Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Fall Asleep to UFO Stories 10 Hours ★︎ The Phenomenon History & Lore Sleep Playlist

Episode Date: September 6, 2024

Fall Asleep to UFO Stories 10 Hours ★︎ UFO History & Lore Sleep Playlist ★︎ IMPORTANT LINKS: - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Become a YouTube Member Here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Join TOEmail at https://www.curtjaimungal.org Follow TOE: - NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: https://www.curtjaimungal.org - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theoriesofeverythingpod - TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theoriesofeverything_ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs - iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 - Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP - Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e - Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything Support TOE: - Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!) - Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE - PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE - TOE Merch: https://tinyurl.com/TOEmerch #sleep #ufo #ufos #sleepmusic #sleepsounds #sleeping #ufosleep #sleepplaylist #aliens #alien #uap Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a creator, I understand the importance of having the right tools to support your business growth. Prior to using Shopify, it was far more complicated and convoluted. There were different platforms, different systems, none of them meshed well together. However, once we made that switch to Shopify, everything changed. What I like best about Shopify is how seamless the entire process is from managing products to tracking sales. It's so much easier now and it's streamlined our operations considerably. If you're serious about upgrading your business, get the same checkout we use with Shopify.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories all lowercase go to Shopify.com slash theories to upgrade your selling today that's Shopify.com slash theories whose Beetlejuice don't ever say that name I'm serious if you say that name three times really bad stuff is gonna happen I'm serious. If you say that name three times, really bad stuff is gonna happen. Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

Ah-ha! The juice is loose. This Friday... Are we doing this? The wait... Let's go, honey. ...is over. Thank you all for coming to this very special occasion.

I felt a little tingle. Ew. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Friday. Here's where we go off into the deep end, but I'm just going to say this. Knowledge is being kipped from a huge chunk of the human race. I don't think this is a new phenomenon to mankind. I think we've been faced with this phenomenon for quite some time. Has there been the possibility of an infiltration by some of them into our world?

If this species truly exists, this phenomenon is actually something, is that one of its attributes is its ability to manifest or ability to manipulate its own life force energy. It is way past time. So many humans who are having experiences and we now need to fill in the gaps and tell the truth. I'm talking to people inside the legacy program who tell me frustratedly with great emotion, how much as scientists, they care about the fact that this knowledge is being kept from a huge chunk of the human

race, that only a select cadre of people inside the intelligence and military establishment are privy to this information. And they think, they tell me it's unwarranted, it's unjustifiable. They acknowledge that we should not let our potential adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, gain access to such dangerous technologies. But they see no reason why the human race can't be told what they tell me is the truth, which is there are NIHIs, non-human intelligences, that have been engaging with this planet for many, many thousands of years, thousands, not tens of thousands. Oh,

well I can't specify tens of thousands. I've just, you know, it would be more than tens of thousands. I mean, they've been with us for time immemorial. I'm told no millions. That's your, that's your words, my friend. I don't know. I don't know for sure. But the, the simple fact is I'm kind of, I'm bored with this debate at the moment. You know, I, I, I don't care anymore.

I just think, you know, people, there's a fundamental failure here of oversight. I know a lot of people are going to get excited with what this new legislation says. And I want to deal with that because I think it's important that we talk about it. But I have a gut feeling that Congress's heart is not in this. And that the lobby, the powerful military lobby that wants this suppressed is winning. And sure enough, they've got their shills out there in social media. They've got their friends in the media.

You know, every national security correspondent is being told on the QT, stay away from this one, you know. On the QT? On the quiet. Can you explain how this works? Yeah, sure. I mean, I've reported on national security issues. The thing I find hilarious is, let's use an analogy.

Let's talk about what happened at the time of the last Gulf War, shortly after the Al-Qaeda attacks 2002, 2003. For some reason that has never been even now fully properly explained. Al-Qaeda became Iraq and Afghanistan, and we ended up launching totally disastrous wars into both of those countries based on intelligence from sources. Okay? Now, ask yourself, credulous national security reporters who have since been hung out to drive for their failure to do their job properly accepted assurances from the CIA, from Cole Powell and his testimony to the UN. This was an important moment where the world was essentially strict into going to war against

Saddam Hussein on the false claim that he had weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert. That was all sourced back largely in part to one guy called Curveball. That was his code name, Curveball, a guy based, I think, somewhere in Germany, who was a refugee. It turned out he was a put-up by the Iraqi National Congress, who were essentially a group that were largely aligned with Iran. Because of credulous national security reporters not doing their job, a source led the world to war in the Middle East. Billions of dollars have been expended in an unnecessary war. Hundreds of thousands of lives of good people have been lost

in an unnecessary war. Now, the problem with that was you had largely American journalists, but also British and Australian journalists. And I cut myself in this as well. I was involved in doing some of these stories. You know, we credulously accepted the assurances that the Americans were giving, that there were weapons of mass destruction in the Iraqi desert, and that there had to be an engagement with Saddam Hussein to bring this to a resolution, to stop this evil man from doing these terrible things.

The reality was that it soon emerged within a few weeks of the invasion that there weren't these WMDs. The whole pretext for the war was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. So you have a double standard here. You have the media back in 2003, what's that, 18 years ago, credulously accepting Back in 2003, what's that, 18 years ago, credulously accepting assurances from the National Assurance Security Establishment. Oh, yeah, we should believe our sources. Yeah, yeah, we should go to war in the Middle East. Absolutely. Now we've got a situation where a highly reputable, credible intelligence source, somebody who personally hand-delivered the presidential daily briefings from the National Geospatial Agency directly to the west wing of the White House, entrusted with 2000 special

access programs, goes public, and makes very dramatic and, yeah, I'm sure quite ontologically shocking claims about an NHI presence, an alien presence on this planet. And how many stories have you seen in the news sections of the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the TV networks, ABC, CBS, NBC? Not one. The only stories that have run in the New York Times or the Washington Post are doubting op-ed pieces run by opinion writers that are very easily marginalized. What do you believe to be the best hypothesis for why crop circles exist? What are they trying to convey? What is their purpose? On my very first year and first trip to England, it was 1992.

And I was out in one of the big patterns that left everybody awestruck because the size and the perfection, no footprints. They were astonishing in 1992 at the sort of the beginning of people paying attention. And a man walked over to where I was and he was making comments about, it's remarkable, isn't it? There's even three or four layers. There's braiding. And so we're now talking about the astonishing details in a formation. And then he said, well, you know, I, I know somebody who works for the Central Intelligence

Agency. He was probably talking about himself. I've had that experience. There will be people who are working in Intel and they'll say somebody I know who works in Intel, but it's usually their firsthand information. He said, he told me that they're very interested in these crop formations and that they've got a satellite now that is trying to get satellite images of every crop formation that is happening on the world because they are convinced that what we are dealing with is mathematical language from another intelligence

that is using the crop formations to judge the accuracy of their travel in time. Can you explain that? Well, he was basically saying that our government in the CIA had come to the conclusion that the astonishing crop formations would be somebody, not Earth, somebody else's test of a time travel technology that

was leaving this mathematical language on the surface of the Earth. And I bring that up because that was one of the first discussions that I ever had with anybody on my very first trip to England. And it set a tone that when you were in those crop formations in 92, this is before all of the team Satan hoaxers that came into the fields in 95 and 96 and

were apparently deliberately trying to destroy or whatever they were doing. 92 was a year where crop formations were, it was very pure. There were no hoaxers, there were no nothing about what would come three or four years later. And that man talking to me about the idea that we could be looking at a mathematical language that was being used to test time travel. For me, it was like a sudden, wow, I never ever would have thought that way about crop formations. And so he gave me a gift. It was, it was first trip, one of the first formations I was in, I have that discussion. And it so it's so stretched my mind to looking at crop formations differently for which I'm very grateful

because eventually I was in England studying crop formations, doing soil collections, seed collections for the biophysicist in Michigan, Michigan W.C. Levengood. I was very very involved every summer from 92 until probably up through 1999. I went every summer and I was involved in the studies and the scientific analysis and how we found there was coatings of iron on seed heads that no one knew how all of it. And eventually I would say that I've personally had in my hands, walked with my feet through woven, where it would be just like a perfect, if you were weaving, where it would be just like a perfect, if you were weaving, but 300 feet in diameter or 500 feet in diameter,

the patterns could be huge with perfect weaving, but it would be not just the surface weaving. You would get down and lift up the surface that would be woven just like a braid. And then there would be a whole other layer that was coming at 90 degree angles and you would lift that up. Some of these were 12 inches down before you could get to soil.

And every layer, maybe two or three inches times four or five, it would be a different angle, different pattern, and it would be four or five deep. How in the world would anybody do that and not leave tracks? And I think that it really shifted into a whole other gear for me that year in 92, when I went with a group to Milk, it was Milk Hill, a place where there were crop formations every year, it turned out later. And it was our very first pattern.

We had met people from the United States and England. And you parked up here on top of the hill and you came in to the top of the hill where the white horse was. And then you're looking down on this. It was a 400, I think it was 430 feet long, bigger than a football field. And this was spirals of circles and paths was huge. This is the very first crop formation. And I started down one of the tram lines because we were all trying to make sure the farmers knew that we were not going to tread on any crop. And I started down one of the tram lines. And I started down one of the tram lines. And the group behind me, they started going down different tram lines.

So each one of us was coming down to this huge formation in different tram lines. And when I got down to where I wanted to try to walk in based on what I'd seen from above, I had my 35 millimeter Nikon hanging around my neck and I had learned in other work that I had done in the United States, I would always come in anything I was doing, animal mutilations or whatever, I would bring the camera up and I would start taking photos as I approached and I found those photographs to be so valuable to me

in research, and that's what I did. So I'm walking to the edge now of this big crop formation, and I'm lifting up and taking photos. My intent was to go through the edge, now onto this formation and take closeups. And as I started to try to move through the edge, it was like a warm jello. It's what it felt like that I walked into something that had substance right along the edge of this crop formation. And I stopped and backed up and reached out and I could touch it again. It felt like warm jello. And I was so

puzzled. And everybody else was at the far end this way because I was going to that way. So I wasn't talking with anybody. And I came up with my camera and I went like higher than I would have, and I started taking photos. And as I did, I moved forward and I felt a release like something let go of whatever this warm jello was. And when I walked into now the circle, I suddenly felt like that I was almost violating. And I bent down and this was the one crop formation right at the beginning that I felt seven layers.

There were seven layers crossed with different 90 degree angles all the way down. And I went down to where I could get dirt. I could feel dirt with my fingers. And it was up to here on my elbow. So it was that deep. People think they're flat. No, many, many, many complex layers.

See, now, Linda, I think similarly to you in that person who came up with the idea that this is some rather than a rather than an intent to communicate, it's an artifact of a calibration technique that the crop circles are. So what led him to think that the man who approached me and said that he knew somebody in the CIA, who knows, I mean, in all of my professional career,

it seems to me that when you begin intensely studying something, investigating, however you explain it, there will be people who end up giving you information that becomes a key. I have experienced that over and over and over, almost sometimes as if there is a sense of being directed to look at things that you would not normally. And why does that happen? I don't know. But in crop formations in that day, I think back of how many people would end up walking into a crop formation and saying X, Y or Z,

and then you are learning something new and you just keep going deeper and deeper and deeper. And all that work that I did with W.C. Lovingood doing and collecting soil and seeds and plants and all of the things that we did for at least a decade. He was a very, very detailed, intense scientist. He became convinced that there were energy systems that were coming through the ionosphere and that they were spinning. And he gave all of the hard physics

reasons for why he came to those conclusions. And he was doing his own independent paper. And then we learned that another physicist in Holland is also have been collecting soil, plants and samples like his himself, like I was doing for Dr. Levengood. And both of these biophysicists end up producing papers with the same conclusion producing papers with the same conclusion that there were spinning vortices of charged particles that were coming down, and that the charged particles were then affecting the plants in whether they were going to stand or go down, and that the complexity of the patterns was signaled by what they thought was happening in the swirling patterns coming from the ionosphere. So two completely different scientists did these papers, I got to meet and work with both of them. there was no precedent. This was all dependent upon people who had physics backgrounds, biology backgrounds, who became so interested in the phenomena of weaving 90 degree angles, all of the geometry and math

that seemed to be inherent in these crop formations that attracted men who were professional in biophysics and then ended up producing papers that led to a question, what would cause a spinning complex of energy coming down through the ionosphere that would go all the way down to crops in fields all over the planet. This was not happening just in England. And no one had even confronted such information before. Let's talk about some of the visual aspects of what happened when you were abducted in 1975.

So you mentioned that visually they looked like humans. And I believe on Joe Rogan, you described them as Wait a minute, wait a minute, humanoid humanoid humanoid does not mean looking like people that pass on the street in my town. humanoid means two arms, two legs, a head on top eyes in front, rather than being looking like a large crab or a cockroach or something of that nature. So a lot of people have a misconception. The greys are humanoid. And then there were other beings that if they were living beings, they were brought in, in order to interrupt my

combativeness, I was fighting them. And I think the effort was to complete healing or repairs that needed to be made. And I, I was so terrified. I wasn't allowing that. So those people who are brought in is who I'm referring to, you said that they look like people that would pass as regular people, just at the, in a cityscape, you wouldn't be able to point them out as being different. Right. Yeah.

And you know, that of course would fulfill the purpose of getting me to calm down and cooperate. So that's you thinking perhaps that's the reason but you're not 100% sure that if they were there to be introduced to calm you as an anxiolytic. Well it's possible that there was some sort of ongoing thing but it definitely changed the direction of my efforts because I was terrified of these creatures this was something I viewed as very threatening and frightening. And I wasn't about to cooperate. Now, many stories of encounters with these beings, described them as being telepathic or

being able to use mind control. But I didn't sense anything of that sort. But I'm explaining that in my own personal theory, I can't say for sure, of course, is that being hit by that blast of energy impaired that connection, potentially. What do you see as the connection between consciousness and Bigfoot? That's a big question. The Bigfoot phenomenon is a rabbit hole. It's a rabbit hole covered in ice with grease poured over top of it. It's really slippery. And once you go down that rabbit hole, it leads off to a hundred other rabbit holes. So the question you ask is interesting because the journey of someone who wants, who's interested in that phenomenon starts off looking for a big hairy ape. That's really smart.

If you dig deep enough, you leave that school pretty quickly. It's no longer giganopithecus, the big hairy ape that's really smart. quickly. It's no longer gigantopithecus, the big hairy ape that's really smart. And instead you start going, wait a minute, and then you keep having a whole bunch of wait a minute with attributes, various attributes, including potential telepathy and cloaking and and cloaking and all sorts of, you know, various versions of manipulating energy and so on. So I think consciousness and Bigfoot, where it lands, is first of all, nobody has a freaking clue what these are. But the phenomenon is big enough. Hundreds of years to thousands of years, hundreds of cultures, all saying

the same thing, by the way, and tens of thousands of anecdotal references, including sightings. Something's there. My question is, never mind just Bigfoot. If that species is out there, and I can come back to them, what else is out there? I mean you can't just go okay so there's Bigfoot I'm going home now. Say well if there's Bigfoot what else? And a lot of possibilities open up. For example I think that the potentiality is there for this species nicknamed Bigfoot but for example Sasquatch and whatever the different names it had, to be a combination of all of these attributes people talk about, which would include psychic abilities,

the ability of telepathy, which would include cloaking abilities, which now one gentleman had a theory that I still think holds some weight, is what if it was simply a species of intensely savant autistic individuals and their savant autism gave them such extraordinary ability of hide and seek and on top of that a savant ability of telepathy and savant ability and they had the they understood

how to manipulate their own energy, their own life force energy. To me, all of that's possible if we're talking about the potentiality of the human mind, but the minute you throw a Bigfoot into it, Oh, that's just nonsense. Exactly. How do you know it's not a species that's way ahead of us? Okay. They don't compose symphonies. They don't build airplanes and cars.

I get that. That doesn't mean they can't do all these other things. So I didn't really answer your question because I don't know the answer to the comparison of consciousness and Bigfoot. What I'm suggesting is they, if they exist, they are in a realm of existence that we are far from grasping our understanding. And they're farther ahead than we are on certain levels, just way behind us in other levels. Why I'm asking is less you don't disparage the Bigfoot topic. I don't disparage the UFO topic, even though plenty of the scientific community would. And I I'm pretty sure I was inspired by

you. But either way. So sorry for stealing that from you stealing your okay. Okay. Either way, when I was listening to I believe it was some of your podcasts or your commentary on some of the Big Foot episodes before, which on my bone to pick with you, man, which I'm going to put as an aside right now, I'm going to tell you that as I fall asleep, I used to listen to your shows. And, and then, right, and I have insomnia. And right when I'm about to fall asleep, you'd play the harmonica hit, I'm just cursing you. And I'm just wishing. Man, I wish someone would timestamp when

those harmonicas are so that I could start it from right after either way bracket that I was listening to you. And I believe you said something like, Okay, I went on to the woods, filming for Bigfoot. I think this is way after the series, filming for Bigfoot didn't occur. So you thought, you know, there are stories that they can hear what's going on with the cameras or sense it in some manner. So why don't I turn the cameras off, perhaps even do some meditation exercise, which is why I brought up consciousness, some meditative exercise.

And then you saw orbs. And then I think when I was listening to you said, I can't talk about it yet, because you had just gone through that experience and you're processing it. Now, am I correct? And if I am correct, can you just reiterate to the audience correctly what I just, perhaps incorrectly stated? No, that was all correct.

That was from the Portland episode. It was the last thing I ever filmed. It was outside of the full series, but it's on YouTube now, yeah. As a creator, I understand the importance of having the right tools to support your business growth. Prior to using Shopify, it was far more complicated and convoluted. There were different platforms, different systems, none of them meshed well together.

However, once we made that switch to Shopify, everything changed. What I like best about Shopify is how seamless the entire process is from managing products to tracking sales. It's so much easier now and it's streamlined our operations considerably. If you're serious about upgrading your business, get the same checkout we use with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash theories, all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com slash theories to upgrade your selling today. That's shopify.com slash theories.

What occurred? Can you talk about it now? Well, yeah, I don't mind really. It's not that difficult to be honest with you, but the full story, it's really it's the story of the potentiality of mental telepathy and this particular species. You see, when I was in Tennessee, in the episode in Tennessee, and you want to go back and watch that episode, for example, and I've told this story, I told it just recently on Sasquatch Odyssey podcast. Bottom line was that I was walking on the trail on the way out and never ever in before my life have I ever experienced any kind of psychic

telepathic phenomenon of any sort whatsoever. I wasn't high and I wasn't drunk and I wasn't tired and I'm walking I'm walking out and I just had this. Powerful voice speak to me inside my head. And so much so that after the fact, I actually went in to see a counselor to make sure I wasn't schizophrenic, because it hit me that hard. I thought, I've got to know what's going on here. And the counselor reassured me that, no, you're far from schizophrenic.

Don't worry about that. What you received was a gift, and you should justured me that no, you're far from schizophrenic. Don't worry about that. What you received was a gift and you should just celebrate that fact and be really aware of that. And then it happened another two times. And then for the Portland one that you're referencing, what happened there was, I don't think I said this in the show, but first of all my energy, my thought energy out there telepathically to the Sasquatch in that area that I was told were there by a woman who has telepathic communication with them, she says.

So I said I'm coming to meet you and I did this for about a week ahead of time and I started to at one point feel like I was getting an answer if you will in my brain. Okay fine so now I yeah so now I go up there and I go out in the bush and I'm and I'm the orb thing it happened and later on I'm just sleeping on the ground and I'm starting to doze off and that and a little crackling fire going. And all of a sudden I felt a very warm and actually felt a bit soft and furry so it could have been anything. But it basically went over my ankle and flipped my ankle enough that it woke me up and I jumped up immediately.

And it felt like a nice big warm hand flipping my ankle over and I jumped up immediately. I didn't see anything. Fast forward to the next morning we're walking out, we run into the lady again and we're planning on anyway we see her. I did not tell her this and she says, she called him guardian so she's given it a minute. I was speaking with guardian and he told me that during the night he came over and touched you. And what do you do with that? She just, that was the next morning she said that to me after it actually happened and I hadn't told her. And those

things have happened to me about four times in my life without forcing it. Lots of times nothing happens. It's something to remember too. Sometimes you tell these stories and people think, oh, shit's going on all the time, but most of the time nothing's ever happening. These are occurrences that have happened over a number of years. I've had four telepathic experiences. Anyway, so that's what happened though of that particular show.

I don't think I at the time was ready to talk of that particular show and I don't think I at the time was ready to talk about that on camera and I didn't mention it. Because if I mention it people go, he's losing it, right? And I just say screw you guys. I fear ridicule. Not so much fear and ridicule. No, it's not the ridicule I fear. It's their inability to handle the full story.

And yes, I'm belittling them when I say that. Yes, I sound a little condescending when I say that, but screw them. If I just say, Hey, yeah, bigfoot, talk to me. But all the chuckle starts, okay, you know what, but I could say that to a lot of people that go really tell me what happened. That's the person I like to share with. Okay, is okay. So let's say a week prior to you going out and experiencing that orb, you were doing some exercises where you were trying to contact Bigfoot via intention and meditating, something like that. it several times and nothing's ever happened but a couple of times I have gotten an answer. One time it was actually rather quite funny. I would go on a hike. So if people are wondering how to do this, I mean I would go on a hike and I would just, if I want an interaction, I will just put it out there. I'll just say, you know, I'm coming out. I'm going to be hiking

in an area. You know, don't know if anybody's even there, but if someone is there, I would be welcoming, in love, to have some kind of interaction. And then often it's like, and nothing. Okay, and I just go, and I just go, one time though, bam, in the middle of my head, all I got was, no thanks, we're sleeping. I mean, it's just the craziest thing. And again, remember the first time this happened, I went in to see a counselor. And I've only had this happen four times

in my whole life. Okay. But I tell you, it is the strangest thing ever when it happens. It's so strong. Anyone who is who has this as a skill in their life will just go, Yeah, of course, that that they wouldn't even they would accept this conversation with zero judgment. Now these four times it's occurred to you, were they each single sentences? Just like, no, we're sleeping? Or were they paragraphs?

I'll give you the script. Sure. The first time was, we're right over here, if you want to meet us, stay the night. To which I replied, this is in Tennessee, to which I replied, because it because the first time anything like this ever happened in my life, and I was scared and the hair was

back up on the back of my neck. I had never felt that. And I said, I'm not ready. And they said, that's fine. And they walked away. And I okay, that was in my mind. So that's cool. When they said we're here, did they give you a location or they said here and it was implied they were near you? Both the location was basically the hill right over there that I could see from about 150 feet away. That's pitch black. I'm in the dark. And they're right and I and the image in my brain that

was seared in my brain was of a large hulking male figure and a small child. So interesting, man. Both in classic Bigfoot look, if you will. And that really freaked me out. And then I think a couple of, well, no, actually a few months went by after that one. The next one was a little more menacing. It was during a meditative process on the Texas Bigfoot episode.

And that one I never told anybody on camera, but there I did get during the meditation stage I got, I got a, yeah, yeah, get ready, get ready for this was kind of sort of the message and it felt menacing and dark and I didn't like it. And I didn't, I just kind of, no, no, no, no, not going here. The third time was in Oregon and the answer in my brain was simply, no thanks, we're sleeping. And the fourth time is the Portland episode where basically this particular being said, yeah, yeah, we're here, we're ready for you. You know, and that was a wonderful experience. So am I crazy?

Am I having, are they hallucinations? Is it lucid dreaming? Is it blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? I don't know, but I know that in all our instances I was wide awake, very sober, very straight, and not trying to make this happen in my brain. And I've tried many, many other times and nothing happens. But these times they've just see it sears in the middle of your brain. You can just,

it's just you can't not hear it. Yeah. When the first time you had a back and forth, or at least you said one statement, which is I don't think I'm ready. Did you say that in your mind? Do you say it out loud? How did you say it? Yeah, I say it in my mind. And so someone's going, Oh, yeah, sure. They speak English. Sure, sure. No in my mind and so someone's going well, oh, yeah sure they'd speak English Sure, sure sure. No what they do is it's a process of your mind Decipheres for you what you're supposed to understand and to me that if I was Chinese it would be in it would be in Mandarin You know or something so so

Yeah, yeah, so so so yeah, it says That yes, but we gave your intention, hey, I'm not ready currently. Okay, now when they spoke to you all of these times, were they instantly understood or were they understood linearly? Like when you read, you understand the first word, the next one, then the next one, and the next one, or was it all at once they said that sentence to you?

Interesting question. The sentences were short enough that the distinction would be too hard to make. I'm not sure that I can decipher it linearly or in a linear fashion, or if it was all at once, it was just too short. Okay. As an aside, the reason is that some people when they speak to other beings, or let's say even they have an encounter with God, it says as if all of that is said to them like that. And it's not like, it's like when you read one word, you don't read each letter, you read the word instantly. If I was forced to make the distinction, that is what I

would say, I would say it feels like it's all at once. It's just that the sentences were short. So it same thing sort of thing. Is it all right if I ask you a couple of details of the orbs of what the heck happened? Okay, so firstly, how large were the orbs and what color were they? Where did they come from? When did they come? Why? Well, you won't be able to answer why? Well, I mean, I was, we were Devin and I because Devin was with me on that one. We were sitting. And I just hear Devin go, Hey, let's come here.'ve got to look at this. And I, and I, something like that.

And I get up and I walk over to Devon, he was 10 feet away, 15 feet away. And about 15 feet away from him were two hovering orbs. One the size of a golf ball, one the size of a pie plate. The pie plate one was much more fuzzy and less distinctive. The golf ball was more focused in, if you will. They stayed hovering there and you could see like gentle hover in their movement, but in the same position for I want to say a good 15-20 minutes. Enough for us to look and go, is there a car light splashing off something? Is there a local? I mean we're in the middle of the forest, right?

Our eyes are, you know, I mean, we're all clear. Again, straight, you know? No, we weren't smoking anything or drinking anything sober. And I think what's going on there, if this species truly exists, this phenomenon is actually something, is that one of its attributes is its ability to manifest or ability to manipulate its own life force energy and in doing so it has a physical manifestation which is the big hairy creature we see that smells and shits and eats and screams and throws rocks and the other manifestation which

potentially could be in as light energy, which we would then translate as being an orb. And also the other message that we got the next morning from the woman who is an empath and a psychic with these beings, that she said that she was told that some of the others, not the one guy that's supposed to flip me over at night, but some of the others came to look at us in the earlier part of the night. And that's when the orbs were there. Okay, what color were the orbs both the same color to like your shirt, whitish. Have you heard of any connections between UFOs and Bigfoot?

Of course, I've had people have heard people say that often, often, often, often. My first craziest experience was on the mountain in Radium Springs. And there was a scenario that happened there that I do not believe I mentioned on the show because I didn't want to confuse the viewers. It's the other thing, right? Sometimes you're forced, before you feed somebody filet mignon, you've got to get them a taste of meat first. All right.

And so that night I looked over in the skies and I saw these four big lights. They were massive, huge, and they were all lined up and they could not have been airplanes, but they were up in the sky and they were just there for 20 minutes. And then I went back and I'm not sure where I went to go Maybe I went to get my camera came back

They just they were gone and disappeared and I've never seen anything like that in my entire life And I just like oh my god, I can think and this is but at the time I'm just like Well, this is cool. What the hell is at the time? I'm like, what the hell is that? And that was the night you were with Devon or that was a different night. No, this is the night I'm alone. This is on the top of a mountain in Radium Springs, but I was one of my Survive and Bigfoot episodes. That was the night after those lights where I felt I had something come in and sit on top of me while I was trying to sleep. And everybody's going to say that's old lady syndrome, that's sleep paralysis. I get that. I'm familiar with that. That is not what I felt that night. It felt like somebody was sitting on me with very large buttocks. And

then that next morning, these apples I put on a tree, they all disappeared and the camera was filming. Didn't catch anything. They just disappeared on camera. The whole night was freaked out. But my point is that it started with those big four lights in the sky. And you said, you know, connection of UFOs to Bigfoot I don't know I really don't know the thing about it's the world of the phenomenon of Sasquatch is over on one side here it's a big hairy ape that's smart and on this side it's aliens and everything in between you know able to travel dimensions that's what you mean by the slippery rabbit hole with mud and so on. Yes, although more so what I need, but what I mean by the rabbit hole is, is my line of woe if there is Sasquatch, what

else is there? Have you heard of skinwalker ranch? Of course, yes. Yeah, okay. So see, when I was researching a bit about UFOs, then I read about skinwalker ranch, and the fact that there have been observed portals, whether or not this is true, there's been observed portals, perceived portals, and then Sasquatch coming out and then this is a place where there's plenty of UFO activity and poltergeist activity as well. So strange

confluence of all these unexplained phenomenon. And you know, when, as a scientist, when you hear about let's say, well, what's consciousness have to do with so-and-so phenomena the scientists would always say there's this tendency in us to say unexplained phenomenon here unexplained phenomena well they're related somehow because they're both unexplained and that's a foolish mistake but when it comes to Bigfoot and UFOs and well let's just say Bigfoot UFOs it seems as if it's more than just the connection being drawn because there's question marks over each in other words, okay, well,

you want to riff on that? Yeah, well, I know, but I just think that, huh, I just think existence is so much bigger than our human, little human brains can comprehend. And the thing is, it doesn't scare me. The rabbit hole doesn't scare me. It's just like, yeah, of course. I mean, we've had so much about UFOs that if a UFO landed in New York tomorrow, everybody would go, oh yeah, I figured they were there. We get a lot of that, you know, like, oh, it becomes the de facto, of course, aliens

exist. I knew they were, who didn't know? I knew. But we don't really know. I just think my mind has always been, is this possible? And the answer to every single question that that's asked on in my mind is, could be, yep. I'm wide open to it. And here's the thing, that doesn't scare me. And the problem is that it scares a lot of people. And certainly a lot of religious people really scares them, because then you're going to bring Satan into it. Right. So to me, none of it. I just don't feel a fear. And I'm not being machismo. I just think the possibilities are endless. And isn't that awesome?

Have you felt the fear and then you managed to overcome it or just temperamentally you don't feel the fear when it comes to that temperamentally. I don't feel the fear and also I'm well aware of the fact that if I was face to face with an alien tomorrow, he's got a or she or it has a huge advantage over me. Of course. Yeah.

Right. So what am I going to do about it? You know, what can I actually do? Go grab my AK 47. Actually I want to say, of course, sorry, I would step back. And the reason I say that is that there's some view that certain aliens have, let's say, evil intent or negative intent intent and that they cannot read our minds although you can communicate with them by intending like you did with a

Bigfoot but they can't read your minds and and the human capacity for love is what extinguishes well it extinguishes hate and so in some sense let's say there are multiple types of aliens and one is evil then you do have a power over the evil ones with your love so that that's why I say, well, I don't say of course that you have the power. I think that's wonderful fanciful thinking, but if that were true, then nobody'd ever be hurt, would it? Because there's a lot of loving, caring people that have been murdered. Why didn't their capacity for love just stop the human being from murdering them. I, no, no, I think, you know, I hear about the grays, for example, I hear about the grays.

And I'm not, look, when I had my first experience, what did I say to you? The hair was up on the back of my neck and I felt very, very nervous and I was too afraid to stay. I said, I'm not ready for this. Do I kick myself? Yeah, a little, but I wasn't ready. So there was fear there. I'm saying as a general rule I don't walk around guiding my life based on fear of the unknown. I love the unknown and embrace the unknown. It's just that there will be aspects of the unknown

that could be very detrimental to me and could harm me. And I don't think my capacity to love is going to stop me if I'm by myself in the middle of the forest and there actually are grays and a gray comes over to accost me. I've heard that that Sasquatch are there and often protect humans from the grays. I've heard that's a storyline people say. So I'm just kind of like, when it's my time, it's my time. I don't want to feel pain. I don't want to hurt. I don't want to be abducted.

I don't want to anal probe, but hey, I'll just go on. You know, that's not going to stop me from experiencing any of these things. I know what my sources are telling me. And my sources are telling me that private aerospace companies have been involved in private retrievals. And under the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed legislation, I don't think there

would be an obligation on those private aerospace companies to reveal what they have. Another loophole in this legislation that's a worry to me is that if a private aerospace company is in possession of technology that was recovered with government assistance or with, you know, passed on to them by government, say 50, 60, 70 years ago. If they divest themselves of that technology, then they're not required under my reading of this bill to report it to the Congress or to the arrow. What do you mean if they divest themselves of the technology? Okay, well, I understand at the moment. I'll tell you my understanding. This is how much I know. I am told that right at this very moment, there is a major private aerospace company

that is trying to divest itself of a craft. It has approached another company expressing interest in selling that technology to them. And the reason why, I suspect it's because they've known this legislation is coming. That's what's going on here. You have private aerospace companies that are actively involved in trying to subvert the intention of Congress. Now, roll your eyes. I don't care. The simple fact is there are people who are telling me this from within the legacy program

who are very concerned that there is an active attempt underway to hide technology from the Congress. And there's another issue here. Another issue is if a private aerospace company has been involved in a retrieval, as I understand they have been, by law, it's their property. Sure, they may have to reveal it to the Congress, but by law, there's a very, very good argument that they are under no obligation to hand over that technology or to give the knowledge to the government. And that's because there's actually a law called the law of ownership and control of meteorites. And essentially, there are provisions in international law that mean that it's not just meteorites. Essentially, if you come into possession of something and you've spent the money on recovering it yourself, it's an incentive for people to develop the technology that might arise from that recovery that they enjoy the private ownership of

that material. One of the issues that we have behind all of this is, let's assume hypothetically that there are private aerospace companies that have been sitting on technology for 50, 60, 70 years. In the first category, let's say Roswell happened in 1947, and let's say around about 1950 or so, or perhaps in the 1970s, the Roswell craft was passed on to a private aerospace company. What happens then if they've had possession of that object for 50, 60 years? Does the US government really have a claim on that technology? In law, there's a question mark.

And what if, as I noticed somebody was recently asserting just in the last 24 hours on Twitter, what if say technology from recoveries in the US has been moved extraterritorially into Canada? Oh, gee, that's interesting. What if Canada was secretly in possession of retrieved technology that is owned by a US aerospace company and being worked on by, oh, say, Canadian government scientists in collaboration with US scientists. What's the law on that? Does the US Congress have extraterrestrial control over that technology? Interesting question.

Then separately from that, another loophole that you could drive a truck through here is what if those private aerospace companies have recovered that technology using private military contractors, as I understand has very much been the case in the last few years? What if it's been entirely recovered by those private aerospace companies, perhaps in collaboration with the US government, but they've spent all the money and all the resources on doing that, shouldn't they ought properly to have the rights to that technology? Imagine hypothetically if it is true, imagine, just imagine if it is true that say Lockheed Martin, let's say Lockheed Martin has a spacecraft. Let's say they've got a perfectly operating flying saucer from say, Kingman, Texas, sitting on blocks somewhere

in a cave, sitting in a private facility somewhere. Why do they have to give that technology knowledge to the Congress? And why should they? They're a private aerospace company. They've got every reason to want to develop an advantage over their corporate rivals. Even if that company was dealing with the government? Well that's the issue. The issue is I've spoken to people at a very high level in Silicon Valley who have resources

and money who are very angry that they believe technology was gifted, vested into private aerospace companies 50, 60 years ago when they didn't exist. And they are now aware of this. And what they're not angry about is that the public don't know about it. What they're angry about is that they've not been cut into it. That's what's going on here. It may all sound like a wacky conspiracy theory, but let's see it investigated. theory, but let's see it investigated. Grush has made these claims. He has risked his career. He's risked his security classification to come forward and give evidence.

And he's done it by the book. He still has those security classifications. He does. Okay. Can I summarize the Grush story and see if I have it correct? Sure. So Grush is a senior official. He has was was a senior official has or had plenty of access to different secret parts

of the government secret activities. I'm trying to make this simple for myself and the audience as well. He's like, okay, I'm seeing something here that has to do with non human intelligence. I'm hearing it through the grapevine. I perhaps have seen Doc. No, no, it's more. It's more than through the grapevine. I perhaps have seen doc. No, no, it's more, it's, it's more than through the grapevine. He's spoken directly. He's spoken directly with people in the legacy programs, or

people who at least purport to have had direct knowledge and contact with non-human technology. Okay, then he's like, people, namely the public should know about this. Okay, how do I go about doing this? Because I don't want to go to jail, so I'm going to go to a part of the government. There's a part of the government called DOPSR, so Defense... Defense Office of Pre-Publication Security Review.

It's when somebody's got a security clearance, they need to get authorization to speak publicly about whatever it is they want to speak about. They write down in a proposal what they want to say and then DOPSA approves it. And that's exactly what he's done here. He's gone to DOPSA, the Defense Office, Pre-Publication Security Review Office, and they have approved him revealing what he's revealed. Okay, so then he tells them, here's what I want to tell the public. And then they say yes or no, but the parts they say yes to.

Sure. And just to be clear, Kurt, the fact that DOPSA gives that approval is not an endorsement that what he is saying is necessarily true. All it is is merely an endorsement that what he is saying is not breaching national security, because that's their role. Their role is to make sure that the statements that he makes don't breach

his security classification. Okay, so they're not saying that it's true. They're just saying that what you're saying is not classified. Okay, so then he goes on with you and this huge news story breaks. And he says that there are non human intellig intelligences or non-human crafts and bodies. So what I was thinking is there's this no-win scenario here because if he says extraordinary claims then we can just say yeah but the government said that that's not classified. If that was going on that would be classified they would say please don't talk about that. Well that's what's going through my head and plenty of others so how do you think about that?

That's what's going through my head and plenty of others. So how do you think about that? Okay. I mean, I think he had to get DPSA approval in order to do the interview that he did with myself and that he did with Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal. And he did that. And as I've emphasized that approval in and of itself, doesn't mean it's a warranty by the Defense Department that what he's saying is true.

But if the Defense Department had not wanted him to do the interview, then they would have had to have cited the laws that he was breaching by revealing what he knows. And then as he's explained it to me, to be forced to, he would have taken them on in court and challenged them on that, and he was ready to do that. Because if, as he asserts, there is illegal and possibly criminal withholding of evidence from the Congress, that legal challenge would have given him the right to present evidence that would then have validated his claims publicly in a way that would have been incontrovertible for the Defense Department.

So the only choice that they had when presented with the DOPSA application was to give him the approval because they couldn't risk, if he's telling the truth, they couldn't risk the damage that would be caused if they're trying to cover this up, of this being forced out into the open in an open hearing in a court. Because there are lawyers who are prepared to take this to the highest courts in the land. who are prepared to take this to the highest courts in the land. There are people in companies in America who are angry that they have been cut out of the vesting of technology that allegedly occurred 50, 60 years ago. And there is bitterness that a small cadre of private aerospace companies in the military intelligence community with a

long association with the US government have been given alleged access to this technology in a way that other companies haven't. Not least because those companies feel they have a better job, a better capacity of developing the technologies than the private aerospace companies that have been trying to do it for 50 or 60 years. That's what's behind all of this. It's not really a public campaign. What's driving the moves in Congress is that privately, there are companies that are bitterly angry that they have been cut out of the loop. It's part of

American capitalism, free enterprise, good old free enterprise, that companies should be able to compete for contracts to help the American government do what it does well. If it's true that there are companies that have been given access to non-human alien technology and that they've had that technology now for 60, 70, 80 years. If that's true, and that's what Mr. Grush is alleging, if that's true, then there are other companies in America that have every right to feel resentful and bitter that they've been cut out of the deal. It might explain the reason for some of the dominant companies in defense aerospace today. This is what's at stake here.

And so what's going on behind the scenes is, yes, there is a formidable military and intelligence lobby trying to shut this whole grush stuff down, trying to stop the Senate Intelligence Committee from holding public hearings. And it's the Senate Intelligence Committee, by the way, that has the security clearances that would allow it to hear the evidence that Mr. Grush has got. But what's going on behind the scenes is quietly and behind the scenes, there are other people who are not part of that defense aerospace loop, who are bitterly angry and they are lobbying their congressmen as well.

They're saying, if this is true, and I think it is, because I've had conversations with some of these people, if this is true, this is outrageous. This is an abrogation of the good qualities of American capitalism and free enterprise. Why should these private aerospace companies be given a free run? Hence, this groundbreaking legislation, which for once and for all is going to force the truth to come to the open. If it's true that there is non-human technology of non-Earth origin held by private aerospace companies somewhere in the world, under this law that's proposed, they will now be forced to reveal it.

That's why this matters. But as a separate issue, I don't know necessarily that the public is going to get told this. I think that there is quite a strong opinion inside the Congress, even amongst some of the people pushing for disclosure, that if we can get away with revealing this to the Congress privately in oversight committees inside secure, compartmented information, secret compartmented information facilities or whatever the word is for a skiff, it might be the better way to do it. I don't think there is a push or a strong feeling in the Congress politically that it's a good idea for America to know if it's true that there are non-human intelligences engaging with this planet. I don't think that there is a strong

political impetus for the politicians to feel that it's time for the existence of the retention of non-human technology to be brought to public attention. But I do feel, and this is what people need to understand, there is an imperative inside the Congress now for the truth to be brought to the attention of those oversight committees. And it's what those oversight committees decide to do with that information that will be absolutely fundamental. I mean, no disrespect to, I think, Mark Warner, who's the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence, but he's, I think, based in Virginia. I mean, who are his constituency in Virginia?

The military and intelligence community. What does the military and intelligence community likely want done about some revelations of retained, highly advanced technology? Well, if I was them, if I was the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, I'd want it kept confidential so that we can develop it for our own advantage and try and develop a superiority over the Russians or the Chinese. That's not hard. I wouldn't want it made public, and I'd be lobbying the chairman of the Senate Select Committee for Intelligence to keep it confidential. But I think that what's slowly happening is,

people misunderstand, and I think there's a large amount of the social media commentary at the moment on UAPs who think that what we're heading towards is some mass disclosure event. I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't. I think that what is probably going to be happening is that a very controlled disclosure behind the scenes in secure facilities inside the Congress where for the first time congressional committees are actually brought up to speed

with what's really going on. Ah, summer, with your fave Starbucks drinks. The perfect time for sunbathing in piles of leaves on the beach. Carving jack-o-lanterns from watermelons. Playing beach volleyball with a scarecrow. Or lounging by the pool with your pumpkin spice latte. Is it crazy to think you can combine the best of fall with the best of summer? No.

Your favorite Starbucks fall pairings are here. Grab a pumpkin spice latte, ice pumpkin spice latte, pumpkin cream cold brew, or pumpkin cream cheese muffin, because some things are just better together, no matter the season. And I think they will learn that yes, there is retrieved non-human technology, and that there is a secret reverse engineering program going on in which your country, Canada, is involved intimately. And if people dug into that, they'd find a whole lot more if they only bothered to ask. Don't you find it, by the way, extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary that this Larry McGuire

letter can leak, Jeremy Corbell and NAP leak this letter. I've known about this letter for some time. And in fact, it was posted back in May by another source on Twitter and it was completely ignored by people. Daniel Otis, a very respectable journalist from Canada, has noted that this document was actually up online as early as May. But it actually says Larry Maguire alleges to the Minister of National Defence in Canada, quote, you may not be aware, Defence Research and Development Canada, DRDC, that's Canada's equivalent, if you like, of DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency,

has participated in efforts to analyse UAP, which is publicly traceable to circa 1950. This recovered foreign material is studied through the Five Eyes Foreign Material Program, the FMP, which in Canada is sponsored by the Canadian Forces Intelligence Command, aligned with several intelligence sharing arrangements and treaties. Now, Maguire, who's not a senior member of parliament, but he's obviously spoken, and I know he has.

He's spoken to people inside that program. I know he's spoken to scientists and people with a direct knowledge of that retrieval program. But what's now happening is the spin is starting. People are now coming back and saying, oh, the only thing he knows is stuff that Grant Cameron's told him from public sources. That's not true. And Mr. McGuire needs to be pushed.

And a good journalist in Canada needs to get on the phone to Mr. McGuire or stick a TV camera in front of him and say to him, sir, what are you alleging? When you told your defense minister that DRDC has been working in efforts to analyze UAP, what is your knowledge based on? Is it just based on what you've read in somebody else's book? Or is it based on direct conversations with sources? And I think he will tell you the latter. Larry McGuire, if you're watching, I would love to have you on if you're willing to answer questions like this.

Now, what worries me is that we're not seeing the follow up from media. I'm trained as an investigative journalist to ask questions like that, because I've learned to read between the lines in what Arrow says. So when Susan Goff, the Pentagon PR woman, stands up and says that Arrow has found no credible evidence of ET, that sounds like a Pentagon denial. But it's not because she's speaking for Arrow, which is not a body in the Pentagon that has the clearances to even ask the questions that need to be asked. And so we've got this ridiculous containment going on of information where a glib accepting credulous media in the mainstream media is allowing a continued peddling of falsehood.

And people like myself, who are engaging directly with people in the program who are watching to see what happens and weighing whether to come forward. I'm getting increasingly pessimistic because whilst legislation like this, this bill is important. You could drive a truck through the loopholes in it. And as I've pointed out, a clever lawyer for a big defense aerospace company could go, look, all we need to do is develop a front company, divest it into that front company,

and we no longer have physical possession of that information. So let's just do that. I mean, there is any number of ways they can evade accountability to the Congress. What is needed and what I suspect is not going to happen is the kind of proactive investigation that David Grush did. Because this is the issue. In the comments that were made by Susan Gough, the Pentagon PR woman, she said, there is no restriction to ARRO, the Pentagon's UFO investigation office, receiving, that's the important point, receiving any past or present UAP related information, regardless of the affiliation of the original classification authority within DOD or the intelligence community.

And receiving is the pertinent word because ARROW is set up to receive information that witnesses decide to come forward with to ARROW under the incentive provisions laid out in the National Defense Authorization Act. And I can tell you, because I'm talking to some of them, those witnesses are sitting there looking at ARROW and they do not think that Arrow is an objective player. They think that there is spin coming from the Pentagon, that it's being disingenuous with what it's saying, and they do not trust Arrow or its heads. People like Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, however well motivated he may be, the perception is that Arrow is not a fair

player. Which is why David Grush went directly to Congress, by the way, because before the National Defense Authorization Act legislation was brought in, in late December last year, he'd already given his evidence to the oversight committees in the Congress. I suspect he would now be required to go to arrow first under the new legislation. And he probably wouldn't do that because he doesn't trust them because he's seen how they operate. And the point is, is that when I drew your attention then to the fact that Susan Goff's comment was restricted to arrow receiving any past or present UAP related information, her whole response is predicated on the assumption that people are going to come forward.

What David Grush did was proactively go out and do his job as a UAP task force investigator, and he investigated. That's what wrong-footed the Pentagon, because there are, I'm sorry, it's a terrible thing to have to say, but there are people in your military and intelligence community in America who are actively involved in a cover-up. And I include Canada in that as well. There are people in both governments that do not want the story of crash retrievals and reverse engineering programs to come out. And I think a large part of that is because they're worried about the consequences for them and their careers if it's revealed that they've been actively subverting accountability to Congress. So what David Grush did was rather than wait for witnesses to come forward to Aro as came through in the NDIA legislation, at the time he was working on the UAP task force,

he was tasked to go out and proactively investigate. And that's what he did. He went out and he proactively investigated. He talked to some of his friends who had similar security clearances to his. And as he told me in the interview, to his shock and amazement, he discovered that some of them knew about the program, the legacy program. And contemporaneously with Mr. Grush,

the reason he and I crossed paths is because even though neither of us have confirmed this to the other, because we don't want to betray sources, we suspect that at different times, we were talking to some of the same people inside the program. Interesting. And so I was told about the existence of this guy, David Grush, who was doing this great work, doing this proactive investigation and how he was the victim of reprisals. Reprisals? I can't go into a lot of detail, but they form the basis of his complaint to the Inspector General, both of the Defense Department and the intelligence community. But I think it's for Mr. Grush to give evidence under oath in the Congress and in the public hearing that might be happening where he can describe what's been happening. I'm waiting for him to have the right to explain to the public what's been going on.

But frankly, I mean, I know from other witnesses what's been going on. But frankly, I mean, I know from other witnesses what's been going on is quite despicable. I've spoken to other witnesses who tell me that they've been threatened, that they've been told there or their families could be killed if they spoke publicly or came forward with the evidence that they have. There is a very active attempt to try to subvert the Congress's intentions in forcing this to be made Knowledge to the public or at least to the Congress's attention I mean what people need to understand Kurt is the Congress already knows There are members particularly of the gang of eight not all of the Congress some members of the Congress

particularly of the gang of eight, not all of the Congress, some members of the Congress, our members of the Congress. No, no, no, no, no. Some members of the Congress, only a very few select members of the Congress have the clearances that are sufficient to allow them to even hear this information. Sometimes when David Grush was giving evidence, I've heard from people who were in the room. Certain people had to leave the room because they didn't have a sufficiently high clearance to hear what he was revealing. That's in this oversight committee that you're referring to? Yeah. Okay. And do you happen to know if that split politically is even of those who have access

or those who are in the know? Or is it more Democrats than conservatives or vice versa? It's interesting, actually, I'd say there's a bipartisan view at the moment that this is something that ought properly to be brought to the attention of the Congress. I wouldn't say that there's a bipartisan view at the moment that this ought to be made public. And I think people are missing this point. The motivation of good men like Christopher Mellon, Lou Elizondo, and the people who've done the right thing in trying to bring this attention to the Congress is a large part of their motivation is to make sure that proper accountability controls

are put in place. And that if there have been breaches of the law or crimes committed, that those crimes and breaches of the law are investigated and that any people responsible are properly dealt with according to law. But whether it's decided in the interests of national security that this be brought to public attention is another question entirely. Now, we know, I think it's a reasonable assumption that back in 2016, at the time of the Clinton Trump election campaign, it's very, very clear now that there was an effort inside the Pentagon to address the fact that Hillary Clinton was going to be clearly a disclosure

president. She and her husband Bill know something clearly, and they were clearly, according to the leaked WikiLeaks emails of the John Podesta emails, Podesta as the campaign chairman for Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in negotiations with two senior former Pentagon generals in discussing disclosure, UAP disclosure. Clearly, this was being driven, I suspect, out of a realization that with a president that was determined to push for disclosure, there was going to have to be some candor from the defense and intelligence establishment. What's happened since is in the intervening seven, what is it? How many years is it?

Six, five years? In the intervening five years, there's been, I think, a strong pushback from the intelligence and defense community. They're really angry and nervous about the fact that this might be revealed because there is. I mean, I'm very confident there is a crash retrieval program underway where there is attempt at reverse engineering on craft. My source, Nat Cutlitz, the former director of science, technology and development for the US Navy told me that, and I put that in my book. And he went on to introduce me to people in the legacy program who confirmed the veracity of what he said. Now, the simple fact is that I don't think

there's the political will at the moment for this to be made public. I don't think you're going to see what a lot of people in ufology dream of, which is the president standing up at a lectern and saying, ladies and gentlemen, we are not alone. I don't think the world is ready for that at the moment, or at least that's the view of the Pentagon and the intelligence community. I think it frankly suits strategic objectives of the United States to maintain national security dominance, that it keeps the fact of recovered technology confidential. I do think there's a strong likelihood, if not probability, that this will all be put back in a box, that there will be quietly changes made at a very high level in Congress to ensure that the Gang of Eight, at least, is briefed properly about this.

The Gang of Eight is a group of, I think it's nine very senior members of Congress who are selected because of their seniority to be briefed into the most sensitive secrets in the US government. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a decision was made that yes, we admit the existence of this program to that committee and we we keep it all off the books for now. Because this is extraordinarily sensitive. That gang of eight is known like it's known who they are. Yeah, I beg your pardon. The gang of eight is known like their names. Oh, yeah, you know, it's known.

It's it's it's referred to. Sorry, it's gang. It's referred to, sorry, it's Gang of Eight, not Gang of Nine. It's well known as the primary oversight body on intelligence issues inside the Congress. And it's cleared to supposedly hear the most intimate secrets of all inside the US military and intelligence establishment. And what's been happening, allegedly, is that they have not been briefed into what you and I are discussing. Individuals on the Gang of Eight, I suspect, know now some of what we're talking about. But I think that what's happened is there was a divesting of this technology as early as the 1950s and more latterly in the

1970s under Nixon. Because it's been held for 50 or 60 years in private aerospace, it's been very ambiguous whether there is even an obligation to disclose the Congress knowledge of this. I think it suited everybody to keep it quiet, to keep it in private aerospace. But as people like Dr. Eric Davis have said publicly, I think he said this to Alejandro Rojas on a podcast a few years ago. He said that in 1989, the reverse engineering program was actually shut down for a while, basically because it wasn't getting anywhere, that it was suffering from lack of funding. That's tragic.

