Jacques Vallee - The Bizarre Nature of UFOs

1917 and the experience of Thadama were most people they portrayed it as a cultural or religious event and you looked at it you know from the observations scientifically. The patimates are very deep both in terms of testimony. I mean there were 80,000 people there on the last apparition. They didn't see the Virgin, they saw a disc silver then between them and the sun. You showed me a case this morning as something you wanted to talk about. When you showed me the image it reminded me of a military image that George and I obtained and released to the public. Can you show me or show our audience that image and why that case is important? The photo that you said you wanted to talk about. Yes but what they described to me is a very sophisticated process by which we may be able to interact with the entities. So you're saying you've been made aware that there is a government project maybe it was 20 years ago that was able to establish direct communication with a non-human intelligence and that you believe this information to be true and that this is a reality. This is what you understand to be true. Is that correct? I cannot tell. Yes. Yes. It's factual. This is weaponized. This is weaponized. I'm George Napp coming to you from Las Vegas, Jeremy, Corbell, friend and colleague of mine. How you doing? Great man. Good to see you. This is a pretty big day for us here. I mean in the long and tortured history of the UFO subject and investigations into that mystery as well as offshoot phenomena related to UFOs that are bizarre and frightening on their own. There's no more singular and more important figure than Jacques Bellet. And you and I have talked about this a lot over the years. He's like at the forefront of so many key moments in history, not just UFO history but history. I mean in other industries and topics as well. He was a pioneer in the development of the internet in the development of AI, which is huge. He was there at key moments in the overall investigation of UFOs both in France where he was trained as an astrophysicist here in the US in cases all over the place. He was there with Jay Allen Heineck on project Blue Book in the beginning. He became a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, kind of a key place to be. He was there with the company that was going to break through research with nids, the organization that was created here in Las Vegas 30 years ago almost exactly to the day. And with bass, I mean bass, the organization that Robert Bigelow created to handle the contract for the DIA and this OSAP program. Half of the budget for that program was creating a data warehouse and Jacques designed it created it. It is the world's largest UFO data warehouse that we know of anyway. And in other words, in other cases, he's done boots on the ground research in Brazil in Argentina in France, elsewhere in Europe and Central America and South America all over North America as well. He's been there at the forefront of this topic for as long as you know as long as I've known him, which is a heck of a long time and longer. And you know, I mean the books that he has written if you have a UFO library at home, those are the essential books. Jeremy, you've been to my house. You know the piles of books. I don't even know how many there are here in UFOs and related subjects, certainly more than 10,000 or so. And the ballet shelf that I've got and the ballet books are scattered all over the place. That's the that's the core. That's the core information in the entire library. He's the deepest thinker and probably the best writer on the subject in my estimation in the world. So, you know, getting Jacques, well, on weaponize is something you and I have imagined and have talked about. But until today, I never really was sure we would do it. Yeah, you know, as I said in 2019 on the Rogan podcast, it's Jacques fucking ballet. I'm the guy's a legend. You know, he's been involved in this over decades. And he has really been a changer. He's changed things up. He shook things up, specifically what I mean by that is when everybody was talking about the extra terrestrial hypothesis. You know, he pushed that on its head and came up with the interdimensional idea. And he and in a lot of ways, he's revolutionized the way that we look at the UFO phenomenon. I've got a few key points of why I thought it'd be great to have them on. Now look, he's very mercurial. He's like a jazz musician. He'll talk. And you have to like listen because he goes, yeah, he wheezes because his life is so rich. He doesn't think about the UFO phenomenon in the same way we do. And I think you'll see that in the interview. But I was really excited because as a friend, I've been able to talk with him and correspond and have him to my house a couple times. And I really got the most insight from that is just one and what dialogue. The reason I wanted to have a month today is because a few of the revolutions that he's created in this field is really about when we're looking at the government control. He said some very material things over the years. For example, he says that the governments don't control the phenomenon. They react to it, which is contrary to like the conspiratorial assumptions that we all have. Valais concludes often when you talk with him, the governments are not orchestrating the phenomenon and that they struggle to even understand it themselves. He said intelligence agencies collect data, but they do not control the phenomenon and they misinterpret it through their own institutional bias. So I wanted to talk with him because right now there's all this talk that a lot of what we're seeing is black budget programs of US technology. Look, I wish that was true. He has definitively proven through his research over the decades that this phenomenon is pervasive, it's persistent, it's unusual that it's got extreme depth and it's got a ever changing characteristic to it. He said a secret program cannot explain identical phenomena reported centuries before aviation across rival nations and in eras with no technological infrastructure capable of producing such effects. He's told us for decades that this cannot be explained with military government craft and that sort of thing. So having them on today, I think is really important, especially in the era that we're in because he sees the real mystery not just being the craft themselves, but what he calls it the interface, the human interface. He once said, Jack, Valet once said the most important data may not be what the objects are made of, but how they change us. And I just thought that was such a cool and the cure way to look at it. So this is a Jacques Valet on weaponized a dream come true, excited to have you, Jacques. Well, Dr. Valet, it's Jeremy and I have been looking forward to speaking to you on weaponized for a long time. You and I spoke a few months ago earlier this year, but there's always so much more to ask. I'd like to get your impressions of current events, Congress. So we've had five hearings in since 2017, public hearings. Do you see value in those hearings? Because it seems like the members of Congress are frustrated that they're not quite getting what they want. And can you reflect on your own experience with Congress 1968? You were involved in that first hearing. Were you hopeful back then? Are you hopeful now that Congressional investigation might actually lead somewhere? Well, I did not participate. I was not asked to participate in the in the later hearings. I was asked to meet with the experts for the intelligence committees. No, as an extension of the work I have done with bass. And in terms of the background data that the committee could use and should know about. So I went to Washington spent a couple of hours with the staffer of the intelligence committee, which is a very impressive place in Washington. I obviously we went over a lot of details. So my impression is that Congress is doing this with a number of people who are knowledgeable about the long-term research. And they are building some of the database that they can use to place the new information. And I think that's the right thing to do is to fill to backfill versus the new testimony, come in. And which is what we see, what your George and both of you participated in. So I'm hopeful that I had experience with Congressional hearings before twice. And you know, that's sort of funny. The first time was, as you know, I've worked extensively in the early days of the Internet and the Opennet. And that raised a lot of questions for Congress about where this was going and what they should be funding. And the missed locality in those days had a hearing with that involved the post office to see what the impact. And so that was my experience going to Washington to testify and to be part of those discussions, both official and back, you know, discussions about the impact that the network, if it developed, would have on the post office. And that was very interesting because I was there, you know, they were two of us were considered in Internet experts. Everybody else was with different communication companies and the post office. And the consensus was that they could wait and the technology would help them. I had concerns about that because I could see how fast the network was going to develop and especially developed in terms of message systems and systems like what we're using now. I approached some of the people there saying, look, you know, we should also consider that first class mail is going to disappear. I mean, when is the last time you put a stamp on a letter on the handwritten letter that you mailed. And the answer was look, one in every worker in the US, one in every 100 workers in the US works for the post office directly or indirectly. So we're not going to raise that question now. So the message I got from that is that yes, they know some of the answers, they understand very well what's going on. But it has to be balanced with the social reality and, you know, the bureaucratic reality of the whole country. And I was reminded of that by some of the discussion that, you know, that you guys participated in that washing the reaction of the congressman. I think they understand what's going on. But those meetings are not science meetings. They are not technology meetings. When a lot of people want to talk about technology, and that's not what congress is about. I mean, congress is about adjusting the laws of the country and managing the social reactions to events. And, you know, many of these people have a background in the role of business, not in mathematics, astronomy. So that's important to know, you know, and to understand the problem they have in taking the data that, you know, that they get from us or from the US community. And then managing it properly so that, you know, the community can understand. That I always remember that comment about the boost office. Yes, of course, they're going to