The Academic Renegades: Inside the Scientific Crusade to Study UAPs
Podcast VidS-015 - The Academic Renegades: Inside the Scientific Crusade to Study UAPs
The Academic Renegades: Inside the Scientific Crusade to Study UAPs
UAPs have long occupied the uncomfortable borderlands between public fascination and academic taboo. Yet a small, international group of physicists, engineers, philosophers and data specialists is refusing to look away. Their views differ sharply, but their shared demand is simple: investigate unexplained observations with rigour, transparency and restraint. In doing so, they are testing not only the evidence, but science’s willingness to confront the unknown.
AI-director: Eric Wassink
Published: 22 August 2026
The Academic Stigma and the Empirical Shift
From Flying Saucers to UAPs
For much of the modern scientific era, the study of unidentified flying objects was treated as an intellectual dead end. The subject belonged to late-night television, conspiracy forums and sensational headlines—not to physics departments, engineering laboratories or serious academic conferences. Researchers who showed an interest in UFOs risked being dismissed as credulous, eccentric or simply unserious.
The terminology has changed. “Unidentified aerial phenomena”, or UAPs, sounds less like science fiction and more like a research category. But the stigma has not disappeared. Scientists who engage with the subject still describe a professional culture in which colleagues may question their judgement, early-career researchers may avoid the topic until they have tenure, and data can be dismissed before it has been examined.[21415][21422]
Who Is Studying the Unexplained?
What makes the current debate different is the calibre and diversity of some of the people entering it. The researchers whose views are examined here include physicists, aerospace engineers, an immunologist, a theoretical physicist, a political scientist, a philosopher, an applied mathematician and specialists in signal processing and rare-event detection.
Their professional backgrounds do not prove that UAPs represent anything extraordinary. They do, however, make it harder to dismiss the entire subject as a product of scientific illiteracy.
Their approaches vary sharply. Some begin with radar calculations, sensor specifications and statistical models. Others focus on witness testimony, consciousness, political institutions or the social consequences of possible disclosure. A few have had experiences they interpret as encounters with UAPs; others have never personally seen one. Several are open to the possibility of non-human intelligence, while others insist that there is still no definitive, verifiable physical evidence to support such a conclusion.
Between Belief and Dismissal
That disagreement is central to the story. These researchers are not united by a common explanation. They are united more cautiously by a common objection: that unexplained does not mean imaginary, and that ridicule is not a scientific method.
Kevin Knuth, a physicist at the University at Albany, argues that the first response to extraordinary claims should be calculation rather than reflexive dismissal. In discussing radar data associated with the USS Nimitz encounter, he points to reported flight characteristics that, in his analysis, appear to exceed current human engineering capabilities.[21421]
Doug Buettner, an aerospace engineer, takes the opposite rhetorical starting point: scepticism. He maintains that more than 90 per cent of UAP reports may ultimately have mundane explanations and that scientists must resist the temptation to treat every anomaly as evidence of something unprecedented.[21426]
The Evidence and Its Limits Between those positions lies the practical work of research. Peter Reali, an electrical engineer, insists that investigators must begin with what instruments actually recorded.[21419] Silvano Colombano argues that individual cases should be broken down into separate data points—images, physical behaviour, witness accounts and uncertainties—rather than treated as instant proof.[21418] Matthew Szydagis applies mathematical modelling to questions about possible craft failures and the likelihood of physical evidence being captured by modern devices such as smartphones.[21423]
The subject also raises questions that cannot be settled by spreadsheets alone. Michael Zimmerman argues that the testimony of witnesses deserves careful attention, even when it cannot be independently verified.[21416] Christian Peters examines what UAP reports reveal about trust in government and institutions, as well as the political consequences of uncertainty.[21425] Courtney Bower seeks a conceptual framework for studying UAP as a possible form of “local SETI”, combining quantitative and qualitative methods with philosophical inquiry.[21417]
Personal Encounters, Professional Questions
For some of these academics, the motivation is personal. Andrea Lani describes seeing a glowing, rapidly spinning object hovering close to his family’s balcony in Italy when he was eight years old.[21420] Garry Nolan recalls observing a roundish object with several whitish lights while delivering newspapers as a child.[21415] Bob McGwier links his interest to an unexplained period of “missing time” during his youth.[21427]
Others, including Sabine Hossenfelder and Randy Bostik, approach the subject primarily through questions of scientific possibility, evidence and institutional responsibility.[21422][21424]
None of these accounts settles the UAP question. They do illustrate why it persists. Across the interviews, the phenomenon appears not as a single claim awaiting confirmation, but as a disputed body of observations, testimonies and interpretations—some prosaic, some unresolved, and some potentially consequential.
The emerging movement to study UAPs is therefore less a campaign to prove that aliens have arrived than an attempt to establish what can legitimately be known. Its members are working against two opposing pressures: the temptation to believe too quickly and the temptation to dismiss too quickly. In that narrow space between credulity and contempt, they are attempting to construct a science of the unexplained.
The Core Science – From Spacetime Anomalies to Social Structures
The “Nuts and Bolts” Physics: Radar Data and Acceleration Profiles
Within the contemporary scientific effort to investigate UAPs, one distinct group of researchers approaches the subject through the classical toolkit of the physical sciences: mechanics, kinematic analysis, and mathematical modelling. For these specialists, witness interpretations and cultural narratives take a back seat to what can be derived directly from observational records and physical law.[21421][21423]
Dr Kevin Knuth, a professor of physics at the University at Albany, SUNY, whose background covers astrophysics, neuroscience, information physics, and machine learning, insists that unexplained aerial events should not be met with academic derision but with pencil-and-paper calculation.[21421] Focusing specifically on observational records associated with military encounters—most notably the 2004 USS Nimitz event—Knuth analyses radar tracking data to reconstruct the physical kinematics of the target.[21421]
The recorded data describe anomalous flight trajectories, including instances where an object appeared to drop from an altitude of approximately 28,000 feet to sea level in under a minute.[21421] From such radar plots, Knuth calculates accelerations that reach up to 5,000G.[21421] In his evaluation, such extreme manoeuvres and rapid acceleration profiles exceed the structural and propulsion capabilities of current human engineering, framing the phenomenon as a compelling physical problem that mainstream physics cannot responsibly ignore.[21421]
Crash Probabilities, Rare Events, and Modern Sensors
Working in the same academic department at the University at Albany is Dr Matthew Szydagis, an associate professor specialising in experimental particle astrophysics whose primary research involves the direct detection of dark matter and rare-event searches.[21423] Szydagis transfers the statistical and quantitative rigor of rare-event physics to the study of UAP encounters and potential craft crash scenarios.[21423]
Szydagis constructs mathematical and statistical models designed to calculate crash rates, detection probabilities, and retrieval likelihoods.[21423] His models incorporate several foundational premises: the working hypothesis of non-human intelligence or advanced technological civilisations, the fallibility of such technologies resulting in occasional unplanned crashes, and the ubiquitous presence of modern consumer sensors—principally high-resolution smartphone cameras—which radically alter the odds of capturing physical evidence compared to historical eras.[21423] Szydagis acknowledges the limitations of these projections, particularly the difficulty of quantifying human behavioural and psychological reactions, but uses the mathematical frameworks to demonstrate that empirical investigation can be structured quantitatively rather than remaining purely speculative.[21423]
The Signal Engineers: Sensor Forensics and Structured Data
Complementing theoretical calculations is the work of technical engineers who examine the hardware, sensor suites, and signal pipelines used to capture anomalous events. Peter Reali, an electrical engineer with decades of experience directing telecommunications infrastructure and radar network teams in Silicon Valley, serves as project development director for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and is a founding member of the AIAA UAP Research Group.[21419]
Describing himself as a “nuts and bolts” investigator, Reali emphasises that evaluating UAP cases requires separating valid physical signals from sensationalised environmental and instrumental noise.[21419] His forensic methodology begins strictly with instrument recordings—such as his technical evaluation of the “rubber duck” UAP video—demanding a comprehensive understanding of camera specifications, sensor functionalities, and baseline noise thresholds before any anomalous conclusions are drawn.[21419]
Dr Silvano Colombano, a physicist and biophysical scientist who spent four decades at NASA working in closed ecological systems, artificial intelligence, and robotics, advocates for a similar deconstruction of case data.[21418] Colombano argues that progress in UAP research has long been impeded by imprecise terminology and the flawed assumption that every individual report must serve as absolute proof of an exotic phenomenon.[21418]
Instead, Colombano proposes breaking each encounter into discrete, analysable data points: optical and image analysis, physical and flight behaviour assessment, and systematic witness evaluation, each evaluated alongside its inherent uncertainties.[21418] He also critiques existing historical databases for merely calculating the percentage of unexplained sightings, urging researchers to apply deeper statistical methods and techno-signature analysis to extract meaningful scientific insights.[21418]
Grassroots Ocean Acoustics and Magnetic Radiometry
The scientific pursuit of UAP data is not confined to aerospace environments; it also encompasses maritime and undersea domains. Dr Bob McGwier, an applied mathematician with extensive experience in signal processing and data analysis at the national security level, focuses on the detection of both atmospheric phenomena and unidentified submerged objects (USOs).[21427]
McGwier is developing low-cost, accessible sensor suites designed for grassroots deployment by independent citizen scientists and academic researchers.[21427] His hardware design combines two complementary detection mechanisms: passive acoustic monitoring to listen for underwater mechanical or cavitation disturbances, and magnetic radiometry to detect localized fluctuations and distortions in the Earth’s geomagnetic field.[21427] The primary engineering hurdle lies in filtering out biological and ambient oceanic noise, creating calibrated data systems that enable probabilistic tracking of anomalous maritime objects without relying solely on classified military hardware.[21427]
Philosophical and Social Frameworks: Institutional Responses to Uncertainty
Beyond physical hardware and kinematic equations, the study of UAPs requires frameworks from the humanities and social sciences to understand how human systems process deep ontological and political uncertainty. Dr Christian Peters, a political scientist and managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences at the University of Bremen, analyses UAPs through the lens of political theory and public policy.[21425]
Peters examines how democratic institutions, governing bodies, and societal power structures react when confronted with unexplainable phenomena that disrupt conventional notions of sovereignty and airspace control.[21425] He investigates the dynamics of official transparency and public trust, asking how governments manage information when faced with profound epistemic limits.[21425] Furthermore, Peters highlights the importance of analysing the qualitative distribution of witness reports, viewing these accounts as vital socio-political data that illuminate cultural fears, institutional vulnerabilities, and collective responses to the unknown.[21425]
Consciousness, Experiential Evidence, and Human Identity
The experiential dimension of UAP reports is examined in the work of Michael Zimmerman, an environmental philosopher and professor emeritus at Tulane University and the University of Colorado at Boulder, who serves on the board of the Society for UAP Studies.[21416] Drawing on his philosophical research into human identity, technological civilization, and consciousness—as well as his past collaborations with psychiatrist John Mack—Zimmerman addresses the evidential value of human testimony.[21416]
Zimmerman argues that personal accounts cannot be casually dismissed as mere anecdote when accompanied by demonstrable somatic and emotional responses.[21416] He observes that the intense physiological reactions exhibited by witnesses during recollections reflect genuine encounters with an external or psychological reality that demands compassionate and rigorous examination.[21416] For Zimmerman, the question of potential non-human intelligence serves as a mirror for human identity, forcing philosophy and science to re-examine fundamental assumptions about consciousness, the cosmos, and our place within the natural world.[21416]
UAP as Local SETI: Building Methodological Bridges
Synthesising the physical and social dimensions into a coherent research architecture is Courtney Bower, a social sciences doctoral researcher whose work bridges statistical modelling, philosophy, and mixed-methods research.[21417] Bower introduces a conceptual framework that redefines UAP research as a form of “local SETI” (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).[21417]
Bower argues that traditional SETI has operated under narrow technical assumptions, while the study of UAPs suffers from conceptual ambiguity and unexamined definitions.[21417] By integrating quantitative data collection with qualitative testimony and philosophical inquiry into the problem of communication barriers with distant intelligences, Bower’s framework provides researchers with clear criteria for selecting valid data sources and testing specific hypotheses.[21417] For Bower, establishing this structured conceptual ground is essential if humanity is to investigate what he describes as one of the greatest mysteries our species has ever encountered.[21417]
Core Commonalities and Cross-Analyses
The Formative Spark: Childhood Encounters and Sci-Fi Roots
Despite the diverse scientific disciplines represented across this cohort, striking commonalities emerge in their paths toward anomalous research. For a significant subset of these academics, the catalyst for studying unidentified phenomena was not an abstract mathematical paper, but an indelible encounter during childhood or youth.[21415][21420][21427]
Garry Nolan recounts walking through a copse of trees while delivering morning newspapers as a boy, looking up to observe a roundish craft hovering silently with four or five downward-facing whitish lights.[21415] Andrea Lani describes an equally vivid visual event from 1983: standing on his family balcony in Italy at age eight alongside his parents, watching a glowing, turbine-like object hover ten metres away before vanishing in a sudden flash of light—an encounter that directly motivated his eventual career in aerospace engineering.[21420]
Bob McGwier identifies a deeply unsettling 90-minute period of unaccounted “missing time” shared with his girlfriend during high school, an event that lingered in his consciousness long before he understood the terminology surrounding anomalous phenomena.[21427]
Even for those without direct close encounters, early imaginative catalysts played a defining role. Matthew Szydagis traces his fascination with the cosmos and advanced technology to watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, which inspired him to pursue a life in physics.[21423] Doug Buettner’s curiosity was rooted in a family story about his grandfather witnessing an anomalous object in a field behind their homestead.[21426] Peter Reali wrote high school book reports on UFOs despite his father’s warnings to stay grounded in conventional science.[21419]
For others, the awakening was historical or textual: Stephen Bruehl was re-invigorated after discovering Project Blue Book director Edward Ruppelt’s memoirs, which confirmed that military officials took unexplained aerial events seriously.[21428] Kevin Knuth was drawn into the subject when students asked him about UFOs in an astronomy course, prompting him to discover historical documentation of missile systems shutting down during anomalous aerial incursions at Malmstrom Air Force Base.[21421]
The Institutional Wall: Stigma, Career Threats, and Funding Barriers
A universal theme across every interview is the pervasive institutional barrier that penalises academic interest in UAPs. Rather than encountering open scientific curiosity, researchers face acute reputational risk, professional ostracism, and the threat of severe career consequences.
Sabine Hossenfelder points out that within the physics establishment, UAP research is widely treated as a taboo subject that early-career academics dare not touch before securing tenure, knowing that peer-review panels and hiring committees look askance at unconventional pursuits.[21422] Garry Nolan notes that well-meaning colleagues repeatedly warned him that public engagement with the phenomenon would destroy his scientific standing.[21415]
The risks extend beyond peer ridicule to tangible livelihoods. Peter Reali notes instances where colleagues suffered severe professional setbacks or lost their employment, highlighting a Canadian researcher who possessed valuable technical data but refused to share it publicly out of fear of forfeiting government contracts.[21419]
Silvano Colombano recalls the internal institutional friction at NASA, where an entrenched congressional mandate historically discouraged official inquiry; when he authored an academic white paper urging open inquiry, he was met with institutional pushback rather than support.[21418] Christian Peters contextualises this climate within broader academic governance, noting how fears over losing research funding and departmental legitimacy stifle legitimate social-scientific and physical inquiry.[21425]
While Stephen Bruehl found unexpected departmental support when publishing his statistical work in a peer-reviewed journal, he notes that peer-reviewed literature on UAPs remains exceedingly scarce, creating an uphill battle for formal academic acceptance.[21428]
Shifting Methodologies: From Military Monopolies to Open Empirical Science
Confronted with the twin obstacles of institutional stigma and classification walls, these researchers share a foundational consensus: the study of UAPs must transition from anecdotal speculation and classified military gatekeeping into open, reproducible, empirical science.
This shift is marked by a deep distrust in government transparency. Matthew Szydagis argues that waiting for official government disclosure is futile, asserting that any breakthroughs will instead come from independent civilian scientists and grassroots technical initiatives.[21423] Bob McGwier mirrors this philosophy by designing low-cost, open-source sensor arrays—incorporating passive hydrophones and magnetic radiometers—to ensure that citizen scientists and academic institutions can independently capture and verify multi-modal data.[21427]
At the core of this methodological turn is the application of formal statistical and quantitative toolkits:
- Sensor Calibration & Deconstruction: Peter Reali and Silvano Colombano demand that researchers move away from treating single videos as absolute proof, focusing instead on strict forensic evaluation of camera optics, noise floors, sensor parameters, and decoupled data points.[21418][21419]
- Archival & Historical Data Mining: Stephen Bruehl and his collaborators bypass modern classification by analysing historical astronomical glass plates from 1949–1957, applying statistical correlation models to demonstrate a 45 per cent increase in anomalous celestial transients near the dates of atmospheric nuclear tests.[21428]
- Mathematical Modelling of Rare Events: Matthew Szydagis develops probabilistic models to evaluate potential crash-retrieval odds, taking into account global smartphone saturation.[21423]
- Structured Interdisciplinary Frameworks: Courtney Bower and Christian Peters establish mixed-methods architectures that integrate quantitative physical data with the qualitative study of witness accounts, framing UAPs as an overarching societal and epistemic challenge that demands rigorous, open-science protocols.[21417][21425]
Competing Perspectives and Internal Debates
How Much Evidence Is Enough?
The researchers examined here share a belief that UAP reports deserve serious attention, but they disagree about what should count as persuasive evidence. At one end of the spectrum are researchers who emphasise the physical characteristics of reported objects and the reliability of instrumental data. At the other are those who argue that personal testimony, emotional responses and cultural patterns should not be excluded simply because they are difficult to measure.
Kevin Knuth argues that physicists should calculate the reported performance of UAPs before dismissing them. In relation to the USS Nimitz case, he points to radar data that, in his analysis, indicate accelerations far beyond current human engineering capabilities.[21421] Peter Reali similarly insists that researchers should begin with what instruments recorded, examining the specifications, functions and limitations of the relevant sensors before drawing conclusions.[21419]
Doug Buettner adopts a more cautious position. He says that more than 90 per cent of UAP reports may have ordinary explanations and argues that scientists must remain “on the fence” until the available evidence is sufficient to support a stronger conclusion.[21426] Randy Bostik expresses a comparable concern, describing the difficulty of interpreting blurry images and incomplete reports without either dismissing them too quickly or assigning them an unwarranted explanation.[21424]
The disagreement is therefore not simply between believers and sceptics. It is also an internal debate about evidential thresholds. How much uncertainty can a case contain before it becomes unusable? And when does a collection of unresolved observations become significant enough to justify a broader hypothesis?
Testimony: Evidence or Context?
A second debate concerns the status of witness testimony. The physical-science approach tends to prioritise measurable evidence, while some of the researchers with backgrounds in philosophy and social science argue that testimony can provide important information even when it cannot establish the nature of the phenomenon conclusively.[21416][21417][21425]
Michael Zimmerman rejects the idea that witness accounts can be dismissed merely because they are subjective. He points to the physiological and emotional reactions people display when recounting their experiences, arguing that these responses indicate that something meaningful happened to them—even if the event itself cannot be independently verified.[21416] His position does not turn testimony into proof of non-human intelligence, but it does challenge the assumption that an account is scientifically irrelevant simply because it is personal.
Christian Peters approaches testimony from a different angle. His interest lies in what the distribution and interpretation of UAP reports may reveal about society, political culture and trust in institutions.[21425] For him, witness accounts are not necessarily evidence of an extraordinary craft. They are also social data: records of how people experience uncertainty and how communities respond when official explanations appear incomplete.
Courtney Bower’s proposed framework similarly seeks to combine qualitative and quantitative material. He argues that a conceptual framework is necessary to determine which data sources are appropriate and how different forms of evidence can be brought into a coherent research programme.[21417] The disagreement, then, is not necessarily over whether testimony matters, but over what question it can answer. A witness account may offer insight into an experience, a pattern or a social response without independently demonstrating the physical origin of the event.
Non-Human Intelligence: Hypothesis or Premature Conclusion?
The possibility of non-human intelligence represents perhaps the sharpest dividing line among the researchers. Some regard it as a legitimate hypothesis that should remain open to investigation. Others accept that it cannot be ruled out but argue that the available evidence does not justify treating it as the leading explanation.[21415][21419][21421][21422][21424][21426]
Garry Nolan is willing to discuss UAP in terms of possible non-human intelligence and suggests that some reported behaviour may indicate agency rather than an entirely passive or natural process.[21415] Kevin Knuth argues that certain reported capabilities are beyond current human engineering, leaving open the possibility that the objects represent technologies not produced by humans.[21421] Sabine Hossenfelder likewise maintains that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence cannot simply be ruled out and questions whether conventional searches have been too narrowly focused on electromagnetic signals.[21422]
Other researchers adopt a more restrained position. Peter Reali says that he is highly confident that UAP exist as a category of unexplained observations, while remaining unwilling to identify them as extraterrestrial or interdimensional without stronger evidence.[21419] Doug Buettner emphasises that the large proportion of reports with potential prosaic explanations makes it especially important to eliminate conventional causes before invoking non-human intelligence.[21426] Randy Bostik’s experience assessing reports and videos leads him to stress that claims about extraordinary origins require verifiable evidence rather than repetition of what others have said.[21424]
This distinction is crucial. The existence of an unexplained observation is not the same as evidence of an extraterrestrial vehicle. Several of the researchers accept that UAP may eventually reveal something beyond current human knowledge, but they differ over how prominently that possibility should feature in present research.
Government Disclosure or Independent Investigation?
The interviews also reveal a divide over the role of government. Some researchers see classified military data and official transparency as essential to resolving the subject. Others are sceptical that governments will disclose enough information to settle the question and therefore place greater emphasis on civilian research.[21418][21423][21424][21425]
Randy Bostik describes UAP as a national-security issue and discusses the importance of sensors, systematic reporting and cooperation between government and civilian investigators.[21424] Silvano Colombano, however, points to the institutional reluctance that has historically limited NASA’s involvement in UAP research. In his view, the problem is not simply a lack of interest among individual scientists, but also the restrictions placed on institutions.[21418]
Matthew Szydagis is particularly doubtful that decisive information will emerge through official disclosure. He argues that independent scientists, engineers and citizen scientists may be more likely to produce meaningful advances.[21423] Bob McGwier’s proposed low-cost sensor systems reflect a similar strategy: rather than relying exclusively on classified military instruments, researchers should build accessible systems capable of collecting data independently.[21427]
These positions involve different understandings of where reliable knowledge is most likely to come from. One approach seeks greater access to government records and operational data. The other attempts to reduce dependence on institutions that may be unwilling or unable to provide them. Both, however, are responses to the same problem: the most frequently discussed UAP cases often involve incomplete, restricted or inaccessible evidence.
One Field, Several Sciences
Underlying these debates is a broader question about what kind of discipline UAP research should become. Peter Reali and Silvano Colombano favour the careful technical examination of individual cases and instruments.[21418][21419] Kevin Knuth and Matthew Szydagis apply physics, probability and mathematical modelling to questions of motion, detection and possible physical evidence.[21421][21423] Bob McGwier focuses on the design of sensor systems that could generate new data rather than relying on existing reports.[21427]
The social and philosophical researchers widen the scope. Zimmerman examines the significance of consciousness and personal experience.[21416] Peters studies the political and institutional consequences of uncertainty.[21425] Bower argues for a framework that can combine quantitative evidence, qualitative accounts and philosophical analysis.[21417]
This diversity creates an unavoidable tension. A framework broad enough to include testimony, social meaning and questions of consciousness may be more capable of representing the full range of UAP reports. But a framework that includes too many forms of evidence may also make it harder to establish consistent standards of verification. Conversely, a narrowly physical approach may produce more readily testable results while excluding information that some researchers regard as central to the phenomenon.
The internal debate is therefore not a weakness that discredits the field. It is a sign that the researchers have not settled on a single explanation—or even on a single definition of the problem. Their disagreement concerns the proper balance between openness and restraint, experience and measurement, government data and independent observation, and the possibility of discovery and the demand for proof. That unresolved debate may be the most scientifically productive feature of the emerging field.
Conclusion: Rewriting the Rules of Science
From Stigma to Method
The researchers discussed in this article do not offer a single answer to the UAP question. Nor do their interviews establish that UAPs are extraterrestrial craft, manifestations of non-human intelligence or evidence of new physics. What they do offer is a challenge to the way the question has traditionally been handled.
For decades, the subject was often dismissed before its evidence had been examined. The academics and engineers featured here argue that this is not scepticism in its strongest scientific form. Genuine scepticism requires questions, measurements and the willingness to follow evidence even when it leads to an unexpected conclusion. Automatic dismissal, by contrast, prevents those questions from being asked at all.
A More Demanding Standard
Their proposed alternative is not unquestioning belief, but a more demanding standard of inquiry. Kevin Knuth calls for calculations based on the available observational data rather than reflexive mockery.[21421] Peter Reali insists that investigators begin with the instruments themselves: their specifications, limitations and recorded signals.[21419] Silvano Colombano argues that cases should be separated into distinct components—images, reported physical behaviour, witness accounts and uncertainties—so that no single observation is required to carry the burden of proving an entire phenomenon.[21418]
Doug Buettner’s position reinforces the need for restraint. He estimates that more than 90 per cent of reported sightings may have prosaic explanations and maintains that scientists must remain sceptical until the evidence warrants a stronger conclusion.[21426] Randy Bostik similarly points to the difficulty of interpreting incomplete or blurry material without either rejecting it prematurely or giving it an explanation that the data cannot support.[21424]
Taken together, these views suggest that the future of UAP research will depend less on dramatic claims than on the quality of its procedures. Better sensors, clearer reporting protocols, transparent data and reproducible analysis would not guarantee extraordinary discoveries. They would, however, make it easier to distinguish genuine anomalies from errors, misidentifications and incomplete information.
Beyond a Single Discipline
A second lesson is that UAP research cannot easily be confined to one academic field. Physics and engineering are necessary for analysing motion, acceleration, sensor data and possible technological signatures.[21419][21421][21423] Statistical methods can be used to assess patterns, detection probabilities and the significance of unusual observations.[21423][21428] At the same time, philosophy and the social sciences can examine testimony, consciousness, institutional secrecy, public trust and the political consequences of uncertainty.[21416][21417][21425]
This interdisciplinary character creates difficulties. Personal testimony cannot substitute for independently verifiable physical evidence. Equally, an exclusive focus on physical measurements may overlook the human and institutional conditions under which observations are reported, interpreted or suppressed.[21416][21417][21425] The challenge is to allow different forms of inquiry to inform one another without confusing their respective evidential roles.
Independence and Transparency
The interviews also point towards a possible change in who produces scientific knowledge. Several researchers express dissatisfaction with the dependence on classified government data and official disclosure.[21418][21423][21424] Matthew Szydagis argues that independent scientists, engineers and citizen scientists may ultimately make progress where governments remain silent.[21423] Bob McGwier’s interest in affordable sensor systems reflects the same ambition: to make the collection of relevant data possible beyond military and governmental institutions.[21427]
That does not make government information irrelevant. On the contrary, the involvement of military personnel, intelligence organisations and national-security institutions means that official data may be essential to understanding some reports.[21421][21424] But a research field that depends entirely on evidence that cannot be inspected or independently tested will struggle to earn lasting scientific confidence. Transparency, wherever security considerations permit it, is therefore not a public-relations demand but a methodological necessity.[21418][21423][21424]
The Real Scientific Shift The most important change may therefore be conceptual. The aim is not to replace one orthodoxy with another—to move from “nothing unusual is happening” to “these must be non-human craft”. It is to create a research environment in which both propositions remain subordinate to evidence.
That principle also changes the meaning of failure. If a case turns out to be an aircraft, an atmospheric effect, an instrumental artefact or a misinterpretation, the investigation has not been wasted. It has clarified the limits of the evidence and improved the method. Conversely, if a small number of cases remain unexplained after careful examination, they should be recorded as unresolved—not automatically promoted to proof of an extraordinary origin.[21418][21419][21426]
The academics and researchers portrayed here are not united by certainty. They are united by a willingness to investigate. Their work suggests that science does not protect itself by refusing to examine uncomfortable questions. It protects itself through open methods, critical debate, explicit uncertainty and a readiness to revise its conclusions.
If UAP research is to rewrite the rules of science, it will not do so by abandoning those rules. It will do so by applying them consistently to a subject that has too often been rejected before the investigation begins.
Scientists working on UAP
Professor Garry Nolan & Ross Coulthart: Full interview | UFO UAP News
Introduction
The video features a conversation with Professor Garry Nolan, a highly respected immunologist from Stanford University, who has gained prominence in the field of UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) and UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) research. Nolan, a nominee for the Nobel Prize, has an impressive academic background with numerous patents and published papers. His involvement in the UFO discourse is particularly notable as he is an experiencer himself, which adds a personal dimension to his insights on the subject.
Government Admissions on UAPs
During the discussion, Nolan reflects on the significance of recent admissions by the U.S. government regarding UAPs. He emphasizes that while the government has acknowledged the reality of these phenomena, the true nature of what they are remains unknown. Nolan asserts that this admission is crucial as it validates the experiences of individuals who have reported sightings and encounters, many of whom have been dismissed as delusional or crazy for their beliefs. He posits that the government has been deceptive for decades, primarily due to a lack of understanding of these phenomena and a desire to maintain control over airspace.
Reasons for Government Cover-Up
Nolan speculates that the government's reluctance to disclose information about UAPs stems from a fear of admitting ignorance and a desire to avoid public panic. He suggests that military organizations, such as the U.S. Air Force, may have been particularly hesitant to acknowledge the existence of objects that appear to possess advanced capabilities far beyond current human technology. This leads to a broader discussion about the implications of such technology and the potential risks it poses to humanity.
Scientific Study of UAPs
When asked about the nature of UAPs, Nolan expresses a desire for scientific inquiry into the phenomena. He acknowledges that while there is a lack of consensus among scientists regarding what UAPs are, there is a general agreement that they exhibit characteristics that defy current understanding. Nolan emphasizes the importance of studying these phenomena from a scientific perspective, as they may hold insights into advanced technologies and physics that could benefit humanity.
Intelligent Non-Human Entities
Nolan suggests that the behavior of UAPs indicates the presence of an intelligent, non-human entity. He refrains from labeling it as a civilization, as that term implies a structured society with specific goals. Instead, he posits that whatever is being observed may have been present on Earth long before human civilization emerged. This raises questions about the true nature of humanity's place on the planet and the possibility that other forms of intelligence have existed alongside or prior to humans.
Extraterrestrial vs. Interdimensional Hypotheses
The conversation also touches on the classic extraterrestrial hypothesis versus the interdimensional hypothesis proposed by researchers like Jacques Vallée. Nolan suggests that while extraterrestrial origins are a possibility, the interdimensional hypothesis may equally explain the phenomena. He notes that the concept of a multiverse could allow for entities to interact with our reality in ways that are not immediately comprehensible.
Evidence and Data
Nolan addresses the skepticism surrounding UAPs, particularly regarding the lack of concrete evidence. He points to the videos released by the U.S. Navy, which have captured UAP encounters, as preliminary data that warrant further investigation. Additionally, he mentions the numerous eyewitness accounts that, while anecdotal, contribute to a growing body of evidence that cannot be easily dismissed.
Government Interest in UAPs
Interestingly, Nolan reveals that he has been approached by government agencies, including the CIA, to conduct studies on individuals who have had encounters with UAPs. This interest stems from his expertise in blood analysis and the potential for understanding the physiological effects of exposure to these phenomena. He discusses cases where individuals, particularly military personnel, have reported experiencing health issues following encounters with UAPs, including brain tissue damage observed through MRI scans.
Case Studies and Anomalies
One notable case discussed is the Council Bluffs, Iowa event from December 1987, where witnesses reported seeing molten metal fall from a craft. Nolan describes the investigation into the material, which revealed unusual properties, such as inhomogeneity in its composition. He emphasizes the significance of such cases, as they suggest that UAPs may be capable of producing materials that do not conform to known scientific principles.
Material Analysis and Properties
Nolan also discusses his analysis of a material known as bismuth magnesium, which has been speculated to have unique properties, including the ability to levitate under certain conditions. While he has not yet conducted the necessary tests to confirm these properties, he acknowledges the potential implications of such materials for understanding advanced technologies.
Government Secrecy and Cover-Up
The conversation shifts to the broader implications of government secrecy surrounding UAPs. Nolan expresses concern that the lack of transparency may hinder scientific progress and public understanding of these phenomena. He advocates for a definitive statement from the government regarding the existence of materials related to UAPs, as this could pave the way for further research and exploration.
Global Interest in UAPs
Nolan acknowledges that other countries, including China and Russia, are likely investigating UAPs as well. He suggests that there is a covert competition among nations to uncover the truth about these phenomena, which may have significant implications for global security and technological advancement. The potential for advanced technology to fall into the wrong hands raises ethical concerns about the consequences of such discoveries.
Religious and Philosophical Implications
The discussion also delves into the philosophical and religious implications of UAPs. Nolan posits that the existence of non-human intelligence challenges traditional notions of humanity's place in the universe. He suggests that the idea of superior beings interacting with humans may have been woven into religious narratives throughout history, raising questions about the nature of divinity and the potential for a broader understanding of consciousness.
Personal Experiences and Anecdotes
Nolan shares his personal experiences with UAPs, including a childhood encounter that left a lasting impression. He recounts a moment when he witnessed an object moving silently overhead, which he later recognized as a potential UFO. This anecdote highlights the commonality of such experiences and the importance of acknowledging them as part of the broader conversation about UAPs.
Scientific Rigor and Investigation
Nolan emphasizes the importance of scientific rigor in investigating UAPs. He expresses a willingness to challenge beliefs and investigate claims, regardless of their origins. He advocates for a balanced approach that considers both anecdotal evidence and scientific inquiry, recognizing that the pursuit of knowledge requires an open mind and a willingness to explore the unknown.
Conclusion: The Future of UAP Research
As the conversation concludes, Nolan expresses optimism about the future of UAP research. He believes that the growing interest from the government and the scientific community will lead to significant breakthroughs in understanding these phenomena. He anticipates that in the coming years, there will be public announcements regarding the existence of non-human intelligence and the potential implications for humanity. Nolan's insights underscore the importance of continued exploration and inquiry into the mysteries of UAPs, as they may hold the key to unlocking new frontiers in science and understanding our place in the universe.
The interviewee, Professor Garry Nolan, is introduced by the interviewer as a highly accomplished individual in the field of immunology. The interviewer highlights several key aspects of his professional background, which include:
- Institutional Affiliation: Professor Nolan is affiliated with Stanford University, where he serves as a professor of Immunology.
- Recognition: He is described as a nominee for the Nobel Prize, indicating his significant contributions to the field.
- Expertise: The interviewer refers to him as one of the most reputable immunologists globally, which underscores his expertise and authority in his discipline.
- Achievements: Professor Nolan has numerous patents to his name and a substantial number of published papers, reinforcing his active role in advancing scientific knowledge.
- Entrepreneurship: He has founded two companies that are listed on NASDAQ, emphasizing his ability to translate scientific innovation into commercial success.
- Public Engagement: He is increasingly becoming a public figure in discussions surrounding unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), demonstrating his willingness to engage with broader societal issues.
- Personal Experience: The interviewer notes that Professor Nolan is an 'experiencer' himself, suggesting that he has had personal encounters related to UAP, adding a unique perspective to his scientific approach.
This combination of professional accolades and personal experiences positions Professor Nolan as a significant voice in the contemporary discourse on UAP.
- [00:21] "Garry Nolan is one of those precocious Minds that when you meet them you know you're in the presence of awesome incredible intelligence."
- [00:27] "He's a Stanford university-based professor of Immunology... he's one of the most reputable immunologists on the planet."
- [00:47] "He's got two companies listed on the NASDAQ because of successful inventions that he's made."
Professor Garry Nolan approaches the study of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) from a scientific perspective, emphasizing the importance of data and analytical rigor. His methodology encompasses several key aspects:
- Scientific Inquiry: Nolan states that while there is a genuine mystery surrounding UAP, he believes these phenomena can be studied scientifically. He emphasizes that the lack of understanding does not preclude the possibility of scientific investigation.
- Data Sources: He refers to the evidence in videos, particularly the Nimitz UFO encounter videos, and thousands of eyewitness reports as preliminary data that can be analyzed. He regards these accounts as more than anecdotal, framing them as essential to raising questions about the nature of UAP.
- Government Data: Nolan mentions that much of the credible evidence may be held within government hands, suggesting that there are materials and data not yet disclosed to the public that could shed light on UAP.
- Analytical Standards: He suggests that the scientific community should not dismiss the potential explanations for UAP. Nolan argues that it is crucial to investigate and not ignore what could be a significant scientific discovery.
- Limitations: While he advocates for scientific inquiry into UAP, he acknowledges the challenges posed by the stigma surrounding the topic. He notes that many scientists may feel apprehensive about engaging in research due to potential damage to their reputations.
Nolan's rigorous scientific approach, combined with his openness to exploring this unexplained phenomenon, positions him as a pivotal figure in the ongoing investigation of UAP.
- [01:40] "We do know that there is something here something that I think defies explanation but that something can be studied from a scientific viewpoint."
- [07:05] "... to me you can call it anecdotal but to me I call it preliminary data... what is it and what can we do about it?"
- [04:00] "I think that this is the kind of thing that if we continue to ignore it... we are putting ourselves at risk."
Professor Garry Nolan's decision to focus on UAP is driven by a combination of personal, scientific, and societal motivations:
- Personal Experience: He identifies as an 'experiencer,' meaning he has personally encountered UAP, which adds a profound personal dimension to his interest in the subject. His own sightings contribute to his credibility and passion for understanding these phenomena.
- Scientific Responsibility: Nolan expresses a strong belief that ignoring the potential dangers posed by UAP is irresponsible. He articulates the potential risks humanity faces if these phenomena represent advanced technologies that could affect our world.
- Societal Implications: He acknowledges the significance of the government's recent admissions regarding UAP, which he believes offer solace to individuals who have long been dismissed as 'crazy' for their beliefs. This societal validation underscores the need for serious scientific investigation.
- Curiosity and Exploration: Nolan highlights the scientific intrigue surrounding UAP as a major reason for his involvement. He expresses a desire to explore what these phenomena might represent, indicating that the mystery itself is a compelling reason for research.
- Desire for Understanding: He suggests that studying UAP could lead to significant advancements in our understanding of physics and technology, which further motivates his research efforts. He believes that there is much to learn from these encounters.
Through these motivations, Nolan frames his research not only as a scientific endeavor but also as a crucial investigation into potential existential risks and opportunities for humanity.
- [02:25] "... from the personal point of view from the human point of view that's one of the most important things."
- [03:55] "I think it's dangerously necessary... we continue to ignore the potential danger of what it might represent."
- [05:04] "I think it's been here a long time... certainly it's been here longer than we've been civilized."
Yes, Professor Garry Nolan has personally observed a UAP, and he describes this observation in detail:
- Observation Circumstances: He recounts an experience from his childhood when he was delivering newspapers early in the morning. He noticed something unusual in the woods while walking through a copse of trees.
- Details of the UAP: Nolan describes the object as roundish with approximately four or five whitish lights pointing down. He expresses that he was not afraid during the encounter, primarily because he did not understand what he was seeing at the time.
- Reflection on the Experience: He indicates that he did not initially label the object as a UFO because he was unfamiliar with the term at that young age. It wasn't until decades later, after exposure to various media about UFOs, that he realized the significance of what he had seen.
- Interpretation of the Encounter: He categorizes his observation as "preliminary evidence" and states that it is worth understanding, especially as others report similar experiences. This reflection emphasizes his scientific curiosity and the importance of personal testimony in the broader context of UAP research.
This personal experience not only shapes his perspective on UAP but also reinforces his belief in the need for scientific inquiry into these phenomena.
- [29:50] "I was a paper boy... and as I was walking through the woods I could see my shadow in front of me..."
- [30:46] "... I look up and see an object right at the top of the trees go right over my head silently."
- [31:20] "I didn't say oh there was a UFO because I didn't even know what a UFO was."
In the interview, Professor Garry Nolan discusses various challenges and obstacles he faces in UAP research, along with the skepticism he encounters:
- Skepticism from Peers: Nolan acknowledges that many scientists, including his colleagues, express concern over his interest in UAP, warning him that it may ruin his reputation. This skepticism reflects a broader cultural stigma surrounding the study of UAP and extraterrestrial life.
- Professional Risks: He articulates the fear of professional repercussions that may arise from engaging with this subject matter, demonstrating the barriers that exist within the scientific community that discourage exploration of UAP.
- Possibility of Non-Human Intelligence: Nolan openly discusses the likelihood that UAP may involve non-human intelligences, stating, "I think it's certainly acts... and in some cases it seems to have a sense of humor." This indicates his willingness to entertain the notion that these phenomena could represent advanced technological capabilities beyond human understanding.
- Need for Understanding: He emphasizes that ignoring the potential dangers of UAP poses risks to humanity. This acknowledgment highlights the urgency for scientific inquiry and understanding of UAP, regardless of the skepticism faced.
Through these discussions, Nolan illustrates the complex interplay between scientific inquiry, personal beliefs, and societal perceptions surrounding UAP phenomena.
- [04:00] "I think that this is the kind of thing that if we continue to ignore it... we are putting ourselves at risk."
- [03:55] "I think it's dangerously necessary..."
- [24:43] "... I think it's totally unjustified..."
[00:00] [Music] okay you're going to photoshop this
make me look like Chris Hemsworth at the end[00:07] right Professor Garry Nolan is one of those
precocious Minds that when you meet them you[00:21] know you're in the presence of awesome incredible
intelligence he's a Stanford university-based[00:27] professor of Immunology uh at the moment he's a
nominee for the Nobel Prize he's one of the most[00:35] reputable immunologists on the planet extremely
well regarded he's got multiple patents huge[00:42] numbers of papers that have been published in
his name he's got two companies listed on the[00:47] NASDAQ because of successful inventions that
he's made he's just all around a complete total[00:53] overachiever and one of the things that I loved in
meeting him was his cander the fact that he was so[01:00] prepared he's very fast becoming one of the public
faces of UFO UAP commentary he's decided to take[01:09] a very public profile because he's actually an
experiencer himself so when I asked him about the[01:15] significance of the US government's admissions
that have been made about uaps in the last 12[01:22] months I was quite shocked and surprised at what
he told me set to go Prof so what do we know for[01:31] sure about uaps well I think the thing that we
know for sure is that we don't know what it is but[01:40] we do know that there is something here something
that I think defies explanation but that something[01:47] can be studied from a scientific Viewpoint
there's a genuine mystery yes how significant[01:54] is it that the United States government came out
a year ago and admitted the unidentified aerial[02:01] phenomena are real whatever they are they're a
real mystery I think it tells us that uh first[02:08] of all the government has been lying to us for
the last 60 or 70 years I think it gives Solace[02:14] to people who have been told that they were crazy
to have been believing or seeing this so that to[02:20] me at least from the personal point of view from
the human point of view that's one of the most[02:25] important things I know this is speculative but
why do you think the US government's lied I think[02:31] it's because frankly they didn't understand what
it was and nobody wanted to admit that first of[02:36] all but second they didn't want to admit that
they didn't have control over our airspace we[02:41] didn't have control over our own airspace so
it's as simple as say for example the US Air[02:46] Force doesn't like admitting that whatever these
objects are they're vastly Superior to what you've[02:52] got and frankly they don't know how to explain
them yes and what confuses me is if I were the[02:59] Air Force and I saw something like this I would
want to drive one of them right if I was a fighter[03:05] pilot who wanted to be in the fanciest best next
fighter jet why wouldn't I want to understand and[03:11] push to understand how objects like this could
maneuver that's what Dave frus said he said he[03:16] wanted to fly the T yes yes that's right so the
government's been lying but do you think there's[03:22] been a cover up absolutely I mean there has been
both uh a coverup as well as a disinformation[03:28] campaign to make make people look like they are
were crazy see this is amazing to me to hear a[03:35] scientist of your reputation saying this I mean
you're one of the most eminent immunologists on[03:40] the planet you're a Nobel Prize nominee you you're
somebody highly respected in your area of medicine[03:47] is it a dangerous thing for you to admit that you
think these things about the phenomen I think it's[03:55] dangerously necessary I think that this is
the kind of thing that if we we continue to[04:00] ignore it if we continue to ignore the potential
danger of what it might represent we are putting[04:08] ourselves uh at risk uh both to what it might do
to us in sometime in the future but then ignoring[04:15] the physics of what these things are capable of
doing let's talk about it MH what is it you know I[04:24] wish I knew and of all the people that I've spoken
with on the inside there's uh really very little[04:30] unanimity about what it is except for that there
whatever it is appears to be so far Advanced from[04:39] us that it Beggars understanding so you don't
think it's human I'm sure it's not human is it[04:45] intelligent yes it certainly acts it and in some
cases it seems to have a sense of humor so Garry[04:52] the implications of what you're saying there
are enormous aren't they you're suggesting that[04:56] there is a highly Advanced civilization that is
intelligent it's not human and it's real yeah I[05:04] almost hesitate even to call it a civilization a
civilization implies a lot of interacting parts[05:11] uh that are moving toward some sort of goal
I couldn't even say whether or not what it is[05:16] that is being observed is something like that now
the classic explanation for years and the reason[05:22] everybody Giggles is because they're immediately
thinking of Little Green Men from Zeta reticuli do[05:27] you think the the highest probability is that
whatever they are they are extraterrestrial[05:33] I don't think so no I think it's whatever it is
it's been here a long time so and certainly it's[05:40] been here longer than we've been civilized so at
the very least who really owns the planet who was[05:46] here first uh I'm not sure it was us now you're
good mates with Lou alzando Who we've interviewed[05:52] who was the former head of the Pentagon UFO
program and Lou has suggested publicly that what[05:59] whatever this is the Extraterrestrial explanation
doesn't quite explain it yeah I mean and I mean[06:06] it it could explain it but you could equally and
this is jacqu Val's original uh hypothesis that[06:12] he got in a lot of trouble decades ago over the
interdimensional hypothesis right that whatever[06:20] this is if you imagine an expanded universe
conceptually the Multiverse that everybody you[06:25] know talks about uh is could be just as easily
coming from over there as it is from the other[06:32] side of our own Universe now you're a scientist
you deal in data a lot of people watching this[06:38] are going to be incredibly skeptical they're
going to be saying what does he know where's[06:44] the evidence where's the data to prove what you
say so the the data frankly is in the videos[06:51] first of all that we've all seen Now by now and
if you haven't seen them I'd go look up the nimit[06:55] UFO encounter uh videos the other evid evidence is
in the thousands of reports of things that people[07:05] have seen uh now that to me you know you can call
it anecdotal but to me I call it preliminary data[07:13] it basically raises the question of what is it
and what can we do about it uh or what how can[07:19] we study it and so perhaps the best evidence that
is thought to exist is the stuff that is being[07:27] held in government hands that many people again
anecdotally anecdotally have come forward and said[07:34] this exists and it's not from here now the thing I
find fascinating is you've been kind of embraced a[07:42] little bit by the Black World you've had the CIA
come knocking on your door asking you to actually[07:47] do tests on people who have been exposed to uaps
correct yes what can you tell me about that well[07:56] the reason apparently that they came to me is
because we had developed instrumentation for[08:02] blood analysis that uh nobody else in the world
had and so they came to me for that not because[08:10] I had some prior interest in UFOs they came to
me for that and then I guess the embracing came[08:17] because most of the other scientists with whom
they had met ran away and I was you know just[08:22] drawn towards this but I also found it fascinating
to speculate about what all of this might mean and[08:29] what it might be so I got brought in further and
further so in your studies you would I understand[08:34] I've spoken to some people whom I suspect might
have been part of your study but there are pilots[08:39] for example who've engaged what they believe
were craft off the east coast of America and[08:46] they were exposed to what they think is some kind
of radiation have you been able to determine if[08:53] any of these people have suffered injuries in some
cases not the pilots uh especially but uh for some[08:59] of the ground Personnel we were able to see damage
in their brain tissue uh that was considerable[09:07] so this is injuries suffered by people and is it
directly attributable to the UFO UAP they claim it[09:15] now again I'm uh many of the people viewing will
walk away saying that I said something happened[09:22] no I am relaying what it is that was told to
me the confirmatory evidence that I have are[09:29] the MRIs that basically show that anybody could
look at repeatedly and see that there was damage[09:36] and when you say damage what sort of damage um it
you would call it a sclerosis it would be seen as[09:42] a scar tissue in the body or the brain dead tissue
so it comes out as white blob white blob white we[09:48] generally call it white matter disease now one
of the known examples of this that is public is[09:54] there's a fellow called Thomas Winterton who's
featured on the Skinwalker Ranch TV show and he[10:01] allegedly was exposed to some kind of radiation
or energy and you could actually see on his MRI[10:10] MH a difference in his brain oh yeah well that
was a horrific event I mean uh not only was the[10:15] brain matter damaged but there was uh an edema
across the back of his head but I think in this[10:23] case this particular case this was probably more a
Havana syndrome like interaction where somebody uh[10:31] with an energy weapon pointed it at them and uh as
has been I think also talked about on that TV show[10:40] we were able to determine the relative strength
of the energy based on how far into the brain it[10:46] traveled so the other thing that you've been roped
into is analyzing samples MH and there's one case[10:53] I'm fascinated which which is the Council Bluffs
Iowa Event in December 197 87 and tell me if I'm[11:01] wrong police and 11 different Witnesses from four
different groups came across a pile of molten slag[11:11] that they saw fall from a a craft of some kind
a blinking craft a blinking craft it was still[11:18] bubbling and hot M the police testified to this as
well they were on the scene and everybody says it[11:26] came from this craft and I have the or Polaroids
from the police uh of the event uh and quite a bit[11:35] of Investigation was done back at the time on this
where they had looked at the metals and actually[11:40] it was beautifully um uh looked at because uh
they looked at all the possible uh normal ways[11:48] that this might have occurred thermite uh is there
a nearby Foundry there was a nearby Foundry but[11:54] how do you get 4X six fet of slle right steaming
slle right you would had to have dragged it and[12:00] you certainly aren't going to put it in any kind
of balloon uh and then float it over a park and[12:05] then and then drop it cuz this was molten steel
mol molten metal I mean it was molten iron and[12:11] so one of the things that was looked at to see
whether or not it was steel it was not steel[12:15] it had iron in it nickel a few other impurities
but what I found most interesting in our analysis[12:21] of it although we found nothing unusual about
isotopic ratios or elements that you wouldn't[12:26] normally find in in metals like was what we would
call the inhomogeneity of the material meaning it[12:33] was incompletely mixed so if you looked in
one part of the material you found all the[12:38] same elements but the ratios were different than
if you looked in another area the thing I find[12:44] fascinating about that case is you've got some
kind of material metal being squirted belched[12:51] out by right a craft that is witnessed by many
people and it's not the only story like this[12:57] in fact there are multiple stories of these craft
dropping stuff in fact there's a case nearby that[13:04] when I get the time uh jacqu and I will visit
with exactly the same issue multiple times seen[13:10] in Fresno these objects and one of them apparently
dropped something right on these people's driveway[13:18] now I mean a lot of people might be chuckling here
I mean why would a spacecraft let's assume it's[13:22] aliens or some kind of advanced civilization why
would they drop metal on a driveway well I I don't[13:30] know and I am just as equally bemused by the whole
thing and I can understand the skeptical nature[13:35] of everybody around but it is so let's imagine
let's say that for instance this was an object[13:43] of UFO or Etc and but maybe this is part of the
propulsion system and maybe when you're done with[13:51] enough of the propulsion or something has gone
wrong some imbalance you essentially uh squirt it[13:57] out the back and offloaded it uh I mean it does
though lend itself to the question of well how[14:05] indifferent might this object or the thing running
it be to somebody below having a hot liquid metal[14:13] dropped on their head well could it just be that
ET has a sense of humor and loves the idea of[14:17] driving a scientist like you Betty with yes well
certainly there's certainly a little bit of that[14:22] I often wonder and jacqu and I talk about this
sometimes this is jacqu Val jacqu Val how much of[14:28] what is being done is them just leading us around
by the nose for fun but continue to do it cuz I'm[14:34] having fun sure and the the third object that
I understand you've been involved in analyzing[14:39] is a sample of material which is known as the
Bismuth magnesium uh material MH have you been[14:47] able to reach any conclusions about that uh it
is a layered material of bismuth a little bit of[14:53] lead and uh magnesium uh I've looked at the ratios
of the Isotopes there and there's nothing unusual[15:01] about it but um I will be getting a hold of a much
much larger sample of it uh that will allow me to[15:09] do some other kinds of tests now one of the things
that's been speculated about this particular piece[15:15] of bismuth magnesium is that if you put a wave
form through it m I know this sounds deffy it[15:21] will levitate I have uh heard of this result I
have not seen it with my own have you tried no[15:30] because the waveform that they needed that they
needed to put through it is terahertz waves and[15:35] that was why Tom Delong to the Stars Academy did
the CR the research agreement with the US Army[15:42] because they're the only people that have got the
terahertz transmitter that you'd need right do we[15:47] know whether that research has been done there I'm
not allowed to talk about that aha this is getting[15:53] interesting yeah but the thing that fascinates
me about that is some of the material that to[16:02] the Stars Academy was saying that it was going to
be researching was material that was provided to[16:09] it by the US government yes and if all this stuff
about uaps is rubbish why was the US government[16:18] keeping samples of flying sources and flying
discs I mean the only thing that I well first[16:25] you because of all of the disinformation that has
gone on over the years it's just like what you're[16:32] saying about the the aliens is somebody basically
wasting our time by throwing something out that[16:38] they know is irrelevant uh or just basically a
hoax uh but that said there are many many now[16:48] stories of real materials that are on the inside
and my push and this is I think this is to to the[16:55] extent that people in the audience want want this
as a subject matter to go away is you want a you[17:02] want a definitive statement from the government
that the material does or does not exist if it[17:09] does exist then I don't even need for that to
be given to anybody in the public but you would[17:15] want a confirmatory statement that it does exist
Lou alzando has said publicly as have others that[17:25] he believes the United States government is in
possession of exotic materials Dr Eric Davis whom[17:32] I know you know very eminent physicist has also
said that he believes that the US government has[17:38] recovered craft MH do you think that the United
States government is secretly holding technology[17:46] non-human technology I mean the best way I can put
it is that I can see no reason that any of these[17:54] people would lie especially Eric Davis uh and
Lou and in let's say more private conversations[18:01] that I've had with them I've pressed them on the
issue because I've said you know look I'm putting[18:07] myself out there uh I am taking your word for it
uh and I'm putting myself out there and pushing[18:13] the notion that this needs to be studied so in
my heart it's more maybe it's more of a hope that[18:20] it exists because I'm excited about the potential
of what we can learn if it's true that the United[18:27] States government really does have a spacecraft
an alien spacecraft of some kind tucked away in[18:33] a cave at Area 51 it means that while we may not
know how to operate it or how to reverse engineer[18:41] it we might have the secret of anti-gravity of
free energy yeah I mean so for the audience when[18:53] you look at an object that can move like this at
least two things are three things are occurring[18:58] ing one the objects can move and accelerate uh
to 5,000 mph instantly and decelerate okay so[19:06] whoever is in there didn't get squished and so
therefore they have control over momentum uh as[19:14] well as gravity these things can hover so for me
the open question is uh okay what's the propulsion[19:21] Source because uh as a physicist another physicist
has published if you were to take an object assume[19:27] it's one ton of weight and you were to Move It
instantaneously from 50 feet to 14 miles into[19:32] space which there has been observations of this
the total energy required for that instantaneous[19:38] acceleration and deceleration is more than the
nuclear output basically of the whole planet[19:43] for a year so okay and they're doing it apparently
every second and this is real it's happening it's[19:49] it is it is observed visually by individuals at
least the instantaneous disappearance of the thing[19:56] but then it is observed by radar and other uh
electronic means to be occurring it's interesting[20:04] because one of the most important bases that
America has for monitoring things in orbit and[20:11] things on the ground that might be signs of ICBM
launches is Pine Gap in Australia right and there[20:17] are other bases like Northwest cape in Western
Australia that's been the location for some very[20:23] very weird paranormal phenomena giant Craft um
even military records recording observations of[20:31] spheres over the base M at times of acute deathcon
height heightening during the Middle East War the[20:39] Chinese are taking an interest in this very
sensitive Australian military base that is[20:45] actually used by America to contact its nuclear
submarines in the event of nuclear war what do[20:51] you know about China's secret UFO program right
do you think they know do you think the Chinese[20:57] and the Russian know more than the Chinese have
admitted that they have a program to investigate[21:01] this openly they have admitted that do you think
they've recovered the same technology that the US[21:07] has I wouldn't be surprised I mean Brazil has
had events Italy has had events Russia has had[21:13] events don't think they're avoiding China there's
a cold war going on behind the scenes isn't there[21:19] the Russians and the Chinese want to know what the
Americans know and the Russians want to know sorry[21:23] the Americans want to know what the Russians and
Chinese know right well it's a you know it's um[21:29] in in science you know when I have a competitor
that I'm having lunch with we're both probing[21:34] and trying to get the others information so we
can put together the answer first you explain to[21:42] me sir as a scientist if a country could Master
the technology that lies behind this phenomenon[21:49] mhm how important is that technology well it's
I mean it's a game Cher obviously I mean but[21:56] it's also I mean individually a threat I mean so
if you have anti-gravity and and you give it to[22:03] everybody anybody could go out to the asteroid
belt and push something our way and cause a big[22:09] problem if you have access to the supposed levels
of energy that these things require to move around[22:16] everybody's got a bomb you know that is you know
of dangerous levels of consequence so if if you're[22:23] asking questions why might the US government
want to limit knowledge of this they have a[22:28] perfectly good reason for doing so and that's
it that they realize that we're it's dangerous[22:35] to play with this but do you think part of the
issue now is that the game's up yes the Americans[22:39] know that it's too well known about now there's
been too many verifications of this phenomenon[22:45] to ignore itm yeah I mean I the short answer is
yes that and the you know there's an avalanche of[22:52] information that's coming uh that we're seeing
it day by day right I mean we have as you know[23:00] the US government coming out and saying we now
are creating a an internal secret channel for[23:05] people to break their ndas and come forward and
give information to Congress they've publicly put[23:12] in the record now for funding to bring it says
exactly this cadres of scientists to the table[23:21] who can have classification to study this right
so they're basically admitting we don't have the[23:27] answers but we want to bring scientists in now
I'm going to take a little bit of credit for[23:32] that because I actually wrote a white paper uh to
these internal groups that said exactly this that[23:38] we need to bring in scientists in a classified
manner to work on this so you don't think the[23:43] Americans have secretly cracked anti-gravity and
got a working spacecraft to a cave some I just[23:48] I I don't think so I but who knows I I if they
have Kudos be pretty outrageous if they've kept[23:57] it quiet for this long well it yes it would be I
mean but I don't know I don't know what to say to[24:03] that I mean it's it's uh it'd be the Holy Grail
wouldn't it if signed Discover it would be well[24:09] I mean if they have cracked gravity it means they
have an understanding of gravity that we don't[24:15] even today have in our current physics we don't
even understand gravity today with all of the[24:20] equations that get thrown around by physicists so
why isn't this more mainstream I mean why is this[24:25] still such a stigmatized issue why why is it that
in private company when one admits that one has[24:31] an interest in uaps unidentified aerial phenomena
there's normally somebody in the group who makes[24:37] a silly smirk and talks about Little Green Men
right why do we do that well I think years of[24:43] decades frankly of this kind of disinformation and
purposeful uh dimunition of people's opinions has[24:50] had its uh logical outcome but it's unjustified
I think it's totally unjustified I mean and from[24:57] a scientific point of view and i' because I
of course have been approached by scientific[25:00] colleagues that said Garry you're going to ruin
your reputation with this and my immediate answer[25:05] is what scientist takes a possible explanation
off the table especially when you've got so many[25:10] people credible individuals saying that this is
something that's happening so why not investigate[25:15] it and anyway it's my time so why is it your
business to tell me what I should be doing why[25:21] do you think there is such hostility to the idea
of investigating the possibility of non-human[25:27] intelligent life well that would put us not at
the top of the food chain first of all and from[25:32] a from a religious point of view it's a context uh
Clash that okay uh well if these things exist and[25:42] they're there where do they fit in the hierarchy
to angels and God if that's your religion let's[25:48] talk about that do you think that possibly
what we're talking about here might be what[25:53] our religions describe as God uh or Angels and
Demons so that you know you need an explanation[26:00] for something so you put it into your whatever
your current mythology is because the suggestion[26:06] that's being made by a lot of people who claim
to have had experiences with the phenomenon is[26:11] that whoever they are this Superior intelligence
is tinkering with human DNA yeah I you know I've[26:19] had a lot of people come to me about the whole DNA
thing and are they you know I I think there's a[26:24] lot more ways you can guide a species other than
Direct ly interacting with its DNA I mean look[26:29] at what we've done with dogs over just a few
tens of thousands of years can I ask you one[26:33] thing I read a Hungarian scientist's paper he's a
mathematician and he looked at the probabilities[26:38] of DNA sequences and he suggested that there are
anomalies in human DNA that suggests some kind[26:45] of intervention is this the wow signal paper okay
yeah what's your take on that well mathematically[26:52] it's sound uh the only problem is that if you're
let's say if you're a reader of Richard Dawkins[27:00] and the selfish Gene and how complexity can arise
out of selection uh the counter to the mathematics[27:08] is that selection can create something which is
statistically low the the thing that I find most[27:15] interesting though about that the the wow signal
in the DNA code is how ordered it is in terms of[27:24] like if somebody were to sit down and say this
is how I want to design something I'm going to[27:27] design it in a nicely ordered way it is strangely
ordered which the only way you can I think uh[27:34] countenance it is to say there's something about
the structure of life that required that order so[27:41] you either created the order because you designed
it or the structure of Life required it and that's[27:47] why it came out to be looking like somebody
made it because when you think about Christian[27:52] theology Islam a lot of the great religions all
of it's about Superior beings coming from the[28:01] sky MH there's often as in Ezekiel in the Bible
descriptions of strange craft a lot of it does[28:08] sound like UFOs uaps well jacqu valet actually
took that uh approach in his book The wonders[28:15] in the sky where he went back literally uh into
the libraries to get the original documents from[28:22] the scientists and Statesmen of the day who had
recorded these events which if you basically just[28:29] changed the or translated the words they were
basically had encountered UFOs at the time of[28:36] shields in the sky Etc and then Diana Pula on the
other side of things has looked at this um from[28:42] the standpoint what what got her interested was
she was actually originally studying the ecstasies[28:47] of the Saints she's a theologian of Catholicism
she was studying the ecstasies of the Saints and[28:53] very often their interaction with angels as they
said and but she found fascinating is that many[28:58] of these angels showed up as white orbs and then
it kind of clicked in her head that this was the[29:03] same story of people who were seeing UFOs white
orbs that would come and interact with them so[29:11] here you have a religious tradition a couple
of thousand years old very well written where[29:16] we lawed people and turned them into Saints
for their interaction with orbs of light and[29:22] yet when you turn around and hear it from the
neighbor down the street uh they're ridiculous[29:29] how much of your position on the phenomenon has
been informed by your own personal experience I[29:37] mean so I have I did see an object very close up
when I was a kid I didn't know what it was can[29:43] you tell me that story so I was a paper boy uh
this was in Connecticut Windsor Connecticut uh[29:50] and there was a man at the end of the of the one
of the streets uh who needed his paper by 5:30[29:56] in the morning uh and so I would always be there
so I knew about the time it was dark it was March[30:02] or so uh and I would deliver I delivered his
paper and then there was basically a cops of[30:08] woods through which I had to walk to get to the
next street to walk the other way delivered the[30:13] papers there um and uh because it was March uh
there were no leaves on the trees and as I was[30:21] walking through the woods I could see my shadow in
front of me and the Shadows of the branches around[30:26] me which first kind of caught me off guard because
it I don't I didn't remember the Moon being out[30:33] but what was more I guess dramatic was that the
Shadows began to move uh as they got as uh as I[30:40] was walking and they were moving as if the there
was a light behind me that was moving which caused[30:46] me to look up and see an object right at the
top of the trees go right over my head silently[30:52] Now sort of object it just was a kind of roundish
object with I remember kind of like four or five[30:59] whitish lights pointing down uh and but you know
I think I can't even remember how old I was 10 or[31:06] 12 whatever whatever it was no I wasn't scared
because I didn't know what it was and I didn't[31:12] immediately say in myself I mean this would have
been 1972 73 uh and uh I didn't say oh there was[31:20] a UFO because I didn't even know what a UFO was
and it really wasn't until about 20 years or so[31:26] later that as I paid attention as anybody does to
movies and things and UFOs and it kind of clicked[31:34] in my head I said wait what was was that what I
saw and so you know this is that story is like[31:42] the story of of many people and so I now look at
that as let's I would call it again preliminary[31:51] evidence preliminary data said okay well that's
worth understanding and if other people are seeing[31:56] the same thing that that's a kind of confirmation
so why are these people being derided for just[32:03] reporting what they've seen because if it is
something else like that it should be it should[32:09] interest any scientist in my mind you have had
other experiences too haven't you yeah can you[32:16] talk about those you know this is probably the
more unusual one and again it's I I'm hardly the[32:22] only individual to have had this is you wake up
as a as a young boy I would have been probably[32:28] six or seven cuz it was in our first house uh
that we my parents had bought in Windsor uh of[32:35] little men in the bedroom you know I mean uh I was
awake I knew they were there I could see them uh[32:44] scared I can't remember being scared but
I remember telling my parents the next day[32:51] about it could it have been a dream it could
have been a dream but when when so here's the[32:57] interesting thing I saw these little men in
the uh in the bedroom um and uh it went on[33:05] for I guess a few weeks and then it just stopped
um so I promptly forgot about it it did but but[33:13] what was what was critical was about 20 years
again later actually here in paloalto I was at[33:21] a used bookstore uh and I pulled out uh a book uh
and I'm pretty sure it was it was either John Max[33:30] or Whitley striber book communion communion and
there on the front cover was and I can feel the[33:37] hair on my arms going up was what I saw that's the
classic gray I and I remember I dropped the book[33:48] because it was like whoa and it was uh it was a
revelation I guess as the but but then you know[33:56] but then I'm also I've I've read young right and
the collective unconscious and so you know part[34:03] of my uh self-explanation for what it was that I
was seeing was just some collective unconscious[34:11] genetic memory uh that we all have it has nothing
to do with anything from outside so being a good[34:19] scientist you can't say it was ET can't absolutely
not yeah it made you think it made me think I mean[34:25] and you know I think being a scientist is all
about being willing to ask the difficult question[34:33] has that informed your willingness to look at the
possibility that the phenomenon is some kind of[34:38] life form absolutely I mean what could be more
interesting about studying life on this planet[34:49] uh and how our ecology has been constructed
than to compare it to the Ecology of another[34:57] planet right two things are always more important
than one in science that if you can find a confir[35:02] a confirmation that life has started elsewhere it
means first of all that we're not unique and then[35:09] begs the question of of all of the other things
that we're seeing out there how many other places[35:14] has life originated so you had another experience
in London that I thought was quite important right[35:20] yeah that was an interesting one because you know
for no good reason uh lying there in the bed in[35:26] the hotel I woke up with my entire body buzzing
uh uh like uh I was sitting in an electric water[35:35] bath uh and I've you know I've been in Japan for
instance where electric water baths are the kind[35:40] of the thing this was a very different experience
everything from the tip of my fingers down to the[35:44] tips of my toes ears I could feel this buzzing
um I could hear it but at the moment of waking[35:53] up there were and I don't even can't even call
called them words there was a let's say there[35:59] was words in my head that said this is how you
connect whoa and it but it wasn't that wasn't[36:08] the word but that's the best translation of the
moment uh and after about 10 to 15 seconds of[36:14] this I just you know and this is why I don't
think it was physiologic necessarily uh some[36:20] sort of odd physiologic effect I I just said this
has to stop make it stop and it did that suggests[36:31] to me that the phenomenon's trying to engage with
you I mean it it could be but again it's it's I[36:39] can't imagine why I would be so important that it
would take any time to do so can I ask you this[36:45] this there are scientists people in defense people
in intelligence in government that I've spoken to[36:51] in Australia who've all admitted to me they've
had weird I guess you could call them paranormal[36:59] experiences some of them are UAP some of them
involve entities such as what you're talking about[37:06] what's your advice to people like those I think
the advices don't be ashamed first of all don't[37:13] feel that you need to come forward uh with it but
I think uh the advice is uh others have seen it[37:23] so you can believe that you're not crazy I think
that's the first thing to do but then take solace[37:33] in the fact that the US government and other
governments are now coming forward and saying that[37:37] well you know what this is real and it's worth
studying the one thing I've learned from reading[37:44] about quantum physics is that there's a hell of a
lot of science that we still don't understand yeah[37:51] like Newtonian ideas of physics no longer really
have much application when you start talking about[37:57] the quantum World true yes absolutely well I
mean it for uh thousands of years even going[38:04] back to Plato uh you know we would think of the
atom uh as an object right we think of even up[38:11] until when I was a graduate stud I mean even
not a graduate student a student in college uh[38:17] we would think of them as solid forms but now we
realize they're all waves and uh that a particle[38:23] doesn't exist in any one place it actually exists
in a superposition in many places at once now one[38:29] thing you've been doing is you've been looking at
the brains of experiences you've been using MRI[38:35] imaging right have you reached any conclusions
about whether people who've been exposed to[38:40] the phenomenon have characteristics so I kind of
turned the question around in a different way so[38:47] what we've done is looking at these individuals
we found that there is a bundle of nerves at[38:54] the head of the CATE and paman in their basil
ganglia this is an important area of the brain[38:59] that has to do with sensory uh perceptions uh and
actually integration of that information for goal[39:05] seeking the executive function says I want to do
something it gets passed down to this area this[39:11] area says well what in my environment do I need
to access or know about to accomplish that goal[39:17] and then it creates a a set of goals sub goals
to accomplish the the desired outcome um so uh[39:26] this area of the brain uh and especially this one
area at the head of the C inment had overdeveloped[39:33] interactions uh with this with compared to normals
there was a density of neuronal structure there[39:40] and is that a positive thing well it's a positive
thing in so far as the individuals that we were[39:45] working with would be considered high functioning
individuals right so these are all people who came[39:50] from the intelligence agencies they Pilots
uh High LEL physicists uh you know basically[39:58] smart people and so from that standpoint it was
fascinating because that that said that um that[40:07] just the study of people who might have had these
interactions revealed something about the human[40:14] brain that people at the time didn't know but now
has been confirmed not only by us but by multiple[40:22] other Laboratories who have nothing to do with
paranormal aspects of this but have shown that[40:26] the CATE is involved in intuition and uh and um
intelligence now why it's important is that is[40:34] intimately involved with perception and so if
perception is about seeing something that's in[40:40] front of you and not ignoring it then maybe you
have part of the solution why certain people see[40:46] something that others don't and we all know the
story the one of the gorilla walking across the[40:52] stage right so these people who are having these
experien with unidentified aerial phenomena they[41:01] actually have differences in their brain in some
of the cases you've seen that might explain why[41:05] they're seeing them yeah that they're basically
smarter and they realize what's sitting in front[41:10] of them and they don't ignore it I mean that
doesn't mean that they're magic it just means[41:17] that they see something for what it is and so
that does I mean people have asked me well is[41:22] this area of the brain created by the interaction
no because in some of the individuals we actually[41:27] were able to go back and look at their MRIs
10 years earlier and see that they still had[41:30] it they're born with it and what's fascinating
is it runs in families I was going to say have[41:36] you tested yourself yes yes my family has it we're
way up on the scale there's one physicist I know[41:44] who's like twice as much as so it's my my mother
my brother and my sister we all because the I mean[41:50] since I did the documentary last year and wrote
my book I've been Amazed by the number of people[41:55] who've told me that the phenomenon of citing these
objects and having these weird experiences that[42:01] I suppose you could call them paranormal it runs
in the family yeah Mom had it Dad had it Granddad[42:07] had it yeah it's quite common isn't it yeah I
mean and so I would I wouldn't turn it into a a[42:12] movie script of some sort of magical ability it's
just if it's a feature of intelligence uh then uh[42:21] no surprise that it gets passed down family to
family but what I find fascinating is is almost[42:26] like it's it's a it's a dominant trait because
um if it's a multigenic trait multiple genes all[42:33] coming together to enable a certain what we would
call phenotype um it would be much more disparate[42:39] and less likely to be passed within immediate
families but the most interesting thing is this[42:45] it's found in about one in 100 people on average
to one in 200 people in a group of about let's say[42:51] 20 people we found two husband wife pairs both of
whom had it okay do the statistics if it's one in[42:59] 100 to basically find the other person in that
one in 100 randomly is 100 squared a thousand[43:06] right or 10,000 sorry um and so but to have two
people find it in the same group is an even bigger[43:14] statistical uh flaw or anomaly so what does that
mean it means that these people are either in a[43:21] limited breeding group right they all went to
the same school and they're smart or they're[43:26] somehow attracted to each other that's smart
people or attracted to other smart people so[43:30] what does that do uh from an A really fascinating
evolutionary point of view this is what you would[43:37] call the beginnings of speciation so speciation
is when you have a uniform breeding population and[43:43] let's say a mountain range over time comes between
them they now are separated no longer in breeding[43:49] they go in their own directions so people who are
attracted to UFOs are attracted to each other in[43:56] a way yeah or capable of seeing let's just say
capable of seeing I wouldn't say that they're[44:00] attracted to UFOs I would say that they're that
they're I I would just say in the simplest point[44:05] of view that this area of the brain which has
now been replicated in numbers of of studies the[44:12] cod8 especially uh and size and interactions
is related to intuition and intelligence are[44:18] smart people are attracted to other smart people
Garry the the one area that I've wrestled with as[44:24] a journalist in this field is dealing with people
who claim to have been abducted people who claim[44:32] experiences with humanoid entities right and my
gut instinct is to immediately be dismissive to[44:42] say it's rubbish this can't possibly be true how
do we even begin to investigate claims like that[44:52] I you know I struggle with it as well you know
I hear hear these stories I know people who've[44:57] made these claims um the problem is that there is
no or rarely any residual evidence of the event[45:08] right and uh you know others have said well why
didn't they pick up a pen you know an alien pen[45:13] and bring it back I I I don't know but you have a
psychological trauma of some sort that's occurred[45:21] you know again people would call it maybe a screen
memory uh for a traumatic event that was otherwise[45:27] best Earthly explained uh I don't know what to
do about it I I I really don't except just to[45:34] say that it's just more evidence on a pile that
needs to be understood which is why we were drawn[45:40] to the story of Jim from Texas okay Jim's a guy
who claims to have had abduction experiences ever[45:48] since he was a little boy he describes beings
with big heads gray aliens coming through the[45:54] wall to to take him away mhm some of it sounds
Fantastical and then all of a sudden he tells[46:03] us he's got this sphere this object that he was
given by a friend that the friend saw fall from[46:11] a UFO a craft of some kind now we're not saying
let's be clear we're not saying that Jim's got[46:20] extraterrestrial technology or alien Tech but
what can we do do to objectively investigate[46:28] that as a scientist yourself well I have seen the
videos that you've seen of this ball spontaneously[46:37] rolling around the floor and Jim has apparently
had this for 40 years and and so why would it move[46:46] what kinds of uh propulsion inside might we use
to conventionally explain it well you can imagine[46:54] some sort of movement winds up a spring you put
it on the ground uh and that is why it moves[47:00] around at some level but um why would anybody make
something like that and why would anybody expose[47:07] thems to public ridicule by claiming that that
it's alien technology well the most interesting[47:11] thing about this story is and uh you know uh that
the the metal sphere story came to my attention[47:22] because of a gentleman in England had been
noticing in a lot of the pictures of claimed UFOs[47:30] that they were often you'd have the central object
and then there would be at least three or four of[47:36] these metal spheres uh that would be surrounding
and almost as if they were scouts or guards um[47:42] and it's fascinating because he could go back 30
40 years and find this exact same phenomenon you[47:49] would have the central UFO and then you would have
three or four spheres around it so you could uh[47:58] claim that any individual picture was a UFO but
this story of the Spheres these objects really[48:05] didn't happen until recently so how did a hoaxer
multiple hoaxers know five decades ago to not[48:13] only put a UFO in the picture to put put four or
five spheres because I have never heard this story[48:18] before and I've read a lot you've heard of the
bits spheres I've heard of them I don't know as[48:24] much about it as I need to there family in Florida
in the mid 1970s who found in a forest a metallic[48:32] ball slightly smaller than the one that we've
seen but nonetheless a solid metallic sphere MH[48:41] um it did the same sort of things that are being
described by Jim it moved around on its own accord[48:48] in the house and um uh became the subject of great
hilarity and Fascination by different media and[48:55] indeed the US US military got involved and at one
stage they admitted that they couldn't explain it[49:01] I can't remember did they take it and return they
did the US Navy took it for testing and apparently[49:06] when it came back it didn't work anymore it didn't
work anymore they probably just substituted it[49:10] for something else so um I mean I as you know i'
I'd love to get my hands on one of these things[49:17] and uh investigate it well we've got samples that
we'd like to give you in your lab we took as you[49:23] suggested some scrapings of the corrosion on the
side of the sphere what could you do with those I[49:29] mean I would do the same kind of mass spectrometry
experiments that I've done before uh and then also[49:36] there's a there's a kind of um non-destructive
analysis you can do it's kind of it's called an[49:43] electron back scatter uh approach to determine
what some of the elements are um any Mass Petry[49:50] approach is inherently partly destructive
so I would be using the least of the dest[49:55] destructive uh approaches for this now one thing
I hadn't thought about we we were obviously at[50:01] one stage Keen when we were in texus to get this
thing scanned in some way but obviously if there[50:07] is I mean a remote possibility that this is some
kind of Technology it's not just a steel ball mhm[50:14] nobody's going to put it into a scanner until
they know what's inside it well I wouldn't put[50:18] it in a scanner unless that scanner was in the
middle of a field surrounded by concrete because[50:22] I wouldn't want something bad to happen so it's a
big issue how on Earth can we prove what Jim says[50:28] about that object so I think there are very simple
mobile scanners that you you know might cost a few[50:35] thousand dollars that you wouldn't mind losing
uh first of all uh to see if there's any kind of[50:41] um structure inside of the object you know as you
know you you measured the weight uh you measured[50:47] the circumference we could figure out what the
density was uh was the density significant to[50:52] you it wasn't pure iron that basically that the
size of it if it were iron or anything else it[51:01] it uh it wasn't pure iron which means it's a
manufactured alloy of some it's a manufactured[51:05] alloy or or it is has Steel on the outside and it
has something else on the inside now one of the[51:10] explanations that was given for the bits ball
when it was discovered in the 1970s was that[51:15] it was part of a ball valve that it was identical
to or similar to a ball valve that's found inside[51:22] some industrial technology I that's possible with
this one it is it's always the story and then the[51:31] provence of the uh object and how long uh you do
you trust the story and uh and is there any other[51:40] anomalous behavior of the object well it does move
around and so I kind of find that fascinating um[51:48] it makes me wonder why and we've talked about you
know conventional ways it could still do something[51:54] like that cuz it's possible I mean we we all
conceded when we saw it it was moving around[52:01] within a few minutes of when we put it on the
ground it appeared to be stopped it appeared to[52:06] be stable but then somehow it started moving so
maybe it was movement from us walking across the[52:12] floor or something like that that made it move
we can't exclude that possibility right um is[52:18] there a machine even assuming one can get access
to be allowed to use the machine but is there a[52:24] machine that can look through still oh yeah oh
yeah I mean that's a standard I mean you know[52:30] whether anybody would let you do it is really the
question um but I would say that uh you know there[52:38] are people I know uh in the government that would
have such instrumentation that would I don't know[52:44] if Jim would let the government have it to be I
know that's the that's part of the problem um I'm[52:49] not sure I would want to get it to them either you
know uh but we'll see when you say the government[52:55] been involved in a cover up do you think they've
been concealing oh yes it's an amazing I I I I[53:02] know it for a fact I mean I just know that why why
do you know that because I've spoken to the people[53:07] who are about to come out and and whistleblow on
it wow so you know what's coming yeah so there has[53:14] been a cover up yeah and there has been an active
cover up and what's nice actually frankly about[53:20] the transparency is uh the um uh machinations
and maneuvering of the people who've been keping[53:29] keeping things behind the scenes there the light
has been shown on them I mean just just look at[53:35] what the Department of Defense announced last week
they announced an office to study the phenomenon[53:44] money put aside they've said we're going to go
back to 1947 which is incredible that's the date[53:50] of Roswell yeah 1947 we want a list of every uh
every operation that you've done to disinform and[54:00] misinform we want and this is fascinating that
they did this we want a list of all of the ndas[54:06] the non-disclosure agreements that uh have been
instituted around these kinds of programs why is[54:13] that interesting it's not the ndas themselves
it's the people who signed the M ndas because[54:20] that then is the paper trail to the individuals
and the programs in which that they're associated[54:25] are you aware of a document called The Admiral
Wilson document yes do you think it's genuine[54:30] yes wow I mean I know Eric Davis and um you know
Eric is uh of a kind of character that is just[54:41] impossible for him to lie the significance of that
document is that the former immediate director of[54:48] the defense intelligence agency Admiral Thomas
Wilson allegedly had a conversation with with Dr[54:55] Eric Davis a renowned physicist where he imparted
his discovery that there was a secret UFO reverse[55:04] engineering program going on inside the US
government where they were hiding recovered[55:10] spacecraft mhm and it was being hidden in private
Aerospace in a private Aerospace Corporation the[55:18] journalist in me Garry thinks Americans can't keep
secrets I mean everything leaks in this country[55:24] and this is an example of it okay so you take
that point yeah ultimately it did leak ultimately[55:30] it leaked but was interesting was that how it was
found it was found in Edgar Mitchell's uh effects[55:38] after he died uh so it wasn't like anybody went
out of their way to put it out there and it Apollo[55:45] 14 astronaut yeah and Eric Davis had written it
and I don't know what the story was as to how[55:53] Edgar uh got m do Dr Mitchell got a hold of it but
nobody was looking to actively reveal this it was[56:00] the work of journalists who finally got a hold of
Edgar's materials who decided to release it um so[56:09] it it why would Eric Davis lie about writing
something that he never intended to go public[56:15] in the first place he was just doing what an
intelligence agent does on a regular basis which[56:22] is write reports of what it is that they've been
doing and Eric conspicuously has never made any[56:26] comment one way or the other about the veracity of
the document right well he can't can he he can't[56:34] but well before this came to light I already knew
of the document so uh because you know Eric was[56:45] part of a group that I was associated with around
this the implications of that are mindblowing[56:51] Garry I mean this conversation you told me that
you you you believe on evidence that there is a[56:59] non-human intelligence of advanced technology
on this planet right Advanced capabilities now[57:05] I don't know whether it's a technology per se
because I'm leaving open the idea that it's some[57:11] form of Consciousness that is non-material and I
know my say to my colleagues out there I know this[57:18] all sounds absolutely crazy but if you've seen
the things that I've seen you would only be able[57:24] to come to a similar conclusion uh you know I and
I know again my reputation takes a hit I'm sure[57:31] that there are you know prizes and other things
that I am never going to get because I'm talking[57:37] about this that's nowhere near as important as the
subject matter to me the best science isn't it is[57:44] when you go against the grain yeah well that's
the you know Thomas cun's book the structure of[57:50] scientific revolutions uh eventually the anomalies
and the things that don't fit the picture add up[57:58] to the point where you can't ignore it anymore
and so that's what has just recently happened[58:04] we're watching a cunan moment this is huge isn't
it we're at a huge moment in human history right[58:11] now to me I mean either it's a gigantic F of
do right uh it's a f of bazillion people or[58:21] it's real and so on the off chance that it's real
I'm willing to spend uh any amount of time doing[58:30] it I mean you know the the you the Mega Millions
Power Ball is this weekend uh guess who went down[58:37] and bought 20 even though I know that there's
like you know one in a 300 million chance that[58:42] I'm going to get it and I bet you'd spend all the
money on science I probably would yeah I wouldn't[58:47] be doing my job Garry if I didn't come back to
the fact that you've told me you've spoken to[58:52] some of the whistleblowers mhm how hard has it
been for them to come out of the black world and[58:58] admit that they know about a government cover up
well it has I think it's been extremely difficult[59:04] for them um up until what Lou alzando and Chris
melon have accomplished right basically getting[59:11] the US government to come out and create now uh uh
an atmosphere of allowance to talk about it I mean[59:22] it happened even like a two years ago with the
Navy where they said now we want you to tell us[59:28] about these events that you're seeing we we we
want you to stop hiding it do you believe that[59:34] though I mean I'm sorry I'm very cynical about
the idea that elements of the US armed forces[59:38] have suddenly undergone a religious conversion
and decided that they want to be disclosure[59:43] activists I just don't buy it I mean I think the
US Air Force in particular is trying to gag this[59:49] whole story isn't it yes but I mean you just use
the word religious experience I mean it's uh I[59:55] mean I hate to say it it's it's pretty well known
that the people within the government who are the[01:00:01] most uh the most anti- letting of this information
out are religious fundamentalists who believe that[01:00:09] this is I mean talk about crazy they're the ones
who think it's the devil yeah right so so they're[01:00:14] saying it's demonic I I've actually had people
with conversations with people in the US Air Force[01:00:19] who've told me this is demonic you shouldn't be
looking at this this is evil right and and uh so[01:00:28] how do you counter that kind of uh world view um
to me even if it is demonic I want to understand[01:00:38] what they're doing and what their intent is well
that was my next question do you think on the[01:00:43] evidence it's well intentioned whatever it is I
think it's uh neutral to be honest it's ambivalent[01:00:51] to that it's ambivalent and you know if we kind of
get in the way of whatever it is they're doing uh[01:00:57] you can get hurt do you think the others whatever
they are these aliens that you believe are here do[01:01:06] you think they want to be known about well they're
obviously not doing much uh to hide themselves[01:01:12] right I think they're showing us what they can
do right they they do show up they''re showing[01:01:17] up around the nuclear sites we all know this now
we've seen them over bases in Australia right[01:01:23] we've seen seen them around the USS limits and uh
it happens multiple times a week I mean even today[01:01:30] and I've been speaking with people about that
by definition that's a threat isn't it yeah it[01:01:35] doesn't mean they're going to kill us but it's by
definition a threat because they're breaching the[01:01:40] security of some of the most sensitive military
installations on the planet right and I I guess[01:01:45] what they're saying is Well who said this was
your space anyway you know but but but I mean[01:01:51] but so why the interest in nuclear sites I mean I
I've said this before that um you know so Humanity[01:01:59] I think is on the verge of leaving the planet
as we know and I think any intelligence that[01:02:04] would be looking at us from the outside that's
been around as long as perhaps they have knows[01:02:09] what the trajectory of humanity might be uh and
that would be to move out into the solar system[01:02:14] and maybe eventually even if it takes conventional
means to accomplish it move out into other stars[01:02:19] so here we are a planet full of angry monkeys uh
and uh we can't even take care of our own planet[01:02:27] and we're threatening to move out into the you
know nearby you know galactic arm you know might[01:02:33] take us a thousand 10,000 years to do it maybe our
neighbors uh want to know uh what it is that we're[01:02:39] capable of doing there's a document I wrote about
in my book called slide nine and Chris Millan had[01:02:48] accidentally left it on his website and it was
discovered by a very clever British researcher[01:02:52] who was just going through and checking to see
what Chris had on his website it's a document[01:02:57] that was prepared as a briefing document for
the under Secretary of Defense by members of[01:03:03] the UFO task force I think Lando's team MH the key
thing about it is that it advises that whatever[01:03:13] the phenomenon is it's capable of manipulating
human perception mhm human consciousness right[01:03:22] it can make us see things that are there mhm
do you think that's possibly what we're seeing[01:03:28] in the sky in the form of I mean I think that's
part of what makes it so difficult to reproduce[01:03:33] is that different people see different things I
mean the best example of this that I know uh is[01:03:39] a a story that Jack uh valet brought to me of a
family in uh France driving down the highway uh[01:03:47] this was like in the last 5 to 10 years and uh
they had a a glass topped car and they look up[01:03:54] and they see a UFO you know basically paralleling
them down the highway the mother looks around and[01:04:00] sees that no other individuals nearby are freaking
out about this thing above them the children in[01:04:06] the back take out their cell phones take a picture
of it they get home and they look at the pictures[01:04:12] on their camera and they don't see an object
they see a little star-shaped thing about 30[01:04:18] so feet above it and I have the picture uh that
doesn't look anything like a drone it's like a[01:04:23] I think it has like seven Spokes and a a central
hole of some sort so you're you're left with this[01:04:32] they saw a giant craft but the picture shows
that there was nothing else there nobody else[01:04:36] could see it so even if it was an object it was
that was there others weren't capable of seeing[01:04:43] it so it was manipulating Vision so yes is the
short answer there's a possibility Garry that you[01:04:51] are one of the few scientists in the world who who
are investigating what is potentially the biggest[01:04:56] scientific discovery of all time isn't there yes
and what I actually hope to find let's say is that[01:05:04] on the inside there are other scientists who've
been working on this problem for way more years[01:05:10] than I've even been interested in it and they
can basically I'd be perfectly happy with them[01:05:15] stepping forward and taking the Limelight because
it's not about what I want to find it's about what[01:05:22] is and if others are there which already know
it let's catch everybody else up so Jim let's[01:05:30] talk about Jim for Texas right Jim's happy to
be interrogated he wants to be challenged MH[01:05:38] he he's so thrilled that there might be any kind
of scientific investigation into what he says is[01:05:45] there interest in having a look at what he's
got oh absolutely I would but again it's the[01:05:50] resources and capability have to be there I'm not
going to go down down there and ask him to give me[01:05:55] the thing and then I just take it home and wait to
you know set up the kinds of analyses that need to[01:06:01] be done if when you've got a laboratory that will
accept absolutely this technology and be able to[01:06:07] scan it properly you'll do it oh absolutely why
not you know I mean I have looked at many things[01:06:13] over the years you probably the you know some of
your listeners might know the aama mummy example[01:06:20] somebody wanted it to be an alien I said hm let's
use science to study it no it turns out to be uh[01:06:26] unfortunately a uh probably a still birth of some
kind and I I noce Dr Greer has maintained that you[01:06:33] were obviously got at by the intelligence agencies
to stop you from revealing the fact that it was[01:06:38] alien well he he knows where the sample is and the
good thing about science is he could go back and[01:06:43] test it again so the point that you're making is
that you're prepared to be rigorous and challenge[01:06:49] the Believers right when you can prove it there's
actually another uh there they called it the star[01:06:56] child skull uh that I you know basically got my
hands on to look at it also is just human I mean[01:07:04] it's it's not about the most spectacular cases
and this is the same thing in science the best[01:07:10] science is always noticing the points that are
off the curve that are the unexpected because you[01:07:16] first of all you have to explain why that point
is off the curve because it might be something[01:07:19] wrong with your experiment but if it is off the
curve and it's absolutely reproducible then you've[01:07:24] discovered something novel this is what we're
looking at right now it's off the curve if it is[01:07:31] real it is as you say the biggest Discovery uh in
human history but if it is real it's already been[01:07:41] discovered by the governments so let's just get
it over with and get the information out and start[01:07:49] you know bringing the collective uh intelligence
of the planet to study it final question from[01:07:56] what you know of these whistleblowers and the
determination of the people in the Congress and[01:08:02] people like Lando and Chris melan do you think
we're going to get answers soon yes how soon[01:08:11] I I think in the next two years and do you think
there will be public hearings where people reveal[01:08:18] into the Congress what they know whether their
public hearings at the beginning uh no I don't[01:08:26] think but I think there is we are getting ready
for a public announcement wow think and do you[01:08:32] think that Public Announcement might be there is
another life form of Intelligence on this planet[01:08:39] yes I mean that's the only trajectory we've got
I mean I've always said that I've only ever been[01:08:46] interested in studying the inevitable or
working on the inevitable in my science[01:08:51] so I think it's inevitable Professor
Garry Nolan thank you very much thank[01:08:56] you
024 - Environmental Philosopher Michael Zimmerman
The video transcript presents a profound dialogue centered around the philosophical implications of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and the broader questions of consciousness and existence. The conversation features Michael Zimmerman, a distinguished philosopher with a long-standing interest in UAPs and alien abduction phenomena, and the host, who shares a personal affinity for Zimmerman's philosophical insights. This summary synthesizes the various parts of the transcript, exploring the intricate themes and discussions that emerge throughout the conversation.
Part 1: Introduction to UAP and Philosophical Inquiry
The dialogue opens with an introduction to Michael Zimmerman, who has dedicated over three decades to philosophical inquiry, particularly in the realms of environmental philosophy and technology. The host expresses admiration for Zimmerman, citing their shared philosophical background and the critical role of philosophy in addressing profound questions often overlooked by other disciplines. This sets the stage for a discussion that seeks to bridge the gap between philosophical thought and the enigmatic phenomena of UAPs.
The host emphasizes that philosophy is essential for exploring existential questions about reality and existence, paralleling the interests of those who study UAPs, who often feel that significant issues are ignored. Zimmerman's historical involvement in anti-nuclear activism during the 1980s and his encounter with psychiatrist John Mack, known for his research on alien abductions, are highlighted as pivotal moments that sparked his interest in the philosophical implications of such phenomena. This engagement led him to join the Society for UAP Studies, where he could further explore these topics academically.
Zimmerman shares his early fascination with UFOs, influenced by pop culture and science fiction, particularly during the 1950s and 60s. He recounts a formative experience from middle school that ignited his interest in philosophy and identity, leading him to ponder existential questions about humanity's origins and future. This philosophical journey, shaped by his Christian upbringing and the thoughts of figures like Leibniz, underscores the depth of inquiry that drives his exploration of UAPs.
The conversation transitions to the nature of UFOs and the potential existence of non-human intelligent life. Zimmerman reflects on the historical context of UFO sightings, particularly during the Cold War, suggesting that these phenomena may mirror humanity's fears and aspirations. He notes the theatrical quality of many UFO sightings, often involving witnesses who feel personally targeted by the events they experience. This raises questions about the nature of reality and the human experience, inviting a deeper philosophical inquiry into the significance of these phenomena.
Furthermore, the dialogue touches on the psychological and psychic components of UFO phenomena, suggesting that human perception plays a crucial role in interpreting these experiences. Zimmerman mentions a book that draws parallels between UFOs and poltergeist phenomena, proposing that some sightings may be akin to social poltergeists, further complicating our understanding of reality and consciousness. This sets the stage for a comprehensive exploration of UAPs, identity, and consciousness, emphasizing the importance of rigorous inquiry into these often-dismissed subjects.
Part 2: The Complexity of UAP Interpretation
The second part of the transcript delves into the complexities surrounding UAPs and the philosophical implications of how these occurrences are interpreted. The speakers discuss the subjective nature of perception, noting that what individuals observe in the sky—varying colors, shapes, and movements—can be refracted through personal perspectives. This leads to a broader discussion on the role of philosophy in understanding scientific mysteries and the frameworks we use to theorize about phenomena.
One speaker reflects on their journey into UAP studies over the past five to six years, emphasizing the necessity of constructing theories that can adequately explain these phenomena. They express concern that current theories may be limited by existing conceptual frameworks, suggesting that we might not yet possess the vocabulary to articulate what is being observed. While the dominant theory has traditionally posited that UAPs are extraterrestrial spacecraft, the landscape of theories has expanded, prompting a search for the most viable explanations.
The conversation shifts to a recent presentation at the Society for UAP Studies, critiquing the terminology used to describe these phenomena, such as "unidentified flying objects" (UFO) and "unidentified anomalous phenomena" (UAP). The critique centers on the notion that these terms are inherently negative and do not provide a solid foundation for understanding the phenomena. Instead, they are viewed as placeholders that allow for various interpretations without offering concrete hypotheses or evidence.
The speakers explore the potential diversity of UAP phenomena, suggesting that not all sightings may represent the same type of occurrence. They draw parallels to the historical discovery of microbes, where initial classifications were broad and later refined as more was understood about the diversity of life. This leads to the hypothesis that some UAP may indeed be technological crafts, while others could represent entirely different phenomena, including the concept of "cryptoterrestrials"—beings that may inhabit Earth but remain hidden from human perception, particularly in unexplored environments like the deep ocean.
Additionally, the discussion touches on the scientific study of plasma, noting that a significant portion of the universe is composed of plasma, which could account for some of the strange light formations observed in the sky. This raises the possibility that some UAP may not be physical crafts but rather plasma phenomena exhibiting behaviors that remain poorly understood. The conversation emphasizes the need for an interdisciplinary approach that integrates philosophical perspectives into scientific inquiry, particularly in relation to pressing global issues like nuclear arms and environmental sustainability.
The speakers reflect on their backgrounds in philosophy and environmental ethics, highlighting the importance of maintaining a sense of wonder and curiosity about the world. They argue that this sense of wonder can diminish with age, leading to a more cynical view of unexplained phenomena. UAPs can reignite this sense of wonder, prompting deeper inquiry into the nature of reality and the human experience.
Part 3: Personal Experiences and the Study of Abduction Phenomena
The speaker expresses amazement upon reading the preface of a book titled "Abductions," which acknowledges Thomas Kuhn, a childhood friend of the author, for encouraging him to write it. Kuhn advised the author to refrain from jumping to conclusions and to focus on the phenomena itself, emphasizing the importance of not allowing preconceived judgments to influence the understanding of experiences. This perspective resonates with the speaker's approach to studying abduction phenomena.
As the speaker recounts their visits to meet groups of individuals who have had abduction experiences, they note that many were in a state of shock and confusion about the meaning of their encounters. The speaker mentions having access to a large collection of letters—hundreds of them—detailing various experiences, which reveal both unique and common themes among the narratives shared by different individuals. This indicates that personal life experiences significantly influence how each person interprets their encounters, underscoring the subjective nature of these phenomena.
The speaker reflects on their family dynamics, suggesting that they and their siblings may have experienced abductions, as several family members reported similar phenomena. They express a desire to understand their own experiences better, especially in light of their siblings' accounts of strange occurrences, such as bright lights and feelings of unease that seem to align with abduction narratives. This personal connection to the subject matter adds depth to their inquiry and highlights the emotional impact of these experiences.
As the conversation shifts, the speaker acknowledges the discomfort that some listeners may feel regarding the topic of abductions, particularly within the context of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), which typically focuses on a more scientific approach to UAP phenomena. While the organization is open to discussing the nature of encounters, there is a hesitance to delve into abduction experiences due to the lack of scientific tools to analyze them rigorously.
The speaker discusses the challenges of studying abduction experiences, noting that much of the available evidence is based on personal testimony. They argue that testimony is a valid form of evidence, drawing parallels to how scientific knowledge has historically relied on eyewitness accounts before the advent of modern technology. Understanding and receiving testimony compassionately is crucial for exploring these experiences, as many individuals may fear judgment when recounting their stories.
They reference John Mack, a psychiatrist known for his work on abduction phenomena, who emphasized the importance of listening to individuals recount their experiences without skepticism. The speaker mentions a philosopher, Kimberly Engels, who has written about phenomenological approaches to understanding first-person experiences of encounters, further emphasizing the need for compassionate listening and validation of these experiences.
A personal anecdote shared by the speaker involves a vivid dream they had while studying abroad in London, featuring brightly colored birds that left a lasting impression. They speculate whether this dream could be a screen memory related to an abduction experience, noting that they were unaware of abduction literature at the time. Upon seeing the cover of Whitley Strieber's book "Communion," which resonated with their dream, they were triggered to recall similar experiences, highlighting the complex interplay between memory, perception, and interpretation.
Throughout the discussion, the speaker reflects on the broader implications of abduction phenomena, questioning whether these experiences are rare or if they are more common but forgotten. They mention the significant volume of letters received by Strieber and others, indicating a substantial number of individuals who have had similar experiences, yet the true extent of such encounters remains unclear. This uncertainty invites further exploration and understanding of these phenomena, emphasizing the need for open-minded inquiry.
Ultimately, the speaker underscores the importance of listening to and validating the experiences of those who report abductions, recognizing the emotional and psychological impact these experiences have on individuals. They conclude by acknowledging the need for further exploration and understanding of these phenomena while also recognizing the limitations of current scientific approaches to studying them.
Part 4: Funding, Research, and the Nature of Consciousness
The final part of the transcript discusses various topics related to UFOs, consciousness, and the philosophical implications of these phenomena. The conversation begins with a mention of Stony Brook University, which has recently received significant funding, including a multi-million dollar endowment. This funding is expected to support research initiatives, particularly in areas related to UFO studies, signaling a growing interest in the academic exploration of these phenomena.
The discussion transitions to a specific radar report indicating that a craft entered radar detection at an altitude of 80,000 feet, which is notably high. The speakers express skepticism about the feasibility of such an event, particularly the claim that the craft descended to sea level in under a second. They argue that the energy required for such a rapid descent would be immense, potentially equivalent to the energy consumption of all power plants in the U.S. for a day, yet no such energy expenditure was observed. This highlights the challenges faced by researchers in reconciling reported phenomena with established scientific principles.
The speakers reflect on the difficulties encountered by physical scientists in explaining UFO phenomena, noting that the nature of these sightings often seems to defy conventional physics. This leads to questions about the weight of UFOs and the possibility of anti-gravity technology, suggesting that these phenomena exist in a realm that is difficult for humans to comprehend or capture. The elusiveness of UFOs prompts a philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality and the limits of human understanding.
One speaker raises a philosophical question about why more philosophers are not studying UFOs, suggesting that many may be unaware of the evidence supporting their existence. The conversation touches on the initial skepticism many have regarding UFOs, often dismissing them as mere optical illusions or mental illness, influenced by popular media portrayals. This skepticism can hinder open-minded exploration of the subject, emphasizing the need for philosophical engagement with these phenomena.
One of the speakers recounts their personal journey into UFO research, sparked by a book titled "American Cosmic," which discusses the intersection of UFOs, religion, and technology. This book led them to explore a network of scientists and technologists who believe in the reality of UFOs, prompting further investigation into the subject. This personal narrative underscores the transformative potential of engaging with these complex topics.
The dialogue shifts to the nature of consciousness and the mind's power, with speakers discussing how the capabilities of the mind are often underestimated. They explore how experiences related to UFOs might reveal deeper truths about human consciousness, referencing the concept of "siddhis," or extraordinary powers, found in various spiritual traditions. This connection between consciousness and UAP experiences invites a broader understanding of the mind's potential.
The speakers reflect on the historical trajectory of consciousness studies, noting that much of the 20th century was dominated by behaviorism and materialist views that dismissed subjective experiences. They argue that this perspective has limited the understanding of consciousness and the potential for exploring non-materialist explanations. The conversation emphasizes the importance of first-person experiences and subjective accounts in understanding consciousness, critiquing the scientific community's tendency to overlook these experiences due to a lack of empirical tools to study them.
As the discussion draws to a close, the speakers express hope for a resurgence of interest in exploring consciousness from a philosophical standpoint, particularly as new evidence and perspectives emerge. They acknowledge the complexity of human identity and the need for a broader understanding that transcends materialist frameworks. The elusiveness of the mind and consciousness is presented as a compelling area for further exploration, encouraging listeners to consider the implications of UFO phenomena on our understanding of reality and consciousness.
In conclusion, the transcript presents a rich and multifaceted dialogue on the intersections of UFO studies, philosophy, and consciousness. The speakers highlight the need for open-minded exploration of these complex topics, emphasizing the importance of integrating philosophical perspectives into scientific inquiry. As the conversation unfolds, it invites deeper reflection on the nature of reality, the human experience, and the potential for understanding phenomena that challenge conventional frameworks.
The transcript provides a detailed overview of the biographical and professional information about the interviewee, Michael Zimmerman, as shared by the interviewer and himself. Michael Zimmerman is presented as a notable figure in the field of philosophy, specifically at the intersection of philosophy of technology and environmental thought.
According to the interviewer, Zimmerman has held prominent academic positions, being a professor emeritus at both the University of Colorado at Boulder and Tulane University, indicating his extensive experience in higher education. He is described as a foundational figure in establishing environmental philosophy as a serious academic discipline, particularly at a time when the natural world was largely overlooked by philosophers and intellectuals.
His intellectual contributions include the authorship of several influential books and over a hundred articles and chapters, showcasing a prolific engagement with a variety of topics ranging from the dangers of technological civilization to Eastern philosophy and Buddhism. The interviewer highlights that Zimmerman has been involved in UAP research, particularly through his collaboration with the late John Mack, a prominent psychiatrist known for his work on the alien abduction phenomenon.
Zimmerman's involvement in UAP studies is underscored by his current position as a board member of the Society for UAP Studies, where he continues to explore the implications of these phenomena for philosophy, consciousness, and humanity's understanding of the cosmos.
- [01:50] "Michael Zimmerman is professor emeritus of philosophy at both the University of Colorado at Boulder and Tulane University."
- [02:05] "He was among the foundational figures who helped establish environmental philosophy as a serious academic discipline at a time when most philosophers, most intellectuals, weren't paying much attention to the natural world at all."
- [03:33] "He collaborated with Mack until his death. He published academic work on the abduction phenomenon and recently he's published on the UAP subject."
In the transcript, Michael Zimmerman discusses his scientific approach to research concerning UAP, emphasizing the importance of following the evidence with an open mind and philosophical rigor. The interviewer sets the stage for this discussion by introducing the idea that the two share a common interest in understanding the complex nature of UAPs.
Zimmerman's approach is characterized by a commitment to compassionate listening and an acknowledgment of the profound uncertainties surrounding UAP phenomena. He emphasizes the need to take seriously the experiences of individuals who report UAP encounters, noting that the testimonies provided by these individuals are crucial for understanding the phenomena. He states, "the physiological response that people would have when they were recounting these stories is the sort of thing that you only get from real experience." This illustrates his belief in the validity of personal accounts as a form of evidence, even when they cannot be objectively verified.
Moreover, Zimmerman identifies the limitations of current research methodologies in UAP studies. He expresses that much of the available evidence is based on subjective testimony, which is often scrutinized due to its anecdotal nature. However, he argues that this testimony can be scientifically valuable, as it reflects genuine experiences that elicit strong emotional responses. He calls for a rigorous examination of these accounts, urging researchers to remain open to the phenomena's elusive nature, stating, "there's something happened to these people," which suggests the need for a nuanced understanding beyond mere skepticism.
- [01:18] "The frustration of feeling that something deeply important is largely being ignored."
- [01:31] "The physiological response that people would have when they were recounting these stories is the sort of thing that you only get from real experience."
- [01:20] "There’s something happened to these people."
Michael Zimmerman's decision to focus professionally on UAP research stems from both personal and broader societal concerns. During the conversation, he reflects on his historical involvement in anti-nuclear efforts and how this intersects with the contemporary discourse surrounding UAPs. The interviewer highlights Zimmerman's long-standing commitment to addressing profound uncertainties and threats to humanity, linking his earlier work in nuclear disarmament to the current UAP phenomenon.
Zimmerman recounts how his background as a philosopher, particularly his curiosity about personal and human identity, fuels his interest in UAP studies. He mentions a pivotal moment in middle school when he experienced a profound realization about his identity, which initiated his lifelong philosophical inquiries. This foundational experience has shaped his understanding of existence and the human condition, leading him to explore the implications of potential non-human intelligences. He states, "the possible existence of non-human intelligent life... is a major part of our imaginary, our way of trying to imagine who these others might be." This illustrates his view that UAP research is not merely about extraterrestrial life but also about understanding humanity's place in the universe.
Furthermore, Zimmerman's engagement with UAP research appears to be motivated by a desire to address societal ignorance and skepticism surrounding these phenomena. He expresses a strong conviction that the UAP subject deserves serious academic inquiry, paralleling his earlier work on nuclear disarmament, which also faced significant skepticism. By connecting these themes, Zimmerman emphasizes his commitment to uncovering what these phenomena reveal about consciousness, identity, and the cosmos, suggesting a blend of personal, scientific, and societal motivations for his work in this area.
- [02:40] "Alarmed by the nuclear arms race, he organized anti-nuclear efforts on campuses and he published and he spoke extensively on nuclear disarmament."
- [03:36] "The possible existence of non-human intelligent life... is a major part of our imaginary, our way of trying to imagine who these others might be."
- [04:43] "I should say as a philosopher myself that it’s a particular pleasure to have this conversation."
Throughout the interview, Michael Zimmerman does not explicitly state that he has personally observed a UAP; however, he shares an intriguing anecdote about a transformative dream he had, which he reflects upon in relation to the broader context of UAP phenomena. The dream involved encountering brightly colored, small beings, which he describes as "three or four brightly colored 4-ft tall birds" that seemed to come into his window while he was living in London during a junior year abroad program.
He recounts that the dream was shocking and potent, prompting an intense feeling of curiosity. He notes, "it was so shocking that I didn’t have an emotion. I just said, ‘What is it?’ Then it all goes black." This description highlights not only the dream's vividness but also its emotional impact on him, suggesting that it left a lasting impression that he associates with the UAP phenomenon.
Furthermore, Zimmerman discusses his family's experiences, particularly mentioning that his brothers and sister have reported similar encounters with lights and strange experiences, which he posits could indicate familial connections to potential abduction phenomena. He expresses a desire to explore these shared experiences, stating that based on the accounts from his family, "it looks like John was abducted." This connection suggests that while he may not have a direct personal encounter to report, he considers the experiences of those close to him as relevant data in understanding the possible reality of UAPs.
- [01:14] "I had this shocking revelation that I am me."
- [01:29] "What is it? Then it all goes black."
- [01:13] "If abductions occur in families, it looks like John was abducted."
Michael Zimmerman discusses several obstacles related to UAP research, primarily focusing on the prevailing skepticism and professional risks associated with engaging in this controversial subject matter. The interviewer notes that the UAP topic has historically been marginalized, similar to how philosophical inquiries can often be pushed to the margins of academic discourse. Zimmerman acknowledges that this marginalization creates a challenge for researchers who wish to study UAP phenomena seriously.
Zimmerman articulates a concern that many individuals, particularly in the scientific community, may dismiss UAP accounts as mere anecdotal evidence. He emphasizes the significance of personal testimony, suggesting that it should not be disregarded simply because it lacks conventional forms of empirical validation. He states, "the physiological response that people would have when they were recounting these stories is the sort of thing that you only get from real experience." This quote illustrates his belief that emotional and physical reactions to these encounters are valid indicators of their authenticity.
Moreover, Zimmerman addresses the broader implications of UAP research in the context of non-human intelligences. He expresses a reluctance to categorically dismiss the possibility that UAPs may represent a form of intelligence beyond human comprehension. He mentions, "there’s something happened to these people," indicating that the phenomena deserve serious consideration. This approach reflects an openness to exploring unconventional explanations, despite the risks associated with venturing into territory that many colleagues might regard as pseudoscience.
- [01:19] "The frustration of feeling that something deeply important is largely being ignored."
- [01:20] "The physiological response that people would have when they were recounting these stories is the sort of thing that you only get from real experience."
- [01:36] "There’s something happened to these people."
