Danny Jones Podcast - #334 - Dark Matter Expert: New Evidence UFOs Have Been Here For 1 Million Years | Matthew Szydagis

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Watch every episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Matthew Szydagis is a professor at the University at Albany Department of Physics, pursuing experimental particle astrophysics, in particular the direct laboratory detection of dark matter. Matthew has been a member of UAPx, helping to seek answers regarding the true nature of UFO's from a scientific perspective. SPONSORS https://rag-bone.com - Use code DANNY for 20% off site wide. https://cornbreadhemp.com/danny - Use code DANNY for 30% off. https://headspace.com/dannyjones - Get Headspace FREE for 60 days. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off EPISODE LINKS https://www.uapexpedition.org FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - World's largest dark matter experiment 10:57 - Quantum Mechanics and the Brain 19:06 - How will dark matter change the world? 23:02 - Big bang theory debunked 32:06 - It's getting harder for science to be wrong 41:58 - Why Elon froze dark matter funding 47:32 - New planet discovered & the cosmic pie chart 55:19 - Why anti-gravity research went dark 01:10:35 - The moon landing conspiracy & simulation hypothesis 01:19:45 - Hunting UFOs with radiation detection 01:29:21 - Evidence UFOs have been here for 1.1 million years 01:38:37 - Ancient discoveries that predate technology 01:45:08 - 6 times psuedo-science turned out to be correct 01:55:54 - Other species of hominids 02:02:25 - Why we don't have footage of a UFO crash yet 02:09:27 - UFOs are immune to nuclear weapons 02:16:43 - Proof the Tic Tac UFO is not man-made 02:18:19 - Proof Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath 02:26:58 - Evidence the Bob Lazar story is fake 02:35:47 - Eric Davis holds the secrets to UFO phenomenon 02:39:53 - New study on Roswell UFO crash material Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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 three-burner gas grill. Or get $50 off a 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. Kayak gets my flight, hotel, and rental car right.

So I can tune out travel advice that's just plain wrong. Bro, Skycoin, way better than points. Never fly during a Scorpio full moon. Just tell the manager you'll sue. Instant room upgrade. Stop taking bad travel advice. Start comparing hundreds of sites with kayak and get your trip right. Bad advice?

You talking to me? Kayak, got that right. So what type of physics do you do? Well, so my mainstream effort is the search for dark matter. So I work on the LZ dark matter experiment, which is deployed underground in South Dakota. It's the world's largest and best dark matter experiment. So I'm an astro-particle physicist. Okay.

Can you explain what that dark matter experiment is and how it works? Sure. So I should probably start by explaining what dark matter itself is. So it's a hypothetical form of matter that we are very, very sure exists because we have indirect evidence. Evacional evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, primarily through gravity. So we know there's more matter than we can see, and we know it's not made of the same particles, constituents as ordinary matter. And so one of the ways to look for dark matter is you actually create particle detectors.

You deploy them deep underground because the idea is dark matter would pass through the earth unimpeded, like neutrinos and similar particles and interact with your detector. So in the LZ detector, we use a gigantic bucket, basically. It's a thermos, actually. The formal term is cryostat of liquid xenon. So xenon's a very good element because it produces light when external particles interact with it. And so you get flashes of light whenever you have external particles, external radiation interact with the xenon. So we have this deployed almost a mile underground in South Dakota. Wow.

Are there any images of this we can see? like that gives you like a good how how big is it absolutely so it's a it's 10 it's 10 ton scale liquids the detector it's about um i'm a scientist so i use meters so just multiply by three for feet or just pretend i'm saying yards so it's like one and a half meters high is this similar to yards or meters and yeah yeah extremely similar so it's one and a half meters tall by one and a half meters wide roughly but that's inside of a of a water tank and several other layers of shielding because we want to be sure if we have a detection that it's dark matter not something else so it has a lot of layers of shielding.

So actually we've got some images coming up right now. So you can see the diagram from Smithsonian there. There's a diagram of how it works right there. So a particle comes in, produces a flash of light as well as loosen some electrons off of the atom. So we actually get two signals. First, a flash of light, primary flash of light in the liquid, and then a secondary flash of light up top from the electrons that got ripped out.

So the time between the two signals gives us the depth of the event. and the hit pattern of the light gives us the radial position. So we have three-dimensional position reconstruction of any incoming particles that interact with the detector. And what does this tell you specifically about dark matter? Well, we're looking for something extra beyond the ordinary particles that are going to constantly interact, like just gamma rays and just betas and radiation from the environment. So we're looking for something extra that is going to be above the constant normal. of the regular, you know, old school particles we know and love.

So here's a picture of the actual experiments. It's actually made of, it's white because it's made of Teflon, because Teflon actually reflects ultraviolet light. And so that helps bounce the light into the photo sensors at the top and the bottom. So we're hoping that a particle of dark matter comes in, bumps into an atom of xenon, and makes a flash of light that we can detect reproducibly. How many particles of dark matter have you seen? None.

None yet. No. So when I say we're the world's best dark matter, experiment, it's because we've measured zero better than anybody else. So we actually, you know, you would hear about it from the mainstream media if we had actually made a discovery. Because we've been, this would be a front page of material, huh? Potentially, just like the gravitational waves discovery was with LIGO a few years ago. So it would be a big deal.

So dark matter is just a theory. That word is misused. So in science theory means fact. So the phrase just a theory is one of those things that like raises like my skin. because there's no such thing. So a theory in science means incontrovertible fact. Theory? Yes.

When other people, when non-scientists use the word theory, they mean hypothesis. Ah. So dark matter is a very well-established theory in the sense that even though we don't have direct evidence, we have so many mountains of observational evidence that very few people doubt that there's something there. Got it. So for now, it's just a hypothesis. Yeah, well, it's kind of in a gray area towards theory because it's got so much indirect evidence in its favor. So it's sort of like people will refer to it as a dark matter theory.

I prefer hypothesis because we don't have conclusive observation in the lab yet. And isn't it, isn't it, don't we also have another hypothesis that dark matter has mass to it? Oh, no, that's guaranteed. Oh, that's guaranteed. That's not separate. It has to have mass because otherwise it can't produce gravity. And that was because when we observed galaxies, we noticed that the center of the galaxy has the same spin rate as the rim of the galaxy, meaning that there's like mass that's flattening

the spin rate. Is that close? No, not quite. Not quite. So at high radius, there's a flattening when there should be a dropping off. So, for example, take a Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune is going to be orbiting the sun more slowly than the earth. Okay.

That's just a natural consequence of the law of gravity. Because it's farther away. Yes. However, what we see in galaxies is that the farther out you go, we didn't see that drop off. And that's been attempted to be explained without dark matter, without additional mass. There are theories of modified gravity, but the vast majority really don't work because they can't explain why, for example, you have galaxies apparently that we've discovered over the last several years that seem to be 100%, almost 100% dark matter and 0%. So that really implies that dark matter is stuff. And you can have more stuff and less stuff.

So the farther out you get into the galaxy, the stuff is spinning at the same speed as the stuff that's close to the galaxy. Yeah, instead of dropping off, which would be natural. Right, right. Yeah. So it builds up. So there are slow speeds at the center. Then it builds up because you've got more mass essentially underneath you effectively. And so the speed builds up.

But there should be a peak and then a drop off. But we don't see that expected drop off that's predicted from both Newtonian mechanics. as well as relativity. And dark matter is just like theoretically all around us, and it's just the invisible stuff that we don't see because it's electromagnetically indetectable, right? So dark matter would be all around us right now? That's right. It's in this room.

Well, it also depends on the number density. We don't know the number density. So dark matter, individual dark matter particles might be very rare. We think we know the average energy density, but we don't know like how many dark matter particles are there per unit volume necessarily. Hmm. You can only guess that.

What are your thoughts on the John Wheeler, It from Bit stuff? Oh, you mean how everything is computational? Is like one's and zeros. And like the dark matter is like computation, like a computational, you know, cloud of ones and zeros. Like Adam, like the idea is everything is a yes or no, right? If you like boil everything down atoms and protons and neutrons down to everything, it could be binary bits, right? Is that basically what it from bit is? Yeah, but I completely disagree because with quantum mechanics, you have something in between zero and one.

That's the whole point behind qubits in quantum computers is that you have more than just zero and one now for the first time. And so I think that it's interesting speculation and philosophy. But also, I'm an experimental physicist. I don't like, I want to know what testable prediction can an idea make. If an idea doesn't have a testable prediction, then it's not a scientific. theory. John Wheeler did a lot of excellent science outstanding, but he also did a lot of philosophizing kind of metaphysics, nothing wrong with that. But if you don't have a testable prediction, I don't, I'm agnostic towards something. I don't know what to think about it.

Yeah, I don't know how you would test that. Yeah. And so you're saying quantum, quantum computing would render that irrelevant or render that? Well, he'd probably disagree because he'd say, well, it's still bits all the way down but the thing is with quantum computing you have the ability to have um indeterminate states okay it is true that once you make a measurement everything is still spin up or spin down zero or one but you also have the indeterminate states that exist prior to measurements you know schrodinger's cat and all that stuff so so that's why i'm not really comfortable with that over simplistic assessment i would say that everything is zeros and and ones because i think um we're ignoring what fractions you know we're ignoring, you know, rational, irrational numbers, you know, pi is irrational number, it's not

zero or one. So I just think that's kind of an oversimplification in the world is a lot more nuance. A lot of supposed theories of everything really like grossly oversimplify the world into one sentence and miss a lot of the nuance that's hard to explain with some of the like simplistic ideas. Yeah, it seems like in this realm of research, there's not many things that that line up well there's like there's not many ideas that explain other things right like like physics doesn't explain consciousness like there's i don't i don't see how you can get from like protons and neutrons to consciousness you know like i could see how we could get from something like binary bits if like you say we live we live in some sort of computation then i would

understand consciousness perfectly like it's a computer right but there's just some things that just don't make sense to me. And it's just we try to in science and in physics and in cosmology and all these different lanes of research, it's like we always try to find a consensus and a good way to fit this peg into this hole. But like oftentimes it just doesn't work. You know what I'm saying? When it doesn't work though, that's when major new discoveries are made. But yeah, consciousness, that's not really physics. Maybe it will be in the end. but I mean that, you know, we've got neurology, we've got biology. Although I often joke, this really annoys my biology friends.

And so is biology just applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied physics. But then a mathematician can come and tell me, this is an XKCD comic. Physics is applied math. So it's really, so physics is the, I would say, is the bottom of science is the foundation. However, math, which is not a science, it's a tool, but math is an even deeper foundation than that. So if that makes sense. I'm actually a big proponent of the Lucas Penrose argument,

the Lucas Penrose argument that humans are not machines, and they claim to be able to prove that using Gerdell's incompleteness theorem. And so I'm a big proponent of that. Humans are not machines? Yeah, that the human consciousness cannot be explained as a classical computer. Are you familiar with the Lucas Penrose argument? I'm not familiar with it. So this is the idea that it's a very deep idea in philosophy,

that it's an argument made by Roger Penrose, And Lucas, I don't remember's first name, unfortunately, at the moment. But they made this argument using, you're familiar with Goodell's Incompleteness Serum. Nope. Okay, so basically, it's possible to show that there are true statements that cannot be provable from your assumptions. But since a human being can know that, but a machine cannot know that, therefore humans are not machines. It's kind of, I'm grossly oversimplifying it, you know, I'm kind of summarizing it. Can you say it again?

Yeah, so basically a human being is capable of seeing. a statement that they know to be true but cannot be proven from a set of mathematical axioms or assumptions. But a computer can't do that. Therefore, the argument goes computers and therefore humans are not computers, at least classical computers, a human brain or human mind, if you will. There's another way to look at the argument, which is that as technology improves, biology, neurology, we learn more about the human brain.

What if there comes a time where we know everything about the human brain? Everything there is no, we're using functional MRI, everything. We're talking centuries from now, millennia from now. But now that we know that, now we can hack ourselves. Now we can change our own programming because we know the whole program.

And because we can think that thought, because I just spoke that thought, according to the Lucas Penrose argument that proves that I'm not a machine, or that my mind is not equivalent to a classical computer now obviously a lot of people have pushed pack against this and don't agree with the argument and try to poke holes in it so it's been going back and forth and back and forth but i i'm a pretty big proponent of this argument that humans cannot be reduced to just a classical computer yeah no i don't think you have to

reduce us i i don't understand really what that even means like reducing us to a classical computer basically what even is a class like a classical computer what do you mean by that i'm saying basically let's let's not think of it from from a computing perspective let's switch to a more biological perspective another way of putting it is you know we're just um there's no free will everything is just chemical processes it's basically mushy and wet but it's the equivalent of silicon chips in a computer but it's just biology it's just the biological equipment just a mushy equivalent of what we do with silicon computer chips but there's no free will we just you know we react to our environments, every action a human being takes is predetermined from chemical processes,

biological processes in the brain. So that's sort of the reductionist approach of explaining what consciousness is or what sentience is. Right, right. Does that make more sense now? Yeah, that does make sense. And I would agree with you there that that's not what it is. Yeah, I vehemently. I disagree with that. But of course, you know, somebody who believes that, say, of course you do. Of course you, you because I was pre-programmed to have that disagreement right now. Right. Biologically, I'm conditioned to have that belief. I've got to tell you, I am totally obsessed with rag and bone infused denim.

And thankfully, they happen to sponsor this episode. Their denim feels like it was made for me. Slim where I want it and relaxed where I need a little extra give. But this ain't your typical old school denim. The first time I tried on a pair of their infused jeans, I was blown away. They felt broken in right away. The stretch was where it counts, and the structure where you don't want limp denim. I could actually move in them.

Honestly, I forgot I was even wearing jeans. You can see it in the stitching, the weight, and the way they hold their shape long after you slip them on. You know how other jeans are? They look awesome, but they fall apart. Or the ones that last are stiff. Not here. With Rag and Bone Infuse, you finally get both. The look hits hard too.

Infuse uses a proprietary eight-step over dye and finishing process, so every wash has that rich dimensional color. that gets better over time. I got mine in a deep indigo blackwash. I get asked about them all the time. Rag and Bone has been obsessing over denim craftsmanship for 20 years. Their infused collection is built to last season after season. Softened and subtle with wear and lived in feel.

If you want jeans that grow with you instead of wearing you out, infuse is where it's at. It's time to upgrade your denim with rag and bone. And for a limited time, our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order with code Danny at Rag and that's 20% off at rag dash bone.com with the promo code dany spelled da n-n-n-y when they ask you where you heard about them please support the show and let them know we sent you it's linked down below now back to the show yes yes it's just there when it comes to this stuff that there are there are so

many unique experiments that have been done that just are unexplainable right like there's uh like the like the the double slit experiment or the um like the shortingers cat and all these things that you know they uh i don't understand how to explain them like in in the term in terms of physics or like you know where do we go from there you know we don't need to understand something to use it nobody knows what time is can you define time for me there is no definition of time and yet we manipulate it so for example we use relativistic corrections for GPS satellites in order to account for the fact that time is is shifting because of speed and gravity we know this yet we don't even know what time is we don't know what energy is but we

manipulate it so just because we don't understand in a way that can be explained to everybody we use quantum mechanics on a daily basis our computers or phones wouldn't work without it it and yet nobody can explain to the satisfaction to non-scientists, at least, like, how can something be both a wave in a particle at the same time? Well, it's interesting. It doesn't matter. With no explanation, we can still take the mathematical consequences of what we know to be true follow through with that.

And we still have physics and engineering and technology without understanding the foundation. Right. It's very interesting. Yeah. Yeah, we can flip the switch and not have to know exactly how it works. Exactly. Exactly. We're willing to get the light by flipping the switch without, we don't have to really understand exactly how all the electricity works.

Exactly. All the little circuits. Exactly. Before the invention of calculus, for thousands of years, you could cross a room in violation of Xenos paradox. Are you familiar with Zenos paradoxes? No. The ancient Greek. So he said you cannot cross a room.

It's impossible. I'll do it right in front of you, right? So it's just, we laugh nowadays, modern people laugh. He said what? You cannot cross room. You can't cross room because let's say I'm crossing a room. if I cross half of the room, I still need to go half of the room, right?

But now if I cross half of that distance, I still have another half to go. And what he shows is that it's an infinite series. But that's because they didn't have the tools of calculus to show that a sum of an infinite number of numbers can sum to a finite number. But the thing is, for thousands of years before we understood that, that didn't stop us from crossing rooms.

Right. Right? Do you see what I mean? So even before you understand something, you can still manipulate it. You can use it. Human beings were able to create fire. Right. Without understanding what fire is. Sure. For thousands of years. For hundreds of thousands of years. Right. Exactly. So what would that do? What do you think would change if we were able to use that little machine that was in there and find dark matter? Find some dark matter. Yeah, excellent question. How would you be able to apply that? Nothing. Nothing. It has absolutely no. practical applications whatsoever, period. It's the equivalent of the Higgs boson. What is the Higgs boson done in your life today? The God particle or whatever name you might be more familiar with. Discovered 2012, looking for decades. What has it done in your life lately? I mean, I've enjoyed some

fun documentaries on it. On the Higig particle fever maybe or something of the other documents. Yeah. Nothing. Now I'm going to follow that up, though. When electricity was discovered, what was it good for? all kinds of stuff light bulbs nothing no no no no I'm saying when it was first discovered it was good for absolutely when was it nothing well it's not like one thing because it was it took decades it took centuries of experimentation by different people to harness it as max well yeah so basically what I'm trying to tell you is here's here's a story I don't know if it's true there's a story that physicists tell that a man asked um fair One of the, you know, we've got Faraday's law of induction, one of the most important scientists working in the 19th century, figuring out what electricity and magnetism are.

Allegedly someone asked him what electricity is good for. And he said, I don't know, but one day you'll be taxing it. And so like, our electricity runs our lives. But let's go back to the 1840s. Electricity was worthless. It was a game for scientists and engineers to just screw around in the lab. It had no practical applications. So basically, my point of what dark matter is,

I can't answer your question what the practical applications are because nobody knows. No one has the imagination to know what the application could be three centuries from now. Dark matter could be so integral part of our lives like electricity is or the internet.

