across the white line, it's going to know that. It's going to assume that either you're very disturbed or you're asleep, and then it will do something to wake you up. So that intelligence is already in the car.

So those are things that work with us. And to me, AI is going to be most useful in that way. The program I wrote, actually I published it in 1987, at a meeting in Los Angeles, a meeting about how to use computers in Ireland, space. It was an aerospace meeting. And the problem was

how do you go faster in screening reports of UFOs? Well, there are a number of hypotheses if you see me or if you tell me that

you've seen a strange light at night, there are a number of questions I'm going to ask you. because it could be the moon behind the cloud. Now, I know where the moon was that night, and I can screen that. But it's going to take a lot of time. The computer can, I designed a program

that had about 200 possible situations where a report of a UFO could be explainable by some hypotheses. In some cases, there are several hypotheses that would come up at the same time. Now, a normal program cannot handle that, you know, conflicting two different conflicting hypotheses hypotheses at the same time.

AI can do that. You know, we can think about things that are red and things that are green at the same type. Okay. and essentially model the situation you're describing in terms of that. That it takes the eye to do that. You can't just have a normal program to do that. I mean, you could, but it would take all day to go through all the possible situations.

You need to have inference, you need to the computer to infer something from what you say as a witness. So my program was essentially a guide that would, they couldn't find the answer by itself. That's not, you know, people are trying to do that. I think they'll have an interesting time and there are many mistakes before that kind of AI is really going to work, including on the stock market and all those things. So I'm not saying you shouldn't use chat GPT, but. The way people are using it now is comical. You know, it's a big laugh.

I think there may be a level in the computer that's laughing at the questions we're going to ask. To me, it was more like a dialogue with a very, very smart assistant who could make inference, you know, ahead of me. And could say, well, you know, well, maybe he saw the moon through the fog, but think of all the other things it could be. And there are some very weird hypotheses

that people forget, you know, forget to ask. And the computer is not going to forget. The computer is going to remind me that, yes, there could be, you know, 50% chance that this is, in fact, the moon behind a cloud, but because the moon is in fact there, because it's computed the position of the moon when you saw that UFO,

but, you know, it could be it could be an airplane making a turn through the fog to go to, you know, an airport that's close by. It could be some illumination from something else. So the computer is, not going to forget all the other things it could be. Your brain is going to think, oh, you know, I got it. I mean, it's got to be this. And then your emotions to take over. You know, my little assistant didn't have any emotions. They don't say, well, Jacques, you may be right, you know,

up to 43%, but you should also look at the 20% hypothesis and the 15% hypothesis and so on. It's not going to let me overhook. So I think that, again, this was a guide of the eye we could do in 1987. But we don't do it. I mean, that's the thing that I wanted to bring to Bigelow, and we're to bring into our, you know, our program for DIA. DIA didn't think of that, you know. That's something where we could have contributed.

that would save, you know, thousands of hours of analysts trying to reconstruct what could have happened in some of those cases. You know, you could put that on top of, you know, the scanning programs that look at signals in the sky and so on. I mean, there's a lot of the basic work that can be done. Yeah. You asked me about specific things, and there is some of it also that somewhat buried in, you know, in science. Because I wasn't sure for a long time, I wasn't sure what to think about it. My wife and I bought a property in the redwoods in Northern California, two hours north of San Francisco. It's a wonderful area.

It's in Mendocino, Mendocino County, you know, the last huge redwoods that they live for 100 years or more. So we had some century-old redwoods on the property, and I had a lot of respect for those beings because they, for example, when there is a forest fire, they don't die. They thrive in the fire. The fire destroys the low branches, but there is a lot of water.

There are many punders of waters, in those towering redwoods. So they don't burn. So the fire clears the under the wood itself, the lower level plants and it clears the landscape for the redwoods. And the redwoods, because when they you know, the fruits of the redwood will fall into the ashes and start new redwoods.