This is one of the reasons why there is a frustration from inside that legacy program that it's time the Congress knew, and frankly, they think the public should know. Because, you know, if these technologies are real, just for a moment, abandon all disbelief and go, if these technologies are real, if it is true that there are crafts that can do what Elizondo has referred to as the five observables, you know, positive lift, propulsion systems, you know, instantaneous velocity, incredible, positive lift, propulsion systems, instantaneous velocity, incredible speeds,

even superluminal speeds, transmedium travel and stealth mode. If those technologies exist, it means that someone, somewhere has developed technologies that are far beyond known human technology. The interesting thing is, we are, I suspect, at that point at the moment where even the head of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, has admitted that there are anomalous metallic spheres witnessed by military and other observers around the planet for some time now that are doing anomalous things. Witnesses describe them as apparently moving under intelligent control. Something is allowing these objects that do not have any visible propulsion system to

do things that we cannot explain. It suggests that there is technology there, energy systems there, technological secrets that are all inspiring. For example, one of the great crises that our planet faces at the moment is the risk of global warming, the climate change. Imagine if overnight that energy system behind this technology could be used and derived to assist humanity to a clean source of energy. If that exists, and it does appear that it does exist. Otherwise, what's propelling these objects that even the arrow admits are real? This is the thing that I find there's a logical dissonance. There's a dissonance between what we now know publicly, which is, yes, UAPs are real. Yes, we are seeing

anomalous objects that we cannot explain that appear to be displaying the five observables. Yes, this is real. By implication, they are using a technology we do not understand. They must have enormous capacities for extracting energy in a way that we do not understand. They obviously have propulsion systems that are not emitting heat or displaying a propeller or a propulsion system that we're familiar with. By any definition, the fact that we've admitted that such a phenomenon is real is mind-boggling because it means someone out there is capable of doing this.

What I find perplexing is the utter lack of curiosity. And what I find perplexing is the utter lack of curiosity. At what stage does… Because I'm hearing even from within NASA and even inside the US government, I'm hearing from people who work for organizations that take an avowedly skeptical view, organizations like NASA, for example, that take an avowedly skeptical view on all of this phenomenon. And privately, they're admitting to me, yeah, this is real. It's baffling to us as well. And they are as intrigued as I am by the fact that there is this dissonance between what we know. I mean, look at the facts, make your own judgment. We are looking at objects that are displaying the capabilities of the so-called five observables, including capacities to draw extraordinary

amounts of energy and propulsion systems without any visible means of propulsion, no heat. I mean, how on earth does an object like a metallic ball stay aloft without rocket propulsion or propellers? How is it doing that? Perhaps one explanation is that it's developed some form of anti-gravity propulsion. Now, if such a technology exists, and frankly, prima facie, it appears to, on the US government's own admission, these objects are anomalous. They can't explain them. If these objects exist as they appear to, someone is sitting on that technology. At what point does the world develop sufficient curiosity to compel those who know about it to come forward and admit what they know.

And that's all Mr. Grush is asking. He's never expected that people would believe him just on what he said to me in the interview or in his interview with Leslie Cain and Ralph Blumenthal. What he's pleaded for as a loyal, patriotic American citizen who's played it completely by the book. He's done the dobson. He's sought permission to speak. He's obtained it. He's kept within his security oath and made sure he doesn't transgress that security oath in revealing what he reveals to me or to Leslie and to Ralph. But what he said is, I am a credible former senior intelligence officer. Call my bluff. If I'm lying, I go to jail. I accept that because I will have perjured myself, not only before the

Congress, but also before the inspectors general of defense and intelligence community. Think about that. Why would a man of such high credibility and repute come forward publicly and put himself at such risk if he's lying? All he wants is for his claims to be tested and investigated. What are people frightened of? If it's not true, let's deal with it really quickly. If it's not true, then frankly, articles like this nonsense article that appeared in the Australian newspaper just yesterday can be got rid of. It's the default media ridicule mode where what they do is they essentially go, oh, it can't possibly be true, therefore it isn't. That's been the default mode for decades. And what people don't realize is that it's part of Grush's allegations that they've

been deliberately disinformed by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community, that there's been an active disinformation that frankly, our media and our movies and our TV shows have been manipulated. Literally, you've had people from the intelligence and military coming in and actually controlling and dictating by regulating access to military resources, how movies are told. Explain about that, please. Oh, sure. For example, my co-host of my podcast, Need to Know, Bryce Zabel. Bryce is an illustrious Hollywood screenwriter and producer, and he made a TV series that was very much the

precursor to X-Files called Dark Skies. In Dark Skies, it tells the story of alien beings secretly operating at the time of JFK, infiltrating the US government. And essentially, it's a science fiction story. And he postulates that JFK was murdered because of his attempts to bring this out into the open, the fact of a secret alien presence on planet Earth. Now, that's fiction. And in one of the sequences, the aliens possess humans by quite frighteningly emitting a ganglion from their mouth and literally putting it inside a human being and taking them over. And it's quite frightening and terrifying. And it's one of the graphic video images that you see on dark skies. Bryce had a lot of fun telling it. But the way he tells it,

he and his co-producer colleague were approached by the Department of Navy Intelligence. In secret, they were approached and offered the opportunity to tell the story accurately about how aliens really do possess people. Now they can't verify the truth of what these guys were telling them, but what both he and Brett, his colleague, attested to is that they were actually approached by a military agency and offered the opportunity to collaborate on getting the information

in their fictional series as accurate as possible. And apparently that's been happening in Hollywood for years. There have been collaborations between the Pentagon, the Defense Department, the intelligence community, and movie makers. Sorry, do you put accurate as possible in quotations because you feel like they're going to feed them disinformation at this point? I don't know. I don't know, but I don't know the truth of it. I mean, I don't know if aliens do

have such capacities, if aliens exist, but isn't it intriguing? Why would a military intelligence agency be wanting to actively involve itself in controlling the output of a fictional TV show to influence the public about a non-human intelligence aliens. That's been happening in Hollywood for years. And since Bryce and I spoke about that on our need to know podcast, which people by the way can access it www.needtoknow.today. The link will be on screen right now as well as in the description. Sure. But you know, since we spoke about that, I've heard from other people who've told me about how there's been active attempts by US military and intelligence to essentially influence how movies are told when it comes to talking about non-human intelligence for decades. Why are they doing that? What's the

role of the military or the intelligence community in influencing fictional stories in Hollywood? the intelligence community in influencing fictional stories in Hollywood. Why would they feel the necessity to do that? I'm just asking that question. But again, it's the lack of curiosity by media because a lot of this has been dismissed as tinfoil hat nonsense and conspiracy theories. It really isn't. I mean, I know for a fact, I've spoken directly with producers and filmmakers who've had these approaches and there are whole books written about the way I think one called them. I think it's called silver sources, I recommend it. It's a great read talks about how Hollywood has routinely being meddled with by the military and intelligence community on the issue of UAPs. Is there a correlation between any of the characteristics of these UAPs, UFOs, and some other characteristic, for example, let's say that the tic-tac shaped ones are more violent or the pyramidal shaped ones are faster.

Is there a classification of them and do they have some other characteristic associated with them? So the characterizations that we have we have seen today really is a result of size believe it or not so and this is by no means comprehensive but what we tend to see are the the smaller vehicles tend to be uh think of a sports car are are your saucer-shaped vehicles. Whereas the larger vehicles, let's say a school bus size, is that of a cylindrical object or roughly that of a tic tac or even sometimes described as a telephone pole, and then in shape, so cylindrical. And then the tend to be

the large ones, really large ones, tend to be not always but almost exclusively either triangular shape or boomerang shape. Now there are some anecdotal, if you will, reports of large saucers as well and some shapes looking like a dumbbell, but the three primary categories tend to be, that we saw me to work, disc shape, and then you have the longer cylindrical shape, and then finally a large triangular shape vehicle. The triangle vehicles are often described as flying very close to the ground,

and very, very, very quiet, silent, and seem to kind of lumber, if you will, from place to place, very slow, almost like you would imagine a large dirigible perhaps, just kind of floating there silently. The apex of those triangles are often described with lights of some sort or emitting some sort of radiation in the visible light spectrum, which to a lot of the, if you will, people who reported this information to include first responders, will often see the lights changing color and maybe a result of some sort of Doppler shift that's occurring, red-blue Doppler shift. But that's in essence the three primary shapes that we have had reported.

And are these shapes associated with any other characteristics? For example, violence or nonviolence or the shutting down of nuclear missiles? Yeah, Kurt, that's a great question. You know, so there's a difference between when we say something's a potential threat and hostile intent. And I think people have something's a potential threat and hostile intent, and I think people have confused the term potential threat. When we say potential threat, you know, as a physicist, there's a lot of things in nature that are potential threats, but don't mean to harm you, right?

It's just, for example, I've often said, if I go to an airport and I get on a 737, there's no real threat there. But if I were to jump off and run along the runway, the tarmac, and I happen to get too close to one of these jet engines as it's going down the runway, chances are there's going to be some sort of biological consequence. There's an environmental threat to me. I'm probably going to lose some hearing. I'm probably going to get burned by the jet exhaust. It's not necessarily an intended consequence of the jet engine to harm me.

And so anytime you're dealing with physics, and I think this topic of UAP certainly nests well within the realm of physics, there's always potential threat. And that's just the way it works. If you ever go to the CERN and the Large Hadron Collider, you're talking about a massive machine, the world's largest machine, in fact, ever built. And it's hurtling some of the smallest particles around nearly the speed of light. And if you look at the shielding that is around

the accelerator, it's massive. If you would think for something so, so tiny and infinitesimally small, why do you need such a big machine? Well, it turns out that there's potential consequences when you're taking a particle of matter and you're accelerating it to the speed of light, almost the speed of light, correction. So I think we need to be careful when we go down that rabbit hole and say something is a threat versus hostile intent. You said, is there any signs that these things are displaying some sort of overt hostility towards us or violence, I think you said.

We in AATIP didn't see any overt signs of, as you say, violence. But you know, there are individuals who have reported that they've had contact, and whatever that contact is, it's not always been pleasant, according to some of the eyewitnesses. Now, the question is, have those eyewitnesses really had a close and personal interaction with this or is it some sort of psychological manifestation that is occurring? We simply don't know. For that reason, we were very careful not to stipulate any type of intent behind these things. And we focused, the only two things we really focused on in ATIP was what is it and how does it work? We were nowhere near getting to the point where we understood its intentions or who was behind the wheel or the origins of these things. It was simply just as you can

appreciate a scientific approach. What is it and how does it work? And if we could answer those questions, maybe we'd have a better chance of answering some of the other ones. So here's what I'm saying to give you my basic theory of what I think is happening. I do think that there is reason to speculate, to think that there's been a long-standing observation of us. I think that there's enough of the ancient sightings, when I read them, they pass the smell test. I guess I'll just say that. I can't know for sure. I wasn't around back then and there was no bouffant to interview the witnesses and to, you know, get all the details of the case. But some

of them smell right. They look good to me. And it makes sense to me. It makes perfect sense to me. Here's the thing. Any observing intelligence is going to know that once homo sapiens developed complex language, let's say 50, 60,000 years ago, 70,000 years ago, roughly is when anthropologists believe that we had like the beginnings of complex grammar where we could have complicated conversations about things, gave us a tremendous advantage. It allowed us to share information in a sophisticated way with other people. It gave us power as a community. You're not just one person with a good idea. You can share it with your whole group of 25 people.

And now you can act together in concert. That's powerful. So I firmly believe that any observing intelligence, if there was one, I think there probably was, once they saw 50,000 years, that's, how many generations is that? That's 2,000 generations, not that long. If you're looking at a longitudinal study, like 2,000 generations of mice is not that long, right? So 2,000 generations of human beings,

that's 50,000 years basically. not that long, right? So 2,000 generations of human beings, that's 50,000 years basically. I now believe that a very intelligent, perceptive civilization could easily predict that those people, now that they've got the key, the key is creating a system of abstract thought, the ability to share that information in a sophisticated way, to share information. That is something that takes its own logic. It has its own logic. You could be a primate, you could be an insect, you could be a dinosaur, you could be a bird.

Once you learn the secret of complex grammar and logical communication like that, that is literally the key to the kingdom. And from there, it's only a matter of time before you discover complex science and mathematics and things like that. That leads directly from language. This is my opinion. I can't publish any papers on this, but I feel very strongly that this is correct. So that it's all predictable.

It could have been predictable, maybe from when we discovered the use of controlled fire, who knows? But certainly with language, language is a major milestone. So, it's all been predictable. But the fact is, an intelligent civilization would know that ancient archaic humans were in no position to even begin to understand where these other beings were coming from, obviously. There'd be nothing that they could really give us except let us develop the way we have developed.

This is what I think. And so we've been subject to a kind of a low-level monitoring process, probably for a long time, until the last couple of centuries when it's clearly bumped up. And I can say this because I've studied the history of UFO sightings probably about as well as anyone that I know. So I've studied all the ancient sightings and I have read thousands and thousands and thousands of UFO sightings through the 20th, through the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries. So now part of it is that we have a much better ability to record them, and that has absolutely

helped to amplify the quantity of reports. But the fact is, I am convinced that if we'd had anywhere near the density of sightings that we're having today 200, 300 years ago, we would have known. I think people would have noticed. And yet no one was really talking about it. Those are smart people. 300 years ago, they were highly intelligent. There was no mystery, the people talking about

what are these objects in the sky? So there is in fact something different about the last 200 years? Yes, absolutely. Something very dramatically different in terms of the quantity and quality of sightings. There is no question. The quality, the specificity, and the detail. I don't know of a single archaic ancient sighting that clearly and unequivocally describes a metallic mechanical craft

that I would say confidently is technological. It's possible, but you don't really get those descriptions. There's a few that could potentially go that way, so I don't rule it out. But in terms of quantity, you start getting a lot of them starting in the 19th century and then of course really picking up in the 20th century and especially with the Second World War. It just goes through the roof with the Second World War. And that makes perfect sense logically. Put yourself in the position of these other beings. They're watching us.

It's only a matter of a few generations where we were, you know, for thousands of years we've been a society of horses pulling wooden carts and then suddenly we got electricity, we get airplanes, we get radios, we get televisions, we get guided missiles, we then develop computers, we're now splitting the atom by the 1940s. Like that's fast. That's super fast. Because the people who were involved in splitting the atom in the 1940s, their grandparents were living in covered wagons. Okay, so it's really fast. So it's the development of nuclear bombs? What is it specifically?

Part of it. It's also the development of radars, the development of computing technology. You know, Alan Turing's just as much a part of this as Robert Oppenheimer. It's computers. I think people in the 50s were too overwhelmed with the nuclear reality to realize there's other technological reasons also that these ETs

would be watching us, not just Duke. What specifically about these technologies is it? So in the nuclear case, it could be said that it would destroy the world. So is it always about self-destruction? No, it's no. Yes and no. The nuclear part of it is important because we do have the ability to destroy every single bit of life on this planet with a nuclear Holocaust. That's a terrifying reality.

And that has to be of interest. But no, just more generally, the technological transformation that we have gone through during the 20th century and it continues All was totally predictable in my opinion. They knew this They knew this long before we knew this that this was going to happen that we were going to transform Into a highly technological society once we discovered a few principles technological society once we discovered a few principles. That's what happened in the 20th century.

Now, we may have gotten a boost, maybe as some have argued, the transistor, which was patented in 1947, came as a result of prior acquired tech. Is it possible? I don't rule it out. I'm not talking about Roswell, but maybe Cape Girardeau from 1941. of prior acquired tech, is it possible? I don't rule it out. Not talking about Roswell, but maybe Cape Girardeau from 1941, maybe.

But be that as it may, our trajectory was totally predictable. And so what that means is that they knew we were about to jump into their world anytime. Once we developed a certain, because this is not a normal incremental progression, this is a leap, this is a new paradigm. We're not just incrementally progressing here.

Take a few steps back and compare our world to that of the wild west of the 1880s. It's not even remotely similar. It's only a few generations. So we're in a fundamentally different reality in which we're now looking at transhumanism, genetic manipulation, CRISPR tech, nanotech, strong AI, quantum computing. I mean, the sophistication of our data management,

digital data management is we take this for granted, but it's off the charts. So all of that has made qualitative changes in human society that I believe were totally predictable by an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization that's gone through the process. So what I'm saying is we are under intense observation right now for this reason. And now let's get into what else is going on.

Would any visiting intelligence, and I believe that there are probably multiple ones, by the way, as part of what I believe. Would they be interested in monitoring or guiding as they might look at it, or we might look at it managing or controlling our transition process? Because this is what it is, it's a transition. We're going, we're basically going from natural human to artificial human. And that, by the way, terrifies me personally, but it's who cares what I think. It doesn't matter what I think. It's happening. We're going, we're creating, we've already been creating an artificial environment for many, many, many generations. You know, we live in artificial homes and houses. We don't live under the skies. We live in very, we like to control our environment. So we've had some practice at this, but we're

now going to a point where we're going into virtual reality, augmented reality, like what is even going to be real? A society of total digital surveillance and monitoring and control, essentially a totalitarian system in which there's not going to be any privacy forever. How is that going to change human psychology? Probably quite dramatically. We're going through just a fundamental transformation that, again, I would also say was probably predictable, probably. I hate to say that because it makes it sound inevitable, but that's what I think. So they know this. And do they have an interest in managing that process?

I'm sure some of them would. And this is a classic story. It's a story that, you know, if we could interview Jalen Heineck or Edward Ruppelt, back in the day, they'd tell the same story. He came in thinking, I'm gonna debunk this thing, and it's gonna be space trash and airplanes and BS. I'm going to figure this out in two months.

And not only were there cases in the sky that sort of baffled him, where he was like, okay, some of this stuff is not prosaic, what I know of as terrestrial technology. Yes. But then he started to bump into reverse engineering programs where people who he had even intersected with, because he had a 14-year career in Intel, were taking him behind closed doors and being like, look, I don't know if you're aware of this, but we have some interesting programs where

we have material, we've been working on reverse engineering this stuff, the materials isotope ratios not naturally forming on Earth. They're heavy elements, so it's hard to recreate them in a centrifuge. A lot of sort of strange stuff and initially I think Rush was like, maybe this is bullshit, but he got a lot of other high ranking senior intel people to like back channel with those people and like see if they would lie to them Rush was like, maybe this is bullshit, but he got a lot of other high ranking senior intel people to like back channel with those people and like see if they would lie to them

and they didn't get lied to. I think, you know, some of the people he spoke to had counter intel background, but he found people who were more kind of of the just pure hapless engineering type. And he's a pretty strong first principles thinker. And he basically came to the conclusion, wow, I think this is real.

And that's when he sort of started to make moves inside the government that wasn't super effective. And that's when he was like, I'm gonna leave and try to make noise from the outside and did the News Nation thing and the debrief thing and all that. Sorry, you tried to make noise inside the government? What does that mean? Basically, I don't know how much I can say, but I think he basically tried to tell his

superiors at his agency, the NGIA, look, this is what's going on. You know, look, you tasked me with this. This is my job, right? I'm supposed to, you know, I'm supposed to find out whether UFOs are possibly classifiable or real, or you know, what's going on here. And I found all these programs, like what's up?

Like you should have oversight over this. And yeah, like nothing really happened. And this is, I mean, I don't know if you believe or have heard of the Wilson memo, but there's a guy named Thomas Wilson, who was head of J2, Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was supposed to have kind of supervision, like in his purview is all military technology,

as exotic as it gets. That should fall under his jurisdiction. And he has a meeting with Eric Davis that I think gets actually kind of discovered at the Edgar Mitchell estate after Edgar Mitchell dies. And it's the same story, right? Where Thomas Wilson meets with this private aerospace contractor.

They say that they have material. They say that progress has been very slow, that it's super compartmentalized, it's outside of the jurisdiction of the government. And he's furious, and he tries to effect change within government, presumably. And I don't know exactly what he tries to do, but, affect change within government, presumably. And I don't know exactly what he tries to do, but he's very angry in the meeting with Davis. And so you hear this time and time again of people like trying to do things in the government

and just getting sort of muzzled. And I think Dave's kind of one of the, maybe the only, yeah, the first case to just say, look, I'm just going to leave and I'm going to push disclosure from the outside, which I think is pretty cool. So you have a friend, a space, sorry, what kind of friend? He was in Space Force and before that he was in the Air Force and now he's in the private sector. Right, okay, so force friend.

Yeah, force friend, yes, double force. This person knows David Grush. Two years ago, you were speaking to this guy, you were telling him what you think, and he said, you should speak to Grush. This guy, you're like, who's Grush? Then you're like, I'll speak to him. Yeah, why not? You speak to him, you cost Grush with your numerous speculations.

And you said that some of them may have jived with Grush that made him think, hey, this guy knows what he's talking about or he's on the right track. So speak to us. That's my own speculation. Yeah. Speculate about those speculations. This gets into some of the stuff we covered in the documentary, but there's just so much out there that's actually open source that weaves together in bizarre ways where if your

null hypothesis is that this is a Psyop, it is so much better than the second best Psyop, which whatever the hell that is, it is the best Psyop of all time. It's the most, it's intergenerational. It cuts across all these government agencies that don't get along together. So like, if someone says this is just a Psyop and then they leave, they comment that and then they leave like on Reddit or whatever, why are you leaving? Like that itself is mind blowing.

This is a Psyop and you're totally comfortable with this being a Psyop as well? Exactly. Oh, this is just the government lying to us on a massive scale and with extreme coordination. No, exactly. Even if it is, why is that something that you can just say as a dismissal of it? Rather than, oh my gosh, let's continue to investigate. Oh my gosh, there's something here. We should have a church commission on that immediately. Like it's, it's a scene.

If this is a sign up, throw out MKUltra, throw out, you know, Tuskegee. Yeah. Oh, it's like someone finds out about MKUltra. This is just a sign up. Yeah. Yeah. It's right. It is.

It is. Right. Sure. Okay. So, so that's it. So that if is just a Psy-op. Yeah, yeah, right, it is. It is, right, sure. Okay, so that's it? So that if- Like you're not gonna- Investigate? Yeah, no, I'm with you, man.

I'm totally with you. And to the point that it's not even a Psy-op, which if it were a Psy-op, it would be a fascinating story in and of itself. But to the point that it's not even a Psy-op, it's like you have like this guy Townsend Brown, who's dealing with Curtis LeMay, Robert Sarebacher, Edward Teller, top brass when it comes to American Atomic Programs by all accounts, by conventional history accounts.

You have Jacques Vallee, who doesn't know Grush, like, you know, they're not, they're not like close, you know, Valet's been studying this thing forever and used generally from the outside, although he assisted J. Allen Hynek, but like these guys are not like compadres and Jacques Valet is saying that, you know, he's questioning, would Oppenheimer have known,

would Enrico Fermi have known, because all of the crashes seem to take place around atomic sites, which we can get into because there's a ton of evidence around that. And, you know, was there somehow a connection between American atomic programs and, you know, these reverse engineering efforts? And then Townsend Brown, who I think, if there were reverse engineering programs, he was clearly at the helm of all of this, given a lot of other sort of interesting things about his work. And so you weave all these things together and you're like, if this is a SIOP, it's got to be this insanely well coordinated thing. And then you have Robert Hastings, right, who writes this book, it's aptly named,

it's called UFOs and Nukes. He's the son of a nuclear missile man radar operator and he's at Malmstrom Nuclear Base and he's actually a janitor there because his dad is the radar operator. He's a janitor there and another radar operator calls him in and he says, we caught some unknowns again, we caught some UFOs again, and he starts questioning him, and then his superior, the radar operator's superior comes down as like, never ask about this again, you know, whatever, and then he starts compiling, he interviews 150

nuclear missile man radar operators. These guys are literally tasked with hitting the button that send nukes. They're on what's called the PRP, the personal reliability program. They have to report if they're on ibuprofen. So they have to be, by definition, the picture of mental health. And you think of a guy that gets into that line of work, and they are not histrionic, they're not attention seeking.

They don't want their names known. They're not interested in that. And so Hastings has this 150, you know, person account thing. You have Townsend Brown who's doing a lot of weird, you know, he's working on gravitators that look a whole lot like flying saucers and forming NYCAP, which is the first civilian, you know, UFO lot in that area and meeting with the top atomic brass. And then you have Jacques Vallee telling me a lot of these secrets are going into the DOE possibly and maybe Oppenheimer was involved.

And then Grush is corroborating that Oppenheimer probably was involved because he created atomic secrecy in 53, 54 with the Atomic Energy Commission, of which the McMahon Act in 46 was a precursor. And it's basically saying everything that emits alpha, beta, gamma radiation, any nuclear material, would basically fall under this, the secrecy that atomic stuff would fall under. And so you're basically, it's this cloak and dagger way of saying if you have UFO craft,

which emits these, you know, radiation, you can keep it secret. And so you have all these disparate touch points. George Knapp is doing, you know, his own research on this stuff. You have all these disparate touch points pointing towards a pretty coherent story. It's not this everything is everything is story. And so that's why I want to askew the kind of the Gaia types that are like, it's the pineal, it's this and that

or whatever, and just like, actually no. Like there's a real narrative here and and we should be just trying to corroborate or falsify the narrative. So was Grush saying or were are you saying that Oppenheimer is involved with UFOs above and beyond creating the secrecy that was then used for or the claim is that that was then used for as a guise for UFOs. So in other words, Oppenheimer comes about and creates this framework of secrecy. This then gets used as a as a shield for UFO research. This is this is the claim or is the claim that Oppenheimer also took part in this UFO research. And also, yes, sorry, please, that's his own question. Let's take it one at a time.

That is an amazing question. I'm so happy that you asked that question. So, I don't know is the honest answer, but there is a lot of interesting stuff around Oppenheimer. So, there's a book by a guy named William Steinman called the UFO Crash that claims that Robert Oppenheimer was on a cleanup crew, a UFO crash cleanup crew in Aztec, New Mexico, March of 1948, a year after Roswell, with Townsend Brown, among a few others. And so again, I don't know whether that's true. I'm working my way through the book right now. I think it's worthy of either corroboration or falsification. There's another

book called The Fall of Robert J. Oppenheimer, UFO Secrecy and the Fall of Robert J. Oppenheimer. It's by a guy named, an Air Force guy, a guy named Donald Burleson. And he makes the very interesting claim that maybe the stripping of the Q clearance in Oppenheimer's case had more to do with his UFO knowledge than actually, you know, his schmoozing with, you know, Soviet spies in the 30s or whatever. Christopher Nolan is wrong. He has disinformation from Nolan. Maybe. I have a very prominent journalist friend who I won't out in saying this, but he has a funny quote. He's like, you don't spend $130 million to tell the truth or something like that. He's very skeptical. Look, I don't know. I think Nolan's amazing. And I think the movie was incredible. But there are a lot of weird things around that case that

again, let's demarcate this Kurt as speculation I'm not saying that Oppenheimer definitely was part of the research. Yes But Gordon Grey who was rumored to be part of the Majestic 12 was overseeing that kangaroo court that Stripped him of his cue clearance. And so the Majestic 12 again is this sort of, this group of top brass in the military, high up scientists and strategists under Truman and then later under Eisenhower,

that basically would advise on kind of the UFO issue. And so Gordon Gray, he does form the Psychological Strategy Board, that's, he forms, he does form the psychological strategy board, that's a historical fact, under Eisenhower, is overseeing this sort of kangaroo court with Oppenheimer where his cue clearance gets stripped. And there are a lot of weird quotes from the transcripts. And one of the quotes is Oppenheimer says, a lot happened between 45 and 49. He keeps saying that, it's like a trope. And it's like, okay, what happened between 45 and 49? The atom bomb was created between 41 and 45,

and if anything, he got increasingly marginalized as the H-bomb was created, which was really Teller's thing. So post 45, what are you talking about, what happened? And if you believe any of the lore, all of the UFO stuff happened between 45 and 49. So that's kind of interesting. John von Neumann has a very, I'm sure, intimately familiar John von Neumann, genius Hungarian physicist, created the mathematical foundations for quantum mechanics, and he's defending

his friend Oppenheimer in this kangaroo court, and he says it took Robert Oppenheimer a while to get adjusted to the Buck Rogers universe that we're living in. What is he talking about? Buck Rogers was a comic strip at the time all about space travel, aliens, and interplanetary colonization and time travel. And it's weird. And it begs this question, right? Like you're super familiar with CERN.

Like what is CERN doing? It's higher and higher energy output to get to better ontological truth. And do we get unprecedented ontological truth with the unprecedented energy output that we had with the first atom bomb? I don't know.

And I'm not claiming that that's for sure a thing. I do think it's a possibility. And then here's the very weird thing, Kurt. Edward Condon is also stripped of his Q clearance at the same time. Condon, who's known now publicly as this famous UFO detractor, he creates the Condon Commission later in 1966, is also stripped of his Q clearance in 53-54 alongside his friend Robert Oppenheimer. They were very close. They studied under Max Born at Göttingen in Germany, must have been in the 20s. And he wrote the Los Alamos primer. He helps set up Los Alamos.

He's from Alamogordo. And he writes the Los Alamos Primer, which is basically a document that all employees at Los Alamos had to read. And then the nominal story is that Condon actually leaves Los Alamos because he clashes with General Leslie Groves, Matt Damon's character in Oppenheimer, because he thinks that Matt Damon is, there's too much secrecy. So that's the nominal story. And he goes on to actually work on civilian outreach nuclear programs.

And he actually drafts the McMahon Act of 46, which is, again, becomes the Atomic Energy Commission, the Atomic Energy Act of 53, 54. So he's super instrumental in, I think, what becomes UFO secrecy. But then, so he's stripped of his clearance, doesn't have his clearance alongside Oppenheimer. And then in 66, a guy named Lou Branscomb, who studies under, who's under Don Menzel, who's like an early NSA guy,

also rumored to be on the Majestic 12. And this is all in an interview that Condon is giving to the American Institute of Physics. So this is not crackpot stuff. Lou Branscomb goes to Condon and says, hey, I think you should get your clearance back. No reason why. And Lou Branscomb is on the Jason advisory board,

as deep as it gets when it comes to American defense strategy. And Condon gets his clearance back, and all of a sudden he's running this independent commission, which we know now isn't independent because there are letters that have been revealed between him and Air Force Colonel Robert Hippler,

where Robert Hippler is saying, I think you should show all past UFO research as a waste of money or whatever. And so he's doing this independent commission where he's not supposed to be coordinating with the Air Force, but he is coordinating with the Air Force. And it deals a death blow to UFO research and it kind of kills Blue Book. And Blue Book ends at that point. And so I find it fascinating that maybe, you know, there is a narrative that maybe Oppenheimer was stripped of his Q clearance because of the UFO thing. Condon,

his buddy, is stripped of his Q clearance alongside Oppenheimer. He's then given his, and also around, he also, they had stuff on Condon around Soviet, you know, that maybe he was from Berkeley. And in his 20s and 30s, he was kind of a labor, a pro-labor journalist. And they said he and his wife had Soviet sympathies or whatever. But I find it fascinating, they're both stripped of their clearance at the same time.

Then he's randomly given his clearance back. He's put on this UFO commission, which is I think a total fake hit job, as history has proven, on the UFO subject and In the background, here's the kicker, Kurt There's a there's an FB the most read document on the FBI's website is something called the hodl memo, which is about a UFO crash and An Air Force officer finds the UFO with the crew intact and it's insane

It's on the UFO. It's on the FBI website for everyone to see. And so again, this document could be fake, but it's on the website and it's, you know, been for it or declassified and it's there. Guy Hoddle is the guy, he's the guy who's being written to and that's why it's called the Hoddle Memo. Guy Hoddle is creating a dossier of field reports on Edward Condon throughout his own kangaroo court where they're stripping him of his clearance. So you

have an FBI agent who's the head of the the Washington field office for the FBI and Guy HODL who definitely knows about UFOs unless this document is a total forgery but it's on the FBI website, who is creating compromise, who is literally creating this big, you know, all these documents on Condon. And then Condon has given his security clearance back mysteriously in the 60s to basically do a hit job on UFOs. And so my question is, was he in the know all along because he's an atomic insider and he was clearly very close with Oppenheimer, and then his security clearance

and its stripping and then retrieval was used, it was used as bait essentially to get him to do the Air Force and the FBI's bidding and kind of dismiss UFOs. And I think all of these are super open questions worthy of investigation or falsification if anybody can do that. But it's interesting. When Oppenheimer said that quote unquote there was a lot that happened between 1945 and 1949. What was the context of that? Because it could also be that he's referring to himself

Like for myself, there's plenty that happened between 2010 and 2015 Grand Theft Auto was released That's that counts as a life event. Great game. Great game. It's it's a really good question and I'd love to read the original Transcripts The book is is not the best written book. It's like, you know, 100 pages, and I'm picking out four of what I think are the most intriguing facts around the transcripts. It is interesting. I think Gordon Gray has the full transcripts of the kangaroo court in his archives, and

he donated his archives to the Eisenhower Library, the one thing he asked to be kept out of the archives were the Oppenheimer Court transcripts. So I find that very interesting. So I think a follow-up from this conversation that you're now motivating me to do is like we should go through all the original transcripts, read all this stuff in its proper context. Yeah, so I don't have a great answer to that. When you're reading transcripts, books, or whatever it may be, how do you retain all that information? What is your process?

Yeah, I don't know. You know, I'm really stupid on some things. Like when I hear you talk about physics, I'm like, I'm a chimp. I'm like, not the same species as you you know like I think when it comes to memorizing like names and dates and stuff I just I'm good with that I don't know why especially when they're very meaningful to me like in terms of like fitting together a narrative of what's what's You know, I think, yeah. Here's something you might want to know. You know who also had a history degree

or at least started in history? I know who you're going to, I think I know who you're going to say is Ed Whitten. Yeah, how crazy, see, that's crazy, right? Yeah, it's so interesting. And then he, you know, when he was asked why, you know what he said? Why do you say? He said young people do stupid things.

He said basically he doesn't know why. So I have no good answer for that. It was just young people do stupid things. That's hilarious. I think because he was also great in math when he was in high school. So it's not like he discovered he was great in physics and math when he was in his masters or late undergrad. Totally. I think was it Steven Weinberg read a recommendation

for him and he was like, he's way smarter than me. Like you should take him or something. Yeah. Yeah. Do you know this story about von Neumann? I don't know if I told you this in person. No. About the fly between the cars. No, please tell me. Okay, so this is how much of a genius von Neumann. I don't know if I told you this in person. No. About the fly between the cars.

Please tell me. Okay, so this is how much of a genius von Neumann is. So mathematicians say that the most brilliant mathematician, maybe that ever was, was John, was von Neumann. So it goes Newton and then von Neumann. He was asked the question, okay, let's imagine you have two cars coming at one another at 10 miles per hour. So they're just driving slowly coming at one another.

The space between them is initially 100 miles. Okay, there's also a fly that starts at one, say the one on the left. And it can, it's a fast fly. So it can go like 50 miles per hour. So it speeds, it goes from this car, it reaches the next one. But the next one has moved a bit because they're both moving at 10. Oh, that's a hard problem.

Hits it. Yes, exactly. Hits it, turns around, comes back, hits it, and then so this fly is moving, moving, moving. And then it stops, and then because it gets killed between these two cars. The question is then, how far did the fly travel? Oh, I'm not to attempt to answer.

Yes, exactly. So, there's a way of doing it with an infinite sum. Okay. Okay, so you just add up a series. But you have to write down the formula. But the trick is that, okay, if these cars are coming at one another 10 miles per hour each, then it's as if one is stationary, the others coming at it at 20 miles per hour. Okay, if there's 100 miles of a distance, then it takes it five hours to get from here to here. Okay, this fly moves at 50 kilometers per hour, five times 50 is 250 miles. Okay,

so that's the easy way of doing it. The quote unquote easy is to realize there's a trick just reframe the problem. You don't have to worry about the fly's perspective. You just worry about how long does it take for them to crash, and then you multiply that by the fly's speed. Right. Okay? So this question was given to von Neumann. And then von Neumann just gives the answer almost instantaneously. It says 250 miles. And then they're like, oh, you know the trick.

And then he's like, what trick? I just summed the infinite series. That's crazy. That's crazy. Yeah. Speaking of genius, a common rebuttal about UFOs is if they're such an advanced species, why do they crash? So explain why do you think they crash and why does it occur after 1945 more? Yeah, totally. I think this is again again, demarcate this as speculation. I have no idea why they crash. But the possible interesting things people have said. So I guess the theories are if you have nuclear blast,

you have gamma radiation fall, you have kind of an EMP effect. And so maybe that pops into whatever interdimensional space they're in and either messes with their flight path or sends a signal that they should sort of enter ours. Again, I don't know if that's true. Another just interesting thing would be like, they're sort of trying to protect their resources and monitoring nuclear stuff.

And every time we detonate a nuke or we're about to detonate a nuke or things become aggressive, it's more like they're sending us a gift. That would be the Jacques Vallee theory. So they're sending, maybe they'll send us, and Rush sort of touched on this as well, like they'll send us like a little like civil propulsion, like where it's like, you guys didn't need to create nukes, you could have gone the civil propulsion route or whatever. Like here's like a zero point energy machine get like where it's like you guys didn't need to create nukes You could have gone the civil propulsion route or whatever like here's like a zero-point energy machine like figure it out You know, so I think the it is a very valid question. Like why would

These things travel, you know from you know Thousands of light-years away and and and and just crash like if they have that capability they probably wouldn't crash but I think a common trope of all alien encounters of the first or third kind, whether you're seeing crafts or we can believe it or not, interacting with any sort of beings, there's some sort of absurdity element. And that's where I do sort of like the Jacques Vallee idea that intermittent reinforcement, like behavioral reinforcement techniques are sort of used as a way to sort of nip at the herd. And so it's like, why are they abducting Betty and Barney Hill of all people or Travis Walton?

These people aren't like, it's not like the president of the US or like, you know, it's not like the most important, but maybe there's some sort of ripple under, like a la like cellular automata or something, there's some sort of like ripple effect, whereby like you're like a node, and you transfer the information, you get it. So I don't know, I don't know why they crash, but I think we're so limited.

If, you know, we're speaking from the perspective of like an ant colony, like wondering why humans do certain things, we're just so epistemologically limited would be my sort of main counterpoint. Do you want to hear my? Yeah, what do you think? Unsubstantiated conjecture? Please. Please. Yeah.

Okay, again, and this is just if I was to speculate completely, it could be the case, could be the case that it's just the nature of these devices. So that they're so temperamental that it's a miracle. Like 49 out of 50 are supposed to crash. And it's a miracle that they only have one out of a hundred. Yep.

Okay, so it could be that. And it also could be that they just don't care about them in the same way we fly drones into volcanoes. Yep. And so we're like, all right, well, whatever. They're so inexpensive. So it could be like that. It could also be that, well, something else that I don't agree with is when people say, if they have anti-gravity, then they're so much more advanced.

I don't see that as being the case. So for instance it may be that it's an independent technology. So for instance it's conceivable one country could have developed the steam locomotive whereas another developed superconductors. Yep. And then each would look at the other one and say whoa you're way more advanced than me. Advanced compared to what? It's not like it's a singular scale. Totally. It's not linear. Yeah, it's like the LK99 stuff's probably BS.

It's probably wrong. But say you figured out the Meissner effect. And look how close it was. Look at how close it was. And say that came out of Korea. That would be some sort of super-assum total. That would be like a stepwise leap. And it's not like you have to like build

on some necessary bedrock. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, I'm with you. Yeah, or let's imagine another culture has fiber optics, another one has sustainable agriculture. Yep. Like each one would look at the other and be like, oh, your league's ahead and envious of the other.

Totally. Or weapons of war for one versus medicine. Totally. Okay, so it could be that, that they're not more advanced than us. They look at us, they're like, how the heck are you doing what you're doing? And we look at them like, what, how are you doing what you're doing? So that's another, if there is even a them. Yeah, right.

Okay. And then, and then something else that was mentioned by you and I, I, I'd like to, to pick your brain on it. You said that what we do at CERN is we use high energy to investigate more and more ontological reality. Okay, so we use our technology to investigate reality. I wonder if that's part of the problem. That is to say that we shouldn't be using technology to find reality, but rather the reality is right here. And like that you, Jesse, you're so powerful, like so, so effing powerful. Like, like, yeah, like Gohan from Dragon Ball Z, if you ever watched that, it just needs to be unlocked.

It's, it's like that, or maybe it is unlocked. Like, right. watched that. It just needs to be unlocked. It's like that. Or maybe it is unlocked. Right. And your super saying is your capacity to love other people. And maybe that is like way more powerful than any technology and that's the most real. And it's like satanic or upside down to think what we should use is technology to investigate reality. It's a complete reversal and it's a distraction. So anyway, I want to know what you think. Yeah, I think that's just, I mean, that's a typical, what is the Faustian bargain is for forbidden knowledge,

right? And it's, you sell your soul to the devil because you want to know the truth, but maybe the truth is less important in some abstract factual sense, and maybe the truth is less important in some abstract factual sense and ontological reality is less important than, like you said, kind of leading from the heart or yeah, leading a true honest life in accordance with virtues that for all we know, in the, say there is some higher, trantemporal alien realm, maybe that's the currency.

And maybe our sort of capitalist construct or where we barter for, we have currency that's fungible and we have limited real estate and, you know, we have possessions, maybe, maybe, maybe currency, maybe the currency up there is actually love and, you know, the four virtues or something. Yeah. Isn't there a sighting where some other beings came to some people and said, you're so powerful because you, you have a, because you, what was it? Was it the aerial school or no?

A lot of the aerial school testaments, they are told by the alien, like you don't realize how special and powerful you are. And that's a common trope among other alien abductions as well, which I find fascinating. Yeah, no, no, no, tell me. What do you think the process, yeah. I think the process of science is the exact opposite of that.

It's saying how not special are we? Let's keep removing ourselves from being special over and over and over and over. And then we look for where are we special? Well, we've saturated ourselves with the doctrine of unspecialty. And so. No, I love that.

Even think about the word high tech, right? It's like the tech is on high. Like you are outsourcing your power to the high tech, the high priest, but now it's the high tech or whatever. And so I think there is something about science where you do feel, it's like Bertrand Russell wrote about, like he looked up at the stars and he just felt so small. And there's something about science where

post-Kopernican revolution especially, humans are becoming a smaller and smaller part of the picture in some ways, right? It's like, well, maybe the earth's not the center of the universe. And maybe carbon-based life is like one form of life, but maybe there's silicon-based life, and we should experiment with that in labs. And maybe, a la Michael Levin's work, maybe the EM field can, like,

do, you know, create interesting biological von Neumann replicators that are, like, non-human, but they're, like, from human, you know? Like, we can, like, rinse a primordial cell, create a xenobot that, like non-human, but they're like from human. We can like rinse a primordial cell, create a xenobot that like, you know. And it's like increasingly like humans are kind of out of the picture and it's like how do we create some like optimal functioning life form. And I do think there's an interesting possible,

I don't want to say Luddite because that's too extreme, but like backlash to that where it's like raining that in, where it's like you're alive and you it's like, well, you're alive and you're really, there's something really special about your life and the things that are presented to you are not maybe by chance or by coincidence. And maybe instead of being obsessed with AI, which I view of is it's sort of,

if this is a larger algorithm, if you think that, maybe you have an IT view of the universe like Wolfram. The AI we're creating is definitely a bit compressed version of that. So it's like if we're going to explore things, I think there's something really interesting about human consciousness, which is why I love your show, human biology and humans themselves. What are we that goes unexplored by a lot of conventional science at least. Yeah I love that. Well you prompted it.

Just continue, continue. Yeah well something that I love that you said is that you said the word human then you said what are we and so something that I don't like when what that people do is when they just use the word human and then they don't follow it up with we and the reason they do that is because they want to distance themselves and show how rational they are. So for instance, they'll say humans are so petty. You're a human.

Why don't you say we are so petty and who else? Who do you think you're speaking to her or other people? So just say we write when people say human humans are such strange. They break up with someone breaks up with them. Humans are such strange creatures. Who are you talking about? Why are you acting as if Who are you talking about? Why are you acting as if you're distinguished from them?

Right, it's like you're some sort of alien or you're too noble to like, you're not a part of that. Like you're not, yeah, exactly. They're clinical and operating as if they're a scientist viewing something else from a ladder, distance from themselves. Totally. And so that's why I don't like

when people use the word human most of the time. I think they should be using the word weak. Yeah. And there's this... You did follow it up with weak. There's this weird almost paradox that like, I feel like once you realize your depravity, actually Peter Thiel, who I worked for, has a favorite philosopher named René Girard. Speaking of depravity. I'm just kidding.

No, he's the best. Yeah, but we'll get to that. Yeah, of course. I'll defend him to the death. No, I don't know. I'm just kidding around. I'm kidding around. Okay, all good.

But one of his favorite philosophers is René Girard. And Peter's a very deep thinker. And René Girard is this French philosopher and he talks about sort of people having these conversion experiences and or hierophany. And he has his own conversion experience actually. Peter? No, Girard does. Sorry.

And it's this really interesting thing where it's almost like once he realizes his own depravity. He grew up in Avignon in France, and he would drive sports cars, and he was into models, and he was as mimetic as the next person, and that becomes his theory, that humans are very mimetic. But he has this sort of conversion experience of sort of realizing his own depravity,

and then that creates like newfound enlightenment. And so it's this bizarre paradox. That's so interesting. Of like, once you realize your own depravity, then you reach upwards. Instead of your tether being horizontal to like in mimetically pinging off other people's desires, your tether becomes transcendent and moves upwards and you realize that you

have all these animal instincts and urges that are sort of very finite and depraved and then that allows space for what he would call the kingdom of heaven or I don't know what the word, some sort of transcendent tether. So, would it be the case then that our culture with its emphasis on removing shame and removing sin is doing the opposite of what we should be doing? What we do is we look at ourselves and we're like, okay, what's something that I'm made to feel horrible for or that I just indeed feel guilty about? The difference between shame and guilt. And how do I remove those? Well,

I say that there's nothing that's objectively moral. So we do that and we call that enlightenment. There is another route, which is let me think not only about how my sinful now, but how am I more sinful? Like in what other ways my malicious, what other activities or frames of mind I hold that are malignant and wicked and embittered, and if I'm honest with myself, I should stop." Totally. Totally. If people did real audits on their motivations for things, it would usually tether to the seven deadly sins,

or often very few people act out of pure magnanimity, benevolence, selflessness, and often it's this sort of transactional symbiotic that it's not always like zero sum, but it often tethers down to some base, primitive survival instinct, and that's okay. But it's also very important to admit, and I think the people I, I'm actually more okay with people who are a little more overtly, not evil, but they sort of admit that they're like,

they lean into like, okay, I'm a little controversial and I've got bad instincts and I'm flawed. You prefer the wanton self-awareness to the noble ignorance. Exactly. Like, I'm not a fan of Trump. I don't like Trump caveat this with it but in some ways Trump is a cove is an overt gangster where Clinton

is an overt one and or sorry a covert one where where it's it's it's like your you're sort of this like crazy kleptocrat where the genie coefficient, the main measure of wealth inequality grows more under your administration than anybody. You have Larry Summers in there kind of doing a bunch of magic tricks or whatever. And you have NAFTA and you're sort of just completely outsourcing the American middle class

and manufacturing base. And you're flying with Epstein, you know, 26 times or whatever, and then, but then you have all these virtues, you're a virtue signaller, and you act like you're so amazing or whatever, and it's like, I don't like Trump, but give me Trump over that guy, you know?

It's like that moment, I don't like Trump, but give me Trump over that guy. You know? It's like that moment, I think, when Trump shifted a lot of the American voting base was when he was debating Hillary Clinton, and she goes, you've systematically avoided taxes, and you haven't paid any of your taxes. And Trump goes, yeah, so have I have. And so have you and all of your donors.

You know? And there's something super refreshing. I didn't know that. Trump goes, yeah, so have I have, and so have you and all of your donors. And there's something super refreshing. I didn't know that. Yeah. And Chappelle does an amazing, and Chappelle is also not a fan of Trump, but he does this amazing bit and he goes, in that moment, a star was born. And it's true. He's just like telling it like it is.

It's so funny. Look, we live in this corrupt kleptocracy. Government bureaucrats are stealing all sorts of things. The rich is not treated like, you know, the middle class and the poor. And yet, you know, you have one side that's sort of owning up to it or whatever. And then this other side, it's sort of this bait and switch, like bait and switch, like I'm going to try to buy off the votes of, you know, the poor and, and, and coastal elites by by saying the right things, but you're not doing anything to steer the ship

in a different direction, in my opinion. I think the answer is yes. Has to be considered as possible. You'd be a fool to pretend that it's impossible. And so then what you look for is, what evidence could be used to support this? And the only evidence that I could use to support it are, is the research of various UFO researchers

who have developed and collected their own stories of interaction with human looking non-humans. There's a lot of those. I've encountered a few of them myself from people. They're quite compelling. I do think that there's an element. Just a moment. You've encountered a few human-looking aliens?

Not me personally. I've interviewed a number of people who were quite credible to me. One was a retired US Air Force colonel with a PhD, who had a hell of an experience. I've talked about it from time. I can mention it here. I spoke to a woman who actually, I liked her story even more.

Housewife from Western Pennsylvania. I met her 15 years ago at a conference. She came up to my table, I was selling some books, you know, with her husband. And she said, I was selling some books, you know, with her husband. And she said, I just want to tell you this crazy story that happened to me in 1965 when I was 15 years old. So I said, all right, go. So she was in church with her mother in this tiny little town in Western Pennsylvania, where she said everyone knew everyone, especially in church, she said. And so she's with her mom and she said this couple

walked in to sat in front of her. She said they were like supermodels. They were absolute male, female. She said they were just like gorgeous Hollywood blonde. She said they had this most perfect blue clothing that she had ever seen. And she, I think even implied like as a 15-year-old girl, I was kind of obsessed with fashion, you know, all that. But she's studying the fabric of what they were wearing.

She said it was the most amazing, like they were the most amazing spectacle in this church. And she said, I was shocked that no one was looking at them. She said, I was mesmerized by them. I couldn't take my eyes off them. And they seemed like they didn't quite fit in. And then she said to me, and that's when I could hear them in my mind. I said, well, what do you mean? She said, well, I could hear them thinking to each other. They weren't talking. I could hear them thinking. And I said, well, what were they thinking?

She said, well, it was kind of like one was saying to the other, well, we appear to be fitting in pretty well here. And then the other one said, yes, except for the girl behind us who can hear us. This is what she said to me. And I'll just, I'll pause and I'll just say this woman was eminently believable to me. It's absolutely credible.

So to continue, she hears this telepathically, I guess. And she was kind of shocked, who wouldn't be. And she said at that point, though, I didn't hear anything else from them. So it was as if they knew this security breach and they shut it down. So they go through the rest of church. This is a Catholic mass, by the way. And she was almost amused by the fact that they didn't seem to know how to act within a Catholic mass. I grew up going to Catholic mass. So sit, kneel, do the sign of the

cross, you get up, you do all these different things, all these motions. They were looking around to try to do it right. So anyway, mass ends finally, and she's fascinated by them, of course, and they get up and they're out of the church immediately. They jump ahead of the crowd and they're gone. And she gets into her mind that she is going to follow them. So her mother was sitting next to her, oblivious to the whole scenario. The young woman who's telling me the story gets up and she works her way through the crowd.

Her mother is yelling, get back here young lady, where do you think you're going? What are you doing? What's going on? And the girl just goes. So she gets to the front of the church and she sees the couple and they've walked across this big parking lot and they're going over this little crest of a hill. And she scoots across the parking lot. She gets to the top of the hill, she sees them, they're walking down this field toward a wooded area. She starts down after them, and then she stops dead in her tracks because she sees a third person.

This is crazy, but I swear to you, this is what she said to me. She said, there's a man standing at the edge of the woods. She said, do you remember the character Lurch from the Adams family TV show? Tall, black suit. She said he looked kind of like that guy. He looked like Lurch. Very tall and it intimidated her, it frightened her. And where did this person appear from? From the edge of the woods. He was waiting for this couple that was walking to him, the couple that was in church him, the couple that was

in church. They're walking across the field toward this guy, according to the woman. They walk into the woods with the guy. He turns, he walks into the woods with them. And that's the end of her story. That was the whole thing. So it was a crazy thing. It's like, who are these people? Who was Lurch over there? What was this? It's very bizarre. It's like, who are these people? Who is Lurch over there? What was this? It's very bizarre. It seems like you've got this group of blonde, blue-eyed, Pleiadian looking, I'm not saying they were from the Pleiades, but these individuals that were very unusual, that appear to have a telepathic capability, and they're going into the church for some unknown reason. They didn't drive there in a car. They're coming through these woods. What's that all about? I got a similar story from a retired

colonel, and I'll make this very brief, but basically the same type of story. He told this to me with his wife who was present. They were at a Las Vegas casino hotel when this happened. They were with a third friend and they see this woman that they are convinced was telepathic and an alien. And the reason was the friend that they were with, apparently according to this colonel, was a psychic, a friend of theirs. Who knows what that means? But the psychic stopped and she said to the Colonel that woman there is not She's not like us and the woman was this absolutely drop-dead beautiful blonde woman in a blue outfit Of course, it's Las Vegas and you're gonna get that in Las Vegas But nonetheless, that's what this psychic said

So the psychic and the wife went down an escalator to get away. They were nervous. The colonel stood behind, he's observing the woman, and he said to me, she was maybe 50 feet away, he said, like she turned slightly toward him and he heard her in his mind, he said to me, just like what this other woman said. He heard this woman in his mind and the woman almost sounded like a police officer on the beat, essentially, nothing to see here, go about your business, this is not anything for you. Like that's what he heard and it startled him. He's thinking, what's this all about? And then at that moment,

this equally beautiful man, blonde hair, blue, maybe they were in Cirque du Soleil, who knows really, but he's conferring with her. He can't hear them. They then walk toward the escalator where he's standing. And he's thinking, good, I'm going to, I'm going to confront them. I'm going to say something. And they walk right by him. He says nothing. Then he follows him down the escalator. This is actually hilarious because as they're going down the escalator, the wife interrupted his story to me and she says, ''Oh my God, my friend and I were hiding behind a slot machine,

peeking behind the slot machine watching these two.'' That is a comical element to this. So it was good though that she was there to kind of corroborate this story, you know. Anyway, the couple gets down to the bottom of the escalator and they just walk off. Unmolested, they go about their business. That's the end of them. But what's weird is that the three of them are talking about this afterward. And the psychic friend apparently also did some kind of hypnotherapy, regression, who knows? Like there's a lot of people that will do that.

And she says as a colonel, I could regress you and maybe you can remember better what some of the things that you may have heard. I think that's what they were getting into. And he goes to do this with her. And when he does the regression, it was a couple of days later, every time she's trying to regress him, he hears, they hear construction noise

outside the house, jackhammers and noises. They go actually to check and there's nothing there. So they give up. He says, look, I'll be back in town next month. Maybe we can do it then. So he calls a month later and says, look, I'll be back in town next month. Maybe we can do it then. So he calls a month later and says, hey, I'm gonna be around. I wanna, let's try that regression again.

She's the, the friend says, what regression? He says, the regression that we did last month. Don't you remember? According to what he said and the wife, she had no memory of that. So, of, she had no memory of that. So she had no memory of the event. So somehow in the subsequent month, her memory had been tampered with by some unknown group.

I think that's a pretty crazy story, but I had no problem believing this colonel who told me this and his wife, who was there to corroborate critical parts of it So what is that? What are these people? Who are they? Are they just regular human beings who've just got gnarly powers and they can get inside your head? Oh, maybe Or maybe there's something else going on

Maybe there's a A faction of beings that are just very quietly hanging out here for whatever purpose. I tend to think that that is true. I don't think they all look human. I think that there are definitely beings that do not look human. And I think that as far as what's the general scenario, I've been taking a long time to get to that and I apologize, but I think that we are and our planet are subject of great, great interest right now. I do think there's probably a lot of life in the universe, but I still maintain I think

planets like our own are quite special and unique and not a dime a dozen. And when you have, we don't just have life here, we have complex, incredible life that's everywhere. We are exploding with all kinds of genetic diversity. So that's got to be of interest. And then where we are as a species are of interest. Where are they coming from? Are they coming from another planet or another dimension?

Are they physical or are they spiritual? I'm gonna say I think that they are physical. They may have an ability to manipulate what we would consider dimensions. And I think that's where the interdimensional aspect probably comes in. I don't know that I would call them the ones who are landing in craft, the ones who are

entering oceans or coming out of oceans or coming in from an altitude of 200,000 feet down to land on the ground, tracked on radar. I don't think that they're spiritual entities. I think they're physical and they come from somewhere. I assume they come from another world and they come from somewhere. I assume they come from another world, that they're quite advanced. And figuring out the agenda is really very, very important. And I don't know that I've got all the answers to what the agendas are. Are they benign or are they malevolent? I think it's a real fallacy to say that a species that is inherently much more technologically advanced is inherently more ethical than ours. I mean, a lot of the new age community, I think, seems to believe this, that these ETs are all ethical.

And why do you think that is? Why do you think they believe that? They're naive. They're just very naive. They're idealists. They don't know any better. I mean, that's really what I believe. I think it's really pretty simple. There's a lot of naivete in our society about this.

Now, I'm not saying that these other aliens haven't figured out a way to manage their society in a way that they can prevent themselves from destroying themselves. They probably do that through some form of totalitarian control, though. Hive mind, that seems to me the most logical way that they would do it. You have to control. But I mean, look, if they come from another planet, you have to assume a few things.

That they, like us, became the apex predators of their world. They would have forward-facing binocular predatory vision. They are used to manipulating the environment. They were, to get to the point of being the top species on their planet, that meant that they had to subjugate other species to do their work for them, which is what we do. We subjugate plants, we subjugate animals, we make them work for us. We take it all for granted, but we wouldn't be able to do what we do without controlling all the other species of the planet. And so they must have done the same thing.

And they must have gone through a period of extreme violence to do so, which is what we've done. We've only succeeded because we're violent. That's what they must have done. Now, maybe they're not as outwardly violent anymore, but that doesn't mean they're not used to getting their own way. I'm sure they're used to getting their own way

because they're quite good at it. And so they're used to getting their own way because they're quite good at it. And so they're here now. So what does that mean? Well, they're used to getting their own way. Now they may support our development. They may have problems with our development. They may understand many, many things that we have not even begun to understand.

I'm sure that's true. But does that mean inherently that they have what we would say are our best interests at heart? I don't know that for an instant. I don't know that for an instant. I have to assume they have, as long as they have physical bodies, as long as they need to eat food and have a shelter and reproduce, then I have to assume that they have their own interests. And those interests might coincide with ours to a certain extent, or they may diverge from

ours to a certain extent, just like any intelligent species would have divergent interests. I thought that most likely occurred to you is that if these are intelligent beings, not us, and in this 15 year old story case, the 15 year old girl at the church, so presumably they want to be surreptitious. So why would they be so conspicuous? There's so much more advanced than us It should be relatively straightforward to to understand what would stand out in other words for them not to look so beautiful or not to be Wear such amazing clothing and like look I know it's it I have the problem that it's hard for me to not look beautiful So I understand don't hate me because I'm beautiful. That was an old TV commercial. But what do you think? What do you make of that?

Like look there was obviously the on the opposite end that lurch looking guy, right? So they can make Two ends of the spectrum. It seems Improbable that they wouldn't be able to make some little part of the spectrum. That's a good question I don't know if I have the answer to that I don't know. I would love answer to that. I don't know. I would love to be able to ask them, why are you guys so good looking? That's kind of scary. Like, why do you have to look better than us and give us an inferiority complex?

If I ever get the opportunity to ask, I will make sure that I ask on your behalf. But in all seriousness, I don't know. It's a good question. Maybe they just have better genetics. Maybe that's it. Here's a theory, just tossing it out there. Let's say you're an alien species that's been here for a certain period of time, long time. You might want your own humans to like work for you, to be your avatars. You may not be able just to walk around on the surface of the planet. It's not safe for you. Too much solar radiation or too little or too much

gravity or too many microbes that are harmful. Like there's a whole bunch of reasons why an alien extraterrestrial species would strongly hesitate before they come walking around on Earth. Maybe they can't breathe the atmosphere very well, probably. So what you would want to do is take some of these humans who are, you know, they're pretty clever. They could work for you. They could work their way up to middle management perhaps. And you have them and you genetically enhance them.

You've got your own version of CRISPR technology, of course. You can make them live many hundreds of years perhaps. And why not make them beautiful? Sure. Why not? So in summary, many people ask, hey, Richard, you've been in this for 40 years, you're one of the most seasoned people, like you've mentioned, right? For several decades. And I know you just turned 32 a couple days ago. Yeah, yeah. So what is your perspective? You also bring a unique perspective because you can integrate history like you've mentioned before with the Jacques Vallee story of 1661 if I'm not mistaken. Okay, so is a correct summary that language is a nurse crop which leads inexorably to the development of the devices for our artificiality

So, okay, and that's something significant. It's my current theory. Yeah. I Mean I don't know how to test it and I don't really know if other people involved in human origins have speculated along these lines. I try to understand what they're saying. This is just my own line of thought. But I think it's true. I think language is the key. Artificial structure of information like that. The ability to share the information. You're kind of duplicating brains as it were. So I think that's the foundation of our real power

as a society, as a species. Partly when I hear stories about some physical body or even the grays and people will say, well, there's so much more advanced. I'm always thinking, why do you think that's more advanced? So our science fiction stories and even okay So our stories are that we develop artificial intelligence we manipulate at the atomic scale and then there could be something like gray goo

I'm sure you've heard about gray goo and it's not clear to me that the gray goo is Less intelligent than some human for or some probe that can go out, some sphere that can have all of the intelligence of the person. The grey goo can be intelligent. Yes, exactly. That's a good point. Or a Dyson sphere that an actually sufficiently intelligent alien looks like a Dyson sphere. It could be.

Or just a marble or some, or maybe a cube or whatever it may be. But when people say like, look, we're going to develop slits as eyes or slits for noses or much larger eyes. How do you know this? To me, it seems like if we're going to, if the singularity is going to happen and we can mind upload, then the future human wouldn't have any of this. It would be firstly digital, if anything. And secondly, maybe it would look like this if anything and secondly maybe would look

like this blister. You sound like Ray Kurzweil said the same thing many many years ago he said look why would you have aliens and big ships when they could you have intelligence the size of grain of rice that could just zip around and you wouldn't need big clunky spaceships. So what's funny is that there's this guy named Scott Aronson I don't know if you know who that is he's a professor of computer science and studies quantum computing. Right. He, I was at this conference and he was on stage.

He said like the most hilarious line at this conference. So he's been hired by OpenAI to do something called watermarking. So how is it that you can tell when chat GPT produces something? Well sometimes it says as an artificial language model as an AI model, so and so. So that's a clear giveaway. Are there other ways that you can as open AI engineer it so that if someone gives you text, you can say, okay, with 90% probability, this came from an AI. So he works on that problem. It's called watermarking. So one solution is actually that you get it to say certain words with a bit more frequency so that you can tell when

it puts the in front of box more often than not then it's yeah I or something like that you're talking about like sophisticated linguistic analysis it sounds like and absolutely like it's currently very easy in my opinion to detect chat GPT output from normal human right. It absolutely has a certain feel to it and a look to it. So anyway, that's the problem that he works on because it'll get more sophisticated eventually. Yeah. Okay. So he said at this conference, he's like, look, I was watching South Park and

in South Park, what happened was the kids were using, the kids started using AI for their homework. The teachers started using AI to grade the homework. Everyone's using AI to text one another. And then what they had to do is bring in this wizard who has a falcon on his shoulder and the falcon will just call when it sees AI because that's the only way you could tell. I have to see that episode. Yeah, it's him telling it was hilarious.

And then he's like, what's funny to me is I've now become that wizard. Man, geez. He then said, Scott Ayrnson said that, yeah, so remember how we all made fun of Ray Kurzweil, like the academic community? He's like, actually, Ray Kurzweil has been the only one that's been right out of all of us. Well, yes and no. So Kurzweil's objection, we could talk about Kurzweil, I'm very interested in him, but

his objection to UFOs was because it didn't make sense in terms of his idea of how advanced intelligence should operate. Which I'm like, okay, fine, I take that. But what am I supposed to do about thousands and thousands of these UFO reports? Do I just pretend that I never read them? Like, that's the problem is it's anti-empirical, ultimately. Like, you can say the UFO subject makes no sense to me

because it shouldn't make sense. And that's true. According to the everything that we think we know, it does not make sense. It should not be here. But it is here. It's here. There are sightings of craft.

I don't know why they're not the size of a grain of rice. Haven't figured that part out. But there are definitely sightings of craft of various sizes, including humongous. So what am I supposed to do with that? I can pretend I never read the reports, but that's not really very satisfying either. So the difficulty of this subject is getting into the weeds and looking at the actual data. And this is what Kurzweil won't do, of course, because he's above all of that. He thinks, I've got this figured out. And he doesn't. He doesn't have it figured out. He's too busy and consumed with becoming a god.

That's all these people want to do. They're dangerous people, by the way. But they are convinced that they want to become like gods and shed these human bodies and these physical contraptions that we're in and become digital. And good luck with that. Let me know how that goes. Do you believe that there's some imminent future event? I'm sure you've heard this from people like Leslie Keene

and others that within the next five years or so, sometimes the year 2027 is echoed, but within the next decade, five years to decade, there's some cataclysmic event that we need to prepare for. Well- Have you heard this? All the time we hear about these. There's always something in the rumor mill. I mean, I've been hearing this my entire adult life.

For 30 years, every two years from now. Yeah, it's a constant refrain. The fact is we do have cataclysms that do happen periodically that transform the world. I lived through 9-11, you did too. I lived through 9-11, you did too. I lived through the COVID revolution, which still infuriates me every time I think about it. I lived through the propaganda-sci-ops of all kinds of operations going on in the world today,

every day. It's filled with more and more lies that surround us all the time. Do you think that some of the human looking alien, not humanoid, the I don't, we need to give it a name so that when I'm referring to it, you know what I'm referring to the human ones that came in that were there, supposedly to calm you at least. So those ones, do you think they were the grays dressed up?

Do you think there were projection? Did you get the impression that they were robots? Well, it would probably would have taken quite a bit of telepathic manipulation to make these smaller creatures appear to be the human looking ones. So I'm thinking they were either really were just Earth people that were cooperating with this species, or were a creation that they came up with in order to get me to cooperate. When they were doing what they did to you, whatever it was, did you get the sense that it was routine, like they've done this many times before, and so they were cold and distant? No, the lack of communication in hindsight, I think, was because telepathic communication

was not possible in the injured state of my entire body, including my brain. And it wasn't because they didn't want to it's just I was not in the position to, you know, receiver or, or communicate. I was basically screaming like a crazy man. So that's nothing that encourages conversation. Paul wash asks, Travis, given that you've suffered for 45 years of obviously difficult trauma, what would you say to your captors if you were given the opportunity to read from a victim impact

statements? Lifelong fan, by the way. So that's Paul Wash. Basically, what would you say if you could communicate to the aliens? Well, I would say the number one thing at the top of the list would be why. You know, to have an explanation. So much of what I'm telling you is my own speculation, the kind of conclusions I come to to come to terms with this. But this is, you know, after 40 some years of thinking about it. What's the most recent paranormal-esque event you've experienced? I'm including UFO sightings as the paranormal. Whether or not you want to use that term, you understand what I mean?

Well, I try to stick to the things I can document. stick to the things I can document. Some pretty impressive things in my personal life, but without any documentation, it's just a claim. I even tend to shy away from telling people about extremely unusual things I discover in the world, you know, scientific facts, a little unknown animals, surprising sorts of things, because they think it's attention seeking, and they think it's just an exaggeration if they're the kind of person who doesn't want to believe what I have to say.

Everything's conventional, everything normal. That's what that's what people who say there is no other life outside of planet Earth. That is what they crave so so deeply is certainty that we don't have to consider the fact that there are literally trillions of planets in our own solar system. Certainly billions of them are likely to be Earth-like. And I don't know, it's terrifying for some people or maybe they like feeling special. And I actually, you know, ask people before. So when you go outside at night and you look up at the sky and you see all of these

millions of stars, you think that the Creator just put them there to decorate our night sky, just twinkle at us? And they either imply that they actually think that or they just that question I think the claim would be not that I believe this but I think the claim would be that there exists life on other planets But that's a different manner. That's a different matter than if they've come here to inspect us or for some other reason Certainly and there's even physics claims that you can't travel. I mean, you look at the nearest star and it's so many light years away that conventional travel would mean that even at the speed of light, they would have to take just toddlers on the scene. You go back just a few hundred years and the most technological thing we have is fire. And to presume, you know, these people can't see that now we have cell phones, that probably things a lot more unexpected and not fitting with conventional thought on the subject might be in our future. We're talking about human history of a few thousand years of anything very complex. And to presume that in a thousand, no, 10,000,

what about half a million? The age of these star systems, the age of these stars and solar systems that exist out there, is so great that the degree to which they're advanced over us in terms of physics and understanding of science to make flat pronouncements. I mean it happened, you know, Lord Kelvin, he was the inventor of the Kelvin temperature scale. He was quite an intellectual respected scientist and he proclaimed that humans would never travel faster

than I forget 30 miles an hour or the all the air would be sucked out of the conveyance and all the people would die so you know he predicted nobody would go any faster than that but there's as a matter of fact, Stan Friedman, a prominent nuclear physicist, wrote a whole book called Science Was Wrong, recording the various pronouncements that the experts of the day said, this is the limit. And I'm up against that myself. So who am I? I'm not a nuclear physicist.

Daniel Raisen here says, as a witness myself, I'm glad this man is brave enough to take the ridicule for the rest of us. Now, Tim Usubov says, Travis, you described ship controls in some interview. How did you get to that room, and how long did you stay there? I just ran there because I presume my combative as my threats towards these creatures. They left and I just went seeking a way out.

So when I entered that area that I only presumed to be controlled, I have no no. I confirmation that anything I was doing was actually moving the ship. I didn't feel it move. What was the question again? Sure. They want to know how did you get there and how long did you stay there for in this larger room? Oh, well, there was just moments and perhaps this button pushing, attempting to open the door when I didn't know where the ship was. It was at an airless place. I didn't even know, but I was in hysterical panic and doing things that were probably

unwise and I was encountered this human looking being who led me out of there. So it was only just minutes. You also mentioned you went down a ramp to get from the initial room to the to the second larger room. Can you describe the ramp? Was it smooth? Was it gray? Were there steps on the ramp? I was mainly concerned with where they were taking me. So I was paying attention to that and their surroundings. But the ramp itself was not slippery, fortunately,

because it was steeper than you would normally consider comfortable to be descending. Nothing special, just a ramp. Did it open or was it already opened? It was already open. And I like details. So please entertain me for this as it's coming down or it was already down. Were there hinges that allowed it to come down that you saw? Or was it just no, no, no, I didn't see it in motion. But I did not see it moving from closed to open. The door that opened probably would have triggered that

if it wasn't already down. It could have been a section of the craft that merely slid down and took a different position. I doubt it was something that just came out of the floor in the hangar area. MP wants to know, what does Travis think about the contact event in South Africa and about the visitors messages about the harm and dangers of technology? Have you heard of this?

Well, I have heard various claims and you know, they told me to tell you this. Like I say I don't evaluate anyone else's case but it's just pure simple wisdom you know that humans had better We cannot go on at this rate. When I was a kid, the population of Earth was half what it is today. And do we need to go another 40 years and double again and just keep doubling and doubling and doubling? These are limits. There are limits to growth. You can't go on forever multiplying greater and greater and greater.

Something more conscious and more aware needs to be done. So create a whole bunch more petroleum under the ground? No. No, when they get it all pumped out of the ground, they're going to have to think, well, now what are we going to lubricate our skateboards with or whatever, you know. It's, it's, there was a musician when I was a kid, the name of the album was After the Gold Rush and that's what humanity's expansion across this planet has been, a gold rush, you know, charging headlong, exploiting everything right and left. And it's it's decimated so much of what was abundant and natural. We're gonna miss it. John Doe wants to know, do you recall anything particular about the eyes of the beings? So both either the humanoid ones are the more human like ones, their eye color?

Yeah, there was something odd about the human looking ones in terms of their eyes. And I never quite put my finger on that. Because, like I said, I wasn't studying things out something unusual. And one thing that stands out to me concerning the graze was the stare. It seemed to be penetrating in a very uncomfortable way. And, but there were blinks at times. And a lot of people report no blinking, but no eyelids, but there was definitely

blinking in this case. Blinking with their own eyelids or with a film that came up and then disappeared like a lizard? It was like their own eyelids. And you know, on eyes that size, it was quite a pronounced sort of thing. Their eyes, is it primarily black? Or were you able to see a

direction that they were looking because there's some white? I didn't see things like a pupil or anything like that. I presume, of course, that they were looking at me because their faces were pointed towards me. Fox into Bush wants to know. And now that you've been through this experience, do you have advice in case someone else is in this a similar situation? Let's take that two ways. So one is that they're taking a board. Okay. And then also the post ababduction media frenzy. So how, what advice would you give yourself? Let's say, let's just take it to be you. What would you do differently in both cases on the ship and then afterward? Well, those are two completely different questions, but the decision to approach and therefore, you know, sort of trigger what happened was something I regret and wish hadn't happened. It's too much to handle. As far

as how to respond to what happened afterwards, afterwards it was mostly negative and over the years it's evolved. There is a lot of more positive people recognizing things that they have themselves experienced, Also, still some negative because people who mistakenly consider it a threat to things they already believe. Have you met any people that have had similar experiences to you? Yes. Are any of them people who have public names that you can reference? Well, I think we already went through this. Are there people that I'm going to vouch for without having investigated their case?

And I'm sorry, I'm just not going to do that because then there's many, many people and some of them are friends that, well, why not put me on that list? It's just way too political. Okay, how about this? What was similar about the experiences and what was different without divulging who the people were in particular? Well, I would say the idea of being blasted by some form of energy that may have killed me would be a unique feature.

But I've gone to a great deal of time to try to analyze what that was. So much of what made them call it an abduction rather than the term I now prefer, which is ambulance call, is that this blast of energy was an accident. Took years of research to find out that the area where we were there is one of the highest frequency of lightning strikes of any place in the United States. And that the presence of this craft or the field it generates may have triggered a discharge of energy with me as the ground wire.

Something kind of unexpected. And that sort of contributes to what were they doing there? Were they there to take one of us? One of the other crewmen, Alan, Duwayne, Steve. No, I don't think that was part of the deal. I think, and this is pure speculation, that this high frequency of lightning strikes has to do with the fact that when lightning strikes the earth,

crystals are formed that are not formed geologically. They're rare, but quite exotic in terms of the properties that they are, you know, said to have, and it's called folgiarite. So it could have been something along the lines of their looking prospecting for folk, right? So you think the high density of lightning strikes is the precipitator of the UFOs, or that the UFOs induce the high lightning strikes?

I would say the first the former that the UFOs may be in that area because of the high frequency of lightning and the creation of these exotic crystals. Speculation, of course, to understand. I'm not saying I know this. I don't mind speculation, man. I'm a fan of it, personally. So Sixpool says, can Travis describe what the grays were wearing, If any, what was the material made of? Can he discern any? Well, that's it. Well, they were wearing coveralls, loose fitting coveralls loose fitting coveralls of a orange brown color, soft velour, not shiny.

I didn't pick up any details other than that. Do you happen to know how long the duration is that you remember inside the craft? Is it you remember only a minute? That would just be an estimation that the conscious period was You could you could you know take it off in terms of you know Minutes and hours or that sort of thing, but certainly nothing that fills up five days and that is or was a blank for me for so long.

What was the state of your body? Because I imagine that if you were not eating for five days, you would look drastically different. Were you do you feel like you were fed somehow? Must have been according to medical tests, they say that if your body is feeding on itself, that it generates what's called ketones. And those were absent, although there was evidently quite a bit of dehydration. I was weighed immediately after the incident, soon as my brother got me back to my mother's house. And then by the time I went into Dr. Candel's office,

bringing those same scales with me, there was a recovery of at least five pounds. So- Just from hydration? Just probably hydration. I was very thirsty. That was so major point in Me describing how I felt a five pound difference from when you arrived naked you're weighing yourself, correct? I Wasn't naked that's Hollywood. But from the time I was recovered from the phone booth

would. But from the time I was recovered from the phone booth, to the time I was in the doctor's office following. The five pounds sounds quite significant. So I'm wondering if any of that difference was because of clothing change worth, was there a difference in clothing between your initial measurement and then. Well, no, because I was weighed naked both times. because I was weighed naked both times. So you just said that something was Hollywood that the naked was only an artifact of Hollywood? Yeah.

Yeah, they filmed a bunch of other nudity in that movie that didn't get used, fortunately, but it's just kind of one of those things that Hollywood tends to do. I'm interested in a remake that doesn't resort to such devices. Okay, so sorry, I want to make sure I'm understanding this. So in Hollywood, they falsely presented you as naked on a scale. Naked on the floor of the phone booth. I see, okay, okay. But you were weighed naked.

Yes, when I came back to the house, my brother removed the clothes, sealed them up in a sealed bag, and weighed me, and I changed clothes. When you were scanned, were there any abnormalities? Someone here is asking if you had an x-ray and there was a device in you or a small piece you mentioned that there was a grain. Well, I mentioned the small calcified granuloma, which is no longer there on any x-rays. Also an actual brainwave scan. Barrow's Neurological Institute is where this was done. And this was where Muhammad Ali moved to Phoenix just to be near this hospital. And the technician was not told who I was. He wasn't attaching any significance

to description of what happened. I was actually put in there under a false name. So it was a double-blinded examination and they found what was described, I still have the report, as a by synchronous alternating wave traveling from front to back. And I have undergone subsequent scans that did not show that. So I'm thinking it could have just been an artifact of recent injuries that was in the process of healing. What's this wave? What is the consequence of it? What does it mean the by synchronous alternating? So both hemispheres were the technician didn't say this, this shows that it was hit with electricity. I would

love to see scans electroencephalograph done on people who might've been hit by lightning or maybe an electrician who stood up under a live wire or something like that, at least something of that nature, to see if this kind of a pattern is a feature of certain types of injury or impact with large amounts of energy or force. Did they tell you anything else about that particular brainwave pattern? Here's an example. There's something called alpha waves, and then there's theta waves. I'm sure you've heard of this. And they correspond to different feelings of consciousness or different modes, like one is a more meditative mode, and others more cognitive thinking creative mode. So what's the significance of this wave that they found on you?

Maybe none. But I'm just telling you that, you know, people say, what did the test reveal? And this is what came out. This technician had no idea what I'd been through and what I was being tested for. It was just something that he observed without being told to look for something of that sort. So it was just something that came up and maybe insignificant. I mean, good grief, I don't know anything about EEGs. What if just being hysterical for five days, you know, could make you have an EEG of a certain characteristic. But I don't know. I'm just saying if there

is any significance to that, I have to go back and read that EEG again and see if they were referring to theta waves, alpha waves, any of that sort of thing. Do you have a pen and paper in front of you? Within arms reach? Yeah. Remember I said that I love details. Do you mind showing me some of the lines on the screen? Because as you were describing them, I can't visualize what you're saying. You're saying there's some lines and lines coming off, but there were no markings to indicate certain positions. Well, I'm no off, but there were no markings to indicate certain positions. Well, I'm no artist, but

this screen, you saw it where within the ship was mounted on the arm of the of the chair. It's just long lines with short lines. But they didn't have numbers on each of the little short lines. And they would move in response to things I did. Yeah, I see it. But didn't reveal any information to me. I mean, so they moved in response to you, you didn't get the sense that that was a map of something else, it actually was congruent with your motion. So when you turned, the signals changed. Well, that's a possibility to

what else is common between your experience and some of the other people who you're not going to name, but the ones that you personally find credible, you said that there were some commonalities. So what's another one? Well, I had an experience when I was a small child. Can't document it. My brothers and sisters remember this, telling them there. At the time it it happened I was telling this happened and they said no it was a dream but I never confused any dream with reality or any such thing

never anything of this sort so it was a very real experience in a single being that was like a gray I didn't call it alien. I just said it was a little man with a bald head and big eyes. And he was dressed in a black suit. And I thought that was interesting because I found out later that Betty Hill's beings were dressed in black suits. It was nighttime where the lights off. Yeah, we were all sleeping. It was a huge house and in Phoenix cooled by evaporative coolers. So during the hottest part of the year, we would make bedrolls, lay in the hallway where this giant cooler came down the hallway and cooling us all off. And so I woke up because I felt my legs being lifted.

Someone had picked up the bottom of the blanket and that woke me up. It's not like, oh, I'm dreaming an alien is coming to know it was a small man. And I didn't know what was lifting me until I looked to see what was lifting me in this little guy. And I started to call out and dropped and ran off. When you were young, you would describe it as a little man. Now thinking back, is it the same type of entity that you saw on the ship? Or do you not have a great recollection of it? I'd say it was very similar, if not the same as the people on the ship. A small man bald head, very pale, chalky skin, huge eyes. chocky skin, huge eyes, and dressed in black.

But I didn't call it an alien, never did. I just was insisting to this description to my brothers and sisters. And to this day, they remember me the only time I ever said this really happened and they were saying it was a dream. But see, that's one of those stories that people are going to say, oh, he's just ad-living here, you know? No. I don't have 20 witnesses here. It's just something that... I'm not concerned with skeptics. I want to know

a bit more about the commonalities we were talking about. So you just talked about your own experience again. Now, when you spoke with other people who have had similar experiences to yourself, what's similar is what I'm curious about. Is this going to get turned into Travis's endorsement of some cases and rejection of others? No, you don't have to mention any names. Well, it still, you know, boils down to that eventually, but you know, there's definitely a connection that and a style of presentation and then recalling what happened and describing it. and them recalling what happened and describing it.

Other kinds of subtle sorts of things. And I don't wanna give anybody a list of things to add to their next story, but definitely certain things that ring a bell. And not just in the experience itself, not just in the experience itself, but in the way they related it to people and the way people related to them. There seems to be a commonality. What do you mean, in the way that they relate it is similar. What do you mean? I don't want to go there. Come on, man. I can't do that to people. I was mercilessly paleried and criticized and all this stuff. Well, that doesn't match this,

doesn't match that. And it all come back to get the facts. You didn't even research my case. People are making criticisms and analyzing what happened, and they don't even know what's been said and what actually happened. Like a debunker who says, well, Travis was never at that phone booth. He was always in his mother's cabin or something. If

they do their research, duh, they know that the operator listened in on the call and notified the sheriff. He sent people over there to take fingerprints. So there's all kinds of things that where, oh, those guys were out there hallucinating on drugs. No, a law enforcement entity took samples from my body immediately afterwards, not one trace of any drug whatsoever.

So these kinds of, it's easy to just wipe it away with the back of your hand. Seven people don't have the same hallucination in detail, identical. The idea that it was a hallucination induced by earthquake lights, you know, the rim there is a giant fault in the ground. So the theory that people were offering was that earthquake lights are what generated this blast of energy, which actually came out of me and went white to a craft. But anyway, that went through my brain and made me hallucinate. Well, the guys in the truck 90 feet away, they didn't they weren't touching the ground.

And how could a blast of earthquake lights affect them? And more importantly, why would all seven of us imagine the same thing? People are really reaching when they grab for these ways of trying to explain it away, but there's quite a variety to them in the, we're serious. Juanita Grand wants to know,

I recall him talking about the temperature and dryness of the air inside the craft. I would like to know if he's noticed anything else strange. Obviously there's plenty strange, but something else that you haven't spoken much about, if not at all. No, really, just I was feeling injured and so maybe the suffocating feeling came from that but the the human looking being who took me out of there was wearing a helmet on his head so that was probably I would think to protect him from the atmosphere in there. Or maybe to avoid contaminating the interior of the craft. I don't know, but it does suggest that

perhaps that was the reason. It did feel immediately cooler and easier to breathe as soon as we got outside. Outside the initial room, whereas you could still be inside the craft into the larger hangar room. See, to me, when I'm visualizing this, I only think in terms of craft. So I think in terms of this is a small craft inside a larger craft, but the way you're describing it is this it's as if it's a village or craft inside of a large building somewhere,

it could be just a hanger on the ground somewhere. If you had to make a guess as to how large it was, how many feet away could you see your meters? How large would you characterize it? Well, before I go to figure I really ought to get meditate on that a bit, you know, figure out what the size would be. It's quite a bit larger, big enough for these things to fly into. I would assume they flew in there. I didn't see them flying.

I know you said you need to think about it some more. More than four times the size of the initial place. Is that correct? Yeah. Is that correct? Yeah. More. I'm a man of details, Travis. More than 10 times? I would say, you know, gotta be bigger than 200 feet. You know, if there's a couple of craft in there, 40 feet in diameter,

that adds up to 80, but they're spaced by maybe 30. You know, I'm just off the top of my head saying a figure like that. That adds up to 80, but they're spaced by maybe 30. I'm just off the top of my head saying a figure like that. MJ jumps wants to know before you die, will you reveal if you've had any other contact with ETs or UFOs? Well, that would be like admitting that I had it. So that's a loaded question.

The sneaky way around the question. How about this? Is there more to come from Travis Walton? Yes. Yeah, I think so. Someone wants to know about high strangeness. This term that keeps coming up over and over, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Have you experienced any high strangeness after your event? Yeah, but it wasn't witnessed by multiple witnesses. So well, let's see, I can I sense such reservation on your part. And I imagine that's because you've been excoriated to such a degree that you don't want that it hurts you to be criticized even a little bit, or at

least for people to look at you with skeptical eyes. Is that the main reason that you don't like to talk about what can't be corroborated? Yeah, I'm interested in making people understand that this is a real phenomena, that this really happened in anything like what happened to me that one night while no one else But my family knew To to people that want to find a reason to disbelieve they're gonna think of that as an embellishment or some sort of a Attention-getter it's something that really happened and The family whole family can verifies it it but that's not that's not

enough witnesses to qualify in today's world. What other items did you see on the craft? So you mentioned a rod that was a glass that you took and you started swinging. Well, those other instruments were not anything I would recognize. It didn't look like I'm familiar with tools and some medical instruments. I was actually eventually certified as an EMT. I took the state test on midwifery

state test on midwifery. And it was offered by the state of Arizona to bring all of the lay midwives in, you know, many who had been practicing under doctors for years into an official licensing situation. So the offer was come in, take this test. And it was just a spur of the moment thing. I didn't plan it. I only heard about it a couple of days before the test went in and I got the second highest score out of the whole group. But maybe it's a genetic thing. I don't know. My father was a doctor, Actually an obstetrician. Can you draw some of what you saw in terms of the devices that

you can't recognize? Or you can't place this? Just a quick glance at what what's the biggest thing here? What can I use for weapon? That's all. There was a thing that looked kind of like I'm sorry. This is that time of day when I get robo calls. Do you mind turning off the ringer putting it on silent? Someone Okay, so cloud in Seattle wants to know has Travis ever tried CE five since the incident? And if so, what were

his takeaways? What is what's that? I don't know. Because people keep mentioning CE five. So those in the comments can let me know what CE five is, then I can. I don't know what Travis know. Okay. So I probably didn't try it. Is that a type of hypnosis? Is that a... The reason why it's taken me a while to come up with questions is because not only am I reading some of the audience questions, but I'm... I want to ask you... I want to ask you more details about these beings, but I don't want you to be on the defensive because

I'm not a, I'm not a debunker. I'm not a skeptic. I'm on your side, or at least I'm not against you. I appreciate that. But you know, the audience is huge and anybody that wants to take something and turn it into something that's not There's actually few and far between but there's people like that Do you think that these That these people the ones with helmets that calmed you that were there or at least you think we're there to calm you Do you think that they walk among us? Have you seen any strange people? Yeah, I actually said that that they would pass in a crowd you wouldn't go

Whoa, there's that kind of odd-looking robotic human or something No, I think that they would pass in a crowd. Yeah, have you seen any people? But you said that they gave you a strange feeling at least with their eyes, it wasn't. There's something not right about their eyes. Have you encountered any people like that? I never could put my finger on exactly what it was. Color the way they the people constricts or whatever. I don't know, it's just something a little unusual about that. So CE5 is a term describing the fifth category of close encounters with extraterrestrial intelligence,

characterized by mutual bilateral communication rather than unilateral contact. So did you communicate with them? Well, I stick to the stuff I can document, so nothing to report there. I know that's disappointing. People love that. There are so many people that have had an experience and they'll expound on whatever. How do these alien creatures feed themselves? Have you had any thoughts on that? Now this question comes from Henry Baum. Well, that's an interesting question.

People would love to know that, but I didn't see their kitchen. We weren't not in any sort of a situation on how I was fed if I was or how they feed themselves Don't know that's just a complete unknown Okay, David Reed says First of all Travis respect you for sticking with your story I myself have witnessed a UFO in Majorca in September 1995 I've only discussed it with my wife. Question, considering how long it took you to come to terms with your experience,

do you think that the human race is ready to accept for some time now that we've been observed by technologically advanced intelligence? I do think that humans are getting closer and closer to that. This whole big lead up to a big release of information in Congress was sort of a let down. It wasn't as forthcoming as it was promised. But the fact that it existed at all is a major step forward. And basically, to have official channels acknowledge that there is something there that isn't ours and whether they just their conscience got to them and they decided to come clean and

tell us I don't think that's the case. It was just a matter of the evidence is piling up too high. To rely on ridicule and dismissing the witnesses was not reducing their credibility. It was reducing the government's credibility. So they, you know, finally acknowledged, yes, there's things we can't explain in terms of conventional, whatever. So that was a step forward. And, you know, it's interesting, it was kind of a social engineering kind of a thing. that when these announcements were made, they came late on a Friday. And that's normally what they do when they want to, something to be out there,

but to get a minimum of attention. It sort of gets ignored until the next news cycle and by Monday There'll be a whole pile of other things to divert attention. So it doesn't doesn't it's a soft bombshell Going back to your childhood You said that there was this alien or at least a little man. you weren't sure what it was at the time and it was wearing black now the ones on this ship were wearing a light blue if i recall what's that material is it no no um um um orange is brown okay so they're wearing orange

slash brown what type of material is it did could you see that they're wearing clothing for example with me? You could see a bit of a shadow from a lighter was extremely tight-fitting But you were able to tell it was clothing because it was a different. It was different than their skin color was loose fitting and sort of billowy a little bit, but Weaveless. I didn't see grain in a fabric. It was more like velour, but I was riveted on the eyes. I wasn't thinking about, you know,

what are these clothes made out of or that kind of thing, you know. All of us think, wow, if we were in that kind of an opportunity to, you know, learn these things, that's the sort of thing we'd be. I'm sorry, I tried to turn this thing off, but it just that's all right. That's all right. That's right. I said, Hello, mojo, which is what it normally does when I turned Okay, that's all right. Vox Vesper wanted to know, did you at any point during your-

Oh, I'm gonna stick this thing under the mattress. Sure. Did you at any point during your abduction experience have a feeling of ecstasy? So this comes from Vox Vesper. No, no, it was terrifying and painful, but I was injured, you know, so it doesn't have anything to do with

trying to enjoy the experience. Tim Usubov wants to know, could you talk more about what the ship lighting was at the other facility? I assume he means when you entered into the larger room. larger room? Well, looking like gentle sunlight. Nothing to describe is just normal lighting, normal, the colors of looking at my, you know, self and things around me. There wasn't any unusual cast of things. Randall Mattel wants to know, do you think the beings you encountered were just another aspect of the craft itself?

I'm not sure what the question means, but I don't understand the question. I don't understand the question. Were the craft generating beings? Is that what they're saying? Yes, like projections, or perhaps somehow these beings are integrated within the craft. Was there a difference between, there's obviously a difference between the craft and the beings, but did you get a sense that there was an intimate tie between them? Well, I didn't get any feeling other than pain and fear. Sorry, I wasn't all doomed in and spiritual, but those kinds of things could exist,

but I wasn't experiencing that way. Jason Brown wants to know, please ask Travis if there was any physical evidence in the area, the craft interacted with them. I recall you talked about tree rings. But what else? Yes, definitely. There was initially a magnetic readings that were taken, scanning across the clearing, taking measurements and charting it all out. And the report was that there was a polarity reversal in the direction the craft had departed. I never got to see this evidence, I would love to. I believe the ufologists that were taking the reading were from something, no, I can't say for sure who it was, but it was recognizable names in ufology.

But there was also a report later that summer, a volunteer in the fire watch reported that there was a government team that came through taking magnetic readings on the ground. And she just found that curious because normally such readings would be taken from an instrument suspended under an airplane. But they were doing it directly on the ground in the area. Maybe no connection at all. But

the area. Maybe no connection at all, but she saw the team and asked them what they were doing. I could go back and ask her more about what they might have told her because she was a reporter for the local paper. If you still are in contact with her, it'd be great if you could. And then you could just email me also. Okay, Dynamite Bizquits wants to know, ask him if the gravity was the same or different when you woke up. So on the craft, did you notice that you were able to run quicker or slower?

Good question. I felt heavy, like I could barely make myself move. It took the adrenaline of panic to be able to do the things I did. But I took misduck or whatever, interpreted that weakness to be something to do with my injury. injury, the improvement in my energy level and everything when I got outside the craft could indicate that there was heavier gravity generated inside that craft for some reason. If the beings in their home planet have a heavier gravity, it would also in their home planet to have a heavier gravity, it would also contribute to a denser atmosphere.

More my speculation after 40 years, a denser atmosphere, perhaps cutting down on the amount of light reaching the surface of the planet, which might explain the large eyes. Large eyes have got to mean either some kind of an environment where light is limited, I would think. Are they nocturnal? Maybe that would be the reason, but if they aren't nocturnal then perhaps the large eyes come from living where the atmosphere is heavy, denser and less light reaches the surface.

Did you notice any strangeness or anything abnormal about how the aliens walked? So firstly, did you see the grays walk? Yes, and it was just a real quick light scurrying. They actually, you know, when I was made contact with one on with the back of my arm, it was a lot lighter than I expected it fell back very easily. So they just scurry. I know that some people say that they move, they shuffle like, like cicada, or like some insect. Did you

notice any strange movement? I didn't get any insect like impressions at all. Was there a difference between how the grays moved versus the more human like beings? The human looking ones moved like humans and the grays just moved like a very light quick beings. Considering the UFO radiation could have killed you. Have you ever thought that they grabbed you to heal you? This one comes from Benito Sinisci.

Yeah, definitely, because the evidence of radiation in the trees would suggest that I would myself have been exposed to a large amount, and that could have been part of what the treatment was, or maybe quite a lot of it, I don't know. And one other thing is that the crewman who was sitting to my left, when I got out of the truck, I left the door open and he did develop skin cancer

on his right forearm, which would been probably the most exposed part of his whole anatomy. But again, it could be a coincidence. Of all the pieces of evidence that you've seen that you've heard of hard pieces of evidence that you can disclose, which one stands out as most extraordinary? and why is it not ordinary? Well, of the pieces that I've seen, there's the materials that have supposedly been dropped from craft.

They're ordinary in some ways, but they're extraordinary from the standpoint, if you ask why. Why would somebody, as in the case of the Council Bluffs incident, why would something drop some form of molten metal that has iron and a few other impurities, as opposed to anything? I mean, I suppose I would say that anything that you have, which is again, allegedly dropped off of some of these objects,

is in and of itself extraordinary. Because you have to ask the question, okay, well, what is it about this? Should the event be real that is somehow linked to the formation of either a power supply or propulsion or something else? I mean, for all we know, it's the side product of their entertainment system. So, you know, you, you, you, when you get something like this, you would perhaps like it to be related to, you know, something extraordinary about the, the, the, the craft or the objects mobility or

function, but it might have a completely side use that is unrelated to any of the above. What I find extraordinary, particularly let's say about the Council Bluffs is that I know of at least three other events that are similar in terms of material that was dropped. And in case one of them is here in California, where the, I haven't had a chance to analyze it directly, but at least visually, it's the same. So, you know, when it comes to science, when you have two examples of something similar, it's more than a coincidence when you have those

kinds of things. You know, the other one that is both extraordinary as well as ordinary is the extraordinary as well as ordinary is the the event in Trinity that Jacques Vallee wrote about and the object which was supposedly taken you know from the craft by these two children that you know I've had it here at my house several times when Jacques brings it over and we talk about it. We don't need it because it's, but it's just sort of like a point of reference to have it here as we're talking with a group of other people about it. In that it, for all intents and purposes,

and there's pictures of it on the web, for all intents and purposes, it looks very normal. And if anything, crafted in a old style way by a kind of what's called sand casting of molten metal. There's a process that's called sand casting, I think. And so, either it's something which was, I mean, this is a speculation on Jacques' part at some point, is that there had been an actual object on the graph by the time that had been replaced by this thing for some reason, we don't know why, but that when the

children came on board, it had already, whatever was actually there had already been removed. And then this had been put there. It was the only thing that they could grab and pull off. So they ran with it. So it might have, you know, for instance, absolutely nothing to do with the craft itself or the object itself. And has been something that the, you know, for some reason, the Department of Defense who got there first decided they just needed to put there as a placeholder. I don't know. So, I mean, but it's extraordinary in and of itself that somebody, if they took something off the craft, the DOD, let's say, there had been something there, they took something off, they felt they had to replace it with something, if that makes sense.

Firstly, what do you mean when you said that we don't need it? You said Jack would bring it over, but you don't need it? Oh, we don't need to have it here every time we have a discussion about it, is what I mean. But, you know, it's just the the personalities involved, like to have it almost like a reference point sitting in the middle of the table as we talk about it. Okay. And so for those who are unfamiliar with this story, there are two children who watched a craft crash. Is that correct? And then there were some beings. And then actually, when I was speaking to Jack, which I called him Jack before, but jock, we didn't get into what happened to those aliens. What happened to them?

Well, I mean, if you read the book, sort of walking around outside of the craft in in a tizzy, essentially. Like frantically. Yeah, like oh my god. Ordinarily they were moving in fits. Yeah, yeah. And so that in and of itself was interesting. And then they were no longer there at some point, at least when the when the Defense Department or the army people arrived. But there was another event because the the the children who took the object hid it in a shed, as I recall, on their father's property, on one of their father's property, under the floorboards. And for some reason, the kids were in there at night. And this is one of the really weird, how do you put this in a materialistic kind of context, that they said that the beings, whatever they were, walked through the wall into the shed and pointed towards where the object was. Okay, well, that's strange, right? and pointed towards where the object was.

Okay, well, that's strange, right? First of all, because to me at least, the object looks very ordinary. It looks like it's something was probably taken from some farm tractor or something. And I would love it if the people would look online. How can you overlaying an image? You know, but no, I mean, you're so overlay the image. Yeah. And, you know, can anybody identify this? You know, there've been things like said, Oh, this is a piece of a, of something from a windmill. Well, that's, that's nice speculation, but show me.

And I would love for somebody to show me that that's what it is because again, to me, it looks ordinary. But if it is ordinary, then why would the children say that later the being seemed to come and point at it as if it was something important. And it comes back to that thing that both John Kiel and Jacques have said is that after these events occur, there are these reinforcement efforts that seem to go on. Like the men in black show up the day after and tell you not to do something, not to say

something. Well, what's going to make you remember something more than if somebody shows up and tells you not to remember it. So, again, it's that kind of strangeness associated with it that, you know, many so-called skeptics, rightfully, and as Jacques has said, because I think, frankly, he's the king of skeptics, said, this is absurd. You know, how does it make sense? What do we make from something like this? So anyway, those are the two that I'm most interested in. You know, then I guess a third one would be the Bismuth material that Hal Puthoff talks about a lot

around the wave guide. You know, I've looked at it and I've heard both sides of the argument as to whether it's the byproduct of just a normal human smelting process versus is it something real? I don't know. So I guess only further testing will determine.

There's other materials like the one from San Augustine that again, I have looked at now, several of them, not all of them, but several of them. And they're completely explainable. And we'll be publishing some papers on those as well. People who think that there's something called alien honeycomb. It's not. It's something from a 1940s process. And that's, if anything, a bit of a, that's a bit of a news release, if you will. We haven't talked about that publicly, but we know absolutely that the so-called alien honeycomb is not. It's from a 1940s standard aeronautics process.

Do you have any biological samples in your possession? No, I don't. I was offered some biological samples. These are some of the so-called implants. But when I started asking questions about the provenance of these things, and the first one was, well, where's the consent forms from the patient? Right? And because you can't just go running willy-nilly with pieces of people's bodies or things out of people's bodies that first of all, don't have consent forms. Second of all, and that's for both HIPAA as well as other reasons I'm about to tell you, which is that, let's say that somebody takes a nodule out of somebody's arm. Well, who's to say it's not cancer?

Did you send it to a pathologist for review? None of these things were done with most of these things. I realized that the person who took out some of these things was themselves a doctor, but they probably should have known better. Because if these days something goes wrong and that person gets cancer, even if it wasn't, that thing wasn't cancer, somebody could quite rightly ask you, did you test that? How do you know that that wasn't a initiating cancer and that the person died of a metastasis? So you're at fault. So the materials that I were sent was sent at one point after I

asked that question within a few days, I sent it right back and said, no, I mean, would I love to be able to get it handle on biological materials? Absolutely, because I can go through all of the testing that I know how to do. In fact, I'm probably better at biological materials than I am at metals. Are you able to test if it's cancer? Like you, are you able to test now,

even though it's years later? Oh yeah, yeah. I mean, as long as it's been preserved, I can't, I sent it back. But the other thing is that you can't, if I don't have a consent form from the patient, and in some cases, some of these, let's say objects are so old, if you will, that there is no consent form. And then you'd have to go to the family members to get consent because the people are public and often and the names are public. And you know, the families might

not want to be besmirched. So, you know, you just got to be very careful with all of this stuff. You know, and I think I learned it. I learned this most through the the Atacama exercise I learned this most through the Atacama exercise. That even though I didn't think it was, I thought that it was probably like a monkey or something like that. When we found out conclusively that Atacama was human, well, that's when the ethicists descended in mass to say, well, you should have known. Well, you didn't know,

first of all. But secondly, there were no consents from family, which was, that's right, but I didn't take the thing and I didn't know what it was at the beginning, but now people know conclusively and they can do what they want with that data. And I think give the young girl a proper resting, but that's a whole other issue altogether. But I mean, it does tell you that, you know, you can walk into areas thinking you're doing good. And, you know, when you find out the truth, if you will, then people will decide based on the truth, what you should have done even before you knew it.

That's an interesting point. Walking into an area thinking that you're doing good, and then realizing the truth and then realizing you perhaps shouldn't have walked into that to begin with, there's this question I have about when someone's encountering the phenomenon, let's imagine this occurs to one of the people watching. Do you have advice given from all that you know, and all the people you've spoken to, like Lou, for example, should someone approach it, stay away, run away, start would not someone directly afterwards, should they not wash their clothing, because residual evidence on I see, I see like a crime scene. Well, first thing is I wouldn't approach it. Right. Because you know, you don't know what it is. You know, just, just because you see a glowing ball of something doesn't mean it's an alien. It could be ball lightning, you know, rare as it is. And that could be, you know, it's a purely terrestrial really explainable phenomenon at some level, and you might hurt

yourself. And then I just wouldn't approach it, and I would save everything that you can. And I think writing down your thoughts at the moment is probably the most important thing because remembering things years later, you fill in the gaps. So write it down. But also, I would also say don't believe everything you see. Just because you see something doesn't mean it's actually there. There are enough stories about people who feel that these things are projections, right?

That, so maybe it's something projected into an individual's mind. Again, this is all conjecture. I am interested in finding out what the truth is about these things. I feel that given that there are enough individuals who seem to report seeing the same things or experiencing the same things, that there's a story here that needs to be explained. It's either mass hysteria,

there's a story here that needs to be explained. It's either mass hysteria, some form of Jungian collective unconscious kind of thing, or it's something real. But then once you get to the it's something real, how real or unreal is it? And again, if people are familiar with with John Kiel and Jacques primary theses on this, that there's an element of irreality to this that has yet to be understood. It drives me crazy thinking about it. And anybody, especially with Jacques, with the background and knowledge about what it is that Jacques involves himself with,

is he's always looking for what's behind the what's behind. Right? That what you're presented is, as he often has called it, a form of Kabuki theater. Right? It's something which is meant to be an intermediary or a stand-in for an objective. These beings or whatever the people claim that is that they see aren't necessarily the beings or the consciousness as you're interested in that's actually driving the process. That there's something put there in the stead of whatever this higher level consciousness is as an intermediary.

And I had a long discussion about this, I think on the Lex Fridman show, for people who want to talk about that, the ants and how do you communicate with ants. Right, right, right. I'll leave a link to that in the description. Many of the skeptics don't understand, well, maybe they understand, but for this topic they don't. They don't seem to have

a handle that science is contingent on speculation, that it's difficult in some ways the ground that one stands on as a scientist because it's difficult to build up from the atomic rational facts and that one makes intuitive leaps and they're inspired by logic, but often in contradiction to it and independent from it. Right. Idea generation is throwing plenty at the wall and knowing most will fail and inventive ideas are generally seen as outlandish nonsensical initially. Anyway, one of the goals with the Toe channel with this channel is to have these behind the door conversations that ordinarily occur in academia to be in front of the monitor. So at some point I'll have on Carl Fursten and Michael Levin,

who are going to be speculating in real time in front of the audience, just to show what it looks like. Right. Well, it's absolutely true. And you call out something and I haven't, I've ever, haven't really ever put it that way. Um, is that the foundation of science is as you said, pure speculation, I'd go only a step further. The foundation of science is built on fantasy, right? That the fantasies of how we think the world is operating,

right? I mean, nobody would have even, and all of our science is almost two to 3000 years old if you go back to Plato and the Greeks and even further back many other cultures have all contributed. And yet none of them understood that today reality is built up from these quantum waveforms right way down at the at the base level of whatever it is that the universe really is. And so and, our ability to talk about it is all built

on surrogate knowledge of what is actually really operating and only as it gets to an observable level, do we ever really talk about what reality is and yet way down deep is this complex math that is still yet unexplainable. And so we're building our picture of the world on a form of a fantasy. And science does that. As a biologist, for instance, We rarely if ever see the things in their native form that we talk about inside of cells. Everything is with these surrogate measurements. I attach something to something else and when it does this, I infer that. And so we make up these ideas about how it is that nature is constructed, but it's rarely having seen what it is that's there. And it was really only, you know, in say the last 50 or so years, with the advent of things like electron microscopy and the determination of protein structures and other things by crystallography, that our fantasies matched a picture of the reality

where we could actually see the proteins that we knew were there. And they had the modules and the pieces on them that we inferred must be operable from other genetics or other kinds of experiments. And so I think science is moving towards a more, let's say, picture-based view of the world. But most of our linguistics around the discussion of science is still using the fantasy language of 100 to 200 years ago. So you have to, but you have to come up with crazy ideas

to explain these. I mean, we see it every day in my lab. We're like, how, wait, how, what, what's going on here? Uh, maybe it's this, maybe it's that. And I always tell people that they're, at least the way that I do it is that you're, you're best at science when you can instantly formulate a whole range of ideas that might explain it. And everything from things that are potentially real and based on the experiments you do, all the way down to, I jokingly say, micro elves running the universe. But you have to be able to keep all of that in mind at a moment, and then you have to cut kind of two thresholds and then order the most likely chain of probability

that one is correct or not. And I come up with a couple of thresholds. One threshold is possible, and then everything below it is, you know, okay, no, there's no micro elves running the universe. But then, and everything above it is possible. And then within that, you have to be able to say, above this is testable. And in here is this kind of no man's land of possible, but I don't have the instrumentation yet to test it. And actually, that's the area more often that personally I like to work because we don't have the means to test something. And then that's where, for instance, I've created a number of companies and sold them over the years.

And it's always been about shrinking the size of the untestable realm so that we can basically, when we come up with a hypothesis that's based on materialism of some sort, I can actually see it. And that's moved, you know, I mean, some of the instruments in my lab were spun out as companies, and then everybody in the world in the sciences in my area uses them. And, you know, but but I've been focusing smaller and smaller and smaller down towards subcellular and now atomic imaging. So what do you make of the derision from the skeptics and maybe even scientists who say, well, I only follow the data and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What's your response to those statements? Well, my response is, well, if that's how you wanna operate, stay in the caves. I'm interested in leaving the caves and going out into uncharted territory. And the derision comes, I think, from people thinking that a conclusion has been made. No conclusion has been made and explain a potential explanation for the data has been offered. And even when you publish a paper, everybody knows that when you publish a paper and you state the conclusions, you are

stating a formulation of the observations at a moment in time, fully well realizing that 10 years from now or 20 years from now, what you thought was X, Y, and Z is actually part of a larger framework and picture that you can look back and say, well, that's not quite the way to look at it. Here's how you would think about how this is operating. So papers are, although people like to think are scientists saying this is how things are, even though it comes across that way often in papers, it really is just a moment in time that you're planning a flag and you're going to say, okay, 10, 20 years from now, we might reformulate because new data has arrived, which allows us to put things into a bigger picture. I mean, you know this from

physics, you know, Maxwell's equations on, you know, on electricity and magnetism. There are formulations of those these days that show that there's a form of quantum physics that Maxwell's equations fall out of, but it's a larger, the quantum equations are a larger picture of reality and that the Maxwell's equations are just a piece of them that fall out of it. And so the critics actually don't bother me. The critics actually don't bother me. If anything, they make themselves out to be obviously less informed. And it's not my job to convince the critics, in my opinion. My job is just to do the science and get the data out there

and say, this data is real. Now, you help me figure out what it is that it means. And when data comes out that shows that something is not what they want it to be, I'll be right there. In fact, if anything, I have disproven more things in this field than I have proven to date. You know, the Atacama, the Starkhouse skull, and a couple of these so-called events. It sounds like you're saying, look, I haven't come to conclusions. In fact, what you're doing as the quote unquote skeptic is coming to a non-conclusion by saying so-and-so is not possible. Or then they may modify and say, well, I'm saying so-and-so is not probable.

But then the way that I like to view that is, well, not like to view that there's a problem that I can't solve, which is called a reference class problem, which if anyone studied statistics, this comes up. It's that how do you know the probability of some events? So for example, if I was to say, well, what's the probability that you're going to die this year? And then you can say, well, well, it's actually 100% is 99%. And then I say, why? Then you say, well, if you look at all the life forms on the planet, most of them are going to die in the next year because most of them could die so why are you choosing that as your reference class so you'd say okay I understand okay okay so then when someone says well aliens and so and so are not or extraterrestrial beings or so and so are not

possible they're choosing from a certain reference class and that I don't know how one justifies that so even claims of probability that so andand-so is more probable or less probable, they're dubious to me. Well, the one that always gets me that just shows me how some of the skeptics are almost knee-jerk about it is this notion that, well, if they came from another star system, it would have taken them thousands of years to get here. All right. Well, okay, I have two solutions to that. One, it's a very old universe. Two, well, and in that, there's plenty of time for somebody to have come here even by simply conventional means.

And that doesn't mean that the people who created the craft that got here are the ones that are here. If you're advanced enough to be able to create your own AI, there's the whole concept of the von Neumann machines, this one, the von Neumann machine idea, that something arrives, makes more copies of itself, sends those copies off elsewhere, and basically there's this exponential reach even across

galaxies. And what's to say that when such an object arrives, it doesn't construct from base processes an egg that then is then turned into whatever it is that the von Neumann machine is meant to make. And then, you know, I mean, there've been plenty of science fiction stories written about this that when they get there, the AI then teaches the humans what it is to be a human, right? There's actually one that's just on Netflix right now, Raised by Wolves.

It's a British show, I think. It's pretty good. So, I mean, that's one of them. And then second, it assumes that we know everything about the laws of physics, right? This notion that, okay, well, they are somehow, as you, in your terminology, they are bound by our reference frame. And that our reference is the current laws of understanding of E equals MC squared. And somebody else has different math. Right, and so if one was going by, if one was choosing the reference class to be, well,

look, every 60 years or so in physics, our formulation of physics is drastically overturned, or let's say every 80 years or so. And we're assuming these beings, if they're beings are far greater than 80 years ahead of us, well, right, we impose that they have the same understanding of physics. Also, it's false to say that from the nearest star system, it takes 1000s of years to come to us, they can come to us or someone can come to us with special relativity, almost instantaneously, it's just that 1000 thousands of as far as they're concerned. Yeah, right, right in their reference frame,

right. In December of a few months ago, December 2021, Diana Pesulka said on calling all beings that it's a podcast, which I'll leave a link to them the description that you wanted to create a drug that interfaces with the phenomenon on our terms. What was she referring to? drug that interfaces with the phenomenon on our terms? What was she referring to? Um, I think she was referring to some comments I had made about, you know, my frustration, listening to experiencers, and

actually having some experiences in my immediate family, who had no control over the events that were occurring to them. And there's many, many, many examples of this in the literature. And if you imagine that whatever this is has to communicate with humans through somehow our sensory apparatus in our brain. Whether it's, you know, directly, if it's sound based, well, then there's no drug for that. But if it's somehow coming inside through the sensory apparatus, I use the term telefactoring before, the sensory apparatus, I use the term telefactoring before, that if it's interfering with us in some way, why couldn't we make, if we understand enough about how the interference is being generated, maybe there's a drug to stop us or to prevent that from occurring. I mean, there's a lot of science would have to be

done around something like that. And I'm not saying it's doable tomorrow or anything like that. But the notion is for the people who feel that they are being inappropriately interacted with, give them the ability to turn it off. It makes you wonder sometimes, again, this is pure speculation, makes you wonder sometimes whether people who are in mental health facilities today, so-called schizophrenics or what have you, who can't seem to function properly in normal society, how many of them have such, again, speculation, have these continued interactions and they just can't turn them off. It would drive you crazy if you constantly heard something in your head. I just bought a t-shirt by the way that's

really fun. I found it online. It said said the voices are back. Excellent. That's freaky. Well, I had some experience, I won't go into it here. And it's not a phenomenon. Well, maybe I don't think it's a phenomenon experience, where I had to go to the I had to send myself to the hospital, because I was typing. And then I wasn't typing. And something said to me, Yeah, you're you thought you were the one that was in control. And it was using my fingers, whatever it was. And I was freaking the head and then it said, maybe the crazy ones aren't crazy. inferring implying sorry that that happened to you. Yeah, yeah. And that was and and I was I I like even talking about it now works

me up a bit. So anyway, I call the hospital just to say, you have to come get me because I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm not suicidal in the least, but I don't know like, why would I? And anyway, I went downstairs, I remember the police came first and I told the police officer, I'm not going to try and grab your gun, which already freaks the police officer out. But I'm like, right, I don't know what I'm like, I'm extremely scared right now. So please just just treat me calmly and nicely Because I'm in an insensitive state right now, and then they just looked at me like okay. All right. Just let's just wait until the To the right let's get to the paramedics come. Yeah, and since then I

Almost never use the word crazy to refer to someone. Yeah, I think that that's a word of condescension and it also automatically It also implies that one has that their frame is the correct frame. And then it also triggers me, I'm hypersensitive to this to think about what the heck is reality. And for this line of work that I'm doing right now, toe, that's all I do. And so I've had to actually stop studying consciousness for a little while because it was putting me into an extremely horrible, horrible, horrible state. And I think that anyone who thinks about consciousness or UFOs even or the phenomena and takes it seriously, that I don't know how they don't send themselves into a spiral of an unhealthy spiral.

Well, I think that's a really interesting point. Because, you know, I have again, some friends who are who get so deeply into this that they do. I worry sometimes if they're not just, you know, creating a mental world for themselves of true fantasy. And so sometimes just get back out into the real world. And again, don't, don't, don't follow it down the rabbit hole. Because you can very easily, as you say, you can, you can create the problem for yourself that has, it's only going on in your head. You know, I had, I'll just say this, this is something I haven't talked about ever publicly before. I had an experience in London once that I still don't understand to this day. It was like, I don't know why this always happens at three o'clock in the morning.

It's hilarious, but for a lot of people. And I woke up and my whole body was just pulsing in with like some sort of electric fire like nothing I'd ever felt before. And it, feel it and but hear it, hear it and feel it from the tip of my toes to my fingers, whole body. And right as I woke up, it wasn't even words, it was more like a, but it was clear, it was the words, this is how you connect. And it went on for about 15 seconds. And then I just said, whatever, stop, this has gotta stop. And it stopped. So I was clearly awake. I had control over it.

But again, where did this voice come from? Maybe it was a dream. The voice was a dream voice of some sort. But the feeling was not. I've never had any feeling like that before. And interestingly, the next evening, it happened again at about the same time, but only a very fractional sense of it. So I asked, actually, I came back and I asked Jacques, what could that have been? And he said, well, maybe it was a Kundalini event or something like that. So I went and read about Kundalini. Never heard of it before. It didn't seem to match any of that.

But it was an experience, if you will, that I can't explain. It might have a completely normal physiologic basis. I spoke to, I mean, my next door neighbor is the chairman of psychiatry at Stanford. And so she sees everything. And I yes, he's useful. And, and so she says, No, that doesn't fall into any of the frameworks of things that we hear about. That's not what you want to hear. Exactly. I was like, damn, I just, I maybe you just told me I ate too much Indian food or something, which I do when I go to London a lot. I, first thing I do is like, I head to the, I head to the Indian restaurants in Soho.

You should ask them. Yeah. Well, they might have a different explanation for it, right? I mean, you know, the, the, the mystics and, and yogis of India, I think are at the, at the root of many of these, I don't know, these stories. They're probably the most sophisticated, I would say, of the shamans who have explored consciousness, you know, in an almost scientific manner. In 1994, Dr. Ray Bush, and if I'm saying that right, and Linda M Molten-Hoe heard from two men who showed Dr Ray Bush identification

from the Department of Defense. They claimed that in certain Black programs, we were communicating with non-human entities, trying to control them and exploit information provided by said non-human entities on mind control weapons. But these alleged Department of Defense sources instead felt that the non-human entities were controlling and manipulating us and we were a big issue for humanity. Can you add any of your own information to that and if any let us know if any technology related to advanced propulsion and flight was gleaned from these non-human sources and through any black programs and do you feel that these non-human entities may be manipulating humanity and that our black tech is so advanced that we can see things

that we can't see with our eyes. Well, there's a whole bunch of issues all at once. Certainly there are technologies that we can see that we don't have to have our eyes to see it. The microscope, for example, and the telescope, but also trans-dimensional systems. We know that my military advisor, one of them was at the White Oaks Naval Facility in the 70s. And there was a machine console that

was able to extract what they call the white noise of space time. Anything that happened or is happening at that moment at any point in space or happened last year or a thousand years ago or a million years ago. And that was almost 50, I think it was 74, 73, something like that. So we know that those technologies exist, whether there are these entities that are behind that, it's titillating and salacious. And I have not seen evidence of it except to the extent that there are definitely non extraterrestrial. When they say non-human, that doesn't mean extraterrestrial. So this is where there's this whole big confusion. It's like not everything that goes bump in the night is an extraterrestrial. I mean, there's such a thing as

poltergeist. You know, I've seen things in the ER that would blow people's minds when someone has died suddenly and violently. So I think that it sounds like there's a great story there. Would you mind elaborating a little bit? Oh, it was one of these bizarre things where this man had been, uh, can you remember his stab or shot? Anyway, he came in code blue and flat line. We tried to save him and we couldn't. And he then was taken,

he was in the trauma room one and then it was taken down to the morgue. Um, and about three or four in the morning, I'm out in the center with my nurses and all of a sudden that room is totally empty. Cabinets fly open, IV bags are being hurled on the floor, EKG machine is turning on by itself. It was clearly this guy, very angry and was on a rampage in that little room. Of course, the nurses and I looked at

each other and said, we're not going to put this in the chart. But you see things like this periodically. So one of the problems with the whole UFO subculture, and I think this is done deliberately, in my opinion, is this conflation of everything that's not human. It's either human or alien. So I never used the word alien. Alien to me are all kinds of phenomena. Extraterrestrial may be one of them, non-corporeal entities, or an entity from another dimension that

isn't extraterrestrial, meaning an even an extraterrestrial biological entity from a star system when a physical star system in planet. But there are other dimensions. And so there can be all kinds of phenomenon that began to be observed and other certain conditions very physically in this dimension having an effect that isn't extraterrestrial. And so this is why I keep getting back to this central point that we have to develop a new cosmology. I wrote a paper in the early 90s called ETs and the New Cosmology, where we have to develop this sort of a whole phyla, you know, your biological

phyla, you know, the groupings of families and plants and animals, dealing with the cosmos because it is not just a physical 3D cosmos. There are these other dimensional aspects and beings and intelligences from other dimensions. But where it gets very tricky is that if you are an interstellar civilization, you're not getting from point A to B at the speed of light. You go beyond the speed of light, there's resonance and frequency, you're moving into another dimension and you're traversing other dimensions. So there are just a phenomenological point of view, what you might observe, a lot of what's extraterrestrial may look very similar to a poltergeist event and vice versa, and vice going the other way.

So this is where knowledge is power. And you have to have, I think, a certain amount of knowledge about all these different distinct phenomena, plural, to understand what part of it is manmade, which is very important. I mean, 70 years and trillions of dollars in black funding, they have the ability to do things that would look very much like it's alien. That's what abductions are and mutilations are. About cattle mutilations, I'm always interested. Why are they associated with the craft? I don't know, I don't have an, like even a hypothesis on that. So what do you think about cattle mutilations?

Well, I do it based on the science that Dr. Altshuler, whose stuff was ripped off by the charlatans in the UFO subculture, he did the original snippy, the horse case in Colorado, when he was a hematologist, pathologist, very good friend of mine. He was also, by the way, the nephew of General Jimmy Doolittle, who went over to investigate foo fighters for Roosevelt and came back and said, sir, those are interplanetary vehicles. But at any rate, he lived in Denver, and he's passed away now. He got cancer and died, but he was one of the very early scientists looking into this.

He concluded it was a highly classified human deceptive, false flag deceptive indication and warning. Of course, we knew that was the case. When people see quote unquote a UFO around one of these events, well, which UFO? An interstellar one or one out of the Lockheed's Concords? I think that there is this, again, everyone assumes that anything going on there with this kind of phenomenon has to be something we don't understand. It's mysterious.

It's a little bit like the Wizard of Oz being behind the curtain, pulling all the levers, scaring the crap out of Dorothy and the scarecrow. They have the ability to stage things that look very alien that aren't. And as you know, Jacques Lallet has a, Dr. Lallet has a document from the CIA program of quote unquote, staging alien abductions in Brazil and Argentina for its psychological warfare purpose. Now, you know, I have a number of men on my team who actually have been operationally tactically involved in those programs. So if you have people with the

intention to deceive the public, and particularly the gullible UFO community, then what happens is that there can easily stage mutilations and easily stage abductions and easily stage all kinds of things. And people are going to not be asking the question, is it real or is it staged? So the very first thing when I hear something, now I didn't know this when I first started the project in 1990, but as I've gotten methods and sources and

assets who have been involved with this, and in this case now there are documents, that, you know, this is a big problem because if they can taint how people view the subject and what the database is by including a lot of staged events that are human for their psychological warfare value, you then have to go back to all your cases and database and start over. You really have to look at everything with a fresh look. And then you throw in one more confusing element, and that is this whole interdimensional question of entities, quote unquote, or intelligences

that are neither human nor extraterrestrial. That could be in the play. And so, you know, people don't like this because people like, you know, simple Hollywood movie type narratives, but it is complex. And I think that, I don't think it's beyond what people can understand, you know, simple Hollywood movie type narratives, but it is complex. And I think that I don't think it's beyond what people can understand, but I just think

that it's not usually talked about. You will go to very few conferences on this subject where the whole question of the cosmology and all the different phenomenon that could be manmade versus extraterrestrial versus quote alien. I use the word alien really to not denote extraterrestrial so much as what's being foisted on the public as extraterrestrial. And I think that's done very deliberately because if you can misdirect people, you know, there's a guy I worked with years ago who was the right-hand guy for General Odom, who is the director of the National Security Agency. And after he left that position, he worked with me and helped analyze

documents and stuff, so that he knew what things should look like, particularly the documents that would come to me that are not officially declassified, that are still top secret that we have. And so, but he told me he says, Yes, what we do is called a DDT. I said, Oh, it's like the, the poison, you know, the whatever it was, the insecticide. He says, Yes, but it's not what it stands for. You set up a decoy, you distract people and you trash their efforts. DDT. He said, we run DDTs on people all the time. And so if you're sort of like an academic person-

Have you ever had one run on you? Oh, yes. Absolutely. More than once. I mean, I, well, you know, the night after I met with, I was meeting with the Crown Prince of Liechtenstein, Prince Hans-Liechtenstein. And of course, he was trying to convince me of the evil alien narrative so that we could have World War III that would bring Christ back on a flying saucer. I mean, that was this whole end of the world eschatological Armageddon sort of wing. Speaking of World War III, I want to ask you a Ukrainian UAP question. So I'm just putting that out there.

Continue, please. But that, but so that night when I did buy into it, this was in July of 1994, I was targeted with one of these systems and it was one that was trying to abduct me out of the, my hotel room and St. Moritz Hotel. And luckily I identified it right away as a directional energy weapon that was attempting to do this. But, you know, that with that sort of nonsense has been played on people for decades. Remember, we took in Havana syndrome, Dr. Gray? Yes, well, way beyond that. I mean,

the Havana syndrome stuff would be the very tip of an iceberg of electromagnetic warfare systems that are more trans-dimensional and that are dealing with more scalar longitudinal type energy and so-called psychotronic, radionic, but very advanced versions of it. And those are what are used often and deployed along with other means during abduction sequences by these human criminals. I mean, one of the things I'm saying to these folks here in Washington, I said, you have to understand you're going to uncover the largest RICO in the world, Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization. And they have technologies and the means to make a lot of trouble. And you have to approach this carefully so the whole system doesn't get blown to pieces. But they have these abilities and I describe them. I go from the

sort of easy to understand anti-gravity device floating over the desert that looks like an alien ship that came out of underground at Dugway that's made by Northrop Grumman or something versus, you know, these really esoteric trans-dimensional systems that are manmade and that can stage and deceive people quite easily. And they're very good at this, by the way, you know, and they've been perfecting it from the 50s. In the early days, they used short-statured guys with made them up in Hollywood type things on board manmade craft and then would engage in abductions using, so a canister, some knockout chemical and what have you. But as they develop more and more capabilities in these electronic warfare systems, they then also created these sort of robotic,

what looked like aliens, the grays. And, you know, I know a number of guys, but very, very at the level of almost a nanobio machine type of thing. And those are those are what your typical abduction sequence critters, you know, and we know exactly, you know, where they're being made, who's making them, how they make them, how they're deployed. And by the way, there was an expose on this in the 80s, before I got on the scene by a researcher. But of course, he got booed out of the system because it blew up everyone's belief system of the good and the bad aliens. And, you know, look, they want everyone to be addicted to some other narrative to replace

racism and division on the planet. They want the humans to be united, but against an alien threat. It's a very simple narrative. And it's what demagogues have done, you know, for thousands of years to consolidate power. But this is on a little bit larger scale than just the British staging, you know, and setting up the Maori's fighting against each other in New Zealand so that they could go in the breach and conquer New Zealand. So, you know, this is a much more sophisticated, high tech version of that. But that's been a strategy that the military planners have done for thousands of years. But in this case, you're dealing with some very advanced technologies, quite capable of deceiving almost everyone involved. And that's a problem because ultimately what that creates is, you know, how do you begin to have to

set up a system where anything that happens goes through a whole analysis of, you know, is it this, this, this or this? And there's a whole set of things that might be. And I don't see the people are doing that. It's a little bit, I liken this to a doctor, someone comes in with chest pain and they're so poorly trained, they have to conclude it's a heart attack and treat them for a heart attack when it could be a dissecting thoracic aneurysm or pleurisy or pulmonary embolus or, I mean, it could be a hundred things, right? It could be all kinds of things. So what we have in this subject right now is a crisis in analytics and knowledge and information because the truth is the strangest things are real and many of them are human in origin.

Now, there are the high strangeness aspects of the ET events, and they're the high strangeness nature of the interdimensional events, the sort of the Montauk type scenario. Earlier, when talking about the Havana syndrome, use the word scalar that stuck out to me. Do you mind expanding on that? You used the word scalar that stuck out to me. Do you mind expanding on that? Well, we look at an electromagnetic signal

as a wave, right? It's propagating at 186,000 miles per second. And so the speed of light is, that's the speed of light is, 186,000 miles every second. But it's a wave form. But the scalar and longitudinal are actually a point that goes out longitudinally without the wave. In other words, it's a signal without the wave.

And therefore, it propagates at significantly greater velocity than the conventional speed of light. But it also can be weaponized. Now, one of the problems, the whole reason this whole modern era of UFO events happened is that when we began to detonate thermonuclear weapons and atomic weapons, everyone knows about the EMP, the electromagnetic pulse. What they don't know is that a tendon to that that is using not, we didn't have the instruments to detect it is a big pulse that actually disrupts

trans-dimensionally ET communications and transportation and other worlds. In other words, it tears the universe in a way that's very destructive because of that big pulse has a tendon to it one of these scalar type frequencies and it's very can, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, forget that the only place that we had nuclear weapons, atomic weapons actually at that time in 1947 on earth was the Roswell Army Air Base. And that's why the ET craft were there.

We had hidden in a new radar dome, electromagnetic, one of these directional energy weapons in there that scrambled those craft and three of them crashed from the Bessar Count. Two of them were recovered right away. One was blown to smithereens, one continued further west. And there was another one that I think was not found till 1950 or 51, more in the northwest mountains of New Mexico. But that all, if you look at the testimony of Colonel Diedrickson, who back in those days in the 60s on, he was the head of all the Atomic Energy Commission, now Department of Energy, atomic facilities and military, weapon storage areas, launch missile facilities had been surveyed, surveilled by these extraterrestrial vehicles because they were such great concern to not only what they could do to this planet, but when they're detonated, they actually are incredibly disruptive. They kind of rip the fabric of the universe.

Makes it very full boating if the UAPC and being seen over Ukraine at the moment, what do you think of that? What would you think? Are they attracted to conflict? Are they trying to prevent a disaster, a potential World War Three event or honestly, I have seen just what you've seen that picture and information. I don't have any other information. I do know that wherever

there's a big risk of that, something like that happening, they're going to be concerned and observing it because they not only know the damage it can cause on earth, but they know the damage it can cause elsewhere. Because again, everyone's still living in a straight line Newtonian world. They think what happens on this little planet here has no effect on a distant star system or galaxy. And that's simply not true. When you start getting into non-locality and entanglement and the entangled universe, but on a macro scale.

So, it's one of these things where we stumbled across this in the forties and fifties with atomic and thermonuclear weapons, but we didn't know what kind of hornets nest was getting kicked. So that's a very serious problem. And every military intelligence person I know who's been read into this problem knows what I'm telling you about that. But that would make sense. Why, you know, you have, you have, you know, Putin, grad rattling a saber saying he's has because we dropped bombs on Hiroshima

and Nagasaki, there's a precedent for him to use weapons, at least smaller tactical battlefield sized ones, if his country is threatened. And now since he sort of set up a scam thing to annex part of Ukraine, now anything that happens in that part is an invasion of the motherland of Russia. Therefore, we can use nuclear weapons. So very dangerous. So it would not surprise me, therefore, that there would be both extraterrestrial and human advanced aircraft in there. Meaning the man-made UFOs as well as the ET ones. Meaning the man-made UFOs as well as the ET ones. It seems that a lot of the control for the disclosure process is actually in the hands of the others,

whoever they may be, you know, the whole range of them. What do you think? Yeah, just, you know, the phenomena at large. No, no, no, that's not true. That is not true. No, you didn't say so? I was just going to ask why you think they wouldn't reveal themselves en masse around the world and kind of end this process, you know? Well, because it's a little corny. It's like the prime directive.

First of all, if they were to do that, it would induce worldwide panic because there'd be no context. It would be portrayed as an alien invasion because you, everyone you know, the media, every movie, Independence Day, all the invasion, you know, alien from Ridley Scott, all this is going to kick into people's subconscious to the fore. And they know that this is not how it should happen. It should happen that humans tell the truth about it for once in our lives, tell the truth, deal with it directly, educate each other, and begin to make peaceful contact with them in a rational way. If they were to do that, could they do

that? Of course. I mean, they could do something that'd be booming to be over. Could they take out every weapon system we have instantly? Yes. But this is not the way advanced civilizations interact with the primitive one, which is humans. I mean, we're not a level one yet. We're a level zero civilization. So, you know, they're not going to do that because the other problem is if there's that kind of intervention externally, then we don't evolve. We don't learn the lessons. We don't learn what we have to learn to become a more evolved socially, spiritually, and materially as an advanced civilization. Because it's almost like I have

raised four children, now we have our 12th grandchild on the way. If every time that child was about to fall when it's learning to walk, you stopped it and held it, it would never learn to walk. So that's a simplistic analogy to sort of a cosmic perspective of a civilization coming from an agrarian, early industrial, and now bang, we hit this threshold of advanced science and physics. But unfortunately, our technologies have gotten ahead of our social and spiritual development, meaning that we're not socially and spiritually developed enough to have these technologies and not first use them in a war or in a weapon system like a thermonuclear

weapon. So this becomes to be a real problem because the extinction level events that wipe out and have wiped out prior civilizations is when the technologies get ahead of the social and spiritual evolution and development of the people of that planet. So that's where this is another theme that keeps recurring, is that there has to be the development of consciousness, the development socially and spiritually. But the problem right now is we're running out of time for it to happen sequentially. It has to all happen kind of at once because we're headed over this cliff with the biosphere and the environment and a lot of other problems, including the risk of thermonuclear

war. So this is where we're at the crux of a huge pivotal inflection point in human evolution. And we really have to figure out how we're going to manage that. So that's why I left my medical career, to try to see if we could fix it before it's too late. Given that these beings are said to be able to work through cognitive manipulation and that level of advancement, how can we be sure that what we're presented by them is real, that they don't have ulterior motives? And just to add onto that, do you think that all of the others are benevolent so that there's a range?

And just because we're touching on CE5 things here, I just wanted to ask if you think there'll ever be a chance for a CE5 peer review? Well, I mean, people can review what we have done and what we put out already. What I think in terms of your other question is if the people who are really addicted to the idea that there is the whole, you know, cowboys and Indians, good and bad aliens, they don't seem to understand that what part of that assessment is coming from staged events that are deceptive indication and warnings or false flag. And I think it's very simple to slip into this because humans always like to have

that drama of us versus them. I mean, look at how divided our country is politically. That is something that people feed on that. So how much of that is sort of an acculturation and a sort of a brainwashing and how much of it is objectively real. Now having done thousands of hours with thousands of people doing CE5 all over the world and had all kinds of contact experiences, I see no evidence that any of them are hostile or malevolent in any way, shape or form. All the things that have happened that have been disturbing in that way have been man-made copycat, sort of copycat alien stuff. form. All the things that have happened that have been disturbing in that way have been man-made

copycat, you know, sort of copycat alien stuff. So my objective analysis of it is I don't see that that's the case. Another sort of intellectual analysis of it, that's just empirical, the experience we've had. So, you know, a lot of people sit in their houses Googling the internet, and they think they know what they're doing, but they never go out and try to make contact or observe something in real time. But so in doing that now for decades, I don't see any evidence of any of them are hostile. I do think that there have been a number of staged events that would make people conclude that they were like the terrible burn victims in the Cash Landrum case, which was our covert Air Force operations out of Nellis,

flying an extraterrestrial vehicle we had captured, and they put a nuclear reactor on it because they couldn't quite figure out the energy generating part of it, and it was being flown and it malfunctioned and radioactive junk was failing on Betty Cash and Landrum and they were hospitalized and that whole area, the road had to be dug up twice

to get rid of all the radioactivity that was there. But that was a human mishap of a test flight of an extraterrestrial vehicle. But they were happy for the media and the public to say that aliens are poisoning us with radio. You know, see what I'm saying? Yeah, it was monkeys with microwaves, not extraterrestrials. Yeah. And so this is one of the real problems is that you have to have, I tend to take a

very skeptical view of a facile, the sort of superficial analysis of that, until you can get to the root information from the people who were there, what actually happened here? And I think there are many cases like that. So things that have led to these grand conspiracy theories and fear-mongering, I think so many of them are staged or misperceptions of human events. And so I think we have to be, before we start jumping into the Will Smith and Independence Day, let's kick alien butt category,

I think we need to be a little more rational and deliberative. And this is why I don't see any evidence that there is a hostile or malevolent extraterrestrial group out there. I think there are some rather troublesome interdimensional beings. You know, this is good. You get to some of these people who work in these spooky programs that are doing Satan worship and devil worship and all kinds of scary stuff. So where does love, faith and goodness enter into this?

It's just the heart of it. It's the heart of it. I mean, in my opinion, going forward as a civilization, higher consciousness and love and approaching all of this with a wisdom that prevents us from getting pulled into these manipulative narratives is really key, but that's the heart and the higher consciousness being able to discern. I mean, part of it's intellectual, but a lot of it's the heart. And ultimately, this is, I think these visitors from other star systems are very interested in the human capabilities in that regard, particularly consciousness and feeling and heart.

And I think, you know, the breakthrough where they found 30 or 40,000 neurons in the human heart, so there's this resonance between mind and heart, feeling and consciousness that we can develop. And that ultimately gives you the ability to see and know and discern accurately that you can't just intellectually and the intellect and the ego. So I think that's really the guiding star. That's the North Star is the development of higher consciousness and also being connected to love of the universe, of the planet, and of each other, so that our actions are guided by that, not just by base greed and avarice or hatred or whatever

it is. But people who want to maintain control and manipulate the population, love and peace don't cut it. I mean, they need to have ways to get people riled up like at a football game and opposing teams. And that's just another dysfunctional power dynamic on Earth that has to get addressed and fixed. But ultimately, that's each of us individually have to fix that. Yeah, that's a, that's a, I am running. I have another hard meeting.

I'm a little bit over. Well, that's it. That's it. I am running. I have another hard meeting. I'm a little bit over. Well, thank you for spending so much time. It's an honor. And I thank you because we went over time. So thank you. Yeah, we did. I just I just saw that it's almost 420. Oh, 420. OK, OK. Before you go, some people keep saying, so what's your opinion on Richard Doty?

Do you want to just answer that? And then we can close with a positive message about love? Like something practical like what should everyone watching do? So what are your opinions on Doty and then close on love? Well I mean he's a counter intelligence he's put out a lot of disinformation but he's also we were able to get a certain amount of really important information out of him which you can see on our channel our YouTube channel and he was able to confirm that they were doing, our YouTube channel. And he was able to confirm that they were doing human abductions and that he was able to confirm that they were paying off and bribing the media. So, you know, I think that in his later years, he's been trying to put out some

valuable sort of information about that, which I think many people who've been involved in some of these dark arts and nefarious activities, at some point, they do kind of want to let some of the truth come out before they get too old. As far as how people can help, I hope you guys will all go to thelostcenturyfilm.com and help us get the crowdfunding in place. We're already in production on this documentary film. We hope it comes out in the spring, maybe April or May. Hard to predict that with Hollywood.

And we really want it to be sort of a big leap forward in terms of human awareness of the kind of beautiful world we can have if we can bring these technologies to peaceful use. Because imagine this, in 20 years, by the time my grandchildren are having their kids, we would have a world without pollution, without power lines, without poverty globally, and with a sustainable planet, and the release of the technologies that would also clean up the oceans and the land that we've already kind of ruined. So those are all possible. In fact, the very hopeful message I give people is that those sciences and technologies are at

stomp. They're already on the planet, but there has to be a strategy and a groundswell, like a grassroots movement, to bring it forward because it's not going to come out. The centers of power never going to shoot themselves in the foot. So if this change is going to happen, it has to come from us little folks like you and me that are doing this outside these centers of power. But if we come together and do it in right action and with courage, I think we're going to have 20 years of an extremely different planet than we have now.

The alternative is extinction, frankly. So I tell people that whether they're a high net worth person or a scientist, this is a very pressing issue. And if we didn't already have the solution, you could be allowed to be despondent. But we do have the solution. So that's what we want to prove. And you'll see the backbone of the whole film on October 25th, if you get on the webinar. Unfortunately, the event itself is sold out. And the links to that will be in the description. So and then great. Yep. Yep. The links to

that will be in the description. Again, it's it's lost century. The lost century film. Great, great. And Daniel has a closing question for you if you could spend like two more minutes or one minute. Yeah, absolutely. Final question, Stephen. You've been so great. Thank you, Dr. Grier. Very enlightening, filling a lot of information gaps. So you briefed CIA Director Wolsey, and he later turned around and said, actually, it wasn't even his dinner party, yada, yada, yada. I wanted to ask you, like a number of people have said, I wasn't really briefed. I wanted to ask you, do you know any reason for that discrepancy?

Because the subject, they don't want to admit that they had an interest in the subject because the subject has such high social opprobrium, social ridicule. And the other part of it is that they don't want to admit that after they were read in, they were pulled in and then betrayed the country. All right, that would just be real blunt. Yeah, and it's the truth. Luckily, you know, I have the correspondence and the FedEx that set up the meeting

and what the purpose of the meeting was. And I always tell people, look, in Washington, how do you know they're lying? Their lips are moving. So I looked at it, I just shrugged and go, yeah, what do you expect? I mean, you know, it's spin, it's dissembling and disingenuous comments and whatnot. It just, it doesn't affect me at all because I'm shocked when it doesn't happen. That's great.

You know, I share the truth. People may not like the truth. That's the truth as I know it. And I do think there's a responsibility to people who do receive this kind of information to act on it in a way that benefits the human species or country. And when they don't, they have failed to fulfill the duties of their office. Why do you think ETS have not appeared in person and I'm not talking about UFOs, but

revealing themselves to the entire, the entirety of humans, let's say at New York Los Angeles, but it doesn't matter. We know UFOs exist, but who are in them is not clear. Okay, why haven't UFOs revealed themselves to the entirety of the human race? In December of 2021, I did an Earthfiles report about Haim Eshed. He is the father of satellite development in Israel. And in the process of wanting to be able to get a full English translation of the epilogue of his memoir that came out then, I contacted a man who had volunteered to do translations for me, Hebrew to English, and I was able to get the entire Haim Eshed epilogue, which is titled

We Are Not Alone. That's the title that this longtime satellite, historic figure, put on his own epilogue. And in there were photographs of strange structures on Mars. on his own epilogue and in there were photographs of strange structures on Mars. He included UFO stories that had happened in various places and were investigated by anthropologists and others. And one of the questions that I said to the Hebrew-English translator is, a Hebrew English translator is, does Haim Eshed have any insights from all of his work having to do with the development of satellites? Does he have any insights about why all of the other intelligence that he is implying

exists in his own memoir? Why are we on a planet that is still living in this strange straight jacket? We are the only intelligent life in the universe. Why? He obviously knows that there is something else, other intelligences. And the answer that came back to me

from the Hebrew to English translator is, Haime Shad says that the release of the truth is not for a human timeline, it is the timeline of the others. Why? Why would the non-humans want humanity to remain in the dark about their existence, their presence on our planet, in this solar system? What is it that the non-humans gain by us being kept dumb and blind for centuries about the fact that we're not alone in this universe.

It is allegedly teeming with life, but certainly our government since World War II knows that extraterrestrial biological entities, a phrase that comes from the Truman administration that is in documents, extraterrestrial biological entities. That isn't made up late in the 21st century. Those words are in documents that have been released

or leaked from the 1940s. Our government may have run into information that they found disturbing and that they wanted to understand just like Haim Eshed before they released. Now we are at 2022. Decades and decades of animal mutilations, human abductions, military pilots talking to investigative reporters like me, learning about the fact that our nuclear missile sites have had interactions by UFOs that have been able to bring a missile down or 10 down, complete control. Complete control.

So I stand at 2022 with not a single question or doubt that the Milky Way galaxy is teaming with other life and our government has not officially announcing. As long as it is not officially announced by governments, it is still quote unquote interpretive. From my point of view, we've had the breakthroughs because we have had physicists and military people and scientists and Intel, who have said they've been in a room with an extraterrestrial biological entity. They know that animal mutilations are done by extraterrestrial biological entities.

There is all of this firsthand testimony. And what the Intel agencies have been able to do is still say until they announce anything formally, it's still speculation. And that's, from my point of view, it's nonsense because I know what I have done, what I have reported alone that is forensic. It's evidentiary. And now we're in the straight jacket of there are so many whistleblowers that are coming from every direction

in multiple countries now. And they seem to be overly irritated by the fact they know that there are nonhumans. They know about these very advanced craft. And they're frustrated themselves that we're not being told a truth which they thought would have been opened up by now. So why is it being dragged out? And will the new Webb telescope finally be the tool that all of the scientists on the planet, including Haim Eshed, would agree? Use the Webb.

We know it could show artificial structures on a planet at Alpha Centauri 4.2 light years away. The telescope could be used as, oh, now we can announce. Meanwhile, for centuries, extraterrestrial biological entities of many kinds have interacted with and harvested from our planet, the solar system and beyond, and our government knows it. Do you think that some of the reason why it's being concealed slash obfuscated by both the government and the aliens themselves supposedly, do you think that the reason is for our own good, like Tom DeLong thinks? Or do you think there's a nefarious reason, a selfish reason, one, one of cupidity or velocity? Greed?

Since Since 2014, and a discussion that I had with a physicist who has firsthand information about certain types of nonhumans and their interactions with this planet, our solar system and beyond. He gave me an insight that I think is absolutely accurate because it has been referenced in other documents that I have seen since 2014. Linda, there really is a threat. It is in the form of a very particular kind of life form that we know is only about 10 light years from the earth. And it is a threat. But I can also assure you that we are working

in collaboration with tall whites and tall Nordics, and they are allies. And they have the ability to fend off the threat. But the government's point of view is that as long as there is a potential threat, it is easier to do the secret work of doing monitoring and interactions with non-humans like the tall whites and the tall Nordics without the world being concerned that there

could be a threat from some other direction. And he spoke just like that to me in 2014. Over the last three or four years, I have heard similar statements from people who work in aerospace as engineers, people who are working in biological sciences, people who are working on what would essentially be the how are we going to open up the Alcubierre warp drive to the planet as a technology that would get us point to point in the universe before we've even introduced the non-humans who have helped us get that technology. And you begin to realize that it is very complex when you have an entire planet that has been kept in the dark on purpose for centuries, that the uncorking of the truth, that governments and intel have had a lot of information developed since World War Two. And when it comes to how do you open up the truth, if you compartmentalize the truth and

you leave out that there may be a threat, in the end, you still have another problem. So I understand that what is occurring, they're trying to get all of these various pieces now in place, so that there could be a discovery through something like the web, which then it's, it's far away. And then eventually they will be opening up all of these facets that they have had since World War Two, and learning more and more about. So, essentially, I don't know if you could say that the CIA, which was formed in 1947 at the same time as Majestic 12. Did they have a control reason?

That was just because they wanted the CIA and then eventually the NSA and the DIA and all that have been have evolved 17, 18 intel agencies. involved 17, 18 intel agencies. Did they want the control because they wanted to make sure how it would be introduced to the world to keep everybody calm? In that regard, it may be that government denials for decades is because they did want to help humanity get to a point where they could hear the whole truth. There are as many arguments on the other side that it has been corporations, government heads, and power brokers of Earth who have wanted to keep the power that they have in the knowledge of extraterrestrial biological entities to them.

If you keep that kind of information bottled up to a small minority, they have the most power because they have the secret knowledge. I think both have been going on and that we are finally in 2022 out of a huge horrible pandemic that it is beginning to be really clear that they can't keep this secret much longer. They have got to open up the truth that we are not alone in this universe and that why we homo sapiens exist is because of genetic manipulation on this planet by many different species for many different reasons. But for us to be kept dumb and blind many different reasons. But for us to be kept dumb and blind for another century would be such an abuse that I think that the tall Nordics and the tall whites are convinced. Humanity needs to be told the truth. And if they are told the truth with allyship that could handle a threat. We will grow up fast, but at least the earth would get out

of this straitjacket of denials and lies that we are alone in this universe that has at least three trillion galaxies. Okay, this question is related to that. This one comes from Jesus Borabi. Okay, this question is related to that. This one comes from Jesus Barabi. Linda and Kurt, I love what you're doing. Please ask a question that pertains to Skinwalker Ranch and if known how many different alien species there are potentially. You mentioned the tall blondes, the half whites. I have been told that there are at least 168 different civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy. And there are three trillion galaxies. So you might take 168 and multiply it times three trillion to get the estimated number of civilizations in this particular universe. The issue of I just had a thought explosion. Sure.

Give that question to me again. Yeah, no problem. So please ask a question that pertains to Skinwalker Ranch. And if it's known, how many species there are potentially and also just my sub question if you can hold this in your mind. I'm curious, are there competing? Are there competing motivations between the different aliens? So ones not, are some of them in favor of mankind and others don't like those who are in favor of mankind, et cetera? I have no personal knowledge whatsoever as an investigative reporter

and a producer, writer, director, editor about motivations of other intelligences in this universe. The only thing that I know is somebody is doing the bloodless trackless animal mutilations. Something is doing the abductions of humans and have been doing it since at least the early 1960s and both of those. Military people testify about their own interactions

with UFOs on the ground in the air, that there are dozens and dozens of firsthand testimonies about the intrusions of ET type craft, where we have Minuteman missiles and nuclear sites underground. So it is a huge number of different facets of whistleblowers and testimonies that we now come to in 2022, that there's no doubt from people who have any education whatsoever about what is happening between nonhumans on this planet and a variety of phenomena, that we are not alone in

this universe. And once you are there, we're not alone, and there is a lot of testimony about the types of civilizations that exist between here and out 12 light years, 20 light years, and so forth. When you hear on TV or in news that there is a ranch, like the Skinwalker Ranch in Utah, I've been there. And that people who have lived in a ranch house have seen orbs like the size of ping pong balls come in through the walls, orbs that float around in the house, animal mutilations, strange shape-shifting animals,

all sorts of strange things. You realize that where the introduction to most people on the planet has always been in kinds of phenomena that are spooky and scary. And that may or may not be a legitimate tool for why our government and other governments have decided that they will just allow the spooky nature of something like Skinwalker Ranch to be a self perpetuating story, because in a way it, it, it deflects from people

knowing anything about what's actually happening with the phenomenon, with the technology, mutilations, abductions, except in this one place. So I have always thought of Skinwalker Ranch as being one of those where it focuses down and therefore it seems it's manageable. It's on a ranch. It's been there for centuries. When you read about what the Navajo and the Utes reported 300 years ago, 300 years ago in journals and things that have been passed down and then have been repeated.

The Utes in the Navajo is always considered the Uinta Basin, which is where the Skinwalker Ranch is, to be a place of what? Shapeshifters. The whole issue of Skinwalker, that is a Native American name that goes back to 300, 200 years in Navajo and youth stories. What would the shape shifting be from 200, 300 years ago up to 2022? When you jump over to the human abduction syndrome,

there are hundreds of stories of people seeing something that looked like one thing in front of them and it morphs into something else. A lot of descriptions by people in the abduction. I could see, I was standing on my bed and I could see through this reptilian next to my bed. I could see the dresser through the being. And then I knew whatever I'm dealing with, it's not flesh and blood. It is a projection like a hologram. Same type of issue at the Skinwalker Ranch. Projections, lights that might have been like a hologram as well. So whether it's the government, whether it's the non-humans, the entire slice of human witnesses that have reported all of these complex phenomena for so long, the Utes and the Navajo going back 200,

300 years. It is as if there have been locations on this planet where non-humans have based themselves and where the bases are are where there are chronic centuries of phenomena. And I think that that is a true assessment today of planet Earth in 2022, that there are areas where there are nonhumans based underground, under oceans on this planet. And those can be areas where there have been phenomena. And then there can be other areas where there's no phenomena and there's no bases. That is another, I think, calculation by the governments. They know where there are non-humans that are based on the planet and out into the solar system. And as long as they know that the general population is not living and being exposed to things like Skinwalker Ranch, they can get away with not explaining anything.

But what I'm seeing between Skinwalker Ranch, ancient aliens that I've been in for the last 15 years, is that the TV programs that began to develop my own work, there are so many people now, the population of people who have had interactions with non-human beings is really large on this planet. And people have not felt comfortable in the past to ever talk about it.

Gnomes, fairies, probably all of it was the same phenomenon. Now the population, the percentages of people listening to any given, whether it's a broadcast or whatever it is, they've had their own experiences and they are the people that are coming forward to now for the first time in their lives, speak about what they have experienced. And it is happening faster and more than I have ever seen before. It is like an inertial force that is beginning to come from humans living on the Earth.

That is the kind of energy that I'm hoping that our government and other governments are finally going to look at all of this and say, it is way past time. There's so many humans who are having experiences and we now need to fill in the gaps and tell the truth. And they can say it with an apology. We are sorry we didn't tell you before,

but it has taken us this long to understand how complex it is. And then how many civilizations do we know about? That's where I think this is headed and that the web telescope will be part of it. And that hard data, hard physical data, hard images will be how they will announce we're not alone in this universe.

And then maybe we'll be back on a healthy planet, certainly healthier than one that has denied for centuries what is now a clear truth. We're not alone in this universe. Do you see there being a connection between UFOs and Bigfoot slash orbs? Orbs seemed intimately tied to the UFO experience. What about Bigfoot?

In my two volume glimpses of other, excuse me, in my two volume glimlimpses of Other Realities books, I have a fascinating chapter with a man who got a hold of me living up in Snohomish, Washington. And Snohomish is one of those areas where if somebody said, where have you had the most Bigfoot, Sasquatch, UFOs, animal mutilations, half cats, everything snow homages, what's a half cat? It's a variation on mutilations, where the

mutilations are an ear, eye, tongue, jaw, there are half cats, and there's no blood and no tracks, and a lot of half cats in Snohomish area. And I was working in the 1990s on the two volume when I got this first a letter and then was able to talk with him on the phone and he did illustrations. He was on a quite a remote, everything in Snohomish is quite remote. And he and his dad lived in a kind of cabin house

and his father had asked him to go down and pull weeds in a garden. And that's what he was doing, just pulling weeds when he hears a buzzing sound first. And a lot of people say that it sounded like a thousand bees. That's the first thing they hear in the sky. And then there were tall ponderosa trees. The ponderosa start moving. There's no breeze. He is in complete still air, but the trees start doing this. Moving as if there's wind, but he's not feeling any wind?

Yeah, but there's no wind with the trees. And then the buzzing and the trees moving because he's turned to watch in fascination. Here comes this silver disc, clear as can be, settles down right above where the trees are going back and forth. Then he sees what looked like two, as he called them, like air columns. I could see that they were columns that came down from the disk as if they were air in air, no color. In other words, he could just see cylinders, but it was like the air had made these. And then two beings, one in this column and one in this column in sparkly, leotard type

suits come down. And he's still standing exactly where he had been weeding. And he watches them come out of these columns, pay no attention to him. And they start walking in a path. And he is, should I go after them? I don't know what to do. I feel afraid. And then he said, he heard a noise and he looked up

and coming down now in another one of these air tubes, it looked like a gorilla. Comes down, this air opens up as he says it's a, what he called a Sasquatch. And now he is terrified. He said, I think I stopped breathing, I stopped moving, I don't know what's going to happen. But he said, this Sasquatch went right off behind those two beings. That was the story that he came to me about what happened. Then I was able to talk with the deputy sheriff who went out to investigate. And the deputy sheriff said the path where he had watched those beings, the deputy made plaster Paris of 17 inch long feet, which a photograph is in my book. And that at that period of time, from that point of going out to

this farm, they had mutilations, they had Sasquatch reports, they had people calling the sheriff's office saying they were hearing this high pitched loopy sound that is associated with similar buzzing or that's different. The buzzing is different. But it's associated with crap. Okay. I looping voice is what has been recorded by many people as associated with the Sasquatch.

Recorded. And oh yeah, I have used with the Sasquatch. Recorded. Oh, yeah. I have used recordings of Sasquatch from Sohomish going all the way back to the early 90s. Linda, have you ever tried CE5? CE5? Stephen Greer's CE5? No, I don't really.

So OK, have you ever tried any technique to induce contact? No. Have you had any experience with craft on your own either when well, perhaps investigating? The one unusual sky object that I have seen was in Aurora, Colorado. It was a documentary project. And I was in Denver, Colorado, and I had been asked to go to a meeting with people about a new documentary in a bank. And the meeting broke up at around six o'clock and I'm coming out of one side of the bank, everybody else went, the other had two entrance exits. So I'm alone coming out of the meeting. And when I came through the door and started down the stairs,

I was looking at a beautiful slivered moon and thinking how beautiful the sky was, walking toward my car with a briefcase on my right shoulder. And something that I'll never understand made me spin when I got near a car so hard that my briefcase hit the car and I'm looking up and there was this huge, huge boomerang-shaped craft. And it had, it did not have lights on it, but whatever it was made of, which was sort of like a grayish brown, it seemed metallic, which was sort of like a grayish brown, it seemed metallic. It looked like that there were floors and levels in the front of it and it tapered. And I, not a sound.

