Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Astrophysicist Exposes UFO Whistleblower David Grusch

Episode Date: June 20, 2024

Join my mailing list https://briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN! How likely is it that aliens exist? How credible are the testimonies of David Grusch, Ryan Graves, and other UFO whistleblowers? Does antigravity defy the laws of physics? And do US universities have a problem with free speech?  I had the pleasure of exploring these issues on The Danny Jones Podcast. A podcast that exists to bring fringe cultures to a broad audience through thoughtful storytelling and beautiful cinematography. In our thought-provoking conversation, Danny and I challenged the boundaries of free thinking. And let me tell you, whether you’re a skeptic or a believer, this episode is worth a listen.  Tune in! Key Takeaways: 00:00:00 - Harvard, Hamas, and Israel 00:14:49 - Keating vs. Jack Sarfatti on string theory 00:17:44 - Physics can't prove anything 00:20:06 - David Grusch 00:26:36 - Existence of alien life 00:34:16 - Radar spoofing technology 00:43:27 - Likelihood ratio test 00:50:56 - UFO "Zoo hypothesis" 00:54:56 - Ryan Graves's account of "Cube inside a Sphere" UFO 01:01:30 - Radar reflectors or UFOs? 01:08:33 - Antigravity research went dark 01:12:03 - Does antigravity defy the laws of physics? 01:20:06 - Tic Tac UFO physics 01:28:18 - Outro — Additional resources: 📝 Get one month of Snipd Premium for free with this link: https://get.snipd.com/Cx7S/brianSnipd Snipd lets you take Smart Notes 🧠 with AI 💡 — it’s my favorite podcast player 😀 ! ➡️ Connect with Danny Jones: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/JonesDanny/  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Koncrete?sub_confirmation=1 ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1  📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list  ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/  🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. We were watching the video of those deans at Harvard talking about the saying the genital Jews is not considered hate speech at your university. She's like, well, not unless you conduct the... Right. You have to actually commit it, which I pointed out in the tweet. I was like, so it's impossible for an individual or even like a campus to have a genocide, right? Genocide is removal of all the people on Earth.

Right, exactly. But you can call for it, right? We can call for the, you know, I would never do this. But, you know, Armenians should not be, you know, people from Tennessee should not be allowed to exist. Those shiftless Tennesseans, right? And if you're doing that, you know, so that that speech. But then they're saying that that speech is okay as long as you don't actually go out and kill everyone from Tennessee. But imagine trying to.

Is it a fine lot. Would you kill anybody? You know, no, it's really not. It's a moral, complete moral cowardice. I mean, universities have gotten so rotten. You see what Dave Portnoy? said about that. David Portnoy came out and he said that he,

I think he went on one of the shows on TV. And he's basically like, I'm no longer going to, we're not going to hire any students from those universities until those dean stepped down. Yeah, I mean, I was, you know, going around saying it's actually a good thing. My university is very prestigious, but it's not as prestigious as Harvard.

And that's a good thing. Because the more prestigious the university, the more the president wants to keep her job. And the more she wants to keep her job, the more dangerous. is for the university. So these universities, forget about that they've lost donations and stuff like that. Those universities have a combined $120 billion endowment. They don't need donations. They need donate. You know, like if you give them $100 million, their net worth goes up by, you know, one, one tenth of one percent, right? So this is not something that really affects them. But. So what's going on with that? Like, why are they doing this? I think that they are so incredibly beholden to not offending, you know, which I think is very demeaning towards Muslims. that they can't say that these certain things are off limits and you can't say certain types of speech. Just like Jews wouldn't go around and saying we call for the complete liquidation of all Palestinians from Israel.

Right. It's not something we would ever condone. So, you know, it's called making principles of your community. Like, you can have free speech. By the way, free speech applies to the government. The government of the United States cannot impinge upon your free speech, my free speech. They can't compel us to say stuff. But campuses compel us to say stuff all the time.

because it's a, it's not a free speech, you know, it's not truly subject to the First Amendment, because they're not the government, even at a public university like mine. And then that people try to say, well, no, they get government funding, but there are a lot of professors that don't get government funding. So what do you do in that situation? They can inhibit free speech very easily by basically,

you basically can lose your livelihood, or you can lose your job or your tenure or whatever. It's the same thing with the internet, people self-censor because they don't want to be kicked off YouTube. That's right. Yeah. So the more prestigious you are, the less likely it is that you would be,

able to do any other job in life. This woman, Claudian Gay, I mean, first of all, for her scholarship, she's the president of Harvard. You keep saying dean and just to correct you, it would be like me saying, you know, this is just a little YouTube channel, right? This is a huge YouTube channel. You're the founder, although I have to say, when I was invited on this show, it's called concrete. Yes, it was. Now it's not called concrete. Yes.

We have more than 10,000 subscribers. Oh, really? Yes. I think you have a lot more than 10,000. So, yeah. But no, no, no. The titles are very important for academics. See, we don't get paid that much.

We don't get in, you know, too much fame. We don't get too much attention. You know, some get more than others. But academics really rely on one type of currency for their existence, for their self-gratification. And that's how many times they get cited by other egg-headed academics like me. And to do what the president has been accused of, and it seems very credible. In fact, she's already going back and retracting this, these papers. and having them re-edited.

It's very scary, right? Because there used to be a saying in the Soviet Union. I don't know if you ever saw this pictures, like Lenin and Stalin or this Trotsky, this other guy on a bridge. And like in the 1930s, and then they redid this picture and they just edited out this guy.

But in the 1930s, and it looks flawless as if you did it with Photoshop. But of course, you know, 80 years before Photoshop existed. Wow. So they just, and so in the Soviet Union, there was a joke. They used to say the future is known.

That communism is the future. The future is bright and glorious, but the past was always changing. So they'd go back and erase things from history. So literally what she's having these journals do, which is unprecedented. In some cases, decades later, the president of Harvard, I couldn't get this done. I'm just a lowly, you know, tenured professor, right? The president of Harvard has convinced the journals that published her academic papers, which are now being cited for plagiarism, that there's a claim that she plagiarized.

She stole work from other people, which is fine to do, and not even stealing, if you quote it and you say Brian Keating wrote this, Danny Jones wrote that, and you put quotes around it. But if you say like, you know, your greatest hit buying a Lamborghini for $4.1 million, you know, whenever, like, and I just put it, like, I change it. I put Brian Keating video buying a Lamborghini. I get all the car. That's wrong. That's objectively intellectually dishonest. But then to have YouTube go back in a race that you made that video, that you did this interview with CIA spy or a NASA, you know, whistleblower.

If you were to do that and go back and just erase you, that you never did it, I did it. It's very scary. It's rewriting of history. Yeah. What else do we have? We don't have our memories and our history. So it's a very depressing time to be an academic. And part, that was the reason that I wanted to, you know, play around with what Jordan Peterson is doing with the Peterson Academy, which is a for-profit university university, but with the cost to the consumer of less than 10% of a traditional university degree.

And accredited eventually, although not yet. There are all these weird chicken or egg things. Like you have to graduate a college class. Like people have to get their degree from Peterson Academy or this new university, Austin, Texas. They have to get their degree before the university itself becomes an official university. Does that make sense? So it won't be accredited. I don't know if you went to college or not.

I went to college. I went to undergraduate. That was an accredited undergraduate institution. I got my degree, Bachelor of Science. And so I went to get my PhD also accredited. for new universities, it's a little trickier. You have to go through certain hoops legislation so that just everybody can't open their own university and give charge people tuition for degrees. Right, right. So, yeah, so academia has been really under attack. I mean, it's, it's been bad for a long time.

This so-called diversity, equity and inclusion, or as I call it, diversity, inclusion, and equity, and that makes the acronym D-I-E, is, you know, it is a, impingement upon free speech. So for these people to all of a sudden discover the newfound love for free speech, it's kind of, it's kind of surprising because some of these people were some of the most oppressive of ideas that they disagreed with and controlled the speech on campus extremely, extremely strictly, until October 7th. And when October 7th happened, and Jews were massacred in their beds in Kabatim, and their toddlers were kidnapped for the first time in war. There's no record of babies. As I said, baby who's a couple of months old, is in captivity in Hamas territory and Gaza. Never happened in human warfare, modern warfare, and that this is acceptable.

And the day after this happened, on my campus and other campuses, students celebrated. They actually were concerned about the people of Gaza and Palestinians and said that the martyrs had done great good, meaning the Hamas terrorists. People on your campus? Yeah, on my campus. What were they doing specifically? So they said they had rallies in support of the quote-unquote. martyrs. These are students for justice in Palestine. They're called. They're on every campus, many, many campuses. Some campuses have actually evicted them and removed them Columbia University.

