American Alchemy with Jesse Michels - CIA Scientist: "George Bush Was Briefed on UFOs" (ft. Eric Davis)

Episode Date: December 13, 2024

JOIN OUR NEW WHOP (Group Calls With Jesse and more) ➤ https://whop.com/jessemichels/ Eric W. Davis discusses UAPs, focusing on the risks faced by whistleblowers like David Grusch and the Department of Defense's targeting of UAP investigators. Davis highlights the complex information-sharing dynamics among agencies, recounts historical government acknowledgment of UAPs, and addresses misconceptions within the UFO community, notably denying the existence of alien reproduction vehicles (ARVs). Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction 04:20 - NDAs & Testifying Before Congress 07:52 - Whistleblowers 09:22 - Briefings in Classified Settings 15:48 - Defense Programs 17:14 - Private Contractors 22:15 - George H. W. Bush 33:10 - Alien Reproduction Vehicles 39:57 - Future of Classified Information 45:08 - Theories of Everything 52:28 - Closing Thoughts SPOTIFY ➤ https://tinyurl.com/jessemichelsspotify DISCORD ➤ https://discord.gg/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Personal) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichels INSTAGRAM (Show) ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [e-mail] Original music: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6LlLRudDi60Uy4jcmOSEs1 #aliens #uap #interview #science #physics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water.

The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. It's time to refresh your yard during spring backyard days at the Home Depot. Get low prices guaranteed on propane grills starting at $179, like the next grill 3-burner gas grill.

Or get $50 off the select Weber Spirit grill and bring big flavor to your backyard. Then set the scene with Hampton Bay string lights that bring it all together. Shop spring backyard days for seven days at the Home Depot. Now through May 6th. Exclusion supplies to homedipo.com slash price match for details. If you were asked to appear before Congress, under oath, would you willingly do that? The only way I'll testify actually, the reality is in a classified setting. DoD can come after me.

What happened to Dave Grush, physically harassed at his home and in his vehicles after he filed his whistleblower complaint. It was before he ever testified. All I have was the step that I accumulated and gathered going up through the ASAP and ATIP. And that's how I met Dave Grush. Jay Stratton introduced me to Dave. He was the NRO liaison officer to the UAPTF. So anyway, I met both of them, and I gave Dave all my data, all my briefing information, and he took that, ran with it, and he found everything.

George Bush, when he was the CIA director, he was given some pretty spectacular information. About a major UAP event took place in early 60s, and Bush's eyes lit up, and this is what he's told me. He said, what are you talking about? The Pentagon liaison officer told him all about it. He said, are you kidding me? There's a there there. And he said, absolutely. And he said, well, I want to see the evidence.

And the evidence was in the form of documentation. But the film was the primary thing. We are thrilled to announce this special episode of American Alchemy featuring a groundbreaking interview with the legendary Eric Davis. Eric is a renowned scientist, Hal Put-Off's protege, and probably more of an expert in UFO propulsion, and exotic physics principles than just about anybody on Earth. He's written a fantastic book called The Frontiers of Propulsion Science,

which is as comprehensive of an overview as you could possibly get when it comes to exotic propulsion and anomalies in topological physics. He's also written all sorts of great research papers on subjects ranging from UAP tracking to quantum teleportation. This conversation wouldn't have been possible without my technical correspondent pseudonymously named Jack or Missileman on Twitter.

Jack has over 15 years of experience in defense and aerospace and holds a very strong background in mathematics, materials, R&D, and physics. For now, he's chosen to remain pseudonymous due to his work in sensitive areas of national security. Jack and I are going to be starting

a technical series together on UFO physics. It's going to be an extremely deep dive on how UFOs fly, the exotic principles they employ and materials they use. But this interview also involves some incredible journalists in the world of UFOs. This interview would not have been possible without them. First off, thank you to Thenvier, the incredible host of catastrophic disclosure.

I also want to thank his partner on the channel, Katarina, who is a biomedical PhD. She's brilliant, and she's the editor and videographer on the channel. We're also super grateful to James Falk, host of Neon Galactic, a PBS-affiliated podcast, and YouTube channel, which goes into UAP's consciousness. It's incredibly deep and worth checking out. Rob Jones was also involved here. He's a nuclear engineer and Navy Sailor. Go follow him on Twitter for some incredible insights.

Finally, I want to give a special shout out and thank you to UAP Gerb. He is honestly the deepest researcher I've met in the last year when it comes to UAPs. He runs an incredible channel called UAPGERB. He's deeper than just about anybody I know on nuts and bolts UFO research. We're going to drop an interview very soon, and hopefully all of you get to see how ridiculously impressive his knowledge is. So if you're going to watch this interview, please subscribe to all of these channels. They're going to come out with variations of this interview with commentary and other remixes and maybe even some footage that we don't include here on their own respective channels. They're doing incredibly important work.