There's no way to know. I'll give you another example. Anti-matter. Another great example. What's that? So anti-matter is when you have, So for every single particle of matter, there's a particle of the opposite electric charge. Same mass, but opposite electric charge. So there's like proton, there's antiproton.

Sure. there's another thing that's very important. So when matter and antimatter come together, they annihilate into gamma rays, into radiation, into energy. So like a tiny little bit of antimatter would be, I mean, this was the, I think the plot of angels and demons would be better than a nuclear weapon. Way better. Like way more efficient. So when antimatter was first discovered in the 1930s, I mean it was hypothesized before that, but when we first found antimatter in the lab, who would have dreamt that 40, 50, 60 years later, we were using it to diagnose cancer.

In PET scans, the P in PET scan stands for positron. That's an anti-electron. In a PET scan, you're injected with a small, very safe, very small, safe amount of antimatter in order to diagnose where the cancer's tumors, because the cancer's tumors will gobble up more of the antimatter emitting sugar. And who would have dreamt of that?

Antimatter was useless when it was first hypothesized. Useless was discovered. It didn't even have a practical application for at least, I think, four decades, maybe five. And so it's the same thing with dark matter. Previously, I've hypothesized maybe dark matter could be useful as a fuel for interstellar travel in some way.

Because it's everywhere. Why would you wanna take your fuel with you, why not use something that's everywhere? Like, I have, I don't know how it would work. I have no idea. There would have to be some kind of reaction or you'd suck it in, chuck it out the back. Like, I'm not sure how it would be useful, but there's just an idea I've thrown out there in the past. Yeah, that's interesting. Have you seen this new discovery of this cosmic microwave background radiation where they think it's from super early galaxy, the radiation from like suns of super early galaxies? You must be mixing.

up a few things because the cosmic microwave background was discovered in the 1960s. So that's very old news. And then... No, yes. But what I'm saying is this new discovery of early, early massive universes. Oh, you're talking about the re-ionization time, I think. So basically... They're saying that the majority, it could be anywhere between, I think, 1.4 to like 100% of the cosmic background radiation could be from stars from these super early massive universes that they found. I have not heard of this. With the James Webb Telescope. I have not heard of this. Steve, see if you can find this. Yeah. It's pretty insane because this kind of like blows up the whole Big Bang theory. Well, it pushes it back.

It like throws off the dates of everything. Well, that's fine. But here's the thing. The Big Bang Theory, remember theory means fact and science. It has overwhelming mountains of evidence. So nothing can overthrow the Big Bang Theory, period. I'm going to say it right now. Maybe not overthrow it, but it significantly throws it.

Yeah. No, we have to change it. Squirrely as fuck. No, so what we need to do is, for example, the date could be wrong. So let me clarify what I mean because we're going to get all these angry. This would mean these. So these galaxies that they. They found in this new study with the James Webb Telescope.

They say that they were probably developed, they probably came into existence around 300 to 400 million years after the Big Man. Oh, okay, okay. I know what you're talking about now. So it's like the typical galaxies take way longer. Yeah, yeah, no, so I know what you're talking about. So this I heard of before already, this has been quote unquote discovered and rediscovered the past two, three years actually. So there have been hints here and there.

And James Webb is just the latest piece of evidence of it. Okay. So basically what it boils down to. Steve, so you can find anything on this. I think I sent you links. So what it boils down to is galaxies can come together much faster than we thought. So that's what it boils down to. Okay.

However, it does not disprove that the universe, that the, that the, that the, oh, this is, oh, no, this is not what I'm, this. Okay, this is something else. New paper shows the cosmic microwave background radiation can be explained entirely by energy, recently discovered early. Yeah, no, this is a crackpot. It's crackpot. Yeah, this is nonsense. Why is it crackpot? The Cosmike Ray background was created 379,000 years after the Big Bang.

We've already established that. We've studied it for decades. Like this is nonsense. Like... Well, there, is this... Can you zoom in a little bit, Steve? Yeah, where's the link to the scientific paper? Oh, but now that EMG, scroll down.

Where's the link? Let's see. Let's see if we find it. Scroll down. Keep going. Boop-oo-bo-bo-bo-boo. Steve. There you go.

Click on it. Okay. of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background radiation by Edo and what journalist is published in? Oh no, what journal is it published in? Does it say? Anyway, I'm not a cosmologist. Find out, Steve. So this could go off the...

Okay. Yeah, this happens every few years. So the cosmic... Right, right. Someone claims to overthrow the Big Bang Theory and then it's disproven in five minutes and then everybody goes back to work. Like, this, I've seen this for the past 20 years every couple months. So, yeah, this is not new.

You've seen this how often? Every few months there'll be some guy who publishes some paper or a pair of people like here that claims they've got some new cosmological model. And it's always wrong because they always miss something obvious. Yeah, this is, yeah, I'm not familiar with this. No, not really. I see this every few months. Yeah, this is nonsense. I mean, the cosmic microwave background is like a perfect match.

Steve, what journal was this published in? I'm still looking. But even if so, I would, I'm, I'm, I'm going to lay down. I would lay down some cash right now. This hasn't been published in any journal. It's only on the archive because this is, this is, look, you can't wake up tomorrow and we can't undo something we already know. So let me explain. There's a lot we still don't know about the universe. But the little bit that we know, we know very, very well. So like, for example, we can't wake up tomorrow and like, oh, Einstein is wrong. Surefire way to tell a crackpot paper physics is it starts with Einstein was wrong, therefore blah, blah, blah, blah. No, it's too late. Because if Einstein, if Einstein, was wrong, your GPS wouldn't work. Your phone wouldn't work. Your computer would work. Like, we know that our theories

are incomplete, but they're not wrong. There's a difference between wrong and incomplete. So the Big Bang theory is incomplete. There's so much we still don't know about the beginning of the universe. But these papers that claim 100% wrong, I immediately know that. Well, that paper is, I don't think they're claiming

it's 100% wrong. They are. They are. It said on the Twitter. It said on the Twitter that they think the CMB could, that the early massive galaxies could equate for, between one and like a hundred percent so they don't know it could be any amount any a certain

percentage of them how can they explain that the cmb matches the dark matter and dark energy ratio that it has all these other cross checks that have been done with the supernova studies with the barriana well we don't know because we didn't read the whole thing yeah but what does this say Steve it was popular in nuclear physics B nuclear physics that's not a cosmology journal so how are they saying anything about cosmology that would be the equivalent of for example You're gatekeeping. I'm not gatekeeping. You sound like you are.

No, because they can publish in a cosmology journal and they can get peer review there. No, gatekeeping is when you don't allow something to get even peer review. This should be peer reviewed. You're discrediting it because you don't think it's in a qualitative journal. We haven't even read the whole thing.

No, but here's the thing. I'm discrediting it because we already know what we know about the cosmic microwave background. It's too late for it to be that level of wrong. It could be 1% wrong. Absolutely. 100% wrong? You said between 1% and 100%.

said, but between one and 100 is not possible? 100 is not one, absolutely sure. So, so between one and 100 is absolutely possible. If you go back to that tweet, go back to the bottom of the tweet. Yeah, but that's a very bold claim. Go back to the bottom of the tweet. But look, if you, look, if you go by every single new paper and every single tweet that comes out, you would have 20 different conflicting views of the universe that can't all be right.

So that's another way of looking at it. Well, you also have people who have dedicated their lives to studying for the microwave background. Exactly. And so you're going to piss a lot of people off. And there's going to be a lot of bias. No, no, it's not about pissing people off. Well, I mean, this is just normal human. This is just a human nature of this is going to happen.

You're going to have competition. You're going to have egos that are hurt. And you're going to have people that disagree with this because how can you hurt the egos of people who are dead? There's a lot of people that are alive that have spent decades doing this. I know. And they've spent decades. What are you looking at, Steve? what is this so the tweet okay so so this tweet happened in June 30th right okay but it's

referencing a paper that was published in May okay so a month later oh right yes so but I'm not a cosmologist so scroll up scroll let's read this let's see this so zoom in says nothing to do with what I do um the new findings are except are if if the findings are accepted and there's no reason not to accept exactly see that sentence that's a key crackpot red alarm sentence. No real scientist says that. Like if I found evidence of aliens or of dark matter, I would never say, and there's no reason not to accept them.

That's ego and that's hubris. This is just somebody on Twitter basically recycling it for somebody. This is not the scientist. This is just some Twitter guy. I didn't know that. You didn't say it. This is some guy trying to summarize it for Twitter. Oh.

Okay. So here's what the implications are. Oh, okay, okay. I think I know what's happening then. Oh, okay, okay. The paper's probably fine. This happens all the time. This is some random person on Twitter exaggerating and over sensationalizing a scientific claim. It would be the equivalent of somebody taking me and Kevin's UAPX paper where we went out and looked for aliens and putting out a tweet and saying that I found the proof that aliens exist. It's an exaggeration of what's in the real scientific paper. That's possible. That's possible. I mean, I see this all the time, all the time. So they're saying cosmic inflation loses observational justification. That's fine. CMB power spectrum loses predictive relevance, dark energy inferred from cosmic microwave background may be mischaracterized.

CMB power spectrum loses predicted relevance. That's really, really improbable. And it has nothing to do with egos, has nothing to do with fact that people spend decades on it. It's because that's been cross-checked so many different ways. so many times already. So like about half of these things on the list are not news to me. Like, yeah, of course that's wrong. It needs fixing. We already knew that. And half of the list are things that are almost impossible to be wrong because there's too many mountains of evidence going back decades. It's not about hubris, not about ego. Truth is not by majority, not at all. Numerous times,

numerous times in human history, we've been very wrong about our view of the universe. That's getting harder now. If you're like me, you could probably benefit from a little extra peace of mind. And that's where cornbread hemp's CBD gummies come in clutch. Sometimes I don't want to be blitzed. And cornbread's gummies are like a backdoor to relief without the mental effects. I take one of these 750 milligram CBD gummies whenever I'm feeling stressed or I can't sleep and I just wait for the calmness to wash over my body.

Cornbread hemp use the best part of the hemp plant, the flour, for the purest potent CBD. They curate effects that specifically help with stress and discomfort, and I find the result to be remarkably effective. They also have formulas for sleeplessness, too. There's no fillers or junk, just full spectrum goodness. They've made CBD their specialty. My favorite is the berry flavor, but they have several flavors, including capsules if you don't want the sugar. Their products are third-party tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity. If you encounter as much stress as I do, then you should try cornbreads CBD and you can thank me later.

And for a limited time, they're offering you lucky listeners 30% off your first order. Don't miss out on this. Just go to cornbreadhemp.com slash Danny and use my code Danny at checkout. That's cornbread hemp.com slash da-n-n-N-N-Y and use that code. Danny to get 30% off your first order. And thank you to Cornbread Hemp for sponsoring this episode. Do you know why that's getting harder? Ancient people, I mentioned Zeno's Paisino, who was an ancient Greek philosopher earlier.

Ancient people could just do armchair philosophy and science. They didn't have telescopes. They didn't have microscopes. They have anything. So as science progresses, it's getting very harder to be wrong. Completely. Like you can say, ah, this piece of that theory was wrong. Yeah, absolutely.

But a wholesale paradigm shift that's getting less and less probable. It's getting harder and harder to do because you've got to explain then. Why were you wrong the last 70 years? How is that possible? Now I have to go back and explain every single piece of data with the new paradigm. That's getting harder and harder to do as we collect more data. Does that make sense? Yeah, totally.

It's getting harder and harder. Well, also the people that people have to come up, people that have other theories or that have other data, they have to justify if there's something that comes out, out that proves it wrong or they have to look at it wholeheartedly and like fully consider, does this shatter my belief? Or does this shatter and discredit the work that I've spent years doing? And I think a lot of people are incapable of doing that. But I don't understand that because I couldn't care less if dark matter didn't exist. I wouldn't go, oh my God, oh boohoo, my ego, all my decades of my life have been wasted.

No, not at all. Because as I've been working on Dark Matter, I've also been doing nuclear physics. I've been looking at neutrinos. So basically the way I look at it is, in my own world of looking for dark matter, I often encounter people who are like, oh yeah, what if dark matter doesn't exist? And your whole career is wasted. And I'm like, and I look at that person, I say, you have no clue how science works, at least how it works to me.

I don't give a damn if dark matter's real or not. My goal is not to go prove dark matter's real. My goal is to prove or disprove. And so this whole thing about, oh, cosmologists, you're saying egos, a good cosmologist is out there to find the truth. They don't care if they've been wrong for decades. A good scientist is out there to find the truth. Now you have bad apples out there who are people who are so full of themselves that they want their pet experiment or theory to be correct. I'm not one of those people, though.

Kevin, who you've had on the show, my good friend, Kevin is also not one. one of those people and earlier look I'm not gatekeeping I've I have suffered from gatekeeping I have had scientific papers rejected because people didn't like my idea mainstream ideas not just talking about UFOs or UAPs and so I think every scientific paper has a right to have peer review and not be for example rejected at the desk so but there's there's different levels of so-called gatekeeping if something is written by non-scientists, I don't think that's the case here.

If something's written by non-scientists, some dude in his basement who has a bachelor's degree in physics and they're going to redo everything without a PhD, and that's not going to happen. But a PhD scientist should not be gate-kept, if that's a word, from doing their work. And including if they have controversial new ideas, absolutely.

It should be peer-reviewed so that it can be challenged and there can be back and forth about it. Well, even peer review has been bastardized as well because I've seen plenty of cases where peer reviews have been done on credible academic research and books where people have done have peer reviewed something that don't even have the expertise in what they're peer reviewing but that's but that's right and this happened in specifically in one case where I actually talked to the guy and I said hey can I talk to you about this peer review you wrote on this guy's book where you actually like like completely destroyed it and now no one

takes it seriously he goes well it's not really my expertise you're the only one who did the peer review on it so the system is very broken. It's an imperfect system, but it's still the best we have. It's kind of like jury duty. We all hate jury duty, but can you imagine what our free democratic society would be like without it? It's the same thing with peer review. There are problems. You want to talk about, I'll give you countless examples. I had my colleague, Professor Cecilia Levi and I, we discovered a new type of radiation detector to look for dark matter, among other things, called the snowball chamber. We got rejected from multiple journals. We had one peer reviewer say to us,

it doesn't smell right. What's that supposed to mean? Is the math right? No, exactly. He said it doesn't pass the smell test. So here's the thing. And also the peer review process can be abused and it can be manipulated. Right. And with journals, with money.

But the solution to that is you fix the process. You don't say, oh, I don't believe in peer reviews. So I'm going to read every scientific crack up paper and trust them all immediately now. There's a middle ground between those extremes. And there are plenty of peer-review papers that are wrong. This happens all the time in biology and psychology. Yes, physics too, but I'm going to take the high horse and I look down on biology and psychology. I've seen statistics like something like 30%.

I hope I'm not wrong on that because lots of people make up statistics on the spot. I'm not trying to do that. But I have heard it claimed. I don't know if it's accurate. That's something like 30% of papers even in Nature magazine end up, like who passed peer-reviewed, they're wrong. And so what I'm trying to say is, is that not being peer-reviewed doesn't mean you're automatically wrong. Totally. But at the same time, getting peer-reviewed doesn't automatically mean you're right. Neither of those extremes are correct. There are top,

there's a top Stanford neurosurgeon who came out, who's still practicing, who said, uh, between 80 and 90 percent of all the medical medical literature in schools is wrong or outdated. I believe it. I believe it. I believe it. In physics, you can't say that though because physics is so foundational the whole the whole edifice would collapse remember earlier i said how biology is applied chemistry chemistry is applied physics there is truth to that statement and so physics so in fact i always get angry at the textbook companies you're gonna be like how is this connected anything you're just saying the basic physics that freshmen learn has been the same for centuries okay why do i need the 10th edition why do i need the 11th edition it's a

money-making scheme. So like physics, you don't learn any cutting-edge physics or new physics until your senior year or graduate school. I'm talking about college, of course, not high school. And so like, why do we need a new textbook on Newtonian mechanics? I've seen this. It makes no sense. I saw the statistics on school textbooks, like the amount of money that they make with no new stuff, just the printing. Can you find the stats on that? All they do is shuffle the homework problem numbers around. Right. But so my point is that, I believe that about the medical research claim you just said. But with physics, no, that's like, I mean, you can do basic experiments to show that most of physics is correct. Like so, so the basic foundation of physics has

been solid for centuries. What's new is like we've got relativity and quantum mechanics. We're not fully there yet. But classical mechanics is like forces, energies. That's like, that foundational structure is very, very solid. You don't need a new textbook for that every year to like just get money, more money from the students. Right. What is this? Steve? textbook revenue. In 2022, the pre-K through the K-12 textbook segment in the United States has generated 5.6 billion in revenue, reflecting 16% growth compared to the previous year. Oh my God. Why do I even need a textbook if I can just get a PDF? Despite these increases, the textbook publishing industry has generally experienced a decline in revenue since 2015 when it

reached 11.9 billion. It's declining because of the internet. And because of, you know, sneaky professors like me who are like, I'll just use the old edition. Why do I need a new addition? The physics hasn't changed. Why do I need a new addition for freshman physics? Right, right. That's very true. And then the other problem with academia is people are afraid to speak out of their lane. They're afraid to venture out because I've experienced this too on the podcast. I've experienced people in academia that are afraid to go on podcast because how they're going to be viewed by their peers or by the people that run their department. I couldn't care less.

I couldn't care less about what people think about me. You know why? I'm interested in only one thing, Danny. And that's to find the truth. And I don't care. Easy to say when you have people threatening to take your funding away. Well, I do have people. I've already had funding taken away.

Have you? Yeah. So if that was meant to be a dig at me, like that backfired because I already had doge already freeze my grants, I just, they were frozen for a while. Doge froze your grants? Yeah, because dark matters apparently woke. Yeah.

So you're not going to tell me that I'm sitting here saying that theoretically, oh, you know, I'm just here to do the truth and I'm an idealist and then I don't face consequences. I face consequences all the time. I have people making fun of me on a regular basis that I work on UFOs. I've been passed up for jobs because I work on UFOs for better jobs I currently have. I've been passed up for promotion. So you're not going to tell me that, like, I haven't faced the stigma or taboo because I work on UFOs, UAP.

Yes, I have. But I'm lucky that I'm at a university now that cherishes what I do and that actually allows it. That I'm very, very lucky. Me and my colleague, Kevin, you've had on the show. Yeah, Kevin Canoe. And my friends, our friend, Cecilia, we're lucky. You're right that many people are not that lucky. They speak out and funding things happen.

Absolutely. I'm not trying to downplay that at all. That happens. Well, a lot of people are scared. Friends of mine, friends of mine, I got lucky, my grant was unfrozen. They decided Dark Matters not woke and I can have it back. Oh, did they really? Yeah, so basically, but I have friends who've lost everything, who've lost NSF funding,

who've lost NIH funding. So I know people, I have friends and colleagues who lose funding. And sometimes it's because they have too big of a mouth, so to speak, right? Which is wrong, right? I'm saying, I support them. I wasn't saying there as an insulting way. I'm saying those are the, that's what their critics would say. So, and no, but the thing about, the positive side of academia is when you get tenure, you can't get fired.

And that's what's so beautiful. That's why I can work on UFOs with Kevin. That's why John Mack was able to, you know, work with, with experiencers, abductees, because he was had tenure. They still try to fire him. They still try to do it. Oh, yeah. But guess what? They ruined his life.

Try to. They tried to. But it backfired. Because here's the thing. for all of its flaws, academia allows you to work on whatever the hell you want after you have tenure and you're unfireable. Tenure is under assault right now. There are several states. Actually, I'm not sure.

I think Florida might be one of them. I know Ohio's one of them where tenure no longer exists. And so now if you're a professor, you're going to stay in the closet forever on whether it's UFOs, aliens or whatever. You can get fired like that. Now, like what happened with John Mack, I'm not saying tenure's perfect. Absolutely not. But notice what happened with him. It backfired.

Did he get fired in the end? No, they couldn't do it. They couldn't find any wrongdoing, and he had tenure. And so there are guardrails that allow people like me to just go off and, you know, work on UFOs. Wow. I didn't know tenure was removed in Florida. That's crazy. We should check that to see if that's accurate.

In Ohio, for sure. For sure this just happened recently. And is this something they're trying to do nationwide? Yes. And who's behind it? Well, a lot of MAGA folks are behind it, unfortunately. Are they really? Yeah, so they see, which I don't understand because in my, I have known for years, tenure protects

conservative professors. They can come out of the Republican closet after they have tenure. Jordan Peterson is a great example. Yeah, it's a great, you got to have tenure. And so they're the, you know the old expression cutting off your nose to spite your face? So they're just doing a self, it's as suicidal. It's very damaging because tenure protects. Republican and conservative professors.

Oh yeah, here's a list. Florida's on the list. As a 2025, several states have either removed or significantly weakened tenure protection for educators. Exactly. Florida's on the list. Arkansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin. Yeah, I don't know why Ohio's not listed there, but definitely Ohio has happened to as well. So, but what this does is it means it's worse than what you said earlier, Danny.

Why are they doing this though, Steve? Can you find out why? They're doing it because it's a punishment for liberal schools. is the idea is we're going to fire all the liberal professors. But what they don't understand is to fire all the liberal. That would be firing all of them. I don't know. There'll be no professors left.

Well, that's not true. But the thing is, but tenure protects the freedom you get. There's a term for this. Academic freedom is a beautiful thing. Sure. So when you're funding, let's say your federal funding is cut. Right. You know what you can do?

Because I protested the war in Israel. You can go find private donors. You can continue your work. Right. I'm not saying it's easy, but you can keep going. Right. And so that's what Kevin and I are doing is we're looking for private, you know, donors to keep the UFO work going.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of the UFO stuff is funded by private institutions. Well, there's no federal funding because, you know, there's still so much stigma. Oh, there's a lot of federal funding, but it's just dark black budget. Oh, yeah, yeah, of course, absolutely. But see, I want transparency and openness on this topic, which we sort of started sliding into. want it all you want. We're going to get it. Of course we're not going to get it.

Of course we're not. That's why people like me and Kevin are doing our own thing. Right. Without government funding, without their blessing, because we know it's hopeless to wait for disclosure. That's not happening. One other thing I wanted to ask you about, did you see this new plan that they discovered? There have been so many new ones discovered. This one was just a couple weeks ago called Ammonite.

Oh, that must be its nickname. Usually the name is like Kepler, 75, 65. Yeah, it was called K-14. Okay. So many planets are new discovered. I can't keep up with the new discoveries. So they said that it weakens the sixth planet theory or the ninth planet theory. Oh, you mean within our system?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. They're saying. Oh, you're not talking about an exa planet. They think it's like a planet that was originally a part of our solar system. Oh, rogue planet that was egoted. Yeah, it was ejected. Yeah, yeah.

And now it's got this crazy like oblong. Yes, yes, yes. 2004. KQ14, yeah. Oh, it was a couple years ago, 2023. Oh, okay. I just saw it recently. Yeah, yeah, this is very interesting.

It's one of those, like, objects that are out past Pluto's orbit. I sent you a whole thing on this, Steve, on your, on your texts. But yeah, no, it's, um... But we're constantly making new discoveries in astronomy like this. For the most part, it's stuff outside of our solar system, but we're also making discoveries inside of our solar system. Right, right. Or just like on the edge of our solar system.

And it shows like how little we know just about like outside this, the borders of our solar system. It's crazy. Well, you know, to tie this back to also, we talked a lot about my mainstream scientific effort, which until a few, until, you know, until the last, until the current presidential administration was never controversial. It was mainstream scientific effort was dark matter. Yeah. And that effort. One thing I forgot to say earlier is that dark matter, we think makes up 24. of the universe, dark energy, 75%.

That leaves, and so of the 25% matter, about 20% is dark matter, about 5% is ordinary matter, roughly. And what's the difference between dark matter and dark energy? They're completely different. We just share the word dark, but here's what's really interesting. We understand something like 4.6% of the universe.

This ties into everything we were talking about earlier, because how do we know this pie chart that I just told you? We know this based on the cosmic microwave background radiation that we were talking about earlier. And how do we we know that's not wrong because earlier we're talking about oh cosmic microwave background's wrong this is new paper here's how we know it's not wrong because we cross-checked the cosmicic background studies with supernovas with what's called barion acoustic oscillations

with a whole bunch of other things so but the bottom line is we understand about 4.6% of the universe so what does that mean there's over 95% of the universe that we have no idea what it is So my point earlier was like that this theory is correct or that what I was trying to say is the little part we know, we know it very well because we wouldn't have our modern technology without. We know that 4.6% very well. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more to discover. There is dark matter, dark energy. We don't know what those things are. But it's even worse than that.

So of that 4.6%, three quarters is hydrogen in stars in galaxy. one quarter is helium. Is he a problem, any problem with what I just said? What does that add up to? Three quarters, one quarter? A hole. Exactly. So where's oxygen, carbon, where's everything else?

Everything that's inside of you and me, we are this, we are, all of life is the sub, sub, sub one percent dregs of the universe. We're not even important enough to come up on the cosmic pie chart. And so what I'm saying is, there's still so much more to learn and so much more to discover. Right.

But earlier, so when I get mad when I'm like, oh, somebody says we don't understand this 4.6, we understand the 4.6% very well. The thing is we don't need to keep overturning what we already know. We need to look to new frontiers. We have new frontiers of things we know nothing about. We've been studying the cosmic microwave background for decades. We've been studying galaxies for decades. We have no idea what dark energy is or dark matter.

matter as well some theoretical physicists say they have some ideas nobody knows for sure we understand a tiny sliver of the universe right yeah it's could we see the pie chart actually it's also it's all it's also crazy how as far as far as like things like particle physics how we've done these things like we have the large hydrant collider and all this stuff and like we've got we've done nothing we've figured out nothing ever since you know there's and there's also theories out there that like um i think eric weinstein talks about like how string theory was like supposed to be a smoke screen to like get us off the path of of moving forward in physics yeah i you know it's really no no no that's the wrong the wrong chart um the there and lower left there there there that's the

chart i was talking about this is the pie chart of the entire universe dark matter dark energy see what i and see look at that for approximately 4% that's that's that's that's the ordinary matter and that's you and me. Exactly, except not, because most of that 4% is hydrogen and helium. So see, most of its star, a lot of its stars in those stars is hydrogen and helium. Yeah. Look at where the heavy elements are. Zero point zero three percent. That's the heavy elements. Wow. And by heavy elements, it doesn't mean ultra heavy. It literally means, I think, in this chart, anything heavier than hydrogen or healing. My point is here is that, look, I walk a balance. I walk a balance between confidence and what science has already figured out, balanced with the humility that there's still so much more

to figure out. But I'm not at either extreme. I'm not at the extreme that we already know everything, there's nothing left to figure out. That is so wrong. That is compatently false. And then I'm not at the other extreme that, oh, we know nothing and we're still figuring things out. That's not true. We know a lot. All right. So, but the thing is the truth is somewhere in the middle. But the truth is also, there's a lot we still don't understand. You know when someone asks you how you're doing and your automatic response is, I'm great. And that got me thinking, what if I actually meant it? And that's where today's sponsor, Headspace, comes in.

Headspace is an app that has helped me and over 100 million people actually improve their mental health and well-being. Guided meditations, breathing exercises, mindfulness practices, it's all there. Since I've started using headspace, I feel way less stressed, I sleep better, my mind is clearer, and my mood is more elevated. And it's nice to feel this way without having to use any kind of medications. What I like is how personalized it feels. Whether you're brand new to meditation or you've been at it for years, there's always something that fits.

Even on crazy busy days, I'll throw on one of their on-the-go programs. It's just a few minutes and I feel totally reset. And when I want to dive deeper, there's over a thousand hours of content, taught, by real experienced teachers. For me, the biggest shift has been learning how to slow down and quiet my mind at night. And that's been huge for improving my sleep and my energy the next day.

Headspace really makes mindfulness practical. So the next time somebody asks, how are you? You can actually mean it. Feel good and mean it when you say it. For a limited time, get Headspace free for 60 days. Just go to headspace.com slash Danny Jones. That's H-E-A-D-S-P-A-C-E-C-E.com slash Danny Jones to unlock all of Headspace for free for 60 days.

Headspace.com slash Danny Jones. It's linked down below. Now back to the show. What do you make of the idea? How much do you know about like what was going on with physics research in the 50s? I think it was with like this gravity research that like went dark and supposedly like went underground. Yeah, I've heard a lot about this.

I have, I have a very controversial take on it. I love controversial takes. I think it went dark because it doesn't work. Oh, really? Yeah. Interesting. I mean, there. Have you looked into Thomas Townsend Brown?

Yes, I have. Yes, I have. What do you make of him? I, if he had, if there were actual revolutionary ideas that work, they would have been reproduced already. You can't keep science dark forever because someone else would accidentally stumble upon the same idea. So like, let's say, for example, take an example, let's say he suppressed Einstein and tried to stop relativity. Let's say you were a time traveler and for whatever reason you wanted to stop human advancement, kind of like in the three body problem. Right?

You're familiar with the, let's say you wanted to stop Einstein. Wouldn't have worked because Minkowski would have come up with relativity. Or if not Minkowski, then Pol and Kare was very close to relativity. And so you can't stop an entire field of research and ideas because someone else would accidentally stumble upon. It might take decades. Don't get me wrong. It might take decades.

Well, it could very plausibly, what could have happened was if they could have been monitoring everybody who's been even getting remotely close to it and then, pulling them in through time. It's possible, but I'm skeptical. And the reason is because conspiracies would fall apart eventually. I'll give you an example. So for a long time, so astronomers developed something for our new telescopes, for the ground-based ones.

You know, we're talking about James Webb. There's also ground-based telescopes, like a giant Magellan telescope. So we developed- What's the other one, the Subaru? Is there one called Subaru? Not that I know. Like he's in like the South Pole. But yeah, I'm not an astronomer's. I, unfortunately, I don't know the names of all the telescopes.

But so for the giant Magelland-Eleonel. telescope and for other telescopes like it. We're using something called adaptive optics. So what adaptive optics is is where you cancel out the twinkling of stars and astronomical objects.

The way you do that is you fire a laser into the sky and you use that laser as your calibration of the you know like the thermal convection and like the atmospheric aberration. That's a way to get as good or almost as good or even better images. Right. From the

Ground as from outer space saves money, right? You still need space-based telescopes like James Webb, Vera Rubin, right? But here's the, but when astronomers invented adaptive optics, guess what happened? The U.S. Navy said, oh, yeah, we developed that 30 years ago. Right. It was secret. So, yeah, things like this can happen, but my point is they can't last forever. Sure.

So there's hope. There's hope. So even if there was anti-gravity, but also I don't even understand what anti-gravity means. And I have good friends who research this. I have good friends in Falcon space and Flux space, Mark Sokol, Jared Yates, Tim Ventura, a lot of these guys in APEC, the alternative propulsion engineering conference. I'm good friends with these guys. But the thing is, but I think they appreciate my skepticism with them, and we go back and forth. I told him, look, anti-gravity already exists.

It's called, you know, a superconductor or a magnet, a repelling magnet. As a physicist, I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean because to me, we already have anti-gravity. can do it right now. An airplane is anti-gravity. It uses Bernoulli's principle, Newton's third law. So, like, I don't even know what that word's supposed to mean anymore. You know what I mean? Like, I hope that, like, there are forces. This is physics one. This is physics 101 textbook physics. I can take forces and I can cancel them out. That's physics 101. If I have gravity pulling me down, I create an equal opposite force the other way. Like, this is centuries old physics. So I'm not sure, like, when usually people use their turn anti-gravity, they mean some magical thing we haven't thought of yet,

When I think of it, I'm like, but we already have anti-gravity. We have airplanes, we have magnets. Well, I mean, I'm not the kind of person to describe this to you, but a lot of people have been on the show and described how, and been on other podcasts as well and explained theoretically, you know, how this would work. And there's been lots of experiments to try to do it. I know. And the experiments all fail.

Well, I'm friends with Mark Sokol and Jared Yates. You should have one of them on the show, actually, but their entire, they've been laughed at as crackpots. They've been insulted by people. I love these guys. They're not crackpots. You know what they do? They take every crazy idea.

And they're like, hey, what if that anti-gravity idea is true? They test it. Doesn't work. Have you ever heard of Jack Sarfotti? Yes, I can't stand him. I will do anything for him. That's shocking. For him to get off his email list.

If it means I have to tell him now on this show that he's the best physicists who ever lived, I will do anything to get off his email list. What do you think about his theories of like warp drive? I cannot say. Have you looked into it? I have thoroughly. I cannot say because he'll think. threaten to sue me for libel. He already has, and I just don't want to deal with that. Because look,

I have a wife who doesn't work. I have four kids. I already take huge risks working on UFOs. There's a stigma. No, I don't think he has the money to do so. But still, but I'm also going to get an angry email. If I tell him what I actually think about him right now in the show, I'll get an angry email from him. Who cares? Okay, if he was right about this stuff that he's doing, he could go to Home Depot and do it. He claims he can warp space time. with a nine-volt battery, go do it. Do it right now. Prove it to everybody. So like, I cannot stand, Jack. He just spouts theories with no experimental evidence. Do you know what the byfield brown effect is and how it works? Yes, yes, I do. So do you know that that was a great effect

and it's real? We can do it. Yes, we can't just, but there's no new physics there. So for people who don't know, can you explain what it is? Like, can you distill it down to something that's easy to understand? Yes, absolutely. It's when you can. So there isn't, there is a way and they tested this on MythBusters as well and it works. What you can do is using high voltage, you can ionize the air. And that produces a force that counteracts the force of gravity and allows you to have an aircraft or air ship that floats in the air. There's no new physics involved. It's just engineering. It's just new engineering. So people... This is like ion wind, right? Yeah, exactly. People worship this effect as if it's magic. It's not magic. It's well-known physics that's been around for decades.

it's cool it's a cool trick and we could have ships that capitalize it absolutely there's nothing weird about that at all we might have some black ops project that uses it absolutely well the B2 bombers are coated in like something uh they're they're covered not the B2 the stealth bombers the B2 stealth planes they have this sort of a

like a skin on them yeah that's supposed to have some sort of like an extra ion wind up with it's entirely possible but here's the thing Steve can you by the way sorry to interrupt real quick Steve can you find that video that we that we uh had Jeremy show us of the, yeah, there we go. Oh. Do you know what this is?

How is this working? This is in a vacuum. I'm there. I'm off camera during this. Are you really? I was visiting Falcon Space during this test. No way. Mark Sokol is my friend at Falcon Space.

This is what I'm trying to tell you is Mark is one of those guys who tests every crazy idea. Occasionally the idea works. This is an idea that actually works. The vast majority of anti-gravity. ideas are garbage. So what is, can you explain this? So can you zoom out so I can refresh my memory. This is the frame. Oh no, no, no, no, just the description of the video. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, see, BFill-Brown effect. So basically-in-a-

So basically, but what's weird here is you should need air for the effect to work. Right. And so that what's really interesting here is it seems to be, it seems to be working without air where you're getting propulsion from electricity, but in a high vacuum. And that's interesting. That's very interesting. It could suggest something. Now, and I said this to Mark. I told you, I'm good friends with Mark, but we get in fights and arguments. I tell him, look, it rotates.

Prove it better to me. You show it taking off. He can't because, well, he's cramped in his lab. He can't just make it take off in one direction. So I'm not convinced it would be useful for outer space. Wow, it feels like it's ramping up there. Yeah, it's, well, he's tuning the voltage. But yeah, I was literally there during the test, one of these tests.

at least, I don't know for the YouTube video one, but yeah, Mark is a great guy. And what he's doing is he tests all these crazy anti-gravity ideas. So how could you theoretically test this on like make this bigger and make this something that's like... What I would do is try to send it in a straight line instead of rotating. He's got a rotating because he's got a tight space, you know, in his left. I would send it in a straight line because the reason is in physics, there's a difference between angular momentum and linear momentum. So just because something can spin on its own without a propellant doesn't mean it can go straight on its own. Those two things are not necessarily equivalent.