Brandeis, recently Rutgers University has banned them from campus. They have different affiliations, some with groups like care, which is found to be extremely problematic and its support for the October 7th terror attacks. Anyway, so these campuses have become really intolerant. In fact, in my campus at UC San Diego, we had a... a rally outside of the student senate, so the undergraduates voting on whether or not they should condemn anti-Semitism. In other words, all your fellow students gather around and they said, we want to make a condemnation because there's been so much anti-Semitism since and before October 7th, we had a swastika written in human feces in one of our dormitories at UC San Diego. This was almost barely mentioned during what they, you know, these students for justice in Palestine have a week every year and they call Israel an apartheid state and all their slanders against Israel. But anyway, they had this event and that happened that swastikom, not saying it was created by them, but it happened at the time when they have these events on campus.

So the student senators decided we're going to have a forum, a referendum, and just say, we condemn anti-Semitism. Well, outside that meeting, there were students wearing kaffaias, the Palestinian garb and others, and they hoisted the flag of ISIS. They hoisted the shahada, the flag that represents ISIS, Islamic State, in front of where these senators, to my knowledge, none of them are actually Jewish. Some of them are Asian. Some of them are, you know, Latin American, some of them or whatever. None of them are Jewish, but they hoisted this flag in front of where they were holding this meeting. clearly meant to intimidate. Nothing was done to them.

You can come to meetings now wearing full head coverings unless you wear the wrong one. So you can wear a complete kphia that covers your head. But I guarantee you if somebody showed up with the KKK clanhood, they would be escorted immediately, as they should be.

Right. You don't have to host people in your campus. If I came into the studio and I said, my First Amendment right has me be able to say whatever I want and start to talk about the KKK. It's a private organization. You don't have to do it. You can have certain principles that protect

your decor. and what you expect of people that come on here and come into your your private place of business or even in public spaces. So campuses have become real kind of centers for a lot of extreme repugnant views and not just, you know, very far away from an academia is supposed to be and why I became a professor. It makes me wonder, too, when you look at history and you, like, how much are these students being influenced by where is there influence coming from. You know, you always wonder, like, is it coming from an outside influence, just trying to sow chaos within the United States? People really believe this? Because these people are so disconnected from what's going on in that part of the world. Like, they have no fucking clue. We live,

we live, we're surrounded by 6,000 miles of ocean in both directions. Like, we have it so good here. Yeah. So good here. And you can't begin to fathom what it must be like to live in that part of the world that's just been torn by war and religion for so fucking long. Yeah. No, and you look at it and you see people, you know, protesting the LGBTQ, you know, organizations protesting on behalf of Hamas. I mean, these are things that don't make sense because their views are antithetical. Like, try finding when was the last Pride parade held in Gaza? Like, just look up and check it. It's never happened, right? Whereas in Israel, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. So they have vote. They have, They have all different parties. They have an Arab party. There's Arabs on their Supreme Court, meaning Palestinians. They're people that are Israeli citizens that serve in their military. I was just there in September. I spent time with a man whose father is a 26. He's a Bedouin, Muslim Bedouin from Tiberias. And his father's been in the IDF for 26 years. No problem. He's devout, practicing Muslims. Okay. To say that there's like ethnic cleansing and apartheid, it's just such a line. In South Africa on the 1970s, they didn't have blacks in the parliament. They didn't have blacks in the parliament. They didn't have.

have a parliament that has a LGBT party. There's a party of that. There are parties of atheists. There are parties that are religious. It's one of the most diverse and multicultural societies on earth. And it's in the most dangerous part of the world. And the Jews have lived in complete, you know, kind of abject, you know, fear for decades. And this is not to deny the Palestinians should have landed their own. I've never claimed that. I've never

said that that they shouldn't. But by the same token, you look at, you know, things on October 6 versus October 7th, how could you possibly, you know, see how you could make an agreement to live in peace side by side with these, you know, people from Palestinian territories who now support, there are more supporters I read yesterday of Hamas in the West Bank than in Gaza by a proportionate amount. Yeah. So this is the, these are the people that Israel is going to attempt to make peace with. I think it's going to be extremely challenging. I think Israel had huge breakdowns in their society and internally, but their democracy and these things are

get worked out. Probably Netanyahu will be gone. But the campus culture has gotten so, it's become so virulent, these ideas like you were mentioning, that they propagate in a mind virus, that things you could not get someone to believe in unless they were an intellectual. There was a phrase that, you know, that's Lenin UCU is called, useful idiots. Yeah. There'd be people that could do good because they were, they were stupid and easily duped. But I came up with a phrase that's called useless geniuses. We have all these brilliant people on campus, like the father of string theory. Maybe we'll get into it.

Or one of the modern fathers of string theory, Edward Witton. Yeah. Until October 7th or until just the summer, he had his Twitter feed. And if you looked at his Twitter feed, essentially every single tweet about it was about how evil Israel is and how just the Palestinians are and how they, you know, Israel is basically an apartheid state. Who is this you're talking about? Edward Witton. Edwin. He's a Twitter? And it's Twitter.

I haven't realized that. And so I made jokes like, no wonder string theory hasn't made any progress in decades, you know, because there's this guy who was the foremost proponent champion of string theory. And he's obsessed with his, he's a Jew. He's obsessed with the, you know, alleged atrocities that Israel is committing. He's gone silent. He's gone completely silent. So I've hoped for string theory.

Maybe string theory is about to make a revolution because Edward wouldn't. Maybe he's gotten back his moral, you know, intellectual ability back. but until then he was called a lot of times the smartest man on earth yeah and he believed things that were just completely just absolute just nonsense and and it takes sometimes an intellectual to believe such things that's funny we so before you got here i told you we were doing this little patreon episode and uh i called up jack sarfadi and i said jack he's a good friend of mine now after i went over i went and visited him he's he's i wish there's more people like him um who will have to well you'll have I said, Jack, I've watched 10 videos on string theory this morning.

Can you explain to me what string theory is better than any of these YouTube videos can? His answer was, it's bullshit, it's, it's art, it's mathematical art. I saw his interview with you. Would you confirm or deny that? Jack's a problematic person a lot of ways. He's extremely, he's extremely upsteporous. I mean, he loves to cause trouble. He copies me on emails.

I've asked him to remove me a hundred times. I'm like, I'm like, how he's, possibly expect to revolutionize technology and physics if you don't understand how to use BCC. I would just love that. And one of my friends who I won't say who it is. So every time Jack sends an email, this guy sends him a link to like donate to Kamala Harris re-election. Oh no. That's a little hilarious. Because this guy is so he's asked him four times. A guy won't do it. And then there's always a new thread and he changes his email address. So it's like every day this guy's getting a new email from. I actually have a block. So I've

blocked all his email. So Jack, if you're out there, you know, try harder, my friend. I think he was at UC San Diego before he went to, yeah. He went to UC San Diego. Yeah, he got his degree there. And he's not his PhD, but he got his master's in physics from there. Yeah. So I have no record of anything that he's done the last 25 years or more even at. I haven't got back. I believe that he was mentioned in this book by my good friend, David Kaiser, called How the Hippies Save Physics. Yes. To what extent his contributions are really, you know, recognized, you know, I think you can look at who have gone, you know, these awards, who get citations, what

papers have been published, what journals, and just the way that he communicates, I think is really obnoxious and the way that he criticizes my very good friend, you know, Eric Weinstein. He's an idiot, he's a schmuck. I called him an idiot and a schmuck, I think. He calls me that almost every time I talk to him. Yeah, I mean, you know, you don't

have to be around him, right? You're not in the field as the same field as him, but everyone's an idiot compared to him. Yes, exactly. That is a fact, by the way. Yeah, Jack, They say, let me give you a tip. They say you're the average of the five people you're around the most. All the buddy around you is an idiot.

You're the idiot. It's like the fool at the poker table. But, you know, God bless him, he can do his thing. But look, the difference between these guys is drink theorist and Eric Weinstein and Brian Green and Mitchie Okaku, who Julian, our mutual friend, has had on. They're all theorists. Okay. So they're working on theories that are by nature provisional.

Every single theory is provisional. of evolution is provisional. The theory of plate tectonics is provisional. In other words, could change. I always like to bring up this idea. Like, do you believe the Earth is a sphere? I don't know if you've had flat earthers on the show. I have, unfortunately.

I should have, yeah. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month.

Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. I've done my due diligence before. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know it's not a perfect spirit. It's like a flywheel.

Well, it's more like a pair. Yes, exactly. It bulges at the equator. It's a little narrow at the pole. So it's kind of like a pair. It's a little weird shape. But if you believe that it's flat, you're more wrong than someone who, believes it's a sphere, even though you both are wrong technically, right?