lose all first class mail in a few, just a few years. And my point was they should concentrate on packages because people will want to send more packages because there will be much more communication. And all the first class communication is going to be with the software they are developing, which is what's actually, you know, what if we know. And yes, today they, you know, the post office manages a lot of packages that most of that business has gone to private companies. They lost me being the trans. Yeah, so they've lost the market. They've lost the leadership that market. You see, you saw hearings happen in the 60s and Georgia's telling me about that with jail and high neck and there's two congressional hearings. But now we've had a number of modern day hearings with people coming forward. Do you feel those are valuable? I think these hearings are good for the UFO topic for the American public that were doing that again since the 60s. Well, in part, I think this is back, because there is a new generation of people discovering UFOs on the web on, you know, and they don't know the depth of the information and who was involved and what was done. So, if you suddenly try to make a decision about publication of certain things and so on, people, you know, might not understand the context. And I think what they are doing, which is wise, is to expose the public to the context of all of that. I think when George spoke about Russia, but the documents from Russia, as you know, I've been in contact with in those days. I don't plan to go back now, but in those days I was in contact with some of the same people and the scientists. And Russia was surprisingly open at that point. You know, at certain times, there were some openings. When I went there, there were three different scientific panels looking at UFOs from different areas. So all of that needs to be brought up so that people are, you know, the culture is brought in at the same time. We are still waiting, as you said, for the last five years, we are still waiting for the test resistance for the real thing that we can, that science can look at. Do you see any any chance, any hope that Congress will be able to pierce that veil of secrecy and find out where the goodies are stored. If, in fact, we have non-human intelligence and non-human intelligence and technology is Congress the way to go. It seems to me there is value in the hearings, even if members of Congress are frustrated because they can't get to that point that the keepers of the secrets are never going to give this up, not even to Congress. What do you think? As you know, I was a member of the NIDS organization of the science boards for NIDS in Las Vegas with Mr. Biggero and the team. Then of the BAS project, which was sponsored by the government. My area of responsibility was together with the team that they recruited was about half of the budget. People have spoken about some of the things that were, you know, some of the investigations that were done and so on. Nothing has been said about the data, the database, which was really a data warehouse that was built. The idea that I proposed and that I initiated was a free stage process on the computer. We recruited, you know, about 25 to 30 people who were investigators, translators. We had translators from French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. We took a number of databases that I donated to the project and the number of others that they're own that were brought in. We built a data warehouse of 14 databases, communicating them all together. That project was going to go into a second phase. We ended up with 260,000 filtered cases, for which there was real information out of, you know, all the things that are floating around. And in, you know, in those several languages and countries, the next phase in the plan was to reduce that to, you know, need 260,000 cases. You need maybe 50,000 filtered cases where you maximize the information that you can get. And we had, you know, a process of selection. We were going to go through. And this has been published, by the way, in a couple of books that have come out that you collaborated with George. Your name is on the first one. So I'm not, you know, disseminating any great secret, but the information was still classified. Now, without that second phase of data reduction and data improvement and cleaning, the database is useless. You can, yeah, you can put AI on top of it, but the AI is going to go, you know, off the road. And because, you know, too much of it is information that looks like it's relevant to UFOs. It may be margin, margin or relevant, but it's not what you're looking for, you know, in science. And so whoever has that now, you know, it doesn't know what the plan, the real plan was. So the plan was a data reduction and then two years of AI. In other words, I was told that you have five years. So I said two years to fall data gathering around the world and translation so that everything is in English. And then one year of data filtering and improvement and then we'll have two years for AI. And then we'll get, you know, we'll drive it to the point where we have the basic answers to the nature of the data itself at the ground level. Not just, you know, pilot data, not just some, you know, astronomical pictures, so on, but the real data in the field. And we don't know where that is. You know, the project was cut off. Usually, as you know, I had clearances on other projects at Stanford Research Institute working with Dr. Putoff and his team and so on. And at the end of the project, I was debriefed. And there was a second project with Ed May. And again, I was debriefed. Here, I wasn't debriefed. So I called Dr. Putoff, I called Dr. Keller. They haven't been debriefed either. So we don't even know what's still classified and what's not classified. So I'm treating essentially everything we did, including the data as, no, as classified. And I respect that, but there is a deeper problem here that in, in the military area, you, you need, if you're developing, if we're developing a new market. It needs to be classified, at least throughout the development project. When you start testing it, people will understand that there is a new technology. But that all you need is, you know, you're going to call true of your friends who are experts in propulsion and one who is expert in optics and one who is expert in electronics. And, you know, six or seven people and you can keep the secret and you'll be funded to develop that particular, you know, that particular weapon or that particular instrument. That's not true with UFOs. And the information is in the mind of the farmer, I'm going to meet somewhere, you know, in Kansas. And as you know, I've spent a lot of my time going to, to, to meet people at their farm or in their, their house, gathering that kind of information. It's not what Congress is looking at. They're looking at pictures from, well, fighter, no fighter planes and satellites and, you know, that, they're looking at mainly at the military. Because it's this idea that the phenomenon may be a threat, which is valuable, you know, idea to look at. That's not all. I mean, in many of the cases I had, that I'm not published. The thing was not threat. It was, it was minding its own business. You know, it appears and it's not something you're going to track out of space with a telescope. It appears as a point of light. And people are intrigued by the point of light. And then it expands into, you know, an area of light. Out of that emerges something that looks like a craft. And then it lands. It may be fully fit in, in diameter. And it makes an impact on the ground. And in the case in Valenzor, you know, is a perfect case. And so you can, you can analyze with soy, we've done all of that. That it's not something you can track. That anybody can track with a telescope. And in the case in Valenzor, there is a very good movie now about Valenzor. And the, when I met with the witness playing three days there with the witness. And it took us to the place. And I said, well, you know, how did it go away? And he said, well, it lifted. And then it went off at an angle. And then it vanished. And I said, well, do you mean it vanished by just accelerating? I said, no, it just wasn't there anymore. So, and I have a number of cases like that that have, that the people did not want to publish. And so I've kept them. But very well described very well. You know, I mean, silicone Valley. So people have been in silicone Valley for 40 years. And I was funded about 70 companies with my, you know, with my friends from a number of fans. Within that community, people know me pretty well. So I've had a number of CEOs come in to me saying, you know, we have a house on the coast. And me and my family, you know, we've seen something. And I said, well, can I publish it? Can I put it there? That he said, no, you know, I'm the, I'm running a company. And people cannot, you know, people on Wall Street has to know that I'm a serious guy. And I run into that situation all the time. So Congress does not have that information. They may have it from other people. They may have that kind of information. But so far, they've only concentrated on the armed forces because again, the motivation is in order to, to get funding for anything. The best way to do it is to say this is a potential threat. Now, in the rest of the world, people are not treating it as a threat. You know, the Russians never thought it was a threat. I mean, you and their George, they, their attitude, some little, the scientists have spoken to, was, you know, this is a fascinating phenomenon. We should study it because we're going to learn something important about physics. And there is no, none of that filter that we have here, the same thing in France. You know, the official group studying it is French science agency. That's been no since the days of Claude Porrer in the late, in the early seventies, you know, has been consistently just taking reports from the, from the public and sending people there to do analysis and so on. You know, I've worked, I've been working with them on and off for a number of years. And that's not considered necessarily as a threat or as a, as a military subject. The military is obviously interested, interested in the potential technologies that could be alive from it. But the public is still seeing it as, you know, like an extension of science fiction, you know, wouldn't be the nice to know what else is in the universe. Yeah. Um, Jean, I got a question for, for 50 years, you've been looking at this problem, not just as technological, but also as cultural. A lot of your writing is about that. And I want to talk about that. But a lot of people like me, we get introduced to this through the nuts and bolts, the technology. There's rumors that the United States government has been able to reverse engineer what we call UFOs. Do you have any personal knowledge if we've made any