But you have to understand. So another thing I would do is pull even higher vacuum because I'm wondering if there's residual air. There's always you can never get. No such thing is a perfect vacuum. I'm wondering if it's ionizing the residual air in there. Mark says no. Like I said, I've had back and forth with him. But see, this is a difference between theory and experiment.

Anyone can come on a podcast with their grand anti-gravity theory, but these are the guys who are trying to make it a reality. People like Mark at Falcon Space. They're actually trying to make something happen. Mark will be the first person to tell you this. The vast majority of the ideas he tests, garbage. They're nonsense. Occasionally, though, he gets something promising.

But the vast majority of anti-gravity theories are wrong. Well, they're self-contradictory. You've got dozens of people say, oh, it's this effect, it's that effect. it can't be, is it going to be all those effects? And so occasionally though, you hit upon something that looks promising like this, like in this case with the Beefield Brown effect. I have no, I have very little doubt.

I'm sure we have black ops, you know, planes that use something like this. Absolutely. But to me, this is not new science. This is new engineering. There's a big difference. So this is a beautiful example of the difference between science and engineering. I'll give you another one like this. take a guess what year it was

when humans finally understood how to make airplanes take a guess like understood how theoretically theoretically 1800s 1700s earlier really uh 1687

newton's physics 1887 newons once we had Newton's physics we knew how to make airplanes so my question to you is what the hell took humanity so long to do it Right. You know what the answer is? Engineering. So there's a difference between physics and a difference between engineering.

We have Einstein's theory of relativity. And then how can we can't make better planes? How can we use the same planes? Exactly. We've been using the same planes for decades. Did you know that when we canceled the Concord, that was the first time in human history, That technology has gone backwards instead of forwards.

Well, also, you could argue the Apollo, the Apollo program as well. That's a, yeah, but it's around the same time. Apollo wasn't canceled yet. So no, my statement still stands. Apollo was still doing multiple missions in the 70s. Well, they, yeah. They was not canceled yet. After 72, they completely, they're.

Yeah, so it's around the same time. If you ask chat GPT, what happened to the Apollo technology, it will tell you that NASA's official statement was they accidentally overwrote the hard drives with all the data. Oh, God. So they, oh, we accidentally erased it all. Sorry. Apollo's another example, but let me go back to my Concord example because it affects our daily lives. Yes.

Yes. Sorry to derail you. No, it's okay. For the first time in human history, it took more time to cross the Atlantic or Pacific instead of less. Wow. Do you realize I get so, I get so angry with everybody who tells me technology, oh, it improves exponentially. Right. Bullshit. If it actually improved exponentially, I could get on a plane.

right now and in five minutes I'd be home in New York if technology improved exponentially. Why aren't airplanes improving exponentially? I'll tell you why. It's because of economics. It's because of practicality, you know, what people will pay for. And so that's why I'm not going to completely dismiss. I'm skeptical, but I'm open to the possibility that there's some secret anti-gravity program. You know why? Because it would upset the apple cart of all the airlines or suddenly out of business, right? Right? Totally. People on your podcast have said the same thing, I'm sure. Exactly. You know how- Well, also these companies, they control, they control every, they have,

they have a monopoly on, on what they do, like Boeing and these companies. And not only that, but they- It's worse than that. They literally own Congress, right? It's worse than that. They pretend not to have a monopoly. Do you know what the trick is? Kill people. No, no, no, no. Well, I, I, Sometimes, in extreme cases, I'm sure that happens. How many Boeing whistleblowers accidentally committed to them? No, no, no. Like, you're right.

That happens too, but that's not where I was going, but you're right. And in Russia, you have an accident, you have an unfortunate window accidents. That's how they do you in Russia. Or you find polonium in your borsh. That's the other way. But you're partially right about that. I was going a different direction, but the direction I was going is they have a secret game they play, where all companies do this, by the way.

I forget what the exact term is of this. not a monopoly. It's like an oligopoly, I think, where basically you don't shit in my turf and I stay out of your turf. So for example, with airlines, there are some airports where only one airline flies there. And there's another airport, a different airline flies to that one because they've all made a deal. You stay away, United, Delta, America, stay out of our hubs. It's the same thing with internet. At home, my wife and I and kids have the absolute shittiest internet service you can imagine. What can we do about it?

Right. What can we do? Nothing. Can we switch to another provider? No, you know why? It's only one provider. And if you go to Philadelphia, there's one provider, you go to Boston and they go, oh, we're not a monopoly because they're in different parts of the country.

So that's the sneaky stuff they do. So yeah, I believe there's probably secret stuff and military, industrial complex and all that. But the story I told earlier of adaptive optics makes me hopeful people like Mark and his work and Falcon Space make me hopeful that other people are going to rediscover the secret stuff. And now in the age of internet, it's impossible to stop everyone and bring everyone in. It's not going to happen. It's going to fall apart. So I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic.

What happened with the Concord? Safety. It crashed once or twice. And people like, oh, my God. And what made it so special? Well, it was supersonic. You could cross the Atlantic in four hours. Okay.

So it was the best air, it was the, it was the fastest commercial airplane ever developed. You could get on a plane in New York. And what was this? And in four hours, it was canceled in the 70s. The 70s. Around the same time as Apollo. Apollo, Apollo is another good example you gave me. Did you know that Elon Musk's fastest rocket that he wants to use to get to the moon?

It's about equal to the Saturn. or slightly slower. Again, where's the exponential technology improvement? Well, Elon also said to get to the moon, they would have to have, I think it was five refueling stops. Was that right, Steve? That's insane. We didn't need that in 69 or in the 70s. We got that we got their, we got their first try in 69. That's the example. Technology moving backwards. I'm optimistic there will start moving forwards again. Oh, let's not go there. See, that's another academia problem. Academics aren't allowed to talk about the moon landing not happening. No, because there were multiple landings. So the moon landing thing is one of things that really, that's one of the buttons that pushes me to really piss me off. That's the one where you're an

automatic fool if you question it. Correct. And I'm saying that not as an academic. It's not as bad as flat earth, but it's the next one. Yes, but I'm not saying that as an academic. I'm saying it as a rational human being. Right. Because hundreds of engineers would not have been, Russia would have, look, we could spend three hours debunking the moon landing. Yeah. Because I can do it and crush every single thing, any moon hoaxer has ever said, but it would take three hours. And I think that's not where we want to spend our rest of our time today. Correct, correct. But that's a good example.

But here's the thing. My reaction there seemed emotional, but it's like flat earth. My rejection is as a rational human being. I know so many hundreds of things that disprove it that to me it's a waste of time to talk about. Does that make sense? Whereas, and someone would say, oh, you're being hypocritical with UFOs and aliens. No, are you kidding me? There's mountains of evidence for UFOs, like, from everywhere, from all directions.

And also during that period in time, during the Cold War, there was more bullshit happening in the U.S. government than ever. There was more lying. There was more... Yeah, but Russia, if we fake the moon landing, Russia would have outed us immediately. They'd be like, oh, suckers, you faked it. They would have outed us immediately, immediately. So the Union would have been like, you know what that would have done to world politics?

To embarrass the United States on the world stage? that by itself disproves the entire moon hoax conspiracy without going to all the other reasons. Well, we didn't. Well, it wouldn't have been as easy as it is today with the internet to discredit. And there was also a lot of Russian people who came out and in the U.S. and wrote books and tried to start movements, basically proving that the moon landing was fake. I know. So what I would love to do.

It was a war. It was an information war between Russia and the U.S. I've gone deep on this. And there's, I think they tried. And there's actually, I think there's overwhelming evidence to say the otherwise. I'm not convinced. but we don't have to go there. I want to take every single person who thinks the moon landing

to happen, send him to the moon. We should send you to the moon. I would love to go. I would like to go. Actually, no, I take that back. I don't think I want to go to the moon. I do. I'd rather stay here.

I want to go. Really? Absolutely. 200. What's the temperature? 250 degrees in the sun and the negative 250 in the shadows. That's fine. I want to step on another world. Yeah.

By the way, so there's no such thing is the moon landing. It's plural. We landed multiple times. So you're going to tell me we affect every single one. Really? Like, there was an entire Apollo program. There are multiple photos. Kevin Canuth, whom we have in the show.

The footage looks so stupid. Oh, my God. The footage looks dumb. Look, let's not go there. The other one is simulation hypothesis. I will, I want, I'm going to personally, I just, never mind. I don't like simulation hypothesis. No, I hate it.

I think it's just one of the stupidest ideas ever invented. Really? You know why? Elon says one in a billion chances that were not in a simulation. Yeah, he made that number up. How does he know that? Oh, no. So, simulation hypothesis is not a scientific.

scientific theory, it's a religious belief. Because there's nothing I can do to disprove it. Tell me one thing I could do to disprove the simulation hypothesis. To disprove the simulation. It's impossible because any evidence I present to a believer, they'll say, that's what the simulators wanted you to think. So it's a religious belief. It is not.

Is there any way to disprove the simulation hypothesis, Steve? We need to find this out. I need to see this. All right. Chat Chbhbtee is God. Well, ask Grog. Brock is God. It's about to be God. It'll be God soon.

But anyway, we somehow went off in different directions there, but that's how you're going to show them. Well, I mean, I was making the point of what happened in the Cold War. Like, the moon landing was smack dab in the middle of, do you believe JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter? How the fuck no. Okay. Well, it was right between JFK, Watergate. It's for the same reason that I believe in the JFK conspiracy that I think the moon landing actually happened. It's for the same reason.

Because I'm a rational human being who looks at all the facts. Give me a break. Come on. Oswald conveniently gets killed before going to trial, really? Right, right. Really? Well, you know... My point is, Danny, is some conspiracies are true.

Sure. But not all of them. Correct. I'm very open-minded. Not as open-minded as Kevin, I think, but I'm very open-minded. But I'm not so open-minded that I fall... There's no definitive way to disprove the simulation hypothesis. See, I told you so. Right. Which means... Well, hey. It's not science.

Don't be a party pooper. It's still fun to talk about. There's so much. It's such a compelling idea. It is, but here's the time in place for simulation hypothesis. Time in place for simulation hypothesis is 3 a.m. over beers. Yeah. Well, maybe. Or a podcast.

It's not science. It's philosophy. Yes. I'm not claiming it's wrong, by the way. All I'm saying is there's nothing you or I could ever do to prove it or disprove it. Right. There's no way. It's impossible.

And so it's fun to speculate. but there's nothing we'll ever be able to do to prove or disprove it. Well, right. Even though there's no way we'll be able to prove or disprove it, it's reasonable to suggest that in hundreds of years with the development of technology and video games and VR will be able to create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality. Like the thronglets from Black Mirror.

If you've seen the Black Mirror episode. I've seen that one. I've seen that one. Or the Holodeck on Star Trek the Next Generation. Yeah. So are you familiar with the Holodeck from Star Trek? just walk into a 3D virtual. Really? No.

All right. So Kevin and I are huge fans. Have you seen the 13th floor? I have not by Hertz really good. It's very good, yeah. It's basically the matrix before the matrix. It was earlier. It came out the same year.

Same year. Okay. Same year. I'm going to see it. I'm going to check it out. Yeah, absolutely. Now, again, yeah, like I'm saying, I'm not saying simulation hypothesis is wrong.

I'm just saying it's a waste of time for scientists to talk about it because we'll never prove it or disprove it. All we can do is do this. All we can do is go in circles arguing. There's no way to get. an answer ever we will never have an answer right right impossible yeah that's a good point that's a good point but like so um by the way string theory you could say the same thing and my string theory friends hated when i say this but i say string theory is not a theory they get really mad because it's not

provable it's not disprovable at least because you'll just say oh it's beyond human technology forever will never prove or disprove string theory yeah i have a problem with that i do have a problem with that and so does Eric Weinstein Weinstein Sorry, I'm probably mispronessing Yeah, he makes a point about like Ed and Lewis Witten Yeah, yeah And Lee Smolin has also said this people hate him

Oh, they hate that this guy gets in academia I believe that every That crazy ideas should be permitted That's the whole spirit of academia Like I was saying early about academic freedom So yeah, I think string theory It's had a good run Let's explore other possibilities

My string theory friends get rid next door to me to the left and to the right on the third floor where my offices in the physical department are two string theorists. They're literally my next door neighbors. But, you know, I kid with them with love, you know, but I just mess with them. Right. Yeah. So how did you get into this whole UFO thing? Oh, my friend Kevin, when you had on the episode. Oh, yes.

He convinced me that there's real shit going down. And he's the one who got me into it. Yeah. How did you meet him and how did he convince you? Oh, he's in the same department as me. Oh, okay. So I've known him since I was there in 2000. I've been at the Department of Physics since 2014.

Okay. So I've known him from when I first joined at University of Albany in New York. Yeah, Kevin is the one who was like, and I'll be honest with you. At first, again, because of the stigma, the brainwashing, right? I was like, Kevin, he's crazy and whatever UFOs. But then the 2017 New York Times article came out by a lesbian. Leslie Kane and Helen Cooper and Ralph Blumenthal and I was like and then Lou El Zondo's on TV and I'm like, holy shit, this stuff's real. And so that really helped push me over the edge to join forces with Kevin and start researching UFOs.

You know, from childhood, I was always interested. I mean, who isn't? I watched Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack. I saw like the Cash Landrum incident, Rendles from Forest incident. That stuff scared the hell out of me as a little kid. And so the seeds were already planted there for me to be interested in UFOs, but then the seeds blossomed thanks to Leslie Cain's reporting and thanks to Kevin. So how are you applying your understanding of physics and the work you do into this stuff?

So basically I'm bringing some of a particle physics perspective. So a lot of people use cameras, obviously, to look for UFOs, right? Right. But I'm bringing more to the table because this ties into a, the earlier discussion about my work on dark matter one of my expertise is is particle detection i'm a particle physicist there are all these stories these claims of people who've been hurt physically yeah by uap radiation ionizing radiation exactly there's the um i'm sure conspiracy guy like you know you know all these stories i'm sure right falcon lake incident randelson forest um cashlandrum

They sued the government. I don't even know what that one is felt. So Cashlandrum, so it was 1980, I think, or 79 December in Texas. There was a family that saw a diamond-shaped craft. They ended up getting skin burns. It's like sunburned they got cancer. Right. And so they sued the government.

So there's evidence of ionizing radiation. Right. And this stuff goes back, right? Yeah. There's like, there's like a storics from antiquity of people. And they think it was like religious related stuff where people were getting burned. I think St. Francis of C.C. was one of them.

Well, UFOs in general, they didn't just magically start in 47. It goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Absolutely. Some people think a lot of the ancient alien guys, I'm friends with all the ancient aliens guys. It's like Travis Taylor and like, yeah. So I went backstage actually at the Ancient Aliens live show. You should have seen the dirty looks my wife and I got from all the super fans

when security was escorting me and my wife backstage. Because I know Travis Taylor. He's on also Skinwalker. ranch and oh yeah these oh man what was where was I going with the ancient antithes oh yes one hypothesis is that a lot of religious experiences were actually extraterrestrial some other form of non-human intelligence I think that one makes a lot of sense I really think we can't discount that it sounds crazy but to me that's something you could prove or disprove that's that's reasonable it's wild and if when I say that yeah my reputation when people watch the show now yeah my reputation

goes down but like I said earlier you look at like James Fox's version uh version uh the latest documentary where he goes to Brazil and he interviewed like dozens and dozens of witnesses of this being that they explained having clove and feet and smelling like sulfur, which is exactly how demons are explaining the level. I've only seen clips. I have not seen the whole thing yet unfortunately.

But yeah, do we laugh at those people and say they're making stuff up? I'm inclined to think they might be describing a real physical experience. I think that's reason. That Varginia one, I've never heard of a case, whether it be a UFO or anything, but this one's

being more corroborating corroborating witnesses. Yeah. That's the most in any story I've ever heard in this topic. It's amazing. But where we were going with this is what I bring to the table with UFO. So UFO, UAP, whatever you call them, I think

we can agree. It's an interdisciplinary problem. You're not going to solve the mystery with just one group of scientists. You need physicists, chemists, chemists, biologists, engineers. You need a multi-disciplinary approach.

And what I bring to the table is my knowledge of particle and nuclear physics. Because if UFOs are producing radiation, do you know how hard that would be to hoax? You can hoax the video. How are you gonna hoax ionizing radiation from controlled substances, right? You know, like from like uranium, plutonium, California,

things like that. So I- How many people have been affected by, or injured by this radiation? Oh, nobody knows. It depends on who you ask, right? How many people have been cataloged or how many people do you know of? I know of a small number, but I've only been looking at UFP for a while.

So I know of only the three incidents. I mentioned earlier, but there are more. If you talk to Gary Nolan, for example, I'm sure he can list way more. Remember, I'm still young. I haven't been doing this for decades, you know, like Kevin. So I still don't know. I wouldn't know off the top of my head how large the number is. I'm only aware of three cases.

But one of them, the Rendellstrom Forest case, John Burroughs, a U.S. veteran, got disability for being hurt by a UFO. Like, Senator John McCain had to help him out. Did you know this story?

I don't think so. So what happened was he, his medical records were classified. He couldn't see his own medical records. Wow.

How messed up is it? that. That's crazy. And so to me, that inspired me that like, you know what, I can bring my expertise on radiation detection into the field of UFO studies. Wow. So that's my angle. Obviously, I'm still using cameras with Kevin and everything else, but that's my personal angle of what I added. That's the extra that I added to the field. So of the three people that you're aware of, what have you found with them? Well, all we have is unfortunately, you know, like, a couple old grainy photographs if that or just Oh, you haven't actually, okay, I got you.