To explain, you actually need to involve these things called spherical harmonics, and even those will have some deficiency in capturing the accurate shape of the planet itself. But there's degrees of being less wrong, and then there are classifications of people you say that are not even wrong, a famous quote from Wolfgang Pali. So the question is, can a theorist really make progress? The answer is no. A theorist can't do anything, can't do crap by themselves sitting in a room. because for a very important reason, you may think it is the job of an experimental physicist like me or a theoretical physicist to prove something.

But actually, proof in physics is completely impossible. Any physical science is impossible. There's only two subjects you can prove something in. One is called logic or philosophy, and the other is math. Math can actually have a theorem like one plus one equals two, and it will take 200 pages to prove it from different category theory, group theory, set theory. And you can prove it multiple ways. prove Pythagorean theorem in, I think, 300 different ways you can prove it. But you can't prove a theory of physics, right? If I say the evolution is true, all I have to do is find one counter,

counter, I'm not saying this exists, of Lamarckian genetic traits, and actually some of it, you know, was thought to be very plausible, say, or that, you know, you find some type of creature that doesn't use DNA and only uses RNA or some triple, I don't know, I'm making it up, but, but the point is one counter example can falsify something that was previously believed to be true, like Newtonian gravity, like Einsteinian gravity. We don't even think Einstein's the final word, right? There's no final word because there's no proof in physical science. It's only proof in a mathematical, abstract, abstruse sense,

as it is, say, in mathematics and in philosophy. So for physicists, it gives them great angst. Theoretical physicists know that not only is it not possible for their theory to be proven, it may not even be testable. And this is the problem with theories like that of people like Mitchi Okaku, Brian Green or Edward Witten, strength theory, or Jack.

I can't look into Jack's theories without getting a headache. He says, challenge any of these schmuck to debate the Salfati. They're all scared. Oh, yeah, right. No, no, no, I'll quote what I was told once that Richard Dawkins said when he was asked to challenge them. He doesn't believe in evolution. He says, I could see how that would be an outstanding addition to your CV. you can understand how it would be an absolutely horrendous one for mine, right?

So Jack's completely, you know, no one's going to debate him. No one's going to, because, actually, because of the way they're going to be associated with him. They don't want to be associated with him. They don't take him serious. I actually joke. I say like somebody comes up with it because actually Eric Weinstein's called me up a lot recently asking about like my thoughts on Grush. And, you know, I actually haven't done my due diligence on. I've been so busy the last couple weeks.

But it's something I'm going to have time. Maybe even talk to Grush at some point. but I always ask Eric or whoever I talk to or they have some new theory. I say, what's the Sarfati number? You know, like how far away from complete abject unfalsifiability? Just like I got there first. I came up with this and just the kind of grandiosity that people like Jack Watt. And there's many of them.

I get emails from them every day. You know, Professor Keating, you're wrong. Everybody's wrong. I'm right. Let me come on the podcast. Let me write a paper with you. I'm not good in math. I mean, Jack's probably good in math.

but they'll say, I'm not good in math, but if you help me out, we'll share the Nobel Prize. And, you know, and for, you know, I don't blame these people for having passion about these different phenomena. But look, if I asked you, you know, Daniel, I said to you, look, which is more important? Let's say, let's say

grush is, or there is something, and I don't know, I actually don't know which, because I think you're, you do an outstanding job. You don't really kind of tip your hand at what you truly believe. You're not dogmatic. You're kind of curious. You want to hear the answer. and, you know, for me, if I asked you, just point black, I said, let's say Grush is right, what do you think is the technology that allowed these spacecraft to get here?

He's claiming, as far as I understand it, he hasn't seen, and you please correct me wrong, because I don't follow this nearly as close as you do. But he's claiming that there are people in the government, our U.S. government, that have covered up the landing of spacecraft with bodies inside, with some type of biologics, He's called them in congressional testimony. I've had on Ryan Graves on my podcast, who's a former F-18 pilot. He's been here too. Yeah.

Yeah, and he's great. He's a very sweet guy. And I believe he's earnest in his mission when he's trying to accomplish. And he hasn't said, though, you know, he never said that he saw these craft, these spheres and stuff. Yes, exactly. He said that he knows a pilots and they would not only see them, they'd see them every day, every deployment. So, and Fravor claims he saw this TikTok. Let's just say they're all real.

There's some kernel of truth. God tells you. Here, Danny, boom. They're true. There's tic-tacks. There's crash saucers. There's biologics. There's cubes with spheres and spheres with cubes.

What if I asked you, Danny, what was the technology that was more important to those aliens to get here? Was it string theory or was it metallurgy? What would you say it is? What technology enabled it more? If you just had a guess, was it something like string theory or was it something like metallurgy? I would say something like metallurgy. Yeah.

I mean, it's much more practical, right? There's nothing about string theory necessarily that involves anything that's a necessary condition for those aliens to get here. And yet you have people like Jack and like others that you need this warp drive and you need this theory of physics. And Eric's theory of geometric unity is wrong. Because to answer this question usually presupposes the fact that these distances are enormous, which is true. I mean, these distances are enormous. But the age of the universe is also quite enormous, right? if you imagine that these craft have been traveling, if they exist, and I'm not saying, I actually

don't think they exist. Right. You know, so I'd rather, you know, kind of defend that. But I think to be an intellectually, and to be honest, you have to say, look, let's give the other side steelman your opponent's argument and see if that sharpens up your own. So from my perspective, when people result as Dave Grush has, that these things are holograms and they travel at the, you know, fasten the speed of light, and they can manipulate space time. I've heard him when he was on Joe Rogan, speculating about this, tying in these loose notions of quantum mechanics and relativity

and warp drives and all these other things. He's a physicist too, isn't he Grush? No. No. I thought he had a degree in physics. He might have a bachelor's degree or something. That doesn't mean he's a physicist. Yeah, and he's not a pilot.

I mean, it's not right. And I don't think that those things necessarily like, frayver, oh, you're doubting a U.S. Navy veteran? I'm like, he has more bigger balls than I do, but doesn't mean he's like better observer and analytic when it comes to data analysis. he did an eyewitness thing.

You know, probably. Most courts, you know, eyewitness reports are replete with being completely erroneous, misinterpreted. You know, they have famous studies where there's like the Stanford says there's a gorilla dribbling a basketball

like between all these other people. You're just counting how many times somebody dribbles a basketball and a gorilla goes there. Nobody notices the gorilla. I mean, the fact that human beings are not considered as reliable as other forms of evidence

in many situations. It leads me to say that, Like, yeah, I'm just as qualified. Again, I don't have the balls that David Fravor. Ryan Graves have my friend, Ariel Kleinerman. I've had on all these guys. I haven't on David Fravor. Alex Dietrich.

I mean, I'm like, she's not big balls, whatever she has, big ovaries. I don't have the courage. I didn't have the physical mental abilities to be a pilot at their level. I fly little Cessna's around. But, okay, I stipulate that. But does that mean that you just trust whatever they say? I mean, are we in the stance? Are we going to take the stance that,

someone in the government is to be trusted. I mean, I always thought that the government is to be, is to be suspicious of, right? We covered up Roswell. They covered up all these things. The Kennedy assassinated. So you can't have it both ways. I mean, at some point, you have to look and say,

do the data tell us right now? And I'm always surprised on my channel how many people just assume that I'm working for big astronomy or there's some like, you know, conspiracy that I'm a part of that, like, because I am skeptical of the existence. Look, I'll be honest. I'm skeptical not only of the existence of alien technology,

I'm fairly suspicious of the existence of alien life, which is a prerequisite for alien intelligence and technology, right? So, and I've made arguments for that. I was on Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman, but I'm not the final word either. You know, so caveat MTOR. Why don't you believe that there is alien life? Or any, you say you said, you have said before,

that you don't believe that there is alien life, or intelligent alien life. I'm careful about it. I don't say I don't believe. Like I say, I don't believe in gravity either. Evidence. There's no evidence. That's right.

But people like Jack Sarfati would say that there is evidence and they've seen it. And it's not something you can measure and test in a laboratory with beakers. It's something that you have to see. It's intelligence. It's police. It's investigative work. It's police work. Like it's something that scientists aren't going to have access to and they won't be able to measure and detect.

but it's something that exists because they've seen it and they know, they know that, you know, if you have a security clearance or whatever it might be, it's verifiable and it's there. So I ask you, are you a Christian? I'm not really, like, religious. Do you don't believe in God or Christ? I mean, I believe in God. I haven't really explored it too much.

I believe in something. Yeah. I don't follow us. I don't follow a strict faith. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. You're not a practice. I don't practice.