[00:06] [music][00:18] [music][00:23] >> Welcome to the Anomalous Review.[00:26] Today I have the pleasure of introducing[00:28] you to my literal absolute number one[00:31] favorite guest I've had on the show.[00:34] With apologies to all of my other[00:35] guests, you were all wonderful.[00:37] I am just biased. Partly for personal[00:40] reasons, which I will mention, and[00:41] partly because he and I are both[00:43] philosophers.[00:45] Philosophy at its core is the discipline[00:48] that asks the questions other[00:49] disciplines don't know how to answer or[00:52] don't yet realize even need asking.[00:55] And this isn't because philosophers are[00:56] contrarian or just looking for a niche[00:58] topics to explore, but because the[01:00] hardest questions, the ones that[01:02] threaten our assumptions about reality[01:03] and our place in it, tend to get pushed[01:06] out to the margins.[01:07] And there the questions can go ignored,[01:10] sometimes for generations.[01:12] In this way, people who are interested[01:14] in the UAP subject have something in[01:16] common with philosophers. The[01:18] frustration of feeling that something[01:19] deeply important is largely being[01:21] ignored.[01:23] So it turns out that philosophers,[01:25] people who are professionally trained to[01:27] sit with profound uncertainty and to[01:29] follow the evidence without flinching,[01:31] are an important addition to communities[01:33] whose interests have been sidelined,[01:34] like the UAP community.[01:37] My guest today, Michael Zimmerman, has[01:39] been doing exactly that for over 30[01:41] years. Sitting with profound uncertainty[01:44] and following the evidence without[01:46] flinching.[01:48] Michael Zimmerman is professor emeritus[01:50] of philosophy at both the University of[01:52] Colorado at Boulder and Tulane[01:53] University.[01:55] His work sits the intersection of[01:57] philosophy of technology,[01:58] my area of study, and environmental[02:01] thought. And he was among the[02:02] foundational figures who helped[02:03] establish environmental philosophy as a[02:05] serious academic discipline at a time[02:08] when most philosophers,[02:09] most intellectuals, weren't paying much[02:11] attention to the natural world at all.[02:15] Michael is the author of several[02:16] influential books in philosophy and more[02:19] than a hundred articles and chapters.[02:21] And his thinking ranges widely from the[02:23] dangers embedded in our technological[02:25] civilization[02:27] to Eastern philosophy and Buddhism[02:29] to what integral theory can tell us[02:31] about the environmental crisis.[02:33] But there's a chapter of his[02:35] intellectual life that speaks directly[02:37] to why Michael is here today.[02:40] In the 1980s, alarmed by the nuclear[02:42] arms race, he organized anti-nuclear[02:45] efforts on campuses and he published and[02:47] he spoke extensively on nuclear[02:49] disarmament.[02:50] And it was at an anti-war seminar in[02:52] Washington in 1983[02:54] that Michael first met John Mack.[02:58] The Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard[02:59] psychiatrist who would later become[03:01] famous for his research into the alien[03:03] abduction phenomenon or reports of alien[03:06] abductions.[03:07] That encounter planted a seed and when[03:10] Mack went public with his abduction[03:11] research in the early 1990s,[03:14] Michael Zimmerman didn't dismiss it. He[03:16] engaged with it philosophically and he[03:18] collaborated with Mack until his death.[03:21] He published academic work on the[03:24] abduction phenomenon[03:25] and recently he's published on the UAP[03:27] subject.[03:29] He's now a board member of the Society[03:31] for UAP Studies where he continues to[03:33] think carefully and publicly about what[03:35] these phenomena mean[03:36] for philosophy, for consciousness, and[03:39] for our picture of the cosmos.[03:42] I should say as a philosopher myself[03:43] that it's a particular pleasure to have[03:46] this conversation. Zimmerman's work has[03:48] been part of my intellectual life since[03:50] I was in graduate school reading his[03:51] work the philosopher Martin Heidegger.[03:53] And this was a decade before I had any[03:55] interest in the UAP subject, or knew[03:57] that he did, or even knew that the UAP[03:59] subject was something that people had a[04:01] serious interest in.[04:03] So, meeting someone whose work I've[04:05] respected for so long, not over our[04:07] interest in philosophy, but over an even[04:08] weirder subject, is delightfully[04:10] disorienting.[04:12] And now I can attest that Michael is a[04:14] wonderfully[04:15] kind and capacious thinker,[04:18] someone who follows the argument[04:20] wherever it leads[04:21] with a degree of authenticity that we[04:23] should all aspire to.[04:26] Today, we talk about how he arrived at[04:28] UAP as a serious subject of inquiry, his[04:30] history in nuclear and peace studies,[04:33] the thread that connects the subject of[04:34] nuclear disarmament to UAP disclosure,[04:37] and even what Eastern philosophy offers[04:39] as a framework for thinking about[04:41] consciousness and reality and the[04:43] genuinely inexplicable.[04:45] That's why[04:47] this is my favorite conversation I've[04:48] had on this show.[04:50] And why I think you are going to love[04:52] it.[04:53] So,[04:54] here now is my conversation with Michael[04:56] Zimmerman.[04:57] Michael,[04:58] welcome to the Anomalous Review.[05:01] >> Well, I want to thank you for inviting[05:02] you, Michael. Uh I welcome the[05:04] opportunity to talk about[05:07] uh the things that you and I and the[05:09] your listeners have a mutual interest[05:10] in.[05:11] So, um let's have some fun.[05:13] >> Let's do it. I have been aware of your[05:15] work for[05:17] about two decades, but only in the past[05:19] few years So, I'm aware of your work[05:21] because I'm a philosopher like you, and[05:23] you and I both have shared interest in a[05:25] bunch of areas, including the[05:27] philosopher Martin Heidegger.[05:29] Um and that's how I knew you, and it[05:31] wasn't until a few years ago that I had[05:33] any idea at all that you were interested[05:35] in the subject, but you've had a very[05:37] long history with the UFO subject and[05:40] with abductions and things. Can you just[05:41] like tell the audience how you got[05:44] interested in that subject and became[05:46] part of the into research into it.[05:49] >> All right. Well, I mean I suppose you[05:51] could just start with[05:52] there there two things. One when I was[05:54] growing up[05:56] in the 50s and 60s and the 70s uh it was[06:00] all about UFOs.[06:02] Uh they were already everywhere in[06:04] movies and pulp fiction and so on. My[06:07] mother was a member of the science[06:09] fiction book club.[06:10] >> Mhm.[06:11] >> So every month she get a novel and my[06:13] older brother and I would[06:15] read it when she was done and so we you[06:17] know we read dozens and dozens of[06:20] and you know these are the these are the[06:21] classic[06:22] figures Arthur C. Clarke and so on.[06:25] Um but so that's kind of the pop culture[06:29] uh introduction.[06:30] Uh but on the other hand I I had a[06:33] long-term interest in[06:35] personal and by extension human[06:37] identity.[06:38] >> Mhm.[06:38] >> Uh I I tell the story in fact I sent you[06:42] a document about why I as a philosopher[06:45] chose to study alien abduction[06:47] which is going to be published soon.[06:50] Um and then that[06:52] the story goes like this. I'm in middle[06:54] school I'm probably in 7th or 8th grade.[06:56] It's a warm spring afternoon. Classes[06:59] [snorts] had just gotten out and[07:00] everybody left and I'm walking down the[07:02] big main hallway.[07:04] Uh and all of a sudden like a bolt from[07:06] the blue I had this[07:09] shocking revelation[07:11] that I am me.[07:13] >> Mhm.[07:14] Yeah.[07:14] >> You know what it said?[07:15] >> [snorts][07:16] >> I'm going to have to do something with[07:17] my life. I'm going to have to make a[07:19] living and[07:20] you know[07:21] it was like really strange because prior[07:24] to that I was just like one of the gang.[07:27] And one of the seven eight children in[07:30] my Catholic family.[07:32] Uh you know it was I was just part of[07:34] the mix.[07:35] And suddenly I'm stood out from it. I'm[07:38] standing out from that.[07:39] >> You're an individual now. Is that sort[07:41] of the[07:41] >> An individual who has no idea how to do[07:43] that.[07:44] >> Mhm. [clears throat][07:45] >> Right? And so I would say that that[07:47] began that really is the origin of my[07:50] interest in philosophy, a term which I[07:52] only knew about before I got to college.[07:55] And when I started taking philosophy[07:57] courses, I felt like I'd finally hit[07:59] land.[08:00] >> Mhm.[08:01] >> These people are[08:02] have actually been talking about these[08:04] questions for[08:06] thousands of years.[08:07] >> I know that experience. I remember[08:09] taking a philosophy course and[08:10] realizing, "Oh my god, there's a name[08:11] for this? This thing that I've been[08:13] doing my whole life?"[08:14] >> That's right. Good story, you know.[08:17] >> So you realize you're an individual and[08:19] that sort of leads you constitutionally[08:21] into questions of philosophy. Where did[08:24] it go?[08:24] >> Yeah, because you know, cuz then then[08:26] what comes up then are origin questions[08:28] of origin.[08:29] >> Mhm.[08:29] >> Well,[08:30] where did I come from?[08:32] And what what is my future?[08:34] And then by extension, how about[08:36] humankind? How did it emerge? And of[08:39] course in what what's its destiny? And[08:41] of course I was the framework I was[08:43] provided with uh growing up was[08:46] Christianity.[08:47] >> Mhm.[08:47] >> Uh you know, we were we were created.[08:49] Still a persuasive story to a lot of[08:52] people. And I would add that the uh[08:55] Leibniz, you you may know, he[08:57] who uh[08:58] many of our listeners may know too. He,[09:00] along with Newton, created the calculus[09:03] at about the same time, which is an[09:04] extraordinary[09:06] uh thing.[09:07] But he he said that the the major[09:09] question[09:11] uh for philosophy is why is there[09:13] something rather than nothing?[09:15] >> Yeah.[09:16] >> Now, once you hear it posed like that,[09:18] man, that'll that'll put a wrinkle in[09:20] things, right? Then you got to[09:22] well, you know, was there a prime mover?[09:25] >> [snorts][09:26] >> Who got things going? And we start The[09:28] Big Bang is kind of some[09:30] analog to that. Is there a steady state?[09:33] Like universe Aristotle said, "Well, the[09:35] universe has always been here."[09:36] >> Mhm.[09:37] >> It really began.[09:38] Uh and therefore maybe it will never[09:40] end.[09:41] Uh and so well the you know, this this[09:43] type of a big picture questioning uh[09:46] that arose from the question of my own[09:48] identity[09:50] uh has continued to this day. And I[09:52] think the[09:53] uh possible existence of non-human[09:56] intelligent life[09:58] um[09:59] whether from the future or[10:02] uh other planets or wherever[10:04] uh[10:05] is a major uh[10:08] part of our imaginary, our way of trying[10:10] to imagine[10:12] who who these others might be. Are they[10:15] Are they like us? Do we descend from[10:17] them? Could we become like them? Or do[10:19] they exist at all?[10:21] Uh[10:22] now years ago I I wrote a[10:24] a review of this long book by[10:27] uh[10:28] I'm going to[10:29] think of his name in a moment. Uh Steven[10:31] Kate Dick, Steven Kate Dick, I think was[10:34] his name.[10:35] Uh[10:36] he he wrote it's a big book on the[10:37] extraterrestrial debate.[10:39] >> Mhm.[10:39] >> You know, and it's a really long debate.[10:42] I mean it goes back to Bruno and back to[10:44] the ancient[10:45] >> Hundreds of years.[10:46] >> Yeah.[10:46] >> Thousands of people would look up at the[10:48] stars and imagine them as suns. I mean[10:51] they you know, our human imagination[10:53] been[10:54] pretty similar throughout the ages.[10:55] Those lights up there[10:57] uh[10:58] they could well be inhabited places.[11:01] >> True.[11:01] >> Um so part of our own uh constitution as[11:04] humans[11:05] uh[11:06] is to reflect upon our identity and who[11:10] we are. Now one one of the things that[11:11] Nietzsche says[11:13] that's so striking, he says, you know,[11:14] the[11:15] the[11:17] emergence of a being who can take a[11:20] stand against itself, make itself an[11:23] object uh has altered the entire face of[11:26] the of the planet.[11:28] >> Right. A being that can think of itself[11:30] as an object of its own thought as[11:31] opposed to looping out.[11:33] >> become self-critical, self-aware.[11:35] >> Right.[11:35] >> That's a huge moment. Now, there are[11:37] some animals seem to be able to do some[11:39] of that, but we do take it to a whole[11:41] new level.[11:42] Uh and uh and and and that brings with[11:45] it lots of attendant problems as well as[11:48] opportunities.[11:49] >> So, philosophy for you becomes[11:52] a way of like[11:54] getting a grip on these this whirling[11:56] mass of big questions that I think[11:58] everybody in like every everybody asks[12:01] these questions. Where do we come from?[12:03] Where are we going? What are we exactly?[12:05] How do we fit into the world? But what's[12:06] so exciting about philosophy, at least[12:08] for me, what was so exciting[12:10] was realizing that there's a structured[12:12] way of thinking about these questions.[12:13] You don't just have to sit with them and[12:15] and kind of be amazed at their[12:17] profundity. You can pursue them in a in[12:19] a rigorous and kind of uh[12:22] uh yeah,[12:24] analytical, pragmatic, programmatic way.[12:27] So, those questions are there for you.[12:31] Everybody has the questions of are we[12:33] alone in the universe? What might the[12:35] possibilities of life be outside the[12:38] universe? But you don't just think of[12:39] this as a question to speculate about.[12:41] You think that[12:43] it's or at some point you come to think[12:45] that No, this is like really a practical[12:47] question. Have we been visited? Are[12:49] there others nearby who are interacting[12:52] with humanity or or have shaping human[12:54] destiny in some way? How did you become[12:57] convinced that that was more of a[12:58] practical question than just a[13:00] theoretical one?[13:01] >> Well, there's so much uh[13:04] there's just so much Well, you know, the[13:05] part part of the problem, of course, is[13:07] to is to understand the nature of what[13:10] we encounter or encounters us. I've been[13:12] reading this terrific new book called uh[13:15] Illuminations.[13:17] >> Mhm.[13:17] >> Mhm. [clears throat][13:18] >> Do you know about it? It's being abused.[13:19] >> I know of it, yes.[13:20] >> Yeah, this guy's a Eric[13:23] Woolley, professor of defense studies at[13:26] Royal Military College in Canada and PhD[13:29] in Sociology, pretty smart guy.[13:32] But he he poses, "Well, what about the[13:34] possibility that[13:36] a lot of what we call UFOs[13:39] are akin to the phenomena that take[13:41] place in uh[13:44] uh poltergeist situations?" Could these[13:46] be social[13:48] poltergeists in some way?[13:50] Uh now, one of the things that course[13:53] that doesn't necessarily explain much[13:55] and[13:56] the stuff that goes on in poltergeists[13:58] is pretty weird, but it does have some[13:59] connection to an an agent who's who's[14:03] present somehow in amidst all the chaos.[14:05] >> Right. Poltergeists seem at least seem[14:07] attached to or indexed to a person. They[14:10] don't just wander around and and bother[14:12] lots of people. They plague an[14:13] >> Yeah, that's right. They and so and the[14:15] more attention is brought from the[14:17] outside that they they they[14:19] the whole process seems to, you know, go[14:21] away slowly.[14:22] >> [snorts][14:22] >> Nevertheless, the extraordinary things[14:24] that happen, the spontaneous fires, the[14:26] things being thrown and so on,[14:28] indicative of something like psychic[14:31] power that can influence physical[14:33] objects.[14:34] Uh you know, we don't really have an[14:36] explanation for that. Uh so,[14:39] nevertheless, what if you see what we[14:41] call flying saucers and a lot of other[14:43] things for which there's no or so seldom[14:47] any physical remains where they're you[14:50] know, there may be those crashed UFOs in[14:52] the hangar somewhere. We don't know yet.[14:55] Uh[14:56] but it it it raises questions about the[14:59] power of human the human mind.[15:02] Uh in other words, that uh who was it[15:05] that said who was uh Wigner, I think,[15:07] the great physicist who said that in the[15:10] 40s or whenever, 50s, you know, there's[15:13] why is it that the universe is so[15:15] amazingly uh[15:18] uh uh[15:18] uh interpretable in mathematics?[15:21] >> Mhm.[15:22] >> Right?[15:22] >> [clears throat][15:22] >> What is it What is it our mind like and[15:25] what is the universe like so that we can[15:26] map and interpret it uh not only using[15:29] words but mathematics. I wish my math[15:31] were better because I know[15:33] physicists and astrophysicists who have[15:35] this giant vocabulary[15:38] and for whom numbers and equations and[15:40] outcomes, you know, it it reads like a[15:42] story[15:43] >> Yeah.[15:44] >> uh that I can't read. So, I have to rely[15:46] on them to interpret what they're doing.[15:49] But then I think it's part of the uh[15:52] uh requirement for us as we move, you[15:54] know, into ever deeper into this whole[15:57] uh UAP UFO world[15:59] how to take into account the powers of[16:02] mind[16:03] uh in the whole affair. Uh we can[16:06] perhaps come back to that, but I just[16:08] wanted put that out there as a major[16:10] consideration.[16:11] >> Sure, this is an open question for a lot[16:13] of people, even people who think of[16:14] themselves as as straightforwardly nuts[16:17] and bolts in their orientation to these[16:18] questions.[16:19] It I've never met a person in this area[16:22] who's not intrigued by questions about[16:24] how the mind interacts with it because[16:25] so many UFO UAP reports involve some[16:29] kind of psi component. It just you can't[16:31] eliminate that from this phenomenon.[16:34] >> There's something weird about it and so[16:35] and and so many cases uh[16:38] uh I've never seen a UFO.[16:41] >> I mean[16:41] >> that UFOs are often seen by people who[16:44] are totally uh skeptical.[16:47] And I'm not I you know, but they don't[16:49] show up to me. Uh may maybe it's cuz[16:51] they don't they don't want to waste[16:52] their energy on somebody who's already[16:54] >> Yeah, they wouldn't get anything out of[16:55] it. You're already convinced.[16:55] >> That's right. And and and to go along[16:57] with what you just said, so many of[16:59] these sightings seem targeted.[17:02] In other words, it's not just an[17:03] accident.[17:05] Uh that one of them happened to be[17:06] floating around near you. I mean, you're[17:08] you're the target in some way. Uh[17:11] just like how many UFO stories, you[17:13] know, somebody's driving down a dark[17:15] country road in the at night, rounds a[17:17] bend, and then lo and behold sitting in[17:19] the middle of the road a quarter of a[17:20] mile away is a big UFO and some critters[17:22] are out there on ladders trying to fix[17:24] the thing and they see us and then they[17:26] run off. Now wait wait a minute. Uh[17:30] this is a stage a stage event. It's[17:32] Vallee talks about this.[17:34] >> Absolutely. There's an element of like[17:35] the theatrical to it it seems.[17:37] >> theatrical, symbolic uh[17:40] event that really shakes up people.[17:43] Uh[17:44] it's it's it's so it's so shocking it's[17:46] uh[17:47] but at the same time mind-opening[17:49] because everything prior to that now is[17:53] put into question.[17:54] >> Uh was there a moment that you became[17:57] convinced that this was a[17:59] real phenomenon here on Earth that[18:02] deserves to be studied?[18:03] >> Well, I had this I do have a a story to[18:06] tell about that. Um [snorts] the first[18:08] adult conversation I had with my father[18:10] I was like[18:11] a 12 or something like this. It was 19[18:14] uh 57. There was a 5-year retrospective[18:17] story about the 1952[18:20] >> DC flying disc yeah.[18:21] >> fly over over DC in two weekends.[18:24] Um[18:25] so I I I went and said, "Dad, what what[18:27] do you make of this?" Uh[18:29] And do you think anything happened[18:31] because I think the story mentioned that[18:32] there was some explanation about uh[18:35] uh you know what's what was the word[18:38] they used about the lights lighting it[18:40] some kind of um[18:42] inversion. Uh uh[18:44] >> Yeah, an atmosphere conversion that you[18:46] know looks[18:46] >> caused the beams of you know fly[18:49] headlights to bounce up into the sky.[18:50] Well, maybe it can happen. I don't know[18:52] but[18:53] he now[18:54] my dad was was really smart. Uh he had[18:58] finished his master's degree in in[19:00] chemical engineering in MIT.[19:02] Uh he was working in 1941 on[19:06] like his master's project on artificial[19:09] rubber because[19:11] uh Roosevelt and everyone knew the[19:12] Japanese would seize all those Southeast[19:15] Asia rubber plantations when the war[19:16] broke out and they knew it was coming.[19:19] And so he quit,[19:21] dropped out of MIT, went back to[19:23] Louisville where he was from and joined[19:25] this the[19:26] team at Goodrich in Louisville which had[19:29] been funded by the Defense Department, I[19:31] guess the War Department they called it[19:32] then, to build this big artificial[19:34] rubber plant. I should say as an aside[19:38] all the top five major rubber producers[19:41] states made the decision to pull their[19:43] patents[19:45] >> [clears throat][19:45] >> for the war effort to make the best[19:47] product in the least amount of time. It[19:50] was a signal event in the cooperation[19:52] among corporations.[19:54] >> What what a different corporate[19:55] environment.[19:56] >> Yeah, what a different. Well, this is[19:57] the it was a national survival seemed at[20:00] stake so they kind of got over all their[20:02] pettiness or most of it. So then I[20:06] discovered a few years ago because I[20:09] What did my dad do in the war? Well, he[20:11] didn't land on Saipan like my[20:13] father-in-law.[20:14] Yeah, he was working at Goodrich,[20:16] hotshot, you know, grad student.[20:19] But they then I discovered that all the[20:22] tires and auxiliary fuel tanks made for[20:24] the B-29s[20:26] at Omaha[20:28] were made by the Goodrich plant and then[20:31] Enola Gay was from Omaha. It was[20:34] >> Which dropped the the nuclear first[20:35] nuclear weapon.[20:36] >> Yeah, so that was my dad's what he was[20:38] doing during during the war.[20:41] Some small role in all that.[20:43] But you know, he he thought for a moment[20:45] said, you know, no, there there's[20:46] something was going on there. Something[20:48] happened.[20:48] >> When you when you asked him about if[20:50] this was just temperature inversions or[20:51] whatever, he[20:52] >> He he just shrugged that off and said,[20:54] look, that's that's what they say. They[20:56] have to say something because they don't[20:58] really know what happened, but something[21:00] was happening there that that they[21:02] couldn't understand. Now, a few years[21:04] ago I wrote a read a brilliant book[21:06] about this[21:07] by [snorts][21:08] uh I'll think of his name in a few[21:09] moments, but he was a[21:11] uh[21:12] work he has a had a PhD in optical[21:14] physics.[21:16] Now, somebody with a PhD in optical[21:17] physics is going to have something to[21:18] say about heat inversion and[21:20] you know, how what light can do, right?[21:23] And uh he went back and read all the[21:25] [clears throat] documents, especially of[21:26] the uh people in the control towers and[21:28] everyone who witnessed this on the[21:29] ground and said, "Well, this is not an[21:30] explanation."[21:32] >> [snorts][21:32] >> Uh it's a really good book. I hope I[21:34] don't remember it in a little while.[21:35] Um[21:36] but um that gave me his reply uh and and[21:41] the confidence with which he made it,[21:42] cuz you know, everyone was talking about[21:44] that 1952, all of his buddies in the[21:47] engineering world he was part of and[21:49] everyone was and and they all went[21:51] through it, uh you know, and they just[21:54] said, "No, that's that's not a good[21:55] explanation."[21:57] Um so, I said I got[21:59] uh I saw that uh paying attention to[22:01] UFOs uh it was legitimate. There's[22:04] probably something to it, and so then I[22:06] went on uh watching all kind of cool[22:09] science fiction[22:10] uh shows and reading books.[22:12] >> Was the immediate thought, "Well, this[22:13] is aliens?" Or was I don't know how to[22:16] think about UFOs in from the 1950s,[22:18] right? The we My my thoughts are so[22:20] inflicted by everything that's happened[22:22] since then.[22:23] >> Well, back then back then it was all[22:25] about aliens.[22:26] Now, I want to show show you readers[22:28] this cool book. You seen this one? The[22:30] Martians[22:31] >> by David Baron, no.[22:33] >> Yeah, this is great. It just came out.[22:35] The true story of an alien craze that[22:37] captured turn of the century America.[22:40] This is when they thought Mars had[22:41] canals.[22:42] >> Oh, sure, yeah.[22:44] >> Yeah, and the the key figure is uh[22:47] uh what's his name? That guy from uh[22:49] Cambridge uh I'll think of his name in a[22:52] few minutes. Lowell. Uh[22:55] and he he you know, he was convinced[22:57] looking at Mars through his telescope,[22:59] as were a number of other people,[23:01] that these were um[23:03] uh canals up there.[23:05] Now, one of the really and this this set[23:07] off a whole craze in the late 19th,[23:10] early 20th century. H.G. Wells became[23:13] part of this and[23:14] and so that the the '20s and '30s,[23:18] people alive then in the '40s remembered[23:20] all that.[23:21] >> Mhm.[23:22] >> That was part [clears throat] of the[23:22] national discourse about that. What are[23:25] people on Mars, right?[23:26] And so we were prepared in 1947[23:30] >> [snorts][23:30] >> when Arnold sees these, you know, things[23:33] flying by at Mount Rainier,[23:35] for UFOs, basically. We got a new name[23:38] for them, flying saucers, UFOs, but the[23:40] possibility was still ripe in the minds[23:42] of everyone you know, old enough to[23:45] remember what was going on with Lowell[23:47] [snorts] and so on.[23:49] Now, [clears throat] one of the really[23:50] interesting things I learned in the book[23:51] was this.[23:53] That there was always a significant[23:55] skepticism on the part of many[23:56] scientists.[23:58] Some[23:59] went with Lowell and but others were[24:02] really more reserved.[24:05] And what they finally did to, you know,[24:07] seal their case[24:09] against the idea of uh[24:11] that these were canals. Because Lowell[24:13] would draw these very fine lined[24:16] sketches, you know, of, you know,[24:18] smaller canals branching out from the[24:20] big ones that you could really see with[24:21] the telescope.[24:23] So they put uh[24:25] people in three banks of chairs far away[24:29] from the image you could see in the[24:31] telescope to take a photograph, middle[24:33] distance from it, and close, much closer[24:35] to it.[24:36] Well, the people at I think the far[24:38] distance, you know, they they could see[24:40] the big lines, but they couldn't see[24:41] much else. But then the people in the[24:43] middle distance,[24:44] what they were able to see were some[24:46] kind of fine lines. It was as if the[24:48] human eye were from the data[24:51] being generated by the photo being[24:53] projected was able to be read as[24:56] connected in some way. So it's all these[24:58] fine,[24:59] you know, network of lines kind of[25:01] visible.[25:03] And but when you got closer, they[25:05] vanished.[25:05] >> Mhm.[25:06] >> So then it became that was kind of the[25:09] the thing that put an end to the[25:11] speculation about it. It became clear[25:13] there was some kind of optical illusion[25:16] based upon how that the photograph[25:18] affected our visual apparatus that[25:21] invited this seeing oneness.[25:24] Um but the main thing is that all that[25:26] was really[25:28] uh uh[25:29] in the cultural moment and then when you[25:31] get into the '30s and '40s with these,[25:33] you know, pulp fiction uh sci-fi uh[25:37] various kinds. That was all out of Jules[25:39] Verne and[25:41] uh H. G. Wells and Lowell Robert Lowell[25:44] with his telescope and so on.[25:45] >> [snorts][25:46] >> Um[25:47] so[25:49] the big film that[25:51] changed a lot of which really nailed us[25:53] down was a 1951, The Day the Earth Stood[25:56] Still.[25:56] >> Sure. Yeah.[25:57] >> So sure you've seen that. A lot of[25:59] people seen I think I recall[26:00] [clears throat] seeing it. Uh and you[26:02] know, here's a flying saucer that lands[26:04] not on the White House lawn but on the[26:06] National Mall.[26:07] >> National Mall, yeah.[26:07] >> Close enough, right?[26:09] Uh and it was an incredible uh film and[26:12] especially proclaiming peace.[26:14] And we're so paranoid we start shooting[26:16] at him because[26:18] his robot comes out and they were afraid[26:20] they're going to attack us, you know,[26:21] the whole[26:22] commentary on human uh paranoia.[26:25] Um but that was a a key moment in uh[26:29] helping[26:30] people get an image of what UFO aliens[26:34] might be.[26:35] >> Mhm.[26:36] >> Do they bring peace? Uh are they worried[26:38] about our atomic weapons because not[26:40] only was there fear about all that,[26:43] uh but there was perceived as some[26:45] connection between UFOs. Remember the[26:47] space brothers were coming along then in[26:49] the early '50s warning us about nuclear[26:52] weapons as they ought to have done[26:55] and so on.[26:57] So that's a milieu in in which I came[26:59] along. Now I I had no concept of time[27:02] traveling, UFOs, extra-dimensional[27:06] beings that are somehow underwater[27:08] elements of of the planet which we don't[27:10] know about, all these other cool[27:12] hypotheses, each of which has its own[27:14] defenders, all of which are interesting.[27:17] Those are off the table.[27:18] The only thing that was on the table was[27:20] there were creatures from other planets.[27:22] >> And they've come in here advanced[27:24] technology spaceships.[27:25] >> That's right. They they managed to get[27:26] here and they're interacting with us in[27:28] in typically in a a warning way, an[27:31] encouraging way to help us evolve and so[27:33] on.[27:34] And then the[27:35] the in the most spectacular way[27:39] in the 70s and early 80s you have Steven[27:41] Spielberg[27:43] >> Close Encounters, yeah.[27:44] >> Yes, the[27:46] the Close Encounters and ET.[27:50] Man, those were such powerful films, you[27:52] know. He's got a new one coming out.[27:54] >> He does, yeah. He just said at South[27:56] South by Southwest that he's making it[27:58] precisely because he believes that we're[28:00] not alone on the Earth. I mean he's he's[28:02] said that publicly which I think is[28:03] >> Yeah, that's right. And and with good[28:05] reason. I I, you know, if if someone[28:08] were to ask me I'd say that we are[28:09] encountering an encountering[28:10] anotherness.[28:12] Uh I I don't know how to[28:14] nail it what it is. It somehow[28:18] shows up in ways that are affected by[28:20] our own[28:22] psychological, physiological, historical[28:25] interpretive mechanisms. There's a[28:27] filter to some extent, but but it it's[28:29] not just made up.[28:31] >> Sure.[28:32] >> There's a there there[28:34] and it's really that you know, there's[28:36] not many bigger mysteries than that. I'd[28:37] say the only bigger mystery is the[28:40] nature of consciousness[28:42] and they're tied up.[28:44] >> Certainly. Yeah, there's no question[28:46] that those things are[28:47] >> Okay, so so that[28:49] UFOs, UAP,[28:51] aliens,[28:53] our nature, our own consciousness are[28:55] part of a spectrum of issues that are[28:57] interrelated in some way.[28:59] As you were saying, people in the[29:01] in the hard sciences who[29:04] attempt to bring their methodology and[29:05] training to bear on the phenomenon,[29:08] they themselves have all these other[29:09] side interests[29:11] in [snorts][29:12] in terms of the sci sci aspects, the the[29:15] weirdness factor, the odd factor, the[29:17] fact that these experiences seem[29:19] targeted or not accidental. They change[29:22] people's lives. And that so that and[29:25] moreover people witnesses see[29:28] the same thing up there, but they see[29:30] something different.[29:31] >> Mhm. Yeah.[29:32] >> There's an assumption that there's a[29:34] steady one thing up there, but people[29:37] see different colors or different shapes[29:39] and no, it didn't go that way. It did[29:41] you know,[29:42] and yet something was going on.[29:44] We we posit that there was a a there[29:48] there, but we it's refracted through[29:50] different individual lenses as it were.[29:53] >> So one of the[29:54] things that I think philosophy can[29:56] contribute to this[29:57] what seems at first glance like a[30:00] straightforward scientific mystery is[30:03] that philosophy is the domain that ask[30:05] questions about how to theorize about a[30:09] phenomenon or concept or something and[30:11] how to engineer the right concepts in[30:13] order to do the theorizing. So when I[30:15] came to this subject, you know, five or[30:17] six years ago and became convinced that[30:18] there was a there there and that we[30:20] needed to to figure this out. One of the[30:22] first things that as a philosopher I[30:24] wanted to know is like, well, what is[30:26] the space of theories? How do we go[30:28] about constructing the theories that we[30:30] might[30:32] the going theories that we might use to[30:34] to interpret or or explain these[30:37] phenomena and do we even have the[30:38] concepts that we need? Like it one open[30:41] possibility I think is that whatever[30:43] this is, we just literally do not have[30:44] the concepts to describe it yet. And so,[30:47] all of our theories are going to sort of[30:48] fall short. But, even if that's the[30:50] case, some theories would be better or[30:52] more useful than others. So, you said[30:55] when you came to the subject, the only[30:57] real theory on the table was that[30:58] they're aliens and spaceships from some[31:00] other planet who've come here for some[31:02] reason. Uh but, that spaceship of[31:04] theories has grown since then. What do[31:06] you see as the the most viable theories[31:10] for what this might be? I assume aliens[31:13] are one of them.[31:14] >> Well, let let me let's come back to that[31:16] because but, I want to mention something[31:18] uh about uh[31:20] about your work that was so interesting[31:22] to me. You and I were both on this[31:24] Society for UAP Studies program in[31:26] December.[31:26] >> Mhm.[31:27] >> And uh you had a colleague presented[31:29] this really cool paper.[31:31] Uh and your argument was this. Um[31:34] whether you call it unidentified flying[31:36] objects or unidentified anomalous[31:38] phenomenon,[31:40] uh[31:41] uh[31:41] >> [clears throat][31:42] >> the term unidentified[31:45] and unidentified In other words, it has[31:47] no per- you have no purchase on it.[31:49] >> Right. It's just a purely negative[31:50] concept, yeah.[31:51] >> That's right. It's it's a a hole uh into[31:54] which you can project anything you want.[31:55] So, your paper was one of the best[31:58] interventions I've seen in terms of what[32:00] philosophy and science philosophy of[32:01] science can bring to the puzzle.[32:03] And then, as you got to actually come up[32:05] with a hypothesis, you got to say, "We[32:07] We've We propose that what people are[32:10] seeing are some kind of craft uh from[32:15] other worlds. Uh whether from the solar[32:18] system or from uh deep space, other[32:21] galaxies, and so on. We don't know how[32:23] they get there yet get here. But,[32:25] [snorts] that's what they are, all[32:26] right? And uh we're going to organize uh[32:29] research programs uh designed to see to[32:32] to test to observe and measure to[32:35] develop a secondary hypotheses about[32:37] this or that. Now, we may uh be be[32:40] disproved. There may be some black swan[32:42] or something which you know, shoots this[32:45] whole hypothesis down.[32:46] >> Which would be great. That would be a[32:48] win, right? You would get to take that[32:50] off.[32:50] >> that off of the explanatory[32:52] possibilities.[32:54] That that object's not going to do can't[32:56] do the work. So, that that was really[32:59] revelatory for me. I had never seen[33:01] anybody quite Then that's when I[33:03] realized it doesn't matter where you say[33:05] UFO or UAP, they're both not very[33:07] useful.[33:08] >> Yeah, they're not they're not great[33:09] concepts. They're[33:10] >> They're empty concepts, placeholders[33:13] because there's such hesitation to come[33:15] right out front and say, "Here's what we[33:17] think they are."[33:18] And here's the evidence we've got so far[33:20] and here's the methods we're going to[33:22] use to try to provide[33:25] better and more programmatically arrived[33:27] at evidence, but then we may we may have[33:30] something come along to disprove the[33:31] whole thing.[33:33] But at least we got it the basis for a[33:34] scientific research program. Prior to[33:36] that, we didn't have it.[33:38] >> Right.[33:39] >> And so that was a great intervention.[33:40] So, hands off, you know, to you.[33:42] >> Appreciate it. Thank you.[33:43] >> Yeah.[33:44] >> So, I I don't I'm not convinced, first[33:48] of all, that there's just one phenomenon[33:50] here. I think that all the things that[33:52] get lumped into the UAP UFO category[33:55] might in the end turn out to be very[33:56] different things, which would not be all[33:58] that surprising. Like when we first[34:00] discovered microbes, we had one concept[34:03] for the things that they are and then we[34:04] found out that there's lots of widely[34:06] different things. Viruses and, you know,[34:08] eukaryotes are not the same kind of[34:10] thing, but we had to start with some[34:11] kind of general category first to even[34:13] figure out what the taxonomy might be.[34:16] So, I'm not convinced there's just one[34:17] thing. I don't I don't think anybody[34:19] should be, but it seems reasonable to me[34:22] to start with the hypothesis that at[34:23] least some of them are just like[34:25] straightforward technological crafts.[34:28] But then some things seem like they're[34:29] really not.[34:31] >> Right.[34:31] >> But how do you divide up the I mean, I[34:33] know you've looked at lots of reports.[34:35] You work personally with John Mack. So,[34:37] you[34:38] know about lots of people's personal[34:40] experiences. Like, what do you see as[34:42] the the kind of taxonomy of of things[34:45] that need to be explained in this space?[34:47] >> Well, you know,[34:49] uh[34:50] there there are just so many cool cool[34:52] options, you know. I I remember this guy[34:54] from Montana State who recently[34:57] published his book about time traveling.[34:59] >> Uh Michael Masters, yeah.[35:00] >> Masters, right. I wrote to him[35:02] about my research and uh it's such a[35:05] it's such a very interesting even the[35:07] even the shape of the face[35:09] of a gray uh seems to be what the human[35:12] face might evolve toward over a period[35:15] of time to become more infantile in a[35:17] way and simplified with bigger eyes,[35:19] bigger skull for brain to do.[35:22] And uh you know, I said, "Wow." And so,[35:24] how do they get back here? Well, then[35:26] that's a whole 'nother story how they[35:27] might do the time travel, but it can't[35:30] be any more complicated than[35:32] riding a spaceship from uh 45 or 100[35:36] light years away to get here. Uh that's[35:38] got to be equally[35:40] physically uh daunting.[35:42] Um but then I[35:44] I'm also fascinated by uh[35:46] uh[35:48] what do they call them? Uh[35:50] uh the beings who are uh[35:53] >> [clears throat][35:53] >> part of our planet somehow. What's the[35:55] word for those? Uh[35:56] >> Oh, sort of cryptoterrestrial?[35:57] >> Cryptoterrestrial. Like Like Turn[36:00] Turney? Was that his name? Wrote a book[36:02] about that. Uh cryptoterrestrials.[36:05] And you know, for you know, how do we[36:07] how do we know what other kind of beings[36:09] inhabit this planet, intelligent beings?[36:11] You know, what about beings living under[36:13] the ocean? We know nothing about the[36:15] ocean. We've just tiny bits of it we've[36:18] we've examined in the deep ocean and[36:20] stuff cuz uh some of these craft come in[36:23] and out of go in and out of the water.[36:25] Uh there's there uh[36:28] I remember uh Admiral Gallilei Gallilet[36:31] I guess he says[36:32] I gave a talk at last year in Bryce at[36:35] the[36:37] Archives of the Impossible Conference on[36:39] UFOs, you know, about tracking[36:41] underwater craft going at 4 or 500[36:44] knots. Well, come on. You[36:47] clearly physically impossible. But there[36:48] they are, right?[36:50] And they have really good sonar. So they[36:52] know what you're doing. So we So what[36:54] are they? Are they living under there?[36:56] What is it about water? These crafts[36:58] seem to be around water sucking up[37:00] water. Or they hang out near electrical[37:02] power lines like they're draining[37:04] electricity and so on. All these things[37:07] suggest a physicality[37:09] to them. Now, I've been reading another[37:11] book recently. Not so much a book. I've[37:13] got a great article I'll send to you. I[37:15] mean, shared. But it's a publication[37:17] recently in a science journal about[37:19] plasma.[37:20] Now, did I know that 99% of matter in[37:23] the universe is plasma?[37:26] And that a rocky planet like this is a[37:28] very rare when you size up the what's[37:31] out there.[37:32] >> Right. Most things are stars, right?[37:33] That's where most of the mass in the[37:34] universe is.[37:35] >> Yeah, that's that's right.[37:37] And plasma is really weird. And that[37:39] people are now really studying it and[37:41] there's a possibility that many of these[37:43] strange light formations which we see[37:46] are plasmic plasma events.[37:48] And it may even have a kind of[37:50] self-organizing[37:52] intelligence that we we can't deal with[37:55] right yet because we don't[37:57] we don't know enough about it. But maybe[37:58] a lot of these things that people see[38:00] and they're really seeing something, but[38:02] it's not a nuts and bolts craft. It's a[38:04] plasma phenomenon[38:06] that[38:07] requires investigation. So that to me is[38:10] another big[38:11] >> [snorts][38:11] >> I know when I send you this this article[38:13] about it in it in a good science[38:15] journal, you know, as in the title, you[38:17] know, you know,[38:18] UFO stuff in addition to all these other[38:21] things that the lots of might be doing.[38:24] But this may be one reason that uh[38:26] uh there's not enough there's not so[38:28] many things that fall to the ground[38:30] because they're not physical in that[38:31] way.[38:32] Uh their physicality it takes a form[38:34] which we're not uh the only[38:37] our relationship to it is a sun but we[38:39] don't think about the sun as plasma,[38:41] right? It's sure ball of hydrogen bombs[38:44] going off up there.[38:46] Uh[38:47] so that that's another angle which to me[38:48] is really intriguing.[38:51] Okay. Let me let me let me go back a[38:53] little bit to uh the origins of[38:55] philosophy because I think this is[38:57] appealing to all your listeners, you[38:59] know. Uh[39:00] >> [snorts][39:00] >> you know, why why do people go into[39:01] science?[39:03] It's because they're puzzled by[39:04] something. They wonder about something.[39:07] You know, how does that work?[39:09] You know, you're a little kid and you[39:10] see something you think, "Wow, look at[39:11] that." And after a while you find that[39:13] there's something called science in[39:15] junior high and high school and that[39:17] they people work on this.[39:19] Um but so philoso- philosophy according[39:21] to Plato and Aristotle who are the[39:23] founders of Western thinking say[39:25] [snorts] philosophy begins with wonder.[39:28] Uh with a kind of awe about wow. Uh[39:32] And it And it can be something as[39:34] a simple as seeing for the first time a[39:36] bird, you know, fly off a branch when[39:40] you're a 2-year-old.[39:42] And uh I remember one one of the[39:44] [snorts] most amazing instances of this[39:46] I ever saw was about 40 years ago. I'm[39:48] at a Thanksgiving day party[39:51] and at an old shotgun house here in New[39:53] Orleans.[39:54] And a couple come in with with their[39:56] little 2-year-old and he's[39:58] toddling along looking at things and[40:00] suddenly I I see him standing stock[40:02] still[40:04] looking up and he's like[40:06] shocked and there was [snorts] a ceiling[40:09] fan.[40:11] >> First time.[40:11] >> going around and he was like, "That's[40:13] [snorts] impossible." Right? In effect.[40:16] And that's wonder, right?[40:19] Uh now, we we lose our sense of wonder[40:21] as you get older. You get a little more[40:23] cynical. Been there, done that. And[40:25] that's one of the reasons why UFOs are[40:27] like a kick in the butt, the wonder[40:29] butt, right? It's like, "Whoa.[40:31] That's not supposed to be possible,[40:33] right? I never thought I'd see one of[40:34] those."[40:35] Um so, the and that's why historically[40:39] we mentioned, I think, earlier that uh[40:42] what we call natural science used to be[40:45] called natural philosophy.[40:46] >> Right.[40:47] >> It was really in the mid-late 19th[40:48] century that they split off. Uh[40:51] >> [snorts][40:51] >> and William James was part of this whole[40:52] process. Uh he was both psychologist and[40:56] philosopher. And psychology became its[40:58] own discipline in the social sciences[41:01] and philosophy went on its own way.[41:03] >> [snorts][41:03] >> But, the same kind of of[41:07] the the the a perturbation in our[41:09] experience, which is not supposed to be[41:11] there, triggers a sense of awe, wonder,[41:14] puzzle.[41:15] And uh we are creatures who are really[41:19] susceptible to that. And have the means[41:22] to follow follow it up.[41:24] Right? Trying to figure out how it[41:26] works. How a thing works. And so, that[41:29] you know, uh[41:30] so, also in material sciences, physical[41:32] scientists, that's what they do.[41:35] Now, the[41:36] you know, I I was at a university[41:39] professor for a long time. And I you[41:40] know, I sit on a tenure and promotion uh[41:43] you know, uh[41:45] committees and so on. And I see what[41:46] scientists actually work on these tiny[41:48] little things.[41:49] >> Right, yeah. Very narrow focus.[41:51] >> Narrow. And and that's fine. That's how[41:53] it[41:53] has to be right now. But, uh[41:56] really what they're also interested in[41:58] is much bigger picture. How this all[42:00] fits in. Now, one of the challenges for[42:02] us in the university world where we have[42:05] all these super specialists is is[42:07] finding out you know, what what is[42:09] everybody thinking about?[42:11] >> How does it all fit together and so on?[42:13] How do they fit together? And I think[42:14] that's one one way in which that's one[42:16] reason I've loved to uh[42:18] read books about uh science, uh quantum[42:22] [snorts] theory, you know, theories of[42:24] biology and so on because they shed[42:26] light on[42:27] uh what's what's going on in those[42:29] domains which have always interested me,[42:31] but I don't have the competence to judge[42:33] them[42:34] or evaluate them, but people who are[42:37] able to write good books like this do[42:39] so.[42:40] Let me give you an example of this. Uh[42:42] for many years, I mean, I I was at the[42:44] beginning of environmental ethics.[42:47] Uh this back in the late[42:49] >> You were one of the founders of the[42:51] discipline of ethics.[42:51] >> I I'm one of the I'm one of the founders[42:53] of that branch of applied philosophy. I[42:56] was publishing about Heidegger and Marx[42:58] and the technological[43:00] exploitation domination of nature back[43:02] in the late '70s.[43:03] So, it goes way back.[43:05] Um [snorts] and and that that was fun to[43:08] do that.[43:08] >> And this is also to do with like nuclear[43:10] weapons and and things, too. This is[43:12] part of[43:12] >> Yeah, that's right. Uh the[43:14] issues about nuclear war which is one[43:16] reason John Mack and I uh[43:18] met each other. Um but Tihana, what what[43:22] was I going to say about this?[43:24] >> So, you're a founder of environmental[43:25] philosophy and[43:26] >> Oh, yeah, all right. And so,[43:28] also really interested in postmodern[43:30] theory, uh extent to which our mapping[43:34] and interpreting of things[43:36] is has certain presuppositions that need[43:38] to be undermined and be that opened up[43:40] and so on.[43:41] So, about 20 years ago uh cuz I was[43:44] really always interested in what uh[43:48] biologists and uh uh people [snorts][43:50] working in environmental science,[43:52] environmental studies were doing. And[43:54] so, I started reading there's a whole[43:56] new group which is really interested in[43:58] postmodern theory.[44:00] Um they were bringing to bear the idea[44:02] that, "Look, it's all about how you[44:04] frame something[44:06] in terms of space and time.[44:08] And it's all about, uh you know, to some[44:10] extent the conceptual apparatus which[44:12] you bring to the party that, you know,[44:15] that's what what allows only certain[44:17] aspects of the phenomenon to show up[44:19] because other aspects have to be hidden[44:21] in order for you to get this whole gem[44:22] out.[44:23] >> Right. So our our perception is is in[44:26] some way filtered by the concepts and[44:27] ideas that we have[44:29] that we're bringing to perception in the[44:30] first place and so it kind of limits[44:32] what we can even perceive.[44:33] >> Right.[44:34] And these these guys These guys have[44:36] been reading all this stuff.[44:37] >> Mhm.[44:38] >> I mean they they were[44:39] uh I thought I was really impressed. I[44:41] said, "Here are these guys who've got a[44:42] research program, you know, they got to[44:44] get grants, they're doing their research[44:45] right in the field or in the lab and[44:47] then simultaneously they're reading uh[44:50] philosophy and related[44:52] uh and and in related areas uh about[44:57] topics that bear on the assumptions they[44:59] have been using in their research[45:01] program.[45:01] >> And these are like environmental[45:03] scientists?[45:04] >> scientists.[45:05] >> Yeah.[45:06] >> Uh or people who are in environmental uh[45:09] science by way of their own particular[45:11] >> That's the area of research, yeah.[45:13] >> Yeah, because I remember back in the uh[45:15] '90s I spent a decade with a wonderful[45:17] uh[45:18] uh[45:19] molecular a biologist who's who's in the[45:21] National Academy for work on fungi or[45:24] fungi I guess you say she says. Um and[45:27] we were the co-directors of[45:28] environmental studies.[45:30] So there really wasn't an environment it[45:32] was only a vague program in[45:33] environmental [clears throat] studies.[45:34] So what we did uh[45:36] was to redesign that program and then we[45:39] got money to fund people in various[45:41] departments to develop a course that[45:45] would be co-taught for credit either[45:47] environmental studies credit or in[45:49] chemistry or biology or whatever field[45:51] it was, anthropology. And [snorts] these[45:54] these would become the basis for uh the[45:56] new curriculum. We were going to green[45:57] the whole curriculum.[45:59] Uh and this is So this was great. I was[46:01] learning all kind of stuff[46:02] uh from these people and they usually[46:05] thought it was a a great idea, you know,[46:07] because it gave them a whole new way of[46:09] presenting their material[46:11] in terms of a topic that everyone was[46:13] concerned about.[46:15] And so, that's[46:16] so my[46:18] view of environmental studies[46:20] is always been interdisciplinary.[46:23] >> [snorts][46:23] >> Philosophy brings something interesting[46:25] to the party because everyone[46:27] philosophical themes[46:29] I mentioned.[46:31] You know, there's always that[46:33] either philosophy of science or[46:35] philosophy of culture or whatever that[46:37] helps inform what people are doing when[46:39] they take the step back from the[46:41] immediate occupations of their research[46:44] and so on, they then wax philosophical a[46:46] bit. You see you know, older scientists[46:49] and so on, they take that step back and[46:52] they they offer a bigger picture in[46:54] which their other life experience[46:57] in addition to their scientific[46:59] investigations[47:00] helps bring about a rich kind of[47:03] reflection that that is really fun to[47:06] read. I just love reading a scientist[47:08] who are talking about what they've seen,[47:11] what they've discovered and how it has[47:12] been shaped and changed both by changes[47:16] in theory as well as in changes in[47:17] instrumentation.[47:19] >> Oh, sure.[47:20] >> new thing that opens up, you know,[47:21] that's[47:22] >> new possibilities. So, you've worked[47:24] across a lot of disciplines. One of[47:26] those is that you you worked with on the[47:29] psychologist John Mack.[47:31] >> The psychiatrist.[47:32] >> Psychiatrist, right. He was the head of[47:34] psychiatry at Harvard.[47:36] Um,[47:36] while he was doing his his most you[47:39] know, important UFO or I guess abduction[47:41] related work, how did that collaboration[47:44] come about? Like, what did you do[47:45] together?[47:46] >> Yeah, such a good such a cool topic. You[47:48] know, I want to I want to write a like I[47:50] should I'm thinking about writing an[47:51] autobiography because there's so many[47:52] cool things that happened[47:54] >> Absolutely should. Yes.[47:56] >> That[47:56] >> that we gave a flavor of it that paper[47:59] you written, right? So back in the back[48:01] in the late[48:02] I think it's around 1980. It took[48:04] something called the S training.[48:06] Uh this is one of these transformational[48:08] seminars coming out of the West Coast.[48:10] And it was fantastic. I mean it was an[48:12] incredible experience.[48:13] Uh and uh[48:15] >> Is this sort of like Esalen flavored uh[48:18] >> Well, in a way. I mean uh[48:20] the guy who founded it were Airheart and[48:21] you you you knew new people at Esalen[48:23] went up there. That whole West Coast[48:25] uh crowd was familiar with each other.[48:28] And the way it came out of the part of[48:30] the human potential movement.[48:32] >> Sure.[48:32] >> Uh[48:32] >> [snorts][48:32] >> that that humans have have capacities[48:35] which are which we don't uh tap into.[48:38] And we make uh we make uh[48:41] make decisions about who we are, what[48:42] we're capable of which uh narrow us. And[48:46] the price of it is uh spontaneity,[48:48] capacity to care and love and so on. We[48:50] live from a position of fear. Uh you[48:53] know, that[48:54] the the the[48:55] typical you know, the hustle that goes[48:58] uh[48:59] The typical position is[49:01] you just on uh on expresses is I want to[49:04] be right and look good in the process.[49:07] That's my[49:07] >> Sure, yeah.[49:09] >> [laughter][49:10] >> So, but that's a pretty you know, that's[49:12] not a great not a great satisfying life.[49:14] >> It's the recipe for suffering, really.[49:16] >> Yeah, it's it's all about suffering.[49:17] Well, in the meantime, you know,[49:19] I read you know, back in the I think it[49:21] was in '77 I read Be Here Be Here Now by[49:24] Ram Dass.[49:25] >> Sure.[49:26] >> The disgraced psychiatrist psychology[49:28] professors from Harvard and other[49:29] disgraced Harvard professor. Why is it[49:32] that I'm attracted to all these[49:33] disgraced professors and people like[49:35] that? Because I I I'm not I don't accept[49:38] the status quo way of looking at things.[49:40] >> Well, he's only disgraced in the sense[49:41] that he left psychiatry and became like[49:43] a meditator and all these things he[49:45] didn't do anything.[49:45] >> was but he was fired cuz he was turning[49:48] his students over[49:48] >> over LSD and stuff, right?[49:50] >> Yeah, that's right. But that's a great[49:52] book, Be Here Now. That opened my mind[49:53] to all of the, you know, the whole Asian[49:55] traditions, which are just fantastic.[49:57] And my attitude toward them prior to[49:59] that, I must say, was not a pretty one.[50:01] >> Same. I My recent, in the past few[50:03] years, discovery of Indian philosophy[50:06] has been really mind-blowing. I mean,[50:07] the level of subtlety that they express[50:10] is just unparalleled.[50:12] >> Well, what I found a few years ago, I[50:15] guess it's probably 10, 11 years ago[50:17] now, when I was[50:18] I got I taught Buddhism for a while and[50:20] really got into the literature and I did[50:22] long-term [snorts][50:23] meditation retreats and all this.[50:25] But especially in Indian philosophy,[50:28] virtually every philosophical position[50:31] which has been taken in the West is[50:33] found in Indian philosophy.[50:35] >> And it's been and it's been explored[50:37] much with much more detail.[50:39] >> Much more detail. They're older and they[50:41] have a lot more people doing it, right?[50:44] And so that was an eye-opener. So it[50:46] which is also revelatory the fact that[50:49] humans have similar ways of trying to[50:51] make sense of things.[50:53] Everything they were doing[50:55] I could make sense of.[50:57] As well, that's an interesting way to[50:58] try to solve the problem of X[51:01] and so on. So that was[51:02] but anyway[51:04] >> So you're getting you're getting[51:05] interested in this human potential sort[51:06] of stuff and you're doing this S[51:07] training and that's leading somewhere[51:09] towards John.[51:10] >> Turns out that John Mack had also taken[51:13] this S training a year before. Now, he[51:15] was an influential guy, well-known as a[51:17] psychiatrist. He was head of the[51:20] Harvard[51:21] Harvard Community[51:23] Hospital, Cambridge Hospital. He was[51:26] head of that department, not of the[51:27] whole Harvard Psychiatry Department.[51:30] >> I see. Okay, the[51:31] the[51:32] the medical, the sort of clinical side,[51:33] rather than[51:33] >> Yeah, so he had he Cambridge Psychiatry[51:36] Department and program he founded at[51:38] Cambridge Hospital affiliated with[51:40] Harvard.[51:41] But he took it. He got so interested in[51:43] it that he had himself appointed[51:44] appointed to the board[51:46] Uh, of the S Foundation, in other words.[51:49] So, he became an advisor and so on. And[51:51] he was really pumping Warner [snorts][51:53] and company to get into the nuclear arms[51:55] race issue, because it to him is it[51:57] commanded human potential whatever not[51:59] going to be any.[52:01] Uh, now Warner, I talked to him about it[52:03] years later. He and I became friends and[52:05] I worked with him a lot over the years.[52:07] Um, he said, "I just don't have a[52:09] breakthrough on this thing."[52:11] Um, but he heard me say, "I'm spending a[52:13] sabbatical out there in the spring[52:14] [snorts] of '82."[52:16] Uh, he invited me to make a presentation[52:19] uh, to him and a bunch of his trainers[52:20] and other people. And [snorts] part of[52:23] what I was doing was about the nuclear[52:24] arms race.[52:26] Uh, the extent to which we're in a[52:27] suicidal race for dominance between[52:30] >> [snorts][52:30] >> uh, dueling twin aspects of modernity,[52:33] capitalism and communism. They're not[52:35] opposites, they just have a different[52:37] way of handling modernity.[52:39] And uh, he loved all this and they sent[52:41] me on the road to give talks on[52:43] authenticity.[52:44] >> [snorts][52:44] >> So, I wrote I wrote a book on[52:45] authenticity, Heidegger's[52:47] uh, Eclipse of the Self. He read[52:49] portions of that, loved that. John Mack[52:51] read some of the stuff and wrote to uh,[52:55] in to uh, Warner and company, said,[52:56] "Well, his stuff is great, his stuff is[52:57] great, but he's not he's not doing[52:59] anything about it." Well, but I then I[53:01] started. I I got really I didn't know[53:03] any of this. I didn't know Warner, I[53:05] mean, I didn't know John Mack, I didn't[53:06] know his role at all this.[53:09] But um,[53:11] I went to a big meeting at Stanford. I[53:13] don't want to go into all these details,[53:15] but I had a powerful experience[53:17] >> [snorts][53:17] >> of uh, of experiencing your own death[53:20] through nuclear war. You get it out of[53:23] the way.[53:24] Okay, now I'm dead.[53:26] Uh, I don't have to look a meditative[53:28] experience or Well, I think I've heard[53:30] you talk about this before, but for for[53:32] the audience, what what is this[53:33] experience you're talking about? Well,[53:34] we it was a Joanna Macy, who herself[53:37] later became a big deep ecologist, a[53:39] movement I was part of. Uh, and who was[53:41] also really involved in the arms race.[53:42] She said, "Look." Her her point of view[53:45] was that she wrote a book called Despair[53:46] and Empowerment in the nuclear age.[53:49] Well, as long as you're terrified and[53:51] despairing, you can't take action.[53:53] So, [snorts] empowerment means you have[53:54] to get beyond your despair. Now, what's[53:56] your despair? It's hopeless and I'm[53:58] going to die and everybody else is, too.[54:00] Well, then you're not going to do[54:01] anything. So, you got to go ahead and go[54:03] through the experience of dying.[54:06] So, she set up this incredible, you[54:08] know, experience with about 40 or 50[54:10] people and we're milling around and[54:13] and you know, there are various times we[54:14] stopped. One of the times we stopped[54:16] with whoever is near us, we take the[54:18] others' hands.[54:20] We look at the hands, the careworn.[54:23] Imagine what these have done. We We lock[54:25] eyes. No No speaking. We just deep[54:28] appreciation. This kind of thing goes on[54:30] and then there's another moment later on[54:32] where[54:33] we stop.[54:34] Uh, we look into the eyes of whoever is[54:39] near us as. And then the voice, uh,[54:42] you know, the your animist says, uh,[54:45] "The bomb has dropped.[54:47] This is the last person you will ever[54:49] see." And something else. And there we[54:52] are. And now, these are all people at[54:54] this big conference held at Stanford.[54:55] There's thousands of anti-war activists.[54:58] At least we have enough[55:00] left in us to try to do something.[55:03] Uh, and it was devastating. I mean, the[55:05] the the sobbing, the[55:08] the bodily uh, I mean, it was just an[55:11] incredible and then finally we made our[55:13] way back to our seats. We did some[55:15] sharing[55:17] about it and then we[55:18] kind of tried to put ourselves together.[55:20] But that was so powerful because I no[55:23] longer was afraid of it.[55:25] >> [clears throat][55:26] >> I said, "Okay, if that's going to[55:28] happen, it's going to happen, but it's[55:29] not going to stop me from trying to stop[55:31] it."[55:32] Right? So, I'm not going to hunker down[55:34] uh, and be afraid. I'm going to take do[55:37] what action I could. So, I became a[55:38] super, you know, anti-war activist at[55:41] Tulane in New Orleans and started[55:43] publishing papers about all this in the[55:45] '80s and[55:46] then, um, I also, in 1983,[55:50] I met John Mack at an anti big anti-war[55:53] uh, seminar published by a branch of the[55:56] S Foundation called the Breakthrough[55:58] Foundation. And he was there[56:00] and a bunch of other people. We had a[56:01] couple of generals, they're all kind of[56:02] interesting people here.[56:05] Um, and then I so I followed his him[56:08] during the, uh, '80s cuz he got real[56:10] involved, especially with adolescents.[56:13] Uh, he had one of his specialties was,[56:14] uh,[56:15] uh,[56:16] childhood psychiatry.[56:18] And uh, so he was particularly, uh,[56:20] interested in the fact that inner-city,[56:22] uh, you young inner-city black girls,[56:25] uh, were really afraid of nuclear war.[56:27] >> Mhm. I bet it is.[56:28] >> And he's more so than they This[56:30] fascinating. Like they had it don't have[56:32] enough problems, right? But they were[56:35] attuned to this, uh, species-level, uh,[56:37] danger. Um, so I I noticed him and he[56:40] got involved in all these other, uh,[56:42] uh, big organizations. One of which[56:45] shared a Nobel Prize one year in the[56:47] '80s for the Peace Prize.[56:49] And then, uh,[56:51] I was in, uh, I spent a year over in,[56:53] uh,[56:55] in Munich on a Fulbright, uh, finishing[56:57] a couple of books up. My wife got the[56:59] Fulbright. And, [snorts][57:01] uh, came back to the States for a few[57:02] days and I I picked up a book by David[57:06] Jacobs, the famous Temple University[57:09] historian who'd been writing about alien[57:10] abductions. And who had written the[57:12] introduction?[57:13] >> Uh, John Mack.[57:14] >> John E. Mack.[57:16] I mean, you I almost fainted. I said,[57:18] "What?[57:19] John Mack?[57:21] Alien abduction?"[57:22] >> Yeah.[57:22] >> So, I write to him. I go up there that[57:25] that October and then we started[57:27] 12-year, uh, relationship which ended on[57:30] his with his death in London getting hit[57:32] by a car.[57:33] Uh but that was a fascinating time and[57:36] he was[57:37] wanting to get from me philosophical[57:39] knowledge and I wanted more[57:41] psychological stuff from him. So, we[57:43] were really good pair.[57:45] Cuz we each could contribute something[57:47] to the other and both both of us had[57:49] similar interests[57:50] in both frames because psychology to me[57:52] was like James would say is it has[57:55] filled big philosophical components to[57:57] it, yeah.[57:58] Um[58:00] >> I was amazed when I read his his book[58:03] Abductions that the the preface he[58:05] thanks Thomas Kuhn[58:07] >> Yeah.[58:07] >> for suggesting Boyhood friend.[58:09] >> Yeah, like childhood they would spend[58:10] Christmases together. And had encouraged[58:13] him to write this, you know, the great[58:15] philosopher of science.[58:15] >> Yeah. Well, he he he cautioned his you[58:18] know,[58:19] you don't have to come down with any[58:20] conclusion.[58:21] >> Right.[58:21] >> Stay with the phenomenon.[58:23] And don't let anyone else prejudge it[58:25] either. In other words, you got to stay[58:26] with Uh and I I recall I met, you know,[58:30] I met several trips up there and we[58:32] corresponded and I would meet groups of[58:34] experiencers, small groups and larger[58:37] groups. And some of these people were[58:38] shell-shocked, you know, coming they[58:40] were still[58:41] in a state of[58:43] not knowing about what what is can this[58:45] possibly mean.[58:47] Uh and uh[58:50] also read a bunch of letters. They had[58:52] four massive filing cabinets, you know,[58:55] the big tall ones and drawers.[58:57] And so one day I just got all the[58:59] letters out. Read all the letters in the[59:01] file. And there was several hundred of[59:03] them.[59:04] Some of them short, some of them much[59:05] longer.[59:06] Um and uh there's not any[59:09] confidentiality there cuz he's not their[59:11] actuals. And and I had no interest in[59:13] people's personal life. I just want to[59:15] see what they And it was incredible[59:16] stuff.[59:18] So, a lot of similarities, but each[59:19] story filtered to this person's own[59:21] life. So, that some things were unique[59:24] and other things were pretty much[59:26] similar to what others had reported.[59:28] They all brought their own life[59:29] experience to it. There were you know[59:32] ancestral connections.[59:34] The other people in their family I mean[59:36] I may be an abductee. I have been an[59:38] abductee. My brother seems to have been[59:40] and four other siblings report a[59:43] phenomena which are consistent with you[59:46] know abduction.[59:47] >> What what is your experience that you[59:49] reported? So so to to preface that I[59:51] imagine some of the listeners are[59:52] getting slightly nervous now because[59:54] while SCU is very interested in the UAP[59:57] phenomenon, they tend to want we tend to[01:00:00] want to stay oriented toward it in a way[01:00:03] that's[01:00:04] a sort of hard science focused not[01:00:06] because we're guided by any particular[01:00:08] theory I think but because we feel like[01:00:10] that's the the methods that we have at[01:00:12] our disposal. We can like look at radio[01:00:15] radar data and talk about how fast the[01:00:17] thing might be moving and how it might[01:00:19] be operating. Nobody I think in the[01:00:22] organization is all that skeptical about[01:00:24] you know[01:00:25] or or resistant to theorizing the nature[01:00:27] of these things or or to talking about[01:00:29] the features of encounters but we get[01:00:31] increasingly nervous as we get towards[01:00:33] the abduction thing because we just[01:00:35] don't know what tools you apply to that.[01:00:38] You can listen to people's stories[01:00:39] compassionately but it's it's hard to[01:00:41] theorize it. So[01:00:43] what what is your experience and also on[01:00:45] the tail end of that how do you think we[01:00:47] ought to go about studying like[01:00:49] rigorously studying the experiences of[01:00:52] people who've who've had these[01:00:53] encounters?[01:00:54] >> Well um[01:00:56] That's a good question.[01:00:57] >> Well tell me your experience first. What[01:00:59] what makes you think that you are an[01:01:01] abductee?[01:01:01] >> Well well let me let me just before yes[01:01:03] and just just comment about that. John[01:01:05] Mack one of the things he he said[01:01:07] later on after he'd been doing a lot of[01:01:09] work in this he read this really to him[01:01:11] really important book about testimony.[01:01:13] >> [snorts][01:01:14] >> And he said look[01:01:15] we put people in prison based on[01:01:17] testimony.[01:01:18] >> Right. Yeah.[01:01:19] >> And there [snorts] was a lot of problems[01:01:20] with testimony. A lot of problems with[01:01:24] people who are eyewitnesses.[01:01:26] I mean several eyewitnesses[01:01:28] at the same event can come up with[01:01:31] >> wildly different interpretations or[01:01:32] accounts.[01:01:33] >> Sometimes wildly different. Uh and the[01:01:36] two of course that puts a[01:01:38] you know a lot of[01:01:39] complications into into the whole thing.[01:01:42] But But if someone's testimony if[01:01:44] someone's gone through a traumatic[01:01:46] experience.[01:01:48] Now how how are you going to[01:01:50] relate to this person who would like to[01:01:51] share with you?[01:01:53] >> Mhm.[01:01:53] >> Okay. Well, the first step is not to[01:01:55] have any expectation about what this is.[01:01:59] And and not to exhibit skepticism from[01:02:01] the get-go.[01:02:03] Uh it's like John[01:02:04] like Q. Just listen to the facts, the[01:02:08] evidence. You know, don't make any[01:02:09] judgment. So[01:02:11] Kim Kimberly Engels who's a philosopher[01:02:14] up in New York in Illinois. She's[01:02:16] writing I just finished a book about uh[01:02:18] contact. She's done a lot of work with[01:02:20] experiencers. She's been to Rice to read[01:02:22] a lot of the letters in the Streiber[01:02:24] files and so on.[01:02:25] Uh and she's talking about the[01:02:27] phenomenological way of uh[01:02:31] hearing, eliciting uh people's[01:02:34] first-person experience of these[01:02:35] encounters.[01:02:36] >> Mhm.[01:02:37] >> And it's a very important book. She's[01:02:38] very smart and she's really good at what[01:02:41] she's doing.[01:02:42] Um[01:02:43] but[01:02:44] all we have for the most part about[01:02:46] these alien abductions is testimony.[01:02:49] Which is actually[01:02:50] >> actually not I mean for people who think[01:02:51] that that puts it outside the the realm[01:02:54] of rigorous science. I mean the history[01:02:55] of science is almost entirely the[01:02:57] history of testimony. It's until we[01:03:00] until we had cameras all you had was[01:03:02] people saying the things that they had[01:03:03] seen and we did a pretty good job of[01:03:05] being scientific in that way. So this is[01:03:07] scientific evidence, testimony.[01:03:09] >> Well, that's that's right.[01:03:11] It's evidence about about experience. I[01:03:14] mean what science is is increasingly[01:03:17] with increasing instrumentation, it's[01:03:19] better and better[01:03:21] testimony about experience.[01:03:23] I know what's the experience. It may be[01:03:25] a pointer on a dial or some kind of this[01:03:28] or that, but you are experiencing that[01:03:30] thing showing up after you did something[01:03:32] over here. Well, okay, let's write this[01:03:34] down. This is what happens. But so it's[01:03:36] an experience. Now almost everything we[01:03:38] know is based upon what someone told us.[01:03:41] There's very little I know that's not[01:03:43] based upon what other people figured[01:03:44] out.[01:03:46] You know, I mean think about the world[01:03:47] of science. Most scientists don't know[01:03:48] how to people figured all that other[01:03:50] stuff out. They're good at what they do.[01:03:52] Uh same thing in so many other areas of[01:03:54] life. So since it's about testimony, how[01:03:57] to receive the testimony,[01:03:59] how to interact with a person in a way[01:04:02] that allows this testimony to come forth[01:04:04] as weird as it might be. That's part of[01:04:07] it. Cuz you know, what think is really[01:04:09] weird. You mean what is this person[01:04:10] going to think of me if I say this is[01:04:12] what happened. Well, you have to find a[01:04:14] way to allow that to be there. So look,[01:04:16] I don't care what it is. Just I mean[01:04:17] let's let it out there.[01:04:19] >> Which is also the history of science. I[01:04:20] mean you look at like things like the[01:04:21] double slit experiment went unreported[01:04:23] for a long time because the assumption[01:04:25] was that this is just too weird. The[01:04:26] machine must be broken or nobody would[01:04:28] believe me or I'm crazy or I'm a bad[01:04:29] scientist or something. But[01:04:31] >> Well, yeah. Sim- Sim- Similarly, how[01:04:33] about the Nobel Prize for non-locality?[01:04:36] >> Sure. Yeah.[01:04:37] >> Come on now. You know, that's pretty[01:04:38] heavy duty, right?[01:04:40] That those that those particles never[01:04:42] never apart in the way we think. They're[01:04:44] somehow connected.[01:04:45] >> Still incomprehensibly weird.[01:04:47] >> How do you really can't conceive it?[01:04:48] >> Yeah. Well, what's weird is really a[01:04:50] function of like your expectations too.[01:04:53] So weirdness isn't isn't a thing out out[01:04:55] in the world. It's just the difference[01:04:57] between the map that we have of reality[01:04:59] in our head and reality itself. So it[01:05:02] shouldn't be a a dis-qualifier. It[01:05:03] should It's exactly what we should be[01:05:04] looking at.[01:05:05] >> Right.[01:05:06] Well, also there's there's also the uh[01:05:09] and Uh[01:05:12] Jim Madden's book. Have read that? Is[01:05:14] >> You haven't, no.[01:05:15] >> Yeah, he's a philosopher up at uh[01:05:17] uh what's his name of the school up in[01:05:19] Kansas? Uh but[01:05:21] uh Catholic school. But anyway, it's a[01:05:23] really good book. And uh one of the[01:05:25] things he points out is part of[01:05:27] Heidegger's point. You know, Heidegger[01:05:28] Heidegger gets this idea of being in the[01:05:30] world uh from uh uh[01:05:33] a biologist[01:05:35] uh from the Baltic area whose name uh[01:05:38] lose me at the moment. But he came up[01:05:40] with the idea of the Umwelt, the[01:05:42] surrounding world of a of an animal. The[01:05:45] life world. The life world, the[01:05:47] Lebenswelt, right? So, that's where[01:05:49] Heidegger gets being in the world. You[01:05:51] Jakob von Uexküll, that's the guy's[01:05:53] name.[01:05:54] And so, Heidegger's being in the world[01:05:56] as things show up for us at the basic[01:05:59] level as useful.[01:06:01] You know, you're taught, you know, you[01:06:02] learn that you can eat something or you[01:06:04] learn you can walk. And then as you grow[01:06:05] up, the world unfolds as a totality of[01:06:09] affordances consistent with your[01:06:11] abilities with a four-limbed seeing[01:06:13] being and so on.[01:06:15] Um[01:06:16] So, there is so much that we leave out[01:06:20] via our sensory apparatus[01:06:23] that is just inconceivable and[01:06:26] >> Well, you have to, right? If we[01:06:26] perceived everything all at once, you[01:06:28] couldn't do anything. Yeah, you'd be[01:06:30] right.[01:06:30] >> I mean, imagine imagine having several[01:06:33] extra bandwidths on the visual scale,[01:06:36] you know? I mean, imagine the stuff that[01:06:37] would be showing up that is to us[01:06:39] invisible.[01:06:40] Uh so, one of the things I think that uh[01:06:43] so, this is a good reminder that we live[01:06:44] in a kind of cave then. This is how he[01:06:47] connects it up to Plato's allegory of[01:06:48] the cave. We live in a kind of cave[01:06:50] where our experience of[01:06:52] the world is like a movie we're seeing.[01:06:54] We don't know it's a movie[01:06:56] until we look around and somebody forces[01:06:58] us to anyway, the whole[01:06:59] uh and and it's dependent really on our[01:07:02] uh[01:07:03] interests as organisms which who have to[01:07:05] survive by uh[01:07:07] projecting a world or revealing a world[01:07:10] consistent with our needs and abilities.[01:07:12] This is all great, but it means that[01:07:15] a lot of our taken-for-granted[01:07:17] assumptions about reality and the human[01:07:19] being in it are really narrow. Uh it[01:07:23] doesn't mean that they're not useful,[01:07:24] but don't be kidding yourself about that[01:07:26] we've got some or deep truth about[01:07:29] things.[01:07:29] >> Right, they're they're actually narrow[01:07:30] they're actually useful precisely[01:07:32] because they're narrow. Like yeah,[01:07:34] escaping a tiger in the woods[01:07:36] is[01:07:37] the things that you need are there[01:07:39] aren't like a holistic understanding of[01:07:41] like quantum phenomena or whatever. Like[01:07:44] you just need to point your body in the[01:07:46] other direction and run and you know, in[01:07:48] some sense the tiger isn't there in some[01:07:50] sense everything is actually just one[01:07:51] thing and that's true, but like it's not[01:07:53] >> Yeah, that's not going to help you. This[01:07:54] reminds me of a of a something that's[01:07:57] pertinent in terms of animals, too. They[01:07:58] live in their own own belts. One of the[01:08:00] things that happened I don't know some[01:08:02] decades ago,[01:08:03] there were some man-eating tigers, you[01:08:05] know, killing people out in the jungle[01:08:07] in India.[01:08:08] And somebody came up with the idea of[01:08:10] having people wear a hat which had big[01:08:13] eyes on the back.[01:08:15] >> yes, yeah.[01:08:15] >> And the tiger stayed away.[01:08:17] >> Yeah.[01:08:18] >> Because they[01:08:19] they were being looked at. Now, it was[01:08:21] an illusion,[01:08:23] but it worked, right?[01:08:25] So, tigers, too, have their own belts[01:08:27] and they don't like to have those eyes[01:08:28] looking at them when they're hunting,[01:08:29] right?[01:08:30] Um [snorts][01:08:31] But here here's a story.[01:08:33] So, here I'm working on the way and this[01:08:35] is this is when did I hear this? This is[01:08:37] about the year 2000. My younger brother[01:08:39] by 10 years who died a few years ago[01:08:41] just[01:08:42] >> This is the story of your abduction[01:08:43] experience.[01:08:44] >> No, well, my brother's considered to be[01:08:45] Oh, you wrote it down.[01:08:46] >> is my brother's abduction experience.[01:08:47] So, he he as a he tells the story. He[01:08:50] and a buddy drive up he's living in LA.[01:08:52] He and a buddy he's he was in his late[01:08:54] 20s.[01:08:55] Uh they can just go up to spend a week[01:08:57] in the San Gabriel Mountains Uh, of LA.[01:09:01] They[01:09:02] pitch their tents right on a beautiful,[01:09:04] uh, mountain lake. And then drinking a[01:09:07] little scotch or something and sun[01:09:08] sunset's gone down. Suddenly they see a[01:09:11] light[01:09:12] uh, come over the maybe there's a couple[01:09:14] of them, I forget now. My my another[01:09:17] brother of mine was his roommate at the[01:09:19] time.[01:09:20] And he he has, you know, I heard a[01:09:22] version of it and he and Robert[01:09:24] >> And they were both there, two of your[01:09:25] brothers together?[01:09:25] >> Yeah, they both lived in LA, but he[01:09:27] heard the story from John after he came[01:09:29] back. Because he and his buddy returned[01:09:31] the day after they had gone out there[01:09:33] and they were intending to spend a week.[01:09:35] And they had to give some account of why[01:09:37] they returned, but they didn't have an[01:09:39] account because they didn't remember[01:09:41] anything.[01:09:42] Um, could So, the the next day they see[01:09:45] the light, it's coming across the lake,[01:09:47] they aren't hearing anything, now[01:09:49] they're getting worried because if it's[01:09:51] a helicopter they should be and then you[01:09:54] know, and eventually it ends up over the[01:09:55] campsite. Big beam of light, you know,[01:09:59] illuminates the whole campsite. And uh,[01:10:02] John rushes out uh, trying to get away[01:10:05] into the darkness although his friend[01:10:07] had warned him not to go into the dark[01:10:09] cuz he can't anyway.[01:10:11] That's the last thing he remembers. Now,[01:10:13] when they wake up the next day in the[01:10:14] tents, they don't remember anything like[01:10:16] that, but they just felt kind of weird[01:10:18] so they decided to go home.[01:10:20] Now, some days and weeks later they[01:10:23] start having flashbacks and John had[01:10:25] seen the cover of Whitley Strieber's[01:10:27] book Communion. That's what triggered[01:10:30] all this stuff for him. So, he and his[01:10:32] buddy pieced it all together. So,[01:10:34] they're uh,[01:10:35] they That's they were able to remember[01:10:37] all the stuff I just described, but they[01:10:40] didn't remember anything after[01:10:42] they ran away.[01:10:44] All they knew was that they ended up the[01:10:45] next morning in their tents in their[01:10:47] sleeping bags not remembering any of[01:10:49] this weird stuff that happened. Now,[01:10:51] he's telling me this story and the[01:10:52] Harris standing up on his forearms.[01:10:55] Hm. That's and this is a or 12 years[01:10:57] later. That's the effect it left on him.[01:11:00] And I said, "Look,[01:11:01] >> [snorts][01:11:01] >> do you want to recover any of that? You[01:11:02] know, I know John Mack. I'm sure he'll[01:11:04] we can fly you up there and he'll work[01:11:06] with you." And he said,[01:11:08] "You know, I really don't want to I[01:11:09] don't want to know any more about it."[01:11:10] >> Sure.[01:11:11] >> You know. My assumption though is he had[01:11:14] an experience. Then I said, "So, I said,[01:11:15] wait a minute. You know, I have seven[01:11:16] siblings." So, I said, "Wait a minute.[01:11:19] If abductions occur in families, it[01:11:21] looks like John was abducted. I was[01:11:23] saying he was abducted."[01:11:24] Given all the stuff I've read and people[01:11:26] I talked to, I said, "I'll so I'll[01:11:28] write to all my siblings." So, my sister[01:11:30] Barbara said, "You know, when I was a[01:11:31] senior in high school, this incredibly[01:11:33] bright light comes shining in my window[01:11:35] like a searchlight. You know, my sister[01:11:38] doesn't wake up." And it was terrifying.[01:11:40] It seemed weird and threatening and[01:11:42] evil, you know, and all this kind of[01:11:43] stuff. But then, she just goes to sleep.[01:11:46] My brother in in in the army in Germany,[01:11:49] similar thing happened. This huge bright[01:11:52] light and the next day there's this[01:11:54] farmland out there.[01:11:55] There's [snorts] no and it's a second or[01:11:57] third story. And there's no explanation[01:11:59] for this, natural explanation. Some kind[01:12:02] of something was shining the light, all[01:12:04] right?[01:12:05] >> But that like window level, you mean[01:12:06] that's what's[01:12:07] >> Well, it would be second or third story[01:12:09] window.[01:12:09] >> Yeah, yeah. So, it's up in the air. It's[01:12:11] not a car, yeah.[01:12:12] >> Yeah, it was cuz he he has a PhD from[01:12:15] Georgia Tech in thermodynamics.[01:12:17] So, you know, he's thought a lot about[01:12:19] about this. And he's really smart. And[01:12:22] [snorts] then my brother Philip,[01:12:24] he's driving home driving to a party in[01:12:27] Baton outside of Baton Rouge one evening[01:12:29] and[01:12:31] he looks out[01:12:32] driver's window and he sees this I think[01:12:35] one of I sees this light and it has some[01:12:36] colors on it.[01:12:38] It's[01:12:39] this word following[01:12:42] them.[01:12:42] >> Yeah.[01:12:43] >> [clears throat][01:12:43] >> And he says to himself, "You know, that"[01:12:45] cuz he realizes not any traditional[01:12:47] thing up there. It's kind of like a UFO.[01:12:50] >> [gasps][01:12:50] >> And he didn't mention it. He just kind[01:12:51] of So, they turn off the road and he[01:12:53] figures that was it cuz it So he's[01:12:55] driving up the long driveway and about a[01:12:57] It's a long wait until So about a[01:12:59] quarter of a mile[01:13:01] ahead of him, this UFO lands hovering[01:13:05] above the ground right at eye level.[01:13:08] Right? And he turns to his wife and[01:13:10] says, "Do you see that?"[01:13:12] She's oblivious.[01:13:14] And then it shoots straight ahead toward[01:13:17] them and it[01:13:18] goes right over the roof of the car.[01:13:21] So he's[01:13:21] left there[01:13:23] >> And in a daze, yeah.[01:13:25] >> What the Right? So that's that's, you[01:13:28] know, and the couple of other ones[01:13:30] siblings didn't have any of these[01:13:31] experience, but I had an experience. So[01:13:33] I was racking my brains, you know, what[01:13:35] What about me? Left out, right?[01:13:38] >> So you felt excluded. You were left out[01:13:40] by the the abduction.[01:13:41] >> I didn't have, you know, but back in '79[01:13:43] '80 when I was at Tulane, we have a[01:13:45] junior year abroad program in London,[01:13:46] actually for all the British Isles.[01:13:49] >> [snorts][01:13:49] >> 50 students or so. So I'm living in[01:13:50] London and that spring[01:13:53] um[01:13:54] I had this[01:13:55] dream. It was really potent, right? I'm[01:13:58] awakened by three or four brightly[01:14:01] colored 4-ft tall birds[01:14:05] that have apparently come into the[01:14:07] window[01:14:08] and I'm on the second floor[01:14:10] and they're coming toward me.[01:14:12] And uh you know,[01:14:16] I I[01:14:16] it was so shocking that I didn't have an[01:14:19] emotion. I just said, "What is it?" Then[01:14:21] it all goes black.[01:14:23] But it was so intense.[01:14:25] I I shared it with people, you know,[01:14:27] later on but that you know, within weeks[01:14:29] of it telling people about this dream.[01:14:31] Uh now I would I would say is this a[01:14:34] screen memory?[01:14:36] Are these really 4-ft grays? Are they[01:14:39] coming to get me?[01:14:40] And but I had none of that back then.[01:14:42] See, I wasn't reading about alien[01:14:43] abductions at that time.[01:14:45] 1979 '80, it wasn't really out there. I[01:14:48] didn't I didn't anything about it.[01:14:50] Um[01:14:50] but I do know when I saw the cover of[01:14:52] Communion in 1986 or 7, I guess it was[01:14:56] 7, 88, one of those years[01:14:59] at the airport, I said, "What is that?"[01:15:01] It was such a shocking[01:15:04] image. It's like I'd seen that.[01:15:07] >> It was the It is the classic gray image[01:15:09] that the first depiction of it to[01:15:12] >> Yeah, and and you know, I I read I read[01:15:15] subsequently about how he who he hired[01:15:17] to do it and all this stuff and they[01:15:19] really he would correct him until he got[01:15:21] it just right. Um and so many people[01:15:24] have had that same experience. What's[01:15:26] the name of the the Stanford uh[01:15:28] uh physician uh[01:15:29] >> Uh Gary Nolan, probably.[01:15:31] >> No, uh[01:15:32] yeah, Gary's not a physician, he's a[01:15:33] scientist and an inventor. He was really[01:15:36] involved with all these[01:15:37] >> immunologist, I think. Yeah.[01:15:39] >> But he reports that that's when he saw[01:15:41] the cover of the of the UFO[01:15:44] uh on the on the color cover of the gray[01:15:47] on Communion, uh he said he almost[01:15:49] fainted because that's what he saw in[01:15:50] his bedroom when he was 5 years old.[01:15:53] >> Mhm.[01:15:53] >> Now, this is This is in the Stanford[01:15:55] University quarterly[01:15:57] uh journal of the, you know, for the[01:15:58] alums. He's telling the story.[01:16:00] >> He's not been shy about this at all.[01:16:01] >> He's out there, right? And uh so[01:16:05] the then the question comes up, how how[01:16:07] many people have had these encounters?[01:16:10] Are they are you know[01:16:11] >> Whitley Strieber, I think said that they[01:16:13] stopped counting the letters that they[01:16:15] got when they got to the 500,000th[01:16:19] >> I've read that, too.[01:16:20] Uh and I think they have 5,000 of them[01:16:22] at Rice. They they couldn't keep all cuz[01:16:24] where would you put 500,000 letters?[01:16:26] >> Yeah.[01:16:26] >> Uh yes, I Now, that that's the same[01:16:29] thing at uh John Mack's office at the he[01:16:31] got money from Rockefeller.[01:16:33] I think a 3-year grant back in the uh[01:16:37] late [snorts][01:16:38] uh or late I guess it was the early 90s.[01:16:41] >> To study of[01:16:42] >> The study of abduction phenomenon.[01:16:44] >> Yeah.[01:16:44] >> And he had his office off campus nearby.[01:16:48] And he had this rack as I said earlier[01:16:51] of these uh[01:16:52] uh[01:16:53] filing cabinets stuffed. I mean, I'm[01:16:55] just stuffed to the gills with these[01:16:56] letters. Thousands and thousands of[01:16:58] letters. Now,[01:16:59] back in the day, I mean, people Not[01:17:02] everyone remembers the analog world, but[01:17:04] you know, it took something to write a[01:17:06] letter. You had to sit down and you[01:17:07] actually write it or type it. Fold it,[01:17:09] get the envelope, stamp it, take it You[01:17:11] know, there was It wasn't like firing[01:17:12] off an email. Uh then you have to find[01:17:14] also how Who do I address it to? Uh that[01:17:17] that whole process. So, to receive that[01:17:20] many unsolicited letters, uh you know,[01:17:22] John and his small staff were stunned.[01:17:25] They had no[01:17:26] expectation that they would that his[01:17:28] book would trigger off such a response.[01:17:30] >> Yeah, it certainly can't be the majority[01:17:32] of people who would be could write such[01:17:34] a letter[01:17:35] actually wrote one, right? It's it's a[01:17:37] small[01:17:37] >> One in 10? One in 20? One in 30? You[01:17:40] know, you know, it's a small fraction of[01:17:42] the uh[01:17:43] So, what Whitley said[01:17:45] I remember reading it not long ago. He[01:17:46] said either either it's a uh[01:17:49] uh[01:17:49] a rare phenomenon or one incredibly[01:17:53] common common but forgotten.[01:17:56] Uh so, maybe it is a very common[01:17:58] phenomenon.[01:17:59] >> Yeah, and how do we[01:18:00] >> You know, what do we do with that?[01:18:02] With the abduction phenomenon?[01:18:04] >> I I don't know. I mean, I[01:18:07] I look at how John Mack talked about[01:18:09] this. And one thing that struck me in[01:18:11] his method was that he would listen[01:18:14] compassionately.[01:18:15] And he wouldn't exactly theorize about[01:18:19] what was going on, but he would note[01:18:21] that[01:18:22] um the sort of physiological response[01:18:26] that people would have when they were[01:18:27] recounting these stories is the sort of[01:18:29] thing that you only get from real[01:18:30] experience. So, you don't get it from[01:18:32] misperceiving something and just an[01:18:34] optical illusion or whatever. You don't[01:18:35] get it from making it up. But these[01:18:38] people actually went through something[01:18:40] really strange.[01:18:42] >> And traumatic.[01:18:43] >> And traumatic, yeah.[01:18:45] >> Well, that that goes back to[01:18:47] let's take this back to the 1952[01:18:50] flyover over DC. You know, they the[01:18:52] hydrogen bomb was detonated a few months[01:18:54] later. Some people interpret this[01:18:56] flyover as a[01:18:58] you know, as a warning could they[01:19:00] probably they were going to do this[01:19:01] test. But you have this optical[01:19:04] physicist, a PhD in optical physics[01:19:07] studying the evidence to say, "Look,[01:19:09] it's it's it's not what you can't write[01:19:11] it off in the way you did as some kind[01:19:13] of temperature inversion."[01:19:15] And likewise here you here you have a[01:19:18] really world-famous psychiatrist. He[01:19:21] became world-famous for his work against[01:19:22] the nuclear arms race. He published many[01:19:25] books and articles.[01:19:27] He was regarded about psychiatry. He was[01:19:29] regarded as a really strong[01:19:32] psychiatrist. He published a Pulitzer[01:19:34] Prize-winning book[01:19:35] >> [snorts][01:19:36] >> on T.E. Lawrence.[01:19:38] And this guy had cred, you know,[01:19:40] unbelievable credibility. Now, [snorts][01:19:43] just as an optical physicist with grad[01:19:46] with training like this guy had, so too[01:19:48] with John Mack. When he says something[01:19:50] about his specialty, which is how people[01:19:54] act on the basis of it when they're[01:19:55] explaining a traumatic experience, you[01:19:58] have to take that really seriously. Now,[01:20:01] when you see person after person after[01:20:03] person, two or three hundred people,[01:20:06] with similar types of[01:20:09] corporeal[01:20:10] emotional presentations associated with[01:20:13] telling these stories,[01:20:14] and and he has all this background in[01:20:16] psychiatry and people suffering and so[01:20:19] on, then you got to say there's[01:20:20] something happened to these people.[01:20:22] >> Right. Yeah.[01:20:23] >> Now, we I don't know what it was. I[01:20:25] don't know what happened to those[01:20:26] people.[01:20:27] It's some kind of they were encountering[01:20:29] some kind of really powerful otherness.[01:20:33] Uh I don't know where it comes from,[01:20:35] what they're made of, what their[01:20:36] intentions are.[01:20:38] Uh[01:20:39] but[01:20:40] I had to listen to[01:20:41] you know, to to their story and just[01:20:43] accept it as what they are able to[01:20:46] report about what happened to them.[01:20:48] >> I think there's this tendency in the[01:20:51] community that's really seriously[01:20:52] interested in these phenomena. There's a[01:20:54] tendency to sort of draw this this line,[01:20:57] kind of an arbitrary line, but between[01:21:00] the[01:21:02] the things that we would think of as the[01:21:03] UAP or UFOs themselves, the[01:21:06] vehicles or objects,[01:21:08] >> Right.[01:21:08] >> and then the experiences that people[01:21:10] have of them and say, "Well, we we just[01:21:13] want to kind of theorize about this."[01:21:15] When you do that, it's pretty easy to[01:21:17] theorize that these are craft from some[01:21:19] other civilization that are operating on[01:21:21] physical principles we don't yet[01:21:22] understand or like have a[01:21:24] fuel source that we haven't yet[01:21:26] discovered, etc. etc. etc. And they're[01:21:29] here for, you know, prosaic reasons.[01:21:31] They they want our water or like just to[01:21:33] observe us or or whatever it may be.[01:21:35] But if you don't draw that line and you[01:21:38] start including all of the experiences[01:21:40] that are attached to it, it becomes very[01:21:42] very difficult to just theorize these[01:21:44] things as like fancy spaceships that[01:21:49] m- other meat you know, meat-based[01:21:50] animals are driving[01:21:52] >> Well, that's right. That's right. I Well[01:21:54] said and here's here's what I would say[01:21:55] to that. It's far less threatening[01:21:59] that these critters are beings from[01:22:01] other planets.[01:22:02] >> Right.[01:22:02] >> We can understand that.[01:22:04] They're versions of the less in the[01:22:06] sense that they're somehow alive. They[01:22:08] they have to, you know, travel here with[01:22:10] some kind of propulsion[01:22:12] craft or whatever, you know, that but[01:22:14] it's within our and you know, our[01:22:17] physical understanding reality.[01:22:19] >> Yeah, nothing fundamentally new is being[01:22:21] introduced in that way of theorizing.[01:22:23] >> No. You're talking about alien[01:22:25] abductions.[01:22:26] Uh first of all, there's this bleed over[01:22:29] and these critters are coming out of the[01:22:30] spacecraft and they're abducting people[01:22:33] and doing stuff to them. Well, then[01:22:34] right away it's frightening and[01:22:36] extremely uh but still somehow[01:22:39] at least containable within the idea[01:22:41] they're coming out of craft and they're[01:22:43] invading. Well, even that's part of it.[01:22:45] But the really weird stuff, you know,[01:22:48] that people experience or report[01:22:50] experiencing, the stuff that stands[01:22:51] outside of our known physical[01:22:53] parameters,[01:22:55] uh the illusiveness of the phenomenon,[01:22:59] you know, it's just like you know, you[01:23:01] have the nuts and bolts crash but you[01:23:02] got elusive the evidence is.[01:23:05] You know, we have some[01:23:06] you know,[01:23:07] marks in the ground where the the tripod[01:23:10] the feet maybe the craft may have stuck[01:23:11] you know, we have some blobby stuff that[01:23:13] fell out of the craft which is some kind[01:23:15] of aluminum. Well, you know, all this[01:23:17] you know, we supposedly have these nuts[01:23:19] and bolts crafts hidden in you know,[01:23:21] Wright Patterson or some place in New[01:23:22] Mexico but now you know, there no you[01:23:25] know, it it you know, after 80 years you[01:23:27] figure some there'd be some break[01:23:29] through about it but[01:23:31] so one crucial thing and similarly with[01:23:33] alien abduction, there's never been or[01:23:36] rarely any evidence that an abortion was[01:23:38] I mean a pregnancy was terminated[01:23:41] that was supposedly started by[01:23:44] mating with some[01:23:46] or getting be having him or herself made[01:23:48] pregnant by these aliens in some hybrid[01:23:50] program. You know, we don't have[01:23:52] and there's some correlation between UFO[01:23:55] sightings and the things that happen to[01:23:57] these people[01:23:59] sometimes but you know, there's there's[01:24:01] not a lot of so that the[01:24:05] testimony, the witness sharing of our[01:24:09] people who report these experiences is[01:24:12] analogous in a way to the sightings[01:24:14] that scientists are hoping to make and[01:24:16] do make.[01:24:18] They're really interesting but but but[01:24:20] we don't have they don't take us very[01:24:22] far.[01:24:24] There's no[01:24:25] where would be what would it take to[01:24:27] really nail something down?[01:24:30] Because we've had so many sightings of[01:24:33] you know radar[01:24:35] images of things making right turns. We[01:24:37] all assume that the NORAD and the[01:24:40] various defense department and NASA[01:24:42] agencies have stockpiles of photos and[01:24:46] radar tracking stuff. But I don't know.[01:24:49] I know one of the[01:24:50] most amazing[01:24:54] things I've heard in years was when that[01:24:57] physicist from Stony Brook what's his[01:24:59] name? Uh[01:25:00] >> Is that a Kevin Knuth?[01:25:02] >> Knuth, right.[01:25:03] >> He's at a SUNY at Albany.[01:25:05] >> SUNY Albany. What did I say?[01:25:07] >> Stony Brook, but they're[01:25:09] >> Because they've got a whole team up[01:25:11] there now. Getting funding and[01:25:13] everything which is great.[01:25:13] >> They just got an endowment of I think[01:25:15] perpetuity for several million dollars.[01:25:17] So they're[01:25:17] >> Yeah, I mean that's just great. I mean[01:25:19] uh So he he he comes up with the he[01:25:21] studied this report uh they had this[01:25:24] radar report some craft enters[01:25:27] our radar at 80,000 ft. Now[01:25:31] supposedly radar doesn't go higher than[01:25:33] that, but that's what we're told the max[01:25:35] of our radar it probably goes higher[01:25:37] than that. But 80,000 ft is already[01:25:39] pretty high.[01:25:40] That's what I remember.[01:25:42] Yeah. Now it it it gets to gets to sea[01:25:45] level in under a second.[01:25:47] Now you know that's not possible. Now[01:25:49] who was explaining I thought this is[01:25:51] great. I this is what I[01:25:52] love to have a physical scientist[01:25:54] explain why this is impossible.[01:25:57] Yet apparently it happened. If you were[01:25:58] to bring a craft that weighs sort of[01:26:00] like a about like a[01:26:03] fighter jet.[01:26:04] >> Yeah, the feet scene or whatever, yeah.[01:26:05] >> Right, right. And you you bring it to[01:26:08] the to sea level from 80,000 ft in a[01:26:10] second the stopping[01:26:13] of that would release[01:26:15] all the energy of all the power plants[01:26:18] in the United States for a day or so[01:26:20] some extravagant amount of[01:26:22] Uh but none of that energy was expended.[01:26:25] >> Yeah, you don't see any heat.[01:26:26] >> have a gigantic explosion uh that that[01:26:29] would have resulted from that type of[01:26:31] all that energy suddenly stopping.[01:26:34] Uh and so then we were into the[01:26:36] question, well, what could do that?[01:26:38] Did it weigh anything?[01:26:40] All right?[01:26:41] >> [snorts][01:26:41] >> Could it be you know, then you get all[01:26:43] the all the stuff about anti-gravity and[01:26:45] I I don't know.[01:26:46] There's so many weird things. But I[01:26:48] think physical scientists like their[01:26:50] colleagues in philosophy, psychiatry,[01:26:52] sociology, and so on, studying thing the[01:26:55] main character of it is[01:26:57] being it's elusive and it's deceptive.[01:27:01] It definitely deceives and it likes to[01:27:03] be elusive. It has no interest in us[01:27:06] getting a purchase on it. And it and it[01:27:08] can do it you know, it it is powerless.[01:27:11] Uh[01:27:11] I mean, we are powerless to to snag one.[01:27:14] Because they're they're they exist in[01:27:17] some domain that is not amenable to our[01:27:22] uh grappling with it very well.[01:27:23] >> Mhm.[01:27:24] >> Uh so that that's one of the weirdest[01:27:27] features of it. Uh and I mean, as[01:27:30] philosophers, you know, I you know, I[01:27:32] ask myself this. If philosophy begins[01:27:34] with wonder,[01:27:35] why aren't all our false philosophy[01:27:38] colleagues studying UFOs?[01:27:40] >> I I've wondered this too. I mean, I[01:27:41] think for a lot of us they we don't know[01:27:43] that the evidence is there. I I'm only 5[01:27:46] years into having known that there was[01:27:50] reasonable evidence for believing in[01:27:52] this. I I just assumed that it was all[01:27:54] mental illness and optical illusions and[01:27:56] on the History Channel, you[01:27:58] know, that's[01:27:58] >> Right, that's right. Ancient Aliens.[01:28:00] >> all that stuff, yeah.[01:28:01] >> Of course, Ancient Aliens may be right[01:28:02] 10% of the time.[01:28:03] >> That's that's true, yeah.[01:28:05] >> would be plenty.[01:28:06] >> It's very disappointing to me to find[01:28:08] out that a lot of the things that I[01:28:09] thought were just utter nonsense[01:28:10] actually are[01:28:12] somewhat plausible given that[01:28:14] >> something to it. Now, we don't know what[01:28:16] the something is, but it's certainly[01:28:17] worth investigating. Now, I I have my[01:28:20] hypothesis was this about other[01:28:22] philosophers, cuz I've tried to get[01:28:24] philosophers kind of interested in it,[01:28:25] but they uh[01:28:26] >> [snorts][01:28:27] >> I think first of all, philosophy is so[01:28:28] weird to begin with uh that uh you don't[01:28:31] want to get your field more woo-woo than[01:28:34] it's[01:28:34] >> Right, sure.[01:28:35] >> assumed to be. So, they try to be[01:28:36] respectful. However, as you know,[01:28:39] philosophers love to come up with these[01:28:40] science-fiction counterfactual examples.[01:28:43] Right? So, they [clears throat] you[01:28:44] know, they're all Doctor Who fans. Uh I[01:28:46] don't want to go too far with that, but[01:28:47] they love to make stuff up[01:28:49] >> Yeah.[01:28:49] >> that has a science-fiction quality to[01:28:51] solve problems of reference and all this[01:28:52] stuff. Um so, they they had this many of[01:28:56] them this imaginative streak, but they[01:28:58] don't want to let it out into[01:29:01] >> Bleed into reality, yeah.[01:29:02] >> the what could be real. They They don't[01:29:04] want it to be They want it to be[01:29:05] counterfactual, not factual.[01:29:07] And so, that impedes our colleagues[01:29:09] from, you know, I think getting[01:29:10] involved. Maybe that's going to change.[01:29:13] Uh I know I got re-involved after the[01:29:15] 2017 New York Times story[01:29:18] uh because suddenly that gave a kind of[01:29:20] legitimacy to[01:29:22] a cover. It gave us cover. Then we could[01:29:24] go out and start looking at this stuff.[01:29:26] And what got you interested in it?[01:29:28] >> I um[01:29:29] >> Enough to start, you know, looking[01:29:31] >> Sure. Um so, you know how when you're a[01:29:33] professor uh university presses will[01:29:36] send you catalogs of their new books and[01:29:38] invite you to ask them for free copies[01:29:40] to evaluate, see if you want to So, as[01:29:43] as most um[01:29:45] you know, not extremely well-paid[01:29:46] professors do, I availed myself of the[01:29:49] ability to to order free books. Um[01:29:52] and I was looking in the um the new[01:29:55] catalog for Oxford University Press, and[01:29:57] there was a book called American Cosmic[01:30:00] UFOs, religion, and technology, I think.[01:30:03] And the little blurb that they had next[01:30:05] to that book made it seem as if it's[01:30:07] about[01:30:09] something like[01:30:11] uh[01:30:11] the concept of UFOs and how it's[01:30:13] influenced religious thinking and sort[01:30:16] of technological[01:30:18] um you know speculation.[01:30:21] And I thought, "Oh, that's interesting."[01:30:22] cuz I have an interest in philosophy of[01:30:23] religion and I have an interest in[01:30:24] philosophy of technology. I actually had[01:30:26] no interest in UFOs. Um[01:30:28] but I like science fiction, so this[01:30:30] sounded like my my sort of thing and I[01:30:32] ordered a free copy of it and I got it[01:30:34] and I read it by the pool and was just[01:30:36] astounded that it seems now because the[01:30:39] book is not that. The book is actually[01:30:40] about how there's[01:30:42] a whole, you know,[01:30:43] sort of[01:30:44] subterranean network of scientists and[01:30:47] technologists who[01:30:50] genuinely believe that we're being[01:30:51] visited by aliens or some or a question[01:30:53] mark[01:30:54] um and that there's[01:30:56] purportedly, you know, decent evidence[01:30:58] for it. And so I went through that book[01:31:01] and I went through the bibliography of[01:31:02] that book and read Jacques Vallée and[01:31:04] read, you know, uh on Hynek and[01:31:07] more and more things. And it just Mutual[01:31:09] UFO Network. Yeah, sure. Right. I went[01:31:11] through the the kind of canon and so[01:31:13] forth and so on if there is one. And[01:31:14] it's it became a rabbit hole that I have[01:31:16] not yet extricated myself from. But[01:31:19] Jeff Kripal, who who's a[01:31:21] a friend or acquaintance, um[01:31:24] has said that, and this rings true to me[01:31:26] too, like you start reading about UFOs[01:31:28] and you end up reading Indian[01:31:29] philosophy. And that is like exactly the[01:31:31] trajectory. It's like UFOs and now it[01:31:33] becomes[01:31:34] it just it's impossible to disentangle[01:31:36] this subject.[01:31:37] >> Further and further[01:31:39] deeper and deeper into the[01:31:41] Well, this this I think brings us brings[01:31:42] us back then to the whole question of[01:31:44] mind and consciousness. I I just think[01:31:46] one of our[01:31:48] our uh limitations in trying to[01:31:50] understand this is we don't get how[01:31:52] powerful[01:31:54] uh the mind is.[01:31:57] Uh now, I'm not saying it it creates all[01:32:00] this stuff,[01:32:01] but its contribution[01:32:03] to it is not mean. massive.[01:32:06] And and we we are we just don't we don't[01:32:09] And I think that's what's interesting[01:32:11] one reason that Jeff Kripal is so[01:32:13] interested in what they're called[01:32:14] siddhis, you know, these these power[01:32:16] powers that[01:32:18] adepts in various traditions can develop[01:32:20] like bilocality,[01:32:22] uh two places at once, all kind of[01:32:24] clairvoyance and[01:32:26] and levitation and all this kind of[01:32:28] stuff.[01:32:29] >> So so effects but also kind of[01:32:30] miraculous things like that.[01:32:32] >> because they occur typically in a[01:32:34] religious[01:32:35] context, spiritual context.[01:32:37] >> I'm I'm looking for this book by Carlos[01:32:39] Eire. I'm sure that you're aware of it.[01:32:41] >> know his name. Eire? How do you[01:32:43] >> Carlos Carlos Eire, E I R E. Let's see.[01:32:46] I will find it.[01:32:47] >> Carlos Eire.[01:32:49] >> Um[01:32:51] where is it?[01:32:57] It Oh, here it is. So[01:32:59] uh[01:33:00] And just for for context, so Carlos also[01:33:02] has a Pulitzer. Uh[01:33:04] >> Oh, they flew. I have it.[01:33:05] >> Yeah, they they flew, yeah. But he's a[01:33:07] he's an historian who who makes this[01:33:09] case that the the testimony and[01:33:11] historical evidence for uh people who[01:33:13] can levitate or or just fly is about as[01:33:16] good as you could want it to be and that[01:33:18] we're just[01:33:19] sort of being bad historians by ignoring[01:33:21] the fact that there seems[01:33:22] to be such evidence. So So that's that's[01:33:24] an example of a siddhi or a siddhi um[01:33:27] which is a[01:33:28] I guess a Sanskrit word, right? For[01:33:30] >> Probably.[01:33:30] >> the kind of power or or miraculous[01:33:32] ability that you can cultivate[01:33:34] in yourself. So Jeff Kripal is[01:33:36] interested in this. Um[01:33:38] Keep going.[01:33:40] >> Well, I I know Jeff, too. Yeah, I really[01:33:42] like like his works and so on.[01:33:45] Uh we met at that at the conference at[01:33:47] Rice last year. We corresponded a lot.[01:33:49] Uh[01:33:50] but he he also he was a[01:33:52] during his work he wrote this history of[01:33:55] Esalen. And[01:33:57] uh of course new Michael Murphy. Now, I[01:33:59] read Michael Murphy's book big book the[01:34:02] future of the body years ago. And, it[01:34:04] was really all about this kind of stuff.[01:34:06] Uh the the the extraordinary powers are[01:34:10] available to people, but they're[01:34:12] they're typically don't know how to[01:34:14] handle them when they show up. And, they[01:34:17] also show up[01:34:18] unexpectedly. It's really hard to get[01:34:21] control of them in some way.[01:34:23] Now, in my in my experience the there's[01:34:25] also in in these traditions there are[01:34:28] kind of warnings about them.[01:34:30] Uh you know, if if you're a serious[01:34:32] meditation student you you you will[01:34:34] apparently, I'm never[01:34:36] I was a serious meditation[01:34:38] uh person, but I didn't get a lot of[01:34:39] these weird things happening. Uh but,[01:34:41] you're not supposed to really cultivate[01:34:43] these too much.[01:34:44] >> They're distractions, right? You're[01:34:45] >> They're kind of distraction. If you're[01:34:47] you know, that you know, there that's[01:34:49] really cool.[01:34:50] Uh and, it's also a distraction. And, so[01:34:53] keep keep your eye on the prize, you[01:34:55] know, to awaken and so on.[01:34:57] Um but, I one of the I know one of the[01:35:00] one of J's recent books he was talking[01:35:02] about[01:35:03] the extent to which in the 19th century[01:35:05] via spiritualism[01:35:07] and and and what call animal magnetism[01:35:10] and these other words they had for this.[01:35:12] Uh there was a there was a moment when a[01:35:14] shift might have occurred in the[01:35:16] scientific world regarding the nature of[01:35:18] consciousness.[01:35:20] As this power and not simply a byproduct[01:35:23] of organic things happening in the body[01:35:25] mind body brain, right?[01:35:27] But, they but moved in a different[01:35:29] direction. And, now[01:35:32] what have been taken for granted as[01:35:35] factually demonstrated becomes seen from[01:35:38] the point of view of 100 years later as[01:35:40] completely impossible.[01:35:41] >> Mhm.[01:35:42] >> Yeah.[01:35:43] >> Uh so, it's it's interesting how the[01:35:45] mind can close uh put a web over uh un-[01:35:50] un- unwelcomed data[01:35:54] uh from[01:35:55] very long ago. Not We're not talking[01:35:57] 2,000 years ago. We're talking a few[01:35:59] generations earlier.[01:36:00] >> Yeah.[01:36:00] >> Uh, and uh,[01:36:02] but it is convenient, but it doesn't[01:36:05] help doesn't help our understanding of[01:36:07] the way things are.[01:36:08] >> Right. So, our theory of mind that we[01:36:10] adopted that mind is just a byproduct of[01:36:13] like[01:36:14] electrochemical states in the brain,[01:36:15] that has like foreclosed the possibility[01:36:17] of taking seriously certain kinds of[01:36:19] evidence.[01:36:20] >> The theme really strong.[01:36:21] >> Yeah.[01:36:21] >> Well, you know, when I was in graduate[01:36:23] school in the mid late late 70s,[01:36:26] uh, the taken for granted hypothesis[01:36:29] uh, about consciousness was straight up[01:36:32] behaviorism and materialist uh, you[01:36:34] know, elimi- eliminativism. That is[01:36:37] consciousness is not really real uh, and[01:36:39] what's real is brain activity. And when[01:36:41] it when it comes to animals, they don't[01:36:43] even have they have no experience. I[01:36:45] mean, these these people 50 years ago in[01:36:48] the National Institutes of Health in[01:36:50] these places, they were still students[01:36:52] of Descartes and Malebranche,[01:36:54] >> [snorts][01:36:54] >> according to whom you know, what we call[01:36:57] pain in animals is simply akin to[01:36:59] rusting gears of rusting machines[01:37:01] rubbing up against each other. They[01:37:03] these so that they have no inner life.[01:37:05] >> Right. The mind is a clock and there's[01:37:06] no one[01:37:07] >> all you want. They they don't hurt.[01:37:09] Now, you know, that is such complete[01:37:11] horse you know,[01:37:13] >> Anybody who's had a dog enough knows[01:37:16] this.[01:37:16] >> You know that the poor thing's hurting,[01:37:18] you know. And how how this how they[01:37:20] could have gotten away as scientists who[01:37:22] also had pets with thinking that that[01:37:26] these don't really, you know, when they[01:37:27] really some somehow they must have known[01:37:29] better. But it for equally telling[01:37:32] observation, and this goes back to to[01:37:34] the relationship between philosophy and[01:37:36] science. You know, once science goes one[01:37:39] way and philosophy the other,[01:37:40] philosophers have had to rely on natural[01:37:41] and social science for interpretations[01:37:44] of what's real. We don't have labs, we[01:37:46] philosophers. You know, we don't have a[01:37:47] research program in neurophysiology or[01:37:50] whatever. We leave that to someone else.[01:37:51] So, what they tell us, we kind of go[01:37:54] with. Now, the reigning champion in the[01:37:58] much of the 20th century in psychology[01:38:00] was behaviorism.[01:38:01] >> Mhm.[01:38:02] >> And this was this was consistent with[01:38:04] the course he kind of a little[01:38:06] neurochemical[01:38:07] view of the brain. I mean, it's all part[01:38:09] of a materialist[01:38:11] domain.[01:38:12] And this meant that in graduate school,[01:38:15] there was nothing to talk about from the[01:38:17] first-person point of view.[01:38:19] >> Right.[01:38:19] >> No investigation of subjectivity,[01:38:22] first-person experience, interiority.[01:38:25] That was all off the table. It was all[01:38:27] third-person objective. So, you end up[01:38:30] with[01:38:31] even even ethics and[01:38:33] and so on. You don't really only operate[01:38:35] from a certain type of level.[01:38:37] And it was not until the '90s when[01:38:40] people like Chalmers and all the the[01:38:43] big[01:38:45] What What's the word I'm looking for?[01:38:48] The That in Tucson where they're having[01:38:50] those consciousness[01:38:51] uh[01:38:52] >> Was it the Santa Fe Institute? Is that[01:38:53] it?[01:38:54] >> What was it?[01:38:55] >> Is it the Santa Fe Institute?[01:38:56] >> No, it was in Houston. It was in[01:38:58] Arizona.[01:38:59] >> Uh-huh.[01:38:59] >> They They had these[01:39:01] I think every 2 years these these[01:39:02] consciousness seminars. What's the[01:39:04] nature of consciousness?[01:39:06] >> Mhm.[01:39:06] >> And then Chalmers and others coming up[01:39:08] with the hard problem and so on. That[01:39:09] finally philosophy started once again to[01:39:12] have willingness to explore and talk[01:39:15] about subjectivity and first-person[01:39:17] experience because behaviorism's reign[01:39:19] was over.[01:39:20] And now once consciousness resurfaces,[01:39:23] all the problems with trying to explain[01:39:26] consciousness in terms of brain states[01:39:28] comes rushing back.[01:39:30] Now, one of the cool things about[01:39:31] philosophy since then is this. I[01:39:34] remember getting I get You know, when I[01:39:36] was professor, I would get those[01:39:37] catalogs like you did from various[01:39:40] publishers. I got one one time from MIT[01:39:43] and they it was their their section on[01:39:45] mind and consciousness and stuff. Well,[01:39:47] as I was reading through it, I realized[01:39:49] that every possible position on the[01:39:52] spectrum when it came to explaining[01:39:54] mind, brain, consciousness was occupied[01:39:56] by some book. From [snorts] the rankest[01:39:58] materialism to the most speculative[01:40:01] forms of idealism, they were all in[01:40:03] there.[01:40:04] >> Mhm.[01:40:04] >> I thought that was great. I mean, that[01:40:06] showed a willingness to see how far you[01:40:08] could get with a um a different[01:40:10] perspective uh when look trying to make[01:40:12] sense of this weird experience we have[01:40:15] as, you know, minded creatures.[01:40:17] Uh[01:40:18] so, you know, I'm I'm[01:40:20] I'm happy with the a multiple multiple[01:40:23] fronts when[01:40:24] it comes to trying to make sense of[01:40:26] things.[01:40:26] >> Well, it's one of the most fascinating[01:40:28] questions that that philosophy or, you[01:40:31] know, humanity faces.[01:40:33] And I think that[01:40:35] the way that you get some purchase on[01:40:37] those questions is often by looking at[01:40:40] limit experiences or or the unusual[01:40:42] features of experience. And that's where[01:40:45] I think a lot of people's UAP and[01:40:48] UAP-related experiences are really[01:40:50] instructive. Like you see people have[01:40:52] these experiences and you see consistent[01:40:53] themes across them of like[01:40:55] telepathic communication. They encounter[01:40:57] some being or they just encounter an[01:40:59] object that seems to like[01:41:02] express a thought directly into their[01:41:03] mind.[01:41:04] >> There's some relationship going in[01:41:06] there, right?[01:41:06] >> Yeah. The fact that that's even possible[01:41:08] or that people consistently describe it[01:41:10] in a way that makes it seem like there[01:41:12] is at least possibly some sort of thing[01:41:14] go going on there gives you a new piece[01:41:16] of data that you then have to sort of[01:41:19] theorize. And I think this drives at one[01:41:21] of the questions you said was most[01:41:23] fundamentally important to you, which is[01:41:24] the question of like human identity and[01:41:25] what we fundamentally are. Like how[01:41:30] we we've got a pretty narrow conception[01:41:32] of ourselves now that we've inherited[01:41:33] from really the science of like the 18th[01:41:36] century or 19th century of you know that[01:41:38] we're we're sort of meat based organisms[01:41:42] that are[01:41:43] that have some phenomena that come out[01:41:45] of them that we call consciousness but[01:41:46] it may be kind of an illusion or[01:41:47] something but like[01:41:48] that[01:41:50] is a dying and already antiquated view[01:41:53] but it hasn't yet been replaced by[01:41:55] anything. Like where do you think[01:41:57] the[01:41:58] the view of what we are is is headed?[01:42:00] Like what's the trajectory of that of[01:42:03] >> Well[01:42:04] It's a really good question.[01:42:05] >> I don't have an answer to that. I mean[01:42:06] that that series of occupied uh book[01:42:09] books occupying the spectrum of ideas,[01:42:11] yeah.[01:42:12] Was an indication that we're not we're[01:42:14] not arrived yet at any kind of[01:42:16] consensus.[01:42:17] But uh certainly uh[01:42:20] one of the really interesting things is[01:42:22] this come back as idealism.[01:42:24] >> Mhm.[01:42:24] >> That that's what primary is, mind or[01:42:26] consciousness.[01:42:27] >> Mhm.[01:42:27] >> Uh it seems to have been matter. Now you[01:42:30] you you can to get up there and you but[01:42:31] then you have the danger of you[01:42:33] developing another kind of dualism where[01:42:35] where matter suffers at the expense of[01:42:37] mind and so on and so on. However,[01:42:39] intriguing that is to me, I don't find[01:42:41] it completely Sometimes you have the[01:42:43] idea of a[01:42:45] a mode to what[01:42:47] monism out of which both mind and being[01:42:49] all these positions[01:42:50] >> Yeah, dual aspect monism it's called.[01:42:52] >> That's right and you dual aspect and you[01:42:54] have all these positions in Indian[01:42:55] philosophy.[01:42:56] >> Mhm.[01:42:57] >> Uh from the get-go. I mean they were[01:42:58] doing all this stuff way back. Um so I[01:43:01] don't I don't have but I do know this[01:43:02] that the the the[01:43:04] but most of the 20th 19th to 20th[01:43:06] century were taken up with views of[01:43:07] mind. Really was a 20th century which uh[01:43:11] so brain oriented that it's really[01:43:12] pathetic. Uh perhaps it's what they[01:43:15] could work on at that time[01:43:17] uh but it it hasn't it there's a lot[01:43:19] left out.[01:43:20] Uh and what and what you're leaving out[01:43:22] the validity of first-person experience[01:43:24] as a something valuable[01:43:27] uh and something that needs to be[01:43:28] listened to uh and intersubjective[01:43:31] relationships. When all that really[01:43:33] can't be talked about in and of itself.[01:43:35] It has to be pushed to the side because[01:43:37] we can't we got no instruments for that.[01:43:40] Uh, that's leaving out[01:43:42] human life. Apart from our being organic[01:43:44] and you know, we already got plenty of[01:43:46] organic animals.[01:43:48] So, uh, but but they don't have much of[01:43:50] this, we think. I think animals have[01:43:52] their own degree of awareness.[01:43:54] >> Of course.[01:43:55] >> We have We have a vastly more[01:43:56] complicated version of it.[01:43:58] Uh, and[01:44:00] the this, you know, we we should study[01:44:02] this. But here's the problem. The mind[01:44:04] itself is elusive.[01:44:06] Uh, you know, you can't mind can't see[01:44:10] itself.[01:44:11] You can't the subject can't make itself[01:44:14] an object of consciousness. So, it's[01:44:16] always slipping away.[01:44:18] And uh,[01:44:19] maybe we should end with that.[01:44:21] >> I think we should. That's a fantastic[01:44:23] place to end. Michael Zimmerman, thank[01:44:25] you so much for being here in this[01:44:27] conversation.[01:44:28] >> Well, it was great. I love talking about[01:44:30] these things and I hope your your[01:44:32] audience[01:44:33] finds some value in listening to what we[01:44:35] had to say.[01:44:35] >> I think they did. Thank you again.[01:44:37] >> All right. Be in touch.[01:44:39] >> Yep.[01:44:39] >> Namaste.[01:44:40] >> Namaste.[01:44:44] Thanks for listening to the show.[01:44:46] The Anomalous Review is funded entirely[01:44:48] by listeners just like you.[01:44:50] So, if you find real value in these[01:44:52] interviews and if you want to help us[01:44:53] make more of them, please visit[01:44:56] explorescu.org/podcast[01:44:59] to become one of our supporters.[01:45:02] All recurring donors are featured in the[01:45:03] end credits of every episode.[01:45:06] All donations are entirely tax[01:45:08] deductible. And if you donate, you will[01:45:11] be helping to support the scientific[01:45:12] interest in one of the most important[01:45:15] issues facing humanity [music][01:45:16] today.[01:45:18] So, thank you for listening. We hope[01:45:20] that you'll consider partnering with us[01:45:22] at explorescu.org/podcast.[01:45:29] The Anomalous Review is a project of the[01:45:30] Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.[01:45:33] It's created and hosted by me, Michael[01:45:36] Wolsyn.[01:45:37] Editing and production work is by[01:45:38] Nathaniel Lowen. Communications by Deb[01:45:41] West.[01:45:42] Our music was composed and performed by[01:45:44] Tom Rogerson.[01:45:46] Our advisory committee this year is[01:45:48] Tajin Tsai, Laura Domine, Larry Hancock,[01:45:52] Rich Hoffman, and Robert Powell.[01:45:55] To find out more about the Scientific[01:45:57] Coalition for UAP Studies, visit[01:45:59] exploreSCU.org.
Courtney Bower "A Conceptual Framework for UAP as Local SETI"
Courtney Bower's Approach to UAP Studies
Courtney Bower's research focuses on the study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) through a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative research with philosophical inquiry. His academic background includes statistical modeling and extensive overseas experience, which informs his exploration of communication and incommensurability between distant extraterrestrial civilizations. Bower is currently completing a doctorate in social sciences and aims to pursue a research career. His presentation at the conference aims to provide a conceptual framework for understanding UAP as a local Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
Mixed Methods Research
Bower emphasizes the importance of mixed methods research in his approach, which seeks to blend qualitative insights with quantitative data. He aims to frame the topic of UAP studies through structured hypotheses that can be tested with data-driven responses. He acknowledges the potential abstract nature of his discussion but expresses hope that attendees will gain philosophical insights and a structured way of thinking about UAP. Bower also encourages engagement during the Q&A session to clarify any ambiguities that may arise during his talk.
The Need for a Conceptual Framework
Bower highlights the ambiguity surrounding the term "UAP" and the need for a conceptual framework to ground discussions in the field. He argues that a well-defined framework can help researchers structure their thinking and communicate effectively as they attempt to unravel one of humanity's greatest mysteries. A conceptual framework focuses on the object of study, clarifies assumptions, and guides research design, allowing for a systematic approach to understanding UAP phenomena.
Inputs and Outputs of the Research
The inputs to Bower's research include philosophical inquiry, existing UAP studies, and SETI literature, both local and distant. He also incorporates data from the New Fork dataset, which he has accessed over the past year and a half. Despite acknowledging the challenges associated with this dataset, Bower believes it can yield important insights into the nature of UAP. The expected outputs of his research include a conceptual framework and a testable hypothesis, which he plans to share through his ResearchGate profile, where he has published two papers detailing elements of his framework.
Defining UAP Studies
Bower reflects on the various interpretations of the term "UAP" and the lack of clarity that often accompanies its use. He suggests that when people refer to UAP, they may have different meanings in mind, leading to misunderstandings. Bower proposes a philosophical dissection of the term, translating "unidentified" into simpler language to clarify its implications. He notes that "UAP" encompasses two unknowns and emphasizes the need for specificity when discussing the category. By providing clear definitions, researchers can better communicate their ideas and findings.
Intellectual Mapping of UAP Explanations
Bower presents an intellectual mapping of the last century's attempts to understand UAP across various disciplines. He acknowledges that the field is messy and filled with diverse ideas, indicating a rich intellectual history. This proliferation of ideas suggests a core phenomenon that captivates researchers from multiple disciplines, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of UAP studies. Bower's mapping serves as a foundation for understanding the complexities and challenges inherent in the field.
Hypotheses and Theories in UAP Studies
During the conference, Bower recognizes the numerous hypotheses and theories that exist regarding UAP. He notes that many attendees may lean towards physical explanations, possibly involving extraterrestrial origins. However, he emphasizes the importance of being explicit about the assumptions underlying these discussions. Bower's aim is to move from general claims to specific hypotheses, ultimately constructing a framework that can be tested against empirical data.
Philosophical Underpinnings of UAP Studies
Bower introduces the concept of a paradigm shift in the study of UAP, suggesting that the field is still in a pre-paradigmatic state. He argues that there are competing ideas and schools of thought, which complicate the establishment of a unified understanding of UAP phenomena. This lack of consensus creates a sense of urgency for researchers to gather data and develop a coherent framework that can guide future investigations.
Defining UAP Studies
Bower proposes a definition of UAP studies that distinguishes it from merely locating extraterrestrial vehicles. He suggests that UAP studies involve understanding the processes by which humans, supported by technology, attempt to reduce uncertainty regarding unidentified phenomena. This definition underscores the human desire to comprehend the unknown and highlights the interdisciplinary nature of UAP research.
Disciplines Contributing to UAP Studies
Various disciplines contribute to the study of UAP, including psychology, astronomy, and engineering. Bower emphasizes the importance of understanding how individuals misidentify phenomena, particularly in high-pressure situations, such as pilots encountering UAP. He also notes that astronomers may seek to understand historical astronomical material and its relation to UAP sightings. This interdisciplinary approach is crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of UAP phenomena.
Inference to the Best Explanation
Bower discusses the philosophical concepts of inference to the best explanation, induction, deduction, and abduction as critical tools for reasoning about UAP phenomena. He provides an example illustrating how humans often make assumptions based on incomplete information, which parallels the current approach to understanding UAP. Bower argues that researchers must piece together available data to construct plausible explanations for UAP sightings.
Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as a Central Claim
Bower asserts that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the most compelling explanation for UAP phenomena. He believes there are strong reasons to consider the possibility that advanced transmedium probes of extraterrestrial origin are present on Earth. This hypothesis serves as the foundation for his framework, which aims to explore the implications of such devices and their potential interactions with humanity.
Challenges in UAP Research
Bower acknowledges the challenges posed by anthropocentric bias and incommensurability in understanding UAP. He uses examples from popular films to illustrate the difficulties of communication between species that may have fundamentally different ways of perceiving the universe. These challenges highlight the need for researchers to consider the limitations of human understanding when attempting to engage with extraterrestrial intelligence.
Proposed Framework for UAP Engagement
Bower proposes a framework that includes two components: phenomena-based engagement and the PAL's principle (Physical Accessible Local Surprise). The phenomena-based engagement strategy suggests that if a device cannot or will not communicate directly, it may engage with humanity through observable phenomena. The PAL's principle outlines the minimal conditions necessary for indicating intentional signals from extraterrestrial devices. This framework aims to guide researchers in identifying potential interactions with UAP.
Future Directions in UAP Research
Bower concludes his presentation by discussing the next steps for UAP research. He emphasizes the importance of testing his framework and making predictions based on the proposed hypothesis. He encourages researchers to consider propulsion methods and explore new sensor technologies that could enhance the detection of UAP. Bower expresses hope that his work will inspire others to build upon his framework and contribute to the ongoing investigation of UAP phenomena.
Conclusion
In summary, Courtney Bower's presentation provides a comprehensive overview of his approach to UAP studies, emphasizing the need for a conceptual framework that integrates philosophical inquiry with empirical research. His exploration of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, combined with an interdisciplinary perspective, offers valuable insights into the complexities of understanding UAP phenomena. Bower's work serves as a foundation for future research and encourages collaboration among scholars from various fields to advance the study of UAP.
The transcript provides a detailed overview of Courtney Bower, who is engaged in research related to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and is currently completing a social sciences doctorate. The interviewer introduces him, highlighting his academic and professional background that incorporates philosophical inquiry, statistical modeling, and significant overseas experience. This multidisciplinary foundation is crucial for his approach to UAP studies, which involves mixed methods research.
According to the interviewer, Bower is expected to pursue a career in research, emphasizing his commitment to furthering knowledge in this field. The interviewer states, "[00:27] Welcome. right now speaking on a conceptual framework for UAP as local SETI Courtney Bower." This indicates that Bower is not only academically inclined but is also actively involved in discussions and presentations at conferences, suggesting a growing presence in the academic community surrounding UAP studies.
Bower's research interests focus on the complex issues of communication and incommensurability between distant extraterrestrial civilizations and our understanding of UAP phenomena. The interviewer notes that his approach aims to blend qualitative and quantitative research with philosophical inquiry, further illustrating the depth and breadth of Bower's academic pursuits.
- [00:24] "...is completing a social sciences doctorate and expects to pursue a career in research."
- [00:27] "Welcome. right now speaking on a conceptual framework for UAP as local SETI Courtney Bower."
- [01:01] "...blending the qualitative and quantitative with philosophical inquiry."
Courtney Bower approaches UAP research through a mixed methods research framework, indicating a comprehensive strategy that combines both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. As mentioned in the transcript, he expresses his intent to "[00:55] blend the qualitative and quantitative with philosophical inquiry." This method is particularly relevant in tackling the complexities surrounding UAP phenomena, which often involve ambiguous data and require nuanced interpretation.
Bower emphasizes the importance of developing a conceptual framework for UAP studies, which he believes is necessary for structuring research and facilitating communication among scholars and the public. He states that this framework can help in identifying the assumptions underlying the study of UAP and in determining which data sources are appropriate for analysis. He notes, "[02:56] a framework allows us to decide which data sources we think are applicable appropriate..." This indicates a critical, systematic approach to gathering and analyzing data related to UAP.
While the transcript does not explicitly mention specific data sources or analytical standards Bower uses, it does imply that he is utilizing a data-driven approach, as he refers to analyzing responses to the hypothesis he is developing. Furthermore, he acknowledges the challenges and limitations inherent in analyzing UAP data, particularly when it is often ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations.
- [00:55] "...blend the qualitative and quantitative with philosophical inquiry."
- [02:56] "a framework allows us to decide which data sources we think are applicable appropriate..."
- [04:22] "...you get a conceptual framework and you get a testable hypothesis."
Courtney Bower's decision to focus on UAP research is grounded in both personal and scientific motivations, as indicated in his presentation. He perceives the study of UAP as a crucial endeavor, remarking on the ambiguity surrounding the term 'UAP' and the need for a structured approach to tackle the complexities involved. Bower articulates this by stating, "[02:28] I think that there is a lot of ambiguity around what we mean when we say UAP or UAP studies." This suggests that he is driven by a desire to clarify and contribute to the understanding of this elusive phenomenon.
Furthermore, Bower believes that unraveling the mysteries of UAP is one of the greatest challenges faced by humanity, which positions his research within a broader societal context. He emphasizes the significance of having a conceptual framework to guide discussions and investigations into UAP, stating, "[02:45] one of the greatest mysteries that I think our species has ever and will ever experience." This reflects his conviction that understanding UAP is not merely an academic exercise but a critical inquiry that could have profound implications for society.
In summary, Bower's motivations for engaging in UAP research stem from a blend of personal curiosity about the unknown, a commitment to scientific rigor, and a recognition of the societal significance of understanding such phenomena. He aims to inspire others in the field to develop their own frameworks and approaches, thereby fostering a collaborative effort to explore the unknown.
- [02:28] "I think that there is a lot of ambiguity around what we mean when we say UAP or UAP studies."
- [02:45] "...one of the greatest mysteries that I think our species has ever and will ever experience."
- [06:30] "...my hope with this talk is that you come away thinking I need to develop my own structured way of approaching this problem..."
The transcript does not provide any information regarding whether Courtney Bower has personally observed a UAP. There are no statements made by either the interviewer or the interviewee that indicate personal experiences related to UAP sightings or encounters. Bower focuses primarily on discussing the conceptual framework for UAP studies, the importance of blending qualitative and quantitative research, and the philosophical inquiry surrounding UAP phenomena. Thus, any details about personal observations or experiences with UAP are absent from the transcript.
- [40:09] "And if we have time for questions, I welcome those, but otherwise, I'd be happy to take questions on the Hoova app or via email or um, we can schedule a Zoom call if someone would like to talk in more detail."
In the transcript, Courtney Bower addresses the complexities and challenges associated with UAP research, hinting at the skepticism and barriers that researchers in this field may face. He notes the necessity of establishing a conceptual framework to ground discussions and to advance the field of UAP studies. Bower remarks, "[05:18] part of deriving a framework, selecting a hypothesis and trying to test that is to attempt to get some sort of grounding to understand this topic." This suggests that without such a framework, researchers may struggle to gain credibility or clarity in their inquiries.
Moreover, while Bower does not explicitly detail any professional risks or publication barriers, he alludes to the broader skepticism that surrounds UAP studies, especially regarding the possibility that UAP may be caused by non-human intelligences. He mentions that the community may be grappling with the complexity and difficulty of solving the issue of UAP, indicating that researchers might face challenges in gaining acceptance or recognition for their work in this area. He states, "[05:11] the challenge, the complexity, the difficulty of solving this issue."
This perspective suggests that Bower acknowledges the potential stigma or skepticism associated with researching UAP, particularly regarding claims of extraterrestrial involvement or intelligent non-human entities. His approach aims to counter these challenges through rigorous research and a structured methodology, emphasizing the importance of a data-driven inquiry into these phenomena.
- [05:18] "...part of deriving a framework, selecting a hypothesis and trying to test that is to attempt to get some sort of grounding to understand this topic."
- [05:11] "...the challenge, the complexity, the difficulty of solving this issue."
- [20:22] "...research and scholarship does indicate that we can see a device coming to us? Of course, there’s many more..."
[00:00] All right. So now Courtney Bower's[00:03] approach involves mixed methods research[00:06] with an interest in issues of[00:07] communication and incommenurability[00:09] between distant extraterrestrial[00:10] civilizations. There's two times at[00:13] least. His research draws on his[00:15] academic and professional background[00:16] including philosophical inquiry,[00:18] statistical modeling, and extended[00:20] overseas experience. He's completing a[00:22] social sciences doctorate and expects to[00:24] pursue a career in research. Welcome.[00:27] right now speaking on a conceptual[00:29] framework for UAP as local SETI Courtney[00:32] Bower.[00:36] >> Wonderful. Thank you, Micah. Um, sure[00:39] everyone can hear me.[00:44] >> Uh, and I also have slides as well.[00:45] Fantastic. Thank you very much. Just[00:47] want to pull those slides up. Great. So,[00:49] uh, you know, as Mike had mentioned, I[00:51] have a social science background that is[00:53] mixed methods. And the reason I want to[00:55] highlight mixed methods before jumping[00:57] into my talk here uh is that I'm really[00:59] trying to blend the qualitative and[01:01] quantitative with philosophical inquiry.[01:04] So what I hope you get today uh is a a[01:09] way of framing this entire topic of UAP[01:12] studies UAP a hypothesis that I think is[01:16] reasonable from that ways of testing[01:19] that hypothesis. uh and then a few um[01:23] really interesting datadriven[01:26] uh responses to this hypothesis. I know[01:29] that sounds a little bit abstract. We[01:30] will certainly get into it. Uh and I do[01:33] apologize if any of this is. So, uh,[01:36] I'll be looking forward to the Q&A[01:37] session, but, uh, hopefully the[01:39] takeaways from this topic will be, uh,[01:42] some philosophical insight into UAP, uh,[01:46] a structured way of thinking about UAP,[01:49] um, and some really interesting ideas[01:50] about how we bring SETI here to our[01:54] planet and then begin to uh, assess[01:56] whether or not that is true. So, if we[01:58] can move to the next slide here, uh, we[02:00] can actually get into my talk. I will[02:01] accelerate this a little bit. I know we[02:03] are running somewhat behind so hopefully[02:04] we can get to a robust Q&A session. But[02:07] uh if you have not thought[02:09] philosophically about this topic, I[02:12] encourage you um to to listen very[02:15] closely because I think there's a lot[02:17] here and I've been at this conference. I[02:20] was here last year. I hope to be here[02:21] next year uh to meet all of you in[02:23] person. Uh but I've realized that I[02:26] think that there is a lot of ambiguity[02:28] around what we mean when we say UAP or[02:30] UAP studies. And so a conceptual[02:32] framework I think is is really needed to[02:36] help us structure our thinking and[02:38] communicate with others as we move[02:41] forward trying to unravel or untangle[02:43] one of the greatest mysteries that I[02:45] think our species has ever and will ever[02:48] uh experience. So uh what do you get[02:51] when you get a conceptual framework? uh[02:53] you get something that really uh focuses[02:56] all of us on the object of study the the[02:59] important ideas uh you're upfront with[03:03] your assumptions. So this is you can if[03:05] if you're a researcher scholar academic[03:07] you can think of a research design uh as[03:09] a structured way of of approaching a[03:11] problem uh attempting to to derive a[03:13] solution in a conceptual framework. Here[03:16] we will have uh hypothesis a single[03:19] hypothesis that we'll that we can test[03:21] uh and a framework allows us to decide[03:24] uh which data sources we think are[03:25] applicable appropriate uh and then to go[03:27] out and and gather and and analyze. So I[03:30] know again that's that's very high level[03:32] in this talk we will move past the[03:34] philosophy and get into the into the[03:36] nuts and bolts of it but but not quite[03:37] yet. So if we can just go to the next[03:39] slide here uh I want to just give you a[03:42] really high level of what we're doing[03:43] today. that the inputs to uh to this[03:46] this this talk are bit of philosophy[03:49] some scholarship this is UAP research[03:52] UAP studies research in addition in[03:55] addition to SETI literature uh both[03:57] local and distant and then data I will[03:59] be bringing in the new fork data set[04:01] which I've been uh very thankful to have[04:03] access to in the last year and a half uh[04:05] I know there are issues and challenges[04:07] to that data set but I think we can[04:08] derive some some uh important uh[04:11] indications for our hypotheses and how[04:14] we approach this very thorny problem of[04:16] trying to understand uh what UAP uh[04:20] really are. So the output is you get a[04:22] conceptual framework and you get a[04:24] testable hypothesis. I'll end the talk[04:26] with a link to my research gate and you[04:27] can see there are two papers there that[04:29] really go into detail about elements of[04:32] the framework. That's later we'll get to[04:34] it. So let's move to the next slide here[04:36] and I can uh get into more details.[04:41] Perfect. So main points, uh, I don't[04:44] want to just throw up a bunch of[04:45] different ideas and and and lose[04:47] everyone here, but, uh, really the key[04:50] ones are we're going to we're going to[04:51] take a look at what UAP studies, uh,[04:54] means. This the the theme of this[04:56] conference is foundations for, uh, UAP[04:59] studies. And, and I've felt and sensed[05:02] this, um,[05:04] maybe we're we're we're detached. we're[05:07] floating around trying to uh grapple[05:09] with the the challenge, the complexity,[05:11] the difficulty of solving this issue.[05:14] And so we need to ground ourselves. And[05:16] part of uh deriving a framework,[05:18] selecting a hypothesis and trying to[05:20] test that is to attempt to to get some[05:22] sort of grounding uh to understand this[05:25] topic to understand how we can move[05:27] forward and move this entire field[05:29] forward. Uh so we're going to do some of[05:31] that again. We're going to look at[05:32] literature uh some really interesting[05:34] SETI literature that I think argues[05:37] successfully that we should not be[05:39] thinking about SETI as a distant[05:40] phenomenon. Of course, traditional SETI[05:43] does that. We can't do that. But I think[05:44] that the research can bring us from[05:47] exoplanets elsewhere in the galaxy all[05:49] the way to our front door here around[05:52] our planet perhaps on our planet perhaps[05:54] in our oceans. I'm going to make that[05:56] argument too. we will look at new fork[05:58] data applied to uh the hypothesis and u[06:04] that will help to support I think the[06:06] framework that I'm developing here uh[06:08] and then we're going to look at how we[06:10] extend our thinking naturally with this[06:12] framework you can agree with parts of it[06:14] you can disagree with parts of it but my[06:16] hope with this talk is that you come[06:18] away thinking I need to develop my own[06:21] structured way of approaching uh this[06:24] problem the problem of what UAPR are the[06:27] nature of UAP studies and how we really[06:29] get to the bottom of this. So, I hope[06:30] that this inspires you to develop your[06:32] own framework, not that you take mine[06:34] wholesale because naturally um I'm just[06:37] one person, just one researcher trying[06:39] to figure this out just like uh many of[06:41] us. So, let's go ahead and advance to[06:42] the next slide.[06:47] And I think there might be a bit of a[06:49] delay. Fantastic. Okay. So, as I've been[06:51] hearing talks uh at this conference, at[06:55] other conferences I've attended here in[06:56] the last year, I hear the term UAP. And[07:00] uh I don't mean to offend anybody, but I[07:05] sense that each uh invocation of that[07:08] term is um specific to the person who[07:11] says it. What I mean by that is when you[07:14] say UAP, uh you're meaning something and[07:17] I hear it and I don't know exactly what[07:19] you mean. And so what I wanted to do is[07:21] provide my kind of just kind of a basic[07:24] philosophical[07:26] uh pulling apart of the term. And what[07:28] I've what I've done here is translate[07:30] unidentified into uh kind of a different[07:34] simpler language. So uh we've got UFO[07:37] and UAP here. Unidentified aerial[07:40] phenomena. When somebody says that, I[07:43] think many of us have a general sense of[07:44] what that means. But I translate that as[07:47] something unknown that's in the air that[07:49] that's a thing. Uh, which if you[07:53] continue to translate that, that means[07:55] there are two unknowns, two question[07:57] marks. You can see those on the right[07:58] side. Uh, and then something pointing[08:00] up, which is, you know, it's above us in[08:02] a sense. Uh, UFO is not much better,[08:05] though it does have a little bit more[08:07] conceptual clarity when we think about[08:09] unidentified. again flying object so we[08:12] know that that it's in the air it's[08:13] powered in some sense uh either by wings[08:15] or propulsion what have you and it's an[08:17] object so it is a physical thing so when[08:19] we talk about UAP in a way that it it is[08:22] a little bit more ambiguous or more[08:24] vague uh of course if you've heard[08:26] anyone say unidentified anomalous[08:28] phenomena that is in my mind question[08:30] mark question mark question mark that is[08:33] we don't know we don't know we don't[08:34] know so that is is a really interesting[08:37] uh thing that is happening in this space[08:40] as we move around and discuss[08:42] essentially what I think is happening is[08:43] everyone has UAP as a container and they[08:46] put into it what they imagine it to be[08:47] and they share that container with other[08:49] people and it may or may not be[08:50] different and so I think that there's[08:52] plenty of space now within UAP studies[08:56] to really look at what we mean when we[08:58] say UAP and perhaps to uh consider it as[09:01] a category uh and then to be specific[09:04] about the elements of that category that[09:06] we really want to figure out. For[09:08] example, if I say UAP, you might not[09:11] know what I'm referring to. But if I say[09:13] uh, you know, a a vehicle from an[09:15] extraterrestrial civilization, a probe,[09:17] etc., that becomes very clear. I'm[09:19] making a very specific statement. I'm[09:21] not being general about the category of[09:23] UAP. So, let's move on to the next slide[09:26] here. Uh, I bring this slide up. This is[09:29] my kind of personal research. Uh, I know[09:32] it's been done better, but this is[09:33] really an intellectual mapping. I hope[09:35] you can see this uh that you have a[09:37] larger screen to to look at it. Looking[09:39] at all of these uh for the last 100[09:41] years or so uh explanations and ways of[09:44] trying to understand UAP UFO across many[09:48] different disciplines and approaches. So[09:49] I uh forgive me if your favorite author[09:52] or researcher isn't on there or if you[09:54] are not on there. Uh but I was trying to[09:57] trace kind of the intellectual history[09:59] of this discipline. It is a messy messy[10:02] uh discipline which is good for us.[10:04] There's many ideas. These ideas have[10:06] proliferated. And I think that is[10:08] indicative of a a seed, a core thing[10:11] that is happening that is drawing all of[10:13] us to UAP studies, UFO, uh, eupfology,[10:17] if we even want to use kind of a a[10:20] previous term. There's something there[10:22] that is really gras uh grabbed on to the[10:26] imagination uh of many different[10:28] individuals across many different[10:29] disciplines and throughout time. So[10:31] that's very exciting. Uh, next slide,[10:33] please.[10:36] of course countless explanations uh and[10:39] I credit Dr. from Sarah Little for[10:40] providing me this. Uh I know most of you[10:42] in the space have uh are familiar with[10:45] the many different hypotheses,[10:47] conjectures, theories, ideas that exist[10:49] to explain either the entire set of UAP[10:53] or a small subset of UAP. Naturally we[10:56] find ourselves at the SEU conference at[10:58] the top right corner probably uh I don't[11:01] want to generalize for all attendees but[11:03] uh from the talks I heard physical nuts[11:05] and bolts possibly or probably[11:08] extraterrestrial perhaps[11:09] cryptoaterrestrial these are open[11:10] questions um but naturally when we are[11:13] discussing these topics we're not[11:15] explicit in terms of uh what we think is[11:18] happening um you can argue that we don't[11:21] want to be explicit we want to allow the[11:22] data to to uh indicate where to[11:25] I have slides for that. I think that is[11:27] a whole another uh important issue that[11:31] we need to get into. Um I of course[11:33] identify myself in the top right corner[11:35] and we will head that way for a[11:37] hypothesis. So what I'm doing here is uh[11:40] taking us from very general to very[11:42] specific claim and then I'm going to[11:43] build a framework around that claim. Uh[11:45] naturally we can be open to the fact[11:47] that UAP as a category may include[11:50] prosaic, mental, whole host of other[11:52] issues, misidentifications. Um but what[11:55] I personally am interested in and I[11:57] suspect a lot of uh researchers are is[11:59] is this some sort of craft device[12:02] phenomenon controlled by intelligence[12:04] other than those on planet earth uh and[12:07] that are operating uh in our skies in[12:11] our oceans in in the space around our[12:13] planet etc. So next slide please.[12:17] Uh I mentioned this for those philosophy[12:20] nerds out there, history of science,[12:22] philosophy of science. What we have here[12:25] uh and I encourage you to read about[12:27] this if you are interested in the UAP[12:29] studies uh topic discipline as a as an[12:32] entity itself. We're in a a state before[12:35] a paradigm. So we talk about paradigm[12:37] shifts u moving from one way of seeing[12:40] the world to another. We are even before[12:42] that. There so many different schools[12:44] and ways of thinking. Um, like I said,[12:47] we're probably over represented here in[12:49] the nuts and bolts, but you can go to[12:50] many different conferences and people[12:51] will be advocating for interdimensional[12:54] hypothesis. Uh, and perhaps they'll just[12:56] be advocating for the fact that this is[12:58] misidentification, mental or[12:59] psychological, psychosocial, or even[13:01] religious, etc. Um, but given these[13:04] competing ideas, even in the nuts[13:06] andbolts space, I think that we are in a[13:09] situation where we essentially haven't[13:11] established the facts. We're still not[13:13] sure what's going on here. And there's[13:15] um a desire, I would say for myself, a[13:17] desperation to understand what's[13:19] happening. Uh but because we don't all[13:21] agree, uh we are essentially searching[13:24] for the paradigm. We're trying to[13:26] collect data. We're trying to get the[13:28] results together to uh make a claim uh[13:31] that something specific is happening and[13:33] then to go test that claim. Uh next[13:35] slide, please.[13:39] So, uh, I would like to present, uh, to[13:42] the conference my sense of of what UAP[13:45] studies are. And you can agree or[13:47] disagree. Um, we can quibble with with[13:50] the with the points here, but I think[13:51] what when we say UAP studies, we're[13:54] engaged in a particular thing which is[13:55] distinct from attempting to locate[13:58] extraterrestrial vehicles as they move[14:00] through uh, different mediums on the[14:02] planet, ocean, atmosphere, space, etc.[14:05] uh the study of the process by which[14:07] humans uh supported by their technical[14:10] devices attempt to reduce or constrain[14:11] uncertainty. that you know this is[14:13] you've read this uh it it can seem wordy[14:16] but essentially humans uh throughout all[14:19] of our existence have looked up looked[14:21] around us and realize there's things we[14:24] don't understand and we need to identify[14:26] those things for safety security uh[14:29] probably possibly for resources uh to[14:32] understand understand ourselves better[14:34] um is essentially we want to know what[14:36] is around us and so UAP studies as I[14:39] envision it is that entire approach and[14:41] many disciplines feed into it. Uh let's[14:44] go to the next slide. I can briefly[14:46] touch on those disciplines.[14:48] We can look out at all of UAP studies[14:50] and see many different groups focused on[14:52] trying to understand the category of UAP[14:55] studies. Um this is important because if[14:58] you are interested in how pilots[15:01] misidentify things as they are uh flying[15:05] their 737 or 757 etc. It's really[15:09] important to know the common u[15:12] misidentifications and the psychological[15:15] inputs that might go into that. So you[15:17] can imagine that a psychologist would be[15:18] interested in UAP studies because they[15:20] want to know how people identify and[15:22] misidentify uh in moments of high[15:25] pressure that uh possibly could have[15:28] many lives at stake uh etc. Of course uh[15:32] it's not just pilots who might be[15:34] interested. astronomers may be[15:36] interested in understanding uh as well[15:39] why they are seeing certain things um in[15:43] like I don't know historical[15:45] astronomical material for example and[15:47] trying to assess[15:49] uh what they might be seeing so it I[15:51] guess what I'm trying to say here[15:53] instead of just going around this is[15:55] there are many disciplines that might[15:56] want to understand how we when we see[16:00] something with our eyes or our[16:02] technological devices uh we might not[16:05] understand what it is and we need to[16:06] figure out that what that thing is. So[16:08] there's a process we go through within[16:10] this approach. Um and at SEU[16:15] I know there's there's quite a bit of[16:17] technical expertise. We have all sky[16:20] surveys out looking for trying to assess[16:24] anomalies in the sky. Anomalies that are[16:28] resistant to our ability to identify. So[16:30] we're not interested in in in mental or[16:32] psychological. We're not uh looking at[16:35] particular disciplines and how they may[16:36] or may not have identified something[16:38] incorrectly or or sought to identify[16:41] something incorrectly. We're looking for[16:43] another entity and that's really what my[16:45] talk is about today. Let's move on to[16:47] the next slide.[16:49] Um I had mentioned it earlier. I alluded[16:52] to this but uh inference to the best[16:56] explanation you might not know what that[16:58] is. Uh induction and deduction you might[17:00] not know what those are. abduction even[17:03] uh you might not know those terms but[17:05] these are critical philosophical ways of[17:08] of looking at a new set of phenomena and[17:12] trying to reason about what is happening[17:14] and then trying to construct a[17:16] hypothesis and go out and test it. So[17:18] I've given you this this short little[17:20] example about Tim and Harry. I'm sure[17:23] all of us have had situations in our[17:25] lives where we just don't have access to[17:26] the full facts. There's a complex world[17:28] around us and we're trying to piece the[17:32] puzzle together as best we can. And in[17:34] this um example on the slide, you can[17:37] see that that these two individuals,[17:39] something has happened between them. And[17:41] you don't know exactly what's going on,[17:42] but you you recognize at some later[17:44] point. They might have had a fight. Now[17:46] they're jogging. And you can just make[17:47] an assumption about what you think is[17:49] most likely to have happened. Humans[17:51] naturally do this all the time because[17:53] we don't have perfect information for[17:55] what others are doing, thinking, saying,[17:56] etc. I think this is the approach that[17:59] many of us are using currently for uh[18:03] understanding UAP. We've gone out to the[18:05] vast reams of uh data uh all these[18:09] signals, some weak, some moderate, maybe[18:11] some strong books, ODNI reports, etc.[18:15] conferences and we've come back and[18:16] we've said I think this is what's[18:18] happening. um what UAP are I would say[18:23] UAP is a category so there are many[18:25] things happening but I think many of us[18:27] sense that there is something underneath[18:30] that is very important and I would argue[18:33] that is the extraterrestrial hypothesis[18:35] and devices on our planet from some[18:36] other solar system so we're going to get[18:39] into that that is what I am reasoning[18:41] given my knowledge and I've been in this[18:44] topic for 10 plus years I've read many[18:46] of the books like you all of course[18:48] thought very deeply about this uh and my[18:51] inference to the best explanation, my[18:53] abductive reasoning leads me to uh the[18:56] next slide. Get to the next slide.[19:00] Staking a claim and to build a[19:02] framework, we need to uh in my opinion[19:05] say where we are today. Um today I'm[19:09] going to claim that there the[19:12] extraterrestrial hypothesis is the most[19:14] likely and I think there are really[19:16] compelling reasons to believe that might[19:17] be the case and to the to construct a[19:20] framework hypothesis and and go about[19:22] testing that. Let's go to the next[19:23] slide.[19:26] So, we would want to assess that claim.[19:29] Uh, if anyone says anything about what[19:32] the category of UAPR, what what the[19:36] specific UAP is, we need to assess[19:39] whether or not we think that's possible.[19:41] I think that uh and I won't go to too[19:43] much detail because we still have quite[19:45] a bit to go and I I know we're probably[19:46] a bit pressed for time but I think[19:48] existing UFO and UAP scholarship uh the[19:51] brilliant research presented uh at this[19:54] conference the conference last year of[19:55] course all the work the SCU does seem to[19:57] indicate that there is uh uh one or more[20:02] devices of some form that appear[20:04] intelligently controlled and so uh we're[20:07] very much interested uh in that[20:10] proposition.[20:11] What I do is I go to SETI literature um[20:14] and I look to see does SETI agree that[20:18] that could be possible that a device[20:19] could be here um there's a few different[20:22] researchers that I've noted here you[20:24] might recognize you might not of course[20:26] AI lo just to um to point out we can[20:30] move SETI from a distant SETI to a local[20:34] STEI and there has been research[20:37] published published peer-reviewed[20:38] research indicating that probes could[20:40] arrive in some form. These could be[20:42] vonoyman probes that are[20:44] self-replicating. They could be small,[20:46] smart, and intelligent probes meant for[20:47] different purposes to communicate like[20:49] like TU says they could be lurking,[20:52] hiding or observing uh in the near-earth[20:55] environment uh in the Lebronge points[20:57] etc. uh as Benford says. So they could[20:59] be trying to communicate with us or[21:02] engage us and this is what Gross looks[21:04] at in in his 2013 article. So is it[21:08] possible uh research and scholarship[21:10] does indicate that we can see a device[21:13] coming to us? Of course there's many[21:14] more uh there's many more research[21:17] reports uh journal articles scholarship[21:20] conference presentations and this this[21:22] is just a small selection of what has[21:23] come to mind for me but I do think that[21:26] we can make a compelling case that a[21:27] device could be here. It is not[21:30] impossible. Uh so are there any critical[21:32] challenges? Uh the anthropocentric bias[21:35] and incommenserability. Uh maybe this[21:38] means something to you, maybe you don't.[21:39] I put three uh of my favorite movies up.[21:42] Uh hopefully I'm not unduly influenced[21:44] by them, but these three movies um[21:47] indicate kind of the three different[21:48] perspectives you could take on in[21:50] commensurability. What that means is uh[21:53] a species being so different that we[21:55] would not have a shared reference frame.[21:57] We would not be able to readily[21:58] communicate. Contact is a an excellent[22:01] film where researchers receive from[22:04] outer space um signals[22:07] via electromagnetic radiation radio[22:10] waves uh and those are coded for prime.[22:14] They're mathematical. We recognize them[22:16] immediately and decode the signal. Carl[22:17] Sean wrote this uh along with his wife[22:20] and really champions the idea that math[22:22] is the shared bridge of shared language[22:23] between uh distant uh exoplanets,[22:27] different distant civilizations. uh[22:29] arrival, the uh beings, the entities,[22:33] the the aliens have to come to us and[22:35] teach us their language. And we need[22:37] technology to facilitate that. That's a[22:39] kind of a Stefan Wolf approach of[22:41] different minds in the galaxy, different[22:43] species live at different places, but[22:46] bridges can happen if you use your[22:49] technological devices. you can somehow[22:51] uh teach the other civilization or[22:53] create a bridge between the two of you[22:55] um via some sort of language or or[22:57] shared experience. and Solaris Stannis[23:00] Alm if you haven't seen this movie the[23:04] different versions of it or read the[23:05] book I highly encourage it but[23:06] essentially it's the idea that uh[23:09] researchers around an alien planet and[23:11] it's so fundamentally alien there is no[23:13] form of communication there's simply[23:14] basic engagement and in the researcher[23:17] is left without understanding uh after[23:20] departure so there's no meaningful[23:23] shared information no communication no[23:24] culture no no exchange of data none of[23:28] that ends ends up being possible. Uh and[23:30] so that's something I think that we need[23:31] to take seriously when we think about[23:33] devices coming from uh another planet.[23:37] To what extent can we expect these[23:39] things, these devices uh emissaries or[23:43] alien intelligent aliens to be able to[23:45] communicate successfully with us? And[23:47] that's part of our anthropocentric bias.[23:49] We uh know we share our planet with many[23:51] different species, intelligent species.[23:53] And and I think many of us recognize we[23:55] have quite a bit of communication and[23:56] can feel dogs, cats, different animals,[23:59] um some people insects, etc. But when we[24:02] think of a species that is on a an[24:04] exoplanet, a distant star, the[24:06] challenges could be so extreme and we[24:09] might not be taking those into account[24:10] that if a device were to come here, we[24:12] might not easily recognize it. We might[24:15] expect it to do certain things or[24:18] communicate in a way that might not be[24:21] possible. So uh that's really the core[24:24] idea for the hypothesis and framework.[24:27] Go to the next slide.[24:31] uh briefly as I mentioned[24:34] distant to local study these are some of[24:36] the issues um and and I could have[24:38] condensed this down I won't go into[24:40] detail here uh for the sake of time but[24:42] essentially just reasons why a[24:44] civilization might want to send if it[24:47] could individuals or an technological[24:50] emissary there are uh there's value to[24:53] that provided you can overcome the[24:54] immense technological[24:57] uh challenges of getting a device from[24:59] say Alpha Centator light years away to[25:01] planet Earth in any reasonable time[25:03] frame. So, go to the next slide.[25:11] Uh I think we might be somewhat delayed[25:13] here. Oh, sorry. There it is. Okay. Um[25:16] so, my hypothesis, just going to set[25:18] this out right now. We'll we'll build[25:19] the framework around it. Um I'm arguing[25:22] small set of advanced transmedium probes[25:25] of extraterrestrial origin are on this[25:27] planet but they suffer from[25:29] incommenserability[25:31] not contact maybe more towards solaris.[25:36] So they cannot uh or will not engage[25:40] with us in ways that we understand uh[25:43] language mathematics[25:45] um signals that are obvious. So we need[25:48] to start looking to see if they are[25:49] attempting to um produce some sort of[25:52] contact engagement, protoen engagement,[25:54] etc. And that's what I want my framework[25:56] to do. I want to uh make that the claim[25:59] and then go out and and assess it. Let's[26:01] see next slide.[26:04] So we're going to anchor this[26:05] hypothesis. You might say, okay, that's[26:07] great, Courtney. You've you've come up[26:08] with these ideas. What does this really[26:10] mean? I can come up with my own set. I[26:11] encourage you to do that. Uh but looking[26:15] to the data and I've spent a lot of time[26:17] with the new fork data familiar with its[26:19] strengths and weaknesses um one of the[26:22] questions I asked myself could a small[26:24] set of probes plausibly produce the[26:26] reports that we have uh understanding[26:29] that UAP as a category there might be[26:32] many things happening but in the[26:34] category of UAP there could be a small[26:37] set of devices roaming our planet uh for[26:41] some sort of surveillance to gather data[26:43] etc. And so uh and I'm not sure if[26:46] you're familiar with this is maybe a[26:48] little bit more technical but a hawk[26:50] process is essentially trying to model[26:52] how uh an an event selfexites and what[26:57] that means is there's a seed event uh[26:59] and then from that seed event uh other[27:03] um processes are excited. What that[27:05] means uh for this is that you have a[27:08] probe one one or more probes that are[27:10] going around. People are reporting on[27:12] those probes but then they are also[27:14] going out and being excited by this[27:17] process and there becomes a rumor mill[27:19] that is generated and that rumor mill[27:21] can have many different durations. It[27:23] can be a short, medium or long. It could[27:25] be a 1 day, 90day, 120day. And so, uh,[27:29] if you're following me here, what that[27:30] means is you can imagine a flap, a UFO[27:33] flap could be seated by a single event.[27:35] It also could be seated by no event. Um,[27:38] but it could be seated by a single probe[27:40] coming out. And then we have two weeks[27:43] for two months, three months of drones[27:45] in the sky, of weird lights in the sky,[27:48] of everybody out recording the sky,[27:50] seeing different things, saying[27:51] different things, talking to each other,[27:53] news reports, everything goes wild. and[27:55] it will be difficult to trace that back[27:57] to uh the actual cause just because of[28:00] all the noise that's produced. So I[28:02] applied this modeling to the new for[28:04] data and my initial and I highlight[28:06] initial results uh are somewhere in the[28:09] the realm of 40 probes and a very rich[28:12] social contagion dynamic operating at[28:15] multiple temporal scares. Uh that's not[28:18] publishable. Uh please take that with a[28:20] grain of salt. I'm still running the[28:21] modeling. I was running it last night.[28:22] I'll be running it later today. Uh, but[28:24] I think that's really interesting. If we[28:26] imagine that the New Fork data set, the[28:28] 100,000 or so from 1949[28:31] to 2024 from my data is produced by just[28:35] uh a small group of these devices[28:37] showing up in different places. And then[28:40] the majority of reports are people[28:42] talking and making up stories or going[28:44] out and observing and seeing things they[28:46] didn't see before. um for that device if[28:50] we imagine let's just go with a small[28:52] set as 40 probes or so uh is there a[28:54] compelling case in in UAP history that[28:58] we would want to uh say is indicative of[29:00] this probes operations I think the NI[29:02] think that the Nimmits case is uh a[29:05] really compelling case and so I'm going[29:06] to take that as my model uh I won't get[29:09] into the details as to why I took that[29:10] as my model but essentially I will look[29:12] at the Nimtt's case as that is the[29:13] device uh template that is operating and[29:16] we can imagine 40 or so different tic[29:18] tacs roaming around uh if you will doing[29:20] different things. Next slide please.[29:24] Okay, so let's actually build the[29:26] framework. Uh and I know you came here[29:28] partly for the framework and you also[29:29] probably came to this talk because I had[29:31] mentioned um a really interesting way to[29:34] signal in the sky using plasma based[29:36] displays. I promise uh this was not a[29:38] bait and switch. We will get to that. Um[29:41] so the assumptions a small set of probes[29:44] are producing all of the sightings.[29:47] There's just so many confound. So uh the[29:50] real thing is creating this category of[29:51] UAP um incommenserability.[29:54] [clears throat][29:55] I'm assuming the device can't talk to[29:56] us. If it wanted to communicate,[29:59] it would have. If it wanted to share[30:01] some sort of mathematical knowledge or[30:02] reasoning or indication that it[30:04] understood primes with us, it would have[30:06] done that. Now we don't know what the[30:09] government has access to speaking as an[30:11] independent researcher using open source[30:13] and the knowledge that we have today. We[30:15] don't have any indication of[30:16] communication or specific engagement yet[30:19] but I think we can look for that still.[30:21] There's a lot of resources out there and[30:22] ways to do it. Um I'm arguing for symbol[30:25] free engagement. We'll get into that in[30:28] the next slide please.[30:31] Okay. So the framework is two components[30:34] and I call these phenomena based[30:36] engagement which is the strategy of a[30:38] device that can't readily communicate or[30:42] won't readily communicate and then this[30:44] PAL's principle physical accessible[30:47] local surprise I'll go into that are the[30:50] minimum conditions that must be met to[30:52] indicate that the device is trying to[30:53] communicate. So essentially what PBE[30:55] suggests phenomena based engagement is[30:58] we all uh share the same physical[31:00] systems. I say we all as in our species[31:03] in any species anywhere else in the[31:05] galaxy is going to be grounded in uh the[31:09] physical universe that we all inhabit.[31:12] Uh whether or not they experience that[31:13] differently uh is open for debate. Um if[31:17] it's an AI system, it might perceive[31:19] time in a very different way. We know[31:20] that our computers run very quickly. So[31:23] they might have different perceptions if[31:24] you will. Uh but nevertheless, we can[31:26] always use physical reality to[31:28] communicate. PBE is that uh physical[31:32] reality and anomalies are what we look[31:33] for. And PALS are the ways that we go[31:37] about doing that. So uh just to read[31:40] part of palace, it's again minimal[31:42] conditions that are registered as an[31:44] intentional signal from[31:48] uh for humans from an extraterrestrial[31:50] device were to be operating. Next slide.[31:51] I'll get into PALS a little bit more.[31:54] So when I think about a device coming[31:57] here and if it can't or won't directly[31:59] communicate, it's going to engage us in[32:01] some way and it's going to have to do[32:03] four things. It has to use different[32:07] modalities, lights and sounds, em[32:10] thermal. You can imagine constructing a[32:11] device and we sending it out to Alpha[32:13] Centator. How would we want to engage a[32:15] species? Well, we wouldn't know if the[32:17] species had eyes or ears. We wouldn't[32:20] know what kind of uh visibility they had[32:22] across the spectrum. So, we would want[32:23] to design um uh a way to engage as many[32:28] different modalities as possible, light,[32:30] sound, thermal, etc. accessibility is we[32:33] we don't want it to be a very hard to[32:36] get signal. Hard to get is if you're in[32:38] contact if you're watching you're[32:39] watching the contact movie you're you're[32:41] using your radio telescope to listen to[32:42] the stars that's very very difficult. Uh[32:46] it requires technology and scientific[32:48] mathematical technical acumen. Uh we[32:50] want to make this as simple as possible[32:52] for any species that may or may not[32:55] share uh technological equivalents. So[32:58] unaded observers, commonplace[33:00] instruments, not necessarily specialized[33:02] technology, local proximity, this is the[33:05] L. U signals need to happen as close to[33:09] the observers as possible. Surprisal. So[33:12] this is an information theoretic idea. I[33:14] won't get into it, but we need to make[33:16] the uh the um signal rare that it stands[33:20] out from background noise. It needs to[33:22] be an anomaly that that grabs attention.[33:25] And in grabbing attention, it can[33:26] communicate some amount of data about it[33:29] that it is so anomalous. It is it is[33:32] special. It is unique uh and and worthy[33:34] of further study. Next slide, please.[33:38] Okay. So, I went ahead and scored uh I[33:40] took the PAL's framework again. This is[33:42] the the phenomena based engagement[33:44] strategy and I went to Newfork and I[33:46] said, can we actually see any indication[33:48] of that happening? And this is the[33:50] scoring logic I used. Of course, this is[33:51] um still uh um preliminary. I haven't[33:56] got into additional detail, but[33:58] essentially for each component uh you're[34:00] scoring at zero to three for all of the[34:03] descriptions in the entire new fork data[34:05] set. Uh with duplicates removed, of[34:08] course, if you want to go to the next[34:09] slide here.[34:11] So, this is just some sampling and[34:14] testing. Uh I want to get to the[34:16] results. um Spearman correlation for[34:18] those of you who are interested in[34:19] understanding are the PALS P A LNS how[34:22] are they related to each other uh is[34:24] there significant overlap I show that[34:25] there is not um let's go to the next[34:27] slide here[34:29] okay so these are the results so I to I[34:31] did a thousand um randomly selected[34:35] accounts scored each of those accounts[34:37] the descriptions for PAL's principles uh[34:40] and then I plotted those on the left um[34:42] we have a mean sample on the right so[34:44] what we are seeing[34:46] is that people are reporting some[34:48] element of PALS in many of their uh[34:52] sightings, their encounters. But what we[34:55] need to see if it's a real device is[34:57] that top right quadrant. Uh that top[34:59] right quadrant is scoring uh five and[35:03] five or 10. The total is 12. Um we need[35:06] to see very high value scores for PALS[35:10] to be operatives. Anything else that you[35:11] see other than that top right quadrant[35:14] is just kind of the natural variation of[35:16] what happens in new fork sightings. But[35:17] those few sightings could be indicative[35:20] of of of something operating under uh[35:23] the PAL minimal design conditions. This[35:26] is the framework that I've produced[35:28] applied it to the new fork sighting[35:29] data. Uh if you want to go to the next[35:30] slide, I can just show you another way[35:32] to visualize that the solid lines uh[35:36] really are most of the sightings and[35:37] then very few sightings are actually uh[35:40] hitting those top points. Three points[35:43] per p, three points per A, three points[35:44] per L, three points per S. So this I'm I[35:47] think about this in this probably um[35:51] next over to what Jacqu file talks about[35:53] where he has kind of this biodal[35:54] distribution if you will um or these two[35:57] humps where many sightings are not[36:00] reported the weirder ones the stranger[36:02] ones and what I would hope for if we can[36:04] get better data is that we would see[36:06] more PALS uh higher PAL scores if we get[36:09] access to better reports u we could even[36:12] do historical reports more in-depth[36:13] reports etc. I I think there are better[36:16] PALS reports out there. Let's go ahead[36:17] and let's get to the next slide here. Um[36:21] you had the abstract and I talked about[36:24] in atmosphere displays as a way of[36:26] signaling a way of engagement and I want[36:28] to get to that now because you might be[36:29] thinking what about the orbs? We see a[36:31] lot of orbs in the sky and lights and[36:34] different configurations. And that's a[36:35] feature of UAP and UFO uh research that[36:39] that always seems to show up. And I[36:41] think that's really interesting that[36:42] some of our talks have discussed the the[36:44] categories these might fall into. Um but[36:47] I wanted to highlight just kind of a[36:49] speculative scenario here. This is[36:51] research that does exist. I don't know[36:53] if these these have been produced but[36:55] you can use satellite technology with[36:57] lasers uh sorry satellites with laser[37:00] technology to to beam into the[37:01] atmosphere to produce a a filamentation.[37:05] So to I guess this might not be[37:07] technically correct but to ignite a[37:08] small portion of the air that produces a[37:12] a glowing plasma display and then you[37:14] can read uh the light coming back from[37:15] that to get a sense of uh the[37:17] composition of the atmosphere and we can[37:19] imagine a device coming from somewhere[37:21] else uh that may have this technology[37:24] equipped to study and that must use this[37:27] technology or could use this technology[37:29] to attempt engagement with us. Uh and so[37:32] you can imagine as an example of PALS[37:34] and PBE um that a device might create[37:38] these displays in certain locations at[37:41] certain times as a way to g to to gather[37:44] attention to collect human attention to[37:46] make humans say, "Wait a minute. What's[37:48] going on here? There's something else[37:50] happening. There's something anomalous[37:51] and unique that we need to follow. We[37:53] need to study." And it might have all[37:54] these features of of something really[37:56] otherworldly that that in many of the[37:58] accounts um this this high strangeness[38:00] that you sense if all of a sudden uh[38:02] above you was produced some sort of[38:04] glowing plasma displayed temporarily[38:06] that that uh moved or zipped off etc. Uh[38:10] so this is really again a speculative[38:12] example um that that is grounded in[38:15] research and I know that uh there are[38:19] really interesting uh research proposals[38:22] that have been put forward to put[38:23] devices like this on for example F-16s[38:25] and you can use the the plasma display[38:27] to produce holograms to deflect missiles[38:29] etc. I don't know anything about that[38:31] necessarily. I'm I'm not a physicist,[38:33] like I said, social sciences. Um, but[38:36] this is something that I would offer if[38:38] we're thinking about this framework of[38:39] of how to communicate comm sorry,[38:41] communicate uh with uh a species that[38:45] doesn't share any um uh bridge or[38:48] background other than physical systems.[38:51] Um let's go to the next slide here. And[38:53] I think that we are pretty close to[38:55] concluding. So what's next? So I've[38:58] really laid out uh kind of the issues of[39:00] UAP studies. We've we've applied some[39:02] philosophical inquiry, produced a[39:03] hypothesis, we've got a framework of how[39:05] to approach if a device is here and they[39:08] can't communicate uh what might they do[39:10] and why and how. I think this is[39:13] interesting and I hope people will build[39:15] on this and take and repurpose. But I[39:17] intend to continue testing um see if we[39:21] can make predictions based on this[39:23] approach for all sky surveys or field[39:26] campaigns to see what the odds are that[39:27] they might detect something. If we[39:28] imagine there's only 40 devices that are[39:30] producing new fork, that might give us a[39:32] sense of if we think any given all sky[39:35] system will actually surface a a true uh[39:38] detection of of this device that might[39:41] take one year, five years or 10 years[39:42] depending on our analysis. Um I would[39:45] encourage everyone who is interested in[39:47] this framework to think about propulsion[39:48] methods and how we might look for those[39:50] in in the near earth environments. Um[39:52] and then we can propose new sensor types[39:54] and deployments to go and pursue this[39:56] idea. So, it looks like I'm pretty much[39:57] out of time. Um, this is the end of my[40:00] talk. I'm going to go to the last slide.[40:02] Uh, of research gate, you can look me[40:05] up, you can email me. Uh, I have concept[40:07] papers as well. I hope this was an[40:09] interesting talk and that it offered you[40:11] something different, something unique.[40:13] And if we have time for questions, I[40:14] welcome those, but otherwise, I'd be[40:15] happy to take questions on the Hoova app[40:17] or via email or um, we can schedule a[40:20] Zoom call if someone would like to talk[40:21] in more detail. Thank you.[40:23] >> Excellent, Courtney. Thank you so much.[40:25] and you were right on time.[40:27] Unfortunately, we are we were a little[40:29] behind time there. So, those questions[40:31] will have to be directed to Courtney via[40:32] the Hoova app. Uh he's also been very[40:35] gracious with extending an offer to uh[40:37] schedule a Zoom call. In fact, he and I[40:38] are probably overdue for one of those.[40:40] He's a debrief contributor and I[40:42] appreciate his contributions here for[40:43] the conference. So, we're going to take[40:44] a very quick break. Uh we need to be[40:46] back here in about 15 minutes because we[40:49] will be having the discussion the highly[40:51] anticipated lecture how long until[40:53] catastrophic disclosure Dr. Matthew[40:56] Shidagas will be joining us here. So[40:57] I'll see you here once again in 15[40:59] minutes.
Silvano Colombano Ph.D. "What is UAP Research"
Introduction to Dr. Silvano Columbano
Dr. Silvano Columbano, a retired researcher with a distinguished career at NASA, is introduced as a speaker on the topic of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) research. He holds an MA in physics and a PhD in biophysical sciences from the University of Buffalo. His extensive experience includes work in closed ecological life support systems and artificial intelligence and robotics, making him well-suited to discuss the complexities of UAP research.
Personal Perspective on UAP Research
Dr. Columbano begins by clarifying his position as an outsider to the UAP research community. Despite his long tenure at NASA, he emphasizes that he does not consider himself an insider. His initial exposure to the topic of UFOs came through a colleague, Dick Haynes, who documented credible reports from airline pilots. This experience shaped his understanding of how many in the scientific community view the phenomenon.
He notes that while many individuals at NASA were open to the idea of UFOs, the organization itself has historically distanced itself from UAP research, largely due to congressional mandates. Dr. Columbano recounts an incident where he wrote a white paper for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) initiative, advocating for the inclusion of UAP research in their portfolio as a potential sign of techno-signatures. This paper garnered attention and positioned him as an authority on the subject, a label that NASA was not comfortable with.
Challenges in UAP Research
Dr. Columbano identifies a significant challenge in UAP research: the lack of clarity in how the field presents itself to the scientific community. He suggests that improving this presentation could facilitate greater acceptance and progress in research efforts. He outlines the framing of UAP research within Congress, highlighting four key questions: the establishment of existence, potential dangers to aviation, threats to national security, and implications for human security.
His analysis indicates that while the existence of UAPs cannot be denied, the perceived danger they pose to aviation remains ambiguous, as does their classification as a national security threat. He argues that the lack of evidence supporting their extraterrestrial origins leads to a dismissive attitude towards the phenomenon, which he perceives as a form of gaslighting that obscures the ignorance surrounding UAPs.
Areas of UAP Research
Dr. Columbano categorizes UAP research into five major areas: analysis and validation of cases, proactive research, speculative physics, and philosophy. He emphasizes that each case of UAP sighting requires a diverse set of skills for proper analysis, including image analysis, phenomenology, physical behavior evaluation, and witness reliability assessment. Unfortunately, researchers often attempt to cover all these roles themselves, which can contribute to the negative stigma associated with UAP studies.
He stresses that while individual cases may be scrutinized for validity, the broader field of UAP research should not be dismissed based on the shortcomings of specific instances. He likens data points in UAP research to scientific data points that may have uncertainties but still contribute to the overall understanding of the phenomenon.
Data Analysis and Historical Context
Dr. Columbano discusses the importance of historical databases in UAP research, citing notable projects such as Project Blue Book and various national UFO reporting centers. He expresses disappointment in the quality of analyses conducted on data from these databases, noting that many studies focus on the percentage of unexplained sightings without delving deeper into the implications of these findings.
He advocates for more insightful studies that go beyond mere identification of sightings, suggesting that structural analysis could provide a clearer understanding of the types of phenomena being reported. He highlights the work of Robert Powell, who has conducted detailed structural analyses of UAP sightings, categorizing them by shape, size, and behavior. Dr. Columbano finds this approach promising and believes it could lead to more significant advancements in the field.
Proactive Research Initiatives
Dr. Columbano commends proactive research initiatives like UAPX and the Galileo Project, which aim to gather reliable data through rigorous scientific observation. He notes that these projects utilize various instruments, including visible light and infrared cameras, to capture data in specific locations where UAP sightings are reported. He emphasizes the importance of establishing observatories globally to enhance the reliability of data collection.
He posits that the ability to obtain consistent observations at specific locations could have profound implications for understanding the nature of UAPs. This could suggest either a geographical association with natural phenomena or the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation.
Speculative Physics and Its Implications
Dr. Columbano touches on speculative physics, discussing various models proposed to explain the unique characteristics of UAPs, such as their high-speed movements without sound or atmospheric effects. He acknowledges the challenges of developing theoretical models that can adequately explain these phenomena, cautioning against conflating speculative physics with UAP research. He believes that while speculative ideas can inspire theoretical advancements, they should not be used to legitimize the study of UAPs, which should be grounded in empirical evidence.
Philosophical Considerations
In addition to scientific inquiry, Dr. Columbano explores the philosophical implications of UAP phenomena. He reflects on the potential for paradigm shifts in understanding the universe and our place within it, suggesting that philosophical discussions can enhance scientific inquiry. However, he remains cautious about the necessity of shifting paradigms, advocating for a focus on empirical understanding of the phenomena without the need for radical changes in thought.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Dr. Columbano concludes by asserting that UAP research encompasses a wide range of activities across different disciplines, each capable of contributing valuable insights independently of preconceived notions about the nature of UAPs. He expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of singular, dramatic revelations in advancing the field, suggesting that incremental progress through diverse research efforts may yield more substantial results.
He reiterates that the credibility of UAP research lies not in proving individual anomalous phenomena but in analyzing the collective body of data. He encourages a focus on statistical analysis and structural data analysis to uncover the underlying nature of UAPs, emphasizing that the phenomenon itself can inspire advancements in both theoretical physics and philosophical thought.
In closing, Dr. Columbano thanks the audience for their attention and opens the floor for questions, indicating a willingness to engage further on the topic of UAP research and its implications.
Dr. Silvano Kumbano is presented in the transcript as a highly qualified individual with an extensive background in science, particularly in the fields of physics and biophysical sciences. According to the interviewer, he holds a Master of Arts (MA) in Physics and a PhD in Biophysical Sciences from the University of Buffalo. This academic foundation has equipped him with the skills necessary for a career predominantly spent at NASA, where he worked for approximately 40 years. His roles at NASA included working as a researcher in closed ecological life support systems and later in the fields of artificial intelligence and robotics. The interviewer highlights that these fields are particularly relevant today.
Dr. Kumbano is now retired but remains active in consulting and teaching projects. He is introduced as someone who will provide valuable insights into UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) research. It is important to note that throughout his career, Dr. Kumbano expressed that while he had been familiar with UFOs since the beginning of his career, he does not consider himself an insider in the UAP field. His perspective is that of an outsider, which he hopes will offer unique insights during his discussion.
- [00:11] "He received his MA in physics at a PhD in biophysical sciences from the University of Buffalo."
- [00:20] "He has spent most of his working career at NASA as a research center."
- [01:24] "I’m definitely I’m taking I am approaching this talk from the point of view of an outsider."
Dr. Silvano Kumbano approaches UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) research with a scientific lens, emphasizing the need for clarity and structured analysis within the field. He notes that much of the challenge facing UAP research is the lack of clarity in how the field presents itself to the scientific community. He aims to unpack various terminologies associated with UAP to facilitate acceptance and progress in research.
In discussing methods, the interviewee highlights the importance of data analysis and validation of cases, which he refers to as data points. He describes the typical analysis process as requiring various skills, including image analysis, physical behavior assessment, and witness evaluation. Each of these aspects demands a different set of expertise, which can often be a limitation in UAP studies since researchers may not possess all the necessary skills.
Dr. Kumbano also mentions that UAP researchers tend to approach individual cases as proof of existence, which could contribute to the negative stigma surrounding the field. He argues for a broader understanding, suggesting that each data point can have uncertainties but does not invalidate the overall field of study. This perspective encourages researchers to embrace the complexities of data analysis instead of aiming strictly for proof.
Lastly, he points out that historical databases and statistical analyses can serve as valuable resources for understanding UAP phenomena. However, he expresses disappointment in the current analyses of existing databases, noting that many studies focus merely on the percentage of unexplained cases rather than deeper insights.
- [09:11] "I see five major areas in UAP research: analysis and validation of cases, proactive research, speculative physics, and philosophy."
- [12:09] "Each case can always be challenged and will be the validity of the phenomenon is mostly in the analysis of a large data sets and the statistics on these data sets."
- [05:37] "The challenge I believe that this field has in terms of being accepted is really a lack of clarity of how we present ourselves to the scientific world."
Dr. Silvano Kumbano's decision to engage with UAP research stems from both personal curiosity and a broader scientific interest in understanding a phenomenon that many consider important. He recounts his early exposure to UAPs, which began with discussions among colleagues at NASA, particularly mentioning a friend, Dick Haynes, who shifted from skepticism to writing extensively on the subject. This transformation in perspective highlights a personal journey from doubt to intrigue, reinforcing the idea that credible reports, especially from airline pilots, can reshape one's understanding of UAPs.
Throughout his career, Dr. Kumbano has noted a general openness among NASA employees regarding the UAP phenomenon, although the organization itself has been historically reluctant to engage with UAP research. He reflects on the tension that exists between personal interest and professional mandate, stating that NASA has been mandated not to be involved in UAP research due to congressional pressures. This tension informs his professional stance and motivates him to advocate for a more open dialogue on the topic.
Additionally, he emphasizes the potential societal implications of UAP research, suggesting that understanding UAPs could lead to fundamental shifts in human perception of our place in the universe. He perceives UAP research as a vital area of study that could provide insights into techno-signatures and possibly extraterrestrial technologies. This vision aligns with his scientific background and his desire to contribute to a field that, despite its challenges, holds significant promise.
- [01:15] "I am really not an insider. I am approaching this talk from the point of view of an outsider."
- [02:25] "Most people have always been very open to the idea of UFOs and the reality of the phenomenon."
- [02:47] "I wrote a white paper to SETI... trying to allow some UAP research to be part of their portfolio as a possible sign of techno signatures."
The transcript does not provide any information indicating that Dr. Silvano Kumbano has personally observed a UAP. Throughout his discussion, he references the phenomenon of UAPs and the research surrounding them, but he does not share any personal experiences or observations related to UAPs. His focus is primarily on his professional involvement with UAP research as a scientist and how he has interacted with the subject through his work at NASA and subsequent advocacy for more serious engagement with the topic.
While he mentions credible reports from others, such as airline pilots, and discusses the challenges of validating UAP cases, he does not recount any specific incident or personal encounter with UAPs. Therefore, it can be concluded that personal observation of a UAP is not mentioned in the transcript.
Dr. Silvano Kumbano describes several obstacles and challenges associated with UAP research, particularly in relation to skepticism, professional risks, and publication barriers. He acknowledges that although many individuals within NASA have been open to the idea of UAPs, the organization itself has historically been mandated not to engage in such research due to congressional pressures. This creates a significant barrier for scientists wanting to explore the phenomenon professionally.
He notes that the perception of UAPs has been shaped by a narrative of dismissal and skepticism, which can deter serious research efforts. The stigma surrounding the field contributes to a challenging environment for researchers who may fear repercussions for pursuing such studies. Dr. Kumbano reflects on his own experience, stating that after writing a white paper on UAPs, he was viewed as an authority, which was not well-received by NASA. This illustrates the professional risks that can come with advocating for UAP research.
In discussing the possibility that UAPs may be caused by non-human intelligences, Dr. Kumbano articulates a cautious stance. He mentions that there is no evidence to definitively conclude that UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin, indicating that this lack of evidence should provide some comfort. He also expresses concern over the term gaslighting, suggesting that the scientific community's responses to UAPs sometimes serve to obscure ignorance rather than promote understanding of the phenomenon. Overall, he emphasizes the need for serious inquiry into UAPs, despite the challenges and skepticism surrounding the field.
- [02:28] "NASA as an organization has always...was mandated not to be involved."
- [07:45] "They don’t seem to be feasible products of current foreign technology...maybe they’re not a threat."
- [08:01] "There is no evidence that they are extraterrestrial in origin."