headway? You say as a, as a scientist, you say it's important that we can look at this to be able to reverse engineer it. That's what a scientist would want to do. Have we been successful? Has the United States, do we have craft that traverses the cosmos? Because we reverse engineer them from UFOs or is that mythology as far as your concern? The investment community, the venture capital community in California is, is a sophisticated community and it has its own way of keeping secrets and exchanging secrets because the secret that you keep is, is pretty useless in business. At the end of the day you have to be able to sell something that people like or want. And so there is a network and you know someone you know who used to be with the CIA for a long time told me, you know, don't think that we have these great secrets first in Washington. We find a technology when we come to San Jose that could be applicable to something we do. And then we, you know, we use it, we take it, we use it, we may classify some applications of it. But you guys have been working on it, you know, openly for two years. And they are me even, so there is even the curve that people look at of patterns. You know, you have patterns one, two and three about the new technology. And then all of a sudden, nothing is published for 10 years. And then some product comes out that everybody thinks is extraordinary. Well, what happened during those 10 years when nothing was published? And there are a number of areas in science that you can look at. It's very interesting. Well, for 10 years it was classified. It was then, you know, in some labs somewhere, maybe at Los Alamos, maybe at Batel, maybe at, and they developed it into something that could be a product, you know, a product for a computer you're going to buy. I mean, it's, or it could be, it could be a product that will go into a new weapon system. So if in Silicon Valley, if you're trusted, you know, people don't sign special contracts or sequentially things, you know, but if, if, if you're told something which is sensitive, and you don't keep it to yourself or you know, then you can't be trusted and you're not going to, you know, it's like Hollywood, you know, you're not going to eat lunch in San Jose, you know, next year. And that's the way the system works and works on trust. And people think Silicon Valley is all new stuff. It's not new stuff. It goes way back. You know, it goes back to actually before World War II. So those relationships of trust are very deep. And people talk about you, I think, with those relationships. I'm just asking you, have we reverse engineered technology from non-human intelligence? Do you have knowledge of that? Have we done that? So, you know, I wanted to get back to that. If we had, there would be signs that would be visible, you know, certainly in Silicon Valley and in other places. There would be repercussions. You would see. And, you know, that's one of, you know, if you read Espinogen novels, I mean, that's a typical thing of claiming that you know something to elicit information from witnesses or from other people or agents or. And there are a number of things that have intrigued me that the in documents that we've looked at, you know, within Neds and Mars, we've looked at a number of quote of official documents that had very surprising things, you know. The NJ 12 documents, massive, and they contain a lot of them, where we can trace historically to an authentic document somewhere. And then along the way, somebody talks about flying saucers. And where did that come from? So did General Eisenhower, who was he briefed about flying saucers? And so you have always rumors and someone, you know, explained to me that if you suspect that there is someone with them, an organization who is an agent from the flying power. And you want to know, you know, a scientist at Los Salamos, a classified project. And you want to know if he's likely to leak information somewhere, you can plant a document that comes to his knowledge that has a number of keywords. And then you have somebody in Chikoslorakia, who looks at what comes in within a particular group or particular office. And if you see that keyword coming up, then you can, you have two, two parts of the link. You know, I've never been trained to learn about those things, but those are tricks that we know, you know, I'm not going to use any names, but we know people within the UFO community who were asked to work with researchers and so on to help do exactly that. I've read the documents and sought them. I was told by a member of the Academy of Sciences who had worked on UFOs. I asked him about the way the database from mass had vanished essentially. And he said, well, you know, it may be reborn somewhere in a salted stink. And I asked what he meant because I had never understood, I had never heard that concatenation of words. And he said, well, you know, you take data and you want to know who is going to use it. So you change the data. And then you, you alter the data, you destroy the data so that if it shows up somewhere, you know, you know, how it was, how it was neat or how it was used. And that, you know, I don't know about those techniques. I've never been trained in that, that kind of, you know, that kind of skill. And of course, that would explain why scientists don't want to get into this business because this is not the way science is done. You know, if I, if I, as you know, I've turned over all my samples to Dr. Norland at Stanford. So that we can continue to do the investigations together about those cases. We've started to publish as you know in number one, aerospace journal about the analysis of some of those cases. And you know, it's all cases where I have verified the history, I verified, you know, where they came from and how they were acquired to the best of my ability. And he knows that, okay, and he can, he knows he can trust that. Of course, you know, we, we may discover something in the analysis that tells us more about where it may have occurred naturally or whatever it is. That doesn't mean that all of it is valid, you know, a UF of data. But at least the data is clean to this level. He knows I'm not salty. And that's the way you do science. If those games are being played, as they seem to have been played with the BAS project in Las Vegas, then the data is useless, which means we have to start from the beginning. But, George, you know, it's been 14 years since the end of the BAS project. 14 years during which that database of 260,000 cases has disappeared. Now, suppose that somebody has a database and they may be very good people somewhere in a classified project and they want to use it. But, you know, in 14 years, many of those witnesses have died. They've moved. You can't find them anymore. You know, how are you going to validate the data because there are cases where you need to go back and find additional witnesses, you know, from that area. Well, all of that is gone. So, if somebody wanted to essentially derail the study we were doing, that would have been the way to do it. Even if you went to a new group of scientists, they didn't have the internal plan for the how the AI was going to be applied to the project. So, what I'm doing is, you know, I have all the data. It's not as good as, of course, as what BAS had done, that I have the original data that I had donated to the project, that I have the right to use it. And then a lot of it is actually public data. But, you know, I spent, as you know, a lot of years compiling it and reducing it to the right format. So, I've restarted to work on it, but to work on it by myself. Now, fortunately, you know, computers now are much more capable and they are, they have primitive AI. And, you know, my PhD was in AI from the days of Dr. Heinrich. So, I understand what you can, what you can do with hard physical data. And I'm doing it on my own now, just out of curiosity for the years that I may, I may still have. And I'm going to start publishing some results from that, you know, as Stan goes on. The first one was the presentation I made that saw, you know, a few weeks ago, we literally about that case, which is actually in, you know, in the report from the condom report that nobody has noticed because it's in the appendix of the condom report and everybody threw that out because they thought there was nothing there. Well, this is a case that's unidentified after extensive study by the Condon committee, both the physicists and the social science guys with, with analysis, with infrared photographs from aircraft at night and so on over that forest. And I have the wood, you know, I still have not, not here. It's safe place, but I have the wood that was impacted by the radiation from that object, which was an object in the forest. The witness was a nuclear physicist. So I put him in touch with Condon. Dr. Heiner, who had well in first scientist, were called to testify, you know, in Boulder before the Condon committee to breathe them on the history of all that. And I'm going to continue that study. We want to get the data from the wood. The data we've looked at it in France and we've published that paper with my French physics colleagues. It was taken to Sackler in France, which is the main atomic research facility. And we think that within the wood, there are layers of radiation intensity that the witness saw the object pulsating. And the calculations on the energy would give you something equivalent to the energy of the reactor at Diablo Canyon. And a sort of ball of light in the clearing in a pine forest at night when it was raining, temperature was close to zero. I mean, to freezing. And the thing was pulsating, but it was no more than two or three meters in Diablo. The witness being a nuclear physicist, young professor at a local university, you know, God the hell out of that. We was just driving home with his family. And all that was published in Condon we thought. No, not not all of that because they continued to do the research afterwards. They took wood from the trees that had been burned, but it's not a burn. It's a radiation impact. So they took the bark from the intact part of the tree. And they sent it to the government, you know, radiation expertise lab that returned it with no comment. They obviously had looked at it and didn't want to be involved. So I called the witnesses and I said, can I have it? This was a few years after the sighting and they said sure. So they sent it to me and I've kept it ever since. We have the report from the witness who had computed the energy and Dr. Condon recomputed the energy and found twice as much from the actual distances and so on. After they they have done that's in the common with. And again, that's a case that's not that you follow just that never talked about. So you have all the data. So I'm going to continue working on it. And I really don't need anybody else. I mean, I don't need big group. I don't need funding. I don't need anything. I