Consider subscriptions on those channels the passcode for watching this interview. We need more people covering this topic. The point is there's strength in numbers. we're all on the same team, and we need as many high credibility, high-quality people covering this as possible. Without further ado, please enjoy this special episode of American Alchemy

with our amazing technical correspondent Jack and the Prince of Exotic Propulsion himself, Eric W. Davis. The Bigelow Aerospace guys, the All-Tap guys, the A-Tip guys, y'all have been at the forefront of really starting the public discourse on all of this stuff.

and Dr. Jim Larkaski, he mentioned if he were asked to testify before Congress, that he would actually lie before Congress instead of, you know, speaking against his NDAs and to honor his NDAs and the things he's, you know, wants to protect. And so I know that's a bit controversial because at this point, New Elizando has testified. We interviewed him last week. And they did so under oath. Yes. Jim didn't say what happens if he takes an oath, because if he takes an oath lying to Congress

in a testimony is perjury, and he can go to jail for that. And you saw what happened to the NDA. Actually, the NDA will prevent him from giving testimony. Oh, but he chooses to. Yeah, but however, if they issue him a subpoena to appear before Congress, then he's going to have to work with the DOD staff to figure that. out how he's going to do it. Now, here's how Dave Gresh did it. Dave Gresh was able to give, was approved by the Department of Defense. I don't remember what the acronym means anymore. It's

T-O-PSR. So, Dobser approved his public testimony and approved what he could say publicly. The rest of what he couldn't say publicly, he said in a classified hearing. So we had a classified hearing on his whistleblower complaint. Jim would have to do the same thing. And Jim should know that. and I worked with him on the ASAP, so I know him. So I don't know why he was said, have to lie before Congress. He knows if you're going to take an oath before the committee lying as perjury and you're in trouble. And the NDA issue can be worked out with the copse. However, there are times when they don't administer an oath, but you don't want to lie because that'll be a public reputation damage on you.

Right. If even though you didn't take an oath, but you lied before Congress, you lied. I know for you, it's kind of a weird state right now because your alleged memo has been entered into congressional record. And so my question is simply this. If you were asked to appear before Congress, under oath, would you willingly do that? Would you testify? I would have to get advice from a lawyer first. Very smart answer.

I'd have to get an advice from a lawyer who has a background in that particular issue because DOD can come after me. And the IAC could come after me. They could permit me from getting a job again by making sure that I don't get my security clearance was passed away. And what happened to Dave Grush after he filed his whistleblower complaint? It was before he ever testified. Right. What happened to Dave Grush is he got harassed and intimidated, both him and his wife. He got harassed by someone in the National Reconnaissance office.

And then he got physically harassed at his home and in his vehicles by people unknown. and then somebody leaked a PTSD episode he had because remember he's a war veteran. And he was in the combat field and he suffered PTSD and was going through a crisis with his wife. When somebody decides they're going to illegally go into his private medical files violate the HIPAA law and release that to the news media so that they can so that they can attack his character. And there are a lot more lawyers at this point on your sup, on the UAP Disclosure Fund. And a number of other organizations have spun up to offer pro bono legal support to whistleblowers and people being harassed. Do you feel any better than, do you feel like it's safer now that it was when Dave came out? Possibly. I think so. I just have to have a lawyer tell me, look at the situation, look at the circumstances under which Admiral Wilson gave me information and then find out if that's something I should do at the level of congressional hearing.

That was ironic. Hang on. I briefed the Senate Select Committee. of intelligence staff and the Senate Armed Services Committee staff in classified settings, what happened is I briefed the first group in 2019, then later now we're in 2022, and another group comes out to Huntsville. Instead of me going to D.C., they're coming out to see me in Huntsville. And I'm briefing them. So it's a new group of people. And after one phone call with Representative Mike Gallagher, Republican Representative of his district in Wyoming,

So I had a short phone call within maybe about 20, 25 minutes. And then I had an interview just last month with the two senior staff on the subcommittee that just recently held the House hearings that Lou Elizando appeared at. Yeah, we know that. So they asked me a lot of questions. They were short on time. So we had a half hour conversation. And there really should have been a follow-up interview because there were more open questions left to be answered that they didn't have time.

They never followed up, and I never got an invite to testify. Okay. So I have made it known that the only way I'll testify, actually, the reality is in a classified setting. Well, yeah, I would imagine there's not much slam-dump testimony that can be given in the unclassified thing. Right. Well, I'll tell you this, Dave did give the classified testimony.

He gave them everything. He gave them the names and locations and programs and people. All I had was the step that I accumulated and gathered going. up through the ASAP and ATIF. And what happened during the UAP, EETF was what Jay Stratt was doing then. So I had left that area, and then I had a little bit of stuff going on when I worked for the Aerospace Corporation. And that's how I met Dave Brush.

Jay Stratton introduced me to Dave and his government customer, who I won't name. He was a GS-15 at the time, and Dave worked for him, and he got promoted later to SCS-1. This anonymous individual. This is the one that Dave worked with at the NRO. Sure. And so I briefed them. So they basically invited me through the Aerospace Corporation apprais because Aerospace is the FFRDC that supports NRO. And so they have a contract and they flew me out to where they were located in Colorado Springs.

And I gave them both briefing, not just them. This included the aerospace personnel that were supporting the NRL office. The NRL was a tenant organization in the aerospace campus there. So we have one building now. it's two. And in that one building, they have skips building entire floors and then office suites that are built inside of skips that are closed the office suites. So this program that Dave and his government customer worked at was one of those office suites in a skip. So he's got a lot of, so that GS-15 has a lot of, has a number of aerospace employees supporting his program.