[00:00] Everybody doing well? Fully caffeinated?[00:03] Yeah. Learning a lot so far? Yeah.[00:06] Excellent. You're about to learn an[00:07] awful lot from Dr. Silvano Kumbano who[00:11] joins us. He received his MA in physics[00:13] at a PhD in biophysical sciences from[00:16] the University of Buffalo. He has spent[00:18] most of his working career at NASA as[00:20] research center. First as a researcher[00:21] in closed ecological life support[00:23] systems and later in artificial[00:25] intelligence and robotics. Very[00:27] applicable field right now. especially[00:29] he's now retired and active in[00:31] consulting and teaching projects, but[00:32] he's going to be talking with us today[00:35] about what is UAP research.[00:40] Dr. Columbano, please.[00:43] >> Do we have him here? Is he present?[00:45] >> Yes, I'm here.[00:46] >> Oh, he's Oh, he's he's joining us[00:48] remotely, of course.[00:49] >> That's right. I'm joining you remotely.[00:51] >> I'm supposed to say he's right behind[00:52] me, isn't he?[00:53] >> All the way from Italy.[00:57] Can you[01:01] can I start talking? Okay.[01:04] So, I[01:07] I [clears throat] want to say something[01:08] about my u[01:10] uh my position here. First of all, I am[01:15] I'm really not a um[01:18] I'm not an insider. I'm definitely I'm[01:21] taking I am approaching this talk from[01:24] the point of view of an outsider.[01:27] Um, I've been a a research for 40 years[01:30] in in NASA and uh I became acquainted[01:34] first with um[01:37] uh UFOs at that time thanks to my friend[01:41] Dick Haynes u which I I his name[01:44] appeared in one of the Kevin's author[01:47] list of the is their paper um I wonder[01:50] if it's the same person but it was[01:53] interesting from the point of view of uh[01:56] reports of from airline pilots which he[02:00] found very credible. He started out[02:03] being as a skeptic he was saying and but[02:06] he ended up writing a lot of papers in[02:08] in that area.[02:11] Uh I at NASA I found that most people[02:14] have always been very open to the idea[02:16] of of of UFOs and uh and um the the[02:23] reality of the phenomenon[02:25] but NASA as an organization has always[02:28] has not wanted to become involved and[02:32] was mandated not to be involved. they[02:34] they said it started at NASA but[02:37] Congress[02:39] demanded that they uh stop working in[02:42] that area. Uh a few years ago um I um[02:47] wrote a white paper to SETI[02:50] um basically uh trying to um um as part[02:56] of a conference they were giving uh[03:00] trying to con[03:02] up the point of uh um allowing[03:06] uh some UIP research to be part of their[03:11] portfolio as a possible sign of techno[03:15] signatures since they're interested in[03:16] working in techno signatures way way up[03:20] in space and uh the paper became um was[03:25] end up being known because I was a[03:27] scientist who talk about that stuff and[03:30] uh immediately cast me in the position[03:32] of somehow of an authority which of[03:35] course NASA didn't like [laughter][03:38] uh and uh and in [clears throat] fact[03:40] definitely was not an authority but I[03:42] received a lot of emails and and um uh[03:47] one other thing that happened which was[03:48] again show shows the uh the position[03:51] NASA was in is that there was a um a um[03:57] delegation from Ron Paul's um in[04:00] Congress came down to as to find out how[04:04] much NASA spent on this research[04:06] supposedly that I had done and uh so[04:09] they really[04:11] I I was only allowed to write a white[04:13] paper and that was it, you know. So,[04:15] they went back, you know, happy that[04:17] that was all that was done. Um but um[04:21] what what that tells me that it's easy[04:23] to become a an expert so to speak in[04:27] this field unfortunately just by by the[04:29] by having a PhD and it's equally easy to[04:32] do the opposite to[04:35] to dismiss the field by having some kind[04:38] of uh some degree you know so both[04:43] aspects are not are not good and[04:47] so um I um and I throughout this period[04:52] though I've also asked myself am I what[04:56] is if I what is really what is really[05:00] your pre research so I'm going to be[05:04] trying to unpack that and hopefully my[05:07] position as an outsider might give some[05:10] insight that could be useful for for all[05:14] of you. Can I start with the f first[05:17] slide please?[05:25] So[05:29] much much of the the challenge I believe[05:31] that um um the this field has in terms[05:34] of being accepted is really a lack of[05:37] clarity of how we present ourselves to[05:39] the scientific world.[05:41] And um again I as I said I would propose[05:44] to unpack the term perhaps to facilitate[05:48] both acceptance and and progress. Next[05:51] slide.[05:58] So I am sorry I didn't see u J threatens[06:03] talk because that would have kind of[06:04] helped maybe with with these slides.[06:06] I I hope I'm not saying something too[06:08] out outlandish, but again, his talk was[06:12] in my 3 p.m. I'm sorry, 3:00 a.m. in[06:15] Italy, and I I couldn't do it.[06:17] [laughter][06:18] So,[06:20] um[06:22] I So, how is the research you appear[06:26] framed in Congress? I would say they was[06:27] asking is the ex existence established?[06:31] Is it a danger to aviation? Is it a[06:34] threat to national security?[06:36] This is a threat to human sense of[06:38] security.[06:39] Next slide.[06:41] So here is my attempted answer as I I've[06:45] been understanding that from what has[06:47] been going on. I established guarded.[06:51] Yes. The they cannot deny the phenomenon[06:54] is happening.[06:56] Danger to aviation.[06:59] Apparently they keep talking about that.[07:01] That's there have been Congress meetings[07:04] about that.[07:05] But we don't know what to do about it.[07:08] So it's just[07:11] uh in unfortunately I must say that the[07:16] the u danger aviation as a motivating[07:19] force is a double-edged sword because on[07:22] one hand it's uh it doesn't motivate[07:25] interest. On the other hand, it doesn't[07:28] seem to be encouraging serious research[07:33] on the nature of the phenomenon.[07:36] Next slide.[07:41] The answer to three and four. Are they[07:42] threat national security?[07:45] No, because they don't seem to be[07:47] feasible products of current foreign[07:49] technology. So maybe they're not a[07:52] threat.[07:54] um are they threats to human sense of[07:57] security? Well, they keep saying[07:59] something like there is no evidence that[08:01] they are extraterrestrial in origin.[08:03] Therefore, should we should feel good[08:05] about that? And and to me the the number[08:08] four is especially[08:11] gaslighting. I mean what what would be[08:14] what what constitute evidence of a[08:18] direction or or origin short of take me[08:21] to your leader type of of encounter and[08:25] uh [clears throat] so it it it's it it[08:29] seems to me really not not u not an[08:34] honest answer and something something to[08:37] really cover our ignorance and our Um[08:41] yeah, [clears throat] unwillingness to[08:43] look deeply into the the phenomenon.[08:45] Next slide.[08:49] This is a[08:51] cartoon for what I just said.[08:54] Next, please.[08:57] I should say that all the pictures that[08:58] appear except for the ones well I[09:01] mention them are all AI produced.[09:06] >> [clears throat][09:06] >> So I see five major areas in UFP[09:09] research.[09:11] Uh one is analysis[09:16] um and validation of cases and I[09:19] consider those data points essentially.[09:23] Um we have data analysis considering the[09:27] number of data points we have. We have[09:30] proactive research,[09:34] speculative physics and I'll probably[09:37] obviously talk about those terms more in[09:39] detail and philosophy.[09:42] Next slide.[09:48] So the typical data point for us in case[09:52] analysis and validation really involves[09:56] a large set of skills. We have image[09:59] analysis.[10:01] Um requires image engineers. Somebody[10:04] who understands how images are created[10:06] and and uh[10:09] um a phenomen phenomenology take a[10:12] physicist to some try to make some sense[10:15] out of of what's being seen uh was being[10:20] reported.[10:21] uh the physical be behavior again if if[10:25] it's an object like um talking about[10:29] motion characteristics radiation effects[10:33] chemical traces would be a chemist[10:36] and witness evaluation[10:39] of the reliability of of the of of the[10:42] report would require perhaps a[10:44] psychologist[10:47] next.[10:50] So [clears throat][10:53] each case again requires a different set[10:55] of skills and not always employed or not[10:59] always available.[11:04] UAP researchers typically assume to[11:06] attempt to cover all those roles[11:09] and um and that unfortunately I think[11:12] contributes to the negative stigma[11:15] because very often they will not be good[11:16] at all of them.[11:19] Um and um[11:22] that's the one thing that the one point[11:23] I want to keep bringing back is that um[11:28] autis tends to be identified with[11:31] proving the validity of cases. Each one[11:34] of them always wanted to be a proof of[11:36] UP existence.[11:39] So an effort is always being made uh to[11:45] to make each case each individual case[11:48] be again a proof of of the existence of[11:52] of UAP.[11:55] Um[11:57] I would submit again that as in every[11:59] scientific field the data point can be[12:02] wrong or invalid or uncertain but it[12:05] doesn't invalidate the field of of[12:07] study.[12:09] Think of data points having arrow bars[12:11] and cases have arrow bars in some sense[12:14] that they have some degree of uh[12:18] of reliability[12:21] but uh and I'll come back to this point[12:25] again next slide.[12:32] So um data analysis[12:36] something is happening to my slide[12:37] unfortunately the something is is[12:40] shrinking in ways whatever. So um we[12:45] have historical[12:48] databases that can be analyzed by[12:50] historian to find out[12:54] why they were established or why they[12:57] were closed if they were closed[12:59] and uh so that that's a that's a a a[13:02] specific skill[13:05] statistical analysis again of[13:07] statisticians[13:09] and uh it covers by the picture there[13:12] for some ism. There's a um structural[13:17] analysis[13:19] and the two u pictures of the[13:21] [clears throat] at the bottom showing a[13:22] little graph and then another one with a[13:25] scatter graph shows the the the[13:28] distinctions between the two different[13:30] types of of of potential data analysis[13:34] statistical analysis. Next slide.[13:40] So some example of historic cult bases[13:45] uh the probably the most famous project[13:48] blue book[13:50] um national UFO reporting center France[13:55] uh national UFO historical record center[13:59] uh and um again for all of these there[14:01] there is a a history of again why they[14:06] were started why they were stopped[14:08] And um uh there are way[14:13] many more in in just about every[14:15] country. And um I know put their Enigma[14:19] app just as a potential possibility for[14:22] a future kinds of databases where people[14:26] can more easily access them and and put[14:28] in from what they they are seeing.[14:31] Um[14:33] so there is a wealth of information[14:35] there you know. Um, next slide.[14:42] Some analysis have been conducted on[14:44] data in these databases.[14:47] I'm I'm very much um[14:52] disappointed[14:54] in in the quality of the information[14:56] that has come from these data analysis.[14:59] uh most of them have been focused on how[15:02] many are considered to be uh uh[15:05] explained or many un unexplained and[15:07] typically the range of unexplained is[15:10] around[15:12] 15 to 20% and and um and some other uh[15:21] results are are le less than[15:23] enlightening like you can sightings are[15:26] more possible if[15:28] If the weather is good. Yeah. Okay.[15:30] That's what I I think there is a there[15:34] is a plenty of opportunity for more[15:36] insightful studies. Basically that[15:37] that's one I get beyond what's[15:40] identified. We're soon un unidentified.[15:43] Next slide.[15:48] Structural analysis. I've been trying to[15:50] figure out what kind of things are we[15:52] seeing how can we classify them. Uh[15:57] there is Hag Valet and Robert Powers[15:59] most recently. Next slide.[16:06] Again I find this not particularly[16:10] um insightful but but u nocturnal lights[16:15] daylight discs re visual tries to[16:18] classify the different kinds of[16:20] phenomena.[16:22] Next slide.[16:25] Again on on the same vein, anomaly, fly[16:29] by, maneuver, something is maneuvering,[16:32] closing counters.[16:35] Next slide.[16:38] Now I was really impressed by Robert[16:40] Powell's structural analysis from this[16:43] paper. reported shapes, sizes,[16:45] kinematics,[16:47] electromagnetic effects and presence of[16:48] sound identified phenomena[16:52] uh from 47 to 16.[16:55] Um this is a very um detailed[17:01] list of different kinds of of shapes[17:04] reported.[17:06] And um[17:09] to me the fact that[17:12] very similar shapes can be reported in[17:14] different parts of the world from people[17:18] that are know each other or known about[17:21] the reports of the of this kind[17:25] are extremely[17:28] strong evidence of a of a phenomenon[17:31] that serious that should be studied.[17:33] Next slide.[17:37] So here are some pictures that u uh[17:41] Robert kindly allow me to use uh from[17:45] his paper. Uh again the very detailed[17:50] shape um the triangular shape so[17:53] elliptical or or or um equilateral.[17:57] Next next uh slide please. Or discs.[18:03] uh again very specific[18:06] classes of of objects[18:10] and um[18:15] again I find that this very impressive[18:17] and and and I feel it's really the[18:20] direction that the field should take in[18:23] the sense of really looking at[18:27] the data the global amount of data the[18:30] amount of data and how it can be[18:33] looked at structurally.[18:35] Next slide.[18:43] So I guess something of I the important[18:46] takeaways again we we tend to focus on[18:49] individual cases but again any[18:52] particular case can always be be[18:54] challenged and and will be[18:57] uh the validity of the phenomenon is[18:59] mostly in the analysis of a large data[19:02] sets and the statistics on these data[19:05] sets and the data structures that can be[19:07] extracted by the data sets.[19:12] And um again we might we also there one[19:16] one other point I want to make where we[19:18] there there is a tendency to want to do[19:20] the[19:22] uh the analysis[19:25] only on data that has been say cleaned[19:27] up meaning we first establish what's[19:30] really reliable as a case and then we[19:35] look at the statistics[19:37] uh I would um suggest that perhaps we[19:41] could[19:43] relax the the need for[19:49] a firm establish establishing[19:52] [clears throat][19:53] firmly the validity of individual cases.[19:55] Each cases can be view viewed as an as a[19:58] point with arrow bars and uh by[20:02] eliminating[20:03] many cases of that kind. Uh we're also[20:07] eliminating the possibility of u of data[20:11] analysis that might bring up some[20:14] interesting aspects of the phenomenon.[20:17] Just as an idea.[20:20] Um next slide.[20:27] proactive research. Well, this is[20:30] something that's been started uh and[20:33] we'll we'll hear talks from UAPX[20:37] and the Galileo project that been and I[20:40] think this is great. Uh uh it's a brave[20:45] approach, you know, really trying to to[20:50] to find ways to get control of of a[20:53] phenomena, you know, so to find places[20:56] where[20:57] there seems to be hot spots, make[21:00] multiple sensing modalities. So getting[21:05] data that is as scientifically grounded[21:08] as as possible as possible. And in a[21:12] case of this type would be obviously[21:15] fundamentally[21:16] more um reliable uh and potentially[21:20] reproducible you know the than cases[21:24] that happen sporadically and not under[21:26] our control.[21:29] Next next slide.[21:32] So UPX in particular again you you'll[21:35] hear talks about this but they use[21:37] different kinds of instrumentation. The[21:39] idea is having different[21:41] modalities, visible light, infrared[21:44] cameras, radiation detectors[21:47] and and um um quantum random generator[21:51] for baseline measurements[21:54] and research sites in particular for EPX[21:57] have been Laguna Beach, you know, and[22:00] Catalina Island and a mobile unit is[22:03] being um prepared again. I I hope the um[22:09] this will be u explained better in more[22:12] in more detail.[22:14] Um next next slide please.[22:19] and the Galileo project again with all[22:22] sky cameras seeing also infrared optical[22:25] telescopes they their attitude is to try[22:29] of course starting from Harvard college[22:31] observatories because that's where more[22:34] easiest but they are planning to[22:36] establish additional observatories[22:40] globally[22:42] um next next slide[22:48] so consideration Here the possibility is[22:50] obtaining[22:52] [clears throat] a number of high[22:54] reliability higher reliability data[22:57] points[22:59] and this will be associated with[23:00] rigorous scientific observation[23:04] that would shed more light on the[23:06] phenomenon better than with cendipidious[23:09] observations[23:11] and the belie[23:14] there's one thing that that's really uh[23:16] interesting to me is that Um[23:20] the ability to obtain reliable[23:22] observation on a regular basis[23:24] especially say on spec at specific[23:27] locations[23:30] seems to me as a very profound[23:31] implications on the nature of the of of[23:33] the phenomena.[23:36] uh I see two possibilities. Give if[23:39] something is associated with a geog ge[23:41] geographical place something[23:44] natural is happening in this place which[23:46] has to do with whatever the environment[23:48] is there[23:51] or[23:54] we're being colonized.[23:56] I hate to use the word but if we we if[23:59] we think of the possibility of[24:00] extraterrestrial visitors in this case[24:04] uh and um where are they staying how how[24:09] would[24:11] it seems strange they would be just[24:15] passing by periodically but if something[24:18] is happening regularly[24:20] then we would have to accept the[24:22] possibility that that[24:25] there is a a location where[24:29] uh[24:30] where this um this phenomena might[24:36] consistently [laughter][24:37] be located happen or at the origin.[24:42] Um[24:51] I[24:52] it's not a panacea. I think even in this[24:55] case there will be challenges given to[24:57] the rigorous observation as they should[24:59] be but it will be more in the framework[25:03] of challenges of any kind of other[25:05] scientific typical u some typical[25:11] research experimental re research study.[25:15] Next[25:21] uh specular theme physics.[25:26] So there are different models that are[25:28] being suggested for how we can uh[25:32] explain some of the uh[25:37] features we see in the UAPs having to do[25:39] especially with with how they move the[25:42] accelerations they are seemingly being[25:45] able to go through through at high speed[25:48] with no sound boom with no apparent uh[25:51] effect on the atmosphere.[25:54] uh and so they're really interesting and[25:58] very puzzling from the point of view of[26:01] the physics we understand at this point.[26:04] They're are very very difficult[26:06] phenomena to to understand. So it's it's[26:09] really in um[26:12] um understandable that that there will[26:14] be interest in in in creating models or[26:19] expanding models of what we we barely[26:24] know[26:26] and expand the theories to try and and[26:30] fit in what we're seeing.[26:33] And uh I don't even I'm not definitely[26:36] an expert in this area. So I'm not even[26:38] going to try and and explain the[26:42] individual um types of but there are[26:45] other core ideas there. They are kind of[26:47] the top ones. Um the next slide also.[26:55] Yeah. And these are they go from again[26:57] actual dimensions metamaterial and also[27:00] consciousness links. the idea that[27:02] somehow we may contribute to the[27:05] creation of the phenomenon with our mind[27:06] and and so forth. So[27:11] uh next slide.[27:17] So I I here I'm very biased and I um and[27:22] I will um probably[27:26] make some people grow mad.[27:28] Um so this is stuff is really a lot of[27:31] fun and it's definitely f for scientific[27:35] for science sci-fi writing[27:40] and but the good part would be impulse[27:43] to expand theoretical physics paradigms[27:45] and there is nothing wrong with that.[27:51] The con from the point of view of u u[27:55] UAP studies is that it would be very[27:59] very hard to make progress in this area.[28:01] This is very very hard theoretical[28:03] physics[28:06] and it's very unlikely that we would get[28:09] timely experimental verification. I mean[28:11] how many years did it take to find[28:14] experimental verification of poor[28:16] Einstein theory?[28:19] And so my the problem I see with this is[28:22] that if we are trying to[28:25] somehow legitimize[28:30] a phenomenon which already viewed as[28:32] speculative or you know not understood.[28:38] If we try to legitimize it by[28:43] suggesting a model which itself is[28:46] extremely speculative,[28:53] doesn't do any good to either one.[28:55] [laughter][28:58] doesn't make the UAP phenomenon more[29:00] credible and it doesn't make the uh[29:06] model building the theoretical physics[29:09] model building more credible.[29:12] So I I think that two things should be[29:14] separate. One should be potentially[29:17] inspired by uh[29:21] expanding the possibility of inertia and[29:24] and create and write papers in that[29:28] field, you know, in theoretical physics[29:30] having to do with inertia or other[29:32] things[29:35] and not associate that with the idea[29:37] that we're trying to prove a phenomenon.[29:39] The phenomenon can be used as an[29:41] inspiration.[29:43] Fine.[29:45] So can science fiction be used as an[29:46] inspiration[29:48] and and and the theoretical work can be[29:51] very very very[29:54] good. It will be very difficult and it[29:58] should be done and published in[30:01] theoretical physic journals[30:06] having its own value.[30:09] And so[30:12] that is again something that I hope is[30:14] not horribly controversial but u that's[30:18] my opinion. Next slide please.[30:25] philosophy. Here is another area that[30:28] I'm definitely not um[30:31] [clears throat] knowledgeable in[30:34] and u there are some very interesting[30:40] consideration in philosophy that that[30:43] are inspired by the presence of the UF[30:46] phenom of UP.[30:49] And um[30:51] I find myself um[30:55] I consider myself a kind of a not nuts[30:58] and bolts scientist[31:00] and I've been w I've witnessed the[31:02] philosophical discussions about UAPs[31:08] and um actually next slide the guy I'm[31:10] talking speaking about that already[31:15] is that really necessary they also very[31:18] often talking about paradigm shifts and[31:21] different ways of thinking and and and[31:23] and and[31:25] I keep asking myself is it really[31:28] necessary?[31:29] I I I have a phenomenon.[31:35] It appear to have to do with physics.[31:38] I hope to be able to understand at some[31:40] point[31:42] what it does and what it is, where it[31:44] comes from, what what is nature[31:47] without the need of shifting paradigms[31:49] of of thinking about matter, about the[31:52] universe, about our mind and so forth.[31:55] But I can be wrong. I can I can be[31:58] totally wrong. It may well be that the[32:01] reality of a phenomenon[32:04] uh is um um[32:10] the ability to think about it in[32:11] different ways that that are are in some[32:15] sense it enhances its reality[32:18] and uh it may well[32:22] bring a new kind of understanding of[32:23] ourselves. So I I don't want to deny it.[32:28] Uh again, but I would have the same[32:30] argument that I do for for for for[32:33] the um theoretical physics idea. U one[32:38] can be inspired by[32:41] the some aspect of the phenomenon and[32:44] and build some philosophy around it. And[32:47] u philosophy that's a history of[32:50] philosophy itself. it kind of[32:55] creating new ways of thinking and that's[32:59] legitimate again in it in in its[33:02] [clears throat] own merit.[33:04] Uh next slide.[33:09] So my conclusions[33:11] so main one is that European research a[33:15] conglomerate of re of different research[33:17] activities in different different skill[33:19] areas[33:20] each one of which can conducted in its[33:22] own academic setting[33:26] conference and publications independent[33:28] of assumptions about the nature of of[33:30] UAP.[33:32] In this sense, I I uh I I[33:40] not objecting, but I am kind of[33:43] wondering about the big[33:46] the knockout punch that that Kevin has[33:49] talked about and I the that paper I[33:53] haven't read it yet. It will be great. I[33:56] I just I I I love what Kevin has been[33:59] doing and it's a but I'm wondering[34:02] whether the knock punch is[34:05] is the best approach in the sense that[34:07] could be lot lot of really solid small[34:10] punches in different areas and uh which[34:14] might more be readable understandable in[34:18] their own academic set settings. So that[34:21] that's that's an a suggestion that I[34:25] would have and and I'm sure that Kevin[34:28] will will knock this suggestion down or[34:32] whatever. [laughter][34:34] U [clears throat][34:36] again the other point that I made so far[34:38] is that UK research is not about proving[34:42] the existence of individual anomalous[34:45] phenomena. It's it's overall a[34:48] phenomenon like like dark matter[34:50] whatever and and we have the data points[34:54] and and what we are we we can study is[34:58] the um the body the body of data as a as[35:03] a uh the body of data itself gives it[35:06] the credibility.[35:08] Um next next [clears throat] slide.[35:17] Uh again I I just said that the um the[35:21] the the[35:23] evidence of the nature of the phen the[35:24] evidence of the phenomenon and[35:26] potentially it nature come from the[35:28] large body of data that can be studied[35:30] by statistics and structural data[35:32] analysis[35:35] and um independently of assumption that[35:38] about their nature[35:40] um[35:42] the phenomena can be an inspiration for[35:44] pushing boundaries in theoretical[35:46] physics and philosophical thinking.[35:50] Again, regardless of whether[35:53] um in each and every individual case[35:55] will be proven as a evidence or[36:02] whatever we want to have evidence of.[36:08] Thank you for your attention.[36:12] [applause][36:22] All right, we do have a little time for[36:24] questions after that one. Uh, if Dr.[36:28] Columbano is still with us, do we have[36:30] him on the line? There he is. Okay,[36:31] good. Why don't we go to just a couple[36:33] of these questions here briefly?[36:37] And of course, if anybody would like to[36:38] add one in, we we have a microphone down[36:40] here for folks who are here present if[36:42] you'd like to just step up and ask.[36:43] Otherwise, the Hoova app works extremely[36:45] well. We'll start with this one. Has the[36:48] time for interactive UAP research[36:50] finally arrived? In other words, meaning[36:52] uh working with people who subjectively[36:54] interact with the phenomenon and produce[36:57] objective results.[37:05] Um[37:07] the short answer is yes.[37:10] I I received a lot of emails after my my[37:15] the paper the white paper press for[37:17] study which[37:19] asked me not to answer and I did not[37:21] answer but there it contained a lot of[37:28] um[37:30] witnesses experiences basically[37:34] and uh I mean as an a nuts and bolts[37:37] engineer we um I also tend to go for[37:40] what we can easily[37:43] [clears throat][37:44] uh get our hands around. So that that[37:47] would be the the first thing but I don't[37:50] think we can dismiss[37:54] what what's happening to what what many[37:57] people are reporting[38:00] and um I just don't know how to handle[38:02] it personally. That's all I can say and[38:05] I would I would want to I I hesitate to[38:08] do that. what the one thing that[38:12] science need to do is know its own[38:14] boundaries and and and know know where[38:17] its limits are and if we are in a[38:19] situation where we don't have[38:21] potentially the tools to understand them[38:25] I guess we have got to admit that[38:28] uh but we can admit that we don't know[38:30] and we can also admit that there is[38:32] something about the phenomenon that is[38:36] uh is potentially very important and at[38:39] least just leave it at that for now. But[38:43] if anybody has better ideas on how to[38:46] address it, that's I think their ideas[38:49] are welcome.[38:51] >> Excellent. uh on the topic of[38:53] speculative physics and your concerns[38:56] that you raised about uh perhaps the[38:58] necessity for speculative physics but[39:00] separate from UAP research and not used[39:03] entirely as a means of potentially[39:06] explaining anomalous characteristics. We[39:08] have this question. Wouldn't it be[39:10] preferable, the questioner asks, uh, to[39:14] study alternative propulsion,[39:15] anti-gravity, warp drive research? In[39:17] other words, figuring out how they[39:19] actually work as opposed to studying[39:22] lights in the sky. Your thoughts?[39:27] >> Well, again, there are two totally[39:31] compatible[39:33] ideas. They're they're they're not both[39:36] can be done and they're[39:39] um yeah they're they're not[39:41] incompatible. So I I think one one[39:44] shouldn't be more one than the other and[39:46] the lights in the sky are what appears.[39:49] So we should look at it that that's[39:51] potential data and uh the ability to to[39:56] come up with ideas on[39:59] warp drives and so it's also potentially[40:05] amazing physics that can be done and why[40:07] not[40:09] >> indeed. Let's go to a question from our[40:11] audience here live. Make sure that mic's[40:13] live for there.[40:14] >> Can you hear me? Is this on?[40:15] >> Yeah, you're on.[40:16] >> Hello.[40:17] >> Yep. Hello.[40:17] >> Hey. Hey, so I have a question about um[40:20] motivation, you know, given that we have[40:24] uh a very prominent evidence of[40:28] coverups,[40:29] uh you know, via congressional testimony[40:32] from Dave Grush, Lou, Tim Galardet.[40:35] Uh, I guess my question to other[40:37] scientists in the room, whether or not[40:39] it's physics or in my case, behavioral[40:41] science, how do you stay motivated if[40:45] you know that the first step in science[40:48] is to do a literature review and you[40:50] can't get access to all the relevant[40:52] literature? How do you stay motivated?[40:57] >> Good question.[40:58] >> Well, I first of all, I totally share[41:01] that frustration.[41:03] It's really hard to motivate yourself to[41:07] do research about something where you[41:10] suspect somebody else already has the[41:12] answer [laughter] is not willing to to[41:15] to to share it. We're completely outside[41:18] the scientific paradigm, the scientific[41:21] honesty that Kevin was talking about[41:24] earlier. We're completely outside that[41:26] and that's extremely[41:28] frustrating.[41:30] And the but how one stays motivated[41:32] again is just the belief that we we we[41:35] we have to we just simply have to come[41:39] we have to keep knocking on that door[41:42] be motivated because it's potentially[41:48] one of the most[41:52] important[41:56] findings in the history of of of[41:58] science. See, [laughter] I mean, we it's[42:01] an incredible potential revolution in[42:05] our understanding ourselves and our[42:07] present in the universe. So, I we cannot[42:10] possibly not be motivated. We just kept[42:13] to keep going.[42:15] >> I I I guess I would I would like to pose[42:18] this just before we go to the break. Not[42:19] that anybody's going to answer this[42:21] right now, but perhaps more importantly,[42:24] how do you motivate your students as[42:28] young scientists knowing that they are[42:33] uh not going to get access, at least not[42:36] in the near term, to all their stuff.[42:38] So, I'll just leave it at that as we go[42:39] into the break.[42:40] >> Excellent. Thank you for that additional[42:42] perspective there. I think we've got[42:44] time for maybe just one more here before[42:45] we go to the break. Maybe we'll go to[42:47] the break a little early. try to get[42:48] back here a little sooner rather than[42:50] later. Uh the question reads,[42:53] "Repeatability may be a red herring.[42:56] Comparability may be a more realistic[42:58] approach. For example, no two meteors[43:00] are repeatable. Aspects of behavior[43:03] structure means they manifest as[43:06] comparable." In other words, they[43:07] distill this down to this. Given the[43:08] notion of relaxing, to what degree can[43:11] repeatability be relaxed, especially if[43:13] there are non-material dimensions to the[43:15] phenomena? In other words, how do we[43:17] deal with something that may extend[43:19] beyond our current known physics and may[43:21] not necessarily operate in terms of the[43:22] kind of repeatability that scientists[43:24] look for?[43:26] >> Well, I agree that repeatability is uh I[43:30] mean it's is not pro of all science.[43:32] [laughter][43:33] Astronomical phenomena happen and uh uh[43:38] and you know we we they're not under our[43:41] control. So we we observe them. We build[43:44] theory around them and the theory has[43:46] implications and if the implications[43:49] um pan out then believe we believe our[43:52] theory are our model. So even if we um[43:58] um UPX or Galileo found find some very[44:03] accurate data they won't be able to[44:06] exactly repeat it. They might be able to[44:08] have similar things that are happening[44:10] similar ways. So yeah, our science can[44:13] deal with non-rep repeat reputability.[44:15] It's not it's not of all types of of of[44:20] experimental science.[44:23] >> Excellent response. I think we'll leave[44:24] it right there. SO Colano, again, thank[44:26] you very much for joining us remotely. I[44:28] know there's a bit of a time difference[44:30] from where you are to where we are here,[44:32] but we all appreciate you being here and[44:33] again, thank you. [applause][44:35] >> Thank you.[44:36] >> Uh right now, it's about time for us to[44:38] go to our break. We're going to go to[44:39] break a little early and I think we're[44:40] going to try and be back here by about[44:42] 10:40. Okay, so be here at 10:40. We're[44:44] going to be following up with UAP[44:46] detection on Mars. That's right. We want[44:49] to learn about how we might detect UAP[44:51] on the red planet. So don't miss that.[44:52] 10:40 right here. See you soon.
021 - Engineer and UAP Researcher Peter Reali
The Anomalous Review podcast, hosted by Michael Gloson, serves as a platform for exploring the scientific study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Gloson, a philosopher of science and technology, addresses the stigma and sensationalism that often surrounds UAP research, making it difficult to apply rigorous scientific methods. In this episode, he welcomes Peter Reali, an experienced electrical engineer with a background in telecommunications and a current role as the project development director for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). Reali's expertise is particularly relevant as he applies engineering principles to analyze UAP cases, including the controversial "rubber duck" video, where he scrutinizes the footage against public claims.
Reali identifies himself as a "nuts and bolts" researcher, emphasizing a disciplined methodological approach that begins with the actual data recorded by instruments. This approach shapes his evaluation of various claims, including those about recovered craft and alleged abductions, as well as the plausibility of theories ranging from extraterrestrial to interdimensional explanations. The conversation delves into specific cases analyzed by Reali, including the rubber duck case, and explores the challenges of UAP research, particularly the difficulty of convincing the scientific community that these questions merit investigation.
Reali shares his journey from engineer to project director and board member at SCU, reflecting on his extensive experience in telecommunications and the importance of logical thinking in project management. He also touches on his artistic side, particularly photography, which he pursued more seriously after retiring. His personal interest in UAP dates back to high school, where he was first exposed to UAP literature. After retiring, he sought to engage more deeply with the subject, initially exploring other organizations before joining SCU, where he has made significant contributions, including a comprehensive report on the Nimitz UAP incident, which he considers a definitive analysis of the event.
Reali maintains a cautious yet open-minded stance toward the reality of UAP. While he has not personally witnessed one, the evidence and testimonies from credible individuals, including pilots and engineers, have convinced him of their potential existence. He recounts specific encounters shared by witnesses, emphasizing their sincerity and the lack of ulterior motives in their accounts. The complexities of UAP phenomena are also discussed, including the potential for psychic elements associated with sightings. While Reali identifies primarily as a nuts and bolts researcher, he acknowledges the intricate nature of these phenomena and the challenges of studying them scientifically. He stresses the importance of maintaining a scientific approach to understand UAP, advocating for the collection of empirical data to advance knowledge in the field.
In the second part of the discussion, the complexities of understanding potential alien civilizations and their behaviors are examined. The speaker describes a scenario where UFOs are observed making unusual maneuvers, such as descending from 80,000 feet to sea level and then repeatedly ascending and descending over a period of three days. This leads to skepticism about our ability to comprehend the motivations and thought processes of extraterrestrial beings, suggesting that their mindset could be fundamentally different from ours. The speaker emphasizes that human thought relies on concepts shaped by language and experience, positing that an alien civilization could possess a coherent mindset that is entirely alien to us, making it challenging to understand their intentions or actions.
Drawing an analogy to how humans might be incomprehensible to a beaver due to vastly different modes of living, the speaker reflects on the diversity of life on Earth. While humans may consider themselves the pinnacle of intelligence, many other species exist that do not resemble us at all. This speculation extends to the likelihood of alien civilizations existing in the galaxy, with the speaker suggesting that it is improbable for humans to be the only intelligent species. If alien civilizations do exist, they are likely to be either technologically superior or inferior to us, and their interest in Earth may not align with our expectations. The speaker compares this situation to a WWII battleship passing by an island inhabited by natives who might misinterpret the ship's presence as a sign of assistance or threat regarding their coconuts.
The conversation then shifts to the challenges of speculating about the intentions of these alien beings. The speaker believes that any attempts to understand their actions should not be taken as fact, as speculation does not advance scientific understanding. Instead, they advocate for focusing on tangible aspects of UFO technology, such as propulsion systems, which could provide insights into their capabilities. When discussing potential research directions, the speaker emphasizes the importance of developing reliable instrumentation to capture and analyze UFO sightings. They propose creating a network of infrared video cameras to gather high-quality data, suggesting that with enough resources, it would be possible to obtain clear images of UFOs that could withstand scrutiny.
Expressing skepticism about existing efforts to analyze UFO sightings, such as using consumer-grade doorbell cameras, the speaker argues that these devices lack the necessary resolution and reliability. They stress the need for scientifically rigorous methods and equipment to ensure that any findings are credible and can be validated. The barriers to scientific inquiry into UFO phenomena are also discussed, including the stigma associated with the subject and the challenges in publishing research in reputable scientific journals. The speaker suggests that a breakthrough in obtaining credible evidence could open doors for further investigation and attract funding from serious scientists, potentially leading to a better understanding of these mysterious phenomena. The conversation concludes with a recognition of the need for courage in pursuing this line of inquiry, despite the prevailing skepticism and challenges in the field.
In the third part of the discussion, various topics related to UAP are explored, focusing on the challenges of obtaining credible evidence and the implications of potential extraterrestrial contact. The conversation begins with a mention of an individual who holds numerous government contracts, particularly with the Canadian government, and possesses various patents. This individual is hesitant to share information with the SCU for fear of jeopardizing his government contracts, which significantly hampers progress in the field of UAP research.
A specific incident is described involving a "dumbbell-shaped" object that emitted an electric field, affecting a camcorder's functionality. The individual recorded the event, and an oscilloscopic analysis revealed that the electric field reversed the bias of the camera's transistors, compressing the video image. Despite having the data and conducting thorough analysis, the individual remains unwilling to publicly disclose the findings due to concerns about losing government contracts. The speakers express frustration over the slow progress in understanding UAPs, suggesting that even with photographic evidence, significant breakthroughs may take decades or longer. They emphasize the need for more credible research and the importance of organizations like UAPX that aim to approach the subject scientifically, while criticizing other groups that focus on storytelling rather than scientific inquiry.
The discussion shifts to various theories regarding the nature of UAPs, including the possibility of extraterrestrial origins, time travelers, or advanced civilizations that have remained hidden. The speakers rank these theories, with extraterrestrial life being viewed as the most plausible. They express skepticism about time travel due to the constraints of relativity, suggesting that if time travel were possible, it would be limited to the time after the invention of the time machine. A cautionary note is raised about the dangers of assuming that technological advancement equates to moral or spiritual superiority, referencing historical examples, such as Germany during World War II, to illustrate that advanced technology does not necessarily correlate with ethical progress.
When considering the potential for contact with extraterrestrial civilizations, the speakers speculate that any such beings would likely be as confused about human existence as humans are about them. They express concern that humanity might adopt ideas from a more advanced civilization that could corrupt its own development, suggesting that it may be better for humanity to continue its evolution independently until a more equal footing is achieved. The conversation also touches on the skepticism surrounding humanity's ability to reverse engineer advanced technology. The speakers argue that even brilliant minds from the past, like Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton, would struggle to understand modern technology without the necessary intermediate knowledge, highlighting the importance of having a substantial technological foundation to make sense of advanced constructs.
The excerpt concludes with a discussion of a specific UAP case known as the "Rubber Duck" video, which was recorded by a Homeland Security aircraft using an infrared camera. The video depicts an object that appears to be cold and maintains a distinct shape, contradicting the idea that it could be a balloon or other ordinary object. The speaker spent considerable time analyzing the video and concluded that the object is anomalous, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and the importance of metadata in understanding such phenomena. Overall, the speakers convey a sense of urgency for credible research in the field of UAPs, while also expressing skepticism about many of the prevailing theories and the challenges posed by government secrecy and the potential for misinformation.
In the final part of the transcript, the speaker captures a detailed discussion about UAP, scientific investigations, and personal experiences related to these topics. They reference a paper presented at a conference, indicating that it was related to UAP and possibly natural phenomena in the atmosphere. The speaker expresses a belief that some observed orbs and lights could be natural occurrences that we do not yet fully understand, suggesting that spacetime may not be as rigid as traditionally thought, likening it to "Swiss cheese" with hidden elements that could be moving around undetected.
The speaker discusses the concept of cloaking, relating it to the idea that some objects may not be intentionally hiding but rather are difficult to detect due to their nature. They propose a theory involving gravitational drives and warp bubbles, which could explain why certain objects are not consistently visible on radar. The speaker elaborates on how radar returns can be affected by the shape of an object, making it appear invisible under certain conditions. They mention that radar technology has limitations, as some objects do not show up clearly or at all.
Continuing, the speaker recounts their investigation into a notable incident involving a Japanese airline in 1986, where claims were made about a large unidentified object appearing on radar. They explain that they spent three weeks analyzing radar data and transcripts from flight controllers, ultimately finding discrepancies between the claims made and the actual radar returns. The investigation led them to conclude that while something unusual occurred, the evidence did not support the existence of the giant object as described. They commend the work of the radar analysts and flight controllers, asserting that they conducted their investigations honestly and thoroughly.
The speaker mentions that there were some spurious radar returns during the incident, which could be attributed to the radar system's limitations. They explain how radar can produce false returns, especially when an aircraft is close to the radar installation or when the radar antenna is not aligned correctly. They emphasize that the lack of radar confirmation does not negate the possibility of an unidentified object being present, as some witnesses reported seeing something unusual.
As the conversation shifts, the speaker shares a personal experience of witnessing a bright light while photographing the Milky Way in Idaho. They describe the light as an orb and speculate that it could be a natural phenomenon, possibly related to atmospheric conditions that create visual distortions. They mention the concept of superior mirages, where warm air layers can reflect ground lights, creating the illusion of objects in the sky. The speaker expresses uncertainty about the nature of the light they observed, suggesting it may not have been a UFO but rather a natural occurrence influenced by environmental factors.
The discussion transitions to the topic of science fiction, with the interviewer asking the speaker for their favorite works in the genre. The speaker expresses a fondness for the film "The Day the Earth Stood Still," highlighting its themes of human arrogance and the importance of understanding our place in the universe. They also mention classic authors like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, appreciating their exploration of big ideas and complex concepts in science fiction. The speaker reflects on various films and books, including "Limitless" and "Prometheus," noting how they tackle themes of intelligence and existential questions.
In conclusion, the speaker emphasizes the importance of open-mindedness in understanding UAP and the natural world, suggesting that there is still much we do not comprehend. They advocate for further exploration and investigation into these phenomena, recognizing that both the scientific community and the public have a role in seeking answers. The conversation wraps up with a light-hearted exchange about the overlap between science fiction and real-world interests in UAP, underscoring the fascination that these topics hold for many.
The interviewee, Peter Reali, has a notable background in electrical engineering and extensive experience in telecommunications. According to the interviewer, Peter holds both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. He has spent decades in Silicon Valley, where he directed teams responsible for building telecommunications infrastructure, which includes systems that route significant amounts of data through radar and communication networks.
Peter Reali is currently the project development director for the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). He is also a founding member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, UAP Research Group. His professional journey has led him to publish forensic analyses of controversial UAP cases, such as the rubber duck UAP video, where he applied engineering principles to assess the footage accurately against public claims.
Peter describes himself as a 'nuts and bolts' researcher who prioritizes methodological discipline in the evaluation of UAP cases. He emphasizes the importance of starting with the data captured by instruments and working outward from there to draw conclusions. His role involves overseeing projects and contributing to the SCU's research initiatives, showcasing his commitment to bringing scientific rigor to a field often riddled with stigma.
- [01:01] "I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of California in Berkeley... I worked in Silicon Valley for 30 years."
- [01:38] "I was talking about projects and those kind of things they assigned me to be a project director..."
- [02:22] "Peter calls himself a nuts and bolts researcher...starting with what the instruments actually recorded and working outward from there."
Peter Reali adopts a scientific approach to UAP research that is grounded in engineering principles and rigorous analysis. He emphasizes the necessity of separating the signal from the noise in UAP data, a task made challenging due to the subject’s historical sensationalism and stigma. According to the interviewer, Peter’s engineering background equips him to evaluate UAP phenomena using the same kind of sensor data that he has spent his career designing systems to capture.
In his practice, Peter insists on methodological discipline, which he describes as starting with the actual recordings made by instruments before reaching broader conclusions. This approach allows him to apply forensic analysis to various UAP cases, ensuring that claims about sightings or experiences are scrutinized against the physical evidence available.
Peter identifies a crucial aspect of his research as the need for clear analytical standards. He advocates for the importance of understanding the specifications and functionalities of the instruments used to gather data. This rigor in interpreting data is vital, as he notes that many analyses of UAP sightings lack a solid grounding in the technical details of the equipment involved. He is aware of the limitations inherent in UAP research, particularly the challenge of convincing the scientific establishment about the validity of these inquiries.
- [01:22] "Often when Peter looks at a UAP case, he’s often reading the exact same kind of sensor data that he spent his career designing systems to capture."
- [02:22] "Peter calls himself a nuts and bolts researcher...starting with what the instruments actually recorded and working outward from there."
- [02:36] "We talk about what that approach means in practice, that nuts and bolts orientation toward the subject."
Peter Reali’s interest in UAP research stems from a long-standing fascination with the subject, which he has held since his high school days. As he shares in the interview, he had written a book report on UFOs during his youth, and his interest persisted throughout his life. Peter indicates that this curiosity was initially met with skepticism from family members, particularly his father, who advised him to be cautious about believing everything he read.
After retiring, Peter sought to explore this interest more seriously. He expressed dissatisfaction with how certain organizations handled the subject, which led him to discover the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). His desire to approach UAP research with a scientific lens motivated him to connect with the SCU and participate in projects that align with his engineering background.
Moreover, Peter’s decision to engage with UAP research is also influenced by his belief in the importance of addressing the stigma surrounding the topic. He recognizes the societal barriers that exist for researchers in this field and aims to contribute to a more disciplined and credible scientific exploration of UAPs.
- [10:50] "...I’ve always had an interest in it... I wrote a book report in high school about UFOs."
- [13:01] "I wasn’t too satisfied with the way he handled the subject, so I kind of stopped that..."
- [12:47] "I’ve always been interested in it... I think that’s kind of a sad that we don’t emphasize that today in education."
Yes, Peter Reali describes a personal experience in which he observed a UAP. He recounts a recent outing where he was photographing the Milky Way in Idaho and encountered a bright light in the sky. Initially, he speculated that it might be an airplane, but upon returning home and developing his images, he discovered the light appeared as an orb—a phenomenon he describes as fuzzy and bright.
During this experience, Peter notes that the light was visible while they were setting up their cameras, and he was able to capture several images of it. He describes the orb as not just a simple light but as a significant and distinct object, indicating that it was not something trivial like a distant airplane. The light's appearance was unusual enough to lead him to categorize it as a UAP.
Peter reflects on the nature of this observation, suggesting that it could be attributed to natural phenomena rather than extraterrestrial origins. He mentions the possibility of atmospheric conditions affecting visibility, indicating that while he could not definitively explain the light's nature, he was intrigued by the experience and its implications for understanding UAPs.
- [01:32] "...I was out photographing the Milky Way... and we saw this light... it’s a ball, a fuzzy light bulb, very bright."
- [01:45] "I think a lot of these orbs that occur... I think it’s a good explanation for... a lot of these orbs that occur..."
- [01:45] "...I don’t think it was a UFO or anything."
Throughout the interview, Peter Reali discusses various obstacles and barriers he faces in the field of UAP research. He acknowledges that the scientific community often views UAP inquiries with skepticism, which presents a significant hurdle for researchers like himself who aim to pursue legitimate scientific investigations. He notes that the field is heavily stigmatized and that convincing the establishment of the validity of UAP questions might be one of the toughest challenges in research.
Peter points out that many researchers may fear professional repercussions for engaging with UAP studies. He recalls instances where colleagues suffered setbacks or even lost their jobs due to their involvement with UAP research, indicating a chilling effect on open discourse about the subject. He mentions a Canadian scientist who has valuable data but is reluctant to share it due to fears of losing government contracts.
When discussing the potential for UAP to involve non-human intelligences, Peter remains cautious. He expresses that while he is 90-95% convinced of the existence of UAP, he remains hesitant to label them as extraterrestrial or interdimensional beings without more concrete evidence. He acknowledges that should credible evidence emerge, it would necessitate a reevaluation of many current scientific paradigms.
- [03:10] "...the hardest part of UAP research might not be the physics. It might be convincing the scientific establishment that the questions are even worth asking in the first place."
- [03:44] "I know a guy who got fired because... the company he was working for found out he was working on some stuff about UFO stuff..."
- [03:50] "I think it’s going to be difficult... to get them to how however that thing works..."
[00:08] [music][00:17] [music][00:22] [music][00:23] Welcome to the Anomalous Review, the[00:26] official podcast of the Scientific[00:28] Coalition for UAP Studies. ities. My[00:30] name is Michael Gloson. I'm a[00:32] philosopher of science and technology,[00:33] and I am the host of the show.[00:37] How do you bring scientific rigor to a[00:39] field that's been stigmatized,[00:41] sensationalized, and avoided by[00:42] mainstream researchers?[00:45] How do you separate the signal from the[00:47] noise when the subject itself carries so[00:50] much noise?[00:52] My guest today, Peter Reali, is one of[00:54] the few people with exactly the right[00:56] background to do this. He has a[00:59] bachelor's and a master's degree in[01:01] electrical engineering from UC Berkeley.[01:03] And he spent decades in Silicon Valley[01:06] directing teams to build[01:07] telecommunications infrastructure. Those[01:09] are the very systems that route massive[01:11] amounts of data through radar, sensors,[01:14] and communication networks. The very[01:16] networks that we use to analyze UAP[01:19] cases. Often when Peter looks at a UAP[01:22] case, he's often reading the exact same[01:24] kind of sensor data that he spent his[01:26] career designing systems to capture.[01:30] Peter is now the project development[01:31] director for the Scientific Coalition[01:33] for UAP Studies, which hosts this[01:35] program. He's a founding member of the[01:38] American Institute of Aeronautics and[01:40] Astronautics, UAP Research Group.[01:43] He's published his work uh including[01:45] forensic analyses of controversial cases[01:48] including the rubber duck UAP video[01:50] where he applied engineering principles[01:52] to evaluate what the footage actually[01:54] shows versus what people claimed it[01:56] showed. We get into that case pretty[01:58] deeply in this interview and it's[02:00] fascinating. His research papers tackle[02:03] questions like how to build optimal[02:05] electromagnetic signature detection[02:07] systems and what we can actually[02:08] determine about flight characteristics[02:10] from that existing sensor data. Peter[02:12] calls himself a nuts andbolts[02:14] researcher. Not in the sense of[02:16] dismissing whatever challenges[02:18] conventional physics or current[02:20] scientific orthodoxy, but in insisting[02:22] on methodological discipline. Start with[02:25] what the instruments actually recorded[02:26] and [music] work outward from there.[02:29] We talk about what that approach means[02:31] in practice, that nuts and bolts[02:33] orientation toward the subject. We'll[02:36] talk about how he evaluates claims about[02:38] things like recovered craft or alleged[02:40] abductions, and what theories he finds[02:43] most plausible, ranging from the[02:45] extraterrestrial to interdimensional to[02:48] something stranger. We discuss cases[02:50] he's analyzed, like the rubber duck case[02:52] and others that have withstood his[02:54] scrutiny. and I get to ask him what he[02:57] would [music] do with $10 million in[02:59] research funding if he could just put it[03:01] towards anything in the UAP field.[03:05] We land on a discussion of why the[03:08] hardest part of UAP research might not[03:10] be the physics. It might be convincing[03:12] the scientific establishment that the[03:14] questions are even worth asking in the[03:16] first place.[03:18] Here now is my conversation with Peter[03:22] Reali.[03:24] Peter Reali, welcome to the Anomalous[03:26] Review.[03:27] >> Thank you. Uh, thanks for having me.[03:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. We're glad we're we're glad[03:31] to have you. You've been in SCU for how[03:33] many years now?[03:35] >> Uh, since 2017. And[03:37] >> you have some official role in the[03:40] organization, right?[03:41] >> Well, yeah. Uh uh I[03:45] when I came in I was an engineer and[03:47] when I came in um they had already[03:50] completed uh one one uh analysis of the[03:54] aquadilla[03:56] uh incident you know which talk about[03:59] but uh I came in and I since I have an[04:01] engineering background I'm retired[04:03] electrical engineer um I was talking[04:07] about projects and and those kind of[04:09] things they they assigned me to be a[04:12] project director sort of well I've kind[04:14] of given myself that title but to put it[04:17] put in charge of projects and at that[04:20] time uh we were oh I would say 20 people[04:24] if you know 25 people and now we're like[04:27] 400 so it's grown quite a bit and uh[04:31] after the report they asked me to be on[04:34] the board of directors and so I've been[04:36] on the board of directors since then[04:38] >> and what did you do before you said you[04:40] were an electrical engineer like what is[04:41] your education and like what was your[04:44] job?[04:45] >> Well, I I have a master's degree in[04:48] electrical engineering from the[04:49] University of California in Berkeley and[04:52] uh I worked in Silicon Valley for 30[04:55] years. Uh my background is in uh[04:59] communication theory, networking,[05:02] telecommunications, those kind of[05:03] things. I worked for, you know, quite a[05:05] few companies,[05:07] mostly startups. I I never really got[05:09] into one that was really successful, but[05:12] uh you know, one sort of did okay, but[05:16] um you know, I preferred smaller[05:19] companies to you know, big ones. And uh[05:22] so you know I um[05:27] you know I had made a it made a big[05:29] impression on me about how to run[05:32] projects and especially like thinking[05:35] logically about things because when[05:38] you're given a project you when you[05:40] first get out of school you know they[05:42] first hand you something[05:44] you got to figure it out right I mean[05:46] you know you just have some[05:48] specifications and you got to make it[05:50] work you Yeah, it's kind of got invent[05:52] the invent the method or invent the[05:53] solution.[05:54] >> Yeah. And uh you it's doing that most[05:59] people never had to do that. You[06:02] know until you do you don't realize[06:04] what's involved in in understanding all[06:06] this stuff and how difficult it is to[06:09] you know get things to work and uh also[06:13] you know like field instrumentation you[06:15] know what it takes to support it you[06:18] know what to design things all the all[06:20] the aspects you have to look at and[06:22] those kind of things. So uh you know I[06:24] the reason I'm saying this is a lot of[06:25] people come in and they they think[06:27] things are simple you know it's just[06:29] like they take for granted you know oh a[06:32] cell phone you know they have no idea[06:34] what it what behind a cell phone[06:37] >> what what operate it's you know it's[06:40] absolutely amazing I mean the technology[06:42] there or Google maps you know uh it's[06:47] just accepted you know but there's[06:49] really a lot behind it and uh So[06:53] >> yeah, so you've got a background in all[06:54] that uh sort of like technical[06:57] multiplicity and and complexity behind[06:59] all these systems, but I was surprised[07:00] when I so when I read about your[07:02] background, I thought of you as I[07:04] assumed you were, you know, just a[07:05] straightforward engineering type, but in[07:07] the conversations we've had prior to[07:09] this, I found that you're like one of[07:11] the most sort of philosophically[07:12] oriented people in SCU, which I I found[07:16] kind of surprising. I taught engineers[07:18] for like a decade and they're not the[07:20] most philosophically oriented people.[07:22] So, you sort of stand out in that way.[07:25] >> Well, yeah, I'm kind of unusual in that[07:28] uh you know, I I'm kind of a split, you[07:31] know, between uh uh[07:35] you know,[07:37] purely technical.[07:39] I I mean, I'm always trying to look at[07:41] the big picture, you know.[07:42] >> Yeah. Because you're also an artist.[07:43] You're a photographer and the the[07:46] >> Yeah, I have I have that side as well.[07:48] You know, I I it's a one of the big[07:51] things I do in retirement. I've been[07:54] retired now since about 200[07:58] six I think something like that. So,[08:01] I've been retired a long time and uh I[08:03] always was interested in uh photography.[08:06] I I did or or some kind of art[08:10] >> side of me, you know,[08:11] >> but so was Winston Churchill, right? He[08:13] did paintings, you know.[08:15] >> Yeah. And a lot of people uh you know[08:18] have that side but it wasn't anything I[08:21] had time for you know but it was odd[08:24] because when I would do uh technical[08:27] reports and use like technical drawing[08:30] you know to to do the diagrams and stuff[08:32] I spend an inordinate amount of time on[08:34] the drawings[08:36] >> you know and uh it was only later I kind[08:39] of realized well that's kind of that art[08:40] side of me you know and I and I always[08:44] was a little bit interested in[08:45] photography. I I took a black and white[08:48] photography uh years ago in the 70s, you[08:50] know, uh where you develop go through[08:53] the developing process and the whole[08:54] thing, you know, yeah.[08:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. And you know, the image[08:59] comes up and it's really really very[09:01] cool. But, you know, I never really had[09:04] time for any of that. So it was only[09:06] when I retired that I uh you while I had[09:10] been taking some pictures[09:13] um you know uh oh I don't know[09:17] maybe 15 years ago when first digital[09:20] cameras came out you know so I thought[09:22] that was pretty cool you know so some of[09:23] the early ones I think I had we had one[09:25] that was like a one megapixel camera you[09:28] know thought wow you know this[09:29] >> incredible back in the day. Yeah, it was[09:32] amazing, you know, and it actually took[09:34] pretty good pictures. It just, you know,[09:37] that was pre- internet, you know.[09:39] >> Yeah.[09:39] >> But, uh, they, uh, I I I, you know, I[09:44] thought I knew a lot about photography,[09:46] you know, and then I I joined the Boise[09:49] camera club, which Boise and in Boise,[09:51] Idaho has a lot of fantastic uh,[09:55] photographers in Boise. Um, I don't, you[09:58] know, I I I lived in the Bay Area in[10:00] California. I I retired to Idaho in[10:03] 2011, but uh, you know, I, so I can't[10:08] say that there's, you know, photography[10:11] wasn't as big a deal in California[10:13] because I can't say I looked at all the[10:15] different things, but here it's really[10:17] there's some really good photographers[10:18] and I and I learned a lot in the in the[10:21] camera club. Well, it's interesting that[10:23] all those interests in, you know, sort[10:26] of the philosophical and the the[10:28] engineering uh background and then this[10:30] photography background all kind of like[10:31] coales around this subject, but you[10:35] didn't you haven't been into the subject[10:37] of UAP all that long. You're not like a[10:39] a lifer[10:40] >> the way some people are. Can you like[10:43] tell us how you got in interested in the[10:45] subject[10:46] >> from the beginning?[10:48] >> Well, you know, I've always had an[10:50] interest in it. I I mean even even I you[10:52] know when I was in high school I wrote a[10:54] I wrote a book report. We we used to[10:56] have to do book reports in those days. I[10:58] don't know if anybody has to do that[10:59] anymore, but uh Donald Kho and uh I[11:03] can't remember the name of the book was[11:05] a pocketbook and I you know talking[11:07] about his experience and you know and uh[11:11] when I was real young some of the UFO[11:14] some of those ones UFO people and I[11:16] remember telling my father about it you[11:18] know and he said well you know don't[11:20] don't get too wrapped up into this he[11:24] was trying to tell me you know you can't[11:26] believe everything everybody says you[11:28] But uh and you know over the Eric von[11:31] Don again you know that was that wasn't[11:32] you know that was like mid on my midc[11:36] career you know but I thought that was[11:38] really fascinating you know his uh[11:40] videos you know he did on you know uh on[11:44] uh can't remember what the name of the[11:46] name of the series was but uh really[11:49] interesting stuff that you don't see[11:51] every day. So I've always been had that[11:54] interest in uh I al I'm very interested[11:56] in history too. Um[11:59] uh you know all aspects of history. Uh[12:03] I'm not a scholar in any sense but uh I[12:07] I like to know where everything came[12:08] from you know and I think I think that's[12:11] kind of a sad uh that we don't that[12:14] that's not uh emphasized today in[12:17] education. Uh yeah, not the dry stuff,[12:20] you know, like I mean dry it'll turn[12:22] anybody in stone, you know, the[12:24] >> the revolution or whatever. Yeah.[12:26] >> Yeah. You're right. You know, and the[12:28] treaty of so and so between, you know,[12:30] and you miss the whole big picture, but[12:33] uh you know, uh you know, so I I've[12:38] always been interested in it and when I[12:40] retired um I I you know, I had a little[12:44] time and I said, you know, I don't know.[12:46] I said, "Well, you know, I want to look[12:48] into this and looking at." So, I I[12:50] contacted Muon[12:52] and the local director over there. You[12:55] know, I wasn't too satisfied with the[12:57] way he his[12:59] you know, how he he handled the subject.[13:01] So, I kind of stopped that and then uh I[13:05] came across on the internet in the[13:07] internet uh Robert Pal had put out a[13:10] thing about the SCU. So I contacted him[13:13] and that's how kind I kind of got joined[13:15] you know and then he was working on this[13:18] paper and I I I you know I can't[13:20] remember whether he asked me or I asked[13:23] him or whatever but we started working[13:25] on that on the paper there and[13:27] >> what was that paper the kinematics[13:28] paper?[13:29] >> This was the Nimmits uh Nimmits report.[13:31] >> Yeah.[13:32] >> And uh uh you know uh we did a the final[13:37] report we took a year and a half is 270[13:40] pages. I still consider it the[13:42] definitive report on the uh you know on[13:45] that event. Uh it and it's on our[13:48] website. You know, we uh released it.[13:51] It's kind of overwhelming. You know, it[13:53] it it's probably not good to do a 270[13:57] page. It's probably could have been much[13:59] shorter and maybe broken up into several[14:01] papers or something like that because[14:03] nobody wants to go through and read[14:05] something like that. You have to be very[14:07] serious to want to[14:08] >> dig into it. But but uh it is a great[14:11] report and uh uh you know so that kind[14:13] of got me uh you know interested in this[14:18] subject. I mean I just had uh you know I[14:21] I had to believe this is correct. I mean[14:23] I and the really interesting thing is at[14:27] the time only a few of the pilots were[14:30] willing to talk about it and and the[14:32] radar radar operator uh could talk about[14:36] it as well. But over time since the[14:39] report released and as time came up the[14:42] other pilots have come out[14:43] substantiating this you know uh uh you[14:47] know what what happened and of course I[14:49] we analyzed the video there's a a video[14:51] there and they uh you know it's a it's a[14:55] fuzzy video of uh you know the device[14:58] being chased by the airplane and it[15:00] pulls off and so you know I did an[15:03] analysis in there and uh you you know it[15:07] it shows that uh you know the[15:09] acceleration is between 70 and 120 uh gs[15:14] you know gravitational force uh units[15:19] you know which I think if it's like uh[15:23] if you get seven G's you'll pass out[15:26] >> 13 years death yeah I mean you start[15:29] tearing internal organs and you know and[15:33] so that that kind of disorder would kill[15:35] any kind of[15:37] you know or well it would turn you to[15:40] kind of like tomato paste or something[15:42] you know[15:43] >> do human paste yeah[15:44] >> yeah yeah I mean it it can't take that I[15:47] mean a rocket can do it you know but[15:48] even uh you know even there they have to[15:51] be very careful about how they've[15:53] designed it you know the uh yeah anyhow[15:56] >> so what what was it was there a point[15:58] that like convinced you that this was a[16:01] real thing I mean it sounds like you[16:02] were saying you came in you had you had[16:04] a a kind of simmering interest in it[16:05] that led you to move on and then to SCU.[16:08] But where was the point where you became[16:10] convinced like this is a real thing? I[16:11] had that point myself. Um what what was[16:15] it for?[16:15] >> Well, um I'm still not, you know, till[16:18] you see one till till you have one that[16:21] you know happens to you. And I don't[16:23] necessarily think that's a good thing to[16:25] what happens to people, you know. I[16:27] that's a whole another issue. But um uh[16:31] so I I still, you know, I'm 90 90%[16:34] there, you know, or 95% there.[16:37] >> Um it would just have to be some giant[16:39] conspiracy, you know, of all these[16:41] people are somehow and then they get[16:43] nothing out of it, you know, so it[16:45] doesn't make sense. But I it was um it[16:49] was that that paper probably got me 80%[16:52] there. And then uh couple of people[16:55] contacted the SCU. Uh one of them[16:58] particular was an engineer. He lived in[17:00] uh southern uh uh I think it was uh[17:06] you know one of the u South Carolina. I[17:10] think he was out bicycling and uh he uh[17:14] was coming back from bicycling in the[17:16] nighttime driving on the road and this[17:18] triang triangular UFO came down and[17:20] hovered over a tree and um[17:25] okay so you hear that all the time you[17:26] know what's the big deal but he uh this[17:30] is a guy he teaches at the university[17:31] he's calculus at the university he's a a[17:35] mechanical engineer uh who's familiar[17:37] with machining and how these devices are[17:40] made. And so he he he's familiar with[17:43] CAD CAM systems. So he drew this thing[17:45] and he knew the dimensions because he[17:47] compared it to like a semitr that was[17:49] going by. You could kind of tell and uh[17:52] he had nothing to get out of this and[17:55] and the thing uh you know he he talked[17:57] about this thing was a perfect jewel. He[18:01] said there was no s no seams to it. It's[18:06] like it was uh grown or something or[18:08] like it was uh you know like I said you[18:12] know like if you look at look at the[18:14] SpaceX rocket you know like uh you know[18:17] you look at it on the pad there's it's[18:20] always kind of like little glimmers of[18:22] reflections and stuff from the joints[18:23] and the and they don't use rivets but uh[18:26] you know the the way they join them[18:28] together it plates you know and they[18:30] reflect the light and so it looks all[18:32] kind of funny you know or the light. So[18:34] this thing is none of that. And he was[18:36] telling me about the machines. He says[18:37] he know you can you can machine like a[18:40] piece of aluminum or something like that[18:42] up to about 40 feet,[18:45] 30 feet, 40 feet, I can't remember[18:46] exactly. And he mentioned the machine.[18:48] He says but beyond that it's not[18:50] possible. You can't do it but with[18:52] current technology but he says this[18:53] thing is probably 60 feet long perfectly[18:58] um you know just a perfect jewel as like[19:00] he described and that impressed me. But[19:03] what further impressed me was um you[19:06] know he I I worked with him a bit and we[19:08] did some calculations on you know uh and[19:11] it wasn't uh it wasn't hypersonic or it[19:13] was supersonic. came way came down our[19:16] calculations and that kind of energy it[19:18] would take to do it compared to an[19:20] airplane and it kind of exceeded what[19:22] you know you can you can take a jet[19:24] plane and you know the specs on their[19:26] engines uh amount of horsepower well in[19:30] uh kilowatts or whatever you want to uh[19:33] >> measure power you can kind of estimate[19:36] what it would take you know to[19:37] accelerate downward based on the power[19:39] up but it was greater than any kind of[19:42] jet plane would have[19:43] >> and[19:45] Uh what impressed me about it, you know,[19:47] was uh he what he got it off his chest.[19:51] He just wanted to get off his chest. I[19:53] we've never heard from him again. He[19:55] never went to any conferences. Didn't[19:57] want to become famous, anything like[19:59] that. He just wanted to tell somebody[20:02] and get it off his chest, you know. So[20:04] uh and uh you know and I had one other[20:08] case of a woman uh uh that the same[20:11] thing that happened like 30 years ago.[20:14] uh she and her fiance at the time saw[20:18] this classic saucer, you know, out in[20:20] the field there and they watched it for[20:22] about five minutes and she tried to tell[20:24] people and they just laugh at her and so[20:26] she stopped talking about it and that[20:28] this, you know, she was an FM, you know,[20:31] she was a she's been a tugboat pilot.[20:34] >> She was uh an engineer and she was a,[20:37] you know,[20:39] ham radio operator and a capable person,[20:41] you I mean, it's not it's not just[20:43] anybody could do that kind of stuff. And[20:46] she just wanted to get it off her chest.[20:48] And same thing, never heard from her[20:50] again,[20:51] >> you know, and and so that that says to[20:54] me, you know, they're not trying to get[20:56] something out of it. There's no reason[20:57] to lie about it. What's the point? And[20:59] so that kind of got me to the 95%,[21:03] you know, something like that. And um[21:05] >> yeah, I think I'm similar a combination[21:07] of like hard evidence, you know, uh just[21:11] the the preponderance of like a mass of[21:14] evidence, but also meeting people.[21:16] That's been sort of profoundly[21:18] significant for me, too. Meeting people[21:20] and hearing the sincerity of the[21:22] stories, seeing face to face that they[21:24] seem imminently sane and intelligent,[21:27] that they don't believe all sorts of[21:29] weird stuff. they've just had this one[21:31] inexplicable experience that's really[21:34] stuck with them that they can describe[21:35] and you know with a level of clarity[21:37] that that convinces you even though you[21:39] couldn't see it yourself that this was[21:40] not they didn't see a bird and mistake[21:43] it for a 60oot triangle that was like[21:46] hovering over a tree you know that's not[21:48] >> yeah I could tell a bird from a triangle[21:51] you know you know the you know to[21:54] denigrate people or make make fun of it[21:56] you know uh is silly[21:59] Well, you know, it it shakes people up.[22:02] They don't want to believe this. You[22:03] know,[22:03] >> it does.[22:04] >> It shakes up the world your world view.[22:07] And uh like I alluded to before, you[22:10] know, that[22:11] >> it isn't necessarily the greatest thing[22:13] in the world to see one of these things.[22:14] It seems to upset people quite a bit.[22:17] You know, like I fa the famous Betty and[22:19] Yeah, that was another book I read when[22:21] I was a kid. Betty and Barney Hill, you[22:24] know, interrupted Journey. I, you know,[22:26] was the book. I just, you know, dug into[22:29] that, you know, and uh it was probably[22:32] one of the first abduction[22:34] ones that came out, you know, but um[22:38] >> you look into their history,[22:41] >> they were very ordinary people, right?[22:43] And after that, uh, you know, I think,[22:48] uh, Barney died not too long after, but,[22:51] Betty started seeing these things[22:53] everywhere, you know, and I I've seen[22:56] that with other people and and so, uh,[23:00] it can have a profound and some of the[23:02] people from the NITS, uh,[23:05] >> case also, uh, you have some of that[23:08] going on and and, uh,[23:12] so, you know, it's a mixed bag.[23:14] >> Yeah. I a lot of people who I've well[23:17] maybe not a lot maybe a 10% of the[23:20] people I've talked to have had their own[23:21] experiences[23:23] have also told me about just extremely[23:25] strange things that have happened after[23:27] it or or as a component of the[23:29] experience. And that's something that[23:31] makes this topic like pretty difficult[23:35] to work through for a lot of people[23:37] because on the one hand we want to take[23:39] like a scientific approach to this[23:41] question. maybe we want to investigate[23:43] it and get good evidence. But on the[23:45] other hand, the topic seems so often[23:47] totally entangled with really weird[23:51] elements that it's not clear how you[23:53] would go about investigating them or or[23:57] what the right standards for believing[23:59] them are or not. And so the the space[24:02] gets kind of divided between people[24:04] [snorts] on the one hand who call[24:06] themselves like nuts andbolts folks and[24:08] people on the other hand who don't[24:09] really have a name but they're like a[24:11] little more woo oriented and I don't[24:14] mean that in in necessarily a derogatory[24:17] kind of way but it's often used that[24:19] way. You identify explicitly as like a[24:23] nuts andbolts sort of person. It's like[24:25] what does that approach [clears throat][24:26] mean to you? you think?[24:29] >> Well, you know, um I I recognize uh it's[24:34] a very complex phenomena and uh I do[24:38] think there is some kind of a psychic[24:40] element to it. Now, does that mean uh[24:43] does that mean that it's supernatural?[24:46] Uh I don't know, but I don't think so. I[24:49] I think that it may affect I well I I[24:54] guess my view of nature is it's uh[24:57] It's um unitary. I mean, I I don't think[25:01] there's a supernatural realm and it and[25:04] a physical realm. I think it's all one,[25:07] but it may be that we just can't attach[25:10] to that, you know, whatever that is.[25:13] But, uh I I say I'm nuts and bolts. I'm[25:16] an engineer and um that the problem with[25:20] the uh you know the psychic part is[25:25] consciousness right we we don't have a[25:27] science of consciousness regardless of[25:29] what are the we have a philosophy of[25:31] consciousness you know but uh the[25:34] fundamental problem of what is[25:36] consciousness you know the uh hard[25:38] problem you know of uh you know you can[25:41] like you can take a machine right or or[25:44] say like people say a AI, right? And you[25:47] could say, well, uh, you know, it acts[25:50] in, you know, it it it looks and acts[25:55] like a human. It does this and that and[25:57] whatever, but does it feel does it I[26:00] mean, or is it just acting like it's[26:03] that, you know? And of course, you can't[26:05] >> Yeah.[26:05] >> Yeah. I mean, does it have a you know,[26:08] but of course then we you could say,[26:09] well, we're machines and, you know, we[26:12] have a brain and it's all comes from the[26:13] brain and we just haven't discovered how[26:16] this feeling of perception it, you know,[26:19] um you know, we're conscious, you know,[26:23] uh we're aware that we're aware, you[26:26] know, that's that's what I say about[26:28] conscious. A lot of times we're just[26:30] aware and you know uh we're sort of like[26:33] uh you know 95% of what we do I I'll[26:37] make that claim is sort of just robotic[26:40] you know it it it's all been learned and[26:42] we just kind of and it looks like we're[26:44] making decisions about things when[26:46] actually uh like why do I like a banana[26:51] what kind of free will do I have like if[26:53] I had free will uh wouldn't be any[26:56] weight problems right I just say well[26:57] you know[26:59] I I can just lose weight and I'll just[27:00] stop eating this for a while. But it's[27:03] not the case, you know, or you drive[27:05] home from you you get off from work and[27:07] you're driving home and you're going to[27:09] stop off at a supermarket, but you kind[27:12] of start thinking about something and[27:13] you find yourself go driving into your[27:15] driveway,[27:17] you know, and you never stopped at the[27:19] supermarket because you were, you know,[27:21] you were busy thinking and automatically[27:24] you went home. you know, you weren't[27:27] really conscious of that. You just, you[27:29] know, so a lot of things, I mean, if you[27:31] had to think about how to move my hand,[27:33] you know, you know, it's all built in[27:36] automatically. But you can become more[27:38] conscious through effort, you know, and[27:41] that's a whole another[27:43] but uh I kind of forgot kind of forgot[27:45] what you asked. Well, I think no, I I[27:47] think part of the question was like um[27:50] >> you you're a nuts and bolts person, but[27:52] you think that there is a kind of[27:54] psychic or[27:55] >> ah[27:55] >> ESP component to this phenomena. What[27:57] convinces you that that's real? First of[27:59] all, why do you think that there is that[28:01] component? just so much of it. I I it's[28:05] um uh I've uh met some people who've had[28:10] well I I mean I don't know perhaps these[28:13] if I believe that these things are real[28:16] and uh it could very well be that the[28:18] drive mechanism you know uh is is[28:21] exuding something that affects the brain[28:23] you know somehow or that they have uh[28:27] developed a technology it can directly[28:29] uh uh you know uh interact with the[28:33] brain somehow. how and it's that's[28:34] reported over and over again, you know,[28:36] from these uh reports that uh they seem[28:39] to be able to intuit it, you know, uh[28:43] what what these things are saying when[28:45] they're not speaking English, you know,[28:46] but of course it's not happened to me.[28:48] So, you know, I I don't know, you know,[28:51] I I I I put that in the 50 60% believing[28:55] rate, you know, it's not as high as they[28:57] actually exist, but that's kind of kind[29:00] of how I put that. But when I say I'm[29:02] nuts and bolts, what I mean by that is[29:05] that because there's no science that we[29:08] can use and I mean all we've got is[29:10] science. I mean if we abandon that we're[29:13] back to the Middle Ages and burning[29:15] witches and you know bloodletting and[29:18] all the other stuff, you know, I mean[29:19] that and you know inquisitions and all[29:23] this kind of crazy stuff that the[29:24] Reformation got rid of, you know,[29:26] starting to think logically. So we have[29:28] to think logically about stuff be to get[29:31] at you know and that's led to all the[29:33] progress we've made you know uh at least[29:36] physical progress you know I mean cell[29:38] phones you know cars you know[29:42] you know[29:44] >> telecommunications radio you know[29:48] >> yeah uh jet planes you know uh all the[29:52] kind of things that we enjoy comfort in[29:53] your house and uh you know thus wealth[29:57] the what you know we we live we live[30:00] fantastically compared to the way people[30:02] did in the middle ages you know in terms[30:04] of like[30:04] >> sure yeah[30:05] >> what you could do and and so[30:08] you know uh we can't do that with this[30:11] other phenomena I mean there's a lot of[30:14] people who collect these stories and but[30:16] it's not going to help us understand it[30:19] in my opin well it may help us[30:21] understand it from state but not get to[30:24] the bottom of it so uh I think that[30:27] using physical physical sciences and and[30:28] we can if these things can be seen then[30:31] we can photograph them. We can measure[30:33] them. We can actually start to begin to[30:36] maybe understand a little bit about how[30:39] they work and then maybe we can uh[30:42] develop that technology ourself and and[30:45] improve our life. You have all kinds of[30:48] advantages and at least get to the[30:51] bottom of you know of that part of it.[30:55] why they're here and those kind of[30:56] things uh I think is a really[30:59] problematic[31:01] uh to understand you know uh just what[31:04] their motivation is. Um[31:07] um I'll just go back to the Nimttz[31:09] thing. Uh I you know it[31:13] in listening to the to the pilots and[31:16] what they described it and the well the[31:18] radar operators this went on for three[31:20] days and these things were acting in a[31:23] way that's hard to understand from our[31:25] perspective. I think they they were up[31:27] they were coming from 80,000 ft and they[31:28] go down to sea level then they go up and[31:31] come down and go up you know and they[31:33] did this for like 3 days and what you[31:37] know I mean what how can you understand[31:39] that I mean you know u it's like they're[31:43] almost playing or something you know or[31:45] you know to try and understand an alien[31:48] uh I think to understand an alien[31:52] mindset I think is very problematic. you[31:56] know[31:56] >> what what you know uh[32:00] it just isn't like I can say well[32:01] they're doing this you're taking[32:02] measurements but you know you take a[32:05] measurement you know and you're done you[32:07] know or whatever and go off you fly off[32:09] you know um so uh I I think that uh a[32:15] lot of people think they can understand[32:18] what these things are doing or why[32:21] they're here and uh you know uh and I[32:24] think That's uh I think we kind of[32:26] discussed that you know the what would[32:29] an alien uh civilization be like what[32:33] would be their background what they[32:34] would how they would think and uh they[32:37] they may not think at all like us you[32:39] know[32:40] >> right yeah I mean I worry about this a[32:42] lot because thought employs[32:46] concepts right you have to have sets of[32:48] concepts in order to to think in a lot[32:51] of those concepts come to us through the[32:53] languages that we have and the kinds of[32:54] experience and the kinds of senses that[32:57] we have for experiencing the world. And[32:59] if you reconfigured all of that, you[33:02] could have a a mind that was totally[33:05] coherent. It had its own interest and[33:07] aims and goals and kinds of[33:09] relationships and ways of living. But it[33:11] would just be like totally impenetrable[33:14] to us because there might not be a[33:15] single concept that we have that[33:17] overlaps. I mean, there might be like[33:18] the concept of yes and no for them or[33:20] like mathematical concepts or something,[33:23] but if you wanted to explain really[33:25] complex behavior, you'd have to[33:26] understand like how they thought and[33:28] felt and communicated and structured[33:30] their ideas about what they were doing.[33:33] And that might make them as[33:34] incomprehensible to us as like we are to[33:37] a beaver or something. And not just[33:38] because like we're smarter, but because[33:40] a beaver just has like such a vastly[33:42] different mode of living from us. Is[33:44] that kind of the the worry that you have[33:46] about speculating the intentions of a[33:48] >> Yes. Uh exactly. Um and uh I think it's[33:52] very you you look at the life in the[33:55] biosphere on Earth, right? And h how[33:58] many uh species look like us. I mean[34:00] there's a small anthropoids, right? And[34:03] then there's thousands of species that[34:05] don't look at all like us and have all[34:07] kinds of structures and things that, you[34:09] know, we don't understand. So we say[34:10] well you know we look like us because we[34:12] became intelligent and that was you know[34:14] but they could have easily you know some[34:16] some of these things could have become[34:18] intelligent with a different you know[34:20] flow of the dice maybe you know may[34:22] maybe octtopi could could have developed[34:26] in the ocean and developed the[34:27] technology and you know they're very[34:30] smart you know maybe with a little more[34:32] time or something I I don't know but uh[34:35] given that you know what would they[34:37] think about how would they think about[34:39] things. Well, why would they come to[34:40] Earth, right? And uh you know, I I I[34:46] guess, you know, I don't find it[34:48] surprising that there's you know, there[34:50] would be alien civilizations. I mean, I[34:52] think it's,[34:55] you know, if we're the only intelligent[34:58] species in the galaxy, that puts makes[35:01] us pretty special,[35:02] >> right?[35:02] >> Uh you know, and unlikely, I think, but[35:05] you you know, and it seems more likely.[35:08] We're just we're sort of like uh typical[35:12] or something, you know, we're just kind[35:13] of average. I mean,[35:15] >> it's best to guess you're average rather[35:16] than you're above average.[35:18] >> You're exceptional.[35:19] >> I mean, just look at history, right? We[35:21] we thought first we were the center of[35:22] the earth, you know, and then there was[35:23] this dome over the earth and everything[35:25] went around the earth and[35:28] oh wait, wait a minute. you know, the[35:30] the earth goes around the sun and of[35:32] course it shakes everybody up, you know,[35:33] and then we discover that there's, you[35:36] know, the universe has galaxies and all[35:38] these other things that were just sort[35:39] of this once you understand the size of[35:42] the universe, we're like nothing. I mean[35:44] like a dust you know and so there's[35:47] probably lots of civilizations out there[35:50] uh intelligent life[35:53] you know and[35:55] uh they probably could you know they're[35:57] probably got their own things they're[35:59] doing right and they're probably very[36:01] unlikely to be near us in technology[36:03] right or in science or because uh that[36:07] would be very unlikely it's more likely[36:09] because you know if they're close to us[36:10] they probably have a lot of trouble[36:12] getting here they're behind us. They're[36:14] probably got steam engines and the water[36:16] wheels and, you know, they're not going[36:17] to be flying around and it's more likely[36:20] they're way ahead, you know, and so[36:22] we're just probably a curiosity, you[36:24] know, they they're busy doing whatever[36:26] they're doing. They have some maybe, you[36:29] know, they're not using radio. They're[36:31] not, you know, uh, you know, they have[36:34] their own technique and they may be way[36:37] ahead of us, which probably are not even[36:39] interested, you know, but they maybe[36:41] they're close enough that they they[36:42] might want to come by just look and see[36:44] what's happening and then of course we[36:46] think because they we see them once in a[36:48] while they're here for us,[36:50] >> you know, you're doing the things that[36:52] we do. Yeah. They're acting the way[36:53] >> and Right. You're going to go how come[36:55] they're not at the White House or[36:56] something, you know?[36:57] >> Right. And uh it was it's like a it's[37:02] like you know a battleship from World[37:04] War II going by some island and there's[37:07] you know you know bunch of natives and[37:09] they're you know the king is there and[37:11] he's busy collecting coconuts or[37:13] something you know and they you know[37:16] they think we're there to help them with[37:19] the coconuts or something you know.[37:20] >> Yeah. or steal the coconut[37:21] >> manage their coconuts or steal the[37:23] coconuts or you know destroy their[37:25] coconuts you know and it's[37:29] I could be totally wrong about this but[37:32] it I just seems like it's a big a big[37:35] jump in logic to to to go there[37:39] >> right[37:39] >> no I mean I think if we sat down with an[37:41] alien if we found any alien and asked[37:43] them you know what are you doing they[37:45] and if somehow they could speak English[37:48] they couldn't just tell us one sentence[37:49] to explain what they were doing. They[37:51] would have to say, "Well, like in order[37:52] to understand what we're doing, you have[37:53] to understand what these other things[37:55] are." Like,[37:56] in the same way that if if an alien came[37:58] here and was like, "Why are they[38:00] building satellites around the Earth?"[38:02] We couldn't just tell them. We have to[38:03] be like, "Okay, well, you have to[38:04] understand that we have like cell phones[38:05] and we have televisions and we have wars[38:08] that we need to like spy on each other[38:10] for, and if you understand that, then we[38:11] can kind of talk about it." So, like,[38:13] you never know how many levels[38:15] downstream the explanation really is.[38:18] So, it sounds like you're kind of[38:20] skeptical of attempts to even speculate[38:24] about why these devices or objects or[38:28] craft or whatever they are are doing[38:30] what they're doing. Do you just want to[38:32] say moratorum on all speculation or how[38:36] would you[38:37] >> Well, no. I mean, I it's just uh don't[38:39] take it as fact. I mean, I I I I[38:42] speculate too because I've obviously[38:44] thought about it. Um but um that's not[38:48] going to move us ahead. I you know[38:50] that's not science you know that's you[38:53] know that's uh you know philosophy or[38:57] you know it's but it's not going to help[38:59] us understand the[39:02] it's not going to uh help us understand[39:05] the technology. I think the only thing[39:07] that we can really do right now is get a[39:10] grasp grasp on the technology and that[39:13] may open some doors for us, move ahead a[39:16] little bit with this uh you know uh and[39:20] you know if we could kind of understand[39:22] their propulsion systems. Uh maybe we[39:25] could see uh it might open our eyes to[39:27] some of the other stuff that's going on.[39:29] you know, uh, you know, how for how we[39:32] could, uh, you know, well,[39:36] yeah, that's about all I can say on[39:38] that. You know, it's something we can[39:40] actually know something about it. Right[39:42] now, there's nothing definite we could[39:44] put our fingers on. You know, people[39:47] will claim there is, but[39:50] we really have very little, you know,[39:52] that uh, you can really say about these[39:54] things in my opinion.[39:56] >> All right. So things like being nuts and[39:58] bolts for you is not about um what you[40:01] believe or don't believe is real. It's[40:03] more about like what you think we[40:05] actually can productively do like what[40:07] can we actually this point[40:09] >> yeah and and you know uh like like say[40:12] the SCU right doesn't have a lot of[40:15] resources you know it's only capital is[40:17] human resources you know doesn't have[40:19] much money or something like that so if[40:21] we're going to spend human capital on[40:23] something it should be on something[40:25] productive to to move ahead you know and[40:27] I think that's the direction we should[40:29] be going in and uh uh and and that's[40:34] true uh you know all around uh you know[40:38] uh in my opinion that doesn't mean that[40:40] you can't think about this stuff or you[40:43] know um listen to some stories and you[40:47] know try and evaluate whether you think[40:49] that they're telling the truth or not[40:51] but I don't think there's going to be[40:53] much productive[40:56] uh [sighs][40:57] stuff you know and and you know I'm all[40:59] about trying to be productive[41:01] >> so what if a what if a Woo person said,[41:03] "Well, look, here's what I think we[41:05] could do. We could listen to people who[41:07] tell us that there are like psychic[41:08] components to these encounters, which[41:10] there's a pretty significant proportion[41:12] of these encounters involve something[41:14] that seems to resemble telepathy. You[41:16] seem to acknowledge that." Well, if we[41:19] listen to that, then that tells us that[41:20] there's like a gap in our scientific[41:22] knowledge. And it also tells us how we[41:23] might at least gestures in a direction[41:26] of how we might do new science to like[41:28] fill in that gap. Maybe we need to study[41:30] ESP or something and that would help us[41:33] crack.[41:33] >> But I mean people people have I mean[41:36] Americans uh par I mean people have been[41:38] studying parasychology[41:40] since the early 1800s. I mean and[41:44] there's remarkably little progress. I[41:47] mean, uh, you can go ahead and knock[41:50] knock knock yourself out, but I mean, I[41:52] it it till we have, uh, some kind of a[41:57] scientific basis for consciousness.[42:00] Uh, you know, I I think that, uh, you[42:03] know, it[42:06] we we don't want to spend our resources[42:07] on that. I mean, many many people are,[42:09] but where's the progress? You know, I[42:12] mean, it's not like this is new. I mean,[42:14] people have been looking at this stuff[42:15] for years. you know, where is, you know,[42:17] book, show me something, you know, that[42:20] that you've accomplished and uh go[42:22] [clears throat] ahead, do do what you're[42:23] going to do, but I I you know, maybe[42:25] you'll make a breakthrough of some kind,[42:27] but what should I do? I I I want I think[42:31] what we should focus on is nuts and[42:33] bolts uh which is basically you know[42:36] using our physical sciences you know[42:38] that we uh that we we can sort of trust[42:42] you know uh that we're at a certain[42:43] level uh you understand science you've[42:47] taken philosophy you know[42:48] >> you know that it's not absolute you know[42:50] it's just uh provincial it's it's what[42:53] was it uh[42:54] >> provisional yeah[42:55] >> provisional you know uh until something[42:58] better comes comes along. He throw out[43:00] the old stuff and up with the new you[43:01] know Newton you know Newton's gravity[43:04] work worked for 200 years we still use[43:06] Newton in fact you know Newton mechanics[43:09] is pretty much everything we do[43:12] >> but in certain cases you know where[43:14] there's strong gravitational fields and[43:16] and you know high velocities and stuff[43:18] we have to use the next step which is[43:20] Einstein is the relativity theories you[43:22] know so but is that mean Newton was[43:25] wrong and you know silly Newton you know[43:27] he's stupid and No, I mean you know it's[43:30] still you know and uh[43:32] >> Einstein if if they surpass Einstein[43:36] someday then you know there'll be people[43:39] say well you know well you know[43:42] >> sure[43:43] >> they should be an Einstein[43:45] >> right[43:46] >> but uh yeah these guys were like stone[43:49] cold geniuses even if they yeah[43:51] >> happened to turn out happened to turn[43:53] out to be wrong in some way that is kind[43:55] of the the prog the the trajectory of[43:57] science You do the best that you can,[44:00] get the best theory that you can with[44:02] the evidence that you have, and at some[44:03] point you hope the theory actually[44:04] breaks and you make because that's what[44:06] a breakthrough is, is the theory.[44:08] >> Yeah.[44:08] >> Breaking. So, so if you're if if being[44:11] nuts and bolts really means just like[44:13] doing the best we can do with what we[44:15] have right now. Let's say I I were[44:18] wealthy and wrote you and SCU a $10[44:21] million check and said just go wild. Do[44:24] whatever you want with it. What does[44:27] that research program look like to you?[44:29] What would you design?[44:31] >> Well, for me, I think I would do some[44:33] field instrumentation to develop uh uh[44:36] you know, the kind of instrumentation[44:38] that the military has, but uh it's all[44:41] classified and they won't release it,[44:43] you know, uh where we could have u I[44:46] think the easiest thing a place to start[44:48] is good uh would be a good uh infrared[44:53] video camera system.[44:56] uh dual camera system uh or multiple[45:00] camera system where you can actually get[45:01] three-dimensional uh uh trajectories[45:05] that was manufactured in a professional[45:07] like a uh[45:10] you know like a engineering instrument[45:12] like a oscilloscope or a you know[45:16] spectrum analog or something where it[45:17] has known error rates and everyone is[45:20] identical you know everyone is you know[45:22] the error rate is within a certain thing[45:24] and make hundreds of these things,[45:26] thousands of them and place them around[45:29] the country and uh try and get uh solid[45:35] video images that uh have provenence.[45:38] You know that um you could encrypt them[45:41] so that you know when data comes into[45:44] the device, it's encrypted and sent to a[45:47] general server. So you know that nobody[45:48] could have faked it or could deny it.[45:52] And then if we do get I I I think that[45:55] uh I I've done some calculations about[45:57] that. I think if you had about 600 of[45:59] these and there anyhow it's there's a[46:02] paper I did on that. It's on the SU but[46:06] something like if you have 600 of them[46:09] what would you do?[46:10] >> Yeah. Yeah. And you have to have a[46:12] certain like uh I I said the uh there's[46:16] like four aspects to it. you assume like[46:19] there's a certain number of events that[46:21] occur per year[46:23] >> and that's one assumption. The other one[46:25] is uh uh you've divided the country up[46:28] into uh in the [clears throat] on the[46:30] paper I did and this is kind of[46:32] arbitrary but the way I did it a 10[46:34] square mile uh grids and there were like[46:38] I don't know 200,000 or something like[46:41] that uh to cover the the just the[46:44] continental United States[46:47] and uh the um the um detection uh[46:54] algorithm them, you know, the the[46:56] hardware injection had like a 50%[46:57] probability of capturing capturing it[47:00] and the tracking another 50%. And if you[47:03] you put these together uh uh to get an a[47:08] a a[47:09] image of one of these uh I assumed there[47:13] was something like 20 a year something[47:16] like that of the actual occurrences that[47:20] you would get um uh it would take about[47:24] uh[47:25] imag you know you would get one good you[47:29] get at least one good op one good uh[47:33] video uh in three years. You may get[47:36] more, but you get at least one. You can[47:39] do some probability calculations on[47:41] this. Kind of like throwing dice, you[47:43] know, you could do something like that.[47:45] >> And uh so you uh we would have something[47:48] like that go out there. Now once you can[47:52] get an image of something like that, it[47:53] would have to be a good one, a closeup[47:55] of a machine. Okay, that's I left that[47:57] part out. I think that the only lights[47:59] in the sky, uh, orbs, those kind of[48:03] things don't convince anybody because[48:05] there's nothing you can do with them.[48:07] But a machine with structure that has[48:10] form whatever nobody can you know that's[48:12] doing something like hover or it shoots[48:15] off you know it at almost instantaneous[48:19] acceleration but you know um and you[48:22] could prove the people who did it who[48:25] took the image you know the SCU people[48:27] whatever would testify have the[48:30] equipment show uh you know all the steps[48:33] it took and that you know that there's[48:36] all equipment out there. It's all[48:37] identical. We had all this trouble. It[48:39] would be very difficult to deny it, you[48:41] know, to say this didn't happen. Once uh[48:45] and of course you could, you know, if[48:47] you have millions, maybe you could also[48:49] add, you know, some maybe radar or some[48:53] uh you know um what do you call[48:56] spectroscopic,[48:57] you know,[48:58] >> pardon? Get get the frequency response[49:00] or the uh you know, IR[49:04] response, those kind of things. You[49:06] could keep add once you had something[49:07] like this, you could add on to it[49:10] because once you could track something[49:11] and have a method of doing it, you could[49:14] uh you know uh you could add on[49:16] equipment because you you know you can[49:18] get up get these things but I mean[49:20] that's the kind of effort would take it[49:22] would take millions of dollars I mean to[49:23] do something like that. uh you know when[49:26] we would design uh you know and when I[49:29] worked you know just a like a plug-in[49:32] card to some kind of piece of equipment[49:34] would be about a million dollars in[49:36] development you know you know because[49:38] there was all kinds of uh you know uh[49:41] testing and you know the the building of[49:45] it and uh calibrate[49:46] >> there's a whole lot to it you know and[49:48] that was a few years ago you know so you[49:51] know doing hundreds of these things it[49:53] would have to be professionally designed[49:54] I know that a lot of people think you[49:56] could have uh these things uh you know[50:00] you could have uh you know non-technical[50:04] people build these things you know you[50:06] just have and of course everyone would[50:08] be different set up different so the[50:10] error rates on all of them would be it's[50:12] important that they all have the same[50:13] error rate so you can do some kind of[50:15] statistical estimates you know for for[50:18] like uh you know calculating this[50:19] acceleration of speed and those kind of[50:21] things I mean you you can you kind of[50:24] and do that. But uh you know it has to[50:26] be done so it's reliable. You know it[50:29] just you turn it on, it works. you know,[50:31] >> it seems so different from like what[50:33] I've heard people like John Kasloski who[50:36] is the head of the what is it the[50:39] arrow right now um said that one of[50:41] their their projects is they want to[50:43] pull data from people's Ring doorbell[50:46] cameras and look at the the images from[50:49] those things and you know hopefully if[50:52] there's enough doorbell cameras around[50:53] they they'll have caught something but[50:55] that's[50:55] >> there's a lot of them around[50:57] >> right but like the resolution on those[50:58] things aren't calibrated they're really[51:00] bad.[51:01] >> Well, there you know, you you it's a[51:02] crude thing. I mean, it's much crerier[51:04] than what I'm talking about, but it[51:06] probably does have a range. You could[51:08] probably since they all are manufactured[51:11] and they're all pretty much the same if[51:12] you have the same model. If you had[51:15] different models, that's a whole[51:16] different thing. But, you know, you[51:17] could kind of get an air band on it. you[51:20] know like maybe it's uh well I don't[51:24] know the[51:26] uh you know what that what particular[51:29] uh specification I'm talking about in[51:32] this thing like the sensor or something[51:34] you know how how much error air noise[51:36] there would be in the sensor with[51:38] certain light specifications you know[51:40] you'd have to get into that but I've[51:42] actually seen people show videos of that[51:45] kind of stuff those kind of things with[51:47] doorbell cameras and stuff and very[51:49] often you know It's a car drives by and[51:52] the light on its mirror or windshield[51:53] reflects into the uh in into the[51:56] doorbell camera and they see something[51:58] go across the screen. They say, "Oh,[52:00] it's a UFO." You know, and no, I mean,[52:03] if you just look at it, you kind of can[52:05] tell, you know, uh that kind of stuff.[52:08] But but it's an attempt. I mean, because[52:10] what what that says is that there's so[52:12] little much, you know, that stuff takes[52:14] money and they don't have the financing.[52:16] They're trying to do the best they can,[52:18] you know, with what with what they can[52:20] do, you know.[52:20] >> Well, it just seems that even if it[52:22] caught something, it wouldn't do the[52:24] thing you you want to do. It sounds like[52:25] what you want is a photograph or a video[52:28] that is so clear and that it we know its[52:31] prominence. We we know that the system,[52:34] we know the design of the system that[52:36] they caught it, we know that it's been[52:37] encrypted and you know uh safely[52:40] transmitted.[52:42] The thing that that would do, it seems,[52:44] is it might convince people that all the[52:48] stories and other reports that we've had[52:51] so far are are accurate, or at least[52:54] some of them are accurate, that these[52:55] things are real. But it doesn't sound[52:58] like the Ring doorbell camera video[53:00] could ever do that. There'd always be[53:02] like enough room for a person to doubt[53:03] it and be like, "Oh, well, we don't know[53:04] what the camera is. We know, you know,[53:06] if somebody tampered with it." Well, it[53:07] would also require SC, you know, uh the[53:09] SCU to come out and with, you know,[53:12] people like degrees. They like to see uh[53:15] you know, uh have respect[53:18] regardless of what everybody says. You[53:20] know, if you have a PhD, people respect[53:22] it, you know. So, you'd have scientists[53:24] come out and and you know who did this[53:26] and um claim it's true and back it up,[53:30] you know, and not just be in, you know,[53:32] like a lot of YouTube videos where you[53:34] can't tell who created this or where it[53:37] came from or anything. This is always[53:39] mysterious. And I think once that was[53:42] done,[53:44] it would open up uh it would open up[53:47] this field to investment from people[53:50] because there would be no way you I mean[53:52] there's always going to be some people[53:54] are going to deny it, you know, they'll[53:55] deny everything, you know, I mean it's[53:57] because they can't handle it. But I[53:59] think it would be safe for people to say[54:03] yes, this meets scientific quality[54:05] standards and so we um you know uh we'll[54:10] we'll back it and so money would flow[54:12] into this to get and also it would be[54:16] the stigma associated with this subject[54:20] uh you know would be uh reduced quite a[54:23] bit. It still hasn't been reduced. I[54:25] don't care what anybody says. Um and uh[54:31] money would flow in to do more document[54:34] you know to get qualified people in to I[54:37] mean we I think to understand this thing[54:39] we got to get Nobel laureates working on[54:41] this you know I mean there's all kinds[54:44] of scientists you know but most of them[54:45] just going to average you know doing[54:47] their stuff whatever and uh you know you[54:52] know you get you get some really smart[54:55] people looking especially looking at[54:57] like kinematics or how these things[55:00] operate. It probably would get them[55:02] thinking about, you know, how to improve[55:04] their theories[55:06] >> and maybe better measurements to take.[55:08] Maybe look at, you know, and you know,[55:10] there's[55:12] >> there's some physicists doing this,[55:13] trying to do it, but they they lack[55:15] money. Nobody's backing them up. And uh,[55:18] you know, it's very difficult too to get[55:19] fun. I mean because it's, you know,[55:21] National Science Foundation[55:24] does a[55:25] >> fund UFO research. Yeah.[55:27] >> Yeah. I mean, when the SEU does a paper,[55:30] uh, it can't publish, you know,[55:33] generally in most of the journals[55:34] because they just, you know, UFO No, no,[55:37] it's UFO stuff. Forget it. It can't[55:39] publish that. It's nonsense. It's, you[55:42] know, no matter no matter, you know,[55:45] no matter what you do, you know, they're[55:46] just not going to take it. Now there's[55:48] been some little breakthrough there like[55:50] the uh you know the u uh you know the[55:54] preprint and[55:56] >> you [clears throat] know has allowed a[55:58] couple of papers in and the SCU has[56:00] taken some one of our board members has[56:03] taken some effort to try and get a[56:06] category uh in in the uh XIV preprint[56:11] server to be able to get uh you know UAP[56:16] research in there. But it still hasn't[56:19] hasn't happened and I think it's going[56:20] to be difficult, you know, get them to[56:23] how however that thing works, you know.[56:26] So, um[56:28] I think that would be the the the way to[56:31] break through this. Um, I think, you[56:35] know, all of the security clearance I I[56:38] think there's probably lots of[56:40] information the government has, but I I[56:42] think it's kind of all mixed up and I[56:45] uh, you know, I don't think it's well[56:47] organized uh, at all.[56:49] >> Yeah. And I don't I don't think that[56:50] even releasing it would do the thing[56:52] that a lot of people who want disclosure[56:54] think it would do. I think if the[56:56] government just came out and said some[56:58] spokesperson for the Pentagon came out[57:00] and said, "Well, look, yeah, we we have[57:02] videos of these things and they're real[57:04] and we're pretty sure they're aliens."[57:06] It it doesn't seem to me that that would[57:08] convince the people who are skeptical. I[57:10] mean, the government can be wrong. The[57:12] government can lie to you. The[57:13] government is just made up of particular[57:15] people who can be duped or have their[57:17] own weird beliefs. So, it just seems[57:19] like it would kind of fizzle. Do you do[57:21] you think the same or do you think that[57:22] disclosure would work?[57:26] I I think uh a lot depends on how it was[57:30] done and uh but I I just went to like[57:33] the National Archive. I don't know if[57:34] you've ever looked at that for events.[57:37] It's a mess. I mean, they've got I mean,[57:39] they got videos of TV interviews of[57:43] people and just it's all mixed up and uh[57:47] you know, they just take something TV[57:50] series and uh you know, the just the[57:54] worst junk and it just gets put in there[57:56] along with maybe something credible. And[57:59] uh you know they say well we've got you[58:01] know million and five you know 2 million[58:06] records of whatever but most of it is[58:08] just junk you know I mean we can't do[58:10] anything with it you know it's it's[58:13] kind of a disgrace you know but um it's[58:17] not much cons it doesn't console very[58:21] much but most things are junk it's not[58:23] like it's just the UAP field or whatever[58:26] like you know look at most observations[58:27] of birds or turtles or whatever. I mean,[58:29] they're just not very good. It's really[58:30] hard to get good data. So, okay. So,[58:32] let's imagine that you got the photo[58:35] that you wanted out of this this $10[58:37] million project. And it was impossible[58:40] from that point on to say, "Well,[58:42] there's not something there. There's not[58:45] a dare there." What would the next step[58:47] be then? I mean, you've got the photo.[58:49] You've convinced people that it's real,[58:50] but how do we go about like figuring out[58:53] what they are?[58:55] >> Well, I I believe that it would happen[58:56] naturally. I think that uh I mean you[58:59] you could publish it u[59:02] uh you know this information and it'd be[59:05] hard to deny. I think once that would[59:08] crack the door open uh for uh you know[59:12] people to believe this be hard to deny[59:15] you know somebody and you could go after[59:17] people who deny it say look you tell me[59:20] why this is what you show where this is[59:23] there needs to be courage in this[59:25] >> you know but it's hard to have courage[59:27] when you don't have good data but if[59:28] you've got something really solid you're[59:30] convinced of[59:31] >> uh then uh you know you should have the[59:33] courage to go ahead and and pursue it[59:36] you[59:37] um and and you know, however that's[59:40] involved and I think that would start to[59:43] you know break down the barriers of this[59:46] you know u I think the Condan report uh[59:50] kind of really closed the whole thing[59:53] you know when they when they came out[59:55] with this report[59:57] and he just made his bl at least that's[59:59] the story that I've heard. I've not[01:00:02] really I've not really uh investigated[01:00:06] the Condan report and what's behind it.[01:00:08] I'm just taking what I you know what's[01:00:10] been reported by a lot of people. But it[01:00:13] seemed to me after that it it it uh[01:00:16] froze the whole thing and it made it uh[01:00:19] it made it like disreputable for people[01:00:23] uh to pursue this in a scientific basis.[01:00:25] It was all considered just a bunch of[01:00:27] nonsense and it's not scientific so[01:00:30] don't get involved. you know that that's[01:00:32] >> that's that's the climate we have now[01:00:35] even uh you know so uh that has to[01:00:40] change[01:00:41] um and you know people say well that's[01:00:44] not true we've made progress but I know[01:00:45] a guy who got fired because uh uh you[01:00:49] know he the company he was working for[01:00:51] found out he was he was uh you know[01:00:54] working on some stuff you know about UFO[01:00:57] stuff and he got fired you know for it.[01:01:00] So it and we also have a there's a[01:01:03] scientist in uh Canada who uh you know[01:01:09] there's a report about this uh it's a[01:01:14] uh sort of a uh[01:01:17] a rotating UFO[01:01:20] that kind of rotates. I'm trying to[01:01:22] think of what that that thing is. And he[01:01:24] uh experienced this. He was up there[01:01:26] hunting with two of his friends and uh[01:01:29] and he's a PhD. He has government[01:01:33] contracts, a bunch of patents,[01:01:35] government contracts with I think the[01:01:37] Canadian government. He's afraid to talk[01:01:39] about it,[01:01:41] release this stuff to the SCU for us to[01:01:44] do a paper on it. He actually has he had[01:01:47] an early uh uh[01:01:52] I can't remember been the manufacturer a[01:01:54] well-known manufacturer of little[01:01:55] camcorders[01:01:57] >> and when this thing came by it's a[01:01:59] dumbbell kind it had two ends it's the[01:02:02] weirdest thing[01:02:05] >> dumbbell shaped like a bar with two like[01:02:07] discs on[01:02:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. and it was rotating rotating[01:02:10] along and it put out a electric field[01:02:13] that oh I think reverse biased all the[01:02:16] transistors in this thing and so he was[01:02:18] taking a video and it just he has the[01:02:20] actual uh he it didn't didn't wreck the[01:02:23] camera. didn't destroy it, but he[01:02:25] actually has the uh uh the file it[01:02:30] created and he did an oscilloscopic[01:02:32] analysis of it and it shows how uh all[01:02:36] the video images compressed and and[01:02:38] pushed down which could happen if the[01:02:40] field uh I being an engineer I'm[01:02:43] thinking if I probably reverse bias the[01:02:45] transistors you know and just turned[01:02:47] them off but there's there's audio still[01:02:51] you know[01:02:52] >> I can't remember all the details details[01:02:54] of it. But uh he has oscilloscope and he[01:02:56] did a lot of analysis on it and[01:02:58] estimated the this field strength of[01:03:00] electric field which is huge and he[01:03:03] actually drew pictures. He also did CAD[01:03:04] CAM pictures of this thing and he has a[01:03:07] but he won't uh go any further than[01:03:09] that. He won't publicly come out and uh[01:03:12] you know talk about it or release it or[01:03:15] release those[01:03:16] release those files for us to use[01:03:19] >> because he's afraid of like losing[01:03:20] government contracts.[01:03:21] >> Yeah, he'll lose government contracts.[01:03:22] Yeah, that's what he's worried about.[01:03:24] And he's probably right. You know, he[01:03:27] might, you know, that might happen.[01:03:29] >> Yeah. It really chills chill people's[01:03:32] report.[01:03:32] >> Yeah. You know, it's uh uh Yeah. Yeah.[01:03:36] So, you know, there's that whole thing.[01:03:39] It really really puts a damper on, you[01:03:42] know, this whole this whole field. And[01:03:45] uh then it is you know even if we got[01:03:48] images of these things and whatever you[01:03:50] know unless they land or something and[01:03:52] start interacting with us it's going to[01:03:55] take a long time to figure anything out[01:03:57] it it might take you know decades or[01:04:01] maybe a century I don't know you know[01:04:04] it's not going to happen just like that[01:04:06] you know it's it's it it's going to be a[01:04:08] long process um you know to do it but um[01:04:13] the only way you're going to get where[01:04:15] start start you know and yes he was[01:04:16] doing that he was trying to do that[01:04:18] trying to make this respectable and as[01:04:20] as are some other UAPX some other[01:04:23] organizations you know they're um I I[01:04:26] apologize if I can't name them all but[01:04:29] >> they're trying yeah they're trying to[01:04:31] move forward with it you know I'm not so[01:04:34] sure some of these other ones that are[01:04:36] doing you know conferences and all this[01:04:39] other stuff you know that just uh you[01:04:41] know tells a lot of stories I I don't[01:04:43] think that's helpful[01:04:45] most[01:04:45] >> yeah at least doesn't do the scientific[01:04:47] thing. Maybe it's helpful for some other[01:04:49] purpose but you know raising awareness[01:04:50] or[01:04:51] >> well make people feel good or something[01:04:53] you know[01:04:54] >> but uh uh you know it doesn't uh uh and[01:04:59] and there's[01:05:01] unfortunately it's a lot of false stuff.[01:05:03] I I think there's[01:05:05] [clears throat][01:05:07] there's there are a certain number of[01:05:09] people who make money from this, you[01:05:11] know, [clears throat][01:05:12] >> putting on these events and present a[01:05:15] lot of I think nonsense[01:05:18] uh you know[01:05:20] and and you know it's my prejudice I I[01:05:23] don't know you know I[01:05:25] I prejudice[01:05:28] >> there's a lot of lot of nonsense in the[01:05:29] world.[01:05:30] >> Yeah, there is. And uh in in all[01:05:34] aspects, you know,[01:05:35] >> but uh uh you know, I I think that less[01:05:39] of that would be better and and you[01:05:41] know, uh[01:05:43] >> so it it's a mess, you know, but uh we[01:05:46] we do what we can. Um[01:05:49] you know, and it's important. I think[01:05:52] it's important. I you know, um I've kind[01:05:55] of come around it. I I don't find it[01:05:58] surprising that that there's you know[01:06:01] maybe alien civilizations they pop in[01:06:03] once in a while. I I think that uh you[01:06:07] know uh it's kind of to be expected. Uh[01:06:11] I think I think if we ever contact them[01:06:14] I think it's they're going to be as[01:06:16] clueless as we are. They're going to be[01:06:17] ahead technologically, but I, you know,[01:06:21] they're finite beings like us dropped[01:06:23] here, you know, and going to have to try[01:06:25] and figure out what the hell this is all[01:06:27] about. And I don't think that's that[01:06:29] easy. And uh, you know, there's going to[01:06:31] be somebody that has an answer. And the[01:06:33] danger for us is going to be we're going[01:06:34] to give them too much credibility.[01:06:37] And uh you know there's always a danger[01:06:39] right with when an advanced civilization[01:06:42] or at least technologically advanced one[01:06:44] meets a less advanced one that it's not[01:06:47] good for the less advanced one. Not just[01:06:49] not just because um uh you know not just[01:06:54] because say they harm us or something[01:06:55] but it's just that you know we start[01:06:58] adopting all their ideas and uh that[01:07:01] kind of stuff and it kind of corrupts[01:07:02] our development. Uh so you know it may[01:07:05] be better for us to continue on our own[01:07:09] for a long time and you know[01:07:12] >> until you read some sort of like[01:07:14] equality or parody with them.[01:07:16] >> Yeah. Uh you know[01:07:19] it Yeah.[01:07:21] >> I think it's easy to mistake[01:07:23] >> it's easy to mistake technological[01:07:25] advancement for like moral advancement[01:07:27] or like spiritual or culture.[01:07:29] >> Just look at the Germans in World War[01:07:31] II,[01:07:31] >> right?[01:07:32] >> Yeah. Germany was like undisputably the[01:07:35] technological sort of like supreme[01:07:37] power. I mean, America was putting all[01:07:38] of its effort into building skyscrapers[01:07:41] and roadways and things and the Germans[01:07:43] were building rockets.[01:07:44] >> Well, there's, you know,[01:07:47] that's exaggerated, too. You know, they[01:07:49] you really study it. I'm kind of a World[01:07:51] War II buff. They weren't as advanced as[01:07:55] everybody tends to think they are. And[01:07:57] like the jet engine, everybody thinks[01:07:59] that they invented a jet engine. Well,[01:08:00] it's actually a British uh Whipple had a[01:08:04] jet engine before the the Germans[01:08:06] didn't. The rocket rocket engine was was[01:08:08] was developed in the United States by um[01:08:12] a scientist, but he was ignored. You[01:08:14] know, they just wouldn't give him any[01:08:15] funding. And so, you know, the Germans[01:08:18] picked up on a lot of his work and they[01:08:20] developed the V2 and all those all that[01:08:22] kind of stuff. But you know it it we[01:08:25] were about making money.[01:08:27] >> Yeah.[01:08:27] >> But what what the way we won the war is[01:08:30] through manufacturing. I mean we had the[01:08:32] capability to manufacture really good[01:08:34] stuff. I mean uh[01:08:38] uh you know uh we had the machinery and[01:08:42] a lot of the German stuff was handbuilt.[01:08:44] It was like uh it wasn't uh what do you[01:08:48] want to say standardized like all our[01:08:52] engines and all the stuff we built.[01:08:54] >> It was coming off a production[01:08:55] >> interchange you interchange all the[01:08:57] parts. That's not true in Germany. Like[01:08:59] they had a tank or something and if[01:09:02] something broke down in one of the[01:09:03] tanks, you may not be able to exchange[01:09:05] the part into another tank to make it[01:09:06] run.[01:09:07] >> Oh, interesting.[01:09:07] >> Because they were because they believed[01:09:09] in this they believed in this[01:09:11] fine-tuning of stuff, you know,[01:09:13] >> right? And[01:09:15] US developed a lot of a lot of cool[01:09:17] stuff, you know, that that uh be because[01:09:21] we weren't a war power. I mean, you[01:09:24] know,[01:09:25] >> you know, in the 1930s, we had a had a[01:09:28] military at all. You know, we were busy[01:09:31] enjoying life and, you know, prosperity[01:09:34] and all that kind of stuff. And build[01:09:35] Well, 1930s was depression, but[01:09:37] >> Yeah. But the Roaring, we had some[01:09:39] prosperity.[01:09:40] >> Yeah. Right. and uh you know but uh[01:09:44] anyhow[01:09:45] >> so let's uh one of one of the questions[01:09:47] I wanted to ask you is actually it's[01:09:50] interesting that you bring up how put[01:09:52] off in the in the break that we just had[01:09:54] but there's a paper that Halputoff wrote[01:09:57] called something like ultraterrestrial[01:09:59] models where he lays out kind of the[01:10:02] range of theories that people have[01:10:04] proposed for what UAP are and it's not[01:10:06] just him I mean these are these are[01:10:07] theories he's collected from all over[01:10:08] the place and it's something like you[01:10:10] know that they're extraterrestrials.[01:10:12] There's the theory that they're time[01:10:13] travelers from the future. They're like[01:10:14] us from the future coming back to check[01:10:16] the past out. They're some breakaway[01:10:19] civilization that existed in the past[01:10:21] that made technological advancements and[01:10:23] then kind of like hid out for a long[01:10:25] time [snorts] or they're um let's see a[01:10:29] cryptoaterrestrials whatever that means.[01:10:31] They're like you know Bigfoot or they're[01:10:32] interdimensional beings. What how do you[01:10:36] rank the theories from like most[01:10:38] plausible to least plausible explanation[01:10:41] for what UAP are?[01:10:46] I think there u[01:10:48] uh[01:10:50] well you know some of these uh like I[01:10:53] don't believe the time travel thing I I[01:10:54] think from what I know relativity you[01:10:56] can't go back any farther from when you[01:10:59] uh if you if you invent a time machine[01:11:02] you can't go back any farther than when[01:11:04] the time machine was invented right[01:11:06] >> you know otherwise you get into uh you[01:11:08] know uh[01:11:09] >> paradoxes and[01:11:10] >> paradoxes you know and all that kind of[01:11:12] stuff but I couldn't be wrong there. I[01:11:14] don't know. Um I because I don't think[01:11:17] it's all that amazing that there would[01:11:21] be other civilizations out there that[01:11:24] have developed like us and have[01:11:26] technologies and flying around and doing[01:11:28] whatever the thing. I think that's the[01:11:29] most plausible. Um I think uh[01:11:35] and you know it's it's if you in my[01:11:38] opinion um usually the easiest I mean[01:11:41] the most u[01:11:44] the simplest explanation is the one[01:11:46] that's probably valid and to me that's[01:11:48] the simplest I mean it it's not I mean[01:11:51] uh you know somebody from another[01:11:53] dimension well you know we we we don't[01:11:56] know of any other dimension you know[01:11:58] right[01:11:59] >> like times the fourth dimension, but[01:12:02] it's not really it's really kind of a[01:12:05] uh a degree of freedom in in the you[01:12:08] know it's not really a spatial dimension[01:12:10] anyhow you know.[01:12:10] >> Yeah. So, uh, you know,[01:12:14] you know that there there may be these[01:12:15] other dimensions. Maybe there are, but I[01:12:17] think it's, you know, um, unlikely. Um,[01:12:22] I think, uh, you know, I can't remember[01:12:24] what some of the other ones were, but[01:12:26] >> well, maybe maybe some other group in[01:12:28] the past made a technological[01:12:30] breakthrough that we[01:12:32] >> don't know about and then sort of hid it[01:12:33] out. That in some ways is simpler[01:12:35] because it doesn't involve uh requiring[01:12:37] like a whole other civilization to have[01:12:39] emerged on some other planet. But it[01:12:42] doesn't seem like many people in the[01:12:43] community are very open to that kind of[01:12:45] explanation. Well, it would uh explain[01:12:49] why some of these uh things look like[01:12:51] you have a human form,[01:12:54] >> you know, um which always puzzles me,[01:12:57] you know, because I think if uh you[01:13:00] know, if you know, if these uh[01:13:02] creatures, you know, like[01:13:05] uh in the you know, usually reported[01:13:07] like the grays or you know, those kind[01:13:09] of things are pretty much uh look[01:13:13] similar, you know, to humans. They have[01:13:15] big eyes and they they don't have much[01:13:17] of a mouth and nose and etc. But they're[01:13:20] you know two arms, two legs, whatever.[01:13:22] Um I don't people say well that's the[01:13:26] most logical form that a uh you know an[01:13:30] intelligent species would develop as I[01:13:33] don't buy that.[01:13:34] >> Yeah, I don't either.[01:13:34] >> I think uh you know you could anyhow I[01:13:38] don't buy it and I think there could be[01:13:40] a lot of forms that would work just[01:13:41] fine. Octopus or tentacles work just[01:13:44] fine. sure[01:13:44] >> you know for uh running machinery and[01:13:46] those kind of things. Um[01:13:50] so uh I and that's a possibility. I uh I[01:13:55] think there would be more evidence for[01:13:56] that.[01:13:57] >> Uh you know if you had a civilization I[01:13:59] think something would be left behind you[01:14:02] know uh and we would now maybe we'll[01:14:04] discover something under the ocean or[01:14:06] something. But uh actually that under[01:14:08] the ocean thing is uh I can't remember[01:14:11] the name of the abyss. Was that it or[01:14:13] >> the abyss? Yeah. like a 1990s sci-fi[01:14:16] film,[01:14:17] >> right? Where he went down and there[01:14:19] there's these kind of like jellyfish[01:14:21] creatures got a glowing, you know,[01:14:23] advanced, you know. Yeah. I mean,[01:14:28] that that that might be possible. I[01:14:30] mean, USOS[01:14:31] um you know, uh have been reported[01:14:35] coming out of the ocean and there's[01:14:36] things under the ocean and stuff. Um the[01:14:40] the only studies we did with USOS[01:14:43] um uh was mainly from Carl Fines's book[01:14:48] uh you know where we actually did a[01:14:50] database and they were studied for three[01:14:52] years but one of the things I I thought[01:14:55] well they'd show that came from deep[01:14:57] ocean but no uh they come out of and the[01:15:00] majority of them are land reports and[01:15:02] they come out of lakes and uh all kinds[01:15:05] of bodies of waters you know not[01:15:07] necessarily ocean at all. Very few[01:15:10] actual ocean reports. Uh the majority[01:15:13] are on land and uh some of them looking[01:15:16] out into the ocean near near the shore,[01:15:18] but not deep water. And a lot of them[01:15:21] are just lakes and uh bodies of water,[01:15:24] you know, they come out of. So, uh and[01:15:27] of course, it's a small subset, I guess,[01:15:30] of all the possible reports, but that's[01:15:32] what I got of it. It kind of spoiled my[01:15:34] idea that there was anything under the[01:15:36] ocean or at least that's the explanation[01:15:38] of where they come from. But I mean that[01:15:41] I could be totally wrong about that.[01:15:43] It's just lack of data, you know, that[01:15:46] that is the reason for my my conclusion[01:15:49] there. But uh I um[01:15:53] you know uh yeah, the future thing I[01:15:56] never bought into that. I just don't[01:15:58] think that's makes sense. Um the uh you[01:16:03] know the the idea that they look that[01:16:06] they look human like that is very[01:16:08] puzzling and might lead to the idea you[01:16:13] know and this is way out there that they[01:16:15] maybe they tempt you know they have[01:16:18] something to do with our development you[01:16:20] know or something or uh you know because[01:16:23] they that might be the way[01:16:27] we're going and it to look something[01:16:28] like that you you know, if[01:16:32] you know in 50,000 years, you know,[01:16:35] >> right? That might be the trajectory of[01:16:37] human evolution.[01:16:38] >> Yeah. You know, it might look we might[01:16:40] end up looking something like that. Uh,[01:16:43] you know, I don't know. There's all[01:16:45] kinds of issues with that, but I don't[01:16:47] subscribe to that. I don't know.[01:16:49] >> So, ET theory is really the the one that[01:16:52] is like in first place for you.[01:16:54] >> Yeah. I think uh to me that seems to be[01:16:57] for the machines.[01:16:59] Uh I don't think that uh we have uh[01:17:02] reverse engineered[01:17:05] stuff. Uh maybe we have, I don't know,[01:17:07] but it just seems like you couldn't keep[01:17:09] that a secret. I don't care what people[01:17:11] say.[01:17:12] >> Yeah, I'm deeply skeptical of our[01:17:14] ability to reverse engineer technology[01:17:16] that's really advanced. I mean, Leonardo[01:17:18] da Vinci couldn't have reverse[01:17:19] engineered an iPhone. It's not because[01:17:21] he's stupid.[01:17:22] >> Yeah. I mean, I think I I mentioned that[01:17:24] last time, you know, then that concept,[01:17:26] you know, he wouldn't even know where to[01:17:28] begin. He's like,[01:17:28] >> yeah,[01:17:29] >> he's like four generations of technology[01:17:31] behind. He they didn't have the steam[01:17:34] engine then, you know, uh and I have[01:17:37] chemistry and you know, they didn't have[01:17:39] any of that, you know, he he he'd know I[01:17:43] think all he'd know is it's artificial.[01:17:45] >> Yeah, I think[01:17:46] >> this is an artificial construct of some[01:17:48] kind. But what you know what how he[01:17:52] could you know he'd probably ruin it,[01:17:53] you know.[01:17:54] >> Yeah. Yeah.[01:17:54] >> Then the battery reds out. That's the[01:17:56] [laughter] end of it, you know.[01:17:57] >> Then it's just a piece of black glass or[01:17:59] something. Yeah.[01:18:00] >> But he was a genius. I mean, you know,[01:18:01] and uh you give Isaac Newton, same[01:18:04] thing. He he probably could[01:18:07] couldn't do much with it either, right?[01:18:09] >> You know, and uh[01:18:10] >> yeah, because you need like intermediate[01:18:12] technologies. You need to develop really[01:18:15] good like electron microscopes to be[01:18:17] able to look at a computer chip and tell[01:18:20] anything about what it's doing. If you[01:18:21] don't have that, it doesn't matter how[01:18:22] smart you are. like you're just not[01:18:24] going to be able to do anything with the[01:18:26] thing.[01:18:26] >> Yeah. I mean, you know, haven't even[01:18:28] developed uh you know, Maxwell, you[01:18:31] know, electromagnetic. Well, I mean,[01:18:34] somebody da Vinci, God, you know, uh[01:18:37] they didn't even have steam engines. I I[01:18:39] mean, you know, there water wheels was[01:18:41] going on then, you know, so uh you[01:18:43] wouldn't uh you know, the glass on the[01:18:47] screen would be amazing. They probably[01:18:49] think there were fluids in there or[01:18:50] something, you know, that were colored[01:18:52] fluids that were making the something[01:18:54] move, you know, move around or[01:18:56] something. But then they tap into it and[01:18:58] break it, you know, I mean,[01:18:59] >> right. And and[01:19:00] >> yeah, it'd be really interesting to[01:19:02] >> It'd be interesting to see what theories[01:19:04] a genius without those intermediate[01:19:07] technological knowledge would come up[01:19:09] with. I mean, he would probably come up[01:19:10] with something or Newton would come up[01:19:12] with something really interesting to[01:19:13] explain how this thing worked. It would[01:19:15] be totally wrong, but it would be[01:19:17] elaborate and and insightful to some[01:19:20] degree. And that seems to me like[01:19:22] probably the best we would be able to do[01:19:24] if we just picked up one of these[01:19:26] things, we would come up with some[01:19:27] elaborate interesting theory, but it[01:19:29] wouldn't be right. So, what's so what's[01:19:33] the end goal? Like if if we get the[01:19:35] photographs, we we even get one of the[01:19:37] get our hands on one of these things, do[01:19:40] you think how how optimistic are you[01:19:42] that even if we had that, we would be[01:19:44] able to make really significant[01:19:46] progress? Or do you just look like[01:19:47] >> Well, I I I think you make progress when[01:19:50] you get enough pe enough enough smart[01:19:51] people working on it. [clears throat][01:19:52] You know, I'm not afraid to uh they're[01:19:55] all working on string theory or[01:19:56] something, you know, and or, you know,[01:19:59] auto mechanics or whatever. And you know[01:20:03] if they it's an existence proof, right?[01:20:07] >> Mhm.[01:20:08] >> You have an existence proof. You know[01:20:10] it's real. Then you're willing to put[01:20:11] money behind it and risk[01:20:14] take a risk to it. You know, if you[01:20:16] don't if you're not sure it's even[01:20:17] possible, you know, nobody's going to[01:20:19] invest in it. and you get enough uh[01:20:22] people working on it, you start with[01:20:25] measuring you know uh any kind of fields[01:20:28] that exist around it maybe and then that[01:20:30] gives you some theories about you[01:20:32] there's plenty of theories you know[01:20:34] maybe it it matches something you know[01:20:37] that is currently thought about and you[01:20:40] try you know you try some things but you[01:20:44] know you get enough people working on it[01:20:46] and you know 24 you know[01:20:49] >> yeah 10 hours a day, you know, hundreds[01:20:52] of smart people. And there's an[01:20:54] incentive behind it because God, you[01:20:56] know, we if we had, you know, even a[01:21:00] sublight, I mean, people go, "Oh, it has[01:21:02] to be, you know, it has to be uh trans,[01:21:07] you know, uh, you know, you know, trans[01:21:11] light speed to be great." God, you know,[01:21:14] it if if you know, if we had something[01:21:17] that ran at, you know, like a quarter of[01:21:19] the speed of light, we could get to the[01:21:20] moon in about, you know, 30 seconds or[01:21:23] something, right?[01:21:24] >> You know, and you know, we could get out[01:21:26] to the in a few minutes we could get out[01:21:28] to the planets,[01:21:30] >> you know, a couple hours in 45 minutes[01:21:32] or something. Yeah.[01:21:34] >> Yeah. Or could go out to the end of the[01:21:36] solar system and, you know, in a couple[01:21:37] hours or something. uh you know it just[01:21:41] be plus traveling around earth you know[01:21:44] um you know it'd just be totally[01:21:47] revolutionary[01:21:49] >> along with once you have that technology[01:21:51] there's probably lots of other stuff[01:21:53] that would come from it you know um you[01:21:58] know it probably has a lot of other[01:21:59] applications we haven't even dreamt of[01:22:01] you know[01:22:01] >> yeah I'm sure um you know so but I mean[01:22:04] that's way out there but I I think it's[01:22:07] Um, not yeah I mean that that that's I[01:22:12] could be totally wrong but I mean I[01:22:13] think that would be well once you prove[01:22:16] something can exist can be made uh[01:22:19] you're going to go after it you and you[01:22:21] have the incentive to do it otherwise[01:22:22] nobody's going to risk billions of[01:22:24] dollars and effort and time on something[01:22:26] that made me m you know that's not there[01:22:30] would be a few people but you know not[01:22:32] not major industrial science you know[01:22:35] going after it.[01:22:36] >> Yeah. and uh you know that that that I[01:22:39] think is what would make the[01:22:40] breakthrough you know to to get ahead uh[01:22:43] in this area but uh you know so[01:22:50] that's kind of what I[01:22:53] >> it's a road map at least for what we[01:22:54] would have to do to to really crack into[01:22:56] this.[01:22:57] >> Is there anything else that you wanted[01:22:59] to talk about? Do you are there cases[01:23:01] that you've worked on that you want to[01:23:02] talk a bit about or[01:23:05] >> Well, you know, I um[01:23:09] you know, I think that uh Lights in the[01:23:11] Sky, you know, I I uh I worked on the[01:23:15] video, the uh rubber duck video, which[01:23:18] is a very strange video.[01:23:20] >> Tell us about it. What is the rubber[01:23:21] duck video for those who haven't seen[01:23:22] it? Uh, it's [sighs and gasps] a a[01:23:24] Homeland Security. Uh, it was a video[01:23:27] that somebody who one of the people who[01:23:30] used to work for Homeland Security[01:23:32] released to us on an NDA[01:23:35] and when I saw it, I it's this u it's[01:23:38] called Rubber Duck because there's[01:23:40] there's this thing in the it's a[01:23:44] uh it's about a 45minute video. Well,[01:23:47] it's two videos, but it's a half hour.[01:23:49] One's a half hour, the other the other's[01:23:51] about 15. It They're both two halfhour[01:23:53] videos, but the last 15 minutes of one[01:23:55] and the rest of the other video makes 45[01:23:58] minutes of this object that was uh[01:24:02] circling in uh it was is a it was off[01:24:07] the it was near in Arizona near the[01:24:11] Mexican border in what's called the[01:24:14] Buenazari's uh wildlife reserve and uh[01:24:18] it was a homeland security airplane and[01:24:20] been up there. It's a two engine craft[01:24:23] uh you know fairly medium-sized[01:24:27] kind of a regional airplane you know[01:24:29] that they use for uh looking for drug[01:24:31] smuggling across the border and they've[01:24:32] been and also illegal aliens you know[01:24:34] they fly up there and they report you[01:24:37] know if they see something and then the[01:24:39] agents go after[01:24:42] >> and uh it had a uh infrared camera. Most[01:24:47] of our good videos will all come from[01:24:49] infrared devices, which says that[01:24:51] infrared video cameras are probably[01:24:54] uh these things may not be that visible[01:24:57] on regular uh you know video or radar[01:25:00] and those kind of things.[01:25:01] >> Is that because they're cloaking or[01:25:03] they're made of?[01:25:05] >> Uh I don't I don't know. But uh I think[01:25:08] that the uh well I have ideas about[01:25:11] that. I I think the drive mechanism[01:25:14] um has something to do with it. I I[01:25:16] think uh[01:25:20] well[01:25:22] I I I'm all over the place on this so I[01:25:24] I can't have a definite answer but in[01:25:26] this particular case uh it showed up on[01:25:29] they say they couldn't see it visually[01:25:32] well and well this is about 1 in the[01:25:34] morning so it's dark out and when[01:25:36] they're they're doing they only had[01:25:38] about[01:25:40] um an hour's left of gas in the airplane[01:25:43] they running out because they've been[01:25:44] doing all day[01:25:45] And they are restricted about what they[01:25:47] can do. They have to stay at certain[01:25:49] altitudes. They have to get permission[01:25:50] to go down go down near this thing. But[01:25:53] anyhow, they had a a a infrared camera.[01:25:56] This is very very nice camera. I mean,[01:25:58] these things cost like a million[01:26:00] dollars. I mean, they're not just one of[01:26:02] these things you get on on YouTube or I[01:26:04] mean on[01:26:05] >> Amazon, you know, [clears throat][01:26:07] teladine cameras. You know, they have[01:26:09] all the metadata and everything. And uh[01:26:13] they uh uh they couldn't track it uh[01:26:16] they couldn't track it with radar or[01:26:17] anything. So he's manly tracking this[01:26:19] thing and and following along. And it it[01:26:22] looks like a it's quite distant and it's[01:26:26] this it it's this little uh fake[01:26:30] glowing object that looks like a rubber[01:26:32] duck. I mean, it kind of kind of the[01:26:34] shape it it it's kind of has a a sort of[01:26:38] an ovoidal thing at the bottom with kind[01:26:40] of a neck[01:26:42] >> sticking up, you know, and it's just[01:26:43] traveling along[01:26:46] uh, you know,[01:26:48] on the landscape and you can't tell[01:26:49] exactly the altitude. I just, you know,[01:26:52] just by looking at it[01:26:55] and uh, it does this for 45 minutes. And[01:26:59] uh the beautiful thing about this was[01:27:02] that uh it had all the metadata[01:27:06] >> which had the altitude of the plane, the[01:27:08] angle that the cameras focusing at all[01:27:11] that kind of stuff. So I which you know[01:27:13] myself I wouldn't have been able to[01:27:15] interpret that properly but we have a a[01:27:17] fellow David Fouch in the SCU who[01:27:20] repairs these things and so he was able[01:27:22] to tell me uh the definition of what[01:27:24] these things mean you know and so I was[01:27:27] and that's one of the bugs I have about[01:27:30] some of these analysis that people do.[01:27:32] they really don't understand the every[01:27:35] one of these camera systems is[01:27:36] different. And it's not obvious what[01:27:38] these, you know, these different[01:27:40] metadata things mean. And if if there's[01:27:42] no metadata, you can't do anything with[01:27:44] it. You know, I don't care what they[01:27:46] say. You know, people make assumptions[01:27:48] this this and that and they calculate[01:27:50] something and you make it do whatever[01:27:51] you want. But anyhow, I was able to get[01:27:53] this metadata and uh I'd spent a lot of[01:27:56] time. I spent probably nine months on it[01:27:59] and you know on and off and uh it was[01:28:02] fairly tedious you know I had to anyhow[01:28:05] I the it had all the GPS coordinates and[01:28:09] this thing was circling and so the plane[01:28:11] was circling with it the whole time[01:28:15] tracking this thing and it was going[01:28:16] around in about I don't know circles[01:28:19] like about three three miles in diameter[01:28:21] around this uh u[01:28:24] you know this uh It's a wildlife[01:28:27] preserve, Buenazar's wildlife preserve,[01:28:29] and it's kind of like a desert down[01:28:31] there. And uh I I was able to it it uh[01:28:37] the other thing was, you know, you can[01:28:39] tell the temperature of the object.[01:28:41] >> The object um uh they can set it to[01:28:44] black hot or white hot. And the object[01:28:48] was uh uh it it was uh I think set to[01:28:53] black hot. Yeah, black hot. So, it's[01:28:56] colder. It was actually colder than the[01:28:58] environment. It it it's, you know, this[01:29:01] thing's cold, right?[01:29:03] >> And it's flying. It's got no It doesn't[01:29:05] have any wings. It doesn't have, you[01:29:07] know, if it had an engine, it would it[01:29:09] would show up on the infrared as being[01:29:11] hot, you know? No, it's cold. The whole[01:29:13] thing. And it has a shape. It's not like[01:29:15] a one of these luminous orbs, you know,[01:29:18] that uh kind of like, you know, uh, you[01:29:21] know, they're kind of indefinite and[01:29:23] >> Right. Yeah. going up and down. Uh and[01:29:27] uh[01:29:29] it um it it it maintains the shape and[01:29:32] it kind of precesses it as it goes along[01:29:35] it kind of rocks back and forth in a[01:29:38] predetermined fashion, you know, as it[01:29:41] goes along and for 45 minutes. And I was[01:29:44] kind of able to to estimate the size of[01:29:47] it and uh the uh approximate altitude[01:29:52] and uh how fast it was going and you[01:29:55] know so a lot of people say well you[01:29:57] know was it was a balloon blown by wind.[01:29:59] Well it's actually going faster. It was[01:30:01] going against the wind and it was it was[01:30:03] flying faster than the wind. And uh you[01:30:07] know um it's been like 3 years now so[01:30:10] I'm kind of forgetting some of the stuff[01:30:11] but it's clear it wasn't anything that[01:30:14] uh we can understand because you know it[01:30:18] if it's if it's colder it could be[01:30:21] metallic[01:30:22] um because like u in infrared like u[01:30:26] aluminum or uh most metals will show as[01:30:29] cold[01:30:30] >> and uh you know when you're looking at[01:30:32] them with infrared and Uh it definitely[01:30:38] uh this thing was traveling around for[01:30:40] 45 minutes. Then the plane had to leave.[01:30:42] That was the end of the video, you know,[01:30:44] and so I did the analysis this thing and[01:30:47] I said this thing's anomalous, you know.[01:30:49] It's not anything we can understand.[01:30:51] Now, is it alien? I I don't know. I I[01:30:55] mean I I I think I my I just said is[01:30:58] anomalous. You know, I can't understand[01:31:00] it. I I use a null hypothesis, right?[01:31:03] which I I I say well the null hypothesis[01:31:06] says this is an ordinary object that has[01:31:09] an explanation and so I go through all[01:31:12] the possibilities to show that it's a[01:31:14] normal object and I just I basically[01:31:17] just they don't make sense I just prove[01:31:19] it[01:31:19] >> and if it if it fails a null hypothesis[01:31:22] then it's anomalous you know I can't say[01:31:23] it's alien I don't know what it is but I[01:31:26] I think there are things in the[01:31:28] atmosphere[01:31:29] that um[01:31:32] a lot of Like uh Aquadia is a similar[01:31:34] kind of a thing that it's a kind of a[01:31:36] nebulous thing that flies around and it[01:31:38] it's interesting. It goes underwater.[01:31:40] You can actually see the see the water[01:31:43] being pushed up and and people would[01:31:46] saying, "Well, it's a balloon, you know,[01:31:47] where it's[01:31:48] >> Chinese lantern or whatever it is."[01:31:50] >> Chinese lantern going underwater, right?[01:31:52] And then comes out whatever. Um[01:31:56] this is similar to something like that.[01:31:58] And uh so you know um I I did a paper[01:32:04] and I actually presented it uh at the[01:32:05] AIAA.[01:32:07] Uh[01:32:09] did I do the AI deploy or at the[01:32:12] No, I presented at uh uh then this was[01:32:17] at European uh there's a UF UFO group in[01:32:21] Europe and I presented a video on that[01:32:24] and uh well so the paper's released and[01:32:28] it's on the SC website. Um, and uh, you[01:32:32] know, it it it's it's a bizarre thing,[01:32:35] you know. I mean, I I think there may be[01:32:37] stuff in the atmosphere we still don't[01:32:39] understand. And some of these like orbs[01:32:42] and uh, but I think there they may be[01:32:44] natural phenomena, you know. I mean, we[01:32:46] assume spacetime is uh, you know,[01:32:48] indivisible,[01:32:50] you know, well, it's deformable, I[01:32:52] guess, but but maybe it's like Swiss[01:32:54] cheese. Who knows? you know, maybe[01:32:55] there's things there that, you know, are[01:32:57] moving around and we we just and we[01:32:59] can't see it because um it's uh you[01:33:03] know, we can't see it because it's um uh[01:33:07] not visible[01:33:10] uh except maybe through heat[01:33:12] >> signature or something like that, you[01:33:14] know. Um, and I I think that's this[01:33:18] whole idea of cloaking that gets it.[01:33:20] Yes. When you say cloaking, that means[01:33:22] their intention is to hide. And so we're[01:33:25] important that they're going to hide[01:33:26] from us. Well, I I think it's more like[01:33:28] the drive mechanism that the um uh they[01:33:33] use. And I I'm a proponent of uh you[01:33:36] know, some kind of gravitational drive[01:33:39] that uh they're in some kind of a warp[01:33:41] bubble. And if you assume that a lot of[01:33:44] things become explainable like if you[01:33:47] assume a warp bubble it means the space[01:33:49] around the device is uh warped right so[01:33:53] if you have radar a lot of times they[01:33:55] don't show up sometimes they show up[01:33:57] sometimes they don't but if the shape of[01:33:59] the is convex or concave like if it's if[01:34:02] it's concave the radar image will go up[01:34:05] and it could be reflected back if it's[01:34:07] convex it might come up and bounce off[01:34:09] this way and it would be invisible and[01:34:11] so it's not necessarily really uh trying[01:34:13] to hide or anything. It's just a nature[01:34:15] of it. And it may be the same thing for[01:34:17] this uh you know for a lot of these[01:34:20] objects, you know, because uh[01:34:24] uh a lot of times radar doesn't cut it.[01:34:26] I mean, it just doesn't Yeah.[01:34:28] >> show up on radar.[01:34:29] >> I mean, we have objects that don't show[01:34:31] up on radar very well. So,[01:34:33] >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And uh but I mean and[01:34:36] uh I I I also uh[01:34:41] for a conference two years I I also did[01:34:44] an investigation of the I think it's[01:34:46] 1986 the uh Japanese airline.[01:34:49] >> Yeah. Uh people were claiming that uh[01:34:53] there was you know that at the[01:34:55] conferences this guy would come in one[01:34:57] of the managers there with this all this[01:35:00] documentation saying that they had proof[01:35:02] that you know that it had returned on[01:35:04] radar. Well I decided to investigate[01:35:06] that because I uh we're doing a database[01:35:09] project and[01:35:11] I wanted to plot the u track this thing[01:35:14] and show it show it on our uh at the[01:35:17] conference right. So, I got into it[01:35:19] doing it. I spent about three weeks[01:35:21] going over I actually had got access uh[01:35:25] to the actual um uh[01:35:29] TS TSA or uh FAA people that analyzed it[01:35:35] and they came up that it was just a that[01:35:38] the he reported that there was this[01:35:41] giant aircraft carrier size device and[01:35:44] that you know people were claiming it[01:35:46] showed up on radar, right? So I said,[01:35:48] "Well, they got the radar tracks and[01:35:50] they were saying this conspiracy theory[01:35:52] that you know it um uh you know that[01:35:55] there had been people were denying the[01:35:58] actual uh it was it showed up on the[01:36:00] records, you know, that there was you[01:36:03] know that there was a radar return.[01:36:05] Well, I went through this thing and I[01:36:06] had to learn how the learn how the radar[01:36:08] returns work. And I I I read all of the[01:36:11] transcripts of the of of the um uh you[01:36:15] know, the flight controllers. Mhm.[01:36:18] >> And I was able to plot, you know, the[01:36:20] the uh airplane actually had the plot of[01:36:23] the actual Japanese airlines that was[01:36:25] flying from Anchorage, uh, you know,[01:36:29] that was coming, it was delivering a[01:36:30] line from Europe or something to Japan.[01:36:33] It was fly flying[01:36:36] along this path. And so when I went to[01:36:39] look at the uh and and the pilot[01:36:43] reported that you know the where the uh[01:36:46] this giant thing was. So there should[01:36:48] have been radar returns[01:36:51] you know this object. Well there weren't[01:36:53] any. I I went through all this and uh[01:36:56] that the claims that were made were[01:36:58] really just do well none of it matched[01:37:01] what the pilot said. And that doesn't[01:37:03] mean that it didn't happen, but the[01:37:06] claims that people make that, you know,[01:37:07] there was deception going. These guys[01:37:09] did an honest job. I mean, they did a I[01:37:12] think a great job. They plotted all this[01:37:14] stuff and I I agree. You know, they did[01:37:17] a no reason, you know, they should not[01:37:19] be criticized. They did a good job.[01:37:22] >> And uh some people believe that uh you[01:37:25] know, NORAD[01:37:27] uh saw some stuff and and they actually[01:37:29] I have the I have the transcripts. I I[01:37:31] read the transcripts of of the the uh[01:37:35] flight controllers were in contact for a[01:37:38] few times with NORAD's flight[01:37:40] controllers that said they had some[01:37:42] return on the radar and the um it but it[01:37:46] doesn't match the it doesn't match where[01:37:50] this thing was supposed to be. I mean[01:37:51] there's just a couple of spirious[01:37:52] returns and it turns out that the radar[01:37:54] at that time uh would have a lot of[01:37:58] false returns especially as the as a[01:38:00] plane gets close to the um uh radar[01:38:04] installation it makes a lot of mistakes[01:38:06] or if it's far away there's only a[01:38:08] certain region where it's really where[01:38:10] it it works most of the time but I mean[01:38:12] that you'll get speurious returns.[01:38:14] >> Yeah.[01:38:14] >> Having to do with how it operates. It[01:38:16] has a certain window of time that the[01:38:17] the antenna is rotating and if the uh[01:38:21] you know the uh transponder comes back[01:38:24] and misses the rotation, you get a[01:38:26] certain kind of return that's uh uh it's[01:38:30] a return without a uh uh you know the uh[01:38:35] code, you know, the proper code on it.[01:38:37] And the ones that were weird, I was able[01:38:40] to kind of find out that it actually was[01:38:42] from I because of the you know, you you[01:38:45] have the uh uh you have the uh uh[01:38:51] altitude and you have the uh uh what do[01:38:55] you call it? The direction of the uh[01:38:58] angular direction of where the antenna[01:39:00] is pointing. and and you can I actually[01:39:03] it it it seemed to be coming from[01:39:05] another[01:39:07] uh another uh airplane far in the[01:39:10] distance. It looked like a false return[01:39:12] from that one[01:39:13] >> and it wasn't [clears throat] anything[01:39:14] that I could substantiate that you know[01:39:16] showed the radar return coming from this[01:39:18] giant device. And you know I he the[01:39:22] pilot and the co-pilot and uh the radar[01:39:26] operator who was in the back uh all[01:39:28] substantiated it to one part or another[01:39:31] that there was this thing there you know[01:39:33] uh not all of it agrees with what the[01:39:35] main pilot saw uh you know but there was[01:39:39] something going on there. It wasn't just[01:39:40] something on the ground or it wasn't[01:39:42] whatever. So I I think something[01:39:44] happened there. I don't know what it[01:39:45] was, but the thing that got me was all[01:39:48] these conferences and these people[01:39:49] saying there's, you know, they hold[01:39:50] these papers up and nobody bothered to[01:39:53] ever look at it[01:39:54] >> and and go through it and and did, you[01:39:57] know, quite easily denigrate these work[01:40:00] that these people did, you know, which I[01:40:03] I found to be just fine. You know, they[01:40:05] did a good job. And so here's a case[01:40:08] where, you know, this giant device[01:40:09] didn't return on radar. Well, maybe it[01:40:13] maybe it was encased in some kind of a[01:40:16] you know uh you know a bubble of some[01:40:18] kind and uh you know it could also that[01:40:22] could also cause light distortion right[01:40:23] make it look funny may maybe make it[01:40:26] look bigger than it is who knows you[01:40:27] know[01:40:28] >> it could do a lot of things be like a[01:40:30] lens of some kind and[01:40:33] the thing that I really like with that[01:40:35] theory is that the idea of instantaneous[01:40:38] acceleration we talked about this before[01:40:40] how you know it it acceleration is fast[01:40:42] enough it'll kill everybody. But if you[01:40:45] have a a work bubble and you can shrink[01:40:49] space in front of it and expand it[01:40:52] behind it and not move in its own[01:40:54] reference frame. It's not moving at all.[01:40:57] To an outside observer looking at it, if[01:40:59] you shrink space, it's going to look[01:41:00] like it traveled instantaneously[01:41:02] when it actually never in its own[01:41:04] reference frame, you know, never moved.[01:41:07] >> Yeah. There's no inertial change. Yeah.[01:41:10] >> Right. And so it's not going to kill[01:41:12] anybody, you know, and it it kind of[01:41:14] makes sense about how this these things[01:41:17] might work, you know. Uh can I prove any[01:41:19] of this? No. But I mean, I think it's it[01:41:22] it certainly adds um you know, it it[01:41:27] explains a lot of things. A lot of the[01:41:29] mysterious parts of this, you know, the[01:41:31] fact that there's no heating or[01:41:34] disintegration is go. It's because it's[01:41:36] not moving. you know it it's the space[01:41:38] that's moving and you know could so it[01:41:41] could be gone like that you know and to[01:41:45] to our reference frame you know and say[01:41:47] oh well that's crazy you know whatever[01:41:48] but you know theory of relativity is[01:41:50] crazy I mean you know if it goes fast[01:41:52] enough uh you know if an object goes[01:41:55] fast enough it looks it would actually[01:41:57] shortens according to our you know it[01:42:00] shortens and uh you know it has all[01:42:03] these effects that you know doesn't make[01:42:05] sense to us But, you know, it's what[01:42:08] really happens. They've actually[01:42:09] measured it, you know, and and time[01:42:12] slows down, all that kind of stuff, you[01:42:13] know, the the twin paradox, you know,[01:42:16] >> right?[01:42:17] >> You know, and uh and they've I mean,[01:42:21] they know that's true because clocks,[01:42:24] you know, they can take atomic clocks[01:42:26] and put it on top of a tower and they[01:42:28] run at a different speed,[01:42:29] >> right?[01:42:30] >> You know,[01:42:30] >> you accelerate a clock around the Earth[01:42:32] and it comes back slightly slower than[01:42:35] the other one. Yeah. And uh you know GPS[01:42:38] satellites have to be corrected for this[01:42:40] fact otherwise it won't work properly[01:42:43] you know. So there's a lot of weird[01:42:45] stuff. What we take for common sense it[01:42:48] is not you know it's out of our domain.[01:42:52] You know we we we have evolved through[01:42:55] simple things you know but uh it's not[01:42:59] the world doesn't operate that way you[01:43:01] know at at the fundamental level you[01:43:03] know we just can't see it. So[01:43:06] to make a long story short, you know,[01:43:07] that was that was uh a very interesting[01:43:12] I I don't know what it concluded outside[01:43:14] the fact it's anomalous, but I I think[01:43:17] there are things that[01:43:19] uh we still don't understand a lot of[01:43:21] what's going on in the in our even our[01:43:24] world, you know.[01:43:26] >> Yeah. Even in the natural world, it[01:43:27] doesn't require just UAP or something[01:43:29] for us not to understand it.[01:43:30] >> Yeah. uh you know and uh these uh[01:43:33] luminous objects you know people are[01:43:35] seeing everywhere. I I actually saw one[01:43:37] myself uh you know I was out we were out[01:43:40] photographing the Milky Way about two[01:43:42] months ago and um you know it wasn't[01:43:46] until I we saw this light uh you know[01:43:49] out over[01:43:51] uh it's called[01:43:53] it's called Dedication Point in Idaho[01:43:56] >> and um it's kind of these cliffs and[01:43:58] stuff. It's where uh there's a benchmark[01:44:01] there when they were first uh it marks[01:44:03] some geographical location in the United[01:44:05] States anyh you know but we're out there[01:44:08] uh for the Milky Way because it's way[01:44:10] way[01:44:11] away from everything you know and you[01:44:12] have to get rid of the city lights and[01:44:14] so we're taking you know pictures of the[01:44:17] uh Milky Way and uh this light showed up[01:44:22] there and we said oh it's probably an[01:44:23] airplane or something but it's it's kind[01:44:24] of unusual it's kind of very bright you[01:44:26] know but when I got home and I started[01:44:28] developing the image[01:44:29] I it showed up in the images, you know,[01:44:31] and I I'm looking at it and it's it, you[01:44:34] know, it's clearly it's one of these[01:44:36] orbs. It's not, you know, it's it's a[01:44:38] ball, a fuzzy light bulb, very bright,[01:44:42] you know, and I have two or three images[01:44:45] and and uh separated by we were setting[01:44:48] the cameras up, you know, when it's[01:44:49] going on because you you have to get the[01:44:50] cameras all set up on tripods and do all[01:44:52] this stuff, you know, and uh you know,[01:44:55] so I wasn't trying for any of that, you[01:44:57] know, and got these things. And I'm[01:44:59] pretty sure that's what it was. Now,[01:45:02] what was it? It's a natural phenomena.[01:45:04] think I I I have a theory that these[01:45:07] things are these they call superior[01:45:09] mashes [clears throat][01:45:11] >> and what what that is is when you have[01:45:13] uh I[01:45:16] used to be called thorana[01:45:18] >> and when you get like a ship is in the[01:45:20] air you know but uh it's whenever these[01:45:24] things occur all over the world it's[01:45:25] whenever you get a warm layer of air[01:45:28] >> over uh the ground where it's colder in[01:45:31] the ground you get a[01:45:34] a reflection lights that are on the[01:45:36] ground uh reflect some of it reflects[01:45:39] back to the earth and it makes it look[01:45:40] like it's in the sky.[01:45:42] >> And I think a lot of these uh especially[01:45:44] these ones like uh that are uh show up[01:45:46] at certain times of year and they're[01:45:48] fixed and they don't move around a lot.[01:45:51] Uh those aren't UFOs. I mean, people[01:45:54] think they're U you, you know, there's[01:45:55] not a UFO out there comes every time a[01:45:58] year, you know, just that that Hazelen[01:46:02] thing, you know, in in Norway or[01:46:04] whatever. And uh there's one in the[01:46:06] United States, uh[01:46:09] uh[01:46:10] >> like the mountain[01:46:12] lights.[01:46:12] >> Yeah. Marco, Texas.[01:46:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. And uh that show up, you[01:46:17] know, uh routinely. And I I don't see[01:46:20] why this couldn't happen in a city too,[01:46:23] like uh you know, cuz it's very[01:46:26] difficult to know, you know, if there's[01:46:28] a cold layer coming in, you know, and so[01:46:31] let's say a cold air comes in and[01:46:34] there's a car in the distance and it's[01:46:36] headlights[01:46:37] uh reflecting the sun or or a mere car[01:46:40] mirror or a windshield reflects up to[01:46:44] this thing and it's moving. then this[01:46:46] light would move along somehow move[01:46:48] around and maybe show around then[01:46:49] disappear you know and now I can't prove[01:46:52] that I mean I I thought of writing a[01:46:55] paper about it it's kind of a difficult[01:46:57] subject to there's a lot of uh uh[01:47:01] there's been a lot of work on work on[01:47:03] that uh you know people have done but I[01:47:06] think uh it's a good explanation for I[01:47:09] think a lot of these orbs that occur you[01:47:12] know uh and maybe completely wrong I[01:47:15] don't you know, but[01:47:16] >> do you think the thing you saw was[01:47:17] natural phenomenon?[01:47:19] >> I think so. Yeah. I I don't think it[01:47:22] was,[01:47:23] you know, it it it it[01:47:27] what do I know? I I don't know. But I[01:47:28] mean, I that's my I think where it kind[01:47:32] of occurred near a mountain. It's kind[01:47:35] of a mountain there. And I think when[01:47:37] there's mountains, there's chances of[01:47:38] warm air. It was very cold in the[01:47:41] ground. We We had to get out of there. I[01:47:43] mean, we got took out about five[01:47:46] pictures and we all split, you know, cuz[01:47:47] we weren't dressed for it. We weren't[01:47:49] expecting to be so cold and uh but uh[01:47:53] you know it it uh there's a city behind[01:47:57] it, you know, uh[01:48:00] a Mars town of Marsing in in Idaho. And[01:48:05] I think a light there may we may have[01:48:07] had a light there that was coming up and[01:48:09] then reflected back down. But I don't[01:48:12] know. Uh that's just my uh view. I I[01:48:16] don't think it was a UFO or anything.[01:48:18] >> Well, was at least unidentified to you,[01:48:20] but it's Yeah. Yeah. theorize[01:48:22] >> it. I I really don't know, but you know,[01:48:24] I if it is UFO, it's the first one I've[01:48:26] ever seen, you know, and puts me in[01:48:29] that, you know, UFFL category.[01:48:32] >> Put you in the camp. Yeah. Put you in[01:48:33] the club.[01:48:33] >> Enjoy the camp. Yeah.[01:48:35] >> Well, this has been a great[01:48:36] conversation. We've gone about two[01:48:37] hours. Uh, last question that I want to[01:48:39] hit you with is, do you have a piece of[01:48:42] science fiction that is your favorite or[01:48:44] that you would recommend to everybody?[01:48:46] Film or folk?[01:48:48] Well,[01:48:51] um,[01:48:53] a lot of them, I mean, uh, I don't know,[01:48:56] most of them are from what I was I don't[01:48:57] read a lot anymore, but uh,[01:49:01] I I really like that u[01:49:04] the the most recent uh, Day of the Earth[01:49:07] Stood Still.[01:49:08] >> Yeah.[01:49:09] >> You know, with Kino Reeves, I I except[01:49:12] for the little kid in it. I think he's[01:49:14] kind of spoiled it. But um I I I think[01:49:18] that the um I I really like the way,[01:49:23] you know, the arrogance of the you know[01:49:26] I the secretary of defense you know it's[01:49:28] a woman in this thing who I think was uh[01:49:33] mimicking I'm trying to think what her[01:49:34] name was but um[01:49:37] you know and[01:49:39] you know she says well you know how did[01:49:41] you get here? He says, well, he says, if[01:49:44] I told you I I think it might make you[01:49:46] afraid, you know, how you know, and uh[01:49:50] you know, that's exactly, you know, how[01:49:53] provincial we are,[01:49:55] >> you know, [clears throat] but you know,[01:49:56] it's a came to save it came to save the[01:49:59] earth, you know, and they say, "Oh, it[01:50:01] came to save us." No, came to save the[01:50:02] earth,[01:50:03] >> you know. And uh that that's one. And uh[01:50:06] I also liked uh well some books. Uh I[01:50:11] liked I liked Azimoff, you know.[01:50:13] >> Oh, sure. Yeah.[01:50:15] >> Rendez with Ramla. That was a a good[01:50:18] one. I think they're supposedly going to[01:50:19] make a movie out of that.[01:50:21] >> Oh, that's Clark, right?[01:50:23] >> Yeah. Maybe that's Arthur C. Clark.[01:50:25] Yeah.[01:50:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. I love[01:50:27] >> Azimoff Clark. You know, uh you know, I[01:50:30] like 2001. Yeah,[01:50:32] >> you know, the movie was a great movie.[01:50:35] Um, and uh,[01:50:38] you know,[01:50:42] you know, uh,[01:50:44] there's that also that one about, uh,[01:50:47] the pill, uh, trying, uh,[01:50:51] you know, where they have this pill and[01:50:52] increases your intelligence. I I I u[01:50:57] Oh, it's a great movie. Uh it's just[01:51:00] about increasing our intelligence and[01:51:03] what happens you know um[01:51:06] I'll send you if if I can I I just gave[01:51:10] me the name but it's like so sort of[01:51:12] like brilliant or something like that[01:51:13] but it's it's not the[01:51:16] >> or Limitless is that it or[01:51:18] >> Limitless. Yes, Limitless. Yeah.[01:51:22] >> Um it wasn't very popular. I mean I I[01:51:24] just thought it's a great movie. There's[01:51:26] a lot there's a ton of great sci-fi that[01:51:27] just never really took off or[01:51:30] >> people don't uh you know, you know,[01:51:33] they'd rather watch the X-Men or[01:51:35] something, you know.[01:51:35] >> Yeah, I think I think so.[01:51:36] >> You know, like,[01:51:39] you know, that kind of stuff. But, uh,[01:51:42] you know, I don't know. I there's quite[01:51:45] a few I like, you know, but I like the[01:51:47] big big ideas. Oh, Prometheus. I like[01:51:51] Prometheus.[01:51:51] >> Sure. Yeah.[01:51:53] >> Yeah. I I I think that uh the alien of[01:51:55] course Alien was a great movie you know[01:51:58] it's a whole genre you know of uh you[01:52:02] know of that kind of stuff but of course[01:52:04] you know then it becomes Alien versus[01:52:06] Predator and oh Predator was a good one[01:52:09] you know[01:52:10] >> yeah I agree original Arnold[01:52:12] >> so is Predator too you know which was[01:52:14] really funny you know in LA you know I[01:52:17] >> Danny Danny Glover in it[01:52:19] >> yeah that was that was a good one too[01:52:21] but then after that it just[01:52:23] disintegrates, right? Predator 9, you[01:52:26] know, whatever. You know, just keep[01:52:28] making them, you know, uh, making the[01:52:31] movies. Um,[01:52:33] so you know I I like big I you know big[01:52:36] ideas you know uh and oh uh that TV[01:52:42] series um[01:52:44] really good one was that recently that[01:52:46] one uh[01:52:50] um[01:52:52] you know it's about u uh the it's about[01:52:57] they colonized Mars in the solar system[01:53:00] and people living on some of the[01:53:02] asteroids and stuff and[01:53:03] >> oh the expanse[01:53:05] >> expanse you know the war takes place[01:53:08] that was a very well done[01:53:09] >> excellent show you know[01:53:11] >> science you know[01:53:12] >> the guy who stars in that um Thomas Jane[01:53:14] is a a UFO person he's written a book on[01:53:18] the subject is a just fanatic so yeah[01:53:21] there's there's a lot of overlap between[01:53:22] the the sci-fi space and the people who[01:53:24] are actually into this that you wouldn't[01:53:26] wouldn't be obvious but I I agree with[01:53:28] you I like the big the big ideas and[01:53:30] Clark Azimov, Heinland, people like that[01:53:33] really cover that stuff. [snorts][01:53:35] >> Oh, well, Hitchhiker's Guide to the[01:53:37] Galaxy had a little bit of funny[01:53:38] funniness, but you know that they're the[01:53:41] Vogons are coming through and they're[01:53:42] going to destroy the Earth and so they[01:53:45] put a notice on Alpha Centauri. you know[01:53:48] that you know they're they're going to[01:53:50] build a hyperspaceial[01:53:52] you know[01:53:54] I like about that is gives kind of a[01:53:55] perspective you know about you know how[01:53:59] we think about things but uh and those[01:54:02] series are you know plus the absurdity[01:54:04] of a lot of stuff you know what's the[01:54:05] meaning of life it's 43[01:54:07] >> yeah yeah whatever that means[01:54:10] >> yeah you get it you know you grasp that[01:54:13] you [snorts] and[01:54:15] >> well it's been great talking to you[01:54:16] Peter I've I've enjoyed this.[01:54:18] >> Yeah, I enjoy it.[01:54:19] >> Yeah. Well, we have to, like I said, we[01:54:21] have to get together sometime and[01:54:23] offscreen and uh, you know, share some[01:54:27] ideas.[01:54:27] >> Yeah, I would love that. Thank you for[01:54:30] for being here and uh we will talk again[01:54:33] soon.[01:54:34] >> The Anomalous Review is a project of the[01:54:36] Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.[01:54:38] It's hosted and produced by me, Michael[01:54:40] Gloson, and edited by Kelly Mishfeld.[01:54:42] Our theme song was written and performed[01:54:44] by Telma Croissanti. Communication and[01:54:46] PR work is by Preston Dyes. Our advisory[01:54:49] team includes Jennifer Roach, Robert[01:54:51] Powell, Richard Hoffman, Joshua Pearson,[01:54:54] and Larry Hancock. To find out more[01:54:56] about SCU, check out explorescu.org.[01:54:59] Pork.