can't just go ahead with my friends and do that. You wrote a book about a crash of Trinity 1945. It's 80 years ago. Where is that? They didn't just take it to the dump and cover it with dirt. Where is that object? We're hanging 18. Where do they keep it? And in the same thing. It was taken to Los Alamos, which is a logical place to take it. The book when it first came out was, you know, Trinity was with with Paula Harris, who had done four years of investigation before I got involved. So which is valuable because at that time, both of the witnesses were alive. By the time I got involved, Remy had died. But, you know, one witness is still, you know, very much, very much alive. And the book was criticized with some flaws in my, you know, I mean, it's my fault not digging fast enough in or deep enough into the actual documents. Critic, you know, good critic, good skeptic. They are good skeptics. The ones who actually do the work went and got a number of documents that show that there were some inaccuracies in what I had published. And now that happens in science, I mean, it happened to Einstein. So, you know, I'm not going to apologize too much for that, but I did go back. And now we have four more years of research on it. And we have verified, you know, all the information we could, you know, two cases where he's right about the actual name of the policeman who was there was not the name that the witness remembered. Okay, well, the witness is a little bit older than I am and, you know, memory plays games, but he was there with another policeman. And, you know, little by little, we've done all that. So, we've republished the book now with a lot more information that answers all those questions. But after 80 years, the government has not acknowledged that as being real. It doesn't tell us where that is. I think about Steven Spielberg, his magnificent film, Close Encounters, Lakom, the character based on you, arranges this meeting with aliens. If that event happened today, I don't believe the public would ever hear about it. Just as we have not heard about the object that crashed a Trinity for 80 years. Can you address the idea of secrecy, whether some level of secrecy is necessary. And where are we ever going to learn, you know, the physical objects are real, that the government's been stashing them away. And no matter how many times Congress asked questions or holds hearings, they're not going to tell us. Well, some of them are real. I respect that the research has been done by the, you know, Mewfound and Kufar's and I pro, especially in swan. They've gone to the site. They've interviewed the people. They've seen the traces. I've done some of that. You know, with colleagues. Recently, you know, where that you can still go to the site, some enough of the witnesses are still alive, that you can get your own data and make up your own, you know, your own decision about that. But I think a number of those cases are fake or they were, that doesn't mean that there wasn't an official report that they had been a UFO. But, you know, I remember that discussion with Dr. Heineck, you know, that there are cases. There are cases in the blue book files that are unidentified and classified very few of them. Most of the blue book files were unclassified from the beginning. That was a whole point was to reassure the public. No scientist bothered to look at them except Heineck and me and Dr. McDonald. But in those cases, you know, the classified cases, you know, I asked Dr. Heineck, well, you know, when, why is this particular case classified? Don't tell me if it's very something really secret. But, and he laughed, he said, well, you know, this is in the very early days, this woman in Alaska saw a light in the sky that was the big light at sunset. That was flying on a low and it was flying from east to west over Alaska. Well, you know, what would be flying from east to west at very high altitude over Alaska in the 50s? It would be an early U2. The Air Force knew that. It was reported as a UFO. So they, you know, they labeled it as unidentified UFO and they, you know, kept it as classified. So if you look at the file now, if somebody, you know, innocently goes back to the file, which are still there, they find this classified case, which by now has been declassified. And they find this UFO over Alaska, they are, you know, they are going to be very intrigued. If they don't know the backstory, that, you know, this woman innocently had detected, you know, a secret CIA aircraft. And of course, it's an identity. So you have to get into the details. You have to do the homework, you know, as you guys have done. And that's how you get to the truth instead of, you know, going off on the adventure somewhere. But it, you know, it takes time and you need to have the trust. It's all about trust. The fact that the, that there is something unique somewhere doesn't really, you, you have to, you cannot base it on secrecy because sooner or later somebody is going to sell it to somebody. You know, too many spies in Washington and so on. They, you know, that, again, that information will be sorted and changed and used. And that, that world is, that's not a world where you can do science. It's not a world where you can advance knowledge. Knowledge is based on trust. And if you want to build something that really changes, well, it's not by spreading misinformation around or making, making little secrets look like big secrets because sooner or later you be caught. I mean, that's not the way to do it. I think that in this, again, there is a place for secrecy that I respect. There is a place for classification of, of certain things that I respect. And I've always followed. But this is too big. I mean, it involves too many countries. It involves, if we keep secrets, where French are going to keep secrets, they already do. The Russians certainly are going to keep secrets and the Chinese even more. And then where do we go? I mean, everybody has part of the information. Jeremy. Yeah. So, Jacques, I wanted to talk with you a little bit about these days. A lot of people are saying that the UAP we're seeing are reverse engineered black projects. I gather from your answer that you don't think we've made a lot of progress with reverse engineering, the technology over the last 50 years you've been studying this. But more importantly, you say this is not a modern phenomenon that it crosses all cultures and all time that the UFO phenomenon is persistent, global and adaptive. That's something you talk about. And you've really, you've really proven that case by going back into antiquity in a couple of your books and talking about how people are seeing the same things back then that they're seeing now. One of those cases that you wrote about, and I wanted just to hear about it from you, is 1917 and the experience of Thadema, where most people, they portrayed it as a cultural or religious event. And you looked at it, you know, from the observations scientifically. Can you tell me how cases like Thadema in 1917, how they relate to the modern day UFO thing, explained us what happened in Thadema. How much time do we have? Thadema is very deep, both in terms of testimony. I mean, there were 80,000 people there, the last apparition. They didn't see the Virgin, they saw a disc, a silver thing between them and the sun. And everything dried up, there had been raining and everything dried up very quickly, which was surprising. And the social environment was remarkable, was really remarkable. It started by three shepherds, seeing just a ball of light, and then messages coming from an entity in that ball of light, primarily to one of them, Lucía, who was, these were kids. I mean, there were 10, 12, 13, just guarding the sheep. It's not really a poor vegetation, but they do have agriculture and sheep and goats. That's the setting where I took place. I went there with my wife, and saw the Basilica that has been built there, and also saw the area that really hasn't changed very much in terms of the vegetation and so on. And my coincidence, it was also a day where there was alternate rain and sunshine. The second, so first, they saw this, and then they had a number of meetings every month on the same day of the month. But some months are 30 days, some are 31 days. Well, it was always the same day. So, you know, whatever that phenomenon is, it has the same calendar we do, which is, again, one of those things you had, you know, why would that be? And which, of course, made people suspicious of the authorities. So, it built up. It came to a point where more and more people were going there, and the authorities were concerned because people say, well, Portugal, you know, that this is a super Catholic country. They believe in all those vehicles. So, the government in Portugal at the time in 1917 was socialist. They were not believers, they were not Christians. They were rather with, you know, more than the Leninist, you know, current, and all of Europe and so on. So, of course, 1917 is the time of the Russian Revolution. So, you have that coincidence of different things. They tried to prevent people from going back to the place, and that didn't work. That, at the last predicted operation, there were so many thousand people coming from all of the Portugal, with, you know, donkeys and cards carrying food and so on, sort of, the travel one. And, you know, entire families, and they were there. And that's what the fellow grabs. They showed this large crowd at the site. And then, at the indicated time, the sun was covered by a disc you could look at without being blinded, a silver disc. And then, they were brought to eating beans of color around that. They were, I have here, you know, the books behind me and in front of me, I have ten books about Fatima. They were mostly written by experts, hired by the church or by a churchman who were there, and interviewed the people. There were also non-believers. There were two scientists there who described what they saw. As everybody was kneeling around praying around them when these beams were going, they described it as a callimated beams, which is, you know, a perfect physical description of it in physics. So, those were, again, this is in the language of, you know, the physics professor. So, they were not believers. They were just describing an actual phenomena. There is testimony from somebody who was not interested in miracles. He was working in the fields a couple of miles away. He saw the sun was still in the sky. And he saw a disc between the sun and the crowd. And he testified to the ex. Unfortunately, there were no photographs in those days. So, that means very, very hard to have a camera that could capture that. There are photographs of the crowd, but not of the phenomena itself unfortunately. So, Professor Misen, who is a physicist and a uphologist from Belgium, I've worked with him over the years. And we disagreed about Fatima. And he said that Fatima was an after effect in