And I stood there watching this move without a sound, but knowing that this is exactly the kind of phenomena that had been being reported in New York State. A book was written about it and J. Allen Hynek had done the foreword, having to do with boomerangs that move slowly, that had no sound in New York while I'm in Colorado. And this was in 1986. So I had done the animal mutilation broadcast was in 1980, May 25th, 1980 was when A Strange Harvest was first broadcast. So by 1986, I had been investigating animal mutilations, human abductions and all in my TV work, and had heard people describe something like this. But it is the one and only time in my life

where I saw something that made no sound. I have no idea, but it matched what was being described in another part of the United States. Why don't you tell us about the Bentham encounter from 1951? Right. So that that encounter happened in 1951. Graham Bethune was he was a Navy pilot. They were summoned to Iceland, to Reykjavik, because in Iceland they were having problems with a UFO operating in the area. And I think it was operating in maybe near an airport or somewhere sensitive. I don't recall exactly what the difficulty was. And they were summoned there to basically check this out and help them out with this problem. They got there, didn't see anything. The thing was gone by that time.

And they were heading back across the Atlantic from Iceland toward Newfoundland. And while they were flying, they had... they saw lights on the surface of the water on the ocean below and looked like city lights and at first they thought they were out of course. And so they double-checked their course and realized, no, they're on course. And they thought, well, there must be ships, maybe naval ships operating in the area or something.

And as they got closer, these lights were basically was a disk-shaped light, a ring, I guess. And it appeared to be under the water. And as they approached this thing, this thing shot up from the sea surface to their altitude in very short period of time, like a matter of a second or two. And the... And this, it was basically a large disk. I think he described it as being 300 feet across. I probably, I needed, I actually printed out my paper here to remind myself of some of these details.

There's a lot of cases and yeah, so it was several hundred feet across. The disk was slightly below their altitude, so they could actually see this disk. It had, like, glowing around the periphery. And as the object moved, the color of the light would change. And I think it's been described as looking like a plasma. So this object basically was with them for several minutes.

They basically steered one person wanted to steer toward it, so they steered toward it. And eventually the thing took off. But it was seen by pretty much everybody on board. I think there were like on the order of 20 people or so on board who witness this thing. So this thing then took off and they estimated its speed as it left to be about 1500 miles an hour, which was about what was picked up on radar. They were close enough to Newfoundland that

they were able to detect this on radar and they confirmed that later. this on radar and they confirmed that later. When they say that it changed colors of the lights as it moved? Yeah. Is that akin to the Doppler effect or is that something different? It's something different I think because it was it would go from like a violet a red violet to yellow and basically within those ranges and and I don't remember which way it went when it was when it was moving, it was yellow, when it was stationary, it was red. I think that's basically how it was that detail I might not recall properly. What do you attribute as the cause of that? Or the reason for that? I mean, it's hard to figure out, you know, I try to treat these observations as evidence, right? We're basically trying to do some kind of physics detective work to try to figure out what is this thing? How is it operating? How does it fly? You know, these are all the

questions. How does it move so fast? These are the questions that come to me as a physicist. And a lot of times these, the light emitted by these things appears to be a plasma. So it could be that you're basically, the object is ionizing the air around the craft, and that's what's emitting the light. And then as the object moves, you basically, maybe it's changing the electric fields around the object and then changing the excitation and the gas. Okay, Professor, how did you get interested in this subject? You're not some what someone would think of as the stereotypical person who studies alien encounters or Professors that aliens exist or UFOs or whatever it may be How did you get into what what started you off on this journey? I'm a physicist. I'm curious

And I'm often surprised at how uncurious some of my colleagues are. But the, so I'm curious about these things and I've always been curious. And when I went to graduate school, it would have been the fall of 1988. It was probably about our second, first or second week in graduate school. So it was in September of 88. There was a cattle mutilation. I was at Bozeman, Montana. And the there was a cattle mutilation and I'd never heard of anything like a cattle mutilation. I grew up in Wisconsin, and we have cows in Wisconsin and I've heard of cow

tipping, but who's gonna mutilate a cow? That's horrible. So I had, I was pretty shocked by this, and there were a lot of people concerned about this on the news. They didn't know whether it was alien or if there were satanists involved involved and there were lots of theories floating around. So we were discussing this in the We're discussing this in the hallway, then the new graduate students, the ones who basically moved moved to Montana and had never heard of this before we're discussing this and And it was a very heated discussion very passionate and everybody's upset and worried and wondering what the heck's going on, what kind of crazy place did we just move to, and are going to have to spend four or five years here. So this was really our concern and while we were talking one of the professors came out of his office and came down the hall to see what was, you know, what we were so excited

about and we told him what we were discussing and he said, yeah, that's interesting. He said, it's, this happens here. We don't really know, they never figure out how the cows were mutilated and why and there's very often UFOs seen in the area around the time, so it's, so it's interesting, but it's never figured out and we just move on. And, you know, I don't think that helped calm us at all. And he then said, but what's very strange, what's even more interesting, he said, I have a number of friends in the Air Force up at Malmstrom Air Force Base, and they have trouble with UFOs flying over the missile sites, shutting down our ICBMs.

This was in 1988? This was in 1988, I was told this, by a professor at Montana State University. And now, now I'd never heard this before. In fact, I didn't hear about this publicly until I think around 2010, when Robert Hastings had a press conference with people from the Air Force, from Olmstrom Air Force base.

And so to be honest, when the professor walked away, we laughed about it. I mean, there's UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles and He was a professor of what? What was his special? He was a physics professor. What particular field of physics was? I don't remember who it was because it was my first week there and I didn't know all the professors. I have a guess who it could be but I don't want to yes, I don't know for sure. Yeah, have you ever

tried to reach out to that person afterward? Um, no, I haven't. It's, unfortunately, I'm at that age where a lot of my professors are have passed away. So so I didn't try reaching out, I probably probably would be a good idea, though. Okay, continue. That's a good suggestion. Thank you. Um, yeah, so we, so we laughed about it. And then it was kind of a running gag through the whole semester, you know, and oh, and you know, there are UFOs shutting down our nuclear missiles. And, you know,

we would always giggle about that. But it really just seemed unthinkable because our, our military, these are restricted, these are restricted areas. If we have somebody coming in shutting down our nuclear missiles, our military, if a foreign nation did this, we would go to war over it, and probably nuclear war because the nuclear missiles are involved. And so it's unthinkable that we wouldn't do anything. And so it was really hard to believe. And it just, you know, I just remember the event.

It was just something somebody said once and went on. And it wasn't until maybe 2015 or so that I was preparing for an astronomy class. And we were going to talk about astrobiology and I had some students asking me about the possibilities of aliens visiting Earth and wanted me to talk about that. So I was online looking for papers, anything that I could use to put out together a reasonable lecture on the topic. And I stumbled on the Robert Hastings press conference and where he had, I think six people all working at nuclear missile sites.

I think three of them were from Malmstrom Air Force Base. And I started watching this, and I was just watching with disbelief, thinking, oh my God, I heard about this in 1988. And the professor who told me then said it was going on then, it was in the present happening in 1988. And these people in the press conference, Robert Salles, Salles was one of the prominent people, he was talking about an event in 1966. And I thought, oh, wait a minute, you can't have a crazy story like this. If somebody is making this up in 1966, it's not going to persist until 1988. These are professionals and they're serious professionals. They have to have clearance and specialized training and these are secure areas.

They're not nutcases and they're not going to joke about things like this and certainly not for 20 years. And I thought, there has to be something to this, something must be going on. And I thought, this really has to be real. I can't see any other way around it. And I can imagine, and at that point, I could imagine that we don't do anything because the assumption is that it can't be real. So it's not doing anything. And, and I think that's why there's been a lot of inaction and lack of interest. I'm going to share my screen and then you're gonna if you don't

mind, please tell me what is going on here. Okay, with this. All right. So basically, what I'm basically doing here is, if you let's see, so they were estimating they they so Grantham said that it took Yeah, this is from 1951. This is not from Japan or Nimitz. Right. So so here the penalty I work from penalty because so they were they estimated the the distance to be about five to seven miles away. So he wasn't exactly sure how far away it was.

And so what I did basically is I used a, basically he's estimating this looking out from the plane, he's looking down at an angle in front of the plane. And so I treated that angle to have some uncertainty. So he's going to be off by, I think I say what it is in the paper, he's off, you know, potentially off by so many degrees. So what I did is I did a Monte Carlo sampling, where I basically randomly sampled angles

with a Gaussian distribution about the angle that, the angle that he would have been looking or thought that he was looking. And that gives you a distribution of distances. So I'm basically doing a Monte Carlo sampling to take into account potential errors. My question, the question I've always asked when pilots are confronted with these stories is the question that comes to my mind is how wrong could they be?

These are trained individuals. Millions of dollars go into their training, which doesn't mean they're perfect. But then that begs the question, how imperfect are they? How wrong could they be about some of these facts? And I can imagine when, so for instance, if they estimate the size of the object as being 300 feet across or something, how wrong could you be with that? Well, maybe it was 100 feet across, but it certainly wouldn't have been 30. I mean, nobody's gonna mistake a 30 foot disc for a 300 foot disc. Well, you wouldn't be able to see that if you're five miles away approximately. So he's five miles away and he's looking down and he's looking down. Yeah. Five miles away, huh? And he was able to see that it looked like city lights. Yeah, it looks like it was a circle circular group of lights.

Okay, let's look at this. Then you estimated the altitude and also by the way, just as a technical aside, why are you using Monte Carlo? It seems like just help edify me here. It seems like you have a Gaussian distribution or some sort of distribution. Why not just use that distribution? Why do you have to then sample it so that it's spiky at the edges? Oh, I use, I could have used that distribution. The problem is that you'd then have to in estimating, you know, estimating

the speed of the object, I then have to basically use the uncertainties in each of those quantities that go into calculating the speed of that object. And so it requires transforming, you know, all of these probability distributions, which is quite tedious. Okay. And so doing it with Monte Carlo, doing it with Monte Carlo, I'm going to get appropriate answers and it's a faster way to do it. Otherwise, I might have to take approximations and things like this to pull it off analytically, which I didn't want to have to do. I see the computer can't do that. It's not as simple as putting it into Wolfram, Wolfram, Alpha or Mathematica. No, not always because you've got to I mean, you're you're you're taking derivatives and inverses and things like this. You've got so

Okay. And if you see me looking off over here, it's that I also have some of the studies on this side as well. So please, okay, I'm not. You're the only thing I'm paying attention to. That's fine. Then you got times going on here, you have altitude, you have minimum log 10. Okay. Well, that's the acceleration. That's the acceleration altitude. Okay have altitude and you have minimum log 10 okay well that's the acceleration that's acceleration altitude okay altitude and times and these are referring to the altitude is referring to what the altitude is referring to the basically the altitude of the craft so how how far it went up from the sea surface great and then the time is referring to how long did it take from sea surface to that altitude?

Yeah. OK. OK. Simple, simple, simple. Great. Now let's get to Japan Airlines flight 1628 in 1986. Right. That's another instance where I knew

about that incident in 1986. I remember watching it on NBC News with Tom Brokaw. And I remember him discussing this and then playing some of the audio from the pilot and the air traffic control. And I remembered thinking that this is really pretty amazing. You've got a large jet, what is it, 747, I guess it was. And it's basically flying from, they were flying from Paris to Tokyo,

bringing Bougelet Nouveau. So here, now we can all have a giggle. Ha ha has got a plane full of wine, right? Um, but so so aliens were after all. That's right. And you were an undergrad at this point. I was an undergrad at the point. Yeah. Mm hmm. Studying math and physics. Math and physics. Yeah. OK, great, great, great. Yeah. So so the and you can actually still find the news reports

online, the videos, people put them online. But the so as they're flying, they're approaching Anchorage, Alaska, and they see some lights in the distance basically approaching the plane and so they're concerned so they call air traffic to control to see if they have any traffic for them and air traffic controls is negative they said

well we see traffic there we've got several craft approaching and so they're very concerned about this. As they're approaching Anchorage, they have two craft approaching and then shortly thereafter a larger craft approaches and the thing is walnut shaped and glowing. And at one point it's in front of the aircraft and the pilot described it as so big that they couldn't see out of the windscreen. So, I mean, you're a pilot of a jet and you've got something in front of you that you can't see beyond. That's a scary prospect. So he's panicked and calling air traffic control and they don't, they're not picking anything up on radar except his plane. And at some point the military is contacted and gets involved and on military height-finding radar they pick up the larger craft on the plane and the airplane so they pick up both objects. So the military is

able to detect this with their radar. Were you able to estimate the size of the craft? Um, no, he estimated it to be the size of I think it was three 747s. So it's basically the size of an aircraft carrier. So you've got a sky, you've got a flying aircraft carrier shaped like a walnut. you've got a sky, you've got a flying aircraft carrier shaped like a walnut. Now you then you have to ask, how wrong can the pilot be? It's alright, maybe it wasn't as big as an aircraft carrier. Maybe it was just the size of a destroyer. Still, that's pretty amazing, right? He said it was glowing.

And glowing. Yeah. And this was at night. Um, I don't know what time it happened. I don't recall. That's all that's all recorded, but I don't recall off the top of my head. Is that it with the Japan Airlines flight or is there more? No. Well, the thing the interesting thing is the object follows him for 40 minutes. So it isn't just like I saw it. It was gone. Now this thing basically kept track kept along with the airplane for 40 minutes and it basically moved around the track kept along with the airplane for 40 minutes and it

basically moved around the aircraft moved around the airplane as time went by. So it would go so the military height finding radar and this radar data exists. You can look at this the military feinting radar is sweeping every 10 seconds and the craft is about seven and a half miles away from the airplane and in one sweep it'll be at one o'clock in the next sweep 10 seconds later the thing could be at six o'clock and so the thing is literally jumping around this airplane and the pilots panicked he actually takes some evasive maneuvers at some point to try to evade the object and thought that he had, he didn't see it. And the Air Force comes

on and he goes, now it's behind you. It's still following you. It's behind you. So the thing basically followed him for 40 minutes. And then he went down and landed. When you said that the pilot said that he couldn't see beyond the ship, if it's five miles away, and it's the size of a carrier, why can't you see beyond it, you can see the edges of it? No? Oh, well, this one was moving around. So so at some point, at one point, it was very close, he had said, and I was initially couldn't see initially, he couldn't see beyond see beyond it so initially how close do you estimate it was to him I have no idea let's say it was the size of a carrier then it would have to be sure that's a simple tree on it okay yeah yeah you could figure out how close it would have to be for much of the event it was about seven and a half miles away, according to the radar. And the sweeping, I'm sorry, it wasn't 10 seconds, it was 12 seconds. So it was

every 12 seconds. Great. Okay. This data exists, meaning that it's public. Yeah, the radar, the radar data. Yeah. How does that go online? Does someone leak it or does someone release it? Right. It was, um, Sean Callahan, who was FAA chief of accidents and investigations at the time. Um, they basically reenacted the situation in one of their, um, one of their, um, testing centers, and they record, and that's where the data comes in so they can reenact it. And then he recorded that and basically saved that himself. He saved a copy for himself.

And he claims that at one point, the President Reagan's scientific advisory team met with him along with CIA officials and FBI and a number of people and they confiscated all of the data he had, although he didn't tell them about everything. He had some of it stashed away. But they met with him and they were very excited because they said that this was the longest encounter that they had any data for.

Okay, let's get to the Nimitz encounter. I'm sure many people are familiar because that's David Fravor, if I'm correct. Okay. And that's in 2004, I believe. Right. Okay. Why don't you give a brief rundown for the people who are unacquainted with this? All right, so in 2004, you had the Nimitz carrier group was, was off the coast of San Diego, California, about about 100 miles, 150 miles off the coast. And Senior Chief Kevin Day was operating radar for much of this time and for overall for a period of a couple of weeks he was picking up anomalous radar targets appearing, basically just appearing on his radar at about 80,000 feet, which is really very of very high altitude. Jet airplanes,

passenger jets fly around 35,000 feet. So these radar targets are appearing at about 80,000 feet and they typically were appearing south of Catalina Island or near San Clemente Island. And then they would track south at about 100, 120 knots down to Guadalupe Island in Mexico, where they would then drop off his radar. And so nobody knows what happened to them after that. So having an aircraft flying at 80,000 feet at only 100 knots is almost impossible. There's not much air up there, so you need to go much faster to have lift. So that's already anomalous. So this is anomalous in the other direction. They're moving too slowly, right? So, and Kevin Day had observed these and, you know, they weren't in the operating,

they weren't where they were operating. So this wasn't really a big concern at this point. And at one point, he, he, well, he said that there were times when they would drop from, well, they came in at 80,000 feet when they appeared. They would drop down to 28,000 feet, and that's when they would track south at 100 knots. So even at 28,000 feet, you aren't going to be flying a plane at 100 knots. But from 28,000 feet, they would periodically drop down to the sea surface. And that amount of time to go from basically at a constant

altitude, 28,000 feet, to sea surface, which is 0, they would do that in about 0.78 seconds. So it was less than a second to go from basically rest in the Y direction at 28,000 feet to rest in the Y direction at zero feet. Okay, now to interject, how long would that take if it was free falling? I'd have to do the calculation, but it would be, let's say, estimated to a significant digit, it's fine. You can be off by a factor of 10. Right. So the time is going to be basically twice the height, twice the height divided by the acceleration. Acceleration is about 10 meters per second squared, 28,000 feet. Two times 8,000 is

16,000. And now I'm going to divide that by 10 meters per second squared. And I'll get, so that's 16,000 divided by 10, which is 1,600. And then we take the square root of that. So that's going to be 40 seconds. 40 seconds. OK. They did in one second. So that means yeah, less than less than one second. Yeah. Okay. And they came to it and they came to a stop. Let's say our fastest accelerated technology downward, whatever that is, whatever kind of craft that is, how fast approximately do you think we could do it?

Right, if you could dive at 10g acceleration and then slow down for the other 10g, then you're basically going, you're accelerating halfway so we can find the time to the halfway point. But if you work this out, it's one quarter, it'll be one quarter A t squared. So the total time is going to be basically, so we've got 32,000 divided by 100, so that's 320 seconds squared. So then now we have to take the basically the square root of 320. So it's less than 400, the square root of 400 is 20. So it's going to be a little less than 20 seconds. Mm hmm. Okay. Let's take a look at some more. I'm going to share my screen with you and just so what are we looking at over here? This is the Nimitz video that we got different models. And we have

what is log z? What is log l? What is a what is and so on. All right. Yeah. So what we're doing is we're testing different dynamics, kinematic models. These are basically, in this section of the paper, we're analyzing the video that was released by the US Navy. And the last few seconds of that video, 32 frames or something, the object is locked on. It begins at the... the targeting system is locked on to the object and it loses lock and the object takes off to the left. Now it's not a very impressive departure and none of these videos are nearly as interesting as what the pilots describe these things as doing. So I'm convinced we were given probably the most boring videos they could find and very possibly videos they didn't expect

any thing anomalous to come from. So that acceleration doesn't look very dramatic, but so we basically tested several models. One of the models is that it accelerated, just accelerated off the screen, so it's constant acceleration. Another one was accelerated for a shorter period of time and then just coasted off the screen at constant velocity.

And so those are the basic models we were testing. And so- Why do you think it is that they didn't you believe that they have more interesting footage and they chose to release this? They being the US government? Yeah, I'm just guessing that based on what the pilots have, you know, what numerous pilots have said in these types of encounters, these things behave much more amazingly than the footage they released. So David Fravor, when he encountered the Tic-Tac object and it finally took off, he said it accelerated like it was shot from a gun and it was gone out of sight in two seconds, so

Clearly this acceleration isn't that fast so it's so So that's what I mean by that is that they released the video if you were to speculate at all the US government That I don't that I don't know I know that Lou Elizondo and Chris Mellon were working on the inside to try to get some of this information out because they weren't able to freely discuss this, you know, amongst the intelligence community. So, and so there's probably multiple concerns there. I mean, one is that if you're, if you're not able to, you know, the Navy was having problems with these things, right, but they're not able to discuss,

you know, these objects and have it taken seriously. So now what do you do? In 2015, for example, they were having nearly daily encounters with UFOs. And so you've got pilots who are not trained for these types of encounters. Some of these were happening in the Persian Gulf area while they were operating, you know, so that's a, you've got a military campaign going on. These guys are going on bombing runs on in Syria, and they've got to fly through UFOs over the Persian Gulf and then go to Syria and then conduct their military operations and come back and that's a huge hazard. I mean you don't you don't need a pilot shaken you know from a UFO encounter and then go into a

war zone. That's extremely dangerous and so there's one reason why when people say oh they're just drones and the US is just testing them now you're not gonna test them by putting pilots in danger on a war zone. That's not going to happen. What are some other arguments against them being drones? I mean, first, their their accelerations that we estimated are way off the charts. You people can't People can't handle much more than you know, than 10 10 to 15 G's for any period of time

13 G's the new f-35 fighter I Think is rated for 13 and a half G's and at 13 and a half G's its wings will rip off So you can't accelerate an airplane more than about 13 15 G Some missile frames can handle higher accelerations. They can maneuver up to about 30 Gs of acceleration, and some can withstand, structurally withstand up to about 60 Gs.

So most of our equipment can't handle, our equipment can't handle more than 100 G's. And, um, and that's in one direction, let alone stopping and then turning around. Yeah, well, I mean, it doesn't matter whether you stop and turn around, because you've got so many G's here and then so many G's again. So they're doing it over and over again. It's, it's insane. What are the Gs associated with these craft? Well, the highest one we estimated was about 5,700 Gs. That was the one picked up on radar by Senior Chief Kevin Day while he was on the USS Princeton with the Nimitz carrier group. That's the one that drops from 28,000 feet to sea level

in 0.78 seconds. So you're looking at over 5,000 Gs of acceleration in that case. The other situations were a bit lower. I think the lowest ones we had were maybe, I think the video from we had were maybe I think the The video from the 2004 Nimitz video when it when the Object when the targeting computer loses track and the thing takes off to the left

You're looking at about 78 G's The objects moving to the left and away from the from the airplane at that point Hmm see what strikes me about this paper is going through it. If the mathematics isn't beyond high school or beyond first year, that's for sure. And I'm wondering, why is it? Why hasn't an analysis like this, which seems like anyone could have done it? Why hasn't it been done before? Simply the stigma against analyzing? That's the problem. I mean, you've got, you've got

numerous capable physicists who have commented on these things. And you've got enough information to basically to do a back of the envelope estimation of the acceleration, and they're more willing to say, well, it's probably an atmospheric effect. Who knows? Who knows what it could be? That's usually the response you get from a professional physicist, which is problematic. This is a calculation they ought to be able to do. Who else in the physics community, professional physics community is studying this besides you and your co author. Ah, well, let's see my colleague of mine, Matthew should August at University Albany is also studying this. Other physicists, I know of a few people, let's see. I don't know if they're all physicists, some are engineers. Do you know of any physicists who are interested but tell you this behind closed doors? Yeah, that's basically the situation. You've got a number of people who are interested in studying this and the problem is there's a paucity of data. We don't have any real data to work with for the most

part. You have, you know, witness testimony and some of that paper is based on witness testimony and we did the best we could with it. And, and I think it gives you a ballpark estimate of what was observed, but, but you have to, you really want, you really want radar data, you really want to be able to triangulate positions with multiple cameras, you want to do all sorts of things like this. That would be ideal. Are these spacecraft getting faster with time? What I mean by that is, let's say someone was analyzing Earth's crafts, I imagine that what they would see is our top speed would increase over the decades because it has. However, with these crafts, do you see them as being predominantly the same since the 60s or since the 50s? Since you asked

that's a good question. I mean, I don't think that we have that information. You'd have to look over, look at them for a very long period of time. And there have been sightings of objects like this. And if they are alien spacecraft, which we really haven't proven that that's the case yet. The, you know, if they are alien spacecraft, then we wouldn't know, If they are alien spacecraft, then we wouldn't know from some of the Roman reports of flying shields. We aren't able to estimate speeds and accelerations in those cases. We don't have that detailed information. What's the Roman's report of flying shields?

There's several reports in Roman history of Orb or bis clay pay us I think they're called but they're called they're flying shields basically and So I can send you references for this. There's a there's a couple of papers one on UFOs and classical antiquity and And another paper on the same topic. Yes. Do you mind making a note to send that to me later? Yeah, certainly. You're only sending me about Romans or are you sending me is there a list of UFO sightings or

potential UFO sightings across history? There's a book by Jacques Vallee. I keep hearing about this person called wonders called wonders in the sky and he has a compilation of of curious accounts basically that could be interpreted as you know maybe the same type of phenomena Jacques Valle is he still alive? Yeah. Yeah he lives in the Bay Area. Yeah, he lives in the Bay Area. Okay, I know that this is as a physicist, you want to stay within what you know, but if you don't mind speculating, why do you think they're shutting down our nuclear devices? Do you think that that's just a side effect? It's inadvertent, but maybe when they accelerate that happens for whatever reason, what do

you think is purposeful? Why do they selectively shut it down in this area and only at certain times? That's a good question. I don't know how I don't know the manner in which they were shut down. I mean, this stuff is still I mean, I don't think I don't think the military has admitted that that's actually happened. You have people who worked at these sites who claim that it happened. The most detail I've heard was from Robert Salas and he said that, I believe it was him, and he said that it was a failure of the, basically a failure of the navigation and guidance systems, and that then led to a shutdown. So that's curious because now if you have the inertial navigation systems failing, could that be due to how the craft operates?

So maybe it's just a side effect. I mean, at this point, you know, this is extremely hypothetical. So I am just making up stories here, but I mean, if you have a craft that basically is somehow warping space time or affecting space time, and you've got an inertial navigation system

sitting nearby that could affect it. So, and then if their systems are set up so that they shut down whenever one of these things goes haywire, then the UFO flying over it could be enough to trigger that to shut down. Is it on purpose? Is it an accident? I don't, I mean, these things have to be studied.

And we have just gotten to the point where people are admitting that they're real. I mean, after 80 years, I think that's a little, to me, I find that a little scary. And we've had this this going on for about 80 years, and it took us 80 years to decide that it's they're real. But we still don't know what they are, you know, know what they're doing here. 80 years, you're referring to the 50s? Or the 40s? Yeah, late 40s. Yeah. There aren't any reports from the US government of UFOs prior to the 40s. I don't know about from the US government. There are reports of the

UFOs prior to that. Easily into the 1800s. Numerous ones. Yeah. By ship captains and things like this. These things have been seen for a long time, which is another argument against them being American or Russian Chinese drones. They've been observed well before people could fly. So there's someone who came out recently, I believe they're Israeli. Talking about UFOs. I don't know. I forgot the person's name. I don't know the story. Do you mind edifying me as well as the audience? Oh, yeah. Well, that was an interesting story. I don't know the story. Do you mind edifying me as well as the audience? Oh Yeah, well that was an interesting story I don't remember his position and I don't remember his name, but he was in the high up in the Israeli military And he claimed I said hum I said or hame issued Yeah, is he the one who's really director of the space program?

It said right so see the one that claimed that they were in contact with with alien alien civilization here for Avi Loeb from earlier today that talks about this so the question was okay I would like to hear Avi Loeb's opinion on the claims of former Israeli directors of the space program Haim Asher brought forward he must have heard about this so and so they went through the news briefly. Was it a hoax? And I guess this person isn't recapitulating what hen or hem as said, because he's assuming I'll be love already knew about it. Some government officials, you know, have had some pretty, pretty exciting or interesting claims and it's, you know, these still aren't substantiated. So it's difficult. It's difficult to know how much of it is a claim, how much of it is a mistake, how much of it is a problem with the individual. You know, we still have all of those questions.

The best kept secret, and it's about a case of the recovery of an object that was never identified by the army and the army air force this was before the air force existed in August 1945 within days of the capitulation of Japan. And it's hard to imagine that that particular event wasn't in some way linked to the end of World War Two, and to the first atomic bomb, and to the emergence of our civilization into essentially the nuclear age. What happened is that simply two, two boys were working in a field for their father on a large property in New Mexico, within 20 miles of ground zero. And they saw something fall. So this is an exceptional case, because the witnesses were there before the object happened. This is not like Roswell where, you know, debris was found a few days later, they for landing at Alamogordo. And so the whole thing, the object was essentially an egg shaped object. It was not a flying saucer, like people describe it was egg

shaped. And the the two witnesses, one of whom is still alive, very much alive and part of our investigation were there on the spot for the next eight days, while the military were recovering that object and taking it away. So it's an exceptional story that gives us an opportunity to do some, at least some good physics and, and to tie together all the parameters of the, of the testimony of the evidence.

What do you mean when you say gives you the opportunity to do good physics? The, the object was intact when it landed. It crash landed, but under control, which is it didn't blow up like an airplane would have. It hit a communication tower, which was one of three communication towers around the whole White Sands area. The area is still technically within the military confines of White Sands, which as you know, is as large as two American states. It's a very, very large test area for the military. This was again, three weeks after the explosion

of the first A-bomb. And the three people actually entered into the craft while it was lying there. So we have testimony not only of people who saw it, the traces, the sum of the data that was recovered from inside the object, but we also have day by day accounts, which is in the book of what happened, what the military had to do to recover it. So we have a good approximation of the weight, the volume, the size of the thing, and we can compare it to other cases in the literature that have been

studied by, officially by the Air Force, the French Air Force or the American Air Force at other places. So again, I come into this as an information scientist, not as a physicist, although I am a lapsed astrophysicist, you know, from my days, the University of Texas and at Northwestern. But my most of my contribution here is as part of a team of people looking, looking at the information structures among a number of cases like that. What is its weight and volume compared to others? And also when you say physics, do you mean to say material engineering or physics as in theoretical physics? to develop. We don't know where it comes from. It was not tracked as far as we know by any radar, as it was coming in. According to Mr. Jose Padilla, who's our main witness today,

he believes that it came from the south, which would have been the direction of, of the test site, where the atomic explosion had taken place. It, it seems that, you know, given the traces, I mean, the thing after hitting the tower, the thing fell, hit the ground, started a fire in the vegetation. If you know New Mexico, we're at 5000 feet altitude, and the vegetation is mostly creosote and cactus and that kind of thing. It burned, the object did not burn, the object kept its identity and actually plowed a path down the prairie, down that field, made a turn, apparently under power, and stopped against a hill. So that gives us an idea. We reconstructed the weight only approximately, but it certainly could not be moved by by men. They had to build a

crane. And we know everything that the military did, because witnesses were there all the time. In successive days, they had to actually bring an 18 wheeler, a low boy, you know, army truck, and build a crane to lift the object. So the weight would be an area of about five tons, five or seven tons. I recall you talking about the outside material being extremely light. The, it, it, some of the, in the impact against the tower, there was material that was ejected, there was one panel from the object that was destroyed.

And that material was recovered by the kids later on. There were actually four types of material that the witnesses described, that, you know, we hope eventually to maybe recover from some of the people in the area if they kept some of it as a as a souvenir. But remember, it's 80 years ago. And the reason the book is called the best kept secret is that it's not in the Air Force files. As you may know, as part of my my work on the subject, I've built various databases of the Air Force files, both here and in France and elsewhere. It doesn't show up

anywhere. So that that secret was kept very, very well, within the atomic files, not within the Air Force files or the army files, where we would have found it. I mean, as you know, I worked with Dr. Heineck was for 25 years, a consultant to the US Air Force. We never heard of that case. The other reason we never heard of it is that the witnesses never came forward, which is astonishing. Until you recall the conditions in 1945. After the war, we went from a shooting wall to the Cold War.

There was intense secrecy and classification on everything going on in New Mexico, you know, from Los Alamos to Alamogordo, and everything else. And the young men as they grew up decided they would never talk about it. it, they would never talk about it. Also, some of the things I had recovered, were, could have been very controversial. They they are controversial today. And they also made some physical evidence in connection with that recovery. Is it all right if I admit Kevin Knuth now? It's your show.

More of the merrier. Hello. Sorry for being late. That's all right. Thank you so much for coming. I know that you're under a bit of stress right now. That's all right. Thank you.

Okay. Jacques, do you mind recapitulating what you said in about a minute just for Kevin Knuth to bring him up? So this case is unique. I've, I've gone there five times. I'm working with Paola Harris, who actually initiated the research on this. When she interviewed the two main witnesses, we actually have four, four different witnesses to the case that are firsthand where we have firsthand testimony. The case is unique in the annals because it has to do with the crash of an object in New Mexico, two days after

the capitulation of Japan in an area that was a military area, part of the Manhattan Project complex around White Sands. The two witnesses were there at the time when the object came down from the sky, hit a tower, was partially damaged, and then made a crash landing under power. tower was partially damaged, and then made a crash landing under power. They had the opportunity to to examine the object when it was sitting there in that on that property, which was their their father's property. And three people, including two adults, including a state officer, actually went inside the object. So we have testimony from both outside and

inside. And the two young men were there for eight days afterwards, and observed the entire process of recovery of the object which was taken away on an 18 wheeler back to white sands by the army. So we have an extraordinary amount of information just on that one case. Now, again, I'm, I have to repeat again, I am not a theoretical physicist here. I'm, I'm mainly an information scientist with a background in physics. And so I've tried to relate that

particular case with a pattern of other cases in the literature that have been studied by government agencies, both in the US and in France, and enable us to come up with at least some parameters of what the problem is. So Kevin, the way I would like this to be would be more of a conversation between both of you and I am just an observer or fly on the wall. So what thoughts occur to you or questions occur to you when you hear that directed to Jacques. Right. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for having me join you, Jacques. It's good to see you again. And, and, and I read about this case briefly, so I'm really excited to hear about it from you. Let's see here. I Well, a question that occurs to me is Jacques, Do you have any ideas as to why they're falling from the sky?

because the skeptic would say if they're so advanced then why are they Not necessarily crashing but hitting some of these earthly objects when our planes don't necessarily do that at least a lot of crashes That's always where there are a lot of purported crashes that's always worried me. Yes and I must admit and in the book I you know I make it clear that I have not been very involved in the study of crashes because I remember discussing Roswell with Dr. Hynick and with Professor McDonald and with other people and with people at the Air Force. I consulted briefly for Project Blue Book at Wright-Patterson. They had material that witnesses had brought to the Air Force to Project Blue Book in those days, saying, you know, this crashed

on my property and so on. But we never could get to real evidence from primary witnesses. If you remember, Roswell, of course, is a very prominent case. It happened. The testimony is more and more clear as people are reconstructing the history of it. But there was nobody on site. When it happened, people, you know, came up came upon the wreckage later. The reconstructed a number of investigators, including Stanton Friedman, others have reconstructed what the Air Force

did. But there wasn't a case where there was really evidence that we could, we could touch and we could hear from live witnesses who had been there while it happened. In this case, we do. And that's why, you know, I devoted time to that. I went to the site several times, I had a chance to interview the people there and to reconstruct the history of it, because it's, and then we can put it in the context of other crazy cases that were not crashes, but were hard landings that are in the official government files of France and of the US, namely the Socorro case, which took place just

eight miles north of there. And the case in Valençal in France, in Provence, which I've investigated also, I've gone there with French government officials and that case is still unidentified in their fights. And Socorro, as you may know, is still unidentified in the Air Force files after long investigations by a number of agencies, including the Air

Force, including the FBI, including Project Blue Book, and including the local police, of course, and the State Police of New Mexico. So we have all of that. And all of that is in the book. So again, I'm, I'm, think of me as an information scientist was a servant to, you know, the physicist and the, the biologist who are going to look into this. And I'm trying to bring you a pattern that makes sense. You mentioned patterns, is there a pattern or a correlation

between some of the hot spots of UFO locations that you discovered? The pattern I want to mention is, you know, on this page of the book, in those three cases, namely the New Mexico case, Socorro and Valencia in France, we know pretty much everything about the object. At least the size and the weight, because there were hard traces in the ground that could be measured, were preserved at the site in minutes after the case happened. And in all three cases, it's not a saucer. It's not a disc. It's not a flying saucer. It's an egg shaped object. The witnesses in New Mexico called it an avocado. So there was there was, you know, the typical shape of an avocado. So it wasn't a perfect oval. In Socorro, it was somewhat smaller.

But again, we have a very precise description by Lonnie Zamora, who was a patrolman who saw the object arrive. And in Valençal, we have the main witness, Mr. Maurice Mass, whom I've interviewed the object was about 13 feet. And again, it was an egg shaped object with some sort of dome on top. So those are three very similar cases. In all three cases, the witnesses described occupants, presumably the pilots of the craft as being about three to four feet tall. Breathing our air. Breathing. Breathing our air. Yes, they were breathing normally. They didn't have any, you know, any helmet, they didn't have any anything around their heads. They had apparently a suit covering their body that was close tight to the skin. And in one case, I couldn't tell if it was the skin, or if it was actually the suit.

or if it was actually the suit. There were no anatomically very similar to humans or human. They had two eyes and a mouth and a nose. The nose was smaller, but essentially, the witnesses could relate to them as close enough to us that they thought of them as human and are humanoid. Although in the New Mexico case, there was there was more there was a like a communication and I know your group is interested in consciousness. There's a lot between the lines about the all the feelings or the psychological impact that these two kids remember the witnesses were a nine year old and a seven year old. But remember, this was at the end of

World War Two, I mean, the nine year old was driving the truck, they had binoculars to read the markings on the brands on the the cattle for their father, they, they were taking care of the herd on this property, which was 80,000 acres. So these were kids in very special conditions, they knew the territory very well. They had horses to go over this, this terrain, they knew how to hide when they were watching the soldiers recovering the subject and loading it on the, on the truck. So they are able to give us very, very good testimony. One of them has passed away a few years ago. But my co author, Paula Harris was involved in the case five years before me. And she had interviewed him. She actually is the first one to have recovered to have recovered the whole interview from both of them, even

before I got involved in the case. I got involved because of the correlation, the historical correlation with the atom bomb, which again, we have to ask, why would and that's implicit in what Kevin was saying, I mean, why would you come from Alpha Centauri? And would why would you hit a tower, you know, and crash? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. Well, we don't know if they came from from Alpha Centauri. We don't know where they came from. They, they didn't necessarily drop from the sky. They flew over, as far as the witnesses

could tell, they, they flew over this landscape, apparently coming from the project that happened, you know, test site. from the project that happened, you know, test site, they hit the tower, they crash landed under power, and then came to rest in this landscape, setting the bushes on fire. So when the witnesses arrived, they you know, their eyes are tearing up. They think, remember the expression flying saucer is not in the English language at this point. This is the end of World War II. So their first reaction is something crashed, we have to help. You know, the first witnesses on the site. They knew that they had to get help for the pilots or whoever had crashed. They didn't know what it was. They assume it's some sort of airplane or some sort of prototype, and they are going to go there and help whoever may be wounded at the site. That's a

motivation. The term flying saucer doesn't exist. Roswell is two years away in the future. Kenneth Arnold has not done his report. There isn't even an air force. I mean, there is an army air force, which is part of the army. There is a pilot named Bradley, whose testimony we have, who was coming in for landing at Alamogordo. He sees a smoke, contacts the tower, the tower tells him to look at the control tower, tells him to look at the communication tower because they've lost communication with it. He flies over the, what they called in those days, Fermi tower. And they observe the damage to the tower. And then he sees the fire and he sees two little kids next to it. He calls Indian kids. They're not Indian. They are Mexican and partly Spanish origin. But they, they are not, they are not technically Indians. But they are on their horses and they are there at the site and the pilot describes them. And we believe the pilot is the one who came back the next day to retrieve some of the data on the site. The next day is the only day when the two kids

were not back on site, because they were working for their father in town. After that, they were on site every day during the entire recovery. So that's the overall scene. That's why I became involved because I mean, the story was complete. I mean, we had the witnesses, we had the testimony with the traces. And we have testimony from two adults and one child who actually went inside. Kevin, I'm not sure if you can hear me, but if you can, you look like you were thinking, and I'm curious to know what's going through your head. You can direct it to Jacques.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry. I didn't know about the pilot being a witness, and I think that's excellent that you were able to get his testimony as well and that he can confirm that the two boys were there. That's really fascinating. And yeah, so this is 1945, is that correct? August 1945, everybody's still in uniform, the army has not been demobilized, they are about to be, Japan has just capitulated two days before. Right so all right. Yeah, and I'm thinking about all the, there were, there was a lot of UFO activity around White Sands Missile Base, you know, during the, during the Manhattan Project as well, if I remember right. There, there were.

There were sightings there. I mean, what do you know about that? I mean, I don't, I don't know much about that. So that's a good question. If you look at the Air Force files of Project Blue Book that went back into into, you know, history, this case is not mentioned anywhere. It just doesn't exist. It was never reported to Project Blue Book. And that's an interesting question of why, why it wasn't and why nobody knew about it for essentially, you know, almost 80 years. There were, of course, around the Manhattan project, there were a number of radars, including long range radars. And wherever you have radar, you'll have, you know, things that are reported by the radar people that as

unusual things, and usually, you send an aircraft to verify what it is. So yes, there were reports. Certainly, there were many reports around New Mexico around that time. But to me, there was nothing like this. You know, it's only after 1947. You know, Kenneth Arnold talks about what he saw. They're very credible pilot that creates the term flying saucer, the press, the American newspapers get all excited about it. The Air Force starts its investigation. And then of

course, there is the Roswell crash. So around that time, people start reporting everything they've seen. But for in the Air Force files, that I have a complete record of the original files. There are only four cases reported in 1945. Around that time, including one remarkably from a citizen in El Paso who actually saw the atom bomb. He saw the test of the first A-bomb, saw the mushroom cloud and reported it as something in the sky that he couldn't understand that they had never seen before, which is remarkable. So yes, there was a lot of scrutiny of the sky. Just because they had to be aware of spying or anything, you know, going over the test site. Just because there could be accidents if, if some civilian pilot went over the the military test site. But there was nothing like

like this. So again, we don't know where it came from. Mr. Padilla told me that he thought and and his his argument is, I mean, he didn't see it coming. He saw the crash, but he didn't see it coming when it hit the tower. But again, you're dealing with very clever kids who were entrusted with, you know, guarding the cattle and the property fixing the fences and all the chores on the farm. And so this nine year old, after a few days, decided to climb the tower. You know, the Marconi tower that had been hit, they climbed about

halfway up the this about 70 foot high tower to look at where the impact had been. I mean, there was one leg of that tower. But you can I've been there, you can still see where the legs were. Well, it must have been a very large tower. And it was there because in the north, the landscape goes up to a cliff, and airplanes had been hitting that cliff. So it was there to preserve to warn pilots remember you had 5000 feet at you know there and then the cliff goes up from there. And so that tower was there to

protect the northern area of the Manhattan project. And the so this kid goes up the tower and he watches where the leg is bent. And that tells him what direction the object came from. Again, those were clever kids. I mean, they, you know, you learn quickly in those days, you know, I grew up in France, in occupied France. Okay. I was born 1939. So, you know, I'm in age, I'm close to those those witnesses. I, you know, I was old enough at the end of the war, to have to understand to be able to place myself in, in similar conditions. Watching, you know, the liberation of France, what people were doing around that day and those days, and what was secret, the things you couldn't talk about the things that even as a kid, I mean, this was, it was clear, you know, about how you had to behave. And remember, the nine year old was driving the family truck, I mean, there was everybody else was in uniform, or was too old to drive the truck. Jock, you mentioned that there is an aspect of consciousness

associated with this event. Do you mind explaining what you mean? It comes up again and again and again. And remember, I worked initially from the transcripts of the interviews that Paola Harris had done very, very well. She's a very good investigator and trained journalist. She recorded all those conversations with both Mr. Padilla Mr. Baca, Remi Baca, who by then was an entrepreneur in Washington state. who by then was an entrepreneur in Washington State. In the interviews, I was trying to reconstruct going word by word

reconstructing the scene. And they say, well, they were there for maybe 1520 minutes. And then in when you put the testimony together, they were there for like an hour and a half. Well, I don't know if you have kids, but my kids when they were seven or nine, you couldn't make them stand still for an hour and a half, let alone 20 minutes. What were they doing? So I've had the privilege of re interviewing Mr. Padilla about this and he said, well, they were he wanted to go and help they are there. The there is an opening in the object through there they see three

beings who are about their size. They think of them as little men or kids. Although they also look a little bit like a large insect. They they are not completely human. They have a large head, narrow shoulders, long arms. And they, they walk not by walking, but by just moving around, shuffling, willing themselves to move around. Do you happen to have a picture of it in your book? No, no. Well, I have pictures of, I have pictures of, you know, what you could compare it to. But they were they felt Mr. Padilla told me we felt sorry

for them. He wanted to go and help. And he said, you know, if I had done that, I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. You know, going into that craft, they were always inside, you know, going into that craft, they were always inside, sort of moving back and forth, crying, and crying. Yes. And he compared it to the cry of the rabbit when you kill it. Again, these kids are growing up on the on the ranch, okay. They are very familiar with animals with, you know, preparing food and everything else. They are sort of crying, they are in distress. And they are moving around. He wants to go and help. The seven year old says no way, I'm not going there. He's crying. He's really terrified. He doesn't want to get involved. They are 200 feet away from the object at that point. Okay. This is their land. I mean, they know the

territory, they, they see this thing, there is no more smoke, no more fire. They the object was never on fire, by the way, the object is intact, which is kind of remarkable after what it went through. The only thing missing is that panel. A lot of material that they talk about light material, a lot of that light silvery material that they will compare it to things you'd put on the Christmas tree, silver, you know, silver material, very light, light aluminum, and just shiny stuff. In fact, some of the fiber, they recovered, they filled a big sack with it. And they gave it to their neighbors to put on their Christmas trees. Again, this was what the kid would do. I mean, they

they recovered it, they thought it was wonderful. It was mysterious. They didn't have many toys in those days, you know, where does consciousness enter into this? So, the consciousness is that they, they feel that the beings are communicating with them. So the beings were aware that sorry to interrupt the beings were aware that they were there 200 feet away or did they come closer? They that we asked that question, the the asset question, the the beings were not looking directly at them. But they they felt that the beings were aware that they were there. They remember they had binoculars. So they passed

the binoculars to each other, staring at these, at these creatures, and feeling sorry for them feeling pain, feeling that they should help. And they were helpless to really help. They knew the time was passing, no night was coming. Their father would be angry, would be concerned. They had to get home which was half an hour away on, concern. They had to get home, which was half an hour away on on the horse. And then images came into their heads. And they were sort of mesmerized and frozen to the spot. They saw big

buildings falling apart. Of course, they've never seen a big building there on a farm in New Mexico in 1945. They see things falling from the sky and then in later years they have recurring dreams about things falling from the sky, people dying, people falling from buildings and that lasted in the case of Mr. Padilla, this lasted about two or three years, he had these recurring dreams afterwards. But they are essentially mesmerized and frozen to the spot. They will say, Mr. Padilla wants to go and help. And Remy says, No way, I'm not going there. And

the older one the first to the younger one, and they, they don't go there. They go, they go home at night, on horseback crying all the way. So how did you get started in this field? And what is this field? How do you characterize it? Sure. So I started when I was 15 years old, utilizing the Freedom of Information Act, I was just essentially curious, excuse me about what the the government had didn't know

exactly what I would find. I could tell you back in 1995, when I started filing foyers in 96, the internet was a different beast. I mean, there was something a lot different about the internet than than what you see here in 2023. And UFOs was still a popular topic even back then even prior to the web being a popular thing on the internet. Prior to that, there were more chat rooms, file sharing sites and stuff like that. UFOs was always one of these bigger topics that was distributed online. And I was hooked into that. I loved it. I loved going

to the chat rooms. I love seeing what was there. But what was difficult was to try and figure out what was real, what was legitimate and what was something you could trust. And being 15 years old, I had no idea. I mean, I'm, I'm a lot older now, I still have no idea, but you get a little bit more of an understanding of what's going on. But again, back then, I didn't know what to believe. But I read about this government document, four pages long, said to be from

the Defense Intelligence Agency. And I thought, you know what, after I read it, there's no way that this thing is real. And this website, if I remember correctly, was called the computer UFO network. And they were distributing some of these files way back in the day. And they said, if you don't believe its legitimacy, you can file a Freedom of Information Act yourself, request yourself. And I was like, what? What's that? I have no idea. But it wouldn't cost me anything more than a

postage stamp. I did it, got the four page document. It was real. It was a UFO incident, known infamously as the 1976 Iran incident. And past that I was hooked past that I was hooked, and went back online and looked for any more websites, any more government documents, any more, anything that I could find, because even though I knew the government was lying, even back then, there was some type of legitimacy to a government document versus seeing someone's story written in a blog or article. The

government documents had a different feel to them. And there was no website with it, just a few documents scattered here and there. So I started the black vault when I was 15, I figured if I was looking for documents, other people would be too. So I was utilizing the Freedom of Information Act, I learned from that first request, and just taught myself how to use it, and was sending out 10 2050 requests at a time. And we're getting these documents. And then I was getting documents that had never

been released before. And so I was putting them online, and the black vault just kind of grew from there. So that was 26 years ago, this this will be my 27th year, I guess. And it's been a crazy ride because I had no idea it would turn into this. You said you have no idea is that still true? You have no idea? Well, I mean, I say it a little bit facetiously. But but but seriously, as well, I don't have any idea what UFOs are at their

root. I think that there's many answers, no idea who to trust. That's true. I mean, you look at UFO history going well beyond my time in it of 26 years, it's hard to know who to trust. In relation to the Freedom of Information Act, I'm still learning after 26 years. So my I have no idea still statement applies to all of that. Because because it's true. I mean, I, I hope I never get to a day where I feel that I've figured it all out, meaning understand it, I want to continue to learn, I want to, I want to I want to learn along the way and get answers. But I

want to still have questions to back it up. And, and here we are 26 years later. And again, I don't have final answers for you on what these phenomena are. All I can comfortably say is that there is a massive cover up. I feel that no one really has the ultimate answer. And on top of all that, yeah, I aim to continue to learn for myself because, look, anybody who tells you they figured it out is lying to you because I don't think that's possible at this point. When you say that you still don't know, do you have exclusions, for instance, that you

know it's not so and so you can't say what it is, but you can say, it's likely not this and this and this. Are you talking specifically to the UFO phenomenon? Yeah. So I think when you talk about the the phenomenon, or I use plural phenomena, I say that because I think there's multiple facets to it. I don't think there's any exclusions. Because you have to drill down on a specific case, a specific experience, and you have to deal with it in a very minuscule manner to figure that particular one out. I think a

lot of people approach this topic, wanting an answer, is it alien? Is it not? Well, you can't do a blanket explanation. And in the same respect, I feel like you can't do a blanket dismissal, either, because I can't say that I've excluded classified aircraft from from being the root cause of this. Why do I say that? Well, because you can only exclude that in certain instances, not in all of them. So if somebody is in their backyard, and they see something streak across the sky, and they

happen to live, you know, in Las Vegas, well, that could absolutely be attributed to their experience. When we're talking about military pilots, military experiences, that's a little bit different, you know, maybe something is classified, flying in their airspace, and they're not aware of it. That's also a possibility, or it's something else. So I think that the blanket answers blanket dismissals, incredibly hard to do with this, because this topic deserves a microscope, I mean, truly, you

have to zero in on every single facet of it, and figure that part out and then go on to the next one, whether that be cases, whether that be unanswered questions, whether that be the physics behind it, whether that be cases, whether that be unanswered questions, whether that be the physics behind it, whether that be consciousness questions, I'm sure that plays a role in a lot of this. You've got a wide range of things to zero in on. So it's very hard to do exclusions. When people say that this is related to consciousness

regarding the phenomenon, what is it that they mean? Well, it varies on the person that for me is a little bit out of my wheelhouse per se, I'm a nuts and bolts kind of guy. So I approach this topic on I want to be able to research something, whether it be documents, photographs, videos or material. I'm a three dimensional physical, I need to see it, touch it, feel it if I can type of person, but others find a much more spiritual aspect to this topic and these

phenomena, they feel that it's not necessarily about the nuts, bolts, proof, science or whatever. It's more about the experience, the love the light, the the they're here to save us. Again, that's not my wheelhouse. That's not how I approach it. But I think a lot of people do approach it in more of that metaphysical way. Because that's their experience, that's their mindset, that's where they are on their journey to figure it all out. And and that's fine. But but you have to essentially rely a little bit less on science or a lot of bit less on

science, and more so on faith. And and, and again, that's not why that's my approach. But for some it is and for them, it works for them. And, and I you know, it, it's just a, it's just a different approach, I think, to, to a phenomena that's still a mystery to us all. And it's if it works for them, I support that. It's just not my angle. Yeah, so they mean something spiritual, because when people say it's related to consciousness, my question is, well, what's not related to consciousness? If you take

your experience as primary, everything is related to consciousness, including a pen, including a table. Yeah. And the way the way I took your question was more of the spiritual aspect of this, those that are finding answers within their within themselves versus actual science, or again, those those nuts and bolts that I'm talking about. With that, I think that there's a very dangerous part of this conversation as well. And you see this a lot, I would say more in the last five years, but even

prior, you know, you talk about the heavens gate cult, and so on and so forth, that they attribute UFOs, extraterrestrials, alien life to spiritual followings, and then sometimes very dangerous followings. Heaven's Gate, obviously was a mass suicide thinking that a UFO was behind a comet. You have others that are much more cultish in nature, talking about aliens, and so on and so forth. The Rayleigh and movement is one that comes to mind that's been around for quite some time. But then, you know, you again,

have in the last five years or so, a much, I would say, much more dangerous part of this, not the majority, but there's a part of it where people just believe, and they sacrifice, I call it the I want to believe syndrome, they sacrifice all logic, common sense, our basic form of investigation, asking questions, they sacrifice all of that, for the want to believe, and they want to believe so much that they will make sure that you do not harm that that you do not get in the way of that. And if you do, there's hell to pay. They want to believe

in what they want to believe that there's a higher, more intelligent life form out there that is wanting to talk to humanity that that that they're here to take us to another level of consciousness, another place in the cosmos that we're going to join some kind of cosmic brotherhood. I'm not saying that's true for everybody. But that's out there. Those beliefs are out there. And then you have the debate of good aliens versus bad aliens. Are they here to save us from

destroying the planet and destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons and so on? Or are they here to kill us all? That debate is rampant out there. That brings up a whole new aspect to this conversation, which I'm fascinated by. But to sum it up, why would they care? Because if they are there, and we are here, and they can get here, the likelihood of us being the only two life forms in the cosmos is nil. So why would they care? It's as to me, I attribute it to the Antill analogy. Do we care that there's an Antill in the middle of the

Sahara Desert, that it's about to go to war with another colony or a termite hill, whatever, do we go out there and plant our US flag and go, we will save you. We're hiring, we've got bigger weapons. We're much more intelligent than you, we probably can't talk, but we will save you. I'm sorry, the intelligence gap between us and an ant is likely closer than us and a civilization that started 2 million years ago. I believe that because I think that their intelligence will be so far surpassed our own. Why would

they want to come here and number one, even talk to us, but number two, save us? Does it matter? You know, the only reason they would is if we are the only two in the cosmos, you know, if there's just a handful of civilizations in this vast universe, to me, that's not even likely. But, you know, that's the only reason they would. And if that is the case, how would we ever find each other? Right? So, so there's a lot of questions that I think we have to ponder here. It's not about was that UFO, an

alien spaceship going across the Pacific Ocean, but rather, we have to really drill deep into a lot of these pressing questions that you have to tackle. If you want to believe in extraterrestrials are here. See, for the anthill analogy, I don't think people think about it carefully enough, because if the ants were able to communicate to us, there will be teams of scientists, there will be new stories about look, we can now communicate with ants. teams of scientists, there would be new stories about, look, we can now communicate with ants. Further, virtually every single species on the planet has a professor whose sole job it is to study it. It's difficult to find a life form that we're not interested in. And then third, we are concerned with species preservation. So if the ants were going to war with gorillas and one of them were going to be wiped out somehow, we would care about that. Like we already

care about that. And there are some people who care about extinction. So there's both sides. So I don't see this dispassionate assessment because it's an anthill and we're so much more advanced as holding up to indicate that we don't want to intervene or communicate back. Because if we could, that would be firstly, we're teaching gorillas to try and communicate to them saying with the parrots and we're super excited when they can say a syllable or string together a verb and an adjective and it's like a revolutionary Chomsky gets involved. Yeah, you you bring up a great

you bring up a great rebuttal. The only reason I would I would push back is not every human being studies, you're talking about a very small percentage of humans that that make that study, and that care. I'm one of those that care, right? So I love I'm an animal geek. I love that. I love that kind of stuff. But sadly, humanity doesn't. So the reason I bring up the analogy is talking about life forms as a whole, here on Earth, humanity as a whole, what's the percentage that cares, broaden that to a wider scope in the

universe, to find a full civilization that would, again, want to come here and speak to us and save us. That to me is more of the point that it would be a much smaller if if a percentage point at all. But on top of all that, using what rebuttal you just brought up, which was great. We want to save that life form, because all we know is one planet and that's it. Right. So so life is precious to us as it and I agree with that, right? Like, I believe life is precious. But if

if then the universe and cosmos is teeming with life, would another advanced civilization have that same appreciation, and that same care to go, okay, people of earth or creatures of earth, you know, we, we don't want you to be extinct, we want to, we want to coddle you, I want to believe that that's true, because I'm the type that in my backyard, I will save a humming bird in my pool, which there's pictures, I, we do that all the time, me and my kids will save hummingbirds will save so we do

that, right. But it's because we have that appreciation for life, would a civilization millions of years ahead of us in a cosmos, teeming with life, care? And and that's that's, I think the bigger question here is that we want to think they would, because of humanity and where we are in the infant stages that we are. But the reality is, it could be a machine that we run into, when we talk about an extraterrestrial. And and that brings up this whole other debate, wherein we we are

operating off the assumption that we are going to run in to a biological creature of some kind. But that unanswered question is when that happens, if it hasn't already, will it be biological at all? And then that brings up a whole other slew of questions. So I get your your point, absolutely. But for me, I remove myself as much as I can from humanity and try and look at it as a bigger picture. And that's where I feel the the Antill analogy then comes into play. Yeah, I see that. I'll say some thoughts that occurred to me.