Okay. And Dave was doing some aspect of that on the security side as one of Jay Strat's, as contributors to the UAPTF because he was the NRO liaison officer to the UAPTF. So anyway, I met both of them, and I gave Dave all my data, all my briefing information, and he took that, ran with it, and he found everything. And then later on, I think maybe a year or two later, yeah, actually almost two years later, somewhere in that period, they finally got to meet with Hal put off, and he briefed them with his set of information. A lot of what he has overlaps mine, but I have a lot of unique information,

both in and outside of the era of the 15 years that I worked with Howl. A lot of it came from NIDs and Hal knew some of that. A lot of it came from AFRL and then a lot of it came through the OSAP with my interactions with the CIA and other agencies and companies and so forth. So Dave, yeah, Dave basically ran with our data, mine and Howells and found everything, found 40 witnesses. I'm not going to say who they are, but I could say that I know two of them. Can you say how many of them are in this building?

I'll say I know that only one of them is in the building. And the guy who didn't come to the conference because he had a travel conflict for a pre-arranged, I think family trip or something, if he were here, he'd be the second one. And all the rest of them are not here in the building. And there's more to it than that, but I can't discuss it than that. I would identify who the two witnesses. So yesterday you made some pretty remarkable statements on kind of finding evidence of legacy programs while working at OSAP.

And you mentioned that under Eisenhower, P-E-A-D-S's presidential emergency action documents, we're kind of used to create waived special access programs free from congressional oversight. I wanted to see during your time investigating legacy programs, did you encounter other kind of unique classification standards like no foreign, no foreign national excluded program material for these programs kind of dealing with N-HI artifacts? Yeah, those are not new or unusual. there's known SCI compartments, SCI being sensitive compartmentalized information, but there's hidden SCI compartments, and that's what a lot of the American public is not aware of. That's not talked about a lot.

And then there's the special access programs, and you've got four types, you've got regular SAPs, just special action program. Then you don't have a wave special assets program. You'll have an unacknowledge point, and you'll have a waived unacknowledged one. And actually, I'm not sure that the two in the middle are separate, really. I think more likely it's waived in and acknowledged at the same time. So that might be just a third category or even just a second category. So Dave and I had a lot of discussions. I went through when I was at Aerospace, I went through special access program security training. So I could qualify to be, it's not that I wanted to qualify to qualify to indicate to the company and the government customers that I've gone through that level of training comparable to what security officers for special access

programs have. And so that would help my eligibility to get access more than anything. And that didn't happen. I didn't get it. But I did get, I did do the training. So Dave and I talked about that as a consequence. And I said, Dave, it seems like these hidden SCIs are no different than SAPs. And so that's when he said, yeah, really, they've been having that argument among the security personnel

security experts throughout the IC and the DOD, they've been having an argument for some significant period of time over really there's a, whether there is a real distinction between a hidden SCI and an SAP. Most of the people like Dave and I actually came to the conclusion that SAPs are just the same thing as a hidden SCI. Studies and play. Come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get the best of both worlds.

Get the Unreal College deal, everything you need, to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 premium and a year of Xbox GamePass Ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at Windows.com slash student offer. While supplies last, ends June 30th, terms at AKA.m.S.com slash college PC. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsor jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes.

Listeners of this show will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. I think something a lot of people don't ask that has kind of captured my attention. During your time investigating legacy programs, did you see much collaboration or compartmentalization between programs that may exist in Navy Air Force Army? It's two stove piped or compartmentalized. You can't open it up to another one unless there is a need to do that.

That need to get access is defined on a government form called the DD-254. And the DD-254 documents who has access and why and what gets access. And if you're going to have to get access to another compartmentalized program, then that has to be justified. in the DD-254, and usually that's not justified because programs are not, don't really overlap. However, I think it was Bill Sweetman back in the 1980s who did a deep dive in this after Reagan became president. And he did say, he did correctly say that the compartmentalization of SCIs, but mostly SAPs, was really horrible because you end up duplicating programs,

doing the same thing. So we're now spending taxpayers' dollars at twice the magnitude, doing the same thing between two programs. And they can't communicate that. Yeah, they can't collaborate. They can't come to an understanding of say, oh, yeah, you exist. Oh, and you exist. But what you're working on is what we're working on, but we're spending all the government's money this week. Why don't we join forces and maybe cut the budget? But that isn't what happens. You can't do that. You actually sent me the article to Liberation Times piece that Chris Sharp wrote. He was kind of describing for, I think, the first time, some of the intimate details of the ecosystem of the program eponymously.

And that was where I heard for the first time that DOE and then what was it called, Office of or CIA weapons counter proliferation and things, etc. That's the modern name of windpack, the weapons intelligence, nuclear proliferation and armed control. I actually got hired by the CIA to be the branch chief science. scientists of Winpack back in late 2003. Wow. Yeah. And so they talked about how DOE, that group, and a bunch of combatant commands all do their own thing to some extent. And there's really not an executive head, you know, adjudicating conflicts or, you know, do work like you're saying.

You could have Navy programs and Air Force programs doing the same thing. Keep in mind that that we call the counterproliferation program, right? and WINPAC are actually multi-agency. They're not just the CIA. They're CIA, NSA, NRO, because when I got hired, the hiring manager that was going to be my boss, he breathed me on what my job duties were going to be, what organizations were involved, and that I was going to interface with all these organizations, and he wrote down two long lists on a couple of, well, two lists on a couple columns,

they weren't that long, but they were all the agencies that were, fused together to run the Winpack operation. So Winpack will seek resources and personnel from that agency, that agency, this agency, and that agency do accomplish different things. I think one Winpack member recently mentioned kind of as a gatekeeper of legacy programs was Glenn Gaffney. If you guys remember that from various reporting, I think Chris Sharp touched on it as well. Did you ever interact with Glenn Gaffney?

I didn't have direct interaction with them. But the aerospace defense firm that we were working, we were trying to work with during the OSAP, had direct interaction with it. As well as he, he was a senior VP and his executive VP, the corporation had, they had to have a conversation with Glenn Gaffney. Yeah. And he was very antagonistic about that company releasing to us under the DIA. To NIDS. To NIDS, right? To us, no, to Bigelero Space Advanced Space Studies and Earth Tech.

Right. To release to us, their collection of crash retrieval materials that they've had since before got shut down in 89. And so he stepped right in the middle of it. First, he was surprised that that company still retained materials when they were supposed to give it up and return it back in 89. No kidding. And then he said his answer to that whole question about giving permission for them to

share it with us under that classified setting, because that was SAP level. We were TSSCI. We were trying to get SAP. And Harry Reid was trying to get Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn to give us an SAP, and William Lynn denied his request. And the reason why he denied it is because Harry Reid was using political muscle, and you can't do that. It has to go through the security channels and the program management to create a justification and a need to give a program that's already TSSCI, a SAP level. Okay, add-on SAP. Politics. Yeah, so he's looking at, I can understand what William Lynn is looking at. The majority leader of the Senate is telling him, I want you to, you know, a very nice letter, the letter's been posted on the internet.

So very nice letter saying, well, we have reason that we need to do this, et cetera, et cetera, and Lynn didn't buy it because that was an official channel for how you create a sap. a program that's already TSSI and elevated up to a sap. There's a whole process, procedure, bureaucracy, and red tape that you have to go through. And Harry was using political muscle to bypass all that. And the executive branch is taught, or trained not to do that. Capitol Hill is not their taskmaster. The taskmaster is the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, the head of the executive branch.

Now, who was the president at that? It was Bush. So George W. Bush, if Harry Reid had written the letter to Bush or actually met him face to face, which had been far more effective. I don't know how possible it would have been, but it would have been had a much higher chance that Bush would call down to William Lynn, or he would have maybe his national security advisor, Stephen Hadley, call the Secretary of Defense's office, actually, and maybe the Undersecretary Defense for Intelligence and Security. and say, okay, there's this program. I wanted to get a sap. Sure. And if the president says, I want a sap, they're going to have to sap it.

And Lou Elizano's book, he specifically mentions how, you know, they went to Lockheedmont and to see if they could, you know, get inside this program and have some of this material. And they were pretty much, you know, blocked out by the program manager. And, of course, the Red Cape. Glenn Gaffney was the director of the, yeah, he was the director. I think his title was deputy director of the CIA over the directorate of science and technology. And that's where the UFO or the UAP portfolio was held.

So he's the portfolio owner at the time he was there. So I guess maybe his title is deputy director of science and technology. It depends on how they organize it. Yeah. But anyway, that's what he, but he ran that direction. director. So he just stepped in the middle and just said, absolutely not. We're not going to do that. I wonder, H.W., former director of CIA, do you think it stands to reason that H.W. might have known more than many other modern presidents by virtue of the state. I had conversations with him back in

2003. And what he learned, he was not briefed as a president on this subject. He was briefed as an incoming CIA director. Not surprised. And that's all he had on it. When he became president, he didn't hear about it anymore. When he was the CIA director, he was given some pretty spectacular information. And he insisted that he wanted to see that. This is DOD information. What's funny is that his agency was the portfolio owner for UAPs.

So even he wasn't told who in the CIA was running it for him to get briefed. by for him to call on his phone and say, I need you to brief me. He didn't, wasn't pulled. Instead, it was the Pentagon liaison officer who had no intention on briefing him about UFOs or UAPs. And instead, he assumed that Bush had already been briefed by his CIA personnel or his, his, uh, leadership. Sure.

Who oversee that portfolio. And he accidentally assumed that. He started rattling off about a major UAP events, um, that was, took place. in early 60s, and Bush's eyes lit up, and this is what he's told me, and he said, what are you talking about? So the Pentagon liaison officer told him all about it, and he said, are you kidding me? There's a there there? Yeah.

And he said, absolutely. And he said, well, I want to see the evidence. And the evidence was in the form of a film and some documentation, reports or something. But the film was the primary thing. And he was declined. The liaison officer said, no, you don't have a need to know because this is DOD intelligence and we're not going to give it to you. Only if there's an event that happens that requires you to take that information up to the president

and the national security. Actually, you go to the National Security Advisor. He's the clearinghouse for all things, UAP. So you go to the national, the president is National Security Advisor and you say, My agency just had a major event that we collected intelligence on, and it's going to require a presidential decision. And the national security advisor is going to have to say, okay, here's a number in your agency who you're going to call to get a full briefing on the whole UFO thing. And meanwhile, I will schedule a meeting in the Oval Office with the president point. That's how that works.