the eyes of people from staring at the sun, because of the atmosphere being so thin. Well, when I was there, it had just been raining. There was a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere. I was there with my wife. And I stared at the sun a little bit too long. And I didn't have rotating beams. But I obviously saw colors and so on. And obviously it saturated my retina. So, I didn't stare at it obviously. But I couldn't understand that the atmosphere was very special, very thin, very saturated. And it could have done that. So, I don't know where I stand about Fatima. But, you know, I got more books. And there is a book that was written about the miracle of 1915, two years before. Two years before, three shepherds in the same area. In the same conditions, including one of those who were at Fatima in two years later. So, a globe of light, not the sun, the globe of light that came to the prairie, to the field. And out of that globe of light stepped a human angel. They perceived it as an angel. They gave them the feeling that he was an angel and he taught them a prayer. And he said that he should keep praying that particular prayer. And when he trained, they were going to a cave that was there. Of course, the sheep didn't care. And they wouldn't close them. And they went into that cave and they were praying and praying and going into sort of the second state. And they reported that and it was dismissed. And there were no other witnesses. And they were praying that interesting because very often in those prominent UFO cases, what you have to do is ask what happened before. Well, two years before the miracle at Fatima, there was this operation of this being of this teacher came out of essentially a, you know, a grove of light. Well, you know, we're getting reports now about groves of light moving around. Orbs. Now we call them orbs. So we have a new word for it. In those days, it was just a grove of light, you know, up to two meters in diameter. Well, you know, that's a complex series of things. Of course, the impact of Fatima, the impact of the miracles in Mexico and so on. Has been enormous. So and it's in many ways for a scientist. You know, there isn't much more that you can do. But the impact on humanity has been, has been important. The impact on belief. The year again was the year of the communist revolution in Russia. The Maria thought that she had communicated. She had heard communication from the Virgin. The Virgin appeared to her, not to her cousins who were with her. We saw the grove. And I think one of them saw the lady, but didn't hear the message. One of the messages was that Russia would be converted. Again, was 1917. A major country with a socialist government. That had forbidden people from coming there to see the alleged miracle. And they couldn't stop 80,000 people. So, you know, that's part of our history. It's part of your history. We can't just forget it. I mean, that kind of thing is important. The thing that, you know, that movie that was made about the case in Argentina is extraordinary. Because he, you know, he started making a movie about local traditions, local beliefs of the Indians. And this funny story about UFO. And I told him it's not a funny story at all. It's a complex story. And it's relevant. You know, we, they wanted to come interview me in San Francisco. And I said, well, for the same price, I can go to Buenos Aires. I still speak a little Spanish. And if you give me time, I'll relearn enough Spanish to talk to the witness directly. And, you know, he changed the thrust of the movie. And I think he's captured exactly what the problem is. And the message from the local people is what has touched me the most. You know, that we misunderstand all of that. We really misunderstand all of it. But immediately translating it as a threat. And I think there are cases where people have been injured. There is a potential way it could be a threat. There is radiation from it. I mean, that's well recognized in that last latest case I published. You know, with Dr. Nolan and with the group. The, maybe they don't care. We don't know what they are doing. I think the other cases that I'm looking at that are the very special cases where you will notice that that case. From 1966 to 1967. The skeptics have not attacked. You know, they have not. They have not attacked me on that basis because they know better. This is a case that has gone through the Academy of Sciences. Okay. After study by Dr. Condon. Who is regarded as someone who dismissed your efforts. So you get into the deep stuff, you know, when you touch those cases. And they are complex. But if you, if you can array the right tools and the right science around it, you can get to the truth. And that's what, you know, we've done with with Trinity. And I think that that story is not over. Let me try this again about the idea of disclosure. Locom the character and in closing counters based on your life. Arranges and coordinates this meeting between humans and nonhumans. And it's the start of a beautiful friendship. We hope there's exchanges there. If that happened today in real life, we would not be told your friend, Dr. Hal Putoff, our mutual friend, has admitted in a film that recently came out. And in public presentations that he was part of a brain trust during the first bush administration, the dad, not the son, where they all got together. These brainiacs and experts, they looked at all the evidence about the effects of disclosure. And at the end of it, even somebody like Hal said, I don't think it's a good idea. We, we shouldn't do it. Well, last time you and I spoke, Jacques back in April. And I asked you the question about it. And you said, we need to have some discussion before we just disclose. We need to consider the potential impact. You know what the reaction was. People wanted to scout me and probably do worse to you. Have you thought about disclosure, how it could happen, and how far we should go. Do you believe as Hal and his colleagues did that it probably could be disastrous and have terrible effects? But we have to take, well, let me go back a little bit. I knew about that meeting when it, when it happened in, in Washington. It wasn't a secret meeting. It was just, you know, one of those meetings that are done for. Essentially for backfill of information and testing of ideas and so on. So it, it happens frequently in futures research. You know, you, you simulate a situation. We did that when I was at the Institute for the future. We would get experts together frequently, you know, and present them with a future technology. And, and see what, what their reaction might be all simulated future technology. We did that with video conferencing a long time ago. And we published all that. And there, I have some problems with that meeting because yes, that's a logical conclusion. And I understand I had other friends in that meeting and they say the same thing that that Hal says. And they agree with the conclusion. I've done studies of crises in other areas and reactions to crises. And I had a little computer company for a while and was asked to testify about, you know, what happens during nuclear industry or nuclear crisis like three mile. And how we can mitigate those, those crises. My little company was running. There wasn't secret, but it wasn't advertised. But we were funded by the nuclear industry. Civilian nuclear industry for three years. To manage nuclear crisis. Now, a free island was known to the public. It was on TV and so on. Because it wasn't contained within the company. There were people in other companies who had experienced the same failure and they knew how to fix it. Except that they didn't have access to that particular company. There are 200 companies in the US running some sort of nuclear, nuclear plant or nuclear applications to, you know, electrical current. And to generate electric content. So they didn't communicate. As a result of three mile island industry got together and said we need to establish a link. And we had at the time, we were pioneers in computer conferencing and we had a system to link together up to 54. And online simultaneously 54 individuals or groups. So they funded us for three years. We had the dedicated computer. They did nothing about that. And we solved and extinguished a number of alerts that never became known to the press or the public. Because there was a simple way to fix it or there was a technical way to fix it that presented a crisis after an incident or an accident. The accident would be reported. The incident could be solved technically, you know, by people knowing the information. They knew the information from our computer. So we we ran that thing for three years and then we sold it to a larger company that's still running it. We had five countries by the way linked into this. Because they couldn't afford to the industry couldn't afford another three mile island. You know, it would have stopped nuclear power as an industry. Because it's scary. So I had the experience of that. What does it take to present that to the public? It takes again the key. The coin of the realm is trust. You know, I'm only enough to remember the end of what I was born at the beginning of what I want to. Remember the beginning. I remember the end. I remember the bombing. I remember the invasion of France. The reason France stayed together. Is that under the bombing under the invasion and all of that under the crimes. Was the goal. The goal had moved to London and started the resistance and made a link with the resistance. And there was trust. He was able to build trust. The mall. Everybody from. You know, the mostly he was on the right. It was accused of being on the extreme right. But he had the communist with him. He had the communist, my key. The resistance itself in the factories, in the trains, in the, you know, in the mines, so on. With, with him. And he had the, I mean, much of the administration that was still in place. And he had the army and the Navy. And could present something credible to us in our way. It came time for the invasion. Now, that's in many crises, in industrial crises, which I've lived through as, you know, as an investor. I mean, every, every startup has the series of crises. You know, even Google and Apple. I mean, look at Apple. What happened when Apple was essentially out of business. And they had no CEO. Well, you know, they, they brought back their initial CEO who had been dismissed by the board of Apple 10 years before. Okay. And, but by then he had learned something and he had the trust of the remaining people. And he rebuilt Apple into what it is today, which is admittedly the leading, you know, personal computer company in the world. So, the, that's what it takes is leadership. And that's a question that they didn't ask at that, at that test, you know, that my friends attended in Washington. It all depends if you, if you trust your leader, whether that's in war or in business. Or in