Right, right, right. Fine. But you know people that believe the existence. of Jesus Christ, not only based on the testimonies of the New Testament, but also because they've had personal revelation or they've been saved, salvation from by the works of Jesus that they ascribe to Jesus, right? Would you attribute those scientifically in any way? Would you say that their personal revelation of Christ, you know, in their deepest, darkest moments, they're at the bottom of a bottle or they're at the top of the world when they have a baby or whatever? Is that a scientific claim or is

that a faith claim? It's not scientific. Right. So in that sense, that's okay because faith is one thing and science is another thing. These things that they're talking about that they've seen with their eyes or they've experienced and there's some cover, those are also, now they're not only faith, but they're also saying they're scientific. If you're making a claim that there's objects and those objects have traveled across interstellar distances and or unless you, or as Tom DeLong told me on my podcast a long time ago, that those things have come from forwards in time or backward, I don't fully understand.

Right. And he can't prove it. and he has no chain of evidence that traces the alien spacecraft that he claims he has evidence of. He's lost the kind of provenance, as they would call it, in antiquing. So at what level do you say, well, okay, now you're just talking about faith, which is fine. You could talk about faith all you want, but faith is almost like taste. Like, I hate fish. There's no much, you could take me to the seafood restaurant down the street and tell me how great this thing tastes.

And I'm going to say, I don't give a crap. I'm not going to eat that damn thing. And you could say, even as people do, it doesn't taste like food. fish. I'll say, you know what else doesn't taste like fish? A freaking hamburger doesn't taste like fish. So I'll just skip the middleman and I'll have my own hamburger, right? So there's no amount of that, though, convince a person to believe based on your faith in something else, which may be very visceral to you. It may have saved your life. Or it may have, you know, made you a better man. But that doesn't have any effect on other people. And science is about the, the determination of

rules and patterns throughout the universe that hold throughout the universe. The Copernican principle states, the universe doesn't care who you are, where you are, what you are, what you're made of, what day it is. If I drop this, your gift, I'm going to wish you a happy Hanukkah, so I brought you a gift. Thank you. So I got you, I got you two gifts. Oh, three gifts. So this is, this is your inus clean. Your anus. So I got you to keep your anus clean. So I got you. So, oh, wow, this is amazing. You got to share with Steve. Oh, Steve, we can keep our aim. We can bleach our butthole. You are your A-9. You know that NASA is considering changing the name because it's so embarrassing to say uranium, right? They've commissioned a panel. That's beautiful. They've come up with the following term.

Erecten. So, and I'll tell you what this is later on. But if you, if you look at something that is portending, you know, sort of masquerading as something that could be scientific, forces, fields, life in the universe, all these things are contingent upon the existence of life, which is a physics question, a biology question, evolution question. And so they're saying, here's this thing that interacts with some people but not others. Well, that violates the Copernican principle. Sorry, I'm going to have a big problem with you if you say that there are only certain people that could experience it. So what good is it? So in other words, only the people that want to believe it will see it and only the people that already do believe it will experience it. That's not science.

It may be some cult or some new thing. And you see a lot of the same types of behavior. The people get very obsessed, almost cult-like, in their fervor for this. Jack is screaming out. every no, why won't you listen to me? Why won't you? And I think he's suffering a crisis of meaning in that, you know, he wants to be accepted by as many people as possible. Well, how is that going to happen if you keep, you know, solipsistically referring back to yourself that you can only be the one that could be trusted with this information and you're the only one that could see it. And nobody, no matter how much, will ever get to experience your perception, your taste, your experience. So I feel like it's at the highest level, it becomes pointless almost to debate these people.

So in your view, what do you think explains all these things like Roswell and these things that these pilots are seeing on their radars and the sightings above these nuclear bases and all this stuff? Like what do you deduce from that? I don't want to avoid the question. But I would say like what why don't you believe in Muhammad? Like why aren't you a practicing Muslim, Danny? It's not fair, right? I mean, like you might maybe you haven't seen evidence to believe. Like it's not up to you to explain why you're not a practicing Muslim, right?

It's up to me if I was proselytizing as a Muslim to try to convince you that actually Muhammad, the prophet was this and that and you should accept him or Jesus or whatever, right? In other words, my lack of believing it is not a statement about me unless you say like, well, what would, in other words, how can I explain a billion Muslims worshipping Muhammad, Allah, and being proud? Like, okay, this is something that has convinced them. So now you're asking me an analogous thing. like, what explains all these things? Well, I don't believe that they're actually, that they're representative of a reproducible scientific chain of events that can be tested using the scientific method. If, in fact, it's true, which I don't know, but if it's true that they only reveal themselves to certain people in certain places or on nuclear plants, you know, then I have to

be very suspicious as a scientist, right? I mean, I'm a father, so I have kids and I look at the kids and, you know, if they say like, well, I have an imaginary friend, oh, what's his name? Well, you can't No, you can't experience him. So, you know, but he's telling me to like steal money from your while, you know, like, okay, well, I would like to know more about that because you're telling me that something is happening with something that I cannot have access to because either I don't have clearance or the government's conspiring to keep me from knowing that information, et cetera, et cetera. So what is the information that's out there?

It's too hard for me to kind of assess the credibility of what's been claimed by various people. As I said, they're much more courageous, they're much braver, bigger balls than I'll ever have, right? That's grush, whoever, fravored. But that doesn't give them any extra ability to practice the scientific method than I have. And when you, I don't know, I mean, it would almost be better for me because you've investigated these more. I'll say why I think it's unlikely. I'll never say that these, they don't exist. I won't even say that what they're claiming isn't correct. I'll just say that you have to ascribe a probability. And to me, the probability is very low. I can't say it's zero. That they ever saw this stuff, this stuff ever happened?

That there are actually, I don't want to say that they saw it or they, that there are alien spacecraft from another solar system somewhere else in either our galaxy or another galaxy that has been collected by human beings on Earth. Right. I'm not saying that that's what it is. I'm saying like Ryan or the people that Ryan knows or Fravor, the things that they saw, what would you imagine them being based on your scientific perspective and your back like you don't think that they're aliens from another galaxy i don't think they are either okay what what do you think the explanation for them is well do you think that it's just a construct well so what you know the name of my podcast called into the impossible and the there oftentimes people think it comes from the Sherlock

homes quote which is that you know once you've excluded anything no matter how crazy the the facts that remain no matter how impossible they are uh that is the actual truth and and and And for me, the into the impossible comes from a different quote from Arthur C. Clark. The only way to determine the limits of the possible is go beyond them into the impossible. I have to ask, what types of phenomena are possible within the laws of physics that I am very, very conversant with? And what things would go, so to speak, outside the laws of physics? You'd have to ascribe things to that. So in other words, how many improbable things does one have to believe to actually accept that these things are from another galaxy?

That's a separate question, right? Yes, yes. So what are they seeing? So I will ask a different question. I'll say, what are plausible other explanations for what they've seen? So here's a statistic. When the planet Venus is visible on Earth about nine months out of the year. Three months of the year, it's behind the sun.

It's too close to the sun. It's emerging from behind the sun. You can't see it. But nine months out of the year. Not only in America, but throughout the world, the number of UFO sightings is statistically an incredibly amount more meaningful to be detected or to be claimed. during the nine months of the year when Venus is visible. It's extremely bright.

If you've ever seen it, it doesn't seem to move. It seems to hover like the way the moon doesn't move when you're driving, the giant parallax of it. The same thing happens as Venus. It does change a little bit. It doesn't twinkle. It doesn't flash.

And so millions of people, literally millions of people report it when it's, when Venus is out, the number of UFO reports goes up dramatically in a statistically significant manner. Conversely, when it's not up, they go down. Okay. So that's an explanation for some things that people,

are seeing, right? So if you said every single one of those people, unless they're all right, then we can't believe in that being a UFO. Okay, so you'd be right. You'd be right. That's Venus, so it's not a UFO. We are very good identification and it's not even flying. It's orbiting. So other things that make me curious about, suspicious about these claims. A lot of them are by military pilots. So what do militaries do? Do they only have the best interest of their people at heart? Do the military ever use their own and tragically and horribly use their own conscripts or volunteers? Do they only use them for beneficial purposes or for the actual missions that they signed up to do? Do they ever do siops on them?

Of course they do. Right. Do they ever abuse the power, the government ever abused the power and abused the people that are very bravest among us? Of course they do, right? Do they ever subject them to things they would never subject ordinary citizen to under the Constitution? Yes, they're exempt from certain things. They force them to get vaccines. They do all sorts of things, right?

And so could it be that they are maybe testing these pilots? Absolutely. Right. Furthermore, what are some other types of technology? Do you think all technology that the U.S. inventory has or adversary governments have right now is known and is published in popular science? Hell no. Of course not. Right.