And I think the PID documents could possibly emerge from that. If it's a historical thing, no. that historical event might already be covered by a PED, and that's probably why that guy, that briefing officer, the liaison officer from the Pentagon, actually slipped up by wrongly assuming that Bush was already briefed. The fact is, yes, you can brief the PED within the executive branch, but he assumed that Bush had been and he hadn't been. So my guess is that since that was not a new event, it was an old historical event, that

there would be no need to brief Bush on the Pied. that was involved. So he would never know. He would just hear about the evidence that that recorded that event happening. And it happened at a military base. And so there you go. And speaking of those peds, yesterday, you also made some super interesting comments on kind of private contracts. Specifically, I think you said source contracts. It's all source. Instead of putting out a project for a contract bid. An RFB. Yeah. You have to have to issue either a broad area announcement, which is how Bigelarospass based to submit a bid for the ASAP contract.

So it's either a request for proposals or a broad area announcement. And if you do that, then you're going to severely compromise the security of an SAP, so they don't do that. You don't invite different companies to see the specs of the program,

the outline and the specs and the deliverables expected over the period of performance expected. in the RFP or the BAA. Instead, the government agency has the contract guy and the program manager guy and maybe one other authority over all that, they're going to call up their favorite contractor who they know or believe

who would successfully execute the project. And they'll say, okay, we want to give you a contract. Here's how much money, and here's how many years we're going to pay up. And the company's stupid, they'll say no. If the company's smart, they'll say, Yes. And generally, the Beltway bandits and the legacy aerospace industry are not stupid. They need money. So they will always say yes. Would those be authorized contracts then or have a transfer of authority, the sole source contracts? Would they be traceable? No. Usually they set up a freight company to pass the money through.

So this roster of kind of the big defense contractors for these big projects, would that roster be pretty thin? Only a couple entries there. I don't know. I do know from the. You know, a space company that I interacted with quite frequently during the OSAP. They didn't go to the government customer. It wasn't always the CIA. It was Air Force at times. So I think the money is transmitted through a pass-through company, but they know very well who their government customer is. The government customer knows very well who they are and that they have a contract.

So I think the fact that the money goes through a hard-to-audit channel, doesn't prevent the two from talking because the program does get contract monitoring and contract oversight from the government customer. So they will exert that authority over the, I wanted to ask you about Dave Rush's IRA fraud allegations. You recall what he talks about in Congress, he alleged that at least one contract, and I believe Elizondo repeated it in his house hearing. The allegation was made that at some point in time for some duration, a contractor artificially inflated the proposal budget for a black budget program so that they could siphon that money off into IRAD to do an IRA project because frequently you can tax deduct the funding

for right the profit dollars and move them and instead of just hoping they overperform, they like doctored the situation so that they definitely overperformed and the extra money was sort of moved into this. Okay, I don't have any insights on that. Okay. Okay. And there are two types of contrasts. It's either cost plus fee or fixed fixed cost.

Fixed firm price, yeah. So those are the only contract vehicles I'm aware of. I'm not aware that there's anything special just because of UAPs. So it's either cost plus or firm cost, fixed price. Sure. One of those is how NASA tends to issue contracts like Artemis is way over budget, over schedule, and the Orion heat sheet shield did the same thing through the Orion. Boeing has become a disaster with the CST 100 or the, what was the Star Liner?

Starliner, yes. So that is under cost plus. Right, right. And that's where the government gets screwed on. So I have no idea what contract vehicles are used for these, for UAPs. It's like now you're down in the weeds and it really doesn't matter. Sure, sure. Speaking of these sort of corporate entities here, people are sort of aware

that, okay, maybe they have their groups to do the European narratives, maybe this material analysis, what have you, in their programs. But is there any merit to there being private strike teams who are having their own contested crash recovery with the public strike teams? No, I'm not familiar with any. I haven't heard any such thing. Even out in the open, or even in the classified venue, I haven't heard.

There's a story of apparently a private military contractor, you know, contracted by Lockheed Martin, sent out to recover a crash, a J-Soc team sent out to the same crash site, and they're apparently being exchange of fire and K-KAs. And, you know, clearly this would generate a lot of paper, right? Wow, I'm not familiar with that incident. So all this talk about private contractors, you know, the big Lockheed Martin. What about federally funded research and development centers such as mitre, Rand, Triad, Oafridge,

at UARC's, University-affiliated research centers. Where do they fall into this? Own it all. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package.

The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro.

Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Only one, and I won't name it, started out as a contractor in 1960s, starting not too long after it was born. It was actually spinoff of TRW. So TRW was the principal investigator for the first, roughly, what, almost 30, yeah, practically, what, 29 years. But I know that another company would dispute that.

They thought they were a primary principal contractor. In fact, the principal contractor serves a leadership role that the other companies kind of, they don't know what's going on, but they know who's involved. at the, you know, the scuttle, you know, scuttle bet level. And so they know at the scuttle bet level through communications with the government customer, who else would be involved? But they don't have direct communications with those other companies because of compartmentalization. So I do know that there'd be a dispute because there was, I mean, the senior VP of the company I interacted with during the OSAP with that.

Well, we had it. the program running, and they didn't consider somebody else as the principal and investigator. I think that they wouldn't know that. The government customer knows that. So I think that's where the misunderstanding was occurring is down at the company level. So yeah, the only FFRDC I know of is the one that spun off of TRW. My recollection from the senior vice president of the other company is that they kind of left that whole line of work at some point just because I think they did all they could do. And so they got out of it somewhere maybe 10 or a little more years after they got started on it. So probably in the early 70s is when they left it.