the situation where the desperate situation like France and it was invaded became part of Germany essentially. The trust in the leader, you know, is the is the key factor. So the question is arising with UFOs, you know, is at the time when it becomes obvious that that. The phenomenon is here. Is there going to be a leader who can reassure the population and the scientific community, which right now is silent. It's absent, you know, it's not. I mean, it's part of all the, all the work that Dr. Nolan is doing that I've done that Dr. Heineck, you know, the professors are not following us. You know, they're staying in on their campus, doing their research. And they don't trust the UFO medium, you know, the UFO, they don't trust what they see on TV. And they have good reasons not to trust it. Because again, it all comes from, you know, the secret paying classified project. Somebody says, oh, I was part of a classified project that they did. Well, yeah, so they built a gadget that can, you know, I would perform a Russian work of fine. And I'm glad we have that technology. And I don't need to know how it works, but that's not what that farmer told me. You know, that farmer told me or in one particular case, some very sophisticated people, professionals, who saw that little light, little light, Roger. And then out of it came a craft, the size, the size of my apartment. And it left imprints on the ground. And someone I know went there the next morning when he heard that through the police. And he went there with plaster of Paris. And it took an imprint of the impact of the leg of the craft. And we had that. And it's about this big. Okay. And this high and it's round and it's perfectly wound on top. You know, that's mold from the thing before the dirt. You know, and at that point only the cops had the gendarm had access to it. And they they secure the area. It's an area that's 24 away anyway. I mean, it wouldn't be trampled by that. He was very of that very morning and he took that that that task. That's real. That's something we can study. There are of course in the cast. There are leaves of grass that are stuck to it. Well, you know, why don't we probe those leaves of grass to see. I know it's been many years, but maybe we can still do some some good with that. And they were four imprints like that. You know, the craft was about 45 feet in diameter. What was it doing there? So those are the cases I continue to work with. And really I don't need. I don't need anybody. I mean, I can I can find the labs. I can find people to, you know, help me interview the witnesses. I know the witnesses. I have interviewed some of them already. And you know, I can go back and do some more. You showed me a case. You showed me a case this morning as something you wanted to talk about. And when you showed me the image, it reminded me of a military image that George and I obtained and released to the public. Can you show me or show our audience that image and why that case is important? Can you show that to me right now? I'd rather keep it fairly quiet because I don't know any intro trends with it. So that. Oh, no, I'm talking about the photo that you said you wanted to talk about. Yes. That's that's also an interesting case because it happened in France in broad daylight. With a woman who was driving from her home to the family home with two girls in their early teens in the back of the car. The car had a roof was open, but there was a glass glass stop that was not open. So they were looking at the sky through the through the glass. And the ahead of the car. They saw an object coming towards them that looked like that looked like that's it was essentially. Essentially a star shaped. Today we would call it a drone. It was. It was strange because it seemed to be flying, but it stayed in the same position with respect to the car. And they. The woman had this old camera. And you can see the sky. There is a. There is a spot here that could be the shadow. And the the photo. The photo is not good enough, but we continue to work on it. And again, Dr Nolan has looked at this also and we're trying to work with the photograph to enhance it. If it's a shadow, it's interesting because we know the exact time. The woman is a professional woman. She is a marketing executive. She's worked in the US. She's French. She works with a company. The that's her camera, but she was driving. So she gave the camera to the girls on the back seat. And one of the girls took that picture through this glass. So it's not the ideal scientific conditions to take a photograph. But we have the photograph. That's the main thing. Yeah, what year was that? So this was about seven years ago. And you know, way before all the stories about drones and so on. So I said, can you know, you shouldn't report it to the French. You have a project that French research organization. And she said she wanted nothing to do with, you know, with the officials because again, she. Many people now in the US and in France and in other countries have gotten it that you see something you don't report it. You may report it to George, you know, to you or to me. If they're in contact with me, I get those reports. They don't go any further anymore because those people don't want to be known in the community as crazy. They don't want to be on TV. They don't, they really don't want to be ridiculed. They don't want to have to testify to the police and so on. They may report it anonymously or maybe not. Maybe openly to a group that they trust to a local, you know, for whom. And they were discussed like they're discussed with me. And they, she wrote to me about this because she had red night books about that. Yeah, yeah, that's amazing. A lot of people like us, we get a lot of the information and it doesn't go to places where we think it should. George, you remember this, it looks so similar to the one the military footage. This is a thermal image showing the heat signature. But when Jacques showed me that I had heard about the case, it's just amazing that there's still so much reporting going on. But it's not going to a central location like it would be useful, you know, for a scientific data. Anyway, George, what's your next question? Well, I'm, I go back to where we started, whether Jacques is hopeful. Now you've seen the peaks and valleys of public interest over the years. And you know, the public is really excited. There's a case that grabs their attention. They demand answers from the government. Congress reacts has hearings. There are commissions and studies. And then it all goes away. Is there a model that you would, you would recommend that could be used to push the topic forward? Jacques, I don't know if you know it, but we're coming up on the 30th anniversary of NIDS. The very first meeting of the Science Advisory Board is two weeks from the time when we are talking here today. Seems like NIDS was, was a wonderful model. And BAS was a wonderful model. But the fact that it had government money and in BAS, put limitations on where it could go. You had great freedom to follow the evidence where it led. But you're not allowed to share that information. Is there a model that you would recommend for how to move forward and finally get some solid answers? Yes. You know what you're describing is the public is chasing ambulances. People will say, oh yeah, you know, I heard of that case. But there was a new case just this morning on TV. Somebody took a picture at night of the light. And I say, well, you know, where was it? Oh, well, it was in Africa somewhere. Well, what time was it? You know, what direction was it? Does the picture show, you know, other things, planets? Oh, no, it's just right in the sky. You know, I mean, there is nothing you can do with that. At the same time, we have cases and I've documented, but you know, when I said, even with my colleagues at SAW, when I said, you know, I want the title of my talk, be 1966, Hansville. That's a title of my call. It's not, you know, the sensational thing that was in the common report. It's not, it's 1960s. And they said people will say, who cares about 1966? Well, okay, what about the wood that I have that I, you know, was last year, it was tested, you know, at an atomic lab in France. Okay. And we know there is new information in the wood from that tree. Okay. That we're going to continue working with. You know, those, the same thing in medicine, you know, people chase ambulances. Oh, there was a new case of, you know, COVID or something. Well, yeah, but if you, if you talk to Dr. Nolan, you say, well, COVID is just one of many, you know, many things that have developed and they come and go. And there will be more. Okay. Because that type of the type of biological entity is going to keep evolving and it will wear your pair and other things. And he's been doing research in Africa on other, you know, other things that are part of that family. So when you talk to the scientists, they, they're not looking at the last thing that was on TV, you know, they are looking at the history of it. And you need that's certainly, you know, I think my last responsibility in this field is to transmit some of that, which is why I wanted to talk about the 1966 hands-down case, you know, and really put it down. You know, we, we awaken it from its ashes and bring it, bring it forward. I think we, people need to get back into those books and, you know, and look at the old data. Should there be something like bass as a way to move forward, but with private money, not government money so that there are no strings attached? Well, the bass was painful. And we didn't expect that because the needs experience, you know, was essentially the most outstanding team I've ever worked with in science. You know, of course, com com Keller and the whole team and Dr. Putoff and so on. And Dr. Green, all of us, you know, had special days, but we all brought something to the to the meeting. And when it became thus, all of us, not only, you know, had that knowledge, but and background from this, but we had top secret answers, you know, with a few things attached to it. So at that point, you know, we couldn't talk to each other anymore. I mean, Dr. Green worked on my, my data warehouse. Now, for two years, expanding it in certain areas, I consulted him about the structure that users would want in different disciplines. And I implemented it based on the structure that the specialists gave me, which is what you're doing, you know, computer guy. And but then there were new cases coming in and I never knew about the different structure. And I never knew about that. So I couldn't adapt dynamically the structure as I would have adapted it. If we had been that IBM or TNT or in any, you know, in an open company, because there were barriers. And I didn't know about these cases. In fact, I still know about these cases. So, and at the end of the other people didn't know what I was doing, apart from, apart from that. And with other cases. And