So therefore, there could be advanced technology that could have been basically kept completely clandestine until it was interacted with by someone who thought they were a whistleblower, right? So, and then, is it possible to maintain the conspiracy? It would have to be, I mean, David and others are alleging, there's a conspiracy

to cover up these things. And, you know, can the conspiracy be maintained over eight decades not only between the thousands of individuals? You have to imagine. Let's say Roswell, even though I know it's not that, so don't flame me on the, on the channel.

comments below when you like, subscribe, and comment, I'll drop that for you. Thank you. And don't flammany. I don't believe this. But let's just say basically something like Roswell happened where there was a craft spacecraft in 1947, which, by the way, occurred very close to the Trinity site, very close to military secret compounds. And as are many of these things cited. Very few of them are cited over Manhattan, you know, in the middle of the Thanksgiving Day parade. Right. Many of them occur in warning areas, which are military traffic areas that even I as a small pilot, I'm allowed to go into.

So where the Tick-Tac was seen was it was an area that's not restricted or prevented from access to. It's something I go into at my risk. I can get shot down. They actually use my plane as target price. They don't actually shoot. Thank God I won't be here. But there's a little Sassna and they'll practice locking on. Thank God they do. I want them to train. I want them to be the best freaking fighting force in the world. I love this country. I want them to be protected. I want them to be safe. I don't want them to be experimented on. I don't have control over that. But could they be being spoof?

Could this thing have been a drone? Now they'll say, well, it moved so fast. It can't be. Are there ways to spoof both optical sensors like the human eye cameras in 2004? Well, I gave this example when I was on show, Rogan Show. I'll give it now because I don't expect everybody listens to all my stuff, although I wish that they did. I said in 1943, there was a great physicist.

He's actually featured in the movie Oppenheimer. His name is Louis Alvarez. And Louis Alvarez was just a genius. He and his son actually came up with the theory of how the dinosaurs were exterminated through this impact of a meteorite and collected the evidence what's called the TK boundary,

the Chixilub event in the Yucatan. And so he was just a polymath. He knew everything. But he was also a nuclear physicist. he, in part, in addition to the Manhattan Project, there was another secret project led out of MIT. And it was to develop radar in partnership with the British. And it was to develop the first radar sensing technologies, early 1940s. And it was almost as important, if not, it was probably more important than Manhattan Project.

In other words, it saved more allied lives, perhaps, and or, you know, it established protection. It allowed London to be basically saved during the war from complete, you know, just utter annihilation. Right. So Alvar is working on it. And in that time, there were no, it was just radar would be used. It would send up a pulse and that pulse would bounce off an aircraft, come back down, and it would get reduced a little bit by each time it made transmitted, something called the inverse square law. So the signal amplitude or the intensity decreases, the flocks that you detect, decreases as one over the distance to the object squared.

So if I bounce sonar or radar off of you, the intensity will decrease by one over the distance, between us, say a meter away squared. And then if I moved you twice as far away, it'd be four times lower. Okay? And then it will also get another factor, because now you become another transmitter at the distance, the same distance.

So it goes down as one over R to the fourth power. Okay, so it's a very, very steep function. Yeah. What Alvarez said, and the Germans knew that. So the planes coming towards them, and they would, the allied planes were coming towards the Germans. The Germans would say, oh, the signal's getting bigger

as one over the distance to the fourth power. and then they could target it very accurately and send rocket or shoot it down or send out other planes to shoot it down. What Alvarez said is let me do the following. As my plane is flying towards you, I'm going to transmit a signal to you. Okay, which sounds weird.

Why would I transmit a signal telling you where I am? No, no, no. But he transmitted it at the exact rate of decrease that I would expect as if the plane were going away. So he started off with some signal out, say, one unit, and then he dropped it by the fourth power and they were like, oh, the plane's going away.

It's no longer a threat. Boom. Then they blew up the site with an anti-radiation bomb. So if you were a German, one of the most advanced technological, you know, civilization's honor, you would be saying that object defied the laws of physics. Not only do we not see it, but we also, so it had some stealth capabilities too, but actually move faster than the speed of light and it moved in a way that we can't understand. It was here one minute, but actually we thought it was there, but it was actually, you know, 80 kilometers away. And that happened in one second.

And that's, you know, get, or, you know, million microsecond. So it appear to defy the laws of physics. So there are all sorts of things that they could do, especially during military.

Military are the least reliable in a certain sense, because they're probably the ones that are most confronted with both the adversaries, highest technology and our own, their own friendly militaries, you know, sciops and experiments on them and loyalty tests and all sorts of false flag events or colored wars, all sorts of things that they can do to sort of spoof,

and to train and to test the fighting forces readiness and their loyalty. And that's just a fact of life. So, and you have to, is that more plausible, Danny? And I'm not saying, I'm right. And again, I'm never saying this, that I have a final word either. Do your own, you know, due diligence. You know, this is not investment advice. But if you look at the data, then you compare it to the alternative hypothesis.

It's called a likelihood ratio test. This is what scientists do. You say, like, how likely is it that this vaccine is going to improve your life and prevent some disease versus it's going to kill you. And for most vaccines, it's very important to know that likelihood ratio. But you're always comparing the null hypothesis. Okay? The null hypothesis is this is not going to do any harm or any benefit.

Or in this case, there are no aliens as my null hypothesis. Okay. Then take this ratio and we could do a mathematical function that will predict what are the different levels. In other words, should it be 99% confident? Should it be 50% confident, which is almost useless? Or should it be 99.99% confidence? in hypothesis. It's called hypothesis testing.

And then you have to question, what if there are aliens and you assume that they're not so you get a false negative? Okay, so if Brian Keating is right, then I'm responsible for a huge false negative. Or if you say there's a false positive,

you are claiming their aliens when there aren't aliens. Those are both errors, right? In both cases you're wrong. You'd like it to be there are aliens. If there are aliens, you detect that there are aliens. Or if there are no aliens,

you rule out the existence of aliens. Those are the kind of correct. answers and then there's two different ways you can be wrong. False positive, false negative. Which is worse. Like, you go to the doctor. The doctor says to you, Danny, you got cancer. Which would you rather have there be? He's false positive or false negative? Right. Right. So it's, right. Yeah, if the girl, but normally what happens is you get, you might get a false negative, right? I mean, that's much more common because it's hard to see small amounts of cancer, for example. It's also hard to see small amounts of UFOs, right? These things have been able to

travel across interstellar distances, right? And the old joke, Elon Musk keeps making it. Like, why is the photo quality so bad? Why is the video, you know, why is it so crappy? The cell phones have gotten so much better. I think I have some explanations for that, by the way. Or here's my other favorite one. And again, I'm steelmanning my opponents, not my enemies, just my intellectual opponents.

I don't believe, I don't not want to believe it. By the way, let me put a pin in the explanation for why these things keep happening where they do. But I, I, and good physicists. like Eric or in others. Even people that aren't physicists that are skeptical. Avi Lowe is a good example.

He's a skeptic. He doesn't believe, and he's got vested interest in millions and perhaps billions of dollars in the Galileo Project and all the everything he's doing. He'd be great for you to talk to you. I talked to him.

He's down here. Okay, great. So my question is, who would be more overjoyed at the existence of some, I mean, whatever, if, again, assume they're aliens

for this time being, have they led to the Independence Day like destruction of the earth? No, right? We're still here. You know, maybe they're planning something. But like so far they've been benevolent or benign. Right. They haven't bothered us, right?

Who would be more overjoyed with a race, a species, a civilization of technologically advanced aliens? Who would be more thrilled than physicists? We would be, I mean, you see how we get with like chat GPT, which is like nothing compared to the kind of intelligence it would take to make an alien spacecraft that can traverse the galaxy and bend space and time, right? In other words,

physicists have a vested interest in aliens existing. In other words, I will say, I want to believe, I want there to be aliens to tell us about the physics of the 29th century.

I don't want to wait that long. I want to know, I'm going to live for another 50 years, maybe. I want to learn as much as possible while I'm still alive. Aliens can help be the ultimate cliff notes to help me understand it.

And so I have a vested interest in there being aliens, okay? But I, as I say, I'm skeptical about it, okay? Now I mentioned, there's this, there's just, you know,

kind of joke, again, in Elonism, got to love Elon, but he's like, oh, these aliens are so advanced. They navigated from the closest star system, Proximus and Turi B, at traveling at, you know, quarter of the speed of light, would take 25 years and do untold damage, you know, to whatever biologics are in there. And it would require, you know, basically the warping of space time to accelerate to these speeds, anything macroscopic, like the size of a spacecraft, like a tick-tac, almost an infinite supply of energy. propulsion Sephardi

warp drives whatever you want okay yeah but they crash in the island of Catalina off the coast

of Los Angeles they like crash somewhere in Roswell in other words they're so skilled that they traverse the entire galaxy but they can't

I don't know not real because they crash all the time I don't think that's what a lot of people believe a lot of people believe that they're from here that they're living under the oceans and they're coming from here

they're coming into the oceans and they're that's what Sarfati believe that's what a lot of people I talk to here believe they're they're not coming from other galaxies they're actually here so like atlantis no yeah maybe maybe maybe atlantis i don't know but they think that these things are coming from the oceans and these things maybe live under the oceans or they're walking among among us or maybe there are

people that are out there like me and you or elon musk more likely that are genetically also like this alien race right they're they look and talk like me and you but they aren't you know they're they don't look like the aliens we see in the movies, but they're technically aliens. Okay. And or this technology that's coming around, that's, that's flying around that they're seeing is not necessarily, it's not coming from another star system. It's coming from here somewhere and it's remaining hidden. Well, so I'm talking more about the, uh, the types of alien like Roswell.