Yeah, no, no, so I don't personally have any connections. Gary does at Stanford, Dr. Nolan does. But, you know, I'm not saying I have any personal connection, but rather I've studied their accounts, like on the web and TV. Right. And to me, I'm not claiming I believe them all immediately. But to me, I'm, I, the approach I take is, what if they're right? What if there is radiation we can detect?

then we should be bringing radiation detectors, not just cameras, to our UFO parties. And that's the angle that I've brought to UAP studies and uphology. I'm not saying I brought it completely by myself. People have been using Geiger counters with UFOs. So I'm not saying I'm first or anything like that. I'm saying, but that's the angle that I bring into the teams that I work on for looking for UFO evidence to answer your original question about what did I bring. Right, right.

Yeah. And if you were, if you wanted to use radiation detection, how would you go about doing that? Like, was there specific places you would, you would do this or like, like, how do you, how does that work out? Well, it's challenging because, you know, a lot of encounters are like, man, it's over, right? Yeah. And so the philosophy of the team that I work on, which is a UAPX, you know, we published a paper only a couple months ago from our expedition to Catalina, which was in the movie a tear in the sky by Carolyn Corey. seen the movie. You should, so Kevin and I are in that. I tried to watch it. Yeah. Last night, but it was like trying to make me jump through all these hoops and like,

get some subscription to some crazy service or something like that. I couldn't fucking figure it out. Dang. Okay. Well, that's because the movie's several years old now. It was easier when it first came up. But basically, to answer your question, we need to go to alleged UFO hotspots. That's the solution. Is you go to places where people claim to see these things again again. That's hard to do. to get permission. No, but you're right. You're absolutely right, but we can't do that. But we can go to, like, for example, Catalina area, places like that. They wouldn't let you go there, they wouldn't let you go there and install some, some, like, detection equipment or anything?

No way. No way. If I was at an important university, sure. So I'm sure Avi's going to try that for Galileo Project with Harvard. I'm sure he's going to try that. But I'm at a low university. It's not an Ivy League. I don't have the clout to tell the U.S. government, hey, can I install some UFO sensors on your nuke silo? That's not happening. Believe me, Kevin and I would be thrilled. Believe me. We know all about Salas, Robert Hastings. We know all about the story of the, yeah, absolutely. No, I'm saying something that's a little bit more achievable, easier, which is go to other non-nuclear, you know, hotspots. Yeah. And so the idea here is, is you go to hotspots and you set up permanent or semi-permanent stations because you're not going to catch fleeting encounters, right? And so what you need to do is identify hotspots taking into account things like population density, obviously, and things like that. And so, but, yeah, for the radiation detection yeah we're looking for anything above normal background radiation because there's radiation all around us all the time now right now right now there's cosmic radiation coursing through our bodies right now not just dark matter you know neutrinos it's cosmic

gray protons all kinds of stuff going through and we're fine it's a small amount and so so we're looking not for something above zero that's ridiculous because always a little bit of radiation everywhere it's in your sweat it's in a banana it's in a brazil nut it's everywhere however However, what we're looking for is a statistically significant increase in radiation, either in energy or in like count rate that is correlated with a visual sighting in the camera systems. So that is our angle, like a multi-modal study, just like Galileo Project is doing. Yeah, I'm not familiar with Galileo Project.

What specifically are they doing? So Gallo Project is led by Professor Avi Lope of Harvard and they're, they want to also set up also equipment at UAP hotspots and look for, look for for UAP. But it's kind of a, it's got other facets as well. Recently, Avi tried to get, and he believes he succeeded, you got pieces of an interstellar meteorite from the bottom of the Pacific that some people thought was maybe, you know, an alien ship that crash landed, not actually a meteor. So Galileo Project is doing a lot of stuff as well at Harvard, yeah.

Well, it's not just Harvard. They also have other institutions like Wellesley College. and it's a multi-university. I think it's most likely that whatever these UFOs are, they're already here. I don't think they necessarily came from. I mean, anything is possible they came from like other galaxies, if you want to say that. But I think the most likely explanation, and I think the vast majority of them have been here for a long time. And they're just in where they're, like how we are to ants, you know.

They just, they exist here on a higher plane. And they've probably been here, whether it's under the oceans or somewhere, they managed to be undetectable unless they really want to be. It's possible. It's possible. That's what Kevin says that they're already here. It's entirely possible. But yeah, I wouldn't say that from other galaxies. That's too far away. Other planets within our galaxy. Especially when you have accounts of these things like coming out of oceans and stuff, you know, back into antiquity. Yeah, well, the oceans are a great place to hide. That's what my friend Kevin says. And also, you have to keep in mind. Let's speculate. This is Kevin's idea, not mine. Full credit to him. He suggests that water is pretty safe. Because no matter where you are in the universe,

Water can only be a liquid in a very narrow, limited range of temperature and pressure. So if you're an extraterrestrial from somewhere else, you know what to expect with water. Air can be different. Amospheric compositions can differ wildly. Water is water everywhere in the galaxy, everywhere in the universe. Water is water. Unlike other AI, Slackbot lives in Slack. It understands you, your team, and your work.

So you can ask it for help with anything. Can I ask it to summarize client feedback? Yes. Can I ask it to find time for a meeting? Absolutely. Can I ask it to turn our meeting notes into a launch plan? Sure. Can I ask it to call me the boss?

Actually, you can. The boss. See how SlackBot can turn you into at Slack.com slash meet Slackbot. Introducing the new best skin ever ultra slim precision concealer from Sephora Collection. It's full coverage with a matte finish

and perfect for any look. whether you're building it up for a full glam moment or targeting correction for a more natural vibe. At only $12, it's great for affordable touchups on the go. Get this new must-have concealer at Sephora or at Sephora.com today. Because it exists as a liquid only in a limited, in most of the universe, water's either a gas or a solid. It only exists as a liquid in a very limited temperature and pressure range. And so if you're used to water, you can go.

find another water planet. That's Kevin's idea. Oh, wow. Yes. I forgot. He told me that. Exactly. And so he thinks that's the connection.

That's why UFOs are often seen around water and near water, coming out of water, going into water. I have to say, it's an absolutely fascinating idea. And my friend Kevin has also published a paper that suggests that if we've been discovered by extraterrestrials, on average, he ran a, you know, a giant computer simulation of the galaxy and he suggests that we if earth was discovered randomly then the most probable time that happened was 1.1 million years ago why?

Just there is no why he just ran a computer simulation Oh, that's just like the computer said the most... He just put all the factors into the computer system. That would be like asking chat GPT, why did you just say that? It didn't give any sort of like reasoning behind it at all? Yeah, the reasoning is all in his scientific paper. There is no one-liner way to explain it because it's all the factors. How many habitable planets are there in the galaxy?

How big the galaxy is? How fast they're going. There's like literally dozens of factors that went into the calculation. So this is not some cut and dry thing where there's like a one-to-one answer. Absolutely. Absolutely. See if you can find it. If you go to canuthlab.org, K-N-U-T-H-L-A-B.org, I'll point you to this paper by friend Kevin.

Steve, so you can find it. He didn't bring it up when he was on the show. He probably did. It's been a while. Yeah, this is my friend Kevin's website. Yeah, my good call. I think it would be under UAPs and techno signatures. Click the...

No, no, no, no, you're going too far. Left, left, UAPs and techno signatures. You're like right there, yeah. Okay, scroll down to... Oh, that's it. Oh, sorry, it's not there. I'm sorry, go back, go back. He must not have populated it there yet.

Scroll down slowly from on the main page. Let's see if we can find it here. Is there a search? No, this is his private website, so it's not like perfect. Gotcha. Definitely here. So just bear with me a moment. I know he's got it here somewhere. Click maybe current projects. Try that. Try current projects. It's right there. Right there, Steve. Yeah. Yeah. Boom. Foundations, astrophysics, cyber physics. Bayesian data. No, no, it's not here either. I go. Oh, there it is. UAP library on the left. UAP library. Very left column, Steve. Left column. Yeah, UAP library. Go there. Ah, ha, ha. There's my paper. And there's Kevin's history of UFOs. There it is.

Simulating the characteristics, that's the one we were just discussing. Okay, cool. So in that paper... And this is the one that says 1.1 million years ago. On average, but with a huge error bar. But basically, what's really interesting about that result is it seems to suggest that they, that whoever they are, they've been here a long time. Right. Like you just said.

But here's... Well, maybe they came. Maybe they evolved here. That's possible, too. Have you there's Hal Pudoff has a paper on this called the ultra-terrestrial model or hypothesis. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it's another possibility. Yeah, it's totally possible that they go back to it, Steve?

Remember, we don't know. I want to read the abstract of it. It is generally believed that it is unlikely that our civilization is alone in the galaxy. This belief is central to the premise of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI, which has focused mainly on searching for radio signals or originating from, extraterrestrial communication since it is believed that extraterrestrial craft visiting earth would be extremely unlikely event however the fact that we ourselves are currently working on developing probes to send to the alpha centurray system by 2069 strongly suggests our expectations by considering oh you skip the line strongly suggest that other other civilizations may make similar or more ambitious efforts therefore it is reasonable to inform civilizations to find to inform our expectations

by considering what characters can you zoom in a little bit bro uh there we go considering what characteristics and capabilities would be required for an interstellar civilization to find or visit earth in this paper the physics based analytical analytic model of expanding interstellar civilizations

is developed a million civilizations that encounter earth are simulated and their statistics are studied to determine their characteristics. There you have it. One of the characteristics that he found is that if Earth is found, it was probably found a long time ago. And that's because the galaxy is over 13 billion years old. That's a mind-boggling amount of time.

So if you had a civilization evolve early on a long time ago, can you imagine how much more advanced than we are today? Like we can't we can't even guess technology 100,000 years from now. Imagine a civilization that's been around for millions or billions of years. We can't even fathom what that would look like, what they would look like. Right. You know, it might be incommensurate with our understanding. Right. Well, even the idea that it could have been us, like that version of us could have evolved and gotten so advanced.

Yes. And there could have been some sort of breakaway civilization that either went under the oceans or to the moon or to another planet in our solar system. Yeah, Kevin and I call that the Wakanda hypothesis. Yeah, and then they came back after things settled down. You know, maybe there was thousands of years of instability here, you know. Maybe, maybe. You know, or like an Ice Age or whatever. Yeah.

Well, another thing that's possible is if you're familiar with the work of Professor Mike Masters, Montana State. Oh, yeah, of course. He thinks time travel. Yeah, he thinks it's not aliens as humans from the future. Yeah, I think that makes a ton of sense. Yeah, yeah. So the fact is we don't know. We don't know, but it's fun to speculate.

But for me, it's even more. more fun to try to go find the answer. Well, one of the biggest, I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that this could have been humans or people that lived here and this was their home are things like the pyramids and things like, you know, why are they so perfect? These types of things. These are made, this is a 3D model of a grand, or a red granite vase that was measured in a Rolls-Royce light scanner at Rolls-Royce Aerospace and they found out is perfectly symmetrical from top to bottom on each side within less than the deviation of like one-one thousandth of a human hair. This couldn't even be made on a fucking CNC machine today.

And it was made allegedly 4,000 BC. There's all kinds of stuff on ancient aliens, Puma Punku and all the crazy, like straight lines and stuff. So they were obviously on a trajectory that we can't even fathom. Like they weren't doing the same. They weren't making things the same way we make things today. Because with our tools, there's no way we. And we have no reason to make stuff like this either, right? Well, so like.

We do have one reason. So actually the best, the most precise object. ever created by humans was a ball that was used on gravity probe B to test Einstein's theory of general relativity. That ball was so perfect that I think it was off by way better than what you just quoted. It was like one atom off maximum in one direction. If the earth was that perfect of a ball, I think the earth would have like one hill the size of this desk or something. Like it was a perfect ball. It was necessary for this gravity experiment in the 90s or I think early 2000s. So nowadays we have this technology. Did we have that in 4,000 BC? It's like, yeah, so it's

interesting. But remember earlier how I said technology, it doesn't just always improve. It goes forward. It goes back. Controversial discovery a few years ago. Did you know we found evidence that the ancient Greek Archimedes? He was recently in the Indiana, you know, fiction fictional Archimedes was in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Turns out Archimedes may have discovered calculus several thousand years. Really?

How did they find this out? Because they found it on a tablet. A tablet? When was Archimedes alive? Oh, we should look that up. Yeah. But they found on a tablet that was erased and written over,

but using modern technology, it's called a palim set. Can you find this story, Steve, about what he's talking about, discovering calculus? Look up Arkansas. Archimedes, integral calculus, and a Palimpset, P-A-L-I-M-P-S-E-T. A palim set is something that you, it's like etch-a-sketch.

Right, right. It's like the ancient form of Esch-S-S-S-Sket. So somebody over wrote over what he wrote. Oh, wow. And it turns out he may have discovered Rehman integration that we teach in like, you know, calculus 101, thousands of years. There it is. You...

Is it that? Yes. No, no. Yeah. I don't know if that's it, but the paragraph that was describing it is correct. Okay, right there. Is not considered the inventor of integral calculus, but his method of exhaustion is regarded as the precursor to integral calculus. Exactly.

Thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz. But what this tells you is maybe the ancient alien guys aren't so crazy, but there's another angle to this. Is this a new thing they found? It was a few years ago. Okay. It's not that new. Yeah, it was a few years ago. But basically, my point is, is.

that humans are also pretty smart. We might not even need help from aliens. Your point earlier, break away human branches and stuff like that. Sometimes we don't give humans enough credit. Sometimes it could be that some of the weird anomalies are really that humans came up with clever technologies. And we're too arrogant to admit that ancient people were actually pretty damn smart. I don't know if you've heard of the Baghdad battery.

Also, there's apparently this battery from ancient Iraq. What? Oh yeah, they tested it on Mythbusters and it worked. The Baghdad battery? You never heard of the Baghdad battery? It's one of the greatest. Oh my God. Yeah, so basically I think ancient people were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

Find this, bro. But what if, there it is. See, what if? A 2000 year old artifact found in Iraq that is hypothesized to be an ancient battery consists of a clay jar, copper cylinder, and an iron rod. While some believe it could be used for electroplating or even electrotherapy, its exact purpose remains debate. Can you find a better picture of this, dude? They tested it down on Mythbusters.

No way. And it kind of works, but it works better. They cheated on Mythbusters and they... Is this actually it right here? Car battery. Whoa. I mean, what do you do with something like that? This was supposed to, the Parthian Empire it was supposed to come from was allegedly illiterate.

Yeah. But see, look how little we know about our own ancient past. So what is the theory? What is like the conventional theory for this thing? I'm not aware of a conventional one. All I know about is that it's a battery. I'm not aware with the, I'm not aware with the BS conventional explanation for it is supposed to be. Would you believe the conventional explanation for it?

I don't believe the conventional explanation for many things. It starts with ancient Egypt, with the Egyptologists. Yeah, but so you're asking me for the conventional explanation. To me, the battery is the correct explanation. Right, it is the correct one, but I would also be interested to hear how academics try to explain it. I haven't heard a single credible alternate explanation of it. See what you can find. Yeah, yeah.

Even things like the Antikythera device that was found in the bottom of the ocean. That's the basis of Indiana Jones 5 and the Indiana Jones is the Dial of Destiny. Wow. And I think that's the only device like that that's ever been found. It took us a long time to finally figure it out what was for. Okay, the conventional explanation for the Baghdad battery is that it was. was not a battery in modern sense, but it was rather a storage vessel used

for keeping sacred scrolls or other items. Okay. Okay. And it just happens to have electrical properties. Okay. Yeah, sure. Yeah, sure, why not? This fits our theory.

Well, it's like you said earlier, right? It's about ramming square pegs into round holes. Yes. Sometimes we try to force the data to fit our models. They hate it when there's new data that doesn't fit their theories. I don't. I love it. Yeah. You know why? Because there's more for me to do then. I'm an experimentalist,

not a theorist. So to me, that's great. All right, let's go explore. Right. To me, that's when the most exciting things happen is when something doesn't fit our preconceptions. That's when real learning happens. Yes. But most academics don't think that way. They're more stuffy than I am. Most of them don't. Yeah, of course. Yeah. Right. Which explains why they're, you know, just going back to the great pyramids, why there hasn't been any more excavation done there. You know, you see those things they found with the rods that go underneath them. Oh, yeah, yeah.

There was that big thing that came out where they had. Oh, yeah, using particles. That's my, my, my, my, my stick. I'm not saying I didn't, I, well, didn't participate in that, but it's using particle physics. They're using, like, muons, using particles to basically x-ray, except it's not x-ray, right? Yeah. Yeah, it's amazing.

Why aren't we, why can't we just go in there? The spirals that apparently go down for miles underneath the pyramids. What are those things? What are those things? What are nobody interested in learning more about them? Right. Just that, that story just kind of, like, disappeared. How did you disappear?

There was an Italian. It was a group of Italians. You know what my friend Kevin says. I don't know if he said this on your show. Some scientists suffer from a profound lack of curiosity. That's a serious problem. Yeah. I'm a scientist because I'm curious, not because I'm incurious.

Does that make sense? I'm curious, so I want to know the answers for everything. Right. Yeah, no, I would be really curious to see what would happen if we were able to dig under those things and look under that. Some of that is politics. I'm sure the Egyptian government is not going to want that. I don't think it's all conspiracy or stigma against it. Sure.

Some of its politics. There's a lot of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy politics. Sure. But I think one of the things that I'm optimistic about is there's a lot of young upcoming Egyptian archaeologists and Egyptologists who are considering the pseudoscience hypotheses and like the unconventional theories of like what these things could have been and that are coming up in academia that are that are actually considering them and not just brushing them off as like

complete bullshit pseudoscience. There is occasionally, occasionally something that was considered, so as science turns out to be correct. I'm going to give you six examples or maybe more. I can give you a few more, probably. You want more or is that too few? I can do six. Okay. Germs.

Uh-huh. There's no such thing as germs. Did you know that there were doctors? I'm saying this is what people would say. There were doctors who would literally go from delivering a baby to an autopsy without why. washing their hands to prove to all those idiot doctors who believe in germs and washing hands. I'm like, okay. Like germs were pseudoscience at one point.

What gets better. Relativity was pseudoscience at one point. Einstein was insulted repeatedly as a crackpot, as a pseudoscientist. In Germany, you know what they said to him? Oh, that's Jewish science. In the UK, you know what they said. Oh, that's German science. Remember, there's World War I.

So the UK, they hated Germans. Right. So to the British, Einstein was German. And to the Germans, but my point, continental drift. Continental drift. Oh, yeah. Here's another one. Did you know that Ludwig von Boltzmann committed suicide because he was so deeply insulted

by academia and the scientific community? They ruined his career. Because you know why? He dared to say that atoms are real and that atoms exist. And he was driven to suicide. So there's atoms, germs, relativity, continental drift. Meteors. Meteors.

Meteors. Meteors. Did you know that for a long time people left? Oh, meteors. Rocks don't fall from the sky. Those are just, you know, crazy people telling you stories. What does all this sound like to you? Doesn't it sound like a lot like UFOs?

People didn't believe that at one point? Meteors for centuries. scientists used to laugh at meteors that's nonsense it wasn't until the 19th century the 1800s until finally the French figured out oh wait

meteors aren't made up they're real when did we I'd be curious to know when we came up with the explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs oh it was recent when I was a kid we were still debating we still didn't know until we found the crater

in the Yucatan and then it was like game over then it was obvious We were still arguing, was it a disease, was it this? And then we found it was in the 90s, I think. I was a kid when we finally figured out, oh, yeah, it was a giant rock that fell from the sky. It's crazy how recent a lot of these big mainstream discoveries have happened. People used to make fun of the idea that a media killed the dinosaurs. People used to think that was pseudoscience.

What do they think? How do they think they got killed? Oh, they just argued about that was disease. It was some random plague or something. But I'll tell you this. Do you know what separates, in my opinion? but you know it's kind of an expert opinion but that's why you're my opinion what separates science and pseudoscience i have an answer that'll differ from any other answer you'll hear ideology no no it

doesn't no it doesn't because people can label real science pseudoscience just to can fit their that's misuse of the label yes i'm saying what separates actual pseudoscience from actual science not what what do you how do you define pseudoscience very easy i'm glad you asked that's what i was about to say okay If you test your idea and your idea doesn't work, you abandon it. You don't double down. That's the difference between a scientist and a pseudoscientist. It's not about ideology.

It has nothing to do with ideology. Nothing. That is what the gatekeepers use. It's not about ideology. Real pseudoscience is when you've been disproven and you won't shut up. That's pseudoscience. Real science is where, and when something that's called pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience, it's when you have the proof, but your ideology blinds you to see that.

Continental drift atoms, these are all examples of that. So that is the difference. If 20 years from now, it turns out 100% of the CMB going back to the other thing, it's like was the early light, it was not saying it was, I'm like, oh, you know what? great I was wrong right because the proof came up oh I'm not gonna double down because I'm like oh yeah it's proven wrong right but a pseudoscientist when confronted with facts will double down on the incorrect idea that's already been disproven over and over and over and over again because they're like no you didn't do it right you got to tweak the experiment a little bit no it's going to work I've got the

anti-gravity you didn't do it right so that's the difference but it's misapplied the term is misapplied in the modern age to shut down rational discourse and silence critics. Yes. So I'm not interested in ideology. Neither is my friend Kevin. We're interested what do the facts say? What does the data say? Do you have data to support your claim?

If so, let me see it. Baghdad Battery. Great example. There's support of that claim. If you don't have support in your claim, go away. come back to me when you have proof and I will listen to you. I won't shut you out. But if you're going to just make stuff up without evidence,

I don't want to hear it. I don't have to hear it. So that's the difference between science versus pseudoscience as an ideology versus how it should actually be honestly applied. You shouldn't use insults as a way to shut your critics up. Yeah. That's not how rational discourse is. 100%.

But unfortunately, that's the way discourse happens online these days. Online is a toy. Like, never read the comments on a YouTube. The internet and X are the best thing for the government that has ever existed because it makes it so much easy for them to keep secrets. Because you can't tell what's the truth anymore. There's so much noise. It's just a culdron of bullshit. I'm telling you know, I'm not on social media.

Oh, good for you. I don't have X. I have Facebook page that I look at once a year because it's historical. I got peer pressured into joining Facebook when it was new. So I have Facebook. I never had Twitter. Don't have X because you know what? I have better things to do with my time.

It can be fun. fun to like peek in it's like uh it's like uh going to Vegas well the best the best part's about going to Vegas the day you arrive and the day you leave it's like the same thing with uh with like looking in sometimes you can just like peek in and like look around like especially UFO Twitter oh yeah i don't know if you ever heard a UFO Twitter but this is a thing it's a community i've been insulted already by UFO Twitter repeatedly people tell me second it's crazy everybody everybody's a fed everybody is working for the deep state i've heard it all and if this is one of the greatest things the way great one of the greatest ways to

dismiss people is to call them a Fed and to say that they're working for the CIA or whoever. Oh, I, Jack Sarfati said I was a Russian agent. He's friends with Russia. Oh, now he's friends with Russia. He brags. He brags that Putin. I know.

Putin invited me to Russia 16 times. No, he didn't. No, he didn't. And Trump did not invite him to Mar-a-Lago. Oh, yeah. And so, yeah. Oh, look, like I said, look, if Jack is listening to this, if you take me off your email list, Jack, I will proclaim to everyone.

the greatest scientist who ever lived. I will do anything if you just stop fucking emailing me. Oh, Jack. Just block it if you don't want to. I can't. You can't. You know why? Because he cc's everyone instead of BCC. He doesn't have an email list. So anytime anyone else replies, I'm back on the list. There's got to be technology. We can't, we can't, we're that low tech. We can't figure out how to block Jack's our fatty email chains. But anyway, let's not go off on that tangent. Before Jack, where were we going? I forgot. You had asked me something important what did i ask him steve y'all we're talking about pseudoscience no no no we finished that oh we were talking about like ufo twitter and discourse yeah yes yes i was saying you i what i've been

called the russian agent um i've i've it's it was said that i work with child like you should see the stuff but you know a lot of prominent physicists went to epstein island i don't know that yeah but not me right but i was like a fetus you're a little too young okay all right so yeah i'm So anyway, my point is, but you know how I look at that? I look at it as a positive. You know why? There's an old saying in the military. If you're catching flack, that means you're over the target.

So if I'm catching shit and Kevin's catching shit, I'm like, good. That means we're pushing buttons. That means we're asking the wrong questions. That means we're actually getting closer to the truth. Sure. So I don't care what anyone says about me on X. Like I said, I don't even have an account. So all I hear is secondhand.

Oh, hey, Matthew, you know what they said about your social media? I'm like, I don't care. I've got science to do. I've got real work to do rather than know what some, you know, some 13-year-old in his mom's basement thinks about me and my work on UFOs. I don't care. Right. Right.

It's just, it's. Yeah, it gets really bad when you mix like boomers and older people with social media because they don't really understand how to use it, you know. I've already had, this has already happened to me, where I get AI slop, like AI generated video sent to me by my mother-in-law thinking it's real or my father-in-law. This has already started happening. So they're already falling for the like the AI generated. I fell for it yesterday because I saw a video on Instagram of the Texas floods.

And it looked like it looked so real. It looked like towns like being flooded. And it was supposed to be like security camera footage in the town of like sped up time lapse of the river's flooding and literally just wiping out the town. I thought it was real. I'm like, this is fucking insane. And I was like, hold on a second. before I send this to 100 people. I'm going to make sure, I'm going to read the comments.

And then I went to the comments, and sure enough, they confirmed, like, there's no way this is Texas. This is like architecture from Eastern Europe. There's, this is just not, this is definitely not Texas. And it was confirmed. It was the AI, but it completely tricked me. I thought it was for sure. The only reason I knew was because I decided to read the comments. I have two, I have two ways of finding AI out.

Count human fingers. It can't do fingers. Right. It messes a fingers. It messes up fingers. And the other one is it can't do letters. I can't do words. So you remember this like fake photo and video of Trump getting arrested?

It was like violently. There was one that he released one yesterday of Obama getting arrested by the FBI. No, this is old. This is like years ago. Okay. You look at the police. You look at their armbands. And it's just hieroglyphs.

It's just hierogly gobbledy cook. And it's like what the hell? And so those are. It's getting better. It is getting better. It's scary. Every day. It's scary.

Yeah, I know. I'm still waiting for Star Trek level AI. As far as I'm concerned, AI is still dumb. Yeah, the A-star, so what I was saying earlier was that it's shocking to me, like, how many of, like, the foundational discoveries of our universe and our species and our planet in general are so recent. Like, you know how Mike Masters explains that there's 20 different species of hominids? And out of all those 20 species, we're, like, the only one that has developed technology to escape the Earth. Are we? Well, five of those species have been discovered in like the last 10 years.

I know. And there was just this video that came out that we pulled up the other day, Steve, was an Instagram video of these Peru mummies. They found these things that look like aliens. And they're these mummies. They look like powdered donuts. And they have three fingers. I know they brought them before the Mexican tigers. This is different.

This is new. This is not the Jaime guy. This is a different set of mummies. That's a different thing. And one of them had a fetus inside its wound. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Watch that. This is crazy.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they think it's a new species of hominid. Can you give us some volume? Into the rock thousands of years ago. When I visited Maria, I saw no apparent signs of manipulation on the hands or the feet. One of the mummies has a fetus inside, and rumors are starting to spread that the images are showing the fetus to also have three fingers. I contacted the lawyer of the American scientist, Josh McDowell, who told you

me that the current imaging isn't good enough to say either way whether or not the fetus has three fingers. Some notable oddities regarding the mummies. Maria has 32 vertebrae, while most humans have 33. Not an impossible anomaly, but still notable. Maria has abnormally large eye sockets and a protruding mouth. Dr. Zuniga told me that the metal implants had organic tissue fused to them, indicating that they were alive whenever these were placed. This is a process called Osseo integration and it takes about half a year to fully complete. If these are fake, then

this would be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time. If they're real, this would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time. I'm an independent journalist. Super interesting. Not necessarily alien, like you said, could be a different... Not necessarily alien. The most reasonable explanation is this a new species of hominid just to jump straight to alien.

You know, but people are going to dismiss it immediately because there have been a lot of these mummies and unfortunately, some are proven fake. Some are hoaxes, unfortunately. And, you know, that really damages a lot of the, then increases the stigma and taboo against the so-called fringe topics that you specialize, right? On your show, like increases the stigma

when you've got people doing hoaxes. It's just, but that would be really hard to hoax what we just saw. Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah, no, the idea that, you know, that there's only 20 hominids. And like, we were the ones that were able to develop the technology to get off the earth means that we are human beings are like 0.0001% of all cataloged species on earth.

Right. So we're super rare on earth as it is. So if you extrapolate that out into the universe, like that is just exponentially more rare than we even thought, right? Like just to say there's life. Like I think it's pretty, I completely believe that there has to be tons of life out in the universe. But just judging by the fact that we are 0.001% of living species on Earth, what are the chances that there are other beings, life forms that have evolved to be as intelligent as us and to be upright bipedal hominids like us with a brain that says directly on top of the head? The chances are very high.

To be evolved that way? Not that shape, but intelligent life, yes. Because that tiny number you just quoted. Yeah. I can cancel that out very easily. There are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone. So that tiny number has to face the gigantic number of all the exoplanets out there, of all the potentially habitable planets.

That's Kevin's field of research, actually, exoplanets. So is there intelligent life out there? Almost certainly. Is it going to look like us? No. That's highly improbable. Right, because the atmospheric conditions is going to be different. They're likely going to be like, like, if we evolved in water, what about like all the water world that we found?

That's exactly why Mike Master. says probably not aliens the grays are probably humans of the future he's got a good point that's the bad i think that's the strongest that's a damn good point but gary nolan has a counter argument there's a couple card counter arguments he says the grays aren't aliens he says they're like cia the aliens no no that's what stephen greer says oh like in a vat in a zipper no no no he thinks that they're there's cia uh constructed robots basically like that's similar to what gary nolan says Gary Nolan says they're alien constructed robots that are meant to be similar to humans. Yeah.

Yeah. That's what Gary Nolan believes? That I've heard him suggest that on numerous shows. He says that the grays are sort of like, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he says they're avatars. That's the word he used. Right. But not CIA avatars, but actual alien avatars. And the aliens look nothing like us. To me, that is a lot more plausible than saying that somewhere light years away, a bi-year-s away, a bi-y-a-a-old.

right creature evolved again really really so though mike masters has a good point a very good point well another point that's been made to me uh is is that um are you familiar with morphic resonance shell drake rupert shell drake's morphic yes i've actually i've actually met rupert shelljerk at a conference a few years ago yeah so like the idea is basically if like a problem gets solved in one side of the world or one side of the universe it could be easily it quickly gets solved on another side because it's like and this this reconciles with with like the the simulation hypothesis that we're in a computer program like it's conserving processing power so if a problem gets solved in one place some people break a world record in one part of the world it gets broken soon after in

another part of the world right so like if evolution got solved here on earth maybe it could get solved somewhere else using morphic resonance on another planet another part of that's reasonable yeah i've heard it i've heard that case made that oh yeah there will be bipedal it's an efficient structure it just convert convergingly evolved in another place yeah i've definitely heard that smart people tell me that that's a super uh likely scenario i i don't know what to think until we get some more facts right some more data on what's going on right yeah totally i've actually got so one of the um papers i recently published actually if you want to pull it up um could you go back to archive dot org um that i brought up earlier before the show you're

started yeah can you can you look for the search for the word not not there like search on the page do control f and search for catastrophic there you go click that click that one number eight yep so this is a paper i recently published in limina the journal of uap studies by the way i say that to anybody in academia journal of uap studies they roll their eyes because of the stigma i think this is one of the most important things i've ever written it's only eight pages i basically i calculate the probability of somebody accidentally capturing evidence of a Roswell-style crash on their smartphone because I got sick and tired of people saying, oh, if, you know, crashes were real, somebody who've gotten it on their iPhone already. You know, we hear this all the time. Oh, Bigfoot's real.

You mean a video of a crash? Yeah, yeah. And you know what I concluded? You know what I discovered? actually because the earth is mostly water and because we have we don't have the population of New York City everywhere right most of the world is rural I actually calculate and determine you know what it's actually reasonable that there hasn't been any iPhone or smartphone evidence yet according to my paper I conclude that if David Grush is right and it's an average of 10 crashes per century of NHA craft. If they're real or not necessarily NHA, you know, breakaway civilization,

doesn't matter who it is. According to my calculations, again, a huge error bar. I say it's gonna be until about like 2040, 2050. Again, that's a random number. So it could be tomorrow, it could be in 20 years. I'm basically calculating based on the David Grush's claim of a crash rate, what is the most probable year, just doing a simulation like Kevin did,

running all the stats, what's the most probable year of the first video of like an actual, someone captures video of crash? And I estimate about 2040. Well, you know, there is one that has been on video, which was during Operation Starfish Prime. Are you familiar with this? I am not. During Operation Starfish Prime in the 60s when they were detonating nukes in the atmosphere in in outer space. Oh, yes. Is this with the ship that came in and zapped the nuke? No, that was That was Vandenberg. Vandenberg, you're right. I mixed them to a.

Okay, go ahead. So Operation Starfish Prime, there was another name for it too. I forget what the other name was. But there was a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere and it was on video. And Harold Malmgren was part of this. And when they were observing it, they saw, they were filming the blast. And out of the blast, an object just fell, fell straight to the into the ocean. And these people were just calling it a, calling it a test.

tag along. Like nobody, nobody thought it was anything, but he was like, this is definitely something fell out an object, fell out of this nuclear blast. No, but you see, you said ocean, but that's not what I'm focusing on the paper. So that's what I'm saying hasn't happened yet. I'm saying on land. I'm saying like Roswell style. I'm saying there's a saucer and someone's got an iPhone 16 video of like a gray alien call. That's what I'm talking about. So what you're talking about that's old school video technology. I'm talking about on a smartphone, someone whips out their phone and gets the evidence, people check it. They know it's not AI.

They know it's not fake video. And what I estimate is that the reason why it hasn't happened yet, it's not necessarily because it's not real, hasn't happened yet because the earth is mostly water. Right. And population is spread thin. I've driven across the country multiple times. I hate flying. Driving is so much easier.

I can stop my car and I can go pee. Nobody runs over and goes, sir, sir. you gotta get down you say i love driving i've driven across the united states multiple times yeah that's amazing how much of it's unpopular freaking empty yeah how even flying you can look out the window and yeah of course here there's a cow there's a horse it's this empty so like what people don't realize is just because there's no smoking gun evidence yet right that doesn't mean something's not real right totally that doesn't mean it's not real see if you could find a video though i want to see a video The Starfish Prime?

Yeah, I haven't heard of this before. The UFO for falling out of it. I did study the other case, the Vandenberg with the like Zap. That one's crazy. Yeah, I know. That one's crazy. I think they interviewed one of the officers there. They did.

An investigation alien, George Knapp interviewed, one of the guy, the lieutenant. Yeah, this was a long time ago. But allegedly, yeah, there's a, and we actually. Allegedly the video exists and it was confiscated. Yeah, but I've seen, there was video online at one point, and I think we found it. And then it was just a really. really hard to find after that. Like they buried it. And that's another problem with this whole thing, is that if somebody did capture this on their iPhone, with the way that the internet is just regulated by the government these days, I don't think it would ever survive more than a couple hours. I don't know. I disagree, respectfully disagree, because I'm optimistic. Let me explain why. You can't put the genie back in the bottle because it gets copied on TikTok, YouTube, Vimeo. There's no way. It's easy for them to scrub all that. No, it's very easy. It's not. It's not because you can't scrub all the private copies also on. hard drives and everything. So if I ever captured incontrovertible evidence of something truly

anomalous, I would make multiple copies. I would bury some of them in the ground on hard drives. There's no way government could get them out. What was it called, Steve? Operation what? Oh, so I think you're- Dominic 1 and 2. Okay. I think you're giving the government too much credit. They're incompetent. You're right that they could scrub everything, but you know why it wouldn't happen? Because some bureaucrat would forget to fill out the correct form. Sure, I agree with you. They're incompetent, but this stuff is classified according to Harold Malmgram two levels above the Manhattan Project.

Yeah, yeah. So this is like super, super secret. And that's one of the reasons why we're not making progress, by the way. It's too highly classified and so you don't have enough people looking at it. You don't have enough eyes on the problem. Yep. All right, so here's the blast. So this is a nuclear bomb test? This is a nuclear bomb test in the upper atmosphere.

I don't know if you can see it from this angle. Fishbowl. I don't know if we can... Oh, there. Was that it? No, that wasn't it. You can see this thing falling directly. So, okay, stop, pause it. So they altered this and they added that white triangle.

This is the blast right here. Okay. But it was in, see that white triangle on the bottom? Yes, I do. They added this onto it after. It happened. It fell right down through that where that triangle was. Ah, I see, I see.

Go to, um, doctored. Go to, yes, go to Jesse Michaels. Uh, Jesse Michaels, type in Jesse Michael's Harold Malmgren. And if you go to, oh, God, if my memory serves me correctly, about an hour in. Something doesn't make sense here, though. are you saying an advanced ship was somehow damaged by the blast? Yes. But that shouldn't be possible.

I'll explain why. Actually, Travis Taylor did the math on this. You know, Travis, right? Of course, ancient alien Skinwalker Ranch. Yeah, yeah. So he did the math on this. And I can check his math because I'm a physicist. It's easy.

If you have an interstellar craft that can get through, this is an assumption, right? Because they could be here. I'm just saying, let's use the assumption of an interstellar craft. If you can travel the stars, that means you could, That means that there's a serious problem, which is if you're traveling between the stars at relative of six speeds, speck of dust has more energy than that, has more energy than it's Sarabamba, the largest nuke ever created, Soviet Union. So basically, if they can travel interstellar space, our nukes would be like nothing, mosquito to them. And so it really bugs me if there's some supposedly advanced tech.

a nuke should be nothing to them. They should be able to fly right through a nuke and it would be nothing to them. Yeah, well then I mean, how would you explain all the other UFO crashes? I don't know. Like how would you explain a lightning bolt taking out the one that happened?

Well, Kevin has an explanation. Kevin says they're not used to traveling in atmospheres. There it is, Steve. There it is. Go back. Right a little bit forward. Right around here, yeah. Go ahead.

Play it. Well, these are nukes in the... Give us some audio. This is it. You know somewhere. Did you know somewhere there's a memorial somewhere on a distant planet or in another

dimension that says for all of the lives lost on Earth or on Soul 3 Oh yeah Like an alien memorial There's an alien memorial somewhere for all the crashes On Earth That's funny

Operation Dominic was a classic Operation Dominic You were just on it dude Running from April to October of 1962 classified American program conducting 31 nuclear test explosions in the Marshall Islands. These tests were designed to study the effects of nuclear detonations in high altitudes, in space and near space. One of these tests, Starfish Prime, created an electromagnetic pulse that extended over 1,400 kilometers,

knocked out streetlights, triggered burglar alarms, and caused electrical surges in nearby Hawaii. It also produced an artificial aurora visible from Hawaii to New Zealand, and it even created a man-made radiation belt similar to the Van Allen belt that destroyed multiple satellites. The last few tests of this series were the Blue Gill tests, which involved a unique X-ray-based missile defense system, and Harold was put in charge of doing all of the cost assessments for this test. Tell us about the Blue Gill Triple Prime test. So just hold on, click on the video, make it direct.

No double speed. The one that was following. Let it roll right here. There's a nuclear fireball. You can see clearly from the kettle one footage of the nuclear blast. There is. There is. There is.

Yeah. Give us some volume on it. The official report written about this test at the time was written by the flight dynamics laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The report tries to explain the presence of this second thermal source in the footage. Quote unquote, there is no evidence to indicate that even the closest pod was ever immersed in the fireball. So it definitely wasn't one of the instrument.

pods on the missile. And the film, yeah. If that's not weird enough, these videos were declassified to the public in 1998. At the declassification review, the Defense Special Weapons Agency, led by Dr. Byron L. WristVet, applied a large white triangle to the footage,

sanitizing it, right where you can see the object tumbling out of the plume in the kettle one footage. There's well-known animosity between Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Labs, Lawrence Livermore ran one aircraft, Los Almas ran the other. The reason why the Kettle 1 footage was declassified and Kettle 2 wasn't. It was simply a personal difference in what should remain classified and what shouldn't.

And we know that those things have, you know, throughout history just been all around nuclear bases. And there's also, you know, Navy pilots from submarines talking about, you know, weird things happening around nuclear submarines. into something like this. USOs, yeah. Yeah. And they can turn the missiles on. They can turn them off. You know the story of World War III almost started because the UFO started up.

Right. A countdown on Russian missile. Yeah. And of course, Wall Street Journal had some bogus article how that's fake and, oh my God, I'm just... Oh, it was some elaborate hazing experiment. Oh, give me a break. You don't haze people on something that can cause the end of the world. Give me a break.

Like, so you asked me earlier, what could, how, what got in, got me into you? UFOs. I forgot to tell you my snarky answer to that is at some point the debunker explanations got dumber than just admitting, okay, it could be, it's probably alien. Totally. You know, like, at some point, I've had enough of McWest's seagulls and, you know, and Chinese lanterns and like, give me a break, okay? Like, at some point, I was like, some, there are so many encounters, so many stories and events now where the, The simplest explanation is like, there was some advanced non-human craft. They're like, that's the simplest explanation.

Yeah, I think some of those videos, though, that came out around 2014, I think it was, 2017, when the New York Times took here. Like the GoFast video, I think those things can be explained away pretty easily. Like the one, the one with the, it looks like somebody, it looks like this thing flying above the water. Yeah, yeah. What people don't realize is like the plane is flying in one direction. Yeah, yeah. There's a water in the background. And then there's something that's flying the opposite direction above the water.

so it's like this parallax effect. Yes. So that could very easy be a bird flying the opposite direction. But that can't explain the Tic Tac. No, that cannot explain. But we haven't, we don't have, the problem is we don't have video of the Ticktack. We only have, uh, Favors. No, we do have video, but we only have a little bit.

We have the little bit of the gun cam or the, the, the At Flair finish. Yeah. The Tick, yeah. The Tick, yeah. Yeah, it's one of the three videos. You can even see the little legs under the Tick, under the Ticktack. I'm talking about the Gimble one. No, no, I'm talking about the third video.

There's three. Okay. There's Gimble. go fast and then there's an actual tick-tack video it's a tick-tack with two little legs oh okay yeah no and so like we have that and there's no there's no explanation right but there's got to be so much more there's got to be so much more of course we're not gonna see that they're just not gonna release ever yeah that one's crazy yeah that one's crazy like what the fuck is that and then it starts rotating that's the gimbal yeah the gimbal is also hard to explain and then there's a third video

There were three videos that came out in 17. They often get mixed up. Some of them are West Coast. Some of them are East Coast. Some of Roosevelt limits. They get mixed up all the time. But yeah, the TicTac video was analyzed by my friend Kevin. He published a paper.

This is the one where, yeah, I'll give McWest this one. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, I'll give him this one. Yeah. But the Ticktack cannot be explained that easily. Recently, actually, that was a YouTube video by a Professor Simon. It was like, oh, Ticktack, that was the Lockheed Martin device. And I'm like, really?

Well, what's his name came out and said it's undeniably, 100% Lockheed Martin technology. Yeah, Ross Colhart said that. Ross Colhart said that, yeah. Yeah, and that interesting, so they didn't read Kevin's paper that shows it had accelerations beyond human capability. I mean, like, there are published papers by me, by my friend Kevin, showing that's not possible.

And everyone conveniently pretends that they don't exist. Why couldn't it be possible that there couldn't have been some, if physics, if there's some sort of physics that went dark in the 50s and they've been working on it ever since and they've been developing it and what they wanted to tested against like our Navy fighters, wouldn't that, even if there wasn't humans in there, that wouldn't be like liquefied moving around,

couldn't they, wouldn't, isn't it? Great question. Great question. You got to read Kevin's paper. It's because even if it was unmanned at the accelerations that Kevin has calculated,

there doesn't exist a material that could withstand that. Oh, really? Like, and I know what you're going to say, oh, some breakaway civilization. No, you don't understand. There's literally against the laws of all physics and engineering.

material isn't actually going against air like that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. What if it's like creating a cavity, a cavitational type thing? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. These are simple basic laws of physics we've known for centuries. It's one of the points of Kevin's paper is the accelerations are not possible. They would destroy any material.

I don't care if it's in air. I don't care if it's in vacuum. And conveniently, everyone who spouts off, they think they have figured out the Tick-Tac. they all pretend that Kevin's work and my work doesn't exist. They don't read it. They don't. In fact, did you know, I have proof that Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath and nobody's listening to me? Every, no news media outlet would carry this story for me.

I said I can prove it. Nobody listened to it. How do you prove it? So here's what happened. What happened was, this might be the first time I'm saying on a podcast, but I don't care. I'll get in trouble, but whatever. I'm just sick and tired of all the lies and the obfuscation. So during one of the hearings, former Pet of Arrow, Sean Kirkpatrick, said to Senator Gillibrand, to her face under oath, it was one of those mini hearings.

There was like almost nobody there. It wasn't the full Congress, I think. It was like it was just Sean Kirkpatrick, Patrick, Senator Gillibrand and a few people. It was like a subcommittee meeting of some kind. he said um i'm going to paraphrase but i i wrote down the exact quote of course he said something like there is no there are no published scientific papers claiming that the tic-tac encounter might have been aliens and then he sneers he laughs like and if you think otherwise you're welcome to publish this episode is brought to you by welch's fruit snacks big news for your kids

lunchbox welch's fruit snacks are now made with without any artificial dyes. A snack parents can feel good about and the same delicious taste kids can't get enough of. All made with no artificial dyes. Try Welch's fruit snacks today. 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 this day we already published a paper kevin did so can we go back to canuth lab dot org and i'll show you the paper this is many years old already now okay it's paper published estimating the flight characteristics of anomalous maybe he just wasn't aware of it i know you're going to say that but guess so then he was so then he's ignorant and he's not good at his job sure he's the head of arrow but what if i could tell you what if i told you that's not the case because i told him about it so kevin and i uapx we had we actually had we were told not to talk about it but you know what screw them i'm so sick of these people we actually

talked to arrow we had a like google meet or microsoft teams or whatever or zoom or whatever the hell software i we met with them we actually talked to them and we actually brought up kevin's paper and He's like, look, it turns out in the Nimitz encounter, these accelerations, if you apply them to interstellar craft, these would be good interstellar craft. You could cross the galaxy in a few months. And like, we told Sean Kirkpatrick. I heard his voice. He asked me a question. I know Sean Kirkpatrick was on the call.

And so you're not going to tell me he didn't know. So either he didn't know, in which case he's ignorant of facts that he needs for his job. Fortunately, he's not head anymore of Arrow. number two, okay, then, or he's lying, or he forgot

conveniently, okay? So you're right, I can't prove he's lying, but he's either lying, ignorant or forgetful. Which of those is the better option? All of those options are bad.

But anyway, he's aware of this paper. Could you go back to, could you please click on a UAP library again like last time? So Sean Kirkpatrick-Patrick knew about this paper because we told him about it.

We're like, oh, and Kevin has written this great paper. In this paper, paper which Ross Colhart has conveniently forgotten exists. Right. Because he knows about it too, because I've talked to Ross. I've talked, Kevin's talked to him. In it, in it, Kevin and his friends, Robert and Peter from the scientific coalition for

UAP studies, SCU, they show that the Nimitz encounter demonstrates velocity's accelerations beyond human capabilities. And Mick West poohs this. He says it's BS. It's a jet or a seagull, whatever the usual. This is a scientific paper. Wow. It passed peer review.

But then you know what the critics say? Oh, it doesn't count. You know why it doesn't count? Oh, Kevin's the editor of the journal. He's not the only editor. He recused himself. And that's what they always say. My crash paper, that doesn't count.

That's in limina. It's a UFO journal. You know, it's a one paper that can't say doesn't count. Kevin's history of UFO studies is in progress in aerospace sciences. That's a major journal. And my paper on the UAPX results is also progress aerospace sciences. But yeah, basically, people, skeptics always find a way to pretend that this doesn't count, that these facts, these numbers, these results are wrong,

or they don't count. But what's really incredible to me is like the past week I hear all this nonsense that the Tic Tac was Lockheed Martin. People, why are they not reading the facts? Like Kevin did a study, SCU did a study of this, and it shows that this is incredible. Let's now take the perspective of like, I'm very skeptical, but let's take your perspective. let's say ah it's not alien some super advanced tech then i got some questions okay number one why isn't david fraser top gun academy pilot why isn't he flying it why are we still wasting time with f16s if we have this because it has to be kept secret super classified but why don't we then okay

i have another question i have another answer for that then i've had this same conversation multiple times why did we lose afghanistan why is america lost every single war it's been in since It's World War II. If we had this, we should be flying this shit around. We should be going to Ukraine, bailing out Ukraine. It's not worth it's not worth deploying those types of things. We don't give a fuck about the people in Ukraine or Afghanistan. All those wars are just about money and extracting oil.

That's a fair point. That's a fair point. So I don't think that they would plan on using. But that makes me angry. That makes me angry. Because if we have this technology, I want America to use it to win every war. We're like, what the hell? So it makes me mad.

As a taxpayer, if I paid for that shit, it needs to be used, not just hidden away. Yeah, no, I think possibly one of the reasons for the information coming out about this stuff and this becoming more public in the media could be some sort of a deterrence, some sort of a subliminal message to other countries who probably are working on very similar things to let them know that we have it in the case that there ever is. some sort of an existential crisis that would bring a war to American soil. I have an answer to that. We don't need it. Why would we need a TikTok? We have nukes already. We already have the best thing that could annihilate cities in seconds.

I don't understand what the point is. Yeah. The problem with nukes is that everybody has nukes. And as soon as a nuke gets launched, it's likely just going to be Armageddon. I know. I think everybody knows that. I know. But then it's the same thing with the Ticktack technology.

Because you can use that to drop a nuke. Yeah, but if you have the tick tech technology, you know, who knows what that could be used for? I don't know, I don't know how it can be used for weapons. But I think that, again, you know, this is all conjecture. I don't know what possible weapon systems could be deployed using these things. But the fact is it's super advanced tech and it's scary. and to let people, you know, people can use their imaginations. If you have these things that can travel from one point to another in an instant,

what type of weapons do you actually have? And, you know, we have deterrence with nukes. I mean, we, not only do we have, not only is every, there's nine nations that are armed with nukes. And we have, you know, systems like the Star Wars things and like these laser things and on satellites. You had any potentially. Did you have Annie Jacobson on the show? Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And that could potentially take out nuclear warheads when they entered the atmosphere. You know, I'm terrified at the idea of nuclear war. But I think that there's other things that we're developing that we don't know about that we'll probably maybe learn about in the next 20 years. DARPA has been historically working on things that never come out into the public for at least 20 to 30 years. For example, like Neurlink. They've been working on brain chips for soldiers since the early 90s. All that's going to collapse now. Because Doge has cut everything basically.

So, no, I'm dead serious. Funding is being cut left and right. Doge is taking funding out of things like IRS, HHS, so, you know. And my dark matter originally, but they were sorted. You know, Elon was behind Doge, but Elon gets all his money from the Pentagon where there is a $21 trillion black hole. Oh, yeah. That's been going to think. So I don't think he's, I don't think he's attacking the Pentagon.

The Pentagon just got his budget increased to a trillion dollars. Oh, I know. I know. I was kidding. I was just kidding. Right. But my point earlier was that the thing is you can't keep secrets forever because scientists are clever, curious people, things get accidentally rediscovered. It happens all the time.

So do you think the Bob Lazar stories bullshit? Complete. Really? Complete bullshit. And I hate to say it because I want it to be true. But everything that comes out of his mouth is so wrong. It's against science. We discovered element 115 already.

It has none of the properties he claims. And I feel like, so I've talked to people I know, like Eric Davis, how put off that I trust. And I've talked to people like that who said they've got a hypothesis. They think that Bob Lazar's purpose is disinformation to say stuff that's so wrong that any scientists with half a brain cell knows immediately it's nonsense. Any physicists can listen to Bob Lazar and be like, yeah, he's not a real physicist. He's talking nonsense. And so everything he says is so wrong on so many levels, I could spend three hours

and just Bob Lazar and debunking everything he said. Like, don't get me wrong. I wish he was real. I wish he was true. But he doesn't even get basic nuclear physics right. And come on, he never went to MIT. They erased the memories of all the professors. It makes no sense.

There's a very reasonable explanation for that for his records being erased. Oh, his records could be erased, but you can't erase the memory. The professor would be like, oh, yeah, I had Bob in my class. No, he wouldn't be in a public class. That's the point. Oh, come on. There's lots of evidence of people going to MIT to work on military shit. and weapon systems that were under the sanction of the Pentagon

that were kept secret and had all the stuff expunged. But if they open their mouth, they talk correct physics. So for example, Eric Davis, he opens his mouth and correct physics comes out. Hal Pudov opens his mouth, correct things come out of his mouth. Bob Lazaro opens his mouth and nonsense. Specifically, that he said, even if it was nonsense, he doesn't have to be like a PhD physicist to be useful to some of those programs. Oh yeah, yeah. Oh yeah. So I think, I think there's a grain of truth.

in what Bob Lazar says, but I think he misheard some things and he's saying some things wrong. Maybe. That's what I think is happening. But you can't take everything he says is scientifically accurate because it doesn't work.

I don't think the idea is saying that he doesn't, he says a lot of bullshit or says a lot of wrong things about physics. I don't think that's a strong argument to him saying that his story's full of shit, you know?