so that that structure, again, coming back to the beginning is fine. If you're a small group of people developing a new weapon or a new radar, you know, you all know each other, you know what you're building. And that information can be contained and you're all in the same room, working on the same device. This is not it. We need to open the doors and the windows. I'm not going to be a part of any, any new secret, you know, I'm done with that. And that comes up with UFO samples, you know, and it's ridiculous. I have samples that are part of the case that people in other countries, and I could name, are keeping secret. And I don't know what they've done with their samples from the same case. So I'm not going to tell them what I'm doing with my samples or the ones I gave Dr. Nolan. But it's ridiculous because we can't make any progress. And their stock was their samples. They think they are the only ones who have, who know about that case. Now, I went to that place. I spoke to the witness and the witness was smart enough to give them. He had five pieces of stuff that he picked up when they came, you know, there are government plays. They came there and they said, we need the thing. And of course, what we're turning to you after analysis, which is what they all say. Now, don't believe that. They never do. They may return something that they've taken the good stuff in the meantime. And they may return something to you that has nothing to do. And you know, that happened in Socorro, you know, in that case. Well, the actual stuff that was, when I was picked up by Dr. Stanford and Dr. Heiner was never returned to them. And they were told, you know, just a fairy story about what was found there. It was silica. But it wasn't silica. And they fooled everybody to get it to the secret lab. And it's presumably still there. Dr. Stanford died in the meantime. And, you know, we don't know where the actual samples are. We'll never get them. So, finally, that the witness kept the number five sample. And I was offered the number five sample. And which was, you know, which was about this, this big. And I said, I don't need all that because Dr. Nolan is looking at very small things. So I just need, you know, a few grams of it. So we carved out. I said, keep it. I don't want responsibility to take anything for customs. You know, you keep it. I'm sure you're going to take a few grams of it. And that's what we have. Now, the people back there are surprised that I'm talking about that case because they think they have the only samples. And they are secret. Well, too bad. But they are not, you know, maybe there's our secret. But my, my isn't secret. So we, you're running to this kind of stupid situation. And that's why, why scientists are not going to get involved. You know, you can't do science that way. You're not going to get, you know, your, your university, your lab, your students involved in something. And then at the end of it, you find it's a hoax by the DIA or something to fool the Russians about something. And the whole thing was a joke. And you know, you're not going to risk your career. You know, what that kind of thing. And I don't blame them. I've tried to pin you down on this question for as long as I've known you. It's about the control system. A theory that you proposed, I have pathosis you proposed more than 50 years ago, that there is some sort of a control system imposed on humanity on earth from somewhere else. That it limits what we can do. And whether earthlings are aware of it, whether they like it or not, it's there. Is there a way to test that and have you have you done so? Well, that, that idea comes from a discussion I had in France with, with scientists and with, and, because I was showing them the statistics when I had. And as you know, I've done a lot of computer work on this looking at the in the inner structure, not not the raw data, the filtered data. After you get all that 90% you know, delusions, illusions, cows, moon, all that out of it. And you end up with the hard data. The hard data follows a periodicity, which is very strange, that, that looks like an induction sequence. And some psychologists looked at it and said it looks like a schedule of rain force with. And I said, what's the schedule of rain force with the night set me down and got me to read Skinner and the whole psychology, you know, thesis about, about the induction of changes in behavior in animals and in humans. And, you know, with things that repeat, but don't quite repeat the same way all the time. And that's what the, the inner structure, that's what I was hoping we would get to with that. And that's the thing that was cut off, you know, and essentially taken from us with no explanation. Before we could get to read that, that's the secret, that's a big secret. Now, when I discussed it in France, I said, well, you know, a schedule of reinforcement or a mechanism like that can be natural or it can be artificial. Nature presents us with lots of control systems. You know, in this room has a control system, you know, that controls the temperature. If I step out on the balcony, you know, I'm going to get a completely different temperature. The temperature inside here is controlled. If I wanted to test it, I could like to fire, you know, warm up the temperature inside and see if something controls it and dampens it down. So I can do a test of that. Of course, the environment is a series of control systems. And many people don't believe that the environment is changing. And there are scientists who for the last 50 years have said yes, the environment is changing. And you know, insects from Africa now showing up in Paris. You know, well, how did they get there from the Sahara? Well, they got there because temperature of France is going up to degrees in a few years, two degrees in a few years. That's a control system that it's not an evil group that's doing that. It's just the planet is doing that. It's the environment. So, you know, UFOs could be from the environment. There could be classmates many people say, you know, there is many UFOs manifest the way classmates would be manifesting. So go to physics lab and ask the professor, you know, what's a what's a blob of plasma, you know, and he'll give you, you know, a bunch of equations. And you say, well, how come it can last for 10 minutes? And he doesn't have an answer to that because it certainly shouldn't last for 10 minutes according to our physics. So even that is a mystery. So, but the UFOs were talking about are not that. I mean, they are artificial. We have to believe they are artificial. And if they show up according to a schedule of reinforcement in distinct waves over distinct countries, then it's an intelligent system. And that's where my sort of control systems comes from. The question is, can we interact with it or not? Are we being trained for something the way a scanner reinforcement schedule with trained a mouse or a man to learn something? And one of them said, look, look at the university. I mean, a university is a control system. But if you apply for your PhD, you don't know what you have to do to come out as a doctor. They don't really give you the steps. You know, when you in the rural classes, you have to get good notes, good grades to graduate, and then you graduate. Not so at the PhD level. Many people have gone from PhD studies and they never got the degree. And they don't know why they didn't get the degree. But there was something in the process, which was not written down anywhere where they didn't get the degree. So, I spoke to Jacques Persier, who had been in a concentration camp. He was a French spy. He was a French. He helped build the first scientific, uh, uh, asconage, Nacquardt against Germans, you know, with the discovery of heavy water and where heavy water came from and everything else was involved involved in that he was caught. He was put in a concentration camp. He was a Jew. He was tortured. And he said in those constantly he was in three different concentration camps. They wanted to know, of course, what the French were doing. He didn't tell them so they kept torturing him, which was their idea of a control system. They said it was a closed control system. And we think of concentration camps as a closed control system. Then he said we're wrong. One time in one of his concentration camps, the, uh, all of a sudden the firemen from Munich were brought there by the Nazi. The firemen of Munich were not happy and they were on strike. The Nazi arrested all of them and moved them to the concentration camp for three weeks. They didn't know they were going to be released after three weeks. That they were put in the same regime as the, um, inmates of the concentration camp. After three weeks, there were no longer on strike and they were driven back to Munich. So he said the culture of Shoshankant was like a university. You know, when you could graduate. But I didn't know that because you know they were torturing me pretty much every day. That's reality. Okay. That's that's human reality. He fortunately survived. He escaped. And he went on to be a prominent advisor to the goal and prominent publisher in Paris. That's, you know, that's a real experience. Um, he was in a, he said that was the control system. But it could be open or closed depending on the conditions. He said, I think UFOs may be the same thing. They may be open to some people and the certain conditions that they control. They, we certainly have spoken to people who were confronted with entities that were open to discussion. Um, there, there are cases that I know, uh, where there were, this happened in government facilities. But nobody's talking about that. So I suspect that that's true based on the people I've met. But there were not the people who were running the programs. So I cannot be completely sure. But what they described to me is a very sophisticated process by which we may be able to interact with the entities. Those are not the entities that are described at Trinity in, in, you know, in, in my book. And with Paul Harris, they are not the entities that were caught in Brazil. That, that are, you know, in that documentary. They are, they may be the controlist, or maybe the higher level entity. But if, if what I'm told is true, the communication with them is very sophisticated and it's complex. So there may be a group that I would respect that has access to that. And this was from years ago, by the way, I mean, that report of that, that particular interaction was more than 20 years. And it, in the labs somewhere in control conditions. If that's true, then there is a process ongoing where we may be able to acquire information at a very sophisticated level. And that would be, you know, that could be a reason for stalling, called disclosure until there can be a rational way that we're not comfortable with something. So overpowering that it would destroy our culture and our society. I mean, we have enough to deal with