Right. So that's why you see in those old redwoods, if you're ever in Northern California, you'll see a big redwood and you'll see the five or six little ones that are just growing next to it. That's how it happened. You know, if the fruit falls in the ash. and it's very nourishing for it, and that's how they reproduce. Okay, I mean, I've learned,

you learned so much, but just go it into nature and talking to the local people and understanding that. I built an observatory in the middle of the Redwood Forest. Okay. It was very dark,

there were no lights. The closest neighbor was three quarters of the miles, away. So I put an observatory there because I wanted to re-experience a joy of being an

astronomer and on having your own telescope and being able to look at things. I didn't do anything very fancy or experimental but I wanted to track satellites again. I wanted to look at the moon. Again, I wanted you study the moon.

Of course, I had done all that, you know, at Paris Observatory, and later, at McDonald in Texas, we were working, my boss was working mainly on Mars and galaxies, and I worked for him on galactic spectra and so on. I wanted to re-experience what it was like to be at the prime focus of the telescope. We could sleep in the tower, and there were a number of times, three times, when my wife woke up and I didn't wake up. So it was the opposite of Wheatley's dream. Whitley would wake up and would have these experiences, which I've admired the way he was able to describe them and work with them in his own process.

My wife was, Janine, my first wife, was not a skeptic, any means, but she was in many ways more, you know, approaching a whole thing more rationally than me. So she was woken up by lights that were small, should describe it as, you know, small lights, sort of like this, that would move around as if it was exploring the room we were in, There were books in that room. There were rare books. There were some scientific instruments.

I was just storing them there. And it would move around and then it would disappear. And she told me about those. On the last day when we sold the property, I was back in San Francisco. She was finishing where to sell the car, where to put the car on the trailer and had it moved to be sold in the city.

And then there was nothing else on the rest. So she was spending the last night there and then she was awakened by her life. Now, I had the hold. We had that ranch in the forest for 18 years with an observator that was the only thing sticking out of the Redwood forest. You would think the aliens would come there. Maybe they did on those two occasions, okay?

but I didn't see it. And on the last day, she was woken up by a very bright light that woke her up. I mean, it was killing the room. She went through the window and there was a light essentially driving down the driveway,

which was a dirt, just a dirt road. In the middle of that forest, and the enormous, fight that went down the driveway to the main rock as if to say you know

good luck yeah that's the way we interpreted it that but why did it wait until the last day the last night you know and again

that's another thing I need to process I've gained in the process, a lot of respect for Whitley and what he's gone through because I recognize that, of course,

he was the prime witness, you know, his wife was not the witness. My situation was reversed. I don't know how to process that there was no special message except a message of saying goodbye.

but that last light was very much in your face it was bigger than the house it was unmistakable it was white you know

white UV you know and it was not a specific shape it was not a craft it was just a massive

light going down the driveway, the way your car would go down on the roadway. Wow. So those are some of the highlights, you know, that are in the book, other than, funny enough, the people who reacted to the book, it's not reacted to that. It's as if, well, yeah, maybe, you know, and it takes a while.

I don't blame them because it took me a while to get to recognize how important those specific things were. Because I come and go, you know, it's like Ingo said, you know, it's there, it's too big for your consciousness. So you're vaguely aware of something's happened, that if you don't preen yourself, you're not going to understand it. And Ingo spent that you're essentially training me

in writing that training manual, I was the guinea pig, and I was privileged to be the guinea pig for what are the mistakes that people make. I have made all those mistakes, and what are the case is where it works. And now I recognize when it works. Well, the other thing, too, Jacques, I think,

is these experiences are, while subjective and powerful, you know, due to interpretation and things like that, they're so profound and powerful for the individual, the observer, the experiencer, that I can almost understand why people haven't responded so much to those sections of your book because they aren't the one who experienced it. Yet I personally feel in those cracks, those small glimpses that each person has of these phenomena, that's where the answers lay, not in what AI will eventually produce as an animal.

answer or what the U.S. government will produce as an answer to UFOs, but what each individual finds along their path, their journey, you know? I mean, I'm sure your possible explanation for these phenomena changes on a daily basis like it does for all of us. More and more people, of course, are experiencing that you have to give yourself permission or you have to recognize it. Frankly, when I was out of my body

at the time I didn't know what was happening. It was very, very quick. It took less than a minute for the whole thing to happen. And for me to be brought back. But I had read I met Robert Monroe. You know, I had, of course, worked with Ingo.

