Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?

Bigelow! Postmortem Survival!

I seriously didn't cherry-pick the Journal. I just opened the contents for 2nd listed issue at random. I saw the mention of Roswell and screen shot the page. It was only after I had posted that I saw the Skinwalker Ranch alums Bigelow and Kelleher.
I've ordered a copy of The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence Hardcover – November 1, 1999. This reportedly has a section dealing with the Council Bluffs case. Maybe this will clear up some things.
Arrived, and it's no help at all. It uses the 1998 Vallee article as the sole source and just takes it literally. All the same info; including the street address and the false claim that the material was carbon steel.

The carbon steel claim is then included in a list of materials from other cases. Page 253 - Table 27-3 - Summary Of Sample Composition. This is sloppy, and I have no confidence that the evidence from other cases is based on anything real either.
Last edited:
Article - Time Magazine - Society for Scientific Exploration

Posted Tuesday, May. 24, 2005

Roger Nelson's formal credentials are in the respectable field of experimental psychology, but the project he has been working on since 1998 would make plenty of scientists cringe. Nelson heads the Global Consciousness Project, which is based on the theory that emotionally charged world events will cause blips in the output of random-number generators scattered around the globe. He and his colleagues believe they have already documented that effect in the aftermath of Princess Di's death, the 9/11 attacks and, more benignly, in the wave of international optimism that seems to settle over the world each New Year's Day. The simple electronic devices that generate the random numbers, he argues, may be picking up some sort of planet wide field of consciousness.

Nelson would have a tough time getting this stuff published in a major journal like Science or Nature. But he doesn't have to, thanks to an organization called the Society for Scientific Exploration, or S.S.E., which held its annual meeting outside Gainesville, Fla., last week. The location--a Best Western overlooking Interstate 75--wasn't quite so lavish as the conference centers where neurologists or physicists routinely meet. Yet that didn't seem to matter for the hundred or so researchers who came to hear learned talks on, among other things, consciousness physics, astrology and parapsychology. Here, and in the society's Journal of Scientific Exploration, such topics are standard fare, alongside research on reincarnation, UFOs and near-death experiences. Pretty much anything that might have shown up on The X-Files or in the National Enquirer shows up first here.

But what also shows up is a surprising attitude of skepticism. "We get plenty of nonsense," admits Charles Tolbert, an astronomer at the University of Virginia and the S.S.E.'s president. "Sometimes you know just five minutes into a talk that it's absurd. But you also hear things that make you think." Like Tolbert, many of the scientists here are on the faculty at major universities, and were doing fine at conventional research. But sometimes that gets boring. "I was plodding along, adding a little to a large body of knowledge," says Garret Moddel, an engineering professor at the University of Colorado. "Doing experiments on parapsychology is a lot more interesting and potentially much more important."

At the back of their minds, those researchers always remember that the scientific establishment has a long history of scoffing at big, implausible ideas that ultimately turned out to be correct: the assertion that the Earth orbits the sun, the idea that brain-wasting diseases are caused by misshapen proteins, the proposition that hand washing can prevent doctors from transmitting disease, the claim that continents can drift across the surface of the world--all these and more were scorned at first.

While S.S.E. members know that scorn doesn't prove that a controversial idea is right (people laughed at Darwin, after all, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown), it doesn't prove an idea is wrong, either. "What we do," says Nelson, "is give everyone a respectful hearing. If we think a speaker is doing bad science, we consider it our duty to criticize it. We get our share of lunatics, but they don't hang around long."

Given this remarkable mix of acceptance and skepticism, it's not so surprising, then, that Henry Bauer, the editor of S.S.E.'s journal and a dean emeritus at Virginia Tech, wrote the definitive treatise debunking Immanuel Velikovsky, whose best-selling books in the 1950s argued that Old Testament miracles were triggered by close encounters with Venus. But it's also not surprising that that same Henry Bauer has published papers arguing that scientists have ignored powerful evidence that the Loch Ness Monster is real.

A mixed bag. Anything from true eccentrics to guys who want to get some entertainment. I feel that the skepticism - or rigor - is situational and inconsistent. On the whole, not anything you can really hang your hat on.
Last edited:
Re: Peter A. Sturrock
Sturrock has been a prominent contemporary scientist to express a keen interest in the subject of unidentified flying objects or UFOs.

Sturrock's interest traces back to the early 1970s when, seeking someone experienced with both computers and astrophysics, he hired Jacques Vallee for a research project. Upon learning that Vallee had written several books about UFOs, Sturrock—previously uninterested in UFOs—felt a professional obligation to at least peruse Vallee's books. Though still largely sceptical, Sturrock's interest was piqued by Vallee's books. Sturrock then turned to the Condon Report (1969), the result of a two-year UFO research project that had been touted as the answer to the UFO question. Sturrock commented that, "The upshot of this was that, far from supporting Condon's conclusions [that there was nothing extraordinary about UFOs], I thought the evidence presented in the report suggested that something was going on that needed study."

The book: The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence
According to the Preface to the book, it had its roots in a "workshop" held by members of The Society for Scientific Exploration.

Article from Journal of Exploration, Vol. 12, NO. pp. 179-229,1998

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a Workshop
Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 - October 4, 1997
Article in Journal of Scientific Exploration · January 1998
page 3_Page_03.jpg

It seems that this book grew out of that conference and Vallee's 1998 article is a part that process. The book also uses the Vallee article on the Lake Cote UFO Aerial Photo.

I'll talk about some failings of that Vallee report:
-The claim that he had access to the original camera negative is unsupported and I don't believe it. He had access to a negative, not the negative.
-His claim that the image could not be the result of dark room techniques only rules out the crudest kind of technique. Deliberately misleading, or the result of not knowing much about photography (and not bothering to educate himself)?
-He doesn't talk about the possibility that the image is the result of a physical flaw on the original camera negative.

I think Sturrock has relied too much on the honesty and competence of Vallee as an investigator. How can you analyze data that is so flawed and expect it to yield anything of value? His skepticism is inconsistent.
Last edited:
Re: Peter A. Sturrock

Just to review, Sturrock is a Stanford guy and college of Nolan. In the '80s Sturrock became the custodian of the "meta-material" (bits of magnesium) supposedly recovered from a 1957 UFO crash in Ubatuba Brazil. Sturrock, and others, spent decades trying to find any evidence of the Ubatuba crash besides one anonymous letter that accompanied the "meta-materials", all to no avail.

Nevertheless, he and Nolan have continued to conduct experiments on these bits of junk, with no known origin and tainted chains of custody, over the years because they MIGHT be from a UFO. Just like the in the paper being discussed here.

And to review the paper cited above once more:


Is followed up with:


Afte 7 investigators presented the panel with all kinds of evidence of UFOs, the panel concluded "there was no convincing evidence" for UFOs, but let's keep looking anyways.

You can't make this up.
It seems like a kinky pleasure. It's wrong, but it feels so good to be bad once in awhile.
Last edited: