It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I do not believe that any government has the answer to the UFO problem, although several governments must have the proof of its reality.
Autograf
After reading back a few pages to see if there was anything new, it appears that posters are still mistaking "control system" for "the Man controlling us, man!" It may have been better if Vallee had chosen a phrase less prone to misinterpretation. Then again, he was talking over the heads of most people to begin with...about a topic which is famously inaccessible.
I'm currently reading Confrontation, which has been hinted to have a lot of stuff 'between the lines', and really seems to answer a lot of the recurring questions in this thread.
In the first 30 pages this gem appears:
I do not believe that any government has the answer to the UFO problem, although several governments must have the proof of its reality.
He also notes that he won't touch the three related topics of cults, cattle mutilation and government activity. And that he has files on cases too disturbing to release before further verification and contemplation. This was in 1990, it would seem he's had plenty of time to contemplate by now!
He describes the UFO problem as "dangerous" and "technologically complex", and that investigation of 100 unpublished cases including nearly half interviewed with primary sources, left him with "clarity".
This is gonna be good!
He talks about this case, which I had a picture sitting around for:
edit on 20-2-2014 by Autograf because: (no reason given)
I decided to celebrate my recent 75th birthday anniversary by sharing with you something I discovered years ago: The September 4, 1971 photo of an alleged UFO over Lago de Cote in Costa Rica shows a prosaic object , not an anomalous one.
Thanks to Chris O'Brien's unsolicited comments on The Paracast for bringing me out of the closet on this.
I hope you will consider this letter a positive thing and not a negative one, because in scientific work, as in life, one must filter 'noise' to better monitor 'signal'. Perhaps you will agree after carefully studying what I have to say and present, that the Lago de Cote photograph belongs only in the archives of UFO studies as an example of how a photo that is a hoax and therefore constitutes nothing but 'noise', can for a time become esteemed by some as important evidence.
One would expect some rather dramatic kinetic after-effects on the lake surface, even into the next photo. None are visible. Surely if it were at the surface of the lake, we would see some light-absorption-reflection differentials on the lake surface near the object, due to the fast arrival and sudden stop (no matter if it arrived from below the surface or from any direction above it), but none are evidenced in the photo. And the authors admit there is no trace of a shadow.
Famous 1971 Lago de Cote UFO a Hoax?
Bybyots
I know this is not going to be very popular but I feel that I need to add the stuff as my opinion is a direct result of participating in these threads, so I feel that this is the only proper place to put the feedback I'm generating...
corsair00
I just want to point out that Dr. Jacques Vallee is largely responsible for the birth of the internet and the pioneer computer programming associated with it at S.R.I. The connection to covert ops, the occult and paranormal and the internet is a very shadowy connection indeed.
In fact, it is my recent suspicion that Vallee is very much involved, and has been all along, in top secret facilities working on advanced computer technologies in association with either the National Security Agency or whatever term you want to use for the "shadow government".
For those who consider Palmer to be “the man who invented flying saucers” (as ufologist John Keel has dubbed him), the Shaver episode speaks for itself. It was the succès de circulation of a magazine editor who has been described (by skeptic Martin Gardner) as “a shy, good-natured, gentle, energetic little man with the personality of a professional con artist,” whose “primary motive was simply to create uproars that would sell magazines.”
As far as leaving ufology because he was too old. Maybe in the "I'm tired of this conundrum and all the backbiting" maybe. One probably doesn't find oneself too old for ufology but sharp enough to be successful in venture capitalism.
Bybyots
I know this is not going to be very popular but I feel that I need to add the stuff as my opinion is a direct result of participating in these threads, so I feel that this is the only proper place to put the feedback I'm generating...
A couple of years back when we were talking about KG and the aviary and the linguistics stuff came up I went on my own little personal tear looking for where Jacques had f-ed up. Everybody does, it's just that Jacques is such a nice dude that even I found that it was counter-intuitive to try and analyze the guy for mistakes. But I made myself.
What I found, for one thing, is that the Lago De Cote photo is a hoaxed photo...
I definitely appreciate the skeptical perspective especially for someone who goes almost unquestioned. And there are probably other things we could call him out on, and I'll be looking for them as I read and reread his material.
However, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion of the analysis of the Lago De Cote photo. The debunking attempt makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions, in my opinion. I can go into detail if you like.
However, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion of the analysis of the Lago De Cote photo. The debunking attempt makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions, in my opinion. I can go into detail if you like.
Autograf
I definitely appreciate the skeptical perspective especially for someone who goes almost unquestioned. And there are probably other things we could call him out on, and I'll be looking for them as I read and reread his material.
However, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion of the analysis of the Lago De Cote photo. The debunking attempt makes a lot of unwarranted assumptions, in my opinion. I can go into detail if you like.