Roswell, to my knowledge, was so right. The ocean. It was from another start, you know, recula, reticulum, whatever, Omega. So, um, uh, but, but I just want to make a statement about that when if you do hear that, Again, I'm supporting the fact pattern that should be amenable to many members of your audience and not to ingratiate myself. But because it's legitimate as a scientist, you should actually specify all the ways you could be wrong. Right. I'm telling you all the ways Brian Keating could be wrong.

So in this case, though, those that say that it's impossible to believe that these advanced civilizations crashed, you know, after navigating their whole way across the entire galaxy, right? No, actually, it's a very common effect. something like six times. So I don't want to say this jinks myself. I'm getting on a plane at what an hour or so an hour and a half. So something like six times, you're six times more likely to be involved in a plane that crashes upon landing than you are at any other phase in flight.

Right. Even though the fraction of that plane being in landing is only a few minutes or a few seconds. Landing and takeoff, right? Yeah, takeoff is also dangerous, but landing in particular seem. And it's the whole landing process, not just like touching down the wrong way. And these aren't fatal crashes. I mean, 90% of crashes people walk away from, most commercial airlines, and please God, it should hold true. At least through tonight when I get home.

Unless you're on that Malaysian flight with the UFOs that are floater. Oh, yeah, you were, you had been talking about that, right? Yeah, Julian got caught up in a bunch of drama. I have not investigated. Just don't even look at it. I don't wait your time. You know, when that was happening, it was right when my experiment described in my first book, losing the Nobel Prize, was we were made the announcement on the front page of the New York Times

that we discovered the origin of the universe as evidenced by these waves of gravity. and so yeah that was right when Putin invaded Crimea the first time and when the Malaysian airline that's tragically crashed so we shared the New York Times top billing with those events anyway so it's it's not at all on unexpected that if these spacecraft were traveling that they would crash in the final segment and to give the people like Elon to say oh well you know why is the video camera so crappy and why is it that this again another thing it's called the zoo hypothesis these are just ways that you could evade the

Fermi Paradox. And so basically, it's a Fermi Paradox is a interesting scientific. He was a physicist, a theoretical and experimental physicist, last of a breed. He was at Los Alamos too, wasn't he? Yeah, he was a huge, he was one of the, he invented the first controlled chain reaction at the University of Chicago. At Fermilab is named after him, and people have claimed weird things in Fermilab. But the Fermi paradox is, you know, if the universe is so big, it should be creative aliens. How come we haven't seen any? Of course, a lot of people believe we have seen them and just is being covered up. But the question as to why, you know, the, either the video quality is so bad or why they would choose to come here,

you know, when you think about, you know, what, what is interesting about Earth? Is Earth interesting? Is it worth them coming to take a look at? A lot of people say no.

And a lot of people, though, you look at how amazing life is on Earth and how amazing human beings are. To me, it'll be a natural place for them to come and visit. And so, yeah, what interests them and why would they allow themselves to be seen?

So there's something called the zoo hypothesis. I mentioned a second. The zoo hypothesis is that they're here, but just like when you go to the zoo, you don't like go and knock on the window of the gorillas and keep bothering them. Or Jane Goodall, the primatologist. So when she would go to the Serengetti,

she wouldn't go, hey, everybody, you know, taking all these flash, paparazzi type camera pictures. Right? So you wouldn't do that. In this case, when you, when the, let's say the aliens did come again. don't believe this personally or I don't have evidence for this but if it were true that they left when they first discovered that human beings were you know alive and could produce things the very first technological signature we blasted out into space was like the 1936 Olympic Games something like that and the first widely televised not over cable TV but over the air so it was free to propagate now they wouldn't see anything or they would see very little because most stuff goes under the ocean so it was broadcasting through satellite into outer space. So 70, 80 years ago, they could have known about it. So what's 70, 80 years ago,

what kind of technology do they think that we had? So let's say they start off, oh, human beings over there, planet three, Sol, you know, it's in the solar system, you know, it's green, blue planet. Let's go there. They set off 80 years ago. They're looking at the technology that we had then, right? So they wouldn't say, oh, we should make sure we cloak ourselves and are stealthy because they have iPhone 15s. They don't know about that. In other words, they left. They're not, you know, the technology that maybe as they travel, they could have learned about our technology as it keeps increasing, but not only at the rate at which we were broadcasting into the, you know, they just learned about iPhone 15 when you and I did, right, like three months ago. Right. So, in other words, it shouldn't, it's not surprising.

So a lot of these things are, I think, you know, basically pandering to like, oh, they're not there. You can just dismiss it because the video quality is crappy. They wouldn't crash land if they're such expert pilots. and they wouldn't allow themselves to be seen. Those are completely illegitimate arguments against it. Supporting a position I believe in, which are faith in, or have evidence for, which is that they don't exist. So I think it's important as a scientist to do that.

And I think the more you talk to experimentalists, the better. People are actually building stuff, you know, grappling with law. If you brought Edward Witten in here, you know, I don't know if he could, you know, turn on the Wi-Fi and get the Wi-Fi up to boot again. You know, theoretical physics are very different than experiment. mental physicist. They have a different skill set. It's much more like a mathematician. I don't think anyone say, let's get the mathematicians in here. Although, you know, people like Stephen Wilfrum have done things with like alien, like deciphering alien language in the movie Arrival. He was a

consultant on that. So, and, you know, Kip Thorne is actually doing a lot of work in the movie Interstellar. So, yeah, these are, these are things that are of interest, but I almost am betting against my own self-interest. When you talk to Ryan, did he mention to you the thing with the cube in the sphere? Yeah. I mean, he had said that that's what his, uh, his fellow pilots had, had claimed that they had seen and then we're seeing on almost continuous basis.

Yeah. So like I, from what I understood was when they saw the cube in the sphere, they were flying and then all of a sudden like they just passed this thing. And then he said it was like right off of their like the left or the right hand of the plane like off the wingspan. They didn't necessarily see it. That's not what I heard. Oh, really?

What did you hear? Well, I asked them that specifically as a pilot. I was like, how close were these things? and he said they flew between us and he said that multiple times and I said you have to be more clear how close were you because my best friend

one of my best friends are a Kleinerman who's a Princeton physics graduate and a commander in the day he actually is higher rank than Ryan their buddies he went to his wedding and so Ryan was right there and I said when you guys

are flying these formations how close are you guys he said over a mile apart typically a mile apart really so two planes separated by a mile that means the closest you know that they could have been to this thing is half a mile

and they might have perfect vision, but the cube they describe is about a meter across, something like that, and the sphere surrounding it. I always get it mixed up, but I believe that's what it was, about a meter or so. So to the visual acuity to see something, imagine you got half a mile with 10 football fields or more, and you're looking at the football, how, could you tell the football was one, you know, foot big, or could you tell it was three feet big? If it wasn't glowing or doing something, it's very difficult to do. And again, no Spursons and Ryan. I think what he's doing is very important. And I also think that, you know, he is not claiming he saw it. And it's just like

Grush. Grush is not claiming he saw these things. He's saying he has knowledge of people that have seen it. And in the case of Grush, I don't know what his motivations might be. I love to talk to him. He seems like a great, you know, again, courageous, valorous, patriotic, whatever. But he's not claiming these things. Ryan has a motive. He actually has a motive. And it happens to be a beneficent one, a good one, in that he's concerned about the safety of his fellow pilots, which actually made me a little bit suspicious, not enough him. I mean, I love him. He said, been to my house for dinner. I really enjoy Ryan. But he described, and we talked about it. Did you find it? Yeah. You want it? Yeah, yeah, throw it up. Yeah. Continue. So, Ryan didn't have this particular fact

happened to him, but Fravor did. I don't know if you remember the interview when he did with Lex Friedman and others, but he said, you know, he saw this TikTok. and then almost by the time he landed back on the aircraft carrier his fellow pilots were just hazing him mercilessly and he was like outranking them so I could understand like a little bit of teasing or whatever but they basically didn't believe him and now Ryan's saying this is happening all the time off the coast of Virginia

by the way they're both in warning areas both in the same type of aircraft Ryan's aircraft and the ones that have been seeing this had just been upgraded to a new type of camera again they use these cameras to lock on to see They, you know, they'll do everything from my friend Ariel. I don't think it's classified. I think he talked about. He shot down an Iranian drone over the Persian Gulf during the Iraq war.