Number one is that if they're sufficiently advanced, then they would have something like auto GPT. So right now we have a eyes and they can run automatically without our intervention. So it could be that even though the average person doesn't care about a particular animal, like you mentioned, there's a subset of people who care about a particular animal. Even though that's the case, it could just be it runs automatically. So it doesn't matter that all of us as a whole aren't, it could be that you're sending out probes automatically. Secondly, this is something I think about, we tend to think that what's valuable is what's rare, so like diamonds and gold,

but it may be the case that we have that backward. And that that's based on something like materialism, and that what may be the most valuable is what's the most abundant. And that is to say, like our consciousness or meaning or significance. It's a difficult concept to parse out because we tend to make an equivalence between what's valuable and what's rare and what's uncommon. I don't see it as being completely obvious that what's precious is what's most rare. It may be the opposite. What's precious is what's most common. the opposite. What's precious is what's most common. Yeah, and you bring up an interesting I'm not sure if this will connect to your thought at all. But you bring up an interesting point about the gold and the you know, the precious

metals that are precious to us and and therefore valuable. If we were able to go out those precious metals to us humans is completely abundant. Like there's that one I forget exactly the value of the the comet that they said is is worth like quintillions of dollars. And that you know, the idea is that if you go out and actually can rope it and bring it in and you can start mining it and so on and so forth. It brings up I guess an interesting concept

that what and which kind of plays into my point earlier, is that what is essentially rare to us, that we we value it more gold is much more valuable than dirt, you know, because it's it's much, it's much more precious to us and so on and so forth. And therefore we coddle that and we we we hold on to it, it's got value, it grows in value. But using gold as the example in the cosmos, that's one of those precious metals that if you rope one of those comets, you completely crash the gold market

here, because you are just overflowing with it. And it's not precious anymore. It's just a metal, it's just dirt, you know, it's not worth anything. That I think plays into what I was saying earlier, where here on earth, humanity values what it does, because we're small, and that's all we know. But once that broadens to literally a cosmic scale, those values change, both monetary values, but also what's here and what's here in our mind, in our heart. So it it's a mind blowing topic,

because you can go so many different ways. And like you said, does the abundance create value? I'm not sure maybe maybe with a higher intelligence that would come into play. But sadly, for humanity, as you and I chat right now, that's not that's not the case. And that's, that's how we have to at this point, think about how it might be out there, just because we don't know where we're going to be in 1000 years. How much do you think the government knows? And when I say

the government that may be a misnomer, because we say the as if it's unified, one all powerful, all knowing entity. Yeah. And even ourselves were disparate. We have different goals, like you mentioned. Despite that, despite those caveats, interpret that as you wish. How much does the government know? Well, I get myself in a lot of trouble here, because I said this first years and years ago, and I couldn't believe the hate mail that I got, I said, it's quite possible the government has no clue that they're just as clueless as you and I and forgive me, I don't mean you're clueless. But, you know, human,

you know, humanity itself, on unraveling this, this whole phenomenon, right? The these phenomena, what is it? What's the root of it? It's possible that the government doesn't know either. And I couldn't believe the hate mail that I got from that because a lot of people think that the government is this all powerful, all knowing entity that knows all and they're bad people and they're covering it all up, which I believe there is a cover up, but they're covering it all

up and they know the secrets. And they're stashed away in some warehouse somewhere, but they're not going to tell you about it. That's the easy way to think about it. The harder way is to think that the government doesn't know either that they just after all these decades of researching it, cannot essentially figure out really what the root is, or at least the final answer, maybe they have clues, maybe that pieces of evidence, maybe maybe they have material. And let me say that, and let me take that

back. It's proven they have material, there are declassified documents that that prove that that are connected to UFOs, post project Blue Book era. So that's all provable, right? That's not conspiracy talk material of some kind. So they have physical objects. What does that prove to them? That's what we don't know. They could be studying it for a week, figure it out and hide and cover up the answer or they could be looking at it for decades going, yeah, we think that this is a manufactured by

extraterrestrials, but we're not really sure because we have zero clue on how to figure that out. We'd like to think that we could with our 21st century technology and most brilliant minds that have security clearances, but there's a possibility that we just kind of can't. So going back to your question, it's a possibility they don't know. But on top of that, if they did, would they ever tell us? So let's operate off the assumption that they

really do know and they've found ultimate connections to extraterrestrials, it's undeniable, maybe they don't know how the using the the nuts and bolts thing again, they don't know the nuts and bolts behind it. But they know that it's manufactured by an extraterrestrial entity. That's an assumption, right? If that's true, then they wouldn't tell us. I truly believe that I don't I think that they would keep that under wraps, you have too much working against society

that would allow a world government to to come clean. So what do they know? It's kind of a crapshoot on what they know. But either way, it's not good If there's a cover-up, how is it that you determine which documents that you receive from FOIA requests are credible and which ones are not? Well, it's it's and that's a great question because Do I believe the government fabricates the material that comes to me and I would hate to think that they would I mean, the easy out for them is to essentially just either redacted or deny it. So to create these disinformation campaigns, I'm not big on those types of

stories, even though I doubt some individuals that have come out and had these stories and so on and so forth. And some of the UFO community will call it will say, Ah, he's on a disinformation campaign, you can't trust him. You know, you don't do that. I've long outspoken against that. I just don't think the government will create more work than they have to. They don't want to do the work that they're supposed to do. So creating this massive disinformation campaign to essentially fabricate documents and throw off foyer researchers,

I've never seen any indicator that that's going on. Do you all have any reason to believe that UAPs and or what may be behind them may intervene at some point to prevent nuclear Holocaust or some large iniquity, for example, with Russia? I personally don't have any evidence of that. We have a great deal of evidence that they didn't stop the testing of the first device, the use of it twice, and the subsequent testing by numerous nations on the Earth during that period of time, so I don't see why they would intervene otherwise. I don't have any evidence to point towards any kind of motive.

I can't even identify who's behind the craft. So getting to their motives would be a very hard, very much longer stretch. Yeah, I'll go even a little more pointed than that. Look, they did nothing. They didn't interfere with Chernobyl. They didn't interfere with Fukushima. They didn't interfere with Chernobyl. They didn't interfere with Fukushima. They didn't interfere with the vaporization of 500,000 people during World War II, Hiroshima,

Nagasaki. They didn't interfere during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They didn't interfere right now in the Ukraine. So the question is, is there any evidence to substantiate that they're here to stop mankind from hurting ourselves. Well, they haven't stopped COVID, they haven't stopped climate change, they haven't stopped World War II, Korean War or anything else and they haven't stopped world hunger. So, it'd be nice if that was a case,

but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that. What I have seen is evidence to suggest of some sort of ISR, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance of our nuclear equities and technology that we have seen, we've been able to substantiate that and the ability to interfere with it. But the question is, are they interfering it for good? Well, right now, there's no information to indicate that at least not from my my perspective. Do you have any idea what this cataclysm is that people like Ross Coulthardt refer to? And if you do, has it been impending? Has it been averted?

I think I understand what Ross is talking about. I've spoken to Ross at length privately. There's, I know what Ross is talking about from the side of the coin where I work and where I'm interested in the subject, I have no connection to it whatsoever other than, as I often say, the Pop-Site Geist Ufology. Now that's not to say that I haven't studied some of the same things that Ross has and other people like Grant Cameron and others, that there is a cyclical nature to life on Earth, that there are changes evident in the fossil record and in sedimentary records

and things like that. So there may be a great deal of conflation going on here between what we call the entertainment aspect of the opiology and the need to invigorate a subject and keep people interested in it, vice the actual nuts and bolts again, and the reality of it. Species have gone extinct before. There's no reason to expect that we won't go extinct someday. So when people talk about cataclysms, I think it's important that we don't conflate them with popuapology. I'd like to leave that to the geologists and to the climatologists and the other people

who are making that their specific focus. I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to. Cataclysms have always been part of human evolution. In fact, one could argue we've always been on the verge of a cataclysm at any moment or species. There have been historical anecdotes, whether it's Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar or even the Bible or the Bible Gita or anything else.

You know, cataclysm, Armageddon, whatever, has always been part of the human storytelling and for good reason, because you do have these moments in time where things change so dramatically, case in point, one could probably point to the last ice age where when the earth was thawing out of the ice age, that was a major moment and caused a lot of species to disappear because environments change. The land bridge, when that was no longer crossable, you isolated certain genetic species from intermingling with each other. It's always been part of who we are

and always part of Earth because Earth changes. Look at the dinosaurs. And that was a hell of a cataclysm when you had a meteor come down and wipe out 90% of animals on this planet. That's just reality. I'm not sure that's necessarily something we all need to look at and say, oh, that's coming. We've always been immersed in that. Again, you can look throughout history and see where mankind in almost every religious text, there is some sort of reference to some

sort of cataclysmic event or that has occurred or will occur, whether it's the flooding stories of the earth and the 40 days of rain or other, you know, pick your story, right? That we have always been telling ourselves and the things continue to happen. World War III, just another example, right? Nuclear war. It's always right around the corner and for good reason, because you have a lot of things operating in nature that aren't necessarily in favor for a species survival. And so you have to adapt if you want to survive, whether that's climate or because of things we do to each other. That's just the reality of life.

So I'm not aware of any particular cataclysm story you're maybe referring to, because frankly, pick your story du jour. There's a lot of stories about cataclysm. Let me be a bit more specific. So Ross was referring to cataclysm as one of the reasons for why the aliens I don't know if they should be called aliens, but those from the future may come

back into the past. I don't know, I really like Ross. I think he is a deep thinker. I really enjoy talking to him actually even about these subjects and throwing conjecture against the wall. But I find myself having a really hard time saying what are we talking about here. Because if we're talking about climatology or if we're talking about, as we said, sedimentary record and other things like that of what has happened before.

We're throwing in aliens that we can't prove. We're throwing in a historical record that's spotty. I agree that some of these things, when placed on the table together, make a certain amount of sense, but I can't say that the things we're placing on the table make sense by themselves. And so there's a great deal of conflation going on. And I don't want to say that anyone's using their imagination too much. But I think that it would just be my opinion about a lot of fiction and conjecture that I've taken in over the years, which doesn't really apply in any way, shape or form in the work I'm doing right now. So it's imaginative and I think it's interesting, but again, I couldn't get there as an investigator because I'm making, to an extent, making up one of the suspects and I'm assuming a story of one of the complainants to arrive to say that a crime has occurred, it's the fruits of the poisonous tree. So it's, if we had like a show about conjecture and we wanted to really dig into

that, you know, we can get some, get Graham Hancock or another expert, maybe from one of the ancient architect channels or something like that. I think we could have a really interesting conversation, but it just, it doesn't apply other than to my opinion. Sure. I'll go also, I'll add, you know, my concern is right now, let's just say hypothetically, we as a species right now, we have the ability to go back in time. My concern is the whole paradox issue, right? You know, there's a saying, if I go back and I kill my grandfather, well, then I don't exist. And so therefore, I couldn't go back in time to kill my grandfather. So there's a paradox issue here. And if there's a species that, that is for some reason, or us, let's say, coming back from a future, and I don't want to say the future, because we don't

know if there is, you know, the, or perhaps a, or multiple, um, the bottom line is that if you, if you come back and interfere with the past, you may very well inadvertently affect your ability to exist in the future and change things irrevocably. And in fact, you may change things for the worse, not the better. So I think it's certainly interesting to speculate, but I think that's why it's tough for us to conceive about going backwards in time. I think we can slow down, I mean, nothing relativity time can be slowed down. And it can be potentially even stopped to some degree. But to go backwards is a

little bit different. You know, you're asking the river to run backwards and you can slow it, you can dam it up, but to have a river go backwards, it's a little more tough than that. And so therein lies the conundrum. You know, if you go, the mere fact that you go back in time, let's say hypothetically to your time period, which is what would matter if you went back in time, you wouldn't wanna go back to some other

other parallel universe's time because you're not gonna affect your own paradigm. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. And I'm not sure that, I'm not sure that we would want to do that because of the risk you would have to. And then you have the question about matter in the universe. So if I take matter from the future and the universe has only X amount of matter, X amount of energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, now I add more matter. How does that affect the rest as it perturbed the existing model of the universe by the mere fact you're introducing more matter into a universe

that only has X matter? And how does that occur? And now does that initiate another potential big bang? These are the questions you have to ask yourself seriously whenever you're providing a theory about time travel. Again, it's like, like Sean said, it's fun to speculate. But there's a lot more considerations that one has to consider if if that was really possible, and would you really want to do it? Quick editors quitted to here. For those interested in the details, a positive cosmological constant allows for the creation of energy and energy seems to only locally be conserved, not globally. I think we can all take the scene from one of the Avengers movies, I think it was Endgame, where they ran through all the different time travel movies.

And they were trying to explain, you know, they're all wrong. You know, they're getting it wrong. And they started talking about real physics and the possibility of alternate realities and alternate dimensions and things like that. But we have to ask ourselves again, if we don't have any personal perception of that, if we can't detect it, again, assigning motive is very, very much just opinion, you know, opinion, you know, I don't even know if I have a time machine, or if there's an alien, what his motive is, what he wants, and agreed with Lou, again, what are even the mechanics of operating something like I don't know, you know, it's, it's far beyond my ken.

And just so you know, Lou, you mentioned at one point that the present is thick, for lack of a better word, cigarette burning, as the analogy. And for people who are interested in a more mathematical treatment of that, I spoke to someone named Nicholas Jison, who gave a formalism to indicate that the present time is thick, that you can't pick out a particular point that as soon as you do, it's almost like honey. So if you're interested in that, I'll put a link in the description. Yeah, no, and we see that very practically in the world of quantum physics and even the

expression or the description of an electron. You know, again, for your audience, who's probably my age, remembers in high school, you learned that an electron orbits the nucleus of an atom, but in reality, that's not what's occurring. We now realize it's called an electron cloud for a reason because of predictability and the fact that the electron can never be isolated in a fixed position, you can't do it. And in fact, some scientists now are speculating that it is because the electron is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It is so small that it may literally be zipping in and out through the very fabric of space-time. And so it's nonsensical to try to predict the position of an electron because

there is no position. It's everywhere and nowhere at the same time around the nucleus of an atom. And that's some of the observations we're beginning to see now. And let me add to that, that the past and the future are human semantic constructs. It is always now. It always has been now from the universe's perspective. The past is not something that's sitting next door to us. And another way that people think of things, and we think when we say that the stars are very far away, the light took a very long time to travel to us, we're seeing the past.

Again, that's a metaphor. We're not seeing the past, we're seeing now. And now is those photons are here hitting your eyes, where at one point they were not. And so these are arbitrary concepts a lot of times. So we've applied a linear understanding to something that exists on a much deeper spectrum in a lot of ways. When we talk about going past, going future.

And I think a lot of what Lou's talking about is that reality is anchored in now and in the present and in the entropic state that we exist in at this moment. And so there's so many variables to that. And we're jumping to motive. I think that's something we just have to keep in mind. Yeah, I'll go even a step further, Kurt too, with that kind of piggybacking off of what Sean said.

The whole notion of here and now is almost nonsensical. Let me give an example. I asked you, Kurt, where are you right now? Let's do a little quick exercise for you and your audience. Where are you right now, Kurt? Let's say Toronto, Canada. Okay. Where's Toronto? Where's Toronto? I don't know how to answer that. Okay. Well, where's Canada? Where's North America? I think I see where you're getting at. I don't know how to answer that. Okay, well, where's Canada? Where's our solar system? Where's our Milky Way? There is no here here. We invent here because we have to live in an environment where we are used to boundaries and borders in order for us for things to make sense. But in reality, the big scale of things in the scale of the universe, the notion of here and now is really nonsensical

because depends on where I am relative to everything else. Here and now only exist. Go ahead, Sean, sorry. It's like trying to pick out a specific electron from the electron cloud. It's, yeah, it's, everything is moving so dynamically at all times that a location is not a concept even. It's only a location in a certain regional area.

And you have to have some kind of substrate to measure that against. And we live in a universe that lacks a substrate. There's no snap tube grid that we can say we've, you know, we're now 14 parsecs northeast to, you know, local globular cluster north. What is the, what's that mean? You know, how would you navigate to that? That's something that really, that really digs into my head. How would we navigate to a point in the past? You have to figure out its location in space-time. We haven't found space-time yet to be a thing to measure in that way. And in fact, you know, if you look at the theory of inflation of the universe during the Big Bang, early parts of the Big Bang, and even now as the expansion of the universe continues to get bigger and faster, scientists are now stating that space

itself, space-time itself is being created and that's how you have this expansion of the universe occurring faster and faster and faster. And that's when you look at that case in point, let me see if I can bring this to a little bit easier to understand. The universe has been estimated to be almost, not quite 14 billion years old, right? And yet when you ask the scientists, how big is our visible universe from end to end,

they say it's about 94 billion light years across. Well, how can that be? Because that means the universe has to be expanding faster than the speed of light. Well, not necessarily. What's happening in theory is that actual space-time itself is expanding as well. Think of probably the best way to explain it would be, imagine water seeping up from the bottom of the bathtub and filling up the bathtub. It's filling up from all sorts of little pores, water's coming out everywhere, not just out of the spigot, but everywhere, it's starting to fill up the tub. If that is the case, then again, the notion back to where we are in the universe is always changing. In fact,

when you say to yourself, and it's a little bit scary to do, but you say, I'll be here tomorrow. No, you won't. You will never be here again. And you can't, it's impossible because the entire universe isn't static, it's moving. And the only way to know where you are is only relative to other people and where they are. And by the way, they're just as lost as we are. So, and I don't mean that just figuratively, I mean that physically, you know, we are all kind of scattered to the winds together and the only way we can kind of relate to each other is,

oh, you're kind of close to me. So I guess relative, you know, you're six foot and I'm five foot, you know, nine. And we gauge things relative to each other, but we really have no idea where we really are or even when we are. And that's something to ponder perhaps. We invented time so we know when to meet for lunch tomorrow,

but in reality, we just observe entropy. There's a lot of stuff, please. That's okay, I just like to bring things down to a mathematical level for some of the people who are more interested. So the relational view that Lou outlined, you can read more about it in a relational view of quantum mechanics by Carlo Rovelli.

And then this arbitrariness of setting one's location when Lou was asking me, where is Toronto and this in Canada and then where is Earth and so on. That is called general covariance. And that's where the principle of well, that's where general relativity comes out from. So if you want to learn more, for those who are interested in mathematical details, that's what you can look up. Okay, now I'm curious about the reason for secrecy behind this whole UAP phenomenon. And I'm curious, do you believe that it's profit

driven primarily, or that it's so profit driven by the private sector, or profit driven by the governmental sector, or that it's altruistically motivated, like Tom DeLong may espouse or Tom DeLong believes. Are we talking what can we can you identify what exactly are we asking about? What is the there's much that is covered up about the reason for secrecy. You're asking about what what is you're asking my opinion on the motivation behind it. It's my opinion, just by looking at the simple record that we can distill, that made front page news, that did get reported, that wasn't completely redacted. I think we see a great deal of shock and confusion.

a great deal of shock and confusion. And if we're to assume that some of what we all assume about crashes and bodies and things like that, if that occurred, we're still debating what that would do to our religions, our society, our culture, our stock market, all of those things. We still debate that to today with a pretty split constituency of who believes that we're ready and who believes that we're not. And I think we can see a natural progression of not understanding something, wanting to understand it before they made it public. But then human nature probably, I can imagine, took over. And so power mongering, greed, idea mongering, you know, thought, if that makes sense, I'm wanting to keep, you know, important ideas to yourself. I can see that that would have happened

already, but I still think that the government that I, the military that I worked in and the government that I operated in and around was made of just regular folks like us. And this is an incredibly daunting subject. And so I can see where it would have continually been kicked down the road. Now that's just my opinion, just from, from looking at what's in the public record. Um, what do you mean by that? It would have been continually kicked down the road. No, I've never met anyone who wants to take responsibility for this. And it's one of the things that made Lou very interesting a few years ago when he appeared was that he was,

he had the courage to do it. And he wasn't doing it in the same way everybody else did it. And he wasn't asking for your money. And he wasn't on the same nonsensical, you know, the TV shows, I shouldn't say the nonsensical television shows, the things that are where you sandwich important information in between fiction. It always leaves a plausible deniability and Lou doesn't mess with that stuff. It's like, look, here's my record. And now we can see the people that tried to try to silence him. And so it was very, very different. Where are all the other Lou's? We know they existed. Where are all the other woos? We know they existed. Where are all the other program managers? Where are the foreign program managers? They're not speaking up. There's a lot of simple questions as to why, whether they've been threatened,

whether they're under NDA. But I talk to a lot of people every day who want to help in this subject, very high profile people. But they don't want their names out there yet attached to it. They believe in it, they think it's real. But they're still waiting for that tipping point to where we stop laughing at it, where it stops ruining careers and ruining brands or, or changing people's minds about you as an individual. It's primarily stigma that's keeping them from speaking out non anonymously. I would say that I would say that primarily stigma and and and wanting to let me try to make an analogy here that if if

I brought a if I came back to the tribe around the campfire and I brought a power saw, what are we going to use it for? It has a purpose. It's for cutting wood. But a lot of the folks in the tribe are probably going to want to use it to go take over the other tribe next door because it's the most powerful weapon they've ever seen. And right there we may just be talking about human nature, but I think that there's so much of our humanity wrapped up in the answers that we all assume are part of this that very few people have been willing to take responsibility in any way shape or form. Lou, what do you believe to be the primary reason? For lack of transparency. Yeah, I'm a little more practical

and probably a little bit more less optimistic for our species on this particular question. What if there was knowledge, Kurt, that was so volatile, so earth-shattering, that the mere knowledge of that getting out could predicate an action that could potentially threaten the entire species? Now, what do I mean by that? For just a moment, take off the scientific hat, take off your humanitarian hat,

take off your philanthropic hat and put on a hat of national security. You just, we just talked about the fact that there's no indication that these things have been here to help us. Okay. So there's really only three possibilities. They're benign or if you will, benevolent or two, they are malevolent. They're here to hurt us or three, they're just here to observe us and they're capable

of doing both good and bad like us. Well, if you were to put on your national security hat for a second, let's say you're a general from the 1950s or 60s and your job is to protect America and all things good and great and the height of the Cold War and you've got the Soviet bear across there and things are pretty tough, right? And nuclear proliferation is a real thing. Now you have information that there is something here that can outperform anything you have and really anything you have is rather ineffective from a national security perspective. And there's a thing out there. And it doesn't show that it's being

benevolent. So it's only one or two other options, either malevolent or it's like us. And we see this very careful ISR surveillance of our nuclear equities. It's interested in nuclear equities. Well, some may look at that as what we call preparation to the battlefield. Okay. And let's just say hypothetically, there's a 10% chance, you assess a 10% chance that these things are bad or one day they're going to come here and force and they're just, they're looking at us, right? Remember, you're putting on your national security hat to forget about everything else for a moment. Your job is to be paranoid. And there's a small remote chance that these things moment, your job is to be paranoid. And there's a small remote chance that these things are not good. And maybe there is a plan for these things at some point to come in force in 50 years from

now. And if the mere fact you have this conversation with the American people, what's going to happen? Well, the American people are going to start getting prepared. Well, you know, I can tell you in real life combat situations, when we send in long range surveillance, LURS teams behind enemy lines, the moment the enemy finds out that we know, that they know we're there, the element of surprise is over. And so ultimately, hypothetically imagine a scenario where maybe we had 50 years to prepare for something, but now that the cat's out of the bag, that existential action will happen tomorrow.

And by the way, we're not ready for it. We're not prepared for it. We don't have a countermeasure. We don't have a capability to counter this. And so from a very real perspective, a national security perspective, the mere fact that you are acknowledging the existence of something may predicate an action or an act

that you're not prepared to have right now. And so I encourage you and your listeners to just for a moment, I'm not asking you to be a national security person, but I'm asking you to suspend your personal beliefs right now for just a moment and put yourself in somebody else's shoes who does feel that way. Now what do you do? If the mere fact of talking about this could potentially cause a reaction that you're not ready for as a country, as a civilization, right? Maybe that's the reason why you decide to only brief certain presidents who have a background in intelligence. Maybe they were former directors of CIA, but the other presidents who are career politicians will be, you know, they're here today, gone in four years. Maybe you can't even risk telling them. And so maybe

the reason why this has been kept secret so long is actually in a weird sense, some sort of sense of patriotism by people. And maybe that's how they justify it. And I'll leave that at that as a counterpoint forcing people to think maybe a little bit non-traditionally. Now, do I think if that happened to ever be the case, that's a good explanation? No. I still think that we have to be honest with the American people. You know, I've said this before, it's like going to the doctor. Just because I have cancer, you know, it's bad news. Don't keep that from me. I want to know because maybe there's a chance I can do something about it. But do I understand that mentality? Sure. Nobody wants to give anybody bad news. Now, am I saying that's the case? No, I'm not. It's just you asked me

one of the reasons why people would want to keep this secret. Well, that's a really damn good reason why people may want to keep this secret because the mere fact of not keeping it secret could cause a reaction that you're not ready for yet. There's nothing you can do, you don't have a countermeasure. So again, from a national security perspective, you know that that makes sense. Again, I don't agree with it. But you know that that's understandable. Earlier, you mentioned the legacy program. It's still going on though, but it's called the legacy program.

Yeah, it's essentially it's a it's an acknowledgement, I guess that this is a program that goes back to the Second World War, at least, that there have been retrievals since, allegedly, according to Grush. Well, the first retrieval he knows about was in 1933, which is allegedly the Magenta Italy-Italian UAP craft, which was allegedly returned or recovered by the Americans in 1944 with the assistance of the Vatican and brought back to America. And if that's true, that's what Mr. Grush is alleging.

If that's true, one can only hope that it's investigated and that people get to the bottom of In collaboration with the Vatican? Yes, the Vatican interceded to assist in handing the technology over from the vestiges of the Italian government at the end of the fascist Mussolini regime and handing it over to the Americans as the Americans moved into Italy at the end

of the Second World War. So that doesn't mean that there's something inherently Christian about this. It just happened to be where the Vatican is, like there's something geographical about it? Do you know, it's funny, I've spent a large part of my career revealing the horrible, sordid history of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. So I'm not a fan of the way it's conducted itself with its treatment of children. But one thing I will applaud the Catholic Church on

is that it's long had a very progressive attitude towards the notion of a non-human intelligence. I think 10 years ago, the Vatican astronomer, they do actually have a Vatican observatory in Italy. He spoke publicly about the notion that essentially whatever species we are of intelligent being, we are all God's children. I think the Vatican knows an enormous amount about the phenomenon. And one person I commend you speak to is Diana Walsh-Pasolka, who's written a terrific book called American Cosmic. And she's got a new book coming out that I've been privileged

to preview. And it's fascinating. I have indeed spoken with Diana Pasolka. It's a great conversation. Actually, it's one of my favorite conversations on the whole of theories of everything where we talk about the dark side of the phenomenon, especially psychologically, as well as how to cope with it. It's listed in the description. And it's fascinating. And I think the Vatican is well aware of allegations that the planet has been shared with a non-human

intelligence for a large part of humanity's existence. And I'm told that some of the best archives and information historically on this is stored in the Vatican. The other word that stuck out to me was the, what the legacy program like the like there's a single one. This to me sounds like this would be a multi department and a multi program program. So why is there just one? I think it's a euphemism that's become quite common inside the program as it's called. It's called the program. That's the euphemism that people have used to it. And I think those

of us who are passing comment on it have referred to it often as the legacy program, because essentially it's been a continuing program that never stopped operating throughout the Cold War. And it continues to this day. One of the issues though, and you quite rightly make this point, is that it's now fragmented. Issues though, and you quite rightly make this point, is that it's now fragmented. I think the allegations of my sources, not just Mr. Grush, are that this program is now administered across different private aerospace companies. Notably, one of them, of course, is Lockheed Martin. I think those companies should be asked directly whether they have had or have possession of non-human technology that at one stage was in the possession of the US government. Are they going to be obligating their requirements to respond under the new legislation that's

coming up before the Congress? It's going to be very interesting to see what they say because I think that one of the big issues here is, and I say this as somebody who's trained in intellectual property law, they might rightly think it's their property. Why the hell should they have to account for this to the US government? If they've spent the money and done the work in the last 60, 70 years on trying to develop this technology, what business is it of the US Defense Department or the US government if they were properly vested this material or if they recovered it themselves? Why should the US

government have any right over it? I'm kind of on their side on this. Frankly, if Elon Musk develops anti-gravitic propulsion based on a recovered piece of technology, why the hell should he have to account for it to the US government or businesses that are theirs if they've been so incompetent as to hand over this technology invested into private aerospace? Then I'm kind of onside. I'm a big fan of private enterprise and capitalism. I think the profit motive drives some of the best innovations in

technology. If I was a private aerospace company that's responsible to my shareholders, I'd be getting my lawyers briefed and ready for a big fight with the Congress. What business is it of theirs? I'm kind of with them in a way, really. Bottom line is, if Lockheed Martin has a flying saucer hidden in a cupboard somewhere, and if they've spent billions of dollars on trying to develop that technology, why should they be putting up being bullied by US Congress? What business is it of Congress? If some president in the past made the decision to divest the US government of this technology, or to take it out of say the Department of Energy

50, 60 years ago. Why would they completely divest themselves? The government completely give this technology up and not say, hey, private industry, you have great technology to investigate this technology. Let's work together. That's a very good question, Kurt. One explanation that I heard is that there was concerns that the Department of Energy in particular was going to be brought under the control of various regulatory agencies, notably the Government Accounting Office, the GAO. I'm told that at one stage, the GAO was asking some very shrewd questions about monies and expenditure relating to the program and a decision was made to divest that technology from the DOE into private enterprise.

Unless proper contracts were drawn up at the time that required that this technology remained the property of the US government, well, frankly, my friend, if I was a clever IP lawyer, I would be saying, stuff the US government. This is ours. We're one of the world's top aerospace companies. If I was a clever IP lawyer, I would be saying, stuff the US government. This is ours. We're one of the world's top aerospace companies. Why should we have to hand this over? I'm kind of sympathetic with them.

I think if they came out publicly and actually said that and said, yeah, we've got this technology, but it's none of your bloody business. Piss off. Leave us alone. We're spending the money. We've got the scientists. We're spending the dough. If the US government was stupid enough to go off and fight wars in the Middle East in

the last 10, 15, 20 years and not spend money on a Manhattan style project to back engineer alien technology, then it's their fault. Yeah. I mean, I think we're actually a very interesting point here where the implications of this extraordinary legislation where clearly what's going on behind the scenes here is the Congress is pissed off. It's upset that it's asked, it's demanded, it's already required under the NDAA laws that people come forward with evidence of UAPs and they know it exists. They know that evidence is there. That's what's driving this legislation.

The reason why Senator Gillibrand is pushing for aerospace companies or private corporations to be forced to reveal whether they've got objects of non-Earth origin or exotic UAP material is because they've got witnesses who've already told them about it. And if I'm, I don't know, let's just say Lockheed Martin, and they've got a flying saucer sitting in a cupboard somewhere, they might think, well, hell, guys, that one there, we recovered that ourselves from, I don't know, Guatemala a few years ago. Why the hell should we tell you about that? It's none of your business.

We're a private company. Free enterprise is what America made America great Stick it and stick that in your pipe and smoke it these loopholes Characterize the states and perhaps Canada maybe Australia Is this something that's occurring worldwide? Because I don't imagine that these loopholes exist in Russia or in China And I don't see why it wouldn't leak and you did mention that some I don't recall exactly what, but some parts of this have leaked. But I don't know if it's related to this. Anyway, what do you say to that?

Let's deal with your country. I know for a fact that Canadian scientists are actively involved in working and collaborating with the United States on retrieved non-human technology there. Let's just see if any of your media now go out and ask questions about it. I don't think they will because they'll be cowed. They won't even go into a press conference. One reasonable thing to do would be to go to a press conference and ask the Canadian defense minister with the cameras rolling, minister, what inquiries have you done as a result of the letter from Larry McGuire, a member of

parliament who told you that he is aware of a reverse engineering program with which Canadian scientists have been collaborating through your DRDC for decades with the US government? Is she going to answer that question? She should. Now, let's deal with Australia. I've spoken to very senior people in my government who've told me they know nothing about any Australian involvement in reverse engineering. I think that's true.

I think that there have been individual military personnel, mainly from our special forces, who have collaborated in retrievals. I've spoken to people who've alleged to me that they've been involved in retrieval operations. I do believe that it's possible that technology has been tested on Australian territory or over our sovereign waters without our knowledge. I'm investigating that at the moment. Let's deal with the UK. I think the UK knows a lot more than Canada or Australia. It's been a very active member of the Five Eyes through the foreign material program because there have been retrievals in the United Kingdom and in Europe, I am told. It is alleged to me.

I don't know that for sure, but the allegation that has been put to me, and that includes British special forces personnel, is that there have been active operations crash retrievals even within the last few years. This has been an ongoing issue. People may say, oh, well, how come these things are crashing? If these are such advanced technology, why are they crashing so much? Often they're not crashing, they're just retrieved. We don't know the circumstances in which they came to be where they are. But I'm told, it has been alleged to me that on occasion they have been fully functioning technologies recovered with no visible damage to them. Now, under the foreign materials program, as is detailed in the Larry Maguire letter,

which is a secret Five Eyes agreement for the recovery, normally of foreign adversary technology like Russia or China, like the latest MIG or the latest rocket system and things like that, it's happening a lot at the moment inside Ukraine. I'm told that through that FMP, the Foreign Materials Program, there have also been very controversial and very secret recoveries of what people believe is non-human technology. But if you're a soldier, a special forces operative, and you're cleared to be involved in a retrieval operation like that, the level of knowledge that you have is limited to your utility. It could very

well be they've just been standing there with a rifle, making sure nobody comes on scene while scientists and officials move in and remove whatever it is. So it may very well be they have no direct knowledge themselves as to exactly what it is. And they're open to the accusation that what they're talking about might just be a Russian satellite or a Chinese drone or something like that. This is why this needs to be investigated because one of the things that I am aware of is that there is an intelligence take, there is distribution of five eyes intelligence now and it's become much more routinized than it ever used to be. And within the last few years, there is now intelligence sharing on UAPs within the Five

Eyes Alliance. And I've spoken to people in Australia who've told me that they've seen some of this take, very senior people in our intelligence community. And when I've said to them, should we just cut this claim of collaboration inside the five eyes on alleged retrievals, they've giggled and said, no, I wouldn't. I wouldn't put it past the Americans at all. And one of the phenomena that's quite common here in Australia, one of the things that I've reported on as a journalist reporting on the intelligence community, it's been a longstanding practice

for Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as junior partners of the Five Eyes Alliance to do plausibly deniable favors for their big brother allies in the US and the UK. During the Cold War, it's now public information that Australians, New Zealanders, often collaborated with the Brits or the Americans to bug or to tap foreign embassies or foreign adversary companies, countries, buildings. And we did plausibly deniable favors for our friends. I'm told also that we've been involved in retrievals of, and quite rightly so, it's a good thing that we've been doing this, retrievals of Chinese and Russian and North Korean technology. We're keeping tabs on our potential enemies. But I'm also told,

because I've had chats with people who've been involved in these operations, that there have been retrievals where what's being retrieved is obviously far more controversial. And I think the Brits know a lot more about this because they've been more actively involved and there is a high level of collaboration between the UK and the US on this issue. But it's interesting because certainly the parliamentary oversight committees in the United Kingdom that I've engaged with, they're not aware of this. So again, there's an accountability issue here. If British military or intelligence have been involved, I don't think their parliamentary committees know about it. And frankly, I think they should.

I mean, I'll give you an example. I did a story in 1994, that's how old I am, about how operatives of our Australian Secret Intelligence Service, our equivalent, if you like, of the CIA, assisted the British government in bugging Kuwaiti government officers after the first Gulf War to procure a trade advantage to win contracts against which Australia was competing. The operatives that were involved in that operation told me how they were paid cash by the Brits and told not to tell their Australian masters what they'd been doing, bugging Kuwaiti government officers to help the British win contracts against the Australians. There was a Royal Commission of Inquiry, which essentially is a bit like a grand jury investigation,

which looked into this issue. The whole issue of plausibly deniable favors by our intelligence community to assist our big brother allies, the UK and the US, was brought to the fore. Another incident that I became aware of when I did this story in 1994 was that when the Chinese government was negotiating with the British about the handover of Hong Kong back to China, Australian government operatives were involved at the behest of the British SIS in bugging Chinese government officers in Hong Kong so that they could negotiate a strategic advantage in the negotiations with the Chinese. Imagine the consequences for Australia if we'd been caught by the Chinese and doing that kind of high-level

spying. The blowback would have been enormous. I raised in my story the issue of why we were doing these plausibly deniable favors. This is the same thing that's been going on with UAPs because Larry Maguire, in his letter to the Canadian Minister of Defense, specifically raises how he's concerned that upcoming public announcements will be coordinated between AUKUS, which could damage Canada's credibility with our allies. AUKUS, it's not a very well-known agreement, but it's the Australia-UK-US agreement. What it is, is essentially a collaboration defense agreement, which is essentially targeting, providing Australia with nuclear submarine technology. It's bringing Australia into the nuclear world, controversially, a huge controversy

in Australia. We're spending $400 billion on nuclear attack submarines, probably the Virginia class American submarines in the next 20 to 30 years. Now I know my prime minister in Australia and my defense minister and the heads of our intelligence services in government do not know about the crash retrieval program, if it exists. The Australian crash retrieval or the? No, no, no, no, no. The U S Canadian crash retrieval or the? No, no, no, no, the US Canadian crash retrieval collaboration. If I was Australia and I'm about to spend nearly half a trillion dollars on weaponry,

which is supposedly the top of the line weaponry in the world, I would expect as a Five Eyes ally partner to be brought into the loop on the fact that the US is potentially sitting on vastly more superior technology. I would expect that it would be a legitimate question for my government to be asking, are we being sold a lemon? Are we being sold technology that will be superseded within five to 10 years if and when the American government finally admits the truth of what this alleged crash retrieval program involves. Alleged technology that is capable of extraordinary energy from the vacuum, extraordinary propulsion

systems that are capable of instantaneous velocity, the performance characteristics manifested in the five observables. That's the technology I would want in preference to a nuclear attack submarine. And so this is why this is relevant to agreements like the AUKUS agreement. Our members of the Five Eyes Alliance who have historically been treated and patronized as junior partners, are they being locked out of information and knowledge that ought properly to be being shared with them to assist them in making decisions about their future national security? That's why this now matters. I'm not trying to drive a wedge between the Five Eyes partners,

but I have had discussions with people in my government in Australia where I've said, look, I know stuff that Canada is allegedly involved in and you may not want to ask about it, but I think there is the beginning of a realization now in my government in Australia that they haven't been told the whole story. I suspect, for example, that there are facilities in Australia that have been used for experimentation with some of this technology by the US government as places like Groom Lake and Area 51 became more and more scrutinized and hot. Vast, empty areas of Australia and our ocean are beautiful places to practice technology. In my book, In Plain Sight, I start the book by

talking about an extraordinary sighting, multiply corroborated, where a gigantic black triangular craft hovered silently over two policemen and a civilian woman and did performance parameters, performance characteristics far beyond known human technology. And that's a technology that has been seen by multiple witnesses that I've since spoken to. Clearly, something was operating over Northwest Australia back in the early 90s that has never been properly explained. And clearly, the Americans knew about it and tried to shut

people down from talking about it. And so it's funny. And I obviously get frustrated with stories like this one in our national newspaper where the whole issue of alien conspiracies are mocked and you know, there really are references to little green men and that sort of nonsense. And it's this kind of belittling ridicule that ignores the fact that there is an abundance of evidence, no longer circumstantial, to suggest that there is something going on. The Pentagon has admitted the reality of the phenomena. It has admitted that there is an anomalous phenomena, possibly intelligently controlled,

doing things showing performance parameters that we cannot explain. Multiple, hundreds, thousands of witnesses have seen objects doing things that are apparently craft under intelligent control, showing performance parameters that just cannot be explained within known human technology. There is an intelligence source by the name of David Grush, who has come forward and courageously spoken out for the first time publicly, saying that he is aware of a crash retrieval program that has been illegally kept secret from the American public. He's also alleged, by the way way, bodies and some journalists seem very shy

about even discussing that issue because they're worried and confronted that people may find it so ontologically shocking that they don't want to talk about it. This is real. These allegations are being made. They should be being investigated. That's all David Grush wants. About that triangle.

Do you think that we have the ability to operate? Forget about reverse engineer. I'll refer you to again, one of the episodes of Need to Know, www.needtoknow.today. I interviewed a former British Special forces soldier called John Chapman. He's a former British para, very highly trained British soldier. He was literally in combat in Ukraine in the very early days of the battle around Kiev in April last year.

He was with a group of Navy SEALs, special forces soldiers from all over the world, an international battalion that was fighting behind Russian lines. And in the interview that he did with me, he and his colleagues described seeing firstly three strange lights appear in the sky, in the night sky. And then all of a sudden a triangular craft winked into existence. And the way he's described it, it appeared to be operating as some kind of surveillance and reconnaissance platform. It silently moved above the battlefield literally as they're getting mortared.

They're looking up and they're describing it. They're seeing it. They're absolutely categorical that they saw it. I've corroborated that this was seen. Some kind of triangular surveillance platform was being used on the battlefield, clearly monitoring Russian positions in the very early days of the Kiev offensive by the Russians. I don't know who that was, but something was taking an interest. That platform, that triangular object has been seen by multiple witnesses all around the world. Now, I know people love to dismiss all this as a wacky conspiracy theory and they love

to push the idea that this is just a conspiracy theory and it's pushed by crazy people with little green men agendas. That's no longer the case. This is being rationally suggested by sober men and women at a very high level in the American governments, both in Canada and the US. I've had conversations with people in your government. They privately admit to me that they know something's going on, but they're frightened of asking. It's almost like, oh, well, we kind of assume it's in the national good. So we're not going to push any harder. But I think that's what the people who've been hiding this all these years have been

playing on. I think they have periodically been people inside the US government who have an oversight role. One of them is perhaps Admiral Tom Wilson, the Wilson document as we've discussed previously, Kurt. And I think people have stumbled across the issue from time to time. And I think they've bought the line that this is a national security imperative

and that they shouldn't push any harder. But I'm sorry, it's clear to me now from talking to the sources that I've spoken to, and this is clearly what the Congress is finding out as well, that there have been illegalities, if not criminal breaches of the law. One of the allegations that David Grush made to me in my interview is that people have been murdered, he suspects, to protect this secret. Now that is one hell of an allegation. And at some stage,

he's going to have to put up the evidence to prove that allegation. He's obviously spoken to people on the inside, in the program, who've told him this. My understanding is that he has testified about this in secret to the Congress. My understanding is that he's also come forward to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security about this. Now, what's interesting is, is the Congress going to do its job and ask the questions that need to be asked to investigate that? Is there the political will at both congressional and senatorial level to actually push in a public way for this to be made public. I'm not sure that it is. We live in such dangerous times. We've teetered in the last 24, 48 hours on the edge of a horrible confrontation in Russia that could have resulted in civil war in Russia.

Either way, even though Putin's a thug, it would have been a very bad solution to have open warfare on Russian national territory. We're looking at the likelihood that there's going to be an intervention if it can't be negotiated to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon before the end of this year. I don't see how that can be avoided. Military conflict will have to happen unless a negotiated settlement can occur. There is no way Israel or the US are going to allow any kind of nuclear bomb to be developed by Iran. You've got the continuing nut job in North Korea with his wacky ICBM trials, where he's trying to

demonstrate a capacity to launch ICBMs at the continental United States. And then you've got China. You've got the ever present risk of China. And I'm being told routinely by officials in my government and in the US government that it's only a matter of time before we're at war with China. 18 to 24 months is the timescale that I'm being told. God forbid, why in hell's name do we think that we can win a war with China? I do not know. But in the context of all of this, do you think the

Congress is going to devote a lot of time and resources and energy to pushing for a hugely embarrassing expose to be revealed of criminal corruption inside the military and intelligence establishment, concealing an alleged crash retrieval and reverse engineering program involving retrieve non-human technology for the last 80 years? I don't think so. In other words, as important as we find it, we're like, this is the most important subject. The government's like, you don't know how close to annihilation we are from other sources. It's not the most. Yeah. I government's like, you don't know how close to annihilation we are from other sources. It's not the most.

Yeah. I mean, I'm being, I'm talking all the time to people in the U S government who genuinely want this issue out. But in the scheme of things, they're more focused quite legitimately on making sure that Ukraine has enough has artillery shells to be able to take up the command structure of the Russian government. I mean, I don't think UAPs are as bigger priority as they should be. And that's the tragedy because as David Grush admitted to me in his interview, actually, I don't think a lot of this is in the so far broadcast interview, but he's deeply

skeptical about the reasons why we went for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot of good men and women have died. They've given their lives for a conflict in the Middle East that was of dubious provenance. Why? What benefit, what benefit was derived from fighting that war? Imagine if the trillions of dollars that were expended on the Middle Eastern conflict had instead been expended on a Manhattan-style project where there was collaborative science between men and women in science from all over the world to develop energy technologies and propulsion

systems that could revolutionize human civilization. That's what people are talking about. Now, I don't know for sure that that technology exists because I haven't seen it, but I have spoken to people who've told me that it does exist. I have spoken to people who've urged me to push for the public disclosure of the existence of this technology. And that's one of the reasons why David Grush has come forward. He's the first of many, but those other witnesses are watching on and they're seeing how David Grush gets treated. If he's treated badly, if he's treated peremptorily and dismissed, then the world doesn't deserve to know, frankly. I mean, I appeal to your, I mean, one of the things I love about your show,

Kurt, is you get a phenomenally well-informed audience. You have highly intelligent people, mainly from science, but also thought leaders who are listening to your show. And they understand that you give people like me the time to explain. And I don't know if I can begin to convey the depth of emotion and frustration that good science oriented people feel that they can't talk publicly about what they know that's being concealed right now. Maybe they're lying to me. Maybe the many people that I've spoken to have all contrived to lie to me.

Maybe it's just a massive disinformation program. And maybe the whole US Congress has been misled to the extent that they now believe credulously that there might be things of non-earth origin held within private aerospace. I suspect there is. Manny Ortiz asks, Lou once said on a podcast that someone from the Pentagon told them that they knew that these, that this phenomenon are demons. Although Lou didn't seem to believe it. I would love for Lou to expand on that.

Well, Kirk, let me ask you this. You know, what is a demon? Right, I think most people would submit to you that a demon is some sort of supernatural being that is based in some sort of religious doctrine and is usually malevolent to some degree. But you know, let's look at this from a scientific perspective. All things, by

definition, are supernatural until they're explained, until they're normal, right? This cellular telephone I'm speaking to you on and this, the Wi-Fi signals 100 years ago would be completely supernatural. And yet in some parts of the world, actually, if I show a picture, you know, of somebody, then that's still supernatural. I think the soul is locked in the photograph. Everything is paranormal until it becomes normal. Everything is supernatural until it becomes natural and that is the definition of it. It just means beyond our understanding of you know what's before us. I can't, you know, I can't tell anybody with a straight face that something is or is not demonic, because it really depends on what is your definition of a demon. And at the end of the day, you know, I've seen enough demons in my life, combat and warfare to

know that, you know, there really is true evil in this world. A lot of it is manmade. But, you know, in this world, a lot of it is man-made, but I can't discount that. I don't personally believe that myself, but I'm a big firm believer of know thy enemy. If it turns out that these things are demonic, at least we know. I'd rather know than to guess. do I subscribe to that line of thinking that these are demons? No not particularly. What about angels? Great question. It's exactly the same thing. Angels and demons you know supernatural beings that that that we can't explain that that seem to to to fall outside the realm of of of what we consider being normal human behavior and normal human capabilities. Okay, let me steal man the question.