And then we had the other legacy firms that were involved. So there were four overall. That would make sense because a lot of the FFRDCs that were started kind of were born out of the early 60s, late 50s, and kind of fulfilled their purpose within 10 years and then moved on to other projects. Like Rand, for example, start off as project Rand. And just speaking of what you know and what you don't know, one of the things you kind of definitively said

during your talk up there was that there are no ARVs or alien reproduction vehicles. And so I think that's really kind of a bombshell because there's so many theories out there like, oh, this incident or that incident or other thing on an ARV. But, you know, I can sort of take their word for it because we barely scratched the surface of how they even. Yeah.

So I have some questions about this. So like, do you think anything's happened recently maybe? Like in the last like 10 years, it's real new, like advancement, like prior. I'm not aware of it because I'm out of it now. Sure. I've been out of it since the Asap. The A-tip ended. So I'm not right into it.

At the level I was for the ASAP and ASIP. A-tip purposes. I don't know. All I do know is I was given a firm, hey, in 1989, the CIA shut it all down because nobody, us, and we know the other companies that we had been found out from our customer, didn't make any progress after several decades of Vestia. And there was no progress made. So I said, so what's the story about Northrop Grumman having an ARV or somebody out in Area 51

having an ARV? And he said, oh, that's all myth. They said the people that have been putting out there don't know what the hell they're talking about. And they don't know why unless they're just another Bob Lazard type. They're just going to, they're long on the tooth and they're going to tell a story. Yeah. Is there any chance that was disinformation or that was passage material? No, actually it wasn't disinformation.

It was even Bob Lazar's information is disinformation. It's because they believe their own bullshit. I mean that they were telling you that there's no ARVs. Oh, no, that's not disinformation. You know, that's coming straight on a classified level. Sure. with me having the need to know, and they don't have a need to give me disinformation. We're on a program, and we're going to give them contract money to work with us,

and they're not going to sit there and bullshit with us. If we're going to give them money. I don't think so. It's way too 5D chess, right? Yeah, I guess. When you're saying an ARV, do you mean like a one-to-one recreation of a UAP and an H-I vehicle? Or do you think there's aircraft systems that have kind of leveraged technologies? Definitely no aircraft systems that have leveraged anything.

And there's been no one-to-one reproduction. A lot of that fell into the psyche of the UFO community because of Bob Lazar and then Brad Sarence and Mark McAlley's. So I don't know where they're coming from. And then other people kind of came out of the woodwork saying the same thing. But no proof. I mean, there's been photographs, but those photographs, I haven't analyzed him. I don't remember Bruce McAbee looked at them. I know Bruce McAbee had only said they definitely looked like hoaxes is to.

him, but I don't think he ever issued a report on them because he's got lots of reports on UAPs that he has done photo and film and video analysis. Have you ever spoken to the Brad Sorensen and McCandallish? No, Howard House. Howaputoff has? Yeah. Yeah. Well, Brad, what do you think about adversarial governments having, you know, functional vehicles

that they've, they, they, strapped? Okay, if they do, then basically, why are we still a country? You know, why haven't we been conquered? the tech. And especially if it's an adversarial government with the resources, because there are adversarial governments that don't have the resources. That'd be North Korea, Iran, and probably a few others, but the big ones would be China and Russia. Yeah. Well, suppose it's still Yeah. Right now, they're still playing with conventional propulsion, like hypersonic missiles, supersonic missiles, subsonic missiles, multiple munitions, multiple warheads, etc., etc.

Nobody's got an ARV-type crap zipping over Ukraine. And Ukraine certainly hasn't been reporting any such things of that nature. Right. And they would have. They would have screamed bloody murder and taking it straight to the president of the United States. The CIA, the Department of State, would have said, here's our photographs and here's our recordings of it. And look, there's a Russian symbol on it, you know. Yeah, yeah.

And so, no, that hasn't happened. I mean, if it was for real, we would see a dramatic change in the balance of power. The United States, our intelligence agency would probably have known about it before Ukraine would have gotten hit in such a hypothetical story or scenario. And that just hasn't happened. So they haven't been successful. I can't believe they're any more successful than we do agree with the Russia's contention that they have programs.

They have wreckage. They have technology that they're. Yeah. China is like a closed door. through how put up that they have at least one. And I think he might have gotten that officially through some work he did with the DIA, where he did go to China for them, but not for that reason. And he's probably learned something over there.

Sure. I think there's other sources that have said similar. Probably Dave Grush has more information on that than even I thought to ask him about. But Russia is one that had some crash retrievals. And that's been released when the Soviet Union fell. KGB opened up the files. George Knapp went there. Other people went there, found the threat three.

documents. And I had independent, and I can't get into this because it's still super classified, but through the ASAP program, I had a connection in with a three-letter agency that collected not from the KGB open records. They collected it from their own asset, and the asset was filtering out actual legitimate documents, photos, reports, technical and operational and, executive summary type. There's enough evidence that I saw in classified setting that convinced me that they haven't. At least one.

For quite some time. One crash retrieval. Yeah. I can't say that it would go back to the 40s, 50s, or 60s or 70s. I know I was at the end of the 80s was the one I was exposed to. Okay. So they have had something and they've got hardware, but I don't see that they've been any successful.