I had met a number of people who, for whom that was a familiar psychic, you know, experience. So I had something to relate it to. And I think that's going to happen more and more. And, you know, the big question. is when time comes to really communicate with the entities behind the UFO phenomenon, how is it going to happen, I've continued to explore that with psychics. And they've told me of their own experiences. I'm not ready to write about that.

It's not in this book. But that's part of my research now is really at that level. How to refine that so that it becomes reliable. Yeah. And the research continues, shock. We're coming up on the hour. You've been very generous with your time. I have one final question for you if that's okay. Okay. So in the book you give sort of these three critical moments in history where this quote-unquote UFO disclosure could have happened. You know, this is like that golden nugget that everyone wants disclosure. You know, when you give this example of, you know, late 50s, we had Project Blue Book, Grudge, signed, all of this. Could have been a moment. You had the, you had the, you know, late 60s and whatnot with the condo.

The condoen report, you know. Correct. And then you fast forward up to like 2011 with the work you were doing and whatnot with your programs, that these all could have been three critical moments where disclosure could seemingly have happened yet didn't

for various reasons. To sort of, I guess, end this conversation. We had news out of Washington just yesterday as we were recording this, that hopefully more transparency is going to be coming in our future, which some people might correlate to disclosure.

So do you think we're going to, are we on a path to any more disclosure when it comes to this topic, or will it forever remain enigmatic as it has for so long? A number of us, of course, were all asking that question. And nobody has ever defined disclosure.

And if you took 10 of our friends and traced in UFOs, you put them in the same room, and you ask them to write what disclosure is, and you compare what they wrote, it would go all over the place. To some extent, as some friends of mind have said,

disclosure has already happened. I mean, it's clear that there is something. And to me, it happened, you know, four years ago at Washington Cathedral. I mean, what more do you need? You know, the director of, you know, national intelligence standing up in a cathedral saying, you know, all those things, they are real and they are not. part of espionage, they are not part of what our intelligence agencies are doing, it's something else. It's not the Russians, it's not the Chinese, it's something else. And it's outside of

intelligence, even though intelligence may have something to say about the methodology by which you try to understand it, you know, because it's like decoding something. But it's not, you know, It's not an enemy, something else. You had the director of Harvard Observatory. You had the former director of NASA, administrator of NASA, and you had the Archbishop of Washington. All of them, one after the other,

saying, yes, there is a mystery. Here we stand, you know, four years later, and nothing more has happened until yesterday. Yesterday is something. Choice Hotels get you more of what you value. Comfort in, it's calling your name. Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim.

Book direct at storesotails.com. So a number of us are scared. because if it had been revealed in the 60s, which it could, we came close to that. We advocated for that. The answer we got, actually, you know, I asked a question in France. There was a French officer who went to the American embassy to talk to his counterpart. You know, in an Air Force, his name is Clare 1, Colonel Clear 1. He went to talk to his counterpart at the embassy.

And the men and the embassy made a few phone calls and said, it's not the time to do it because there is too much conflict in the world. It's complicated. We cannot afford to have one more thing that's undefined. It's going to complicate it between us and the Russians. You know, those were the, you know, the, you know, the, the, the, the science. You know, the war, the wall, you know, all those things between us and the Russians. It was not the time to bring up another thing in the sky.

We couldn't understand or try it. And that made sense. Then there was a Condon committee. As you know, Dr. Heinrich and I were the first scientist to testify before Condon. I brought my database to merge with their database so that they had, you know, an up-to-date stuff to work with from the beginning, you know, about 3,000 cases that were well-documented that they could put next to what they already had. And then, you know, I had the Air Force files that I put on the computer that they could use.