You know, they see these things all the time. And it was right after they upgraded the systems. Why do they upgrade them? They have to calibrate them and they have to get better and better systems. Fravers one was 20 years old now, by now about 20 years old and 10 years old than the one that Ryan Graves had been using or his squadron. So the question is, why would they be, you know, kind of hazing somebody? If indeed it was causing this grave threat and something's happening all the time, you know,

why is it happening in these warning areas, you know, why is it happening in places where they do training? It's not happening. Why aren't there by ratio of, you know, proportion, you know, tens of thousands of commercial pilots, private pilots like me, you know, seeing it, reporting it, I could see if you're a commercial pilot and you report this. If you get hazed in the Navy, they're not going to kick you out. They're just going to put like a fuzzy alien on your bunk. If you're in the, if you're in flying for American Airlines and you keep reporting this, you probably would get either put on, you know, psychiatric leave or something like that. So there's a big imperative to keep quiet probably for those people. But people like me,

you know, just private pilots flying, you know, sometimes I fly cancer patients to get treatments and it's called Angel Flight, which is a great charity. People should be aware of. There's no incentive for me not to report this. There's no reporting platform that is as good as the one that Ryan's going to make with the Safe Air Americans for Safe Aerospace. So there's a motive. It's a good

one for him to do it. I think there's you have to ask, why aren't there more sightings by people that have no skin in the game? That's a question I have. So this is an interesting article. Yeah. My friend Jeremy Rees pointed this out to me. Scroll down. Yeah, I've talked to Jeremy before. Okay, so this is a patent.

And this is a radar deflector. that was used during the I think it was developed during like the Bay of Pigs to spoof radar Yeah it's like the US patent 2 million

Yeah so can you zoom in on the text? 9 million So it's probably 60 or 50 Can you zoom in a punch in a little bit on Yeah yeah yeah Scroll up Yeah airborne car refractors on your bicycle Yeah high altitude balloons

Doesn't have if any of the radar Cross section metallic Yeah so it tells you the exact patent number Yeah And that thing looks exactly like Yeah what they described Yeah.

The cube inside the sphere. And here's another thing I can say with great accuracy. I guarantee that these exist. You know, in other words, if you lived in a world where these didn't exist, say you get a letter from God, these balloons don't exist for benign purposes, for calibration and sensor testing. If you said they're forbidden by every treaty on every country on earth like anthraxes, okay? Then you say, well, there's less probability, but there's probably still some leftover. But now you tell me, which I thank you for, these. are common. These are probably in use by every military on earth to train their stuff. I saw this

video of like Ukrainian drone pilots that are dropping like tank shells and they have they're so poor. Their military is saying, you know, I'm not going to take signs or whatever. But they still, they have, they have radar jamming and they have anti-dron channel jamming technology that spoofs makes a fake drone appear. Right. Right. Exactly. They have this with like no money. And so I guarantee, so we are both in agreement. It makes it look like a fleet is coming at you when there's nothing coming out you. Nothing comes. You waste all your attention, right? These warheads have multiple targets in them. Right. And if you were to test this on in front of U.S. military training site, you want, and they just upgraded their radar, why wouldn't you want to be trying to test it? Where would you have this?

That's a very good point. Yep. Appreciate that. So that's, I mean, that's sort of my belief as to what this thing is. I think it's some tech. I mean, you know, I've read this book by Annie Jacobson called The Pentagon's Brain. It's all about the history of DARPA, the defense advanced research. Oh, wow. No, I'm in. And, I mean, they have been testing things like Neurlink since the early 90s on like soldiers. That I believe. Like putting like putting shit in their heads that makes them immune to pain and all kinds of crazy stuff. They want to make a super soldier. They're, they're putting new super soldier.

And they're pushing the limits. Like they're going into the impossible literally like 30 years before the public hears about this kind of stuff. Think about all these other countries that have zero. Like you think Vladimir Putin really isn't going to try like much more advanced shit that we would never do. even with as despicably as we treated, my stepfather was in the Vietnam War, and he's told me incredible stories in combat and out of the time.

They did horrible things to our soldiers. And our soldiers are like, you know, some of our bravest people. Two of my best friends are Afghan. They're both like permanently disabled. Marines, Army, infantry. And they were done for like just bullshit reasons. They shouldn't have been in these wars.

Right. And so they took the best of America and they do fucking experiments on them. They do this to this day. Right. But again, does that prove their, Does that prove that there aren't aliens? No, of course not.

You just have to be skeptical. And again, always look at the story. There are people that, you know, people say, oh, Michael Shermer, he doesn't want to believe an alien. You know, he's got like, like, what is the incentive for him not to believe in it? He is, you know, for people that dislike him. And he's a friend of mine. I've written articles with him.

I've debated him, you know, and we have friendly debates. So the point is, you have to ask like, quibono, who benefits? Why would you do, why would you take this position? What is he covering up or Avi Loeb? I've seen, oh, he's covering. up for the, Avi Loeb has an incentive for alien, not only for his book deals and, you know, becoming number one bestseller again, you know, but also just for his scientific, you know, curiosity. This is a guy who's like dedicated his life now in his career and his, and his reputation

towards like not only, you know, seeing the existence of other aliens as a plausible proposition, but that may be, as he claimed on my podcast this week, that alien, you know, something from another alien civilization potentially with materials that indicate it's come from outside of our solar system crashed in Papua New Guinea and we can go and retrieve it and see if it's actually from metallurgical processes not natural cosmic race ballation processes right now like getting back to this whole thing when I start to see the New York Times and the pentagons start to corroborate these stories in lockstep that's when I really start to question it and when like when it comes to these videos like that they released right

the GoFast, the gimbal, and what, I forget what the other one was. Who the, I was talking to Ryan. Who named those videos? Who came up with that name, GoFast? Who came up with that name, Gimble? Because those, those piles. I know the pilots did not. Yeah.

So one of the, so there's a set. And again, talk to Ryan, talk to my friend Ariel. But there's a set of military. So after a flight, every plane that flies for one hour has a scrutiny around it of about 10 hours just for the debrief. So when they come back, they land on the carrier or they land at the air. force, you know, and they, they debrief the flight every single minute, because every minute costs about $8,000 in total investment for every single plane. Imagine how much money we have, right?

And then there's 10 hours of maintenance for every single plane that goes, all right, so that's separate from that. They review all the gun cameras. They view all the sensor data. They review everything. People pour over it. And there's some analyst, you know, who, you know, in the past, before we had drone operators, there were people that were officers that would be intelligence officers and they would review stuff and then like when they would review it they'd listen to something and they just name it. So a gimbal is just a camera on a platform like a GoPro or not a GoPro but you know one of those stabilized things. And and the other one go fast. I think one of the pilots says, well, look at that thing. It's fast or whatever. And then they just call it that.

Then there are other ones that have been, you know, fairly like the Boca and those ones. I mean, this guy, McWest. The triangles. Yeah, the triangles. A lot of those things are artifacts of cameras. So the question is, you know, can you explain all of these things? And my colleague and actually mentor and president of the Simon's Foundation, David Spurgel, was the chairman of the NASA committee on UAP research that announced its finding this past summer. And I think that they said some very large fraction was explainable by natural events, but there's always going to be that, you know, 12 to 30 percent that's not explainable. And the question is, at what level do you start to ascribe conspiracy, cover-ups? versus the honest admission of a scientist, the three most important words that any scientist must be able to say. And if they can't, they're not a scientist, and that's, I don't know.

And that's, again, getting back to our friend Jack, he'll never say that. Never say it. I was wrong. I don't know. I know, and you idiots aren't listening to me and you're a schmong. And so good luck.

You know, you're not going to really get too many takers there. Yeah. And, you know, if the government's been lying to us about this or covering it up for 80 years, what makes you think that they're going to all of a sudden come out and want to tell the truth. Yeah, or that the cover-up that lasted for 80 years of durability, once it does crack, there's not a flood, like that everything doesn't come out. I mean, the question of that. Like, they're not controlling it. Yeah, that they have such power

to control for generations, like multiple generations. And by the way, it's not just like, you know, the guy who saw the spacecraft crash in Roswell. Okay, what do they do? Just think realistically. What would you have to do? Just, again, Roswell is my paradigm. I'm not saying I believe anything. is legitimate about it being bodies and spacecraft and whatever. You know, it could have some. It could not, right? But some guy, some general knew about it, okay? Someone discovers, some farmer discovers it.

Then they call the military base nearby. Then they send out a truck. Then there's four guys on the truck. Then they drop the truck, has a crane operator on the back. Then they drop that, they pick it up. They drive it to the warehouse. Then they store it in the warehouse. And somebody has to guard the warehouse.