Are there any other breadcrumbs that you gave to Dave Grush that, that might be useful to us from kind of like an open source intelligence perspective that we could start to follow and kind of pick up and do it. Oh, boys, this is really super, it's classified still. The bread firms I gave him are proprietary to NIDS and Bass, Bigelior Space, Advanced Space Studies, and classified to the DIA and another three-letter agency. That may be two. I need to wait for a couple of people at the corporate level to die of old age. And when they do that, I won't have trouble with lawyers. Right. And then I'll come out with the book.

Now, the classified stuff in that, I don't know what I'm going to do with that. That's classified for life. Yeah. Yeah. So they can declassify up to 25 years, but I've had so much derivative classification training that I found out that the rules for declassification are do include the ability to maintain classification up to even 75 years. So Bass has to maintain that classification for 75 years.

Wow. Intent. So if you sincerely can justify that you can't declassify after 25 years, 75 seems to be the maximum. How did your perspective change on what viable approaches were to break through propulsion physics from when you started it to when you end, when you finish the project? What did you initially think was interesting that you threw away and then what sort of came to the forefront? Well, what got thrown away is those concepts that don't meet the criteria for novel disruptive innovation or testable. or theoretically well-defined concepts. People come to you, or came to us and others,

with all kinds of inventions and ideas, like the Searle effect, the Dean Drive, those kind of things. Torzion, spacetime torsion. And torsion for your viewers is basically just a defect or crack or Fisher in the spacetime continuum. And Einstein looked at that, and it looked like the issue of, Well, if you're going to have a path of a particle undergoing motion through space time,

and it's going to encounter this, what's the gravitational or space-time curvature manifestations of coming into that crack, going around it? What is it do to you if you go around it or can you go across it? What are the physics consequences of doing that from within general relativity? So Einstein looked at all that, and he was trying to find out of torsion might give you a prescription. to describe elementary particle spin. And he found out that was not the case. So he also found out that torsion does not produce testable predictions that we have observed. And it actually produces or predicts inconsistent results.

And so he ended up tossing away torsion saying, you know, it's a great theoretical concept to look at. but it doesn't hold water because it makes the general altivistic field equations inconsistent. So it loses its self-consistency. It will make wrong predictions of phenomenon already observed. And it's just not refined enough. There's just something missing from it. And it cannot definitely be used to describe particle spin, whether it be macroscopic particles or quantum particles.

It just didn't reach that threshold. So Ringamacher actually did an experiment, and I'm not going to get into it because I don't remember enough of it anymore. And he did an experiment that was specifically designed to test whether torsion existed in space time. And it was a well-thought-out apparatus, very well-designed. They did it at General Electric. So they had a staff of physicists and engineers to help do the prediction on what such an instrument would be like and how it would function and how it would function and how you. you would design it and build it. So they did it just like Kipthorne and the big giant team that formed LIGO did when they got

started looking at gravitational wave detectors in the 1970s. And he got an old result. Basically, he couldn't find any sign of any space-time torsion. And so at least at that level, it was thorough enough type of experiment. It's just like what Gary Nolan said, it was data. And then the data formed the evidence. and then you interpret it in the context of the hypothesis, and then you form your conclusion. And the conclusion was, we don't see spacetime torsion, so it must not exist, at least at that level.

That doesn't close the door on torsion because there could be other experiments. Somebody can think of some other formalism. Yeah, yeah, that's right. But unfortunately, we haven't seen that happen yet. And the interesting thing is that, like I said, if you go back to general relativity, and Einstein's messing with that when he was devised. developing the general theory of relativity and it's 16 field equations. It starts out as 256 field equations, but due to symmetry properties, you can knock them down to 16. And I think

a couple more will bring it down to 10. So 10 field equations, and it just basically gets you inconsistent results. And that's a problem. So it's telling you already that you're not going to get right answers by incorporating torsion. And that's a problem because that means, You know, you're trying to develop a physics that produces a testable prediction that when you observe them, you're not going to just observe new predictions. You want to observe old predictions just to make sure the theory is still correct because it's not to predict the old stuff that have been observed. Old phenomenon. And it didn't do that. It just gave you wrong answers all the way around.

Yeah. Now, when you talk about like the end order differential equations associated with GR and you get 2 and 56 equations that only simplified due to symmetry, What is your perspective on the approach to like mathematical beauty and physics? I mean, do you insist or do you have a notion that the theory of everything or the gut will turn out to be elegant? Or do you sort of think it might be clumsy and clunky and, you know, 19,000 equations? I mean, do you have any perspective on that? With regard to what?

A unified field theory? I don't think it's like it's. Yeah. No. I don't, I'm in the camp of physicists. that we already know, and a lot of other physicists know, that Einstein proved that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. It emerges from the fabric of spacetime when it's distorted or curved or bent.

And Sakharov, he believed that the metric elasticity of space, described by the spacetime metric, which is just a very simple equation, actually. And he said that should come from the quantum vacuum fluctuations. because he sees the quantum vacuum fluctuations as being the seed of all existence. And he was right. Basically, that started from Richard Feynman when he got the Nobel Prize for the quantum electrodynamics theory.