You know, we donated that to the Condon project. They could, they didn't have to say something that was interpreted as, you know, everybody go home, there is nothing there, you know, which is the way it was interpreted. That's not what they said, but that's the way it was understood. And that was And then Now Now if it had happened in the 60s The scientists would have been very interesting

It would have come as one more thing It wasn't alarming It wasn't scary It was very technical You know there were a few hundred cases That people could study It was interesting I think it would have cleared

the way to the whole discussion later on. That didn't happen. It could have happened with Condon. Then men had been in space, you know, so the whole thing about going to the moon,

going to space and so on, that was dispelled. I mean, we could do it. These people came back. They were human like you and me. You know, we, this was something we could handle. So the scary part was gone,

and that would have been an exciting thing to do with science. You know, maybe we would bring, from space, we would bring new medical process. I mean, it's still true today, of course. We have done that. But that was closed. doing it today

with all the conflicts in the world all the unknown with AI on top of it which is scaring people for good reasons for both good and bad reasons but I think

this is we're not going to see a nice rational acceptance of that is going to scare a lot of people There are reasons why the part of the armed forces felt it should not be

opened up for religious reasons. There would be history says that whenever a superior civilization has moved into a territory, you know, like the Spanish moving to Mexico and to South America,

like the French moving to Africa and so on. Essentially, the more evolved technical civilization kills everything. I mean, that's what we did to the Indian civilization in the U.S., you know. People came from Europe with all kinds of ideas, and all kinds of wanting to do all kinds. of science and other things, and there was never a smooth process defined

to ameliorate the process. So it became conflict and out of the conflict with essentially eliminated entire civilizations around the world. The French, with Spanish, the English. It's very difficult to recapture,

and the question is, you know, are we like going to be faced with something that comes here? You asked me the question at the beginning about injuries, you know. Well, the injuries, this phenomenon doesn't seem to care if it kills people or it can injurious people.

Dr. Green has all these files that we've worked on together to some extent that he's continued to develop no protocols to deal with these patients of people who were exposed to something that we really don't understand that in some cases it is obviously hostile. Now, you know, if I touch a burning bulb, it's going to burn me, it's not hostile, but I know not to do that.

And we don't understand that process with UFOs. Should we tell people, yes, if something lands in your backyard, you can go touch it? Well, some people have done it. and, you know, with no harm. And some people have done it and were irradiated, you know, to a dangerous extent. For life. So all those questions are the questions people are going to start asking now, and they should. And we don't have the answers.

And we have not prepared the scientific structure to go. get kids. So, you know, that was what we wanted to do, you know, with a bigger old project, with Mass, and that was cut out up to two years for

reasons that I've never understood. Yeah. Yeah, it's, you know, everyone always grasps for disclosure, hopes for disclosure, yet nobody truly knows what that means.

what the potential could be for that if it did ever come. And I think you're right. While we may think we're prepared in some ways, there's so many unanswered questions. Like, do we even want those answers, Jacques? You know, that's the true question. I don't see myself answering those questions. I love to be part of a team

where I can bring some, of an answer or impossible answer to scientists and other branches where we can work together to at least cast some light on that. And then I want to continue to do. Yes, absolutely. And the work does continue. That's for sure. The book, again, everyone, is Forbidden Science, Six Scattered Castles, the best subtitle I've ever heard, a book. I absolutely love it. Jacques, we will put links to the book below for everyone to check out.

But I have to say, this has been an absolutely fascinating conversation. I'm honored to have had you back on the show to have this conversation, and I certainly hope it will not be our last. So I want to thank you once again for coming on somewhere in the sky. Thank you. Thank you. We're sitting on top of an iceberg and the enormous size and implications. of the rest of that iceberg. That's what I'd like to know. I came away from the meeting and from the room with the distinct feeling, however,

that the panel had deliberately moved to debunk the whole subject and not to give it the serious scientific attention which it deserved. From my own point of view, I'm going to be very disappointed. If UFOs turned out to be nothing more than visitors from another planet,

because I thought there could be something much more interested. When you look up in the sky, you're off in a corner of nowhere. We're nobody's. Maybe if we looked around a little bit, we could learn how to be somebodies.