with AI these things, which is, you know, a foreign entity potentially. But so you're saying you've been made aware that there is a government project. Maybe it was 20 years ago that was able to establish direct communication with a non human intelligence. And that you believe this information to be true. And that, and that this is a reality. This is what you understand to be true. Is that correct? I cannot tell. Yes. Yes. It's factual. What I cannot tell is whether that the entity that was presented was a simulation of the real entity or whether it was the real entity. The people I spoke to couldn't probe it to see if it was made of flesh or metal or some vehicles. But it was presented to them in a secure facility that I've never heard of anywhere else where there was structured interaction with it on a continuing basis by specialists from different areas. And the person I spoke to was an extreme, you know, specialist in particular discipline. And not another casual observer. And so that could be kind of one of the reasons we have to be careful or there's a slow rollout of disclosure because you're saying we might already have communication with some forms of communication on ways to engineer communication at a sophisticated level. And the entities from Trinity, you know, obviously scared they were not the controllers of the craft. The witness we still alive, you know, we've become close friends with them went inside as a kid. I mean, it was a very curious, very smart kid. We knew his, as he says, still today, I know my territory. You know, this is the land from his family. He knows that ranch, he knows the cattle, he knows where the water is, he knows everything about it. And you know, when he was inside, there was essentially nothing except a very crude thing that we actually have, which, and we disagree about what it is. But I think it's something that the soldiers, that the military brought and they forgot to take it back. But I don't think it's a sophisticated, with tested it in the lab, it's what we spend over $10,000 testing it in silicone and a labs. And it's just perfectly normal gadget. It's not mysterious at all. You know, it may have been there just for the convenience of the soldiers doing work at night or whatever. But I don't think it's part of the original, of the original manufacturing equipment, you know, of whatever it was. The craft itself, we had very good description of it. By the way, the shape and the, you know, the look and feel as people say in silicone valley is identical to the one in so coral and it's identical to the one in Valenzog. So we have three cases there. No, it's funny is when people were describing it in a newspaper and they always hire an illustrator and the illustrator always draws a disc. And none of those was a disc. It was X-shaped. The witnesses, you know, called it a Navocado. They were obviously speaking Spanish. And they, you know, they call it a Navocado. It was not quite oval, but it was an oval, you know, normal shape. There was nothing inside. If there was an engine, it would have been under the floor. And they looked in under the, under the thing when it was in the truck, in the army truck, it was on the side to go under the overpass. I mean, all that is very clear. I mean, there's nothing bizarre about it. And they could see the underside. The underside was intact. And there was no opening. And it would have been about two feet deep and maybe six feet long. That's where you could put an engine. And, you know, when bass was initiated, the task given by the DIA for us was to look at, you know, proportion. And wait and all kinds of things that would be the ordinary things that you'd want to know about a rocket. Those things don't have potassium. You know, that you could go, if you master, you know, if you talk to a modern physicist, talk to Eric Davis, you know, who knows all of this stuff, you'll tell you, you know, time and space are fine to do equations, you know, in school. Now, that's not what physics is about. And in the universe, you could go from one point to another without any propulsion system to take you from one to another in the sense of way, think about propulsion with engines of fuel and so on. If you master the, you know, the super space, you could move from one point to another. I mean, what do I do with my computer? I mean, I can be in Romania tomorrow with my computer. Right. And in remote viewing, I've been moved to places, you know, buying or swan just by reading a set of coordinates. And I've experienced the physical data about that site physically in my body. I didn't have any rocket. I didn't take the train. I didn't take a plane. No, he just read longitude and latitude. And I felt frozen. I felt vertical. I told him, Ingo, I can't go on. I mean, this is, this is very uncomfortable. I think I'm going to fall. Then inside, he said, Jack, go home. You, you got the site. I said, Ingo, where did you send me? And he said, you're at the top of the peak in the end. So you should be calm. You should be afraid of falling. You should feel wind around you, which I was feeling. And I wasn't in that classified room. You know, on the third floor, there was a mental part. He was at the end of the table. I was at the other end of the table. Then all we had was white paper and a pen. And he read to me a set of coordinates. And I was there. And you said pretty amazing. Yes, pretty amazing. And I said, you know, I'm on the roll here. You know, let's go. This was, you know, early in the morning. And he said, no, I want you to, I don't want to do another site. I want you to stay with that because you, you went to the site. Okay, well, if, if the human can do that, it's not with my mind that I did that. It's with my, my, my body was trembling and was freezing. And I was afraid to fall and there was wind. Okay. Now, if, if a number of people had described that, ingo, describe that, you know, your regular describe that. I couldn't do it again. I mean, I'm not a trained remote viewer. But I, you know, we spent a year within going through a number of cases like that because he wanted it wasn't to train me. It was to train his methodology because he was going to publish his, his method, you know, of going through step by step. But when that, most of the time we went step by step and he wanted to see how good he could refine it with somebody who was not a remote viewer, but understood what we knew doing was by spontaneous. And I, in that particular case, I, I broke the methodology. That that was accidental, but I know you can do that. Yeah, you, you've experienced that now, which is different. Jacques, after 50 years, right, you're looking at the F.O. phenomenon. And you're, you're seeing that it's so vast. And you've looked at it through a lens that, that most people haven't one time. You came to my ranch in Pioneer Town, California, and we were sitting out watching the sunset. And you said something to me. And I want to see if you still feel the same way. I asked you, what is it that we truly know about UFOs at all the research you've done. What is it that we actually know for a fact? And you said there's, there's only one thing that we know for sure about UFOs that they represent an enormous amount of energy in a very, very small amount of space. That's what you told me then that was probably 10 years ago at this point, maybe eight years ago. Do you still feel the same way after all that? More and more and after doing more research on that case that I presented that saw, you know, we've continued to talk to physicists about this. They, they really don't care about energy. People are coming up and publishing models of how you could use, you know, thermal nuclear energy in such a way that you could go very fast or you could manipulate things in the atmosphere. This is not it. I mean, it's your thought to do that. I mean, if it inspires people to build those theories, that's good. I mean, they shouldn't stop. But that's not that's not it. Jeremy, I have no conscience. I feel no guilt about exploiting Jacques as much as we can. I'll keep him here for two days. You however have a big heart. So maybe you want to wrap it up with a final question or say goodbye. Yeah, absolutely. You know, Jacques, I just wanted to say, you know, thank you so much for coming on. You have created such a huge impact on the way that we look at the UFO phenomenon, which you yourself admit we still don't know much about. But I'm going to ask you the same question to end this episode that I asked you on my ranch that day. And I hope you can give me a better answer than when I was at you are at my ranch, which is, are we asking the right questions. And if not, what is the questions we should be asking about UFOs. I think the right question is probably not just in our brains. You know, it's really it's a phenomenon that is forcing us to look at our culture, look at, you know, what we do in wars, what we do in business, what, you know, everything is going to be. In question, not just the physics, it's not just propulsion, it's our culture, our hopes, our visions of, you know, of God of other powers. And then what we're going to be facing when we go into the solar system and beyond the solar system. And are we really prepared to do that? I mean, just look at, you know, the silly things we do about the mood right now about just going to our closest satellite. And I think that's that's what's in question. And the answers have to come from us, you know, not them. Are you going to get answered down to fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the relationship, you know, we think of them as invaders from Mars, they came here from somewhere way out there as opposed to that they have coexisted with us throughout human history. There is a one big question, one hypothesis that's very tangible is that they can be try time travelers, all that maybe there is no time that maybe what they are teaching us now. David tells me the same thing. And that basically the universe is not a space time universe that it's the what we perceive at space and time is a derived quality from something else, which is much larger. And you know that we we have we have difficult to intersege with our senses. Now that may be the level where we have to continue exploring to really come to a point where we can communicate with whatever is whatever is there. But we can trust the witnesses and we have to get away from that feeling that this is only a threat. I think it's dangerous. I think we learn more and more about it as time goes on. And I think we have to learn to go have it with it and we have to learn to communicate with it. Thank you, Jacques, for your continued work. Thank you for your friendship and the things you've shared with us. I hope that we get some satisfaction within our lifetimes that more of this will come out, but none of it will, unless we keep trying to understand the phenomenon. So thank you so much for being here with us. you