I think it's totally plausible. I'm saying there's a grain of truth in there is what I'm saying. What I was saying was the physics is full of shit that he says. There could be a, grain of truth. No, not maybe for sure his physics is wrong. Even if it is, if what

you're saying is correct, I think it's still totally plausible that some secret black program would want to get a guy like him in there to throw shit at the wall to see if maybe he can tinker around and figure something out that they haven't been able to figure out in 50 years. That's true. That's possible, but here's, but this is the problem. This is why we're not making progress.

Sure, because it's all secret. It's all compartmentalized. It's stove pipes. Exactly. Stove pipe carmelt. If we really want to make progress, we would hire people like my friend Kevin. We'd hire smart. good scientists. We'd have Eric Davis. We'd have Hal Poodoff, who were not really part of the legacy program. They're on the outside. We would have smart people. We'd have hundreds of people, like the Manhattan Project. We're not making progress. If there is a crash retrieval

of verse engineering program, we're not going to make progress because there's too much stove piping. There's too much compartmentalization. But honestly, look, one part of me thinks that if Bob Lazar was totally on the up and up, he'd already be dead in the desert. Like by quote unquote two hits. He came out and with that stuff with George Knapp in the early 90s, late 80s. I mean, I think that's what he was doing.

Probably trying to protect himself and get his stuff out there. And that's also, you know, his background is a very discreditable background. Like the stuff that he was doing running the brothels and all the crazy stuff he was doing and, uh...

Well, some of that could be made up to suppress him. Some conspiracy people think that. It doesn't have to. I think it's very well, you can look up the court documents from his divorce to sell that he was actually running

these brothels. But yeah, but 115 exists already. We found it has none of the properties he claims. There's no stable isotopes of it. And he claims he has a little bit of it left that he's keeping at home. Good. Send some to me. I can prove it's 115 in 20 seconds.

That's not exaggeration, by the way. So the problem with this stuff is you have people around him and around people like him that are just incentivized to use him as a mascot to make money and to make documentaries about him. That's right. Exactly. and to just further their own careers. And that's my thing about this whole topic is that it's just fucked from the beginning

because you have the internet and you have people trying to make careers off of it. Yes, yes, exactly. That money's the water's even more. I don't want to make any money. Do you know the only money I want to make off UFOs is? The only money I want to make is to turn into equipment for research

and a little bit of salary to survive. I don't want to become rich and famous. I just want enough to do my work with my friends like Kevin at Uolbany. but your point is very, very well taken. And remember what I said earlier. It's like the Fox Mulder poster, right? What does Fox Mulder's poster say to The X-Files?

I want to believe, right? I want to believe Bob Lazzar's story, but the holes in it are so gigantic to me. Actually, this is why I'm never going to be invited back to Phenomicon. I got it. Phnomicon? You know about Phnomicon, right? No. It's in Utah.

It's like UFO Bigfoot. It's right next to Skin Walker Ranch. It's UFO Bigfoot Convention? And it's like all about Skinwalker Ranch as well. It's amazing. Kevin and I pissed off the entire crowd because someone during Q&A asked about Bob Lazar and 115 and then we went on and on how Bob Lazar was wrong. He's full of shit and it's impossible and blah, blah, blah.

Oh, we ticked off everybody. But here's the thing. I just, I want to know the truth. I'm not going to believe some person who claims to be a whistleblower. That's why, for example, when Grush came out, I tested his claims. I wrote that paper earlier. Remember, I said, if Grush's claim of the crash, crash, rate is correct.

I was going to see, okay, why don't we have evidence yet? I crunched the statistics and I discovered, oh, Grush's claims are plausible. It doesn't prove they're right, but they're plausible. But right out of the gate, all of Lazzar's claims are not plausible within physics and engineering. And I know people, I've talked to people who are allegedly connected with the legacy.

I have several people tell me, oh yeah, Bob Lazzar, he's just disinformation. agent to just say things that are so wrong so that physicists like me and kevin but other than us and you know other physicists they watch bob lazar and they're not interested in jumping into UFO studies because they're like that's so dumb and wrong that i'm not interested in participating it's kind of like if you take something if you take anything that's fringe considered pseudoscience and you crank something up to 11 you're going to scare off for you're going to scare off well-meaning people who want to come in,

as CIA is master at this, by the way. And like you want to scare off. So I often worry that Lazare might be some sort, you know, people worry about the same thing about Lou Elizando. It might be some sort of misinformation, disinformation campaign. The thing is you can't believe anyone or anything.

And that's what's so scary and it makes it so hard. But look, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope Bob Lazar is telling the truth because to me, that means humanity has a future. Because if somebody else can figure out interstellar travel, we can figure it out. That means there's a hopeful future. And so I want to be wrong about Bob. And I want, I'd be happy to sit down with him privately and be like, hey, I'm sorry I said you're foolish.

Please prove to me, I'm wrong. Show me the facts. Prove to me. Talk to me as a scientist, right? He says he has a degree in science. prove to me that I was wrong about you and I'm open about it. I'm open-minded.

But the thing is, I'm going to call a spade a spade. And when I see massive amounts of evidence, problematic evidence stacking up that somebody is not telling the truth, I'm deeply concerned, especially when it comes to this UFO, UAP sphere of things.

Right. But there was some podcasts I was watching where I think Commander Fraver said, if I'm not mistake, it was like friends with Bob Lazzar, they have like barbecues again. I'm like, I was starting to then like, I'm like, Freyver was saying that he was doing this. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I think he was on Lex Friedman's podcaster or another way. And I was like he says it seems like an interesting guy to be around. Yeah, so I'm like, I was starting to feel bad. And I'm like, oh, maybe he's not foolish. So like I said, I hope I'm wrong. But the problem is I know too much physics and what he says is just so wrong.

I've gone back and forth on him. I believed him in the beginning and then I stopped believing him for a while and then I'm back on the Bobbazar train now. I think it's... I'm on the Eric Davis train, actually. Actually, recently, Eric Davis joined the physics faculty as an adjunct faculty at U-Albany. That was a big deal. That's a big deal. So nobody knows that because I'm not in Twitter. So soon as somebody hears that, if they hear this on this podcast, UFO Twitter's going to lose its shit over this news. No one's heard this. There was no press release. We didn't trumpet it. But yeah, Eric Davis is working with me and Kevin now at U-Albony,

remotely. He's just a volunteer. He's not paid. He's a volunteer adjunct professor. And we're honored to have him. Him, I believe. Because I sit down with him. I talk physics. Unlike, you know, I listen to Bobbless Arts physics. I ask Eric questions and guess what? His answers are reasonable. I have a PhD in physics, so I know he's not talking BS to me. And, um, yeah, he's one of the guys that seems to be the one of the few guys that's like not detested by anybody in this space. Everyone seems to take him seriously. But he's the real deal. Wilson memo, that's a real deal. He's never gonna admit that publicly but that's the wheel that's what was the Wilson memo oh that's the the alleged recording of the like of of of Eric talking with Admiral Wilson about the legacy program

right yeah yeah I've heard this before it's just like yeah yeah people consider earth-shattering revelation and but then some people say it was debunk it's real but Eric's not gonna admit that he just wants to have you know he just wants to be left alone right he just he's got he's got a wife and families as do I like he just wants to be left the hell alone so you don't see him on every podcast or promoting himself. He hasn't gotten a single dollar off of anything. And so that's, again, why I think he's more likely to be legitimate than people like Bob Lazzar who are just going documentaries and this stuff.

He's just a real physicist. I asked him, so, okay, you talk to people in the legacy program, you've talked to people who claim reverse engineering. He gave me the most honest answer, better than Bob Lazzar's answer, bro, any answer is the most plausible to be correct answer. I go, okay, Eric, how do the ships work? Bob thinks he knows. Tell me how they work.

Eric, sitting on my classroom office, Eric says to me, Matthew, we don't have a fucking clue. That's the most honest answer. Think about it this way. Think about it this way. Let's do a thought experiment. Take my phone or take your phone. Let's give it to the greatest scientist of the 1890s. What do you think they would do with it?

What percent of it do you think they'd figure it out? not yeah none zero after the battery died they would make even less progress where's the you where's the lightning port or the USBC to plug it in in 1890 that's the problem here if you dropped a Tesla off somewhere

exactly in like how long ago was 1890 a long time ago let's do the math how long ago was 1890 200 years ago so less than less than 150 years ago so yeah okay so to 1900

that's 125 years ago, right? So we're talking 135 years ago. Okay. That's only 135 years, okay? This iPhone, you agree, would never be reverse engineered, even if you took the 100 smartest human beings on Earth, they would all die of old age, having figured out nothing.

Right. And you're going to tell me now, and this is what Bob Las Arcliffe, you're going to tell me that human beings can figure something out that's million, potentially millions billions of years more advanced than us no yeah and that's why eric's answer always stuck with me and by the way hal putoff gives the same answer i asked him separately he gives the same answer we don't have a fucking clue so you know what hal said to kevin once he said kevin

we wouldn't know the difference between their navigational computer and a sandwich well bob says that inside that craft there was no instruments there's nothing so how do we make progress Exactly. But the problem is, is that there are not enough people working on it. Number one, it's too classified and stovepiped. And number two, the other problem is it's too far ahead. And so we don't know. We can't, we don't know where to start. Right. Exactly. I've actually, I'm going to claim something very bold. I'm one of the only people who's actually figured out what at least one alleged UFO crash part is for. So recently, I've actually, with my help of my friends, Mark, who came up earlier, remember we play the YouTube video from him with the spinning. Thanks to my friends Mark and Jared, they're aerospace guys who are doing anti-gravity research. They're the real guys who are actually trying to make anti-gravity reality. Nobody's, you know, no men in black have killed them yet. You ask them, they're like, oh, you know, it's a good day today, right?

Because men in black haven't killed me yet today. But basically, thanks to them, I got a piece. it's known as the art part you know Art Bell Coast to Coast A.M. Linda Moulten Howell also had this so I got a fragment that's allegedly

from New Mexico from 1947 and I've been doing material analysis on it and I'm going to publish a paper on it hopefully by the end of this year or next year then I'm going to print out that paper

and I want to shove it up the ass or down the throat of every single skeptic and debunker because we found that that material is anomalous and discovered that the arrow report on this material was a lie it was a whitewash they didn't list half of the elements in it they didn't list any of the interesting isotopic configurations nothing

Gary Nolan knows this a few people know this who have pieces of the mother sample there was a big sample I only got a fragment of it and I was I developed a whole new technique I developed a new way of testing what something is made of faster and cheaper. You did? Yes, I did than existing techniques. Yes. And so I'm hoping that people start sending me like actual parts. I can determine whether something is terrestrial or extraterrestrial. How? By the isotopic ratio. So everything is made of elements and each of those elements as isotopes, but the isotopic ratios are unique to different planets, different parts of the galaxy. Still doesn't conclusively prove something's extraterrestrial because the skeptic could always say,

oh, it was part of a nuclear test and it changed the isotopic composition, sure. But what I can demonstrate is whether something is weird. I know that's very vague, but I can demonstrate whether something's weird, whether it's anomalous, or whether it's boring. Like, oh, this is just a hunk of aluminum.

That reminds me, are you familiar with the, there was some sort of material with a certain configuration of isotopes that was found in the middle of like nuclear blasts? that they found that matched the exact type of material they found on Mars. Have you ever heard of this? I have not heard of this. Oh, so maybe we created it by accident.

George Johnny was, remember this, Steve, when Joe Johnny was talking about this? He was, he was... Oh, are you talking about the possibility there was like a nuclear war back in the day of Mars? This was his theory, but the hard evidence that he explained to back this up was that there was some sort of material with isotopes that were found in nuclear blast sites. Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, yes. I definitely heard of this. That match specifically specific isotopes they configure, like, Mars is only a place. I know who you're talking about because he's one of the co-stars on a show I'm on, actually.

The proof is out there on the history channel. Okay. And he's the Mars guy. I know what you're talking about. The guy who thinks that there was a civilization on Mars. John Brandenburg theory suggests that the red color of Mars could be evidence of catastrophic. But what's the, what's the-Zan-129. Zon-1-29.

That's what it is. Funny coincidence. Remember, I use Xenon to look for dark matter, right? Right. So that's just a coincidence. Right. So what does it say? So Jordanic claims...

Sidonia! Ah, yes, yes, yes. So I don't think it's Brandenburg, but what if his associate's something? There's a guy who's head of the Sidonia Society, who's a co-star and the proof is out there with me. Oh, so this is what the theory. So Xenon 129 is consistent across the entire solar system except for on Mars. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, so we're talking about it's top of racism.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah. is that there are unique signatures in different locations. Yeah, Mars is a problem, but exactly. But my point is that I want to look at the isotopic ratios. I'm using a non-destructive technique to determine the composition of a material. I'll tell you, though, so far, I've only gotten one potentially anomalous thing. Most of the things is UFO, you know, crazy people send me.

It's a meteorite. or it's a piece of an airplane. So most of the time, unfortunately, it's boring. But finally, thanks to knowing the right people and being patient, I finally got a piece of something that's really interesting. And let's see how silent the mainstream media is going to be on this. I'm going to publish later this year definitive evidence that the government lied about this material and published a whitewash report

claiming it was not anomalous when they knew better. And I have definitive proof that's anomalous, that's strange. I don't have proof it's extraterrestrial to be clear. Not yet. But it's weird.

And they claim it's not weird. Oh, it's a boring piece of whatever. Slag is like, no, it's not. When is this coming out? I'm hoping by the end of the year. End of the year. Because here's the thing. I don't want to get,

I don't want to get gate kept past test. I don't want. I want to get all my ducks in a row. I want to double check it. I want to triple check it. I want to quadruple check it before I submit it for scientific peer review. Because what I don't want to happen is I want it to be perfect. I want it to be an airtight case.

So like I said, I can publish the paper in a major scientific journal and then shove it in in the face of people who have been poo-pooing UFOs for years. I'm sick and tired of them. I'm sick and tired of Neil deGrasse Tyson going out there saying, oh, it's all nonsense. Oh, aliens. Oh, blah, blah.

What if the invite? You know what I'm tempted to do? I could totally pull this off to get his attention. It's very hard to get his attention because I'm not important. I'm at an unimportant university. I'm not trying to be rich and famous.

I'm not at Harvard. I'm not at Stanford. Just to get under his skin, what I'm hoping to be able to do. So I've actually been working with Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school where he graduated because I've been reviewing their physics courses because I'm part of the U-O-Binney in the high school program, the university and high school program where they're doing college course at university level. One of them is Neil deGrasse Tyson's alma mater, the high school he graduated from. So here's what I'm thinking.

I was going to go to the principal. I'm still thinking of doing this. I'm might seriously do this. Be like, hey, can I give a talk on UFOs and do this at Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school that he went to school at get it in the newspaper get it all over mainstream media to the point where he's like who's this matthew guy where he's finally forced to pay attention that's amazing yeah that's my goal just to get under get under his skin because i'm sick and tired of him claiming there's no physical evidence well then what the fuck am i testing in my lab that's not an eyewitness account it's not a video i have a

piece of material that is not easy to explain that's physical evidence of Okay. So I'm sick and tired of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson saying there's no physical evidence. Yes, there is. There's Delphos, Kansas. There's all these alleged UFO crashes and landings where there is physical evidence that's been subjected to chemical testing. And there are evidence of anomalies. Just talk to Gary Nolan. Talk to any. Talk to Jacques Valet.

There is physical evidence from some cases. But if you close your eyes and you stuff your fingers in your ears, like all the dogmatic people do and play la la la la i'm not listening then you're not going to see any of the evidence you're not going to see kevin's paper that that we talked about earlier that shows the tick tack could have crossed the galaxy in six months and nobody cares nobody reads the paper nobody understands it's insane well listen man i hope you continue to do this and bring this energy to this topic and uh do all these things to get this stuff out because i think uh we can use more people like you out there trying to put this shit out in the public and point out all the craziness

I'm open source no NDAs no classification I'm going to be discovering stuff and and what am I going to do I'm going to publish it so you can read it fuck yeah yeah I love it dude Matthew thank you so much for your time I just at three hours tell people where they can find you online find your website your papers all the stuff well it's funny because I'm not on social media like I said earlier we're like on your Facebook but there's a very easy way to find everything I've ever published. And the reason is, almost nobody on this planet has the same last name as me. Less than 100 people, I would estimate. And so the easiest way to find everything I've written without a paywall is to go to archive.org, A-R-X-I-V-D-R-X-V-R-

and you just type in my last name. Shadagas, S-Z-Y-D-A-G-S. You'll find everything I've ever written. like my mainstream stuff of course too dark matter yeah there we go yeah there it is now archive is a beautiful thing it's it was created by carnell university it's a way of trying to get around the gatekeeping and a lot of journals you basically you throw up your paper here before it's gone through peer review right unfortunately archive does have a dark side as well they in recent years have started to do some of their own gatekeeping and so i know people who have gotten their papers rejected from archive when it's like how can it be rejected it's not supposed to be peer-reviewed yet so yeah so archive has positive and negative side doing like a wikipedia type deal huh yes yes yes yes yes exactly

yes you know what recently happened to the debrief they kicked them off of wikipedia no i didn't know that tabloid i'm friends with the debrief guy you know mica hanks you know myka no i don't so yeah bill clinton got all his stuff about epstein removed from his wikipedia recently convenient right yeah so but but so archive is doing something some gatekeeping, but I have been blessed that they haven't rejected any of my stuff, including my crazy UFO stuff. Everything I've written you can find right there. Fantastic. Well, hopefully we keep it that way. Yeah. And thanks again for your time, man. I really appreciate coming down here and talking to us. Thank you. Thank you for having me. All right. Good night, everyone.

Spring just slid into your DMs. Grab that boho look for that rooftop dinner, those sandals that can keep up with you, and hang some string lights to give your patio a glow up. Spring's calling. Ross, your magic. You can't reason with the sun. Trust us. We've tried. This summer, it's time to put that angry ball of fire on mute. Columbia's Omnishade technology is engineered to protect you from the sun's harsh rays that can burn and damage your skin. The sun is relentless, but so is our gear. Level up your summer at Columbia.com to spend more time outside and less time slathering on allolotion. You're welcome. Columbia, engineered for whatever.