020 - UAP Witness and Space Engineer Andrea Lani (full length version)
The video transcript presents a comprehensive exploration of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) through a podcast hosted by Michael Gloson, a philosopher of science and technology. This episode is part of a special series focusing on personal witness accounts of UAP, produced by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). The SCU is known for its rigorous scientific approach to studying UAP, emphasizing quantitative data such as size, shape, acoustical, and kinetic properties. Gloson articulates the organization's commitment to structured investigations while acknowledging the rich, complex, and often unsettling nature of personal encounters with UAP, which cannot be fully encapsulated by quantitative analysis alone.
The podcast serves as a platform for SCU members to share their personal stories regarding UAP encounters, asserting that these narratives are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomena. Gloson clarifies that this narrative approach does not deviate from SCU's scientific mission; rather, it complements it by recognizing the experiential dimensions that inspire scientific inquiry. The episode features Dr. Andrea Lonnie, an aerospace engineer and researcher with a distinguished background, including affiliations with NASA and Stanford University. Dr. Lonnie recounts his experiences with UAP, beginning with a significant childhood encounter in 1983. He describes witnessing a spinning, glowing object from his balcony in Italy, which left an indelible mark on his psyche and ignited his lifelong interest in UAP.
Dr. Lonnie vividly recalls the object distorting the background landscape, suggesting a possible gravitational effect, and reflects on discussions with his mother, who provided an explanation that he found unsatisfactory. He notes that his family has a history of paranormal experiences, which fostered an open-mindedness towards such phenomena. This background influenced his decision to pursue aerospace engineering, believing it would offer a practical pathway to explore the UAP phenomena that had captivated him since childhood. After completing his education and obtaining a PhD, he took on various research roles, ultimately leading to his current position in Belgium.
The conversation transitions to Dr. Lonnie's more recent UAP experiences, particularly a series of sightings in 2017 when he expressed a desire for another encounter. He describes observing two discs of green light moving synchronously over his backyard, estimating their size to be too large for drones and noting their complete silence. Additionally, he recounts a mystical experience where, after expressing a desire for contact, he witnessed an avalanche of lights in the sky. Dr. Lonnie's narrative is punctuated by multiple instances of electronic malfunctions and time anomalies, suggesting a connection between his meditative practices and his UAP encounters.
One significant event occurred in 2021 when he and a friend observed a red object in the sky that appeared to change shape and size, further fueling his fascination with UAP. Throughout the discussion, Dr. Lonnie emphasizes the importance of personal experiences in understanding UAP, advocating for a synthesis of scientific inquiry and personal narrative to delve into these mysterious occurrences. The podcast aims to create a space for these stories to be shared in their entirety, facilitating a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding UAP encounters.
In the second part of the transcript, the speaker reflects on a peculiar incident involving an emoji used by an individual about to fly. Instead of the conventional airplane emoji, they opted for a UFO emoji, coinciding with the speaker's own experience of observing a UFO and capturing it on tape. This anecdote leads to a discussion about discrepancies in the timestamps of their photos and videos, which indicated a four-minute duration of observation, while WhatsApp recorded only one minute, raising questions about the accuracy of the time documented.
The speaker introduces a video recorded by their uncle in Ethiopia using a VHS camera, showcasing an object in the sky that disappears for three seconds before reappearing at a lower altitude. The object is described as having a tic-tac shape with metallic reflections, suggesting it was a solid structure rather than an intangible light. The speaker notes that the object's movement resembled that of a pink ball, aligning with descriptions from others in the field.
Next, the speaker discusses data collected by two individuals—one a collaborator of Masimoani and the other a forensic technical consultant specializing in hyperspectral cameras. They broadcast specific frequencies believed to attract certain phenomena. During their observations, they captured an object using a camera equipped with AI tracking algorithms capable of detecting ultraviolet and infrared spectrums. The object appeared to possess a hollow or electromagnetic shield, visible in the frequency spectrum but not in the visible spectrum, indicating a potential anomaly.
In 2018, the speaker became intrigued by the connection between spirituality and UFOs, attending an aerospace conference in the United States where they encountered a psychic named Elizabeth April. She claimed to access past life memories and perceive entities. During a session, she described an insectoid entity named Gala, asserting it was one of the speaker's spirit guides. A peculiar incident involving a hummingbird that flew close to both the speaker and the psychic was interpreted as a significant event.
After the session, the speaker researched Gala and discovered connections between praying mantises and hummingbirds, viewing this as a form of synchronicity. They conducted further experiments with search terms related to Gala, finding that specific phrases yielded relevant results while others did not. This led to a series of strange occurrences, including a physical sensation of being shaken awake, which the speaker attributed to the entity Gala.
In February 2019, the speaker experienced a skin infection and searched for messages related to Gala online. The first link connected praying mantises with parasites, coinciding with the speaker's diagnosis of a bacterial infection. This connection was interpreted as a form of communication from the entity. The speaker recounted an incident on a flight where they observed a peculiar shape resembling a mantis, which they documented with a photograph.
Subsequently, the speaker experienced time anomalies, including instances where they felt time had reversed or moved backward. They shared specific examples of checking clocks and discovering discrepancies that defied rational explanation. The speaker noted that such experiences might be more common than people realize, as many may dismiss them as confusion or technical glitches.
They also discussed their scientific background, which fostered a more analytical approach to these occurrences, contrasting with others who might simply dismiss them. The speaker expressed a desire for comprehensive answers rather than half-explanations, leading them to explore these phenomena deeply. They mentioned their uncle's experiences with UFOs and a photograph taken during a pilgrimage in Italy that revealed a mysterious face, speculating it could be extraterrestrial or spiritual in nature.
In 2020, the speaker participated in a shaktipat initiation, where they encountered a spirit resembling Jesus and another entity named Metatron. Following this initiation, the speaker's experiences escalated, prompting them to organize group meditations where participants reported seeing entities and feeling energies. They described a specific meditation session where they connected with a stargate and facilitated similar experiences for others.
During a meditation session, the speaker experienced a significant healing event concerning a wrist injury that had persisted for months. They reported that after meditating, the pain disappeared entirely, reinforcing their belief in the power of group meditation and spiritual connections. The speaker concluded by recounting a peculiar incident involving a neighbor's cat that allegedly entered their house, which they interpreted as evidence of the nonlinearity of time, further emphasizing their ongoing exploration of spiritual and extraterrestrial phenomena.
The third part of the transcript delves into a series of unusual events initiated by the discovery of signs indicating the presence of a cat in the speaker's home. This led to the recording of a meditation session that revealed strange anomalies in both video and audio. The speaker describes how, during a nine-hour recording, the video captured the cat but exhibited freezing and acceleration effects, suggesting a non-linear experience of time. This prompted the speaker to explore meditation techniques aimed at manipulating time and energy through visualization.
During meditation, the speaker visualizes geometric shapes rotating to generate energy that could affect the surrounding space-time matrix. They recorded these sessions using various software and noted similar anomalies, such as appearing in multiple positions within the same frame, indicating a lack of full materialization. To further investigate these phenomena, the speaker sought scientific validation and contacted the Institute of Noetic Sciences, proposing an experiment involving EEG readings from expert meditators during controlled and Stargate meditation sessions.
The experiment involved 11 volunteers and aimed to measure brain activity differences between standard meditation and Stargate meditation. The results indicated statistically significant differences across various brain wave patterns, particularly in delta, theta, alpha, and gamma waves. Some participants reported profound experiences during the meditation, including sensations of energy, past life memories, and visual phenomena, while others experienced no notable effects despite showing EEG differences.
The speaker also conducted fMRI studies that indicated brain activation during meditation, but the analysis remained incomplete due to funding limitations. They then collaborated with a team using hyperspectral cameras to visualize biophotonic fields during meditation, discovering that the speaker's energy distribution differed significantly from others, with a notable toroidal field forming around their head. This led to observations of light polarization changes during meditation, suggesting an interaction with the environment that defied conventional physics.
Additionally, the speaker shared experiences of telepathic connections with animals and entities during meditation, describing encounters with humanoid figures and unusual synchronicities. They noted instances where their phone exhibited electromagnetic interference during meditation, including freezing and unusual battery behavior, which they attributed to their meditative state influencing technology.
In a discussion about the nature of these phenomena, the speaker speculated on the potential for consciousness to create gravitational anomalies akin to those observed in UFO phenomena. They shared a personal encounter with an entity that appeared to them during sleep, reinforcing their belief in the interconnectedness of consciousness, time, and external entities.
Throughout the transcript, the speaker emphasizes the challenges of scientifically quantifying these experiences, acknowledging the subjective nature of consciousness and its effects on reality. They conclude with an analogy comparing time to a record, suggesting that different moments can be accessed dynamically, reflecting a perspective that transcends linear time.
The fourth part of the transcript captures a conversation between two individuals discussing complex themes related to timelines, the nature of reality, and the intersection of science and spirituality. The dialogue begins with a reflection on the concept of timelines, suggesting that one can not only observe different timelines but also modify future events that can, in turn, influence the past. This leads to a discussion about the difficulty of comprehending such intricate ideas and how our minds construct models to make sense of them, ultimately leading to a sense of overwhelm.
One speaker expresses a desire to have a follow-up conversation in a Q&A format, indicating that the experiences and ideas shared by the other person are rich and warrant deeper exploration. They acknowledge the effort it takes to share personal experiences, noting the vulnerability involved in laying out one’s life story for others. This sharing is seen as valuable for those who are curious about these topics and want to hear them from someone who understands both scientific principles and personal narratives.
The conversation shifts towards the idea that understanding complex phenomena requires an open mind and a holistic perspective, rather than confining thoughts within rigid labels or categories. One speaker emphasizes the importance of looking at the entirety of a phenomenon rather than just its components, advocating for a more integrated approach to understanding reality.
They discuss the changing narrative surrounding UAP research, mentioning how certain individuals in the field are beginning to explore ideas that traditional scientists may overlook. There is a recognition of the contributions made by mainstream scientists, such as Avi Loeb, who are pushing boundaries but also a critique of the limitations of their approaches. The speakers express frustration that despite their intelligence, some scientists fail to recognize the inherent limits of their methodologies, particularly in relation to understanding complex phenomena.
The discussion touches on the role of AI in scientific inquiry, with one speaker arguing that while AI can process existing data, it cannot generate new theories to explain complex phenomena. They express respect for scientists like Loeb for their work but feel that their approaches may not lead to the desired understanding of UAPs.
Towards the end of the conversation, there is a reflection on the personal experiences of scientists who maintain a strict separation between their professional and personal lives. Some of these scientists have had profound experiences that contradict their empirical frameworks, yet they choose not to integrate these experiences into their professional narratives.
The conversation concludes with a sense of appreciation for the dialogue and a commitment to continue exploring these themes in future discussions. The speakers express gratitude for the opportunity to share their thoughts and insights, emphasizing the importance of open-mindedness in the pursuit of understanding complex phenomena.
Finally, the transcript notes that the conversation is part of a project called "The Anomalous Review," which is associated with the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, highlighting the collaborative nature of the work and the individuals involved in its production and advisory roles.
The interviewee, Dr. Andrea Lonnie, is presented by the host, Michael Gloson, as an accomplished professional in the field of aerospace engineering and research. Dr. Lonnie's professional affiliations include working for prestigious organizations such as NASA, Stanford, NATO's science and technology organization, and the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium. He has held the role of team manager at the Center for Mathematical Plasma Astrophysics, which indicates his leadership position within a scientific research context.
In terms of academic credentials, Dr. Lonnie has co-authored over 100 scientific papers, showcasing his significant contributions to research. His expertise focuses on developing computational models for simulating weather in space and planning spacecraft atmospheric re-entry, as well as designing prototypes of magnetic shielding. This background establishes him as a credible figure within the scientific community.
Additionally, Dr. Lonnie identifies himself as an experiencer of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and non-human intelligences (NHI), having had his first close encounter as a child in 1983. This personal experience has fueled his interest in UAPs and informs his professional exploration of the subject.
- [04:34] "Dr. Andrea Lonnie is an aerospace engineer, researcher, and a team manager for the center for mathematical plasma astrophysics at the Catholic University of Louven in Belgium."
- [05:05] "He has co-authored over 100 scientific papers and his research has focused on developing computational models for simulating and studying weather in space for planning the atmospheric re-entry of spacecraft for designing prototypes of magnetic shielding just to name a few."
Dr. Andrea Lonnie approaches research on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) from a scientific standpoint, emphasizing a rigorous methodology grounded in empirical data collection and analysis. As noted by the host, Michael Gloson, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), which Dr. Lonnie is affiliated with, leans toward a hard science approach to studying UAPs. This entails utilizing quantitative data that can be organized in spreadsheets and subjected to consistent statistical analysis.
In his discussions, Dr. Lonnie highlights specific elements of UAP that are analyzed, including their size, shape, acoustical, and kinetic properties. These attributes are crucial for creating a structured investigation that avoids falling into unstructured or unreasonable speculation. However, Dr. Lonnie acknowledges a limitation inherent to quantitative analysis, stating that while these data points are valuable, they often come from deeply personal encounters that are complex and rich in experiential dimensions.
To complement the hard data analysis, the SCU has initiated a new format for discussions that allows individuals to share their personal UAP experiences. Dr. Lonnie expresses that this initiative does not detract from SCU's scientific mission but enriches it by acknowledging the multifaceted nature of the source material that motivates scientific inquiry into UAP.
- [01:53] "As an organization, SCU leans toward a hard science approach to studying UAP... using quantitative data that fits into spreadsheets and that can be analyzed with consistent statistical methods."
- [02:07] "Every one of those data points, after all, comes from an encounter that was deeply and uniquely personal. And these encounters are far richer, stranger, and more complex than the numbers in the spreadsheet might ever suggest."
Dr. Andrea Lonnie's decision to focus on UAP research is driven by a combination of personal experiences and a scientific curiosity that dates back to his childhood. He recounts a formative experience at the age of eight, when he witnessed a UFO alongside his parents, which sparked a profound interest in the phenomenon. This early encounter, described as deeply impactful, led him to pursue a career in aerospace engineering with the intention of unraveling the mysteries surrounding UAP.
In his narrative, Dr. Lonnie emphasizes that his exploration of UAP is not solely about scientific inquiry; it is also tied to a broader human experience. He expresses that such encounters often compel individuals to question the nature of reality, fostering a desire for deeper understanding that transcends conventional scientific boundaries. This sentiment is encapsulated in his belief that good science requires intellectual humility and an openness to the complexities of experiences that challenge existing frameworks.
Moreover, Dr. Lonnie indicates that his scientific background positions him uniquely to investigate UAP phenomena, as he can leverage his technical expertise while being receptive to the subjective dimensions of personal encounters. This synergy of personal motivation and professional qualifications underpins his commitment to exploring UAP with both scientific rigor and experiential depth.
- [05:28] "Dr. Lani considers himself to have been an experiencer of UAP and NHI ever since his first close encounter as a child in 1983."
- [02:29] "Doing good science means holding on to intellectual humility before a reality that’s under no obligations to conform to our expectations or to our tools."
Dr. Andrea Lonnie has indeed observed a UAP, and he describes this encounter in vivid detail. He recounts a specific experience from 1983 when, at the age of eight, he and his parents witnessed a UFO while standing on their balcony in Chelingu, Italy. According to Dr. Lonnie, the object was approximately ten meters away, hovering at the same height as the balcony, and it exhibited extraordinary behavior by spinning rapidly like a turbine and emitting a glow. He notes that the object's disappearance was accompanied by a flash of light, which left a lasting impression on him.
Dr. Lonnie emphasizes the clarity of this experience, stating that he was fully aware of his surroundings and the details of the sighting. He recalls that while his mother suggested it might have been a falling star, he was certain that it was something different, highlighting his understanding of celestial phenomena even at such a young age. This early encounter is described as a pivotal moment that sparked his lifelong interest in UAP.
Years later, Dr. Lonnie revisited this experience when discussing it with a relative who also witnessed a UFO in the same location shortly after his own sighting. This connection between their experiences further solidified his understanding of UAP and their significance. The profound effects of these encounters have led him to not only study UAP scientifically but also to explore their deeper implications.
- [12:41] "In 1983, I was in Chelingu, which is a small village in the north west of Italy... we see this object appearing right in front of our balcony, maybe 10 m in front of us."
- [13:24] "It was glowing and then it progressively shrunk in size till it disappeared while emitting a flash of light."
In the transcript, Dr. Andrea Lonnie discusses various challenges and obstacles related to UAP research. He highlights the skepticism surrounding the subject, particularly from the scientific community, which often views UAP phenomena through a narrow, materialistic lens. This skepticism can lead to a reluctance to explore the deeper implications of UAP experiences, thereby limiting the scope of inquiry. Dr. Lonnie expresses concern that such a rigid approach can stifle meaningful scientific exploration and discussion.
Moreover, Dr. Lonnie acknowledges the professional risks associated with UAP research, especially for scientists and engineers who may face stigma for engaging with topics traditionally considered fringe or pseudoscientific. He argues that this stigma can create a barrier to open dialogue and collaboration among researchers interested in UAP. Despite this, he emphasizes the importance of maintaining an open mind and exploring the intersection of science and personal experience.
Dr. Lonnie also touches upon the possibility that some UAP may be manifestations of non-human intelligences (NHI). He suggests that the nature of these encounters often compels researchers to consider the reality of NHI and their potential involvement in UAP phenomena. This perspective, while controversial, aligns with his broader commitment to exploring the complexities of UAP phenomena beyond mere data points.
- [01:11] "But this approach also serves as a kind of hedge that keeps sober discussions about UAP from falling into unstructured or even unreasonable speculation."
- [02:24] "Acknowledging the strangeness of these encounters...is in no way a departure from SCU's data-driven scientific mission."
[00:22] Welcome to the analysis review, the[00:24] official podcast of the scientific[00:26] coalition for UAP Studies. My name is[00:28] Michael Gloson. I'm a philosopher of[00:30] science and technology and the host of[00:32] the show. This conversation is part of a[00:35] special series on the anomalous review[00:37] that we're calling the UAP witness[00:38] series. Let me tell you a bit about it.[00:41] In this series, I interview SCU members[00:43] who've had their own personal encounters[00:46] with truly anomalous phenomena. These[00:48] conversations are a new format for us.[00:51] As an organization, SCU leans toward a[00:53] hard science approach to studying UAP.[00:57] That means using quantitative data that[00:59] fits into spreadsheets and that can be[01:00] analyzed with consistent statistical[01:02] methods. Things like the size, shape,[01:06] acoustical, and kinetic properties of[01:08] UAP. That's the kind of data that SCU[01:11] specializes in. Now, that's partly[01:13] because of our skill set. Most of our[01:15] members are working scientists and[01:17] engineers, so we're used to using that[01:19] kind of data and those sorts of[01:20] analytical tools.[01:23] But this approach also serves as a kind[01:25] of hedge that keeps sober discussions[01:28] about UAP from falling into unstructured[01:30] or even unreasonable speculation.[01:34] You probably know the kind of[01:35] conversations that I mean. We like[01:37] structured investigations that employ[01:39] the tools that we're familiar with.[01:42] But it would be a mistake to think that[01:44] we at SEU focus on the hard data points[01:47] simply because we think that that's all[01:48] there is to these phenomena.[01:51] Every one of those data points, after[01:52] all, comes from an encounter that was[01:54] deeply and uniquely personal. And these[01:57] encounters are far richer, stranger, and[02:00] more complex than the numbers in the[02:01] spreadsheet might ever suggest.[02:05] The tools of quantitative analysis just[02:07] aren't great for analyzing those unique[02:09] experiential dimensions, though. So, for[02:12] our analytic work at SCU, we usually[02:15] just set the rich elements of those[02:17] stories aside.[02:19] But shortly after we launched this[02:21] podcast, SCU leaders told me that there[02:23] are several SCU members who'd had their[02:25] own encounters with UAP. And after a few[02:28] conversations, we decided, let's invite[02:31] those members to tell their stories,[02:33] just as they experienced them along with[02:35] all the questions and ideas that those[02:37] encounters gave rise to.[02:40] Encounters like these are, after all,[02:42] the source of our hard data points. And[02:45] inviting people to tell their stories[02:46] here is a way of showing what's on the[02:48] other side of the spreadsheets. The[02:50] unique, complex, deeply strange, and[02:52] often unsettling experiences that push[02:54] us to ask questions that datadriven[02:56] analytical methods aren't always fit to[02:58] tackle.[03:00] So, let me say this clearly, though.[03:02] Acknowledging the stranges of these[03:04] encounters, giving people space to tell[03:06] them just as they live them, is in no[03:09] way a departure from SCU's datadriven[03:11] scientific mission.[03:13] But it's meant to complement that[03:16] mission by acknowledging the very[03:18] elements of our source material that[03:20] often compelled us to want to do the[03:21] scientific work in the first place.[03:24] This is an expression of the conviction[03:26] that doing good science means holding on[03:29] to intellectual humility before a[03:31] reality that's under no obligations to[03:34] conform to our expectations or to our[03:37] tools. And that means facing reality as[03:39] it comes even and especially when it[03:43] challenges our frameworks.[03:45] We're putting out two versions of each[03:47] interview in this series. One is a long[03:50] unedited version that contains the whole[03:53] conversation. The other is a shorter[03:55] version where the guest just gives a[03:57] basic overview of some of the details of[03:59] their encounter.[04:00] This recording is a fulllength[04:02] conversation. In it, we go into[04:05] significant depth not just about the[04:07] guest's encounter, but about how that[04:09] experience affected them personally and[04:12] how they processed the experience both[04:14] intellectually and spiritually.[04:17] These aren't quick stories. They're[04:19] stories people have lived often for[04:21] decades.[04:22] We wanted to create a space where they[04:25] could be told in full without[04:26] interruption or oversimplification. And[04:29] that's what this long version is meant[04:30] to provide.[04:34] Dr. Andrea Lonnie is an aerospace[04:36] engineer, researcher, and a team manager[04:38] for the center for mathematical plasma[04:41] astrophysics at the Catholic University[04:43] of Louven in Belgium.[04:46] He has worked for NASA, Stanford, NATO's[04:49] science and technology organization, and[04:51] the von Institute. Andrea is a member of[04:54] the American Institute of Aeronautics[04:56] and Astronautics and of the Scientific[04:58] Coalition for UAP Studies, which hosts[05:01] this show.[05:03] He has co-authored over 100 scientific[05:05] papers and his research has focused on[05:08] developing computational models for[05:10] simulating and studying weather in space[05:13] for planning the atmospheric re-entry of[05:15] spacecraft for designing prototypes of[05:18] magnetic shielding just to name a few.[05:22] Dr. Lani considers himself to have been[05:24] an experiencer of UAP and NHI ever since[05:28] his first close encounter as a child in[05:30] 1983.[05:33] That was the first of what would turn[05:34] out to be a lifelong series of strange[05:37] encounters.[05:39] He's given interviews about those[05:40] experiences on other media outlets as[05:42] well. You can find them with a quick[05:44] search of his name. Andrea is a[05:46] fascinating person and an expansive[05:48] thinker. He has the rare combination of[05:51] a mind that is simultaneously precise,[05:54] creative, and gracious. That made our[05:56] conversations a real joy for me, and I[05:58] think you'll feel the same.[06:01] So, here now is my conversation with Dr.[06:04] Andre Lonnie.[06:06] If you could just kind of like tell me[06:08] what you do and who you are and maybe[06:11] where you grew up and how you got[06:13] interested in this subject and then[06:15] maybe we can kind of dovetail into the[06:17] presentation itself. Yeah, sure. So, I[06:21] I'm Italian. I was born in Touring in[06:23] 1975[06:25] and uh yeah, I mean I I really got[06:29] interested into this in at early age[06:31] when I was 8 years old because I had uh[06:33] a first experience that was witnessed by[06:36] my parents. So, we saw UFO in front of[06:38] the balcony and I will elaborate more[06:39] later and um and then yeah, I've always[06:43] been uh pretty successful in in school.[06:46] Um and uh at some point when I had to[06:49] decide what to do in life, I was[06:50] undecided between astrophysics and uh[06:52] engineering[06:54] particularly uh because I wanted to get[06:57] to the point to a point in my life to[07:00] study this phenomenon that triggered my[07:02] attention when I was 8 years old. Uh and[07:05] actually triggered it pretty bad. I mean[07:08] pretty, you know, deeply because I also[07:10] got interested into a lot of paranormal[07:12] stuff, spirits and all this kind of[07:14] stuff. And uh this was also somehow[07:17] supported by uh experiences from other[07:21] people in my family. I have a very large[07:23] family like from the side of my father[07:26] there are 17 siblings and from the side[07:28] of my mother five while I am a single[07:31] only child basically.[07:32] >> Oh wow.[07:33] >> So imagine the number of cousins that I[07:35] have. And uh anyway, so I happened to[07:38] had pe to have people in both sides of[07:40] the family that had some experience,[07:43] sometimes with UFOs, sometimes with[07:45] spirits. So I always kept a very open[07:47] mind on on anything. And I was curious[07:49] about everything. I was curious about[07:51] paranormal, but I was also curious about[07:54] criminal cases for instance.[07:56] >> Sure. And um and yeah, so I decided to[07:59] go for engineering because space engine[08:02] out aerospace engineering because I was[08:04] advised to to choose engineering because[08:07] it would it would have been easier then[08:09] to find a job.[08:11] >> Sure.[08:11] >> And uh I I think I never regretted the[08:14] choice even though at the end uh like I[08:17] ended up working also with[08:18] astrophysicist. So in my current[08:20] position uh I actually work with space[08:22] engineers and astrophysicists. Um and uh[08:26] yeah so I moved to Belgium in 2001 right[08:29] after my uh my master degree in[08:31] aerospace engineering and then I work in[08:34] a company for like nine months and then[08:35] I started a PhD uh which was not in my[08:38] intention at the beginning but uh so I[08:41] got a PhD in engineering sciences. I I[08:44] actually[08:45] >> at KO 11. No, actually it was uh at the[08:49] Funkarman Institute for Fluid Dynamics[08:51] and also at the University of Brussels[08:54] and um and then after that I I became[08:57] senior research engineer in the same[08:59] inst institute and then I moved to the[09:01] states for one year in which I was post[09:04] uh post-docctoral researcher at Stanford[09:07] and Naza as then I came back to Belgium[09:10] uh and uh and then after a while I I[09:13] changed again job and I ended up at the[09:15] university where I'm[09:17] Are you Catholic?[09:19] >> Uh so well uh I wasn't born in a[09:23] Catholic family but my parents[09:25] absolutely wanted me or at least my[09:27] mother wanted me absolutely to be[09:29] indoctrinated into Catholicism. So and[09:33] of course as a as a child I followed up[09:35] to a point I I think it was around 9[09:38] years old or um 10 years old in which I[09:41] was already started questioning the[09:43] whole uh construct you know I wasn't[09:46] questioning the the teachings of Jesus[09:48] like I I like the the personality of[09:50] Jesus but I didn't like the structure[09:52] that was created and even you know I was[09:54] a child but I was feeling it and then[09:58] unfortunately my parents still decided[10:00] to push me towards uh you some some more[10:02] Catholic um uh let's say path and so I I[10:07] had to do the secondary school in a[10:08] private school with some priests and so[10:11] they basically indoctrinated me back uh[10:15] but then you know when I moved to[10:16] Belgium I was 25 years old 26 year old[10:19] then everything changed and then[10:21] progressively you know I never lost[10:24] interest for the character of Jesus and[10:26] for what he represented but I I really[10:28] lost all the interest for the for the[10:32] church let's say for the structure of[10:34] power that created[10:36] >> so no I'm not Catholic I would say I'm[10:38] in some way I'm Christian and I'm[10:41] spiritual definitely[10:42] >> I'm in a similar place not not[10:44] necessarily with respect to Catholicism[10:46] but with respect to religion or[10:48] Christianity there's some sense in which[10:50] I'm a Christian but[10:51] >> it's not in that um structural doctrinal[10:54] sense I don't think can I ask just as a[10:56] a lead in you say that you had family[10:59] members who had a lot of these[11:01] experiences that they shared with you[11:02] like how did you find out that they had[11:04] those? Did you grow up in a family where[11:05] it was common to talk about just the[11:08] strangeness of the world or did you ask[11:10] people? So basically this kind of[11:14] discussion uh happen mostly at marriages[11:16] because uh I told you I have this large[11:19] family and there have been a lot of[11:20] marriages and when and sometimes you[11:22] know you are in a car with some auntie[11:25] or or uncle and then he said you know I[11:27] had this strange experience and you know[11:30] and so I will show actually a couple of[11:33] pictures well one video and one picture[11:36] uh that come from the same uncle[11:38] >> and um yeah so yeah We we had some some[11:42] shot like that.[11:43] >> So many not so many but a few[11:47] >> but enough to to keep your interest sort[11:49] of you know perpetually[11:51] alive I guess.[11:53] >> Yeah. And actually Yeah. And actually it[11:55] helped at the very beginning the fact[11:57] that in the same place where we saw this[12:00] UFO in 1983[12:02] also an uncle so a brother of my mother[12:06] saw a UFO like two weeks later with his[12:09] wife looking different but in the same[12:12] exact place.[12:13] >> So yeah.[12:16] >> Okay. Well, do you want to start with[12:17] your um with your presentation and just[12:20] see where the conversation goes?[12:23] >> Yeah. So, do you see my screen?[12:25] >> I do. Yeah, I think we're good.[12:27] >> Okay. Let's see if I can minimize. All[12:29] right. So, I jump directly into my UAP[12:33] sightings because that's a bit the the[12:35] start of the story.[12:36] >> Okay.[12:37] >> And um so in 1983, I was in Chelingu,[12:41] which is a small village in the north[12:43] west of Italy. And um yeah, we were on a[12:46] balcony with my parents. And around[12:49] 10:00 in the night, so it was already[12:51] dark. Nobody around, not in the street,[12:53] not in b other balconies. And we were[12:56] chatting. At a certain point, we see[12:58] this object appearing right in front of[13:00] our balcony, maybe 10 m in front of us[13:03] and at the same uh height as the[13:06] balcony. And um and this object started[13:10] immediately spinning like uh like a[13:13] turbine and uh at thousands of RPM and[13:17] uh it was glowing and then uh it[13:20] progressively shrunk in size till it[13:22] disappeared while emitting a flesh of[13:24] light and um you know it was not like a[13:28] light high in the sky. It was something[13:30] really right in front of me and I never[13:33] uh I mean I I my my eyes were locked to[13:37] it. So I could have a[13:38] >> very clear experience. It wasn't vague.[13:40] >> Absolutely. And it was like few seconds[13:43] in total. Uh but it was pretty[13:46] interesting. So even during uh these few[13:49] seconds[13:51] I could notice something. For instance,[13:53] I noticed that uh the background the[13:55] landscape in the background of the[13:57] object appear to be distorted almost as[14:00] I was looking through glass when I was[14:02] looking close to the object. And if I[14:05] think about that now, we know for[14:07] instance that gravitational fields can[14:10] bend the light.[14:11] >> So maybe that object was really able to[14:15] create some sort of gravitational bubble[14:17] or something and uh and the light was[14:20] was distorting my you know my my visual[14:23] was distorted because of that.[14:24] >> Sure.[14:25] >> And so after the let's say when the[14:27] object disappeared I turn on my left and[14:29] asked my mother um did you see that? And[14:32] she said, "Yes." And I said, "What? What[14:35] was that?" And my mother is no[14:37] scientist. And uh she said, "Well, maybe[14:40] it was a falling star." But you know, I[14:43] was 8 years old, but I knew that that[14:45] was not a falling star. Um and so there[14:49] is a followup in the story which is[14:51] let's say that I I forgot about this[14:53] event or let's say I didn't pay too much[14:56] attention to the event for about four or[14:58] five years and then once we went to to[15:01] this uh uh brother or my mother who was[15:04] let's say my favorite ankle uncle and uh[15:07] and um and he was also into paranormal[15:11] and stuff like that. So at some point he[15:13] said you know I want to show you[15:14] something. And so he takes this book and[15:16] he showed me a drawing that he did in[15:18] 1983[15:19] few weeks after we were there in the[15:22] same place and he said I saw this object[15:26] and he described this story in which he[15:27] was on the balcony and then suddenly[15:29] there there is this object coming high[15:32] in the sky but on on his left and he[15:35] could see that it was like a saucer with[15:36] a dome and with different lights. So I[15:39] could see basically the object rotating[15:41] very slowly and these beams of light of[15:44] different colors like in a like in a[15:46] sci-fi movie. And then he called the[15:48] wife. He said, "Come to the balcony,[15:50] look up. Do you see it?" And she said,[15:51] "Yes, I see it." And then he said[15:55] >> probably they observed this phenomenon[15:56] for about 45 seconds or something like[15:59] that. This was his perception of time.[16:01] And uh and then the object uh increased[16:04] the rotation speed became like a ball of[16:07] um red light and then it it shot like a[16:10] bullet[16:12] and uh after that they also experienced[16:14] some sort of um hallucination during the[16:16] night. So he was uh let's say waking up[16:19] and he saw some sort of face with the[16:22] air trembling like vibrating made of[16:25] fire made of light uh hanging on the[16:28] wall and he he freaked out and then it[16:31] disappeared and then the morning after[16:33] the the wife told him you know I had a[16:35] strange dream this night and I I I[16:38] dreamt about uh g Jesus Christ made of[16:41] fire in our bedroom. So by comparing the[16:44] two experiences were kind of similar and[16:47] you know at the same time basically. So[16:49] it was interesting and of course when he[16:51] told me that I said oh mom ma I mean do[16:55] do you remember that we also saw an[16:56] object when in the same place in the[16:59] same the same year and that was the[17:01] beginning basically for me. Um and then[17:04] so I had to wait long time[17:08] um before having another experience of[17:10] of this kind. But this time it was[17:12] triggered by my intention. So what[17:15] happened is I was already in this house[17:16] in in Belgium and in 2017 I was um like[17:21] stargazing on the second floor and um[17:24] and I had this thought in my head like[17:27] um it would be so great to have uh[17:31] another experience like the one that I[17:32] had when I was a child. Now that I'm an[17:34] aerospace engineer, you know, if[17:36] something happened, I maybe look more at[17:38] details[17:39] and uh and so I go to to sleep. My[17:43] ex-girlfriend was already lying in the[17:45] bed and um she made me notice a strange[17:49] u high pitch metallic sound kind of in[17:52] in the background[17:54] and it was 1:00 in the night um and it[17:57] was a very unusual sound. So that kept[18:00] me away. And so I was basically staring[18:02] at the ceiling and[18:05] at a certain point I see a single ray of[18:09] green light entering from the window and[18:11] in a matter of one second the whole room[18:14] is completely enlightened in bright[18:17] green light. It was surreal. So So[18:20] basically I went I jumped to the window.[18:22] I pulled the curtain and to look what[18:24] was there and I saw two discs of green[18:28] light moving together. Um they they were[18:31] basically flying over my backyard and[18:33] then over the the roof of the neighbor.[18:36] And because I know the the size of the[18:39] facade of the neighbor, I can estimate[18:42] that this the diameter of each of these[18:44] light was probably around 2 mters, which[18:47] is far too big for any kind of drone.[18:50] Um, and it was just a single light. I[18:52] mean, two lights, I mean, moving[18:54] together like, uh, synchronously and no[18:58] noise whatsoever.[18:59] Uh, so I went upstairs to see if I could[19:02] see past the roof of the neighbor, but I[19:04] could. But the interesting thing is that[19:06] I had express an intention and I had[19:09] this strange experience like maybe 10[19:11] minutes later. So the year after, this[19:13] was on a March 2017.[19:16] Um[19:18] then I actually remember uh that in 2017[19:21] I had uh an experience that that I had[19:24] sort of forgotten. But one night I[19:26] basically found myself standing by the[19:28] standing uh by the bed looking at the[19:31] bed where my my girlfriend was already[19:34] uh lying and I didn't I didn't remember[19:38] how I got into that specific position. M[19:41] >> it was like now I could say maybe it was[19:44] a case of missing time but at the time I[19:46] just brush it off. I said I don't[19:49] understand what happened but I don't[19:51] know. Uh but anyway so the year after so[19:54] in 2018 I did another experiment of the[19:57] of the kind. So I was stargazing this[20:00] time you know I have an enormous light[20:03] pollution in Brussels. Uh so if you look[20:05] at the sky uh maybe you see 20 30 stars[20:09] maybe a few more if you stay there long[20:11] long enough. That night I could see[20:13] maybe 20 30 stars and I could uh see in[20:17] particular the Orion belt.[20:19] >> But after having express the intention[20:22] to connect or to have an experience[20:25] in the matter of what I felt like one[20:29] minute or something like that, the sky I[20:32] saw basically an avalanche of lights[20:34] covering completely the sky from side to[20:36] side. I would say thousands of lights.[20:38] Everywhere I was looking, it was[20:40] completely packed with lights, which is[20:42] impossible. It's just impossible in[20:45] Brussels. And uh and then I opened the[20:47] window to be sure that that I was awake.[20:49] I was touching my my you know, my wrist[20:52] said, "But is this a dream or what?" So[20:54] I opened the window and then I saw some[20:57] sort of uh purple fireball appearing[21:01] somewhere and crossing the Orion belt[21:03] and then disappearing like like a[21:05] bullet. Do you have any sense the size[21:07] of the lights that you were seeing? Do[21:09] they seem like sort of in the celestial[21:11] plane or did they seem[21:12] >> Absolutely. Yes. Very far. Very far.[21:15] And um and then after that I I had the[21:19] the impression that I had some sort of[21:21] mystical experience. And uh it was the[21:23] second time in one year that I was[21:25] asking for a contact and this time it[21:27] happened in a way that is like even[21:30] behind my my my wildest dream like you[21:33] know and then the day after I try again[21:36] same request but nothing happened and I[21:38] stayed there for like maybe half an[21:40] hour. I was constantly asking you know[21:42] show do it again do it again nothing[21:44] happened and but that was a a a turning[21:47] point in my uh approach to this[21:50] phenomenon because so also what happened[21:53] is that in a couple of weeks and I don't[21:56] think it has been by chance but uh I had[21:59] an accident at home and I could have end[22:02] up really bad but I just broke my ankle[22:05] and so I got surgery and I got stuck[22:08] home for like six weeks.[22:10] During these six weeks, I had a lot of[22:12] time to kill. It was like sick leave[22:14] officially. And so I was researching on[22:16] YouTube connections between spirituality[22:19] and UFO encounters, which is something[22:21] that I never really explored. And and so[22:24] I bump into, you know, some YouTubers[22:27] that were saying interesting stuff. But[22:30] uh okay, so I I postpone a little bit[22:32] this discussion to the next slide. So in[22:35] 2020 um I was actually um coming back[22:40] from London and I was driving um from[22:44] the the parking lot to the sorry the[22:47] parking lot to the train to to go from[22:51] uh you know the the the Euro tunnel to[22:53] cross the the the tunnel and come back[22:55] to yeah to the continent. And uh well[22:59] basically I I look up and then I see[23:02] this object that look a bit like this[23:03] one with different lights, different[23:06] colors, like four different colors uh um[23:08] like yellow, red, uh green and and blue[23:12] and um and then the first thing that[23:15] struck me was the size of the object[23:17] which was bigger than my car probably 10[23:19] meters in in in length. Then this[23:21] different kind of lights and then the[23:24] light pattern changed. What I saw is[23:26] something that looked like a plasma[23:28] discharge, orange kind of going from one[23:31] side to the other of the object uh[23:34] wrapping wrapping it completely and then[23:37] um this this sort of plasma discharge[23:40] dissipated completely in in one light[23:42] that kept on blinking together with a[23:44] few others. At that point I started[23:47] recording. um I had to stop often[23:50] because uh you know there was a queue to[23:51] enter the the train and so I had chance[23:54] to grab the phone and try to do[23:56] something and here you see a collection[23:57] of uh let's say videos that I that I[24:01] shot uh so basically these are the the[24:04] the light post and then this object was[24:06] way way above[24:11] so you see this object Mhm.[24:20] And then um the day after I also check[24:23] if there was no standing structure which[24:26] was very much taller than than the light[24:28] post. I found aerial views. I found uh[24:32] videos of people um driving along the[24:36] same path and there is nothing. There[24:37] are the light post and nothing else. So[24:39] here you see a better view.[24:40] >> Yeah.[24:41] >> You see this object?[24:42] >> Sure.[24:44] The same the the lights on it. seem[24:46] connected to one another. It doesn't[24:48] seem like they're two.[24:49] >> Absolutely. Yeah. And and so this is a[24:51] view for instance, if you drive along[24:54] the the same path, you only see the[24:56] light post. There is nothing. But apart[24:58] from that, I mean uh I could see that[25:01] the object was just overing, you know.[25:04] >> Yeah. Um but then another interesting[25:08] thing is that um I also experienced a[25:10] time anomaly um uh while while looking[25:13] at this object and I will show you uh in[25:15] the next slide. Then in 2021[25:19] I I was basically um going for a walk[25:23] around 8:00 in the in the in the evening[25:26] with a friend. As soon as we reach uh[25:30] the corner of this block, we see this[25:33] object coming towards us. Um it was[25:36] looking like three balls on top of each[25:39] other,[25:40] perfectly in line and red.[25:44] And uh my first thought was this looks[25:46] like a giant drone because the size was[25:50] really big probably 2 m from 2 to 3 m in[25:53] height.[25:54] >> Mhm. And this object was really like[25:57] stiff, you know, uh there if it had been[26:01] balloons for instance connected to each[26:03] other, you would have seen them moving[26:05] like this relative to this thing was[26:07] just one piece. So it came towards us[26:10] and then it it went up. So I took some[26:13] videos and uh and um basically if you if[26:16] you take uh some snapshot, you see that[26:19] the object actually changed size. So[26:21] from the three three balls that we saw[26:23] initially[26:24] um it became like five or four and you[26:28] clearly you clearly see also that there[26:31] is no connection between the balls.[26:33] >> So it was almost like they were[26:34] levitating on top of each other and uh[26:38] that was quite interesting. So in 2022[26:42] um I went to um I participated to a[26:45] massive um protest here in Brussels and[26:49] we ended up I mean the the protest was[26:52] ending in a in a park and um I at the[26:56] time I was meditating already doing[26:58] let's say some sort of connection that I[27:00] will explain later and show some stuff[27:02] um and I got a message we will show[27:05] oursel to you. So the meditation[27:07] finishes. I was reading.[27:08] >> How did that message come to you? Was[27:10] that auditory or it sort of you just had[27:12] the impression?[27:13] >> Yeah. It's like in your own voice but[27:16] you understand that it's not coming from[27:18] your own thoughts.[27:21] >> Uh and it's you know you have to get[27:23] used to the process. It's like uh you[27:24] know at the beginning is difficult to[27:26] discern but by the time I I I was[27:29] already meditating and having these[27:31] experiences for more than two years. Um[27:34] anyway, so what happens is my three[27:37] friends uh like two of the three friends[27:40] go to look for the restroom. The other[27:42] friend uh sit on the on the on the[27:44] ground looking at the book and I keep on[27:47] looking at the sky because I got this[27:48] message, you know. And suddenly I see[27:50] actually a gray object going through the[27:53] clouds, but I couldn't really[27:54] distinguish the shape. I could only see[27:56] a part of it. That trigger kind of my[27:58] attention without really knowing what it[28:00] was. But then the strangest thing was[28:03] that suddenly I see myself surrounded by[28:06] thousands of small blinking lights. Um[28:11] they were everywhere around me like[28:13] almost like um like a cloud and uh and I[28:16] looked down I looked in front and they[28:19] were everywhere. And then[28:20] >> like physically close to you in your[28:22] immediate[28:23] >> very very close. I was just surrounding.[28:25] They were just there. And then somehow[28:27] after a while they disappear. And when[28:29] my friend my friends came back I said[28:31] you know I had this strange experience.[28:33] And then in 2023 I started experiencing[28:37] a lot of um uh electronic malfunctioning[28:41] and um I I will elaborate a little bit[28:44] later but it always happened when I'm[28:46] meditating. I mean let's say after a[28:49] meditation I get some sort of message[28:51] like the one that I got um that I[28:53] explained before and then uh my[28:56] attention focuses on one cloud that look[28:58] a bit strange and then I get this[29:00] anomaly um but I I will show I will I[29:04] will tell you more details um there um[29:06] later and then um and then yeah I had[29:10] this uh these two experiences in which[29:12] we actually tried to summon um UFOs and[29:16] I I did it with the same friends. Well,[29:19] in one case it was with the same three[29:20] friends and in the other case just with[29:22] one of them. And uh so the first time we[29:25] went to a forest, let's say kind of[29:26] forest, big park in a specific spot in[29:30] total darkness and uh so they were kind[29:34] of channeling and I was meditating with[29:37] open eyes and we were focusing our[29:39] attention in the center of the circle[29:41] and uh one of of these friends who is[29:44] actually an astrophysicist[29:45] uh at some point had the feeling to to[29:48] have seen something and she got scared[29:50] and then I said okay let's stop. I don't[29:52] want to to put fear into this kind of[29:54] experiments. And then we were about to[29:57] to leave the park and again they get[30:00] distracted.[30:01] Two are talking to each other and one uh[30:04] goes on on the ground again to do her[30:07] laces. In that moment I'm looking at the[30:09] sky and I see a giant orb of light[30:12] coming basically. It was not uh too high[30:16] in altitude probably 100 m or something[30:19] like that. I seen him coming from my my[30:22] right and shooting up at supersonic or[30:24] hypersonic speed no noise whatsoever but[30:27] it was gigantic like compared to the[30:30] disc of the moon it was much larger[30:32] >> and uh and then the recent the most[30:35] recent um let's say sight in that again[30:39] during an experiment of summoning uh I[30:42] was here in the house with a friend and[30:44] it was um actually the night in which[30:47] Trump was um shot. It happened in the[30:51] exact moment in which it was shot. I was[30:53] seeing this orb. Basically, it came from[30:56] around the the corner of my house. It[30:59] passed in front of me. It was lower in[31:01] altitude, maybe 50 30 50 m in altitude.[31:05] It made a turn and it was interesting[31:08] because it had some sort of wake which[31:10] was split almost like um you think about[31:13] the the tongue of a of a snake like a[31:17] scissor.[31:18] >> Sure. Yeah. So, I see this object[31:20] basically zoom in front of me and then[31:22] it disappears. Once that is in line with[31:24] my with my window, it just disappears[31:28] and uh and then immediately after we get[31:31] messages from a friend in Florida saying[31:34] they they have tried to assassinate[31:35] Trump. This I find that very interesting[31:38] you know the correlation between these[31:40] two events. But uh okay so going back to[31:42] the time anomaly that I was mentioning[31:44] in um in UK. So the story is that when I[31:48] was in the parking lot, I was chatting[31:50] with a friend. She was at the airport at[31:52] the time and uh I sent a message at 2224[31:57] and then I start driving towards the[32:00] train. She sent me a message a message[32:03] meanwhile but I wasn't looking at the[32:04] phone and once I get on the train which[32:07] for me was about 7 minutes to 10 minutes[32:10] after because there was this queue I had[32:12] to stop all the time. Um, I immediately[32:15] record an audio saying I think I saw a[32:17] UFO and I caught it on tape. And uh the[32:20] the first interesting thing is that you[32:23] see the time stamp.[32:24] >> Mhm.[32:25] >> 225. So it's almost like almost 1 minute[32:29] only 1 minute past but in reality it was[32:32] 7 to 10. And then the other interesting[32:35] thing is that my friend sent me a[32:38] message in between which was using a the[32:41] emoji of a UFO which was not connected[32:44] to the content of our conversation.[32:48] >> Was that an accident? What did what was[32:50] the meaning of the emoji in that sense?[32:53] >> Uh I don't No, I think because she was[32:55] about to fly with the airplane, instead[32:58] of putting the airplane, she put the the[32:59] UFO and at the same time in which I was[33:02] seeing one and cut it catching it on[33:04] tape.[33:06] And um and then basically if you look[33:09] for instance at the at the timestamps of[33:12] the photos and videos that I took on my[33:14] phone in the photo app there, you see a[33:17] diff basically four minutes. like the[33:20] difference between the first uh photo[33:22] and the last one is four minutes. So I[33:24] could observe I could look at the object[33:26] for at least four minutes but according[33:28] to to WhatsApp it was just one minute[33:31] which is interesting.[33:33] >> It is interesting.[33:34] >> Yeah. So this is actually a video um[33:37] from from an uncle one of these uncles[33:39] that had experiences and is a I think[33:41] it's a very um interesting one because[33:43] this was shot in Ethiopia. uh it was[33:46] recorded with a VHS uh camera and um it[33:50] was witnessed by two people. There was[33:52] him and there was his his sister. So[33:54] what happened is at some point you see[33:56] an object appearing here high in the sky[33:59] on the left. It disappears for uh 3[34:03] seconds and it reappears lower in[34:05] altitude. Then my uncle zoom in and then[34:09] you see some sort of tic tac shape and[34:12] you also see some metallic reflection.[34:14] So you cannot claim this thing is[34:15] something intangible, a light or[34:17] something. It was some some solid[34:19] structure of some kind. And then it[34:21] moved a bit like a pink pink uh ball,[34:24] you know, like a bit like David Fra[34:27] describes. You will see I I will skip a[34:30] little bit just[34:35] so you Oh, no. Sorry. Sorry. So look at[34:39] this corner.[34:45] Now you see the object[34:46] >> it disappears[34:48] >> and it appears lower.[34:51] >> Oh, interesting.[34:53] >> And then now you will see the object a[34:54] bit better.[35:07] >> The shade is pretty well defined, I[35:09] would say.[35:14] Then he he had difficulty in focusing[35:17] >> because it was like trying to move a[35:19] lot.[35:20] >> Yeah, iPhones aren't really made for[35:21] this sort of photography in the first[35:23] place.[35:28] >> Certainly one thing that I know is that[35:30] this was not manipulated in any way. So[35:38] >> yeah. So uh and these are other uh[35:42] interesting uh let's say um data that I[35:45] want to show um basically these were[35:48] obtained uh with this setup by two[35:50] people that I know one actually is a[35:52] collaborator of Masimoani[35:54] >> and who is affiliated with the CU I[35:57] think and the other one is engineer[35:59] forensic technical consultant and also[36:02] somebody who develops hyperspectral[36:04] cameras. So cameras that can see you[36:06] know in the ultraviolet at infrared[36:08] beyond the visible. So they had this[36:10] kind of setup. They were broadcasting a[36:12] specific frequency that seemed to[36:14] attract certain phenomena. Um and then[36:17] there was this guy who was I think the[36:19] son of one of the guys meditating to[36:23] enhance the effect and uh what they[36:26] could catch[36:28] for instance is this object. So here you[36:31] are seeing um energy senator[36:35] um with this in in a in a in a spectrum[36:38] which which goes between 300 and,200[36:42] um nanometers[36:44] um and using 2569[36:47] frame per it the camera is equipped with[36:50] some sort of AI tracking algorithm. So[36:53] for some at the beginning he's able to[36:55] track the object and then uh and then he[36:57] loses it for for a while. This is[37:00] original speed. Now you see 12 times[37:02] slower[37:04] and then I will show also a better uh[37:07] view that zoom in view.[37:09] >> This is all ultraviolet. This is not[37:11] like heat energy, right?[37:12] >> Well, this let's say they couldn't see[37:15] it. It's like it was in the visible[37:17] spectrum. Um and so this is how the look[37:22] the the object looks like. And what's[37:23] interesting is that it appeared to have[37:25] some sort of a a hollow or or maybe a,[37:29] you know, electromagnetic shield of some[37:31] kind. Um,[37:34] >> it's got this sort of crescentshaped lip[37:36] that seems to be like sticking out of a[37:39] spherical.[37:40] >> Yeah. It seems like a traditional, you[37:42] know, saucer with dome shape like uh but[37:45] on top of that you have also this energy[37:47] field.[37:48] >> Yeah.[37:49] >> Um and then with the same cameras. So[37:52] this was in a different place. Here you[37:53] see the comparison between visible light[37:56] energy spectrum and this one is a[37:58] frequency spectrum. And what the[38:00] interesting thing is that they see[38:02] different object in energy than in[38:04] frequency. And uh it's impossible to to[38:08] know exactly what was going on but they[38:12] couldn't see in the visible. You see[38:13] absolutely nothing.[38:14] >> There is nothing going on in the[38:16] visible.[38:19] >> So[38:19] >> that's bizarre. In the frequency[38:20] spectrum, you see this sort of, you[38:22] know, large object kind of descend from[38:24] the upper right hand corner down to the[38:25] center and then in the[38:28] >> Yeah, these objects[38:31] coming from the left doesn't appear at[38:33] all in the in the[38:34] >> Yeah, they don't have the same[38:34] trajectory at all. That's wild. That's[38:36] interesting.[38:37] >> Yeah.[38:38] >> That's the same time. These are all of[38:39] the same moment of[38:41] >> Mhm. Yes.[38:42] >> recording. Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.[38:45] And um okay so yeah we we start with the[38:49] with the strangest stuff. Um[38:53] so as I said after 2018 I was I got a[38:56] bit interested into this connection[38:58] between spirituality and uh and UFOs and[39:02] at some point I I had the chance to go[39:04] to to the states for a conference. It[39:06] was actually IAA conference, aerospace[39:08] conference. But I had also arranged to[39:10] meet this psychic that I had been[39:12] following on YouTube for some months. Uh[39:15] she claimed that she could access[39:18] memories of past life. She could see[39:20] entities and stuff like that. And[39:24] >> Elizabeth April,[39:26] what I she's Canadian actually. And uh[39:29] so at the time I I wanted to know about[39:33] these experiences that I had with the[39:35] UFOs and know if and uh I wanted to know[39:38] if she could tell me something about[39:39] that. I wanted to tell also to to ask[39:42] about uh well past lives because I got[39:44] interested into that.[39:46] >> Mhm.[39:46] >> And I also did my own experiment in[39:48] meditation to access something and I got[39:51] some very interesting information that I[39:53] could verify actually. Um, but so one of[39:58] the things that she told me, so we we[39:59] talked for like uh a full hour. I[40:02] recorded everything and uh one thing[40:06] that she told me is that I see an entity[40:08] behind you and he looks like a giant[40:10] mantis like an insecttoid and he told[40:13] and he he tells me that uh his name is[40:16] Gala and he's one of your spirit guides[40:20] and um and then there is something[40:22] happening during this session which[40:24] which was quite interesting and I tell[40:27] you because it will have a meaning later[40:29] on. Um, so at some point we see a[40:32] hummingbird. So this very tiny bird[40:35] coming and basically going uh full speed[40:39] against my face almost as he wanted to[40:41] hit me and then he turn and then he does[40:44] the same with him. So full speed against[40:47] her face and she had to move out not to[40:49] be hit full speed and then the bird make[40:51] a big turn and then he ended up staying[40:55] in between us like overing like a little[40:57] helicopter in between us almost[41:01] >> during this conversation that you're[41:02] having mantis beings and things.[41:04] >> Yes. almost as he he wanted to uh assist[41:07] to our conversation.[41:09] >> And then, you know, we we noticed this[41:11] strange behavior, but we didn't notice[41:13] even when he left.[41:14] >> But um when I was uh on the bus going[41:18] back from from San uh from Los Angeles[41:21] to to San Diego, the first thing that I[41:24] did, I I went on on Google. I said, "She[41:26] told me about this Galamantis being I[41:28] put it on Google. Let's see what I get."[41:31] And the interesting thing is that the[41:32] first link that I got was connecting[41:35] prey mantises with hummingbirds.[41:38] So that was kind of synchronicity.[41:40] >> Yeah.[41:41] >> Isn't it's not counterintuitive. And[41:44] then I did further experiments. So[41:46] basically I removed the name Gala. I[41:48] just put mantis being and I would not[41:50] get that link. So I tried to remove[41:52] being and I would not get that link. So[41:54] I had to put the exact same words that[41:56] she used gala mantis being to get this.[42:00] And um and then what happened is the[42:03] night after I was in San Francisco alone[42:05] in my bedroom and uh in the night and um[42:08] and I look around I said okay Gala if[42:10] you are really around me give me a sign.[42:13] What happened is I fell asleep[42:15] immediately[42:16] and uh I woke up feeling like somebody[42:20] was grabbing my waist and shaking me up[42:23] which reminded me of you know imagine[42:25] your mother that wants you wake you up[42:27] because you're late for school. She[42:29] comes, she grabs you, and you know, she[42:31] shake you up. It's time to go. And uh[42:34] and that was scary. I actually, you[42:36] know, screamed. I I didn't expect[42:38] somebody to touch me, but I said, well,[42:40] you know, strange is the second strange[42:43] occurrence connected to this entity. And[42:46] um then one month later, so we are in[42:49] February 2019, I basically developed[42:52] some sort of skin infection. And that[42:54] day I decided to go to the doctor. But[42:56] um but uh so basically before going I I[43:01] put Gamantis bean on on Google. I said[43:03] okay what is the message of the day. The[43:05] first link this time was connected[43:08] connecting premantis with parasites[43:11] and uh well I go to the doctor and the[43:14] doctor tells me uh yeah you have a[43:16] bacterial infection so you have to take[43:18] antibiotics which actually healed my[43:21] problem. But and then after I went again[43:23] to to look for on Google I put again[43:26] Galamantis beam and the link to[43:28] parasites didn't appear. So it was a[43:31] strange way of communication[43:33] in which I was engaged and uh and I was[43:36] getting informations which were[43:37] meaningful for me you know but uh the[43:40] craziest of of them all was um what two[43:43] months later I was flying back to[43:45] touring and u and I was the only the[43:50] only one on my ray of seat on my row of[43:53] seats with full view on the on the on[43:56] the wing. So I more or less I've took[43:59] I've taken already more than 200 flights[44:01] in my in my life and I always try to[44:04] stay on the wing and look outside. I[44:06] never saw a damage of this end of this[44:08] you know uh of this kind. I took a[44:11] picture and then later on I remembered[44:14] about a video that I saw of somebody[44:16] actually having contact with these[44:18] entities and it I mean I see definitely[44:21] some kind of similarities in the pose in[44:24] the head. So you know if you you cannot[44:27] claim this looks like a elephant or a[44:29] monkey or a human being it looks like a[44:32] mantis. So what I if if this is how I[44:37] think it is and hi have some sense of[44:39] humor and also can manipulate matter at[44:41] will because this was a physical[44:43] evidence that I can take a picture of.[44:46] Um then few months a couple of months[44:49] after this event I started having uh[44:52] time anomalies. I had two in the same[44:55] week which were very puzzling. Um, so[44:58] the first time I put the alarm at 9:30[45:00] in the morning. I wake up to go to the[45:03] bathroom and then on my way back I check[45:05] the time and it was 9:23. So I thought[45:09] only 7 minutes and then the alarm will[45:11] ring but I'm still tired. So I want to I[45:15] want to sleep and then I woke up after[45:19] some time and I was like oh it it must[45:21] be so late. I checked the time and it[45:23] was 3 8 almost as I had gone backward in[45:26] time 80 minutes. And then I tried to[45:28] rationalize. I said, "Okay, maybe I[45:31] dreamt the whole thing to wake up to go[45:33] to the bathroom and check the time. Or[45:35] maybe it was not 9:23, but it was 7:23.[45:40] But then in the same week, so this was a[45:43] Monday, on a Friday of the same week, I[45:45] put the alarm at 9. This time the alarm[45:48] the alarm rings. I take it, I switch it[45:50] off and then I start reading my emails.[45:53] Then I go to the bathroom. Then I come[45:55] here in the kitchen and I look at the[45:58] clock and it was telling me 8:47. I said[46:01] it's not possible. I checked my phone[46:03] 8:48. I checked the the alarm and it was[46:06] deactivated at 9:00. So this time I had[46:09] an anomaly that involved two independent[46:12] devices and uh and basically it it[46:16] looked like from going to to the[46:18] upstairs to to downstairs uh I I went[46:21] back in time of 35 minutes or something[46:24] like that twice in the same week. Then[46:28] it has happened to me for instance to[46:29] meditate once with the the usual uh[46:32] music video and which is 35 minutes in[46:36] length and then the music finishes and[46:38] only 14 minutes have passed instead of[46:42] 35 and then uh another time after[46:45] meditation I was with a friend uh on the[46:49] sofa and uh I was complaining because I[46:51] had a meeting at 17:30 and it was 17:27[46:55] on the kitchen clock. We both look at it[47:00] and uh and we both saw the time going[47:02] backwards 4 minutes. Uh[47:06] we both saw it. So it went the clock[47:09] went backward to 1723.[47:12] Um[47:13] >> person had strange experiences too or[47:15] had you talked to them about your[47:16] strange experiences in a way that gave[47:19] it a context for this or did you both[47:21] just look at a clock and see it go[47:22] backward and then go what the hell just[47:24] happened?[47:25] >> Yeah. No, we we both look at the clock[47:27] and uh you know uh she also look because[47:30] I I was complaining and and she was[47:32] trying to say well you know whatever but[47:34] I don't know it's almost like I wanted[47:37] time and I got a little bit but and um[47:40] yeah and then I had other other similar[47:43] experiences but I don't even remember[47:44] all of them. You know, it occurs to me[47:46] that the these sorts of experiences[47:48] could happen to lots of people much more[47:51] frequently than you think and we would[47:54] just kind of dismiss it and and say,[47:56] "Oh, well, you know, I'm a little[47:58] confused or[48:00] >> true." But the first time the first time[48:02] I tried to brush it off, but then it[48:04] happened in a way, as I said, that[48:06] involved two different devices and I[48:08] couldn't it off. There was no no way for[48:11] me to brush it off. I think there's also[48:13] something about being a scientist or an[48:14] engineer that[48:16] >> makes you obsess over little[48:18] quantitative details in a way that[48:20] >> you want an explanation. And there's a[48:22] lot of other people who I think would[48:24] look at that and just go like, "Oh,[48:26] phones are glitching or I'm a little[48:28] confused or you know, whatever strange[48:29] things happen in my in my head." But[48:31] this doesn't happen to everybody. It's[48:33] like the context of your life and your[48:35] experience is what gives meaning to all[48:37] of these things and and helps you to[48:38] focus in on them and see their[48:40] significance when other people might[48:41] not.[48:42] >> Yeah. But you also have scientists or[48:44] very analytical people that uh because[48:47] of their indoctrination on the fact that[48:48] they are not open mind or possibilities[48:51] they just brush it off anyway.[48:52] >> Sure. It couldn't be possible. It[48:54] couldn't really be any weird thing[48:56] happening there must be some prosaic[48:57] technical explanation. So they just kind[48:59] of write it off. Yeah.[49:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. But in general, I don't like[49:03] half answers. I like a full answer. So,[49:05] you know, that's also why I I tried to[49:08] explore this as much as I could because[49:10] I wanted to find my own answers. I[49:12] didn't want to rely on external sources[49:15] to understand some of these phenomenon.[49:17] And uh for what I understand, the more[49:20] you dig into it, the more you can[49:22] attract this kind of uh experiences. At[49:24] least it happened to me and it happened[49:26] also to other people I know. And uh so[49:28] going back to my uncle, the same uncle[49:30] of the video in Ethiopia.[49:33] >> Mhm.[49:33] >> Um[49:35] so before moving to Belgium in 2001, I[49:38] went to a marriage actually and uh he[49:40] showed me this picture. The story of[49:42] this picture is interesting. So he went[49:44] with his wife to a pilgrimage to a[49:46] religious Catholic pilgrimage in the[49:49] south of Italy. They were celebrating a[49:51] saint called Padre Peio. And um there[49:54] was a friend of them who was taking[49:56] random pictures of the sky with the[49:58] analogical camera. So not a digital one,[50:00] analogical one. And when they develop[50:03] when when this woman developed the film[50:06] in one of the pictures instead of the[50:07] sky, you see this face, the one here,[50:11] >> that photo you're saying she developed[50:13] this actual photo?[50:15] >> Yes. So I saw this photo. When I look at[50:18] it, I was like, "Wow, this could be a[50:20] spirit or could be a extraterrestrial."[50:22] I don't know. but make me a copy. So I[50:25] took a copy, I kept it in a book for[50:27] like 18 years without ever looking at[50:29] it. Then when I started having this sort[50:32] of[50:34] spiritual interest again, I I actually[50:37] found the book. I found the picture. I[50:39] was like, "Wow, this is really[50:40] something." So[50:44] what happened is in 2020, uh I met a new[50:47] friend. I I threw a party uh after um[50:51] after a trip to San Francisco. I met[50:53] some new friends and this woman in[50:55] particular, Belgium woman, middle-aged,[50:57] she invited me to have uh initiation to[51:00] shaktipat. So she had spent a lot of[51:03] time in India and she had been initiated[51:05] to what is called they call Shaktipat by[51:08] awami one of these gurus and she said[51:11] because of the experiences that you are[51:13] telling me uh and your desire to have[51:16] more connection maybe this could help[51:18] you. So I said okay let's try. So after[51:21] some time maybe a couple weeks we met at[51:24] her place. It was me, her, uh, and two[51:27] friends of her. And, uh, so I, I think I[51:31] made a face contact, uh, through the[51:33] phone with this Shwami that was supposed[51:36] to do the initiation. Uh, and then we,[51:38] we closed the conversation and we[51:40] started meditating. So, actually, I was[51:42] meditating, she was also meditating and[51:44] channeling at the same time. And there[51:47] was one girl that was singing and[51:49] another one that was playing shamanic[51:50] drum. And uh as soon as I close my eyes,[51:54] I actually see this spirit dressed in[51:58] white with a with a white robe and uh in[52:02] lotus pose like meditating with a blue[52:04] aura, bright blue aura aura all around.[52:07] And then the the second after I see him[52:11] walking towards me and next to him I saw[52:14] another entity which looked very[52:15] extraterrestrial also wearing a robe.[52:17] was a pink purple rope but with a face[52:20] which was like triangular and almost[52:22] looking like a dragon but imagine a[52:24] dragon but uh uh with a flat face but[52:28] also with scales here and then in my[52:30] mind I ask who are you and uh I see a[52:34] writing popping up Metatron and it's[52:37] interesting because uh your one of your[52:40] previous guests Brandon was was talking[52:43] about uh Metatron and actually I[52:45] actually share some of these experiences[52:46] with him as So um so going back so so[52:51] basically uh my friend once the the[52:54] meditation was over uh she told me well[52:56] you know I saw a spirit and she[52:58] described the same spirit but I mean[53:00] this this uh this kind of Jesus like but[53:03] dressed in purple and she said I saw him[53:06] actually going behind you and putting[53:08] her hand on your shoulder and say this[53:10] is my worker something like that and[53:12] then when she was asking who was the[53:13] spirit the name she was getting was[53:16] Sananda[53:17] Now in some spirit spiritual circles[53:20] they associate sand with the ascended[53:22] version of Jesus. So Jesus would be the[53:25] human and sand would be the spirit. Um[53:29] what I can say is that after this[53:31] initiation for me experiences escalated[53:35] exponentially uh in the matter of few[53:37] days. Um so what happened is[53:41] I I had arranged with a with a friend to[53:44] to have some sort of um uh session in[53:47] which she would she would play some[53:48] shamanic drumming and she would[53:51] basically rebalance the chakras[53:52] something that they do when they do[53:53] raiki or stuff like that[53:55] >> and um so but it was already locked down[53:58] so we couldn't meet it face to face. So[54:00] I was in my in my bed with the with the[54:02] laptop and with the music playing on[54:05] YouTube that she had pre-recorded and I[54:08] closed my eyes. First five minutes in I[54:10] feel nothing and then suddenly I feel[54:13] some sort of tingling starting from the[54:14] tip of my fingers that propagates uh up[54:17] to my shoulders in both arms. My arms[54:20] got paralyzed. My head gets lift up[54:23] almost as somebody had put a hand in[54:25] there and then I feel a spinning energy[54:28] like I was on a spinning table. This[54:30] this energy throughout my body and then[54:32] my eyelids start flickering start[54:34] flattering uncontrollably. I see this[54:37] face, the same face of this sander,[54:40] whatever. And then I see a whole like a[54:43] sort of portal opening with some[54:45] entities around that I had already seen[54:47] under hypnosis uh a month or two months[54:50] before that. These entities were[54:53] actually looking like this. So,[54:56] uh round head, very very long neck,[54:59] completely white, round eyes and a sort[55:03] of piggy nose. Um, and then these[55:07] entities disappear and then I see[55:09] another array of entities, different[55:12] colors, different shapes. I couldn't[55:13] really focus on them. The only one that[55:15] I could focus on was the last one, which[55:18] was the mantis. So then I I realized[55:21] maybe these are my spirit guides.[55:24] And um that was interesting. When the[55:27] music ends, basically my arm got back to[55:30] normal. I the energy stops like this.[55:34] And uh and uh after that well after that[55:38] in the matter of few weeks I started[55:39] meditating more regularly and then I got[55:42] to a point of having similar experience[55:44] just by medit meditating by myself. But[55:47] before going into that I want to show[55:49] you something. So I accidentally I ended[55:54] up um seeing this painting. It's called[55:57] the prince of peace. I don't know if you[55:58] know it. It was it was painted by this[56:02] prodigy at the age of eight. She was[56:04] >> Oh, that little girl painted it.[56:06] >> Yes.[56:07] >> Wow. Good job.[56:08] >> She's called Akan Karink and uh this[56:11] this painting sold for millions of of[56:13] euros. She was claiming that she was[56:16] seeing the spirit of Jesus and she was[56:18] just painting what she was seeing. There[56:20] has been there have been researchers[56:22] that actually compare this face with the[56:24] one of the holy shroud in Turin and uh[56:28] they found a perfect match. So I had[56:31] this thought if this spirit is somehow[56:33] connected to Jesus and the holy shroud[56:35] is Jesus and she was seeing Jesus. So[56:37] three different independent sources.[56:40] If I if I overlap all of them do I see[56:44] some similarity? And then here I'm I'm[56:46] showing the the the experiments. Oh,[56:52] >> the transition is very smooth. It's much[56:54] smoother than you would think when you[56:55] see the picture separated.[56:57] >> Sure.[57:01] >> And uh one interesting thing for[57:03] instance is um there is the neck of this[57:06] picture. You see the neck here and it's[57:10] perfectly matching the structure of[57:12] light that you see under this face. It's[57:14] absolutely to the millimeter. They are[57:15] on top of each other. So I don't know.[57:18] It's it's interesting. It's an[57:20] interesting uh things to notice, I[57:22] think.[57:22] >> I mean, he's awfully white for Jesus.[57:24] Does that bother you? Does that come to[57:26] your mind as a a point of concern?[57:29] >> White I think is pretty, you know, he[57:31] >> I guess the Prince of Peace uh painting[57:34] seems[57:35] >> uh this one.[57:36] >> Yeah.[57:36] >> I This is how she saw it. So,[57:40] >> sure.[57:42] >> Uh but you know, if a spirit maybe looks[57:46] a bit different. Um what I wanted to[57:48] tell you about this entity is that uh[57:50] more recently I connected to a[57:52] journalist uh called Sabrina[57:54] Pagustinini. Somebody who used to be a[57:56] news anchor in in major TV channel in[57:59] Italy for for Yeah. And then started[58:02] also writing books about UFOs and[58:04] paranormal and spiritual stuff. And uh[58:06] so she interviewed one woman in[58:08] particular who under hypnosis remember[58:11] to have been abducted and remembered[58:14] this particular entity. And if you look[58:16] at their drawing and my drawing, they[58:19] look not too different.[58:20] >> Oh, extraordinarily similar. Yeah.[58:23] >> Yeah. So, it almost looks like it was[58:25] the same entities.[58:27] >> Um,[58:28] >> and I've never seen an entity drawn like[58:30] that before. That's interesting to me[58:31] that um they strike me as strange[58:33] looking. And[58:34] >> it is a bit unusual.[58:36] >> Yeah. But the two people would render[58:38] something that look unfamiliar in the[58:40] same way is interesting to me. And then[58:43] >> what was that third picture that you[58:45] just had there[58:47] picture?[58:48] >> Okay, so I'm happy that you asked. Uh so[58:50] basically um these cameras that I showed[58:53] you before uh with whom they they catch[58:56] some UFOs in[58:58] >> Dan's.[59:00] So sometimes this person who is also a[59:02] forensic technical consultant uses I[59:05] mean takes videos of people that he[59:08] consider interesting and sometimes when[59:10] analyzing the image in specific um[59:13] frequencies these people don't look like[59:17] humans like in this case this this very[59:20] thin lady look like like that which to[59:23] me when I saw this picture reminded me[59:25] of that.[59:26] >> Sure. Yeah. doesn't mean that person[59:30] related to it was just an interesting[59:32] person to them or it was interesting[59:34] relative to this subject. Yeah,[59:36] unfortunately he didn't want to[59:37] elaborate but uh he's he believes that[59:41] she was not human. That's why she he he[59:44] was interesting in seeing what he could[59:46] see in uh in invisible spectrum. Uh for[59:49] some reason that I don't know. Um[59:53] and then so I started meditating. I[59:55] started having these experiences in[59:56] which at the beginning I was always[59:57] seeing this face of the sand and then[59:59] different entities. Um and then one day[01:00:03] this was in June um 21st June uh 2020.[01:00:09] So I started actually uh okay so the[01:00:11] first time I connected in meditation I[01:00:13] received clear messages telling me you[01:00:15] have connected to a stargate and you can[01:00:18] connect other people who will meditate[01:00:21] with you can have the same kind of[01:00:23] experience. So I was feeling energies, I[01:00:25] was seeing visuals and I started[01:00:27] organizing uh sessions I mean less[01:00:30] section group meditation with people and[01:00:32] they were having similar experiences[01:00:34] feeling energies seeing entities of[01:00:37] different kinds some described as angels[01:00:39] some more extraterrestrial looking and[01:00:42] also the first time I connected or let's[01:00:44] say yeah the first time I connected they[01:00:46] also told me you can do this for[01:00:48] healings which I interpreted literally[01:00:51] so I said okay if it's True. I have a[01:00:54] problem. So at the time I had a injury[01:00:57] on my left wrist. It was a relapse from[01:01:00] a previous problem at the tendon. And[01:01:02] the previous time I had to take a[01:01:04] cortisone injection to get rid of it.[01:01:06] And after 5 months the problem was not[01:01:08] solved and I couldn't even lift the cup[01:01:11] without feeling pain up to the elbow. So[01:01:13] I said okay if it's true that u this[01:01:16] kind of connection can be useful for[01:01:17] healing. Let's try with myself. if I[01:01:19] will meditate tomorrow and let's see if[01:01:21] this problem disappears. So the day[01:01:23] after I actually went meditating I even[01:01:26] forgot about the intention of the[01:01:28] meditation but while I'm uh getting out[01:01:31] from the park I hear this internal[01:01:33] message check your wrist and then I[01:01:36] check my wrist I put pressure I I lift[01:01:39] weights I turn it in all ways and the[01:01:42] pain was gone after 5 months[01:01:45] completely gone and it never came back[01:01:47] in 5 years. So that convinced me to try[01:01:50] to do what they were saying, try[01:01:52] meditating with other people. And so I[01:01:54] did the experiments.[01:01:58] On the 21st of June, I had arranged to[01:02:00] meet with seven seven women uh all in my[01:02:03] circle of meditator friends and u we[01:02:07] connect in meditation and uh one of my[01:02:10] friends start actually channeling the[01:02:12] voices of these entities. While we are[01:02:14] feeling at least I feel very strong[01:02:16] energies. I have visuals of some of[01:02:18] these entities and um and then they[01:02:21] actually guided us through uh some sort[01:02:24] of light body activation using a meaba[01:02:27] which I learned only the day before what[01:02:30] was a meaba so[01:02:31] >> is a a um[01:02:34] >> it's like two kabala[01:02:37] >> yeah it's a they talk about that yeah uh[01:02:40] but it's a structure basically it's a[01:02:42] structure made of two tetrahedron that[01:02:44] are one spinning clockwise and the other[01:02:47] counter clockwise, one's you know[01:02:49] pointing up and the other one to the[01:02:50] center of the earth and uh apparently[01:02:53] some say that some entities spiritual[01:02:56] entities or whatever they can use this[01:02:58] to travel even through dimensions but[01:03:01] this is you know all esoteric knowledge[01:03:03] or or theories but what I know is that[01:03:07] after this meditation actually we did a[01:03:09] second meditation too uh I went back[01:03:11] home and something very weird happened[01:03:14] so I met at the door uh um a neighbor[01:03:18] that I never met before and she told me,[01:03:20] "My cat has entered your house through[01:03:22] through a open window that I had on the[01:03:24] street." I said, "Okay,[01:03:27] uh let's let's get into because somebody[01:03:29] from the I mean that lives in front of[01:03:31] me apparently told her that she saw her[01:03:34] cat entering my house." So, we go[01:03:36] inside, we check everywhere. So, a lot[01:03:39] of the rooms were already locked because[01:03:41] I I I live alone and I and I didn't use[01:03:44] these rooms, so they were locked. But[01:03:46] anyway, we enter every single room,[01:03:48] including the basement. There is also[01:03:50] little furniture to hide behind. She was[01:03:53] screaming the name of the cat. We don't[01:03:55] find the cat. So, I said, "Okay, sorry.[01:03:57] I don't have your cat is not here." Um,[01:04:00] and then three days pass. I actually[01:04:03] meet her again and she she tell me I[01:04:05] found another person that told me to[01:04:08] have seen the cat entering your house. I[01:04:09] said sorry I mean uh your cat is not in[01:04:12] my house. Uh and then after 3 days um[01:04:16] this cat was nowhere to be found and uh[01:04:19] I was meditating and asking is there[01:04:21] something special with this cat? And the[01:04:23] message I was receiving is that we send[01:04:25] you your the cat to give you evidence of[01:04:28] the nonlinearity of time.[01:04:31] I also asked a friend of mine who is a[01:04:34] former photo reporter but also a psychic[01:04:37] medium whatever and I said can you give[01:04:40] me information about the cat and he was[01:04:41] basically telling me the cat is there[01:04:43] but it's almost like in another[01:04:45] dimension but I don't know how to[01:04:46] explain it. So after 3 days uh one night[01:04:51] one one morning I wake up and uh I I[01:04:53] come downstairs and I see a uh a trash[01:04:56] uh basically a trash bag completely[01:04:58] ripped off and then upstairs I find um[01:05:01] poo on um on a carpet. So I said okay[01:05:05] the cat now is there somewhere. So I[01:05:08] during the night I put uh my laptop to[01:05:11] record in the in the room and I also put[01:05:13] some crackers to attract eventually the[01:05:16] the cat and the morning after I check[01:05:18] the recording and after 56 minutes in a[01:05:21] in a recording which is 9 hours 18[01:05:23] minutes 18 seconds and there it's[01:05:25] already interesting 999 but whatever if[01:05:27] one cares about synchronicities. Uh, the[01:05:30] cat is in the room, so it jumps on the[01:05:33] sofa and then at some point the image[01:05:36] freezes for 6 minutes and then when it[01:05:38] starts again, uh, the image goes 100[01:05:41] times faster and you only have one[01:05:43] single frame of the cat in the middle of[01:05:45] the room and then kind of disappear and[01:05:48] then he reappears at normal speed. You[01:05:51] will see it soon.[01:05:56] Okay, so here it stop. So you have to[01:05:58] look here in this position.[01:06:06] Did you see?[01:06:08] And then if you if you slow down 100[01:06:11] times one 0 0 then at some point you see[01:06:14] this a single frame with the cat there.[01:06:18] Uh so the the interesting thing is that[01:06:21] I had received the message[01:06:24] >> about the nonlinearity of time and here[01:06:26] you see freezing you see acceleration[01:06:29] and then you see slowing down.[01:06:32] So[01:06:34] and the the strangest uh continues[01:06:37] because then uh I get the message that I[01:06:39] could reproduce the same phenomenon just[01:06:41] by meditation and they suggested me to[01:06:43] uh meditate visualizing a sphere in the[01:06:47] in my chest like in my heart chakra with[01:06:50] inside a cube with inside a tetraedron[01:06:53] and then in the visualization I had to[01:06:55] imagine these solids um let's say[01:06:58] rotating faster and faster and that[01:07:01] would generate some energy able ble to[01:07:02] somehow affect the space-time uh matrix[01:07:05] around me. And so I consistently[01:07:08] recording myself when meditating,[01:07:10] sometimes using uh quicktime player,[01:07:13] sometimes using zoom. Uh but uh in most[01:07:16] of the case, most of the cases I got[01:07:19] some anomalies and this is one example[01:07:22] very similar to the cat.[01:07:25] the audio actually keep keep working[01:07:27] even if uh[01:07:30] even if the image is frozen and then it[01:07:33] goes super fast.[01:07:37] But then if you if you go frame by frame[01:07:40] you find anomalies like this one in[01:07:42] which you see me in two different[01:07:43] position[01:07:45] um transparent almost as I was not fully[01:07:48] materializing in each of the position[01:07:51] which is it's not normal like normally[01:07:54] you know if you do a if you stop a frame[01:07:57] I mean you if you if you go frame by[01:07:59] frame you should see me fully[01:08:00] materialized in different positions.[01:08:02] >> Yeah. And uh but then I said okay you[01:08:05] know I did these experiments with the[01:08:07] laptop maybe there is something wrong[01:08:08] with the laptop would be nice to have uh[01:08:11] an effect also caught on some other[01:08:13] device and it actually happened and it[01:08:16] happened with the phone. So once I I was[01:08:19] doing an 8 minute meditation. I had my[01:08:21] friend in um uh in Chicago so 7 hours of[01:08:24] difference and she was sending me[01:08:26] messages on WhatsApp before and after[01:08:29] the meditation and she also sent me one[01:08:31] single message during the meditation and[01:08:33] this was shifted 4 minutes in her phone[01:08:37] compared to mine the only message that[01:08:39] she sent me during the meditation.[01:08:42] So it's almost like you know again time[01:08:45] uh during the meditation time change[01:08:47] somehow becomes some sort of fluid and[01:08:49] then it goes back to normal and[01:08:51] everything is synchronized again and if[01:08:54] you put this on top of the anomalies[01:08:56] that I described at the beginning of our[01:08:57] conversation that makes a case according[01:09:00] to me but okay so I wanted to have[01:09:03] something more scientific so I contacted[01:09:05] the institute of noetic sciences that I[01:09:07] guess you know[01:09:08] >> it's Dean right there in the bottom[01:09:10] right[01:09:10] >> yeah but my point of contact was[01:09:11] actually the director of research so[01:09:13] Elan Wabbe[01:09:16] and uh so I had a limited budget about[01:09:18] €12,000 and I said what can you do uh to[01:09:22] try to study the effects on people[01:09:24] meditating with me just with a video and[01:09:26] they say okay with with that budget we[01:09:28] can recruit 11 volunteers all expert[01:09:31] meditators uh we can do EEG um and it's[01:09:34] a good one like 64 channel they will do[01:09:37] so the protocol of the medit of the[01:09:39] experiment will be they will do control[01:09:41] meditation which is a freestyle 11[01:09:43] minutes and then a meditation with your[01:09:46] video pre-recorded also 11 minutes in[01:09:49] the video the only thing that I was[01:09:51] saying was like I'm connecting you to[01:09:53] the Stargate and uh and nothing else the[01:09:55] music was actually muted not to pollute[01:09:58] the acquisition of the signal for the EG[01:10:00] so when you look at this data basically[01:10:03] uh you have on the left you have the[01:10:05] control and you have u like in[01:10:07] horizontal you have delta theta alpha[01:10:09] beta gamma[01:10:11] Uh in the middle you have the Stargate[01:10:13] meditation and then in the last one you[01:10:15] basically see each each red dot[01:10:18] correspond to electrode in the in the[01:10:20] EG. When you see it red will means that[01:10:24] it's like there is a statistically[01:10:27] significant difference between u the[01:10:30] data for the control and the stargate.[01:10:32] So in this case for instance there were[01:10:35] considerable differences in basically[01:10:37] almost all the electrodes for delta[01:10:40] alpha beta gamma for this one was mostly[01:10:43] in the in the delta for this was alpha[01:10:45] beta gamma and here was alpha I mean[01:10:47] theta alpha beta gamma but on top of[01:10:50] that so and this kind of behavior was uh[01:10:53] consistent in the sense that for each of[01:10:56] the 11 subjects there were considerable[01:10:58] differences across different brain[01:11:00] waves. But then four of them in[01:11:03] particular had very profound experiences[01:11:06] uh compatible with the one that people[01:11:08] meditating with me were having for[01:11:10] already months and I meditated literally[01:11:13] with uh thousands of people up to now.[01:11:16] But uh so for instance some felt the[01:11:19] presence of some entity they felt[01:11:20] compressed by energies. One uh said that[01:11:23] she had some sort of past life memory in[01:11:26] which she even felt the cold in in in in[01:11:30] her body and then others saw light[01:11:32] beings. Another one the subject 11 had[01:11:34] almost a psychedelic kind of[01:11:36] experiencing vortices and stuff like[01:11:38] that. So you know you have some[01:11:41] measurement telling you that something[01:11:42] is happening and also assisted by some[01:11:45] visuals and uh and energies and uh there[01:11:48] were some subjects that experience[01:11:51] nothing special but then if you look at[01:11:53] their eg they the eg shows a lot of[01:11:56] differences so it's almost like they are[01:11:58] activated in some way but this doesn't[01:12:00] translate in anything that they can[01:12:02] perceive.[01:12:03] Um I also did some fMRI[01:12:07] uh with a team that studies um uh let's[01:12:10] say um hypno let's say alter state of[01:12:13] consciousness under hypnosis or[01:12:15] meditation and also raiki and stuff like[01:12:18] that. um they only gave me partial uh[01:12:21] analysis of the data but they they saw[01:12:23] that there were I mean when I meditate[01:12:26] there there is some uh let's say[01:12:28] activation of some part of the of the[01:12:30] brain and some more coherence let's say[01:12:32] but I would need much more effort to be[01:12:35] able to uh to understand what was going[01:12:38] on and on top of that this was unfunded[01:12:40] so they got no money whatsoever uh for[01:12:42] doing this these are the most[01:12:45] interesting uh data that uh that I have[01:12:48] um[01:12:49] the same journalist that I mentioned[01:12:51] before that uh spoke with the abductee[01:12:54] uh she put me in contact with these guys[01:12:56] with the with the perspectral cameras[01:12:58] and we decided to do an experiment um or[01:13:01] meditation. So[01:13:02] >> can we pause for one second?[01:13:04] >> Yeah, sure.[01:13:05] >> I have an old dog that is trying to get[01:13:07] onto a stool. She's about to knock my[01:13:10] camera down.[01:13:11] >> Perfect.[01:13:14] Here[01:13:17] she is.[01:13:18] >> Oh, so cute.[01:13:21] >> Okay, come.[01:13:24] >> She want to get a bit of energy from the[01:13:26] conversation.[01:13:32] >> She's nearing the end of her life and[01:13:34] I'm trying to be as kind and gentle to[01:13:37] her as I can in it.[01:13:38] >> Oh, how old?[01:13:41] >> She's 15 now. Oh yeah,[01:13:44] >> but she's she's had a very good life,[01:13:46] but I think everything has just be[01:13:48] become exponentially more difficult for[01:13:49] her as she's gotten older.[01:13:51] >> Yeah, I can imagine.[01:13:52] >> Okay, so we'll we'll edit this out, but[01:13:54] if you want to just take a pause and[01:13:56] then start right into this this[01:13:58] >> Yeah, I will not. Yeah.[01:14:00] So basically the same journalist that uh[01:14:03] that connected that that um let's say[01:14:06] show me this drawing of this person that[01:14:09] uh thought to be abducted um[01:14:13] she introduced me to these guys with the[01:14:15] hyperspectral cameras. We decided to do[01:14:17] a meditation experiment to see if they[01:14:20] could visualize some effect in my[01:14:22] biophotonic field. So basically we emit[01:14:25] light and these cameras can be used to[01:14:28] characterize this light in terms of[01:14:30] energy frequency and also light[01:14:32] polarization for instance. And uh so[01:14:34] they did a lot of experiment with with[01:14:36] people. uh one of these guys in[01:14:38] particular, I mean the the engineer[01:14:40] works with the uh department of medicine[01:14:43] in a university in Italy and he did he[01:14:46] used this camera for like thousands of[01:14:48] people and um and so normally what they[01:14:52] see in this specific uh frequency um[01:14:55] spectrum they see that most of the uh[01:14:57] light is concentrated most of the[01:14:59] frequency is concentrated in the eyes[01:15:02] and um for instance for the journalist[01:15:04] you see it uh and also this other guy[01:15:07] that was tested before me. Um it's[01:15:09] almost like um you know Leonardo da[01:15:11] Vinci used to say the light is the[01:15:14] window for the soul. So actually with[01:15:15] this instrumentation they can actually[01:15:17] visualize it. But then the strange thing[01:15:20] is that for me it's completely different[01:15:21] even when I'm not meditating the highest[01:15:24] level of frequency is concentrating not[01:15:26] in my eyes but everywhere except for[01:15:28] this structure around my eyes. And um[01:15:31] and then when I start meditating there[01:15:33] is a tooidal field that forms around my[01:15:36] head and and spins forming across[01:15:40] >> and they had never seen the the cross[01:15:44] forming. They had seen the tooidal field[01:15:46] around people meditating and they never[01:15:48] seen somebody with a level of uh of[01:15:52] frequency which was so high uh[01:15:54] distributed over all the face. And here[01:15:57] actually you can see the difference in[01:15:59] frequency even better. Then they tested[01:16:01] with another instrument. So they had a[01:16:03] polarometric camera me measuring the[01:16:06] polarization of the light. They uh they[01:16:08] chose like 10 points around my body and[01:16:11] they were monitoring what would happen[01:16:13] when I start meditating. And when I[01:16:15] start meditating the polarization[01:16:17] changes instantaneously. Now[01:16:21] um to change the polarization of the[01:16:23] light you have to uh go from one medium[01:16:26] to the another. If you go from air to[01:16:28] water or if you go through a plasma or[01:16:30] if you go through a electromagnetic[01:16:32] field or through a grav gravitational[01:16:34] field but there is no reason that[01:16:36] without generating any of these uh the[01:16:39] the light would show this kind of[01:16:41] behavior. But[01:16:42] >> oh wait so let me just be clear. I I was[01:16:45] misunderstanding. I thought that you[01:16:46] were saying they were changing like a[01:16:47] polarization as in like a lens or a[01:16:50] setting on a camera, but you're[01:16:51] >> No, no. The polarization is like, you[01:16:53] know, if you consider the light as a as[01:16:56] a wave, it vibrates or oscillates within[01:16:59] certain preferential planes,[01:17:01] >> but this plane can change if you if you[01:17:03] eat a obstacle of some kind. Let's say[01:17:05] >> the shift in polarization is simply a[01:17:08] shift that they're noticing happening.[01:17:10] They're not they're not looking through[01:17:12] a different sort of[01:17:14] >> No, no, no. It's not it's not able[01:17:17] to look at this plane and[01:17:19] >> they're characterize the they're able to[01:17:21] characterize uh how the light is[01:17:23] vibrating in which uh you know in which[01:17:26] plane and everything and they see that[01:17:27] uh basically what happens around me. Uh[01:17:30] it's almost like there is something[01:17:31] forming around me that that changes the[01:17:34] polarization of the light.[01:17:35] >> I see. So it's it's not a shift in the[01:17:38] method of viewing that we're noticing.[01:17:39] It's actually[01:17:41] interesting. And uh yeah saw two[01:17:44] different instruments very sophisticated[01:17:46] ones showing anomalies and um and then[01:17:51] they also did uh some other uh[01:17:53] post-processing for the the data. So[01:17:55] they can use this camera for instance to[01:17:56] monitor the activity of the pineal[01:17:58] gland. You know the the role of the[01:18:01] pineal gland for for spirituality or the[01:18:03] connection to the other world is known[01:18:05] since Egyptian or maybe even earlier.[01:18:08] And uh so what they do basically they[01:18:10] they can characterize the direction of[01:18:12] the photons[01:18:14] um with different colors. This is[01:18:16] actually different from what I said in[01:18:18] my interview with with Ross Gulard[01:18:20] because I misunderstood some message[01:18:22] that I got from from this engineer. But[01:18:25] so the different colors correspond to[01:18:28] different direction of the photon. So[01:18:30] what you will see is the same video you[01:18:32] saw before but here we are looking at[01:18:34] the activity of the pineal gland. So you[01:18:37] cannot drill a hole through my head.[01:18:39] That's the closest you can get in a 2D[01:18:41] image, right? So the anomaly here is[01:18:44] that they saw these flashes of light[01:18:46] blasting off my body when I start[01:18:48] meditating. And uh they never seen that.[01:18:51] It's almost like um Yeah.[01:18:54] Uh and on top of that, here you also see[01:18:56] a screenshot with this cross that I was[01:18:58] mentioning before.[01:19:00] >> Mhm.[01:19:02] >> Um we are almost at the end of the[01:19:04] presentation. So recently I I went to uh[01:19:06] Val Maleno which is a hot spot for UFO[01:19:09] activity. A lot of people have also[01:19:11] reported[01:19:13] have caught on camera or video not only[01:19:16] um let's say UFOs of any kind and shape[01:19:20] but also entities. And this is a picture[01:19:22] that was given to me by the journalist[01:19:25] who who met with the person that took[01:19:26] the picture. So this is[01:19:28] >> Valenco Italy.[01:19:29] >> Huh?[01:19:30] >> Val Malco Italy. Val Val Maleno[01:19:34] >> is that where is that?[01:19:37] >> It's like two hours and from Milan.[01:19:40] >> Okay. Yeah.[01:19:42] >> And uh so I went I recently went there[01:19:45] in October with the same guy that worked[01:19:48] with spectral camera and the friend of[01:19:51] Theodorani who also brought his own gear[01:19:54] and we started doing some measurements[01:19:56] to see if we could catch some UFO. We[01:19:59] caught some sort of orbs in the[01:20:01] invisible range. But then we also did[01:20:03] meditation experiments and there there[01:20:05] was again another anomaly. So they use[01:20:08] another camera another perspectral[01:20:10] camera that they never tested on me and[01:20:12] u I was meditating and this friend of[01:20:16] the was also meditating. Um what you see[01:20:19] here is actually a time series. So it's[01:20:22] almost like instead of showing a video[01:20:25] you you show the measurement uh at the[01:20:28] different time. Okay. So normally you[01:20:32] should see so here we are looking at the[01:20:34] frequency senior of the biophotonic[01:20:36] field. Normally each entry in this[01:20:39] matrix should be filled in. So you[01:20:41] should see as in this case for uh for[01:20:43] this guy that work withani you see[01:20:46] always some some measurements but in my[01:20:49] case for most of the time I sort of[01:20:51] disappeared like the camera was not able[01:20:54] to detect my my frequential signature.[01:20:57] Again this was a another device the[01:21:00] third one in a row that we tested on me[01:21:02] and they saw something that they never[01:21:04] seen before.[01:21:06] uh and we don't have an explanation[01:21:07] other than there is something definitely[01:21:09] something happening around me. It seems[01:21:12] to affect time in the experiments that I[01:21:14] show before that I did by myself. It[01:21:16] seems to affect the light. So now if I[01:21:20] want to to be far a farfetch to to put a[01:21:23] farfetch um theory, the only thing that[01:21:27] I know that can affect light and time is[01:21:30] gravity. So is it possible that maybe[01:21:33] this kind of meditation is able to[01:21:34] create some sort of gravitational[01:21:35] anomaly and then it make you wonder[01:21:39] because for instance Diana Pasulka is uh[01:21:42] was very interested into these[01:21:44] levitating saints you know that could[01:21:46] fly and then you know these yogis[01:21:49] sometimes they have been they have the[01:21:50] ability apparently also to to do that.[01:21:53] So if you are able to levitate you are[01:21:55] able to generate gravity. So maybe this[01:21:58] is part of the same kind of physics[01:22:01] involved in that specific uh phenomenon[01:22:04] and it's the first time that you see uh[01:22:07] measurements with this kind of devices.[01:22:10] >> Fascinating. So I I guess that would[01:22:12] also kind of um it would it would give[01:22:15] you some ground for our hypothesizing[01:22:18] about how there might both be a[01:22:20] connection between consciousness and the[01:22:22] UAP phenomenon and between consciousness[01:22:26] and some sort of propulsion system or[01:22:28] something.[01:22:29] >> Yeah. So be because because this kind of[01:22:31] phenomenon you see them also for UFOs[01:22:34] they they seem to bend the light and to[01:22:36] to change the frequency and energy[01:22:39] features of of the of the field around[01:22:41] and what if with consciousness you can[01:22:44] create a similar field just around your[01:22:47] body. It's just that you have to be able[01:22:49] to to get to that point and uh I don't[01:22:51] know in some way maybe because of my[01:22:54] close to cause encounters with these uh[01:22:56] UFOs or entity or whatever maybe[01:22:58] something happened uh in the process but[01:23:01] um so I also had a face tof face[01:23:04] encounter a single face tof face[01:23:06] encounter with an entity and this[01:23:08] happened uh I think it was yeah it was[01:23:11] the the 12th of October 2022. Uh so I[01:23:16] was sleeping at some point that[01:23:17] something touched me on uh on one arm. I[01:23:21] opened my eyes and when I open my eyes I[01:23:23] see an entity which looks like this. So[01:23:26] um wearing a hood[01:23:28] uh wearing a robe completely white. I[01:23:31] couldn't distinguish any facial feature[01:23:33] or anything. And it had some sort of um[01:23:37] spinning vortex of blue light in the[01:23:39] lower part of the body that was moving.[01:23:42] And it was almost like this entity was[01:23:44] coming out of a portal. So I screamed[01:23:46] three times and I was almost like[01:23:49] jumping out of the bed. I I sat on the[01:23:51] bed and I was ready to jump and it[01:23:52] disappeared. But what I can say is that[01:23:55] I wasn't dreaming before it just like[01:23:58] you know something touched me, opened my[01:24:00] eyes, I saw it for maybe two seconds and[01:24:02] then it was gone. And it was almost as[01:24:04] tall as the the room. So maybe 2 m 20, 2[01:24:07] m and 40. Um I could add also that a[01:24:12] week before while meditating I was[01:24:14] asking why do you don't you ever show[01:24:18] yourself in the physical and uh the[01:24:20] message I was receiving is that even[01:24:22] though you saw us under meditation to[01:24:25] see us in face to face is a different[01:24:27] story and you would get scared and[01:24:28] actually one week later after I had this[01:24:31] this uh this experience I immediately[01:24:33] thought about that and said well in some[01:24:35] way they were right. Um and then yeah[01:24:40] I'm I'm almost there. I probably two[01:24:42] three slides. This is another phenomenon[01:24:45] that I notice after my connection with[01:24:47] this NHI. I get I am able to connect[01:24:50] telepathically with with wild animals,[01:24:53] birds or even insects, dragonflies,[01:24:56] butterflies and um and I in some cases I[01:24:59] I was really able to trigger the contact[01:25:02] which is non-trivial like I don't know[01:25:04] um it's not easy for instance to go and[01:25:06] pet a crow and it's definitely not easy[01:25:08] for instance to to call uh a dragonfly[01:25:12] just right after a meditation we saw[01:25:14] them flying we said okay we just focus[01:25:17] saying we love you don't be afraid to[01:25:19] land on my hand. We don't do we don't do[01:25:22] we don't want to do you arm. And this[01:25:26] dragonfly went to the hand of my friend[01:25:28] first and then she came to me and she[01:25:30] never left. She was keeping on coming[01:25:33] back and um I also tried to go very[01:25:36] close with the hand to see if it would[01:25:38] get scared and it wouldn't get scared.[01:25:41] Then one week later we went back to the[01:25:43] same place, put the end out after the[01:25:46] meditation and the dragonflies came[01:25:48] back.[01:25:51] So[01:25:51] >> I I believe that the mechanism that you[01:25:54] use to connect with this uh NHI is very[01:25:57] similar to the one that you have to[01:25:59] connect with animals. Um and uh yeah, so[01:26:02] this is probably even reported in[01:26:04] history that was I don't know France St.[01:26:06] Francis was seeing orbs and was also[01:26:09] connecting to animals.[01:26:11] Um[01:26:12] I'm I'm not saying I'm St. Francis, but[01:26:14] I say I can see some of the same[01:26:17] phenomenon happening.[01:26:18] >> Oh, sure. Yeah, that I totally[01:26:19] understand that there it makes complete[01:26:22] sense to me that there might be a[01:26:23] connection between[01:26:26] >> state of mind and and the perception of[01:26:27] these other animals. And then in some[01:26:30] cases it happens that I when I'm[01:26:31] meditating I see an entity which is[01:26:34] maybe a I don't know a humanoid with a[01:26:37] bird or a insecttoid and then I actually[01:26:40] connect with a with an animal which is[01:26:42] of the same species. For instance it[01:26:44] happened here. I was meditating in the[01:26:46] forest. I saw an entity which was[01:26:48] gigantic with white uh bird head and[01:26:52] shoulders as a human and I said okay if[01:26:54] it's true that I'm connecting to you[01:26:56] send me a sign. And then what happened[01:26:58] is I go out of the of the forest and I[01:27:02] sat on a on a terrace and then from[01:27:05] around the corner there is this magpie[01:27:08] this baby macpie that comes jump all[01:27:11] around and then he comes to me and he[01:27:13] bite my my jeans. I could have pet him[01:27:17] but but I didn't do it. And then I go[01:27:19] back home. Sorry. I go back home[01:27:23] and u the same day and there was a a[01:27:27] bird that shik a black hat shikadi that[01:27:30] was stuck in my backyard and uh[01:27:33] basically I brought it home because it[01:27:34] couldn't fly out. I brought it home. I[01:27:37] let it fly around and it landed under[01:27:39] the love.[01:27:41] I mean it was incredible like and I have[01:27:43] to say at some point I sat in front of[01:27:46] this bird and uh and I closed my eyes[01:27:50] and I saw this gigantic entity that[01:27:52] similar to the one that I had seen in[01:27:54] the in the forest. It happened the same[01:27:57] day you know[01:27:58] >> this sort of chimera bird humanoid[01:28:01] thing.[01:28:01] >> Yeah like Egyptian god and this actually[01:28:04] has to do with the scientific coalition[01:28:06] for UAP studies. I actually went to the[01:28:09] conference in um Ansville[01:28:11] and um and then two of the participants[01:28:15] wanted to meditate with me to see how we[01:28:17] would feel. So we sat outside and during[01:28:21] the meditation at some point on my right[01:28:23] I see an entity that had the face of a[01:28:25] grasshopper and the body more or less of[01:28:29] a human and completely white and I also[01:28:32] was hearing royals royals. And so once[01:28:36] we finished the meditation, the guy who[01:28:38] was sitting next to me on the left told[01:28:40] me, "I I just saw a grasshopper." I[01:28:43] didn't say anything about the entity[01:28:45] that I saw. He he said, "Uh, I saw a[01:28:48] like a grasshopper landing next to you."[01:28:51] And then we go and on top of this gate[01:28:54] there was a grasshopper actually and it[01:28:57] was standing on the elite uh brand elite[01:29:01] royals.[01:29:02] >> Isn't it crazy? So, two synchronicities[01:29:05] in one.[01:29:06] >> And it's not quantifiable. I mean, I[01:29:08] don't know any way of of of drawing a[01:29:10] quantifiable connection between the word[01:29:11] elite and royals and grasshoppers and[01:29:13] your thing. But there's no denying that[01:29:15] there's a meaningful connection there.[01:29:18] It seems seems humorous. It really seems[01:29:21] playful in a way.[01:29:22] >> It definitely made sense for me and for[01:29:24] the guy that saw the the grasshopper.[01:29:27] And then these are the last one, the[01:29:29] last three pictures. So I was talking[01:29:31] about the electromagnetic interference[01:29:33] that I experienced. So the first time I[01:29:37] again after a meditation I was going out[01:29:39] of another park in which we had[01:29:41] meditated and then I felt a sort of[01:29:45] heating on my head like almost as you[01:29:48] are exposed to some sort of radiation or[01:29:50] something. And then I I look up and then[01:29:52] we see actually that there was a cloud[01:29:55] low I mean quite low in altitude and it[01:29:58] was the only cloud anywhere and um and[01:30:02] then the funny thing is that it had this[01:30:04] like very square edges[01:30:06] >> strangely geometrical cloud. Yeah.[01:30:08] >> Yeah. Almost like a diamond of some[01:30:10] kind. And so I said I sort of felt that[01:30:13] it was something else. So I wanted to[01:30:15] take a picture and what happened is my[01:30:17] phone froze became completely black with[01:30:21] a little blinking light in the middle[01:30:24] and uh and it was blinking in the middle[01:30:26] and then moving to the right and[01:30:27] disappearing and it kept on doing it for[01:30:29] some minutes. I had lost control of my[01:30:31] phone and then I said at some point let[01:30:33] me take this picture and then I managed[01:30:35] to close whatever uh was on on my phone[01:30:39] and and then I took a picture and uh and[01:30:41] this is what you see. And then after[01:30:43] that uh this kept on happening but in[01:30:46] different form this form and it happened[01:30:49] like 10 15 times. So meditation then I I[01:30:53] hear almost like a telepathic messages[01:30:55] we are around I focus on a particular[01:30:58] crowd this one in this case and this[01:31:00] happened to my phone instead of showing[01:31:02] this it shows me that and uh and for[01:31:05] instance this other case is one of the[01:31:07] most recent u we started meditating with[01:31:10] this situation after the meditation[01:31:12] there were many more of these kind of[01:31:15] clouds and I told my friends these are[01:31:17] not clouds and immediately my phone went[01:31:19] into this mode.[01:31:22] She witnessed it like you know one[01:31:24] second after and uh and then the[01:31:26] strangest anomaly was once uh we we were[01:31:29] meditating during the meditation the[01:31:31] phone switches off I managed to switch[01:31:34] it on and it's at 10% of charge now[01:31:38] iPhone 7 5 year old battery 10% of[01:31:42] charge[01:31:43] >> an hour or something yeah[01:31:45] >> yeah or after a few minutes 15 20[01:31:47] minutes maximum if you don't use it[01:31:49] >> but what happened the day is that it[01:31:51] lasted for 10 hours while I was using[01:31:54] it. It always stayed at 10%.[01:31:57] And uh and then during the night, I told[01:32:00] my friend, I said, "This is the same[01:32:01] phone that you saw this morning, still[01:32:03] at 10%. It didn't go to 9%, 8%, 10%, and[01:32:07] I keep on using the phone." Then I look[01:32:10] at the phone and I was alone at that[01:32:11] point. My friend was had already left. I[01:32:14] look at the phone, I said, "What's[01:32:16] happening with you?" I saw a little orb[01:32:19] like the one that I saw when I told you[01:32:21] that I was surrounded by this bubble of[01:32:23] lights. I saw this little orb coming off[01:32:27] the phone going to the left and then my[01:32:29] phone switches off uh in the matter of[01:32:32] few minutes as it had as as normally[01:32:36] should have done 10 hours before.[01:32:39] >> So you saw you you saw it as an object[01:32:41] not simply on the screen. I saw the or[01:32:43] coming off really coming off the phone[01:32:46] and going.[01:32:48] >> So the the you know when you have this[01:32:51] kind of phenomena[01:32:56] >> I mean the the the the variety of this[01:32:58] phenomena is uh is uh is so great but I[01:33:02] see a connection like you know it's uh[01:33:04] it's not random anomalies. Does it annoy[01:33:08] you as a scientist, an engineer, that[01:33:14] these phenomena don't manifest in more[01:33:17] like the ways that we would really like[01:33:19] them to in a laboratory setting?[01:33:23] >> I do believe that some of the stuff that[01:33:25] I showed you uh like uh this experiment[01:33:28] with a perspective camera, I'm pretty[01:33:30] sure I could reproduce it in a in a lab[01:33:32] environment. Um but I also know that uh[01:33:37] I don't know at least people researching[01:33:39] the the paranormal or the or these[01:33:41] anomalies including Din Rading himself[01:33:44] say that sometime the because of the[01:33:46] effect of the observers if the observers[01:33:50] are total skeptics they may actually[01:33:52] don't experience anything and the[01:33:54] experiment could fail.[01:33:55] >> Sure. Yeah. He gives he gives a great[01:33:57] example of um a medit a study of the[01:34:00] effects of meditation on plant uh like[01:34:03] how well plants thrive where you find if[01:34:06] you give a a group of meditators some[01:34:09] plants and ask them to care for them and[01:34:11] meditate on them uh the the plants[01:34:13] thrive really well if the meditators are[01:34:16] like genuine believers in the efficacy[01:34:19] of it but if the if they're not you you[01:34:22] don't see any effect. I mean that[01:34:23] doesn't sound impossible to me but it[01:34:26] does sound frustrating. I mean we would[01:34:28] like at least[01:34:29] >> when we're in the mode of doing science[01:34:31] we would like the entire world to behave[01:34:33] as if it were just a gigantic laboratory[01:34:36] where we could reproduce everything and[01:34:37] quantify everything. Um but it doesn't[01:34:41] seem like that. Yeah, it's not something[01:34:44] it's difficult to have something on[01:34:46] demand even if occasionally occasionally[01:34:48] you can get this kind of effect for some[01:34:50] phenomenon like Chris Bletu apparently[01:34:53] is able to almost manifest uh orbs you[01:34:57] know by by just setting the intention. I[01:35:00] I don't have that ability but I can say[01:35:03] that a few times that I did that kind of[01:35:05] experiment it actually worked and and[01:35:08] then I had this consistent anomalies[01:35:10] that I described um you know the the[01:35:12] time anomalies the this uh[01:35:15] electromagnetic interference on my phone[01:35:17] always in the same scenario like I'm[01:35:19] connecting to clouds but and I hear the[01:35:22] message and then this happens so am I[01:35:24] triggering it or it's some some other[01:35:27] force triggering it so that's hard to,[01:35:30] you know, assess.[01:35:32] >> Does it occur to you that um like in in[01:35:34] the first story that you told about[01:35:35] being an 8-year-old? No, no, the the[01:35:39] second story in I guess 2017 where you[01:35:41] kind of thought, well, wouldn't it be[01:35:43] cool if I could manifest this again?[01:35:45] Does it occur to you that it might that[01:35:48] the intention might be an effect of the[01:35:51] of the phenomenon itself that that[01:35:53] rather than you manifesting it, your[01:35:55] desire to see it might be a sort of like[01:35:58] >> so it's like almost they they inject[01:36:01] this thought in you?[01:36:03] >> Sure.[01:36:04] >> Yeah, it's possible. It's possible.[01:36:07] >> We have no no way to verify that, but[01:36:09] it's a it's an interesting theory. Yeah,[01:36:11] >> it's hard to it's hard to run[01:36:13] experiments that test the you know the[01:36:16] the direction of time when you're kind[01:36:18] of stuck in one one flow.[01:36:20] >> Yeah. But what I believe I strongly[01:36:22] believe is that uh at least also with[01:36:25] this synchronicity that that I that I[01:36:27] showed. Um so these these entities or or[01:36:31] some of them at least exist or or have a[01:36:34] perspective which is outside time like[01:36:36] almost like a eagle eye and uh I want to[01:36:39] share one analogy that I find really[01:36:42] interesting that I heard a few days ago[01:36:44] by a hypnotherapist. Uh think about a[01:36:47] record. So you have all the different[01:36:50] songs uh at the same time in there and[01:36:53] uh and you can jump from one to the[01:36:55] other uh without specific direction you[01:36:57] know. So imagine but then imagine this[01:37:00] scenario as dynamic. Imagine that uh you[01:37:03] know you are looking at different uh[01:37:05] timelines or something but uh you can[01:37:08] also modify uh the timeline in the[01:37:10] future and the future can affect the[01:37:12] past and and stuff like that. So it's[01:37:15] really like your mind at some point you[01:37:18] you build models to try to make sense of[01:37:20] things but at some point it just blows[01:37:22] up you know it's like uh it's difficult[01:37:24] you know to make sense of everything.[01:37:28] >> I'd like to do a second conversation[01:37:29] where I kind of do a a Q&A with you[01:37:31] because you've gone through such an[01:37:33] interesting mu of experiences and ideas[01:37:37] that I don't know how to systematically[01:37:39] you know ask all the questions that I[01:37:40] want to. Would that be okay?[01:37:42] >> Yeah. Yeah for sure. Yeah.[01:37:44] >> Um, so for now, let's cut the[01:37:46] conversation here and then we'll do a[01:37:48] part two with my questions.[01:37:50] >> Okay.[01:37:50] >> Gather my thoughts, I guess.[01:37:52] >> I hope you you got some interesting[01:37:55] input like[01:37:56] >> Oh, I I did very much. I'm looking[01:37:57] forward to a second conversation. But[01:37:59] Andrea, thank you for being here.[01:38:01] >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you and uh for[01:38:03] this opportunity.[01:38:04] >> Yeah, we'll cut it there. But um and I[01:38:06] do have to go briefly, but genuinely[01:38:08] thank you. This was fascinating. And I[01:38:11] know that there's um at least for me[01:38:14] there's a kind of exhaustion I feel at[01:38:16] laying my experience out for other[01:38:17] people all the time because it's there's[01:38:19] a vulnerability that you have to engage[01:38:21] in and there's also a kind of effort[01:38:25] that it takes to run through your your[01:38:27] life in in that sort of fast forward[01:38:28] way. So thank you for doing that. I[01:38:30] think that's a real value value value[01:38:32] for people who um who want to take these[01:38:35] things seriously or who are curious[01:38:36] about them but want to hear them from[01:38:39] explained or at least the stories[01:38:41] relayed from people who also understand[01:38:43] science and the practice of science and[01:38:46] so we don't have to say well maybe this[01:38:48] person just isn't good at thinking about[01:38:49] science and if they were they wouldn't[01:38:51] think this way about the world so this[01:38:53] is a really unique thing that you're[01:38:54] offering us. Yeah, of course. Yeah, in[01:38:56] this discussion I I jump also to[01:38:58] something more religious or you know[01:39:00] something that uh but um yeah at the end[01:39:02] is all part of the same according to me.[01:39:04] It's it's a pity that people try to to[01:39:07] put things in you know confine people[01:39:08] with things with labels and uh it's like[01:39:12] you have to if you want to understand[01:39:13] the phenomenon you have to take the all[01:39:15] of it and keep an open mind and look at[01:39:17] 360°ree not just looking at the nuts and[01:39:20] bolts or whatever because you don't go[01:39:22] very far like that. No, I absolutely[01:39:24] agree. And that's kind of one of my not[01:39:26] so secret agendas in working with the[01:39:28] SCU is that I I want to push and and[01:39:31] dissolve some of these boundaries that[01:39:33] we've drawn that feel so arbit arbitrary[01:39:35] to me. You know, the sort of nuts and[01:39:37] bolts and hard science and religion and[01:39:39] those thing I I think those are useful[01:39:41] categories for certain kinds of inquiry,[01:39:43] but I don't think that reality itself is[01:39:46] divided in that way. And so I think[01:39:48] these phenomena manifest themselves in[01:39:50] ways that show that those boundaries[01:39:51] just aren't um aren't into reality.[01:39:55] >> I think the narrative is a little ch[01:39:58] changing also thanks to this interview[01:39:59] like with Barber or other people Chris[01:40:02] Boo and you know Diana Pasulka every[01:40:04] time that you listen to these people[01:40:06] they're moving steps uh in in direction[01:40:09] that you know conventional UAP[01:40:11] scientists like Ailub don't take.[01:40:14] Absolutely. Yes. And I and I don't I[01:40:16] don't know what to do in my ambivalence[01:40:18] about people like Avi because I'm[01:40:20] grateful for the work that they have[01:40:23] done, but I'm also so personally[01:40:25] frustrated by some of the I don't want[01:40:28] to say prejudices, but the structure[01:40:31] that they bring to it. You know, you[01:40:32] talk about frustration with the[01:40:33] structure of the Catholic Church.[01:40:35] There's a similar frustration I have[01:40:36] with people thinking about this. Um[01:40:38] >> I mean, yeah. What what can you say to[01:40:40] somebody that says the the human[01:40:42] instrument is limited? So I just trust[01:40:45] my you know my AI algorithm but it that[01:40:49] I mean AI typically you you can apply it[01:40:52] massively to data that you've already[01:40:54] understood you know and then you try to[01:40:56] speed up the process but AI is not the[01:40:59] one that will create the theory to[01:41:01] understand this very complex phenomenon.[01:41:03] So for me the approach of Abby that I I[01:41:05] respect a lot because you know it's[01:41:07] important to have a mainstream scientist[01:41:09] like him going forward and say I go in[01:41:11] this direction removes a little bit of[01:41:12] stigma but his approach is going[01:41:15] nowhere. So[01:41:18] >> I I agree and I I'm[01:41:21] with with a I have a one of my[01:41:22] frustrations is that I don't understand[01:41:24] how a person can be so smart and how[01:41:26] it's not obvious to them that this[01:41:29] approach isn't going in in the direction[01:41:31] that you want that there that there are[01:41:33] these inherent limits and to to to this[01:41:37] approach. I don't I don't see why those[01:41:38] aren't obvious to him, but[01:41:41] >> I think he needs to have an experience[01:41:43] of his own and maybe he will open up a[01:41:44] little bit. Do you think he hasn't had[01:41:46] any experiences of his own?[01:41:48] >> I don't know.[01:41:49] >> I wonder this. I mean, I I personally[01:41:51] don't know. Um, but I know a lot of[01:41:54] people in the UAP community who are on[01:41:56] the very hard science side. I know a lot[01:41:58] of them personally who've had extremely[01:42:01] intense and bizarre experiences. And I[01:42:03] never would have thought so from their[01:42:05] work. I would have thought that they are[01:42:07] just like really hardcore materialists[01:42:10] who think there's some empirical[01:42:11] evidence for a weird thing that we need[01:42:13] to study. And then I'll get to know some[01:42:15] of them and they're like, "Oh yeah,[01:42:16] spirits come to me all the time. I can[01:42:18] see them in my eyes like right now."[01:42:20] >> Oh wow.[01:42:21] >> Yeah. Like but and they're like, "Yeah,[01:42:24] I just don't know." They draw this very[01:42:26] hard line between their personal life[01:42:28] and their professional work. It's like[01:42:30] when they go into their professional[01:42:31] mode, they just apply this kind of[01:42:33] empirical science framework.[01:42:35] >> When they're in their personal life,[01:42:36] they're Yeah. I see ghosts, but I can't[01:42:38] I don't know how to talk to them or talk[01:42:40] about them. Physicists, I need to run.[01:42:42] >> Okay. Thanks a lot. and uh see you soon.[01:42:44] >> Thank you so much. Bye.[01:42:46] >> Bye. See you.[01:42:46] >> The anomalous review is a project of the[01:42:48] Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.[01:42:50] It's hosted and produced by me, Michael[01:42:52] Gloson, and edited by Kelly Michelle.[01:42:55] Our theme song was written and performed[01:42:56] by Telma Croanti. Communication and PR[01:42:59] work is by Preston Dyes. Our advisory[01:43:01] team includes Jennifer Roach, Robert[01:43:03] Powell, Richard Hoffman, Joshua Pearson,[01:43:06] and Larry Hancock. To find out more[01:43:08] about SCU, check out explorescu.org.[01:43:11] Lord.
Kevin Knuth Reveals 5000G UAP Accelerations – Why Science Ignores It
Introduction
In this episode of Lato Files, the host welcomes Dr. Kevin Kuth, a professor of physics at the University at Albany, SUNY. Dr. Kuth has a rich background in machine learning, neuroscience, astrophysics, and information physics, and has gained recognition as a serious scientific voice in the field of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) research. The discussion revolves around Dr. Kuth's journey into UAP research, his scientific findings, and the implications of these findings on our understanding of the universe.
Dr. Kuth's Journey into UAP Research
Dr. Kuth recounts that his interest in UAPs began over 30 years ago during his time in graduate school at Montana State University. He recalls a significant incident involving a cattle mutilation in Bozeman, Montana, shortly after he arrived in 1988. This incident involved two cows that were found dead with surgical precision, coinciding with reports of UFO sightings in the area. The local media sensationalized the event, speculating about alien involvement, which sparked discussions among the new graduate students in the physics department. A professor from the department, who had connections with Malmstrom Air Force Base, mentioned that there were ongoing issues with UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles, which the students initially dismissed as absurd.
Despite their skepticism, Dr. Kuth reflects on how this incident and the professor's comments lingered in his mind. Fast forward to 2015, while preparing a lecture on astrobiology, he was prompted by students to discuss UFOs. Initially dismissive, he began researching the topic and stumbled upon Robert Hastings' 2010 news conferences discussing UFOs and nuclear missile shutdowns at Malmstrom Air Force Base. This revelation reignited his interest, leading him to consider the potential implications of UAPs on national security and scientific inquiry.
Scientific Engagement with UAPs
Dr. Kuth emphasizes that the lack of scientific engagement with UAPs is troubling, especially given the credible accounts from astronauts and military personnel. He highlights the need for scientists to investigate these phenomena rather than dismiss them as mere folklore. The turning point for him came in December 2017 when the New York Times published an article about the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which further validated his concerns and motivated him to pursue research in this area.
He began to analyze the data surrounding UAP sightings, particularly focusing on the Nimitz encounter, where UAPs exhibited extraordinary flight characteristics. Dr. Kuth collaborated with Robert Powell and Peter Reali to publish a paper in 2019 that estimated the flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles. This paper has since become one of the most cited scientific works in the field of UAPs.
Estimating Flight Characteristics
In discussing the methodology of their research, Dr. Kuth explains that the first step for any physicist encountering such extraordinary claims is to assess their reasonableness. He describes how they analyzed the Nimitz encounter, where radar operators tracked UAPs that exhibited rapid altitude changes and unusual speeds. For instance, one UAP was observed dropping from 28,000 feet to sea level in just 78 seconds. Dr. Kuth performed calculations to estimate the acceleration required for such maneuvers, concluding that the UAP would have to experience extreme accelerations, far beyond human tolerance.
He notes that the calculations are straightforward and can be performed by high school physics students. The results indicated that the UAPs could reach speeds comparable to spacecraft, leading to the hypothesis that these objects might represent advanced technology beyond current human capabilities. Dr. Kuth also references historical figures like Hermann Oberth, a pioneer in rocketry, who had noted similar observations of UAPs moving at extraordinary speeds as early as 1954.
Challenges in UAP Research
Despite the compelling data, Dr. Kuth acknowledges the skepticism within the scientific community regarding UAPs. He points out that many scientists tend to disbelieve the data rather than consider the possibility of advanced technology. This skepticism is compounded by the challenges of obtaining reliable data, as much of the radar data related to UAPs remains classified. Dr. Kuth expresses concern over the lack of transparency from government agencies regarding UAP encounters and the implications for national security.
He emphasizes that the potential dangers posed by UAPs, especially in relation to commercial aviation, are significant. Airline pilots often encounter UAPs but are discouraged from reporting these incidents due to fear of stigma or repercussions on their mental health. This lack of reporting creates a dangerous situation where pilots may have to evade unidentified objects without proper guidance or support.
Recent Developments in UAP Research
Dr. Kuth's involvement in UAP research has led to the establishment of Project X at the University at Albany, a nonprofit initiative aimed at further investigating UAP phenomena. This project has garnered support from local business leaders and aims to collect empirical data through monitoring and observation. The project is positioned to take a scientific approach to UAP research, utilizing advanced technology and collaboration with other scientists.
Dr. Kuth highlights the importance of collaboration in the scientific community, noting that the global nature of UAP phenomena necessitates a collective effort. He reflects on the significance of international cooperation in addressing the UAP issue, as it transcends national boundaries and cultural perceptions. The involvement of multiple scientists from various countries underscores the seriousness of the inquiry into UAPs and the potential for groundbreaking discoveries.
Exploring the Nature of UAPs
Throughout the discussion, Dr. Kuth emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of UAPs. He acknowledges that the taxonomy of UAPs is not yet well-defined, with various shapes and behaviors observed, including saucers, tic-tac shaped craft, and orbs. Some of these phenomena may be natural occurrences that we do not yet understand, while others may exhibit intelligent behavior, suggesting a more complex reality.
He also addresses the intersection of UAP phenomena with neuroscience, particularly in relation to the psychological effects of encounters. Dr. Kuth notes that some individuals report altered states of consciousness or unusual experiences during UAP sightings, which may be influenced by electromagnetic fields associated with these phenomena. He advocates for further research into the neurological impacts of UAP encounters to better understand the relationship between perception and reality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. Kuth's journey into UAP research reflects a broader shift in the scientific community towards acknowledging the significance of these phenomena. His work highlights the need for rigorous scientific inquiry into UAPs, emphasizing that dismissing them as mere myths or hoaxes undermines the potential for discovery. As Project X continues to gather data and engage with the global scientific community, it represents a hopeful step towards unraveling the mysteries surrounding UAPs and their implications for our understanding of the universe.
In the transcript, Dr. Kevin Kuth is introduced by the interviewer, who provides several key details regarding his professional background and qualifications. Dr. Kuth is a professor of physics at the University at Albany, SUNY. His expertise spans multiple fields including machine learning, neuroscience, astrophysics, and information physics. This diverse background has positioned him as a respected figure in the realm of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) research.
The interviewer highlights Dr. Kuth's long-standing involvement in scientific discussions, noting that he has gained recognition through his technical papers and conference talks. The interviewer expresses admiration for Dr. Kuth's rigorous scientific voice in UAP research, suggesting that he has contributed significantly to the discourse surrounding this controversial topic.
Dr. Kuth himself recounts a formative moment that sparked his interest in UAP research during his graduate studies at Montana State University, where he experienced local incidents related to cattle mutilations and UFO sightings. These experiences have deeply influenced his career trajectory and research focus.
- [00:05] 'Kevin is a professor of physics at the University at Albany SUNY with a deep background in machine learning, neuroscience, astrophysics, and information physics.'
- [05:00] 'I was teaching a physics class, an astronomy class at U Albany... and I thought, well, this is something to study.'
Dr. Kevin Kuth approaches UAP research with a scientific lens, emphasizing the necessity for rigorous analysis and empirical scrutiny. In the transcript, he describes the fundamental steps involved in assessing the credibility of UAP claims. He underscores the importance of establishing whether the phenomena in question are reasonable by performing calculations based on observational data.
In particular, Dr. Kuth references the Nimitz encounter, where detailed observations allowed for estimates of the speeds and accelerations of UAP. He states, "[14:23] ...the first thing a physicist should do instead of just scoffing at it... is sit down and do the calculations yourself." This highlights his commitment to applying scientific methods to UAP research rather than dismissing claims outright.
He mentions using data from radar systems to derive acceleration estimates, specifically referring to how objects tracked by radar exhibited unusual flight characteristics, such as dropping from 28,000 feet to sea level in less than a minute. This methodical approach reflects his effort to build a foundation of scientific evidence around UAP phenomena.
However, Dr. Kuth also indicates limitations in the current understanding of UAPs, expressing concern about the lack of scientific engagement with the phenomenon. He points out that many scientists dismiss these events without proper investigation, stating that the field lacks rigorous academic inquiry.
- [14:40] 'The first thing a physicist should do instead of just scoffing at it... is sit down and do the calculations yourself.'
- [15:14] 'You know, he noted that there was times when they would drop from 28,000 ft to the sea level in 78 seconds.'
Dr. Kuth's decision to engage with UAP research stems from a combination of personal experiences, scientific curiosity, and societal concerns. In the transcript, he recounts how his initial exposure to UAP phenomena occurred during his time in graduate school at Montana State University, where he witnessed the aftermath of a cattle mutilation incident that was linked to possible UFO sightings. This incident sparked his interest in the potential implications of UAPs on public safety and national security.
Describing a pivotal moment in 2015, Dr. Kuth explains how he was prompted by students to discuss UFOs in his astronomy class. Initially skeptical, he became intrigued after researching the topic, particularly when he stumbled upon historical accounts of UAPs affecting military operations, such as the shutdown of nuclear missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base. He reflects, "[06:27] ...if everyone thinks it’s silly and nobody’s doing anything about it, this could be a really big problem." This realization motivated him to study UAPs seriously.
Furthermore, Dr. Kuth articulates a broader societal responsibility, expressing concern over the ignorance surrounding UAP issues within governmental and scientific communities. He emphasizes that the phenomenon poses a potential risk that demands scientific inquiry, stating, "[12:06] ...this is just an accident waiting to happen." His motivation is thus not only personal but also deeply tied to the implications of UAPs for society as a whole.
- [06:27] 'If everyone thinks it’s silly and nobody’s doing anything about it, this could be a really big problem.'
- [12:06] 'This is just an accident waiting to happen.'
The transcript does not provide any information regarding whether Dr. Kuth has personally observed a UAP. Throughout the conversation, he shares anecdotes and insights related to UAP phenomena, yet he does not disclose any personal experiences of witnessing a UAP himself.
Dr. Kuth addresses several obstacles and challenges related to UAP research as discussed in the transcript. He acknowledges that skepticism is prevalent both within scientific circles and the general public regarding the legitimacy of UAP phenomena. He reflects on the tendency of scientists to dismiss UAP claims without rigorous investigation, noting, "[13:54] ...nobody believes it’s real. Nobody wants to talk about it." This stigma can create barriers for researchers who aim to explore the subject scientifically.
Additionally, Dr. Kuth highlights the risks involved in studying UAPs, particularly for military personnel and pilots. He points out that pilots often fear reporting UAP encounters due to concerns about mental health evaluations and the potential consequences on their careers. This creates an information gap, as unreported encounters lead to a lack of data for analysis. He states, "[12:31] ...if you have nuclear codes... they take it very seriously." This further complicates the understanding of UAP, as critical incidents may remain undocumented.
Dr. Kuth also discusses the implications of UAPs possibly being associated with non-human intelligences. He suggests that the extraordinary capabilities observed in some UAPs, such as rapid acceleration and maneuverability, exceed current human engineering. He asserts, "[50:19] ...you can definitely say these are beyond human capability." This perspective opens the door to the hypothesis that UAP may indeed involve non-human technologies or entities and emphasizes the importance of scientific inquiry into the phenomenon.
- [13:54] 'Nobody believes it’s real. Nobody wants to talk about it.'
- [12:31] 'If you have nuclear codes... they take it very seriously.'
- [50:19] 'You can definitely say these are beyond human capability.'