Let me steal men it when I say steel man, hopefully you're familiar with the term what I'm I think what the person is getting at is that let's imagine let's presuppose in a certain worldview that there's a deity that created the universe with intent. And one of the first creatures they created were powerful beings that have divine powers. Some of those are angels, some of those are demons. And then humans were created, or let's say the Big Bang was set off, and then humans were created via the process of evolution. So do you see or do you see evidence? Or do you have friends within aIP who believe that those are demons

in that sense or angels in that sense even? I didn't see that in ATIP, but I did see it in DoD leadership. You know, I certainly am not going to confront someone's spiritual beliefs about something. The word angel comes from the word anhelios, of light, of fire. Think of helios, the sun, right? These are terms that have been given to explain supernatural beings and occurrences during our existence. Despite being a scientific man, I am a very much spiritual man. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, but I don't think that the topic of UAPs or even potentially extraterrestrials is necessarily against the idea of organized religion. When I went to Rome not too long ago, a year and a half ago maybe, and spoke to some very senior academics in the Vatican,

they told me that in the 1600s, had you have told people there was no such thing as aliens, that would be considered heresy because there is no limit to the dominion of God, or the notion of God. And it's only been in relative recent history that we have put these limitations on what God can and can't do. There can't be aliens because we have to be the most too. There can't be aliens because we have to be the most divine representation of God. So I find that topic fascinating, especially as it relates to theology and philosophy, and even sociology, our reaction to it as a species. But I did not come into contact with that. And if it was an atipP it was kept hidden from us. No one talked about that. No one seemed to have any type of religious subversion looking into

this topic. Alright, the next question comes from bisectdocs. Have we intercepted communication between UAPs and or has there been communication with UAPs? I'm not aware of any interception of communications with UAPs. As far as communication with UAPs? I'm not aware of any interception of communications with UAPs. As far as communication with UAPs, once again, I hate to split hairs here. I don't want to upset anybody, but let's be specific.

What is communicating? I mean, you and I are having a conversation in English, and we're communicating. But if I stand behind a wall, and I aim an assault rifle at you, am I communicating with you? Yeah, I am. I'm communicating an intent or a threat, right? If a dog growls and shows its teeth to you as you try to kneel down and pet it, is it communicating?

Yeah, it's communicating. It's telling you, hey, I don't want to be pet right now. Don't touch me. So if a UAP is behaving in a provocative manner, meaning it obviously knows that we are aware that it is there and doesn't seem to mind, doesn't seem to try to hide itself in some cases, it's been perhaps hovering over one of our military equities for a prolonged period of time, is that communication? Well, I would submit to you, yes, it's probably communication. It's not verbal communication, but it's signaling some sort of intent.

Yes, I know you're there. And yes, I know you know that I'm here. And I'm okay with that. And I want you to know that I'm here. Now, what's the rationale? What's the reasoning intent behind it? We don't know, but that is communication. If, you know, when we do a show of force and if, you know, we fly an SR-71 at a hundred thousand feet

and we don't want the enemy to see us. But if I take a couple of F-22 Raptors and I fly off the coast of, let's say, disputed territory in the South China Sea, I'm communicating with a country. It may not be through dialogue, but make no mistake, I'm communicating very clearly and very effectively my intent to another party. And so I think therein lies the question, are these things trying to communicate with us?

And if so, will we be smart enough to recognize it as some sort of communication versus just two ships passing in the night? I do think that the more brazen that these incidents become, the more there may be an attempt to try to communicate. They've obviously, whatever it is, is aware that we are there and we are aware that they're there. Are you aware of any more or of any less coarse grained communication? For example, we can communicate with the cheetah, like you mentioned, we can point a gun at it, or we can show our hostility or our civility. Is there verbal as far as you know, has there been any verbal or even telepathic

direct communication? I'm sorry, my audio just cut off. Has there been any verbal or telepathic communication? I know that there's a story about, I think, Zimbabwe, Africa, with aliens communicating with some children. Certainly reports of it doesn't mean that it's it's, the problem is subjective. We don't know for sure. It's the human's interpretation of what's going on. And here is why we have to be so careful, as you know, in a scientific experiment and in a closed system, the likelihood of human error is increased significantly. And so, you know, we have to

be, be cognizant of that. Is there some sort of real communication, as you say, telepathic communication occurring, or is it a similar effect to let's say, taking a hallucinogenic drug, and having some sort of experience, right? Mental experience. I don't know the answer to that. The answer could be yes or no for none. It could be that there is, it's just our impression of what's going on and it's not real, right? Like your death experience,

a lot of people report it being real. A lot of people say, no, it's just parts of the mind that are beginning to shut down and you start having these experiences. I don't think anybody really knows for sure other than the people who've actually experienced it. When you talk to them, they feel very compelled that they've had a real event. And I don't doubt for one minute they actually believe they've had some sort of communication. And by the way, that could be the case. Again, there's no way to prove it or disprove it. So it's interesting.

no way to prove it or disprove it. So it's interesting. But we didn't focus out on that part of it, because it's, it's, it's too subjective, you can't quantify and qualify that data, like the camera radar data and photographic evidence, etc. So it wasn't, it wasn't particularly useful. Not that I'm saying it was not interesting. It just wasn't useful for for our calculus. As to the connection between psychedelics and aliens or psychedelics and uaps You're unaware of any credible verifiable falsifiable data Well, look, I mean now we're getting into the world of consciousness, you know, and I would submit to you It's not everything we do a result of

Conscious process occurring in our brain of a conscious process occurring in our brain. By very definition, everything I do in life is a result of some sort of willful intent based upon a consciousness process occurring in my brain, just like you and everybody else. So, we realize that human consciousness is an area that we're just now beginning to explore and we understand even less. Is it possible that human consciousness is an area that we're just now beginning to explore and we understand

even less. Is it possible that human consciousness is part of a universal consciousness and that we can tap into this? It's not human consciousness is not only for humans, possibly. I mean, there's people out there who have pet cats and dogs on one of them where, you know, you have a connection with your pet, not because it's just a cat or a dog, but because there's something deeper that you are connecting with, something far more intimate, something far more sacred than just a furry little bag of skin and hairballs. And by the way, that life form recognizes you as well as a sentient being. There's this appreciation that, hey, we're on the same wavelength. I may not look like you, I may not act like you or talk like you, but we're kind of the same thing.

We're both conscious sentient beings and we recognize that in each other. They also may explain human interactions as well. So, you could consciousness may not be something that is that is only, you know, owned and defined by the human species. Is it possible, there's other things that we can communicate with dolphins, cats and dogs and birds, you know, gorillas, maybe human consciousness isn't quite so maybe it's not so special. Maybe it's indelible. Maybe it's indelible. Maybe it's something that's part of part of all of nature. And when I say all of nature, even

beyond this planet, perhaps. The next question comes from Mick West, I'd like to ask Lou Elisando, does I'll read this verbatim, if he really thinks this is non human technology that can revolutionize the world and maybe include contact with aliens and extra dimensional beings and so on, why is he so concerned with NDAs? Surely for the good of humanity, he should release the evidence that he has. Ah, surely for the good of humanity. And then he can go ahead and pay for my mortgage. He can put my kids through school. He can come visit me every day and give me soup while I'm behind bars, spending the next four years of my life, doing a service for somebody else. I've already put my neck on the line. So I'll do respect Mr. West. There's nothing stopping you.

Why don't you do it? I've already put my career, my reputation, credibility on the line. I've already foregone career, my reputation and credibility on the line. I've already foregone my retirement and my pension. How much more else do you expect me to sacrifice? You want me to put myself up on a cross and nail myself to it? Just because? I think we've come pretty far so far. I think I haven't had to go to jail and we've come pretty damn far in the last three years. So I guess a simple, you're. It's probably, you know,

would be my response. Are there whistleblower protection acts that you could reveal information under? Well, this is part of the IG process. This is part of Congress. You know, there are people that I can speak with without violating my non disclosure agreement, I can further the conversation. You know. And this is what we're trying to exercise. I've tried to be as clear as I can with our roadmap moving forward without jeopardizing it. But if people notice one thing about me is that

I'm deliberate. I don't do anything haphazard. So all the stuff that people are now seeing with conversations and Congress and IG, do people honestly think that's just some sort of coincidence? I mean, guys, if you look at what I've been saying the last three years, you're going to see a pattern. It's very clear. You're going to say everything I've said has come through fruition, lock, stock and barrel. We're trying to do this the right way. And as I said before, there's a difference between doing things right and right now. And I prefer to do things right. You know, this is a process. I've told people from day one, you know, if you're expecting instant gratification, then, you know, go, go take up something else or take a finger painting. Don't, don't do this because this,

this is going to be a long term effort. And, and, and it's, it's every day, the due diligence of what we're doing, but it's making a difference. Just look at the last three years, how far we've come. We have an official UAP task force. We have the government admitting that UFOs are real. We have Congress being briefed at the classified level. They're all coming out saying this is important. We actually have the task force now providing information to Congress in 180-day report. We have other countries like Japan coming out and reaching out and wanting to share their information with us. I mean, man, how much more do you want in three years? So again, forgive me for being a little bit testy about this. I think a lot of people- Do questions like that annoy you? Do you get them frequently and you're tired of them?

Well, you know what? It's armchair quarterbacking. It's easy for people to sit back. I see it all the time on social media. Just violate your NDA, Lou. It's okay. You go to jail for us. It's okay. But they're not willing to do one-tenth of that sacrifice for this effort. If you ask them, hey, get off your ass and go talk to your congressman or start doing research and start going out and being a force multiplier for this effort, they won't. I'm too tired. I got too much, go. I'm too busy. Well, I got my family take care of. Well, so do I. I'm a little different. Am I being held to a different standard? Why am I have to be the person coming out there and just say hell to everybody and wind up having them to go run and hide in some foreign country

and never come back to my country. I love my country. By the way, my non-disclosure agreement I took was a promise I made to the American people, not my government. And so I think it's really disingenuous to say, well, you can just break your promise this time for the truth. No, I can't. That's why I say, well, you can cheat on your wife this only this time, or you can cheat on your family this time. It won't matter. Yes, it does matter. Every time matters. It's a promise. That's what a promise is. Either you're a man of your word or a woman of your word, or you're not. They're called principles, and people fight and die for those principles. And I've seen people fight and die for those principles. They're not just

something that you conveniently throw around, oh, I promised promised to do this and then really later on say, no, I don't really promise. You know, that's not the way promises work. Those are the kind of people that don't survive in combat because people have your back. You know, you swear an oath of an allegiance to do the right thing. That's what this is about. You know, I don't understand people who can just say, Hey, go ahead and break your promise. This one time. I mean, what are you talking about? You'd never trust me again. I can't break this one time because the one time I do, then I could do it 1000

times. And at that point, might as well throw in the towel. So anyways, let me let me push back. I'm like, I'm on your cat. I'm on your side, man. So let me let me push back. I'm like I'm on your can I'm on your side man So let me just be friendly and push back With regard to breaking a promise to me This seems like the difference between as Jesus said the spirit of the law versus the text of the law So do you see an obligation to the spirit of the law rather than the text? So the text says you have to obey this promise Well, he also said follow the law of the land to did and so, you have to obey this promise. Well, he also said follow the law of the land to did. And so, you know, the law of the land here is that he took an oath and a promise

to the American people. And I'm not going to violate that promise. It's you can't break a promise to fulfill a promise. It doesn't work that way. Please let me push back gently. Okay. This is something I've been thinking about. Sometimes trust needs to be broken in order for it to be regained in the long term stronger. So for example, you mentioned cheating on a spouse, sometimes one has to come clean and say I did cheat in order for the relationship to eventually be repaired, even though that in the short run is going to be far worse. I want to be better not to cheat at all and not have to do that. Yeah, you're right. You need to if you cheat, you need to you need to admit you cheated. But but isn't it better just not to cheat and you don't have to worry about that. I agree. Okay. So in this analogy, in this analogy, the cheating would be, let's say, let's say you had some piece of information that says that our world is vastly different and potentially even dangerous or wasteful on behalf

of the government. Do you see a sense of duty to the citizens to break your oath? I know you say that it's the oath with the citizens themselves, but you understand where I'm going with this. But you don't have to. There are mechanisms in place that you don't have to break that oath to fulfill a promise. That's what I'm trying to say here. It's not an either or. It just takes more time. By the way, it's a lot more. Yeah, it takes more time, but it's the right way to do it. That is the correct way to do it than just going ahead and I won't be able to live with myself doing that. No one will ever take me seriously again. Nobody could ever trust me if I break that promise just that one time. That's not the way it works. So, I think the proof is in the

pudding. And honestly, look, bottom-wise, I'm not going to break it. So people can keep asking me all day long and they're wasting their oxygen because I am not going to break that promise. I will not violate my non-disclosure agreement. And by the way, I'll tell you, if it comes to the point where I have to actually stop doing this to maintain my promise, I will. I will disappear. You'll never hear from Lou again. If the option in between comes down to me having to speak or having to break my promise or being quiet, I will be quiet.

I will not break my promise. And if people can't accept that, then, you know, fine. Talk to somebody else. I don't know what to tell you. Well, I'm grateful that you're not quiet right now. And if people can't accept that, then, you know, fine, talk to somebody else. I don't know. Well, I'm grateful that you're not quiet right now. And thank you for speaking with me. Lonesome space cowboy asks, I just have one question pretty subjective, but I'd like to hear his take. If the general public knew and saw what Lewis knows and has seen, what would the world look like for the next week after that? How would the public react? So this is you can surmise. Wow. What a thoughtful question. Boy, I have no idea, Kurt. That's, that's, that's, um,

I would need to think about that. Okay, we can get back to that question. I mean, that's such a good question. I don't I don't want to just throw out an answer. Right. I want to think about that. And I might need I might need even a little bit more time, I will for sure get back to you on that. But that's going to take some thought. Great, great. I'm going to take a question from the audience. So Jenshin says Tom DeLong says that the occupants of the UAPs are called the others in quotation. Do you know anything about this? That's what he wants to name them. You know, my German Shepherd is named Hercules, you know, but you can call them whatever you want. I mean, it's a name, right? I don't even you can. Is he calling him the others? Do the others call themselves others or you know,

it it I would probably ask Tom that question. I can't answer that question. Here's something I heard when I was looking up some interviews with Bob Lazar that the aliens refer to us as containers, or at least he read that he can't substantiate it. Have you heard this and what do you make of it? Not a clue. that the aliens refer to us as containers, or at least he read that he can't substantiate it. Have you heard this and what do you make of it? Not a clue. And who was that you said, was that Bob Lazar you said?

Yeah. I can't speak for Mr. Lazar. I've never met the man. Don't know, he was not part of the agent effort. And therefore I can't expound upon that. I wouldn't even know where to begin with that. I had no idea. Between you and I, this is like a foray for me because my background is in physics and math.

And I had no idea that people were so divisive when it comes to Bob Lazar and just individuals in this UFO community in general, that if you say you believe them, then you're ostracized. Or if you say that you don't believe them, you're also ostracized by certain sub subset. Do you do you have views on Bob Lazar, whether you find him credible? I've never met him. I don't believe him, you're also ostracized by certain sub sub said, do you do you have views on Bob Lazar, whether you find him credible? I've never met him. I don't know his background. I don't know his story. I do know George Knapp. He's very credible. I don't know anything more than than I guess George Knapp had may may have helped break the story at one point. But I don't know Mr. Lazar and out of due respect for Mr. Lazar and his family and

those friends, colleagues, those the community, I don't have a comment. You know, it's, it's, that's part of the problem. People, people offer a lot of what they think instead of what they know. And so when you mentioned someone like that, people automatically, you know, well, I think this, I think that, well, okay, I respect that but but Question is what do we know and right now? I don't know a whole lot about mr. Guzar so it's it's not fair for me to really provide any any type of opinion one way or the other You're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics Consciousness and the ostensible connection between the two what's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics as well as discernment of the underlying physical

laws and you may think that this is beyond you but that's false. Brilliant provides polluted explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on u1 cross su2 cross su3 that's group theory for example Now this isn't just for neophytes either for example I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly aid my Penetration into these subjects for example electricity and magnetism sign up today at brilliant.org Toe that is TOE for free

You'll also get 20% off the annual premium subscription. Try four of the lessons at least, don't stop before four. And I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you comprehend subjects you previously had trouble grokking. Links are in the description. Pulsating Shadow asks, how frequently do abductions happen among civilians slash military personnel? And is there substance to the rumor of human mutilation? I also want to ask you about cattle mutilation at some point, but that's that. because it's again too subjective, we're relying on the human being to give us data without anything else really substantiating that.

Unlike radar data and gun camera footage, I'm aware of a lot of those reports, but I don't have a comment either way. I simply don't know. And as interesting as it may be, it wasn't overly helpful to the perspective of our efforts native to the specific calculus we were working on. Remember, what is it and how does it work? That really

didn't come into play. Now, as far as human mutilation, that's another topic that I'm completely unqualified to discuss because I simply don't know know. Certainly if that is the case, then we are dealing with a potential threat, possibly hostile intent, because from where I come from as a former investigator and special agent, that's a crime. First of all, it's called kidnapping. Second of all, it's called assault.

And third of all, it may even be an extreme case that could be considered first degree premeditated murder. So, you know, I don't know anything about that really. You know, I am aware of the cattle mutilation is a little bit more because I've spoken to some veterinarians and some doctors. You know, there's a lot of prosaic explanations. I think it's fascinating.

It's interesting, but I'm not a certified medical doctor nor coroner. So I can't, I can't look at a cadaver of a bovine of a cow and say the lips were removed with a surgical precision without any type of heat ablation or cauterization. And yet, you know, it was, it was a perfect clean cut. There's no bleeding. I don't know what can cause that. I don't know if there's a natural process that can explain that. I haven't seen one, but maybe there is.

Could it be predatory behavior of coyotes eating that part of the meat that is most rich in nutrients or accessible? I don't know the answer. Or is it something else? You know, there's a lot of people who say there's perhaps something else to it. Again, I don't really know. This one comes from LadySharrereacts. Mr. Elizondo, do you think there was another craft under the water that was causing the UAP disturbance that Commander Fravor reported? Great question. That's exactly what we're trying to figure out. There's some other stories that are going to come to light,

some other incidents that are going to be, I think, fairly riveting when people find out, you know, that what's occurred in and around some of our military operations. It's possible. There could be something underneath the water. It could also be, like I said, a reaction to the technology being employed by what's ever on top of the water. We don't know yet.

I think we're getting a little bit closer to answering that. Of course, if we can get some sonar data to validate maybe there's something in the water at the same time as we see something in the air, that would be very helpful in substantiating that. I'm John Hussein, who actually sponsors the podcast with his company algo asks, are any alien bodies in possession of the US government? So Mr. Hussein, again, great question. It's a question that a lot of people want to know. And it's a question that I can't answer because I haven't been privy to that. I do not know if there's any type of biological organisms that are in possession of the US government. I do believe, as I said before,

for the record that we are in possession of material. I won't go and elaborate into more than that. But as far as having biological specimens, it's something that I can't answer. And I don't wanna mislead anybody. I don't wanna say I think because it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what the facts say.

So forgive me, sorry. No, no problem. Man, I'm having a blast, man. Thank you so much. I've been burning the midnight oil, man. So I do apologize. Well, I know you have a hugely busy schedule. And so even for a modicum of your time, I'm immensely grateful. And personally, I'm curious if what's going on at skinwalker? Did a tip study that? And I know you don't like to espouse but what do you what do you think is going on there?

Sub question, let me say before I forget it. And then I wanted to know what is there a connection between Bigfoot and UFOs because there seems to be a confluence of that at skinwalker at least. So I work with colleagues that were focused on the OSAP and the skinwalker phenomena. What I what I can say is that they are very convinced, and I think I am too, that there are things that probably go bump in the night that probably need further explanation. But that was not my portfolio. And I don't wanna speak to that because I simply don't know.

That was done at a time with the tremendous efforts of Mr. Bigelow and the former director, OSAP director, and a lot of folks from Bigelow Aerospace. And the data was very compelling. I'll say that. It was absolutely compelling. And I think Mr. Brandon Fugel now and others have recognized the validity of some of that data.

But that's all I'm prepared to say about that. As far as Bigfoot, I'm going to share something with you. And I hope this doesn't turn anybody off. It's probably gonna turn me on. I had the great honor and privilege of speaking with some people from the First Nations, Saskatchewan, indigenous people, the Lakota and Dakota bands.

These are individuals who are fiercely proud, have an incredible heritage, and have nearly 10,000 years of oral tradition in this continent. And they have an incredible connection to the land. And I was asked by someone there, and I'm not going to say who it was, but a very senior individual who was associated with the First Nations people. And he asked me, he said, I want to ask you a question, Lou, have you ever seen Sasquatch? I said, no, sir. He said,

I'm going to ask you one more time, are you sure you've never seen Sasquatch? Sir, I've never seen seen Sasquatch. And he said, well, that's good. Because from my people's perspective, Sasquatch is a spirit that protects our women and children and a spirit of the forest. And if you see a man see Sasquatch, it means your heart is't pure. And I wasn't prepared for that. I was like, Holy smokes, sure glad I haven't seen Sasquatch. Interesting. But yeah, that was their there was their take. Very, very interesting. But who among us have pure hearts?

Well, that's, that's a whole other question, right? I don't think any of us really do have pure hearts. But, but the fact that that they see it that way, I found very, very interesting. It's a very unique perspective. And I think if anybody has a right to have a narrative on Sasquatch, it's certainly Indigenous people. So I found that, again, I can't tell you whether or not that's true. I can just tell you what was told to me. But you know, there you have it. As for skinwalker in general, you just think your statement is there is something that's

going bump in the night or you think there is nothing more can be said about that. I'm hugely interested in skinwalker. You know, credit, at some point... More is to be revealed? Yeah, you know, I don't want to go down any rabbit holes prematurely. You know, this is a very complex universe we live in, and it's a system. And we're learning more and more about the reality of life and the transition of what birth means and the transition of what death means and, you know, human consciousness and human spirit and whatnot. And, you know, suffice it to say, we probably really don't have a very good handle right now on, on understanding what lies beyond our five senses.

I've said this before, we have five fundamental senses for which we, we judge our environment. And if you reality is 99.9% of the universe lies well beyond our ability to sense these things. We have wifi signals coursing through your body every moment of every day. We have cosmic radiation coming from the cosmos. We've got neutrinos that are flooding your body from the sun. And we've got cellular signals and radar signatures

that are coming from the local airport. And all these are real. And I tell people, if you wanna know the reality of the universe, look at a night sky one night and look how pretty it is. Now take a radio telescope and look at that same night sky and look at it through infrared, look at it through ultraviolet, and you're going to see things you've never seen before. And so by definition, 99% of our knowable universe, we can't even perceive. And then when you look at the scale of the universe, and I've said this before, if you look at, you know, I was corrected recently that the visible galaxy, the visible part,

the visible known universe is about 90 some billion light years across, even though it's only been around 13.7 billion light years, we think that the actual, the seeable universe right now around us is about 97 billion light years. And as big as that is in terms of us being this little tiny minute thing stuck in the middle of it, there is equally that amount of space, relative space inside every one of us. If you look at an atom, which is one times 10 to the minus 26 inside the whole, compared that to the human body, we have that same amount of space inside every one of us. There's a whole universe inside of us.

And so the scale in which we live, unless something is 50 feet in front of our face, we'll never be able to interact with anything that is an order of magnitude above us or below us. We can't even see the cells in our bodies without a microscope. So there are these realities all around us that constantly, that exists and that we are part of, and yet we cannot interact with. cells in our bodies without a microscope. So there are these realities all around us that

constantly that exists and that we are part of and yet we cannot interact with them. And by that definition, 99.9% of the universe falls outside of the realm of our perception. So who's to say that that all of reality needs to fit neatly within the very narrow spectrum of the electro-optical electro-optical frequency that we call visible light, when we know that that's not true. Same thing with acoustics, same thing with electromagnetic, same thing with everything. And I think it's foolhardy for science to presume that everything can be explained through the fundamental five senses in the scale in which we live, because we know that's not true. Look at dark energy and dark matter.

Most of the universe can't even be seen. Right. Even the fundamental forces. Who knows if there's more. Right. Right. Strong force, weak force, electromagnetic. Right. So, you know, I think we need to remember if you are truly a scientist, we must remain open to the fact that we are judging our environment through a very, very narrow lens. It's like watching a, sitting up on the bleachers, watching a football game at the very, very highest part of a bleachers and watching the whole game through a soda straw. You're gonna miss most of it.

So that would be my, that'd be my two cents. The basic puzzle, as I understand it, and again, I'm new here, is that there is zero convincing direct evidence where there's a chain of custody with the data. And it's not only a question of a few seconds of video, but very detailed multiple sensor data, everything sort of fits in some kind of a few seconds of video, but you know, very detailed multiple sensor data, everything sort of fits in some kind of a way that you could actually say there's no, there's essentially

no way of faking this. There's almost none of that. To my knowledge, there is no convincing proof in the public sphere. So that's the big thing that argues for the fact that this is not about UFOs or in the sense of aliens and little green men and sentient intelligence. The thing that goes in the other direction, though, is just how much indirect evidence there is that something has been going on and how willing we've been to destroy people who've been willing to poke at this. And if you believe that the direct evidence argument is effectively a pretty good argument that nothing's here because so many of us have cameras, it's kind of amazing that nobody ever captures something that's really, really convincing. That doesn't make sense to me. If you believe that story, you've got a big problem with the level of indirect evidence.

If you believe the indirect evidence, you have the reverse problem. For God's sakes, why is there no absolutely crystal-cleared data set that has slipped into the public's hands. So whatever your resolution to that puzzle is, I'm usually in the position where I come up with too many explanations. This is one of the only topics I've ever met where a creative brain can't come up with a single explanation to fit all these data points. Well, I think the reason for it is that there isn't a single explanation and I think it's a mistake to try to look for one. I think there's a lot of things that explain both the actions of government and the military and the various interested parties like, you know,

To The Stars Academy and people like that. And there's a variety of explanations for the sightings that people are having, the evidence that arises. And trying to kind of shoehorn it into either one big cluster or one big cover-up, perhaps there's a degree of both in that. Perhaps the government does use things like UFO stories

to allow them to be out there, at least, for distractions from other things. And certainly, like we know that there's a variety of different interesting parties within the government. There's infighting, there's a degree of incompetence, which I think, you know, is going to endemic anywhere. There's corruption, there's kind of, you know, there's back dealing, there's people who are doing things for their friends in government. And there's a variety of things. And I think it's not going to be simple. If we actually figure out, you

know, what's going on with this whole UFO thing, I think you're going to be looking at hundreds and maybe thousands of different data points that and there won't be like one big smoking gun either way. Wait a second. Let's just take one category of UFO things. So we have mylar balloons and swamp gas and disinformation campaigns and experimental aircrafts and drones and then non-friendly nations, blah, blah, blah.

Let's just take everything that is a normal sounding explanation that can account for this. And let's take various claimed UFO encounters and attribute those to those explanations that we're all prepared to accept, include some of the sightings or experiences? Is there anything left over in your opinion, that's really unsettled? Because it's a question of overlapping explanations for like, it could be the Chinese, or it could be the Russians, or it could be the Iranians, or it could be swamp gas. It's like, I get that those are all the same style of

explanations. could be swamp gas. It's like, I get that those are all the same style of explanation. I mean, if the government says they have 143 unsolved, or 142 now, they just said they were the chief scientists just said they solved one yesterday. Those are actually cases that are unsolved, that they were unable to determine what they actually are. And the likely explanation is simply that there isn't enough data.

So there's definitely going to be lots of interesting things out there. They probably fit into one of the categories of things like airborne clutter or atmospheric effects or heavenly bodies or planes and misidentifications, things like that. But we can't determine what they actually are. But what we don't have is what you said earlier.

We don't have something that's unambiguously unusual, something that demonstrates advanced aerodynamic capabilities or something that seems to defy the known laws of physics. But we certainly have lots of unresolved things. I don't think that necessarily means anything. I think that's just something that's inevitable. And I think that when we have more detailed inspections

of data sets, it's going to resolve more things, not resolve, it's going to bring up things like that. Harvey Loeb's new program, the Project Galileo program, he's trying to set up these telescopes and these sensors which will detect when something's there. And then they'll zoom in on it. And then they'll take photographs of it. And he says maybe they'll see the you know made in made in outer space

sticker on it but probably what's going to happen is just you're going to get more blurry photos and they will be on undetermined so it's inevitable. But let's get back to your superposition argument. We all agree that it's going to be a superposition. That's not the interesting, you know, if it could be Iran or it could be China, that's a superposition of different explanations. No one says that all drones have to come from one country. The key issue isn't superpositions

of different mundane categories. The key issue is, is there anything at the moment that argues in your mind for an exotic explanation, time traveling humans, visitors from another galaxy, et cetera, et cetera? Not in my mind, no. And I'm curious as to why people, individual people, that's part of my interest, actually, is trying to figure out why people believe what they believe. Why do people believe

weird things? Why do people think that time traveling humans from the future is actually a reasonable explanation? Why do they think that trickster spirits is a reasonable explanation? I know there's some fairly serious people who use the term trickster as kind of an explanation for UFOs. There's some kind of trickster from another dimension who has come over. Jacques Vallee, I think, is a big proponent of this.

And his colleague, I forget his name now, they talk about tricksters. What is it that actually makes people who are at one point serious scientists go over to thinking that essentially poltergeists from outer space is a reasonable explanation for things? Now I don't say that to, I mean, that sounds like I'm mocking them, but that's actually the type of things they did.

It does sound like I'm mocking them. Yes, I know. But, uh, that's an unfortunate, look, I don't want to trap you in Mick. I don't want to trap you in language. If it sounds that way to your ear, it's just real quick. It's real quick. I want to address that point. Like I'm not mocking them. I'm essentially trying to accurately describe their positions. And it's unfortunate that with a lot of these things, if you talk about, say, flat earth,

if you try to describe the position, it comes across as ridiculous. When someone is using tricksters from another dimension as an explanation for UFOs, it comes across as ridiculous, but it's actually what they say. as an explanation for UFOs, it comes across as ridiculous, but it's actually what they say. But let's try this carefully. Let me imagine that you and I are living on North Sentinel Island

in the Andaman chain in the Indian Ocean. And I say, you know, I can't help but feel that there's a bigger world out there. And that every time something tries to contact us, there's a force, an unseen force that stops them from making contact. And we've become really belligerent. We keep throwing spears and shooting arrows at anything that approaches our beaches.

But I have this feeling that a power exists that is screening all contact, and that there's an entire world of people like us and dissimilar from us who want to contact us. And you say, oh, really? You think there's like a federation that really cares about us and stops us from being contacted, and they're tricksters in the sense that they prevent landings so that we will think that we are isolated and alone in the world. And you know, I'm trying to describe India and you're making fun of the fact that I'm trying to describe India. I don't have the word India because I've never spoken a word of Hindi or I don't know that I'm probably an Indian citizen

according to the world. But North Sentinel Island has one of these problems, which is it's got effectively an unseen force called India that acts in some sense as a trickster to make sure that they're not in good Copernican position to be able to observe the world. And here I've got Mick West talking about this in terms of what sounds ridiculous, because

it is ridiculous. And the answer is no, it's not ridiculous at all. No, it's not. But if I was on North Sentinel Island, I would be pointing out all the evidence that we have for this thing. Yeah, we see contrails from jets flying overhead, we see boats. Occasionally, people come and they land on the island, and there's trouble. So we've got a lot of evidence that these things actually

exist. If they were in a completely isolated island in the middle of the ocean, and they were hypothesizing about something with no evidence, then that would be a different thing. See, it's all about the evidence. They have evidence on North Sentinel Island for that hypothesis that you proposed. And I believe that we

have evidence both for and against active visitation by intelligent life that we do not perceive as any of our own civilizations. Not very good evidence. They have very good evidence on North Sentinel Island because they can actually see people. They can actually see things like planes. They can see boats. You know, very often in science experiments, I've watched people throw out the outliers because they have a feeling that you're allowed to throw out the outliers. And sometimes the outliers are bad pieces of information. This occurs in, you know, the tau theta puzzle story that Richard Feynman tells about the asymmetry of the weak force. And sometimes, you know, sometimes it's real information. Sometimes it's an artifact of the environmental setup.

What I what outliers you think of being thrown out of the UFO sphere? What outliers you think of being thrown out of the UFO sphere, we don't have like amazing videos that are just being thrown out because they're what I think you and I are disagreeing about something more fundamental. My feeling is, is that there's a sort of debunking energy versus a scientific energy. And I kind of like debunking to be honest, when it's your great aunt's poltergeist

in her second home. You know, there's a story about a kid who committed suicide in 1913 and now haunts the house. And I don't want to have to deal with that stuff scientifically. I don't want to have to write an NSF grant and get the University of Puget Sound involved or whatever. There's a role for debunking. And then there's the problem of the debunkers. And I think we have to actually talk for debunking. And then there's the problem of the debunkers.

And I think we have to actually talk about debunking as kind of an anti-social negative movement. I want to... Sorry, let me know. I think that's ridiculous, though. I think that's frankly, I think it's ridiculous because, you know, I identify as a debunker. You know, I've said there are problems with that term. So unless you're talking about somebody else, I assume you're talking about me.

No, no, no. I'm talking about there's a movement of people, right? All right. So do you see me as being part of that movement? Well, you've been curious in my mind. You're certainly, and again, I'm, I'm not angling for anything in particular. I'm not a takedown artist. I don't love interpersonal conflict. It feels to me like in the world of debunkers and I've now met them in multiple fields,

you are one of the most disciplined and to be honest, one of the most charitable that I've met. Now, so this isn't principally about Mick West. The problem that I have with this as a movement, first of all, skepticism doesn't pay very well. I've talked to Michael Schirmer about this. It's very hard to do the yeoman's work of skepticism and make it entertaining. So the problem with most of the skeptic movement is that you start off trying to say, Look, I'm just trying to keep the crap out of skepticism and make it entertaining. So the problem with most of the skeptic movement is that

you start off trying to say, look, I'm just trying to keep the crap out of science so that we can have a conversation that's not always cluttered with somebody's ghost stories or whatnot. Okay. So that's very important, particularly with respect to religion. Religion always wants to intrude. Then you get into this problem, which is you have to spice up your skepticism because it's not really tremendously entertaining. So that's when you typically get snark, you get condescension, you get stigma, and all of those things tend to chase good people out of these discussions, much the way good people are chased out of politics. There's an idea that politics belongs to people

who don't mind having five private investigators scurrying about over their life to interview every ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, you know, to dig up any dirt to be printed on the front page of the New York Times. My feeling about this is a lot of us who would like to run for office, like to see other people run for office, are very angry that the political crowd has taken this over.

And it's like, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Well, the same thing is true with UFOs. My feeling is I want to hear from a lot more people. And one of the things that I want, no, I want to hear from a lot more people. And one of the things that I want them to know is that there are smart, caring people who, as long as they're not telling some BS story and as long as they're willing to reconsider their views, don't need to be debunked because that stigma is antithetical to science. Just be careful what you agreed to because I don't want to know. It's all sounds good so far. Okay. Except for the implications. Why don't you recapitulate what Eric said so that we can see if there is indeed agreement? Well, yeah, I think Eric is saying essentially that there's a certain type of

criticism of various fields. And we're talking about UFO in particular here, the type of criticism that is identified as the debunking community that has a stifling effect like a negative effect, the chilling effect, which prevents discussion because people feel like they're being attacked, they feel like they're being ridiculed, people don't like that. A lot of people involved have a deeply emotional connection to it and so they're not going to come forward if they feel that they are going to be ridiculed. And I agree that that is a problem. And I think in a broader sense, it's been a problem at the government level

in that historically the government has basically completely ignored the UFO issue. If you look at what the FAA was doing, say, even just 10 years ago, they basically said, call this paranormal hotline. It was a UFO hotline, but it still went to a site which also dealt with ghosts and things like that. So there has been this kind of ridicule of the issue. And I really don't think that I or, indeed, most skeptics who actually look into UFOs

are really part of that type of ridicule. We actually investigate cases in great depth. We do the math, we do the work, we sometimes go out and do the field work, we do recreation experiments, we try to figure things out. I've interviewed lots of eyewitnesses and I do it with the greatest respect and I trust that what they are telling me is what they believe to be true. So I would really welcome people to come forward with evidence. Why would you trust them? I would imagine that some of those people are not to be trusted in their attention. Trust is simply my default position. Oh, that's fine. I usually assume from the start that people are going to tell the truth because that's been my experience that most people do. Now, that has burnt me in the past a little bit. People will do over chores to you,

and then they'll turn around. But most of the time, you catch more flies with honey. I'm not going to catch flies. It's probably a poor analogy. But I'm naturally a nice guy. When I talk to people, I empathize with them. And I understand that'm naturally a nice guy. I, when I talk to people, you know, I empathize with them and I, I understand that, you know, it's a difficult thing to talk about. Uh, so.

Well, let me ask you a question. I don't have the sense that there's any real reason for any animosity between you and myself, to be honest, at all. No. Why do I have the takeaway of what are you doing in my timeline again? In other words, I would imagine that in a slightly different world, universe A prime rather than A

where we live, you and I would be naturally allied on this topic. And- Yeah, we're scientists, scientific type people who have a natural skepticism of things. Okay, so I didn't come looking for you. And then multiple times you've sort of entered in and you know, you're talking in specific about Lou Elisando and somebody who I think I've never mentioned the name Chris Mellon. I hope I'm that it's yeah Chris Mellon I remember everybody's name is the government official who's part of the whole invisible college type thing. Okay

so what What is it that you perceive me as doing that needs to be sort of minded? Well, you make bold declarative statements about this. This is a huge deal. I believe this is the thing where I started to interact with you, that you thought it was a huge deal, that either there are some kind of advanced technology flying around that we don't know what it is,

or there's some kind of big cluster starting with Harry Reid. I can't remember exactly what it is, or there's some kind of big, you know, cluster starting with Harry Reid. Yeah, I can't remember exactly what you said, but I think you something along those lines. And I think at the time, I was basically saying what I am saying now that it is more complicated than that. And the reason I interacted with you, and I probably wouldn't with just some random person, is that you have reach. You know, you've got a lot of followers, you've got a very popular podcast. You've written books.

You're quite well known. And people take what you said and you become a hero within the UFO community and they listen to what you said. So I feel it needs addressing. Eric's written a book. I haven't gotten the copy. It's a secret invisible book. Sorry, I didn't mean the coffee. It's a secret invisible book. But sorry, didn't mean to. So,

so Mick, I stand by my statement. This is a huge big deal. And I don't mean this UFOs. I mean, this decision tree has no boring branch. Yeah, I'm actually kind of in a little way coming around a little bit more to that than I was at the time when I first disagreed with you. First of all, I really appreciate you saying that. Yeah, well, it's it's not not in a victory lap kind of a way just in terms of

evolution. Yeah, I have no problem changing my opinion when new data arrives. Yeah, it well, let me explain why I've kind of come around a little bit. I think it's really being the increasing looks behind the curtain that we've been having, I guess, over the last year and actually culminating just a couple

of days ago. And you probably didn't have a chance to look at it. I sent the email yesterday about Travis Taylor, the chief scientist at the UAP task force. And he's someone who was hired by the lead of the UAP task force to be the chief scientist, and he contributed to this UAP report that we're all familiar with. But he's also the chief scientist on a TV show, The Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch. And he's also been a visiting scientist on other things like ancient aliens. And he had a TV show, The Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch. And he's also been a visiting scientist on other things

like ancient aliens. And he had a TV show called Redneck Rockets, I think, or Backyard Rockets. Scientists. He's really very unexpected as the choice of someone who wants to be neutrally investigating UFOs. Because on the one hand, he's at Skinwalker Ranch on TV, basically promoting the idea that there's some kind of weird

interdimensional tricksters coming through and doing weird things at Skinwalker Ranch. Whilst at the same time, he's supposed to be soberly investigating the evidence and writing URP reports and briefing Congress. It really doesn't make any sense. And I was, I was, frankly, I was flabbergasted, uh, when the news broke a couple of days ago, that he was in fact, the chief scientist. Do you know this person?

Uh, I've, I've talked to him a little bit online, but I, I don't, I don't know him personally. No. So I have spoken to Eric Baird, who is out there on that Skinwalker Ranch History Channel project, and I've spoken to Brandon, who I know a little bit, who owns the ranch. Yeah, I've spoken to Brandon too. Pardon me? I interviewed him for my podcast.

I interviewed Brandon for my podcast. We're kind of friendly on Twitter too. Yeah. I have to tell you that part of their problem is that they believe, and I I don't think they're lying to me. I could be wrong. Let me just, I'm going to be careful about this. I believe that they think they've seen enough weird stuff that it's effectively almost impossible to keep this air of detachment going. And if you, if you look carefully on Travis's, uh, you know, statements, he basically has gotten to the point where he's like, we've seen so much weird stuff here, you know, I never would have believed this two summers ago, but this and that he's still

careful to say, we don't know what's going on, but he's certainly decamped into a position where he's saying, I've now seen so much weird unexplainable, unexplainable stuff that I cannot unexplainable stuff that I cannot affect the same position of studied neutrality that would occur before I tutored my Bayesian prior. And this is not necessarily a knock against him. In other words, I have been told by multiple people who do not strike me as charlatans. I only wish you'd seen what we have because we're wasting time in this conversation. Now I have noted on social media that I am tired of being told that I'm going to be shown something and then like Lucy in the football I never managed to make contact with the football. And as a science, as a PhD in STEM, I feel duty bound to report that I have been spun up several times only to be wound down and told that it's got to be deferred because of some meeting or some change in plans. So I have no idea whether this outreach

is a form of disinformation in which well-meaning individuals are constantly put in some sort of tantalus-like situation. Was one of those invitations to go to Skinwalker? Oh, I've had multiple invitations to go to Skinwalker from Brandon. And have you taken up on that? No, I haven't. And for reasons that you may find amusing. One of the things that I did was consult with some people about the safety issues of this UFO stuff. And they said things that I wasn't really prepared for.

One of which particular individual said to me, there is absolute tissue damage that we can record that comes out of stories of encounters. And you make what you want of the encounter story, but it is completely consistent with our biopsies and our understanding of what cell death has occurred, which I found really interesting. I mean, here I'm talking to published scientists. It sounds like evidence. It sounds like evidence.

But my point would be whether or not I understand that as aliens or whether or not I understand that as that there's a uranium deposit or who knows what. I don't know enough about secret weapons or geology or who knows what. Yeah. You know, I do know that I've been warned that bad things happen to people

who get too close to some of this stuff. Well, it doesn't stop them filming a TV show there. Yeah, Brandon actually invited me. It may not stop me from going out either. Yeah, no, Brandon has invited me. It may not stop me from going out either. Yeah. No, Brandon has invited me. Maybe we should go together and then we can compare notes. Brandon has invited me. And I have not. I recently reached out to him to try to take up on him, but he's being like busy and hasn't really got back to me yet.

But you know, I would still like to go to skinwalker. And if you're interested, I'm potentially willing to consider it. Off air, I asked Mick if he would be willing to engage in so-called CE5, that is Close Encounters of the Fifth Kind, if someone offered to perform it with him and time was sufficiently limited, travel paid for, it was done by someone known for their consistency in this regard, etc. As this is a technique which purportedly reliably induces quote unquote contact. Mick responded, I would go, I think there are probably no supernatural phenomenon or visiting aliens. But if I'm going to criticize something, then it's only fair that I try to fully understand what people are experiencing by observing them experiencing it, and maybe even get a sense of it for myself.

There's some topics I would love to actually hear your take on as an expert, because I'm not one. One thing I found very distressing about this whole topic is I was willing to reconsider my UFO position separately from attended positions, which I don't really want to get into. So the first thing that's very hard to separate off is this cattle mutilation claim. So in other words, you think you just want to talk about, actually, I'll go in later to the issue about why I'm interested in UFOs for, for scientific reasons, but some that, some that you just want to talk about UFOs,

you get into cattle mutilation and then you get into progressively weirder and weirder sounding stuff that I'm not excited about. The least exciting thing for me is this remote viewing stuff. Right? It's interesting from a historical perspective. Say more. The actions of the government. The government did research into remote viewing and in reaction to the Russians doing research into remote viewing, I believe back in the 50s or 60s, Project Stargate. And this was a real thing. So I think even though it's something that sounds kind of somewhat ridiculous,

it's something that's actually bubbled its way to the top in a way that UFOs are bubbling their way up now. It's something that's, you know, Men Who Stare at Goats, the film, is based on real events. So, you know, these things, they don't sound interesting and they're a bit silly, but they had consequences. If the door is open for UFOs being a real phenomenon, whatever, let's place brackets and just say it's an extraordinary phenomenon, then why does that not open the door to other extraordinary phenomenon, which is also attested to by high ranking

individuals and there are government studies such as remote viewing why is it provoking an unfavorable reaction from you I don't know whether you saw my interaction with how put off on the topic of predicting the markets yeah so why don't you well, it was a bit more subtle than that. His claim was that he was able to predict the markets in order to effectively replace a bake sale or something at a local school. And by getting 10%, he could make somebody else,

I forget, $260,000 and he could get $26,000, which is all he needed. Then he stopped predicting the markets. The typical energy around that would go like dude if you could become rich why wouldn't you do it? Right? That's not my energy. My energy is different. My energy is if you could do this reliably you could settle so many debates by proving like you assume you don't care about money and assume whatever this that and the other thing you do care about credibility and you could increase your credibility by inviting people onto your private jet to take you to your private islands etc etc by just doing this relentlessly. And then that conversation didn't go anywhere. Now, if you notice in Jesse's cut of that interaction,

I stayed on that point doggedly, and he cut a lot of it out, but you see him say this thing where he says, like, I think we've addressed this issue. But I was always trying to be polite. I was not trying to take Hal to task in a way that let him look ridiculous. I find this claim disturbing.

Like you, I don't wanna let these claims in if they cloud our judgment. It's very important to me that we not have nonsense claims. I don't want to say he's a liar. I don't want to say I believe this to be true. I don't know what to make of it. I'm probably backing off of it before I do more damage. I don't like these other claims, Kurt, because the cattle mutilations are the ones that are closest to sounding like UFOs. And the remote viewing sounds like a different force carrier. In other words, if you imagine that you want Kurt, where are you currently Toronto Toronto? Toronto. Yeah. And Mick, you are in? Sacramento. Sacramento. So somehow we're all having this conversation on a screen in real time, almost. And this is only possible because of photons and electrons. Imagine that there are new force carriers like photons that can be used to transmit information that

can go through, I don't know, seawater, who knows what. It's possible that you could get a new physics to explain remote viewing and that microtubules are, you know, antenna in the brain and blah, blah, blah. It's not completely outside of the realm of possibility, but it's also blah, blah, blah. It's not completely outside of the realm of possibility, but it's also pretty far-fetched, right? And it's important to be able to say, this sounds like total nonsense, without necessarily needing to destroy somebody in the process. Yeah. And it sounds like nonsense. Well, I think your polite questioning of Hal Putov

was the right thing. You were pressuring him there. And it's not really about why don't you use this to make loads of money, because you could very easily give a reason why you don't need the money. It's why don't you demonstrate this amazing new physics or this amazing new phenomena to science. If remote viewing was actually a demonstrable thing,

it would be one of the most incredible revolutions in science ever, really. It would be, as you describe, perhaps a new force of physics, an entirely new understanding of consciousness and the brain. It would be a big deal. And yet Hal Puthoff is just like, oh, I kind of got bored of doing that and

didn't took too much time. I wanted to do other things. It was, it seemed ridiculous. I couldn't understand the answers that came back. Yeah. Yeah. Mick, do you see remote viewing as equally farfetched as taking UFOs seriously as some extra ordinary phenomenon? I see it as equally unbased in evidence. If it's something that could be done, it would be huge. And to that extent, you can understand why people in the military, perhaps people with a little bit of magical thinking, went for it.

If you hear that the Russians are doing something and they're having success doing something, obviously the intelligence wasn't quite as good as you might like, you're getting these things out of Russia, then yeah, why not stick a team on trying to figure out whether it's real or not, but neither the Russians found anything nor the Americans. Let me come up with a more plausible explanation. We know that, example Leon Theremin who discovered capacitance as a musical instrument which bears his name was in the Sharyashka prison system which is these country club prisons for like stem geniuses to work on Soviet projects while in prison. And he came up with, if I'm not mistaken, a means of watching the vibrations of a window pane

and using it as a microphone so that you could tell what was going on in the US embassy, for example. And I believe there was also a plaque that was a listening device. Imagine you had lots of ways in to listening to the Americans inside of the Russian embassy, more broadly. I would easily think about developing remote viewing as an explanation for how, how could

they have known that? Right? Yeah. It could be a fine cover story because you would actually be able to tell what conversation somebody was having in private. Yeah. As a result. They're using magic to explain the way their own incompetence in a way that that plaque that you referred to was was on the wall for I think several years before they discovered it had a microphone in it. And so they know that secrets were getting out. And rather than actually go down the actual real route of like sweeping their embassy for bugs, they started perhaps, you know, this kind of magical thinking that remote viewing was real and we should investigate it. So in such a case, I would understand why there would be a story.

And this is one of the reasons that I think a lot of these stories got formed in a time before the internet. And so the problem with a story like this is that you can, it was easier to keep brittle structures of narrative together before there were so many people chiming in and you could crowdsource data or understandings of what was going on. And that's what's happening, I think, to a degree now with whenever the secret evidence comes out, it gets examined by a very large number of people and quite often gets resolved.

And when that happens, it essentially reveals the incompetence of the people who have been looking into it. Like there's this green triangle video that's been knocking around for quite some time. This is your lens aperture point? Yeah, and it's basically been 100% conclusively shown that this is just an artifact of the camera and that the vast majority of the green triangles in this video were just stars. the green triangles in this video were just stars. And yet we have statements and leaks that say that they thought that these stars in the sky that

appear triangular were actually some kind of flying craft, and even some kind of flying triangular craft. But when it gets released, and especially the high quality video when that gets released, it's the high quality video when that gets released, it's pretty much apparent what it is to people who are familiar with these things. So someone made the argument that perhaps they're not releasing this data partly because they don't want to be shown up. They're afraid of the things being solved and them looking stupid, which is kind of what happened with this green triangle thing.

The lead scientist of the UAP task force, Travis Taylor, he didn't think that they were stars. And then I kind of explained it to him in a bit more detail, and now he's changed his mind, and now he thinks that they are. But for years, the UAP task force was laboring under this misapprehension that these flying things

were green triangles when they were in fact identifiable stars that we can name and show on a star map. So there's a real issue there of cover your ass which might be cooling things down a little. Well one of my questions is why do we not have our best people on this? And this was my point, I think, where you and I came in contact in some sense in Twitter, where I was saying, if somebody is claiming that we cannot control airspace that is sensitive from a military perspective. Is that what they're claiming though? I mean, they're not claiming we can't control it. They're claiming that we occasionally see things in there that we can't identify.

We haven't determined that they are under control by an intelligent entity. It's more of an issue of we have clutter in our airspace and we don't know what it is. You and I have heard different things. I have heard that we cannot control our airspace, that these things are not that uncommon, that these are actually much more frequently found near sensitive military installations and exercises.

They can potentially turn off and on nuclear devices. Well, these are claims beyond... How do I even put this? One of the things that you don't know about in this world until you actually start talking to people is which of these stories are highly conserved through people who don't seem to even know each other. Right, so for example,

let me just take two sets of triangular pyramid-like issues. There is apparently a configuration of a craft. Like people who chart these things say that a lot of these UFOs look very dissimilar, but that there are clusters of things that seem to be highly conserved over decades. One of these conserved things is supposed to be a flat equilateral triangle with three lights

in it's slightly recessed from its vertices with round rounded points. Okay. Then you have this thing with the fact that the way that these lenses open and close is with, you know, some sort of, and Nick, you'll have the right terminology for these sort of interlinked. Yeah, the leaves of the Irish leaves, I didn't have the word leaves. So that somehow the leaves create triangles. And then you have this confluence between people who claim to have seen a very conserved triangular craft, and something

that shows up as a triangular blotch of light. And then you have people who are willing to swing at any pitch because they're willing to say, Oh, well, that's that thing that was spotted over Belgium, or was it Montevideo or who knows what. I have heard many of these stories now from pretty sober people. And I would never have heard any of these stories until I was willing to make myself stupidly vulnerable

to this topic saying, geez, I thought this was all BS. Having now opened myself to that, I cannot explain how many highly conserved stories I've heard from various people that don't show any interest in being public, don't seem to be happy about the fact that they have pieces of information that distress them. It's pretty weird for, yeah. But I think, you know, this is something that has historically been the case. And I think perhaps might tell us something more about people than about what's going on up in the sky.