And then later on, when that got unified with the weak nuclear force, it became the electro-week theory. Separately, we have quantum chromodynamic theory, which describes the theory overseeing the strong nuclear force, which basically emerges from quark or quantum chromodynamics or the interaction between quarks and gluons, gluons being the photons of the strong nuclear force. They don't have the mass,

they don't have the mass, they move at the speed of light, they have a spin one, just like a photon does, but unlike a photon, they have three color charges, or it can have a combination of those color. Actually, they have two color charges. So they have a combination of color charges, which are a symmetry property of the theory. They're not an electric charge, really.

They actually have no electric charge. generally can't be separated. Is that right? You can't get color charged particles in terms of pulling them apart, topping a color. You can, but inside the hadrons, you can. But when you have high-energy collisions, like what happened at the relativistic heavy ion collider at Brookhaven National Lab, for a brief instant, or just an instant long enough that you can measure it, you can pull the quarks out of the hadrons. They'll be mixed in with the gluons, and you will actually produce quark gluon plasmas. And the plasmas will exist as a, as, as an entity. I don't want to say a soliton, but as an entity on its own, and it's outside of the

elementary particle from which it was created. The collider is colliding heavy atoms, usually uranium, lead, iron, even protons. Yeah, at 99.9996% the speed of light. And so there's enough energy center of mass energy in there in the relativistic refs frame that you can literally blow those hadrons apart. A hadron is basically two classes, mesons and barions. And of the barions, there's protons and neutrons. So basically, you're looking at the heavy nuclei of these ions. So you strip the electrons off, and you're going to have these super heavy uranium or iron or lead. Oh, gold and silver in other ones, and even as light as a single proton for hydrogen atom nucleus. And they smash these things together, and you're liberating, literally, the quarks right out of those protons.

And then the heavier atoms out of all the protons and neutrons, they get bashed into each other at really high energy. And so that's an example of when that happens. So QCD theory is not complementary or compatible with electoral weak theory. They cannot be unified. Right. That was a dream. That was a projection and extrapolation. It has not come to fruition. Likewise, gravity is not a force of nature. It emerges from space. time phenomenon, the space-time manifold or the continuum, however you want to describe it. And it's a coupling constant measures the strength of the interaction force between particles. So for the quantum electrodynamics, that's the electromagnetic fine structure constant.

Then for electrow wheat theory, well, now that's blended in with the weak nuclear force. Wheat force is responsible for the decay of quarks. And high-energy quarks, so low-energy quarks, radioactive decay is another one, where atoms transmuton decay away and elementary particles are emitted, or even alpha particles, which are helium nucleus are emitted. So that's what the weak were. So it turned out they're both two sides of the same coin of the same unified force. Well, that's coupling constant is actually the electromagnetic fine structure constant

divided by 100 times a proton mass squared. So it's scale to the proton mass. So then when you're talking about gravity, gravity's coupling constant. It has, the first two I mentioned, have known dimensions. The coupling constant in general relativity is the universal gravitational constant times 8x5 divided by the speed of light to the fourth power. You know what the units of that are? One over force.

One over Newton's. That's right. And that's a coupling constant to convert the dimensional units of the stress energy tension, which is the source of space-time curvature. That's in units of joules per cubic meter or energy density or pressure. because an equivalent is Newton's per square meter. Okay, so those have to be converted using that one over Newton factor from the coupling constant into units of one over meter square.

That's how you measure spacetime curvature on the left side of the field equation. That has the richie curvature tensor and the richie scalar multiplied by the metric tensor and one half, and they take this difference between the two. For that reason, we know we really can't unify those two forces. It's really electro-week and quantum chromodynamics, and we can't unify it to space-time curvature model. And everybody's still attacking quantum super string has kind of died away because it can't make useful predictions,

or testable predictions. However, it's been very successful in mathematics and geometry and topology. They have predicted a lot of new things in those areas, but they're still hacking away at trying to get it to work as a quantum gravity theory. Same thing with quantum loop gravity. and gosh, Roger Penrose had the most sexy version of quantum gravity that I fell in love with when I was in graduate school and it came out. It was Twister Theory.

So he replaced the whole concept with a whole new, instead of a four-dimensional space time point of X, Y, Z, and a T or different coordinate system, but you'll always have a time in there. And instead, he was looking at energy, momentum as a four-vector to describe an event in space time. So we wanted to build an edifice of an algebra that handled that, then a geometry that that algebra builds up. And from that, he was hoping to get a unified picture of the forces of nature and gravity. And it was beautiful. Again, like super string theory, great, beautiful mathematical results came out as geometrical. Oh, my gosh, this thing is an exercise of the most advanced version of complex math. You've seen complex math when you were in aerospace engineering.

So it just didn't go anywhere. I've been predicting. It just didn't give you anything used to. Yeah, so basically, we can't see a unified field theory coming on to that. Well, Dr. Davis, thank you so much for sitting down with us. It's been incredibly revelatory, and we're so glad you came this year to give a talk at Seoul. We hope we see you back. Oh, yeah.

Thank you very much. Yeah, absolutely. See you, John. You're both in a treat. Thank you, sir. You won't wait another 14 years this. Enjoy more ways to save at Ralph's like low prices in every aisle. And when you download the Ralph's app, you can clip and save more with digital

coupons every week. Plus, you can earn fuel points to save up to $1 per gallon at the pump. At Ralph's, you can enjoy more ways to save and more rewards every time you shop. So it's always easy to save big every day with savings and rewards. Ralph's SoCal for over 150 years. Savings may vary by state. Fuel restrictions apply. C-Sight for details.