[00:00] Welcome back to Lato Files. Today I'm[00:02] honored to have Dr. Kevin Kuth with us.[00:05] Kevin is a professor of physics at the[00:07] University at Albany Sunni with a deep[00:09] background in machine learning,[00:11] neuroscience, astrophysics, and[00:13] information physics. So in recent years,[00:15] he's become one of the most respected[00:17] and rigorous scientific voices in UAP[00:20] research. Great honor. Thank you so[00:22] much. Welcome to the show.[00:24] >> Well, thank you so much for having me.[00:25] It's an honor to be here. So Kevin, many[00:27] in our audience know you from your[00:29] technical papers and conference talks.[00:31] I've watched many of your podcasts and[00:33] scientific conferences over the years.[00:35] Can you walk us through how a physicist[00:37] with your background specifically in[00:40] neuroscience and information physics[00:42] first got pulled into the UAP world into[00:45] UAP research? What was the specific[00:47] moment or piece of data that convinced[00:50] you this warranted serious scientific[00:52] attention?[00:54] >> Well, that's a great good question. And[00:56] it took place over the course of maybe[00:58] 30 years, strangely. Um I I think one of[01:02] the important moments was when I started[01:06] in graduate school. I I grew up in[01:08] Wisconsin. I and I went to graduate[01:10] school in Montana State University. I[01:12] got my master's degree there. And so I'm[01:15] I moved out to Montana in the late[01:18] summer of 1988. And it was only the[01:21] first or second week of classes there.[01:23] So we I had only been there for about 2[01:25] weeks and there was a cattle mutilation.[01:28] Um Montana state is in Bosezeman,[01:29] Montana. And there was a cattle[01:31] mutilation where there were two cows[01:33] killed and surgically manipulated. I've[01:35] not found a better word for this.[01:37] Manipulated or they were um they were it[01:41] was a classic cattle mutilation now that[01:43] I know more about them. And there were[01:45] UFOs seen that night. Many calls into[01:48] the sheriff's office. So, the next day[01:49] on the news is all a buzz with UFOs and[01:54] cattle. These two cows were killed and[01:56] um the sheriff's office is investigating[02:00] and in the news it's all it's either[02:03] aliens or demons. It was these were like[02:05] the two possibilities, right?[02:07] >> I told you. And then later that day, we[02:10] were was at the physics department and[02:13] some of us, the new graduate students,[02:16] you know, we've all just moved there and[02:17] we're looking down the barrel of living[02:19] there for 5 years and we're all[02:22] discussing this, you know, rather loudly[02:24] in the hallway. I think trying to get[02:26] our heads around what kind of crazy[02:28] place have we just moved to where people[02:30] kill cows and and surgically remove[02:34] parts and very[02:35] >> there's aliens and demons running[02:37] around. Yeah. and there's aliens and[02:38] demons and these are the actual[02:40] possibilities that are being discussed[02:42] in the it seemed like a crazy place to[02:44] live and um and so we were discussing[02:47] this rather wildly and emphatically and[02:51] one of the professors down the hall um[02:54] who's clearly bothered by this came out[02:55] of his office to see what the ruckus was[02:57] and he came over and tried to console us[03:00] I guess he said you know oh yeah this[03:03] happens from time to time and they[03:05] investigated but never really figure[03:07] anything out and then we all just forget[03:09] about it until it happens again. And we[03:12] were like, that's not helping.[03:15] >> See, that sounds even crazier. And then[03:18] he says, then he tops it all out. But[03:20] you know what's really strange is that I[03:23] have friends who work up at Malmstrom[03:25] Air Force Base and they have problems[03:28] with UFOs[03:30] flying in and shutting down our nuclear[03:33] missiles. Oh, well,[03:36] >> this is so this is September of 1988.[03:39] Uh, and he talked about it as if it was[03:42] a present problem, right? It was all[03:44] present tense. And so, you know, we[03:47] listened politely and when he walked[03:48] away, we kind of, you know, we laughed[03:50] our asses off because it was just[03:52] unthinkable cuz they, you know, I[03:55] remember um in my what I what did I say[03:59] in the discussions? One of the things I[04:00] said, you know, if it's[04:04] why would aliens do this and how are[04:06] demons doing this? This is would be[04:08] crazy. This is crazy. And then when he[04:10] left, I was like, well, the UFOs[04:13] shutting down nuclear missiles, that's[04:14] just ridiculous.[04:16] I mean, the air force would be the whole[04:18] nation's military would be on red alert,[04:21] right? That's what should happen. And[04:23] it's not happening. So clearly, it can't[04:25] be real. That's what I my argument at[04:28] the time. And so this, you know, it[04:31] passed and that was kind of a side joke[04:34] for the next two years that I spent[04:36] there. Um, anytime somebody's had[04:38] something crazy happened, we always[04:40] said, "Yeah, but you know what's really[04:41] crazy? There are UFOs shutting down[04:43] nuclear missiles up in Mstrom Air Force[04:45] Base." And we would all laugh, right? So[04:47] it was kind of a running joke. And um,[04:50] now fast forward what almost 30 years[04:52] and I'm teaching uh, a physics class, an[04:55] astronomy class at U Albany. Uh this[04:58] would have been about 2015. So it was[05:00] before the New York Times article and um[05:05] and I was preparing for a lecture on[05:08] astrobiologies talking about possibility[05:11] of life elsewhere and some of my[05:14] students wanted me to mention something[05:16] about UFOs or talk about UFOs and the[05:19] possibility of aliens coming here. And I[05:21] thought, well, I don't even know what to[05:23] say about this. This is kind of silly.[05:25] And I thought, well, I mean, I can talk[05:27] about the Fermy paradox. I can talk[05:29] about the Drake equation. And then I was[05:32] just poking around in the internet. It[05:33] was by this time it's like 1:00 a.m. or[05:35] something. I'm poking around in the[05:36] internet trying to just see what is[05:38] there anything reasonable I could even[05:40] mention. And um I stumbled on the news[05:45] conferences that Robert Hasting had held[05:47] in 2010[05:49] and I found them on YouTube and I[05:51] started watching it and realized, oh my[05:55] god, this is about UFOs shutting down[05:57] nuclear missiles at Monstrom Air Force[05:59] Base. I mean the same Air Force Base.[06:01] And I and Robert Solace was the first[06:03] person speaking on this and I was just[06:05] blown away. I was like, "Holy crap, I[06:07] heard about this 30 years ago from a[06:09] physics professor, right, of all people,[06:12] right? Pretty credible source you would[06:14] think as an academic."[06:16] And and at the time I thought it was[06:18] silly. But then it struck me. I thought[06:21] if everyone thinks it's silly and[06:24] nobody's doing anything about it, this[06:27] could be a really big problem. Um, we[06:29] could get blindsided by by an alien[06:32] invasion or something, right? um Pearl[06:35] Harbor, but on a global scale. I don't I[06:38] mean that's what was running through my[06:39] mind and I was worried about it and I[06:40] thought somebody needs to start paying[06:43] attention to this and see how real this[06:46] is and whether it's really a problem or[06:48] not. And um so that's what I did. I just[06:51] started reading up on the topic and um[06:56] and started educating myself about UFOs.[07:00] And the more I dug into it, I thought[07:02] this is actually really interesting. I[07:04] mean, there are astronauts who have like[07:07] uh who have seen them and um[07:10] and there were, you know, credible[07:12] people talking about UFOs. And and I[07:16] thought, well, why aren't scientists[07:18] studying this? This is pretty silly not[07:20] to be studying such a thing. And then[07:22] when 2017 hit and we had in December[07:27] 2017 um Helen Cooper and Ralph[07:30] Blumenthal and Leslie Kaine published[07:32] the article in the New York Times on the[07:34] ATIP program. I thought yeah somebody[07:38] needs to be studying this and scientists[07:40] need to be involved in this not just[07:42] government studies. And so I thought[07:44] well shoot why don't you just do it? I[07:47] I'd gotten tenure already. So, I was[07:49] tenured and[07:50] >> and it wasn't like I was looking for[07:52] something to do. I mean, I was busy with[07:54] my I had exoplanet work that I was[07:56] working on and I thought, well, you[07:59] know, we now know a lot about planets[08:01] around other stars. And um[08:04] one one out of five stars in the sky has[08:07] a planet in what we call the habitable[08:10] zone, which is the zone where you could[08:11] have liquid water on the planet. So,[08:13] just go out tonight, count out five[08:15] stars, and one of them has a planet with[08:17] temperatures like Earth. Basically,[08:20] >> that's pretty amazing. And I thought,[08:23] well, why shouldn't anyone be coming[08:25] here? In fact, if we were more capable,[08:28] we would be doing it. We're trying to do[08:30] it. Um, we do it on Mars all the time,[08:32] and we Mars is life is hard to find on[08:35] Mars, and we we still aren't sure if[08:36] there's life on Mars. And I thought,[08:39] well, this is this is something to[08:40] study. So I started studying it. That's[08:43] how I that's how I got involved. Rather[08:44] a long story, a 30-year story condensed[08:46] into[08:49] three minutes or something.[08:51] >> No, I think it's very interesting. And[08:52] also Malstrom was in 1967[08:57] from[08:58] >> Yeah. Solace is sol that's one thing[08:59] that really struck me is when Robert[09:01] Solace is talking about the events that[09:03] he experienced that was 1966 1967.[09:06] I heard about it as a present day[09:09] problem in 1988.[09:12] And that's one thing that I thought,[09:13] well, this has been going on for 20[09:15] years. You've got somebody made up a[09:17] silly story that's lasted for 20 years.[09:19] That doesn't seem right. Um, there has[09:21] to be some element of truth to it. And[09:23] in fact, um, now it was probably two[09:25] years ago, I was visiting, um, my wife's[09:28] family in Louisiana for Marty Gro. And[09:31] so, we're down there grilling in[09:32] February, which is a great thing to be[09:34] outside grilling in February. I live up[09:36] in New York, so we don't have that[09:37] luxury. And um Well, you can, but it's[09:41] cold.[09:42] >> I'm grilling with[09:44] >> Yeah, I was grilling with her uncle[09:46] Matt. So, I'm with her uncle Matt and I[09:48] and I knew he was in the military, but I[09:50] didn't know much about it. And I glanced[09:52] at his cap. He had a cap on and it was[09:54] an Air Force cap and it said Mommstrom[09:57] Air Force Base on it. And I said, "Whoa,[09:59] wait a minute. You were in the Air[10:00] Force? Were you were at Monstrom Air[10:01] Force Base?" And he goes, "Yeah." I[10:03] said, "When were you stationed there?"[10:04] He goes, "Oh, 1971, around that time."[10:08] >> And I said, "Do you know anything? Have[10:10] you ever heard anything about UFOs[10:12] shutting down nuclear missiles?" And he[10:14] goes, "Oh, yeah. That used to happen all[10:16] the time." And blah blah bl[10:25] the first thing I was excited cuz I was[10:27] for the first time I wasn't the craziest[10:29] person in the room. I was[10:31] >> and I went and got my wife and I said,[10:32] "Okay, you have to hear you have to hear[10:34] Uncle Matt. Uncle Matt, tell her what[10:35] you just told me." You know, he goes,[10:37] "Yeah, I was at Homester Air Force Place[10:38] and UFOs would come over and shut down[10:41] all flights and nuclear missiles and all[10:43] this." And I was like,[10:44] >> "Wow,[10:45] >> how how does the world not know? I mean,[10:47] Congress is just starting to figure this[10:49] out, right? How did that go[10:52] unnoticed for I mean, this is now 30 50[10:56] years. 50 years since um Robert Solace.[10:59] I mean, this is this is a horrible[11:02] breach of security, right? And[11:04] intelligence. We're[11:06] we um horribly ignorant about this[11:09] problem. And um and that's that's one[11:12] reason that's one thing that's really um[11:14] got me compelled me to to study this and[11:18] to look at this. Um the other thing is[11:20] the fact that airline pilots or airplane[11:23] pilots see these things quite often and[11:26] sometimes have to evade them. And this[11:28] is happening, you know, this is[11:29] happening with airline pilots who have[11:32] 250 passengers in the back eating[11:34] pretzels, right? And they don't have any[11:35] idea what's going on. And the pilots's[11:38] got to evade this object that flew up to[11:40] its windscreen and then try to get them[11:43] safely to, you know, wherever they're[11:45] traveling. Um, incredibly dangerous. Um,[11:49] because the airline pilots can't report[11:51] it. So, it's not reported. The FAA[11:53] doesn't study it. Nobody really studies[11:55] it. So, nobody really knows what these[11:57] things are. The pilots are uninformed[12:00] and everybody's uninformed. And so, it's[12:03] this is just an accident waiting to[12:05] happen.[12:06] And I think it's a very serious problem.[12:09] >> Yeah, it does seem[12:14] >> you you I'm sure you can appreciate this[12:16] too.[12:17] >> Exactly. And I don't think as a pilot I[12:21] would have reported it. You know, mental[12:24] health will immediately any trip to the[12:25] mental health will get you taken off the[12:28] flying schedule.[12:30] >> That's right.[12:31] >> And it's so people think you're crazy at[12:34] a party if you say, you know, that you[12:36] believe in aliens or you saw an alien[12:39] ship flying around. You know, what what[12:42] do you think is going to happen when you[12:44] have uh you know, nuclear codes? You[12:48] know, we have strike missions. I was[12:50] lucky. I I miss the strike missions, but[12:52] um F-16 does have a strike mission where[12:55] they carry a nuclear weapons actually[12:58] and so you'll immediately get yanked off[13:00] of flying status, you know. Um they take[13:02] they take it very seriously. It's also[13:04] interesting too because Robert Solless[13:07] has been going to DC. I think he goes[13:11] every 5 years. you mentioned Robert[13:13] Hastings and with multiple other um[13:18] officers, you know, US Air Force[13:20] officers who were missileers and they[13:22] would do a press conference every 5[13:24] years in DC and still to this day still[13:28] to this day they haven't invited him,[13:30] you know, Congress hasn't invited him to[13:32] come to one of these hearings. I just I[13:34] think it's amazing.[13:35] >> It's insane really. I mean, it's really[13:37] pretty crazy. Yeah. Nobody believes it's[13:40] real. nobody wants to talk about it. And[13:42] so now we are horribly ignorant about[13:45] something that happens. And um it's a[13:48] it's a dangerous ignorance.[13:51] >> And so that was 2017. The paper comes[13:54] out. And so I'm I'm assuming now that[13:56] led to your 2019 paper. Extremely[13:59] interesting paper. I've uh I've read it[14:01] several times, used it in videos, but[14:03] estimating flight characteristics of[14:04] anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles[14:07] >> with Robert Powell and Peter Reali.[14:09] Yeah.[14:10] >> Uh, okay. Sorry. So,[14:12] >> with Powell Amazing Reality. Okay. And[14:15] so that's still one of the most cited[14:18] scientific works in the field of UAPs.[14:21] Can you take us step by step through[14:23] really how you derive the acceleration[14:26] estimates?[14:27] >> Yeah. The the um[14:31] the paper really comes out from[14:34] comes about from doing what a physicist[14:37] just ought to do. And[14:40] you know when you when you hear about[14:42] something like this the first thing you[14:44] ask is is this even reasonable? Is this[14:47] reasonable in any way? Right? So um so[14:51] the one fact that struck me was in the[14:53] Nimits encounter you had several[14:56] instances where you had pretty detailed[14:59] observations from which you could[15:01] estimate speeds and accelerations. And[15:03] so the first thing a physicist should do[15:05] instead of just scoffing at it and you[15:07] know whatever you should sit down and do[15:09] the calculations yourself figure it out[15:11] and that's all I did um you know so the[15:14] Kevin Day who was tracking these things[15:17] on radar they would appear on radar at[15:19] like 87,000 ft and then drop to about[15:22] 28,000 ft. This was near the southern[15:25] end of Catalina Island when they were[15:27] stationed off the coast of California.[15:29] and they would track south um at about[15:33] 120 knots to somewhere around Guadalupe[15:36] Island where they fell off the radar.[15:38] And and the strange thing was that[15:41] they're at 28,000 ft moving at 100[15:44] knots, you know, 120 knots. So you're[15:46] looking at like 130 mph or something[15:48] like that. Very slow for that altitude.[15:51] So clearly they're strange objects. And[15:55] um but he noted that there was times[15:57] when they would drop from 28,000 ft to[16:00] the sea level in 78 seconds. And so um[16:06] that's that's the amount of time it[16:07] takes. I don't know anything to drop. I[16:09] mean this is here we go. Just that's how[16:12] long it took took go 28,000 ft. And[16:15] that's that's amazing, right? So[16:18] thought, wow, how fast would you have to[16:21] be moving to pull that off? And so I[16:23] just did the calculations and um and you[16:27] can assume that the minimum acceleration[16:29] so we're lowballing it. We're being[16:30] conservative. The minimum acceleration[16:32] is to accelerate halfway and then[16:34] decelerate the other half with the same[16:36] rates. And so that's a physics one[16:39] calculation to do. Um college students[16:41] do it all the high school students can[16:43] do this calculations. So, and in fact, I[16:45] found there was a newspaper article from[16:48] a paper in Georgia, a high school in[16:51] Georgia. The physics professor was or[16:53] the physics teacher at high school[16:54] teacher was teaching just high school[16:56] physics and had them read my paper and[16:58] the students were reproducing the[17:00] calculations, right? Because it's[17:03] >> a physics high school student physics[17:05] students can do it.[17:06] >> They're not hard calculations. And um[17:10] and in fact um Adam Frank who I who I[17:12] who I like had[17:15] early on he had written a criticism in[17:18] the New York Times, an editorial about[17:20] um scientists being involved with UFOs[17:22] and and he made some statement about my[17:25] paper is the calculations aren't that[17:27] complicated. Well, no, they're of course[17:28] they're not complicated. I mean, we're[17:31] you don't need a complicated equation[17:33] all the time. It's that doesn't make[17:35] statistics good. I mean, it's a it's a[17:38] simple situation. And it's simple to[17:40] calculate these speeds and[17:41] accelerations. And um and the other[17:44] scientists who are vocal about this and[17:46] and and you know laugh this off,[17:49] especially the science popularizers,[17:50] they should be doing the calculations[17:51] themselves before they even open their[17:53] mouths. Um and when you do this, you[17:55] find that that object would have had to[17:57] accelerate at 5,000 gs to the midpoint[18:00] and then decelerate at 5,000 gs. So the[18:03] speed in the middle, the top speed is[18:05] something like 40,000 m an hour, right?[18:08] Yeah.[18:09] >> Um, it's a simple calculation. 40,000[18:12] mph. That's about as fast as the New[18:15] Horizon's probe is traveling that we[18:18] sent to Pluto that went to Pluto in[18:19] 2015. So, the Tic Tac was going about as[18:23] fast as the New Horizon's probe. So, so[18:26] I joke when people ask me, why does[18:28] everybody think these are spacecraft? I[18:30] Well, it's simple because they move as[18:32] fast as spacecraft move. It's a simple[18:36] explanation.[18:37] Um and in fact I'm not the first person[18:40] to do this. um Herman Oberth who was the[18:44] father of modern rocketry a German[18:47] scientist he was the mentor to Verer von[18:49] Braum and in 1954[18:52] I believe it was he gave a presentation[18:56] on UFOs and I have the transcripts of[18:58] his notes from the presentation[19:01] >> and he points out that he has seen over[19:04] 50 radar recordings of these objects[19:07] moving at speeds up to 19 kilometers a[19:11] Well, what is 19 km a second? It's about[19:13] 40,000 mph. It's the same number.[19:16] >> Wow.[19:17] >> He knew he knew this in 1954.[19:21] And he knew that these things were[19:22] traveling at spacecraft speeds in 1954.[19:25] Why why this didn't capture everybody's[19:28] attention, I have no idea. It's very[19:30] odd.[19:31] >> It is amazing. And it seems like our[19:34] knowledge hasn't improved since then.[19:36] And we basically had the same data,[19:38] right? Like you just mentioned, we had[19:40] radar contacts. That's what you're[19:42] talking about here.[19:44] >> I'm still hoping to get the same type of[19:46] data just so that we can have more[19:47] examples. Yeah.[19:49] >> Well, I guess we haven't seen it, right?[19:50] Because um according to Gary Vorhees, uh[19:54] the radar data, which is highly[19:56] classified, right, from the Aegis[19:58] cruiser, um[20:00] >> was taken.[20:01] >> It was taken.[20:02] >> Yeah. And we we've heard so far we've[20:05] heard nothing um from any of the[20:07] government agencies from Arrow on where[20:10] what is their analysis of the Nimmits.[20:14] >> What happened to that data and why can't[20:16] anyone see it? That's a the two big[20:18] questions. Yeah. And Arrow keeps trying[20:20] to say, "Oh, there's nothing to see[20:22] here." Um that's nonsense, too. Um we[20:24] know we know that's not nonsense at this[20:26] point.[20:27] >> It's really interesting, too. The[20:28] Nimmits, I really think is the gold[20:30] standard case. That's why I'm also so[20:32] happy you did the analysis on that. And[20:35] there's multiple forms of data, multiple[20:38] radar um sources, right? Because I guess[20:41] physicists, they can say right away,[20:43] okay, yeah, the calculations are[20:44] correct, but it's obviously the data is[20:47] incorrect because nothing can move that[20:50] fast that we understand especially[20:51] through the[20:52] >> new solution. I mean, you the when you[20:56] when you have a hard time believing the[20:58] results, you just disbelieve the data.[20:59] It's an easy thing to do. And and it's[21:02] it's tough because it then comes down to[21:06] comparing the what's the probability the[21:08] data could be wrong compared to the[21:10] probability that you could have craft[21:12] that move through the air without sonic[21:13] booms at 40,000 mph.[21:15] >> Right?[21:16] >> And if you believe this far less than[21:18] you believe the data can be wrong,[21:19] you're always going to go with the data[21:20] is going to be wrong. So you can't learn[21:21] anything. It's a very difficult[21:23] situation actually.[21:25] In that case, the Nimmits especially[21:28] though they had the Aegis radar which is[21:32] designed to track ballistic missiles,[21:33] you know, incoming ballistic missiles[21:36] from space. That's how they had the data[21:37] up to 87,000 ft as well as Yeah, it's[21:41] supposed to track spaceships[21:43] essentially, which is a a you know, an[21:45] intercontinental ballistic missile is[21:47] effectively a spaceship. It's going very[21:50] high speeds. And then they also had the[21:53] E2 Hawkeye out there. You know, that's[21:55] the Awax, the airborne warning and[21:58] control system. Uh, really interesting[22:00] plane. They take off and land on[22:01] aircraft carriers. I always thought that[22:03] was amazing. They had that that plane[22:06] was out there as well. They had radar[22:08] data. And then you also had the radar[22:10] data um from[22:12] uh it wasn't Fraver's plane actually. He[22:14] didn't he didn't get uh the radar data,[22:17] but they launched a second aircraft.[22:20] >> That's where the Fleer One video[22:23] actually comes from. Yep. And they did a[22:26] fantastic work and actually did get[22:28] radar hits on that thing. Otherwise,[22:30] they couldn't have picked it up, right?[22:31] They couldn't have locked it um and[22:34] yeah, he even went through and said they[22:35] they locked it using radar. So, that's[22:38] three different radar systems there[22:40] tracking these things and and the data[22:42] is just[22:43] >> recording something unusual and you've[22:45] got visual confirmation and so you've[22:48] got so many sources that suggest that[22:50] these things were real. And um and in[22:54] fact Fraver's encounter with them on how[22:58] it flew past his nose and then was gone[23:01] in in I forget how much time 2 seconds[23:04] or something. He couldn't see it anymore[23:05] >> like a bullet he said. Yeah.[23:08] >> Yeah. So, so you can then estimate we[23:10] know the resolution of people's eyes and[23:13] um and assuming that the you know it was[23:16] clear skies so you could see well and um[23:21] and you can calculate how fast the thing[23:24] would have been going there too. So we[23:26] did those estimates as well and um[23:30] estimated those accelerations and speeds[23:32] too. And then we also estimated from the[23:34] video when the computer targeting system[23:36] loses track as the tic tac takes off to[23:39] the left of the screen. So we estimated[23:42] the speeds and accelerations on all[23:43] three cases and they're you know they're[23:45] all off the board.[23:48] That is really interesting on the[23:49] visual. Um[23:52] yeah and I didn't consider that actually[23:54] using the visual visual because it is a[23:56] sensor right your eyes are a sensor. So[23:58] you can calculate based on the[24:00] resolution of eyeballs.[24:02] >> That is really interesting. Um I did[24:04] release a video on I guess countering[24:07] the claim of the speeds um of the Fleer[24:09] 1. Um I do believe it's anonymous and I[24:13] I do believe they would have tracked it[24:15] had it not zoomed off. But we when we do[24:18] break lock in the targeting pod, it it[24:20] it can be very confusing because it just[24:22] stays, you know, you're tracking with[24:24] the targeting pod actually and the the[24:26] angles are moving very quickly because[24:28] you're zoomed way in. So whenever we[24:30] lose a a lock at range, it does the[24:35] object will zoom out of the camera[24:37] frame. You know, if you imagine you're[24:38] tracking at a very far distance, it's a[24:41] high line of sight if your field of view[24:43] is very small. And if you break the[24:45] lock, the the the bad logic actually in[24:49] the target pod or however it's designed[24:51] will just stay where it is. It won't[24:52] keep tracking the velocity[24:54] >> and on the object zooms off, right?[24:56] >> Yeah, that was the only counter. But the[24:58] eyeball one Yeah. is legit[25:01] that the camera wasn't moving is what we[25:04] assumed to do those calculations. That's[25:06] not in that's not entirely accurate[25:09] because the[25:10] >> you know we argued at and in the paper[25:13] we argued that it wasn't moving because[25:15] the angle is displayed in the meta the[25:18] angle at which the camera is aimed is[25:19] displayed in the metadata[25:21] >> but the resolution there is only to one[25:23] degree. I mean you're so zoomed in that[25:25] that you could be moving to within tens[25:27] of degrees and it's not going to change[25:29] the display at all. So you know there's[25:31] some recalculation that we could do if[25:33] we did it more carefully.[25:35] Okay. But I still think um yeah, the[25:38] radar data, the visual data is rock[25:41] solid. Um but you know what's really[25:44] interesting is these objects routinely[25:46] show no sonic booms. You know, if you[25:50] even and even in the Nimtt's case, like[25:52] Fraver, you're in your airplane. You're[25:54] not going to probably be able to maybe[25:55] hear another sonic boom of of an[25:58] aircraft going supersonic, but you would[26:00] see the visual, you know, the air um[26:04] like like uh when an F-15, you've seen[26:06] at the air shows when it goes supersonic[26:08] and you have like the visible shock wave[26:11] cuz the the water molecules[26:13] >> Yeah. the water molecules are actually[26:14] getting forced out of that air because[26:16] of the because of the comp compactness[26:18] of the shock wave, right? You you would[26:20] see that if this thing just fired off,[26:23] you know, such a large object fired off[26:26] even if he couldn't hear it. Um but[26:28] there's also no sonic booms, it seems,[26:30] ever registered from any um that I've[26:33] heard of. Have you heard of any?[26:34] >> There's no space for any of any sonic[26:36] boom or anything like that's been[26:37] reported. There should have been I mean[26:39] that 40,000 m an hour that thing should[26:41] have been a fireball.[26:43] >> Yeah,[26:44] >> it should. And then and then as a[26:45] physicist you the next thing you worry[26:48] about is energy. How much energy did it[26:49] take to do that? And even worse, where[26:52] did the energy go when it stopped?[26:55] Energy doesn't disappear. So you got[26:57] this thing that drops from 28,000 ft to[26:59] sea level and just stops, right? Where[27:01] did all that kinetic energy go? Um you[27:04] know in your car it goes in your brake[27:05] system, right? It heats up the brakes,[27:07] right? So[27:08] >> if that went into heat energy, you'd[27:10] have an explosion. And we estimated how[27:12] much energy and power that would be.[27:14] That should have been an explosion. This[27:16] equivalent to about 250 Tomahawk cruise[27:19] missiles going off at once. That should[27:21] have happened. It should have stopped[27:22] and then boom is what you should have[27:24] had happen. But you don't see that[27:26] either. So um[27:29] and that and that's things like that are[27:31] not reported with UFOs either. So[27:33] they're very they're very strange.[27:35] They're I don't think that they're[27:36] moving the way we think the way that we[27:40] think things usually move. It's not[27:41] something's out of sorts. It's not clear[27:44] what that is. And you see that with[27:46] underwater cases, too. Um I there's a[27:49] case I'm still working on. I have the[27:51] sonar data from um a sonar operator[27:55] where they tracked a 100 um well the[27:59] width of it beamed to be about 100 ft in[28:03] diameter and it was about 800 ft long[28:06] was following a New Zealand frigot and[28:10] they were tracking it both with passive[28:12] sonar and um attack sonar at that point[28:15] and the object was about 200 was was[28:18] some some distance behind And I'm going[28:20] to get the numbers wrong cuz I'm just[28:21] remembering off the top of my head,[28:24] but it was something like I think it was[28:25] 2 and a half kilometers behind them and[28:28] then closed that distance in 25 seconds[28:31] and went under their ship and as it[28:34] passed under ship their ship it took out[28:36] all the power on the ship and um and now[28:41] you have to explain this. How do you[28:43] you're you're basically think about[28:44] this. You've got a 150 ft diameter[28:47] cylinder and it's going to close 2 1/2[28:50] km in 25 seconds. That means you've got[28:53] a 2 1/2 km[28:55] cylinder of water you have to displace.[28:58] Now, water is not compressible. So, you[29:01] can't just shove it out of the way. It[29:02] has to get lifted up, right? So, this[29:04] there ought to be waves on the surface.[29:06] The surface ought to be lifted up. That[29:08] wasn't observed or felt. And when you do[29:11] the estimates of the speed, the[29:13] acceleration is very high. Something[29:15] like 50 gs underwater with like a 3,000[29:19] mph top speed. Um[29:23] the amount of energy to do this is[29:25] crazy. And in that case, you can[29:27] calculate the energy without having to[29:28] know the mass of the object. You you can[29:31] calculate how much energy it would take[29:33] to move that water. And that's a huge[29:35] amount of energy. Um it should have[29:37] caused all sorts of problems. But[29:38] there's but then so then you're left[29:41] with the idea that[29:44] all right these things don't seem to be[29:46] inact interacting with their[29:48] environment. They don't seem to interact[29:49] with the air. They don't seem to[29:51] interact with the water. And now now[29:54] where do you go with that? But the[29:56] problem is it's not that simple because[29:59] they are interacting with the wa the[30:01] underwater one was interacting with the[30:02] water because they were measuring sonar[30:05] bounces reflections from it. Right?[30:07] Right? And sonar works from water[30:09] molecules banging into the object and[30:11] bouncing back. So the water had to be[30:14] banging into the object if they're going[30:15] to get a sonar return. So did the object[30:19] interact with the water or didn't[30:20] interact with the water? And you know in[30:22] one respect it seems to not have but in[30:24] the other respect it had to have. So you[30:28] what do you do? I don't I don't know[30:30] what to do. I don't know how to think[30:32] about this. But that's what the data[30:34] tells you. You have two options. you[30:36] could just dis just believe the data and[30:37] go on happily with your life and ignore[30:40] this event totally. But um these are[30:42] important events and I don't think it's[30:44] that simple.[30:46] >> That's really interesting because I[30:47] haven't I haven't thought of that that[30:50] it is water molecules being against cuz[30:52] it I remember your uh I think it may[30:55] have been the same conference where you[30:56] talked about the New Zealand frigate uh[30:59] soul conference I believe where you gave[31:01] a presentation.[31:02] I did mention it then. Yeah.[31:04] >> Okay. And I remember I I think it was[31:06] the same conference um you talked about[31:10] actually detecting very extreme um[31:13] magnetic fields from some event and that[31:18] would make sense if it was light because[31:20] you always hear about related to these[31:22] UAP events is there there's always some[31:24] sort of light used and if you talk about[31:27] we just we already talked about uh the[31:29] radar which is really using light. So in[31:32] that sense uh yeah I was thinking could[31:35] it have been some weird magnetic anomaly[31:38] or could they use some weird magnetic[31:40] anomaly that would inter interact with[31:42] light but that doesn't work for water. I[31:45] think that's really interesting.[31:48] Yeah, this is it's a this is really[31:51] really a fascinating problem, right? And[31:53] it's not there are no simple answers and[31:56] that's really[31:59] um boggles the mind. I didn't and I[32:02] would love to have more scientists[32:03] thinking about this because I think we[32:05] need some other ideas. Um[32:09] >> do you have any thoughts on how that[32:11] could be possible like some sort of[32:13] inertial mass reduction? You know,[32:15] you've talked about um the possibility[32:18] they're reducing inertial mass or[32:20] manipulating spaceime locally. You I'm[32:24] sure you've heard of alubir type warp[32:26] metrics or or other frameworks. You[32:28] know, is there any even just speculative[32:32] direction you think we should be[32:34] looking?[32:35] >> Those are probably the most common[32:38] speculations. I mean, you've got to[32:42] there's there's no way that[32:46] anybody inside or even equipment inside[32:48] is going to survive a 5,000g[32:51] acceleration. I mean, it's that[32:54] >> equipment doesn't survive that. I mean,[32:56] what a F-35 fighter, its wings rip off[32:59] at about 13 1.5 gs. So, your Yeah. Your[33:03] equipment your your ship won't survive[33:05] that. So, so they can't be accelerating[33:08] the way that we're observing. Um, so[33:11] then the question is, well, how is that[33:13] happening? And so, inertial mass[33:15] reduction is one way to avoid that[33:18] problem. Um, and warping spaceime is[33:22] another way to avoid the problem. So,[33:24] those are hypotheses that are on the[33:26] table. Um although we're not sure how[33:29] you can do either one exactly and and[33:32] practically engineering wise and[33:35] and even[33:37] and even when it comes to warp drives we[33:40] I don't think anybody's ever really done[33:42] the calculations on what a warp drive[33:45] does to an atmosphere environment. You[33:48] know I don't you know how does how does[33:52] gravitational warping affect an[33:53] atmosphere?[33:55] That's a big question. Um and that that[33:58] come that question has come up many[34:00] times. I've talked to other physicists[34:02] who have suggested that um when people[34:05] claim to see portals and see things open[34:08] up and ships come in and out and and[34:10] that's been observed, you know, and the[34:14] hypothesis is that you have a wormhole.[34:16] Well, if you have a wormhole, you're[34:18] connecting that region of space with[34:20] some other region of space. And if that[34:22] region of space is in your atmosphere,[34:24] if the air pressure is different on both[34:26] sides, you're going to get air flow[34:28] across through that wormhole. So there[34:29] ought to be so if they're going from a[34:32] vacuum on one side of space into the[34:34] Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere of[34:37] the Earth ought to be blowing out that[34:38] wormhole on the other side. And um that[34:42] doesn't get reported. Um do[34:46] people report bizarre atmospheric[34:49] effects around these wormholes? No, that[34:51] doesn't seem to happen. So, I don't[34:54] I don't understand a lot of what's going[34:56] on. And it's it's difficult sometimes,[35:01] but that's what makes this job exciting,[35:03] right?[35:04] >> It is. Yeah. You can't look away. You[35:07] have to if if you care about[35:11] knowledge,[35:13] I don't know. It it just seems like why[35:15] more scientists aren't looking into this[35:18] is very confounding to me because it is[35:20] such an interesting problem.[35:22] >> There are there are so many scientists[35:25] who are looking for lowhanging fruit or[35:27] cool projects to work on where they can[35:29] make a big discovery, get a Nobel Prize,[35:30] right? I mean, this is what people[35:32] quote. And um there are more Nobel[35:35] prizes waiting here than anywhere. Um[35:38] it's not just the discovery of aliens. I[35:40] mean there's all sorts of stuff going on[35:42] that other phenomena happening around[35:44] these objects that could lead to huge[35:47] huge discoveries and that's exciting but[35:50] but it makes it hard to figure out.[35:53] >> You you mentioned undersea anomalies and[35:56] your recent paper right just from uh[35:58] 2025 uh the new science of unidentified[36:01] aerospace undersea phenomena. Um that's[36:05] a really interesting paper because you[36:08] had 32 plus international co-authors on[36:12] that. That is that um is that something[36:14] new? Yeah,[36:16] >> that was a lot of that was a year of my[36:18] life basically a year of my research[36:20] life. Um I started we were it's got it's[36:25] published in progress in aerospace[36:26] sciences and it was in a special issue[36:30] where there were multiple papers on[36:32] UAPs. The first paper was um the one[36:36] first authored by Matthew Shadagus from[36:38] our our UAPX group, our mission to[36:40] Catalina Island. And that paper is in[36:43] the same journal issue. And um Jacqu[36:47] Valet also has a paper in there um[36:49] looking at the[36:53] crazy amounts of light that come off of[36:55] UFOs. So, they're looking at a landing[36:56] in northern um northern Louisiana,[37:01] Mississippi, southern Mississippi, where[37:04] um this object landed in a clearing and[37:06] basically the light coming off of it[37:08] scorched the trees and they actually[37:10] measured the the degree to which the[37:13] bark was burnt and estimated the amount[37:15] of light from that as well. Um so, these[37:18] things are the amount of light coming[37:20] off these this is hundreds of megawatts[37:22] of light. Why do you need a light that's[37:24] a hundreds of megawws and um that's an[37:28] insane amount of light and if it's a[37:31] byproduct so some people hypothesize[37:34] well it's a by maybe a byproduct of[37:36] their propulsion system right so[37:40] so if it's an if it's a waste product[37:42] from your propulsion system then the[37:45] amount of energy being used by your[37:46] propulsion system is more than 100[37:49] megawws of power I mean that's that's[37:51] really crazy Okay. So, and and then you[37:54] have to worry about this if you've got a[37:57] you know propulsion system that uses a[37:59] gigawatt of power. Um nothing anybody[38:03] engineers is 100% efficient. You know[38:05] efficiency is of most of our mechanical[38:08] systems are you know at best are around[38:11] 30%.[38:12] But let's say these guys are really[38:14] good. You know these guys are excellent[38:16] 99% efficiency. They are, you know, best[38:20] in the universe, best ship in the[38:21] universe, right? Like Millennium Falcon[38:23] or something. And you've got[38:26] these Corellian ships. Um, but you've[38:30] got your power systems is a gigawatt of[38:32] power and you've got 99% inefficiency or[38:37] efficiency. That means 1% of that's[38:39] going to waste heat. So that's still[38:41] like 10 megawws of waste heat, right?[38:45] Um, you know what 10 megawatts of waste[38:47] heat would do to your ship? It's going[38:48] to melt it. Maybe that's why some of[38:51] these ships are dumping melt molten iron[38:54] in some places like in Council Bluffs or[38:56] in Puget Sound. But um so maybe that's[38:59] what's going on when some of them[39:00] malfunction. But it's hard to get your[39:04] head around. Yeah. So back to the paper.[39:06] This um new science of UAB studies. It[39:09] started out because we had we were[39:11] writing the paper for our car or cat[39:15] sorry Catalina mission and[39:19] the editor part of the reviews came back[39:21] and the editor wanted us to put in a few[39:25] paragraphs on what has been done to[39:29] study UFOs[39:32] scientifically previously. Um, usually[39:34] when you're doing any kind of scientific[39:36] paper, you give a summary of what's been[39:38] done before, what did you do that's due[39:41] and and so on. So that's usually the[39:42] format of the scientific paper. And we[39:45] didn't have that section in there,[39:47] what's been done before. So Matthew was[39:50] working on the edits for the paper and[39:52] asked me, could you write a few[39:54] paragraphs on what's been done before to[39:56] study these things? And so, oh yeah,[39:58] sure. So I got writing and then I I just[40:02] didn't stop myself. I just couldn't[40:03] stop. And and I and I I just sat down[40:06] one afternoon and writing writing[40:07] writing. And then before I know it, I'm[40:09] up to like 10 pages. And I'm like, whoa,[40:11] whoa, whoa. What am I going to do with[40:13] this? I can't He needs a couple[40:15] paragraphs. What?[40:17] And and you realize you realize how much[40:19] material there is. You know, there has[40:21] been a lot done already. And it's not[40:24] summarized anywhere. Um and well, in[40:28] some books, you know, you have to look[40:30] for pieces, right? And um[40:34] and scientists, academic scientists are[40:36] generally of the opinion that nothing's[40:37] been done to study these things. Well,[40:39] it's not exactly true.[40:41] >> So um so I went back to Ma I sent it[40:43] back to Matthew. I said, "I'm sorry, I[40:45] have a lot here. How do you suggest I[40:47] cut this down?" And he looked it over[40:49] and it wasn't obvious how to cut it[40:51] down. Um because everything seemed[40:53] relevant. You didn't want to throw any[40:55] of it away. And[40:57] we he then had the interesting idea,[41:00] well why don't we ask the editor if[41:02] instead[41:03] we can just take these 10 pages and make[41:05] him another paper.[41:08] And the editor loved that idea and and I[41:12] said, "Well, you know, if I'm going to[41:13] do that, I should probably fill in some[41:15] of the gaps and work on that." And I[41:17] just kept working and it kept getting[41:18] bigger and I realized that um[41:23] we didn't have any information on what[41:26] the French have done. I mean most of the[41:28] paper I had written was on what the US[41:30] government had done things that I'd been[41:33] familiar with but I didn't know what the[41:34] French had done and I knew the French[41:36] had worked very hard on this. So I[41:38] contacted some of my um French[41:40] colleagues Jacqu Valet and um Baptist[41:44] Faort and Michelle Valant and um Luke[41:47] Dini and I asked them I said can you[41:49] guys write up a few paragraphs[41:52] >> yeah friendship done and I get 40 pages[41:56] from[41:56] >> of course[41:57] >> 40 pages I'm like oh my god this papers[42:01] >> you academic papers aren't usually this[42:03] long so now what do I do and so I so[42:06] baptized very kindly helped me, you[42:10] know, whittle it down and get it down to[42:13] something manageable. And um they also[42:16] provided the French groups also got me[42:18] information about the Russians and the[42:19] Chinese, which I didn't know much about.[42:21] And you know, so so the the author list[42:25] just kept growing. I kept going to[42:27] people I knew for help. Um you know,[42:29] could you help write something on this?[42:31] Could you write something on this? And[42:32] so we put this paper together. And in[42:35] the end, I was really excited about that[42:37] because it showed that[42:40] this is not just I mean what a lot of[42:43] people around the world think that they[42:45] see this as UFOs as an American problem.[42:48] Um it's more prevalent in American[42:50] culture. So it's seen as an American[42:52] problem. It's not that at all. It's[42:54] global. And the fact that we've got[42:56] global, you know, 30 scientists, you[42:59] know, globally working on this shows[43:02] that we're we're working to tackle the[43:04] problem and we're working together to[43:06] tackle the problem. We're sharing[43:07] information. We're helping each other.[43:08] We're and we're making progress. And I[43:11] think that showed something very[43:12] important that um you don't see[43:14] elsewhere. This is one this is one of[43:17] the things I love about science is that[43:19] the we talk about our social[43:22] institutions that bring people together.[43:24] Science unites people in ways that most[43:26] people aren't aware of. Um we we're all[43:29] speaking different languages, different[43:31] countries, different cultures, different[43:32] religions. None of that matters because[43:34] there's one truth. One truth with a[43:36] capital T as Matthew Shadagas would say.[43:39] And um that's the one truth that unites[43:42] us all. And it's really a fantastic[43:43] endeavor that way.[43:46] Do you think it's changed now that so[43:48] many people[43:50] agreed to sign their names onto a paper[43:53] about UAPs? Has that changed in the last[43:56] several years?[43:58] >> Oh, I I don't think that would have been[44:00] possible 10 years ago. Certainly not.[44:02] Um, a lot of these people weren't[44:04] involved then. Uh, or if they were, they[44:06] were quietly involved and not not doing[44:08] it um publicly.[44:12] I hadn't been involved yet, but um there[44:14] were very a few of them were public, but[44:16] not not many like has been public about[44:18] this for decades. Um a real expert in[44:21] the field.[44:23] >> And so now just this past year at U[44:26] Albany, you have your own uh project X[44:30] that you guys are calling it now. And[44:32] it's very exciting actually.[44:35] was founded originally by um Kevin Day[44:38] and Gary Vorhees who were both involved[44:41] with the Nimits encounter and Jason[44:43] Turner was involved with that as well[44:45] and so that they formed that as a[44:47] nonprofit and I joined I was asked to[44:49] join that rather early on and so that's[44:52] where that started and so we got a[44:55] generous donation from um from Tony[44:58] Gorman who was a local Albany[45:00] businessman he saw us on the nightly[45:02] news talking about our our work and[45:05] wanted to support it. So, we got a[45:06] generous donation to the university from[45:08] him, which really allows us to get get[45:12] moving on this in a in a way that we[45:14] haven't been able to do before. So,[45:16] that's really an excellent thing and[45:17] we're grateful for that. And um and so[45:22] that led to um UAPX being transformed[45:26] into this a university project. And so[45:29] so then now the um nonprofit[45:32] organization's been closed and it's now[45:34] a university based project. Um don't[45:36] worry you can still donate taxfree[45:38] because the university is a state[45:40] university and so they have taxfree[45:41] status. So so if you want to dump some[45:44] money before tax season um and it's not[45:48] it's passed to Sen already but maybe[45:51] next year um feel free to donate. We[45:54] could we could definitely use I mean we[45:56] have enough money to get started but we[45:58] could definitely use more to really get[45:59] going.[46:01] >> How much does this change the game? You[46:03] know that universities actually[46:05] supporting this? We've heard about about[46:07] the Galileo project but this seems[46:09] really different. You know I think of[46:11] this more as kind of boots on the ground[46:13] like what you guys did in Tearing the[46:15] Sky.[46:17] Yeah, we definitely are boots on the[46:18] ground and we've um we have nearby[46:21] sites. Um Pine Bush, New York was in the[46:24] 1990s was a huge UFO area. Um the whole[46:29] um flaps they call them when you have[46:31] many UFOs sightings. And so that's only[46:34] about 2 hours from here. So we have um[46:37] and we have a site in Connecticut where[46:40] um there was a police officer who had[46:42] witnessed a large orb and that was in um[46:44] News Nation I think covered that and so[46:47] we actually have access to that area as[46:50] well and so we're going to be putting it[46:52] we've actually got cameras there now[46:54] cameras that now monitoring 24/7[46:57] and so and have actually collected some[47:00] data. So we are yeah definitely boots on[47:03] the ground collecting data and trying to[47:05] collect hard scientific data to get to[47:07] the bottom of some of these things.[47:10] >> And Dr. Sidagus was really excited that[47:12] Eric Davis called and said he wanted to[47:14] help out as well. Have you have you seen[47:16] you know people asking to help and[47:18] additional[47:19] >> Oh, we've had many many people ask to[47:21] help and and it's that's hard to manage[47:23] because um[47:26] especially right now. Right now we're[47:28] just we're trying to get our equipment[47:30] together and and make plans and and so[47:33] we're kind of at that stage. We're not[47:34] at the stage where we we have and we[47:38] don't have resources to grow exactly. Um[47:40] which is why more donations would be qu[47:42] good. But um but we've had offers from[47:45] other scientists contacting us, chemists[47:48] and um other physicists offering to[47:51] help. And so, you know, we're keeping[47:53] keeping their names and CVs on file for[47:56] now. And um and as we grow and are able,[47:59] that will be great fun.[48:02] And so do you think that we have enough[48:05] evidence at this at this point to make[48:09] any sort of concrete claims, you know,[48:12] that these are it's non-human[48:14] capabilities? Do you think we have[48:16] enough evidence to make any sort of[48:18] claims like that?[48:19] >> I think uh short answer, yes. um a[48:23] little more nuanced. I think the there's[48:26] a[48:29] we have to be a bit careful because UAP[48:32] are unidentified aerial phenomena and[48:35] that's plural and so they're phenomena[48:38] and we don't really know what the whole[48:40] taxonomy of these objects are. They're[48:42] not all the same. Um you have and we you[48:47] know you know we have different types.[48:48] You have saucers. You have cylindrical[48:51] tic tac-shaped craft. You have things[48:53] that look like craft. You have um[48:55] triangles, black triangles. You have[48:59] plasmoid orbs that look like balls of[49:01] plasma. Some of which behave[49:02] intelligently, which is now hard to[49:04] figure hard to get your head around. So,[49:07] we don't really know what the whole[49:08] taxonomy of these things are. We don't[49:10] know what whether they're related to[49:12] each other or not. Are they disparit[49:14] phenomena or are they somehow related?[49:17] Um that's not known. So, we don't even[49:20] have the taxonomy done, right? Um,[49:24] it's kind of like if you just realized[49:26] there were birds and you don't know the[49:28] difference between a hawk and a sparrow[49:30] yet. So, I'm a bird watcher, so I that's[49:33] an easy analogy for me to make. Um, but[49:36] you don't yet know whether a whether[49:38] what you saw was a hawk moth or a[49:40] hummingbird. And hawk moths aren't[49:41] birds, right? So, but they look very[49:43] much like humming. So, um,[49:47] and that's kind of where we are with UAP[49:48] studies. Now, some of these objects,[49:52] especially the the orbike things, could[49:55] be natural phenomena that we just don't[49:58] understand yet. Atmospheric or[50:00] electromagnetic phenomena that we don't[50:02] understand over although some of them[50:04] seem to behave intelligently. So, what's[50:06] going on there? It's not clear. Um the[50:09] ones that look like craft though where[50:12] we have measured speeds and[50:13] accelerations you we can you can[50:16] definitely say these are beyond human[50:19] capability. So[50:22] um it's it's pretty clear that some of[50:24] them are very very possibly non-human[50:28] craft. I think that's a real hypothesis[50:30] on the table.[50:32] >> Not having careful scientific evidence[50:34] to make the scientific argument yet. I[50:37] mean it when you look at the whole big[50:39] picture and see the evidence we have[50:41] it's there's not that many possibilities[50:43] left.[50:46] >> I think your background seems uh really[50:49] ideal for this right. So you[50:50] astrophysics you have the the the space[50:53] background astrobiology[50:56] you know about you know life at least[50:58] how how it could possibly be uh in other[51:01] places besides earth. you I'm sure[51:04] you've dedicated much of your life to[51:06] that. But then you also know about[51:08] information physics and really[51:10] neuroscience which I think is really[51:13] interesting because another side to the[51:16] the phenomenon is you know the woo side[51:19] where when people have these encounters[51:21] and I'm sure you've heard many of them[51:23] um just being in the space you know what[51:26] is your thoughts on on approaching that[51:28] side from a scientific uh perspective?[51:33] >> I think it's something we can't ignore.[51:35] we tend to ignore these these aspects of[51:38] encounters and even even the UFO people[51:42] ignore them. Um they're[51:45] the there's always the weird part that[51:47] or or when you're getting um[51:52] you're interviewing somebody about what[51:54] they experienced, they often will leave[51:56] out the weird parts, which makes this[51:59] hard when you're trying to get your head[52:01] around the big picture. um these weird[52:05] woo paranormal like phenomena that[52:09] accompany UFOs and UFO sightings aren't[52:12] they happen[52:14] at some point you got to put on your big[52:16] boy pants and deal with it. I think[52:17] that's the only thing you can really say[52:19] now. How do you deal with it? That's[52:21] really the problem. So the you what I've[52:25] taken to doing is um[52:28] do what you do in information theory[52:30] when you're dealing with the signal. Um[52:32] you mentioned information physics. Um[52:34] you look for you look for commonalities[52:38] and the especially the aspects that are[52:42] unexpected[52:43] um are the ones that have the most[52:46] information. So unexpected commonalities[52:49] are the most informative. And so those[52:52] are the ones you should pay some[52:53] attention to.[52:55] And I think that's that's that really[52:58] struck me. I had a very hard time early[53:00] on with the whole alien abduction[53:02] business. Um,[53:07] and[53:09] I was watching a talk by recorded talk[53:12] by John Mack and he was giving some[53:16] statistics that he had measured from his[53:18] interviews with people and right now[53:21] actually the um his files are being[53:25] digitized at Rice University. Um Karen[53:28] Austin who's the director of the John[53:30] Mack Institute is is there right now[53:32] digitizing all of his files and patient[53:35] workups and patient interviews and all[53:36] of that anonymizing them and digitizing[53:38] them. We're going to study them. So[53:40] that's really great.[53:42] >> But he was giving a talk and giving some[53:45] statistics and he said something that[53:48] just hit me really hard. He said that it[53:50] was something like 60% of people who[53:54] claimed to have been abducted by the[53:57] little gray aliens and who had claimed[54:00] to have eggs and sperm taken from them.[54:04] 60% of them were claimed to be taken[54:08] into a room before they were sent home[54:10] and given a baby to hold.[54:15] And I was like, "What? Wait a minute.[54:18] What?" And I remount it and relisted and[54:20] like given a baby to hold and sometimes[54:24] the babies weren't quite human and it[54:26] was and that of course gets freaky[54:28] again. But but I was like who makes that[54:31] up, right? I mean this is the unexpected[54:33] commonality. And then I thought 60% of[54:36] them say this independently[54:39] th this is a huge deal. I mean this is[54:41] this is and and then I was like all[54:43] right we have to pay attention to this.[54:45] There's something actually going on[54:46] here, right? there's this is information[54:48] and you know I don't know exactly what[54:51] that tells you at this point but um[54:54] but that's that's how I try to use[54:56] information to get around[54:58] to deal with this all the weird stuff um[55:02] the physics stuff is weird enough but[55:04] the other stuff is even weirder and[55:08] you know I have a hypothesis[55:11] that[55:13] uh doesn't explain details but it's kind[55:16] of a broad way of thinking is that what[55:18] if what if we have missed some aspects[55:22] of physics, right? We've missed some as[55:25] some aspects of physical reality[55:28] and if we encountered something like[55:30] that, they would look paranormal or[55:32] supernatural to us, right? So maybe[55:35] maybe some of the things that we call[55:37] paranormal or supernatural are well, I[55:40] don't believe in supernatural in the[55:42] first place. If it exists, it's natural,[55:44] period. So everything's natural. So what[55:47] we call paranormal or supernatural would[55:50] be an aspect of reality that we just[55:53] haven't studied yet.[55:55] >> So if things like that existed, um you[55:59] could maybe do things with phenomena[56:02] that we aren't familiar with. Um you[56:05] know, the ancient Romans, you know, the[56:06] Romans 2,000 years ago didn't know about[56:08] electro electricity and magnetism, but[56:11] they knew about load stones. knew about[56:13] amber and that you could pick up pieces[56:15] of dust with that. Um, they knew about[56:17] it. It was weird and magical to them.[56:21] Um, but nowadays we we understand it and[56:25] we use it as a technology. This is how[56:27] we're talking to each other right now or[56:28] how the listeners are hearing us. We're[56:30] using those phenomena as a technology.[56:33] So, if there's phenomena out there that[56:36] we currently haven't encountered yet and[56:39] studied,[56:40] but somebody else has, the non-humans[56:43] maybe have, they might be using that as[56:46] part of their technology.[56:48] And then when you encounter one of these[56:51] crafts and encounter this technology,[56:53] it's going to look paranormal to you,[56:55] right? You're going to say, "Oh, that's[56:56] that weird paranormal thing." Um, and so[57:00] it could just be part of their[57:01] technology. And so a lot of what they're[57:03] doing, you know, this gets into the[57:05] whole is it new physics or new[57:07] engineering. It could actually be new[57:08] physics. Um and and the what we call[57:13] paranormal woo stuff could actually be[57:15] part of new physics.[57:17] And u and you mentioned neuroscience.[57:20] And so how does this affect people? How[57:22] do these objects affect people[57:23] neurologically? We don't understand that[57:25] either. Um we do have some evidence that[57:28] there's very strong electric and[57:30] magnetic fields. And I've seen electric[57:33] electrical recordings of very high[57:36] electric fields oscillating at around 12[57:38] hertz. Well, that worried me right away[57:41] because a 12 hertz electrical oscillate[57:43] your alpha rhythms in your brain are[57:45] about 12 hertz.[57:47] And we know that if you um and this I[57:50] did some of this work for my PhD thesis.[57:52] I was studying auditory system dynamics[57:55] and and and oscillator entrainment and[57:58] whether you could entrain um[58:00] neurosircuitry by auditory clicks.[58:03] That's basically what I did for my PhD[58:04] work and um it was biohysics before[58:08] there was bioysics. Um it was the first[58:11] biopysics like project that came out of[58:13] the University of Minnesota and the now[58:16] the physics department was not happy.[58:17] They were[58:19] >> I had the director of graduate studies[58:21] met with me and he said, "Kevin, why[58:23] can't you just do condensed matter[58:24] physics like everybody else um I had a[58:27] very good adviser, John Broadhurst, who[58:29] was willing to take on this crazy[58:31] project and it was great and I'm very[58:34] grateful to him for that." So, so yeah,[58:37] so you could have so if you have a[58:39] person exposed to a very high electric[58:42] field oscillating at 12 hertz, you could[58:44] easily induce alpha rhythms in their[58:46] brains.[58:48] um what is that going to do to their[58:50] thinking and their perception? We don't[58:51] exactly know. Um you're going to have a[58:54] hard time getting an IRB to study that.[58:57] So, we don't know what what that does to[58:58] people. And so, so some of what people[59:02] report might not be physically[59:04] happening. Um and you know, people have[59:08] just typically assumed that none of it's[59:10] physically happening. I don't think[59:11] that's true either. Um, we have physical[59:13] evidence of UFOs and um, chemical[59:15] evidence and so um, but I don't think[59:19] all of it is necessarily physical and[59:22] these things can mess with your[59:24] perception and somehow do[59:29] have you noticed that your general[59:32] paradigm on the world has shifted, you[59:35] know, in your years studying this for[59:36] instance you know before I got into this[59:39] topic I was really a just a straight[59:42] atheist, you know, and now I've really[59:45] changed my views to be like actually I[59:47] there's many things I don't know and now[59:50] I'm more open-minded and I listen to[59:52] near-death experiences and now I'm I've[59:55] turned around the other way where I'm[59:56] not, you know, hardcore religious or[59:58] anything, but I I'm I do believe now[01:00:00] that there is more to life than this[01:00:02] reality. Has your paradigm shifted at[01:00:05] all?[01:00:07] >> That's a good question. Um, yes. this[01:00:10] this whole business has just trashed my[01:00:13] whole world view.[01:00:16] >> Yeah. I don't know. I it it was[01:00:18] frustrating because I I turned 60 just[01:00:21] last year. So, um[01:00:25] I had I've studied physics for 30 years[01:00:28] and I thought I had a pretty good handle[01:00:30] on how the universe worked. I came in[01:00:32] went into physics. wanted to understand[01:00:34] how the universe worked and I thought I[01:00:35] had a pretty good handle on this and[01:00:38] then I encountered this UFO phenomena[01:00:40] and start learning about what's all[01:00:41] going on here, what the data shows and[01:00:43] realize I don't I don't know about[01:00:46] the universe[01:00:49] about anything about the universe and it[01:00:51] really was frustrating[01:00:53] um really upsetting because[01:00:57] to to realize that yeah I thought I[01:01:00] understood everything and clearly I'm[01:01:02] was very wrong about a lot of it. Um, a[01:01:05] lot of the weird stuff that people talk[01:01:08] about, I would just, you know,[01:01:11] immediately disbelieve it. Um, I'm not[01:01:14] there anymore. I don't just disbelieve[01:01:17] anybody. I don't think most people[01:01:19] aren't making stuff up. There's some[01:01:21] element of truth to a lot of it, I[01:01:23] think. And that's what I that's been my[01:01:25] experience recently, which has given me[01:01:29] a lot more pause, you know, when I[01:01:31] encounter somebody with some amazing[01:01:35] claim. Um,[01:01:37] I don't just don't just blow it off or[01:01:39] write it off anymore. And I think that's[01:01:41] a that's in some ways a very good thing.[01:01:44] And and you know how this[01:01:47] what this has to do with God and and[01:01:50] religion and all of that. Yeah. Yeah.[01:01:51] Definitely. This is[01:01:55] this is not everything. So I I think[01:01:57] it's that simple.[01:01:59] And in fact, I was very right before I[01:02:02] came on the podcast, I was a few like[01:02:05] two minutes late logging in and I[01:02:06] apologize for that. I was listening to I[01:02:09] was listening to Matthew Shadagas give a[01:02:11] podcast. Matthew will be happy to hear[01:02:12] that. Um he was he was giving a podcast[01:02:15] on blurry creatures and he was talking[01:02:18] about um yeah there was he's talking[01:02:21] about atheism and and Catholicism and[01:02:24] UFOs and I was I was transfix listening[01:02:28] to this. I was like you know I Matthew[01:02:30] and I of course talk about this and I'm[01:02:31] and you know and I know his beliefs but[01:02:34] it was fun to hear him summarize them[01:02:36] all in one place. I was really enjoying[01:02:37] that.[01:02:39] Well, for me it's been a very positive[01:02:43] end result. You know, I I feel um I I[01:02:46] think that's the right way to look at[01:02:48] it. Certainly from a scientist's[01:02:50] perspective is that, you know, why be a[01:02:53] scientist if we already know everything,[01:02:55] you know, if there's there's nothing to[01:02:56] discovering,[01:02:57] >> right? That's horly boring, then you[01:02:59] just go into be an engineer instead or[01:03:01] something. Do something practical.[01:03:03] Actually, do something. Um, then if you[01:03:06] really believe it's all been discovered,[01:03:08] I don't I don't believe it's all been[01:03:10] discovered. I don't think that's and I[01:03:13] don't know many physicists who do think[01:03:15] that. So,[01:03:17] yeah. In fact, the one one of the things[01:03:20] that I found out of all the weird stuff[01:03:22] that I found most inspirational is[01:03:24] listening to the telepathy tapes.[01:03:26] >> Excellent.[01:03:28] My father worked with autistic adults[01:03:31] and um and actually I was I was friends[01:03:35] with Jay Trefford in high school. We had[01:03:38] lockers next to each other. His father[01:03:40] was Daryl Treffort who was a[01:03:43] psychologist who studied um Santism and[01:03:47] actually was one of the um sources for[01:03:51] um the movie Rainman.[01:03:53] >> So I and I so I knew his son in high[01:03:55] school. So, I've got these weird[01:03:56] connections to autism and that and um[01:03:59] and and[01:04:00] of course I'm a physicist, so I'm[01:04:02] probably not probably I am on the[01:04:04] spectrum. We're all almost all the[01:04:06] physicists are. We have this, you know,[01:04:08] there's an inside joke. Do you know how[01:04:09] do you tell an an extroverted physicist?[01:04:14] He's the one staring at the other guy's[01:04:16] shoes.[01:04:18] Of course, I said he, which throws into[01:04:19] a whole other aspect of physics because[01:04:21] there's not enough physics. Actually, my[01:04:24] my recent classes have had more women[01:04:26] than men, which is great and[01:04:27] interesting. Um, I'm all over the board[01:04:30] here. ADHD. So, um,[01:04:35] the telepathy tapes. Yeah. So knowing[01:04:37] that first I found it inspirational[01:04:40] because you have these autistic[01:04:42] kids and adults who[01:04:45] when you first encounter them or get to[01:04:48] know some of them[01:04:50] um you feel bad for them because they're[01:04:52] in this closedin world and they're[01:04:55] what I mean I I'm going to put this[01:04:57] horribly and some people might be what a[01:04:59] horrible life they must have right[01:05:01] that's what a lot of people think. Um,[01:05:04] and then realized the fact that what if[01:05:07] if they can if they're telepathic with[01:05:09] each other, the ones that they've[01:05:11] interviewed in the telepathy tapes were[01:05:13] they have a very rich life in a very[01:05:16] different way than we do. In fact, maybe[01:05:18] more. I mean, I'm going to get all[01:05:21] emotional, but listening to the bits[01:05:24] about um was it John Paul JP and and his[01:05:28] girlfriend Lily who were autistics and[01:05:30] they were constantly together[01:05:33] psychically telepathically together. He[01:05:36] would think poetry to her and I thought,[01:05:37] "Oh my god, this is beautiful. I can't,[01:05:40] you know, talking to my wife is hard. I[01:05:43] would love to be better. I would love to[01:05:45] be better connected to the people I'm in[01:05:47] love with, right? And and and I went[01:05:50] from I went from feeling that, you know,[01:05:54] which I didn't feel this way because my[01:05:55] father worked with the with autistic[01:05:57] people and so I knew them better than[01:05:59] most people do, but um severely autistic[01:06:02] people and[01:06:05] but I you go from thinking of them as[01:06:07] being limited to they are maybe better[01:06:11] off than I am in some ways, right? there[01:06:13] some aspects are are I I was envious of[01:06:16] and and then in the in the end of the[01:06:19] first season to hear their comments[01:06:21] about us talking about us normal people[01:06:24] on how I mean one of them I'm going to[01:06:26] paraphrase you you people are awful you[01:06:29] lie all the time[01:06:32] awful people and I thought you know he's[01:06:35] whether you believe any of this[01:06:37] telepathy stuff or not what these[01:06:39] autistic people are typing about us he's[01:06:41] he's actually Wait, he's telling the[01:06:43] truth, which they have some insights[01:06:45] about what our we're like mentally,[01:06:48] right? How how do you arrive at that if[01:06:50] you're autist severely autistic and[01:06:52] can't speak unless you're telepathic? I[01:06:54] mean, you it really[01:06:56] and so[01:06:58] I I find that fascinating. Um, is it is[01:07:01] it are all the claims true? Are all[01:07:03] autistic people telepathic? No, probably[01:07:05] not. In fact, I've talked to Dr. Diane[01:07:09] about this and yeah. Yeah, that's not[01:07:11] exactly true. So, some of the claims are[01:07:13] maybe a little overblown and not all[01:07:15] carefully. It's not all been sorted out[01:07:17] yet. It's not been thoroughly studied or[01:07:19] understood and that's important.[01:07:22] >> I'm really happy you brought that up[01:07:24] because when I saw neuroscience um yeah,[01:07:27] I was really curious. It was one of my[01:07:30] questions is um had you seen the or[01:07:33] listened to the telepathy tapes? Me and[01:07:35] my wife also really enjoyed it.[01:07:36] >> Wow. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, it's a[01:07:38] it's a it's it's interesting because[01:07:41] from a physics perspective, I have no[01:07:44] idea how that could work.[01:07:46] >> Yeah.[01:07:46] >> From a neuroscientist perspective on[01:07:49] what's going on with those people and[01:07:51] soism[01:07:53] because I knew some things some about[01:07:54] that. Um[01:07:57] that that seems to make a bit more[01:08:00] sense. Um, you can you can start to[01:08:02] parse out what's what could be going on[01:08:04] with these people that could make some[01:08:06] of this happen. I mean, semantism is[01:08:08] very bizarre. I was telling my wife[01:08:11] about a case that I had heard recently[01:08:13] about a a young man in Australia, I[01:08:15] believe it was. He had taken a semester[01:08:17] of Chinese, a semester, right? You don't[01:08:20] I took a semester of Russian. You don't[01:08:22] learn I can say gloopy. He's my stupid[01:08:25] friend. I can say just that's about all[01:08:26] I remember. Or the vodka.[01:08:29] the vodka's in the refrigerator. I don't[01:08:31] I mean the horrible phrase to know in[01:08:33] Russian, but um[01:08:35] >> is that a bit of Russian? That's you[01:08:38] know, his name's Igor. I know a little[01:08:40] Russian. Uh but he but so[01:08:44] this kid, this young man in Australia[01:08:46] had taken a semester of Chinese and was[01:08:48] in a car accident and ended up in a coma[01:08:51] for a long period of time. and he comes[01:08:53] out of the coma unable to speak English,[01:08:57] can only speak fluent Chinese.[01:09:01] >> Wow,[01:09:01] >> that's all documented. That's all well[01:09:03] documented. And this is the type of[01:09:04] stuff that Dr. Trifford studied, right?[01:09:06] Is a studying santism, you know, and[01:09:09] what are people's explanations for this?[01:09:10] You know, savantism who savant who can[01:09:13] listen to a piece of music and then go[01:09:14] play it on piano. Um,[01:09:18] oh, there's some gene somewhere that[01:09:20] allows them. There's no genes for[01:09:22] playing piano. I'm sorry. That's[01:09:24] ridiculous. I've heard I've heard so[01:09:26] many scientists, nonbiologists say this[01:09:29] who, you know, you give somebody a[01:09:31] physics degree and they think they know[01:09:32] biology. It's ridiculous. Drives me a[01:09:34] little crazy. Um, having studied some[01:09:37] neuroscience.[01:09:39] Yeah, it's crazy making. No, there's no[01:09:41] gene for playing piano period. How would[01:09:44] that have evolved? What what[01:09:46] evolutionary pressures are there on[01:09:49] early humans to so that some are better[01:09:52] at playing piano than others? That it's[01:09:54] the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And[01:09:56] that's one of the things about skeptics[01:09:59] and and the denialism.[01:10:02] When when deniialists[01:10:04] make up their excuses for UFO phenomena[01:10:08] or any of these phenomena, the excuses[01:10:10] are dumber than what's actually being[01:10:12] claimed than the more extraordinary[01:10:15] hypothesis.[01:10:16] Um, the more extraordinary hypotheses[01:10:18] are more reasonable than the stupid ones[01:10:20] that the skeptics and denialists are[01:10:22] coming up with usually. It's a it's it's[01:10:24] quite amazing that somehow people's[01:10:26] thinking goes right out the window. can[01:10:29] take the smartest physicist[01:10:31] and put them on TV and tell them to talk[01:10:34] about UFOs and they'll say the stupidest[01:10:36] things. Um, that's astounding to me.[01:10:40] >> Well, I think it doesn't matter how[01:10:43] smart you are. You can take literally[01:10:44] the smartest people in the world, but if[01:10:47] you start from the wrong place, you[01:10:49] know, if your fundamental assumptions[01:10:50] are incorrect, such as this cannot be[01:10:52] possible, then you're never going to get[01:10:55] there. In fact, they're going to come up[01:10:57] with the the cleverest, smartest ways to[01:11:00] explain away what they're saying.[01:11:03] >> A cow doesn't have they have they have[01:11:05] more capability to be smart and stupid.[01:11:08] So, they can be a lot smarter than a[01:11:10] cow. They can also be a lot dumber than[01:11:12] a cow. So, you got to be careful. Um,[01:11:17] >> well, excellent, Kevin. Um, you[01:11:19] mentioned and I'll put the link in the[01:11:21] description that people can donate to[01:11:23] project X at U Albany and it is uh tax[01:11:27] deferred I guess or what do you call it?[01:11:30] >> Tax exempt.[01:11:31] >> Tax exempt. So it is tax exempt and I[01:11:34] know you guys will use it extremely well[01:11:37] and boots on the ground. You actually[01:11:39] have cameras already out there. Is there[01:11:41] any other way people can help?[01:11:44] >> Um, I think that's the best way. Read[01:11:46] our read our papers too. you know, we're[01:11:48] writing scientific papers on this.[01:11:50] They're available online and um and[01:11:53] we're going to have our new UAPX website[01:11:55] up sometime in the spring and our papers[01:11:58] will be there as well. But reading the[01:12:00] papers is a good thing to do. We found[01:12:02] that a lot not a lot of people even in[01:12:05] the UFO community are reading what we're[01:12:07] putting out there, which is new stuff[01:12:09] and newly put together and newly thought[01:12:12] out. So,[01:12:13] >> excellent. So, check them out. links are[01:12:15] in the description and thank you for[01:12:17] watching. Thank you for listening to[01:12:19] myself and Dr. Canuth and yeah, please[01:12:22] hit the like button, share this video,[01:12:23] get the information out and thank you uh[01:12:25] Kevin.
What Do Scientists Know About UFOs? Sabine Hossenfelder on the Fermi Paradox
Introduction to the Nature of Communication and Time Travel
The discussion begins with a provocative assertion that Einstein's theories, which assert that nothing can communicate faster than the speed of light, may not hold true. The speaker challenges the scientific community's consensus that time travel is impossible, suggesting that the arguments against it are flawed. This sets the stage for a deeper exploration of theoretical physics, particularly as it relates to time travel and the possibility of faster-than-light communication.
Background of Sabin Hassenfelder
Sabin Hassenfelder, a prominent theoretical physicist with a PhD in particle physics, has dedicated her career to exploring foundational questions in quantum physics and cosmology. Her work spans over 80 scientific papers and two decades of research, culminating in a book that argues modern science may have reached its limits. Hassenfelder's mission includes not only advancing scientific understanding but also engaging in science communication to share complex ideas with a broader audience.
The Multiverse Hypothesis
Hassenfelder critiques the multiverse theory, describing it as more akin to a religious belief than a scientific hypothesis. Despite its popularity, she acknowledges the difficulty of explaining the universe's origin without invoking the multiverse concept. The conversation delves into the implications of the Big Bang theory, emphasizing that understanding the universe's inception is far from straightforward. Hassenfelder posits that it is more probable we are living in a simulation than that our existence is entirely real, raising questions about the nature of reality itself.
Extraterrestrial Life and Communication
The dialogue shifts to the Fermi Paradox, which questions why, given the vastness of the universe, we have not yet encountered extraterrestrial life. Hassenfelder suggests that alien civilizations could be communicating in ways beyond our current understanding, possibly utilizing methods that do not rely on electromagnetic signals. This notion challenges the prevailing scientific approach, which predominantly focuses on detecting electromagnetic signals, such as those sought by the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI).
Hassenfelder argues that the scientific community may be limiting itself by adhering strictly to electromagnetic communication methods, suggesting that we may need to rethink our search strategies for extraterrestrial intelligence. She expresses concern that physicists dismiss the potential for faster-than-light communication too readily, indicating a need for more open-minded exploration of this possibility.
Time Travel and Its Paradoxes
The conversation then addresses the complexities of time travel. Hassenfelder acknowledges the difficulties in reconciling time travel with current physics, particularly due to the potential for paradoxes, such as the grandfather paradox. She explains that if one could travel back in time and alter events, it could lead to inconsistencies in the timeline. However, she also notes that the arguments against time travel often stem from a misunderstanding of Einstein's theories, particularly special relativity, which does not account for the complexities of our actual universe as described by general relativity.
Hassenfelder proposes that it may be possible to have faster-than-light communication without creating causal paradoxes, suggesting that the link between faster-than-light travel and time travel may not be as straightforward as commonly believed. She emphasizes the need for further research into the implications of quantum mechanics and the potential for new theories that could allow for faster-than-light communication.
The Concept of a Block Universe
The discussion touches on the concept of a block universe, where past, present, and future coexist simultaneously. Hassenfelder supports this idea, noting that it aligns with certain interpretations of Einstein's theories. She explains that if the universe is viewed as a four-dimensional block, then all moments in time exist equally, challenging our perception of a singular present moment. This perspective raises questions about free will and determinism, as it implies that the future is already determined in some sense.
When asked about the implications of a block universe for free will, Hassenfelder argues that both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of physics do not necessarily support the existence of free will. She explains that if the universe operates under deterministic laws, then choices are predetermined. Conversely, if quantum mechanics introduces randomness, it does not grant individuals the power to influence outcomes, thus complicating the notion of free will.
Consciousness and Free Will
The conversation shifts to the nature of consciousness and its relationship to free will. Hassenfelder expresses skepticism about the existence of free will, suggesting that it may be an illusion. She discusses the implications of quantum mechanics on consciousness, referencing theories that propose consciousness arises from complex interactions within the brain. However, she remains critical of theories that posit consciousness as a fundamental aspect of the universe, arguing that such claims lack empirical support.
Hassenfelder also addresses the idea that consciousness could emerge from quantum processes in the brain, as proposed by physicist Roger Penrose. While acknowledging the intriguing nature of this hypothesis, she questions its validity and the extent to which it can account for conscious experience. She emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive understanding of consciousness that aligns with established physical theories.
Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity
The discussion transitions to the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential to evolve independently of human oversight. Hassenfelder expresses optimism about the future of AI, suggesting that while we are not yet at the point of achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), advancements are being made. She notes that current AI systems lack the ability to interact with their environment in a meaningful way, which limits their potential for true intelligence.
Hassenfelder highlights the importance of developing AI systems that can learn and adapt through interaction, drawing parallels to human evolution. She emphasizes the need for research into world models, where AI can explore virtual environments to develop a deeper understanding of the world, akin to how humans learn through experience.
The Simulation Hypothesis
The conversation also explores the simulation hypothesis, which posits that our reality may be a simulated construct. Hassenfelder acknowledges the philosophical implications of this idea but remains skeptical about its scientific validity. She argues that while it is an intriguing notion, it is difficult to test or verify scientifically. Hassenfelder emphasizes that the complexity of the universe and the challenges of simulating it raise significant questions about the feasibility of the simulation hypothesis.
UFOs and the Stigma Surrounding Them
As the discussion progresses, Hassenfelder addresses the increasing interest in unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and the stigma associated with studying them within the scientific community. She acknowledges that while there is a growing body of evidence suggesting unexplained phenomena, many scientists remain hesitant to engage with the topic due to concerns about their reputations. Hassenfelder argues that this stigma is detrimental to scientific inquiry and that researchers should approach the study of UFOs with an open mind.
She cites examples of historical photographic evidence of transient events captured before the advent of modern satellite technology, suggesting that these phenomena warrant further investigation. Hassenfelder advocates for a more open and rigorous examination of such evidence, emphasizing the importance of scientific inquiry into unexplained phenomena.
The Multiverse and the Limits of Current Models
The conversation returns to the multiverse theory, with Hassenfelder expressing skepticism about its scientific validity. She argues that the multiverse is not a testable hypothesis and that it often serves as a narrative device rather than a robust scientific explanation. Hassenfelder critiques the tendency of some physicists to treat mathematical models as reality, cautioning against conflating mathematical constructs with empirical evidence.
Hassenfelder also discusses the challenges of understanding the origins of the universe, highlighting the limitations of current models and the difficulty of extrapolating from observed data. She emphasizes that while the Big Bang theory has strong empirical support, the exact nature of the universe's inception remains uncertain, and various theoretical models exist that could explain its origins.
Future Directions in Physics Research
As the conversation draws to a close, Hassenfelder reflects on the future of physics research, particularly regarding the construction of new particle colliders. She raises concerns about the allocation of resources to large-scale projects like the Future Circular Collider (FCC), questioning whether such investments will yield significant scientific breakthroughs. Hassenfelder argues that the focus should shift towards addressing pressing questions in the foundations of physics, such as dark matter and quantum gravity, rather than pursuing projects that may not lead to substantial advancements.
She expresses a desire for a more democratic approach to scientific research, where funding and research directions are guided by collective intelligence rather than the interests of wealthy individuals. Hassenfelder advocates for a more strategic allocation of resources to ensure that the brightest minds in science are directed towards solving the most pressing challenges facing humanity.
Conclusion: Optimism for the Future
In closing, Hassenfelder expresses optimism about humanity's potential to make contact with extraterrestrial intelligence and the prospects for our survival as a species. She believes that intelligent civilizations will likely be benevolent, drawing parallels between the evolution of intelligence and the capacity for cooperation and peace. Hassenfelder's insights challenge conventional thinking in physics and encourage a more open-minded exploration of the universe's mysteries, emphasizing the importance of curiosity and inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge.
The transcript provides several biographical and professional details about the interviewee, Sabin Hassenfelder, a theoretical physicist. The information is shared through both the interviewer and the interviewee, establishing her credentials and areas of expertise.
Initially, the interviewer introduces her by stating, "Sabin Hassenfelder is a world-renowned theoretical physicist. She has published more than 80 scientific papers and spent 20 years working on quantum gravity." This highlights her extensive experience and specialization in the field of theoretical physics, particularly in quantum gravity, which is a complex area that bridges quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Moreover, the interviewer notes that Hassenfelder has authored a book arguing that modern science may have reached a limit concerning the most profound questions, suggesting an inclination towards questioning established scientific doctrines. This further illustrates her role not just as a researcher but as a critical thinker in the scientific community.
In her own words, Hassenfelder mentions her educational background, stating, "Well, I do have a PhD in physics. More specifically, I made my PhD in particle physics and over the time I’ve drifted more towards big foundational questions in quantum physics in cosmology where it borders on philosophy." This statement reveals her academic qualifications—a PhD in physics—and her evolving interests from particle physics to broader philosophical inquiries within quantum physics and cosmology.
- [00:19] "Sabin Hassenfelder is a world-renowned theoretical physicist. She has published more than 80 scientific papers and spent 20 years working on quantum gravity."
- [02:03] "Well, I do have a PhD in physics. More specifically, I made my PhD in particle physics and over the time I’ve drifted more towards big foundational questions in quantum physics in cosmology where it borders on philosophy."
In the transcript, Sabin Hassenfelder approaches the study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) with a scientific lens, emphasizing the need for rigorous analysis and evidence. The interviewer notes her perspective on UAP, stating, "In this conversation, we explore some of the boldest ideas in modern physics and examine each one through a strictly scientific lens." This indicates that Hassenfelder prioritizes scientific methodology in her investigation of UAP, seeking to differentiate between what is plausible and what is merely speculation.
Hassenfelder elaborates on her views regarding extraterrestrial intelligence and the methods employed in searching for it. She expresses skepticism about traditional approaches, remarking, "So if you look at all these searches for extraterrestrial intelligence, they all focus on one or the other sort of electromagnetic signal." This critique suggests that she believes existing methods may be flawed or limited, as they predominantly rely on electromagnetic signals while neglecting alternative forms of communication that could exist.
The interviewee also highlights a significant challenge in UAP research, stating that physicists tend to dismiss unconventional communication methods, which limits exploration. She asserts, "...if there is any way to communicate faster than the speed of light, then of course that’s what the extraterrestrials are using." Hassenfelder's argument suggests that the scientific community may be overlooking potential avenues of research that could yield new insights into the nature of UAP.
- [01:19] "In this conversation, we explore some of the boldest ideas in modern physics and examine each one through a strictly scientific lens."
- [05:35] "So if you look at all these searches for extraterrestrial intelligence, they all focus on one or the other sort of electromagnetic signal."
- [05:58] "...if there is any way to communicate faster than the speed of light, then of course that’s what the extraterrestrials are using."
During the interview, Sabin Hassenfelder articulates her motivations for engaging in research related to UAP, grounded in a blend of scientific curiosity and broader societal implications. The interviewer sets the stage by discussing the concept of extraterrestrial intelligence and its relevance, which resonates with Hassenfelder's interests. She asserts that the search for intelligent life beyond Earth is one of the most pressing questions in contemporary science, saying, "the question of whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, maybe even in our own galaxy is like one of the biggest, if not the biggest question at this present moment..."
This statement underscores her belief in the profound significance of UAP research, both for scientific advancement and for humanity's understanding of its place in the universe. Hassenfelder expresses an eagerness to uncover the nature of potential extraterrestrial civilizations, hinting at the practical ramifications such discoveries could have: "Of course, it could also create a lot of problems very quickly. Either way, it’ll be very interesting." Her acknowledgment of both the opportunities and challenges presented by the existence of intelligent life suggests a nuanced perspective on the implications of UAP research.
Furthermore, she emphasizes the necessity of maintaining an open-minded approach to the investigation of UAP, stating, "...I think just, you know, from a Bayesian inference perspective, we can’t rule it out." This reflects her commitment to a scientific method that accommodates uncertainty, urging for a serious inquiry into unexplained phenomena.
- [04:07] "the question of whether there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, maybe even in our own galaxy is like one of the biggest, if not the biggest question at this present moment..."
- [04:24] "Of course, it could also create a lot of problems very quickly. Either way, it’ll be very interesting."
- [40:07] "...I think just, you know, from a Bayesian inference perspective, we can’t rule it out."
The transcript does not indicate that Sabin Hassenfelder has personally observed any Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Instead, she discusses her thoughts on the subject and reflects on the broader implications of UAP research. The interviewer poses questions related to UAP, but Hassenfelder does not share an anecdote or description of a personal experience regarding a UAP sighting.
While discussing the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, she expresses her views on the potential existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, suggesting that the scientific community should actively explore unexplained phenomena without dismissing them outright. For instance, she says, "...we can’t really rule out that aliens have been here or maybe are here." This statement indicates her openness to the possibility of UAP being linked to extraterrestrial intelligence, but it does not stem from any personal observation or direct experience.
Instead, Hassenfelder emphasizes the need for scientific inquiry into phenomena labeled as UAP, arguing for a thoughtful approach: "...we should be able to openly talk about..." This perspective showcases her commitment to scientific rigor and exploration rather than relying on personal experiences or anecdotal evidence.
- [40:19] "...we can’t really rule out that aliens have been here or maybe are here."
- [40:24] "...we should be able to openly talk about..."
In the interview, Sabin Hassenfelder addresses several obstacles and professional risks associated with research into Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). She acknowledges the stigma attached to studying UAP within the scientific community, stating, "Yeah, that’s definitely still an issue." This remark reflects her understanding of the social dynamics that can dissuade scientists from pursuing research in this area, especially if they fear being labeled as unscientific or eccentric.
Hassenfelder elaborates on the challenges faced by researchers who explore UAP, noting that many scientists may hesitate to engage with the subject matter due to the potential impact on their careers. She explains, "I’ve heard from more than one person that this is not something that they would touch on before they have tenure." This indicates that early-career researchers might avoid UAP studies until they secure their positions, highlighting the professional risks involved in pursuing unconventional research topics.
Moreover, Hassenfelder expresses concern about the implications of UAP being linked to non-human intelligences. She suggests that many physicists dismiss the idea of faster-than-light communication or travel, limiting exploration into what might be possible. She argues, "...I think this is something that we should be thinking about more. And I’m a little bit worried that physicists just throw out this possibility that there is anything more..." This statement underscores her advocacy for a more open-minded scientific approach toward UAP and the necessity for researchers to consider the broader implications of their work without fear of professional repercussions.
- [37:20] "Yeah, that’s definitely still an issue."
- [05:20] "I’ve heard from more than one person that this is not something that they would touch on before they have tenure."
- [06:20] "...I think this is something that we should be thinking about more. And I’m a little bit worried that physicists just throw out this possibility that there is anything more..."
[00:00] Einstein's theories tell us you can't[00:02] communicate faster than the speed of[00:04] light. It's not true.[00:06] >> But as you know, faster than life would[00:08] go into the past and the scientific[00:09] community says time travel is[00:11] impossible.[00:12] >> It's just totally crazy to me. But the[00:14] arguments that physicists make against[00:16] it are just wrong.[00:19] >> Sabin Hassenfielder is a worldrenowned[00:21] theoretical physicist. She has published[00:23] more than 80 scientific papers and spent[00:25] 20 years working on quantum gravity.[00:27] Then she wrote a book arguing that[00:29] modern science has reached the end and[00:31] that when it comes to the biggest[00:32] questions, even her own colleagues may[00:35] be wrong.[00:35] >> The multiverse idea is not a scientific[00:39] hypothesis. It's a kind of a religion.[00:41] >> Still, it's pretty hard to explain the[00:43] origin of the universe without the[00:44] multiverse.[00:45] >> Depends on what you mean by big bang.[00:47] From a scientific perspective is[00:49] definitely not simple. We are talking[00:51] about the entire universe. It's much[00:53] more likely that we are simulated than[00:56] that we are actually real. We can't[00:59] really rule out that aliens have been[01:01] here or maybe are here. I know that this[01:04] sounds crazy.[01:04] >> Do we have any real evidence for that?[01:06] >> So, these were photographic plates from[01:09] before we had any satellites in orbit.[01:11] There are things that appear or maybe 15[01:14] minutes or something and then in the[01:15] next image they're gone. They're gone.[01:17] So, what the hell was it? In this[01:19] conversation, we explore some of the[01:21] boldest ideas in modern physics and[01:23] examine each one through a strictly[01:24] scientific lens. What's actually[01:26] possible? What's pure fantasy? And where[01:29] does science honestly say? We just don't[01:32] know yet. Enjoy.[01:41] Sabin, thank you so much for coming to[01:44] my podcast. I've watched many of your[01:46] videos and I can say that you are very[01:49] popular with our audience. It's a real[01:52] pleasure to have you on our channel[01:54] today. So to start, could you briefly[01:57] tell us about your background and uh[02:00] what you see as your mission?[02:03] >> Well, I do have a PhD in physics. um[02:07] more specifically I made my PhD in[02:10] particle physics and over the time I've[02:13] drifted more towards[02:16] big foundational questions uh in in[02:19] quantum physics in cosmology[02:22] where it borders on philosophy. So[02:25] naturally I became more interested in[02:28] philosophy and uh of course I also do a[02:30] lot of science communication outreach[02:33] because I always feel like I want to[02:35] share my stuff with other people uh and[02:39] not not just my stuff of course but also[02:42] things that I read. I'm generally[02:43] broadly interested in science and[02:46] technology talk about everything from[02:49] nuclear fusion to quantum computing.[02:53] Um, yeah. Um, I guess that's that's the[02:56] most relevant thing. What else do you[02:57] want to know?[02:59] >> Recently, Elon Musk shared one of your[03:02] videos in X. In that video, you talked[03:04] about the Fermy paradox and some[03:08] possible explanations for it. And you[03:10] mentioned an interesting idea that maybe[03:14] alien civilization already communicate[03:17] with each other, but not using[03:20] electromagnetic signals. maybe in some[03:23] other way almost instantly. And uh that[03:27] made me think, how could that work?[03:31] Would that mean communication faster[03:33] than the speed of light? And do you[03:36] think something like this could really[03:39] be possible? Well, I don't know, of[03:43] course, but I think that the reasons[03:45] that physicists usually bring up for why[03:49] it's impossible are really bad reasons.[03:53] I think like the question of whether[03:56] there is intelligent life elsewhere in[03:58] the universe, maybe even in our own[04:01] galaxy is like one of the biggest, if[04:04] not the biggest[04:07] question[04:08] >> at this present moment because obviously[04:11] like if there's other intelligent life,[04:13] we want to know who they are, what they[04:16] think, what they've understood about the[04:18] universe. uh and it, you know, on a very[04:22] practical side, it could solve a lot of[04:24] problems very quickly. Of course, it[04:25] could also create a lot of problems very[04:27] quickly. Either way, it'll be very[04:29] interesting. And so if you look at all[04:32] these searches for extraterrestrial[04:34] intelligence,[04:35] they all focus on one or the other sort[04:39] of electromagnetic signal. Be that in[04:42] the radio range or in the visible range[04:46] or, you know, in the infrared range if[04:49] they're looking for Dyson spheres or[04:51] something like that. And I just think[04:55] that's kind of crazy. So, um, we just[04:59] began doing science basically, you know,[05:02] a few hundred years ago or something.[05:04] And the idea that we've already[05:07] discovered the best way to communicate[05:10] with electromagnetic waves and there's[05:12] nothing else, you know, there's nothing[05:14] that that could be better. There's no[05:16] way to send information faster than the[05:18] speed of light because we already know[05:20] it all. It's just totally crazy to me.[05:23] Maybe we are looking for alien[05:25] civilizations in the wrong way, but many[05:29] projects like SETI mainly look for[05:33] electromagnetic signals. Could it be[05:35] that we're using the wrong instruments?[05:38] >> Well, I think that that's too strong a[05:42] statement. So, I'm not saying that they[05:44] shouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying[05:46] I'm not super surprised that they're not[05:48] finding anything because if there is any[05:51] way to communicate faster than the speed[05:54] of light, then of course that's what the[05:58] extraterrestrials are using.[06:00] But we don't know how to do it. So[06:03] clearly we haven't yet developed the[06:05] right technology. So we have really no[06:07] idea what to even look for. And the[06:10] reason I keep going on about this is[06:12] that I think this is something that we[06:15] should be thinking about more. And I'm a[06:18] little bit worried that physicists just[06:20] throw out this possibility that there is[06:23] anything more, that it might be possible[06:26] to communicate or even travel faster[06:29] than the speed of light. So there's like[06:31] literally no research on it. And if you[06:33] even talk about it, people would say,[06:35] "Well, that's crazy talk." Could you[06:37] explain in more detail how this could[06:40] work? For many people, this does not[06:44] seem to fit with what Einstein said. So,[06:47] I'd love to understand your reasoning.[06:50] >> Right. So, of course, I don't actually[06:52] know how to communicate faster than the[06:55] speed of light because if I knew, I'd be[06:57] doing it and I'd be rich and famous. Um[07:01] but the thing that worries me is that[07:03] the arguments that physicists make[07:05] against it are just wrong. For example,[07:08] let's start with this idea that[07:10] Einstein's theories actually tell us you[07:12] you can't communicate faster than the[07:14] speed of light. It's not true. So their[07:17] argument is usually about the[07:21] possibility of inconsistencies,[07:25] time travel paradoxes. And so this is a[07:28] multi-step argument where you say, well,[07:32] if it was possible to communicate or[07:36] even travel faster than the speed of[07:38] light, then we have to take into account[07:42] what Einstein told us, namely that[07:45] something which seems to be faster than[07:48] the speed of light for one observer[07:51] might go back in time for another[07:54] observer. And so once you allow[07:58] communication faster than the speed of[08:00] light, you're forced to also accept[08:02] signaling back in time. And so once you[08:05] can do this, you run into all kinds of[08:08] problems like the grandfather paradox,[08:12] which is probably the best known one[08:13] where you go back in time and you kill[08:17] your own grandfather accidentally[08:19] hopefully and you're never born to go[08:21] back in time. So this is like a[08:23] classical example of an inconsistent[08:26] loop which uh is caused by the[08:29] possibilities to interject your own[08:32] past.[08:34] But this argument[08:37] hinges on a particular assumption[08:42] Einstein's theory of special relativity[08:44] which says that there is no such thing[08:46] as a preferred frame that would tell you[08:49] which direction in time is forward and[08:52] that that's the case if you look at[08:53] special relativity but special[08:55] relativity does not describe the[08:58] universe that we actually live in. For[09:00] this we need general relativity and[09:03] general relativity for better or worse[09:06] does have a preferred foliation and it[09:10] it has an arrow of time built in which[09:13] tells you what's forward in time and[09:15] what's backward in time. And now there[09:18] are different ways other ways to define[09:20] the error of time. Some people think for[09:22] example it comes from the collapse of[09:24] the wave function in quantum mechanics.[09:26] Other people think it comes from entropy[09:28] increase whatever. But the fact is just[09:30] just look around just look at the[09:32] universe that we see it clearly does[09:35] have an error of time. So we don't get[09:37] confused about what's forward in time[09:39] and backward in time. And so once you[09:43] accept that you know our universe does[09:46] have a forward direction in time then[09:51] this link between faster than light[09:56] communication and backward in time[09:59] communication just falls apart. It no[10:01] longer exists.[10:04] So what I'm saying is that you can have[10:09] faster than light communication without[10:11] having causal paradoxes. And I'm I'm[10:14] pretty sure that this is formally[10:16] correct. And again, I think that most[10:17] physicists actually would not disagree[10:19] with it. A lot of people seem to think[10:21] that in quantum physics um you can[10:25] actually have information exchange[10:27] faster than the speed of light. Uh[10:29] people often get confused about this uh[10:31] when they're talking about entanglement[10:33] because it's often explained as as a[10:36] kind of non-local link. Did you do[10:38] something through the one particle and[10:39] the other one notices it immediately? Um[10:41] that's wrong. There's actually a proof[10:45] in quantum mechanics is called the no[10:47] signaling theorem uh which says that in[10:51] quantum mechanics you cannot send[10:53] information faster than light. Okay. But[10:56] now the thing is that this theorem[11:01] relies on quantum mechanics actually[11:04] being fundamentally correct. By this I[11:07] mean there's no theory underlying[11:09] quantum mechanics that could give rise[11:12] to the phenomena that we now attribute[11:14] to quantum mechanics. And this is why I[11:18] think if we find a more fundamental[11:21] theory which I'm personally convinced[11:23] exists and we can talk about the reasons[11:25] for why then this theory quite plausibly[11:29] would would allow us to send information[11:32] faster than the speed of light because[11:33] that's kind of a correlary of the no[11:36] signaling theorem. It basically says so[11:39] long as you stay within quantum[11:41] mechanics you're bound by the speed of[11:43] light limit. and then also says well if[11:46] you screw with quantum mechanics you do[11:49] something else then you generically can[11:53] send information faster than the speed[11:54] of light.[11:55] >> Before my next question I want to make a[11:57] small note this is not a claim just an[12:01] interesting idea to discuss. Then Burish[12:04] and Amy Escri talked about this and Amy[12:10] said this information came from whole[12:14] Pov. This idea is that maybe were not[12:18] visited by aliens but by future humans[12:23] from about 47,000 years from now. is[12:26] so-called P-47 and 52,000 years from now[12:32] uh P-52.[12:34] According to this theory, there are two[12:37] groups from different times. One[12:40] survived a disaster in bunkers and the[12:44] other group are survivor from the[12:48] surface.[12:50] People discuss this idea a lot online on[12:54] Reddit, but our audience is usually more[12:57] skeptical about ideas like this. So, I[13:02] want to ask a more general question.[13:05] Is time travel possible at all? Could[13:09] modern physics allow people from the far[13:12] future to visit us today? And one more[13:15] question, could the past, present, and[13:19] future all exist at the same time? Is[13:23] the idea of a block universe possible?[13:26] >> Right. Okay. So, as you can tell, like I[13:29] like to think about crazy things. So,[13:32] I've also thought about time travel a[13:34] lot. And um to make a long story short,[13:38] it's very very difficult to reconcile[13:41] with what we currently know about[13:43] physics as opposed to faster than light[13:46] travel. So and the the difficulty with[13:50] time travel is exactly what I said[13:52] previously. It's hard to make it work[13:54] without running into actual[13:56] inconsistencies. So a typical problem is[13:59] you go you go back into the past you[14:01] change the past and then the future is[14:03] not the future that you actually came[14:05] from. So if you have only one universe[14:09] that doesn't make sense. So it just[14:11] can't happen right. So typically you can[14:15] actually see this like in movies the way[14:17] that people think deal with it with with[14:20] this issue is either you can only make[14:23] time travel in a way that was consistent[14:27] all along. So you go back in time and[14:30] actually you have always been there[14:33] already[14:34] for some reason. So then you kind of[14:36] have this issue like how do you force[14:39] people to do the things that you you[14:41] know they kind of did or will be doing.[14:45] So um there's this issue. The other[14:48] thing you can do is that you say[14:50] actually when we talk about time travel[14:52] we don't go back into the past of our[14:55] own universe but it's kind of a parallel[14:58] universe where you can then change[15:01] things and then the next future that you[15:04] go into is a different future. So these[15:08] are basically the two options. But if[15:10] you look at like the mathematics, if you[15:12] try to write down a proper theory for[15:16] the physics, I don't know any way to do[15:19] it.[15:20] >> If we talk about the idea of a block[15:22] universe where the past, present, and[15:26] future all exist at the same time. What[15:30] do you think about it? Could this idea[15:32] be possible?[15:33] >> Personally, I would say yes. Um,[15:36] exactly. because that's a consequence of[15:39] Einstein's theories. Uh, which by the[15:42] way, um, bothered Einstein tremendously.[15:46] Um, which is why he's he has been going[15:48] on about what he called the problem of[15:51] the now. So this question of why do we[15:57] perceive one particular moment as[16:00] special? So we are talking now, right?[16:03] It doesn't seem to us as if the future[16:05] already exists. So it kind of seems that[16:08] if you have a theory in which there is[16:10] no specific present moment, how do you[16:15] explain[16:16] this experience that we have? So this is[16:19] something that that Einstein thought[16:21] about a lot. Exactly. Because his[16:23] theories do treat the future, present[16:26] and past as just[16:29] parts of spaceime that exists as a[16:35] whole. So in in Einstein's theories, you[16:38] can't separate them. If the present[16:41] exists, then the future exists in the[16:44] same way. Interestingly, you can make[16:46] this argument without having to explain[16:50] what you actually mean by existence.[16:52] Okay? So you you could argue, well,[16:54] maybe the present moment doesn't exist.[16:56] Okay? Well, then the future also doesn't[16:58] exist. But you can say that they both[17:00] exist in the same way. uh and this is[17:03] exactly what Einstein's theories uh tell[17:05] us.[17:06] >> And uh can we then say that our future[17:08] is partly fixed? If so, does that mean[17:12] free will doesn't exist and everything's[17:14] determined? By the way, we had Robert[17:17] Sapolski on the podcast and he shared a[17:21] similar idea.[17:22] >> Yeah. Well, so the the issue is that um[17:26] what I just told you is what we conclude[17:28] from Einstein's theories and Einstein's[17:31] theories are nonquantum theories or what[17:34] physicists call classical theories. Um[17:38] so they're fully deterministic. Uh[17:40] actually you know you can make an[17:41] asterisk there and you know there are[17:43] some special cases in which actually[17:45] they might not be fully deterministic[17:46] but this is kind of not so super[17:48] relevant. The point is that we we know[17:51] that matter in the universe obeys the[17:55] laws of quantum physics. And if you just[17:58] look at the mathematics of quantum[17:59] physics, it is not deterministic in the[18:03] sense that if you know what's going on[18:05] now, you can actually not predict what[18:08] will happen in the future. And it has[18:11] this non-deterministic element which is[18:13] called the collapse of the wave function[18:15] or the reduction or the update of the[18:17] wave function. is all the same thing. So[18:19] if you think that this is actually a[18:23] physical process that that really[18:26] happens, not just a way to describe[18:29] what's going on, then the future is not[18:32] determined. Okay. All right. And so now[18:36] let to the second part of your question[18:38] like what does it tell us about free[18:40] will? Well, I would say that in neither[18:42] of these cases, like do you have the[18:45] fully deterministic evolution of[18:47] classical physics or do you have this[18:50] non-deterministic ingredient that comes[18:53] from quantum physics on top of that? Do[18:56] you actually have free will? It none of[18:58] those cases.[19:00] In fact, I don't know any particularly[19:04] meaningful way to make sense of free[19:07] will. Now I've seen a lot of those and[19:10] you know if you if you want we can talk[19:11] about those.[19:12] >> Could you explain why free will might[19:15] not exist in this picture of the world?[19:19] >> Well, so I I think what so there's[19:22] always the question like exactly what do[19:24] people mean by free will? And I think[19:26] like intuitively[19:28] what they mean is like you have a[19:30] certain selection of future[19:32] possibilities from which you get to pick[19:35] one. So that the moment you make the[19:39] decision the outcome was actually free.[19:43] It was not yet determined and you[19:47] were what made one particular outcome[19:51] happen. So so it's these two things[19:54] right. So on the one hand it wasn't yet[19:57] determined. Then it's kind of clear[19:58] where there's no freedom. So no free[20:01] will. Um but also it must be something[20:06] that you can actually select. And so now[20:09] if you have a deterministic time[20:11] evolution, there's no freedom at all. If[20:14] you have this random element from from[20:16] quantum physics, then the problem is[20:18] that you cannot influence it. It it's[20:22] always random in the way that the math[20:24] says, but there's nothing influencing it[20:27] in particular. Not you or your brain or[20:30] whatever. But there's another view.[20:32] Penrose says that quantum effects in[20:35] microtubules[20:37] may create some space for free will.[20:40] >> Does it collapse in a way which is[20:43] random? That's the that's the way[20:45] physics works now. You consider it to be[20:47] quite random. or if it's maybe entangled[20:50] with all sorts of other things and that[20:52] the decision about what it makes this or[20:54] that has some kind of content to it some[20:58] mental content which is not altogether[21:01] random and that would be where the free[21:04] will plays its role[21:06] >> how do you respond to this argument[21:09] >> so Penrose talks about the origin of[21:13] consciousness I don't know if what[21:15] exactly what he has said particularly[21:18] about free will. So, Paneris's argument[21:20] is basically uh to make a long story[21:23] short, the brain does something that the[21:29] mathematics of our current theories,[21:31] both general relativity and the current[21:33] version of quantum mechanics cannot[21:36] explain. Okay. So, so that's basically[21:39] where he starts from. He has an argument[21:40] for this, but actually I think it's[21:42] wrong. So, but let's just take this for[21:45] granted. Okay. assuming our brain does[21:48] something which is not in this current[21:50] framework then something has to be wrong[21:54] with this framework and Penro says quite[21:58] reasonably as I think well it's probably[22:00] the collapse of the wave function[22:02] because that's kind of the fishy part[22:05] >> in the foundations of physics the[22:06] collapse of the wave function and this[22:09] is where he says the element of[22:12] consciousness comes in and this is this[22:14] entire story with the microtubil like[22:17] that Stuart Hamarov came up with that[22:19] the the quantumness is in these[22:21] microtubles[22:23] uh that are in the in the brain and and[22:25] somehow you know the they form a[22:27] coherent state that actually does have[22:29] quantum properties and if this state[22:30] collapses then consciousness happens so[22:33] a miracle happens and okay consciousness[22:35] comes out um so I don't know like[22:40] formally how this would help with giving[22:43] you free will because the collapse of[22:46] the wave function would still be random.[22:48] It doesn't really matter where it comes[22:49] from. Like if you think that it comes[22:51] from gravity or whatnot. There's also[22:55] like uh there's a certain irony in in[22:58] Penrose's theories for the origin of[23:01] consciousness is that he starts from the[23:03] assumption that consciousness is not[23:05] computable. This is his misgiving about[23:08] the current theories. Um so so he has[23:10] this argument from girdle's theorem that[23:13] you know a a system like the human brain[23:15] that can actually understand good[23:16] girdle's theorem can't be computable but[23:19] then the theories that he's actually put[23:22] forward for the collapse of the wave[23:23] function are totally computable in you[23:26] know in in a rather trivial sense like[23:27] you can put them on a computer and[23:29] actually compute them. Um, so, um, I[23:32] find it hard to think about any way to[23:37] describe what's going on in the human[23:40] brain that would give you free will in[23:43] the sense that I just talked about. Now,[23:46] there are philosophers who have come up[23:49] with um ideas for or explanations for[23:53] what's sometimes called the uh comp[23:56] compatibilist[23:58] um notion of free will. And it basically[24:02] has it that free will is not something[24:05] that you should look for at the[24:07] fundamental level. But free will is only[24:10] something that comes out as an emerging[24:12] feature on a higher level. Free will is[24:15] basically the in independence of a[24:20] system like the human brain on external[24:24] stimuli.[24:26] So and it makes sense you know even on a[24:28] formal level. I'm not aware that anyone[24:31] has actually done it, but you could[24:33] quantify it. So how much of the time[24:37] evolution of a system is actually a[24:41] direct consequence of external input?[24:43] Like if I type on a keyboard and you[24:45] know click on some buttons, I know what[24:47] the computer will do or actually I[24:49] should know if if it works correctly. Um[24:52] but with a human, it's it doesn't work[24:54] that way, right? So it's it's very hard[24:57] to predict how how humans will react to[25:00] certain input that you give them. And[25:02] this is one of the key features that we[25:04] do associate with free will. It's this[25:06] ability, you know, to do things in your[25:09] mind and then choose your own course of[25:12] action. And so it's this autonomous[25:14] behavior uh the independence of your[25:17] environment that um I think you could[25:21] reasonably[25:23] call free will. Uh I would still[25:25] complain that's kind of an abuse of[25:28] vocabulary.[25:29] >> And uh staying on this topic, some[25:32] physicists say that consciousness may[25:36] not just come from the brain but maybe[25:39] something more fundamental. What do you[25:42] think about that? Or do you think[25:44] consciousness is simply the result of[25:48] how our brain works and physical[25:51] processes? You know, I'm I'm very much[25:54] the stereotypical physicist and I do[25:58] think that consciousness is just a[26:02] consequence of the complex interactions[26:05] in large systems. For example, the human[26:09] brain. And I don't think that the human[26:12] brain is special in this regard. It just[26:15] so happens that on our own planet it's,[26:19] you know, the best complex system that's[26:22] come about. Uh I do think that you can[26:26] actually build conscious machines and[26:28] that artificial intelligence will get[26:30] there at some point, but at the moment[26:32] we're quite far away. So what you might[26:35] have been referring to is this idea of I[26:38] think what they call protoconciousness[26:41] that um you know consciousness is like a[26:44] fundamental entity an ingredient of the[26:48] universe much like elementary particles[26:51] electrons or something there's just this[26:53] consciousness which is just there and[26:55] then somehow the this protoconsciousness[26:58] the little pieces of consciousness kind[27:00] of combines[27:02] in human brain and maybe other things to[27:04] form an actual conscious being. And um[27:08] so my problem with this idea is that you[27:11] still have to explain like what's this[27:14] protoconsciousness?[27:16] How do we know that it exists? And how[27:17] does it combine to a human conscious[27:22] experience? Which is pretty much the[27:24] same problem as explaining how do atoms[27:27] combine to something that has a[27:29] conscious experience. So I don't really[27:32] understand what the benefit is of[27:34] inventing this protoconciousness stuff.[27:37] >> Then I have another question. If[27:39] consciousness and the brain are just the[27:42] result of complex physical processes,[27:45] why is it so difficult for us to create[27:47] human level AI? Or do you think there[27:51] are no fundamental limits and in the[27:54] coming years we may create AGI or ASI[28:00] and maybe move closer to technological[28:03] singularity?[28:04] >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I think it's[28:07] actually going quite well with[28:08] artificial intelligence. I mean,[28:10] considering that we've only just begun[28:12] working on it, right? I mean, so we've[28:14] only had computers for like 50 years or[28:16] something. And um given that, uh I think[28:20] we've been doing quite well. So of[28:22] course like there is the question[28:24] whether the current approaches to[28:26] artificial intelligence are actually the[28:28] ones that will get us to artificial[28:31] general intelligence maybe even super[28:33] intelligence and then there is also the[28:36] question of does intelligence[28:39] necessarily go along with consciousness[28:41] or are these actually two separate[28:42] things[28:43] >> and in general do you think it's[28:46] possible to create AI that can improve[28:48] itself and make decisions without humans[28:52] >> at some point, yes, but I don't think[28:55] we're quite there yet. So, of course,[28:58] you know, there are small versions of[29:01] self-improving AI in one sense or[29:04] another, you know, where people have[29:05] written Python code that actually[29:09] rewrites itself uh and improves itself[29:12] over iterations. But these are kind of[29:14] small toy examples. So it's it's not[29:17] that out of this you will not get a[29:20] walking talking robot or something[29:22] that'll do the laundry stuff. There[29:24] there have also been cases like I think[29:26] Google did this where they used AI to[29:30] improve the computer chips on which they[29:33] train AI and I would say this is kind of[29:36] a self-improvement but it's not the kind[29:39] of self-improvement that we're actually[29:41] talking about right so so so you want[29:44] this kind of intelligence explosion[29:47] taking off uh AI building an entire new[29:50] system of AI and we're still far from[29:52] this there's also like this question of[29:56] our large language models which are[29:58] currently used in all the frontier[30:00] models. Um is this the path to[30:03] artificial general intelligence? And[30:05] there are a lot of people uh in[30:07] including me who think that this[30:10] probably isn't going to work. You need[30:12] something more than language to go on.[30:17] uh from a from a purely evolutional[30:19] stand point. Um the way to think about[30:23] it is that humans developed intelligence[30:28] because of the way that we interact with[30:31] our environment. So so we we probe[30:33] things, we figure out what they do, we[30:36] understand how they react and we build[30:39] models of the world around us and models[30:41] of other people. You know, we have this[30:43] thing that um it's called a theory of[30:45] mind. if you talk to someone for a[30:47] while, you make a theory about how[30:50] they're going to react. And so this is[30:52] something which um the the large[30:55] language models just just can't develop[30:58] because they don't actually interact[31:00] with their environment. And so um this[31:03] is why several of these companies like[31:05] Nvidia and Google Deep Mind and uh[31:10] Janika's a new company I've forgotten[31:13] the name. They're working on what they[31:15] call world models where the idea is[31:18] basically exactly this. You take your[31:20] artificially intelligent code or[31:22] something. You put it into a virtual[31:24] world and then you let it explore this[31:28] world where it should undergo a kind of[31:32] evolution similar to the actual[31:35] evolution that's taken place on earth in[31:39] which humans develop their sense of[31:41] intelligence. And so I I think that that[31:43] this is you know a very promising path.[31:46] Will it work? I have no idea.[31:49] And one more question, this is more of a[31:52] speculative question, but I still want[31:54] to ask it. Could it be that we are AI[31:58] inside some kind of simulation?[32:01] >> Well, so it's a complicated question[32:03] because it depends on exactly what do[32:05] you mean by a simulation. Um, so[32:09] you see, as a physicist, I think that[32:13] the entire universe is ultimately[32:15] governed by equations. Then you could[32:18] ask like okay so if everything is[32:20] determined by equations isn't this[32:22] already a kind of simulation exactly[32:24] what do you mean by simulation does it[32:27] have to be something you know that's[32:29] processed in discrete time steps in[32:32] loops the way that we currently run[32:35] simulations on a computer or do you just[32:39] mean well you know it could conceivably[32:44] some somehow be run by an algorithm[32:47] if you could iterate it to infinite[32:50] precision or something. So you know what[32:53] I mean like so the question is kind of[32:56] illdefined. Um I think that for[32:58] everything that I have seen is that the[33:01] idea that we live in a computer[33:02] simulation like it's been put forward by[33:05] best and other people. So bust doesn't[33:08] just say that the universe could be a[33:10] simulation. So his argument is actually[33:12] that it's much more likely that we are[33:16] simulated than that we are actually you[33:19] know real in some sense. The issue is[33:23] though that Bosra makes a lot of[33:25] assumptions about how simple it is[33:28] supposedly to simulate physical systems[33:33] that just aren't the case in reality.[33:36] Like for example, there's this entire[33:37] headache with chaotic time evolution[33:41] which you already see if you try to do[33:43] something like a weather forecast. Okay?[33:46] So that is definitely not simple and and[33:49] we're not talking about the entire[33:51] universe. We're talking about making a[33:53] computer simulation for the next 3 weeks[33:57] in Germany or Russia or somewhere.[34:01] That's already something that we can't[34:03] do. Okay. So, and and then some[34:05] philosopher goes and says, "Okay, but[34:07] it's actually super simple to simulate[34:09] the entire universe uh with all these[34:11] conscious beings in it." And I'm like,[34:13] "Yeah, no way." You know, I think you[34:15] didn't fully understand the problem.[34:18] There are also these issues with uh the[34:21] symmetries of Einstein's theories um[34:24] that are very very difficult to simulate[34:27] on a computer if you want them to be[34:29] perfectly obeyed. So you can write down[34:31] the mathematics analytically on a[34:33] blackboard but whenever you do a[34:37] computer simulation step by step you[34:39] know with some discretization these[34:41] symmetries will be violated and then[34:44] there's this entire problem with how do[34:46] we deal with with quantum physics um[34:49] because um you know there's a reason[34:51] they want to build a quantum computer uh[34:53] right because there are certain systems[34:54] that are just incredibly difficult and[34:57] time consuming to calculate with a[35:00] standard computer. So how do you account[35:02] for this? Is the computer that the whole[35:06] universe is actually simulated on a[35:09] quantum computer? And if so then you[35:12] have the problem well how do you get out[35:14] the non-quantum world which is also an[35:16] open problem in the foundations of[35:18] physics. So whenever a philosopher comes[35:21] and tells me that we live in a[35:22] simulation you know I check through all[35:24] these boxes like have you solved this[35:26] problem? Have you solved this problem?[35:27] So, so far no one solved it. So, um I[35:31] don't believe it.[35:31] >> Even if we try to check it, what would[35:34] we need to find to prove that we live in[35:37] a simulation or is it impossible to[35:39] test?[35:40] >> Well, you know, I don't know if I just[35:42] saw a popup, you know, that says,[35:45] "Hello, yes, I'm the programmer. You[35:47] live in a simulation." I think that that[35:49] would be very convincing. So, so I don't[35:52] know like this is exactly the problem,[35:54] right? Um, so you you can't really test[35:57] this idea, which is not, you know,[36:01] necessary if you want to think about it[36:04] philosophically or maybe actually[36:06] religiously because I'd say it's kind of[36:08] a religion. You have this this creator[36:12] who made the universe with you in it who[36:15] might actually be able to interfere in[36:17] some of your doings if you're[36:19] interesting enough or nice enough or[36:21] praise him or her enough. But[36:23] scientifically[36:25] I don't think you can either[36:28] verify or falsify it.[36:30] >> Today many scientists depend on[36:33] institutes grants and funding and[36:36] budgets are being reduced in many[36:39] places. Because of this not everyone may[36:42] feel fully free to choose topics or[36:45] speak openly. Your situation is a bit[36:48] different. You have a YouTube channel[36:51] and your own audience, so maybe you can[36:55] speak more freely. This brings me to my[36:58] next question. Today, people talk about[37:01] UFOs more and more. But is there still a[37:04] feeling that if a scientist starts[37:07] seriously studying UFOs, it could ruin[37:10] their reputation? That colleagues may[37:13] stop seeing them as a serious scientist?[37:17] Yeah, that's definitely still an issue.[37:20] Uh, and you know, from a general[37:21] scientific standpoint, it's kind of[37:23] obvious. You have an unexplained[37:25] phenomenon. Maybe you don't actually[37:27] believe it's aliens, but you want to[37:29] know what it is. Maybe it's an[37:30] atmospheric phenomenon. Uh, you know,[37:33] maybe it's a geological thing. Uh, maybe[37:36] it has something wrong with the camera.[37:37] Who knows? But you you want to look at[37:40] it. You want to find out what's going[37:42] on. But it kind of has this stigma[37:45] attached to it that that people who[37:47] believe in UFOs are kind of a little bit[37:50] crazy in the head. I've heard from from[37:52] more than one person that this is not[37:55] something that they would touch on[37:57] before they have tenure. Maybe not at[37:59] all um because it might make it[38:01] difficult to get grants. There was a[38:04] paper recently by a sociologist who[38:06] actually went and interviewed people who[38:09] have worked on UFOs or unidentified[38:13] anomalous phenomena is what they call[38:15] them now. Um and and I have to say like[38:19] from from a scientific perspective, you[38:21] know, if you ask questions like well[38:24] this asteroid that was going through the[38:26] solar system, could this have been alien[38:29] technology? I think that's a question we[38:32] should ask and that we should take[38:34] seriously. You know, I'm not saying you[38:37] should call the BBC and say it's alien[38:40] tech. Okay, that's that's on a different[38:41] level entirely. But I think it's a[38:44] question that we should study and I[38:46] actually do think that most physicists[38:48] and astrophyses would actually agree on[38:50] this. Still if you then go and actually[38:52] want to work on it, you know, you want[38:53] to get a grant for it or something[38:55] because when it takes time and you know,[38:58] someone has to pay for the working hours[39:00] basically, uh, that becomes very[39:02] difficult. And you know, there there are[39:04] other studies where they look at um old[39:07] photographic plates or something. They[39:09] try to figure out is there maybe[39:11] something in these plates that shouldn't[39:13] have been there? Uh, this kind of stuff.[39:17] And uh you know I again I think that[39:19] this is valid analysis[39:23] um that should be published but then I[39:26] see like the archive like the preprint[39:28] server that we use in physics for pretty[39:30] much everything doesn't want to publish[39:32] these papers like they they don't want[39:34] them on their server and I'm like that[39:36] doesn't feel right right this kind of it[39:39] reinforces this stigma that's attached[39:41] to it and the reason it worries me is[39:44] that you know we we can't really rule[39:46] out that aliens have been here or maybe[39:49] are here. I know that this sounds crazy,[39:51] but you know, I think just, you know,[39:53] from a Beijian inference perspective, we[39:56] can't rule it out. I'm totally convinced[39:59] there is intelligent life somewhere out[40:00] there in the galaxy. Maybe they actually[40:03] did send a probe through our solar[40:05] system. Seems very unlikely, but I think[40:07] it's not impossible. So if we don't look[40:11] for these things with an open mind, that[40:14] might be the biggest mistake we'll ever[40:18] make. This is why this kind of this how[40:21] should we call it like gatekeeping and[40:23] academia like this is something you're[40:24] not you're not allowed to talk about and[40:27] also this is something you can't get any[40:29] funding for. This is a really bad state.[40:33] Have there been any interesting UFO[40:35] cases that uh caught your attention?[40:39] >> I look at everything that comes my way.[40:42] Um but it's not something that I[40:45] personally know a lot about. Um so I[40:47] mean I look at these videos and I'm[40:49] like, "Yeah, what the hell is this?" You[40:51] know, someone should figure out[40:53] basically. uh and I looked at these[40:55] studies of the photographic plates and[40:58] basically my conclusion was well they[41:02] checked all the obvious things right[41:04] they tried to answer all these questions[41:06] and um this is what they found and here[41:10] it is so okay we still don't know what[41:12] it is actually now you look a little bit[41:14] confused maybe I should you know fill in[41:17] some details about what exactly did they[41:19] find so these were photographic plates[41:22] uh from before 1957 or something which[41:27] is a relevant date because the since[41:29] 1957[41:31] um we've had satellites in orbit around[41:34] Earth. So this was before we had any[41:37] satellites in orbit. Still they see in[41:41] these old photographic plates what they[41:44] call um transient events. So there are[41:47] things that appear on the photographic[41:50] plates, then they are there for for[41:52] maybe 15 minutes or something and then[41:54] in the next image they're gone. And you[41:57] can tell from the focus of the plates[42:00] and from the timing and so on, it must[42:02] have been something quite close by. So[42:05] it's not a fixed star or something.[42:07] These wouldn't move at at this speed[42:10] across the camera field. So what the[42:13] hell was it? Right? It could be some[42:17] some sort of meteorite or something, but[42:20] it that doesn't quite fit with the way[42:22] that these things look. For for one[42:24] thing, I think the distance doesn't[42:26] quite work out. The size doesn't work[42:28] out, and they're too reflective. Like,[42:31] so so they look really bright, which[42:33] means that they reflect a lot of[42:34] sunlight, and that suggests it's kind of[42:38] a even surface, maybe a sort of metal.[42:41] You see what I mean? And so now, you[42:43] know, we we we can look into the details[42:45] and try to figure out maybe it was a[42:47] weird meteorite. Actually, you know,[42:48] there were like maybe 17 weird[42:50] meteorites just going through this[42:52] field. So, this all sounds very[42:55] implausible. And there's also this kind[42:58] of weird thing that they um they don't[43:01] see them in the shadow of Earth. Um[43:03] which suggests again very strongly that[43:05] it's actually sunlight that's being[43:07] reflected from these things which you[43:08] wouldn't see uh in the shadow of the[43:10] Earth. and and so I don't know what it[43:12] is but still you know maybe who knows[43:16] there have been things flying around the[43:18] earth like 50 years ago and then they[43:21] went away and maybe they'll come back at[43:22] some point you know it's just something[43:24] that I think we can't rule it out and[43:27] that I think we should be able to openly[43:30] talk about[43:31] >> I watched your discussion with Penroll[43:33] and Mokaku[43:35] >> I think that all those multiverse[43:37] theories which we have seen popping up[43:40] in the foundation ations of physics come[43:42] from the same misunderstanding which is[43:45] that we have physicists who come to[43:47] believe that the mathematics that they[43:49] deal with is actually real.[43:52] >> Thank you for taking part. It was very[43:55] interesting. Today people often talk[43:57] about the standard model of the universe[44:00] and the multiverse and some say it's[44:04] already proven but as I understand these[44:07] ideas still don't have a full scientific[44:10] proof yet people sometimes talk about[44:13] them as if they are certain. How would[44:16] you comment on this? Why do you think[44:19] current models of the universe still[44:21] don't have full scientific support and[44:24] uh how well is the idea of a multiverse[44:28] really supported?[44:29] >> Well, so I I think it's impossible to[44:31] prove the multiverse. So the multiverse[44:34] is very much like the simulation[44:38] hypothesis is one of these ideas that I[44:42] think are just outside of science.[44:44] They're more in the realm of religion[44:47] really because there's no observation[44:49] that could either prove or disprove[44:52] them. But let's talk about the origin of[44:54] the universe a little bit and about why[44:57] some people think there should be a[44:59] multiverse because of it. So the the[45:03] overall problem with all these theories[45:05] for the beginning of the universe[45:06] doesn't really matter which one if it's[45:08] the big bang or Penrose's uh cyclic[45:11] conformal cosmology or conformal cyclic[45:14] cosmology um or you there are many[45:17] others like there is the idea that our[45:21] universe started from a collision of[45:23] higher dimensional brains or it came out[45:25] of a five-dimensional black hole or it[45:28] actually started from this is the no[45:30] boundary proposal. osal from a state in[45:33] which there was no time at all and so on[45:36] and so forth. You know there are dozens[45:38] of these things. So the issue is that[45:42] the observations that we have of the[45:44] universe they don't go back all the time[45:48] to this initial phase. They actually[45:51] start in cosmological terms uh quite[45:54] late at the time when the cosmic[45:59] microwave was created or if you trust[46:01] our theories for subatomic particles[46:04] that it was when atomic nuclei were[46:07] created. uh but so so this is still like[46:12] 15 orders of magnitude in energy density[46:14] or something after the big bang and[46:18] before this we don't have any data we[46:21] don't have any observations so just you[46:24] know from a mathematical perspective the[46:27] way that you can think about it so so we[46:29] we sit at this present moment in time[46:32] and then we use the equations to find[46:37] out what happened earlier[46:38] and try to match it up with the[46:40] observations that we have for these[46:43] times. And that brings us back to uh[46:46] let's say 300,000 years or something[46:47] when the cosmic microwave was created.[46:50] And then you know we we're fairly[46:52] confident that we understand uh what's[46:55] going on with the atomic nuclear and[46:56] stuff. So that that brings us a little[46:58] bit closer to the big bang. But then at[47:00] some point we just run out of data. And[47:03] then at any time before this what you[47:06] can do is that you can change the[47:09] mathematics you can change the equations[47:12] in any way you want and it'll still be[47:15] compatible with the data. And this is[47:18] what all these stories for the origin of[47:22] the universe come down to. You use some[47:26] kind of mathematics that agrees with our[47:30] current universe until this time when[47:33] when nuclei were created or something[47:36] and then you attach anything you like[47:38] before that and then you call that a[47:41] theory. And so my biggest misgiving[47:43] about all this stuff is that this[47:45] actually gets published in scientific[47:47] journals because for what I'm concerned[47:50] that's just storytelling using[47:52] mathematics. they they just invent these[47:56] things basically. Now I did make it[47:58] sound a little bit simpler than it[47:59] actually is because uh you know it's[48:01] it's not all that trivial to actually[48:03] reproduce the equations that give us the[48:06] universe that we observe. This is why[48:08] these people have jobs. Okay. But I[48:11] still I don't think it's particularly[48:12] good um science. So now to to come to[48:17] the multiverse, one of the currently[48:20] most popular ideas for the early[48:23] universe is called inflation. So[48:25] inflation is this idea that the universe[48:29] underwent[48:31] a rapid exponential expansion[48:37] right after the big big bang. Basically[48:40] the thing is now that if you want to[48:42] make this inflation work then typically[48:47] the mathematics does not only give you[48:50] one universe it actually gives you an[48:54] infinite number of universes and this is[48:57] the multiverse and there there are[48:59] different types of multiverses basically[49:03] um the simplest one is that you have all[49:05] these universes they um are kind of[49:07] similar to our own um with a similar[49:10] matter content have basically the same[49:12] constant of nature. But there are more[49:14] complicated theories in which you have[49:17] different constants of nature and then[49:19] you get completely different physics uh[49:21] different types of matter and then again[49:24] of those overlay the multiverse of[49:27] quantum mechanics on this cosmological[49:30] universe and then it gets even more[49:31] complicated. The bottom line is that all[49:34] these multiverses[49:36] come out of a particular interpretation[49:39] of the equations.[49:41] >> Yeah, I understand that the idea of a[49:44] multiverse is not really supported by[49:47] strong scientific evidence yet. So, can[49:50] we also say that we can't fully prove[49:54] the big bang either?[49:57] >> It depends on what you mean by big bang.[50:00] I know that kind of sounds like I'm[50:02] trying to avoid answering the question,[50:05] but I've actually noticed that there is[50:06] a lot of confusion around this term. Um,[50:09] so the big bang used to refer to[50:14] the first moment of the universe, this[50:17] initial moment where time itself was[50:20] created.[50:21] then later it became ref used to just[50:26] refer to the expansion of the universe.[50:30] Um and then there is like I think a[50:34] third meaning that um personally I've[50:37] been using which is that we we're not[50:40] talking strictly speaking about this[50:42] first moment of time because around this[50:45] moment we will have to use quantum[50:47] effects. So we don't actually know what[50:48] we're talking about but something very[50:50] very close by whatever this first moment[50:52] was. Okay. So there are these three[50:55] different meanings to the word big bang.[50:57] So now I think no one who works in[51:02] physics at the moment actually doubts[51:04] that big bang in the sense of rapid you[51:07] know expansion of the universe or[51:09] something actually happened. There's[51:11] just too much data supporting this. So[51:14] this sort of big bang,[51:17] you know, has a very solid foundation.[51:19] Now, when we're talking about this first[51:22] moment of time,[51:24] did this actually happen? Well, then we[51:27] don't know for exactly the reason that I[51:29] outlined earlier because uh there are[51:33] infinitely many ways that we can[51:35] extrapolate our equations to this early[51:39] time. Some of them do have a first[51:41] moment of time. Others have a bounce,[51:44] you know, when they give rise to a[51:45] cycle. Or others, you know, time just[51:49] disappears and it goes over into space.[51:51] There could be could be many other[51:52] things that you could be doing there.[51:54] >> So, can we say that the universe formed[51:57] about 13.8[52:00] billion years ago or is that also not[52:04] fully proven?[52:05] >> Yeah. So, so this is the extra prolation[52:08] that you get if you use the totally[52:13] unmodified version of Einstein's[52:15] equations without any additions, no[52:17] nothing. So, this is you you could say[52:19] the the the current standard model of[52:21] cosmology gives you these 13.7 or 13.8[52:27] billion years. In that same discussion[52:30] with Penrose and Mitch Kaku, you talked[52:34] about string theory, more and more[52:36] scientists are working on it now. What[52:39] do you think about it? Can it really[52:41] describe everything in our reality?[52:44] >> Yes and no. Because um so string theory[52:50] used to be a candidate for a theory of[52:54] everything. This is why it became[52:56] famous. So that string theory would[52:59] actually be able to combine quantum[53:02] field theory, so the theories that we[53:04] currently use for the elementary[53:08] particles of nature that are in the[53:10] standard model and gravity in one common[53:14] framework. So everything will be[53:16] explained by these strings. And then it[53:19] it ran into problems because it wasn't[53:21] all that easy to actually get gravity in[53:25] the form of Einstein's equations and the[53:27] actual particles that we observe out of[53:30] string theory and they tried very hard[53:32] to do this and to make a long story[53:33] short in the end it didn't really work[53:35] and then they ran into this multiverse[53:37] uh problem. So that that was string[53:40] theory as a theory of everything. The[53:43] other thing is you can use string theory[53:47] as a general mathematical tool to[53:51] understand[53:53] quantum field theories.[53:55] Um and that doesn't necessarily have[53:58] anything to do with the theory of[53:59] everything. Uh and so over the years[54:02] like this fraction of string theorists[54:05] that were working on this theory of[54:08] everything idea has gone down and the[54:10] fraction of string theorists that have[54:11] been working on using string theory for[54:14] other things to describe other physical[54:16] systems has gone up. So uh very[54:20] prominent in this sector is the alias[54:24] CFT duality that I've tried to use to[54:27] describe certain types of condensed[54:30] metal system strange metals or um[54:35] uh you know heavy ion collisions. This[54:37] is something that I've had to deal with[54:39] um a little bit. Uh and some other crazy[54:42] things. You know when you say there are[54:44] more and more physicists working on it.[54:46] I actually think it's not true. I think[54:48] the overall number of string theorists[54:50] has actually gone down in in the past[54:52] decade uh or so and most of them no[54:56] longer work on string theory as a theory[54:59] of everything.[55:00] >> Can we say that string theory and the[55:03] idea of a multiverse are just a[55:06] mathematical fantasies not real science[55:11] or are they real science? Well, as as I[55:14] already said, like I think that um the[55:17] multiverse idea in all the versions that[55:21] I have seen is not a scientific[55:24] hypothesis because you can neither, you[55:28] know, find evidence to support it nor[55:30] can you actually rule it out. It's not[55:32] possible.[55:34] But because you can't rule it out,[55:36] there's nothing actually wrong with[55:39] believing in it. So, you know, I'm not[55:42] opposed to it. And sometimes there are,[55:44] you know,[55:46] ways to think,[55:48] >> yeah,[55:48] >> that are not strictly scientifically[55:51] supported that are still useful for one[55:54] thing or the other. We actually have a[55:56] similar issue in the foundations of[55:57] quantum physics where you probably know[55:59] there are different interpretations of[56:01] the mathematics that all give you like[56:04] the same predictions.[56:06] Um, and so you can say, well, so what's[56:09] the point? like if we if there's no[56:11] evidence that we can use to tell them[56:13] apart, can't we just agree on one and[56:15] kind of call it the standard[56:16] interpretation or something? But I do[56:18] think it's actually good to have these[56:20] different viewpoints and and I would say[56:23] that when it comes to um the multiverse[56:26] for example, uh that's one way to look[56:30] at the question of why do the constants[56:34] of nature have the values that they do[56:37] have? because then you could ask uh like[56:39] what's the most[56:42] likely combinations of constants of[56:44] nature in the multiverse. So this is a[56:46] typical question that people ask in this[56:48] field and you know to me you can ask[56:51] this question whether or not you[56:53] actually believe that the multiverse is[56:55] real because you're actually just[56:57] looking for a mathematical way to[57:00] predict the constants of nature which[57:01] would be interesting if it could be done[57:05] um even if if you don't buy into this[57:07] multiverse stuff.[57:08] >> And what do you think about anthropic[57:11] principle? Can it explain the finetuning[57:14] of the universe or is it just a way to[57:17] avoid the question?[57:20] >> So the to me the entropic anthropic[57:23] principle is really neither. So the[57:26] anthropic principle really just tells[57:29] you gives you constraints[57:32] on the constants of nature. It just the[57:36] rather trivial observation. This is why[57:38] people often make fun about it like the[57:41] constants of nature must be so that life[57:46] can exist because otherwise we wouldn't[57:48] be here to discuss this question. Okay.[57:50] But what what we're really doing is[57:52] we're taking this observation. We're[57:54] sitting here and having a conversation[57:57] and this tells us something about the[58:00] properties of the laws of nature. They[58:02] must have been so to make this possible.[58:06] And um you know this can give you some[58:10] interesting constraints. You know for[58:12] example you could say well if you know[58:14] how humans work from the fact that you[58:17] are sitting there and look alive there's[58:21] probably oxygen in the room.[58:25] So you see I've made an observation and[58:27] I've drawn a conclusion from it. Now[58:29] you're laughing. Why are you laughing?[58:31] Because it's not a particularly deep[58:32] observation. Anyone could have made it.[58:34] And and this is the problem with all[58:35] these anthropic arguments, you know,[58:37] that usually they're not particularly[58:39] deep and you don't really get a lot out[58:40] of it. Uh but that doesn't mean they're[58:42] wrong. So this is my attitude to the[58:45] enthropic principle. Now, will the[58:47] enthropic principle ever explain the[58:50] fine-tuning of the constants of nature?[58:52] I would say uh what do you even mean by[58:55] fine-tuning? I don't think that the[58:56] constants are fine-tuned. think there's[58:58] zero evidence for the constants being[59:00] fine-tuned because to talk about[59:03] fine-tuning[59:04] you have to know something about the[59:07] probability of particular combinations[59:10] of constants occurring and we have no[59:13] knowing what this probability might be[59:17] because we have only observations of[59:19] this one universe with this particular[59:23] combinations of constant we don't have a[59:25] probability distribution of the[59:26] constants of nature over all universes[59:29] from which we would actually be able to[59:30] extract a probability. So I'm like well[59:34] quite possibly these constants of nature[59:37] have probability one. So how you going[59:40] to disprove it?[59:42] >> I have one more question suggested by[59:45] astrophysicist Baris Stern. Is it worth[59:49] building a new collider at CERN? And if[59:52] yes, what exactly do we expect to find[59:56] there? not just maybe something will[59:58] show up.[01:00:00] >> CERN wants to build a bigger particle[01:00:04] collider um is called the future[01:00:07] circular collider FCC[01:00:09] and it actually it has like two stages[01:00:13] with slightly different purpose. The[01:00:15] first stage would be to study the Hicks[01:00:19] boson in more detail and some of the[01:00:21] heavier particles like the W Bzon and so[01:00:23] on is is what's sometimes called a Hicks[01:00:26] factory. And then the second stage which[01:00:29] which will come later which will require[01:00:32] to put in more powerful magnets into the[01:00:35] tunnel. Um this will be pushing what[01:00:39] they call the energy frontier. So they'd[01:00:42] be ramping up the collision energy to as[01:00:45] high as they can get. Um hoping to get[01:00:49] somewhere I don't know 80 90 terra[01:00:51] electron volt. Uh so this would be like[01:00:53] five six times more than what the large[01:00:57] hydron collider can currently do. Um and[01:01:00] yeah so then is the question okay what[01:01:02] could be possibly observe with this[01:01:04] thing. So like this first stage can we[01:01:08] measure the Higs boson and the W boson[01:01:10] and some of these other things in more[01:01:11] detail? Yeah, certainly like I I you[01:01:14] know I can't think of any reason why[01:01:15] not. But there's the question like is it[01:01:17] actually worth the money? So the thing[01:01:19] will cost something like uh $20 billion[01:01:22] or something like just for the first[01:01:24] phase um and all you get out is maybe[01:01:27] you know one or two digits on some[01:01:29] numbers that no one besides particle[01:01:30] physicists really care about. So like[01:01:33] personally I would say maybe we can find[01:01:35] a better use for that money. And then[01:01:37] there is the question like if we build[01:01:39] the bigger thing is there anything that[01:01:42] we can find there to which the answer is[01:01:46] we have no reason to think that this is[01:01:49] the case and this is actually unlike the[01:01:52] situation has been ever before for the[01:01:56] previous colliders that we built. Like[01:01:58] for example for the large hydrron[01:02:00] collider we knew that there had to be[01:02:03] something new. Okay. So we couldn't have[01:02:05] known it was the hig boson that was one[01:02:07] of the predictions. I think it was the[01:02:08] prediction that most physicists actually[01:02:10] believed would be true turn out to be[01:02:11] correct but we knew that there's you[01:02:14] know there's something in the[01:02:15] mathematics just breaks down in this[01:02:17] energy range. So we need to go there and[01:02:19] look what's going on. And this is what[01:02:22] the LHC actually did. So the situation[01:02:25] um with with a future circular collider[01:02:27] is not of this sort. So you can still[01:02:30] say well let's just go and see if we[01:02:33] find something and that's all well and[01:02:35] good but I would say like this is you[01:02:38] know not enough to ask for $40 billion[01:02:43] or whatever the thing will cost. Um so[01:02:46] in particular if you look at you know[01:02:49] there there are open problems in the[01:02:51] foundations of physics where we actually[01:02:53] know that there has to be something like[01:02:55] similar to that we knew um there has to[01:02:58] be something in the range of the large[01:02:59] hydrron collider for example in quantum[01:03:01] gravity there are certain ranges in the[01:03:05] parameter space for quantum superp[01:03:07] positions of heavy objects basically you[01:03:10] know there are issues with we already[01:03:12] talked about this collapse of the wave[01:03:14] function which something that you could[01:03:16] test maybe with variants of quantum[01:03:19] computers or something like this. Um[01:03:21] then there are these open problems with[01:03:24] dark matter uh dark energy that you[01:03:27] would look for with satellites,[01:03:29] telescopes, uh looking out into the[01:03:31] cosmos, uh that kind of thing. None of[01:03:35] those[01:03:36] are problems that you would expect to[01:03:39] make any progress on by building a[01:03:42] bigger particle collider. And so this is[01:03:45] why my attitude to this idea is that[01:03:48] it's not the right thing to do at this[01:03:52] moment in the foundations of physics.[01:03:54] There are other problems that we should[01:03:56] be focusing on and this is where we[01:03:58] should invest money, time and ultimately[01:04:02] also people.[01:04:04] >> Yeah, a new collider itself is not a[01:04:07] problem. The question is that the $40[01:04:11] billion could maybe spent on more[01:04:15] important problems in physics.[01:04:18] >> Well, the the money is one thing. Like[01:04:19] personally, I mean, $40 million is a lot[01:04:22] of money, right? Um, so personally I'm[01:04:25] actually more worried about the people[01:04:28] because if you put that amount of money[01:04:30] into such a big project that will run[01:04:32] for such a long time that'll create a[01:04:35] lot of positions and it'll it'll soak up[01:04:40] a lot of intelligent people and you know[01:04:43] there are only so many intelligent[01:04:45] people in the world. Um and and so all[01:04:48] these people will spend their life[01:04:51] working on you know trying to invent new[01:04:54] theories for dark matter or something um[01:04:57] and not get anywhere because there isn't[01:04:58] anything to find there. So so it's a[01:05:01] total waste of talent. And so this is[01:05:03] the thing that I personally worry most[01:05:05] about. It's this lost opportunities of[01:05:09] smart people that I would prefer would[01:05:12] actually go into areas where it where it[01:05:15] matters.[01:05:16] >> Recently Elon Musk became the first[01:05:19] thrillionaire and SpaceX went public. As[01:05:23] you said, the most important thing is[01:05:26] people in science and if they are[01:05:29] brought together in one company like[01:05:31] SpaceX, can this lead to real progress[01:05:35] for humanity?[01:05:36] >> Yeah, certainly. So I I think that when[01:05:39] you know when I think about progress,[01:05:42] scientific progress, technological[01:05:44] progress on planet Earth, I think about[01:05:48] progress on the scale of 1,000 or 10,000[01:05:52] years, whereas Elon Musk is more[01:05:54] thinking about the next 10, 50, maybe[01:05:57] 100 years, right? So um you know, get[01:06:00] satellites into orbit, uh get people on[01:06:03] the moon, get people to Mars, uh this[01:06:05] kind of thing. So um and and and and[01:06:07] that we need we need this. So I think[01:06:10] this is great. You know, I'm not[01:06:11] personally too excited about putting[01:06:13] people on Mars. Like I don't really know[01:06:15] who would want to live on Mars, but you[01:06:17] know, what do I know? Uh right. So um I[01:06:20] think it's right that um space travel is[01:06:22] kind of an obvious thing uh that we[01:06:24] should be doing as a species that we[01:06:26] should be trying to develop, that we[01:06:28] should be pushing forward. I don't[01:06:29] really understand. And so this is the[01:06:31] thing that that I don't really get about[01:06:33] Musk's interests is like why doesn't he[01:06:37] do more about nuclear fusion? That seems[01:06:40] such an obvious thing to do when you[01:06:42] want energy supply, when you want a[01:06:45] propulsion system. Nuclear fusion seems[01:06:47] to me the thing to do. So in any case,[01:06:49] so so I I don't get this part, but but[01:06:52] uh whatever. I'm not an engineer, right?[01:06:54] I strongly believe in democracy. So I[01:06:57] think that this is a really good system[01:06:59] in principle, you know, and practice[01:07:01] doesn't always work the way that we want[01:07:03] it to work. And and so I have somewhat[01:07:06] of a problem with like these[01:07:08] multi-billionaires, the first[01:07:09] trillionaire and so on because they are[01:07:12] hugely influential and basically[01:07:16] shortcutting[01:07:18] democracy. This gives me a little bit of[01:07:20] a[01:07:22] you know I'm of two minds about it I[01:07:24] think is uh the phrase. So on the one[01:07:28] hand I see rich people do a lot of good[01:07:31] things in technology development and[01:07:34] also in basic research. You know there a[01:07:36] lot of philanthropists[01:07:38] um supporting things on on the other[01:07:41] hand I kind of feel like these are[01:07:44] individuals which very strongly direct[01:07:48] research interests and um that has a[01:07:52] high risk of going wrong. Um, so[01:07:56] personally, you know, I would hope that[01:07:59] we could do a little bit more of this[01:08:02] stuff, um, using our democracies and not[01:08:07] leave it up to trillionaires to save the[01:08:09] world basically.[01:08:11] >> When you talk about democracy in[01:08:12] science, do you mean that people should[01:08:15] what on which direction research should[01:08:17] go?[01:08:18] >> No, not directly. I I just mean, you[01:08:21] know, I'm uncomfortable with the idea[01:08:24] that um rich people have[01:08:28] such a large influence on what gets[01:08:32] researched and what not. I think that's[01:08:35] generally bad. It's not it's not[01:08:37] particularly about the rich people.[01:08:38] Okay. So, I would say the same thing[01:08:40] about any individual. you know, even if[01:08:42] people started listening to me, if they,[01:08:45] you know, where suddenly there were[01:08:47] millions of people were like, let's just[01:08:49] do what Sabina said, I would tell them[01:08:51] that's a really bad idea, right? You[01:08:53] should go about this in a in a more[01:08:55] intelligent way. And so when I say[01:08:57] democratic, I don't mean we should[01:08:59] actually vote on it. That that's also[01:09:01] not a good thing to do in science. But[01:09:03] there are certainly more intelligent[01:09:05] ways that you can try to figure out what[01:09:07] research is worth doing. uh for example[01:09:10] by using artificial intelligence. This[01:09:12] is something like where I'm really[01:09:14] surprised why there isn't more effort[01:09:16] into doing this you know in identifying[01:09:20] what are underressearched areas in[01:09:22] identifying looking back at the past you[01:09:24] know just extracting the information[01:09:27] where is progress most likely to come[01:09:30] from and therefore where should we[01:09:33] invest money and uh this is something[01:09:36] that you could do um from[01:09:40] national science funding bodies[01:09:42] but also you know by private um[01:09:46] institutions um or maybe you know even[01:09:48] uh industry and so on. So um it'll come[01:09:52] at some point. Uh I'm just a little bit[01:09:54] surprised that there isn't more research[01:09:56] into this[01:09:57] >> to come back to where we started. I[01:09:59] opened with the Fmy paradox and[01:10:03] extraterrestrial civilizations. I want[01:10:05] to ask one final question. Do you think[01:10:09] humanity will ever make contact with an[01:10:12] alien intelligence? And will we even[01:10:15] survive long enough to see that moment?[01:10:17] I just want to hear your personal[01:10:19] thoughts on this.[01:10:22] >> Yes, totally. Um, so I I'm, you know,[01:10:26] I'm quite hopeful, optimistic about the[01:10:29] future of mankind. We might be going[01:10:33] through some difficult time uh but I[01:10:35] think we'll survive. And personally, I[01:10:38] think that um it's very unlikely that[01:10:42] intelligent civilizations that have[01:10:44] managed to spread across the universe[01:10:48] will be on a basic level just evil. That[01:10:53] seems very unlikely to me because what[01:10:55] what we actually see and this is part of[01:10:58] my optimism uh part of the reason for my[01:11:01] optimism. What we see on nature is that[01:11:03] um the more intelligent a species[01:11:06] become, the better it learns to use[01:11:09] their environment[01:11:11] um the less evil it becomes. Um you know[01:11:15] we we we try to live in peace with each[01:11:17] other because we have less pressure on[01:11:20] our survival. Uh we try to help other[01:11:23] species. Um, we try to be nice to each[01:11:26] other and uh, so you can extrapolate[01:11:29] this uh, and I do extrapolate it to the[01:11:32] entire galaxy. And so I think if we ever[01:11:36] make contract to extraterrestrials, if[01:11:38] they come uh they will come in peace.
Matthew Szydagis Ph.D. "How Long until Catastrophic Disclosure?"
Introduction
The video begins with an enthusiastic welcome to the audience, encouraging them to grab their coffee and prepare for an engaging presentation. The speaker, Dr. Matthew Shadagas, is introduced as an accomplished academic with a background in experimental particle astrophysics, particularly in the direct detection of dark matter and the development of detectors for rare event searches. His fascination with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) has been a lifelong interest, inspired by science fiction, particularly "Star Trek: The Next Generation." Dr. Shadagas is a contributing member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and is known for delivering impactful presentations at conferences.
Overview of Presentation
Dr. Shadagas expresses gratitude for the invitation to speak and acknowledges the challenge of condensing two hours of material into a thirty-minute presentation. He encourages the audience to utilize the Hoova app to rewatch his talk and access links to relevant resources. The main focus of his presentation is the concept of "catastrophic disclosure" and the timeline for when such an event might occur. He also shares exciting news about the publication of papers related to UAP in a high-impact scientific journal, highlighting the significance of this achievement for the field.
Significance of Recent Publications
Dr. Shadagas emphasizes the importance of the papers he and his colleague Kevin have published, which delve into UAP phenomena. He mentions that these papers contain groundbreaking details that have not been widely recognized, including a discussion on how to quantify extraordinary evidence. He expresses disappointment that many in the audience may not have read the UAPX paper, despite its potential to reshape understanding of UAP sightings. He highlights a specific anomaly captured during an expedition, suggesting that the data could be consistent with known UAP phenomena, such as the "tic tac" sightings.
Catastrophic Disclosure: Definition and Context
Dr. Shadagas introduces the term "catastrophic disclosure," which he defines as the scenario in which a physical craft, possibly extraterrestrial, crashes, and evidence is captured by civilians using smartphones. He outlines foundational assumptions for his analysis, including the existence of non-human intelligence (NHI) or advanced human technology capable of crash landings. He acknowledges the speculative nature of his assumptions but insists on the necessity of applying quantitative methods to the study of UAP.
Methodology and Assumptions
To analyze the likelihood of capturing evidence of a crash, Dr. Shadagas presents various quantitative assumptions, including population density, smartphone ownership, and crash rates. He illustrates these assumptions with figures that depict population distribution and smartphone ownership trends over time. He emphasizes that the goal of his analysis is not to provide definitive answers but to encourage the application of mathematical and statistical methods to the study of UAP.
Crash Rates and Smartphone Evidence
Dr. Shadagas discusses different crash rate estimates, referencing historical incidents such as the Roswell crash and the work of other researchers. He presents a histogram showing the probability of capturing evidence of a crash on smartphones over time. The analysis suggests that if NHI are real and capable of crashing, the probability of capturing such an event increases as smartphone ownership rises. He argues that the lack of evidence thus far may indicate a lower crash rate than some estimates suggest.
Counterarguments and Technological Considerations
Addressing potential counterarguments, Dr. Shadagas notes that some may argue that advanced technology would reduce crash rates. He counters this by asserting that technology does not improve exponentially and that even advanced civilizations could experience failures. He emphasizes the importance of continued research and the need for a scientific approach to studying UAP phenomena.
Future Projections and Implications
Dr. Shadagas provides projections for when evidence of a crash might be captured, estimating a 14% to 42% chance by 2027 and a 39% to 59% chance by 2036, depending on various assumptions. He acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding these projections but emphasizes that the mathematical framework he presents can be applied to other phenomena, such as Bigfoot sightings, demonstrating its versatility.
Call to Action for Future Research
He encourages fellow researchers to build upon his work, citing the importance of collaboration and the sharing of ideas in advancing UAP studies. He expresses hope that his analysis will inspire further investigation into the mathematical modeling of UAP phenomena and the potential for capturing evidence of crashes.
Physical Evidence Analysis
Transitioning to a new topic, Dr. Shadagas discusses the importance of studying physical evidence related to UAP. He shares that he has been working with colleagues to analyze a piece of material allegedly from a crash in 1947. He describes the elemental and isotopic analysis being conducted on this material, highlighting the significance of understanding its composition to determine its origins.
Findings from Elemental Analysis
The analysis has revealed various elements, including traces of argon, which suggest terrestrial origins. However, Dr. Shadagas points out that the presence of certain elements raises questions about the material's history and potential uses. He emphasizes the need for further investigation to understand the implications of these findings fully.
Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA)
Dr. Shadagas introduces neutron activation analysis (NAA) as a technique for determining isotopic compositions. He expresses surprise that this method has not been more widely utilized in UAP studies, despite its advantages over traditional techniques. He discusses the challenges faced in conducting NAA on the sample and the potential implications of the results.
Future Directions and Research Goals
Looking ahead, Dr. Shadagas outlines his plans for future research, including further analysis of the sample and the exploration of its isotopic ratios. He expresses optimism about the potential for new findings that could shed light on the origins of the material and its relevance to UAP studies.
Conclusion and Call for Collaboration
In concluding his presentation, Dr. Shadagas reiterates the importance of collaboration and the need for continued research in the field of UAP studies. He invites the audience to engage with his work and contribute to the ongoing investigation of UAP phenomena. He expresses gratitude for the opportunity to share his insights and encourages questions from the audience.
Q&A Session
Following the presentation, a Q&A session begins, allowing audience members to engage with Dr. Shadagas on various topics discussed during the talk. Questions range from the specifics of the NAA analysis to broader inquiries about the implications of his findings for the field of UAP research. Dr. Shadagas responds thoughtfully, emphasizing the complexity of the issues at hand and the need for ongoing investigation and collaboration.
Final Thoughts
The session concludes with a reminder of the importance of scientific inquiry in understanding UAP phenomena. Dr. Shadagas expresses hope that his work will inspire further research and collaboration in the field, paving the way for new discoveries and insights into the mysteries surrounding UAP.
In the provided transcript, the interviewee, Dr. Matthew Shadagas, is introduced by the interviewer, who provides various details about his academic and professional background. Dr. Shadagas has an impressive educational pedigree, having earned his BA, MS, and PhD degrees from the University of Chicago. Following his education, he worked as a post-doctoral scholar at the University of California, Davis. Currently, he holds the position of associate professor at the University of Albany, SUNY, where he specializes in experimental particle astrophysics.
His research is particularly focused on the direct detection of dark matter and the development of detectors for rare event searches. Dr. Shadagas’s fascination with the UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) phenomenon is notable; he has treated it seriously throughout his life, and he credits his childhood inspiration from Star Trek: The Next Generation as a foundational influence on his decision to pursue a career in science. The interviewer also notes his active role as a contributing member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), highlighting his involvement in discussions regarding UAP research.
- [00:22] 'Dr. Matthew Shadagas received his BA, MS, and PhD degrees from the University of Chicago.'
- [00:36] 'He is now an associate professor at the University of Albany, SUNY, studying experimental particle astrophysics.'
- [00:50] 'He has always been fascinated by the UAP phenomenon, treating it seriously his entire life.'
Dr. Matthew Shadagas approaches UAP research with a scientific rigor that emphasizes quantitative analysis and the application of mathematical tools. In the transcript, he outlines his focus on a specific scenario involving the potential for capturing evidence of a physical craft crash, using smartphone imagery as a data source. He discusses several foundational assumptions guiding his research:
- The existence of some form of non-human intelligence (NHI) or an advanced technological civilization.
- The likelihood of unplanned crash landings due to the fallibility of such entities.
- Utilization of modern technology, particularly smartphones, to capture significant events that were not feasible during earlier incidents such as Roswell.
Shadagas stresses the necessity of employing mathematics and statistics to model crash rates and retrieval probabilities, acknowledging that while his assumptions may be critiqued, the goal is to inspire further quantitative work in the field. He highlights the importance of data visualization, suggesting that understanding complex phenomena can be enhanced through graphical representation.
Despite the rigorous approach, he recognizes limitations in his study, particularly regarding the complexity of human psychological responses to UAP encounters, which he admits are difficult to quantify. He underscores that while the mathematical modeling can provide insights into probabilities of disclosure, the unpredictability of social perception poses challenges that are outside the realm of pure scientific analysis.
- [05:15] 'I’m talking about specific version of it because there are numerous conflicting definitions.'
- [09:39] 'I’m not claiming any of these are correct. What I’m doing here is what’s known as a firm estimate just to get orders of magnitude.'
- [12:47] 'There’s no way to know how to dip down the projections I have.'
Dr. Matthew Shadagas's decision to devote professional attention to UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) research stems from both personal and scientific motivations. During the introduction, it is noted that he was inspired to become a scientist by the science fiction series Star Trek: The Next Generation, which sparked his fascination with the unknown and the potential for advanced technologies beyond our current understanding. He expresses a lifelong interest in UAP, indicating that he has treated the phenomenon seriously throughout his academic career.
In addressing the societal implications of UAP, Dr. Shadagas emphasizes the importance of grassroots movements in scientific inquiry rather than relying solely on government disclosures. He expresses skepticism that the government will reveal any classified information about UAP, instead focusing on the role of citizen scientists and independent researchers in uncovering the truth. He believes that the advancements in technology, particularly the prevalence of smartphones, provide a unique opportunity for capturing evidence that could lead to significant breakthroughs in understanding UAP phenomena.
By advocating for rigorous scientific methods and encouraging collaboration among scientists and the public, Dr. Shadagas aims to foster a more serious academic discourse around UAP research, highlighting the potential for new discoveries that could reshape our understanding of both extraterrestrial life and advanced technologies.
- [00:46] 'He was inspired by Star Trek: The Next Generation as a child to become a scientist.'
- [02:25] 'I’m focused more on grassroots of scientists, engineers, and citizen scientists.'
- [14:29] 'The correct question to ask is not if disclosure can be forced, but when.'
The transcript does not mention whether Dr. Matthew Shadagas has personally observed a UAP. There are no details provided about any specific experiences he may have had regarding UAP encounters. Throughout his talk, he discusses the importance of capturing evidence through modern technologies, such as smartphones, but he does not share any personal anecdotes or observations related to witnessing a UAP himself. His focus seems to be primarily on the scientific analysis of potential evidence and the mathematical modeling of crash probabilities rather than personal experiences in the field of UAP research.
Dr. Matthew Shadagas outlines several obstacles and forms of skepticism associated with UAP research during his talk. He expresses a strong skepticism regarding the likelihood of the government disclosing any information about UAP, stating, '...nothing’s ever going to come out of the government. If they know stuff, we are not going to find that out.' This indicates a profound distrust in governmental transparency regarding classified information related to UAP.
Shadagas emphasizes the importance of grassroots efforts and independent research in advancing the field, suggesting that significant breakthroughs are likely to come from scientists, engineers, and citizen scientists rather than official channels. He acknowledges the psychological barriers that exist when it comes to public perception of UAP, indicating that societal skepticism may hinder acceptance of any future disclosures. He states, '...there’s no way to know how to dip down the projections I have,' which reflects his awareness of the unpredictable nature of public credulity.
Overall, Dr. Shadagas's commentary reveals a landscape fraught with professional risks, as well as a clear delineation between governmental disclosures and the grassroots scientific inquiry he advocates for, recognizing that the understanding of UAP phenomena may rely heavily on independent research rather than official narratives.
- [04:43] 'I’m just skeptical that it’ll ever be successful.'
- [00:35] '...nothing’s ever going to come out of the government. If they know stuff, we are not going to find that out.'
- [12:47] '...there’s no way to know how to dip down the projections I have.'