Uh, there was a famous ufologist, J. Alan Heineck, who used to be a debunker for the government. And his job was really to investigate things and figure out what they were and explain them to the public. But over time, he became convinced that there was something to it. And he largely became convinced

from the eyewitness accounts of a number of people. But on the way there he did a lot of research into how easy it is for people to make mistakes. And he interviewed a lot of people who were very convinced that they saw something, but he also managed to resolve what it was that they actually saw. And this is something that we see time and time again, that people are deeply convinced that their memory or their perception of an event is very accurate. And they did in fact see some kind of equilateral triangle block out the stars, but sometimes it can be resolved if you actually have enough information

into something like a blimp or a plane or a flock of birds. Whatever it might be. Have you ever heard Brandon's story? Brandon, Brandon Fugel. Yeah. Uh, I, which one? I just got a couple. There's the lost time one and. Yeah.

Where there's suddenly the people seem to be paralyzed and right over the, the Mesa, not very many feet from his head is a giant floating metallic structure. I mean, yeah, that's fascinating. Where does that come from? Is there something there or is it, you know, did he imagine it? Is it a dream? Is it hallucination? Is there some kind of weird gas in the air that's making him do these things? These are valid questions, I think. that's making him do these things. These are valid questions, I think. He told that story at a dinner I was at, too. Maybe there were 12, 15 people at the dinner.

At the end of the dinner, we walk out and I'm standing around with maybe 10 of those people. Brandon is not in evidence. And we talked about many things. And I said, well, what did you guys think of the dinner? And nobody brought up the fact that a businessman who seems to be ostensibly normal, oriented towards family and real estate and all these things just described an unfakable encounter. I mean, you know, it could have been that a small amount of very weird DMT

got into his kombucha. But on the other hand, I'm not, I just don't know what that story corresponds to. It's too vivid, too clear. It's too unlike other things. I think that the reaction you described there is interesting to me from the other people, but perhaps also from Brendan and self. I always kind of am reminded by a thing in medicine called a label in difference, which the beautiful indifference, which is a medical term for people who have essentially

somatic injuries, like they believe that their hand is paralyzed or that they're blind in one eye, but that they're not, but they're kind of indifferent to it. And it is a kind of inexplicable indifference to something that you would think they would be a big deal that you see quite often in UFOs. And the people who see them, they they, you know, they're getting on with deal that you see quite often in UFOs and the people who see them, they're getting on with their lives. They're like, oh yeah, I saw a UFO once. And if I saw a UFO, that'd be the biggest thing ever. That's the amazing thing in my life. Even if someone

told me that I trusted about, you know, told me a story, that would be, whoa, that is amazing. And why is this guy talking about this? You would think there would be some kind of reaction, but it's almost like there's a little, I don't know, attention blindness or something. Have you ever had a near death experience? Like a really, I have not. No, it wears off really quickly. Like right after you have it, you think, oh my God, I'm so happy to be alive. And you make all these plans of what you're going to do. And in two weeks, you're just back to normal. Yes. Yes.

So I've had things like that with an illness where during the illness is the worst thing ever in your world is collapsing and then you get better and it's like, whatever, whatever. So I understand that people can screen this out, but what I'm trying to say is that by making this stuff outre, stuff that cannot be discussed, pushing it outside the overton window, we're screwing up the science. And I don't do many of these. I really hate interpersonal drama. And so

in general, I avoid these like imagined dust ups, because I was never looking for a dust up with you, which we share too much in common. I'm worried that you're screwing up the overton window when we need to be dragging it more open so we get more information. And the idea that this can be debunked before it's really understood,

speaks to me of how I would handle faith healing where somebody's trying to separate older people from their money by claiming that a laying on of hands can replace their health care. I think again you're oversimplifying it and saying I'm trying to debunk the whole subject. If it was faith healing, that would be a valid argument that I would be trying to debunk faith healing because I think faith healing, perhaps other than the placebo effect is nonsense. But UFOs, I think represent a variety of different things. And I think there's a possibility that some of them are perhaps interesting technology from other countries and a very small possibility that it's aliens and an even smaller one that it's talking about that's the dimension because the door is open so let me get my foot wedged in it like a good encyclopedia salesman from days of old

what if what if aliens were real uh it's not gonna be aliens could be yeah, could be us. Yeah, no, if if there was something there in terms of advanced technology, that would be very, very interesting technology. Because, you know, if it's not technology, it's going to be magic. And I think technology is kind of the thing to come to first. Oh, you're talking about the, you know, perhaps like some kind of weird government cover

up type thing. No, no, no, no, no. Let's slow it down. Okay. I'm mostly interested in this ultimately because of science, not technology. I don't think that I know anything about there. There's no reason that this has to involve new science. But if I saw somebody explode an atomic weapon before the neutron was discovered, I'd search for the neutron. Sure. So the neutron was discovered in 1932, which I keep thinking about my aunt is older

than the discovery of the neutron. What's interesting here is assume for the moment that that slim possibility that you and I both acknowledge exists that we could be looking at alien technology, but it would be built on science we don't have, not technology, because people keep freezing Einstein in, which has become very distressing to me. You cannot go faster than the speed of light within Einstein's construct, but Einstein's construct is the map, not the territory. And we don't know whether a better map allows us

to do things that are prohibited on this map, but not necessarily with a better understanding of reality. So if this were technology based on new science held by some civilization that we don't know anything about, could be us from the future, could be somebody from neighboring galaxies, who knows what, it's hugely consequential scientifically. And one of the things that causes me to, despite wanting to get on with you and understand each other better, you know, also sort of push back relatively forcefully is I don't want that window stigmatized anymore. It's like, it's enough.

Sure. Well, I think with the technology versus science question, I'm kind of in the why not both camp. New science is great and new technology would indicate new science, but new technology is also an implementation of that understanding of those scientific principles, which in itself would be useful and interesting.

They should be clear about why I'm saying it. There's a general tilt away from science towards technology. And there are two hijacked conversations. One is that every time we end up talking about this, it goes to the technology discussion because markets have been hot and science in particular physics has been kind of stagnant for a long time. And that means that people inadvertently start thinking about new technology from old science if we don't actually keep talking about science. The other thing is that Elon has more or less taken

an imperative, which is that humans figure out whether we can stop sharing one planet and one atmosphere in order to diversify our risk and turned it into a conversation about SpaceX and Mars. And in both cases, what we're doing is we're taking away from a very real conversation, which is we've got a potential situation with a dictator who's invaded a neighboring country as if the 20th century had never happened in Europe of all places, right next to Article 5 territory. This is extremely dangerous. And if human beings don't take the message from COVID and from Putin in Ukraine, that we better try to figure out whether we can spread out because anything

like an airborne respiratory virus or radiation can cover the planet very quickly. We're in trouble. So it's very important to me to prop the window open to, is it possible to leave this place? And the chief reason that we are unlikely to be able to leave this place, and thus we are likely to die in relatively short order due to our technological prowess and our lack of wisdom, is the Einsteinian limit on travel. Now, it's very hard to prop that window open because people have frozen Einstein in and Elon in, and those two individuals have changed this conversation. The Einsteinian contribution means we always talk about is faster than light possible, which we shouldn't be talking about. We talk about wormholes.

We talk about alcubierre drives. We talk about time dilation and multi-gen. We talk about uploading into silicon. All of these things are useless. On the other front, Elon has focused us in the diversity conversation to diversify from all on earth to all on Earth plus Mars as if we're going to terraform Mars before Elon turned 60. And both of these are very dangerous conversations

when we have a very narrow hope of asking should we be looking to figure out whether there's something beyond Einstein which gives us possibilities beyond Einstein. So this is one of the reasons I'm most interested in the Overton window here, which is, if Einstein's restrictions persist to the ultimate theory, we're in a lot of trouble. It means we're probably not going anywhere and our only hope is to stabilize this planet,

which I don't see much hope in doing, given how powerful we've become. And we have to get away from technology and from rockets and from Elon and from Einstein, if we're going to actually turn this into a legitimate question, which is, is there anywhere we can actually go or as is likely the case, we're stuck here. And I think again, why not in the why not both camp there?

It's you know, obviously, we need to develop our technology. And yes, it would be great if we had more adventurous explorations of physics. But I don't really see how what I'm doing in any way narrows the overton or expands the overton. I'm not sure which way I want to go. I want people who think they have UFO data to be welcomed scientifically and not stigmatized and made to feel as if they're aberrant freaks.

What? For me, if people have UFO data, stigmatized and made to feel as if they're average freaks. If people have UFO data, I think, yeah, I personally am very happy to look at that data. I'm not just going to dismiss it out of hand. I'm going to analyze it. Now, I guess the question you're raising there is should other scientists be looking at this with some degree of seriousness? And yeah, there's an issue there that there is this stigma in science. But I think that stigma is is largely well founded because of all the ridiculous stuff that comes along with with UFOs. And I think if there was some good evidence, then people like the

UAP task force would have actually brought it forward and actually done something with it. Where are our top physicists? I don't know. You're a top physicist. Well, you're a physicist. I don't know where you are in the world rankings. But I'm actually a mathematician.

I don't know anybody in the top physics community who knows what the hell's going on. Yeah, well, nobody knows what's going on. So it's not like you know, they've been given the evidence and they've studied it and they've determined that there's nothing is going on. It's that the evidence. The evidence isn't really very good. What is the fact that our top people don't have the evidence indicative of something? Um, I don't, I don't know.

I think from my perspective, I think it's more likely that the evidence doesn't rise to the level where it would, you would be able to justify bringing in outside people. Now, if it's something like the Manhattan Project, where they brought in a whole bunch of scientists, there's a lot of motivation there. There was a lot of reason to believe

that the race for the atomic bomb was a very important matter of national survival. But with UFOs, the base level of evidence doesn't really seem to be there. We don't have this huge push that would be justified if there was actually this evidence of new technology or new physics out there, which would be worth trillions of dollars. Instead, we get these stupid little programs with 22 million dollars. Well, it doesn't make any sense. It seems like

they might even not really be, they almost might be decoys for relatively small amounts of money. Are you familiar with the history that brought in the great topologist Solomon Lefcets and Bryce DeWitt and Peter Higgs and Lewis Whitten together where there were two very weird efforts, there were two very weird efforts, one nakedly anti-gravity by a guy named Babson. No, I'm not very familiar with that, but I've heard you talk about it before. They kind of this secret gravity research. Yeah. So there was, there was, there was a very weird thing whereby in the 1950s, there was like, if you look at Feynman's popular books,

he talks, there's a story called Any Questions where he gets a black eye in a bar that was frequented by bookies and prostitutes. Yeah, right. What he's actually talking about is that he was going to Buffalo from Cornell to an aerospace company to deliver lectures. And there's this weird confluence between aerospace, what's known as the general golden age of general relativity and all of these top scientists that's never made a witt of sense, which almost certainly

seems like there was some sort of program run through a couple of individuals named Babson and Bainson, which is extremely confusing, to bring a small cadre of leading scientists to discuss something that sounds like anti gravity in the guise of discussing general relativity anew. Right. guys of discussing general relativity anew. Right. And I would dearly like to know what that program actually was.

Yeah. And I would like more of us to be talking openly, because we know, for example, that Solomon Lefcet was affiliated with this crazy gravity research foundation. Is there a bunch of like classified documents about that that people have been trying to get? Or is there just nothing there? It seems to me like David Kaiser at MIT, the physicist and historian would probably be the best person to answer that. I've never gotten at this nor have I put in the time or the energy. I've just noted that for some

reason, suddenly in the 1950s, general relativity, which has been asleep since the late teens wakes up as a field. There's a conference at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, which Feynman attends, which all of this seems to be spurred by two individuals. One of which creates what's called the Research Institute for Advanced Study to make it sound like the Institute for Advanced Study. The other is something called like something the Institute for the Study of Physical Fields at UNC North Carolina Chapel Hill. And there's some weird thing between the Martin Aircraft Company, Wright-Patterson Air Force base, a bunch of these sorts of things. And I never even heard anyone talk about them to put it all together until I talked to Kaiser

and I said, am I losing my mind? He's like, no, no, no, this is this really weird history where the great, I mean, just to put a weird period on it, the top mind in theoretical physics is the son of the leading anti-gravity researcher from the 1950s. It's a very bizarre state of affairs. I guess you got to try to think what what might have actually happened there. And from my perspective, it kind of the most

likely hypothesis, I'm just floating this out there is that there was a research program, it is something that was quite extraordinary, but it didn't pan out in the same way that Project Stargate was a research program into remote viewing. This is obviously a bit more hard science, but it was something they thought, oh, the Russians are going to be looking into this type of thing. We too should form a working group, maybe two working groups, and try to figure out if we can figure out what they figured out.

And they look into it, but the same way that Stargate, nothing happened, nothing happens there. But it's classified, stays classified, and it's a mystery. I mean, no technology that we know of is antigravity. Nothing apparently came from it, unless there's this weird parallel track of science that is going on. Antigravity may be a head fake, which means that it's really

just spoke post space time, physics, it's now become very fashionable in theoretical physics, to say that space time is the problem and that it's doomed as a concept and that what we're looking for is the successor to Einstein's sort of fabric for reality. It may be that anti-gravity is a really bad name for something to make it sound junky, but what we're really talking about, and particularly the presence of Lefcets is very interesting here, about, in particularly the presence of left sheds is very interesting here, that what we may be discussing is a post-Romanian or pseudo-Romanian understanding of space-time, just a geometric replacement. Yeah and I heard

you talk on Brian Keating's show about how you thought that might be kind of related to UFOs in a way and that whatever the UFOs are kind of represents a someone who has access to that higher level understanding that's above. It could be. Yeah or it could be that it's all nonsense and it's all disinformation. I mean look I'm very open-minded about this. I was in a discussion with Sam Harris not too long ago and he said that one of the characteristics that he had noticed that differentiate us is that he tends to be very closed on the way in

relative to my openness on the way in, but that he notes that I don't tend to slide all the way down the slippery slope to say, yeah, it's definitely aliens. And what I'm trying to do is really to keep that possibility open that what we're talking about is we're talking about a science program, not a technology program, not a defense program that has technological and military and security implications.

technological and military and security implications. See, yeah, I, I, I'm all for keeping everything on the table. And this is part of my, my general philosophy of investigation. I'm glad to hear that is that I would, I would keep like, you know, some kind of advanced technology, new physics, or aliens, or even things like, you know, say the simulation hypothesis, you know, perhaps these things are a glitch in the matrix. Yeah, that's, it's a possibility. It doesn't seem like there's any good evidence for it, but it's something that, you know, why not consider that?

Why not have all these things in the mix? Cause if you're closing off various things, you might close off things by accident. Okay. so look, there are minor branches of the decision tree that I find so remote is to say that I, you know, I really don't want to spend time on it. But what I'm asking time on it, what you keep it around? Well, I guess what I'm asking is, do you see any banal branches of this decision tree that are still alive? I mean, yeah, well, I mean, I think that there's a very big branch of the decision tree that does not involve, you know, extraordinary flying craft.

I think there's a large possibility. There's a large possibility that all the UFO encounters have essentially simple explanations. And in those simple explanations, I would include things like experimental aircraft by the US government and perhaps occasionally experimental aircraft by other governments. But the vast majority are going to be things like airborne clutter, people misidentifying

things, people having hallucinations from stress, like fighter pilots who have been in the air for a real long time, things like that. And I think that is definitely the avenue of this decision tree, of what things might be, that I go down. And I think it's likely to be a decision tree that has very many leaves. That's probably not the right way of putting it, because it's still like you end up with one leaf.

But you don't. There's all these different things. You're going to end up with a branch that has lots of leaves. And all of these things are contributing to what we actually see people people see things that are optical illusions like this triangle thing like a DC eight looks exactly like a triangle because it has a light on each wingtip and a red one in the middle and it looks like a

triangle with three lights on the corners and a red thing in the middle. So that probably accounts for a bunch of those. There's lots and lots of different things. And then there's also this other layer of it, which is this government, the pressure from the invisible college, these people who are really into it, and the government, people in government who are either somewhat corrupt, they're getting kickbacks or whatever, and people pay them to do things, or they just have interests themselves. There's all these complicated layers of things going on that doesn't really involve

some vast new hidden parallel track of science or defense departments, like science program or aliens or time travelers or anything like that. So I would keep those things as possibilities, but it seems like to me, everything is probably gonna be in this big old branch over here. Okay. Airborne clutter.

Like I have this feeling that we're well beyond airborne clutter, not to say that- I do not, I do not. It's the number of the one thing that they list on the UAP report. It's of the one thing that they list on the UAP report. It's also the one thing that they actually solved was a balloon. And it's something that Scott Bray mentioned in the hearing. This is something that comes up as a problem over and over again.

People see airborne clutter is too far away. Okay. They mentioned four branches. They mentioned airborne clutter. They mentioned four branches. They mentioned airborne clutter. They mentioned atmospheric effects. They mentioned our technology and they mentioned the technology of others. And I've gone through this in terms of the first two are things unintentionally in the air. The next things are... The first one includes drones, which actually is an intentional thing. That's what I'm trying to say.

It's not airborne clutter. So the point is that the first two branches, the first question is things that are unintentionally in the air or clutter and atmosphere. The next branch is things produced by sentient life that are intended to be in the air. And that branch is into us, not us, and then other. And other, therefore, is alarmingly interesting because it's not airborne clutter. It's not unintentionally in the air. It's intentionally in the air and it's not us and it's not anybody known to us.

So my question to you, Mick is, do you believe that there's enough mylar balloons, swamp gas, Venus on the horizon, et cetera, et cetera, to effectively remove just about everything from Canada to see, I wish you wouldn't say a swamp gas, cause that's kind of, um, you know, it's, it's a red herring, a straw man. Let me throw it out.

It was used to explain one case in the fifties or sixties and it became like a joke in the same way that seagulls have been sorry joke. So look, I just got here. Mylar balloons, but no, I don't think it's all airborne clutter. Seagulls and mylar balloons. Can I say that? Yeah, I don't think it's all airborne clutter. Seagulls, mylar balloons, like plastic bags and drones are the things that were in the airborne clutter thing by the government. That does not explain everything. I mean,

I think there's even categories that they haven't listed there, like distant planes, which are a huge source of UFOs. My sense of it is just from people coming forth out of the woodwork to me, the stories I've now heard of encounters are so far beyond plastic bags and seagulls. Yeah. That I, and again, I'm not, if you told me that there was like a huge theater troop that was out to convince us that this stuff was real, sure. But I can't process. I don't think there's enough Mylar balloon in the world to explain all the

weird stuff. No, I don't think they're all things like that. I mean, there's, there's a bunch of other things as well. It is simple optical illusions. Like a lot of what people see, they see at night and they describe things like large things moving overhead or giant craft. Uh, and people's perceptions of things can be completely off from reality. And I think you've got to really, and this is kind of a sore point in ufology,

is this huge discrepancy between the eyewitness testimony and the recorded evidence, things like videos. A lot of these encounters happen during the day and people describe seeing things in daytime, but somehow they're always too surprised to actually take a video. Or when they do take a video, it doesn't really show something

like what they were describing, because they say, oh, it was a little bit further away now. So I think eyewitness testimony, while it's an important part of the equation, you really have to take that with the possibility that a lot of it, if not, I wouldn't say all of it, but it depends what we're talking about, isn't really very reliable evidence.

And the fact that it's not backed up with hard evidence, with data, with recordings, is a problem. The major point in favor of the debunkers is the fact that we've never gotten good evidence. I've ceded that to you from the beginning. Now, the thing that I'm surprised by is it feels to me like you're trying to take a twin size fitted sheet of explanation and fit it over a king size mystery and the corner keeps popping off and you're pointing out that you can fit one or two corners. And my claim is that I think that that ship sort of sailed and I don't need to be rude

about it. Wait, wait, wait. Let me see it out. I think that we're still in range of some serious disinformation. And to your point, yes, I understand very well that we can pile up different explanations. There are mylar balloons and confused sightings of seagulls and et cetera, et cetera.

But my claim is that that works well enough for a twin size bed. There is a real mystery here. And the real mystery is what explains this amount of indirect evidence with this little direct evidence where I only find out about the indirect evidence when I'm willing to put myself in a position for debunkers to ridicule,

which is to say I'm not dismissing this out of hand the way I was two years ago. I've got a hypothesis on that, which is one I think I've shared before, but it's basically kind of like the cream rising to the top. And what I mean by that is that I talk to people who are air traffic controllers, senior air traffic controllers. I ask them, how many times do pilots report UFOs or talk about them? You know, they're actually flying. So it's not like they're worried about it

when they get back home. They see something and they will ask, what is this thing over there? How many times do you get genuine reports of UFOs? And this guy, being in the air traffic control for like 10 years, he didn't have any. I think these things are pretty rare. But if you take something that's pretty rare,

as you know, like law of large numbers, and you spread that over even the, what, 380 million people in the US, you're going to get some hits. You're gonna get people who think they saw something, and become convinced that they saw something when they actually didn't see exactly what they thought they saw. And what we see is this this cohort of people, this large group of people, you know, hundreds,

perhaps 1000s of people who are really just a minuscule kind of tip of the spear of all these possible sightings. These are the best ones. We've got this 144 sightings from the Navy. These are just the ones that have risen to the top. And it looks like a lot. You say, oh, we've got 144 cases. It's 144 cases out of millions of hours of, of pilot training. But if I, if I ask you to just live inside your own construct, what are the five that have risen to the top of Mick West's? That is a puzzling, disturbing story for which I do not have

an explanation. Like, if you were to have to give your own assessment using the cream theory, what are what is the top five that have troubled you? Well, anything that's not resolvable, but you know, there's, there's two points, two points to that question. One is like, you know, my personal experiences, I've never seen a UFO and you've probably never seen a UFO. I don't know. Maybe you have, but most people haven't seen a UFO. 1988 I briefly saw a tiny speck of light that was traversing the heavens stop and reverse course. I had no idea how high it was because you can't tell distance and it seemed like it was a satellite but seemed like too late at night. It would never have risen

to any strong level of interest because I'm not a sky watcher. So I don't know what's normal and what behaviors things have. Certainly I would never call myself an experiencer. That's not even a word that I knew, but my question to you is assume that you and I have never seen something. I assume that Curt has never seen something that is dispositive. What are the top five things that you've encountered that like specifics man? Yeah, it's difficult because I've got this general theory of ufology is that all UFOs exist in the low information zone which is where it's too far away to determine what things are. And the things that I've been unable to resolve are things like that.

Yeah, I guess the number one thing would be the commander of David Fravor's encounter with the white tic tac, which is backed up to some degree by his wingman, Alex Dietrich, who saw something from above. So they have this compelling account of an encounter with a flying tic-tac that they got into a kind of a dogfight with. And that's kind of a difficult one for me to explain what it is.

I don't think that some kind of alien craft rises very high to the list of possibilities, but I don't really have a very good set of explanations before, uh, uh, around that. And I would, you know, honestly I would struggle to find more cases that are similar to that in my own personal experience. Really far in a way what you would say would be that's number one and there's nothing in second place?

No, I mean there's lots of eyewitness accounts that sound incredible. You can go back through through history and look at these things like this. Say if you take the Robert Sallis the Robert Salles Maelstrom Air Force base in Montana accounts on face value, that's bizarre. Nuclear weapons being shut off whilst the UFO hovers outside the gate. But I think that when you examine the story, and it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. But yeah, I don't know.

Maybe you can send some people my way who are very convincing accounts and see, and perhaps I would. Well, I just we brought up the Brandon story. And to be honest with you, that one flipped me out because, yeah, you know, it's like, there's no part of me that wanted to call Brandon a liar. And there was no part of me that wanted to call him. It didn't sound like a burning man. I've been up for three days dehydrated on every psychedelic known demand story. And it didn't sound like anything. And, you know, and to be horribly honest about it, the TV show that's built around the Skinwalker Ranch thing has the effect of turning anything that happens on that show into something that can be lampooned because it's being somewhat sensationalized as a commercial product. But clearly they have shown on that show things that are their attempts to say, Oh, look, there's a UFO right there. Right. Yeah. Multiple.

Well, you shake your head. My question, the UFOs they show are things like the white dots in the sky that aren't doing anything spectacular. And they're probably planes or birds or something like that. They really haven't said anything convincing. You had this point about the low information. So assume that I've understood exactly. Well, what they've been trying to claim is that they've triangulated something in the general sense of triangulation, not the specific sense.

Yeah. Where, you know, they're showing extraordinary readings here and I don't know how they're doing their baselines. Like, I don't know in general if you pass current through Earth, how unusual that is. So I can't watch the show and learn anything as a guy who's too far removed from what they're doing out there. But I think what I am trying to say is, I have now been compelled that I've had so many weird conversations with grownups, who are putting way too much specificity on this once they get over the fact that you're not coming to get them and make fun of them. They're seemingly like always looking over their shoulder because they don't want to be considered kooky. Yeah, this is how they get you. This is how they get you. This is a... Sorry, go ahead. Good. Has Brandon told any of you that he's in possession of high information evidence, but he just can't release it for

whatever reason? Not in terms of secret evidence, he keeps saying that they've got loads of terabytes of data and that they have some like things like actual specific triangulations with two cameras with known angles that they've done. But you know, I keep asking him, and he keeps promising and he never delivers. they've done. But I keep asking him and he keeps promising and he never delivers. To me, it sounds to me like you're saying there's only one really top drawer incident

that is meeting your levels for saying that's really interesting. And what I'm trying to say is there are people who've come forward where which I can discuss like Brandon. And there are people who've come forward that I won't discuss that sound quite a bit like this, making claims that seem entirely inconsistent with sober, military, just the facts, kind of straight ahead orientation. And in particular, I have a pretty good sense of when people are limelight seeking or people are limelight avoiding.

And a lot of these people seem like limelight avoiders. Like Bob Lazar. See, I have almost no knowledge of Bob Lazar. No, I'm not kidding. It's not like I understand. Yeah, he presents himself Graham Hancock is and something about Chariots of the Gods. I don't know anything. This is not my world. No, Bob Lazar is, you know, I guess, a divisive figure in UFO community and a lot of people

just think he's a fraud, including me. But he presents himself as very much limelight avoiding, even though he has ended up on various shows. But he always says like, it's very, he's very reluctant to talk about it. And if you talk to him, apparently, people who have talked to him will say it's very limelight avoiding. But yeah, I do not want to kind of draw parallels between those and the people you've talked to because they're completely different people. But being line like avoiding, I don't think is necessarily a factor that increases my confidence in somebody's story.

Yeah, but to be to be to push back rather forcefully. When you have a secret that is deranging your life, there's both an urge to purge and an urge to avoid. And you see both of these things in certain people, which is that they're trying to get back home to normal. You know, they've been exposed to some piece of information, you know, to be blunt, war used to create divisions where somebody had seen war and somebody hadn't and how do they live under the same roof now that one of them has seen something that the other can't even imagine. You know, so if this in fact breaks you out of polite society, it's entirely consistent to have somebody with a basic limelight avoiding personality who's going

to keep going back to the well because at some level they're trying to say, I'm not crazy. And I, you know, just to be very clear about it, part of my desire to stick up for people out here is that I watch the power to silence that comes from stigma and shame, in particular stigma and shame as entertainment.

The idea of laughing at people, like the use of the words clown, buffoon, debunk, most people can't stand up to this. And it really bugs me that an entire group in the world thinks it's completely okay to destroy an individual who dares raise a voice. And that's the non-science reason I'm out here in UFO territory is that, which is I can't stand basically bullying and gaslighting people who've seen something, want answers, want to ask questions.

And then somehow it's like there was a secret meeting where everybody decided the truth and you weren't part of it. And the basic attitude towards people who engage in this kind of gaslighting is F you. Science has your back. These people don't belong in our community and they have to be driven out. Peter Dazic is in a very serious position trying to orchestrate the idea that only,

racists entertain the lab leak hypothesis. Everybody should wanna know what the hell he was doing in the Wuhan Institute of Virology with Defense Department funding. Conversely, when we turn over to the UFO community, the issue is I don't want people who've seen something or who have data scared anymore. And it's very important scared of. I mean, you keep talking about

this debunking community, but who exactly are you referring to? I mean, I'm not a person who mocks people. So that just comes across to me as playing be blunt that comes across to me is playing dumb. No, I think that lots of people are no, no, I's a genuine question. It's a genuine question because there's not very many UFO debunkers out there.

I think it's a really disingenuous sounding question. During our time at ATIP, we were focused primarily on the nuts and bolts of this and what our military eyewitnesses and collection capabilities were telling us. At the time, we didn't really have any reports of quote unquote shape shifting. Now cloaking, that's a different story. We do have some information that indicates that these things do have an ability to try to evade some of our sensors. And for example, radar, you get these nonsensical, what looks like spoofing or radar jamming occurring. You have the low observability portion of the five observables is, that includes things like active

camouflage and cloaking and, and, and again, low observability, it's hard to see. And so that there is there is information that we have that that pertains to that. Okay, speaking about cloaking, is there any evidence that suggests well, UFOs are associated with orbs, at least anecdotally, firstly, what's the reason for that? And then second, is there any evidence that you know that suggests that these orbs may be more plentiful than we think perhaps around us, whether in homes or outside cityscapes, just cloaked? Yeah, the problem with orb, the word orb is, is you're not going to get a common definition from most people, everybody thinks an orb means something else. So people think an orb is a little plasma ball, others say it's much, much bigger and intelligently controlled. Orb is kind of a general catchall when you say is an orb related to UFO. Well, by definition, it is a UFO. It's unidentified and it's flying or it's in our atmosphere and it's an object or

something. We don't know what it is. So by definition, an orb is a UAP, but the question is, is it a UAP in the sense that we were talking about UAPs, whether lenticular type shape or maybe a cylindrical shape or a triangular vehicle. I think the jury is still out. There does seem to be some information that suggests that orbs, as you call them, are sometimes associated with other UAP sightings that there are UAPs in the sky and then you see these little balls of light. The problem is it's a very generalized term. We now know for a fact that things such as ball lightning are real. Is that an orb? Well, yeah, at times it looks like an orb to me. Other times when you have large amounts of

energy being released into the atmosphere and the environment, let's take about tectonic movement, for example, where these Titanic forces right underneath the surface of the earth creating this plasma effect in the atmosphere where you get these different colors shooting into the sky and again, orbs, if you will, being reported and seen and even captured on camera. But that's an orb that I think we can all agree is probably being manufactured naturally. Now are there orbs that are intelligently controlled? Well, we did talk about that at ATIP. One of the questions where when you look at the different shapes and sizes of vehicles, orbs tend to be almost like, I guess, in a vernacular sense. Think of a UAV, think of a drone.

They tend to be described as being much smaller, highly maneuverable, different colors, sometimes red, sometimes green, sometimes yellow, sometimes blue. Is it possible that those colors are indicative of mission set? The blue ones doing certain things where the reds are doing something else and their purpose is something else, where the yellows and whites are doing something else. It's certainly plausible. I don't dismiss that at all. The problem is we just don't have enough information because it appears that these orbs tend to be small that it's really hard to argue the case that they are being occupied by any type of biological organism. Now, it doesn't mean that they're not, it just means that we haven't seen that yet.

We don't know what these are. These perhaps some sort of unmanned reconnaissance capability that are kicked out, not much different than we use drones ourselves, right? To do certain types of reconnaissance missions. We don't know, it's certainly possible. The reasoning behind my question is that Tom DeLong, I recall was saying one shouldn't do CE5. I'm going to get you to explain what CE5 is. But anyway, one shouldn't do CE5. And when one does it often orbs are associated with it. And one thinks, oh, that's great, because I'm inducing

some contact. And Tom said, be careful, one shouldn't do that lightly. So that to me implies that there's something nefarious or potentially nefarious about these orbs. Well, I mean, look, I'd say the same thing, you know, don't mess around with electricity unless you're a licensed electrician, be careful because you can get zapped. That's true with anything. That's not just orbs. That's electricity, that's swimming pools, that's everything. I can't speak for Tom. I don't know what Tom meant by that. But I can tell you that that general word of caution, I think is appropriate for just about anything out there. If you don't know what you're getting into, just be mindful. There are potentially things that go bump in the

night and it's not all necessarily good or bad. It's not all sunflowers like your cups. Well, anytime you go snorkeling, look, I'm an avid scuba diver. I've been scuba diving my whole life. There's always a remote risk when you go scuba diving in some of these beautiful coral reefs, you know what? There's a risk you're going to come up against a shark. Now, not all sharks are going to do anything, but if you're carrying a bag of fresh fish that you wound up spearing and are now bleeding out of this bag and dead, chances are you may attract a lot more attention than just a curious shark. You may be attracting a hungry shark and now you got to kind of pay attention. So I think that's wise advice

on just about everything that we do. I live here in Wyoming where a lot of people like to go splunking and adventuring into caves. But again, you know, you have to have the right equipment. Be careful when you go into a cave, you know, make sure you've got light, make sure you've got, you know, gear that can get you in and out and rope and but not. Okay. Now let's get to some of the audience questions. This one comes from Stephanie, Stephanie Highfill, is there information being recorded or being encoded into less

mainstream information media channels that can be parsed out, John Nash style, like a beautiful mind that could help us arrive closer at the truth of this phenomenon? So I'm going to need your help, Kurt, kind of detangling that question because I'm not familiar with the reference. But when you're saying encoded, can youling that question because I'm not familiar with the reference, but when you're saying encoded can, can you repeat that question one more time? I want to answer it. And I just want to make sure I'm understanding the question. Okay. Just deciphering essentially with somewhat of sufficient intelligence can decipher that there are different drops being placed by let's say disclosure, people, the government.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Breadcrumbs, what I refer to as breadcrumbs. And that one can decipher it. Well, you know, I've, I've always left breadcrumbs every interview I ever do. So for the last four years, you know, I think people can now go back through a lot of what I've said in the past and come back and say, Oh, so that's what he was referring to now we know, because certain people have come out, whether it's, you know, Jim McCaskin,

his book or other folks. You know, I think I can't speak on behalf of the government and other people. I suspect that what I can say is I think that we are at a point now where we don't have to leave the breadcrumbs that we have been in the past. I think the time has come for us to be even a little bit more straightforward and a little bit more clear. The difficult part is when you're dealing with security clearances and NDAs, which everybody hates to hear, that's becoming a three-letter word that I think is probably going to be etched somewhere on my tombstone. And people are going to be throwing tomatoes at it from here

to eternity because they hate it. But they hate it because they don't really understand what it means and why you have them. You know, those, those NDAs definitely get in the way of having a complete transparent conversation. But I also think that, that we are having it. I think we've come a long, long ways. And as far as answering this specific question, as far as leaving breadcrumbs, I can't speak for anybody else. I don't know precisely what the government, because the government isn't just this one huge, if you will, monolithic enterprise, it's comprised of people. And those people, each of those people have their own interests and their own desires and their own agendas. And so I can't speak for them. I can only speak for me. I think certainly if

people were to look at all the talks I've given and really look at them and listen to them closely, they will see that a lot more has been said than might necessarily be acknowledged. Okay, this one comes from Ross Coulthart. Since you left the DoD, have you been warned not to talk publicly about certain things? And if so, what? Yes, I have been warned. I've been warned, first of all, not to discuss classified information, which I've heeded thus far and will continue to do so. I've been threatened. There are individuals in the Pentagon that did not like what I do and how I did it.

And so once secretary Mattis's public affairs officer, Dana White left, they started to change the narrative a little bit. I was told that I would be labeled crazy and that they would come after my security clearance, which they did. They actually did try to do that. And they were true to their word. But fortunately, I had some friends and allies that knew exactly what I was doing beforehand. And it wasn't quite so easy for them to be able to do that. But but to put it simply, I've been warned.

So you've been warned. Have you ever gotten in trouble? Ross has a sub question. Have you gotten into trouble for acknowledging that the US has recovered non terrestrial materials? Well, they're watching me very closely. They're trying. There's elements that are trying to get me into trouble. So that's why I walk a very fine line. I walk right up to that line, but I won't step over it because they're waiting for me to screw up. They're waiting for me to say one word that I shouldn't say in order to use that against me and silence me. So yeah, I mean, I have gotten probably tried to come after my clearance, like I said, and unfortunately, I had to seek legal counsel to protect my constitutional rights to do so. It seems that they've backed off a little bit for now, but I'm not fooling myself. I know that there's still wolves circling just beyond the limit of the fire that I'm

standing next to waiting for an opportunity. So I'm very mindful of that. But I'll also say that there's some really good elements. I've had an opportunity, sometimes through the worst of adversity, you get a chance to see people at their best. And I've learned that there are people on the inside that really do want to have a conversation and that want to see things done right. And these are senior people. Some of these are very, very, very senior people. And they were willing to put their professional careers on the line to defend me and protect me. And that means a lot. That makes me feel good because I've always been that way. I could have called people out by name three, four years ago just to defend my credibility and I never did. People are now realizing that a lot of those

people are now finally coming out of the shadows. And my life could have been a lot easier had I called them out to defend me, but I didn't because I made a promise to them that I would never reveal their identities until they were ready to do so. And that's just the way I am. I mean, to me, principles mean everything. Either you're a person of principle or you're not. Doesn't matter how bad the going gets, you got to stick by your word. So it's been a mixed bag for me. Make sure Ross, we tell Ross here the full story that even though I've had people coming after me, I've also had a lot of people rally around me. And to me, I'd rather focus on those folks.

Those are the folks that just makes you want to do this even more because they're willing to get your back. And are you allowed to say those folks' names? Well, they haven't come out of the shadows yet. They're in the process. And we'll let that play out. But I think it'll be quite obvious when they step out because people are going to go, Oh, that person. Oh my goodness. I didn't know that person was with Lou. You know, so I'll leave it at that. Another bread, another breadcrumb, right? Right, right?

Right, right. There are many people who have super chatted. Don't worry, I'm going to get to them. I have a follow-up question to what you just said, which is there are wolves that are watching you like a hawk. Is there another reason outside of national security that they don't want you to disclose what you may disclose or they're worried you may? Yeah.

I mean- What is their worry outside of them? CB There have been forbidden truths, we can call them if you will. There have been forbidden truth in the history of not just our country, but many countries. Truths that could upset a balance. A balance that's been around for a long time. Let me give you case in point. Let's say there were some people that were doing their job by running a UFO program in the past, but because certain things happened, presidents were no longer briefed, people in Congress were no longer briefed who should have been and now they're running an operation that's considered rogue, but it's still an important mission. Turns out, all of a sudden now, let's say hypothetically, the cat's out of the bag, what's going to happen to those people when the government realizes they were running

operations for better or for worse without any legal oversight? Who's going to be held accountable for that? The fact that they did not brief legally like they were supposed to certain members of Congress and committees and oversight committees and the chain of command that's potentially criminal action. I've said this before, let's say you have two competing companies. You have aerospace company A and aerospace company B. And aerospace company A for whatever reason gets a favor and some sort of really exotic game-changing material is provided to that company to do an analysis. exotic game-changing material is provided to that company to do an analysis. Meanwhile, company B who is competing fairly doesn't get that material. Turns out company A now starts

getting a lot of contracts, defense contracts, and becomes a multi-billion dollar company. While company B who never had the advantage of having that material goes into bankruptcy. Hundreds of people lose their jobs and stockholders lose their investment, keeping in mind that both companies are supposed to be treated fairly and have fair competition when it comes to US government contracts. Now what? Now what happens? Where's the liability? And by the way, now these companies are doing good things for the United States, but they got there because they had an unfair advantage, competitive advantage, potentially. Again, this is hypothetical, right? Where's the liability there? You're talking to trillions and trillions of dollars worth of liability. And who made those decisions to do that? Who's going to be held culpable for that?

Security Exchange Commission would not be very happy to know that two publicly traded companies were competing for a contract, one had an unfair advantage, the other one bankrupt. That's a problem. That's a real problem. And so you're talking about big, big money interests. You're talking about things that are going into that gray world that go beyond just government interests. You're talking about banking. You're talking about some of the biggest names on the planet that have a lot to lose or a lot to gain in hindsight. So I think we always have to be careful that governments have always had interesting ties to certain interests. And that's true of all governments. It's not just the US, that's everybody. And we need to be mindful of that because you could be putting some people

in a very uncomfortable position. And I'm aware of that. And that's why I've been very delicate how I approach this topic. I'm not trying to beat anybody up. I'm not trying to expose anybody and say, ah, ha, ha, gotcha, see there. I'm trying to have the conversation in a collaborative, meaningful way where everybody wins. Nobody has to get burned. It's not a zero sum game. I'm not- RG hypothetically, do they view it like that? Like there's a potential where everyone can win or do they view not a zero sum game. I'm not... Hypothetically, do they view it like that? There's a potential where everyone can win or do they view it somewhat zero sum? Well, I can't speak for them. I can't tell you what they think. All I can tell you is what I think and my approach. And my approach is to say, look guys, we're not trying to

expose anybody. This is not a witch hunt. Despite what you may see on social media where everybody wants their pound of flesh. That's not going to get us anywhere. We need to be adults about this and we need to have a conversation that if you really want the truth to come out, you better be willing to compromise. We're not going to sit there and put people to be eaten by the lions we're not going to sit there and put people to be eaten by the lions just to satisfy someone's ego or beef that they might have with somebody else. The truth is more important than that. This is not about, see, I told you so, or being vindicated. This is about having a conversation that can affect all of humanity. And we have to be willing to set aside some of that, if you will. And understandably so, you've got lots and lots of

decades worth of people covering this up. I know there's a lot of animosity and resentment as a result of that by people saying, you've been lying to us for the longest time. But, but we got to be willing to put that aside, if we really want to move forward, in my opinion. You're referring to animosity from the general public or animosity from some of these wolves, no general public who want their pound of flesh, because people have been covering this topic up for too long, knowing that it's real, been lying to the American people.

Potentially, how long is too long? Potentially, is it centuries? Is it decades? CB. Well, there's information that goes, I live here in Wyoming, and I live next to members of the Crow Nation. And if you've ever had a chance to talk and really engage with indigenous people, first of all, they're very, very private. Two, they have an incredibly rich history. Their oral traditions and oral history doesn't go back a few hundred years. It goes back millennia. In fact, when Europe was facing its dark ages and mankind almost went extinct in the European continent and we were burning books. Indigenous people over here were experiencing a golden era. That wasn't the case over here. And the way they look at nature, the way they look at this topic, UAP, is not like we look at

it through Western eyes. In fact, they don't view it as a threat at all. In fact, they don't view it even as paranormal. They view it as normal, as part of nature, their natural environment, as real as the lakes and the sky and the trees on the mountains are. And it's just accepted as part of the greater universe. And I think there's some beauty there. They're not held hostage by their fears. In fact, they embrace it. And that goes to show that you don't have to view this topic as an either or. It doesn't have to be viewed as a threat or as some sort of saving opportunity for our species. It could just be a natural part of our existence. Again, do I subscribe to that? I don't know, but I certainly think it's another way, another perspective that we should consider. If that is the case and they're right, then we've been dealing

with this for millennia. I can tell you that having a chance to talk to some people in the Vatican, they describe these flaming Roman shields in the sky that would follow them from battlefield to battlefield, what they call the eclipus, which is the shape of the Roman shield. That's documented, that's there. In fact, I think if I'm not mistaken, I haven't read it from Jacques Vallee, but from my understanding, Jacques Vallee even wrote a little bit about that. But I've seen that evidence myself. There is documentation of these strange things in the sky going back a long, long time. So I don't think it's necessarily modern. Maybe our understanding is a little bit more

advanced and maybe consider that modern, but I don't think we're dealing with a new phenomenon. I think we may be dealing with a new recognition and perhaps hopefully at some point a new understanding, but I don't think this is a new phenomenon to mankind. I think we've been faced with this phenomenon for quite some time. You mentioned millennia, which is thousands of years, I'm wondering, potentially 10s of 1000s potentially millions, or do you think it's cut off around 9000 or so? Well, that's that's hard to tell, because we only as a species homo sapiens sapien have been around roughly for 100,000

years. And we only really gotten into written language in the last five, six thousand years really. And been gone from hunter-gatherers to more of an agrarian type organized society, which is if you take a hundred thousand years and you compare the last five thousand years, really only the five percent of our entire time rummaging around on this planet has been in somewhat of a civilized fashion. And then if you look at that to the context of it's been only in the last 2,000 years, we understood the Archimedes steam engine, right? And really didn't even fully appreciate it until the Industrial Revolution just a couple hundred years ago. So now you're talking at 0.2% of mankind's time on earth. We've been industrialized, we've been civilized. So how much of our own history do we really know? Well,

we can go back 5,000 years pretty easily. 8,000 years, things start to get a little murky, right? And anything much beyond that, we really have no clue about. And the question is, have we as a species been aware of this phenomenon much longer? Well, let's look at what we do know. The general consensus is that the American population, let's say American, I mean, United States, I mean, North America, South America, Central American population really began about 20,000 years ago during the land bridge when you had a migration coming over the land bridge and settling this part of the planet. But in reality, it turns out now that a lot of scientists believe that there were many migrations and many migrations before that primary migration 20,000 years ago. In fact, there may have been multiple migrations going back, perhaps even 100,000 years ago. In fact, there may have been multiple migrations

going back, perhaps even 100,000 years ago. So is it possible that our society was aware of these things, maybe even interacted with these things in a certain fashion? Sure, it's possible. Absolutely it's possible. I mean, most of our history, we have no idea about. It's like spending an entire day and having amnesia except for the last five minutes before you go to bed. Where the hell was I? What was I doing? What did I eat? Who did I speak to?

What did I say? What I'm wondering is what you're referencing is written history. And I'm curious about archeological evidence that you're aware of. So, or that potentially exists. It's interesting. Yeah, so let me give you a real world example. evidence that you're aware of or that potentially exists. Yeah. So let me give you a real world example. And I'm not going to either refute or defend it. But again, I live here in Wyoming and there is a legend here called the little people, the indigenous people have reported what appeared to be this fearsome

pygmy warrior tribe of humanoid type creatures that lived in the mountains. And for many, many, many years, it was completely considered myth. Folklore, right. And it turns out that scientists began uncovering artifacts up in the mountains that to some degree reinforced the notion that there was some sort of small hominoid type creature living in the mountains. They found small tools, they found small bones that appeared to be coming from some human-like creature. I don't know the details thoroughly. I haven't had a chance to really, really explore it or study it. But that part is true, that people

are now beginning to look back and say, well, wait a minute, is that possible? Because we're starting to find archeological evidence. So it's interesting. Here, I can walk up into the Big Horn Mountains and they're pulling out spearheads that are 11,000 years old. Now think about that for a minute, 11,000 years old. If that spearhead could talk, what people did it come from? What were they hunting? What did this place look like? Environments changed in a blink of an eye. Look at the Sahara desert in 5,000 years. There was a lot of wildlife living in the Sahara region before it became a desert.

And that was in recent human history, by the way, we were inhabiting the planet when that happened. There are drawings on the side of rock walls that illustrate alligators, crocodiles if you will, and animals that live not just on the savanna, but in the wetlands all cohabitating there. So this earth is very dynamic. Every time we have a, you know, for us it seems like a long time, but every time we have an ice age, every roughly 10, 15,000 years, the entire topography of earth changes, the climate changes, animals change, people change. I think it's very possible

that there is potentially some sort of archeological evidence. The question is, would we recognize it if we saw it? And that's another big question we have to ask ourselves. Let me ask you this as a scientist, Kurt. If I said to you, Kurt, you have a task. You can make it out of whatever you want, any material you want. Your goal is to, in a million years, you have to create something now that will last a million years to prove you were here. What would you do? How would you do it? Think about it.

Go ahead. No, no, no. Let's, I love you, man, but we're going to have this mental exercise right now. I think it's important. And by the way, it's not a trick question. And I'm not playing gotcha. Just what would you give me just some examples that you might throw out there to say, okay, I would make something out of this or out of that.

There are some meta materials that seem to be harder than diamond. So whatever is our hardest material, it would be made out of that. Also, just so you know, I don't classify myself as a scientist. I I'm more of a hobbyist, let's say. So that's what I would do. So you'd find some sort of hard material that would outlast just about anything else on Earth, right? Where would you put it? Orbit is one place. Okay. And hopefully a non-retrograde orbit, right? So geosynchronous, and hopefully nothing would perturb it in a million years, chances are something would, but okay, hypothetically in orbit, good.

Here on earth, it's really hard to make anything that lasts more than a few thousand years. You can even make the pyramids and look at them now and say, wow, those things are 5,000 years old and they don't look so great. And probably in another 5,000 years, they're not gonna look good at all. And they might last eventually till a hill of, you might have a little hill of sand in a hundred thousand years, but that's gonna be about it. And they might last eventually till a hill of sand in 100,000

years, but that's going to be about it. And that's made out of rock, right? Mount Mushmore, same thing. It's going to be gone in 10,000 years. You won't probably even recognize it. It'll be too worn. Even mountains in millions of years become deserts, right? Time moves on. Then you have the subduction zones of Earth that eventually, if you wait long enough on the surface of the planet, it all gets recycled anyways. It's all going to get sucked down into the mantle and get spit out the other end as new land. So nothing is indelible on this planet. It's constantly changing. And to create something that can last the sands of time, so to speak, is a lot harder than one might think.

The few examples we have here on earth that are manmade, you can look to the pyramids, you can look at things like Stonehenge, but that's a blink of an eye. Those were just made a few thousand years ago and they're not going to be around for a whole lot of time. That's just not the way earth is. So if we're trying to find some sort of marker, chances are you're not going to find it buried in the earth unless it only happened

maybe the last 5,000 years ago or so. Even some of the most dramatic examples of terraforming, let's look at, for example, the meteor impact crater in Arizona happened 60,000 years ago. That's already filling in. In another 100,000 years from now, you may not even know anything ever happened because of the processes of earth and what this planet does. It's constantly erasing what's on the surface and it's constantly burying what lies beneath deeper and deeper and deeper until eventually it gets recycled. So that's a hard question. What would last long enough for us to go back and say, wow, this is an indicator of alien life on this planet 100,000 years ago. What would you have to do to achieve that, to accomplish that? It's a lot harder than one might think. And then

again, would you recognize it? One might say, well, DNA, DNA is a perfect example. If you wanted to do something that was enduring for humanity, that we could look back 100,000 years ago and say, yes, that was absolutely manipulated by an intelligent life form. Well, deoxyribonucleic acid may be one way to do it. You can put coding and sequencing in there that will perpetuate over time and time, and yes, you'll have some degradation over generations. But in essence, you could do something that way. And basically it's a biological marker. So we have to be careful when we say we look for evidence because evidence isn't just necessarily a spearhead found in the Bighorn Mountains from 11,000 years ago. It's not necessarily a pyramid sitting in the middle of the desert. It could be far more sophisticated than that. You said put it in orbit, right? Well, what if we put that rather than orbit

we put into the human body? So anyways, I know it's a very long-winded way to answer that question. SRS Yeah. Let me ask a quick follow-up and then we'll get to super chat questions, audience questions, and so on. Are there places that we should be looking for evidence that you feel like we're not? So for example, I mentioned archaeological investigation sites. The reason I brought that up is some people say craft were found. Okay. But you're also saying there may be other markers maybe possibly. Biologically, for example, you know, near earth celestial

bodies like the moon where you don't have atmospheric friction, you don't have the tectonic processes that we have here on earth that are constantly recycling. Someone might want to put something on them if you want to, reminiscent of what was it, 2001 space, 2001 space Odyssey, where you have these monolithic markers. That's certainly one way to do it. You could put something where you don't have those same processes occurring where maybe you might be able to extend your time twice as long for leaving some sort of archeological evidence. The evidence could be right here, could be right in front of us, could be within genetic sequencing. It could even be more obvious

than that. It could be the very fact that we're alive and we're on this planet is an example of some intelligent life somewhere making a decision that life needs to exist on this planet. We need to be open to all of that. We really do. I think we need to cast a very wide net. And this is why we say all options have to be on the table until they're not on the table, because you may be surprised. Something that's super, super intelligent probably isn't going to build a pyramid that's only going to last 20,000 years. They're going to do something that's far more enduring, something that will really be, no know, no kidding, you know, maybe I understand.

It's not easy to do this full time. And this is like, this is a place where I have almost no knowledge in Lu as you could probably tell by the by the sophomoric nature of my questions. Kurt, I don't think anybody does. You're not alone, brother. You think I do you think I have all the answers? Don't you think we'd be where we are today? No, I've got more questions than answers, but that's okay. You know, my fear is when people say they do have all the answers. Those are the

people that I don't trust because I know they don't, you know. I've been in this for a long time for the U.S. government and I damn sure don't have all the answers, you know, so don't worry about it.