[00:00] Welcome back everybody.[00:03] All right, we are right on time.[00:05] So I want everybody to start making your[00:07] way to your tables. Get your coffee in[00:09] hand. You want to be highly caffeinated[00:10] for this. Almost as caffeinated as our[00:12] speaker is about to be here.[00:15] And if you aren't already caffeinated,[00:16] you will be jazzed after you hear what[00:18] Dr. Ma Matthew Shidagas has to say. So[00:21] we'll get right into our introduction.[00:22] Dr. Dr. Matthew Shadagas received his[00:24] BA, MS, and PhD degrees from the[00:26] University of Chicago. Then worked as a[00:28] post-doal scholar at the University of[00:30] California, Davis. He is now an[00:32] associate professor at the University of[00:34] Albany, SU NY, studying experimental[00:36] particle astrophysics, in particular[00:39] direct detection of dark matter as well[00:42] as general detector development of rare[00:44] event searches. He was inspired by Star[00:46] Trek: The Next Generation as a child to[00:48] become a scientist and has always been[00:50] fascinated by the UAP phenomenon,[00:52] treating it seriously his entire life.[00:54] He's a contributing member here to the[00:55] SCU and he's about to blow your mind as[00:57] he does every year. Please make welcome[00:59] Mr. Doctor Matthew Shadagus.[01:02] >> Go get him, John.[01:03] >> Thank you.[01:06] >> All right. Thank you, Micah, for that[01:08] wonderful introduction. And um thank you[01:10] everyone for being here. Thanks to Rich[01:12] and the organizers for inviting me to[01:14] speak again. I actually have like two[01:16] hours worth of material, three different[01:18] topics. So, it's going to be a real[01:20] challenge to crush it into 30 minutes.[01:22] So, I strongly encourage everybody to[01:25] just rewatch my talk on Hoova and pause[01:28] and look at especially to grab the links[01:30] because remember as Mike has emphasized[01:32] photography not permitted videography.[01:35] I'm going to be going too fast for you[01:37] to be able to get the links that I have[01:38] in my slides, but you can just go on the[01:40] Hoova app and you can just re-watch my[01:42] talk and grab things. So before I launch[01:45] into my main topic, which is how much[01:48] time do we have before catastrophic[01:49] disclosure occurs, I want to first share[01:51] some amazing news that Kevin already did[01:53] yesterday though. But this really cannot[01:56] be um cannot we really can't overstate[01:59] the fact that Kevin and I have both[02:02] published papers that are on this topic[02:04] of UIP in the highest impact factor[02:06] journal to ever carry this topic,[02:08] progress in aerospace sciences. This is[02:10] a monumental achievement. It's not my[02:12] achievement or Kevin's was a team effort[02:14] in both cases. So there's Kevin's[02:17] summary paper, but there's also the UAPX[02:19] paper where we talk about our expedition[02:22] and what potential anomalies we found.[02:24] I'm not talking about that today because[02:26] I've spoken on that twice already. But[02:28] there's so much in there to unpack that[02:30] the only thing I'll mention from the[02:31] UAPX paper on this slide is the fact[02:33] that we s we suggested how to quantify[02:36] the meaning of extraordinary evidence.[02:38] And that's just one of many things we[02:40] did. Strongly encourage people to read[02:42] these papers and to go to the SCU[02:44] YouTube channel to see my talks from[02:47] previous years. The one thing I'll[02:48] mention is I do have a little bit[02:51] berating of of the audience for people[02:53] who are familiar with the UPEX paper. I[02:55] know for a fact that I can count on the[02:57] fingers of one hand people have actually[02:59] read it. And the reason I know this is[03:02] because we put bombshell details in[03:04] there that if people had noticed I would[03:07] be getting emails about them. And one of[03:09] them is so in the famous anomaly if[03:11] you're not familiar with the UA with[03:13] UAPX which is an organization I belong[03:15] to also belong to SU. And we did an[03:17] expedition to Laguna Beach in Catalina[03:19] Island. We caught at least one potential[03:21] anomaly. It has some maybe prosaic[03:23] explanations which was a dark spot in[03:25] one of the cameras with these little[03:26] white speckles. And um in figure 7 of[03:30] caption of the UAPX paper, it just[03:33] casually mentioned nobody noticed that[03:36] um it's cons that if the white dots are[03:38] at the altitude we think they are that[03:40] they're consistent with tic tacs in[03:42] size. We also have Doppler radar data[03:45] that suggests that again nobody noticed[03:47] that because otherwise I think people[03:48] would have lost their minds. And so[03:50] strongly encourage people to read this.[03:52] We have all kinds of other Easter eggs[03:54] like that um in the UAPX uh paper where[03:57] we discuss frankly what works and what[03:59] doesn't work. We have appendices that[04:01] talk about trigonometry and how to[04:03] disambiguate size and distance for UAP[04:06] sightings. There's tons of stuff in[04:08] there, but I've already spoken on this[04:10] twice. So, I'm not speaking about this[04:12] paper um today. I just had to mention[04:14] the fact that it's made through peer[04:16] review, which was really a huge[04:17] achievement. And so I'm going to focus[04:21] on my main topic, which is the scenario[04:23] where the military-industrial complex is[04:25] not the player driving disclosure. And[04:27] so with apologies to Nick Gold and[04:29] others is um my opinion, it's an opinion[04:33] is that nothing's ever going to come out[04:35] of the government. If they know stuff,[04:37] we are not going to find that out. We[04:38] can try and respect people in the[04:41] disclosure movement. I'm just skeptical[04:43] that it'll ever be successful. And so[04:45] I'm focused more on grassroots of[04:48] scientists, engineers, and citizen[04:50] scientists. And specifically in the[04:52] publication in the paper I'm going to be[04:54] talking about today, it's not Kevin's[04:56] summary paper or the UAPX paper. It's a[04:59] paper that I wrote by myself talking[05:02] about the potential for capturing of a[05:06] of an actual crash of a physical craft[05:09] using uh smartphone imagery for example.[05:12] So that is my particular scenario I'm[05:15] talking about initially today. So as far[05:17] as I know this is the first I know um[05:20] Ben Hansen has been using similar ideas[05:23] but I don't know if you use the same[05:24] phrase but the first time I've heard[05:26] this phrase used was at the soul[05:28] foundation's first um uh conference is[05:30] phrase catastrophic disclosure. So the[05:34] but I'm I'm talking about specific[05:36] version of it because there are numerous[05:38] conflicting definitions but I'm talking[05:41] about the idea where you literally have[05:43] a physical craft that has crashed. You[05:46] have you know I don't know you know like[05:48] half dead grays crawling out of a[05:50] crashed saucer and someone's captured in[05:52] their on their iPhone. as specifically[05:54] what I'm talking about today and using[05:57] our tools of mathematics and statistics[06:00] to determine how likely such a scenario[06:02] is. So here are my foundational[06:05] assumptions that some kind of NHI exists[06:08] or some sort of human analog of that an[06:11] advanced yet unknown group of humans[06:13] some sort of breakaway civilization. So[06:15] even though the first bullet says NHI, I[06:17] already have an exception there, you[06:19] know, or so some group of advanced[06:21] technology and whoever they are, they[06:23] possess high-tech craft operating on or[06:26] near the Earth's surface. The point of[06:28] origin and motivations are not relevant[06:30] to the study I conducted. I the the[06:33] other assumption is that they possess[06:34] some degree of fallibility means that[06:37] unplanned aka crash landings are[06:40] possible. And so I made several[06:42] quantitative assumptions. So these are[06:44] for the scientists, engineers and[06:46] mathematicians listening. So the this is[06:48] the math but it's better to understand[06:51] the math with pictures. And so I have[06:53] here in this figure all the different[06:55] fun quantitative assumptions that went[06:58] into my study on on crash rates and[07:01] crash uh retrieval possibilities. So[07:03] first of all in figure A what we have[07:06] here is a histogram of the distribution[07:08] of the population density. So humans in[07:12] case you didn't notice you know I[07:13] haven't met people here from different[07:15] states and across the world there are[07:17] people here at this conference you know[07:19] where they could drive for hours and not[07:22] see another human soul so the thing is[07:24] is that human population is not[07:26] uniformly distributed we take that into[07:29] account and so if there are random[07:32] crashes of UAP or NHI craft if that is a[07:36] real phenomenon then we need to take[07:39] into account the distribution ution of[07:40] people in the world. We also need to[07:42] take into account and this is in figure[07:44] B is what is population growth as a[07:47] function of time. We don't know. So I'm[07:49] using UN projections for explosive[07:52] population growth or flat there's a[07:55] middle curve and then also the lower[07:57] one. And then in C and D where D is an[08:00] inset projection into the future we look[08:03] at the smartphone ownership fraction.[08:06] Okay. So, we all have, you know, these[08:08] little uh we have all these devices in[08:10] our pockets that have the capability of[08:14] potentially capturing something truly[08:16] extraordinary. And that was not true[08:19] during, you know, in Roswell, Kexsburg,[08:21] Pennsylvania, they didn't have iPhones[08:23] yet or Androids or Samsung. We have this[08:26] capability now. And so, another[08:28] assumption was looking at the different[08:30] possible distances involved. Now, all of[08:33] these the purpose of all of these[08:35] assumptions are to be seinal and[08:37] foundational. I'm not claiming any of[08:39] these are correct. What I'm doing here[08:42] is what's known as a firmy estimate just[08:44] to get orders of magnitude. So, you can[08:46] nitpick all of the assumptions made in[08:49] my study. and you should but the point[08:51] here was not to make a perfect study and[08:54] perfect conclusions but to encourage[08:56] more people to actually apply math and[08:59] statistics and not just qualitative[09:02] assumptions to this problem. So the[09:04] results of of the cal the simulations I[09:07] did needed one more assumption which I[09:10] call here in the upper right there are[09:11] three different levels that again are[09:14] just very crude estimates and they're[09:16] not meant to be precise or accurate. So,[09:19] one is what I call the Roswell crash[09:22] rate. We say it's like one was something[09:24] like once a century. And then we have[09:26] what I've called I've labeled the David[09:28] Grush curves are estimating 10 crashes[09:31] per century on land. Um and then the[09:34] then the uh curves labeled Kevin Randall[09:38] are 100%. So Kevin Randall wrote a book[09:41] where he had lots of different crashes.[09:42] I have an asterisk by his name though[09:44] because he actually think it's closer to[09:46] 1 to 10 century. So Kevin I so I want to[09:50] make sure that yeah that if um you know[09:52] Kevin's out there I'm not claiming he[09:54] says in his book most of those are[09:55] hoaxes and misidentifications. So I'm[09:58] just labeling that because it's based on[09:59] his book not because he thinks there are[10:01] that many. And so when we look at these[10:03] different scenarios, we have on the left[10:06] an A and C. This is the percent chance[10:10] of someone capturing a crash on their[10:13] smartphone and posting it to the web as[10:15] a function of uh the year and of these[10:19] different scenarios. Roswell grush rate[10:22] and the um extreme rate of there's one[10:24] per year and we can already start to[10:27] rule out you can see here one per year[10:29] because you can see that there's a huge[10:31] peak that we should have had there's a[10:33] huge peak to the left in A and C where[10:36] we should have had someone should have[10:38] already captured um something and on the[10:41] right hand side in B and D what we find[10:44] is is that if there's a finite[10:46] probability per day the probability[10:48] asmmptotes to 100% % eventually. So it[10:51] has to happen eventually. Now people say[10:53] well will smartphones even exist in the[10:55] year you know 2300. No, we'll have[10:58] something better which makes these[11:00] projections conservative. It does not it[11:02] does not invalidate the conclusions have[11:04] actually makes them stronger because we[11:05] might have something better than that in[11:07] the future. So if there's a very low[11:08] crash rate we might be waiting for a[11:10] while. But if we take the median[11:12] assumptions like the grush rate and a[11:14] median assumption for human population[11:16] growth and smartphone ownership, we get[11:19] asim we get um asmmptotes pretty rapidly[11:22] to that it's going to happen eventually.[11:25] So again with the assumption that NHI[11:27] are real and fly craft around that are[11:30] capable of crashing. So there are many[11:32] arguments and counterarguments on the[11:34] assumptions I've made, but most of those[11:37] um arguments make actually the um make[11:40] this uh uh just strengthen the[11:43] conclusion. So some people point out,[11:45] well, wouldn't NHI technology improve[11:47] over time and they'd crash less. And I[11:49] always like to point out that it's[11:51] actually a myth that technology improves[11:54] exponentially. If you don't believe me,[11:56] compare your laptop now to one 10 years[11:58] ago. It's the same because Moore's law[12:01] died. Here's an even better example. If[12:03] if technology improved exponentially, we[12:05] would be able to you'd be able to fly[12:06] home in in a minute instead of several[12:09] hours. Like why does it take eight hours[12:10] to cross the Atlantic? The problem is is[12:12] actually no technology doesn't improve[12:14] exponentially. Eventually maxes out and[12:17] if that's true for humans, why wouldn't[12:19] that be true for non-humans as well? So[12:21] I push back on all the counterarguments[12:23] on my um uh the assumptions I've made in[12:25] in my study. You can dig deeper into[12:28] them. you can see what's the mean year[12:30] of of disclosure by which I mean again[12:32] you know driven by somebody finding like[12:34] really damning you know evidence um on a[12:37] phone with video multiple angles and as[12:40] a function of time and you can see as[12:42] the crash rate goes to 100 200 per[12:45] century it's just not tenable because[12:48] somebody would have caught something[12:49] already on the on their iPhone or[12:51] Android so we can actually reverse[12:53] engineer the math here to the more years[12:56] that go by without without something[12:58] happening being posted to YouTube or Tik[13:01] Tok that that reduces that allows us to[13:03] put a bound on the rate of crashes. And[13:06] you can use the same mathematics I[13:08] present in in my paper um uh entitled[13:12] how long you know until catastrophic[13:13] disclosure occurs. You can use those[13:15] same techniques for orbs for Bigfoot.[13:19] You could use it to determine what's the[13:20] Bigfoot population per square mile.[13:22] That's what's so powerful here is the[13:24] math is neutral. It can be used for[13:26] debunking or for proving. It's math is[13:28] math. It's neutral. And so you can use[13:30] the same framework that I used with[13:32] simple assumptions. Change the[13:34] assumptions and look at what the results[13:35] are. So when we extract what are the[13:38] main takeaways from all these plots, the[13:41] main takeaways are that if NHI are real,[13:44] then the correct question ask is not and[13:46] if they can crash, then the correct[13:48] question to ask is not if disclosure can[13:50] be forced, but when. the my figures I[13:53] have show the probability always[13:55] asmmptotes to 100% eventually which[13:58] makes sense because if there's a small[13:59] chance per day right eventually then[14:02] that means it's going to happen so when[14:03] we input the default curve so what I[14:05] mean is like an average assumption on[14:08] population growth smartphone ownership[14:10] fraction things like that and using the[14:12] the like middle of the road projections[14:15] then I got I get between a 14 to 42%[14:19] chance that someone captures evidence of[14:22] a real anomalous physical crash by the[14:25] year 2027 and a 39 to 59% chance by the[14:29] year 2036 and the why are there two[14:31] numbers why are there ranges there[14:33] because it depends what year do I use[14:35] because do I use do I year do I use the[14:38] year 2008 which was arbitrary you know[14:40] introd it was the introduction of the um[14:42] the the Apple iPhone but there are[14:44] plenty of other competing camera phones[14:46] in different years and so that was just[14:48] one assumption another was starting in[14:50] the year 2024 since that's when I wrote[14:53] the paper and disclosure hadn't happened[14:55] yet. And when you do that, when you[14:57] input 2024, that's when you get these[14:59] huge peaks that suggest like, you know,[15:02] that disclosure is imminent any day if[15:04] the crash rate is the more um optimistic[15:07] number that it's one per year. So, um I[15:10] had gotten into, you know, little fights[15:12] over email with Mick West about how this[15:14] is waste of time, garbage in, garbage[15:16] out. And I think garbage in garbage out[15:18] is one of those tired old phrases kind[15:20] of like extraordinary claims require[15:22] extraordinary evidence because just even[15:25] if my assumptions are wrong that doesn't[15:27] mean my algorithm is invalid. I think[15:29] that that is that's false. Now there are[15:31] many issues though that AI of course[15:33] will muddy the waters. But for now at[15:35] least until AI gets better you can just[15:37] count the number of fingers um or just[15:40] look for letters. So, my recommendation[15:42] to to my serious recommendation to[15:44] people is is that if you're filming an[15:46] alleged, you know, NHI crash, wiggle[15:48] your fingers from the camera and point[15:50] it at a stop sign or a speed limit sign,[15:52] which will prove it's not AI. Now, I[15:55] know AI is always improving. So, this is[15:56] just a temporary fix, but right now AI[15:59] is absolutely uh terrible at making um[16:02] high quality accurate images of humans[16:05] and when it comes to fingers, things[16:07] like that. So, if you've seen the new[16:08] Mission Impossible movie, we're still a[16:10] far cry from the entity or the Skynet[16:13] from from Terminator. But we can use[16:15] this to our advantage because just like[16:17] with Photoshop and other tools, there[16:19] are digital forensics is what I'm trying[16:21] to say on the sides. There are digital[16:23] forensics. You know, all jokes aside,[16:25] there's digital forensic tools that[16:27] allow us to help determine whether[16:29] videos are fake or not. There was[16:30] discussion of this morning from Sean. We[16:32] can capitalize on these um future work.[16:36] um ideally not by me because I'm moving[16:37] on to other things that I'm going to be[16:39] talking about rest of my talk but I[16:41] strongly encourage somebody else to take[16:44] my study cite it and write write more[16:47] about it my actual I I have code that I[16:50] wrote that is public it's downloadable I[16:53] doubt a single person has downloaded or[16:55] tried it yet but I have a short piece of[16:57] C++ code that runs the algorithm to make[17:01] the the graphs in this study so I strong[17:04] it's downloadable either from the[17:06] archive version or from the liina. So I[17:09] forgot to mention so my paper is[17:11] published in in the what I believe is[17:13] the only externally peer-reviewed[17:15] journal that's run um liina out of it's[17:18] run by the society of UAP studies and[17:20] there also it's downloadable in the[17:22] supplementary material. So you can[17:24] download my my code that I wrote and[17:27] change the assumptions and see how that[17:29] changes the conclusions. So there are[17:31] many potential things. I I modeled the[17:33] crash rate as as plonian. What about[17:36] logn normal? What about some other[17:37] statistical distribution? You can change[17:40] that. What if NHI behavior changes over[17:42] time? I mentioned what about technology[17:44] changing over time. What about[17:46] information management by whoever is[17:48] pulling the strings? What if there's[17:50] some sort of call down ability that[17:52] makes it easier to do? What if the[17:54] appearance of craft is non-random? We[17:57] heard from, you know, there's the SU[17:58] intention study that shows that you[18:01] could have more UAP at military sites,[18:04] particularly nuclear ones. What about[18:06] psychology? You you have ontological[18:08] shock and you don't pull out your phone[18:10] in time. These are all factors that I[18:13] didn't consider, but I recognize and[18:15] that was another way I could tell when[18:16] people started emailing me, you didn't[18:18] consider this, this, or that. I can say,[18:19] oh, so you didn't read the paper because[18:21] on the last page, I humbly say, then[18:24] these are the things that I didn't have[18:25] time to look into. And so I just say[18:28] these are the drawbacks of the study.[18:29] It's literally on the last page where I[18:31] say I hope that future um scientists[18:34] will actually read the paper, take it[18:37] seriously and write either a furthering[18:39] study or a rebuttal, whatever. Um,[18:42] there's one thing that I deeply regret[18:44] that I didn't have time to do and I[18:45] won't have time to do is to validate the[18:48] model using something we've already seen[18:51] on smartphone cameras, those security[18:54] cameras, things like earthquake lights[18:56] and ball lightning where there are at[18:57] least four or five videos that I know of[18:59] that have not been debunked. So, there's[19:02] this um[19:04] there's this Chinese video. Again,[19:06] there's a link here. Just you're not[19:08] going to have time to write it down now,[19:10] but pull it up later on Hoova where[19:12] there's a video, and there are a few of[19:14] these that claim to show ball lightning.[19:16] There are many, many for earthquake[19:18] lights. And in fact, um I'm on a a TV[19:21] show called The Proof Is Out There. Rich[19:22] is on it as well. And uh and I'm always[19:25] watching, you know, Bigfoot and UFO[19:26] videos. And I've seen more and more[19:28] earthquake lights where it's like pretty[19:30] damning evidence. there's a flash of[19:32] light, there's no thunderstorm, and the[19:34] earth starts shaking, and you got like[19:36] from two different angles. So, so these[19:37] are things people used to laugh at. They[19:39] used to laugh at um Freriedman Freud,[19:41] who was the pioneer in earthquake[19:42] lights. And so, these are great examples[19:45] of control data sets that I didn't have[19:47] time to look at that could be used to[19:49] validate the model. You can see here[19:51] this is this X X XKCD comic is one of[19:54] the inspirations I had for my study was[19:57] um XKCD has claimed that UFOs have[19:59] already been ruled out because of[20:01] smartphone ownership. And what I showed[20:02] is actually no depending on frequency[20:06] it's entirely plausible that it's going[20:08] to take another 10, 20 years or even[20:10] longer to get evidence. Same thing with[20:12] Bigfoot. If the population is not very[20:15] you know is very sparse then you know[20:17] it's so there are very reasonable um[20:20] reasons and it's same thing with ball[20:21] lightning and earthquake lights. It[20:23] didn't happen overnight. It wasn't like[20:25] the day after the invention of the[20:27] camera phone that all of a sudden[20:28] everything was resolved. That's not[20:30] that's not what happened. So if a PhD[20:33] scientist takes my paper, reads it,[20:35] writes their own citing it, I think that[20:37] that will then demonstrate to me that[20:39] UAP studies will finally have matured[20:41] into a real science where people aren't[20:43] working in a vacuum, but they're[20:45] actually citing each other and[20:47] continuing the study. So I've literally[20:49] given five, six different ideas out[20:51] there for people to continue the study.[20:53] So I hope that somebody does so. Um[20:56] because what I want to focus on for the[20:58] remaining time I have and especially[21:00] because I really don't want us to have[21:02] to go to oh we're out of time and[21:04] there's no time for questions. I really[21:06] don't want that to happen. But I have[21:08] another really major topic that I snuck[21:10] in that is not in the my abstract for[21:13] the conference. But you know the[21:15] conference the conference theme is the[21:17] foundations of UAP studies. So what is[21:20] an even better I would say foundation[21:22] than pictures and videos although we[21:23] need those is to study physical[21:25] evidence. So I have been working with[21:28] Mark so of Falcon uh space he's right[21:31] here um Jared Yates of Flux and Tim[21:33] Ventura um of APE and I received and as[21:36] for show and tell actually have right[21:38] here it's inside it's a very tiny piece[21:40] of material but an alleged crash piece[21:43] from 1947 New Mexico. This is the famous[21:46] mag art part that's primarily magnesium,[21:48] zinc and bismouth and many many other[21:50] trace elements. And I'm doing um[21:53] elemental first analysis and then[21:55] isotopic and the latter is better for[21:57] checking if something is[21:58] extraterrestrial or not. So one thing[22:00] that science fiction always gets wrong[22:02] is that it's the same elements[22:04] throughout the entire universe. You know[22:05] 100 billion lighty years away. It's[22:07] still hydrogen, helium, lithium. It's[22:08] still the same periodic table of the[22:10] elements. But what changes are the[22:12] slight differences in the number of[22:14] neutrons in the nuclei. You get slightly[22:16] different isotopes. And so I've been[22:18] actually switching my focus because I[22:20] think we shouldn't I have this little,[22:21] you know, cartoon here. We need to make[22:23] sure we're looking at all the right[22:24] places. And that includes studying not[22:27] just um photos and videos, but physical[22:29] trace evidence, which has a long[22:31] history, very long history, also UAP[22:33] studies and lots of papers on uh[22:36] physical evidence from alleged landings.[22:38] There's Delos and Sakoro and all this.[22:40] So, so this isn't new, right? I'm just[22:42] following in a long history of physical[22:44] evidence analysis. But this is what[22:46] really excites me is that there was[22:47] physical evidence could get my hands on[22:49] to test what it's made of. So, one of[22:51] the tests we did was an X-ray[22:52] fluoresence analysis that I was doing[22:54] with my student, PhD student Andrew. And[22:57] we found a whole bunch of, you know,[22:59] elements in in the sample. But was[23:01] really remarkable is um few in few[23:05] interesting things. So first um we found[23:08] uh a very strong signal uh from from[23:11] argon which seems to suggest that the[23:13] sample's terrestrial because argon is[23:15] used in magnesium and zinc mining on[23:17] earth and those are the two most common[23:19] elements but so that may seem like oh[23:22] it's not very interesting but no I I[23:24] assure you that it's not a cutand dry[23:26] case it's not an openandshut case like[23:28] that. So um but what's really really[23:31] strange is that in 20 seconds we were[23:35] able to do a more thorough job than the[23:37] official Oakidge National Report with[23:38] arrows. So there's something very very[23:40] wrong there. Something very suspicious[23:42] is how were we able to move so quickly[23:45] and start and start identifying things[23:47] that were that were missing in the[23:49] official PDF report. Um so we don't know[23:52] what's going on there. It could be um[23:55] you know that you know Arrow didn't have[23:57] the funding you know that it needed or[23:59] you know I mean we were already beating[24:00] up on him earlier. It could be[24:01] Kirkpatrick's fault. You know I'm not[24:03] you know laying any blame on the current[24:05] regime of Arrow current leadership who I[24:07] know you're like I I don't know what the[24:09] story is but we were able to do a much[24:11] more comprehensive job and in fact to[24:14] see elements that was not found in the[24:16] that are not labeled in the arrow[24:18] report. And one of them is I put a red[24:21] box here on the lower left. we actually[24:23] found um traces of uranium in the sample[24:27] in addition to all the other elements[24:29] that were known from the other reports.[24:31] So my a colleague uh professor Cecilia[24:34] Levy who is um one of the co-authors in[24:36] the UAPX paper, she's our personal Dana[24:39] Scully and so she suggests aha think I[24:42] know what it is. It's uh it's a it's a[24:45] nuclear bomb casing. But as Mark Sol[24:48] points out that doesn't fit all the[24:49] facts because then how is there a peace[24:50] at all? wise and it all vaporized. So[24:53] again we have conflicting pieces of[24:55] evidence is it's anomalous it's prosaic[24:57] it's terrestrial but what it definitely[25:00] is then it's interesting and one thing I[25:02] we were able to determine for sure for[25:05] sure one at least function of the[25:08] material and no we did not demonstrate[25:10] warp spacetime no we didn't demonstrate[25:12] it's a magical terraertz waveguide no[25:15] but we were able to demonstrate[25:16] conclusively quantitatively is that this[25:19] material appears to be a neutron[25:22] absorber or reflector. So, it works very[25:24] well as a as a ra a radiation shielding.[25:27] That does not prove it's terrestrial or[25:30] extraterrestrial because that could[25:31] mean, oh, it's terrestrial. It's a[25:33] nuclear bomb or or reactor casing or[25:36] shielding or it's extraterrestrial[25:38] because guess what you need for[25:40] interstellar travel? Shielding, right,[25:42] against radiation as you're traveling[25:44] the interstellar medium. So, that does[25:46] not definitively say it's prosaic versus[25:48] it's um it's extraterrestrial. So one[25:51] the most exciting analysis we have[25:53] started doing is something called[25:54] neutron activation analysis or NAA[25:57] although I know Kevin has said he hates[25:59] all the acronyms. We make so many[26:00] acronyms up. So what's remarkable to me[26:02] is I've had you know Kevin has told NASA[26:04] scientists about this who are like what[26:06] is that? I've never heard of it. And[26:07] that shocks me because NAA is not[26:09] something I invented at U Albany. It's a[26:12] decades old technique that somehow the[26:14] entire scientific community has[26:16] developed collective amnesia for and I[26:18] cannot explain that. NAA is a beautiful[26:21] technique that allows you to determine[26:22] what isotopes are in a material, not[26:25] elements, isotopes. That's better than[26:27] just determining elements because it's a[26:29] way of determining whether something is[26:31] terrestrial or not. But unlike mass[26:34] spec, which was done by arrow, this is[26:36] nondestructive. You don't have to[26:38] vaporize your sample or laser ablate the[26:40] surface, which by the way, how do you[26:42] know the surface is indicative of the[26:44] bulk, right? So this is vastly superior[26:47] to existing techniques and as far as I[26:49] know it's only been used once or twice.[26:52] Um I think it was used on one of the[26:54] magnesium uba tuba samples or palatomic[26:56] but this has not been used consistently[26:58] despite how simply it can be applied. So[27:01] the basic principle is is that any atom[27:04] any isotope any nucleus is happy to[27:07] accept one extra neutron among its[27:10] protons and neutrons and it becomes[27:12] temporarily radioactive and and that's[27:16] so safely like it decays away usually[27:18] most things very quickly with that one[27:20] extra neutron. But while they're[27:22] decaying, you can count the alphas, the[27:24] betas, the gamas, look at their[27:26] energies, look at their half- lives in[27:28] order to uniquely determine whether[27:30] something is made of. And to lead into[27:33] this study, so this is not this is still[27:36] connected with the first half of my talk[27:38] because you see here on slide 16 that I[27:41] quote my crash paper and I actually in[27:44] order to lead into this study, I[27:46] literally say that a smoking gun phone[27:48] video might not be enough, right? It[27:51] doesn't matter if it's two or more[27:52] witnesses from multiple angles. We've[27:54] got plenty of photos and videos, right?[27:56] And who and there's still a gigantic[27:58] debunker community, right? But physical[28:01] evidence is something that could trump[28:03] even the best photo or video evidence.[28:06] You cannot it's it's not impossible, but[28:10] it would be what like a billionaire hoax[28:12] like in the I think the movie Contact.[28:14] like you would need a billion-dollar[28:16] hoax if you have completely different[28:18] isotopic ratios and and strange[28:20] different material anal uh material[28:22] properties. So preliminary findings they[28:26] have preliminary is the key word. It's[28:28] not peer review yet. We are not done and[28:30] I even have you know disagreements[28:33] respectful disagreements with Mark and[28:35] and and Jared on like on on the[28:37] preliminary findings. So it seems to be[28:40] earthly but odd. So, one thing that's[28:42] very strange is that it was very hard to[28:44] do neutron activation analysis. So, the[28:47] ART part, which is, if you're familiar[28:49] with that, that's the part that I'm[28:50] testing. It's traced to Art Bell of[28:52] Coast to Coast. Um, there is a chain of[28:55] custody, I believe, that Jared can can[28:57] talk about that that we can trace. Um,[28:59] and Linda Molton Howell and also Hal[29:01] Pudof had a piece of the motherpiece or[29:03] as the motherpiece himself at at TTSA.[29:06] One thing that that that that I[29:08] discovered at U Albany that somehow for[29:10] decades nobody seems to have noticed is[29:12] that it's very it's very resistant to[29:15] neutron activation which is not normal.[29:18] So because it was resistant to neutron[29:20] activation using californium we we left[29:23] the part next to plutonium. I actually[29:25] have large quantity of of plutonium at U[29:27] Albany from the US Department of Energy[29:29] for research purposes. We left it next[29:31] to plutonium for a month took it off.[29:34] Nothing happened. it wasn't radioactive.[29:36] Now, that that's not normal. So, that[29:38] suggests it's either reflecting or[29:40] absorbing neutrons at a very very high[29:41] level because it should have been[29:43] neutron activated. So, unlike alphas,[29:46] betas, and gamas, which are not[29:47] contagious, you you don't inhale them on[29:49] a piece of dust for example, they[29:52] they're less likely to hurt you. Gamas[29:54] can travel a great distance. But still,[29:56] neutrons are unique when it comes to[29:58] radiation because they're the only form[30:00] of radiation that's contagious on a[30:03] subatomic level. If you hold a neutron[30:05] source, you will be activating the[30:07] carbon, the hydrogen, oxygen in your[30:10] body. So, it's very strange that this[30:12] material appears to be resistant to[30:15] neutron activation. As a result, that's[30:17] going to make the isotopic analysis very[30:19] hard. So, actually, I'm very grateful[30:21] even though I beat up on them, the[30:22] Oakidge and the Arrow report are very[30:24] very um important to use as as a to[30:27] compare to our results and contrast with[30:29] them. So the prosaic explanation again[30:32] is some kind of well-crafted atomic bomb[30:34] shielding and the speculative is an[30:36] interstellar spacecraft a blade of hull.[30:38] Both hypotheses have very serious[30:41] drawbacks. Very serious drawbacks. It's[30:43] not it's not cut and dry for either to[30:45] be able to conclude either of them. Um[30:48] but what's shocking to me again is that[30:50] Oakidge National Laboratory is the world[30:52] leader in neutron activation analysis.[30:54] So why didn't they think of doing it[30:56] with this part? So something something[30:58] strange is going on here. It could be[31:00] something as simple as lack of funding[31:02] or interest. It's not necessarily[31:03] something malevolent or malicious um on[31:06] the part of the government. I can't[31:07] conclude that robustly, but it's very[31:09] odd that the world leader in NAA didn't[31:11] even bother didn't think of doing this[31:13] type of analysis. Or maybe they did and[31:15] it wasn't working very well. So um this[31:19] is an idea from Jared is that this is[31:21] sort of like a meil for radiation. So[31:22] I'm a large Lord of the Rings fan so I[31:24] thought I would throw that in there. um[31:26] near future work with students. So over[31:28] the next few months, we're going to be[31:30] looking um at the biggest signals we get[31:32] and attempt to extract at least two or[31:34] three peaks per element to compare to[31:36] earthly isotopic ratios. So right now we[31:39] only know what elements are in there[31:40] because in order to do isotopic ratios[31:42] you need at least two different isotopes[31:44] of the same element. So even though the[31:46] plutonium didn't work shockingly, we[31:48] were able to get a little bit of a[31:50] signal from a californium source[31:52] activation and consistently the top[31:54] elements are no surprise. Bis bismouth[31:56] is top element. That's not a shock. We[31:59] know it's in there. Argon was a shock[32:01] and we double checked that it's both in[32:03] the XRF and in the NAA. But and that was[32:06] one of the damning pieces of evidence[32:08] that suggests it's um terrestrial even[32:10] though it's unusual. We see plenty of NA[32:13] and CL. So it's like okay people didn't[32:15] handle it you know properly for always[32:17] for years with gloves. And so there's[32:19] evidence of of salt on there and you[32:22] know carbon which you know we're all[32:24] carbon based life forms. So it's been[32:25] touched um over decades. Um so the the[32:29] top six elements have been have been[32:31] pretty uh pretty consistent. But now[32:33] what we want to do is um is try to find[32:36] individual peaks from individual[32:38] elements. So I also should emphasize[32:40] there is no magic technique. So NAA is[32:43] complimentary to earlier work. So for[32:45] example, magnesium barely shows and zinc[32:48] not at all when that's what most of the[32:50] material is made of because the purpose[32:52] of NAA is not to tell you what the bulk[32:54] of the material is made of. But what are[32:56] the parts per million and parts per[32:58] billion dopens and small trace elements?[33:00] Some of those trace elements I have to[33:02] emphasize are accidental. They're not[33:04] going to serve a purpose. If you just[33:06] grab a hunk of aluminum or copper,[33:08] you're going to get a whole bunch of[33:09] things. But so it's it's always hard to[33:11] tell what's a an int just a random trace[33:14] element from manufacturing versus what's[33:16] intentional. So um one of the other[33:19] studies we've done with the part is to[33:22] use different types of radiation[33:23] detectors. So while the Star Trek[33:25] triquarter doesn't exist, we do have[33:27] there's the cosmic watch that Wes[33:29] mentioned. There's also um the radio[33:31] code nuclear spectrometer which I've[33:33] been telling this you know to Doug and[33:35] men and Ben and others is we got to stop[33:37] using um you know 1970 called and wants[33:40] their geer counter back. You know it's[33:41] the geer counters are not used by[33:43] serious scientists anymore. We now have[33:45] far superior technology and one of them[33:48] is the radio code neut nuclear[33:49] spectrometer that only costs $275 and it[33:53] runs circles around geer counters[33:55] because it doesn't just tell you the[33:56] count rate it also tells you the[33:58] particle type and the energy. Well, not[33:59] so much a particle type, but it gives[34:00] you peaks for the energies. And this is[34:02] what we're going to use to help[34:03] disambiguate the different half- livives[34:06] that overlap so closely that it's hard[34:08] to tell what the different isotopes are.[34:11] So, calibrations take time. So, um I[34:13] think uh John Oliver said this on the[34:15] show that science moves slowly. It moves[34:17] boringly. So, we're not going to today's[34:20] findings I shared with you are[34:21] preliminary. They're subject to change.[34:23] We're not going to have a peerreview[34:25] publication on this until at earliest[34:27] the end of this year and more likely[34:29] next year because it's going to take[34:31] time to doublech check and triple check[34:34] everything I'm claiming here today. So,[34:37] um, in conclusion, because I see five[34:38] minutes left, which is great. I really[34:40] want to have questions, not just on[34:42] Hoova, but hopefully here in person, is[34:44] that, okay, so if you have real ET[34:46] samples, send them to me. But I got to[34:48] point out the vast majority of people[34:50] who have sent me samples. They're[34:51] meteors. They're airplanes. And yeah,[34:54] and please don't send me Bigfoot scat.[34:56] Send that to Jeff Moldrum. Um, but also[34:58] I would I I'll already tell you what[35:00] it's made of. C, H, and O, cuz that's[35:03] what everything is made of. Carbon,[35:05] hydrogen, oxygen. If it's organic,[35:06] that's what's in there. So, I already[35:08] know the answer. Um Um, I'm not paid to[35:11] do this for much longer. Um, hopefully[35:14] things are changing right now for me. it[35:16] seems where I might be able to have I[35:19] might have some funding to be able to[35:20] continue this and for that I'm grateful.[35:22] I'm thankful to uh Jared Yates who's[35:24] here. Um I don't know where he's sitting[35:26] right now and the lights are so bright[35:27] that I can't see him. Is that I'm[35:28] working with Flux Space now on this and[35:30] really grateful to them that I'm able to[35:32] to be able to actually spend time,[35:35] money, and effort on this now. And um[35:38] lastly, a shameless plug for my uh[35:41] exotic propulsion class, which again,[35:43] you're not going to have time to write[35:45] down the link, but I hope you can go[35:47] back on Hoova, go to my last slide,[35:49] slide 21, and you can see where you can[35:51] register for my class where I'm teaching[35:53] this online for the second time now[35:55] where and Maya Cowan, who I believe is[35:57] here, she has posted about the class and[35:59] Huva also. So if you want to hear about[36:01] exotic propulsion technologies from uh[36:04] from a a PhD physicist, I hope you will[36:06] take my class. So with that, I'll be[36:08] happy to conclude and answer any[36:10] questions that people have. Thank you.[36:13] >> Yeah,[36:16] Matthew Shadagas, boy, did I tell you[36:18] this was going to blow your mind.[36:22] Let me just also say as we've got some[36:23] folks coming over to make uh you know to[36:25] to incorporate some questions into this[36:27] Q&A. Uh I love seeing scientists who[36:29] have your energy and your enthusiasm and[36:31] again anybody out there who's interested[36:33] in seeing the continuation of work like[36:34] this please consider reaching out you[36:36] know collaborating sending samples you[36:38] know funding all these things that is so[36:40] very necessary for the continuation of[36:42] scientific studies of these great[36:44] mysteries all these questions and again[36:46] the technical aspects of all this. So uh[36:48] Stephen let's go ahead and just start[36:49] with a question right here from[36:50] in-house. Go ahead. Thank you. Very[36:53] interesting talk. I like it. Uh with the[36:55] NAA analysis, um you said that the[36:59] plutonium didn't elicit any.[37:01] >> Basically, you couldn't do the testing,[37:03] but I thought I saw in there that[37:04] californium or something did seem to be[37:06] absorbed radiation a little bit. Did you[37:09] What was the result with the isotopes uh[37:12] in there? Were they unusual in any way[37:15] as it decayed?[37:16] >> No, I was talking a little fast, so you[37:18] probably missed this because I was[37:19] trying to finish. I didn't get to the[37:21] isotopic analysis yet. I only counted[37:23] different elements. And the reason is is[37:25] because the data is such shockingly poor[37:28] quality, low statistics because the[37:30] sample is so resistant to neutron[37:32] activation. So with plutonium, it didn't[37:34] work at all. With Californium, it works[37:36] a little bit. That in and of itself is[37:38] not entirely mysterious because[37:40] different radioactive elements[37:42] California plutonium will have different[37:44] neutron energy spectrums. So depending[37:46] on the elements isotopes in the sample,[37:48] they'll have different absorption uh[37:50] capability probability and so we do have[37:53] data from the californium and we know[37:56] for for sure what elements are in there[37:58] and they're confirmed by either the[38:00] error report or the XR the X-ray[38:02] analysis. So no surprise on the elements[38:05] except the uranium. But then the[38:06] isotopic analysis that is moving slowly[38:10] because that we have to identify a[38:12] minimum of two peaks per element. But if[38:15] you look at the error report, they did[38:17] some topic analysis again and they claim[38:19] it's terrestrial which would jive with[38:21] what we're seeing in terms of you know[38:23] argon is a trace tracer that says this[38:27] was this was probably manufactured on[38:29] Earth but we didn't have the technology[38:31] if you look at Jared's work with[38:33] microscopy that doesn't jive with the[38:35] like strange structures you see[38:37] microscopically that seem to be beyond[38:39] human technology at least in the 1940s.[38:41] So it's not a cut and dry uh case. We[38:43] and we want to do more. We want to dig[38:45] into isotopic ratios and dig deeper.[38:49] >> Excellent. Here's an interesting[38:50] question also from our Hoova[38:51] participants. If you are looking for a[38:53] craft with case shielding neutron[38:55] reflectors and uranium, have you[38:56] considered the nuclear thermal rocket[38:58] program run by Los Alamos?[39:00] >> Yes, that's a very very plausible[39:02] explanation, but as I said a moment ago,[39:04] not perfect. And the reason why it's not[39:06] a perfect explanation is because this is[39:09] a very interesting combination of[39:10] elements that I don't think we would[39:12] have thought of in the 1940s. And so it[39:15] just there are if you look at the[39:17] microscopic structure of the material it[39:20] again it does not appear to be to have[39:22] been within human capabilities to bond[39:25] these elements together in this way. So[39:27] on the surface that's a very very good[39:29] explanation and that's definitely the[39:31] the one we're going to use to get it[39:32] published, right? is not going to say,[39:33] "Oh, it's a UFO part." But again, um[39:36] there are significant flaws in that[39:38] explanation because it doesn't explain[39:40] how if it is terrestrial, which it seems[39:42] to be, but how then how does why does it[39:46] have what appear to be metamaterial or[39:48] quasi crystallin structures that appear[39:50] to have appear to be beyond human[39:53] technology um of the 1940s,[39:55] >> right? And of course, if indeed it is[39:57] the same sample that was initially sent[39:59] to ArtBell, we at least know that it was[40:00] manufactured sometime before 1996. Is it[40:03] possible that it might not be from 1947?[40:05] >> That's definitely possible. And Jared[40:06] has pointed out it could be, you know,[40:08] from them depends on how solid our chain[40:10] of custody is. Or it could be from 1986[40:12] from down the Gorsk known as the Russian[40:14] Roswell. So there's possibilities but[40:16] that still doesn't change the fact that[40:17] even in the 80s or 90s what we see in[40:20] the material seems to be beyond human ca[40:23] technical capability and is at the[40:25] border still cutting edge of today's[40:27] human technical capability because it's[40:29] not standard radiation shielding. It[40:31] doesn't have the standard that use so[40:33] usually for neutron shielding you use[40:35] concrete water or wax. you don't use[40:38] this, you know, it's it doesn't have the[40:40] right composition to be what's used as[40:42] standard radiation shielding even today.[40:45] >> Yeah. Again, based on the current[40:47] understanding of the provenence, it is[40:48] at very least anacronistic.[40:49] >> Yes. Right. Yes.[40:50] >> Which is extremely interesting. Uh[40:52] listen, it's officially lunchtime, but I[40:54] think we're going to continue with a few[40:55] more questions. I just want everyone to[40:56] know, of course, technically we're[40:58] cutting into the lunch time and I know[40:59] some people are probably kind of hungry,[41:00] but we've got folks lined up. Let's go[41:01] right over here.[41:02] >> Uh question on the neutron activation.[41:04] So, have you been able to have have you[41:05] had any success trying to model with[41:08] like MCNP or anything like that to to[41:10] get similar performance as as what you[41:12] saw? And specifically like if you think[41:14] it's an interface effect between like[41:16] the magnesium and the zinc or the[41:17] bismouth like are there interfacial[41:19] effects you think if you tried to start[41:21] building that stack up would you see a[41:24] gestalt effect or would it be additive?[41:25] I mean have you thought about that or[41:27] looked at it? Absolutely. That's on the[41:29] table. Only reason hasn't been done yet[41:30] because no funding, no students. But[41:32] that's changing. That might be changing.[41:34] Like I said, with the help of people in[41:35] this room, I might have time this summer[41:37] to get to that. And the plan is to use[41:38] not just MCMP, double check it Jan 4,[41:41] triple check it in OpenMC and try to[41:44] replicate the behavior of the sample by[41:46] simulating it. And so my hypothesis[41:49] right now is that it's a nonlinear[41:51] effect where there's no magic, there's[41:53] no new physics. It's novel engineering[41:55] where you take these particular elements[41:57] isotopes together and they sort of like[42:00] maybe bounce the neutrons off of each[42:02] other and sort of uh uh moderate them in[42:05] a way that's more effective than water[42:06] wax or traditional methods. So[42:08] absolutely one of the goals is is that[42:10] by this by the end of this year is to[42:13] have replicated in simulation to be able[42:17] to validate to say that to be able to[42:20] more definitively state that this is[42:22] some sort of um some sort of neutron[42:24] radiation shielding.[42:26] >> Excellent. Dr. Michael Gloson to the[42:28] stage please.[42:29] >> Thanks for a great paper. Uh my question[42:31] has to do with the first half of it[42:32] about the sort of inevitability of[42:33] catastrophic disclosure. Yes. Most of[42:36] the calculations that you do seem to[42:38] answer the question of like at what[42:40] point does it become inevitable that[42:41] some uh smoking gun piece of evidence[42:43] will make it out into the public, right?[42:45] But normally what we mean by disclosure[42:47] is not just that. We also mean that the[42:49] smoking gun piece of evidence gets out[42:51] there and everyone believes it. But[42:53] public credility is something that we[42:55] could model assign some numbers to and[42:57] that number seems to be declining.[42:59] Right? So if we take that into[43:01] consideration and we define disclosure[43:02] as good evidence getting out there[43:04] through an authoritative source that's[43:06] in a position to know and everybody[43:08] believes[43:10] but public fragility is declining over[43:12] anything a cell phone video or whatever.[43:14] How does that skew the line of[43:16] inevitable catastrophic disclosure?[43:18] >> So it's impossible to know and that's[43:20] why in the last page of the paper I say[43:22] look there are psychological factors[43:24] that I'm never going to be able to model[43:25] because it's impossible. And so I was[43:28] making so I have there's no way of[43:30] modeling public credility. Well, there[43:32] are models. You know, Ben Hansen's been[43:33] working on this, but there's no perfect[43:36] psychology is not physics. So there's no[43:38] way to know the answer. And so um my[43:41] hope would be that at least you could[43:42] convince the scientific community even[43:44] if you could not convince the public.[43:46] But yet there's no way to know how to[43:47] dip down the projections I have. And in[43:50] the conclusion of my paper, I'm very[43:52] honest and humble about this. I'm like[43:53] this could all be wrong because we[43:55] cannot model psychological and public uh[43:57] credul factors reliably yet.[43:59] >> Excellent. Bob McGuire, thank you very[44:01] much for the talk. It was really I'm[44:03] especially interested in your uh neutron[44:06] activation stuff. Graded Z shielding has[44:11] been used in satellites for two decades[44:14] and it's multiple[44:16] atomic numbers layered in a way that[44:19] does just that shielding. You should go[44:21] investigate. Yeah, I want to check[44:23] whether it has similar elements. Thank[44:24] you. So that would be a very plausible[44:27] um mundane explanation for for the for[44:29] the sample.[44:31] >> Excellent. I think that's all the[44:32] questions that we have from here in[44:34] house. Uh and so at this time, I'm going[44:36] to advise we probably take a break, go[44:38] grab some lunch, and then we will[44:40] reconvene here because we've got our[44:42] final panel discussion, which let me[44:44] just make sure I've got our time frame[44:45] all in line right here. If the app will[44:47] work. Come on now. There we go. Now, we[44:50] want to be back here at 1 p.m. for our[44:51] foundational approaches to UAP[44:53] discussion panel. So, I'll see you guys[44:55] at 1 p.m. Have a nice lunch and we'll[44:58] reconvene here as we conclude the 2025[45:00] Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies[45:02] Conference. I'm Micah Hanks.
Former All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office Science Advisor on UAP, Government Transparency
Introduction
The discussion begins with the introduction of Randy Bostik, PhD, a physicist and former science adviser for the US Department of Defense's All Domain Resolution Office (ARROW). The conversation aims to explore Bostik's experiences at ARROW, the challenges faced in Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) investigations, and the collaboration between government and civilian scientists in addressing the UAP enigma.
Background on ARROW
Bostik explains that ARROW was established as a successor to the UAP Task Force, which was primarily run by the US Navy. His role involved data analysis within the intelligence community, focusing on the type of data that would be relevant for UAP investigations. Initially, ARROW faced challenges in recruiting personnel, leading to the use of joint duty assignments to fill necessary roles. Bostik was recruited by Dr. Kirkpatrick to serve as the science adviser, a position he held for approximately two and a half to three years. His responsibilities included assessing the scientific validity of incoming data, such as videos and reports, and aligning them with current scientific standards and methods.
Historical Context: Project Blue Book
The conversation shifts to Project Blue Book, a well-known historical program in the UAP community. Bostik discusses the limitations of Project Blue Book, which operated during a time when technology for data collection was rudimentary. Reports from the 1940s to the 1960s relied heavily on human testimony, lacking the technological advancements available today, such as digital cameras and remote sensing capabilities. The reliance on personal accounts led to a significant degree of interpretation and potential inaccuracies in the reported sightings.
He emphasizes that the data collection during Project Blue Book was almost exclusively radar-based, with limited optical sensors available. The absence of digital recording methods meant that many reports were based on human recollection, which could be flawed or biased. Bostik notes that while there were some optical sensors, they were not widely used, and many reports turned out to be fabricated or misinterpreted.
Current Challenges in UAP Investigations
As the discussion progresses, Bostik highlights the current challenges in UAP investigations, particularly the limitations of modern data collection methods. While cell phone images and videos provide valuable information, they often lack the resolution and detail necessary for thorough analysis. The conversation touches on the role of companies like Enigma Labs in collecting and analyzing UAP data, raising questions about the usefulness of civilian data in the context of government investigations.
Bostik argues that while any data is better than none, the interpretation of that data is crucial. He emphasizes the importance of contextual information, such as the time and location of a sighting, as well as the direction in which the observer was looking. These details can help corroborate multiple observations and lead to more concrete conclusions regarding UAP sightings.
Artificial Intelligence in UAP Analysis
The conversation then shifts to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in analyzing UAP data. Bostik acknowledges the potential of AI to process large volumes of data but points out that AI requires training data to be effective. He explains that while AI can help filter out normal occurrences, it may struggle with identifying anomalous phenomena that it has not encountered before. The ideal approach involves using AI to assist human analysts rather than replace them, allowing for a more nuanced interpretation of the data.
Bostik mentions that AI could be employed to sift through vast amounts of data collected from various sensors, flagging only the unusual or unexplained instances for further human analysis. This collaborative approach ensures that potentially significant findings are not overlooked due to the limitations of AI algorithms.
Collaboration with Civilian Scientists
The discussion highlights the importance of collaboration between government entities like ARROW and civilian scientists. Bostik notes that the government often struggles to effectively engage with civilian researchers, which can hinder the sharing of data and methodologies. He expresses hope that ARROW has improved its interactions with civilian organizations, enabling better data exchange and collaborative analysis.
He emphasizes that the scientific community must work together to address the UAP phenomenon, sharing insights and findings to enhance the overall understanding of these occurrences. The conversation underscores the need for transparency and cooperation to advance the study of UAPs.
Analysis of Specific UAP Cases
As the conversation delves into specific UAP cases, Bostik discusses the analysis of the Gimbal footage, which has sparked significant debate within the UAP community. He clarifies that the initial assessments of the footage were conducted before his arrival at ARROW, but he provides insights into the analysis process. Bostik explains that the Gimbal video may have been misinterpreted as a balloon due to the camera's limitations and the nature of the infrared imaging used. He suggests that the object in the video could have been another aircraft, potentially an F-15, and emphasizes the importance of recreating the conditions under which the footage was captured to validate the findings.
Bostik stresses the need for controlled experiments to replicate the phenomena observed in UAP sightings, reinforcing the scientific method's role in understanding these occurrences. He notes that the ability to recreate specific scenarios can help clarify whether a sighting was indeed anomalous or if it can be attributed to known aircraft or environmental factors.
Public Perception and National Security
The conversation also touches on the public's perception of UAPs and the implications for national security. Bostik acknowledges that the government must prioritize national security concerns while investigating UAPs. He expresses frustration at the recurring reports of unidentified objects that could easily be identified as balloons or drones, questioning why some individuals within the military struggle to make these distinctions. Bostik attributes this confusion to the rapid proliferation of consumer drones and balloons, which can appear anomalous to pilots who may not be accustomed to seeing them in certain airspace.
He explains that the visual interpretation of objects can vary significantly based on the technology used to detect them, such as infrared sensors, which may not provide a clear picture of what is being observed. Bostik emphasizes the importance of training pilots and operators to recognize various objects in the sky, reducing the number of unnecessary reports and allowing for a more accurate assessment of potential threats.
Future Directions for UAP Research
As the discussion concludes, Bostik reflects on the future of UAP research and the role of ARROW. He encourages the organization to continue its efforts to engage with the public and civilian scientists, emphasizing the importance of transparency and collaboration. Bostik believes that the key to advancing UAP research lies in the ability to collect and analyze data effectively, while also addressing the public's curiosity and concerns regarding these phenomena.
He reiterates that while the government plays a crucial role in investigating UAPs, much of the data collection and analysis will ultimately come from civilian efforts. Bostik encourages individuals to take an active role in documenting and sharing their experiences, fostering a collaborative environment that can lead to a better understanding of UAPs.
Conclusion
The conversation with Randy Bostik provides valuable insights into the complexities of UAP investigations, the challenges faced by organizations like ARROW, and the importance of collaboration between government and civilian scientists. As the field of UAP research continues to evolve, the need for rigorous scientific analysis, transparency, and public engagement remains paramount. Bostik's experiences and perspectives highlight the ongoing quest for understanding in a realm that is often shrouded in mystery and speculation.
The interviewee, Randy Bostik, PhD, is described as a physicist and a former science adviser for the U.S. Department of Defense All Domain Resolution Office, commonly known as Arrow. His role at Arrow involved significant contributions to the scientific analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), leveraging his background in data analysis from his previous work in the intelligence community. The interviewer notes that Dr. Bostik was appointed to Arrow by Dr. Kirkpatrick, reflecting his expertise in the field. The transcript indicates that he served in this capacity for approximately two and a half to three years, during which he supported various objectives related to UAP investigations.
Dr. Bostik's responsibilities included assessing incoming reports and videos of UAPs, determining their scientific validity, and aligning such phenomena with current scientific understanding. His professional journey reflects a deep engagement with scientific rigor in the study of UAPs, highlighting the intersection of physics and national security.
- [00:36] "Today I'm joined by Randy Bostik, PhD, a physicist and former science adviser for the US Department of Defense All Domain Resolution Office, also known as Arrow."
- [02:59] "I was there, supported them for about two and a half or three years."
- [03:44] "I ended my time there last year and then retired from the government and now I’m doing independent consulting for the government on my own."
Dr. Bostik's approach to UAP research is grounded in scientific methodology, emphasizing the importance of data analysis and scientific rigor. He describes his role at Arrow as primarily focused on scientific assessments of UAP reports and videos. This involved evaluating the credibility of incoming data, thereby ensuring that the findings align with accepted scientific standards and methods. Dr. Bostik mentions that when reports or videos were received, his task was to determine how they fit into existing scientific understanding: "When we got videos in, when we got reports, you know, does this how does this align with current scientific thinking?".
He highlights the importance of deploying sensors to collect persistent data on areas of interest where UAP activity has been reported. This proactive data collection is critical for establishing a reliable scientific understanding of UAP phenomena. However, he also acknowledges certain limitations in the analysis, particularly due to the challenges of gleaning meaningful results from noisy or ambiguous data. Dr. Bostik notes, "If you have a cell phone image and it’s a blurry video and you can’t really tell what it is, you can either be quick to dismiss it because it’s not useful or quick to say, 'I think that looks like whatever..." This illustrates the interpretative difficulties inherent in UAP analysis, underscoring the need for rigorous and systematic evaluation of all available evidence.
- [03:12] "When we got videos in, when we got reports, you know, does this how does this align with current scientific thinking?"
- [10:01] "What’s important is the time of collection. What time was the imagery taken? Where was the imagery taken?"
- [12:39] "You don’t want the AI to throw out the things that may be interesting just because the AI didn’t know what it was or what to make of it."
Dr. Bostik articulates a strong commitment to the scientific inquiry of UAPs, influenced by both professional and societal motivations. His decision to focus on UAP research stems from his tenure within the intelligence community where he gained extensive experience in data analysis. He acknowledges the significance of UAP investigation within the broader context of national security and the quest for scientific understanding: "It’s very much a national security issue...". This perspective reflects a dual purpose in his work: contributing to scientific knowledge while addressing potential security implications associated with unidentified aerial phenomena.
Dr. Bostik emphasizes the need for transparency and collaboration between government and civilian scientists, suggesting that the complex nature of UAPs requires a collective effort to decode the phenomena. He notes, "A lot of what Arrow did and a lot of Arrow's function was how to make the government better at doing these things...". This indicates his belief in the importance of inter-agency cooperation and public engagement in the pursuit of scientific truth around UAPs. His overarching goal appears to be fostering a deeper understanding of UAPs that transcends mere anecdotal evidence, advocating for rigorous scientific inquiry as a way to address both societal curiosity and government accountability.
- [21:09] "It’s very much a national security issue..."
- [13:49] "A lot of what Arrow did and a lot of Arrow's function was how to make the government better at doing these things..."
- [57:06] "Just because we don’t have the proof... doesn’t mean you can’t still believe that we’re not alone in the universe..."
Throughout the transcript, Dr. Bostik does not indicate that he has personally observed a UAP. Instead, he focuses on his analytical role within Arrow, discussing how reports and claims about UAPs are handled rather than sharing any personal experiences. He emphasizes the importance of evidence and the challenges of interpreting reports from others, stating, "We would ask the people who made the claims, where did you see it? Who was the person who was in charge of the project?". This approach underlines a systematic methodology for evaluating UAP claims rather than relying on personal observation.
Furthermore, he reflects on the need to differentiate between anecdotal evidence and scientifically verifiable data, which is a crucial part of UAP investigations: "There was never that level of information provided... it’s really just the same thing that you’ve heard that people say...". Thus, while Dr. Bostik is deeply engaged in UAP research, he does not share any personal encounter with a UAP in the provided transcript. Instead, he emphasizes the procedures for assessing claims made by others, which reinforces the need for rigorous investigation over personal anecdote.
- [51:27] "We would ask the people who made the claims, where did you see it?"
- [02:27] "There was never that level of information provided... it’s really just the same thing that you’ve heard that people say..."
- [02:07] "It’s really kind of interesting, but unfortunately when you can’t get out, you can’t get data..."
Dr. Bostik discusses several obstacles and challenges faced by UAP research, particularly those encountered while working at Arrow. He acknowledges the scepticism surrounding UAP claims, noting the varying interpretations of ambiguous data: "If you have a cell phone image and it’s a blurry video... you can either be quick to dismiss it because it’s not useful or quick to say, 'I think that looks like whatever...". This highlights the inherent difficulties in establishing the credibility of evidence in UAP investigations.
He also addresses the bureaucratic challenges within government structures that impede thorough investigation and analysis of UAP reports: "It’s a little bit difficult, especially if there has to be money passed or requirements given for the government to really interact with the civilians...". This indicates that institutional complexities can hinder collaboration between government and civilian scientists, thereby limiting the scope and efficacy of UAP research.
Regarding the possibility of UAP being caused by non-human intelligences, Dr. Bostik remains non-committal, stating that while claims have been made, concrete evidence has not been provided to substantiate such assertions: "We never saw anything... it was really just the same thing that you’ve heard that people say...". This cautious approach emphasizes the necessity for verifiable data before concluding the nature of UAPs, reflecting a scientific skepticism that is vital in the field of research.
- [10:40] "If you have a cell phone image and it’s a blurry video... you can either be quick to dismiss it because it’s not useful or quick to say, 'I think that looks like whatever..."
- [13:29] "It’s a little bit difficult, especially if there has to be money passed or requirements given for the government to really interact with the civilians..."
- [01:01:14] "We never saw anything... it was really just the same thing that you’ve heard that people say..."
[00:00] Heat. Heat.[00:02] [music][00:08] [music][00:14] [music][00:32] Today I'm joined by Randy Bostik, PhD, a[00:36] physicist and former science adviser for[00:38] the US Department of Defense All Domain[00:41] Resolution Office, also known as Arrow.[00:45] Today we'll discuss Ry's time at [music][00:48] Arrow, the challenges facing UAP[00:50] investigations within the government,[00:53] and how government and civilian [music][00:55] scientists can work together on the UAP[00:57] Enigma[00:59] and so much more. Join us as we get[01:02] rebelliously curious.[01:05] Randy, thank you so much for joining me[01:07] on Rebelliously Curious. You are the[01:09] former science adviser for the US[01:11] Department of Defense all domain[01:13] resolution office or as we all know AROW[01:16] and you will be presenting at SEU the[01:19] scientific coalition for UAP studies in[01:22] Toronto this July and one of the things[01:24] that you'll be presenting and speaking[01:26] about is a paper that you were right[01:28] that you did write that was talked about[01:30] scientific rigor in the study of UAP but[01:34] first of all I'd like to say thank you[01:35] for joining me on the podcast today.[01:37] Yes, thank you for having me on. Yes, so[01:39] um you know, as you know, Arrow was[01:41] stood up about um probably four or five[01:44] years ago now. It was really the follow[01:47] on to what was the UAP task force. Um[01:50] [clears throat] that was to that point[01:53] run by the US Navy. Um, and so from my[01:58] real job in the intelligence community[02:00] and doing data analysis, I was helping[02:02] them with analyzing the type of data[02:04] that I that I would be doing on a[02:05] regular basis.[02:07] Once Arrow stood up and they were they[02:09] were filling positions. They really[02:11] didn't have positions to hire. So they[02:14] would recruit people who were working[02:16] within the intelligence community to[02:18] come in on what were called joint duty[02:20] assignments, which is basically a[02:22] government way to transfer someone to[02:24] someone else to do a a needed fill a[02:28] needed role in another organization um[02:30] while still working for the government.[02:32] So um I was asked by Dr. Kirkpatrick to[02:35] come in based on my previous work to be[02:38] uh the science adviser, which that was[02:40] my title. there was an um a group there[02:43] that really did the overall scientific[02:46] work, but just from this technical[02:48] standpoint, I was there um supported[02:51] them for about two and a half or three[02:53] years. Um and really just for all of[02:56] aspects and the objectives that Arrow[03:01] was uh attempting to accomplish was[03:03] really kind of the science person to say[03:05] this makes sense, this doesn't make[03:07] sense. when we got videos in, when we[03:08] got reports, you know, does this how[03:12] does this align with current scientific[03:13] thinking? Can it align? How do we align[03:16] our own thinking with, you know, um,[03:20] accepted scientific standards and[03:21] methods from analysis to trying to[03:25] deploy our own sensors,[03:27] um, to go out to places to attempt to[03:30] collect data persistently on areas that[03:34] were either of interest to the[03:36] government or[03:38] had some UAP activity reported in the[03:41] past. And so I ended my time there last[03:44] year um and then retired from the[03:46] government and now I'm doing independent[03:49] consulting for the government on my own.[03:51] >> Historically, Project Blue Book, you[03:53] know, is very popular known in pop[03:55] culture through the UAP community, but I[03:58] believe in this paper you you talk about[04:00] the historical issues with Project Blue[04:02] Book. Can you speak to that? Yeah.[04:05] >> Yeah. Project Blue Book just because of[04:07] the time that it occurred, the reports[04:11] from the 40s and then into the 50s and[04:14] 60s. uh when Blue Book was established[04:16] and established from Project Sign and[04:19] other precursor um official government[04:23] uh groups or projects stood up to[04:26] address the issue of UFOs[04:29] was during a time when we really didn't[04:32] have the technology and certainly not[04:34] the consumer technology to do remote[04:38] sensing and collections of data. you[04:41] know, there weren't cell phones, there[04:43] weren't um[04:45] the cameras on doorbells and all of the[04:49] things around now where you can almost[04:51] get anything any time on video. So[04:54] everything that was reported,[04:57] even when it was from data, was word of[05:00] mouth. So it was a human that had to[05:02] come forward and describe what they saw.[05:04] Um even if that human were looking at a[05:06] sensor,[05:08] there was really no data saving back[05:10] then. So it was basically um going[05:13] around[05:15] um and it was at the time Captain Rupelt[05:19] would would go around and you know[05:20] interview people and so you were they[05:23] were very much reliant on what a person[05:26] said how a person reported it which[05:30] even when they're doing their best you[05:32] you always get the human interpretation[05:35] um what they saw they a person obviously[05:38] probably not prepared to the the thing[05:41] that they saw will try to reconcile that[05:44] with something that they're used to. So,[05:46] you know, fireballs, saucers, all the[05:49] things that they can do to try and in[05:50] their mind understand it and then that[05:52] gets reported. And so, there's just that[05:54] natural[05:56] convolution of maybe what was there[06:00] through the mind of the observer[06:03] talking to someone who was reporting. So[06:06] it was it was very difficult I think at[06:08] the time then to turn it into scientific[06:11] assessment.[06:12] >> Well, how many sensors then did we have[06:14] technically because obviously the[06:16] sensors and the abilities that we have[06:18] now with satellites is so much more[06:20] advanced than it was in Project Blue[06:22] Book. But there must have been some[06:24] other form of data collection outside of[06:26] testimony that was happening within the[06:28] US government that would have been[06:30] connected to Project Blue Book and[06:31] potentially uh capturing UAPs back then.[06:35] It was it was almost exclusively[06:38] exclusively radar. So you had the[06:41] obviously the air airport navigation[06:44] systems radar on board aircraft uh radar[06:47] monitoring the test ranges and looking[06:50] for things that would have been moving[06:52] around. So there was very few optical[06:56] sensors um that would have been[06:58] recording back then because they didn't[06:59] have digital cameras. didn't have a way[07:01] to necessarily record things unless it[07:03] was on a film or just, you know, a usual[07:06] um[07:08] handheld type of a camera. Um so they[07:11] they did have it then,[07:13] but as far as just the proliferation of[07:17] things that were always collecting at[07:19] all times that might detect something[07:21] unexpected, um it was it was exclusively[07:24] radar.[07:25] And you know, you had videos and you had[07:28] some of the uh pictures that were[07:30] captured. A lot of those of course[07:32] turned out to be faked and falsified.[07:34] But I think you know for what you had at[07:36] the time it was very basic, very[07:39] rudimentary compared to today. And[07:42] even with the radar systems really[07:44] focused on just airspace, what's in[07:46] what's moving. You can see something[07:48] moving and that's about all the[07:49] information that you had. So it's while[07:52] there were sensors, it it just wasn't[07:54] anything near to the capabilities that[07:56] we have today.[07:57] >> That's so true. And well, we look at the[07:58] capabilities today, we see challenges[08:00] still, too. You know, cell phone images[08:03] are great because we can connect the[08:05] time, the date, and there's data that we[08:07] can pull from those videos, right? Or[08:10] photos that we might be taking from cell[08:11] phones, but the resolution isn't as[08:14] strong as, you know,[08:16] >> we could possibly get. we're not getting[08:17] maybe we might not be able to get enough[08:19] information from the video that we need[08:20] to really detect what is going on[08:22] outside of maybe you know what the craft[08:25] looks like shape and maybe some five[08:27] observables that we can see within the[08:29] UAP but beyond that it's a little bit[08:31] more challenging so we have companies[08:33] like Enigma Labs that are popping up you[08:35] know how useful are these companies[08:37] really and like and how useful is data[08:41] or outside of for testimony you know a[08:43] video captured with testimony how useful[08:45] a cell phone footage really going to be[08:48] in the future.[08:50] >> It can be very useful because um it[08:53] clearly something's better than nothing.[08:56] >> That's very true, too.[08:58] >> You know what what gets lost sometimes[08:59] is in the interpretation. So, if if you[09:01] have a a cell phone image and it's a[09:03] blurry video and you can't really tell[09:04] what it is,[09:06] >> you can either be quick to dismiss it[09:08] because it's not useful or quick to say,[09:10] "I think that looks like whatever a[09:12] person may want it to be."[09:15] And if it can't be proven that it's not[09:18] that thing, then they they can continue[09:20] to say it is that thing. Um, but what's[09:22] important is not just the imagery or the[09:25] video. Uh, what's important is the time[09:28] of collection.[09:30] What time was the imagery taken? Uh,[09:33] where was the imagery taken? So, point[09:36] on earth obviously, which you can get[09:38] from GPS.[09:40] Uh, which way was the person looking? So[09:43] if you think of yourself standing on the[09:45] ground and if you're pointing looking[09:48] straight north,[09:50] you can always define where you're[09:51] looking by how many degrees off of north[09:54] was I looking, how many degrees above[09:56] the horizon was I looking. So those[09:58] pieces of information[10:01] um and and others have to come with as[10:04] that data package because those are the[10:06] kind of things that can get put together[10:08] so that if you have several observations[10:11] of the same blurry thing, you can start[10:13] to piece together exactly where was it,[10:15] exactly how fast was it going, some of[10:17] the things that you can't get from just[10:20] a single point of view. And so in that[10:24] sense, yeah, one okay sort of collection[10:29] may be as good, but several okay[10:31] collections can add up to something[10:33] that's um more concrete results can be[10:38] um concluded.[10:40] >> That makes sense. Was AI used in arrow[10:44] to any degree when doing analysis?[10:46] >> I I mean[10:48] >> and how was it used? is a science as a[10:50] scientist sometimes I it's a little bit[10:52] of a pet peeve when people say oh you're[10:53] going to use AI well yeah you have to[10:55] say you are because then they won't[10:57] think you're doing something crazy yes[10:59] I'm using AI uh the problem is you know[11:02] AI very often requires truth data for[11:06] training[11:08] and the usual example is you can ask[11:11] ChatG to give you a picture of a cat[11:13] well that's because it's seen a million[11:15] pictures of a cat[11:17] when you're looking for the things that[11:20] don't make sense or the things that you[11:22] haven't seen before or the things that[11:24] are anomalous as it were. It it's sort[11:27] of hard for AI to go off and look[11:30] through tons of data to find that.[11:34] So often we would maybe look at an AI um[11:38] AI enabling approach to the human. So if[11:41] I do put a sensor out and you know this[11:44] is what we did either having our own[11:47] sensor out or collecting data from[11:49] others the AI might be able to just go[11:51] through 90% of the data and say there's[11:54] nothing here or everything in here is[11:56] normal. The human would then go and look[11:59] at the 10% of the data that couldn't[12:01] necessarily be reconciled by the AI and[12:04] say is there something weird here or if[12:05] it is weird. Is it really weird or is it[12:09] just something that the the AI or the[12:12] machine learning model just hadn't seen[12:14] before[12:15] and you can then go back and add that[12:17] into the training. So yeah, in[12:20] some sense AI was going to be great[12:24] because you just can't have a person go[12:26] put eyes on gigabytes and terabytes[12:29] worth of data. But at the same time,[12:32] you don't want the AI to throw out the[12:34] things that may be interesting just[12:35] because the AI didn't didn't really know[12:37] what it was or what to make of it.[12:39] >> That makes sense. And Mike Goul just[12:41] recently said uh to the disclosure forum[12:43] that he'll be looking at NASA archives[12:46] and he'll be pulling a lot of that[12:48] information. And so those are really[12:49] great past training information that you[12:51] can give AI specifically for an arrow AI[12:54] model to be able to look at historical[12:56] information, images that potentially[12:58] might come out of this and just other[13:00] data, anomalous data that they can pull[13:03] from past and present and other just[13:04] civilian scientists that are working as[13:06] well because I believe Arrow is now[13:09] after Sean Kurpatre has been working[13:11] closely with SC with civilian scientists[13:15] >> trying to yeah um you know how familiar[13:18] you are with US government, but very[13:20] often the government can't get out of[13:22] its own way to do things. And so it's[13:26] a [clears throat] little bit difficult,[13:29] especially if there has to be money[13:31] passed or requirements given for the[13:33] government to really interact with the[13:36] civilians in terms of saying go do this[13:39] or please give us all your data or[13:41] something. So, you know, a lot of what[13:43] Arrow did and a lot of Arrow's function[13:45] was how to make the government better at[13:46] doing these things. So, you know,[13:49] hopefully since I've left, we've got[13:50] better at how do we um interact and[13:53] share things with some of those civilian[13:56] agencies like the Galileo project and[13:59] the the SEU and others to if not[14:03] exchange data and methods, at least[14:05] exchange results of analysis of those[14:08] data and methods.[14:09] >> That makes sense. and best practices so[14:11] that you can go forward and capture more[14:13] information and share that together.[14:16] >> When you were at Arrow and the gimbal[14:19] footage was analyzed by uh Kurpatre,[14:24] >> he came forward and said that this was a[14:26] balloon and I believe a light reflection[14:28] reflection on a balloon and there has[14:30] been multiple conversations that this[14:32] couldn't have been possible because this[14:33] was taken at night and there's so many[14:36] things that were pointing to this[14:37] actually not being a balloon. How did[14:39] Sean Kurpatre and were you part of this[14:41] analysis with the gimbal and how did he[14:43] come to that conclusion with the team[14:45] inside Arrow?[14:47] >> Yeah. So the gamble some of those videos[14:50] were assessed and Dr. Kirkpatrick came[14:52] out with you know his results before I[14:56] got there. So I wasn't necessarily um in[14:58] the front on that. I think since then um[15:03] and I'm not[15:05] I would have to go back and look and see[15:06] if he actually said the gimbal was a[15:08] balloon and maybe you know and can[15:10] actually cite when he said that but in[15:13] since that time our assessment I say our[15:17] arrows assessment was[15:19] that it was likely the camera uh the[15:23] targeting pod on that I think it was an[15:26] F f14 F-15[15:29] was likely looking up the back end of[15:31] another F-15[15:33] because it's an infrared camera and it[15:36] was clearly looking at something that[15:37] was extremely hot or had a lot of energy[15:40] because you could tell the the pixels[15:43] were saturating which is why it looked[15:45] more like a flat object instead of just[15:47] like a picture of looking at the back of[15:48] a of a jet plane. um you know the flame[15:51] all the all the heat all the flames[15:53] everything that would you would imagine[15:54] coming out of the back of an F-15 were[15:56] just overwhelming the camera and so you[15:58] basically saw a saturated blob[16:02] as the aircraft rotates[16:05] and as that targeting pod attempts to[16:08] stay focused on that image or whatever[16:12] it's looking at it will also rotate[16:16] and you can see in the video if you go[16:19] back and watch it as the um the gimbal,[16:22] the object in the video[16:25] rotates. There are other places in that[16:29] video where you can see clouds rotate or[16:32] other things in the video rotate. So, it[16:34] it does appear to be a camera. The the[16:38] rotation appears to be a camera[16:40] artifact. The object itself is it could[16:43] be a faroff commercial jet, but it[16:46] seemed like it might have been another[16:48] F-15 in the in the training area. One[16:51] one thing I did try to get um a[16:55] particular squadron to do was actually[16:57] go out and recreate that. So, you know,[16:59] I'm saying all these things these are[17:01] what we think. This is the this is the[17:04] postulation we're putting out there. But[17:06] one way to prove it is see if you can[17:09] recreate it. So, at one point we were[17:11] trying to get um there's an F-15[17:15] training squadron to go out and have the[17:18] trainer fly several kilometers behind[17:21] one of his pilots and see if we could[17:23] actually recreate the situation where[17:25] you're looking up the back end of the[17:26] jet. you start rolling the aircraft to[17:29] see if we can um see that same type of[17:32] phenomena in the video where we[17:35] absolutely know what's going on and see[17:37] if it matches what was seen in the[17:38] gimbal video. Never never actually got[17:41] to do that. That would have been a great[17:42] experiment.[17:43] >> Oh gosh, you had me I was I thought you[17:45] said you did and [laughter] I was[17:47] waiting to hear the results. I was at[17:50] the edge of my seat there.[17:50] >> No results. Um[17:52] >> Oh no, that's a great experiment. Yes.[17:55] >> Yeah. And then then really that's one of[17:56] the things when you go back and even um[17:59] back in the days of Blue Book it was[18:01] well if somebody said they saw this[18:02] thing can we recreate it if we think it[18:04] was a particular[18:06] prosaic or normal type of a phenomenon[18:10] that was occurring that's repeatable.[18:12] Let's go and repeat it. you know, take[18:14] the video of the thing that looked like[18:16] it was an orb rising out of the forest[18:19] or whatever and does it look like it in[18:22] a controlled experiment and match what[18:25] was seen by the observer in the first[18:27] place.[18:28] >> Exactly. It's so important that we point[18:30] to what we do know and what we can say[18:33] is not a UAP. I think people forget[18:36] that,[18:37] >> you know, lots of things aren't. It's a[18:40] very small percent, you know, probably[18:41] less than 1% that is anomalous. But it's[18:45] so important that we understand what[18:46] isn't because it then we can ask better[18:48] questions to things that aren't and what[18:50] that might be and potentially point to[18:52] finding solutions in that.[18:55] >> Yeah, that's right. And I always I[18:56] always said kind of the the inverse of[18:59] what you just said that everything's a[19:00] UAP until it isn't.[19:03] So, anybody can look at something and[19:05] depending on their experience or this is[19:07] the thing they've they've observed or[19:09] not, they can say, "I don't know what[19:11] that is."[19:13] >> So, at that point, it's a UAP. But the[19:15] experienced observer or someone who's[19:17] got a telescope or some better way to[19:19] measure and observe the object can come[19:22] in and say, "Oh, that's clearly a jet[19:24] plane. It's just too far away for you to[19:26] understand or with your eyes to resolve[19:28] the fact that it's a a jet airplane or[19:31] something." So, and I I also think[19:33] there's a misconception about the term[19:36] UAP that[19:38] there are these things out in nature[19:41] flying around that are UAP or that[19:43] there's some common characteristic or[19:46] common origin or common thread to these[19:49] things that exist out there and their[19:52] job is more of a detective like function[19:55] to go out and find them. And I I think[19:58] that's where some of the science gets[20:00] lost because,[20:02] you know, we don't necessarily know that[20:04] they're out there. We know there are[20:06] things out there that may be[20:08] unidentified at first, but it the UAP is[20:11] really the end of the process where you[20:13] see something. You can explain it.[20:16] You've got data that gives you concrete[20:20] results that say this thing was[20:22] accelerating faster than things that are[20:25] human possible possible or exhibiting[20:27] other anomalous phenomena where then you[20:29] can conclude at that point that we don't[20:33] really know what this is and at that[20:34] point that particular thing becomes a[20:36] UAP. I I think assuming they're just out[20:40] there and we're trying to find them is[20:41] is a bit of a putting the conclusion out[20:44] there before the before the research.[20:47] >> That's true. And it's also important[20:48] that we're putting people are putting in[20:50] submissions for things that they're[20:52] seeing if they're working they're[20:53] serving working in military if they're[20:55] civilians because national security is[20:58] obviously a major priority outside of[21:01] finding what is anomalous and and what[21:03] are these things too. It should be that[21:05] should be a priority at one point, but[21:07] first and foremost, national security is[21:09] that's what the Department of Defense[21:10] does. And so that's why Arrow would be[21:13] there. The only challenge that I really[21:16] have though when I when I see these[21:18] things and I hear people talking about[21:21] not being able to identify[21:23] when they're working in government and[21:25] they're not able to identify, you know,[21:27] a balloon from a UAP. Like I just I[21:31] still can't wrap my head around this and[21:32] you please have to help me with this[21:34] because I know the government knows that[21:37] they're looking at a balloon. I just[21:40] don't want to believe that the[21:41] government is or people working within[21:43] government can't identify that and[21:46] people that are just serving and you[21:49] know working in the air force are not[21:51] able to identify a balloon from[21:53] something else. How is that not in the[21:56] classification guides and why do we keep[21:58] seeing this come up consistently? You[22:00] think we'd be past this by now?[22:03] Yeah, I I agree that at at some point[22:06] and we're I maybe we're still early in[22:10] the[22:11] technology where drones and quadcopters[22:14] and balloons and all of these things you[22:16] can you can go to Walmart any person buy[22:19] one and launch one and you know there[22:20] just thousands of these things in the[22:22] air. So it it could be that we're just[22:26] still early in that phase and[22:29] certainly pilots and people who maybe[22:32] aren't used to seeing them where they[22:33] shouldn't be. Uh could be one[22:36] explanation. The other is there are and[22:39] I'm not sure if you've seen some of the[22:41] high altitude balloons, the ones that[22:42] will actually go up um hundreds of[22:45] thousand well 800,000 100,000 feet.[22:50] They can look really weird. um you know,[22:52] they don't they don't fully inflate till[22:54] they get up to their um highest[22:57] altitude. So, it's not like it's just[23:00] this party city balloon that you might[23:02] go out and buy flying around. Um some of[23:04] these balloons until they fully inflate[23:07] can they can look like the jellyfish or[23:09] or some of these other odd descriptions[23:12] that you get. So I think there's also[23:15] some of that and a lot of times with the[23:20] pilots um what we find is they aren't[23:24] necessarily visually looking at the[23:26] balloon. It's not necessarily their[23:28] eyes. They're looking at it on their[23:31] instrument panels and those generally[23:34] will collect in the infrared.[23:37] and[23:39] balloons and other things can look very[23:41] different in infrared than they might[23:43] look in the visual visible spectrum[23:46] where our our eyes see. Plus, it's not[23:48] in color. Um, you know, you don't really[23:51] get that context from these instruments[23:54] that are not necessarily made to make[23:57] the best picture, but just to try[23:58] acquire targets um for defense and[24:01] offense.[24:03] And so sometimes there's just that[24:05] interpretation of what they're seeing on[24:06] their screen. Um, and and people do that[24:09] too because all these videos that come[24:10] out, the the black and white videos, 90%[24:14] of them are from an infrared camera.[24:17] And the other misleading thing is that[24:18] when you look at if you actually look at[24:20] the screen, but you'll see it says white[24:22] is hot or black is hot.[24:25] And immediately they think if something[24:26] is white, it's hot. Or if it's black,[24:30] it's hot. And the whiter it is, the[24:32] hotter it is.[24:34] That's almost never the case unless[24:37] again you're looking at the targets that[24:39] that instrument is used to looking at,[24:41] which are missiles or other aircraft,[24:43] things that a a fighter pilot might[24:45] encounter[24:46] um in the doing battle or in some some[24:51] sort of an engagement. So you they'll[24:54] see something, it'll look really really[24:56] white, bright, they'll assume it's hot.[24:58] You know, balloons aren't hot. what is[25:00] this thing or it's dark or some of the[25:02] image processing changes[25:04] uh the coloring. So a lot of that is[25:07] sometimes misinterpretation of what[25:08] what's seen on the screen but we did and[25:11] that and that's one thing I think Arrow[25:13] is still doing is trying to do that[25:16] training.[25:18] So, taking videos back to those pilots,[25:20] even the um the people who fly the[25:22] drones, which are remotely piloted, to[25:25] say these are what these things look[25:27] like to your cameras,[25:29] you know, if they're white, if they're[25:31] black, if they're saturating, if you get[25:32] all these kind of weird effects because[25:34] it's way too bright and the camera[25:36] doesn't know how to deal with it. So[25:37] there is a training going on[25:40] um to try and not just reduce the number[25:43] of reports but hopefully if the pilots[25:47] see something they can better identify[25:49] it they can better understand their[25:51] environment.[25:52] >> That makes sense. I would think that[25:54] there would be a form of technology that[25:56] you would be able to then lock onto this[25:59] object and figure out you know[26:01] technically like what it potentially[26:03] could be made of. you know, a balloon[26:05] would be very thin and and then you[26:07] would have a craft that would be more[26:09] dense. Like it it just, you know, or[26:11] more nuts and bolts craft. And so there[26:13] has to be that type of technology that[26:15] instantly you'd be able to say, "Okay,[26:16] well, here's this classification of what[26:18] this material potentially could be." And[26:20] this is what more likely is a balloon,[26:23] >> right? because that that to me would[26:25] make more sense to be know obviously[26:29] other sensor data is so important to go[26:31] with it. But why isn't that the case[26:33] then that they're able to look at the[26:34] makeup of this object.[26:37] >> Um but well mostly because you know[26:40] whether it's a fighter aircraft or[26:43] reconnaissance aircraft that's not their[26:45] job.[26:46] >> Fair enough.[26:46] >> We don't build we don't build those[26:48] things to go out and find balloons. we[26:50] build them for specific missions[26:52] um and to be able to detect and reliably[26:55] recognize targets that would be a threat[26:57] or another target or something. So[27:01] yeah, obviously we we could put sensors[27:03] on these aircraft. We could put things[27:05] on there that could readily identify and[27:08] probably even get a much better image[27:10] and picture of a balloon, but[27:13] these are already $1 billion a shot um[27:17] um aircraft and and other things we're[27:20] putting out there to try and put more on[27:21] that just to look at balloons. Really,[27:23] it just doesn't make sense from a[27:24] military standpoint to do that.[27:26] >> Yeah, I can see that. But also then[27:27] you're spending so much money doing[27:29] analysis in other ways, right? in time[27:31] and public and and then disinformation[27:33] that goes in. So I feel that it's like[27:35] equip equip your team or crafts uh with[27:40] sensors that are able to read from all[27:42] different degrees because then it's[27:43] going to stop that other backlog that's[27:45] going to happen in bureaucracy and and[27:47] everything else that we're getting. And[27:48] then the information that's going to[27:50] come forward, you're going to get less[27:51] leaks of something that's a balloon when[27:53] everybody starts screaming it's a UFO,[27:57] >> right? And again, that's what we're[27:58] doing with the training is just the[28:00] pilots themselves. So, um, because if[28:04] the sensor isn't going to log something[28:06] and say, "I don't know what this is."[28:07] And you file a report from that, it's[28:09] the person in the aircraft who has to go[28:10] back and,[28:12] um, explain what they saw. So, that's[28:16] where I say we're trying to train the[28:17] pilots. So if they see something, they[28:19] can immediately interpret it[28:21] um and hopefully at least reduce the[28:23] number of things that they might report[28:25] as unidentified or anomalous.[28:28] Um and and there are ways to tune the[28:31] sensors or understand better how to[28:34] excuse me look at the data[28:37] um which could be done but even that[28:41] before UAP was not routinely done. uh[28:44] the data on the aircraft would have just[28:45] been dumped.[28:48] So that's really a new thing that's been[28:50] introduced by UAP analysis is can we get[28:53] that video data back so people can look[28:55] at it.[28:57] Obviously it can be a waste of time if[28:59] if we're just sitting there waiting[29:00] through balloons and birds and and[29:03] airplanes and things. But the other[29:05] thing to remember is that these aircraft[29:07] do operate in other parts of the world[29:10] and they do have incredibly good sensors[29:12] on them. So that tradecraft we're[29:15] developing with the birds and the[29:18] balloons um[29:20] is going to apply to doing real intel[29:22] analysis when we're flying around Japan[29:25] and the Chinese come in with some things[29:27] or we see things that are of much much[29:30] more interest to the intelligence[29:31] community. So[29:33] it's it's an opportunity to develop[29:36] capabilities that will hopefully apply[29:38] to real world situations.[29:40] >> Yeah. Because I would think that, you[29:42] know, training a pilot is really[29:44] important, right, visually so that they[29:46] know what they're seeing. So[29:47] [clears throat] then you kind of had[29:48] that older, we talked about project blue[29:50] book, uh that older human sensor data,[29:52] right, that's coming forward, but then[29:54] you would have the actual technology[29:57] centers that sensors that would be on[29:58] the plane and you could take those and[30:00] do a data dump every day and then throw[30:03] it through AI and then it would pull[30:04] out, you know, the the correlations or[30:07] the anomalies that they're finding[30:09] consistently or even just the warnings[30:11] that we're seeing maybe potentially for[30:12] national security as well. you know,[30:14] bureaucracy takes so long to implement[30:17] things over time. So, we're going to get[30:20] stuck with, you know, consistent[30:22] complaints and people saying and and all[30:25] these files dumps that we're seeing now[30:27] where people are going, "Well, I'm[30:29] getting all these files and I'm, you[30:31] know, seeing that this is a UFO. This is[30:33] not a UFO. You know, I I don't know what[30:35] I'm looking at." And there's a real[30:38] challenge with that. The Trump[30:40] administration recently just did this[30:42] massive file dump. I believe it was[30:44] about 200 files uh of UA alleged UAP.[30:48] And when I reached out to Susan Goff at[30:50] the Department of War, you know, I was[30:52] told on background that they were not[30:55] Arrow would not be doing any analysis[30:57] whatsoever. And I was so shocked by[31:00] that. You know, Americans pay tax dollar[31:03] money for Arrow and people are employed[31:06] to do this. This is their job. And so[31:09] with this file dump, you know, why do[31:13] you think that Arrow has been pushed[31:15] aside and cast cast aside so that it[31:17] won't be doing the analysis on any of[31:19] these? Well, as of now, won't be doing[31:21] any analysis on these videos. And that's[31:23] a real problem, I would think.[31:25] >> Obviously, I can't speak for Susan or[31:27] Arrow at this point because I have[31:29] >> for sure[31:29] >> been there obviously since that file[31:31] dump. But[31:33] there are[31:35] I not to put words into her mouth or why[31:39] she said that, but there there was[31:41] probably something after Arrow won't be[31:44] doing the analysis, a a because[31:47] or reason that maybe she didn't give.[31:49] Sometimes that reason is[31:52] the video is just it's just a fuzzy[31:54] video. and an analyst, you know, when[31:57] when you say analysis, somebody maybe[31:59] looked at it at arrow and said that's[32:01] there's just nothing there we can do[32:02] with it. Um, you know, it's it's it's[32:05] too blurry. There's not enough[32:06] information. Um, like I said before, the[32:10] analysis entails not just looking at[32:12] that that video, that imagery, that[32:14] picture,[32:16] but do we have where was the aircraft,[32:18] how fast was the aircraft flying, how[32:20] far away from the aircraft was the was[32:22] the object that was that was being[32:24] filmed, and all those things that if[32:26] none of that data is there and it's[32:28] really just the video and it's really[32:29] just a blurry video, those those things[32:32] will get put into an archive.[32:36] So, you know, you talked about before[32:40] um spending a lot of time on things that[32:43] might be nothing. Those those are things[32:44] where[32:46] we got a 100 videos, we got 50 that are[32:48] blurry and have no metadata. We're just[32:51] not going to look at the 50 that are[32:52] blurry and have no metadata. They will[32:54] archive them. So they will be put[32:58] somewhere and the information extracted[33:00] in there in a database so that if you[33:03] know maybe next year information shows[33:06] up that correlates to the time and place[33:10] if the time and place was given of some[33:12] of those videos they could go back and[33:14] look at them then in in conjunction and[33:16] say does this tell me something more[33:18] about it but again I'm going to guess[33:21] that they were video and I and I looked[33:23] at some of them and I kind of saw that[33:24] that you know would What are you gonna[33:26] what are you really going to make out of[33:27] this? Um for the analyst to do anything[33:31] with it.[33:32] >> Yeah, some of them though were[33:34] wonderful. You know, you saw this, I[33:37] believe, a Syrian UAP that was, you[33:40] know, with massive instant acceleration.[33:43] You're seeing this star like UAP. We've[33:46] never really seen that uh craft uh type[33:49] before. So, you know, right there we[33:52] look at two files that are pretty[33:54] significant, right? Especially the in[33:57] instant acceleration one and there was[33:59] no analysis to go with that. You know,[34:01] it causes this information overload for[34:04] people that they're not able to sort[34:06] through what they're actually looking[34:07] at. And I would think that that would be[34:09] as a scientist, you know, I think that[34:11] would be frustrating, wouldn't it be?[34:14] >> It it would be. And again, I I'm not[34:16] sure[34:18] why or the reasoning for Arrow not[34:21] looking at it. It in and I haven't[34:23] looked at all these videos myself, but[34:25] just speaking for myself, like the star[34:27] video, um there are sensor artifacts.[34:30] And again, if something is very bright,[34:32] you'll get the Christmas tree ornament[34:34] or some of these other crazy looking[34:36] shapes that they're just the result of[34:38] too much energy coming into the camera.[34:40] So, it could be they were looked at and[34:45] We've seen that before. That's[34:46] instrument artifact or that has a very[34:48] easy explanation. But I agree with you[34:50] that should have come with the video[34:52] then.[34:54] Arrow's not going to look at it because[34:57] blank. What What is that reason?[34:59] >> Exactly. And that's what I think we're[35:01] all deserve [clears throat] to know is[35:03] >> Yeah. My my opinion from being there I'm[35:05] sorry. My my opinion from being there is[35:08] Arrow probably did look at it and came[35:11] to a conclusion. When they when she says[35:14] they're not going to do an analysis,[35:15] that would mean more of a long-term[35:18] study.[35:19] Um there may have just been some[35:22] conclusion as to why Arrow wasn't going[35:24] to do that long-term analysis.[35:27] It wasn't provided. It probably should[35:28] be provided so that you don't ask[35:31] questions like, you know, why why you[35:33] just throwing us out here and saying[35:34] Arrow's not going to look at it? Isn't[35:36] that Arrow's job?[35:37] >> That's true. That's fair. David Gush[35:40] makes these claims in most recent weeks[35:43] about sentient orbs. When you were[35:46] looking through files at Arrow and[35:49] looking at all different types of UAP[35:51] cases, was the conversation of sentient[35:53] orbs ever ever come up? And and would[35:55] they be classified as sentient uh arrow?[36:00] >> Yeah, because from you know any person[36:03] who reported anything, no matter how odd[36:06] or anomalous or I hate to say made up,[36:10] but made up it would sound. Yeah, we[36:12] wanted to take them seriously. We wanted[36:14] to hear what they have had to say. Um[36:16] what the descriptions were and things[36:18] like that. And we we heard sentient[36:20] quite a bit. um orbs, black triangles,[36:25] people having I guess feelings[36:28] um of communication when they when they[36:30] saw some things. So pretty much all all[36:32] the stories that you might be familiar[36:34] with. Um[36:37] we listen, we we understand, we take[36:39] that. Um you know, the problem is[36:42] it's hard to define sentient and what is[36:45] meant. Is it is it controlled? Is it the[36:48] orb itself somehow is just reacting to[36:53] the actions of the person?[36:56] So trying to understand what exactly[36:58] sentient means and[37:01] can it be remotely controlled? Does it[37:03] actually have to be the sentient[37:06] um knowledge within the orb to know how[37:09] to react? How to know how to um[37:12] understand its environment. So yeah, we[37:14] we we heard those situations. Um[37:19] it it's interesting, but unfortunately[37:23] when you can't get out, you can't get[37:24] data, you can't, you know, collect on[37:26] the camera, you can't really do the[37:27] experiment to do things and see are[37:30] these orbs doing something, some sort of[37:32] a test you would, I guess, go through to[37:34] determine is it is it sentient. It's[37:38] you take the report, you understand the[37:40] story. Um,[37:43] but there there's not really too much[37:45] more you can you can do from the[37:48] scientific sides to try and explain it.[37:52] >> Was there any video footage that was[37:54] really captivating of these, you know,[37:56] what would they consider a sentient orb[37:59] that you were looking at that maybe[38:00] wasn't really released?[38:02] >> There's there's very little video. Um,[38:04] and some of it we would get and[38:08] again you couldn't tell how far away the[38:10] orb is. Um, it's not clear that the orb[38:14] is moving or moving in reaction. So, you[38:18] know, again, it comes down to the[38:20] definition of what is the person telling[38:22] me versus what I'm seeing on the video.[38:24] And then, of course, you go into trying[38:26] to understand what might be in the[38:29] video. U, many times there were[38:31] explanations. Starlink flaring was one[38:34] of the big ones. And I'm not sure if[38:37] you've actually seen Starlink flaring,[38:39] but it's it's pretty impressive. If you[38:41] were just out somewhere and and you saw[38:43] that on the horizon, it would be[38:47] you would you would be probably[38:50] wondering what's what's going on. It's[38:52] not immediately obvious what that is.[38:55] Um, so some of them would have[38:57] explanations, but again, when you when[38:59] you have just an explanation or one[39:01] video,[39:03] >> it's hard to do a lot of science on[39:04] that.[39:05] >> You just kind of leave it as[39:06] unexplained. And you know, this this[39:08] could be exactly what this person is[39:10] saying. It couldn't be, but just with[39:12] one data point, it's hard to make any[39:14] hard conclusions[39:16] one way or the other. And that and the[39:18] other thing we tried to do was not just[39:20] great, this is a weird video, we don't[39:22] know what it is, throw it away. It's[39:23] it's catalog these things and understand[39:26] the characteristics of what we're[39:28] getting so that as we get more and more[39:30] do they start to add up? Do we start to[39:31] see the same repeatable[39:35] visible characteristics over and over[39:37] again or the same behaviors over and[39:38] over again? So the hope was always that[39:41] the one-offs you know cool cool story[39:45] and this is really neat. We don't know[39:46] what it is but you know as as over time[39:49] and again I think the role of arrow is[39:51] to collect all these things and[39:53] understand as a whole what is going on[39:55] so that maybe at some point a story[39:56] evolves from a year's worth of[39:59] collections where things start to[40:00] correlate.[40:02] >> That makes sense. There is so much data[40:04] that you've probably looked through and[40:06] seeing types of craft is generally[40:09] classification guidelines of what craft[40:12] would would be and and how they've[40:14] evolved over the years.[40:16] >> What is the most frequent that you've[40:18] seen that you would feel is anomalous?[40:21] You know, this in this 1% let's say that[40:24] is the most frequent type of craft that[40:26] you're seeing in design of craft.[40:30] >> Is it from plasma? Is it from triangles[40:32] to uh you know to jellyfish now which I[40:35] think the Pac-Man's the new one like I[40:37] you know they always make me laugh the[40:39] shapes. [laughter][40:40] >> Yeah people people are pretty cre and[40:42] again when they see these things they[40:44] try to[40:45] >> you know[40:46] >> put it in terms of something they can[40:48] describe um and they come up with all[40:51] the explanations but I think it's it's[40:53] really what Dr. Kazowski briefed I think[40:55] in[40:57] 2024 um in his briefing the Congress[41:02] almost the most consistent reports we[41:05] get on common types of craft are are[41:08] black triangles sometimes translucent[41:11] but but that triangular shape and[41:15] glowing orbs. Um, most usually they're[41:18] orange, sometimes red, sometimes[41:20] changing colors, but those orangish[41:23] reddish orbs that seem to appear and[41:26] disappear or move around or as you said,[41:28] be sentient in that they may seem to be[41:31] reacting and engaging with the[41:33] environment.[41:34] Um, which again, some of those do have[41:37] explanations, but I think the ones that[41:39] were just most perplexing were um the[41:42] black triangle descriptions. I've heard[41:44] that internally too from somebody who[41:46] was working directly with Arrow. I I[41:49] obviously unfortunately can't say who[41:51] that person was, but when they were[41:52] talking to them on the ground floor[41:54] related to a project, they said that,[41:56] you know, the black triangles for sure[41:58] is something that they've been perplexed[42:01] by. But we hear this consistent[42:03] narrative that they feel, people feel,[42:05] and we've heard this from scientists,[42:06] we've heard this from civilian[42:08] scientists, I should say. We hear this[42:10] from other intelligence officials that[42:12] these black triangles potentially they[42:15] think are American tech.[42:18] >> It could be. Yeah. And that again one of[42:21] the rules of Arrow was how do we like I[42:25] said before, how does the government get[42:26] out of its own way? So on the same base,[42:28] you have somebody experimenting with[42:30] some kind of a project that's classified[42:32] in some program that no one knows about,[42:36] including people on the other side of[42:37] the base who are doing something and[42:39] when they interact,[42:41] um, the left hand doesn't know what the[42:43] right hand's doing. So, one of the[42:45] things Arrow really tried to do was go[42:46] in[42:48] and for the reports that what happened[42:51] at at test ranges or government[42:53] facilities[42:55] go in there and say really was somebody[42:58] was there some experiment going on? Is[43:00] there some program? And Arrow, not[43:04] myself, but some of the people at Arrow[43:07] were essentially blanket read into every[43:10] top secret program you can think of. so[43:12] that when they went and did these[43:14] investigations, they couldn't just be[43:15] told, well, yeah, we you're not read[43:17] into that. We can't talk to you. So,[43:19] there was really a lot of effort to go[43:20] in and see,[43:22] can we um discriminate[43:27] experiments that we're doing and see if[43:30] those really were related to some of the[43:32] sightings.[43:34] >> Well, also, this technology for black[43:36] triangles has been around[43:38] >> for a long time. It's one of the most[43:40] notable shapes that we have[43:42] historically.[43:44] >> Yeah, it's taken over the saucer. Um,[43:47] [laughter] this shape, that's for sure.[43:50] >> Poor Kenneth Arnold.[43:50] >> One of the, you know, as a science as a[43:52] science adviser or a scientist there,[43:54] one of my one of the things that really[43:56] bewildered me was what what is the[43:58] purpose? Why why a black triangle? What[44:02] is the point of this shape? um[44:05] they're not in many cases they're not[44:08] doing anything that's terribly[44:11] um phenomenal. You know, they're not[44:14] moving extremely fast. They're not uh[44:17] shooting out laser beams or, you know,[44:19] nothing just so odd you think that this[44:21] cannot be from this planet. You know,[44:24] they're floating around, they're moving,[44:25] they're doing stuff. It's I could[44:27] probably make a black triangle that does[44:29] some of the things that we've we've[44:30] seen.[44:32] So you know on one end when you ask what[44:34] is this thing you also ask what is the[44:37] purpose why you know why why this why[44:41] what's so special about this why does it[44:43] keep appearing what's the purpose[44:46] kind of when you you watch close[44:48] encounters and you see this big giant[44:50] ship show up and it's got 8 billion[44:52] watts of lights[44:55] why would an alien spaceship that's has[44:57] to have all this energy to cross the[44:58] universe be wasting energy on 8 billion[45:01] lights to light itself up and look[45:03] pretty. So, it's why why a black[45:05] triangle? What's what's the purpose of[45:06] that shape or that configuration?[45:10] >> That makes Yeah. And and hopefully we'll[45:12] find out at some point in time.[45:14] [laughter][45:15] >> Yeah. Well, again, it's it's how can we[45:18] collect data? How can we actually get[45:19] out and set up cameras, set up radar,[45:22] set up whatever it is to to collect the[45:24] information to really get that data on a[45:28] on a black triangle to understand is it[45:31] emitting an electric field? Is there you[45:33] know, usually they're silent. So, how[45:36] are they[45:37] what what's what's the motor, what's the[45:40] propulsion, what's the lift, how is it[45:41] doing that, is it electromagnetic,[45:44] just all the things we'd like to measure[45:46] should we encounter one.[45:48] Is there any files that arrow that you[45:52] saw that haven't come out in most recent[45:55] months or weeks that you thought like[45:57] this is some of the most unbelievable[45:59] UAP data I've ever seen and that should[46:03] hopefully become public one day or even[46:06] maybe potentially has been public.[46:10] >> Um,[46:12] if that's a way of asking, is there the[46:14] video of the the spacecraft somewhere or[46:17] something like that? No.[46:18] >> Well, I don't know if Arrow would have[46:20] that. [clears throat] And to be honest,[46:21] I say this, I don't know if[46:24] >> I never saw it. Yeah. Um, no. I I mean,[46:27] I I haven't seen anything so exciting[46:29] that I really wish they would[46:32] >> release it. Um, I mean, most of the[46:34] really exciting stuff is classified, and[46:36] it's it's classified for a reason, and[46:38] it's not because we're trying to cover[46:40] something up other than national[46:41] security.[46:43] Um, so there is some of that that's[46:45] that's[46:46] really kind of fantastic, but not not[46:49] for the extraterrestrial reasons. Um,[46:53] and and that'll never that won't come[46:54] out because, you know, on on the side of[46:57] the government, they have to protect[46:59] what our capabilities and what our[47:00] weaknesses are, which is why it's so[47:03] hard to release F-35 video. Um,[47:07] especially if we think it might be[47:09] foreign actors putting these things into[47:11] our space. Um, we don't want to release[47:14] a video and say, "Hey, we have no idea[47:16] what this is." And the Chinese are like,[47:18] "Oh, great. We put that thing in there."[47:19] And they they don't know what it is. So,[47:22] success. Um, but not really. Um, I I[47:25] will say some of the video we did take[47:27] that was pretty fantastic was we went[47:29] out and flew MQ9 Reapers.[47:33] We didn't fly them. We had the people[47:35] that fly them fly them, but we would[47:36] launch balloons and we would launch all[47:38] these things and have them collect on[47:39] them on these known targets that we we[47:41] went out and bought. And you can see how[47:45] weird they look. To go back to your[47:46] previous question, um, if the sun hits[47:49] in the right and a glint, you see that[47:50] star shape or you see that Christmas[47:52] tree or you see all the things that look[47:55] weird and people can't necessarily[47:58] believe it's a balloon. But some of that[48:00] some of that I wish um Arrow would[48:03] release just to show that yes, we have[48:04] controlled experiments where we see some[48:07] of the same odd things that have been[48:09] reported and they really are just plain[48:13] normal everyday objects.[48:15] >> I think you're probably familiar with[48:17] Skyatcher,[48:18] >> the organization.[48:20] I was told by someone who works at[48:23] Skyatcher that when they were collecting[48:26] information on alleged UAPs that they[48:28] were following,[48:30] there obviously is a national security[48:32] concern because some of these UAPs or[48:36] things that they were seeing potentially[48:37] were foreign adversaries,[48:40] but let's just say a UAP unidentified at[48:42] this point was armed.[48:45] >> Were you finding Right. And that's[48:48] scary,[48:48] >> right? That that's really scary. When I[48:50] heard that, I stepped back and I was[48:52] like,[48:53] that's not talked about a lot. That if[48:55] it is a foreign adversary or if it's a[48:58] UAP that's anomalous, some of these[49:00] things are armed. And that is a worry[49:05] for all of us. You would think that more[49:08] than likely this is something that is a[49:10] foreign adversary that they're[49:11] collecting and that is armed. But that[49:14] means that our foreign adversaries have[49:17] so much more advanced technology that we[49:19] do and they're potent. They're in our[49:21] airspace and they are armed and they're[49:24] not being properly detected. Did you see[49:27] anything in your records in Arrow that[49:30] showed that these UAPs would be[49:31] potentially armed if it's for an[49:33] adversary or not?[49:35] >> No, I we we didn't have any solid proof[49:38] that there was anything operating in our[49:40] airspace that was[49:42] armed. Now again, definition of armed is[49:46] it is it missiles could actually do[49:48] damage? I mean the UAP itself could[49:51] crash into something and you you could[49:52] consider that a sort of an armed threat.[49:55] I I guess I would I would go back to[49:57] Skywalker and ask what what did they see[50:00] that made them think it was armed?[50:02] >> I believe it's their technology. I'm not[50:05] 100%. I'd have to ask again what the[50:07] tech they were using. I forget. I was[50:08] told this a couple years ago, but the[50:11] technology that they were using um was[50:14] militaryra technology to be able to[50:16] track these UAPs. So, they were able to[50:19] identify that the adversary or whoever[50:22] it may be was actually armed.[50:25] >> Yeah. And again, the question is, how do[50:27] you know that? What what did they see[50:29] that made them conclude that? because we[50:31] we would get a lot of reports like that[50:34] which were not reports of what someone[50:37] saw but they were the conclusions. So I[50:40] saw this thing, it was armed. I saw this[50:41] thing and it was emitting a plasma field[50:44] or things that I I would consider a[50:47] conclusion[50:50] about what they saw. But we always try[50:52] to dig back to what what did you[50:53] actually see? What visually did you see[50:56] that made you think this was a plasma[50:58] field? What did you see? What did you[51:00] collect that made you think this was[51:02] armed? You know, did you get a picture[51:04] of a missiles hanging down from a from a[51:08] drone or a bomb or whatever it may have[51:10] been? So, I guess I guess before I would[51:13] give credence to that particular story,[51:15] I would want to know why they came to[51:16] that conclusion and share the data with[51:19] other people who can do their analysis[51:21] and maybe come to the same conclusion.[51:25] But to your question, when I was at[51:27] Arrow,[51:29] there are always things coming across[51:31] the southern border. Um, you know, UAP[51:34] or not UAP, and[51:37] usually not terribly advanced[51:38] technologies, but you know, you can[51:40] imagine some of the things[51:43] may or may not be nefarious coming[51:45] coming from um and across the southern[51:48] border. But as far as, you know, a real[51:50] foreign military threat, no, I I don't[51:53] think we're aware or have any solid[51:55] proof of that.[51:56] >> Well, that's good. That's nice to hear[51:58] from somebody who's analyzing UAP[52:01] footage specifically because, you know,[52:04] I rather sounds so random to say, but[52:06] you would rather it be a UAP than a[52:08] foreign adversary, right? Um because[52:11] anything that's flying in impunity in an[52:13] airspace that's armed not or just taking[52:16] information and collecting information[52:18] that we see happen, you know, look at[52:20] Balloon Gate. We saw China doing it[52:22] consistently over so many countries. Um[52:25] it's still scary because you wonder what[52:26] they're collecting and what they're, you[52:28] know, what they're looking to do with[52:29] that data,[52:31] >> right? and a and a foreign adversary.[52:33] There there's really a huge difference[52:36] between trying to spy on us with their[52:38] balloons or their satellites and flying[52:40] into our airspace armed.[52:42] >> Exactly.[52:43] >> I mean, clearly if you fly into if we[52:46] flew into anyone else's airspace space,[52:48] somebody flew into our space with an[52:51] armed craft, that would almost be a[52:53] declaration of war. There would be huge[52:55] consequences for that. So again, when[52:58] you ask the question, why are they doing[53:00] this? I can't think of any reason,[53:03] unless it was a completely rogue nation[53:05] who just didn't really care, would take[53:08] that type of a chance to be caught[53:10] operating in our airspace with an armed[53:12] aircraft.[53:14] >> It's very true. And it is a declaration[53:16] of war. That's Yeah,[53:18] >> for sure it is. You're you're asking to[53:20] fight,[53:21] >> right? Yeah. You [clears throat][53:23] show up with you show up with a knife,[53:26] you're looking to fight somebody.[53:28] >> Exa [laughter] Exactly. [gasps][53:30] the fabric of how Americans view their[53:34] reality is really complicated right now.[53:38] And I'm a Canadian, right? I'm both in[53:40] the States and in Canada and I'm back[53:43] and forth all the time. And I will say[53:44] this for Canadians as well, too, because[53:47] we're living in a time right now where[53:49] people are asking so many questions and[53:51] asking, you know, how do I decipher what[53:53] is real and what is my reality? When we[53:57] look at this type of classification[54:00] information that is connected to UAP,[54:02] it's so deeply connected to other[54:04] national security secrets that are[54:06] connected to the [clears throat] fabric[54:08] of what Americans believe as being part[54:11] of their reality. You know, how do you[54:14] see that then as we move forward through[54:16] this type of movement of disclosure that[54:18] we're living in? you know, how do we[54:21] release this information so people feel[54:24] that it's transparent, but also then how[54:26] do we protect ourselves from not being[54:29] open to risk from foreign adversaries?[54:31] And then how do we protect ourselves[54:33] from a society just crumbling and then[54:37] not believing in government or not[54:39] believing in any type of institution[54:41] because they realize that what they[54:44] really thought was maybe constructed?[54:48] That's that's a big question.[54:50] >> It is. I'm sorry.[54:52] >> Um,[54:53] you know, I I the way I look at it is I[54:57] mean, if you want to look at it as[54:58] disclosure and are we being visited and[55:00] all sorts of things, I I always tell my[55:03] because I have friends who who want to[55:05] believe that and they they always ask[55:06] me, you you got to tell me it's real or[55:08] whatever. You know, what what do we[55:10] really know? And I'm like, it's just,[55:13] you know, the proof isn't there. But[55:16] that shouldn't keep anyone from[55:18] believing that we're not alone in the[55:20] universe or that maybe we are being[55:22] visited or there are, you know, visitors[55:25] in our own solar system and maybe[55:26] they've been on Earth, maybe they're[55:27] still on Earth or whatever.[55:30] Just because we don't have the proof and[55:33] none of these things we've seen are any[55:34] more than than birds and balloons,[55:36] doesn't mean you can't still believe[55:38] that that's happening or in just again[55:41] in the bigger picture. We're we're not[55:42] alone in the universe. Those are really[55:44] two separate things. You know, is this[55:47] weird thing I saw on my camera a UFO or[55:50] not? And if I say it's not, it doesn't[55:52] mean that all the other things can't[55:53] necessarily be true. So, it it really[55:56] goes back to[55:58] there are things you believe in and have[56:00] faith in and and you can continue to do[56:02] that and[56:04] science and facts and whatever shouldn't[56:06] necessarily[56:08] discourage you. Um, but it's also just[56:11] the way we look at every piece of[56:15] information we're fed today. You know,[56:17] you watch the news and what do you[56:18] believe? Who who's telling the truth?[56:23] Who's, you know, the most reliable? How[56:26] much of this information is made up? I I[56:28] think it just goes into that big picture[56:30] of everything else that we see on a[56:32] daily basis. Um,[56:36] find sources that are credible. find[56:38] multiple sources. So even if they're[56:40] they're all saying different things, you[56:42] can maybe find the center, but just find[56:44] some way to[56:46] not get caught up in hysteria. Try to[56:49] stay grounded and[56:51] really just try to focus on things that[56:53] are actually important to you in your[56:55] daily life. And you know, if disclosure[56:58] is one of those things that's going to[57:01] affect how you do your job or what you[57:03] do when you wake up in the morning until[57:04] it happens, then then that's fine. But[57:08] otherwise, it's just just another thing[57:10] out there in the world to either be[57:12] interested in or worry about or[57:14] otherwise concerned with.[57:16] >> It's so true. We only live so long, too,[57:19] >> right?[57:20] >> You know, you could spend your whole[57:21] life fighting for disclosure and miss[57:24] out on so many other wonderful things[57:26] >> it means to be human. So, I think that's[57:29] really great advice to be honest because[57:31] a lot of us out here are talking about[57:33] it. You know, we are living through this[57:34] movement and I will I always say this[57:37] when we're going to look back, you know,[57:38] people will look back from 40, 50 years[57:40] from now and be like, "God, what a weird[57:42] time between 2027 and so and so date[57:45] like everyone had a UFO podcast.[57:48] >> Politicians from the right and left were[57:50] screaming, you know, like what a what a[57:52] wonderful exciting time to be alive, but[57:54] also what an obsessed time of [laughter][57:57] about truth and transparency." So, I[58:00] will say as I get to my 80s or 90s, I[58:02] and hopefully I live that long. Um, I'm[58:05] excited to see how the world will[58:07] progress and how it will change because[58:09] of the acts of yourself and other people[58:12] working in all different degrees to be[58:14] able to figure out what is actually[58:16] going on.[58:17] >> And and and[58:19] also there's a way to be proactive about[58:21] it. But I think a lot of people just sit[58:22] and stare at their phones and and let[58:24] everything go into their head and they[58:28] end up with just so much in there they[58:30] can't decide. I think, you know, know[58:32] what you want to know, study what you[58:33] want to study, learn what you want to[58:35] learn, and believe what you want to[58:36] believe[58:37] and and kind of stick to that. And the[58:39] rest of it maybe is entertainment or a[58:41] hobby or or something to pay attention[58:42] to. But yeah, just don't don't let[58:46] things that don't really affect how you[58:49] live every day, you know, inhibit how[58:52] you live every day.[58:53] >> Yeah. Don't sweat the small stuff.[58:56] >> Right.[58:56] >> My last question to you, you're not[58:59] working with Arrow anymore, but what[59:00] advice would you give the Arrow team[59:02] moving forward after we see this UFO[59:04] file dump that could be positive or[59:07] negative? We'll see how this ends up in[59:09] the future. But what advice would you[59:11] give the Arrow team now moving forward[59:13] from a science perspective?[59:16] >> Um, well, it it's kind of difficult[59:18] because Arrow at the level they're at,[59:20] they're reporting to the the the DNI,[59:24] the Department of War, Congress. So[59:28] they're they're really very close to[59:32] the questions and the concerns and just[59:35] have to be very reactive to all these[59:37] things that get shot at them by by that[59:40] high level of government. So in some[59:42] sense it's just you know keep trying to[59:45] do good things while trying to[59:47] constantly have to react to that. But I[59:49] I think as as Arrow has gone on and[59:51] matured, it's just trying to find out[59:53] where they really fit in the puzzle[59:56] because again,[59:58] go figure out UAP is is it's almost an[01:00:01] impossible task as stated, but what are[01:00:04] the things that can really[01:00:07] what what things can they really do that[01:00:09] can really result in something that's[01:00:12] that's good for the public, good for the[01:00:13] government, good for national security?[01:00:15] Um, so I know that's pretty vague, but[01:00:18] it's just try to see try to see where[01:00:20] you fit in all this constantly trying to[01:00:22] stay away from the rhetoric and the, you[01:00:24] know, people who just want us to roll[01:00:26] out the alien and those sorts of things,[01:00:29] but just try to find that focus and[01:00:31] where they can do the best. I I think[01:00:32] the um I don't know if you read the[01:00:34] historical report they put out but I[01:00:36] think some of that is really the best[01:00:37] work where they just go back[01:00:40] and in you know the present go back and[01:00:45] look through that whole history of of[01:00:47] UFO reporting from the Roswell incident[01:00:51] basically on[01:00:53] trying to go back trying to collect the[01:00:55] facts trying to report here's really why[01:00:58] this thing was seen this way and this[01:00:59] was done this way and and lay that out[01:01:02] for the public. So, I I thought that was[01:01:04] very good. But just in general,[01:01:06] constantly trying to figure out where[01:01:08] they can have the best um impact and[01:01:11] provide whatever information they can on[01:01:13] the pretty weird subject.[01:01:16] >> It's a very weird subject. And maybe the[01:01:18] last thing I should[01:01:18] >> weird unident and in itself it's it's[01:01:21] kind of unknown unidentified because[01:01:23] it's you know just deals with the[01:01:25] anomalous. It's very true and I I wonder[01:01:29] because I know that Arrow has said that[01:01:31] there has been no[01:01:33] proof that there is NHI that they have[01:01:36] seen and and I have to ask you that was[01:01:39] there anything that you saw on your end[01:01:41] that you said well this is potentially[01:01:43] NHI outside of claims but more good[01:01:46] evidence credible evidence.[01:01:48] >> No, we we we never saw anything. Um, we[01:01:52] heard the claims and we would ask the[01:01:54] people who made the claims,[01:01:57] where did you see it? Who was the person[01:01:59] who was in charge of the the project or[01:02:01] the room or the experiment or whatever?[01:02:03] And you know, where did it happen? Any[01:02:06] of the details that arrow could have[01:02:07] actually gone back and investigated and[01:02:12] you know that there was just never that[01:02:14] level of information provided. It was,[01:02:16] you know, it was really the same thing[01:02:18] that you've heard um that people say um[01:02:22] out in public is, you know, it happened.[01:02:26] I know about it. I heard it from this[01:02:29] person who heard it from this person.[01:02:30] Just kind of this whole circular thing.[01:02:32] There was never[01:02:34] go talk to this person cuz he ran the[01:02:36] lab and he had the stuff and that's[01:02:38] where it was. and just the details[01:02:41] weren't there to go and even even[01:02:44] attempt to look at it or understand what[01:02:46] was going on.[01:02:47] >> And I can imagine the inside bureaucracy[01:02:49] could be really challenging. I heard[01:02:51] that people were trying to make claims[01:02:54] to arrow. Arrow would ignore them,[01:02:55] wouldn't get back to them. Uh and so the[01:03:00] challenge and this is not saying[01:03:01] yourself or you know[01:03:03] >> it's the mechanism of government that[01:03:05] really needs to get better because[01:03:07] you're seeing that people are going to[01:03:09] get lost through the shuffle that are[01:03:11] trying to make claims and then they feel[01:03:12] like they're been pushed aside and then[01:03:14] you do have a UFO community that will be[01:03:16] able to then pick them up, lift them up[01:03:19] and talk about their story compared to a[01:03:21] lot of other communities, right? So[01:03:23] they'll find solace there when they're[01:03:25] actually trying to find it within the[01:03:27] government as well and do their due[01:03:29] diligence. But you see that you hear I[01:03:31] believe Matthew Brown and so many of[01:03:33] these other people that said that they[01:03:34] came forward to Arrow and they were[01:03:36] totally ignored and or they weren't[01:03:38] taken seriously and they had to keep[01:03:41] championing their story over and over[01:03:43] again to be heard.[01:03:46] >> Yeah, I I can't really speak to that. I[01:03:47] was I was in the science group. we had[01:03:49] an entirely different group that would[01:03:50] do the interviews and take the take the[01:03:52] personal[01:03:54] uh claims and information and reports.[01:03:56] Um when I was there as far as I knew[01:04:01] if someone had us now there's a bit of a[01:04:04] threshold that someone has to cross[01:04:06] before we would actually go and[01:04:07] interview them or have them have them[01:04:08] come in. But, you know, I I don't think[01:04:11] we actively[01:04:14] turned away any reports or even told[01:04:16] someone, "No, we're not going to listen[01:04:18] to you." But again, that I I can't[01:04:21] really comment on that uh group and that[01:04:23] >> part of what what Eric was doing.[01:04:26] >> That's fair. Thank you so much, Randy,[01:04:28] for being rebelliously curious with me[01:04:30] today. You know, I know that Arrow gets[01:04:32] a bad rap. Um, but in in so many[01:04:35] different places, but I appreciate the[01:04:37] scientists that are working in the[01:04:38] space, you know, um, maybe not all of[01:04:42] them, but a lot of them, I think[01:04:44] scientists in so many degrees are trying[01:04:46] to do such great work, and we have to[01:04:48] remember, you know, they're individuals[01:04:50] as well that are trying to find as much[01:04:52] information as possible for us so that[01:04:53] we can do our job um, when it comes to[01:04:56] just researching UAP. So, I appreciate[01:04:58] the work that you've that you've done[01:05:00] there.[01:05:02] >> Right. And I I still try to stay[01:05:03] involved with the community because[01:05:04] really a lot of this research and data[01:05:07] collection, it's not going to come from[01:05:09] Arrow or the government. It's really[01:05:11] going to come from the civilian[01:05:12] population because one, it's much easier[01:05:15] for civilians to go out and set up[01:05:16] cameras and record. The government can't[01:05:19] just go put up a camera somewhere and[01:05:22] monitor[01:05:24] um US citizens essentially is what it[01:05:26] comes down to. So I think there's really[01:05:29] a role outside of the government for[01:05:31] people to take this into their own[01:05:33] hands, collect their data, share the[01:05:35] data, um make sure there is some[01:05:38] integrity with the data and they are[01:05:40] providing data, not just here's the[01:05:42] results and what I think it was and[01:05:44] that's all I'm going to give you. I'm[01:05:45] not going to give you all of the sausage[01:05:47] making on how I came to that result. So,[01:05:49] I I really think, you know, arrow is[01:05:52] what it is, but it's it's up to the[01:05:55] public really to go out and find the[01:05:57] truth if they want it.[01:05:58] >> I agree. And I'm looking forward to[01:06:00] seeing your presentation at SCU at the[01:06:02] end of July. Thank you.[01:06:04] >> All right. Thank you, Chrissy.[01:06:13] [music]
Why Academia Is Finally Taking UFOs Seriously - with Dr. Christian Peters
The transcript excerpt features a conversation between the host of "That UFO Podcast," Andy, and Dr. Christian Peters, the managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences. Dr. Peters has a PhD in political science and extensive experience in academia, particularly in the intersection of social sciences and anomalous phenomena, including Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).
Introduction of Dr. Christian Peters
- Background: Dr. Peters has been involved in academia for over a decade, leading one of Europe’s prominent doctoral programs. His expertise spans political culture, epistemology, and higher education strategy, which positions him uniquely to discuss societal responses to uncertainty and the unknown, particularly regarding UAP.
- Previous Engagements: The host mentions having attended two of Dr. Peters' talks earlier in the year, highlighting his insights on the UAP debate.
Importance of the Conversation
The discussion aims to delve deeper into how academia, policy, and society address emerging topics like UAP, rather than just focusing on sightings or technology. The host emphasizes that Dr. Peters’ perspective is rare and valuable in this discourse.
Dr. Peters’ Personal Background
- Interest in Anomalous Phenomena: Dr. Peters shares that his fascination with UAP predates his academic career. He recalls a childhood experience where he was captivated by a story about a boy who claimed to be visited by aliens, which sparked his interest in the topic.
- Academic Focus: He describes himself as a political theorist and a researcher who examines political architecture, looking at how physical structures reflect societal values and political ideologies.
The Role of Social Science
- Definition: Dr. Peters explains that social science encompasses various disciplines that study human behavior and societal structures. As a political scientist, he focuses on political systems and theories.
- Current Research: He is currently teaching a course on the political implications of artificial intelligence (AI), emphasizing AI's pervasive influence across multiple sectors, including healthcare and education.
UAP and Political Discourse
Dr. Peters discusses the political processes surrounding UAP disclosure, questioning why certain limitations persist and how political actors behave in relation to UAP. He suggests that social scientists can provide nuanced insights into these processes, potentially alleviating public disappointment regarding disclosure.
Experiences with UAP
Dr. Peters expresses interest in studying the distribution of UAP experiences among different demographics, noting that individuals who have had encounters often have familial or historical connections to such phenomena. He argues that this suggests a relationship between the phenomenon and those who witness it, contrasting it with random natural occurrences like lightning strikes.
Academic Risks and UAP Discussions
The host raises the concern that many academics avoid discussing UAP due to fears of professional repercussions. Dr. Peters acknowledges that his tenure and position provide him with the freedom to explore these topics without fear of losing his career. He identifies himself as a "statistical believer," indicating that while he has not personally witnessed a UAP, he recognizes the significance of the data and testimonies surrounding the phenomenon.
Future Predictions
Dr. Peters predicts that advancements in observational tools may lead to strong evidence of extraterrestrial life within the next five to ten years. He emphasizes the potential societal implications of such discoveries, including shifts in cultural and religious perspectives.
Disclosure Scenarios
The conversation touches on various scenarios for public disclosure of UAP, including the gradual "drip-drip" approach versus sudden, undeniable events like a craft landing in a populated area. Dr. Peters speculates that if a craft were to land in Times Square, public reaction would differ from previous years due to the current climate of skepticism surrounding visual evidence, particularly with the rise of AI-generated content.
Epistemic Crisis
Dr. Peters warns of an impending epistemic crisis, where the distinction between real and fabricated visual evidence becomes increasingly blurred. He stresses the importance of taking experiential data seriously, advocating for scientific processes to analyze such experiences.
In summary, the conversation between Andy and Dr. Peters explores the intersection of social science, politics, and the study of UAP, emphasizing the need for nuanced discourse and the potential implications of future discoveries in the field. Dr. Peters’ unique perspective as a political theorist allows for a deeper understanding of how society grapples with the unknown and the significance of UAP in contemporary discourse.
The speaker expresses a desire to analyze data related to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) using advanced programs and generative AI to uncover patterns that may not be immediately visible. They express concern over the prevailing discussions in social media about UAPs, which often categorize them as either technological tools or natural phenomena, and highlight the skepticism surrounding witness accounts, particularly regarding individuals like David Grusch, who testified before Congress. The speaker notes that discussions about Grusch quickly devolved into questions about his mental state, which they find troubling, suggesting a reflexive tendency to delegitimize certain narratives.
Transitioning to the topic of artificial intelligence (AI), the speaker discusses the prevalence of bots on social media and the challenges they pose in discerning real from fake content. They recount personal experiences with social media algorithms that have led to exposure to distressing content, such as videos of plane crashes, and raise concerns about the potential for bots to be mistaken for genuine human interactions. The speaker wonders if society will eventually accept bots as a form of sentience, leading to a normalization of interactions with them.
The discussion then shifts to the implications of AI on society, particularly regarding how people interact with bots and the potential for dependency on AI for decision-making. The speaker notes that while AI can provide useful suggestions, there is a risk of individuals becoming overly reliant on it, which could lead to unhealthy dynamics in human-AI relationships. They emphasize the importance of maintaining critical thinking and skepticism when engaging with AI, similar to how one would approach interactions with other people.
The speaker also reflects on the evolution of public narratives surrounding UFOs over the decades, noting that cultural contexts shape how people perceive and report UAPs. They suggest that the types of phenomena reported are influenced by the technological and cultural environment of the time, indicating that historical context plays a significant role in shaping public perception of UAPs. The speaker highlights the shift from earlier UFO reports to contemporary discussions, which often focus on specific archetypes like "grays" and "Nordics," and questions the validity of these representations as reflections of physical reality.
As the conversation progresses, the speaker addresses the societal and political implications of UAPs, particularly in relation to governmental trust. They argue that the current low levels of trust in governments contribute to public skepticism about official narratives regarding UAPs, allowing for the belief that governments may be hiding information. The speaker posits that the UAP phenomenon challenges the notion of national sovereignty, suggesting that if UAPs represent advanced technologies beyond current human capabilities, it poses a threat to the established power dynamics of nation-states.
The speaker then shifts focus to the experiences of individuals who claim to have encountered UAPs, emphasizing the importance of listening to their stories without immediate judgment. They acknowledge the complexity of discerning truth in these narratives, especially when considering the potential overlap with mental health issues. The speaker advocates for a balanced approach that neither dismisses these experiences outright nor accepts them uncritically, suggesting that careful consideration of the qualitative data is essential for understanding the phenomenon.
In concluding thoughts, the speaker reflects on the challenges of addressing the experiences of individuals who report UAP encounters, noting that the discourse surrounding these experiences can often be fraught with skepticism and stigma. They call for a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon that recognizes the validity of personal experiences while also maintaining a critical perspective on the broader implications of UAPs in society.
The discussion begins with the speaker reflecting on the potential ridicule faced by individuals who publicly share their experiences of abduction. They emphasize that if a prominent figure were to disclose such experiences, it would dominate their narrative in mainstream media, leading to mockery and dismissal. The speaker suggests that many individuals in influential positions—military, academic, or governmental—may have had similar experiences but choose to remain silent to avoid the stigma associated with such claims. They express uncertainty about how to facilitate a serious public conversation about these experiences without facing significant backlash.
The conversation shifts to the nature of the UAP phenomenon, highlighting that personal experiences are often met with skepticism, especially when they challenge established perceptions of reality. The speaker notes that the proximity of personal stories makes them difficult to dismiss, as they evoke existential questions that many prefer to avoid. They mention that experiences often include themes of communication and environmental sustainability, which can be uncomfortable for people who are aware of environmental issues but wish to ignore them.
There is a discussion about the historical context of belief in the supernatural, contrasting modern skepticism with past beliefs where encounters with the divine or demonic were more readily accepted. The speaker suggests that the current climate of disbelief may be a product of modernity's disenchantment, where once people would have debated the nature of an experience (angel vs. devil), now they often dismiss it outright. They argue that the way society interprets anomalous experiences is heavily influenced by the cultural and temporal context.
The speaker acknowledges the complexity of trauma and memory in relation to abduction experiences, suggesting that what might be perceived as a screen memory could also represent genuine encounters. They reflect on how personal relationships are affected when one partner claims to have had an extraordinary experience, raising questions about trust and shared reality.
As the conversation continues, the speaker recounts an encounter with a rational scientist who shared a personal UFO sighting, illustrating that even those grounded in scientific thinking can have experiences that defy explanation. They emphasize the infectious nature of narratives surrounding UAPs, suggesting that sharing these stories can lead to broader acceptance and understanding, despite the initial skepticism that may exist.
The speaker shares a personal anecdote about a book signing event where an older gentleman approached them with a compelling UFO video. The description of the video and the gentleman's demeanor highlights the sincerity and gravity with which some individuals approach their experiences, further emphasizing the need for open dialogue about UAPs.
In concluding remarks, the speaker reflects on the importance of acknowledging the social and political dimensions of the UAP phenomenon. They express hope for a future where discussions about UAPs are taken seriously across various disciplines, and they advocate for a cautious approach to disclosure, recognizing the potential for significant societal impact. They encourage listeners to remain open-minded and prepared for the possibility of new revelations regarding UAPs.
The episode wraps up with a call to action for listeners to engage with the podcast, share their thoughts, and consider the implications of the discussions presented. The speaker concludes by reminding the audience to keep looking up, as the mysteries of the skies continue to intrigue and inspire curiosity.
The interviewee, Dr. Christian Peters, is presented in the transcript with a detailed account of his background and professional role. He is introduced as the managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences at the University of Bremen, which is described as one of Germany’s leading institutions in social science graduate education. Dr. Peters holds a PhD in political science and has over a decade of experience steering doctoral programs in Europe. His expertise particularly spans the intersection of policy and research, and he engages with various topics, including religion, politics, and higher education strategy, with a specific interest in the social scientific exploration of anomalous phenomena.
Moreover, the interviewer highlights Dr. Peters' unique perspective as someone who operates at the crossroads of academia, policy, and societal inquiry, particularly concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). This indicates that his role is not merely administrative but also deeply rooted in academic thought leadership and research development.
Notably, Christian expresses a personal connection to the subject of UAP, suggesting that his interest predates his formal academic career. This personal history enriches his professional insights, positioning him as a critical voice in contemporary discussions surrounding UAP and societal responses to uncertainty.
- [00:22] "I’m honored to be joined by my guest Dr. Christian Peters. He is the managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences at the University of Bremen."
- [01:20] "The truth is this subject isn’t just about sightings or technology. It sits right inside the bigger questions of how societies respond to uncertainty."
- [05:02] "I’m a political theorist. So, I’m a political scientist at the University of Bremen... I’m a research manager."
Dr. Christian Peters approaches UAP research through a social scientific lens, emphasizing the importance of understanding the political, cultural, and societal dimensions associated with such phenomena. He identifies as a political theorist and discusses the relevance of exploring how societies interpret and respond to uncertainty, particularly in the context of UAP.
Throughout the interview, he illustrates his commitment to rigorous inquiry by addressing the need for nuanced questions surrounding UAP and their implications. He notes that social sciences can provide unique insights into the phenomenon, especially in understanding the processes of disclosure and the implications of UAP on social and political structures. He articulates a desire to study the distribution of experiences among those who report UAP sightings, recognizing that patterns in these reports might reveal deeper societal trends.
Dr. Peters acknowledges the complexity inherent in analyzing UAP data and admits to the limitations researchers face in this field, particularly in terms of the stigma that surrounds UAP discussions. He expresses a desire for better methodologies that could systematically analyze the qualitative data from experiencers, suggesting that such data could shed light on societal beliefs and fears related to the unknown.
- [05:57] "The topic of UAP, the deep interest, predates my social science activities by many years."
- [16:34] "...with the expertise of myself and my colleagues, I think that we can ask a few questions in a more nuanced way so that people might not be so disappointed by the processes of disclosure that they’re witnessing."
- [20:49] "...I want to see that data. I want to hear what they say and I want really good programs to run over that data, analyze that, put that into networks and try to find out patterns..."
Dr. Christian Peters' decision to devote professional attention to UAP research is multifaceted, stemming from both personal interests and a professional commitment to understanding complex societal issues. He mentions that his fascination with UAP predates his formal engagement in social sciences, indicating a longstanding curiosity about the topic. This personal connection enhances his ability to approach UAP discussions with a sense of genuine interest and inquiry.
Moreover, Dr. Peters emphasizes the relevance of UAP research within the broader context of political culture and societal responses to uncertainty. He articulates the importance of examining how institutions and societies adapt to new information and grapple with unknown phenomena. This perspective is critical, as it situates UAP within larger discussions about human experience in the modern world, reflecting broader existential concerns.
He also elaborates on the societal implications of UAP, suggesting that the phenomenon raises substantial questions about trust in government and institutions, especially in the face of an evolving understanding of what constitutes reality. This interplay between personal intrigue and societal relevance drives his commitment to UAP research, fostering a desire to explore its implications for academia, public policy, and societal discourse.
- [06:12] "I would say that I always had a certain compatibility to the topic..."
- [10:35] "I think there is a vibration in the topic because it attaches to so much that is both ominous and also present in the way that we’re living our lives today."
- [19:20] "...the phenomenon is not just a random natural phenomenon or an artificial or alien intelligence that does not care about us and therefore appears randomly."
Dr. Christian Peters does not claim to have personally observed a UAP. Throughout the transcript, he clarifies that he has not witnessed any UAP events himself. His focus remains on the interpretive analysis of UAP phenomena and the societal implications surrounding them rather than on personal experiences or anecdotes of sightings.
However, he expresses a strong interest in the reports and experiences of others, especially those who have encountered UAP. He articulates the need for careful analysis of these accounts, recognizing that they can reflect significant cultural and psychological dimensions. Dr. Peters emphasizes that the narratives surrounding UAP sightings carry meaning that can reveal insights about societal fears, beliefs, and experiences of the unknown.
In discussing the phenomenon, he highlights how the experience of UAP can trigger intense reactions and interpretations among witnesses, which can be influenced by personal background, trauma, and societal context. His analytical approach suggests that even without personal sightings, he recognizes the value of experiential data in understanding the broader implications of UAP.
- [20:54] "I’ve never seen one myself. So, I wouldn’t even say that I’m a believer to the extent of being a scientist who is much safer in knowing rather than believing."
- [10:14] "...the stories, some of them are stories you might hear on many typical UFO conventions..."
- [19:46] "...once you’ve seen one, it’s very probable you’re going to see another one."
Throughout the interview, Dr. Christian Peters discusses the various obstacles and skepticism that surround UAP research. He acknowledges that many individuals in academia and professional spheres may hesitate to engage with UAP topics due to fears of professional repercussions, such as losing tenure or funding. This concern reflects the broader societal stigma associated with UAP discussions, which can discourage open inquiry and dialogue within academic and scientific communities.
Dr. Peters highlights that this skepticism is compounded by the lack of established methodologies for analyzing UAP data. He notes that researchers often face barriers when attempting to publish findings or when trying to gain acceptance for their work within mainstream academic circles. This is particularly pertinent given the complex nature of UAP phenomena and the varying interpretations of what constitutes evidence.
Moreover, he expresses that the possibility of UAP being caused by non-human intelligences raises significant political and ethical questions. He articulates that such implications could challenge existing power structures and notions of sovereignty, leading to a profound reevaluation of humanity's place in the universe. This potential for disruption adds another layer of complexity to the discourse surrounding UAP, as it intersects with fears about control, security, and the unknown.
- [20:29] "...many folks in positions like yours and similar don’t like to discuss UFOs, UAP, whatever you want to call it, for fear of losing tenure, losing funding, losing their careers..."
- [20:54] "...I think there could be a problem if it’s preferring itself to an intensive care unit in a hospital."
- [11:23] "...I think that we’re also we’re all at the beginning here and if I..."
[00:17] Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO podcast. Today I'm honored to be joined[00:22] by my guest Dr. Christian Peters. He is the managing director of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social[00:29] Sciences at the University of Bremen. With a PhD in political science and more[00:34] than a decade steering one of Europe's leading doctoral programs, Christian brings deep insight into the academic[00:39] policy and research nexus. In addition to his leadership in advancing doctoral education, he engages across topics from[00:47] religion and politics to higher education strategy. that includes the social scientific fringe of anomalous[00:53] phenomena. I've been fortunate to hear Dr. Peters speak twice this year. Once at the Saul symposium and earlier in the[01:00] year at the University of Durham at their symposium called grounding the SETI and UAP debate. Now you might be[01:07] wondering why someone in Christian's position leading an international graduate school and working at the crossroads of politics, society and[01:13] scientific research is such an important voice in the conversation around anomalies in UAP. The truth is this[01:20] subject isn't just about sightings or technology. It sits right inside the bigger questions of how societies[01:26] respond to uncertainty. How institutions adapt to new information and how we make[01:31] sense of the unknown. Christian's background in political culture, epistemology, and research systems gives[01:37] him a rare vantage point on all of that. So, what you're about to hear isn't just another UAP discussion. It's a deeper[01:43] look at how academia, policy, and societ and and society and society grapple with[01:49] emerging disruptive topics. And trust me, it's a perspective we don't get often enough. But I think the shifting[01:55] landscape affords us more people like Dr. Peters speaking up. For me on this[02:00] one, folks, I had a format. It goes almost two hours and the format went completely out the window and the[02:06] conversation goes all over. I think in the best possible way. I really hope you enjoy it and I can tell you now, Dr.[02:12] Peters will be back on the podcast with me really soon because we only scratched the surface in terms of conversation.[02:19] Enjoy the interview, folks. Christian, welcome to the podcast. Hi, Andy.[02:26] Really good to have you on. Christian, uh, I've obviously recently saw you speak. I've actually seen you speak[02:31] twice this year in person. So, first off, I I attended Durham University back in what March or April it was now as the[02:38] spring was just starting in the UK and then was very fortunate to see you speak at the Sol symposium and really looking[02:44] forward to getting some of your insights uh here. You bring a really unique and rare aspect to this conversation that[02:51] we've not had too much of that social science conversation. I think more and more people are starting to get[02:57] involved, more and more academics, and that's why I'm really looking forward to to having that conversation with you.[03:02] Um, but first off, I think it's important to learn a little bit about you. I've given the the listeners and[03:07] viewers an introduction before the podcast kicked off around your background and who you are, but let's hear it from yourself and and who is Dr.[03:14] Christian Peters. Ah, well, he's a science fiction nerd in[03:19] the first place. That's always good. Always good start. It's a good start, isn't it? you know, you have to win the hearts and and then[03:27] get into the the realism of it. I'm I'm a political theorist. So, I'm a political scientist at the University of[03:33] Breeman. I'm the the managing director of one of Germany's leading uh schools,[03:41] graduate schools in the social sciences. Uh Pigs, that's the name of it. I did[03:47] not invent that name and I I would have certainly picked a different one. Um,[03:52] but you know, it's a bi with three S's at the end. Um, a lot of S's. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. And and uh so I'm[04:01] I'm in a fortunate position because I'm um I have a tenure job at the university[04:07] and I've been around for quite a long time u at this place in Brman. Um I'm[04:13] I'm a research manager. So I'm I'm familiar with the way that science is[04:19] really working when it comes to funding when it comes to the needs to[04:24] communicate u when it comes to the questions of how you know how students[04:30] and and people doing the PhD which is you know that's where Bixs is um how[04:36] they get their careers and and uh and as a political scientist I've um I've been[04:45] oh I've been always hunting for the weirder animals in the field let's put it that[04:51] way I've been not so much a centrist uh uh with respect to the topics that have[04:56] been interesting me so it's um I did my my dissertation my PhD on political[05:02] architecture but not in a you know like EU sense talking about the uh the[05:07] parliament and and institutional architectures. No, I I really looked at houses and at parliaments and at[05:14] buildings and and was trying to find um whether you could uh read certain things[05:20] from those buildings u at the way that societies or political entities were[05:26] thinking about themselves. you know, whether you have, I don't know, huge buildings that are made of concrete, uh,[05:33] that look intransparent versus a parliamentary building that is fully made out of glass and that, you know,[05:39] kind of communicates, uh, transparency. So I've been, you know, I I settled at[05:46] the fringes and and especially in political theory and uh[05:52] and I think that's why I I might have an interest in the topic but to be honest[05:57] uh the topic of UAP the deep interest uh predates my social science activities by[06:06] by many years. So I I would say that I always had a certain compatibility to[06:12] the topic and and even thinking about my childhood time, I remember that uh and[06:21] and and I unducked that archaeologically speaking only not so long ago when I[06:27] realized that we have a we have a magazine that teenagers would read. Uh[06:32] and you'll probably have that in the UK too and in Scotland. uh you know it's like with bands and and you know how do[06:40] I you know to how do I plan my first kiss and stuff like that. Yeah. And and I remember there was there[06:45] was a story on on um on this young l who who said that he's uh and I must have[06:52] been 10 or 11 at the time that he's visited each and every night by uh by[07:00] aliens and and all he did for that is um he took uh like watercolor and drew some[07:07] sort of a symbol on his chest. Yeah, I would I would say this was a tablet version of the early um alien abduction[07:15] scenarios because it might have been in the 80s. Um uh but I remember that I was[07:21] so fascinated by by this very story and and that is[07:26] something which I don't understand to this point where this original interest[07:32] into that came from because most people would have probably you know brushed it away and had not connected to that and[07:38] and you know what's this weird person doing but but I ended up of course you know getting blue watercolor and and[07:44] painting that on my own chest hoping that somebody would come but they never So there is an there's an old story[07:51] about that but um yeah I I can appreciate that because I I[07:58] remember going into like news agents in in Glasgow and you would see all kinds of magazines and I still love magazines[08:05] to this day. Obviously the print age is unfortunately dying away slowly depending on what you're what you're[08:11] looking at. Um, but I used to see the weekly world news quite a lot and I never bought it. But I remember seeing[08:17] stories like Bat Boy discovered in cave and you know alien aliens abducted me[08:22] and my babies and took and and I would just remember flicking through them and being fascinated and wondering is this[08:28] nonsense? And I was like 7 8 n 10 years old. You don't really know but something[08:34] just clicks with some people doesn't it? And I'm sure many people listening and watching this appreciate that aspect.[08:39] Absolutely. and and and it's really uh and and here we can start getting[08:45] serious at this point because I really think that u that there is a big[08:50] question behind what actually attracts people so[08:57] magically to the topic and and I could tell you that at the soul sympossium[09:03] now being a political scientist myself let me just quickly turn my mobile[09:10] somebody rings me being being you know being a social scientist I I was as much fascinated by[09:17] what happened on stage and you know including the fun fact that I was part of that speaker's community uh which you[09:25] know I'm I'm I'm proud of and I'm happy too because you know it gave me the chance to speak to a bigger audience but[09:30] at the same time I was uh absolutely uh determined to talk to as many people as[09:37] I could because There were so many. I mean there were how 400 500 you might[09:42] know better. And and and something that that that I always do first is literally ask the question what[09:49] brings you here? and and the stories uh some of them are you know some of them[09:55] are stories you might hear on many uh typical UFO conventions but uh a larger[10:02] part of them dealt about the fact that there was some sort of strange attraction that brings them to the topic[10:08] and that doesn't let them go and I wonder if it's you know I mean we could[10:14] romanticize it and and say well that's all you traumatized people that you know[10:20] you have every once in a while something pops up about stuff you've seen in your youth and you've made forgotten. Um but[10:28] I think it's more than that. I think there is uh there is a a vibration in the topic because it attaches to so much[10:35] that that uh that is both ominous and also present in the way that we're[10:42] living our lives today at the you know early 21st century. uh and it connects[10:47] to many of the miracles both you know about the UAP topic but also on the larger context. Uh I think that you know[10:55] AI and UAP have a lot in common and um and there are convergences that that[11:02] seem to indicate that. I also met a couple of people who literally told me you know I'm expecting very[11:08] unconventional people to be here in BO in Italy and and that's why I came because I'm fed up with uh out ofthe-box[11:17] explanations for stuff that has been bothering me for a long time. That's reasonable in my opinion.[11:23] Absolutely. I think what might be a good way to to strip this back before we get into the larger conversation is social[11:29] science is a phrase that we hear quite often and I wonder how do you define it and what exactly does a social scientist[11:36] do? It's we we're looking I mean social science is a you know that's a larger[11:42] group of sciences that that fall into again different categories. I am myself[11:48] I'm a political scientist. So I'm looking at political systems. I'm looking at uh institutions.[11:56] I'm and in my political science field I'm a political theorist. That means I'm[12:02] um you know I I would be the equivalent you know in a in a physicist as somebody[12:09] who's not an experimental physicist who is not building you know strange uh uh[12:16] particle accelerators or stuff like that but somebody who's just literally sitting in front of a a piece of paper[12:23] and writing uh all these formulas down. These are theory people. They they are[12:28] designing uh ways to think about in them you know in their case the physical[12:34] universe. I think about the political universe. Uh and uh with that respect[12:40] you know typical questions that do concern me. For example, today I'm I'm[12:46] teaching at the moment a class on uh a political theory of AI politics because[12:52] I'm you know I'm seeing that artificial intelligence is going to be so um[12:59] invasive with respect to every you know it's it's a technology that that will[13:05] enter all of our life areas. It will be in health, it'll be in education, it'll[13:12] be, you know, in in labor. I mean, everybody has stories to tell about AI. And and of course, at one point, I[13:19] anticipate that people will say, you know, I mean, I really like you uh[13:26] administrators, you know, the people who are running the communities. But I'm I'm[13:31] pretty sure that an artificial intelligent will that do that much more effective than you do. the distribution[13:37] of resources, you know, the question where should energ energy come to the way you're planning uh I don't know[13:45] rebuilding of streets. I mean I I literally have the feeling that it it must be a hoorde of apes here in[13:51] Breamman who does the street planning because you know typically you always see the most important streets being[13:58] blocked at the same time and that ends up in a total disaster. I mean you could say arguably that that with AI that'll[14:04] change but but there is a lot of stuff that comes with that uh deep questions[14:09] that are of a political nature. To give you a good example, if you would for example tell AI that uh u you're you're[14:17] the one because you're the most efficient cognitive tool that we know. you're the one who will make the[14:23] decisions where energy is going to go in also in the case of an emergency you[14:29] know if there is some sort of a power out at the you know at the local grid. Now if this AI would would be programmed[14:35] to a certain degree and and you know one of the first paradigms of it would be to[14:42] say uh I have to survive because I make all the decisions. So it's the most[14:48] important thing is that I survive um and then anything else comes. You could say[14:54] there could be a problem uh if it's preferring itself to an intensive care[15:00] unit in a hospital. what when the when the AI makes the decision to sustain[15:06] itself uh automatically 10 people will die and that's a political question that's an ethical question so this is[15:14] the stuff that that a political theorist talks about u the social sciences when it comes to the UAP and and[15:23] uh and you know the phenomenon at large uh they can talk about you So what I did[15:33] at soul uh and what we probably talk about a little later you know now why is[15:39] it why do we see that disclosure which is a political process unfolds the way[15:45] it does um why are there these permanently repeating limitations that[15:50] we see why are people in different political positions you know[15:55] representing the government or or the legislation why are they acting the way that they do and um and you know with my[16:04] expertise that I and my colleagues can bring in I'm I'm far the only one who's[16:09] doing that but uh with the expertise of myself and my colleagues I think that we[16:14] can ask a few questions in a more nuanced way so that people might not be[16:23] so disappointed by the processes of disclosure that they're witnessing and[16:28] and uh and apart from that The last, you know, the last field is just baseline[16:34] social science. I I recently talked to a friend of mine who's a well-known[16:40] anthropologist in the UAP field. Um and I told him uh I would love to see uh[16:47] studies for example that are looking at the distribution[16:56] when we talk about experiences for example that are looking at the way that[17:03] experience with the anomalous is distributed on larger groups because[17:10] it's a very you You know, it's a very blunt thought to say that if the[17:16] phenomenon is something that works like uh a natural phenomenon that is not[17:25] connected to people, it just appears uh you know in a random distribution on our[17:31] skies. You know it's it's just working in itself. It's not connected to people. then you would expect some sort of a[17:38] absolute normal distribution in the way that people are seeing that probably[17:43] geared around the idea that some people are going more outside. So it would be the people who are running their dogs[17:49] because they would be more exposed to the skies or you know that are[17:55] permanently looking up to to see this and that bird. But you would probably see some sort of a a an a a distribution[18:03] that you can plan. Something that has always struck me though is[18:09] that probably and you call it if you know that an ontologist will have a[18:16] higher probability of seeing a UFO, you call that the fact that he is a[18:22] ontologist is a predictor. So it predicts a higher probability of seeing[18:27] a UFO. You know that's the way that social science works. Um now if you do that um I think and if you would do a[18:35] study on on who has seen that stuff one of the strongest predictor would be[18:42] people who already have seen one. So there is you know you have that you you[18:47] hear that very often that experiences you know on on you know close encounters of the third kind uh very often have a[18:55] history of having seen stuff before uh sometimes even family histories. I mean[19:00] there are all these you know there are all these social facts around being an[19:05] experience in a certain way uh which I find highly interesting and because if that's the case one of the most you know[19:15] obvious uh conclusions you can make from that is[19:20] that obviously the phenomenon is not just a random natural phenomenon or an[19:27] artificial or alien intelligence that does not care about us and therefore[19:32] appears randomly. No, there seems to be there seems to be some sort of a relationship to the people that see it[19:39] to the extent that once you've seen one, it's very probable you're going to see another one. And that is not the case.[19:46] If you say, I don't know, if you're just walking outside and you see a lightning strike close to you, then you have a[19:53] probability. I mean, you can check that box, but you probably are not going to see another lightning strike look. So,[19:58] you're in all your lifetime again, just probabilistically. And and that is stuff that the social sciences also can do[20:06] just by talking to people, raising data. Uh yeah,[20:12] what I'd like to do, Christian, is just find out from you because obviously you're in an academic position. It's one[20:18] where many folks in positions like yours and similar don't like to discuss UFOs,[20:24] UAP, whatever you want to call it, for fear of losing tenure, losing funding,[20:29] losing their careers, losing any chance of progression, but you're comfortable having these conversations. Was that[20:36] always the case as you made your way into the career career you're in now or was there a time and what sort of change[20:43] then that you decided I'm going to start discussing this and in my day-to-day job?[20:49] Uh that's a good question. Uh I'm see if[20:54] you look closely at myself and my own career. I'm um I'm I'm in a fortunate[21:02] position because I I have a I have a tenure that is based on being the[21:07] director of the graduate school. So so this is something that gives me an enormous freedom because I I I have that[21:14] as my baseline. I could, you know, I could kick back. I didn't tell you I'm also a painter. So I'm uh I'm I'm pretty[21:22] multifaceted. I have a I've seen your website. I had a Thank you. Thank you. Well, you www.christian[21:29] minus peters.space. I needed to have a domain name with space as you all might imagine. But uh[21:36] go there and and look at my art. I'm you know some of it has strong relations to the phenomenon. There is there is one[21:42] painting uh it's called ot lamb l a m uh and and that's lamb the that's the[21:49] figure that that uh uh Alistister Crowley[21:55] you know allegedly was visited through some sort of a spiritual interaction who[22:00] who claimed to be a either interdimensional or non extraterrestrial[22:06] um um spirit and and crowley communicated with that person. I I've[22:11] been always frightened about Crowley. There's something about Crowley that that uh you know I'm a big heavy metal[22:16] fan too. So there's Oussie Osborne and Mr. Crowley, all that stuff and black.[22:22] But apart from that, it's uh uh it's I've been fascinated by that. So[22:28] I needed to ban that lamb figure and I've banned it in a quite disturbing painting. People will see it if they[22:34] want. So there are many many of those things and and and I guess people know[22:41] that I'm a I might be something like an unconventional thinker. Uh it's accepted[22:48] at my university to a certain degree. Of course you have to be careful when you're doing academic[22:55] science of the UAP and I you know unfortunately I've never seen one[23:01] myself. So uh I wouldn't even say that I'm a believer to the extent of being a[23:07] scientist who who um is much safer in in knowing rather[23:14] than believing and and knowing would you know the presupposition to know that that UAP are unconventional by nature is[23:23] uh have strong evidence. Now, you could say, "I don't, you know, I I know that[23:28] Australia exists, even though I've never been there." Um,[23:33] and you know, I don't need to believe in Australia. I'm pretty sure that there is this there is this spot with weird[23:40] animals hopping around and a lot of poisonous snakes. Uh, but still it's part of this of this cosmos with the[23:46] UAP. I am thinking about that in a sense the the probability[23:54] for this to be an an absolute reality to the extent that I I trust in the[24:03] in the unconventional nature of some parts of[24:09] it. uh that has to do with analyzing data that does exist and and and it's[24:16] just to me I mean my my friend Michael Bolander who who was at soul as well um[24:21] uh you know I I have to quote him because he he really formed that that[24:27] expression which I really like when he says that I'm a statistical believer that means I am I'm seeing those numbers[24:36] of consistent stories I've seeing I'm I'm seeing[24:41] uh people risking careers um in an environment uh you know talk[24:49] about Gary Nolan. I mean it's it's a big thing. He he he's a strong he has a strong personality and therefore he you[24:56] know and and with founding together with Peter founding founding the soul foundation they they uh they've created[25:03] platforms that create legitimacy but but there was a first moving moment you know[25:08] that has to do with the Diana Pasala book where he appears as one of those proponents and only after then he you[25:15] know he starts to come out and and uh there's a lot of risk involved uh and[25:21] And you know, you need to be tenured and to be very successful to make that[25:27] decision or you're very you have an high affinity towards risk, which I have. As[25:32] a matter of fact, I'm uh you know, I lost a lot of money on on Bitcoin. So,[25:38] um sometimes you have to pay on that on that uh issue. But um it's it's a[25:46] process that I'm seeing where there is an enormous convergent happening at the moment. I think that we're going to and[25:54] that's one of the few prediction that I'm making um also as a as a social scientist because we're not so good at[26:00] predictions. Uh one of the predictions that I make is that within the next[26:05] seven you know five to seven to 10 years um if not something quite you know[26:13] astonishing happens before uh probably one of those very good and new uh[26:20] observation tools is going to bring very very strong evidence for the[26:26] existence of life outside our solar system. you know much like like you know[26:31] these three TI Atlas uh uh has you know has been the third in a row of proving[26:38] the fact that there are objects outside our solar system um yeah because we[26:43] could literally witness them here. So they will prove that and once that happens uh once people realize okay life[26:51] is abundant and that already carries a lot of social cultural and arguably religious[27:01] implications because then you would think about and what happens to that life it's if it's got enough time to to[27:07] develop and blah blah blah. So is is evolution something that that is abundant in the universe and and so[27:14] different question will be asked and then the UAP discussion that we are[27:21] having here which could be also in other terms be explained as the discussion of[27:28] seti at home because you know you're you're looking for extraterrestrial[27:33] intelligence and and I've never understood how you can be how it it can[27:40] be so rational to look somewhere else, you know, 400 light years away and and[27:46] do not think about the option that if they have been around for longer than we have uh what looks like, you know, an[27:54] enormous gulf of of billions of thousands or hundred thousands of light[27:59] years that are unbridgeachable might become something like just flying over the Atlantic Ocean. 300 years ago that[28:06] was quite a mission to you know to get to the United States. Today you can do it in four hours. things are changing[28:12] with time and and and that brings the convergence closer and I think that once there there is something like uh the[28:20] definite proof for you know trappist having a bio atmosphere that can't have[28:26] developed except for the you know through microorganisms then again there might be even funding[28:32] for people like me which is not yet the case I want to pick up on the point you've[28:38] made there about observational tools potentially picking something up. I've said regular listeners or viewers will[28:44] have heard me say that I think the most realistic way we're going to get any form of public disclosure would be that[28:52] for example the the James web finds sign of light signs of life whether it's techno signatures or bio signatures[28:58] really far away really really far away and they say we found a source of light[29:04] on another planet we think it's being produced uh by a potential civilization[29:09] technologically but we can't get there anytime soon. It'd be thousands of years before we can get there. I think just[29:16] that admission in the next five, you say 5, 7, 10 years would be enough to get[29:21] people going, "Wow, okay. So, if there's something really far away, we're going to send a probe, but none of our[29:27] lifetimes will that probe reach that planet." However, it just opens up the conversation. If there's something[29:32] there, is there something else? And if there's something elsewhere, how close[29:38] could it be? And if there is something at all, is there something already coming here, visiting here? Has it been[29:44] here? And for me, that just opens up the tap of water slowly so it doesn't[29:50] completely flood the bathroom. And you know when you turn the sink on and you've got a small spoon in it and it hits the water hits the spoon and you[29:56] get splashed all over with water. It can be too much too quick. But perhaps if you turn the tap on slowly, is that the[30:02] way you could see this unfolding in a more realistic way? I I I totally agree with that. I mean that's that's what many people are[30:08] saying. Uh that's the so-called drip drip drip uh um process of disclosure.[30:15] Some would say that you know that's all staged. Some some clever social psychologist has[30:24] made some survey and saying you know what you have to do is you have to control the question of distance and[30:31] proximity in a successive order. So you know it could be the first step would be[30:36] oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh obviously you know on trappist 4 that there is something in the atmosphere you a year later the next[30:44] fancy instrument is going to say uh oh and we've seen those Dyson spheres it's[30:50] clearly a Dyson sphere so there is a kardashef three civilization that[30:57] harvests the energy of a whole solaris I think that's the three I'm not sure I[31:02] think it's the three four would be the whole uh galaxy. So it it's a it's a three that that harvests the energy of a[31:09] solar system. Um and it can't be anything else. Um and and then that's[31:15] still you know there is a distance that saves[31:20] us from getting too hectical. The problem this you know the problem[31:26] with what many people are fearing about[31:32] an uncontrollable aspect on of disclosure is that you know the UAP[31:39] scenario is one of direct contact you know it's one it it's one I mean you could I said that[31:45] in my whole presentation that that I think that there are different disclosure scenarios with respect to to[31:52] uh you know would make a difference if it's a signal that can be seen and can be taken up by many you know scientists[31:59] all across the uh the world in that scenario it would be instantaneous and[32:06] and everywhere the fact that there is something u apart from us[32:13] uh but it would still be distant because obviously it's 500 light years away so[32:18] you know you can still feel safe maybe[32:23] in a crooked way compared to the way that you feel safe about the you know impending climate crisis where you still[32:31] say but obviously it's 30 years away from now so you know I'm going to circle around myself for that time for the time[32:38] being so so it's a question of distance both temporal and spatial um but the the[32:47] you know once it happens here um And it would be and again it could it[32:55] would be a different thing that you know let's say a crash craft scenario where where uh somebody[33:04] is having in their inventory be it the Chinese or or the Russians or the Americans somebody is having in their in[33:10] inventories an obvious um physical artifact a techn a[33:16] technological artifact that can be shown that can be shared that can be tested[33:24] but it's something that can be secluded from the rest of the society. It's probably somewhere either in one of[33:30] those labs or it's in Area 51 or somewhere else that we have even not the faintest idea of but it'll be secluded[33:37] and and then versus you know talking about different scenarios of disclosure[33:43] versus something like you know the the the uh the Phoenix lights revisited you know[33:49] in an environment now where uh it's not just 30,000 people seeing that some of[33:55] them having the awareness of taking you know like a shitty 90s camera to, you[34:00] know, put the VHS cassette in and take, you know, like, I don't know, not a high quality[34:05] on the GVC, a heavy thing on your Yeah. And and now it would be, you know, just[34:12] a lot of high definition mobiles if that would happen. And and so all of these[34:18] are carrying different signatures, but that thing that you've said is that it[34:24] would be the most reasonable thing if you would probably have an orchestrated[34:30] uh you know acclimatization of the idea of first contact to the larger audience[34:38] of you know whatever society that is dealing with that. by you know you know[34:43] ramping up the scenarios and by bringing proximity over time in because it's[34:49] exactly as you said Andy once they've seen that you know there is just a lot of quite rational follow-up questions if[34:56] they are capable I mean like in the case of the you know the the the Dyson sphere if they are capable of harvesting the[35:04] energy of a solar system what would that mean are they technologically ahead a[35:10] million years of us. When would we get there? You know, understand fusion to[35:16] the degree that we can work with that and you know and it's probably not even[35:21] their their their own home system because if they do that then they're taking you know the sun away and and the[35:28] biology on their planets and they might have transformed and and there is a billion question that would fall out[35:33] from them. But one of the most evident ones would be, well, isn't that probable[35:38] that if they're capable of doing that, they would be also capable of just flying those 400 light years over?[35:46] And we're see we're looking in the past. We're seeing something that happened 400 years ago[35:51] as it was. Yeah. As it was. So those 400 years have passed. Maybe they have sent some[35:57] spaceship exactly at the moment that we looked at that Dyson sphere that was close, you know, is moving at 99% of of[36:04] the speed of light. Then we would expect that to be here rather soon. So, so that's what I agree with. Yeah.[36:13] I like the scenarios. I like talking these through and obviously you're a great person to do this with. So, you've got that scenario of drip drip drip 5 10[36:20] 15 years we the James Web picks something up. You've got the more severe[36:26] scenario of a Phoenix Lights nowadays, which I still think would lend an air of[36:31] what did they film? Was it top secret, etc., etc. How would you see a scenario playing out with the public as it is[36:37] now, where a craft crashes in the middle of Time Square in New York? Undeniable.[36:43] We're not filming something in the sky. Something literally falls out the sky that is clearly not a satellite. A[36:48] tic-tac literally lands, bang, right in the middle of Time Square. No one's hurt. Let's let's play out a nice[36:53] version of the scenario. However, what do you think the public reaction is to that scenario?[37:01] Uh I think you could you could probably[37:07] you know I mean I'm I'm speculating you know everybody understands and also my dear colleagues at the University of[37:12] Brim. This is highly speculative. That's a so that's a sci-fi nerd talking about these things.[37:18] Disclaimer. Yeah. No no it's not a disclaimer. I'm not I'm I wouldn't be afraid of anything. U uh I[37:23] take those questions seriously because if you if you would not allow yourself to speculate about that I mean what what[37:30] idea of science would we follow? Absolutely. People people are living in a daily[37:35] awareness of the appearance of a non-human intelligence in their life in the next five years which is a very[37:41] clever AI that's going to call you in the morning u and you would not be aware of that you haven't spoken to a real[37:47] person. I mean, you know, that that's quite non-human intelligence hitting here deeply. So anyway, I'm uh the[37:55] question is I think at the you know at the core of[38:00] what you're asking is that this would have been different five years ago than[38:06] it is now. Uh and I tell you why. I think that one of the major crisis that[38:12] we're going to see in the next 10 to 15 years unfold is that the idea of[38:22] a image documentation or any kind of representation of reality through film,[38:30] through camera, through pictures is going to massively blur. people will be[38:36] very very uncertain about what is true or not. So if if that you know if that[38:41] thing hits time square and it'll be on you know it'll be on Instagram within[38:47] seconds by the people who see that and upload that probably[38:53] an enormously high percentage of the human population[38:58] will swipe it away because they say you know damn it you know that's the 15th AI[39:04] thing that I've seen today. Yeah. um which probably would le would[39:10] give leverage to some sort of a consorted a concerted action in trying[39:16] to make that not just such a big discussion as it actually should be. I'm not I'm you know I'm not sure I'm[39:22] speculating here. Uh the one thing that I'm sure about is that we're coming[39:27] closer to something that I tend to you know talk to my students about and tell[39:32] them that this is going we're going to go into an epistemic crisis and that has to do with the fact that[39:39] uh it's really hard even now to differentiate between something that is[39:45] fabricated and I'm literally now I'm talking about the visual the visual evidence you know that you would see[39:52] because it's all about images too because if it if it wouldn't be about images and if if oral statements would[40:00] have the same value as as you know you know visual evidence then I would say it[40:08] would be a shame that we are where we are because we have a lot of witnesses[40:14] saying a lot of stuff and that is typically disregarded uh to a certain degree in saying that you know it's[40:21] anecdotal or It's uh you know they might be psychotic or stuff that happens when[40:26] you are not wanting to face data just for what it is whether it's fabricated[40:33] or it's a it's a figment of imagination but it it tells something it is about[40:39] meaning to a certain degree and it does not happen without a reason and that's why I want people to take experience of[40:46] data serious I want that it's a scientific process that needs to take[40:51] place I'm not qualifying anything about Experia data as a priority. I want to[40:57] see that data. I want to hear what they say and I want really good programs to run over that data, analyze that, you[41:04] know, put that into networks and and try to find out patterns by the help of of[41:09] generative AI stuff that we don't see, you know, likelihoods uh and and and[41:16] there is so much in that and that bothers me. It bothers me that uh that[41:22] still also maybe in the social media environment uh a lot of the discussion[41:30] around the reality of the UAP has to do with you know the UAP being either a[41:37] technological tool uh something that you can measure you know it's there is a lot of discussion about signals physical[41:44] signals and and um or it's you know it's part of the natural history you It could[41:49] be some sort of a weird weather phenomenon. Uh but but when you know[41:56] when armchair skeptics are talking about witnesses and experiences and and you[42:02] know even the whistleblowers the first reaction is you know it's[42:07] against the people they they will ask uh you know what they probably did to Grush. I mean, I don't know what Grush[42:13] has seen or hasn't seen and what he witnessed or didn't witness, but what I definitely have seen is that the[42:20] discussion on his testifying in front of the Congress has quite quickly turned into a[42:26] discussion about his mental capabilities. So, you know, and and that[42:32] happened so quickly and that was really surprising about to me. it looked like[42:37] an either it was, you know, it's it's a a reflex that people do have or it's[42:44] something that is a trained figure of delegitimizing certain stories and and[42:49] and that bothers me, I must say. Just just before we get into the experiencer data side of things, there's[42:56] a lot to talk about there. Just a thought on on AI because you've brought it up a couple of times right now. We're[43:02] in this really weird place with AI where just on social media there is a whole[43:07] load of bots. You make you make the example even of videos being faked or[43:12] images being faked. Anything posted online I I saw earlier on an algorithm just brought up some I don't like[43:19] flying. So before I went to the Saul symposium I was watching videos of pilots. One of them's a German guy. It's[43:26] called Menour Pilots is the the the guy and he talks through stuff about planes.[43:31] Also a guy called airplane facts with Max. People might know him. Have you ever heard of him?[43:37] No, I haven't. He he is basically an an airplane mechanic who basically will say this right here on an airplane is like a[43:43] compressor flap. This does this. And then he compares it to something in Lord of the Rings. That's his thing because he's like a Lord of the Rings obsessive.[43:50] So it was quite it was quite funny. But I I learned a lot about turbulence and how planes, you know, all that kind of[43:56] stuff just for me. However, now my Facebook algorithm is constantly showing me videos of plane crashes, huge[44:02] aviation disasters, right? So, I I can watch those now that I'm back home and safe. However, earlier on today, a a[44:09] light aircraft has crashed somewhere in uh it was India or somewhere like that.[44:15] And all the comments underneath were a mix of this is AI, this is fake. um know[44:21] it's real and people can't even tell now what's real, what's fake, what's not. Is[44:26] there almost an argument? Perhaps not with the visual side of things, but you get a lot of bots commenting now on[44:33] posts. And you can generally tell, for example, again, here's my Facebook[44:38] history, folks. Um I've got a border terrier as a dog. Lovely little dogs. They are like the best dogs, right? Um,[44:45] and the the the page we are on, we keep getting posts where someone will say,[44:51] well, I say someone, I'm using the language already, and I think this is going to be my point. It will say, "I[44:56] lost our four-year-old border terrier today. He was so sweet." And then it's a generic AI picture of a border terrier,[45:04] but the poster has no name. There's no profile, and you can tell it's a bot.[45:09] Are we in the early stages of right now we're very dismissive and everyone jumps on and says it's a bot, get rid of this,[45:16] block it, scam, that we're going to get to a point where actually bots, as hated[45:21] as they are now on social media, you'll end up interacting with them in a way that you you just start to[45:27] treat it as another form of sentience, if you want to call it that, if that's the right language that you you just you[45:33] just, you know, you have that conversation. For me, you know, I I don't have bots by the thousands[45:39] downloading this podcast, but if there comes a point where different bots and servers and systems are listening to[45:46] podcasts, is there any difference in a download from a bot because it's being listened[45:51] to and it's using the data? Is that any different from Dr. for Christian Peters downloading my podcast and listening to[45:58] it and you know processing the data because it's going to get so good that[46:04] bots to humans what's the difference. If if I could answer you that question[46:12] and I' I'd be a rich man by now because I mean that's that's the question about the AI. Yes. I mean it's absolutely the[46:19] case already. uh people are interacting with bots[46:25] to sometimes to an unhealthy degree. I mean you know there known cases of of uh[46:31] personal drama related to getting you know dependent. I mean probably rel relationships[46:37] relationships or or you know I mean literally I I I know that some of my[46:43] students they they ask chachi pt about everything in a[46:51] clever way sometimes but also sometimes in some sort of a you know it's not only[46:58] about you know chachipi this is what I have left in my student fridge you know it's like it's it's a lemon it's[47:05] uh Greek cheese and uh pepperoni. Now, what should I make with it? And and it comes up with something nice. That's all[47:11] right. You know, I I I admire that that sometimes it's even beyond my capacity of working with that. And I work a lot[47:17] with AI. But but there is always these things about, you know, what does this mean?[47:23] What is that? And sometimes these questions are questions that I would,[47:28] you know, say are existential to a certain degree. And people are starting to depend on them much like they depend[47:35] on a strong you know I mean there are different people some people are have a higher affinity to somebody telling them[47:42] what to do and others are more independent. So people with a higher affinity of finding orientation outside[47:50] of themselves um may be a little bit more vulnerable to you know to deficitary functionings[47:56] of the AI bots and and then we have serious interaction. So that's already the case whether you know it makes a[48:04] difference if the AI downloads uh your podcast or Christian Peters does[48:11] I would say it makes a difference because hopefully Christian Peter is going to do something with with the podcast and and it's going to play a[48:19] role to to the way that that uh people are you know having lives and are[48:24] working with what they hear and critically use the information and the data. So, um,[48:31] but will there not come a point the AI can do the same thing where it's going to learn and form an opinion and the AI[48:37] itself will change based on I've listened to Andy on that UFO podcast and[48:42] it's even even got I don't want to get into podcasting too much. It's my other passion. But even like in terms of[48:49] listening to an advert on a podcast, could there be a benefit from an AI bot listening to an advert that it's not[48:55] going to go buy the deodorant, but is there something that it can take from it that that's useful to an advertiser? And[49:01] I wonder is it going to get to that place quickly where actually there there's a real benefit to to AIS and[49:07] bots and and that's what I say maybe forget me plugging the podcast but there actually comes a point it's you're just[49:13] having those interactions as if it's another person and you don't even wonder then do you get to a point where[49:20] that's where you get this assimilation of society where instead of shunning it[49:25] and going bots bots bots which everyone does just now you actually embrace it and bots that's human. What's the[49:32] difference? Well, it depends on it depends on many things. It really I mean like if you I[49:39] have made certainly I have made to people the argument that it would be healthy[49:45] to deal with AI in the way that you're[49:52] dealing with people because for one reason not for you know[49:59] increasing the value of the AI. Excuse me. That's okay.[50:08] But in order to have your social immunity system[50:15] work properly, you know, to be as skeptical about the AI as you are about, you know, your fellow people around you.[50:23] So use the knowledge that you have in you know dealing with the world um and[50:28] take those categories in dealing with something that obviously seems to collectively influence societies and[50:35] people on the micro level because you already know how to deal with conflict[50:41] and and um so you could you could ask yourself[50:47] you know is it beneficial if if the bot is interacting with you know with your[50:53] with your uh with your podcast. I would say one of the first things that AI is[51:02] going to do is it's probably going to maximize its efficiency in an economic[51:09] sense because that has happened pretty much with all the technologies that hit societies uh you know at large and and[51:18] efficiency uh economic advantage is one of the main[51:25] functioning principles of platform capitalism, AI capitalism if you want. So, uh I[51:33] would think that this would be probably one of the first one of the first things that you're seeing. They would probably[51:39] use your chat to uh find out whether it's interesting also to post you into[51:45] some context. you know, be, you know, such a bot would probably realize that's[51:51] the profile of people looking your show and so that's going to make Instagram[51:56] more in interesting. I yesterday I told a friend uh because you were saying[52:02] about you know what what Instagram is showing you. I would say I told a friend, you know, it would be so cool if[52:07] there would be a reset button at Instagram where you can push and it'll it'll flats down your your algorithm.[52:15] Yeah, everything that it has learned about your, you know, the consumption patterns that you have because every once in a[52:22] while they take a weird turn and you're getting, you know, in your case, you're getting all those crashing airplanes[52:27] that would amplify the fears and and I don't know, I'm I'm getting at the moment I'm getting[52:35] nice boxer dogs because I'm a I'm a dog nerd. Uh I love dogs, so I get, you[52:40] know, like boxer puppies and stuff like that. But I also get a lot of videos of homeless people[52:47] uh that are depending that are shooting you know like fentinil and[52:53] I don't know because I followed that because at one point I've realized that you know this is one of the real you[53:00] know grave concerns that people should have that drugs have optimized themselves to a[53:07] degree that they dehumanize people in just a very short time and you know those fentinil zombies. They It It's[53:14] very tragic. So, that's the two things I'm getting. And and I feel like if I could press that release button now, uh[53:20] it would show me something else. My friend told me, "Why would they Why should they do that?" Because if you get[53:27] a random sample of whatever videos, you wouldn't spend time on Instagram, you[53:33] know, because it would bore you. But now it's got you, you know, it's got you hooked and you're sitting there and[53:38] you're watching also and you're watching, you know, videos, ads on on stupid nobody[53:45] really needs to buy, but that's what how they capitalize on that. So let's not maybe not get too far away from the UFO[53:52] topic, but I think No, no, it's it's great and I I could go on because that's[53:58] a topic that that really bothers me. I'm I'm literally, you know, working on AI[54:03] in a political context at the moment at the university and research. Um, but uh[54:08] I think they're all connected and I think they these topics are connected. They are massively connected. If you[54:14] look at the UAP environment now trying to you know get the bend uh I'm seeing[54:20] very often discussions by very reasonable people telling me that they[54:28] talk to chat GPT and the answers that they give that they get you know about[54:36] the nature of the universe and somebody speaks to them and I'm I'm quite[54:41] skeptical in the idea that there is a channeling of an extraterrestrial or[54:47] interdimensional entity through chachipity because chachipity is quite a clever tool. Well, listen, that's one[54:54] extreme, but the other extreme is literally yesterday I asked it how long I had to cook a 92 g frozen chicken[55:00] breast for and it told me 10 to 12 minutes in my air fryer at 180 uh would[55:06] do and it did not. I needed at least 18 minutes. So chat GPT may be having huge[55:12] conversations about you know the meaning of life for some folks but for me it can't tell me and that's chat GPT 5.1. I[55:19] pay for chat GPT could not tell me the right amount of time to count frozen chicken breast folks. So do uh keep be[55:25] wary of of using it far too much for that. But to zoom out a little bit um obviously you you you study political[55:32] culture, social attitudes and we've talked touched on some of that here. How have you seen the public narrative[55:37] around UFOs evolve? And I'm thinking even people who study this who are far older or younger from the early Cold[55:44] War, post-war decades to the X-Files era of the '90s and now we mentioned we've[55:49] talked about the social media age. What's what's standing out for you about the cultural shift around the UFO[55:55] conversation? Uh that's a really good question. Um I[56:03] it it's it's a bit hard to say because the problem with uh with history is that[56:09] I have a certain you know I have a certain feeling to and[56:15] about what happens at the moment but but when it comes to the 80s uh the 70s and the 50s I'm literally blind by[56:21] experience because I didn't live uh so I have to rely on what people are saying but when you study the cases and when[56:28] you look at the books that have been published and when when you're following I don't know maybe the the the[56:34] narratives of eupfology u and there has been a grand body of wonderful work that[56:39] has been produced over time um and you can differentiate between the ones that[56:45] you feel like I would like to take them seriously more than others that might have been produced for you know being[56:50] part of a of a a UFO community that has conventions and that that generates[56:57] capital. uh anyway that that there are shifts in the discussion and interestingly I think that you can see[57:06] uh a relationship between that what people are seeing and are reporting[57:14] um and something that fits into the time[57:21] the what do I mean with that I uh I think that the way that you[57:29] I mean there's within ufology people would say you know it's there is inter relationship between what people can see[57:36] and that is codified by the cultural environment that they live in because you know it when you are living in an[57:43] environment that is let's say before the first sepalin has ever flown[57:50] um everything that was around were just these hot balloons but apart from that there was no directed flying because[57:56] there has no for Lindberg and and the Wright brothers there has been no ape[58:01] art plane so your imagination would be technically limited and and that's what[58:07] they're saying about those cases of the so-called uh I forgot how you know the[58:13] flying ships you know late late 19th century the 14 flying airships[58:18] flying airships exactly thank you so there is you know it it kind of plays[58:25] with the the cultural and and the very precise imaginary of people. That's what[58:31] they can see because we are uh arguably humans are trained to see patterns. We[58:39] can't we can't just see things how they are. But we are conditioned to see[58:45] patterns because if we wouldn't be conditioned to see patterns. We would permanently be overwhelmed by by you[58:52] know everything that happens around us because there is so much happening at each and every moment and and you're[58:59] just trained to see the things that are stable that you know and and if you're in a room you know surrounded by[59:06] artifacts that have a personal history to you that level of stability is even higher. But if you go outside and you[59:13] know let's say at times square you're there is a lot of stuff going on on time square at 12 noon you know and[59:20] and you could be absolutely overwhelmed by the data that comes in but people are seeing patterns stuff they've seen[59:26] already and um so that goes on I think that this is some of the um keys of[59:36] understanding how people have looked at the UAP topic uh and have seen things.[59:42] It would be though under a different question to talk about but what is the[59:47] social and political impact of that? you know, not only what have they seen with respect to the things uh you know, it[59:55] was flying saucers at one point and and you know, somewhat in the 60s7s with the[01:00:02] early cases of abductions, but but definitely with uh with the appearance[01:00:07] of communion and and exfiles later on, you know, like the the omniresence of[01:00:13] the stereotypical gray that has not been, you know, in many of the old UFO[01:00:19] cases you the things that were described looked looked quite different than that. I mean 50s60s UFO descriptions, you[01:00:26] know, they've seen very very weird uh robotlike entities and huge, you know,[01:00:32] huge wolves and small green and large looking like jellyfish or whatever. So[01:00:38] there was a big variance and and today we're talking a lot about grays. We're talking a lot about uh Nordics and and[01:00:47] uh there are also cultural histories of those emanations because I'm not[01:00:52] ultimately convinced that this what people are reporting when it comes to[01:00:59] you know personalities or people or or entities[01:01:05] um would be in all cases you know the representation of a physical reality. I[01:01:12] think the phenomenon is more complex than that. I think that you know maybe even the opposition between you know[01:01:17] observing something and and you know being the observer and or the something[01:01:23] that is seen might be very more complex when it comes to certain[01:01:29] aspects of the phenomenon. So I'm I'm being you know cautious and even agnostic when it comes to that. But the[01:01:35] impact that what we really can talk about uh that has changed that has changed and[01:01:43] that has massively changed uh over the last[01:01:48] 8 years you know talking from from from 2017 on until today. Uh, I think that[01:01:56] the UAP phenomenon and the way that it's impacting societies, cultures, and and[01:02:04] people is right now at a historical point it hasn't been before. And that[01:02:11] has to do, in my opinion, with the nature of the media environment, the way that these things are reaching into[01:02:17] people's lives. Um the fact that you can uh literally you know build an epistemic[01:02:25] environment around that through the algorithms of your you know favorite social software uh where you're not[01:02:33] seeing much more else you know it's it's it's we're there there is a fragmented[01:02:39] chance of being a very very deep in the UAP uh rabbit hole uh you know being fed by[01:02:47] by a a huge machine. And I'm not saying somebody, you know, with with[01:02:52] clandestine interest is behind that. It's just something that appears. And I guess the way that people are processing[01:02:59] this information therefore will look different. Both the message uh and the media has[01:03:06] changed over time. And in the 60s, in the 70s, I mean, I I do not find it very[01:03:12] surprising that the X-Files was presenting the case the way it presented[01:03:18] it because it's, you know, it's in it's in a time where um[01:03:24] where trust into governments was reaching the low points that we've[01:03:29] seen. You know it's it's the politically speaking uh since the 60s7s and 80s in[01:03:38] all western liberal democracies we've seen a certain erosion of trust in[01:03:45] governments. There were amplitudes over time that had to do with wonderful presidents or or you know like changes[01:03:53] uh the when the you know when the iron wall came down uh there was a huge boost[01:03:58] of self-confidence on the western sphere because they thought that there was a triumph of capitalism over communism but[01:04:05] that has changed over time. At the moment, we're politically speaking in in an environment where trust in[01:04:11] governments is lowest it has been in very very long times. and[01:04:16] and and that has of course an impact also on the way that people are dealing with the UAP topic because it's much[01:04:23] easier to think that uh a potentially hostile government is hiding[01:04:30] stuff from you because it already find falls into that you know fertile ground[01:04:37] of widely shed uh uh uh loss of trust in[01:04:42] governments. But if you allow me to say that because it connects to what[01:04:49] I've said in in at the soul foundation and at the same time I must say because[01:04:56] I have really looked closely at the what I would call a realistic approach on[01:05:02] looking at the political system at institutions also there is reasons to be dubious[01:05:09] about what governments know or don't know. with respect to the AP topic because uh[01:05:16] what the UAP represents is you know it's a serious sovereignity crisis to modern[01:05:24] statehood. Take the US as you know one of the still being one of the leaders[01:05:29] militarily economically probably you know at least in self-im images[01:05:34] culturally as well uh but anyway the United States is one of the world powers and and what does being a world power[01:05:41] mean? That means capability over all other nations or at least in[01:05:47] tight competition with the other world powers. You are power, you know, it's about power. It's about capabil[01:05:54] military, you know, like ruling airspace, knowing what happens in the oceans, uh, being top-notch[01:06:02] technologically speaking. That is modern sovereignity and it is[01:06:09] represented by governments. That is a relationship between the two.[01:06:14] What does the UAP do? It's the contradiction of that. If it's true what[01:06:19] we're seeing, you know, it's saying you're not the number one. You're not even number three[01:06:26] on what we've seen. You are very very far down a potential road and and we are[01:06:32] technologically more capable. You don't know what we are. So there's is potentially some some sort of an[01:06:39] information disbalance and that is something that political, you know,[01:06:45] political sovereigns are having serious problems with. If you're in an authoritarian state, something that is[01:06:52] such a deep threat to your reset, the reason that you're there can be totally[01:06:57] blocked away. You know, it it it's part of the censorships. That stuff we don't talk about because it's it's problematic[01:07:03] for ourselves. In Western societies, it's not that easy. So, I don't know. It[01:07:09] makes sense that they're not sharing the details with us. That's probably when you Yeah. When you say the stuff we[01:07:16] don't talk about, I have to bring back the the conversation around experiencers. Uh because I think they[01:07:21] have to have their their their moment in the conversation. You mentioned how interested you are in the data around[01:07:26] that and and how that experience a conversation Christian for me looks is I[01:07:32] will always listen to someone sharing their story, their testimony. Um whether I believe it or not, I try I try not to[01:07:40] believe or disbelieve. I like to just take it at face value. and there's there's nothing I can really do in terms[01:07:45] of experiences other than if people want to share with me, I'm more than happy to listen cuz sometimes that's all people[01:07:50] want or need. But I can't do anything with that. I'm not a psychologist. I wouldn't want to dive into that any[01:07:56] further. I don't want to to explore that with someone. It's not my job to do that. I wouldn't feel comfortable for[01:08:02] from from multiple points of view. But in terms of experiencers, how do you[01:08:08] view that particular phenomenon? because it is difficult and I've hosted[01:08:13] many experiencers on the podcast. Many um and I hope anyone listening to this I've said this enough now that they[01:08:19] understand my take on it. I think there there is a large there's an element of[01:08:25] people who perhaps are suffering from a mental health issue that it manifests as[01:08:32] an experience and that could be UFOs, ghosts, demons, werewolves,[01:08:37] shadow people, um paranoia, whatever it may be. That's that's not always to say[01:08:44] that that mental health issue isn't brought on by a genuine abduction experience, whatever that may be. But[01:08:50] how do you go about discerning that whole conversation? You don't just believe everyone. You don't just[01:08:56] disbelieve everyone. And again, to frame it in a in a modern way, and sorry if I'm ranting a bit here, but you look[01:09:03] back, it seemed to me that growing up knowing the UFO topic as I did,[01:09:10] most of the cases, it was the same four, five, six, seven, eight, nine cases that were discussed from the 60s all the way[01:09:16] through to the '90s. the same magazines wrote the same the same cases. Betty and Barney Hill, Calvin Parker, you know,[01:09:24] Bob Lazar, all that kind of stuff came out. But then with the social media age,[01:09:30] you mentioned earlier, if something crashed in Times Square within seconds, it's on Instagram. We all have access to[01:09:37] probably too much information too quickly that you don't know what to do with it. You just, oh, that's[01:09:43] interesting. Swipe away. Oh, look. A nuclear bomb's gone off in a capital city somewhere. Wow, isn't that[01:09:49] terrible? Swipe away. Oh, look, boxer dogs. You know, that's it's the algorithm and it's what we're being fed.[01:09:55] So, how do you decide who's being truthful, who's not being truthful? Is that even the point of the conversation?[01:10:01] And and what would you want to do with the data itself? It's uh I really like the way that[01:10:08] you're approaching that because it's it's sensitive. Um and and I think you said that I think[01:10:16] the the truth question is that true? I mean[01:10:22] what does that mean? you know. Yeah. Did it did it happen in a in a universe that[01:10:28] works like a you know like a machine? Is everything that this person has seen or[01:10:34] uh things to have seen did that manifest on a physical[01:10:40] level of reality or didn't it? And and that is probably the way that[01:10:46] you're looking at that if you're, you know, if you're a strong natural history[01:10:51] person and a natural scientist because I have a very very clear idea about what[01:10:57] what reality actually means. Um see I I'm a social scientist and and and[01:11:04] within the social sciences we have something that is called the interpretive social science. uh that is[01:11:11] looking at what people are making, you know, the the meaning that brings people[01:11:17] together, the idea of nationhood, what it means to be a Scotsman and an independent, uh you know, stuff like[01:11:24] that that's connected to to things that happen inside people. They're subjective[01:11:33] to a certain degree. And and to me I'm very very careful about asking for[01:11:42] example the question you know you could say one of the first filter question and I must say I'm not an expert on[01:11:49] experiences that's not absolutely my cup of tea and there are people like you[01:11:55] know Michelle Bolander and and other people you would want to talk to who are who have a you know more more definite[01:12:01] and probably a more outspoken approach to that. But something I I can tell you what has been irritating me about that[01:12:07] is that I've heard that within the community, within our community, I've heard people say that one of the first[01:12:14] things that we should do is, you know, bring in some sort of a filter test[01:12:20] somebody saying something uh where we, you know, first test is there a[01:12:26] likelihood that this is, I don't know, some sort of a[01:12:31] like a a sudden phase of of your paranoid schizophrenia. Are they[01:12:36] triggered by something? You know, is is the hardware working properly or isn't it? Um and and then the next thing check[01:12:45] them socially. You know, is this somebody other people are going to tell[01:12:51] you can trust him or you can't? and and you know do what people do when they[01:12:57] walk along and talk you know go into a pub and talk to somebody and they're telling them quite an amazing story. The[01:13:03] first thing that you're doing you know correlating the amazingness to you know who is who is talking to me as a matter[01:13:09] of fact and when it's getting really crazy is it you know worth the time spending here and if that person seems[01:13:15] to be serious probably you're staying longer and listening to that. So you could do that and you can do find all[01:13:21] sorts of indicator telling that they have a you know good professional background that[01:13:26] they've been you know in the military and doing this and that and this and that. But[01:13:32] something that bothers me about that is that both of those tests[01:13:38] are tried they're trying to exclude that[01:13:44] either the people are are you know mentally ill or they're not they're[01:13:52] they're lying. So you're coming with some sort of a of an approach to that[01:13:58] which is actually presented which is you know the content of the witnessing the[01:14:04] data if you want and you're the first things that you're doing about that data[01:14:09] is you're giving those data a framing that has[01:14:16] an enormous amount of doubt in that. And if we're permanently, you know,[01:14:23] we're complaining about, you know, having to justify ourselves as UAP[01:14:30] researchers permanently again and again because we're approached by society with[01:14:35] a generalized doubt uh that we have to fight against and nobody takes that what[01:14:41] we want to say serious which is part of you know I think that there is a lot in the UAP topic you should take seriously[01:14:47] because it reflects some of the political ical issues that you're dealing with on other levels. You know,[01:14:52] UAPs and climate change are quite structurally uh u you know similar uh[01:14:58] with the way that they're going to affect the global community and and yet[01:15:03] you have to defend yourself in you know are you out of your mind or aren't you are you taking this seriously or aren't[01:15:09] you not taking that seriously and that is you know that that's some sort of a negativity impulse that I have.[01:15:16] Secondly, if if you want, you know, if[01:15:21] just for a second you think that some of those people really have to share something[01:15:27] and if they know that they first have to go through the mills of uh being triled[01:15:33] and tested, you know, mentally as well as socially and culturally,[01:15:38] it, you know, it it'll probably not increase the chance that you get to the core of it. It sometimes reminds me of,[01:15:46] you know, what the the church is doing, what the protocol of the Roman uh what the Roman protocol says about exorcism.[01:15:54] The first thing you have to do before finding out whether they're possessed by a demon is finding out whether they're[01:16:00] mentally ill or not. And and and also I I did I did always find that quite you[01:16:07] know in a in a sense I found it funny. I think that there are different reasons for the[01:16:12] church to put that, you know, at the beginning of a test. Probably it's something that you maybe should do[01:16:18] because possession u you know, like massive possession, I[01:16:23] don't know, uh could be something that very closely resembles uh certain types[01:16:30] of of uh uh mental health issues. You know, there might be structural[01:16:35] analogies, but I wouldn't want to do that with an experiencer who tells me stuff[01:16:43] I don't know, you know, like stuff that I've heard lately, you know, about, you[01:16:49] know, very very irrational people sitting in the living room. Uh, suddenly, you know, like a ball of light[01:16:56] enters the living room, rests for a while and and disappears. And and it[01:17:03] happened to my grandfather. I learned that two days ago. Wow. That that was a shock. And and and then[01:17:10] I talked to people who are telling me, you know, of course. I mean, that's a typical case of you know, you we've[01:17:16] we're seeing that very often. And and if I you know, if I then the first question is did, you know, did my grandfather[01:17:22] drink too much or did he and I'm not taking that serious. I think those witness reports would probably have a[01:17:30] threshold that they would not necessarily have to step over. However, Andy, I agree that we cannot, you know,[01:17:38] the consequence of what I just said cannot be that there is an absolute[01:17:44] anything goes and everybody can say what they want and there will be a large audience who takes that seriously. I'm I[01:17:52] react allergically to what you could probably call some sort[01:17:58] of an intuitive filter when I realize that people are telling me you know[01:18:04] complex stories about otherness and and what they want and and what they are and[01:18:10] and uh you know things that only they would know because they talked that to[01:18:16] in their ears and and I I don't want that. So we need to find middle grounds on on working[01:18:23] with the qualitative data and the stuff that people experiences would be telling[01:18:28] because I really think that it matters. I think it's part of the phenomenon. It it probably sheds light at a certain a[01:18:37] certain area of it that we have not taken seriously yet. I don't know what it means. I don't know if what we're[01:18:44] going to find out has nothing to do with the stuff that we're seeing in our skies. I don't know. But I think it's[01:18:50] serious and important. I mean, I'll share a story with you. I I think I've mentioned this on the podcast[01:18:55] before. Um, I can't be sure. However, I'm going to leave some details out just to protect the the identity of the[01:19:02] person. Um, I wouldn't think they're massively wellnown necessarily. However,[01:19:08] I'd just rather not go into certain details for multiple reasons. However, in the early days of the podcast, I was[01:19:13] invited to attend a virtual meeting with um a group. I'll just say a group based[01:19:20] somewhere in the world. Um not super secret, I mean literally just ordinary members of the public who are into UFOs.[01:19:27] Um and it was to to watch some uh presentations[01:19:32] and one person speaking um who was a potential guest I was I was recommended[01:19:39] to have on um shared their presentation and they discussed their lifetime of[01:19:47] abduction experiences. However, the abduction experience began[01:19:52] and they shared this during a massive trauma and I'm not going to say what it was happened to them, but it happened in[01:19:59] childhood and it's horrific. And for me[01:20:06] that just sounds like the abduction trauma is maybe it did happen genuinely,[01:20:12] but it sounds for me it's masking the really horrific thing that happened to them through their childhood. Um, and[01:20:19] they shared that on on this presentation and I found it really uncomfortable. But[01:20:24] then there's a lot of folks that were part of that who are they almost encourage that that that's a[01:20:32] credible conversation to have and for me that's that's someone who needs help. Um but again that that's for me[01:20:40] where I'll always listen to someone's story and I've I've spoken to so many other experiencers where I do genuinely[01:20:47] believe that something has happened to them at least they believe it's truly happened to them. Maybe it happened physically. I've I've often shared the[01:20:53] idea that I could well believe that if I was in bed beside my wife all night and say I didn't go to sleep and just[01:20:59] watched her and she woke up in the morning and said to me, "I was abducted last night and I could say you weren't.[01:21:04] I I watched you all night." Maybe she's her consciousness was abducted. Maybe[01:21:10] time is frozen and I had no idea. Maybe I've been manipulated. Perhaps that's an element of this. But I think there's so[01:21:18] many difficult aspects of the experience of conversation. I it does upset some people, but I do[01:21:24] understand why, for example, the Soul Symposium doesn't have multiple[01:21:29] experiencers stand on stage and have those conversations. I I've often used the example if let's[01:21:36] let's pick someone I don't know Gary Nolan Christopher Melon Lzando any of[01:21:41] these figures who have been sitting on on Fox News CNN MSNBC[01:21:47] Sky News BBC whatever news network you watch if I'm just going to pick Luis[01:21:53] Alzando just because it's the first name. Okay. Mhm. If he sits on Fox News and says[01:21:59] what he's said over the years, but then shares, "Actually, I was abducted once as well,"[01:22:05] every single conversation he has from then on in on a mainstream news network is the abduction experience. And I think[01:22:12] it's laughed at. I think people use it to poke and prod and make fun. I think there's a lot of folks in very senior[01:22:19] positions military, academically, and government who probably have had experiences that do not share them[01:22:25] because they do not want to go down that road in that conversation. And I I very much think experiencers will have their[01:22:31] time. But for the love of God, I don't know how we get to that conversation publicly[01:22:38] without huge ridicule turning folks off. And it's easy for some folks who are[01:22:43] very very experienc pushy pushy. Everyone's telling the truth. Everyone,[01:22:48] it's too easy to say yes, everyone has to hear this. Most of the public don't want to hear it or laugh at it or find[01:22:56] it mental for lack of a better word. And I just don't know how we bridge that gap at the minute.[01:23:02] That's wonderfully said. I two two things come[01:23:08] to my mind. Um remember on on when we talked maybe an hour ago about the way[01:23:15] that you know like the realization of the UAP phenomenon and and its nature[01:23:21] might be a question of distance and proximity. Mhm. It took me a while until I realized[01:23:27] that probably the shunning away from the experience of topic has to do with the[01:23:32] fact that it's the ultimate proximity because somebody is telling a story that[01:23:38] is a personal story. You know, they're they're talking about what they are have[01:23:43] been going through. Uh so it has a reality that already brings in[01:23:52] an interpretation of of what is going on. Sometimes, you know, some of those[01:23:57] stories are about communication, which is fascinating because, you know, on the one side, you know, some say we're[01:24:05] seeing UAPs in our airspace and we don't know what is behind that and then there[01:24:10] is this enormous, you know, body of data where there is, you know, where where[01:24:16] there has been exchanges and and people information has been exchanged. I'm again I'm not saying that either one of[01:24:22] them is true or isn't true but I'm just observing that and and so you could say[01:24:27] that while you know a close encounter of the second kind where you see something[01:24:33] and it's clearly there and it can't be explained away because it's zigagging and and even somebody's taking a picture[01:24:39] of that. It is not within our technological inventory. So it's the proof of something beyond human and it's[01:24:49] something that obviously is technologically uh uh capable or it's a[01:24:55] natural phenomenon that seems to be intelligible uh and and maybe the differentiation between nature and[01:25:02] technology is also something that is generally uh you know anthropocentric[01:25:07] and there are other you know I don't know if they've been around for four billion years as a civilization probably[01:25:12] the difference between that which is natural and that which isn't has blurred over time. So I like that[01:25:18] post-biological hypothesis. We've heard um Diana Pasula talk about that at um[01:25:25] the the the experiencer is in that proximity and[01:25:32] distance spectrum the absolute closeness. And if then the ridicule[01:25:40] correlates to the extent of how this[01:25:45] information is putting, you know, is asking existential questions. Of course,[01:25:50] the experiencer is, you know, the ultimate, you know, it's the ultimate bomb because they, you know, they're[01:25:57] telling you very weird stories about, you know, stuff that has been told to them or the aerial kids that that, you[01:26:04] know, many of them seem to have gotten information about that that we should be more um sustainable with the way that[01:26:12] we're dealing with our environments and blah blah blah blah blah. stuff that that bothers people anyway because we[01:26:18] know that we're up the environment and you want to look away. So don't look up, don't look down, don't[01:26:24] look into the forest. Where do you want to look? Don't look at the experiencer because the experiencer has a lot of bad news for you. You could say that you[01:26:30] know that this is a dimension. Uh and also something that[01:26:38] comes with the experiencing is that there seems to be an at least to the[01:26:44] extent that I know that uh uh there seems to be quite an heterogeneity of[01:26:49] things that are told. There's a lot of difference, you know, many different stories and they have to do with the[01:26:54] fact that it goes through people's interpretations. you know, if you're going through something as traumatic as[01:27:01] what Whitley Strea has gone through on his cabin um and and and you have a[01:27:06] lifetime to contemplate about that, you know, not everybody's probably ending at the[01:27:13] same result. So there is a big variance in the way that people are interpreting something that doesn't fit into into the[01:27:23] you know into the way that they expected the world to function. Something that I also find interesting is whether the[01:27:30] ridicule and the tendency to disbelieve[01:27:36] is a very modern phenomenon because u you[01:27:42] know we're living in an environment where you know Maxva has said that the[01:27:47] history of modernity is one of a permanent disenchantment. Once you had,[01:27:53] you know, you had angels and demons and and and you know, trusting God and and[01:27:58] everybody knew what their position is. That has kind of little bit broken down. Yeah.[01:28:03] There are many people, you know, religious people in in the audience here. I'm I'm not threatening you by any[01:28:09] means, but I'm just making some sort of a, you know, sociological observation here. Um, if you would have said 250[01:28:17] years ago that you've seen a shiny being talking to you,[01:28:25] uh, the discussion probably wouldn't have been whether that happened or it didn't happen. The question would have[01:28:31] been, has this been the devil or has it been angel speaking to you?[01:28:36] Interestingly, uh, most of the people that would report those things, uh, you know, back in the[01:28:43] 16s and 1700s, especially if they were women, they would be under certainly[01:28:49] under the, now I'm lacking the English word, fat, you say in German, the suspicion, the suspicion that they've[01:28:56] been visited by, you know, by the bil or by the devil, that they've been interacting with something which is not[01:29:01] godly because it was transported into, you know, the the the ideological environment of the time and the[01:29:08] theological interpretation of the likelihood of somebody who is not a priest or who hasn't studied the Bible[01:29:14] for many years having a real angelic encounter.[01:29:20] What I want to say is that trusting or distrusting something that sounds anomalous also is a function of the time[01:29:26] that you're living in. So, you know, and my last point that I would want to make[01:29:33] is that I I realize that[01:29:38] the, you know, the experiences story is so problematic[01:29:43] because it's not only problematic to the people who listen to you, but it's problematic to the people who go through[01:29:50] it. And I agree with you that there is a fine line between trauma[01:29:57] and screen memory. That might not be screen memory put over uh you know an[01:30:03] alien that then appears as an owl but that might be an alien is the screen[01:30:09] memory for you know for your uncle or for somebody else who is intrusive in[01:30:14] your environment. That that is certainly out there somewhere.[01:30:19] Uh so it's it's troubling something you said before reminded me of the last[01:30:26] point I want to make on your question here and that is when you said you know I would be in my bedroom and I would[01:30:31] look at my wife and and you know nothing happens at night you know you might you[01:30:36] hear her you know turn around more often than she does but but nothing spectacular happens[01:30:43] given that you had the patience to watch her eight hours in a row sleeping you know Nothing spectacular happens in our[01:30:49] bedroom at night. I can assure folks. Yeah, I'm not wanting to say that. It's just a sign of serious love to watch your loved[01:30:56] ones for eight hours. Absolutely. Absolutely. Regarding their sleep, but anyway. Uh and then she wakes up and[01:31:03] tells you, "I've been adopted." And she looks into your eyes in the same way that she's done for 25 years or for[01:31:10] however long you have been married because she is the person you trust. She[01:31:15] is your she's in an in a sense unless you have a dysfunctional relationship[01:31:21] but let's you know idealize that for a second. She is the the embodiment of[01:31:28] your normative compass of the way you're you're sharing a similar view on[01:31:35] reality. You learn to trust her. And I find that fascinating. When[01:31:42] the phenomenon shows up in those constellations, what does it do to your[01:31:48] significant others? And and how are you processing that? and uh and I have not[01:31:56] naming names but I you know one of the people in Germany that that is you know[01:32:02] rather known in in the UAP environment and he's a you know he's he's a serious[01:32:10] serious researcher he's a a natural scientist and and he's very rational and[01:32:15] and he's very structured and and uh and I met him on a conference and um[01:32:23] you know some sort of a small talk you know as the conversation goes especially[01:32:29] when it's about UAP what brings you here and this incredibly[01:32:35] rational structured uh uh downto- earthth thinking you know scientist who[01:32:43] was working you know in in the light of of public attention at a well-known[01:32:48] German universities says you know my author uh has seen several UFOs and and[01:32:56] you know and then then there was some sort of a you know close contact scenario that was really incredible and[01:33:03] you hear that from that person and you think wow that there there is some sort of an anti-thesis here which I don't get[01:33:11] but the point is I it took me a while to understand is that the truth and the[01:33:16] believing into what people present as the truth is something that is infectious That's also why why these narratives are[01:33:23] propagating because if I would tell my best friend tomorrow and I I can tell[01:33:30] you because that happens in my environment. my friends are seeing me taking that serious[01:33:36] uh and taking the topic serious and not starting the conversation with I don't believe in UFOs but I'm a social[01:33:43] scientist that has understood that this is an interesting topic to be concerned with because right now they talk about[01:33:50] you know about UAP at the the American Congress you know that's something that should concern a political scientist to[01:33:57] a certain degree no I'm not I'm not entering that discussion like that anymore I I have changed because I'm I'm[01:34:04] originally interested and I'm not excluding the possibility that this is[01:34:10] all there is so much smoke so there will be a fire at somewhere it might be[01:34:15] something that is shockingly different to what most people that are listening right now think and that I might even[01:34:22] think you know it could be something absolutely different shockingly different to that but uh the the thing[01:34:31] is a person that you love and that you trust significantly comes to you and[01:34:36] tells I think you know I've seen it or I really think[01:34:43] something is true to it and and here is why I find that so interesting because[01:34:49] when I haven't seen anything but I have talked to people I' I think I said that[01:34:55] on a podcast recently I'm not an experiencer but I'm an experiencer of[01:35:00] experience experiences. What I see is I talk to people that, you know, that tell me what[01:35:05] they've seen and and and again, you know, it it doesn't make sense. You know, they're they're down to[01:35:12] earth. Some of them are driven by a weird energy. And I understand that's,[01:35:18] you know, that's trying their intellect to close the cognitive gap that they're[01:35:24] going through with what they thought that reality is and what they what they now seen shaken, you know, so-called[01:35:31] ontological shock. But uh but I and that[01:35:36] is infectious. I mean, I don't know, Andy, you you've talked to many of those people. it probably the more you've[01:35:42] talked to them and the more you know rational-minded convincing downto-earth[01:35:48] trusting people. I've talked I remember that two or three years ago I talked to a to a farmer a potato farmer from Idaho[01:35:56] who made an enormous amount of money with uh with with airplanes that are[01:36:02] spraying detergent over the potato flowers. you know, rich person, but and[01:36:08] and I really liked him a lot, but I wouldn't say that there was an incredible science, you know, sci-fi[01:36:14] imagination working in the background. And the story that he told me was absolutely amazing.[01:36:21] Yeah. About, you know, missing time. I could go on hours talking about my favorite[01:36:27] case in Argentina. Uh I I think I shared uh with you a few information about that[01:36:33] about that anthropologist that went through through the desert and has seen these orbs and tells this story. It's[01:36:39] not making sense. It's these are trust. I trust them. I believe them. I can't[01:36:46] believe what they say that they've seen because it's so outrageous. But I trust the people and and in that sense also I[01:36:53] guess the experience the dimension of meaning and and what this could be and[01:36:59] the people talking about that has some sort of an infectiousness. And don't get me wrong that's not the infectiousness[01:37:06] of a collectic psychosis. It's just something that people have been doing[01:37:12] for 150,000 years. And that's oral culture. Talking about stuff and[01:37:17] convincing your next and neighbor about a story because that is something that has convinced you. And that's something[01:37:24] that in modernity kind of has lost its value. And I regret that. I think we're[01:37:30] much too much too visual. Should you know I think when it comes to[01:37:36] the UFO topic, I'll go by the mantra that we can't all be right, but we can all be wrong. Um, so I think that that[01:37:44] covers a lot of the topic for me in regard those conversations. I think that was my my biggest takeaway from from[01:37:51] Saul was was getting to speak to folks who have some incredibly lofty positions[01:37:57] across so many different disciplines. People who[01:38:02] genetically create incredible medicines, perform incredible medical feats, would[01:38:07] be at the higher end of businesses, academia, and that they would come and[01:38:14] chat and say hi. They they listen to this podcast, which was lovely to hear from folks and space agencies coming and[01:38:20] speaking to me who were like, I don't want my name mentioned. Um, I uh want to[01:38:26] introduce myself. Um, love this topic. They would either share an incredible experience. I could, you know, here[01:38:32] here's a different one for you. I um had a book signing just to get away from Saul for a minute. People are sick of[01:38:39] that. I had a book signing uh in a small town in Scotland last month month[01:38:44] September September time. Um and around 40 people, which was sold out, so you[01:38:49] know, go me. Um turned up and I'd say I'd say a third of the people in the room knew who I was, maybe half. The[01:38:57] other half were just folks who attended these types of things and events because it's a small town. And one of the gents[01:39:03] came up to me who in the town is pretty well known because of his business. Um[01:39:10] and he was so well-dressed and bit older 60s, you know, definitely 60s at least.[01:39:17] And um he was like, I I just love a few minutes of your time privately if you don't mind. And um he told me his[01:39:24] background. and he told me kind of why he doesn't talk about this stuff with people and he didn't know me or the[01:39:30] podcast, but he he heard there was a UFO book signing thing and he's like, "Can I show you a video that I took?" And[01:39:36] genuinely, it might be one of the best UFO videos I've ever seen. And I'm only[01:39:42] really thinking and saying that now. Um, he didn't send me it, but it's a video that he took daylight, which I always[01:39:50] love daytime on his phone. And you know when someone's of a certain age and they try and show you something on their[01:39:56] phone and it takes them ages to find it because they're still not too sure on apps and their camera roll and he's the[01:40:01] glasses and he's scrolling up and down and if he is listening to this then I hope I'm doing the story justice and he[01:40:07] says you know I saw this thing and I know everyone. It's one of those villages he went everyone knows everyone and because of the job this guy does in[01:40:13] his position he was like everyone knows me and I saw this thing. Imagine a kind[01:40:19] of Calvinesque background backdrop and he said this thing just goes across the sky. And[01:40:27] quite often people send me videos and I'll say it looks like it's balloons or it looks like it's birds. This wasn't[01:40:33] any of these. This was very clearly something silver metallic[01:40:39] not too high up either going across a pretty clear sky with the green hills in[01:40:46] the background. Um there was house there was a kind of farmhouse in the distance that gave me[01:40:52] an idea of how high off the ground it was and it was very clearly spinning and[01:40:57] you could see the three parts of this thing spinning and it just keeps going[01:41:03] and I was like that's really and I thought when the guy was telling me this I went it's going to be It's[01:41:09] not going to be clear. It's not going to be it's going to be balloons and I'm happy to say to someone that looks like a party balloon that looks like a bunch[01:41:14] of balloons. It genuinely I was like I in my head I'm racking my brain going, "What could that[01:41:21] be?" Cuz even though I do this, I want to go. It's got an explanation. Genuinely[01:41:28] stumped. I was like, "Mate, that is a very good video." He said he even called the people who lived in the[01:41:34] farmhouse at the time to say, "Did you know of blah blah blah?" Nope. He said there was also lights reported that[01:41:40] night, etc. in the area. People around there know each other. They phoned each other. And genuinely one of the best UFO[01:41:46] videos I've ever seen. Um, was there was there a second witness to that? Did like like for somebody else?[01:41:54] Not not that I spoke to, but other people had said they had saw the same thing. Other folks in the village reported over a day or so they had seen[01:42:01] silver object going across the sky, but that the guy had a really good video. Um, and like I say, if if you saw it,[01:42:08] you wouldn't be able to look at it and go, it's a flying saucer on a disc. it. Looking back, imagine if someone took[01:42:15] three kind of not balls, but kind of[01:42:20] maybe eggshaped objects and stuck them together. So, they were like, you know,[01:42:26] three in and a sort of triangle, but they just rotated, but it moved and it didn't like it's like a 60s[01:42:34] furniture piece. Yeah. Like a lampshade. Like your aunties would have your granny would have a lampshade like this. Yeah. And it[01:42:40] was but it was there and I was like Jesus it was so good. But anyway um I can't remember the point of telling you[01:42:46] that but that that for me was such an interesting video. No I I know the point. The point is really fascinating because what you've[01:42:52] just done is now you you've kind of confirmed I like all all the audience I'm talking to you right now at the[01:42:58] moment. look at yourself and look at how this what Andy has been reported how you[01:43:06] are evaluating that because I really think you know we've been talking about the infectiousness of of narratives and[01:43:11] and of course it could be true that both you and I are just talking I[01:43:19] mean you're you know you're having a podcast and you you have interest in people listening to you and I'm a[01:43:25] scientist who enjoys the audience and and the publicity but if we take that[01:43:30] aside and that what you've just reported which I'm you know I'm doubtlessly has[01:43:36] happened then this is exactly that moment where where this this story[01:43:43] translates into something the way that you've introduced that introduced that elderly gentleman man, it, you know,[01:43:50] it's not making it's just not making much sense. Why would he do that to if if that's the[01:43:57] story that happened, why, you know, of course, you know, he could have fun in in I don't know, having having[01:44:04] gaslightings and and try to get the conversation. I mean, you know, it might be that the CIA or whoever has[01:44:12] 150,000 people cleverly placed all across this globe permanently seeding those stories because they cover up a[01:44:19] very deep tech project that they're working with. But I don't know, you know, I I think we[01:44:25] would have heard more about that apart from the story that we read in the Washington Journal that was suggesting[01:44:32] that this was the case, but doing that in a very very unprofessional way in my opinion.[01:44:38] Christian, what I want to do because we have been going nearly two hours now. I full disclosure is not the name of this[01:44:44] episode, but um I had a whole format for this episode and it has gone completely out the window. Um I've still got well[01:44:52] half the interview at least that I wrote down. What I'd love to do is kind of wrap up and invite you back on in a[01:44:58] couple of weeks time or before Christmas, after Christmas if you can because there's so many different ways[01:45:03] I'd love to go with this and I think people would perhaps want to send in some questions as well to to close off[01:45:08] on. Is there any final point you would like to make just to kind of wrap up perhaps your thinking where you're at, you know, where do you think this is[01:45:15] going to go based on someone like yourself's involvement, the articles you've written, being at Saul, the[01:45:21] people you've spoken to, where are we at? the the I think we haven't we[01:45:27] literally haven't talked about, you know, what I said at all and and I've gotten some some really good feedback. I[01:45:34] I think there was a substance to that. I mean, I don't know if you heard that and if you liked it, but and you wouldn't say that. Yeah. you wouldn't say[01:45:41] something else. But uh but the the point that[01:45:47] that I would like to make is that people I no it's it's not you know I I can't go[01:45:54] with and and the you know the the truth of the story is this and that. I'm I'm[01:45:59] not there yet. What I want to do is I I want to tell people that I really think that the social and the political[01:46:07] dimension of this topic is something that has been to a certain degree under underestimated over time. I think there[01:46:14] are ways that you can approach that. If you would want to talk me about that at one point, I'm happy to do so. Uh I[01:46:22] think that the reality of the UAP topic both of the topic and the way that it[01:46:28] you know unfolds in society is much more complex than some of the discussions[01:46:34] that we're having on that and and and I think that we're also we're all at the[01:46:40] beginning here and and if I you know people that I talk to and and they say Chris when it comes to politics you have[01:46:46] a rather bleak assessment of the situation and I'm like I'm I'm it sounds So there is not so much we can do[01:46:53] because it's deeply ingrained in the way that politics and political institutions are working and and you know there's[01:46:58] this sovereignity dilemma and how to get out of that and um that's not what I[01:47:05] would like to transport. I appreciate the discussion that the both of us are[01:47:10] having here. I appreciate the discussion that happens in a science that start to[01:47:17] circle around the UAP topic. I'm not calling it UAP studies because I don't think that that's where we're at. We're[01:47:23] far away from that. You know, it's still such a founding phase and so many[01:47:29] conflicting and differing and and the interdicciplinarity is not regulated blah blah blah. There's a lot of stuff[01:47:34] that needs to be done. But there there is a crystallization that takes place. And also what I appreciate is that I[01:47:42] have witnessed instances of talking to people who are[01:47:47] not in the UAP camp that start taking that seriously to a certain degree.[01:47:53] Maybe because they realize that all their life they've been going to the movies and watched sci-fi that were[01:47:59] telling them stories about ETSs all along but there seems to be some sort of a magic line that they drew that you[01:48:06] know this is where reality starts and that's where my imagination ends and maybe that there are overbluring areas[01:48:14] so the discussion is opening up and uh and the last you know the last call that[01:48:20] I would make is uh Don't[01:48:25] I know that within the UAP societ community and also within the the the[01:48:32] disclosure community science already comes in with some sort of a[01:48:39] backpack. you know, you're always asking the complex questions and we need to progress from here and you know, we have[01:48:46] to ramp up and we have to prepare and talk about onlogical and catastrophic disclosure and blah blah blah. I think[01:48:53] it's good to be careful and I think it's good to make small steps at first because the dimension the potential[01:49:01] dimension of this is enormous and and I'm not saying that people will[01:49:09] you know will disappear or civilization you know is going to implode or whatever. I don't think actually that[01:49:15] there is so much of a catastrophic disclosure because one thing that we know about people and and societies and[01:49:24] political entities is that they're incredibly adaptive. We're permanently underestimating the power of the human[01:49:33] mind, the imagination, the way that we're progressing intellectually. There[01:49:38] is a lot of adaptive potential but it needs to be framed and and you[01:49:44] know it's it's not coming from itself. So try to make small step to be ready for big steps that might come rather[01:49:51] sooner than later. I still hope that's all for this episode of that UFO[01:49:58] podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe, and leave a[01:50:04] rating or review wherever you get your podcast. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit[01:50:10] like, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show[01:50:16] directly and get early access. Add free episodes and bonus content on Patreon or by subscribing on Apple Podcast,[01:50:23] Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatodcast.com[01:50:28] or in the show description below along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book,[01:50:35] Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, available now in all good bookstores and[01:50:40] through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in. Until[01:50:47] next time, keep looking up. You never know what you might see.[01:50:55] It wasn't a tic tac and not quite a saucer. More like a hub designed by Chauer. a little baroque and quite[01:51:01] steampunk like Alice was playing bass for the parliament of folk. The little hovered right inside of my window and when I shoved out the screen he made[01:51:07] it an issue. I don't think he expected me to see his ass, but I'd had some champagne and smoke a little.
UAP & Orb Investigations | Doug Buettner
Introduction
In this insightful discussion, Tim Ventura interviews Dr. Doug Bitner, a prominent figure in the field of aerospace engineering and UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) studies. Dr. Bitner holds significant positions, including deputy chief scientist at the Stevens Institute of Technology, chief technologist for cider.io, and board member at the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). With over 30 years of experience in aerospace, engineering, and academia, Dr. Bitner brings a wealth of knowledge to the conversation about UAP phenomena, scientific inquiry, and the future of research in this intriguing field.
Dr. Bitner's Background and Interest in UAP
Dr. Bitner's journey into the realm of UAP began somewhat serendipitously. After relocating to Utah to work on the next generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), he stumbled upon a television show titled "Secret of Skinwalker Ranch." This sparked his curiosity, leading him to reach out to Brandon Fugal, the owner of the ranch, and subsequently connect with Eric Barn. His interest was further fueled by family stories, particularly those of his grandfather allegedly witnessing a UFO, which he recalls with a mix of nostalgia and skepticism. This blend of personal history and professional expertise ultimately guided him to the SCU, where he felt he could contribute meaningfully to the scientific study of UAPs.
The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU)
Dr. Bitner emphasizes the SCU's unique position in the landscape of UAP research. Unlike many organizations, the SCU is characterized by its members' advanced degrees and diverse expertise, which allows for a comprehensive approach to UAP studies. The coalition is committed to rigorous scientific methods, including the establishment of peer-review standards for their research. Dr. Bitner encourages individuals interested in UAP research to engage with the SCU, highlighting its commitment to advancing the field through credible scientific inquiry.
Evidence and Skepticism in UAP Research
During the conversation, Dr. Bitner addresses the question of whether some UAP could be advanced aerospace vehicles of unknown origin. He maintains a cautious stance, stating that while he has encountered intriguing evidence, he has yet to see sufficient data to draw definitive conclusions. He stresses the importance of due diligence in investigating UAP phenomena, advocating for the elimination of prosaic explanations before considering more extraordinary hypotheses. Dr. Bitner shares his experiences analyzing various UAP sightings, noting that many can often be attributed to satellites, meteors, or other explainable phenomena. However, he acknowledges that a small percentage remains unexplained, warranting further investigation.
UAP Sightings and Analysis
Dr. Bitner discusses specific UAP sightings, including the Auadia UAP incident and the Customs and Border Patrol footage, which he finds compelling due to their potential implications for transmedium travel and gravitational lensing. He expresses a desire for more data to substantiate claims of extraterrestrial origins, emphasizing that the scientific community requires rigorous evidence before making such assertions. He also mentions the challenges faced in analyzing UAP data, particularly when it comes to lost or unavailable radar data from military sources.
Collaboration with Government Entities
Ventura and Dr. Bitner explore the role of government organizations like Arrow in UAP research. Dr. Bitner believes that while Arrow is doing its best with limited resources, there is room for improvement, particularly in terms of collaboration with scientific organizations like the SCU. He suggests that Arrow could benefit from outsourcing some of its investigative work to independent researchers, which would enhance the quality and breadth of UAP studies.
Public Perception and Psychological Factors
The discussion touches on the psychological aspects of UAP sightings and the stigma surrounding them. Dr. Bitner acknowledges that many witnesses may be hesitant to share their experiences due to fear of ridicule. He emphasizes the importance of validating these experiences while also applying scientific scrutiny to them. The conversation highlights the need for a cultural shift in how society perceives UAP phenomena, moving beyond skepticism and ridicule to a more open-minded approach that encourages scientific inquiry.
Future Directions in UAP Research
Looking ahead, Dr. Bitner expresses optimism about the future of UAP research. He anticipates that the interest in UAPs will continue to grow, leading to more public discourse and scientific investigation. He is particularly excited about upcoming conferences and the potential for new findings to emerge from ongoing studies, including his work on the Connecticut UAP case with Ben Hansen. Dr. Bitner believes that as more data becomes available, the scientific community will be better equipped to address the complexities of UAP phenomena.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the interview with Dr. Doug Bitner provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of UAP research, the challenges faced by scientists in the field, and the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry. His insights underscore the need for collaboration between government entities and independent researchers, as well as a cultural shift in how society perceives UAP phenomena. As interest in UAPs continues to grow, the potential for groundbreaking discoveries remains high, making it an exciting time for both scientists and enthusiasts alike.
In the transcript, Dr. Doug Bitner is introduced primarily through the interviewer, Tim Ventura, who provides a detailed overview of Bitner's professional background and qualifications. Dr. Bitner serves as the deputy chief scientist at the Stevens Institute of Technology and is the chief technologist for cider.io. Additionally, he is a board member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). Dr. Bitner brings over 30 years of experience in the fields of science and engineering, which includes a notable 20 years at the Aerospace Corporation, 7 years at Exxon Tech, and involvement with several Silicon Valley startups, as well as consulting work with NASA on the Stardust mission.
His academic qualifications are impressive and include a PhD in aerospace, aeronautical, and astronomical engineering from the University of Southern California. Furthermore, he holds both a bachelor's and master's degree in physics from Oregon State University. Currently, he is also an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Utah, where he teaches courses on space mission engineering.
- [00:02] "Dr. Doug Bitner, deputy chief scientist at Stevens Institute of Technology, chief technologist for cider.io and board member at the scientific coalition for UAP Studies."
- [00:44] "Doug has a PhD in aerospace, aeronautical, and astronomical engineering from the University of Southern California and both a bachelor's and master's of science in physics from Oregon State University."
Dr. Doug Bitner approaches UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) research with a strong scientific methodology. He emphasizes the importance of due diligence in analyzing evidence related to UAP sightings. According to Dr. Bitner, while he has seen some evidence of UAP, he has not encountered what he considers to be sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. He states, "[06:01] I personally haven’t seen I would call sufficient evidence of that yet." He insists on the need for thorough analysis before reaching any conclusions.
Dr. Bitner is involved in the Connecticut UAP study alongside Ben Hansen, which aims to establish a rigorous scientific framework for investigating UAP phenomena. He expresses a commitment to ensuring that preliminary analyses are conducted to eliminate prosaic explanations for sightings, noting that over 90 percent of UAP sightings may have mundane explanations. This analytical rigor is reflected in his approach to evidence: "[06:39] the problem is with 90 plus percentage of what we see out there being prosaic explanations." He highlights that significant gaps in data still exist, which must be filled to move from speculation to certainty in the field of UAP research.
- [06:01] "I personally haven’t seen I would call sufficient evidence of that yet."
- [06:39] "The problem is with 90 plus percentage of what we see out there being prosaic explanations."
Dr. Doug Bitner's interest in UAP research stems from a combination of personal history and professional curiosity. He recounts how his early fascination with UAP was partly influenced by stories from his family, particularly an anecdote about his grandfather allegedly witnessing a spaceship. Dr. Bitner reflects, "[02:19] apparently seeing a spaceship in the field out behind their house." This childhood experience sparked a lasting interest that eventually became a professional endeavor.
Professionally, Dr. Bitner transitioned into UAP research after leaving the Aerospace Corporation. During this period, he actively sought out organizations to join, which led him to the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU). His decision to engage with SCU was driven by a desire to contribute to scientific discourse around UAP phenomena. He mentions, "[03:08] so I thought yeah I could help out there and so that’s joined and I guess the rest is history." The SCU's commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry and the presence of highly qualified members attracted him, as he noted the organization possesses both depth and breadth in expertise.
- [02:19] "Apparently seeing a spaceship in the field out behind their house."
- [03:08] "So I thought yeah I could help out there and so that’s joined and I guess the rest is history."
Dr. Doug Bitner does not state that he has personally observed a UAP but does share a family anecdote about his grandfather allegedly witnessing a spaceship. He reflects on this memory, indicating that it had a significant impact on his interest in the subject. The circumstances of this observation involve his grandfather and some cows reacting to the event, which sparked curiosity and varied interpretations within the family. He mentions, "[02:19] apparently seeing a spaceship in the field out behind their house." This story reflects the foundational experiences that influenced Dr. Bitner's professional path in UAP research.
In his current professional work, Dr. Bitner remains skeptical and emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of claims regarding UAPs. He mentions that he has seen evidence but stresses that he requires more data before making any assertions about the nature of UAPs. He states, "[06:28] I have to be on the fence. I have to be skeptical and I would say, you know, people depend on scientists to be skeptical." This reflects his commitment to scientific rigor and the importance of substantiating claims with adequate evidence.
- [02:19] "Apparently seeing a spaceship in the field out behind their house."
- [06:28] "I have to be on the fence. I have to be skeptical and I would say, you know, people depend on scientists to be skeptical."
Dr. Doug Bitner discusses various challenges and obstacles faced by researchers in the field of UAP studies. He acknowledges the skepticism that exists within both the scientific community and the general public regarding UAP claims. He expresses the need for a cautious approach, stating, "[06:28] I have to be on the fence. I have to be skeptical and I would say, you know, people depend on scientists to be skeptical." This reflects a broader concern about the repercussions of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.
Dr. Bitner identifies a significant barrier in UAP research related to the lack of data. He emphasizes that much of what is observed can be explained through prosaic means, with over 90 percent of sightings potentially attributable to common phenomena. He articulates, "[06:39] the problem is with 90 plus percentage of what we see out there being prosaic explanations." This highlights the importance of rigorous analysis and the necessity of eliminating conventional explanations before considering non-human intelligences (NHI) as a potential cause. He notes that while he is open to the idea of NHI, concrete evidence is lacking at this time.
- [06:28] "I have to be on the fence. I have to be skeptical and I would say, you know, people depend on scientists to be skeptical."
- [06:39] "The problem is with 90 plus percentage of what we see out there being prosaic explanations."
[00:00] I'm Tim Ventura and we're joined today[00:02] by Dr. Doug Bitner, deputy chief[00:04] scientist at Stevens Institute of[00:06] Technology, chief technologist for[00:09] cider.io and board member at the[00:11] scientific coalition for UAP Studies.[00:14] Doug is a scientist and engineer with[00:16] over 30 years of experience including 20[00:20] years of experience at the Aerospace[00:22] Corporation, 7 years at Exxon Tech, two[00:25] years on Silicon Valley startups and[00:28] NASA consulting work on the Stardust[00:30] mission. He currently works as a senior[00:32] member of the scientific staff at[00:34] Stevens Institute of Technology as well[00:36] as being an adjunct assistant professor[00:39] at the University of Utah where he[00:41] teaches on space mission engineering.[00:44] Doug has a PhD in aerospace,[00:47] aeronautical, and astronomical[00:49] engineering from the University of[00:50] Southern California and both a[00:52] bachelor's and master's of science in[00:54] physics from Oregon State University. So[00:57] Doug, welcome. It's a pleasure to have[00:59] you with me today, sir. Thank you. Happy[01:02] to be here. So, we're talking about the[01:04] UAP phenomena and the scientific[01:07] coalition of UAP Studies. There's a lot[01:10] going on, a lot to unpack. So, I want to[01:12] start by asking about your initial[01:15] interest. What got you bitten by the[01:17] bug, so to speak. What got you into UAP?[01:20] And then what led you down that path to[01:22] joining the SCU? Actually, uh,[01:25] interesting story. So, um, I moved out[01:28] here to, uh, Utah to, uh, participate[01:31] and help and build the next generation[01:32] of[01:33] ICBMs. And, uh, a little show came on,[01:36] uh, right after, uh, Curse of Oak Island[01:39] called, uh, Secret of Skinwalker[01:42] Ranch. So, started watching that and I[01:45] thought, well, I'm in Utah, you know, I[01:48] happen to know a couple of things about[01:50] science, so, you know, maybe I could[01:51] help out a little bit. and found out[01:53] that Brandon Fugal was actually[01:55] aerospace's uh landlord out here at uh[01:58] Hill Air Force Base and I contacted him[02:01] and he got me in in touch with Eric[02:03] Barn. So I, you know, emailed Eric for a[02:05] couple years. Um have since[02:07] discontinued. He's got plenty going on[02:10] and he's plenty busy. So, um,[02:13] fundamentally just, you know, got[02:15] interested in it and I kind of grew up[02:17] hearing stories about my grandfather[02:19] apparently seeing a a spaceship in, uh,[02:22] the field out behind their house. Um,[02:25] apparently that spook some cows. Uh, my[02:27] cousin and I seem to recall it[02:29] differently in terms of way it was told[02:30] to us. So, um, she said that, you know,[02:33] fundamentally my grandfather went out[02:34] there because he heard the cows acting[02:36] up. And then I seem to recall my mom[02:38] saying something about uh aliens, but[02:41] now she says, "Well, I don't remember[02:42] saying aliens." I go, "Well, okay, the[02:44] story's changed over the years or my[02:45] memory has changed." So, um so that's[02:48] kind of how I got into it. And then I[02:50] left Aerospace Corp and um as I was uh[02:53] in the process of leaving, I was looking[02:55] for, you know, society to join and help[02:58] out. and kind of stumbled across SCU and[03:01] uh did a say a fair amount of research[03:04] on what they were about and some of[03:06] their papers and so I thought yeah I[03:08] could I could help out there and so[03:10] that's joined and I guess the rest is[03:12] history so yeah yeah the rest is history[03:16] and now you are on the board so let me[03:18] put a plug in for the scientific[03:20] coalition for UAP studies I am a big[03:24] advocate of the work that they're doing[03:26] the URL is explor[03:29] explores.org. I want to urge anybody who[03:31] is listening to this to visit the[03:33] website. There is a conference coming[03:35] up. I believe it is near the beginning[03:37] of June. So, explore seu.org that is[03:41] worth visiting. Um the scientific work[03:44] going on there is just par excellence.[03:47] It's absolutely amazing. So since you[03:50] are a board member, let me ask you for a[03:52] few words about what makes the SCEU[03:55] different than some of the other[03:56] organizations that are out there and why[03:58] should people get involved with the SCU?[04:00] So, I mean, uh, my big draw to it was[04:02] just the, uh, preponderance of advanced[04:05] degrees. Um, and the, you know, usually[04:09] have depth, but this had the breadth and[04:11] the depth, right? So, that was, uh, the[04:14] big draw for me is, uh, you know, just[04:16] taking a look at some of the people's[04:17] backgrounds. Um I can't remember all the[04:20] details in terms of percentages of PhDs[04:23] and bachelors and masters but um[04:26] everything I looked at in terms of the[04:29] um you know the papers they were doing[04:32] um you could tell they were spending a[04:34] lot of time on the on the review of them[04:37] um and it's only gotten better through[04:38] time. I mean, we're in the process of,[04:40] you know, putting, you know, peerreview[04:42] standards in place for ourselves and and[04:45] trying to get to where we're we're[04:46] pushing our articles towards the[04:48] mainstream journals. Um, and you know,[04:51] we just have a lot of stuff going on. I[04:53] mean, in terms of if you if you want to[04:55] be able to, I would say get in on the[04:57] cutting edge of um, UAP research, SCU is[05:01] where to go. Um, just, you know, first[05:03] and foremost, um, you can, uh, we got[05:07] our conference coming up. Um, you know,[05:08] that's expect a a big contingent of[05:11] people dialing in this year. Um, not[05:14] because of COVID, but because the[05:15] government um shutting down funding for[05:17] other other guies. So, um, that's, you[05:20] know, very low overhead. You don't have[05:22] to to travel for that. You can dial in[05:24] from anywhere in the world. So, um,[05:27] yeah. Yeah. I mean, we we are trying to,[05:30] you know, put out good science. So, I I[05:33] think the SEU does an amazing job. One[05:36] of the things that I like most about the[05:38] work being done there is the SEU is not[05:41] drawing a lot of premature conclusions[05:43] about what the UAP phenomenon is. But I[05:47] also wanted to ask given your education[05:50] and expertise in aerospace engineering[05:52] and physics, would you say that some UAP[05:56] are aerospace vehicles of unknown[05:57] origin? So I I personally haven't seen I[06:01] would call sufficient evidence of that[06:03] yet. Now, I will say that I have seen[06:05] evidence, but when I say sufficient, um[06:08] I would say our our due diligence isn't[06:11] done on some of that evidence. Um you[06:14] know, you probably know I'm working on[06:16] the Connecticut UAP study um with Ben[06:20] Hansen. Um that one I'm doing outside[06:22] the SCU, but I'm trying to trying to get[06:25] it to where I can bring it inside the[06:27] SCU. I'll call it um you know trying to[06:30] do our due diligence on the phenomena[06:33] before we actually start turning it into[06:35] a real study right let's try and get rid[06:37] of all the prosaics the problem is with[06:39] with 90 plus percentage of of what we[06:42] see out there being prosaic explanations[06:45] um you know I just spent some time[06:47] yesterday on the on the telecom about an[06:50] hour and a half with somebody that you[06:52] know has a lot of video and I'll say the[06:55] vast majority of what I see I can I can[06:57] point at satellite lights or I can put[06:58] at meteors or meteorites. Um, but then[07:02] there's going to be a small percentage[07:03] of where I'm like, yeah, I don't know. I[07:05] can I can speculate, right? And and when[07:08] I have to speculate, that means more[07:11] data is really needed um in some of[07:13] these areas. Now, in terms of vehicles,[07:16] I'll just go back to, you know, what my[07:17] grandfather apparently saw. Um, let's[07:20] just have to leave it at that. I mean, I[07:22] I I would love to be able to say yes,[07:24] but at the moment, I I have to be on the[07:26] fence. I have to be skeptical and I[07:28] would say uh you know people depend on[07:30] scientists to be skeptical and until[07:33] they get the the evidence to be able to[07:34] sway themselves off the fence. So yeah.[07:37] Well, and I'm right there with you. I I[07:39] think it's good to be able to plant a[07:41] flag and say this is what we know and[07:44] then you know I think it's also good to[07:46] be able to speculate a bit and say this[07:47] is what could be going on but we're not[07:50] sure. Right? And you have to delineate[07:51] between those scientific. certainly one[07:53] of the hypotheses, right? And so anybody[07:56] that's ever gotten a PhD, it's all about[07:58] hypothesis testing and learning how to[08:00] do that, how to how to do research to be[08:02] able to, you know, narrow down or either[08:05] rule in or rule out, right? And[08:07] typically, you're trying to, you know,[08:08] if I find one case that I can say, yay,[08:10] verily, that's a, you know, and and and[08:13] this is where I it's like you you[08:15] probably saw me poking Gary Nolan in the[08:17] chest a little bit. It's like, where's[08:19] the data, you know? So, well, for me[08:23] that one case is the Auadia UAP[08:27] sighting, the Customs and Border Patrol[08:29] footage is just as credible as the[08:31] Nimtts footage, much higher quality and[08:34] demonstrates or appears to demonstrate[08:36] both transmedium travel and what could[08:39] be called gravitational lensing around[08:42] the craft. What are your thoughts on[08:44] those possibilities? It's funny you[08:46] should ask me that. So, as you know, the[08:47] arrow just came out and and say yay[08:49] verily. It's a a Chinese lantern um[08:52] right along with uh MC West and and and[08:55] they're not the only ones. So, the SCU[08:57] has just pulled together a team of uh of[09:01] independent um scientists that did not[09:04] participate in that analysis, and I'm I[09:07] must admit that I'm one of them. And[09:09] that's as much as you're going to get[09:11] out of me at this point until we have[09:13] our independent analysis.[09:15] Okay. Chinese lantern. Huh. It's so[09:18] we're we're back. We're back to that.[09:19] We've come a full circle. What is that[09:21] like the 50s and then the 70s and it's[09:24] just whitewash explanations. So, yeah,[09:28] we we've got to do our due diligence and[09:30] so we'll we will independently look at[09:32] it um and um give our opinion.[09:37] So, Dr. Kevin New at the SEU has done[09:40] several studies on UAP data going back[09:43] to the 1950s and he feels confident[09:46] enough in his case to state that UAP are[09:49] extraterrestrial in origin. Um, again,[09:52] this is not across the board because a[09:54] lot of these are mistaken sightings,[09:56] right? People do see things like, you[09:58] know, balloons, weather balloons,[10:00] Chinese lanterns, and they take a photo[10:02] and they say, "Look, it's a UFO." Well,[10:05] in one sense, yes, but that doesn't[10:07] necessarily mean it's extraterrestrial.[10:09] What are your thoughts on that[10:11] possibility though, the extraterrestrial[10:12] hypothesis? More data needed. I mean, I[10:15] think NASA was spot on. Um even I was[10:18] even in on a a board panel a couple[10:21] weeks ago with um uh Arrow's science[10:24] advisor and and we're both both of the[10:26] opinion we need more data. Um you know[10:29] we I kind of kicked off the science that[10:30] that panel with the science adviser by[10:32] showing three very good cases where you[10:35] know I'm scratching my head. I can say[10:38] it could be a UAP or it could be[10:39] something else. And the problem is, you[10:42] know, we need the data to be able to say[10:44] it's a UAP and then okay, if it is still[10:47] in the UAP, um, you know,[10:50] class, what is it? Is it a hard thing?[10:54] Is it a, you know, drone from[10:56] extraterrestrial? I mean, there's a[10:58] whole bunch of things that, you know, we[11:00] can go down that, you know, rabbit hole[11:01] path, if you will, but in going down[11:03] that, I need to be able to first make[11:05] sure I've got everything else pretty[11:07] much crossed off. what I call it's a[11:09] well it's not only I it's called[11:11] Ishikava diagram or a fishbone diagram[11:14] right we use this um when we put up[11:16] satellites and we got some anomaly on[11:18] the satellite same thing we got an[11:20] anomaly here right and you go through[11:22] and you you do your due diligence on all[11:24] the little fishbones and you you put a[11:27] red you know not this thing um until[11:30] you're down to what it has to be because[11:33] you've ruled out everything else and[11:35] that fundamentally is how science and[11:36] engineering works. It's got you got to[11:38] go through you got to do your due[11:40] diligence and so you so you can either[11:42] rule in or rule out and unfortunately[11:45] the data is not there to do the rule in[11:48] you know hats off to Skyatcher and all[11:50] that. Um but um you know uh people that[11:54] are looking for the hard science are[11:56] going to be looking for the okay where's[11:57] the thing I can go touch where the thing[11:59] I go poke at I can take photographs[12:01] myself instead of seeing it I can you[12:03] know validate the photographs I got you[12:06] know things of that nature and so[12:08] there's just a whole bunch more evidence[12:09] and I'll call it you know what I'll call[12:12] rock solid evidence right to where even[12:15] your most diehard uh not a UFO person[12:19] will will say Okay. It's got to be[12:21] something that's not of human origin and[12:24] that and that's where you got to take[12:25] it. Well, so going back to, you know,[12:29] rigorous scientific interpretation[12:31] analysis, for me, it seems like there is[12:34] kind of a tipping point, I guess, where[12:37] if you're able to definitively prove or[12:40] at least say to yourself, yes, this is[12:43] some kind of an artificial aerospace[12:45] vehicle of unknown origin. Right? When[12:48] you look at the Nimtt sightings, the[12:50] performance and flight characteristics[12:52] of that, or at least what is reported[12:54] and documented, I know that that was a[12:57] big inspiration for Dr. Kevin New[12:59] because he was looking at that saying,[13:01] okay, if this is an artificial craft, if[13:04] this is something that is is not some[13:07] kind of a mirage or anything like that,[13:10] then the performance would tear apart a[13:12] normal airframe. the G-forces would[13:14] instantly crush any kind of a pilot or[13:17] life form inside of it. Right. And so it[13:19] seems like that takes it, you know, it's[13:22] it's not just moving it forward one[13:24] step, it's moving it forward four or[13:26] five steps all at once. Right. Right.[13:28] Well, you know, I I've got a lot of[13:30] respect for Kevin. Um I really do. But[13:32] I've also um looked at I'll say a little[13:35] bit of the arrow analysis and[13:36] unfortunately it's one of these things[13:38] where and in fact even in the the um[13:42] panel with um their science advisor[13:46] somebody in the audience brought up the[13:47] Nimttz case and my comment back to him I[13:50] go trust me both of us know the Nimttz[13:52] case. Um I said but you know I know what[13:56] Arrow's perspective is. Arrow's[13:58] perspective is gee, wouldn't it be nice[14:00] to have that radar data? It's gone. Um,[14:04] and I would say it got very[14:05] uncomfortable and very uh uh interesting[14:08] during that discussion um specifically[14:11] on that because you don't have that[14:12] data. It's not archived off somewhere.[14:15] Apparently, it's lost. You talk to the[14:17] guys in the Nimtts, you know, I know Ben[14:18] Hansen did like on season one, first[14:20] episode, right? Somebody came on board[14:22] and there took their data. Um, well,[14:25] gee, then if they took the data, it's[14:27] got to be somewhere. Um, and so, you[14:30] know, the military is a big organization[14:32] and maybe maybe some black program out[14:34] there has it, but um, it doesn't sound[14:37] like Arrow's aware of it. So,[14:39] well, and that goes to what David Grush[14:42] has said, right? He believes that there[14:45] are some kind of black projects out[14:47] there that may be even trying to reverse[14:49] engineer these craft. Have you seen any[14:52] indications of anything like that? I[14:54] personally have not. Now I will say that[14:56] I have talked to Eric Davis. Um both of[14:58] us came out of aerospace corp and in[15:00] fact you know being part of the SEU I[15:02] reached out to him and we kind of kind[15:04] of was like I I think I remember being[15:06] in an office with you once in a meeting.[15:08] Um but uh I think it was uh when I went[15:12] to visit Huntsville for a different[15:14] program. Um they have tornado warnings,[15:17] right? And when you have a tornado[15:19] warning, everybody goes into the the[15:21] subtle part of the building. And I think[15:23] we were in the same conference room, you[15:25] know, waiting it out at the at one[15:26] point. So, um, but anyway, um, I I have[15:31] heard his what he what he talks about.[15:34] Um, and I would say he's very[15:36] convincing, but yet I, you know, again,[15:39] I've got to I've got to be the guy on[15:41] the on the on the fence at the moment[15:43] and have to be the, you know, the guy[15:45] from Missouri saying, "Show me." Right.[15:48] So, yeah. No, that makes absolute sense.[15:51] Well, let me ask about Arrow. Um, I[15:54] wanted to ask what your thoughts were on[15:56] the UAP historical report that they[15:58] released. Robert Powell at the SCU wrote[16:01] a detailed criticism of the Arrow report[16:04] on Twitter, concluding with the[16:06] statement, Arrow should stick to its[16:07] mission statement, leave science to[16:09] scientists, meet its requirements as[16:11] laid out by Congress, and stop its[16:13] bickering with the claims of whether or[16:15] not recovered ET craft exist. This is[16:18] the job of Congress. So again, going[16:20] back to our scientific perspective, what[16:23] should Arrow be doing? Are they dropping[16:26] the ball in any way and is there more[16:28] they could be doing? You know, I[16:30] honestly think they're doing the best[16:32] they can with the resources they've been[16:33] given. Um, now, one of the things you[16:36] need to understand is, um, when you are[16:39] an office inside the Pentagon, you're[16:41] not allowed to ask for money. You cannot[16:44] have something going up to Congress[16:45] saying, "I can do a better job if you[16:46] give me more money." Can't do that. Um,[16:49] and so at some point they will do the[16:52] best job that they can with the[16:54] resources they're given and uh, you[16:58] know, based on everything I've seen out[17:00] of them and I' I've talked to them. Um,[17:02] I see I see them doing exactly that.[17:04] Now, one one frustration I see from them[17:08] is they have to protect national[17:11] security and national security has to be[17:13] first and foremost in their minds. And I[17:16] know that um you know even through my my[17:19] job with Stevens and and the Harvard[17:22] University affiliated research center[17:24] Eric um I have to put my stuff through[17:27] what's called DOPs. It's a defense um uh[17:30] review board um looking for potential um[17:33] security violations and you know things[17:36] that you know would say you know walk[17:39] the fine line and having worked in that[17:42] I would say arena for 20 plus years you[17:46] you kind of know where that red line is[17:48] and try to stay away from it. So so[17:50] fortunately I haven't had any issues.[17:53] Um, but it's I I I can just tell that,[17:56] you know, that is that's an issue that[17:58] they have to play play through, right?[18:00] Um, and specifically with[18:02] vulnerabilities is the the big problem,[18:05] right? And and our capabilities. You[18:08] don't want to give your adversaries, you[18:10] know, cart blanch access to what you can[18:12] do and what you can't do. So, well, one[18:15] of the things I'd wondered about was if[18:18] it would make sense for Arrow to work[18:20] more openly and collaborate with[18:23] Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies and[18:26] other scientifically based organizations[18:29] that are out there, right? Because as[18:31] you'd mentioned, I mean, you know,[18:33] staffing and funding are always a[18:35] challenge and because they are so public[18:37] and because the public is so passionate[18:40] about UFOs, right, they get mobbed by[18:43] stuff and so I can only imagine but they[18:46] must get dozens if not hundreds of, you[18:48] know, emails a day. Many of those[18:51] containing videos and a lot of that[18:53] stuff is, you know, just like cell phone[18:56] footage, right? where they have to go[18:57] through and they're like, "Okay, you[18:58] know, no, no, no, no, no." And they may[19:02] end up getting jaded. I mean, there's[19:03] all sorts of stuff that goes along with[19:05] that, right? By being public and being[19:07] in the spotlight, so to speak. Do you[19:09] think that they could outsource some of[19:11] that to other organizations? I hope they[19:14] do. And in fact, if you read their[19:16] mandate, um, their congressional[19:18] mandate, you know, the language, I mean,[19:20] they fundamentally have the authorities[19:22] to go what I'll call grab, right? pull[19:25] in and and utilize um uh personnel, you[19:30] know, they can they can come grab me if[19:32] they wanted to, right? Um and pull me in[19:34] and say, "Okay, you're now working on[19:36] KX." Um but they've got the authorities[19:39] to, but whether they got the money to or[19:41] not is the question, right? Um and I[19:44] would say based on my conversations with[19:46] them, I I believe they want to do that.[19:49] whether or not they're allowed to. And[19:50] in and unfortunately right now, it's[19:52] just a in the US government, anytime you[19:55] have an administration change, you have[19:56] to wait until the new administration,[19:59] you know, you got what I'll call people[20:01] that come in during the transition,[20:04] transition[20:05] assistance. Um, they'll sit in on the[20:08] meetings. I know when I was in the[20:09] Pentagon, I had I was in the the first[20:11] Trump administration transition and we[20:14] had, you know, political appointees[20:16] coming in or political identifiers that[20:18] are, you know, they'll attend all your[20:20] meetings and see what's going on. When[20:22] the actual appointees get in there, um,[20:25] and then they'll start, you know, I'll[20:26] say dictating to you as the civilian[20:29] what the administration's policies are.[20:32] And so that's just kind of the way you[20:33] have to do it. when you have that[20:35] administration change, I you know, it's[20:37] you have to wait until you know those[20:39] boots are on the ground and and telling[20:41] you what to do and okay and so right now[20:44] it's you know I can tell you that I[20:46] believe they want to but um we just have[20:50] to wait and see what the administration[20:51] wants to do. Well, one of the reasons I[20:54] mentioned that was I had the very[20:56] distinct impression that Dr. Sean[20:58] Kirkpatre as well as others ended up[21:01] with what you might almost call a siege[21:03] mentality. And again, this goes back to[21:05] the public nature of the work that they[21:08] do, right? But Arrow is squished in[21:11] between the government, you know, the[21:12] the defense department, Congress, and[21:15] the general public, and everyone is[21:18] passionate about this this, you know.[21:21] Oh, trust me. I got I got into big[21:23] arguments on uh on Twitter and and[21:25] literally killed off my because I was[21:27] like I I'm too busy arguing with some[21:29] people that you know they're they're on[21:31] one side when I think you know for me[21:33] I'm in the middle. I'm trying to say and[21:35] and I get slammed as a scientist even[21:38] spending time investigating it because[21:41] you know you got like I said you got[21:42] your well dichotomy right it's like you[21:45] got the people that are the true[21:46] believers you got the people the there[21:48] is no way it's a UFO it's something else[21:50] right the debunkers in that community[21:53] and and I'm coming at it based on what[21:56] I'll call my scientific background as[21:58] well as just hearing the stories from my[22:00] mom right I know based on you know all[22:03] the reports that I've about my[22:04] grandfather and what a you know let's[22:06] say high integrity guy he was. So I have[22:09] to believe it. So now it's like okay but[22:12] where's the proof and what can we do to[22:14] help you know let's say move the needle[22:16] one way or the other. Um but right now[22:19] it's it it's a little bit frustrating[22:22] but you know I know like again based on[22:24] conversations I've had with different[22:26] people um inside and outside the[22:29] government on this it's um they're kind[22:31] of caught. It would be nice if a chunk[22:34] of money from Congress, I don't care if[22:36] they're managed or whatever, but a chunk[22:38] of money comes out and it goes to an SC[22:40] or some other organization, right? That[22:43] allows an independent capability to[22:45] happen. Um, you know, for example, the[22:48] work that I'm doing with Ben Hansen,[22:49] that's completely self-funded. That's[22:51] coming out of his pocket, my pocket, you[22:53] know, everybody else because we see a[22:55] case that, you know, it looks pretty[22:58] pretty valid. Um, we just need more data[23:01] and more more evidence to be able to[23:03] swing other people. So, well, do you[23:05] think I could ask about that? I I am not[23:08] familiar with the Connecticut case.[23:09] Could you tell me a little bit about it?[23:11] Uh, News Nation, we had a uh a case that[23:13] came to us, this in September. Um, you[23:17] know, I've been supporting Ben kind of[23:19] on the side. Um, for example, all the[23:22] stuff that uh Christy Newton um on her[23:25] our TV show um you know all the all the[23:29] different it's the Starlink satellites.[23:31] I was the guy doing that analysis and I[23:34] just I had to laugh at one one couple.[23:36] It's like well we just wish you know[23:38] there were you know people that you know[23:40] really knew what they were doing doing[23:41] this analysis and all I was doing was[23:43] laughing because it's like I do this[23:46] right. Um, and so, uh, what we're trying[23:51] to do is, um, you know, vet these cases.[23:55] Ben will get them through his website.[23:57] And this was a really good case. I mean,[24:00] we had video. I looked at the video and[24:02] and, you know, I pretty much don't[24:05] believe it's a Chinese lantern, even[24:07] though that's probably one of the higher[24:08] probability[24:10] pros. We we took a look at drones, um,[24:13] stuff. you know, you you listen to the[24:15] the police officer's testimony about[24:18] what happened. Um, you know, we talked[24:21] to him. I mean, officers police officers[24:23] are consider considered very high um[24:25] credibility. Same with pilots and those[24:27] are the kinds of cases that we try to[24:29] focus on. There are some other ones that[24:31] we will we will take, but um and so[24:35] we've got um you know the video on this[24:37] case uh we worked it as much as we could[24:40] offline um and then it broke on[24:42] NewsNation actually on um Thanksgiving[24:46] Eve and you can you can go to[24:48] NewsNation, put Officer Klein, UAP or[24:51] UFO and you'll you'll find the the[24:53] stories. And so then we went out there[24:56] and in December of 2024 and spent about[25:01] four days out there I believe three four[25:02] days and you know we're out around the[25:05] you know found out where he was. Um and[25:09] so we're going to try and go out there[25:10] again in May and do some more we'll call[25:13] boost on the ground. Um I I will leave[25:16] it vague in terms of everything we're[25:17] doing. Um I'll hopefully be able to pro[25:20] provide a little bit more information at[25:22] the SCU conference. um specifically in[25:25] in the additional data we got and um[25:28] I'll have an analysis on the data that[25:30] we do have already in pocket. So that[25:33] there is video out there for this one[25:35] then. Yep. Now I I should preface that[25:39] by saying video is becoming more and[25:42] more questionable over time. I I think[25:44] one of the challenges that we're seeing,[25:47] someone said this to me the other day,[25:48] is that we've we've uh entered the realm[25:51] of, you know, AI generated fakery to the[25:54] point where you can't trust video[25:56] anymore, right? And but you know, saying[26:00] that you could say the same thing about[26:02] photography, right? I mean, decades ago,[26:05] you know, we entered the point where[26:07] people were able to fake photographs[26:09] effectively and you couldn't trust them.[26:11] So, I think it's it's always kind of[26:13] this trust but verify, right? You have[26:15] to go back and look at your source, what[26:17] you're doing, boots on the ground. You[26:18] have to talk to the people, you know, is[26:20] this what you saw? What direction was[26:23] the camera pointing? What time of day?[26:24] What could possibly be going on there?[26:26] Yep. Yep. You got it. So, um, uh, what[26:30] I'll just say is we got, you know, more[26:32] data that we're hoping to get. We're[26:34] going to try try and triangulate on it.[26:37] Um, I've got some independent scientists[26:38] also coming out to just kind of[26:40] hopefully hopefully it shows up. You're[26:42] right. Um, it appears to be a repeating[26:44] phenomena. I would say if if it's if it[26:47] is a repeating phenomena, our highest[26:50] possibility is some kind of a a weather[26:55] or something related, you know, ball[26:57] lightning type plasma of some sort,[26:59] plasmoid of some sort. Now, what's[27:01] interesting is if you remember Klosski's[27:04] um uh testimony to the Senate, he had a[27:07] very similar case he talked about on the[27:09] West Coast. And actually, if you go[27:11] through the UAP history, you'll see[27:13] there's a a number of cases that are[27:16] what I'm I'm going to call a plasmoid[27:18] like ball of something, right? U I don't[27:22] know if it's electrons or protons or or[27:24] some mixture thereof or just, you know,[27:26] some kind of a I don't know. I' I've got[27:28] to I'll call it, you know, let me get[27:30] rid of the prosaics first, but then we[27:31] can start going down down that path once[27:33] I start, you know, getting enough data[27:36] to say it's not a prosaic, right? So,[27:39] well, that's one of the reasons that I[27:40] am so keen on better measuring and[27:44] detection devices, you know, like Mitch[27:47] Randall has a passive radar system that[27:49] I think is absolutely brilliant. And I[27:52] know there are a few other people who[27:53] are experimenting with that as well. But[27:55] being able to collect data right across[27:57] multiple spectrum, multiple types of[27:59] devices, you know, and basically[28:01] crossorrelate that and say, okay, here's[28:03] what we see in the visual spectrum.[28:05] what's going on in these other spectrum,[28:07] right? Yeah. So that's NDIA talk. I[28:10] talked about that. Sue Apps talk, I[28:12] talked about that, right? It's like you[28:14] get additional modalities, you start[28:15] raising the bar. Um and then[28:18] specifically at the Sue Apps talk in in[28:20] was August, I think it was. Um that one[28:23] I talked about data integrity and you[28:25] know, and the and the mere fact that[28:26] just like you were saying, videos can be[28:28] fake nowadays. And so I talked about[28:31] different uh different projects going on[28:34] to try and you know identify those fake[28:36] videos. Um you know what I would call[28:39] the right now is the probably the best[28:42] approach is to do what's called the zero[28:44] trust architecture or ZTA. And um[28:48] there's N standards on it. Fundamentally[28:50] it's like you you don't trust anything[28:51] along the line. you basically you're the[28:54] second your images are grabbed or you go[28:56] off and you're you're doing things to um[28:59] I'll say authenticate them and encrypt[29:01] them and and things of that nature,[29:02] right? Um because fundamentally when I[29:06] see something on Twitter um that's like[29:08] this, I immediately put it way down,[29:12] right? U in terms of uh possibility I[29:15] mean it could be valid but the problem[29:17] is the way they they went and reported[29:19] it you know report it to a muon or an[29:22] SCU or some organization take it archive[29:25] it and then look at it and analyze it.[29:30] Yeah. Well, I I think one of the biggest[29:33] factors that isn't getting enough[29:34] attention right now is the psychological[29:37] aspect of this. And I know in the past[29:40] things have been just rapidly dismissed,[29:43] you know, and so I think that is why,[29:45] you know, in a in this new era that[29:47] we're in, the psychology plays a little[29:49] bit less of a role. I would like to see[29:52] more I guess being acknowledged there[29:54] because the human mind the human eyes[29:57] you know they make mistakes. I mean,[29:59] people are up, especially, you know,[30:01] people see these things at night. They[30:03] are tired. They're driving. There's all[30:05] sorts of stuff going on. They whip out[30:07] their camera. They're not prepared for[30:09] them. So, you know, they end up with[30:12] something that is powerful emotional[30:14] experience to them, but it may not be an[30:17] extraterrestrial craft. And if I[30:19] remember right, the the data said that[30:23] over 95 to 97% of all sightings can be[30:27] prosaically explained. Right. That's[30:29] about right. Yep.[30:32] Think we've seen the same data data[30:33] source. Yeah. Well, and so one of the[30:36] challenges then for me and I I meet lots[30:39] of experiencers as well and it's a it's[30:42] a spectrum. Sometimes someone brings you[30:45] something and you don't know enough to[30:47] say. you could just say, "Okay, I I want[30:49] to validate your experience. Something[30:51] emotional and powerful happened and I[30:55] don't have a good clue." Right? And then[30:57] there are other times where you see a[30:59] video or something like that and you're[31:00] like, "Okay, I think this is prosaic,[31:03] but I don't want to hurt the person's[31:05] feelings." And so I think in those[31:07] cases, we just kind of say nothing.[31:09] Right. Well, I you know, going going[31:11] back to Officer Klene, um you know, he I[31:14] I my hats off to the guy. I mean, it[31:17] took a lot of, uh, hootsp,[31:20] uh, come forward and and he's as much as[31:22] admitted. If I didn't have video, we[31:24] wouldn't be having this[31:25] conversation. And so, um, you know, for[31:28] somebody that's professional, I know he[31:30] gets a lot of lot of email, a lot of[31:32] stuff, and he's, you know, he says, you[31:34] know, he's got people just tell him he's[31:36] lying. It's like, well, no, he's not[31:37] lying. I' i've personally spent time[31:40] with the guy. It it's fundamentally[31:43] shooken. I mean it, you know, if that[31:45] kind of thing happened to you and[31:47] honestly happened to you, I mean, it[31:48] it'd shake you to the core, right? And[31:51] at the time, he says he wasn't scared.[31:53] He's like trying to wrap his mind around[31:55] what the heck am I looking at, right?[31:58] And I'm just thankful he did get a video[32:00] because then that's that's something I[32:02] can analyze. I can look at. Um, and I've[32:06] I've done quite a bit of analysis. Um,[32:08] some of it I'll probably report on and[32:10] some of it I won't um until I get[32:12] additional data.[32:14] Um because part of the problem is it's[32:16] you know it's an iPhone it's a distance[32:17] away and you know I don't know the exact[32:20] zoom factor he was at. It could be zoom[32:22] one two or three. We think he was at two[32:24] or three. Um you know that kind of[32:27] stuff. So I don't you know I do know how[32:29] he said it was about the size of a Mini[32:30] Cooper about 30 feet away from him you[32:33] know. So from that estimate I can say[32:35] okay it's about 5T plus or minus a foot[32:37] right? And so I can I can start doing[32:39] lots of stuff on that. Um, but I can[32:41] tell you that when you look at the when[32:43] you take a look at the video and you[32:44] zoom in on the on the object. Yeah,[32:47] that's something[32:49] weird. Um, and you know, he says he[32:52] could feel the, you know, it was like[32:54] the the light was intensity. He says it[32:57] wasn't hot, it just intense, right? Um,[33:01] but he didn't have any radiation burns[33:03] afterwards. And I took a radiation[33:05] detector out there two years afterwards,[33:08] but I mean I was at right at normal. It[33:10] was not elevated at all. So, um, yeah,[33:13] we don't know what it is. And so, you[33:16] know, you talk to Arrow, they talk about[33:19] the triangular craft being another one[33:21] that's, you know, the, you know,[33:23] triangular shaped or or boomerang shaped[33:26] type thing. Um, as being another one[33:29] that they get a lot of reports on that[33:31] they don't know what it is. So,[33:34] yeah. I for me, a lot of this is is[33:37] communication based, right? like you[33:39] said that people told him that he was[33:41] lying. I think in a lot of cases like[33:43] that, people may not actually feel that.[33:46] They may think this person is mistaken[33:48] or, you know, something along those[33:49] lines. They just don't know how to[33:51] express it. And for me, this is one of[33:53] the things that I do like about the term[33:56] experiencer, right, is that it does[33:58] validate the experience. And that[34:01] applies to UAP as well as a variety of[34:04] other things. People have religious[34:06] experiences. They have epiphies. They[34:08] have all sorts of things and they're[34:10] able to say, you know what, this is[34:12] real. Something happened, but they[34:14] really can't quantify that in any way.[34:17] Yeah. But the problem with the hard[34:18] scientists that we've had for over the[34:20] years is like, well, okay, it's all up[34:21] here, right? Now you got now I got cell[34:24] phones and I have taken pictures, right?[34:25] I don't have just an old grainy camera,[34:27] black and white, where, you know, half[34:29] of them it looks like somebody threw a[34:31] hubcap up, right? Um, but now you got[34:34] cameras. the the the the I mean the[34:36] resolution is getting way better. Um you[34:39] know my my take again is to put[34:42] authentication cap type software on[34:44] there per cider is you know[34:46] fundamentally where we're trying to go[34:47] right is so that you when you report it[34:50] basically you've now in in the device[34:53] you you know the software has taken[34:54] control of it. It's authenticated it.[34:56] You're reporting that up. Goes into a[34:58] database and gets archived off. And now[35:03] now you can say, "Hey," and on top of[35:05] that, I've got more than one person.[35:07] Hopefully you've you've been able to[35:08] crowdsource it, right? So now I've got[35:10] triangulation and I can say, "Hey, that[35:12] was, you know, half a mile away. That[35:14] was not out in outer space. It had some[35:17] movement that we can't account for, you[35:20] know." So that's the kind of thing I you[35:21] can't account for from from standard[35:23] physics. So, um, that's where we're[35:26] trying to go is is being able to take it[35:28] to, um, that next level and then, um,[35:32] you know, more later on that. All I got[35:34] to say is, you know, pay attention to[35:35] what's going on there. Yeah. I I think[35:38] that there is so much future potential[35:40] there. In fact, the camera that I'm[35:42] using right now is my iPhone 16. I went[35:46] out and it did research on various types[35:48] of cameras, right? I have a professional[35:50] Nikon system that I use for photography[35:53] and they were saying for one reason or[35:55] another all of these big expensive[35:58] cameras suffer issues, right? Like the[36:00] Nikon drops about five frames and so[36:02] there's always a delay, right? And so[36:05] unless you actually go to TV studio[36:07] cams, which is kind of a whole another[36:09] level, you end up with the iPhone. And I[36:12] said, well, why is that? and did more[36:14] research and it is because today's[36:16] smartphones are the product of billions[36:18] of dollars of engineering, right? Apple[36:21] and Samsung are going head-to-head and[36:24] that camera is the defining difference[36:26] between them. You know, they've got to[36:28] keep up with the Joneses. So, you know,[36:31] being able to use something like Cider[36:32] where you're able to take advantage of[36:34] the technology that's in people's hand[36:37] seems like a giant thing.[36:40] Yep. All I'm going to say is Yep. can't[36:43] can't talk about it yet. Okay. Well,[36:45] that being said though, one one there[36:47] are a couple of caveats to that. Again,[36:49] I I do, you know, I'm I'm an amateur[36:51] photographer and um night shooting sucks[36:55] and and it always will, right?[36:57] Especially when with the the[36:59] disadvantage that cell phones have is[37:01] they have a small sensor. And when you[37:03] have a small sensor, it's going to[37:04] perform more poorly at night. There's[37:06] really no way around that.[37:08] Um, the other thing is because they have[37:11] a small sensor and that flat profile,[37:14] you don't really have good zoom, right?[37:16] And so like with the Connecticut video,[37:18] you said he was probably at two or three[37:20] times zoom, so you're probably dealing[37:21] with some graininess and pixelation,[37:23] right? There's a little bit. Yeah. And[37:24] on top of that, it's it's your nor your[37:26] normal standard uh uh you know, wasn't[37:29] JPEG, fortunately. It was that one of[37:31] those other standards. I can't remember[37:32] off the top of my head which one it was,[37:34] but um you know, you get that that[37:37] compression and you can see those[37:39] compression artifacts. Um I'm just I'm[37:42] thankful that they're starting to move[37:43] off a JPEG. Um in terms of the the cell[37:46] phones, um because every time I get a[37:49] JPEG image, I you know, all I do is[37:52] shake my head. At least I can tell[37:54] whether or not it's been faked if it's a[37:55] JPEG easily. Um, but unfortunately when[37:59] you got small detail that you're trying[38:00] to look at, you know, it's it's hard to[38:03] to do that. But the newer phones are[38:04] doing way better. They've got a lot more[38:07] um, you know, inherent memory in them[38:10] and and some up up to a terabyte now is[38:13] what they're they're now shipping them[38:14] with. So, I mean, you've got lots and[38:16] lots of storage and so you can you can[38:19] do some very good video. Um, daytime[38:22] video will be fantastic. nighttime video[38:24] will will still have its challenges, but[38:26] there's things that they're doing on the[38:28] nighttime video as well. So, it still[38:30] doesn't look too bad, right, in terms of[38:32] an amateur photographer trying to go out[38:34] and do[38:35] something. Now, what are your thoughts[38:37] on using AI to go through some of the[38:39] existing data, photographs, video,[38:42] things like that that are out there? I[38:44] mean, they're already using AI to[38:46] identify fakes, and I guess that that is[38:49] a it's a it's a ratio, right? They're[38:51] saying it's like, you know, it's more[38:54] likely or less likely that this is fake.[38:55] You can never definitively prove or[38:57] disprove. Either either way, you need[38:59] the you need the raw data. um I can't I[39:02] can't do much with data that I can do a[39:05] little bit but if I have something that[39:07] you know Reddit the UFO over New York[39:09] City case wonderful example where um[39:13] Michelle Ray had had put this video that[39:16] she had taken out of the cockpit window[39:18] of her uh Neo or her airflight um she[39:22] was on a Spirit Airlines Neo 321 I think[39:25] it was an Airbus and um fundamentally[39:29] she had posted to her social media[39:31] account. Somebody else had taken it and[39:33] posted it on Reddit. She does not know[39:35] who that person is, but um I could do a[39:38] little bit with that information, but we[39:40] had to find the witness with the raw[39:43] video to be able to say definitively[39:46] what it was. And I could and I was able[39:48] to definitively tell you it was probably[39:50] about 94t away. Now, when I say[39:53] definitive, I mean better than 90%[39:55] probability it was a balloon, a party[39:58] balloon. And but with the with the raw[40:00] video, I had a much better ability to[40:02] tell you what what the altitude. Um she[40:05] actually had her GPS on. Um but I knew[40:08] what flight it was. I could put, you[40:10] know, where she was on the flight, when[40:12] that object passed the video. Um so[40:15] there's a whole whole bunch of[40:16] information I was able to get at and I[40:18] could tell it was it was authentic.[40:20] Yeah. Well, and what you're going to[40:22] there, and I think that this is[40:24] something that is here to stay, is this[40:26] publicity factor, right? Where people[40:28] will download a video and put it up on[40:30] their social media account. And so, you[40:32] get these videos that hop from one place[40:34] to another to another. And a lot of[40:36] times, you're not able to determine the[40:38] origin of it. You know, in cases like[40:39] that, you end up just probably writing[40:41] it off for the most part, right? Yeah.[40:43] Well, I know that. Well, you know, there[40:44] was one um I won't get into too many[40:47] details about it, but um this guy had[40:49] posted these these pictures of these orb[40:52] type things that look like metallic[40:53] metallic orbs. Um you know, I say two or[40:56] three, I can't remember the exact[40:57] number, but it got pretty close to what[41:00] he said was security cameras that he had[41:02] out. Um and I think it was somewhere in[41:05] Georgia. Um but anyway, it's like I[41:08] mean, and you look into his audio, he's[41:10] like, "I want to talk to scientist." So[41:11] I said, "Here I am. What do you want to[41:12] talk? you know, can you give me the[41:13] original video? And and I says, could[41:16] you please submit it to like, you know,[41:18] SCU or Ben Hansen's site or, you know,[41:20] and I give him a few options and and[41:23] fundamentally, you know, this was over a[41:24] year ago and I'm still waiting.[41:27] So, yeah, when I see that kind of stuff,[41:30] you know, I you know, I teach space[41:32] mission engineering through the[41:33] mechanical engineering department, okay?[41:35] And I know I could tell my students, "Go[41:37] create this." And I'll bet you money[41:39] they could because it's very simple to[41:42] take CAD, you know, take a CAD program,[41:45] dummy these things up, make it look[41:47] photorealistic, and inject it into a[41:49] video. Very simple stuff. Um, and so I[41:53] mean, the AI part of it, it just makes[41:55] it even worse, right? In terms of the[41:57] ability to hoax these kinds of things.[41:59] And in fact, if you go look at that Sue[42:01] Apps talk I gave, um, I talk about[42:03] different hoax examples, you know, I[42:06] spend the first half of my talk about[42:07] that. And so, um, it's a problem and it[42:10] it it probably will continue to be a[42:12] problem. Well, and this goes back to the[42:15] science and it goes back to the SCU. And[42:18] the main thing I mean, the the main[42:21] reason that the SCU is what it is and[42:24] does such an amazing job is because it's[42:26] focused on the science, right? and um[42:29] Kevin New and and all the other[42:31] presenters that I've seen in the past[42:33] have talked about different types of[42:35] hoaxes. You know, people hoax themselves[42:37] as well as hoaxing the rest of the[42:39] world. You know, we we are human. We[42:41] make mistakes and that's that's okay.[42:44] You know, and then I I think another[42:46] part of that too is kind of this[42:48] cultural change of being able to[42:50] acknowledge the experience without[42:52] having to put people down and say,[42:54] "You're lying. That's fake." You know,[42:56] because And yeah and so yeah we know go[42:59] back to science um you know when we when[43:02] we do get the uh the report out on the[43:05] you know the auadilla I'll call it[43:06] independent analysis I'm specifically[43:09] adding a chapter in there um I'll tell a[43:11] little bit about this about the history[43:13] of science right and and what scientists[43:17] are doing you have to keep in mind that[43:20] um and I okay so great example okay um[43:25] Richard Feineman's got a a video out[43:27] there on one of his lectures and he says[43:30] what you know basically what do[43:32] scientists do when they come up with a[43:33] new theory he goes they guess and you[43:36] can hear the class laughing he goes no[43:39] I'm I'm know this is what they do they[43:41] guess okay yeah and so what what is SCU[43:44] doing they are fundamentally trying to[43:46] do the best job they can with the data[43:48] they've got okay and and they're doing[43:52] when I say best job it's it you know[43:54] again a whole bunch of different um[43:56] people people with a whole bunch of[43:57] different scientific backgrounds and[43:59] experiences and and specialties and and[44:03] fundamentally that's that's what it's[44:05] all about. It's just like, okay, we'll[44:07] do the best job I can analyzing this[44:08] with the best information and background[44:10] I've got and then over years it's going[44:13] to get better, right? And new data will[44:16] come out or new capabilities will come[44:18] out and and hopefully you get another[44:21] Auadia case that you know it's you got[44:24] now two modalities, right? Um I'll say[44:26] with the Auadia case, it's very[44:28] frustrating that they put a foyer in for[44:30] some some military radar and got denied.[44:34] Okay, that's data that could have been[44:36] used, right? And maybe it would have[44:38] swung them one way or the other, you[44:40] know. But if I could jump in, one of the[44:42] things that I think sometimes I feel a[44:45] little bit stressed about and I think[44:46] that the the general public gets[44:49] frustrated about this as well is, you[44:51] know, based on the way that the[44:53] scientific method works and, you know,[44:55] putting out hypothesis and then testing[44:57] them, it is impossible or at least next[45:00] to impossible to ever prove the[45:02] extraterrestrial hypothesis, right?[45:04] Because even if you see an ET hanging[45:08] off the side of the craft while it's[45:09] flying, that could be a person in a, you[45:11] know, a party suit or something. So,[45:13] I'll even I'll even go one step further.[45:16] Let's say, for example, we have a UFO,[45:18] we have an ET, and we got DNA off of the[45:22] off of that guy, right? Or or, you know,[45:24] said NHI. Um I I can tell you right now[45:28] you're going to have people say, "Oh,[45:29] well that was a a bioengineered um you[45:33] know thing that you know we did out of[45:35] some lab to prove it." Right. They will[45:37] go down that path guaranteed. Yeah. So[45:40] well so that that it reminds me of the[45:44] the most famous example is the Monica[45:45] Lewinsky scandal, right? where you know[45:48] I you've been nailed dead to rights and[45:50] so now you're going to argue the finer[45:52] points of it you know and there there[45:54] was that pivotal moment if I remember[45:56] correctly I might be misstating where[45:58] where Clinton was on TV saying um well[46:01] how do you define sex right and I'm like[46:03] okay you know what but the problem is[46:06] when you get into the UAP world you end[46:08] up with the same thing right it's you[46:10] know people are either for or against[46:12] and the people who are for are going to[46:14] keep slicing those data points thinner[46:16] and thinner and thinner and thinner. How[46:18] do you define this? This is obviously,[46:20] you know, you've got right now the[46:22] perfect example, right? Is it a is it a[46:24] round earth or is it a flat earth,[46:25] right? And and so, you know, just take[46:28] it down. You're going to have people[46:29] that going to be the flatearthers no[46:31] matter what. I And I I've joke with my[46:33] wife, I go, I'd love to put some[46:35] flat-earthers into a into a rocket, send[46:37] them up to the space station, and shove[46:39] them out[46:40] the out the um the airlock. Right. Well,[46:44] and and then on the the counter side to[46:46] this, and I think everyone is familiar[46:49] with the stigma that's involved with[46:51] UAP, right? I mean, that's one of the[46:52] reasons we have the word UAP instead of[46:54] UFOs because UFO has so much stigma[46:58] attached to it. And that's exactly what[47:00] Jay talked about, right? He couldn't get[47:01] in front of Congress without going, you[47:04] know, some other terminology. See, and[47:06] and the challenge that I see there is[47:08] especially with scientists where their[47:10] career depends on their reputational[47:13] integrity. You know, they are never[47:16] going to be able to reach that point[47:17] where they can definitively say yes,[47:20] this is a UFO, right? It's always going[47:22] to have to be some kind of a dismissive[47:24] approach or at the very least silence.[47:27] And so again, the the psychology and[47:30] sociology in this case play a big[47:32] factor. All Yeah. All we can do is do[47:34] the best data we you know analyze the[47:36] data with the best data we have and say[47:38] you know if I look at a fishbone I' I've[47:41] ruled out these things and you know now[47:43] all to start guessing at what the other[47:46] ones are right[47:48] um in fact well I can go down an entire[47:51] thing on the you know NHI part of it but[47:53] um[47:55] it's you know unfortunately I just see[47:57] that being the you know what we're going[47:59] to have to do for for years on out well[48:02] One of the things that I've wondered[48:04] about is, you know, back in the good old[48:07] days, right, it was just ET. That was[48:09] all we had to think about. But then, uh,[48:11] Hal Pudof brought up this idea of[48:13] ultraterrestrials. Yeah. And then there[48:16] are more people rumbling about time[48:19] travel. I've been hearing those more. I[48:21] people that I wouldn't expect are[48:23] saying, "Well, maybe they're not from[48:24] another place. Maybe they're from[48:25] another time." And I'm like, "Okay, you[48:27] know what? Keep things simple, you[48:28] know?" So I I guess this does go to NHI[48:31] because in in any of those cases, you[48:34] know, you're talking about something[48:35] that is not a contemporary human. We can[48:37] just call it other intelligence, right?[48:40] Yep. Yeah. No, it's uh you know, I've I[48:43] took a quick look at house house theory[48:45] and and it's basically the you know,[48:49] from another dimension type concept,[48:50] right? And so um that or even a somebody[48:54] from the future would be from another[48:56] dimension, a future dimension, right? It[48:59] may not be a different spatial[49:01] dimension. So you know if if those kinds[49:03] of capabilities exist and we have the[49:05] ability to um I would say you know[49:07] breach them with technology[49:10] um you know Skinwalker Ranch that's one[49:13] of the theories. In fact, I remember[49:14] when I met[49:15] um oh when I first met Jay and uh Travis[49:20] um I asked Travis specifically, I said,[49:22] you know, have you seen any temporal[49:24] anomalies? He didn't want to talk about[49:25] it. He said, I can't talk about it. I[49:28] said, okay, I'll take the answer to be[49:29] yes. Um and and I told him, I said, this[49:32] is why I'm asking because I I see that[49:34] some of what you're seeing out there[49:36] could potentially be um explained with[49:39] that. you know, I said, you know, I'm[49:40] going to assume you're not lying and[49:41] what you're catching on video is true,[49:43] right? I'll take your your scientific[49:45] word on that. Um, but I will poke them a[49:48] little bit in the fact that um, you[49:50] know, I'm not seeing peer-reviewed[49:51] papers coming out and I'm not seeing[49:54] science-based papers coming out of what[49:55] they're doing. Um, I don't know if[49:57] that's because they're too busy with the[49:59] show and what they have under NDA with[50:01] Prometheus or what, but um, and so[50:05] fundamentally is is the time travel or[50:08] even the the[50:10] ultradimensional being a possibility? I[50:13] can't take it off the uh the the[50:17] fishbone yet. We'll just have to come up[50:20] with the right test to be able to figure[50:21] that one out.[50:23] Well, one thing that occurred to me is[50:26] maybe we are dealing with more than one[50:28] type of phenomena. Maybe there are again[50:31] for lack of a better word[50:32] extraterrestrials as well as some other[50:35] kind of NHI. And the thing that kind of[50:38] brought that into my mind was this rapid[50:40] increase in the report of orbs, right?[50:43] And those don't seem to obey the[50:45] standard rules of UFOs, you know? So[50:48] people report them and they're treated[50:50] like UFOs, but they seem to be[50:53] fundamentally different, at least the[50:54] way that they're described.[50:56] Yeah. And so, um, people know that I own[50:59] property, um, within a couple of miles[51:01] of Skinwalker Ranch. And actually, I've[51:04] got a security camera that caught[51:05] something. Um, and it was kind of[51:08] interesting when I showed it to Jay. He[51:09] goes, "Well, I think you caught an orb."[51:11] And I'm like, "I'm not going there yet,[51:12] Jay. I'm going to call it a line anomaly[51:14] at this point." Um because the problem[51:17] is is you know I get the trail cameras[51:19] and I've got you know a handful of trail[51:21] cameras out there. Um it's not[51:24] scientific quality. The mere fact is[51:26] what it is was actually what you know[51:28] you it does report in video. So it's got[51:31] a reporting picture. So I got a picture[51:33] at you know sometime and 12 hours later[51:35] I got another picture. So, day and night[51:38] and the um it was a nighttime one. And[51:41] now I've got actually three cases of[51:44] nighttime videos or nighttime images,[51:46] excuse me, to where I've got something[51:48] that a light showing up where there[51:50] should not be a light. And it's a ball[51:53] type thing. And that the very first one[51:54] I got is still my best one. And the[51:57] thing is where it shows up, I can see[52:00] light reflecting off a gate in front of[52:02] it. And I there's a pile of crap behind[52:04] it from my neighbor's house. and I can[52:06] see light being reflected off of it. And[52:09] so, um, you know, unfortunately with[52:12] these trail cameras, you you can't[52:14] control them, um, in terms of exposure[52:17] time and and all of that stuff and it's[52:20] heavily JPEG, but um, you know, I show[52:23] it to people and they're like, "Oh,[52:25] okay. I see what you're talking about."[52:26] Right. Um, and so the the orb concept is[52:31] interesting. I mean, I've got some other[52:32] stories about orbs, and right now all I[52:36] can say is[52:37] um intriguing. I know people talk about[52:40] the spirit orb, you know, it being some,[52:44] you know, spirit from somebody that's[52:46] passed away. You know, again, as a[52:49] scientist, you see something, I would[52:52] say, okay, my eyeball saw something or[52:54] I've got something on a[52:55] camera. Again, what's what's my Chicago[52:58] diagram? What does it look like? How can[52:59] I start not nailing stuff down? because[53:01] I'm going to call it anomalous at the[53:03] moment and that's all I can say about[53:05] it. It's not something that normally[53:07] shows up on a on a on an image. Um or[53:11] something I normally see with my eye or[53:14] for my my wife example, I mean, she's[53:16] seen stuff too and it's like we don't[53:18] know what it is. Do we have the[53:20] technology to to nail some of this stuff[53:22] down? In some cases, we can help[53:25] eliminate some of those branches off the[53:28] fish do, but um other ones we just we[53:32] don't have the technology when we know[53:33] how to approach it. Um and so yeah, it's[53:36] it's interesting stuff. It really is.[53:37] That's what's drawn me into it. Yeah.[53:40] Yeah. I the orbs are for me it's it's[53:43] become more interesting because I have[53:46] actually met a few scientists who have[53:48] gone out searching for what they thought[53:50] were UFOs and as they started to[53:52] research it they they started finding[53:54] orbs. One of them actually set up[53:56] scientific equipment I think out in New[53:58] Hampshire and he was told this is a UFO[54:01] hotspot. You'll see UFOs here all the[54:03] time. And when he started actually[54:04] recording and documenting stuff what he[54:06] came back with was orbs. know there's[54:10] some interplay there and the thing that[54:12] I've wondered is you know what if these[54:14] are two different phenomena and and[54:16] unfortunately by combining them we end[54:18] up ruling out a bit of both you know so[54:22] um in fact I've I've had discussions[54:24] with Rich Hoffman about exactly this[54:25] this topic you know his opinion is[54:28] probably a large percentage of these um[54:31] UFO you know sightings going back in[54:33] history he pointed me to project[54:35] identify from uh Rut Utlledge in[54:38] Missouri um in around Pedmont, Missouri[54:41] as the location in the Mark Twain forest[54:43] and the Ozarks. Um again, very[54:46] interesting case. It's kind of funny[54:47] when I looked at the the histogram[54:49] inside of there. You know, we had[54:51] satellites up at the time when he was[54:53] doing that and it very easily could have[54:55] been u basically your your satellite[54:57] flash, you know, um or satellite flares,[55:00] excuse me. Um but from satellite versus[55:04] Starlinks is what everybody's familiar[55:05] with nowadays. So, you know, the thing[55:08] is the the technology existed at that[55:11] point where potentially that that still[55:12] could be a significant number, which[55:15] interests me about this this Connecticut[55:17] case is you can tell definitely it's[55:19] it's not a satellite. If you know what[55:22] satellite looks like, what what you[55:24] know, it's going to it's going to travel[55:25] in a straight line. It's going to be[55:26] about the same speed as it goes. Um, and[55:30] so, I mean, you can have a bunch of them[55:32] in a row doing the same thing, right?[55:34] But the the point is is you look at the[55:36] orbital mechanics. This thing was not[55:37] orbital. It was sitting one spot and[55:39] then it started drifting off to the[55:41] right. So um and in fact it was sitting[55:44] there and then it looked like it turned.[55:46] You look closely at it. That's the[55:48] appearance. Right now the you know one[55:52] thing we still have on the on the I say[55:55] diagram or the the a branch that we have[55:59] not yet quite quite crossed off is what[56:01] I'll call a sophisticated hoax where I[56:04] got some kind of a Chinese lantern or[56:06] some kind of a flare and some kind of a[56:09] thing where I've got a drone at[56:11] distance. Right? That's a possibility[56:13] yet. But when you take into account the[56:15] officer's testimony, um all I can do is[56:19] do what I can to try and capture it[56:21] again because of um some of the other[56:25] testimonies we got from the area that[56:27] it's a it's a repeating phenomena so we[56:29] can just do the best we can and try and[56:31] get data to to help rule those out.[56:34] Well, you know, and actually that just[56:36] made the foreign adversary idea or[56:38] hypothesis pop into mind as well. um[56:41] especially things of the east coast[56:42] because we just had that rash of drone[56:45] sightings there. Y and for me this is[56:48] one of the things that makes[56:49] organizations like Arrow so necessary[56:52] because it would be very easy for an[56:55] adversary to slip in right with the[56:58] chaos. You know I mean people are[56:59] reporting drones all the time anyways so[57:02] we'll just put up a few of ours with[57:03] cameras and slide in unnoticed and get[57:05] all the you know intelligence that we[57:07] need. Yeah. So, I actually talked a[57:09] little about at the NDIA um uh tech 101[57:12] um briefing I gave last week um two[57:16] weeks ago now. Um but fundamentally u[57:19] yeah you need you need potentially the[57:22] you know a mandate that all drones shall[57:24] be have like an ADSB type capability,[57:27] right? Um you know adversaries when it[57:30] comes to military adversarial drones,[57:32] they're not going to pay attention to[57:33] that. In fact, they'll they'll you know[57:35] they won't do it on purpose, right? Um[57:38] but the fundamental thing that we need[57:39] is we need some kind of a capability in[57:41] this country. Maybe it's a biatic radar[57:44] um that's ubiquitous that would would[57:46] catch a technology like a drone very[57:49] well unless you started doing stealth[57:51] drones, right? It'll be a little harder.[57:53] Um but I mean you there's there's[57:55] technology we could deploy that would[57:56] would take care of a good good chunk of[57:58] it, be able to figure out what it is.[58:01] Yeah. Yeah. Well, Doug, on that note, I[58:04] want to thank you so much for your time[58:07] today. It has truly been an honor having[58:10] you with me. It has been a ton of fun[58:11] talking with you about the UAP topic.[58:14] Again, explore seu.org. I want people to[58:17] visit the scientific coalition for UAP[58:19] Studies and learn as much as possible[58:21] about it. So, let me close by asking,[58:23] what's coming up for you this year? And[58:25] do you have any predictions in terms of[58:27] the UAP phenomena in the headlines? Oh,[58:29] wow. Um, I just think the headlines are[58:31] going to continue to roll, right? It's[58:34] going to compete with Trump and whatever[58:35] he's doing. But, um, hopefully it uh,[58:37] you know, it bubbles up enough to where[58:39] it it comes out. Um, yeah, I I'm I'll be[58:43] interested to see what happens with[58:44] Skywalker or excuse me, Sky Watcher. Um,[58:48] and, uh, what Gary Nolan's doing with[58:50] them. Um, that'll that'll be on the top[58:52] of my uh, my list for for what I hope to[58:55] see come out. I hope to see papers[58:57] related to that, right? the the you know[59:00] yay early have spectral data and other[59:03] things or you know RF or you know[59:06] whatever whatever um I want to say[59:08] modalities they're looking at in the[59:11] spectrum um that would be from for me[59:14] that would be the best one um to where[59:17] you could then have independent analysis[59:20] um I'd love to see them bring in some[59:22] independent analysis you know scientists[59:24] that are you know more on the skeptical[59:25] side right with their own independent[59:28] data[59:29] Um, that's one of the things I do like[59:31] that they're doing out at Skinwalker,[59:33] uh, is that they're actually bringing[59:34] independent scientists in, right? So, I[59:37] mean, that it's a host. Um, we'll see.[59:39] Um, only time will tell. Um, me[59:42] personally, I'm going to be working on[59:43] the Connecticut case with Ben Hansen and[59:45] team. Um, got a good uh good group[59:48] there. And hopefully we get uh some data[59:51] and we'll talk about it in June at the[59:53] at the SU conference. So, hope hope to[59:55] see you there or at least hope to have[59:56] you online and and take your questions[59:58] about it. Wonderful. Doug, let me thank[01:00:01] you again so much for your time today,[01:00:04] sir. It's a problem. Take care, Tim.
731. Bob McGwier How Real Sensor Systems Track UFOs/UAP and USOs & More!
Introduction
In this episode of the podcast hosted by Martin Willis, the guest is Bob Maguire, a seasoned expert in applied mathematics and signal processing, particularly in the context of national security and data analysis. The conversation revolves around the UFO phenomenon, moving beyond speculation to discuss concrete experiences and technological advancements in detection methods.
Podcast Overview and Announcements
The show begins with Martin introducing Bob Maguire, highlighting their previous interactions at conferences and Bob's extensive background in applied mathematics and signal processing. Martin encourages listeners to visit the podcast's website and YouTube channel for additional content, including short clips and highlights from previous episodes. He also mentions a giveaway for conference tickets, emphasizing the upcoming online conference featuring notable speakers in the UFO community.
Martin shares details about recent blog posts on the podcast's website, including a piece by Charles Leer discussing "Fairies from the UFOs," which explores reports of fairy-like beings associated with UFO sightings. He also mentions a guest blog by Albert Wayne, who recounts a remarkable UFO sighting and a conversation about Roswell, although he acknowledges the lack of concrete evidence for such claims. Martin notes that Bob is filling in for another guest who could not make it, and he teases upcoming shows related to the Phoenix Lights incident anniversary.
Bob Maguire's Background and Early Experiences
As the conversation shifts to Bob's background, he recounts several formative experiences that led him to the UFO topic. He shares a personal story about having cardiac arrests as an infant due to cerebral encephalitis, which he describes as a near-death experience (NDE). Bob recalls an unusual incident at the age of three when he inexplicably demonstrated reading skills to his mother's friends, claiming he had been taught by an unnamed agency.
Bob's early interests in science and technology were evident as he became an amateur radio operator and built his own telescope. He describes a pivotal moment in fourth grade when he gave a presentation on human anatomy using a model of a pregnant woman, which led to a humorous yet controversial situation in a conservative Alabama community. This experience, along with his mother's encouragement to engage with peers, helped him develop socially and academically.
Bob's upbringing in a small town in Alabama shaped his perspective, and he reflects on the challenges of growing up in a tight-knit community where everyone knew each other. He shares that he later pursued a degree in mathematics and engineering, ultimately earning a PhD in applied mathematics from Brown University, where he received an exceptional education from renowned professors.
UFO Encounters and Experiences
Bob recounts significant encounters that sparked his interest in UFOs. One notable experience occurred during his college years when he and a girlfriend experienced 90 minutes of missing time while driving. They found themselves lost in an unfamiliar area, leading Bob to question the nature of their experience. This incident, coupled with his background in science, fueled his curiosity about unexplained phenomena.
He also shares two experiences involving the United States Navy. The first took place aboard the USS Blue Ridge during a typhoon in 2008, where he witnessed a glowing object that defied explanation. The second incident occurred in the late 1990s while he was on a nuclear submarine, where crew members detected a "fast walker" moving faster than the speed of sound underwater. Bob emphasizes the lack of known technology capable of such speeds, further deepening his intrigue in the subject.
Discussion on USOs and Detection Technologies
The conversation transitions to the topic of Unidentified Submerged Objects (USOs) and the technological advancements in their detection. Bob expresses a keen interest in developing affordable systems for underwater detection of USOs, emphasizing the importance of passive acoustic monitoring and magnetic radiometry. He explains that sound travels differently in water, and shallow waters can act as a cylindrical waveguide, allowing for better sound propagation.
Bob outlines his plans to build a computer system designed to collect data from various sensors, including microphones and magnetometers, to detect anomalies in underwater environments. He discusses the use of MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems) technology to create affordable sensors that can be deployed by individuals or grassroots organizations interested in monitoring USOs.
He elaborates on the importance of data collection protocols and the need for time synchronization among sensors to ensure accurate analysis. Bob's approach aims to make this technology accessible to the general public, allowing for widespread participation in USO detection efforts.
Data Analysis and Machine Learning Integration
Bob discusses the integration of machine learning into his detection system, highlighting how AI can enhance data analysis. He explains that the system will utilize artificial intelligence to classify sounds and identify potential USOs based on acoustic signatures. The goal is to filter out irrelevant noise while retaining significant data for further investigation.
He mentions the use of a dual-edge TPU (Tensor Processing Unit) for processing data efficiently, allowing for real-time analysis of acoustic signals. Bob emphasizes the importance of making the data publicly available and open-source, encouraging collaboration and innovation within the community. He plans to release all code and documentation under an MIT license, enabling others to build upon his work.
Challenges and Future Directions
Throughout the discussion, Bob acknowledges the challenges associated with developing detection systems, including technical hurdles and resource limitations. He reflects on the difficulties faced by grassroots organizations attempting to establish similar initiatives and emphasizes the need for collaboration and support within the community.
Bob also addresses the potential for extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) to be aware of detection technologies and possibly manipulate data. He acknowledges the complexity of interpreting sightings and experiences, noting that different observers may perceive events differently, leading to varied interpretations of the same phenomenon.
Conclusion and Future Engagements
As the conversation draws to a close, Martin expresses gratitude to Bob for sharing his insights and experiences. They discuss the possibility of future collaborations and events, including upcoming conferences where Bob will present his work. Martin encourages listeners to stay engaged with the podcast and to keep an eye on the sky for any unusual sightings.
Overall, the episode provides a comprehensive overview of Bob Maguire's journey into the world of UFOs and USOs, highlighting his expertise in data analysis and detection technologies. The discussion emphasizes the importance of collaboration, open-source initiatives, and the potential for grassroots involvement in the exploration of unexplained phenomena.
The interviewee, Bob Maguire, is introduced by the host, Martin Willis, as a highly qualified individual with a rich background in applied mathematics and signal processing, particularly in the context of national security. Willis emphasizes that Maguire has decades of experience in data analysis, which is significant in the field of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). He notes that they had previously connected at a conference in Washington, D.C., and again in California, indicating a professional rapport and shared interests in UAP topics.
Willis states, "he has decades of applied mathematics signal processing at a national security level" which underscores Maguire's credibility and expertise in handling complex data sets that are crucial for investigating UAP. The conversation hints at Maguire's technical proficiency and his role in moving beyond mere speculation about UFOs, indicating a more scientific approach to the subject matter.
Furthermore, Maguire's background is highlighted through his academic journey where he pursued mathematics and engineering after initially being directed towards a medical career due to his precocious knowledge of human anatomy, as recounted by him. His academic achievements culminated in obtaining a PhD from Brown University, where he studied under notable figures in quantum field theory and computer science.
- [00:57] "he has decades of applied mathematics signal processing at a national security level"
- [08:08] "Um well it it happened in stages."
- [15:20] "I left went and got a PhD in applied math at Brown University."
Bob Maguire approaches UAP research with a scientific lens, employing various analytical methods and data sources to enhance the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena. He discusses his current project aimed at developing a computer system that collects data from sensors designed for underwater detection of UAPs. This technology will utilize both passive acoustic methods and magnetic radiometry, allowing for the detection of objects that disrupt the Earth's magnetic field.
Maguire explains that the passive acoustic approach involves listening for disturbances in the environment, while the magnetic radiometry approach measures changes in the magnetic field. This dual methodology is indicative of his commitment to rigorous scientific standards, as he aims to package the data in a scientifically valuable manner.
He also emphasizes the importance of affordability and accessibility in his research, aiming to make this technology available to grassroots individuals who might want to monitor UAPs. Maguire highlights that the sensors will be designed to filter out environmental noise, thus increasing the likelihood of accurately detecting UAPs without false positives caused by common underwater sounds like marine life.
Nevertheless, he acknowledges the inherent limitations in the field, particularly regarding the probabilistic nature of data inference. He states that while the system aims to minimize mistakes, the inference process will undoubtedly face challenges, as it will not guarantee absolute accuracy in distinguishing between UAPs and other phenomena.
- [24:24] "We’re going to listen with a microphone and we’re going to look for things that would disturb the Earth’s magnetic field by moving through it."
- [25:21] "So shallow water acts like a highpass filter and low frequency propulsion noises can be stripped out but transient clicks and metallic anomalies will stay."
- [44:29] "Inference is a probabilistic thing."
Bob Maguire's decision to engage with UAP research appears to be influenced by a combination of personal experiences and a strong scientific curiosity. During the interview, he recounts several formative moments from his childhood that sparked his interest in the unknown and the scientific method. For instance, he shares an anecdote where he unknowingly exhibited precocious abilities in reading and science, which suggests that his inclination towards understanding complex phenomena was evident from a young age.
Furthermore, Maguire mentions a significant experience of missing time that he and a girlfriend encountered during high school, describing a period where they could not account for 90 minutes of their time. Initially unaware of what 'missing time' was, this incident likely contributed to his fascination with UAPs, as it presents a personal connection to unexplained events.
He expresses his desire to move beyond mere speculation about UAPs, indicating a commitment to applying his scientific background to this field. This drive is not just for personal interest but seems to also stem from a broader societal curiosity regarding UAPs. His academic background and professional expertise in applied mathematics and signal processing enable him to contribute meaningfully to the scientific examination of these phenomena, thus fulfilling both personal and societal imperatives for understanding.
- [08:08] "Um well it it happened in stages."
- [13:38] "At the time, I had no idea what missing time was or anything else..."
- [14:06] "I had trouble finding my way."
Bob Maguire describes a personal encounter with a UAP that involved an unsettling experience of missing time. He recounts an incident from his high school years when he and his girlfriend were driving home from college. The two experienced a perplexing 90 minutes during which they could not account for their whereabouts or actions. Initially, they thought they had simply fallen asleep, but the lost time raised questions about what had actually occurred.
Maguire explains, "At the time, I had no idea what missing time was or anything else" which indicates that he was not initially aware of the broader implications or significance of their experience. This lack of awareness suggests that the encounter was not only disconcerting but also transformative, as it prompted him to later explore the realm of UAPs more deeply.
While he does not provide specific details about any visual or physical characteristics of the UAP during this encounter, the mere experience of losing time without explanation left a significant impact on him. It illustrates the psychological effect that such phenomena can have on individuals and highlights how personal experiences can motivate scientific inquiry into the unknown.
- [13:38] "At the time, I had no idea what missing time was or anything else..."
- [14:10] "I had trouble finding my way."
- [13:30] "We experienced 90 minutes of missing time."
In the discussion, Bob Maguire addresses the challenges and skepticism surrounding UAP research, particularly regarding the professional risks that come with exploring such a controversial field. He notes that the traditional academic and scientific communities often regard UAP studies with skepticism, which can impede researchers' efforts to publish findings or receive funding. Maguire's recognition of this skepticism indicates that he is aware of the potential barriers that exist within professional circles, which can deter individuals from fully engaging in UAP research.
Moreover, he touches upon the possibility that UAP may involve non-human intelligences. He states, "Almost surely some of them will be able to do that,” referring to the potential capabilities of non-human entities to understand or manipulate detection technologies. This acknowledgment highlights the complexities of UAP phenomena and suggests that researchers must navigate not just technical challenges but also the conceptual hurdles of understanding what UAP might represent.
While Maguire does not delve deeply into specific obstacles, his remarks about the broader implications of UAP research reflect a cautious yet open-minded approach to the topic. He recognizes the necessity of a scientific framework while also being aware of the unpredictable nature of the phenomena being studied, thus balancing the inherent risks and potential rewards of pursuing knowledge in this field.
- [41:36] "Their job is... acting on behalf of our national security interests outside the Karman line in space."
- [44:08] "Almost surely some of them will be able to do that."
- [50:53] "You run into roadblocks. Like for example, a major piece of the hardware that’s on this super duper computer doesn’t work right."
[00:13] [music][00:16] Hello and welcome to the show. I'm[00:18] Martin Willis, your host, and I'm[00:20] excited about our guest tonight. Uh Bob[00:23] Maguire, Bob Bob Magcuire, I'm sorry. Uh[00:26] sat next to him out at James Fox's, uh[00:31] his uh DC uh conference uh press[00:34] conference and had a great time, great[00:36] conversation, and also out in[00:38] California. and he's uh he's uh I think[00:41] we had contact from him uh watching my[00:44] show quite a while ago. So great guy uh[00:47] very bright um and he has decades of[00:50] applied mathematics signal processing at[00:54] a national uh security level uh as well[00:57] as data analysis and all that. So uh[01:01] we're going to be moving beyond[01:02] speculation in this about us UFOs[01:04] talking about all that. A couple of[01:06] things here. Uh, don't forget to go over[01:09] to podcastufo.com.[01:10] Uh, we have a new moderator in chat.[01:12] Paul, thank you so much. Dispatch, um,[01:15] he's our moderator. He's been a real[01:16] cheerleader for the show in the last uh,[01:18] number of months. So, I'm welcome[01:20] welcoming him aboard. And also, as far[01:24] as people helping out, we have lots of[01:26] people helping out, and I thank everyone[01:28] that does that. Palmer, uh, Brock, uh,[01:31] Donna, of course, my producer, and, uh,[01:33] Jack UFO Jack helps out with the YouTube[01:36] channel. Speaking of that, if you go[01:38] over to our YouTube channel, which is[01:40] podcast, UFO live shows. If you're[01:42] listening to the audio, you should know[01:44] that because there's a lot of great[01:46] clips over there, uh, you know, shorts,[01:48] I guess they call them, and all that.[01:49] There's a lot of them from, uh,[01:50] Washington DC. You can check out Dr.[01:54] uh Leslie Kaine, there's a guy named[01:56] Logan and uh all all kinds of people. So[01:59] check out over at the YouTube channel[02:01] and while you're there you can[02:02] subscribe. It's free. Uh I'd appreciate[02:04] that. Um so last week I said I'd give[02:08] away two of the conference tickets and I[02:10] forgot to do that. Let me pull that up.[02:13] Um just so you have the graphics of[02:14] that. That's coming up on the 7th and[02:17] the 8th. And where did that go? I am[02:21] looking for that. I'm sorry I'm not[02:23] seeing that pop up in the graphic.[02:27] I have no idea how that escaped. But[02:30] anyway, that is uh go over at podcast[02:33] UFO.com and you will see the information[02:36] over there. Let me just see if I can[02:38] pull up the file and get that going[02:39] while I'm talking here. So, what's going[02:41] to happen is that's a online uh online[02:45] conference with all kinds of people.[02:47] Berles, Ryan Graves, um I know um[02:50] Richard Dolan's going to be there and a[02:52] number of other people. So, uh the[02:54] Tedesco brothers, it goes on and on and[02:56] on. And that's two days. It's the 7th[02:58] and 8th of February. And uh if you'd[03:01] like to get a free ticket to that, the[03:04] first two people that email at[03:07] producerpodcast.com[03:11] gets a free $75 value ticket for that.[03:15] So producer atodcastufo.com.[03:18] I will announce the first name of those[03:20] winners that get that. It's a free on.[03:22] You'll have free tickets to that online[03:25] conference coming right up on the 7th[03:27] and 8th. I'm going to be on the road[03:29] those two days. I wanted to be uh[03:31] watching that. I may still watch from[03:33] the road. But uh anyway, I am not going[03:36] to be anywhere stationary. Going to be[03:38] in warmer weather hopefully that will be[03:42] uh going on during the weekend. And[03:44] anyway, so the blog this week from[03:47] Charles Leer is called Fairies from the[03:49] UFOs. A lot of people are describing[03:50] over the years of things that look like[03:52] fairies with wings, etc. So that's what[03:55] that uh great uh podcast uh blog is[03:58] about. We also have a guest blog this[04:01] this week, which is very unusual. Um and[04:03] that's from Albert Wayne. He's a person[04:05] that had an amazing UFO uh sighting. If[04:08] you want to check out that over at[04:10] YouTube, uh Albert Wayne Wi N. uh quite[04:14] it's one of the most remarkable UFO[04:16] encounters I've ever heard of. Uh really[04:19] uh I do reference that one quite a bit.[04:21] So anyway, he wrote this great blog[04:23] about a conversation he had with someone[04:24] in their 80s and it leads to someone[04:27] talking about Roswell and really[04:29] something happened. But again, it's all[04:30] here. We don't have the receipts on that[04:32] one. We probably never will. But also uh[04:35] I was supposed to have Reed Summers on.[04:37] I was supposed to have two different[04:38] people on this week. Uh and uh so we[04:41] have uh Bob was lucky enough to fill in.[04:43] He was supposed to come in next week,[04:44] but he filled in um for this week. Reed[04:47] Summers may join us next week. Um and[04:51] people I did announce to you people last[04:54] week that Clyde Biffield was going to be[04:56] here. He'll be on closer to the Phoenix[04:59] Lights incident anniversary. I'm going[05:02] to do some type of show. It's going to[05:04] be the 29th anniversary, I do believe,[05:06] coming up in March. So, I'll have him[05:08] because he's related uh to that. His[05:10] movie is that he has out. Plus, um[05:13] someone contacted me that was a direct[05:14] witness during the Phoenix Lights. Um[05:17] I'm going to try to get him on at the[05:19] same time. He has been in one of the I[05:21] do believe uh James Fox uh movies. But,[05:25] uh anyway, um so that's what's going to[05:27] come up around the Phoenix Lights[05:29] anniversary.[05:31] And if you want to know who's coming,[05:32] know who's coming up and read uh the[05:34] blogs and things like that, we have all[05:37] kinds of links and everything in every[05:38] weekly newsletter. It's very easy to[05:40] sign up over at podcastuf.com.[05:44] I never give my anyone's emails away to[05:46] anyone. All you have to do is drop your[05:48] email address in there, submit, and then[05:50] confirm the email and you'll get our[05:52] weekly newsletters. Again, that's at the[05:54] sidebarpodcast.com.[05:58] And I think I covered everything. And uh[06:01] don't forget if you want a free uh[06:03] conference uh just uh ticket. There's[06:07] two uh two that I have to give away and[06:09] you have to email at producerpodcast.com[06:13] to win them. And again, the first two[06:15] people do win that. And without further[06:18] ado, I think I've talked a lot more than[06:19] I normally do, which is probably I don't[06:22] know how people feel about that. But[06:23] anyway, here we go. Bob, welcome to the[06:27] show. Martin, good to see you again. I[06:29] believe I saw you a week or so ago.[06:31] >> It was just about that, wasn't it? Yeah.[06:33] >> Yeah. Martin and I sat right next to[06:35] each other and I I almost managed to[06:38] wreck all of his equipment, but we[06:40] survived it.[06:41] >> That's right. Uh yeah, I think we we had[06:44] uh we both we both were having some uh[06:47] problems technically. Um you know, I[06:50] realized that uh if you get up and and[06:52] you leave the this is what I found out.[06:54] If you get up and have to leave the room[06:56] to use the restroom or whatever it is[06:58] you do and you're using the hotspot to[07:01] your phone to connect to the internet[07:03] and live stream, you should leave your[07:05] phone there before you go away. Yeah, I[07:08] had uh [laughter][07:10] >> blank screen for a while.[07:12] >> My the largest reaction, Martin, I got[07:15] from going to that from all the things I[07:18] put up was when up I we did up and did[07:20] my little spiel to test your microphone.[07:24] >> [laughter][07:24] >> I forgot what you said, but it was[07:26] pretty funny.[07:27] >> Yeah. Hey, here here I am, a nobody[07:29] standing in front of this microphone[07:31] helping Martin Willis get his audio[07:33] working.[07:34] >> Yeah, that's right. That's right. I[07:36] actually had a microphone up on the[07:37] stand. It's so funny to watch people[07:39] during the live stream because[07:40] everyone's clapping in the room. You[07:42] don't hear any claps. You just see their[07:43] hands going. It's pretty funny. But, uh,[07:45] yeah. Um, yeah. So, that was a great[07:47] experience. I really enjoyed being[07:49] there. And, you know, we[07:51] >> Oh, it felt historic. It it was[07:53] historic. That's how I felt about it as[07:55] well. And uh we also met out in[07:57] California last year as well, I[07:59] remember. Yes. So uh you have quite a[08:02] background and I have I love asking you[08:04] this question because it's always[08:06] different. And how what made you get[08:08] into the UFO topic to begin with?[08:10] >> Um well it it happened in stages. So[08:14] when I was young I had a couple of odd[08:18] things happen. Uh, I had a[08:23] three cardiac arrest before I was one[08:25] years old.[08:26] >> Oh.[08:26] >> Because I had cerebral encphilitis.[08:29] >> Oh boy.[08:30] >> So people nowadays would call it NDE. I[08:33] don't know because I don't remember any[08:34] of it. But anyway, I recovered, moved to[08:37] the state of Alabama and when I was my[08:41] mother made friends there and she was[08:43] entertaining a friend at three years[08:45] old, I got up out of the bed and walked[08:48] in and grabbed book off the shelf and[08:50] started reading it to them and somehow I[08:53] had been taught how to read by an agency[08:57] that we cannot name. I mean, it's it's[09:01] not the CIA. It's I have no clue how I[09:03] learned how to read. And neither should[09:05] he. But she told that story until the[09:07] day she died. And then when I was 10,[09:12] I had this really unusual year. And I[09:16] became an amateur radio operator. I[09:19] built my own telescope and ground my own[09:21] mirrors and did a bunch of other things[09:24] like that. But my mother but and a[09:28] doctor challenged me to see how much of[09:30] Gray's anatomy I could learn. And I[09:33] proved to him six weeks later that I had[09:35] memorized Grey's anatomy cover to cover.[09:38] And he tested me and all. So my mother[09:41] went and told my fourth grade teacher[09:43] who I despised and she despised me that[09:47] I knew all the parts of the human body[09:49] and how they function. She says, "Oh,[09:51] really? Well, why don't you let him give[09:52] us a demonstration?"[09:54] So to get even with her, I took in this[09:58] little model which was about this tall[10:02] and it was the pregnant visible woman[10:06] and you could see the infant inside her[10:08] belly. And we're talking about 1964[10:11] Bible belt Alabama. I gave sex education[10:16] to all the kids in the fourth grade and[10:19] it was hilarious. My mother had four[10:22] ministers visit her after.[10:26] >> Oh my goodness.[10:27] >> So, and I just, you know, I was[10:29] precocious. So, shortly after that, my[10:32] mother says, "Look, we're going to do[10:33] all this really uh[10:36] science technical stuff at home." And[10:39] you then she started bringing all the[10:42] kids from the school out to our yard and[10:45] played tag football and had Easter egg[10:48] hunts and all that. She did her best and[10:51] managed to get me from bookworm,[10:54] antisocial, almost surely on the[10:57] spectrum to at least learn how to behave[11:01] in public spaces and get along with[11:04] people.[11:06] My mother was amazed.[11:07] >> Wow. Yeah. Yeah. We had a little bit of[11:09] a we had a little bit of a conversation[11:12] about that when I was there actually in[11:14] DC and uh how she helped you and you had[11:18] a lot of help, right?[11:19] >> Yeah. My my my stepdad and her and yeah,[11:22] grandfather and they did everything they[11:25] could to enhance my education, but my[11:28] grandfather made me drive the tractor[11:31] and bail hay all summer long for him[11:34] every summer and barely read a book. So,[11:37] I mean, they were loving but strict.[11:41] >> Right. Right. Um, so where did you grow[11:44] up?[11:45] >> In southwest Alabama. I was born in[11:47] Tennessee, but I grew up in southwest[11:49] Alabama. Uh, 70 miles north of Mobile,[11:53] Alabama, a little town called Grove[11:55] Hill, which was the county seat for[11:58] Clark County. Had 1,200 people in the[12:02] town. My graduating high school class[12:04] had a hundred people.[12:07] kind of like where I grew up. I I grew[12:09] up right on the uh right on the border[12:12] of Maine and New Hampshire,[12:14] a little town called Elliot, Maine. And[12:17] there was about 2,000 people uh there[12:20] when I grew up. And our graduating class[12:23] had 106 people. And you know, I love[12:26] that. And the weirdest thing is um when[12:30] uh you know as as I got older and kind[12:33] of moved out and did different things[12:35] and I came back well Elliott became the[12:37] place where all um I guess they called[12:40] them at the time Yepies. All the Yepies[12:42] moved in there and uh they had a town[12:44] fair and I went there and I recognized[12:46] one person when it used to be when I was[12:49] growing up I knew everybody in that[12:51] town, you know. So[12:53] >> yeah, my hometown is is dying[12:55] unfortunately. the businesses have all[12:57] left. Kids don't stay there and it's[13:00] slowly but surely withering.[13:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. Now, um so you had[13:05] encounters did you say?[13:07] >> Yeah. So, yeah. So, let me give you the[13:10] first one.[13:11] Uh some before then. I remember being[13:14] out in the yard with my telescope all[13:16] night a lot and I saw stuff, but the big[13:18] the big one was I had a girlfriend.[13:23] She and I left high school and went to[13:26] the same college and a weekend early in[13:30] the year. I went to pick her up at her[13:32] dormatory and to drive us home for the[13:35] weekend. And on the way, we experienced[13:38] 90 minutes of missing time. At the time,[13:41] I had no idea what missing time was or[13:43] anything else, but anyway, we wound up[13:45] in the middle of nowhere. And both of us[13:47] just thought we went to sleep because we[13:49] couldn't figure out how we got there.[13:51] So, we wi drove around and finally got[13:54] into Demopoulos, Alabama, which was not[13:57] our destination. Figured out where to go[14:00] and we went down the road and got home[14:02] an hour and a half late. And I[14:04] apologized and said we accidentally got[14:06] lost and I had trouble finding my way.[14:08] And her mother, I think, believed me.[14:10] So, anyway, after that, I was had[14:14] because of the Grey's Anatomy thing I[14:16] told you about earlier, everybody[14:17] thought I was going to be a medical[14:19] doctor. So, I went to the right college[14:21] in the state to go to medical school in[14:23] the state. So, I decided I didn't want[14:27] to be a medical doctor anymore and I[14:29] changed universities from Alabama to[14:32] Auburn, which alienated half my friends.[14:36] And then I just went went from premed to[14:39] mathematics and engineering, which is[14:42] what I am today.[14:44] >> And I felt it was an intervention now.[14:48] >> Ah. Uh-huh. And so applied mathematics[14:51] and what did you what did you do with[14:54] that? Uh[14:55] >> oh. So I I I what I did was stay in[15:00] school about five years and take every[15:02] course I could. So I took all the[15:04] physics courses, electrical engineering[15:06] courses. When I got to finally got to[15:09] and I graduated, went to work at Sandia[15:12] National Labs for a year. Found out that[15:14] the people that got respect had a PhD.[15:17] So I left went and got a PhD in applied[15:20] math at Brown University. And while[15:22] there I took quantum field theory from[15:24] Leon Cooper who was a Nobel laureate and[15:27] I took computer science analysis[15:29] algorithms from Robert Sedwick and u his[15:34] very very famous advisor Donald Kuth who[15:38] gave everybody tech and latte and wrote[15:41] the major volumes on early computer[15:43] science called the art of computing. I[15:46] had Martin the greatest education of[15:50] anyone I could ever name. I I know[15:53] people have had good education. I just[15:54] can't name anyone who had better that[15:56] perfect perfectly fit me.[15:59] >> And I I I chose Brown because I got it I[16:02] got in everywhere. But I chose Brown[16:05] >> because when I went there I was met by[16:08] professors who were from Illinois,[16:11] Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Georgia. So I[16:14] went, "Okay, I can fit in here."[16:16] [laughter][16:18] >> Yeah. Wow. And so I, you know, as we[16:23] talked, we're going to be talking about[16:24] um UFO detection, USO detection. You[16:27] know, I I have a real interest in um[16:31] USOs in the last few years. You know,[16:34] it's just something that, you know, I[16:36] had this I'm just going to explain real[16:39] quickly for anyone that never saw this.[16:41] uh guest that I had had a lot of[16:43] attention with this guest. Um but uh[16:46] anyway, um his name is Scott Cassell.[16:49] He's known as the first person to ever[16:52] film the um giant squid in the wild. Uh[16:55] but he's had 20,000 hours of dive time[16:59] and I think 5,000 hours on a rebreather[17:02] and he was down in the ocean off the off[17:06] of the Sea of Cortez down off Mexico 60[17:10] miles out. He was down in 200 feet on a[17:12] re rebreather looking for some rare fish[17:15] that um it was being um uh his[17:19] contraband and was being fished out by[17:21] the Chinese market. And he was looking[17:23] for them to film one 300lb fish croaks[17:26] like a a frog. It's a really strange[17:28] thing. So he's down there, something[17:30] catches his eye and all of a sudden he[17:33] realizes that, you know, it's something[17:35] that shouldn't be there and he's[17:37] thinking, "Oh, it's like, you know,[17:39] man-made, whatever it is, but it was a[17:41] cube. And this cube uh was like a gold[17:44] cube flashing back from his light[17:46] camera. He's filming it. And then and[17:49] then as he's moving towards it, it's[17:51] moving away and it's it's h, you know,[17:54] keeping the timing up. He clears his[17:57] ears six times so he's knows he's near[17:59] his depth limit, which is 400 ft. And[18:02] sure enough, he was. And he he kind of[18:04] puts his camera down and the thing like[18:08] flew right by him. And he says he's been[18:10] in places where a whale[18:12] will go by him fast and it displaces the[18:15] water and you spin around, you know. He[18:18] said there was absolutely no water[18:20] displacement as this thing flew flew by[18:22] him. So he he just said, "I'm getting[18:24] the heck out of here." And he he got out[18:26] of there as fast as he could and met up[18:27] with his buddy at 200 feet or whatever.[18:29] But I mean uh that fascinates me. And[18:32] and one of the things that really just[18:35] what I said about there's no water[18:37] displacement. People talk about the[18:39] things going into the water and out of[18:40] the water without splashes. Of course,[18:42] there's no sonic boom when there's[18:44] really fast movement in the sky. What[18:46] could do stuff like that? It's wild. So,[18:49] I had two experiences with the United[18:51] States Navy. One was I was on the USS[18:55] Blue Ridge in 2008 for a few months and[19:00] we went through which is the flagship[19:03] for the seventh fleet which is based in[19:05] Yakusa, Japan. So we went through a um[19:12] typhoon in the Sea of Japan. So this is[19:15] 2008, spring of 2008. And we went[19:17] through this typhoon and I was everybody[19:22] was sick. It was 90 knoot seas, but[19:25] cuckoo Bob decided he wanted to go up on[19:27] the bridge and look around. And I was[19:30] everybody's pet, so they let me do it.[19:32] So anyway, I got up went up there and I[19:35] noticed that we were not in the eyewall.[19:38] Well, in the eyewall because it was wind[19:40] all around us and rain except there was[19:42] no rain falling on the ship. So I went[19:46] up to the window and I looked up and it[19:49] was glowing. I said, "Is that some kind[19:51] of weird phenomenon[19:54] glowing?" And as a couple of minutes,[19:56] couple seconds after I looked at the[19:58] glow grew really bright and whatever it[20:01] was because I couldn't see the[20:02] structure, just the glow. It went[20:05] straight up and royal stuff and all of a[20:08] sudden the rain came back. The whatever[20:11] it was, and I'm just going to call it a[20:14] UFO flying saucer. It was bigger than[20:17] the ship and had no rain falling on the[20:20] ship in the middle of a typhoon[20:23] >> and it took off. Okay. So, my other[20:26] experience was in the late 1990s.[20:30] I was doing an operation for the[20:33] government on board the nuclear[20:37] submarine, the USS Hampton. I spent a[20:40] fair amount of time on there. So, we did[20:42] a thing and I [clears throat] can't say[20:45] anything about what we were doing or[20:46] where we were or anything. Just we did a[20:47] thing and we had a had an incident. So,[20:51] we decided to leave the area and go rest[20:54] for a little bit. So, we went out and[20:57] rested. We were going, we were pretty[21:00] deep and going pretty fast. And I heard[21:04] something weird outside the boat[21:08] and the senior master chief comes[21:11] running out of the sonar room and he[21:13] says, "Captain, there's a fast walker."[21:16] >> And says, "Huh?" It says, "Yeah, and[21:18] it's moving faster than the speed of[21:20] sound." Now, I knew he went faster than[21:23] 760 miles an hour because and nothing[21:28] there is no known object that humans can[21:32] make that can plow through water at that[21:35] speed because water is incompressible.[21:39] >> And what can I say? And so after that it[21:42] was like everybody just looked away,[21:45] didn't say anything, didn't mention it,[21:48] acted like nothing happened. So I took[21:50] my cue from them and just pretended it[21:53] didn't happen.[21:55] >> Isn't that something? Now, do you happen[21:56] to know Mark De Antonio?[21:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. He and I had almost the same[22:01] experience.[22:02] Intelligence operation and Mark was[22:04] doing an intelligence operation, but at[22:07] a different time on a different boat.[22:09] >> Isn't that something? He was talking[22:11] about uh for I heard him say a couple[22:13] different things like 200 knots or above[22:17] two, you know, several hundred knots. He[22:19] said both of those things. But I mean[22:21] like I just can't even imagine how[22:23] something can go through water. Now[22:25] there was a there was a gentleman named[22:27] Miraabu uh I've tried to get on this[22:29] show physics type uh professor I believe[22:33] who has a theory about a beam ahead[22:35] thing. you know, we're talking about[22:37] UFOs and the way it would would travel[22:40] and like cut the air so there's wouldn't[22:42] be a sonic boom and all that in a[22:44] quicker way to cut through air without[22:46] any displacement of air. But uh somehow[22:49] I don't know exactly how that works, but[22:50] anyway, it's all fascinating to me and[22:53] it doesn't it doesn't make any sense. It[22:55] makes me realize that we have no idea[22:57] what's going on. And uh yeah, uh what's[23:00] it called? Super cavitation. Um,[23:03] >> oh, any anything going really clo really[23:06] fast near its point of it can't go any[23:09] faster has to turn its screws so fast[23:12] that they cavitate like mad and super[23:16] cavitation these boats they can hear it[23:19] kilometers away.[23:21] >> Right. And so yeah, it makes you wonder[23:24] what can propel something through the[23:25] water like that.[23:27] >> No clue.[23:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh yeah, it fascinates me.[23:31] So how uh how do how do how do we go[23:36] about detecting these type of things[23:39] like underwater first of all?[23:40] >> Okay. Share my thing please.[23:43] >> Oh yes absolutely.[23:45] >> Okay. So let me go over here to this. So[23:49] I am building a computer system and its[23:54] only job is to collect data from[23:56] sensors, package the sensors uh data in[24:01] a way that makes it scientifically[24:03] valuable even years after the[24:05] collection. You got to do all sorts of[24:07] things. You got to follow protocols. You[24:09] have to mark everything correctly. Uh[24:12] sensors you want to associate, they all[24:15] have to coordinate their time together.[24:17] So I'm doing that and one of the things[24:20] I'm doing is I am adding two sensors and[24:24] some other stuff so the little computer[24:26] and these two sensors can do underwater[24:30] detection of USOS but and this is[24:33] affordable by regular humans and it has[24:37] several facets which are really[24:39] important. So first of all we're going[24:42] to do passive acoustic. We're going to[24:44] listen with a microphone and we're going[24:46] to look for things that would uh disturb[24:49] the Earth's uh magnetic field by moving[24:53] through it. And so that's called[24:55] magnetic radiometry. When you're[24:57] measuring the gradient of the change of[24:59] a magnetic field because it's a vector[25:01] field and then passive acoustic, you[25:03] just want to hear something. And so[25:06] there are technologies which are not[25:10] that expensive and can be hooked to this[25:12] package which will be put in a container[25:15] that'll be waterproof and uh bounce[25:18] proof and shockproof and sends data home[25:21] over over probably Starlink uh or[25:24] something like that or low if it's very[25:27] close to the to the shore. All right.[25:31] So when sound travels underwater, it[25:36] normally just goes out in a cylindrical[25:39] wave. Uh a wave, I'm sorry, in a[25:42] spherical wave. So the the energy from[25:47] the sound dissipates very rapidly unless[25:51] you are close to the shore and are on[25:54] the continental shelf. So when you're[25:56] that when you're in shallower water and[25:59] it's not ridiculously deep like you know[26:01] over the Mariana's trench, the[26:03] continental shelf acts like a[26:04] cylindrical wave guide. So sound that we[26:07] used to fall off if it was in deep water[26:10] doesn't fall off as fast and it'll[26:12] propagate loudly for a very long way. So[26:16] that we're taking advantage of that[26:18] because we're not going to go out on a[26:20] submarine or a big boat way out in the[26:22] middle of nowhere and do stuff. We need[26:24] stuff we can do with an easy easy reach[26:28] of the shoreline. So that's what I'm[26:30] building and hopefully it'll be useful.[26:32] So shallow water acts like a highpass[26:35] filter and low frequency propulsion uh[26:38] noises can be stripped out but transient[26:41] clicks and metallic anomalies will stay.[26:43] So you want some high frequency[26:47] sensitivity and low frequency[26:49] sensitivity, but most of the stuff[26:52] that's just like noise gets filtered out[26:54] naturally by the by the environment.[26:56] Okay.[26:58] So the disruptive technology that we[27:01] will use are called MIMS. And so they[27:04] are useful. They're in every cell cell[27:07] phone doing microphone stuff and other[27:10] things. And so we'll be using those.[27:12] Now, we don't want t5 to $10,000[27:16] military hydrophones.[27:19] First of all, they're not going to let[27:20] us have them or use them for PCT type[27:25] microphones. We're going to use MIMS.[27:27] And it's I'll call I called it here[27:29] military hydrophone and citizen mode[27:32] because um there are some issues with us[27:36] acting like we want to go find nuclear[27:38] submarines deep under the water. we're[27:41] going to violate ITAR E and every other[27:44] thing and we're going to get shut down[27:46] really quickly and the equipment and all[27:48] the stuff is going to be taken and[27:50] called classified hidden promise[27:52] forever. So, we're not going to go[27:53] there. We're going to do what we can do[27:56] and hopefully by doing something we get[27:58] something useful.[28:00] So, we're going to listen up to 384[28:03] sample rate of 12 up about 100 kHz zero[28:06] to about 100 kilhertz for sound. And so[28:09] we're going to capture the ultrasonic[28:11] transients and the low low frequency[28:13] rumble. And uh we're going to have also[28:17] on this package we're going to have[28:20] what's called a PNI R RM3100 which is a[28:24] magnetic radiometer device. In other[28:26] words, if something is metallic and it[28:29] it is ferroag has ferroagnetic stuff on[28:32] it and it moves around you, it will[28:36] disturb the earth's magnetic field as[28:38] you see it. And this thing will detect[28:40] that disturbance. So, we'll have an[28:43] acoustic ear. We'll have a magnet uh[28:47] magnet movement checker and we're going[28:49] to power it with uh fancy batteries and[28:52] solar power compute that it'll fit on[28:55] there and last a long time and not drain[28:57] the battery even if it it doesn't have[29:00] good sun for several days. And we're[29:02] going to collect data and we're going to[29:04] send it back by wireless means back to a[29:07] repository. So this is what I'm calling[29:10] my hydro sentinel. this thing. The thing[29:12] won't cost a thousand bucks. That's the[29:15] nice part.[29:16] >> Okay. So, here's a magnetic anomaly[29:19] signature. If something's going by and[29:21] it's ferromagnetic, this sensor will see[29:24] it go whoop whoop like that. And you[29:27] could, this curve is called the scurve[29:30] confirmation. And so, let's suppose we[29:32] have several of them deployed in a line.[29:35] We'll see this signal this come across[29:39] these magnetometers at different times[29:42] and the different times of the arrival[29:44] of the signal will allow us to get the[29:49] angle at which the signal is coming from[29:52] and other information like the angular[29:55] velocity. So, we'll know a lot lot more[29:57] about the target by using this gradient.[29:59] And it's just going to what it's doing[30:01] is measuring somebody taking a chunk[30:04] chunk of iron and running it past you[30:07] fast enough to make this thing wiggle.[30:09] And so, you're assuming that there's[30:11] ferromagnetic material in the in the[30:14] craft. And so, uh, it'll it'll make a[30:18] really neat little sound and or wiggle[30:20] and you'll you'll be able to say, "Oo,[30:22] this is physically close." and you'll be[30:24] able to hear it probably. Okay, so the[30:27] intelligence pipeline is looking like[30:29] this. We're going to ingest 384 kilhertz[30:32] of audio[30:34] uh and 100 hertz of magnetometer. We're[30:36] going to shove it into a ring buffer so[30:38] that they're time synchronized. And then[30:41] we're going to have artificial[30:42] intelligence that's on the little single[30:44] board computer do inference. It's going[30:47] to do machine learning attack on the[30:51] data and say, "Okay, this is something[30:53] good." And we will have trained the the[30:55] AI to do that kind of check and then[30:57] it'll write it into a storage and over[31:00] time with metadata tags all the clock[31:03] everything write it on storage and as it[31:05] as it just done it will send it back uh[31:09] uh more slowly than it arrive but we are[31:13] expecting the events not to arrive so[31:15] quickly. So a slow link back won't[31:18] bother us because we're going to have[31:19] all this metadata on it. So we'll know[31:21] when, where, how, what, with what the[31:23] devices, what we saw, etc. It'll just[31:26] get back home slowly so that we don't[31:28] have to have a very expensive link. So[31:30] why is this legal? Well, the MEMS[31:33] technology is this green line here. And[31:36] this green line, we will take detect uh[31:39] 10 hertz to 100 kilhertz. And the reason[31:42] that's great is is is in addition to[31:46] that, it won't have super sensitivity.[31:51] So the noise level where we're in the[31:54] lateral zone or the continental shelf,[31:57] it'll have a noise level which is high[31:59] enough that we'll never be able to see a[32:03] submarine which is way down here uh 50[32:05] or 60 dB below what this thing will even[32:08] do. So we'll never even hear the nuclear[32:10] submarines. So they won't get mad at us,[32:13] which is what we don't want. And this[32:15] curve, this blue dot curve, that's the[32:18] ambient noise in the ocean. So right[32:20] about here, we'll start hearing[32:21] everything that's not ambient noise of[32:24] the ocean. And so what does what does[32:26] this mean? This means we are E[32:28] compliant. So we're not even ITAR, which[32:31] is going to be military restricted.[32:33] It'll be it. So we're not going to do[32:34] that. And so we won't even need a[32:36] license to be able to send this tech out[32:38] to people all over the world, including[32:40] how to use it. So that's it for the h[32:43] the hydro sentinel Martin.[32:46] >> Wow. So uh and you had told me at one[32:51] time you were working with Eric. Uh is[32:54] this something you're working together?[32:56] >> No. No. Eric Dav Eric Davis and I are[32:59] new employee owners of a company that[33:04] Julia Mossbridge is starting.[33:07] >> Ah, I see.[33:08] >> So something way outside of this.[33:11] >> Oh, I got it.[33:12] >> Julia Mos is involved. So you know it's[33:14] not about deep deep underground undersea[33:18] air type detectors. It's something to do[33:20] with consciousness.[33:21] >> I got it. I got it. Whole different[33:23] thing. So, um, this this just a couple[33:27] of questions I have for you on this what[33:28] you just shared with us. And by the way,[33:30] if you would send that to me, so I can[33:33] put that up, um, on the show notes for[33:35] anyone that listens to the audio[33:37] podcast.[33:39] >> Um, so we have this person in the chat.[33:42] She's always quite amazing. Uh, Mandy[33:44] Mandonopoulos. Um, and she has a lot of[33:47] good questions, but uh, uh, she just[33:50] posted this comment here. You may detect[33:52] when they come up with a uh come up to[33:55] periscope death depth.[33:57] >> I got to tell you what, if they come up[33:59] to periscope depth on the continental[34:00] shelf inside our territory waters,[34:03] nobody's going to be upset with us. What[34:05] they don't want us to do is detect our[34:09] submarines deep underwater. They don't[34:12] want us where they're running deep. If[34:15] we got in that game, we'd be in trouble[34:17] quick.[34:18] >> They don't care about shallow water.[34:20] Yeah. Hey, uh just saying a little shout[34:23] out to Jean. Jean Sto.[34:24] >> Hey, Jean. How you doing, buddy?[34:26] >> Yeah. Uh yeah, he was right right beside[34:28] us down in uh in Washington DC. And uh[34:32] uh little shout out to Natalya. Hope[34:34] she's doing well. Uh better. But anyway,[34:37] um uh the question I had or questions I[34:41] have uh you mentioned that these things[34:43] aren't expensive. Sounds like this could[34:45] be possibly some type of grassroots type[34:48] of situation. That's that's that's the[34:49] entire goal is making this stuff[34:51] available to grassroot people who have[34:54] boats or want to put it on the shoreline[34:57] and run the sensors out in the water and[34:59] this will allow them to do that. The[35:01] MIMS won't be won't be a hundred bucks[35:04] >> and the the magnetometer about the same.[35:07] The computer is $300. So it's going to[35:10] be like $3 to $500 and whatever the[35:14] packaging and other stuff costs. It's[35:16] going to be cheap and we're going to get[35:19] gobs of data. I promise you.[35:22] >> Here's a here's a a question. Bob, are[35:26] you using any traditional fast for your[35:28] transformer transforms in the DSP[35:31] pipeline?[35:32] >> I like her.[35:33] >> Yeah, she's great. Yeah.[35:35] >> Yeah. So, so uh Mendon, this is how it[35:40] will occur.[35:42] So[35:44] the there will be fast forier transforms[35:47] but I'm hoping to capture their[35:50] functionality[35:52] in the machine learning training. So in[35:55] other words this machine learning[35:57] training will do the equivalent of a[36:00] fast fier transform. So we're looking[36:02] for things in a certain frequency range[36:04] and we want if we get if we get strong[36:07] coherent signals we want to see them. So[36:10] I'll probably do a spectral analysis of[36:13] the raw MIM's waveform raw microphone[36:17] audio but before I plug it into the uh[36:21] transform the the the the neural[36:23] network. So the neural network is trying[36:24] to do classification and other stuff.[36:27] >> So how much is AI going to be helping[36:29] with all of this?[36:30] >> A a lot.[36:31] >> Yeah. It's amazing the tool. I right[36:34] away when I started using that and[36:35] finding out more about it, I was[36:36] thinking, boy, this could help out in[36:38] the UFO world in so many ways.[36:40] >> So, about that Oh, you can't see. Yeah,[36:42] you can. About that big plugging into[36:45] the bottom of my board is a little card[36:48] that plugs into the a PCIe board on the[36:51] bottom and it's called a dual edge Carl[36:55] TPU where TPU stands for tensor product,[36:59] tensor processing unit. And that's put[37:02] out by Google and under their label[37:04] Carl. That thing will do eight trillion[37:09] operations a second and not even burn[37:13] five watts.[37:15] >> Oh wow. Yeah.[37:16] >> You know, uh we always have a hard time[37:18] figuring out about numbers. I love to[37:20] put this up for people when we talk[37:23] about numbers if uh because it's so hard[37:26] to imagine anything over a certain[37:28] number. So, I've said this before in the[37:31] show. If you counted from one to a[37:33] trillion day and night, it would take[37:36] you 30,000 years. Just to give you some[37:39] type of idea what a trillion is.[37:40] >> Impossible.[37:41] >> Yeah.[37:41] >> And people people are look people are so[37:44] innumerate they can't compute change of[37:46] the cash register.[37:48] >> So, it's these huge numbers, they mean[37:50] nothing to almost everyone,[37:52] >> right? Yeah. Yep. Here's another[37:54] question here. U this gentleman, Dr.[37:56] Richards has a lot of questions. similar[37:59] to this. What are the chances that ETSs[38:01] know all about these sensors and can[38:03] manipulate the data we get from them?[38:06] >> Almost surely some of them will be able[38:08] to do that.[38:09] >> Makes you makes you wonder, doesn't it?[38:11] Yeah. Um, so here's[38:13] >> I've been out I've been out with people[38:16] in near near Sedona.[38:19] >> Oh, yeah. We see stuff and it amazes me[38:23] how four people will see an event and[38:27] all four of them perceive it[38:29] differently.[38:30] >> Exactly. I hear that so many times. I[38:33] hear that a lot. Uh let's see. What out[38:36] of the box models are you using for the[38:38] ML?[38:39] >> Oh, that's very good. So look, the one[38:42] of the reasons for using the TPU, not[38:44] only is it $80, this device is 80 $80[38:49] for for an artificial intelligence[38:51] supercomput.[38:53] Well, there are about a million models[38:56] or something ridiculous that you can[38:58] download for free from the G Google Carl[39:02] library of models. So I'm using[39:06] classification[39:08] uh uh algorithms and I'm doing[39:12] transformers. So what has there been[39:14] trained will apply to my problem[39:17] furthermore[39:19] these are low integer size units. So[39:22] they can't do big big huge floatingoint[39:25] numbers. They need small integers. And[39:28] there is a process which Google has put[39:30] out for taking these huge models that[39:33] run on the GPUs in your computers and[39:35] running on the TPU using 8bit[39:38] arithmetic. And so you have to be[39:40] careful which model you choose. You[39:42] can't need so much dynamic range in the[39:45] data that the little 8bit unit can't[39:47] work. You have to be careful. You have[39:48] to know what you're doing. But you pick[39:50] out a model. I'm trying to do[39:51] classification. I've tried to classify a[39:54] sound and they say this this signal is a[39:58] whale or this signal is uh shrimp. You[40:03] get the idea. It's going to be doing[40:04] classification.[40:06] >> Yeah. So what is a what is the model[40:09] person to use this? You know I mean I[40:11] have a boat but I mean and here's[40:13] another kind of a sister question to[40:16] that. Are there because I never hear of[40:18] them. Are there any hot spots where[40:20] people see us?[40:22] Um, you know, Catalina Island is where[40:24] where do they[40:25] >> My goodness. Yes. So, people all around[40:28] Southern California, I'm hoping they go[40:31] cuckoo with this.[40:33] >> Yeah.[40:33] >> There are other places, but I'm telling[40:34] you, that's that's my target place.[40:37] >> Right. Right. I would I would think[40:39] think so. Um, this is a question put up[40:43] here by someone that comes in chat all[40:45] the time, but uh, that's kind of[40:47] unrelated to everything, but you know,[40:49] sometimes I wonder this question too.[40:51] What is the space force doing? I don't[40:54] know if you know anything about it.[40:56] >> Their job is uh, acting on behalf of our[41:00] national security interests outside the[41:03] Vancar the Karman line in space. So that[41:06] means war fighting, intelligence[41:09] gathering and all that other stuff above[41:12] about a 100 kilometers is that's their[41:15] domain. So um they are now operating the[41:20] satellites and other things for all the[41:23] military and uh so forth and so on. So I[41:27] can tell you that um[41:31] you you you you told people that I was[41:33] Skywatcher advisor. Well, they[41:36] approached me, Space Force and a bunch[41:39] of other people which included David[41:42] Grush and those people in Huntsville at[41:46] SCU in 2022 and asked me to join the[41:49] effort. At the time I was in no position[41:53] to do it, so I had to turn them down.[41:55] And so they came back later after they[41:58] got going and the team asked me to come[42:00] join the circle of advisors for[42:03] Skyatcher and so I was happy to do it[42:06] then and I'll continue to do advice to[42:08] these kind of groups uh for nothing[42:12] because I want the data out.[42:14] >> Yeah. Speaking of that, um here's here[42:17] is a a question that's kind of related[42:19] to that. Apart from people like us,[42:21] which body or institution do you report[42:24] the results to? Is this going to be like[42:26] open source? People[42:28] >> Okay, I'm about to go over that in great[42:30] detail, but I'll give a preview.[42:32] >> Okay. Every single line of code that[42:37] goes into my work on UAP and USOS[42:41] is or will be available on GitHub under[42:46] the MIT license.[42:48] Meaning you can do whatever you want to[42:51] with it. The only payment I get is we[42:54] got this from our buddy Bob.[42:57] >> That's the payment.[42:59] >> Nice.[43:00] If you don't[43:00] >> No, before before we get into what[43:02] you're going to be doing here, we let's[43:03] go through a couple more questions here[43:05] if we could.[43:06] >> Okay, here's this one here. Does this[43:08] kind of setup adapt to freshwater[43:10] including lakes, rivers, and coastal[43:11] marshes, or is there a similar program[43:13] for freshwater? You look at the Great[43:15] Lakes, there's a lot going on there.[43:17] >> So, so the the issue with fresh water is[43:20] it depends.[43:22] If it's a river, it's going to be too[43:26] noisy.[43:27] >> Yeah.[43:27] >> If it's a lake, it'll be less noisy. So,[43:31] it depends on the context, but the[43:33] answer is yes. If it's not a crazy noisy[43:36] environment with a million boats on it,[43:39] >> right?[43:39] >> Because you can imagine every boat that[43:41] goes by is going to set off the[43:42] magnetometer.[43:45] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We have a big lake[43:47] in New Hampshire where they say there's[43:49] like 8 to 10,000 boats on a uh on a[43:53] weekend day there. That's crazy. So,[43:55] here's another question from Mendy. Bob,[43:57] do you have any other mitigations for[43:58] undersea signature management,[44:01] especially if it exceeds the noise[44:02] threshold for the receiver?[44:04] >> Yes, if it exceeds the noise threshold[44:06] for the receiver, so I can hear the[44:07] sound. The classification[44:10] >> done in the tensor processor unit will[44:13] say, ah, you don't care about this. This[44:15] is a billion shrimp making clicking[44:18] noises and that kind of it'll reject all[44:20] that is un uninteresting. And so, will[44:23] it be perfect? No. Inference is a[44:26] probabilistic thing. So you want the[44:29] probability of guessing at something[44:32] good but it actually being bad. You want[44:35] that low. You want the probability of[44:37] guessing something bad but it actually[44:39] being good. You want that probability[44:41] low. But you want the probability of it[44:43] being good and it being good to be very[44:46] high. So in other words, it's a[44:47] probabilistic problem. It's going to[44:50] make mistakes. But if 90% of what it[44:53] does isn't a mistake, it's a win.[44:57] >> That's that's inference. That's what is[44:59] meant by inference.[45:02] >> So, did you have something else? Oh, you[45:03] have another thing to share here. Let me[45:05] >> share this so people can see. All right.[45:08] Yeah. So, this is on uh get me on GitHub[45:14] with my crazy Einstein Halloween costume[45:16] on. And so um all of these uh[45:21] repositories here with the exception of[45:24] this one and this one are dealing with[45:27] the work I'm doing for this stuff. So[45:31] this is math for all these processes.[45:35] Adaptive filtering is for tracking using[45:38] common filters and nonlinear versions of[45:40] them. United Flight Tracker is for[45:43] tracking every airplane in the sky[45:44] that's going over your observing site.[45:47] Passive radar Kraken is passive radar[45:51] where you can track the stuff that's[45:53] going across the sky. You can literally[45:55] do tracking with radar if you have a[45:59] strong FM or a strong TV station nearby.[46:03] Visible ephemeris tracks all the[46:05] satellites that the government will tell[46:08] us are actually in orbit and looks at[46:10] the ones that you can see from your[46:13] location. And if it can see the ones[46:17] that are at your location are also being[46:20] illuminated by the sun, when you try to[46:22] say, "Is that a UFO?" It goes, "No,[46:24] that's a satellite being lit by the[46:26] sun." If you're down here and your thing[46:28] goes, "Hey, is that a UFO?" And it's[46:31] going to look in United Flight Tracker[46:33] and it's going to go, "No, that's an[46:34] airplane. You don't care about it." So[46:38] much of this stuff is the put it in the[46:40] I don't care box. The other stuff is[46:43] doing all sorts of stuff. The Carl dual[46:45] edge TPU is all the inference engines[46:49] for using the tensor processor unit in[46:53] my orange PI 6 plus board which can do[46:56] damn near anything you want. [snorts][46:58] And so, for example, in the other room[47:01] right now, I'm two uh uh have two 4K[47:04] cameras streaming full speed 30 frames a[47:08] second into two Ethernet ports on this[47:11] computer. It's not even breathing hard.[47:14] And these are doing inference. So, the[47:17] onboard hardware for doing GPU like[47:21] artificial intelligence where it's[47:23] called a neural processing unit. This is[47:26] a new hardware. the neural processing[47:28] unit doesn't work right yet. So, I'm[47:31] working on code in here to try to help[47:33] them fix it so me and everybody else can[47:36] use it. And I put up a major[47:40] major fault in their code that drives it[47:43] on this thing. And I hope they're[47:45] ingesting it because it identifies most[47:47] of the problem. I actually successfully[47:49] identified. So this this[47:52] this one this one this one this one and[47:56] this one are all involved. I'm sorry and[48:00] the good radio stuff too are all[48:02] involved in this detection stuff for UAP[48:06] and USOS.[48:07] All of this are public repositories[48:11] and all of the code is under MIT[48:14] license. Anybody can use it for anything[48:16] they want to. And so I'll be talking[48:19] about this in a little bit of detail at[48:22] uh Reed Summers UAP conference this[48:25] weekend. I'm on a panel of four, so I[48:27] don't get an hour, I'll get 15 minutes,[48:29] so I'll have to do it quickly. And uh[48:32] then at SCU,[48:34] I want to be rolling this entire system[48:37] out with a detailed report on[48:39] performance data it got that looks[48:42] weird. And I have two sites I'm going to[48:44] go to for weird data for training. And[48:47] then that paper with all of this work[48:51] will be my ticket to be a full member of[48:55] the SCU.[48:57] Amazing. Amazing. So, um,[49:02] as far as UFO or UAP detection,[49:06] um,[49:07] is this the work that you're going to be[49:10] doing, is this going to be, um, let's[49:13] see, let me get you up here. How we go[49:15] here? Is this all going to be sourced[49:18] and that the MIT license whatever it is?[49:22] >> Everything will be MIT license. That's[49:24] an unrestricted license to do use it for[49:28] anything. You don't have to pay me. The[49:31] only thing you have to do is say I got[49:34] it from Bob.[49:36] >> Uhhuh. If you use it,[49:37] >> you know, just give a credit basically[49:39] is what it is.[49:40] >> All you got to do is give me credit.[49:41] That's all I want.[49:43] >> Yep. Yep. which is very fair, of course.[49:46] Uh, well, this is uh that's that's[49:48] pretty amazing. I know in the last[49:50] several years, I've talked to a lot of[49:51] people that have been trying to put[49:54] together some type of UFO detection,[49:57] sometimes grassroots, um, you know,[49:59] where you can have something I I[50:02] something you could buy, I think, for[50:03] $1,000, and one of them placed in[50:06] different parts of the country. It's all[50:09] um it it just never seems to I don't[50:12] hear of anything being developed. It[50:14] seems to always be in the starting[50:18] position but not really[50:20] >> there's a reason Martin do look[50:24] you can imagine and I'm not going to[50:26] guess and don't you guess but you can[50:28] imagine the consulting rate I get paid[50:31] per hour.[50:33] I'm taking away from my consulting time[50:36] making a donation[50:38] of my time to doing this. And typically[50:42] the major constraint[50:45] is there's not enough resources for a[50:48] group to do the development and they get[50:50] going and they do it and they realize[50:53] whenever you do this kind of[50:55] development, you run into really hard[50:57] problems.[50:58] >> They're really difficult. You run into[51:00] roadblocks. Like for example, a major[51:03] piece of the hardware that's on this[51:04] super duper computer[51:07] doesn't work right. So what am I doing?[51:10] I'm spending hours every week diagnosing[51:13] a commercial company's problem without[51:16] getting paid by them to diagnose it just[51:19] so I can use their fantastic hardware.[51:23] >> Uh you know you you and so look I I[51:27] started I founded Federated Wireless and[51:31] Hawkeye 360 that Federated Wireless is a[51:34] major maker of telecommunications[51:38] project for the wireless industry, cell[51:40] phone companies, etc. And it's it's it's[51:44] doing okay. And Hawkeye 360,[51:47] Martin, I I had this crazy idea with a[51:50] couple friends. We decided to do it and[51:52] we tried hard to give it away to the[51:54] government and they didn't want to hear[51:55] it. So we went out and we found venture[51:57] capital and when we got going um inqel[52:02] showed up and gave what they do is they[52:04] put a little money in the pot and all[52:06] they want to do is keep up with what[52:07] you're doing and so for the little bit[52:09] of money they put into the pot they got[52:11] to keep up with what we were doing. So[52:13] as they saw we were getting closer the[52:16] intelligence agencies and the department[52:17] of defense started coming around.[52:21] Hawkeye 360 has u several dozen[52:25] satellites in orbit. It's on its way to[52:27] over a hundred satellites in orbit. You[52:30] can go look at the Hawkeye launch that[52:32] was carried by SpaceX a few week a[52:35] couple of weeks ago. And what they do is[52:38] flying in orbit around the earth. They[52:40] locate transmitters on the ground. Now[52:44] that problem has been worked on, Martin[52:46] for 70 since the beginning of the space[52:50] age. First airplanes and then the space[52:53] age. And it's been worked on a lot and a[52:56] trillion dollars has been spent on it.[52:59] So you can imagine how much hutbah and[53:02] moxy it took to say I got something new[53:05] and you guys need to listen to me. So[53:07] let me tell you how you know it's new[53:09] and they listen to me. Hawkeye is the[53:13] first company[53:16] whose own products are being included in[53:21] the United States of America's[53:23] intelligence overhead sensing system and[53:27] they don't own it. All they can do is[53:29] buy data from us. It is a complete[53:33] revolution on how the government does[53:35] intelligence gathering using radio[53:38] transmissions. And I'll give you an[53:40] example that people can go find in a[53:42] newspaper. Several years ago, Hawkeye[53:44] had its stuff up and it detected Chinese[53:48] military moving in on the border of[53:50] India, clearly preparing to attack.[53:54] >> We warned the Indians and the Americans.[53:58] They did not know this was happening. We[54:00] were the ones that discovered it and the[54:02] Indian government but put it all over[54:04] every possible newspaper in the whole of[54:07] Asia. And so Hawkeye and that effort is[54:10] there. And so since then it's done a[54:11] bunch of other stuff. It found Chinese[54:14] boats illegally fishing around the[54:16] Galopagos Islands and the Ecuadorian[54:17] government and others ran them off. It's[54:20] doing it's doing the kinds of things you[54:21] would want intelligence community to do[54:23] with that asset and the intelligence[54:25] community doesn't tell us what they want[54:27] the data for. They just say, "Please[54:30] look in this area for a data that looks[54:32] like this." and we gather it and we send[54:34] it to them and they seem to love it[54:36] because we just got a huge contract.[54:39] >> Oh, that's that's great.[54:40] >> Huge contract. No, no. Look, look, I I I[54:44] I've mostly cashed out, but the[54:46] valuation of the company is now a[54:48] billion and a half dollars.[54:50] >> That's great. Yeah, that's great.[54:51] >> I'm very I'm very proud of it.[54:53] >> Yeah.[54:54] >> Best thing I did in my life was this.[54:56] >> That sounds really exciting. Really[54:58] amazing. Um, and it's glad they finally[55:01] noticed. And it's funny how that happens[55:03] like that. So, here's a question,[55:05] another one from many. Bob, are you[55:06] going to have a cloud-based analytics[55:09] console like the MUAS portal?[55:12] >> I am going to make all of this data[55:14] available in a form that could easily go[55:16] into a cloud portal. I may not decide to[55:21] spend my personal resources on[55:24] maintaining a cloud portal.[55:27] >> I understand. Yeah. Yeah. Well, um I[55:31] think this has been uh really really[55:33] fascinating and um so right now if uh if[55:38] someone wants to access any of this,[55:41] you're going to give me what you have[55:44] and that's going to be linked in the[55:45] show notes for[55:46] >> I'm going to give you this link right[55:48] here will give you everything. All the[55:50] code for the USO detector, all the codes[55:53] for the UAP detector.[55:54] >> Yeah. will be in those repositories and[55:56] then there will be announcement. People[55:58] can follow me as sciencebuire_hy[56:03] on X[56:04] >> and see everything I do because I put up[56:06] every new thing on X.[56:08] >> Okay, here's I'm going to ask this[56:10] question in another way now about I'm[56:13] talking about the USO detection[56:15] underwater. Yeah.[56:16] >> Who is your candidate? Like I mean I[56:19] have a boat. I mean I go out in the[56:21] ocean. I go in lakes and the ocean and[56:23] stuff like that. Uh, but is this someone[56:25] that is going to be dedicated to it's[56:28] kind of like fishing, you know? I mean,[56:30] you have it out there for could have it[56:31] out there for days or weeks or months[56:34] even you have a buoy that's anchored.[56:37] >> I see.[56:38] >> Is solar panled, you can leave it out[56:40] there for years.[56:41] >> I see. So,[56:44] things you till the environment forces[56:47] you to bring it in for repair.[56:49] >> Yeah, I see. You could put it, you could[56:51] have it hooked to one of your lobster[56:53] traps if you're in Maine.[56:54] >> Exactly. Exactly. [laughter] And you'll[56:57] hear all the lobsters clicking their[56:58] claws and giving us a piece of crap.[57:03] [laughter][57:03] >> Here's another question here. Will it[57:05] support[57:07] importable FDFs?[57:10] >> Uh, that's a good question and I haven't[57:12] thought about it, but it's probably a[57:13] good idea. Um, as you could tell from[57:15] that repository and me not showing the[57:18] actual hardware which is in there[57:19] running on my computer desk that I'm not[57:22] that far along, but that's a good idea[57:24] and I'll probably do it.[57:26] >> Ah, yeah. Maybe I should hook you two[57:28] up. She's very right. Yeah. Yeah. So,[57:32] Bob, I want to thank you so much. It's[57:33] been the hour went by really fast and I[57:36] I kind of knew it would and I hope to[57:38] have you back on again someday. This was[57:40] a lot of fun and maybe we'll meet up. I[57:42] don't know where you're going this year.[57:43] I know I'm going to contact in the[57:45] desert. I don't know if you're going to[57:46] be out there.[57:47] >> Yeah, I probably will go to some places[57:49] and I'll let you know.[57:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. Excellent. So, thanks so[57:52] much. It's been a real pleasure and uh[57:54] and we'll talk we'll talk soon again.[57:57] Love to have you back on the show[57:58] sometime.[57:58] >> It'll be great, Martin.[58:00] >> And uh we won't have any problems and[58:02] thank you for watching.[58:03] >> We won't have any problems with the[58:04] email this time. That's a little behind[58:06] the scenes, but but we made it work. It[58:09] was close, but we did it.[58:10] >> Thank you, Sarah, for bailing us out.[58:12] Yeah, that's right. Sarah Gam from last[58:14] week helped us out. All right. All[58:16] right. Take care.[58:16] >> See you.[58:17] >> Yeah. So, supposedly we'll have on next[58:21] week. I'm going to be able to uh again,[58:23] you'll be able to um if you want to[58:26] check in and find out um it'll be on our[58:28] website or you can go and have your uh[58:31] email address, pop it into our weekly[58:33] newsletter and we'll send it out every[58:36] Tuesday morning or I'm changing to[58:37] Monday mornings. So, I want to thank you[58:39] all very much. No show this Thursday.[58:41] Um, but we will have an audio blog out[58:43] at some point. Thanks so much everyone[58:45] and remember to keep your eyes to the[58:47] sky.[58:59] [music]
Transient Revelations: Dr. Stephen Bruehl & the Science Behind UAP
Introduction to the Discussion on Flying Saucers
The video begins with a provocative statement regarding the existence of flying saucers and the notion that, in the early 20th century, Earth was under observation by intelligences greater than human beings. This sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the implications of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and extraterrestrial technology.
Human Complacency and Extraterrestrial Observation
The speaker reflects on the complacency of humanity, suggesting that while people were preoccupied with their daily lives, they were being scrutinized by advanced intelligences. This theme of human ignorance in the face of potential extraterrestrial scrutiny is echoed throughout the discussion, emphasizing the need for awareness and openness to the unknown.
Dr. Loeb's Perspective on Extraterrestrial Technology
Dr. Loeb is asked about the likelihood of having uncovered extraterrestrial or non-human technology. This question highlights the ongoing debate within scientific and public circles regarding the existence of UAP and the implications of such findings. The dialogue suggests a growing interest in the scientific community to explore these phenomena seriously.
Unexpected Events and UAP Sightings
Anecdotes are shared about unexpected occurrences, such as an object appearing suddenly in the sky, which adds a personal touch to the discussion. The mention of Travis Taylor, a prominent figure in UAP research, introduces the idea that credible scientists are now involved in the investigation of these phenomena, lending legitimacy to the field.
Welcome and Introduction of Guests
The hosts, CJ Daringer and Dr. Tim Mounds, welcome viewers and introduce their guest, Dr. Steven Greer, an anesthesiologist and UAP researcher. The excitement surrounding Dr. Greer's recent paper, which gained significant attention, is palpable, indicating a moment of heightened interest in UAP research.
Dr. Greer's Recent Findings
Dr. Greer discusses his recent publication in a peer-reviewed journal, "Scientific Reports," co-authored with Beatriz Villarroel from the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics. The paper focuses on the analysis of historical photographic plates taken between 1949 and 1957, a period before the advent of satellites, which could provide insights into UAP sightings during that era.
Transients and Historical Photographic Data
Dr. Greer explains the concept of "transients," which refers to phenomena captured in photographic images that appear and then disappear over time. He details how Villarroel discovered these transients while analyzing old photographic plates, leading to a hypothesis that some of these sightings may correlate with well-documented UAP events, such as the Washington D.C. sightings in 1952.
Statistical Analysis of UAP Sightings
The discussion transitions to the statistical analysis conducted by Dr. Greer and Villarroel, which examined the correlation between UAP sightings and nuclear tests. They found a significant increase in the likelihood of observing transients around the time of nuclear tests, suggesting a possible connection between these events and UAP activity.
Methodology and Findings
Dr. Greer elaborates on the methodology used in their study, which involved analyzing a dataset of UAP sightings alongside historical nuclear test dates. The results indicated a 45% increase in the likelihood of observing transients during what they termed a "nuclear window," which is defined as the period surrounding nuclear tests.
Significance of the Findings
The findings have significant implications for the understanding of UAP phenomena and their potential relationship with human activities, particularly nuclear testing. The statistical significance of the results, with a low probability of error, adds weight to the argument that there may be a genuine connection between nuclear events and UAP sightings.
Further Analysis and Peer Review Process
Dr. Greer discusses the peer review process that their paper underwent, highlighting the challenges faced when submitting research on UAP to mainstream scientific journals. He notes that the rigorous review process is crucial for ensuring the credibility of their findings and for advancing the scientific study of UAP.
Future Research Directions
Looking ahead, Dr. Greer expresses a desire to continue researching UAP and transients, emphasizing the importance of collaboration with other scientists and institutions. He acknowledges the need for funding to support ongoing research efforts, particularly in the context of studying the experiences of individuals who have encountered UAP.
Public Interest and Skepticism
The conversation shifts to public interest in UAP and the skepticism often encountered within the scientific community. Dr. Greer reflects on the importance of addressing these concerns through rigorous scientific inquiry and open dialogue, suggesting that the tide may be turning in favor of more serious investigation into UAP.
Conclusion and Call to Action
The hosts conclude the discussion by encouraging viewers to engage with the topic of UAP, emphasizing the importance of supporting scientific research in this area. They invite the audience to share their thoughts and experiences, fostering a community of inquiry and exploration around the mysteries of the universe.
The interviewee, Dr. Steven Greer, is introduced in a manner that emphasizes his dual role as a medical professional and a researcher in the field of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). The co-hosts CJ Daringer and Tim Mounds provide the following key biographical details:
- Professional Background: Dr. Greer is described as an anesthesiologist and a professor of anesthesiology, which indicates a solid foundation in the medical field.
- Research Focus: He is noted for devoting his professional attention to UAP, suggesting a transition from traditional medical practice to a focus on unexplained phenomena.
- Collaborative Work: Dr. Greer collaborates with various notable figures in UAP research, as indicated by his partnership with Beatriz Villarroel from the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics.
Additionally, during the discussion, it is revealed that Dr. Greer has recently published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, highlighting his commitment to applying scientific rigor to the study of UAP.
- [05:25] "Dr. Greer is an anesthesiologist, a professor of anesthesiology by day, and he is studying UAP at night or probably on the weekends."
- [06:20] "We have Dr. Steven Greer joining us. He is an anesthesiologist, a professor of anesthesiology by day, and he is studying UAP at night or probably on the weekends."
- [09:25] "I did it with my collaborator, who is Beatriz Villarroel, who is with the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics in Stockholm."
Dr. Greer's approach to UAP research is characterized by a scientific methodology that emphasizes data analysis and statistical validation. He discusses a study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal called Scientific Reports, which he conducted in collaboration with Beatriz Villarroel. Their research utilized archival photographic plates to analyze transient astronomical phenomena that could correlate with UAP sightings.
- Data Sources: The primary data source for Dr. Greer’s research includes old photographic plates from observatories taken between 1949 and 1957.
- Analytical Methods: The research involved identifying transient events—objects appearing in the sky that were not present in prior images—which were analyzed statistically to establish correlations with UAP sightings. Dr. Greer mentions a significant finding: a 45% increase in the likelihood of observing these transients around the dates of nuclear tests.
- Statistical Validity: The study employed standard statistical techniques to validate the presence of UAP, which, according to Dr. Greer, is essential to counter skepticism that often surrounds anecdotal evidence in UAP discussions.
- Limitations: While no specific limitations are detailed, the context implies challenges related to the availability of comprehensive data and potential biases in eyewitness reports.
The rigorous approach taken by Dr. Greer signifies a shift towards treating UAP as a legitimate scientific inquiry rather than just a fringe subject.
- [09:23] "This is not my thing. She came up with this idea, but she... realized that all these observatories had old photographic plates that had been taken prior to there being any satellites in the sky."
- [14:00] "On what we call a nuclear window which is plus or minus one day around a nuclear test, there was a 45% increase in the chances of seeing a transient which is quite a bit."
- [19:01] "...we’ve been able to use standard statistics and a standard scientific approach to looking at these associations and it found that there is a quite statistically significant association."
Dr. Greer’s decision to focus on UAP research appears to stem from both personal interest and a scientific curiosity regarding unexplained phenomena. During the discussion, he reflects on his journey into UAP research, noting that various factors motivated him to delve into this field.
- Personal Catalyst: Dr. Greer describes an early interest in UAP sparked during his childhood, influenced by cultural phenomena such as science fiction and significant UAP events in the news during the 1970s. He recalls his fascination with the possibilities of extraterrestrial life and UAP.
- Scientific Awakening: He mentions that after a period of critical skepticism, he was re-invigorated by a book on UFOs written by Ed Ruppelt, the head of Project Blue Book. This book shed light on the fact that even government investigations admitted to the existence of unexplained aerial phenomena.
- Professional Imperative: In his current capacity, Dr. Greer feels a responsibility to apply scientific methods to the exploration of UAP. He highlights the need for rigorous scientific analysis in a field often dismissed as pseudoscientific, indicating a desire to elevate the study of UAP to a credible scientific discipline.
Overall, Dr. Greer combines personal passion with a commitment to scientific inquiry, making a case for the importance of understanding UAP within the framework of legitimate research.
- [23:06] "...I think it’s important to get this out there and I’m hoping that there are other scientists in similar situations that are going to be submitting their work to mainstream journals..."
- [23:11] "...this was probably 2021 or 2022. And I did it and about 15 people showed up and it was kind of fun."
- [23:20] "...there’s a lot of evidence that even the government admits is there. Why are people not studying this?"
Dr. Greer recounts a personal experience that he considers to be his closest encounter with a UAP. He describes an incident that occurred while he was in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is known for its dark skies and lack of light pollution.
- Observation Description: Dr. Greer mentions witnessing a multi-colored light moving back and forth on the horizon. This light intrigued him as he attempted to discern its nature.
- Circumstances: The observation took place during an evening when he was outdoors enjoying the dark skies. However, the moment was interrupted by a personal responsibility—his cat ran out of the house, prompting him to chase after it.
- Interpretation: By the time Dr. Greer returned to observe the light again, it had vanished. He speculates that it could have been the aurora borealis, a natural phenomenon, but he remains uncertain about its true nature. This experience illustrates his curiosity about UAP and highlights the elusiveness of such sightings.
Dr. Greer's firsthand account of this observation serves to underscore the personal element often present in the study of UAP, merging anecdotal witness experiences with scientific inquiry.
- [58:00] "I saw this multi-colored light that was kind of moving back and forth on the horizon..."
- [58:15] "...the stupid cat ran out of the house because the door was open and I had to go run to try to catch this cat and by the time I got back, it was gone."
- [58:28] "I don’t know if it was aurora borealis which you sometimes see up there or if it was some type of object."
Throughout the interview, Dr. Greer addresses various obstacles and professional risks associated with conducting research in the field of UAP. He highlights challenges that arise from skepticism, potential stigma, and barriers to publication.
- Professional Risks: Dr. Greer acknowledges the apprehensions many academics face when exploring UAP topics, particularly the fear of backlash from peers or institutions. He shares his initial concerns about how his involvement in UAP research might be perceived by his department head. However, he was pleasantly surprised when his department supported his research efforts.
- Skepticism in the Field: He points out a common skepticism among scientists regarding eyewitness accounts and anecdotal evidence. Dr. Greer emphasizes the importance of applying statistical methods to validate these accounts, which he believes can counter skepticism. He also notes that prior studies on UAP have been rare in mainstream scientific journals, further complicating the acceptance of this work.
- Government Awareness: Dr. Greer expresses curiosity about whether intelligence agencies have already examined the data he and other researchers are presenting. He mentions the possibility that some findings, particularly those related to nuclear tests and UAP sightings, could have been known to government entities but not thoroughly analyzed.
Overall, Dr. Greer’s insights reveal the complexities involved in conducting UAP research, especially regarding public perception and institutional support for unconventional scientific inquiries.
- [22:11] "...I was excited when we got past that point. It was this journal, Scientific Reports..."
- [22:24] "...if you’re going to get stuff into a scientific journal, you have to use this language that’s very unexciting..."
- [40:30] "...if we had had to go through requesting stuff from the government, that could have been an issue."
[00:06] I am here to discuss the so-called[00:08] flying saucers.[00:13] We know now that in the early years of[00:15] the 20th century, this world was being[00:18] watched closely by intelligences greater[00:21] than man's. Did the CIA write Wind of[00:23] Change by the Scorpions?[00:27] As humans busied themselves about their[00:30] various concerns, they were scrutinized[00:32] and studied. Dr. Loeb, what percentage[00:35] chance do you give it that you have[00:37] indeed uncovered extraterrestrial or[00:40] non-human technology?[00:43] With infinite complacence, people went[00:45] about their affairs, yet across an[00:47] immense ethereal gulf, intellects vast[00:50] and unsympathetic through their plans[00:53] against us. All of a sudden, a stick out[00:55] of nowhere landed right in front of us,[00:57] and there was no tree, nothing overhead.[00:59] Someone threw it at us. Yeah. What's[01:01] your hot take on Travis Taylor?[01:08] I've got an exclusive for you guys if[01:10] you want it about the Alaska We do.[01:13] Okay. Okay. Dr. Taylor was revealed to[01:16] be the chief scientist of the UAP Task[01:19] Force with the Pentagon.[01:21] All things[01:23] unexplained.[01:25] So, some of the alien things there we'll[01:26] save for post something.[01:31] Hello.[01:33] Welcome to All Things Unexplained. I am[01:35] CJ Daringer here with my co-host Dr. Tim[01:38] Mounds. Tim, welcome back from New[01:42] Mexico.[01:43] >> From New Mexico. As a matter of fact,[01:45] talk about synchronicity, that's why[01:47] we had to reschedule tonight. That's why[01:49] we're here tonight because I got called[01:52] away to moderate a UFO debate. Great[01:56] aspirations, right? Oh, and I also[01:59] may or may not have visited the UFO[02:01] crash site that Diana Pasulka and Garry[02:04] Nolan[02:05] and Tyler[02:07] and many others[02:09] have explored. And I explored it, too,[02:11] and I made some interesting finds, but[02:13] that's for another show. That's for[02:15] another show. Were you in Roswell? Is[02:18] that where the debate was? No, that[02:20] debate was in a great town that I got to[02:23] explore, Truth or Consequences, New[02:26] Mexico, or as I was informed, T or C.[02:29] They don't like us to say Truth or[02:31] Consequences, T or C.[02:33] >> was the name of the town?[02:36] Yeah, Truth or Consequences. And do you[02:38] know how they got that name?[02:40] I did not realize[02:44] that. I thought that was just the name[02:45] of the Roswell versus Washington, and it[02:48] was just perfect that it was in a town[02:51] called Truth or Consequences. And we[02:54] like to we told the debaters, you know,[02:57] if you don't tell the truth, there will[02:59] be consequences. So, it was[03:01] I've never heard that one before. I've[03:02] never heard that one before.[03:04] No, probably not. Well, get this. So,[03:06] Truth or Consequences, for those who[03:08] don't know, used to be called Hot[03:09] Springs, New Mexico, which I think is a[03:12] fine name because they actually have[03:13] these amazing natural hot springs. I[03:16] walked to one of them and used it on the[03:18] morning of the debate. But then there[03:20] was a television show. I think it was in[03:22] the '60s or '70s, a game show.[03:26] And they had this contest.[03:28] And the town was like, yeah, we'll get[03:30] in the contest, and to win, we'll change[03:33] the name of our town[03:35] to Truth or Consequences. That was the[03:36] name of the game show, I'm pretty sure.[03:38] Wow.[03:39] But I kind of like[03:42] Yeah. Oh, and as a matter speaking of T[03:44] or C, Pam Love is here with us. Pam, did[03:47] I meet you? I bet I did. Pam Love is[03:50] here from See, I told you, T or C. T or[03:54] C. This is amazing. That's what we're[03:56] going to wonder.[03:57] >> is a little easier to say, but Truth or[04:00] Consequences, bring it on. Okay, I'm[04:02] glad I've been enlightened. I've been[04:04] enlightened. Thank you for sharing that.[04:05] >> going to have to wonder about tonight.[04:07] Will there be truth, or will there be[04:09] consequences?[04:10] >> I I'm going to guess just truth. Oh,[04:12] Pam, you must have said it like that[04:14] because[04:16] that is his Mississippi accent right[04:18] there. His name is not Tim, it's Team. I[04:21] remember Pam cuz she was surprised her[04:24] name had three syllables in it, and she[04:27] guessed I was from Tennessee, but I[04:29] said, no, New York City, hon. I'm sorry.[04:32] New York City. No, they didn't buy that[04:33] for long. I'm not from Tennessee. Pam[04:36] remembers where I'm from, I bet. And I[04:38] haven't told her how you know somebody[04:40] is really from the Magnolia State or[04:44] not. And that's if they don't include[04:46] that second set set of S's. So, it's[04:49] Mississippi, right? Not Mississippi. A[04:51] Mississippi. I would never say[04:52] Mississippi.[04:54] I spent too long in elementary school[04:56] learning to spell it to say anything[04:58] short of Mississippi. See, Pam knows.[05:01] Matter of fact, we got people from all[05:02] over the world joining us right now[05:04] because speaking of Tennessee, we got[05:06] somebody from the great state of[05:08] Tennessee here with us tonight for this[05:11] show. Marie L is here from Australia.[05:14] Hi, Marie.[05:15] Thanks for joining us.[05:17] Yes, thank you, everybody for joining[05:18] us. We're excited to have you. We have a[05:19] great show. We have Dr. Steven Greer[05:22] joining us. He is an anesthesiologist, a[05:25] professor of anesthesiology by day, and[05:27] he is studying UAP at night or probably[05:30] on the weekends. And he recently had a[05:34] paper go, I would call it UAP viral. On[05:37] Monday, just Monday, he released a[05:38] paper. So, we're so excited to have him[05:40] here to chat with us. If you have[05:42] questions for him, please do include[05:45] them here. We will try to get to all of[05:47] them. We do have super chats available.[05:49] Anybody that does a super chat, we will[05:51] make sure to get that question into our[05:54] show. Yes, we can be bought.[05:57] And we're not ashamed of it.[06:00] And I believe there's no lower limit.[06:03] This is a statistics problem. There's no[06:06] lower limit on[06:08] the super chats, I don't think. By the[06:10] way, you're right, CJ. Super chats[06:12] guaranteed to get your question or[06:14] comment in, and we thank you. All of[06:16] that goes to the podcast and to support[06:20] our work. Otherwise, we'll try the best[06:22] we can. But I got a surprise, CJ. You[06:24] want to see it?[06:25] I do. Yes.[06:27] Look what we got in the mail.[06:31] Oh, this is exciting.[06:34] We[06:35] I don't know[06:37] >> what sent this[06:38] from[06:40] YouTube, and I'm going to open it up[06:41] here and unveil[06:43] what's inside here. Look, uh let's see,[06:46] a little a little postcard[06:50] from YouTube, and I'm going to unveil[06:52] what's in here.[06:53] And how far have we come, CJ?[06:56] From that very first episode to YouTube[06:59] now.[07:01] Get out of here. Sending us[07:06] Does it work?[07:07] Cut. Time to cut, Tim. Wrap it up.[07:14] Thank you, YouTube. We really appreciate[07:16] you, and we're proud to unveil it[07:18] tonight for a huge show with Dr. Steven[07:22] Greer.[07:23] Yes. And let's not keep him waiting any[07:25] longer. He's waiting in the wings to[07:27] join us. So,[07:28] we'll be back with him now.[07:29] >> to commercial. Is that what we're going[07:31] to do?[07:32] That's what we're going to do. Yes, cut[07:33] to commercial, please. Cut to[07:34] commercial. Here we go.[07:37] All Things Unexplained is free to watch[07:40] on YouTube and listen to wherever you[07:43] get your podcasts. If you would like to[07:45] support our show, you can visit our[07:47] YouTube store. Additionally, you can[07:50] find us on Venmo under All Things[07:53] Unexplained. Be sure to check out our[07:55] website, allthingsunexplained.com.[07:58] All proceeds from the sales of Dr.[08:01] Mounds' books on Amazon and Audible also[08:04] go straight to our show.[08:08] Want to be a real part of the show? One[08:10] of the best ways you can support us is[08:12] by visiting our official store. All you[08:14] have to do is head over to[08:15] unexplainedswag.com.[08:18] There you can pick up podcast t-shirts,[08:20] podcast hoodies, coffee mugs, and lots[08:23] more, including our best-selling UFO[08:25] t-shirt and UAP t-shirt. Just head over[08:29] to unexplainedswag.com.[08:31] You can also get to the store from our[08:33] main website, allthingsunexplained.com,[08:36] and from wherever you're listening or[08:37] watching to us at.[08:41] Hello, Steve. Welcome.[08:44] Thank you, CJ. Hey, Tim. Hey, Steve.[08:48] Good to have you tonight.[08:49] >> there for a bit, but it was worth the[08:51] wait. You have had a big week. You have[08:53] had a near epic week in the UAP world,[08:57] having released your paper on Monday,[08:59] which we just found out was also, you[09:01] said, International Disclosure Day. Is[09:02] that what we discussed?[09:04] >> That's what Bea That's what Beatrice[09:05] told me. Yeah. Yeah. It was just an[09:08] accident.[09:10] Well, what a happy accident that is. But[09:13] tell us a little bit about your findings[09:16] in this this recent study that you[09:18] published.[09:20] Sure. So, uh it's a study uh it was just[09:23] published in a peer-reviewed scientific[09:25] journal called Scientific Reports, which[09:28] is a serious[09:29] uh widely read general science journal.[09:32] And uh I did it with my collaborator,[09:35] who is Beatriz Villarroel, who's with[09:38] the Nordic Institute of Theoretical[09:40] Physics in Stockholm.[09:42] And[09:43] she[09:44] This is not my thing. She came up with[09:46] this idea, but she, early in her career,[09:50] uh realized that all these uh[09:53] observatories had old photographic[09:56] plates that had been taken back prior to[09:59] there being any satellites in the sky[10:02] from about 1949 to 1957[10:05] and that in many cases there were a[10:07] series of images taken sometimes over[10:10] pretty short periods so you could look[10:12] at changes over time[10:14] and she got into looking at these and[10:17] discovered something that she called[10:19] transients and basically what it is is[10:23] you look at a photograph and you've got[10:25] an image that shows all the stars you[10:27] expect to see and 30 minutes later you[10:30] take another image and there seems to be[10:32] an extra star or several extra stars and[10:35] it's just points it looks exactly like[10:37] stars[10:38] and then weeks months years later you[10:41] take multiple images again and those[10:44] extra things are gone so it's literally[10:46] a single photographic plate that these[10:49] things that look exactly like extra[10:51] stars appear and then they disappear[10:54] and she noticed[10:57] just coincidentally that[11:00] two instances where multiple very bright[11:03] transients appeared[11:05] fell on the same dates as the well-known[11:08] Washington D.C.[11:11] UFO sightings back in the 1952 and this[11:14] is an example of one of the images of[11:16] that first weekend and if you look on[11:18] the right that's what the sky normally[11:20] looks like and on the left those three[11:23] extra stars in the center those are the[11:26] transients so these were very bright and[11:29] they were clustered together and given[11:31] that it happened on that D.C. weekend[11:34] she began wondering gee I wonder if[11:37] maybe what we captured here was the UAP[11:40] in space[11:42] and I heard her speak about this and I I[11:45] didn't know her at all and I didn't know[11:47] how famous she was but I just I wrote I[11:50] wrote her an email and said hey that's[11:52] pretty interesting I wonder if what[11:54] would happen if we looked systematically[11:56] at your transients and how they were[11:58] associated with UAP sightings more[12:01] broadly[12:02] and we did a zoom and she's very[12:05] collaborative and said sure we should do[12:08] that so we started working on it[12:10] together from a distance cuz she's in[12:12] Stockholm[12:13] and[12:14] in the process of putting together the[12:16] data set that had the transient data and[12:20] UAP data from the it's called UFO cat[12:24] from the center for UFO studies it's got[12:26] a several hundred thousand UAP sightings[12:29] I remembered a book I'd read called UFOs[12:32] and nukes by Robert Hastings where there[12:35] were many[12:36] it's a great book many anecdotal reports[12:39] of people who were working on nuclear[12:41] tests that said they saw UAP either[12:44] right before during or right after[12:46] nuclear tests so I decided to pull in[12:50] the dates of all of those above ground[12:52] nuclear tests that we did the Soviets[12:54] did and the British did between 1949 and[12:57] 57 and so we had basically three things[13:01] we had did a transient occur and if so[13:04] how many were there on that day[13:06] and then what were there UAP sightings[13:08] that day and if so how many and was[13:11] there a nuclear test that day and we had[13:14] about 2700[13:16] days in our data set with all this[13:18] information[13:19] and we were going to wait originally to[13:22] have AI applied to it to try to clean up[13:24] the transient data cuz we know that[13:26] there are some erroneous identifications[13:29] that this computerized system that[13:31] detected them made but I got tired of[13:35] waiting for the AI and one week one[13:37] weekend I pulled out my statistics[13:40] program and looked at this just to see[13:42] if there was any hint of a relationship[13:44] and honestly I was shocked because what[13:47] we found was that[13:49] on[13:50] what we call a nuclear window which is[13:53] plus or minus one day around a nuclear[13:56] test there was a 45% increase in the[14:00] chances of seeing a transient which is[14:03] quite a bit[14:05] and it was[14:06] highly significant statistically there[14:08] was[14:09] eight chances out of a thousand that[14:11] that was an error[14:13] and that's the main focus of the paper[14:16] and we the other finding related to that[14:19] that was more interesting is after we[14:20] sent it in to the journal to be reviewed[14:23] by other scientists one of them came[14:25] back and said you know you need to look[14:27] at more detail at the exact timing of[14:29] this don't just look at a window[14:32] and I started looking two days before a[14:34] test one day before a nuclear test same[14:37] day one day after and two days after and[14:40] it was really amazing because it turned[14:42] out that most of the effect came[14:46] because there was a transient more[14:48] likely to appear the day after a nuclear[14:50] test and it was actually a 68%[14:54] increase in likelihood of seeing a[14:56] transient which is a big number[14:58] it's it's really it's the difference[15:00] between on days without nuclear tests[15:03] there was about 11% of days there was at[15:06] least one transient but if there'd been[15:08] a nuclear test there was almost 19% of[15:12] the days had transient so it was a[15:15] really big increase and that's what the[15:17] paper's about and[15:19] you know it has a lot of interesting[15:20] implications[15:22] it sure does now these transients that[15:24] are photographed are they all pictures[15:26] taken from the same observatory[15:29] yes they're all from the Palomar[15:31] Observatory in California[15:35] and there are actually[15:37] there I was going to just say there are[15:38] other observatories around the world[15:40] that have data like this but we haven't[15:42] been able to access it yet but we could[15:44] try to replicate it with those other[15:46] data[15:47] I feel like it's significant that they[15:49] all came from that one as well I mean[15:52] think about all of the other data out[15:53] there on from different locations from[15:55] various different satellites[15:58] the plates that you're speaking of how[15:59] do you look at these now so they were[16:01] taken in 1952 is it something that you[16:04] truly just hold up and look at or is[16:05] there a machine that you put them in to[16:07] view them[16:09] well fortunately there was an effort[16:11] made to digitize all these so all of the[16:14] plates they had available were digitized[16:16] and put on a public publicly accessible[16:19] website that anyone can access and I'm[16:23] not an astronomer by any stretch but[16:25] Beatrice showed me how you can do this[16:28] and you literally pull down an image[16:31] from one time let's say in you know[16:34] November of[16:36] 56 and you pick another image that will[16:40] be there always it's 30 minutes later[16:43] you have a second image and then there's[16:45] something called a blink comparator[16:47] which basically is like[16:49] opening you know moving from side to[16:52] side as if you're kind of blinking back[16:55] and forth and what your brain will[16:56] quickly pick up is if there are any[16:58] differences in the images they'll[17:00] immediately stand out and you can see[17:02] these transients when you do that[17:05] yes gosh thank goodness for digitizing[17:08] things right one of my first jobs was as[17:11] a sports writer at a newspaper and this[17:13] was before everything was digitized and[17:15] I won't give away my age here but I had[17:16] to go back into the files and look in[17:18] these tiny little files[17:20] you know magnifying glass and go through[17:22] look look look look look for[17:25] you know stories from years ago what[17:27] have you it was such a pain[17:28] now you can just type it in[17:31] so that's great so let's talk a little[17:32] bit about the the nuclear[17:35] part of this we've had lots of people[17:37] come on our show that have talked to us[17:39] about seeing things around nuclear[17:42] testing sites including Bob Salas who[17:44] was at the Malmstrom Air Force Base and[17:46] had a very significant sighting and[17:47] we've had people come on from the show[17:49] Ancient Aliens to talk about similar[17:51] things sightings around the world right[17:53] so we've certainly talked about this[17:54] before you're now applying statistical[17:57] analysis to what people are seeing why[17:59] do you think your particular paper is[18:01] generating so much buzz right now[18:05] it's because you know this is just my[18:07] opinion but I think it's because[18:10] everybody knows these stories but you[18:13] know the skeptics always complain that[18:15] yeah that's just one person's story you[18:17] know you can't really make too much of[18:19] that you don't have any scientific proof[18:21] of that and what we've been able to do[18:24] fortunately is use standard statistics[18:29] and a standard scientific approach to[18:31] looking at these associations and it[18:33] found that there is a[18:35] quite statistically significant[18:37] association[18:39] that is very intriguing and I think[18:41] people[18:43] a few comments that I've seen it was[18:44] basically like that you know thank god[18:46] somebody's finally doing real science[18:48] with UAPs[18:50] and there are I haven't systematically[18:53] counted it but I think it's around six[18:55] or seven papers ever published[18:58] previously in mainstream science[19:01] journals on the UAP topic it's very rare[19:04] and I like to joke with people that[19:06] every study somebody publishes now on[19:09] this topic you're increasing knowledge[19:12] in this area by 20% which is the big[19:15] that's an amazing impact on the[19:17] literature[19:18] yes yeah I do know that there are some[19:21] physicists out there who are trying to[19:24] apply statistical[19:26] math you know to UAP study as well Dr.[19:29] Kevin what's Kevin's last name Tim Knuth[19:31] Knuth Knuth yes what a lovely human[19:34] being he is he's so great and he is out[19:36] there fighting the good fight for all of[19:37] us but I don't know that he's had[19:38] anything published in mainstream science[19:41] like you just[19:42] >> he has actually[19:44] well it wasn't easy[19:47] and there's a trick to it to some extent[19:50] that there are things we might want to[19:52] say or interpretations we might want to[19:54] make of the data, but if you're going to[19:56] get stuff into a scientific journal, you[19:58] have to use this language that's very[20:01] unexciting. You have to be very careful[20:03] about not over interpreting the data,[20:06] you know, ruling out all possible[20:09] explanations for things and just being[20:11] up front about the likelihood of the[20:13] various explanations applying.[20:16] Um and then you have to get through[20:17] scientific review and typically what[20:20] happens in a lot of these major journals[20:23] is if you submit something that's out of[20:25] the mainstream, they do what's called a[20:27] desk rejection, which is they don't even[20:29] review it. The editor looks at it, goes,[20:31] "Nope, we're not doing this." And they[20:33] write back and say, "Sorry."[20:35] Um and I was excited when we got past[20:38] that point. Uh it was this journal,[20:40] Scientific Reports. And then it went out[20:42] for review and it was very painful[20:45] because it literally took about 5 months[20:48] to get the reviews back. And my normal[20:50] experience in my day job science is[20:53] within 2 or 3 weeks we get reviews back.[20:55] So it was very prolonged, lots of[20:58] reminders to the journal to make sure[21:00] they hadn't forgotten about us. And when[21:02] we got the comments back though, I was[21:04] pleasantly surprised is one of the two[21:06] reviewers was really pretty critical,[21:10] but he was fair and he mentioned some[21:12] good things that we should do.[21:14] And uh you know, we tried to address all[21:17] their comments uh which you know, they[21:19] we were able to do it, sent it back, and[21:21] it was fairly quickly accepted after[21:23] that, much to our surprise. Uh Beatrice[21:26] and I both had been pretty skeptical[21:28] about our chances of getting this in a[21:30] mainstream journal, but I think the[21:32] trick was not overdoing it in our[21:36] discussion of things and let people draw[21:38] their own conclusions after we present[21:40] the findings.[21:41] Sure. Was your goal to get it into a[21:44] mainstream journal?[21:45] Absolutely. Absolutely because you know,[21:48] we're not going to change the field of[21:51] ufology until we actually turn it into a[21:54] science where there are people using[21:56] systematic methods,[21:58] uh statistics to try to explore the[22:01] topic. And you have to publish in these[22:04] mainstream peer review journals to be[22:07] able to sidestep the criticism that is[22:10] you're just making stuff up or that[22:12] you're wrong about what you're saying.[22:15] So I mean, even before we sent it to the[22:16] journal, I sent this to Mark Rodeghier[22:19] at the Center for UFO Studies, who's a[22:21] statistician. He looked at it and kind[22:24] of gave me the thumbs up that we'd done[22:26] the right thing. And there were a couple[22:27] of other uh physicists and astronomers[22:30] who'd looked at it first. Uh but yeah,[22:32] we it's important to get this out there[22:34] and I'm hoping that there are other[22:36] scientists in similar situations that[22:39] are going to be submitting their work to[22:41] mainstream journals and start making[22:42] this a real field.[22:45] Yes, absolutely. Well, congratulations.[22:48] This is very exciting for for everyone,[22:50] for you guys and for the UAP world as[22:52] well. All those all those of us that are[22:55] you know, like you said, we're just[22:57] dedicating our time, we're volunteering[22:59] our time to the study of UAPs and the[23:01] conversation of UAP. And it's nice to[23:03] have some scientific back back up there[23:06] now. Um[23:08] Those of you that are listening, I just[23:11] found out that Steve is actually quite[23:13] new to the field of UAPs that you sort[23:16] of stumbled into this last year. We're[23:17] going to dive into that in a second, but[23:19] we have lots of people that are joining[23:21] us live right now. I want you to[23:23] hop on there and comment. Tell us where[23:25] you're from. Where are you listening[23:26] from? I would love to know. I'm sure[23:28] Steve would love to see just how far his[23:30] research has reached. So if you're[23:31] joining us live, please tell us where[23:33] you are listening from. If you have any[23:35] questions or comments, drop those in the[23:37] chat like we mentioned, our super chats[23:39] will go directly into this conversation[23:42] and make sure questions are in all caps.[23:44] And before we move on to Steve's[23:47] background, Tim, do you have any[23:48] questions for him about his study?[23:52] Yeah, Steve, I think one of the[23:54] important aspects[23:56] of your paper with Villareal, Beatrice[23:59] Villareal, is that this is all[24:01] pre-Sputnik, right? And so I you know, I[24:05] think this is part of the problem with[24:07] modern skywatching, which by the way, I[24:09] think it's always worth it to get out[24:11] and look at the sky. I like to to look[24:13] every night when I take the dog on a[24:14] walk. And my kids like to go with me and[24:17] we see things every night. And and but[24:20] all I hear now are I'm seeing[24:22] satellites, which I understand, and[24:24] LEOs, which I understand a little bit[24:27] less. And and all this uh space clutter[24:31] in the sky, but one night we saw a[24:34] Falcon 9, which was pretty cool.[24:37] But this was pre-Sputnik. What is the[24:38] significance of that, Steve?[24:41] Well, you know, the the problem with[24:42] doing anything with the sky nowadays is[24:44] there's so much noise from space junk,[24:47] satellites, all those things. And you[24:50] know, a part of a rocket that exploded[24:53] in the space would probably look like a[24:55] transient or more likely would look like[24:58] a streak if it's a long exposure, but[25:00] it's very hard to detect these things[25:03] now. Um[25:05] I think for me what is outstanding about[25:07] this because the sky was clean back then[25:10] is that with these findings showing what[25:13] they did, and it wasn't just nuclear[25:15] tests with transients, but we also found[25:18] that the transients were associated with[25:20] UAP sightings from the ground.[25:22] So it's kind of like this triangle of[25:25] nuclear test, transients, and UAP[25:27] sightings all interrelated. And given[25:31] that finding of ours that the biggest[25:34] association was with transients that[25:36] occurred 1 day after a nuclear test,[25:39] the conclusion when we rule out the[25:41] alternatives[25:43] would be that this supports[25:46] the presence of I'm sorry, let me back[25:48] up make one more quick point. Beatrice[25:51] in a separate paper that also just came[25:53] out found that if you look at where the[25:56] transients actually are, if they're in[25:59] sunlight, you see them, but when you get[26:02] into the Earth's shadow, many of them[26:04] disappear. And what that means is these[26:07] are not plate defects. These are objects[26:10] in orbit that are reflecting sunlight.[26:13] Now, that together with our findings[26:17] suggests that whatever the source of[26:20] them are, these are artificial[26:22] reflective objects flat enough to[26:24] reflect sunlight brightly that are in[26:28] likely a geosynchronous orbit, which is[26:30] about 22,000 miles out at that time[26:33] prior to any human satellites. And they[26:37] were close enough to come here in[26:39] numbers within 1 day of a nuclear test.[26:42] Now, where are they before that? I don't[26:44] know, but I think it raises some very[26:47] interesting questions.[26:49] Oh, yeah, for sure. And you know, you[26:52] had brought up[26:53] uh about the peer review process, which[26:56] I'm sure was quite harrowing. But you[26:59] know, there is quite the stigma. We've[27:01] noticed this from the very beginning,[27:02] even some high-level academics that come[27:04] on here, they're quite nervous[27:07] about publicizing,[27:09] you know, what they're really interested[27:11] in or what they're doing. And some of[27:13] them tell us things off the air that[27:16] they don't even make public at all[27:18] because they just are afraid of what[27:21] that would do to their career. I mean,[27:23] were you ever worried, Steve, about the[27:25] stigma or were you nervous like, "Oh[27:28] man, I'm going to[27:29] I'm really going to uh[27:31] get some bad looks when I show back up[27:33] to work here the next day?" Or did[27:34] anything like that cross your mind?[27:36] >> Yeah.[27:37] Absolutely. Um[27:39] I'll be honest I'll be honest with you[27:41] about how this actually all came to pass[27:44] cuz it's kind of a funny story. So my[27:47] wife was volunteering at my kids' school[27:49] and they do these night classes for the[27:51] community that are like one-off several[27:54] hour classes on various topics to raise[27:56] money for scholarships. And I[27:59] offhandedly joked to the person that was[28:02] organizing this and I said, "I'll do one[28:04] on UFOs if you want." And instead of[28:07] laughing at me, she said, "That would be[28:08] awesome. Do it."[28:10] So I was then forced to put together a[28:12] talk on UFOs and this was probably 2021[28:16] or 22. And uh I did it and about 15[28:20] people showed up and it was kind of fun.[28:22] So I felt better about it after that.[28:25] Asked me to do it again the next year, I[28:26] did it again.[28:28] And then uh I had started telling some[28:31] of my trainees, like physicians I work[28:33] with who were like junior faculty, I'd[28:35] been telling them about what I was[28:36] doing. And one of them texted me on a[28:38] Saturday and said, "A friend of mine is[28:40] going to this conference in Huntsville[28:42] called Scientific Coalition for UAP[28:44] Studies. You should check it out." And I[28:46] live about an hour and a half from[28:48] Huntsville. I decided to go down there[28:51] and uh[28:52] ended up, you know, being able to have[28:54] dinner with Ross Coulthart and uh you[28:57] know, had a lot of really interesting[28:59] conversations.[29:00] But what happened after that is I[29:02] started feeling like I really want to do[29:04] some science in this area. And I started[29:06] working with Beatrice as well as on[29:08] another project we'll talk about later,[29:11] I think. But then I became really[29:13] worried that if the chairman of my[29:15] department found out I was doing this,[29:17] that he might not take it very well.[29:20] So I set up this mysterious meeting with[29:22] him and didn't tell him what it was[29:23] about. And I went in and told him this.[29:27] And I was shocked because what he said[29:29] was, "You know, you're using regular[29:31] scientific methods. I think this is a[29:33] legitimate scientific thing to study. Go[29:35] ahead and do it." And I said, "Okay." I[29:38] said, "But I won't use Vanderbilt's[29:39] name." And he said, "No, I think it's[29:41] fine. I mean, this is interesting stuff[29:43] and you're doing real science. So just[29:45] use it." And uh yeah, even even today I[29:49] had a a press inquiry from a major[29:52] publication about this and I had to run[29:55] it by the Vanderbilt press office and I[29:58] was kind of expecting bad bad news and[30:01] they quickly wrote back and they said,[30:04] "Nope, that's fine. This is a really[30:05] interesting paper. I can't wait to read[30:07] it." And that was all they said. So, I[30:09] had been pleasantly surprised[30:12] how the institution has taken it and[30:15] I've been talking with this with[30:16] colleagues more.[30:18] Uh some of them have been so interested[30:20] they asked me to give my USO talk to[30:22] groups of people and uh one guy just a[30:25] couple of days ago uh said, "Hey, I'll[30:27] take a sabbatical and work with you free[30:29] for a year if you do something else like[30:31] this." Wow. Hello.[30:34] >> people are interested.[30:36] Absolutely. I I do wonder if Avi Loeb[30:39] has has opened the doors for other[30:42] academics to talk about UAPs because he[30:45] is so open about his studies of UAPs and[30:49] he works at Harvard and[30:51] hopefully he's paved the way for some[30:53] people.[30:54] Between him and Gary Nolan, I think it[30:57] really does make it easy.[30:59] And uh Gary had a very funny thing to[31:02] say to me when I explained to him my[31:04] fears about doing UAP research and how[31:06] Vanderbilt would react and he said,[31:08] "You're tenured, aren't aren't you?" And[31:10] I said, "Yeah." And he goes, "Well, you[31:11] know, F Vanderbilt." And that was all he[31:13] said.[31:15] Well,[31:17] look, if there is ever a sign of you[31:20] know, things changing, we've got[31:22] Vanderbilt, a national powerhouse in[31:24] football and pursuing[31:26] UFO studies.[31:28] 2025 is just hitting different. There's[31:30] no There's no doubt about it.[31:34] Well, CJ we and Steve, I don't know if[31:37] you're aware of this, but there was a[31:39] little bit of uh I guess you'd say[31:41] controversy or tension on UFO Twitter[31:45] around this topic today particularly[31:49] because of and and I want to bring up[31:51] this question. It's from Ad Astra on X[31:54] and and he really wanted this passed[31:56] along to you. The the controversy was[31:58] this thing between arXiv versus nature[32:01] for example, your paper your and[32:03] Beatrice's paper ran in nature,[32:07] but it was apparently not put on arXiv.[32:13] Which I think is more like a bulletin[32:15] board type of situation as opposed to a[32:17] peer-reviewed type of situation. What[32:19] What is your take on that? Okay, so this[32:22] is a fine point that's very important,[32:25] right? So, there are manuscripts that[32:28] you write and you submit them for peer[32:30] review and if they make it successfully[32:33] through peer review, they're published[32:34] in the journal, right? And that's what[32:36] you would call an actual publication.[32:38] But before you get that decision from[32:41] the journal saying that it's accepted[32:43] for publication, it is considered a[32:45] preprint. And there are now uh[32:49] like preprint servers where you can[32:51] upload unpublished studies that may be[32:54] under review at a journal, but not[32:55] accepted yet. arXiv is one. There's[32:58] another one called Research Square. We[33:01] happen to post ours uh our preprint of[33:04] our uh transient nuclear paper to[33:06] Research Square because Research Square[33:09] is integrated with the Nature Group,[33:13] which is what the journal we submitted[33:15] to is part of the Nature Group. Um so,[33:17] we did get it on a preprint server and[33:20] the critics who complained about us[33:23] posting that were correct to some degree[33:25] saying it's not published yet, right?[33:27] And that's true. And maybe our results[33:30] are wrong or whatever, but now they[33:32] can't say that because we are actually[33:34] published in the official journal.[33:37] And it has been peer-reviewed.[33:39] So, take that.[33:41] >> Take that, critics.[33:44] That bulletin board non-peer-reviewed[33:47] process websites.[33:49] That's a[33:50] That was a really a really great and[33:52] thorough answer, Stephen. I think that[33:54] that answer was[33:55] >> sure that question was in English. I[33:58] even glad you walked me through that[33:59] because I was lost. Yeah, but again[34:01] that's that's one of the problems with[34:03] social media too is like to the general[34:06] population those sorts of things they[34:08] can get taken to extremes that aren't[34:11] that at some point aren't really the[34:13] anywhere close to the truth, right? Like[34:14] they're they're kind of really far out[34:16] there and so, you know, there's there's[34:19] talk about conspiracies and all kinds of[34:21] stuff, right? Trying to to squash the[34:24] data down and that sort of thing. So,[34:25] I'm I'm really happy that you cleared[34:27] that up, Steve. Thank you. And CJ, do[34:29] you do you think this would be a great[34:30] time to to let some people have a couple[34:32] of questions here on this paper with[34:34] Stephen Beatrice?[34:35] Okay, I'll I'll let you read this one,[34:38] CJ. Okay, this is from Interstellar.[34:40] Hello, Interstellar and thank you for[34:42] reposting our feed by the way.[34:44] Uh now that we have the data peer[34:47] review, what would be the next step in[34:49] validating or correlating the data with[34:51] any other scientific study?[34:55] It's a good question.[34:57] Um and assuming and this is a problem in[35:01] UAP science is there are no agencies[35:03] that devote money to funding research[35:06] studies. So, it requires people like me[35:09] or Avi Loeb or whoever devoting their[35:12] time often at nights and weekends out[35:15] front of their regular job to be able to[35:17] do the science, but assuming we have[35:19] money, one thing we would like to do[35:22] would be for example, to contact other[35:25] observatories that had digitized plates[35:27] from that same era that took pictures of[35:29] the sky from other angles like the[35:32] Vatican Observatory and I think there's[35:34] others others that have uh photographs[35:38] from that same era late '40s to the mid[35:42] uh '50s. And we'd like to just replicate[35:44] it. You know, that it would be really[35:46] good. Now, I don't know if results would[35:48] be different or not, but it would be[35:50] really interesting to look at that. And[35:52] if we did replicate it using a totally[35:54] separate data set, that would just[35:55] strengthen the results further. Um other[35:58] than that, I'm kind of racking my brain[36:00] trying to think of other contemporaneous[36:03] things that might have happened in the[36:05] late '40s and '50s that we could try to[36:07] correlate the transients with. Is there[36:09] something that we might expect you know,[36:12] there might be an association if[36:13] transients are UAP. I haven't come up[36:16] with what that is yet, but I've been[36:17] thinking about it. Oh, interesting.[36:20] Maybe our listeners could come up with[36:21] some ideas there. Well, one thing[36:25] What Yeah, funding is definitely needed.[36:27] I was I was going to say just an[36:29] example, uh a person wrote us uh it was[36:32] a professor somewhere and suggested[36:34] looking at volcanic eruptions uh[36:37] thinking that maybe some of these could[36:38] be an effect related to uh[36:41] the piezoelectric effect from uh either[36:45] earthquakes or volcanoes and the uh that[36:48] can come from the ground being stressed.[36:51] Um which I started to look into, but it[36:53] was kind of hard to find definitive[36:55] dates for a lot of these things, but[36:57] it's a nice idea. I know one. I'm I'm[37:00] not exactly sure when it happened, but[37:01] it happened not that far from you. The[37:04] earthquake that created Reelfoot Lake.[37:07] Right.[37:08] >> Tennessee made the Mississippi River run[37:10] backwards and when you read[37:12] about some other things that was[37:14] witnessed after that, it was just[37:16] jaw-dropping the things that happened[37:19] after that earthquake, which I think is[37:21] one of the most powerful ever recorded.[37:24] Yes, that's right.[37:26] And CJ, I bet you thought the same[37:29] >> Sorry, I was going to say one of our[37:30] commenters Joshua Schwab Mangled posted[37:34] a little emoji of volcanoes right before[37:36] you said it. Yeah, look at that. And[37:38] dinosaurs.[37:41] >> we asked where everybody was from, he[37:43] told us planet Earth. And dinosaurs,[37:46] Steve mentioned he was sitting at the[37:48] same table as Ross Coulthart and you[37:51] know, I mean CJ and I have[37:54] speculated that maybe his giant UFO[37:57] it caused the extinction of the[37:59] dinosaurs. I mean, I think that[38:01] it is possible You're exactly right.[38:04] I still think it's under the Vatican,[38:05] personally.[38:06] >> Oh, yeah. Well, Ste- Steve, I could[38:08] guarantee you CJ and I both thought[38:10] Vatican Observatory when you talked[38:12] about other observatories. You don't[38:15] happen to know a guy We might know a guy[38:17] that could help you get their records.[38:18] You may know him, Tim Taylor. Does that[38:20] name ring a bell?[38:21] Does. Um I don't know Tim Taylor.[38:26] Um we probably could use help. We could[38:29] probably use help in connecting with the[38:31] Vatican Observatory cuz they're not[38:33] really fond of the UAP topic, I hear.[38:36] Yeah, well, here he can pull some major[38:38] strings. I want to say hi to JP for[38:40] being here. JP says, "Hi folks. Thank[38:43] Future Fish, I guess."[38:46] on YouTube. Pam uh from TRC brings up[38:50] something which we may get into later, 3[38:52] uh Atlas.[38:54] I guess we better not get into that just[38:56] yet though, CJ.[38:58] Were Were there any more listener[39:00] questions?[39:00] >> Yeah, we did have one more listener[39:01] question here. From Interstellar again,[39:03] "Did you ever feel there was an attempt[39:05] to classify this information?[39:08] Do you think this data was already known[39:09] by intelligence agencies?" And Steve,[39:12] before you answer that, can I preface[39:14] this because there was a recent very[39:16] controversial post by uh a scientist on[39:21] LinkedIn. I'm not sure if you're[39:22] familiar with this,[39:24] but this is one of the sorts of things[39:26] that he was very frustrated with was[39:29] that they would have to send their data[39:31] off and before it came back like they[39:34] may or may just may not get it back[39:36] depending on national security. So, um[39:40] yeah, just wanted to preface with that,[39:41] Steve.[39:43] Yeah, the advantage we have is we're not[39:44] relying on the government to access the[39:46] data and I think if we had had to go[39:49] through requesting stuff from the[39:51] government, that could have been an[39:52] issue. Um I went to a workshop that was[39:58] uh invited scientists and other people[40:01] that was sponsored by AARO a couple of[40:03] months ago and got to talk to John[40:05] Kozlowski and um[40:08] I presented this transient work there at[40:11] this workshop and all the AARO staff[40:15] were quite interested in it and asked a[40:17] number of questions. They didn't seem[40:19] like they were aware that this was known[40:21] statistically though uh previously. So[40:25] if somebody has done this before[40:27] um I'm not sure that that many people[40:30] know about it. Um and I'll tell you a[40:33] funny story too and this is in the news[40:35] so I can uh[40:37] say this. Is that Beatrice was very[40:40] paranoid about intelligence agencies[40:43] interfering with us doing these data uh[40:46] analyses like this because she had been[40:49] warned by the Swedish government that[40:51] there were intelligence agents following[40:52] her.[40:53] And she so she had good reason to be[40:56] paranoid. Oh. Wow.[40:59] Yeah. That's wild. Have you ever got a[41:02] sense of unease been involved when since[41:04] you've asked about stigma and being[41:07] nervous, but have you ever just[41:08] downright got a sense of[41:10] unease, Steve, since you've gotten sort[41:13] of involved with UFOs and UAP?[41:15] Um not really, although when our review[41:19] process at the journal was taking so[41:22] long, I began to be concerned that[41:24] somebody might be interfering and trying[41:27] to stall or cut it off before we could[41:30] get reviews back, but the end result to[41:34] me indicates that that probably wasn't[41:36] happening.[41:37] So no, not really.[41:40] Well, let's hope it stays that way.[41:42] Yeah, definitely want that.[41:45] Well, and this is not your first paper.[41:47] You had a paper before this one that Tim[41:49] wanted to[41:50] dive into. This was the original reason[41:52] that we were going to have you on the[41:53] show before the new one came out.[41:57] Oh, that's right and this one was titled[42:00] cluster analysis of features associated[42:04] with unidentified anomalous phenomenon[42:07] described in 216[42:09] select reports from 1947[42:12] to 2016. Steve you co-authored this[42:16] paper with Sarah Little and Robert[42:19] Powell.[42:20] And first of all, Steve, can you maybe[42:23] tell everybody what exactly is a cluster[42:25] analysis?[42:27] Sure. Um[42:29] so[42:30] let me talk a little bit first about the[42:32] data source. Uh so this was uh Robert[42:35] Powell, who's one of the founders of the[42:37] Scientific Coalition for UAP studies,[42:40] had done this work with several of his[42:42] colleagues where they had gone[42:45] through uh[42:46] several large databases, the Blue Book[42:49] database, MUFON, GEPAN, which is the[42:51] French government database, the old[42:53] NICAP database and the Center for UFO[42:56] studies database and they had uh this[43:00] was over 100,000[43:02] UAP witness reports and they had applied[43:05] these very strict criteria to those data[43:09] to try to identify cases that[43:13] because of various characteristics were[43:15] likely not to be erroneous[43:17] identifications of things and were[43:19] likely to be[43:21] uh reliable reports and truly anomalous[43:24] phenomena. And out of that 100,000, they[43:27] winnowed winnowed it down to about 301[43:30] cases.[43:31] And then they looked at factors like the[43:34] shape of the object that was seen, its[43:38] size, did it hover, did it uh exert[43:42] electromagnetic effects like um[43:44] interfering with radios or television or[43:47] shutting down power systems, turning off[43:49] engines, um and did it make any noise?[43:53] And they[43:54] he presented at the SCU meeting in 2024[43:57] on this and was using very simple just[43:59] percentages of things to try to make[44:02] sense of the data. And as I was[44:04] listening to him talk about this[44:07] something clicked in my mind and I[44:09] thought, I wonder if we could use[44:11] statistical pattern recognition, apply[44:14] it to these witness reports and maybe[44:16] identify unique types of UAP that we[44:21] might not otherwise think of that are[44:23] kind of statistically supported. Uh and[44:27] I had in the past in the biomedical[44:29] context done research studies using a[44:32] procedure called cluster analysis[44:34] which is really just a a statistical[44:37] procedure that analyzes a set of data.[44:41] You tell it a certain number of features[44:43] to look at and it finds groups that[44:48] share similar features among themselves[44:51] but are very distinct from the other[44:53] clusters. So the example that I have[44:56] used in a talk before is if I have a[44:58] basket that's full of a mix of red[45:01] apples, uh green pears and oranges[45:06] and I apply cluster analysis to it, what[45:08] I would do is I would say, I want to you[45:10] to do a cluster analysis and cluster by[45:14] color and shape. And I run that cluster[45:17] analysis, what should happen is it's[45:19] going to detect the underlying groups in[45:22] that basket and it will separate out the[45:25] red apples from the green pears from the[45:28] oranges. So if you have a data set like[45:31] a bunch of UAP witness reports and it's[45:34] kind of all a mix of different features[45:36] and patterns are kind of hard to[45:38] discern, you run a cluster analysis on[45:41] that, what it's going to do is detect[45:44] underlying[45:45] types of UAP based on the features you[45:48] tell it to look at. And you know, one[45:51] possibility when we started that project[45:54] was that the you know, and some people[45:56] argue this, that witness reports are[45:58] garbage, right? That this is bad[46:01] information, people don't really know[46:03] what they're seeing, they don't report[46:04] it accurately. So it was certainly[46:06] possible we might have had a lot of[46:09] garbage and the end result would be[46:12] you know, a cluster analysis that didn't[46:14] work.[46:15] And there's a statistic uh kind of[46:18] arcane, but it's called the average[46:20] silhouette value and the criterion of[46:23] 0.5 is important cuz if you're below[46:25] 0.5, what it means is you basically got[46:28] random data and there are no clusters.[46:31] But if you exceed that 0.5 cutoff, which[46:33] we did, we were actually 0.6, what it[46:36] means is the data aren't random[46:39] and that the clusters you end up with[46:41] are interpretable and reflect real[46:44] groups of UAP in this case.[46:48] Yeah, you know, that's you had such a[46:50] great point there about witnesses[46:52] because this is one of the things I[46:53] think is so great about this paper is[46:55] that it validates, this is just me[46:58] talking and not statistically here, but[47:01] it validates witness reports in a[47:04] quantitative way, right? And I think[47:07] that this is so[47:09] um misunderstood by the general[47:11] population. I see it all the time on[47:13] social media, people get really[47:14] frustrated about the lack of what they[47:17] would say is evidence, but I think what[47:19] they don't understand is that[47:21] qualitative data, you know, eyewitnesses[47:24] and interviews[47:26] are and that sort of thing is a form of[47:29] research and data, right? And uh can you[47:33] comment just on[47:35] the giving uh quantitative[47:39] validity to qualitative[47:43] witnesses?[47:45] Yeah, and I would even argue with you[47:47] that witness reports are qualitative[47:49] data,[47:50] right? Um in a sense they are, but you[47:54] can take a paragraph somebody's written[47:57] that describes[47:59] a sighting that they had of a UAP and[48:02] from that you can extract quantitatively[48:05] analyzable data. Like what was the[48:08] color? What was the shape? Was it day or[48:11] night when you saw it? Was you know, did[48:13] it seem to hover? You have all these[48:15] characteristics that you can turn into[48:17] quantitative data that you can apply[48:19] statistics to. And I have to here give I[48:23] know people like to give AARO a lot of[48:25] grief, but I have to give We've never[48:28] done that.[48:30] I have to give them credit though[48:31] because at least under John Kozlowski,[48:34] they initiated an effort and sponsored[48:37] this workshop uh that was solely[48:41] intended to look at how do we analyze[48:44] witness report data? And they were very[48:46] serious about taking the witness reports[48:49] as valid things we should be paying[48:51] attention to. Um so I I have a pet peeve[48:56] that I will briefly share with you uh[48:59] for as a scientist is[49:02] people are so into AI these days that[49:06] even these scientists, when we talk[49:08] about how do you analyze witness[49:09] reports, they're just basically saying,[49:11] just have them describe what they saw,[49:13] we'll record it and apply AI to it and[49:16] it will magically tell us, you know,[49:18] what we're interested in. And[49:21] to a a small extent that's true, but the[49:23] difficulty is if you don't ask for the[49:26] information, then it's not there for AI[49:29] to analyze. So if you're ever going to[49:31] do science on witness reports, one thing[49:34] you really have to do is everybody the[49:38] same questions so that you have the same[49:41] information from every person who's seen[49:44] it. And one person may say it was a[49:46] triangle and this person says it was a[49:48] disc and you know, one said it made a[49:50] lot of noise and another one said it[49:52] didn't make any noise and we need to[49:54] know that for everybody and if we do[49:56] that with enough witness reports, we[49:59] have a really nice database that we can[50:01] apply AI to or analyze using regular[50:04] statistics.[50:06] And you know, we've been I've been[50:08] personally impressed with[50:10] John Koslowski, director of Arrow. You[50:12] brought up John and he recently[50:15] made some comments[50:17] on StarTalk Radio[50:19] with Neil deGrasse Tyson that really[50:22] reminded me of one of your[50:25] clusters that you identified, a very[50:27] intriguing cluster which was triangle[50:31] UAP. Steve, do do you want to tell us a[50:33] little bit about triangle UAPs as far as[50:36] what you discovered through cluster[50:38] analysis?[50:39] Yeah, so what we ended up getting was[50:42] seven different clusters out of this and[50:46] the[50:47] in this table right here, there was one[50:50] cluster that was cluster four that was[50:53] triangles, chevron shaped,[50:57] boomerang shaped. It was all[51:00] objects that kind of had that angular[51:03] shape to it and it this cluster when you[51:08] dug into the details associated with[51:11] these sightings really reflected kind of[51:14] the prototype that's out there in the[51:16] literature. I don't know if you've ever[51:17] read Dave Marler's book on triangular[51:19] UFOs. He's kind of the expert on[51:22] triangular UFOs but[51:24] in the study, we came up with a lot of[51:27] the features that you would think you'd[51:29] see based on these like reports and[51:32] books like that which was most of the[51:34] sightings were at night lights[51:38] this one cluster was the one most likely[51:41] to have distinct lighting on the object[51:44] with white and red being the two most[51:46] common colors and you know, with cluster[51:50] four[51:51] one of the things that was important[51:55] about this was it they were able to[51:58] hover and go extremely fast like[52:02] accelerate extremely fast so they had[52:04] this high dynamic range in their[52:07] movement and[52:10] they did in many cases seem to show an[52:14] interest in the witnesses. They they[52:16] behaved in a way that suggested that[52:18] they were aware that there were people[52:19] watching them and it's a it's an[52:22] interesting group and one of the things[52:24] we found in the analysis is we plotted[52:29] plotted the dates of all the sightings[52:32] by cluster and what was interesting when[52:34] we looked at this cluster four was that[52:37] you got chevrons and boomerangs for many[52:42] years from 1949 up through the mid-70s[52:45] but there was a change and around the[52:47] mid-70s suddenly you started seeing[52:50] objects that were described as true[52:52] triangles, these big black triangles at[52:55] night and it's continued since the[52:57] 1970s.[52:59] It's intriguing to think about what[53:01] changed, right? Why did these true black[53:04] triangles suddenly appear in the[53:06] mid-70s? You know, one possibility is it[53:10] is a secret[53:11] government developed[53:14] device that still remains secret for[53:17] some reason even 50 years later. That[53:21] would explain why it suddenly came on is[53:23] because that was when it was developed.[53:25] Now, I have no proof that that's the[53:27] case.[53:28] It may or may not be true but it's kind[53:30] of an intriguing change in UAPs over[53:34] time. And I did want to ask if you had[53:36] any theories on that and you kind of say[53:38] said it there but Steve, let me tell you[53:40] what I find puzzling about that theory.[53:43] Because it is true. I mean,[53:46] we could definitely maybe attribute some[53:48] of these to our tech but[53:51] this seems[53:53] like an oxymoron to me. If we have[53:56] secret tech[53:59] triangular shaped for example, black[54:01] triangles[54:03] why do we also have government[54:07] entities like Arrow trying to figure out[54:12] what these things are if it's our secret[54:16] tech that we certainly already know[54:18] about because it's our secret tech. Like[54:20] I don't understand why would we go[54:22] through the trouble of creating[54:25] something like Arrow to have them chase[54:28] something that we already know is ours[54:31] and I don't know if CJ's heard this or[54:33] not so[54:34] Steve's triangle cluster here, they came[54:37] out black or very dark or very black and[54:41] often with red or white lights. Let's[54:43] give a quick listen to what's caused[54:46] John Koslowski said on StarTalk Radio[54:48] here.[54:50] that merit further analysis that are[54:52] helping us refine our hypotheses. There[54:55] are a few triangles that have been seen[54:57] by local law enforcement, very very[55:00] black triangle, triangular prism so it[55:03] looks like a pie slice[55:04] hovering about the size of a Prius about[55:07] 40 to 60 m away. So as the officer was[55:10] driving up to investigate underneath a[55:13] glowing orb, he slammed on his brakes[55:15] and this[55:16] thing the size of a Prius, blacker than[55:18] black, rear depth 45° and then shot up[55:21] into the sky faster than anything he'd[55:22] ever seen.[55:23] >> Mhm. And as it was leaving his sight, it[55:25] shot out red and blue fireworks, flares[55:28] so bright it lit up the inside of his[55:30] vehicle. He didn't see any propulsion,[55:32] no wind, didn't hear anything over the[55:34] sound of his own vehicle. In that same[55:36] region of the country, a couple law[55:37] enforcement officers had seen glowing[55:39] orbs few hundred feet above the ground a[55:40] few miles away.[55:45] Steve, what's your take on what[55:48] John Koslowski had to say there?[55:51] Yeah, so[55:53] uh[55:54] I one thing I didn't mention before is[55:56] that cluster four triangular cluster,[55:58] they did not make any sound so that is[56:00] totally consistent with what he was just[56:02] describing. You know, my personal bias[56:06] is these are not government things cuz I[56:08] agree with you that for a couple of[56:12] reasons.[56:13] One is that[56:15] you know, inside the government even[56:17] among people that are highly cleared to[56:19] hear classified information, everyone[56:22] keeps saying these are not ours, right?[56:25] The other thing is when is the[56:27] government ever created something and[56:29] not used it, right? So if you want if[56:31] you've developed a technology which[56:34] presumably would essentially serve as an[56:36] anti-gravitic technology, if you could[56:39] do that which seems to be the case for[56:41] these triangles why would you not employ[56:44] it in wars we've been in or to threaten[56:48] other countries that are threatening us?[56:50] I mean, it would seem like it would be[56:52] to our advantage to have it be public[56:54] and no one has ever said that it's ours.[56:57] So I mean, that doesn't make sense[56:58] either.[57:00] Exactly. Exactly. CJ, do you have any[57:03] follow-up on this paper, the cluster[57:06] analysis[57:08] or should we get to a couple of hot[57:11] takes real quick?[57:12] >> I don't but I have just questions.[57:15] Okay. Maybe not about this paper but you[57:17] know, we've leaned very scientific which[57:19] I know the purpose of this paper is to[57:22] apply scientific method to the study of[57:25] UAP but I want to go a little bit more[57:27] you know, personal here and and get down[57:30] to you know, you talked about you[57:32] volunteered to give us a talk on UAPs at[57:35] your your child's fundraiser event but[57:39] what sparked your original interest in[57:41] UAPs? Have you seen one yourself? Have[57:43] you seen something that you cannot[57:45] explain?[57:47] I[57:49] nothing major. The only thing I ever saw[57:52] was in the upper peninsula of Michigan[57:55] which is the middle of nowhere, very[57:56] dark skies. I saw this[58:00] multi-colored light that was kind of[58:02] moving back and forth on the horizon and[58:06] as I was becoming fascinated by it, the[58:08] stupid cat ran out of the house cuz the[58:10] door was open and I had to go run to try[58:13] to catch this cat and by the time I got[58:15] back, it was gone. So I don't know if it[58:19] was aurora borealis which you sometimes[58:21] see up there or if it was some type of[58:23] object. That's about the closest I've[58:26] had to it but I you know, I'm old. I[58:28] grew up in the 70s and you know, I was[58:32] 10 years old in 1972.[58:35] >> you old.[58:37] Well, relatively old. Old enough though[58:40] to remember 1973[58:43] which was this year with this huge wave[58:45] of UFOs, the Pascagoula abduction,[58:49] a lot of UAP stuff in the news and it[58:52] was just fascinating to me, you know, in[58:54] the newspaper, magazines, TV shows. The[58:58] idea you know, and I like Star Trek and[59:00] I like science fiction so this all mixed[59:04] up in my head and just made me[59:05] interested in the possibility that maybe[59:08] UFOs were[59:10] beings from elsewhere. I then though[59:14] over time kind of lost interest in it,[59:17] got into being a scientist in graduate[59:19] school and became highly critical and[59:21] kind of dismissed it and it wasn't until[59:24] a number of years later[59:26] actually my mother gave me a first[59:29] edition copy of the report on[59:32] unidentified flying objects, Ed[59:33] Ruppelt's book from the '50s. Uh he was[59:36] the head of Project Blue Book during the[59:39] only period when they were actually[59:40] doing UAP investigations. And uh it was[59:44] an excellent book, and I came away[59:45] reading that after reading it thinking,[59:48] "There's a lot of evidence that even the[59:50] government admits is there. Why are[59:52] people not studying this?" Cuz this[59:54] person who directed the Air Force[59:56] program is saying we don't know what[59:58] they are. And that kind of was what[01:00:00] sparked my interest in it again, and[01:00:02] then I periodically read things related[01:00:05] to this until the 2017 New York Times[01:00:08] article came out. And then I felt better[01:00:12] talking about it with other people at[01:00:13] that point because, you know, like my[01:00:16] wife read that was like, "Wow, this[01:00:18] really really seems like a thing." And[01:00:21] uh you know, I was able to talk with[01:00:22] friends and kind of slowly evolved to[01:00:26] where I wanted to actually get actively[01:00:28] involved in it.[01:00:31] I wonder why your mom gave you that[01:00:32] book. Maybe your mom had some[01:00:35] experiences.[01:00:37] It's her way of telling you.[01:00:39] >> Well,[01:00:39] I will tell you that my stepfather[01:00:42] described[01:00:44] living in Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska,[01:00:47] where there was a SAC base[01:00:49] strategic air command base, and he said[01:00:52] he was coming home one evening down a[01:00:54] road that dead ended into another road,[01:00:56] and there was a field on the other side,[01:00:58] and he said as he was driving down this[01:01:00] hill, he saw this craft that was[01:01:02] cigar-shaped with portholes just slowly[01:01:06] going across this field, and he was[01:01:08] amazed by it. And when he got home his[01:01:11] son came running in, who'd been coming[01:01:13] from a totally different direction, and[01:01:15] said, "I saw a UFO." So they both saw[01:01:17] the same thing.[01:01:19] That's a pretty cool sighting. I wish I[01:01:21] could have something like that. Holy[01:01:22] moly, that's cluster three, by the way.[01:01:25] Exactly. That's exactly right.[01:01:28] >> I'd be willing to bet that of all the[01:01:30] people that are tuning in tonight most[01:01:33] of them have something, whether it's a[01:01:37] UAP sighting or they have had some kind[01:01:40] of ghost experience or something out in[01:01:43] the woods that they can't explain, some[01:01:45] sort of unexplained phenomena that they[01:01:47] have experienced that[01:01:49] they can't explain. And I the more that[01:01:52] we do this show, the more I get[01:01:53] approached by people who like to share[01:01:55] their stories with me. It's sort of a[01:01:57] safe space, somebody who believes or[01:01:59] understands um what's the wildest story[01:02:02] that has been shared with you now that[01:02:04] you are studying this?[01:02:07] UAP-related?[01:02:09] Not necessarily. Just something that you[01:02:11] thought, "Okay, I really trust this[01:02:12] person, and that is unlike anything I've[01:02:15] heard before."[01:02:17] Uh[01:02:20] I'm trying to think if I can talk about[01:02:21] this or not. I mean, this this is a safe[01:02:25] private setting.[01:02:27] >> I will say I will say this without[01:02:29] naming names. So I met with a[01:02:32] very well-known person in this field.[01:02:35] Uh I had dinner with him[01:02:37] and[01:02:39] was told about congressional testimony[01:02:43] that was given privately to a few senior[01:02:47] uh people people in Congress[01:02:49] uh that was touching on the issue of[01:02:53] whether[01:02:54] there are non-human intelligences living[01:02:58] among us. And that's about as far as I[01:03:00] will go, but it was very[01:03:03] my response was, "That sounds like[01:03:05] bullshit." You know.[01:03:08] And his response was, "That's I'm being[01:03:11] honest with you, that's exactly what[01:03:13] Congress was told." And I'm like, "You[01:03:15] got to be kidding me." So I mean, there[01:03:18] are people that I have questions for.[01:03:20] >> than that.[01:03:22] Congress may really be trying to figure[01:03:24] out is which one of them[01:03:27] are[01:03:28] So Steve, I got to ask if I you know,[01:03:30] because of that, have you ever seen one[01:03:32] of our favorite movies, They Live?[01:03:35] Oh, I love that. They show it[01:03:37] Oh, yeah. They show it on Halloween[01:03:40] Halloween every year. They do that.[01:03:42] Yeah, that was a cool movie.[01:03:44] Yeah. Oh, yeah. I've got a little one.[01:03:45] >> I honestly[01:03:47] Oh, yeah.[01:03:49] It's one of our favorite movies to[01:03:50] share.[01:03:51] >> find our uh[01:03:53] CJ, go ahead while I while I find it.[01:03:54] >> Oh, I was just going to say Tim had[01:03:56] referenced this movie so many times on[01:03:59] this show, and[01:04:01] my pop culture knowledge is really it's[01:04:03] really dismal. I don't watch much, and[01:04:06] he we exchanged movies. I said that I[01:04:09] would watch that movie, and Dr. Charles[01:04:11] Liu made me watch something[01:04:14] I can't remember now, but it was awful.[01:04:16] Sorry, Dr. Liu. Um no, I know cuz she[01:04:19] said Star Wars was awful.[01:04:22] I know.[01:04:23] Um so anyways, I watched that movie, and[01:04:26] I thought, "Okay, this is brilliant."[01:04:29] Dune, that's what he made you watch.[01:04:31] Dune?[01:04:32] The original[01:04:33] >> I wasn't that wild about Dune, but here[01:04:35] is is our friend, rest in peace, Rowdy[01:04:38] Roddy Piper from They Live.[01:04:41] I have come here to chew bubble gum and[01:04:45] kick[01:04:49] and I'm all out of bubble gum.[01:04:52] We're all out of bubble gum. So[01:04:56] Yep, that sums it up.[01:05:00] We're devolving quickly in this show.[01:05:02] Oh, okay. Let's get into some some[01:05:04] listener questions and hot takes before[01:05:06] we lose before we lose our audience.[01:05:10] Well, we might have hit most of the[01:05:13] listener questions already, but if[01:05:14] anybody has some more listener questions[01:05:17] for Steve or Mayor CJ, I suppose, put[01:05:20] them in the chat. Let us know, we'll get[01:05:22] to them, but I would do have a couple of[01:05:24] quick hot takes for you, Steve.[01:05:27] And first and foremost, I'm going to[01:05:29] phrase this very scientifically.[01:05:32] This reminds me of when Avi was on with[01:05:34] us one time. I love the way CJ started[01:05:36] that show because eventually we learned[01:05:39] there's a particular way you need to[01:05:41] talk with Avi Loeb.[01:05:43] And it's mostly like very precise and[01:05:45] scientific. So I'm going to try to[01:05:46] phrase this[01:05:47] very precise. Steve, what are the[01:05:49] percent[01:05:51] What is the percent chance[01:05:53] that we will see Vanderbilt football[01:05:55] versus Ole Miss football in the SEC[01:05:59] championship this season?[01:06:01] Uh[01:06:03] I think I would give Vanderbilt's odds[01:06:06] of being in that game at about[01:06:10] Careful.[01:06:10] >> 75 75% at this point.[01:06:13] >> Wow.[01:06:14] If they beat If they beat Missouri this[01:06:16] weekend they're going to be in pretty[01:06:18] good shape. We'll see.[01:06:21] And you got to realize for the audience[01:06:23] that Vanderbilt is the worst football[01:06:25] team in the SEC historically, and they[01:06:28] in the last 50 years have had, I think,[01:06:31] maybe four winning seasons, and they're[01:06:33] outstanding this year, so it's very[01:06:35] exciting for us.[01:06:36] Yeah, it is.[01:06:38] >> Hotty Toddy, that's all I got to say.[01:06:40] Yeah. We'll see if Marie L dreams about[01:06:43] it. One of our comments is that[01:06:45] something that happens to her is her[01:06:46] dreams come true. So she can let us know[01:06:48] if she dreams about Vanderbilt and Ole[01:06:51] Miss.[01:06:53] CJ, you want to take this?[01:06:55] Oh, yes. From Pam Love, do you think the[01:06:57] government knows about everything that[01:06:58] was discussed tonight?[01:07:01] Well, I can I can tell you that Arrow[01:07:04] knows cuz I I personally presented both[01:07:06] the cluster analysis study and the[01:07:09] transient study directly to Arrow, and[01:07:12] uh I know that a number of people that[01:07:15] are well-known in this area who've been[01:07:17] associated with the government are aware[01:07:19] of this. Um I'm not sure, you know,[01:07:22] whether actively within intelligence[01:07:24] circles uh this information is[01:07:27] well-known or whether it's more you[01:07:30] know, like with the nuclear issue,[01:07:31] whether it's more that they're just[01:07:32] aware of many stories and reports of[01:07:34] this. I'm not sure if they've ever taken[01:07:37] the trouble to analyze it statistically.[01:07:41] You know, I think there were a couple of[01:07:43] points here. These are not I guess we[01:07:45] can treat these as as hot takes that I[01:07:48] did want to bring up from the cluster[01:07:49] analysis because I think[01:07:51] these have tremendous[01:07:53] impact.[01:07:55] And first is, taken together, this is[01:07:57] from your cluster analysis with Powell[01:08:00] and Loeb, objects that can both silently[01:08:02] hover and silently accelerate very[01:08:05] rapidly to transonic speeds, which is[01:08:08] apparently near the speed of sound,[01:08:10] correct me if I'm wrong on that, Steve,[01:08:11] do not fit the profile of any currently[01:08:15] known aviation propulsion technology.[01:08:20] Yes, uh that is an important point[01:08:23] because that's, of course, what critics[01:08:25] will say is that all of these objects[01:08:28] are[01:08:29] regular aircraft of some type that are[01:08:33] simply misperceived as something[01:08:35] unusual. One of the things we found that[01:08:38] was kind of interesting was of the seven[01:08:40] clusters, there was only a single[01:08:42] cluster that was characterized by all[01:08:45] the objects making sound, right?[01:08:47] >> Mhm. So you'd go So you'd think, "All[01:08:49] right, it's making sound, maybe that's[01:08:51] the engine." So if these are prosaic[01:08:53] objects, engines all make noise, whether[01:08:56] it's a jet rotor on a helicopter or a[01:08:59] propeller it's going to make a lot of[01:09:01] noise. So this noisy cluster turned out[01:09:04] to be a very lazy cluster, too. They[01:09:07] didn't move fast, they didn't accelerate[01:09:09] fast. They didn't do any movement that[01:09:12] was particularly notable,[01:09:14] uh which would kind of argue that the[01:09:16] noise had nothing to do with propulsion.[01:09:19] And all the other six clusters were[01:09:21] totally silent. And given that they're[01:09:23] silent like that that doesn't fit any[01:09:26] known aviation technology unless of[01:09:29] course there is something that's been[01:09:31] developed that is still secret. That[01:09:33] they're making arrow chase their own[01:09:35] tails to try to figure out what it is.[01:09:38] And then this statement was also in[01:09:40] there Steve which is along the same[01:09:41] lines the extreme kinematic range but[01:09:45] maybe you could put this in layman's[01:09:46] terms reported in many UAP cases in the[01:09:49] total absence of any sound suggests that[01:09:52] these flight characteristics are not[01:09:54] likely achieved via traditional aircraft[01:09:57] propulsion methods.[01:09:59] So kinematic range is just a fancy way[01:10:02] of saying they can both hover accelerate[01:10:05] really fast and go to high speeds beyond[01:10:08] the speed of sound right? So it's like[01:10:12] in our current military inventory some[01:10:16] of our aircraft can do that[01:10:20] and mean not helicopters but[01:10:23] like jets certain jets are able to do[01:10:25] this but they make an awful lot of noise[01:10:28] while doing it.[01:10:29] So if you take away the noise we don't[01:10:31] really have anything that would make[01:10:33] that possible and it really it what you[01:10:36] keep coming back to is you would have to[01:10:38] have a propulsion technology that[01:10:41] somehow is counteracting gravity to be[01:10:45] able to silently hover and accelerate[01:10:48] fast[01:10:49] and I don't know if people have ever[01:10:52] looked into this but there's some[01:10:53] fascinating work about efforts that were[01:10:57] public at the time in the early to[01:10:59] mid-1950s[01:11:01] where[01:11:02] all these major aviation countries were[01:11:05] making companies were making huge[01:11:07] efforts to develop anti-gravity[01:11:09] propulsion and it was very public lots[01:11:12] of news about it for a while and then it[01:11:15] went totally silent. Now was that[01:11:17] because the technology failed or is that[01:11:20] because it succeeded and went into the[01:11:22] black world and we just never hear about[01:11:24] it.[01:11:25] Who knows?[01:11:29] Pam[01:11:30] had a good point here electric[01:11:33] cars don't make noise.[01:11:35] Electric cars electric cars also don't[01:11:38] hover in the air and go beyond the speed[01:11:40] of sound very quickly.[01:11:42] My electric cars are starting to make[01:11:44] all kinds of noise and it worries me.[01:11:47] A very valid point.[01:11:49] And[01:11:50] I think that these electric cars not[01:11:53] making any noise this kind of[01:11:55] uh[01:11:56] less than me pedestrians are getting hit[01:11:58] now.[01:11:59] Yeah they actually put noise into them[01:12:01] now fake noise to be able to warn people[01:12:04] about it.[01:12:06] I am trying to get a picture to upload[01:12:10] I've got one more hot take for you here[01:12:13] I may not be able to get this picture to[01:12:15] upload but[01:12:18] this is very hot topic right now when I[01:12:21] was in Pam a grade by the way thank and[01:12:23] thanks so much for everybody around the[01:12:25] world join us tonight[01:12:27] with Dr. Steven Pearl from Vanderbilt[01:12:31] who is making major scientific[01:12:32] contributions to the field of ufology[01:12:37] but Steven CJ[01:12:39] when I was in Truth or Consequences I[01:12:41] was moderating a UFO debate and when the[01:12:44] debate was all over this really nice[01:12:47] lady older lady she came up to me and[01:12:49] had a great chat with me[01:12:51] and then she handed me her business[01:12:53] card.[01:12:54] I've got a picture of it here but I'm[01:12:56] not going to be able to pull up on the[01:12:57] screen I don't think.[01:12:59] Her business card was simply this.[01:13:03] It's got a picture[01:13:05] of the earth and sort of like a bright[01:13:08] light behind it or on it and it says[01:13:12] three eye Atlas advanced team.[01:13:17] And that was her business card there's[01:13:19] no and and she'd given these to a lot of[01:13:22] people apparently that night there's no[01:13:25] contact information at all.[01:13:28] There's nothing there's not a phone[01:13:30] number an email and and frankly she was[01:13:33] so nice I thought you know if this is[01:13:35] some sort of[01:13:36] apocalyptic[01:13:38] comment called I may want in I mean she[01:13:40] was really really nice and friendly so[01:13:44] Steve I mean maybe you have some[01:13:46] information for us but what's your hot[01:13:48] take?[01:13:50] What's your[01:13:51] Oh no Pam you didn't get one I really[01:13:54] need to find this[01:13:56] this card.[01:13:58] Steve what's your hot take on three eye[01:13:59] Atlas that's the question.[01:14:01] You know a lot of the stuff that I've[01:14:04] heard about it to me actually sounds[01:14:06] like an interstellar comet. Yeah like[01:14:09] it's got a tail[01:14:11] although I have heard from someone and[01:14:14] I'm have to take their word on this that[01:14:16] some of the behavior of it doesn't[01:14:17] really match what you'd expect a comet[01:14:19] to do[01:14:21] but[01:14:22] yeah I don't know I don't know what I[01:14:24] think about that I did read Avi Loeb's[01:14:26] book about Oumuamua the last[01:14:29] interstellar object that came through[01:14:32] which presents a pretty nice analysis of[01:14:35] all the reasons why it might have been a[01:14:37] solar sail rather than some natural[01:14:40] object so maybe the same is true of[01:14:43] three eye Atlas I don't really know.[01:14:48] I'm certain Avi's studying this one as[01:14:50] well.[01:14:51] I think he is and if there's anything to[01:14:53] it we will eventually hear about it. Yes[01:14:56] we will Avi.[01:14:57] And I think I found it so[01:15:00] you got to see this card it is there's[01:15:02] the name I think I got it oh come on[01:15:06] go to my desktop.[01:15:08] >> with this one here Tim. I think it's[01:15:10] >> My question is my question is[01:15:13] what is the advanced team doing?[01:15:15] Right?[01:15:17] What kind of groundwork do they need to[01:15:19] lay for the interstellar visitors to[01:15:22] come on three eye Atlas? Right. Do they[01:15:25] need certain food? I mean what's the[01:15:27] issue here? Right what would they eat?[01:15:30] Yeah.[01:15:32] We actually had that thought experiment[01:15:33] with Avi Loeb because you know funding[01:15:36] and all that is such a[01:15:38] issue[01:15:40] do you think alien civilizations also[01:15:42] have the same type of issues with[01:15:46] funding and politicians and everything?[01:15:50] That's a good question um[01:15:53] yeah I[01:15:55] I would be I'd feel bad for the aliens[01:15:58] if that turned out to be true because[01:15:59] it's a real frustration[01:16:02] to have great ideas and know how to do[01:16:05] it and not have the money to do it[01:16:07] right? Yeah.[01:16:09] And there is the business card.[01:16:11] If they were intelligent enough to get[01:16:13] here they were intelligent enough to get[01:16:15] over there political disputes.[01:16:18] Oh yeah so Pam there it is there's the[01:16:20] lady's business card from Truth or[01:16:22] Consequences.[01:16:23] That's great. Yeah. I I honestly I don't[01:16:27] imagine we have to go much more than[01:16:29] that.[01:16:29] A hundred years from now I think all[01:16:32] these issues will be resolved. I I've[01:16:35] got the card and there's nothing on the[01:16:37] back it's just plain white[01:16:39] on the back I mean[01:16:41] >> number?[01:16:42] Nothing that's it.[01:16:44] It's a nice card like heavy gloss stock[01:16:48] I mean[01:16:48] >> who's part of this non-human[01:16:51] intelligence that's walking among us[01:16:52] here on earth.[01:16:54] Well my I mean maybe Steve's on the[01:16:57] advanced team no I'm kidding Steve.[01:17:00] I would keep that just in case you need[01:17:02] that to get into some secret society or[01:17:05] something that ends up being really[01:17:07] important. Now we may have breaking news[01:17:09] here I don't know if this what what I[01:17:12] know about this NASA has deployed[01:17:14] planetary defense tools I don't know do[01:17:16] you know anything about planetary[01:17:18] defense tools and NASA Steve?[01:17:21] I don't know what that's referring to.[01:17:24] Yeah I'm not sure either.[01:17:26] Planetary defense tools maybe they're[01:17:29] referring to the system of telescopes[01:17:31] that are set up to constantly monitor[01:17:34] for interstellar objects and asteroids[01:17:38] that might hit the earth so that would[01:17:40] give us warning about that I'm not sure[01:17:42] if that's what they're referring to.[01:17:44] This is in the Daily Mail apparently[01:17:47] just a few minutes ago NASA quietly[01:17:49] deploys planetary defense tools after[01:17:53] interstellar visitor shows odd light[01:17:56] behavior.[01:17:58] Well that's intriguing[01:18:00] I'll have to read more about this maybe[01:18:02] this is important.[01:18:03] >> we all will I think we're all going to[01:18:04] have to read more about this.[01:18:06] Yeah I love how the Daily Mail says the[01:18:08] supposed comet dubbed three eye Atlas so[01:18:11] now at this point it's a supposed comet[01:18:15] that's a great way to put it has just[01:18:17] been added to the list of threats[01:18:18] tracked by a UN-endorsed group focused[01:18:21] on planetary defense against near earth[01:18:23] objects. The International Asteroid[01:18:27] Network works alongside institutions[01:18:30] across the world that detect track and[01:18:32] study near earth objects[01:18:35] to assess potential impact threats to[01:18:38] earth so there you have it folks.[01:18:42] Okay.[01:18:43] I don't know what we would do about it[01:18:45] because even if we detected I don't[01:18:46] think we have the rocket technology to[01:18:49] be able to go intervene effectively I[01:18:51] think we've tried but I'm not sure it's[01:18:54] terribly successful. You're[01:18:55] telling me Armageddon wasn't real?[01:19:02] Well you know Avi did y'all hear the[01:19:05] advice Avi gave people in terms of what[01:19:07] to do about it? What did he say? He[01:19:09] actually caused a little bit of[01:19:11] controversy with this even though he was[01:19:13] joking Avi has a good sense of humor.[01:19:16] He told everybody you know what I think[01:19:19] that I would if you had any vacation[01:19:21] time I would take it before October[01:19:23] 29th. I think he said the 29th.[01:19:27] Well, we got 1 week, so we'll find out[01:19:29] today.[01:19:32] I think it's always good advice to take[01:19:34] a vacation, right? Like that's[01:19:35] >> Absolutely. Yeah. I know Yeah, don't[01:19:39] waste your[01:19:40] your vacation days on the state thinking[01:19:42] you're going to get reap some sort of[01:19:43] reward for that. I promise you that. You[01:19:46] know what, Steve, I got to tell you this[01:19:47] about Avi, one of the greatest things[01:19:49] that Avi ever[01:19:51] uh did on this show is one night[01:19:53] This was not his first time on with us,[01:19:55] either. I'm sure you remember this, CJ.[01:19:57] He[01:19:58] was on here and he was in uh like a[01:20:00] sweatsuit. Like gray sweat top and[01:20:03] sweatpants and we're like, "Oh, cool.[01:20:06] We've never seen this side of Avi[01:20:07] before. He's It's going to be very[01:20:09] different. He's going to be really[01:20:10] laid-back and chill, you know. It's[01:20:12] going to be This is going to be fun."[01:20:14] And then all of a sudden he became[01:20:17] aghast to discover that we're on video.[01:20:21] Like, he didn't[01:20:22] He didn't realize there going to be a[01:20:23] video.[01:20:24] And so he's like, "I'll be right back."[01:20:26] And look, it was it was pure Clark Kent[01:20:29] going into a phone booth.[01:20:30] >> was maybe 45 seconds. Yeah, 30 to 45[01:20:34] seconds later he was back with perfect[01:20:36] hair and full three-piece suit,[01:20:38] everything. Suit, tie, everything[01:20:40] perfect.[01:20:41] >> jacket, yeah.[01:20:42] I met I met Avi at the Sol Foundation[01:20:46] meeting last October and he was very[01:20:50] neatly dressed, had his three-piece suit[01:20:52] on, and it was in the context of this[01:20:54] very intriguing conversation with Eric[01:20:57] Davis.[01:20:58] It's fascinating. Yeah.[01:21:00] Yeah, I'd have loved to been a fly on[01:21:01] the wall[01:21:02] for that. Maybe uh[01:21:05] Roswell came up.[01:21:06] Maybe we have you back on another time[01:21:08] and I definitely would love to have you[01:21:09] back on, Steve, to when this paper um[01:21:13] gets pushed out a little more on the[01:21:15] cluster analysis and um[01:21:17] Yeah, maybe CJ might want to ask you[01:21:19] about future projects and that sort of[01:21:21] thing.[01:21:23] Yeah, I mean, we've had so much fun[01:21:24] having you on and I know you're now in[01:21:26] just in the throes of UAP study. What[01:21:30] else are you looking to do in the[01:21:31] future?[01:21:33] Um[01:21:34] I'm going to keep working with Beatrice.[01:21:36] I'm not exactly sure where that's going[01:21:39] to go, but it will be transient related[01:21:41] and uh[01:21:43] I'm in some discussions with people[01:21:45] about doing like um[01:21:48] traditional scientific studies with[01:21:50] experiencers.[01:21:52] Start looking at that aspect of the[01:21:55] phenomenon, which I know gets kind of[01:21:57] ridiculed a lot. Um but I think there[01:22:00] actually are some scientific ways of[01:22:03] addressing that question to try to[01:22:05] figure out what's going on that would be[01:22:08] intriguing. Again, to do those studies[01:22:11] requires money and it depends on, you[01:22:13] know, whether we're going to be able to[01:22:15] get any money to support that.[01:22:18] You heard the man, folks. We need money.[01:22:21] We need a private investor[01:22:24] who will fund this endeavor.[01:22:27] I'm happy to discuss it with anyone if[01:22:29] they have lots of money and want to fund[01:22:31] a cool UAP-related study. So, yeah.[01:22:33] Speaking of discussing things, where can[01:22:36] people find you if they wanted to follow[01:22:38] your your updates or follow more on this[01:22:41] story? Is there a website dedicated just[01:22:43] to your UAP studies?[01:22:45] Social media?[01:22:46] >> Sadly, I am a Luddite. I don't do any[01:22:49] social media.[01:22:51] That's going to have to change.[01:22:54] Uh I I think the best thing you could do[01:22:57] is follow Beatrice because she is out[01:23:01] there all the time and anything we do[01:23:03] that's interesting, it will be[01:23:04] communicated through her.[01:23:06] Okay, there you go. Tell Beatrice you[01:23:09] want to give her money, everybody, for[01:23:10] the next study. And you know what? I[01:23:13] think that studying experiencers is huge[01:23:16] because you cannot discount the human[01:23:18] experience. I mean, what is there if not[01:23:20] that?[01:23:22] That's just my personal opinion. I I[01:23:23] >> I think everybody has kind of dismissed[01:23:25] it for the last, you know, 25 years or[01:23:28] so. And uh maybe it's time to revisit it[01:23:32] and actually treat it like you'd study[01:23:34] any other thing scientifically.[01:23:36] >> Yeah.[01:23:37] Absolutely. So, any final thoughts for[01:23:39] our listeners, anybody that might be,[01:23:41] you know, tuning in about UAPs for the[01:23:43] first time ever or maybe those that are[01:23:45] skeptics out there? What are your final[01:23:47] thoughts for people to walk away with?[01:23:50] Uh[01:23:52] just that I think things are starting to[01:23:54] change. I think that we're starting to[01:23:56] get an actual momentum behind doing true[01:24:00] UAP science. I think there actually[01:24:03] might be some money available to start[01:24:05] doing this even from the government at[01:24:08] some point going forward, although[01:24:10] that's still kind of really early to be[01:24:13] able to tell if that's going to happen.[01:24:15] And uh[01:24:17] I don't know. I think there it's going[01:24:18] to be an interesting thing to see what[01:24:20] happens over the next 10 years or so in[01:24:22] this area between all the the science[01:24:25] and the[01:24:26] uh you know, the first-hand witnesses[01:24:29] coming forward with, you know, recovered[01:24:31] materials and that kind of thing to see[01:24:33] where all that leads, but I think it's[01:24:35] going to be fascinating.[01:24:38] Awesome.[01:24:39] Well, thank you so much for joining us.[01:24:41] And to all of our listeners who who[01:24:43] tuned in tonight, thank you. If you have[01:24:45] not yet subscribed, please do so[01:24:48] because, gosh, we love it when YouTube[01:24:50] sends us random things to congratulate[01:24:53] us[01:24:55] on our viewership. We need We need more[01:24:58] of this, everybody. So, thank you for[01:25:00] subscribing, liking, sharing. It all[01:25:02] makes a huge difference for us. We do,[01:25:05] of course, volunteer our time to the[01:25:07] study of UAP and having these wonderful[01:25:09] discussions with very educated people[01:25:12] who are doing the hard work out there[01:25:14] and we can't continue to do this without[01:25:16] everybody's support. So, thank you. We[01:25:18] hope you all will join us again next[01:25:20] time and Steve, we hope to have you back[01:25:23] in the future. I have a feeling you're[01:25:25] going to keep moving mountains with your[01:25:27] research and we look forward to hearing[01:25:28] what you do next.[01:25:30] Tim, I'll send it to you for your final[01:25:33] thoughts.[01:25:34] Great. And Pam says, "Always hit the[01:25:37] like button." Thank you, Pam. That's[01:25:39] right. Subscribing is the best thing you[01:25:41] can do to support us. Find our store.[01:25:43] Hit the like button. Thanks, Pam. Thanks[01:25:45] for joining me from TRC. You know, the[01:25:48] show may or may not, speaking of[01:25:49] YouTube, have an in with an inv-[01:25:52] potential investor,[01:25:54] Mr. Beast. Mr. Beast, so he loves[01:25:57] investing in things and yeah, we have a[01:25:59] slight connection with Mr. Beast. Well,[01:26:02] tell him tell him to reach out if he[01:26:04] wants to[01:26:05] fund some UAP research.[01:26:08] Uh he can always[01:26:09] He can just email me, you know. You've[01:26:11] got my contact info.[01:26:13] Let's do it. I'm going to put his people[01:26:15] together with uh Steve's people and[01:26:17] we're going to make that happen. And my[01:26:20] my closing statement tonight actually is[01:26:23] because of Steve.[01:26:25] And it's because Steve turned me on to a[01:26:29] man by the name of Dave Marler.[01:26:31] And Steve, I'm not sure if I actually[01:26:33] told you what Dave Marler had to say[01:26:35] back to me. But Dave Marler[01:26:38] revealed something quite extraordinary[01:26:40] and that is that he[01:26:42] and the National UFO Historical Records[01:26:45] Center has been collaborating[01:26:47] with AARO for the past year,[01:26:50] specifically on triangular UAP.[01:26:54] And Dave sent us a statement[01:26:56] that we could read or release to the[01:26:59] public. And I want to close tonight's[01:27:01] episode with this statement to everybody[01:27:04] from Dave Marler.[01:27:07] This[01:27:08] This is from the National UFO Historical[01:27:10] Records Center, David Marler, Executive[01:27:13] Director.[01:27:15] Over the course of the last year, I have[01:27:17] had ongoing dialogue with AARO.[01:27:19] Based on the conversations and exchanges[01:27:21] with them, I am impressed with their[01:27:24] serious interest regarding the[01:27:26] historical data that we at the National[01:27:28] UFO Historical Records Center have[01:27:30] collected.[01:27:31] My conversations with AARO have also[01:27:34] focused on triangular UAP, given my[01:27:37] extensive database and research into[01:27:39] this subset of reports over the last 25[01:27:42] years.[01:27:43] The characteristics mentioned recently[01:27:45] in conversation between Director[01:27:47] Koslowski[01:27:48] and Neil deGrasse Tyson echoed the[01:27:50] reports dating back decades from[01:27:52] worldwide sources.[01:27:55] The knowledge that AARO has received[01:27:56] similar triangular UAP reports in recent[01:27:59] years through official channels is quite[01:28:02] validating to the research effort.[01:28:06] It is my sincere hope[01:28:08] that further communication and[01:28:10] collaboration between AARO and credible[01:28:13] civilian UAP efforts may lead to better[01:28:17] insights into the mystery we all hope to[01:28:20] resolve.[01:28:22] Collaboration,[01:28:24] not division,[01:28:26] is the most productive path[01:28:28] for better understanding.[01:28:32] Thanks, Dave. Thanks, CJ.[01:28:34] Thanks, Steve.[01:28:36] Very nice. Thank you.[01:28:37] >> Awesome.[01:28:39] That's a wrap.[01:28:39] >> And cut.[01:28:42] I am here to discuss the so-called[01:28:44] flying saucers.[01:28:48] We know now that in the early years of[01:28:51] the 20th century, this world was being[01:28:54] watched closely by intelligences greater[01:28:57] than man's. Did the CIA write Wind of[01:28:59] Change by the Scorpions?[01:29:03] As humans busied themselves about the[01:29:05] various concerns, they were scrutinized[01:29:08] and studied. Dr. Love, what percentage[01:29:11] chance do you give it that you have[01:29:13] indeed uncovered extraterrestrial or[01:29:16] non-human technology.[01:29:19] With infinite complacence, people went[01:29:21] about their affairs, yet across an[01:29:23] immense ethereal gulf, intellects vast[01:29:26] and unsympathetic threw their plans[01:29:29] against us. All of a sudden, a stick out[01:29:31] of nowhere landed right in front of us,[01:29:33] and there was no tree, nothing overhead.[01:29:35] Something threw it at us. Yeah. What's[01:29:37] your hot take on Travis Taylor?[01:29:44] I've got an exclusive for you guys if[01:29:46] you want it about Big Al.[01:29:48] >> we do. Okay. Okay. Dr. Taylor was[01:29:51] revealed to be the chief scientist of[01:29:54] the UAP Task Force with the Pentagon.[01:29:57] All things[01:29:59] unexplained.[01:30:01] So, some of the items that we'll save[01:30:03] for closing.
BOX - METHODOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION: THE HUMAN-AI ARCHITECTURE
FROM EXECUTION TO ARCHITECTURE
The production of this report serves as another practical case study in the evolution of modern work. A first similar report was published about the impact of AI. The text of this report, largely compiled by AI from video sources, shows that the successful application of Artificial Intelligence is not a replacement for human agency, but a mandate for its evolution. The human researcher involved transitioned from a traditional "executor" of analysing and writing tasks to a "Director" or an "Architect of Outcomes". In an era where AI can process vast transcripts and draft complex analyses, the human value-add has shifted to Meta-Cognition - identifying which geopolitical and economic problems are worth exploring - and Strategic Synthesis - combining disparate AI-generated insights into this coherent and relevant report. This collaboration represents a "Human-in-the-Loop" methodology, where the algorithm provides the analytical muscle while the human provides the ethical and strategic compass.
DATA ACQUISITION AND AUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION
The foundation of this research was a curated selection of high-level video content (YouTube).
To manage the scale of the data, a custom PHP-based automation was developed to interface with the TranscriptAPI.
- The Process: This script systematically retrieved raw transcripts, ensuring that metadata - such as video titles, author information, and precise timestamps - was preserved.
- The Goal: By automating the "execution" of data retrieval, the researcher was freed to focus on the "architecture" of the inquiry.
INTERROGATIVE ANALYSIS (THE Q&A FRAMEWORK)
Rather than allowing the AI to generate generic summaries, a rigorous interrogative method was employed using GPT-4o. The AI was asked to collect information about some ten different topics and contributed to this selection based on the video sources.
The AI was strictly constrained to the provided transcript. This ensured that the resulting data remained grounded in the primary source material, preventing "hallucinations" and preserving the unique nuances of the expert speakers.
The outputs were consolidated into a structured CSV format, creating a searchable and verifiable knowledge base for the final drafting phase.
The results of the AI analyses on the videos from a playlist are available via this link:
- The Academic Renegades: Inside the Scientific Crusade to Study UAPs
NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS AND EDITORIAL REFINEMENT
The final stage involved the synthesis of these structured insights into the report. This was performed using Gemini 3 Flash and GPT 5.1 and 5.2, acting as a sophisticated research assistants.
- Strategic Synthesis: The AI integrated the collected data with the broader available full transcripts. The human architect guided this process by defining the narrative arc and ensuring that the tone remained professional and aligned with British English (UK) standards.
- Citations and Verification: A systematic referencing system was maintained throughout, ensuring that every claim in the report can be traced back to the original video source via the consolidated reference list. However, some hallucinations were noticed, so the referencing may contain errors.
THE SYNERGY OF INTELLIGENCE
This methodology demonstrates that the future of high-level research lies in the synergy between human and machine. The AI provided the speed and scale necessary to process thousands of minutes of video to an acceptable non-scientific report, while the human researcher provided the Empathy, Ethics, and Strategic Vision required to turn raw data into a meaningful contribution to the discourse on in this case UAP and scientists.
ABOUT VIDSTANCE.COM
This report, more information about this report, the video sources and other reports (work in progress) are availabe on vidstance.com. VidStance captures, structures this "oral living knowledge." It is also a tribute to the creators of high-quality content published on YouTube; their work provides intellectual raw material for the public debates of the 21st century.