The warehouse has to be climate controlled. Then it has to be the, and then you have to do all this. paperwork. And then take all those people that have already named 10 of them. Take all those people. They have 10 people in their lives, kids, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, whatever. 100 people, just in generation zero, the first time that these people discover, right? 1947, correct? And then they have kids. And then those 10 generation, those 10 people have kids. 100 people have kids. You know, it becomes enormous. And to say that all those people have not, you know, spilled the beans, if you like, on the biggest story.

in human kinds history, right? This is so much bigger than even the tragic assassination of JFK. I mean, that affected one person. Obviously, tragically, a huge country was affected by it. But it was one person, and that's so relatively easier to cover that. Even that hasn't been effectively covered up for very long. With government mandating that you can't open up the official records for 50 years. Right.

So, yeah, it stretches the mind. Doesn't mean it's not true. What is? You said this place was. Steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough.

Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises.

It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. That Eric was harping on so hard on, I don't know if it was on Rogan's podcast or if it was with that guy Jesse Michaels, but he was talking to Howe put off, the ex-Scientologist guy. Also, the remote viewer guy from SRI. And they were talking to him. He was basically explaining how in the 50s, I think it was Ed Witten's dad. Yeah. They were like making a lot of progress on anti-gravity.

And then all of a sudden the research went dark, like it stopped out of nowhere. So was he, is he? alluding to like the government took it over or like it went dark meaning like it went dark under like a special access program or something well yeah so it's it's not really clear eric has you know has an incredible ability to kind of explain things to to be curious to to illustrate things with with amazing analogies and with a with a commanding knowledge of history um and a commanding knowledge of mathematics and physics so jacks oh he's just a mathematician that's bullshit uh he's much much more than that um he's creative he's generative. But what he's not good at doing is like writing stuff up in a freaking book. So I'm like,

Eric, you've got seven books in you, you know, help me help you write a book, you know, put these ideas into place because you can't just like every time you go on my podcast or on jesse's or whatever, you know, have these statements or Rogans. There's no durability to that. I actually told this to Rogan about motivating him to write a book because I was going to go back and listen. I was episode 2023. It was a cool number, easy to remember. I don't know what the hell episode, you know, the first time Eric was on. No one's going to go back and watch Eric the first time he was on episode 1432. Yeah.

So if he wrote a book about it and wrote, you know, summarized the coolest topics in aliens and like psychedelics, Joe, no matter what, you're going to talk about psychedelics when you talk with Joe. But just like distill each one into a chapter. He doesn't even have to write it. Billions of people would write it for him for free. Anyway, Eric has to do the same thing. I'm trying to get him to do it.

We'll see if that will actually work. But what he was saying about this gravity program, there was a, in North Carolina, UNC, I believe it was, in a research triangle area. They, Ed Witton's father, who wasn't really, he was a physicist of some renown, but not as great a renown as son, who's a mathematical physicist, Edward. But they had working on what's called the gravity prize and they had money and incentives and there was some papers apparently written about anti-gravity. And I was joking, I tried to find those papers. They're so good. I couldn't put those anti-gravity papers down.

Because they're anti-gravity, Danny. Come on. I can't put it down. Come on, I'm going to bring the dad jokes, brother. You don't let me one dad joke on this beloved podcast. The best thing I've ever heard is the term Juneerzy. I really appreciate you saying that in Julian's podcast. I won't let that go.

Got to give them some, too soon. So, yeah, allegedly, according to Eric, yeah, they had this. And now Eric has found some material, you know, that he claims like an Australian patent. and this is stuff that Grush had mentioned on Joe Rogan's podcast. And it does relate. And I think they did bring this up. But again, as I asked you earlier, and I think you answered properly in a certain sense. Like, is the technology that's needed to do these things?

You're really prejudiced if you say that, you know, that it's necessary to have new laws of physics that we don't understand. This is Eric's claim, actually. He actually believes that the only way to get off of the Earth's surface and make it to instantiate a second cosmic home is not with a chemical rocket of SpaceX. It's to change the laws of physics. Is that changing the laws of physics, though, with some of the ideas of having some sort of, like Bob Lazar explained with his basketball reactor that was powered with Element 115, I think it was.

And he says basically, like you tried to touch it and it like propelled his hand off like a anti, like a magnet. And if you had something like that and he showed like the diagrams of it of how basically it creates this field around the aircraft to where it's when it's moving like this, it's falling through space. Like, it's almost like if you drop something, it's moving that way. All right.

And these are his ideas or something he claims he's seen made or it could be in person. Because, I mean, he's not a great physicist. He's not, I mean, the Lazar's not a physicist. He claims he was like a pilot? But then there are all these questions that he was he really a 10? Did he have all the credentials that he claims that he had?

Did he see the things or have access to the things that he has? But even people like Jeremy, Jeremy's an amateur physicist too. I mean, he has a bachelor's degree in physics. And he's like studying all this stuff. And he says that it's not, doesn't define the laws of physics. It's just creating, you need the amount, you need a high, high, high amount of energy to do it.

And it said it's impossible to. Right. Either a high amount, large amount of energy or a minuscule amount of energy in an infinite amount of space. So we do know about anti-gravity. It's called dark energy or cosmological constant. It seems to be the force that's causing galaxies to accelerate at greater and greater velocities with every passing day, something that won the Nobel Prize for two, three of my friends in the year. 2011, and I've had them all in my podcast.

And it's as well-known a phenomenon as exists. But the problem is that energy level differs from the so-called zero-point energy level by something like 120 orders of magnitude. And the kind of characteristic energy scale that we see, that we know about that pushes

galaxies apart, perhaps inflated the universe at early times, those things related to so-called zero-point fluctuations, Kazimir effects, cubiary warp drives. They're infinite, almost like you say, infinite, almost near infinite amount of energy. So it's not only manipulative.

We have no way to, like, say, use the energy of the acceleration of space time. We can't do that. There's no way to couple into it. And we actually know extremely little about it. So the question I always have is, okay, so now you've got this theory of this anti-grap, which no one has demonstrated except for the cosmos at large, which is, you know, again, resulted in at least three Nobel Prizes so far, that nobody else knows about this, that like what would be the incentive to not expose this to get credit to win a Nobel Prize to make millions and billions of dollars?

Why would this not be more? Why is Bob Lazars like not a scientist, not military train? You know, I mean, what what is the incentive to believe that such a person other than you want to believe it? It sounds really plausible. It sounds cool. It could explain things that you that you have no access to. And so tying together like a whole bunch of things that are each incredibly improbable, the U.S. government has a conspiracy. These craft have traveled great distances. There are new laws of physics that they operate by. Doesn't make it more credible. It makes it much, much less credible. If you add, if you add probabilities, which is how they add together, if you like, you multiply, like you have a 10% chance of it raining. My flight's 10% chance of leaving on time if the rain

is here. And then there's a 1% chance that the Uber driver will be on time to get me here, which hopefully will be coming soon. Not that I don't enjoy talking to you. I enjoy putting my kids to bed. Jesus Christ, it's already 2.30. I know all time flies and you're having fun. But putting these things together

makes it less likely, not more likely. And that's the thing that kind of just goes, you know, gnaz at me when these things like, okay, to explain that, now you need a really impossible thing, which is the laws of physics

have to be unknown to us, new laws that these things can manipulate, which again would be fascinating to me. But let me just double click on that for one second. It's often said that like the laws of physics

lead to these new types of technology. At least that's kind of kind of the syllogism that people are using, right? These aliens, if they had the laws of physics that permitted anti-gravity, right, that you could extract some technology from it. That technology, in turn, would be used to get to the Earth from Proximus and Turi. That's sort of an argument that would be used, right? It's a way to explain how they're here, right?

Because our current laws with chemical rockets and biological aging processes of DNA, right, do not permit us to get to any solar system, right? And so just using the, and that's the only life form we know exist. and that's the only physics we know exist, right? The known laws of physics, by definition. So in order to get, so, but I ask you, did we use to get, let's say, the most advanced thing that humans have ever built in terms of laws of physics? Let's just say it was the Trinity bomb, you know, it was the atomic bombs that were used,

right? Did the scientists that were working, you saw Oppenheimer, right? Yeah. So I did an explainer video just as a small advertisement because people were interested in the physics. There's almost no physics in that movie, right? Right. But so I did a video called the physics of Oppenheimer, or the professor explains the bomb.

So if people are interested in the hardcore physics and the history of it, they can find that. It's on your YouTube channel. It's on my YouTube channel. So, but did they look at the laws of physics? Like, was Oppenheimer, was he a physicist in the sense that, like, he looked at the new laws of physics, and then from those laws of physics came up with technology?

Or was he mostly an engineer? Like, remember the big process he put in the marble? and plutonium versus uranium. It was a technology trouble. It was a technology problem. We had to create the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Hanford Nuclear Sites. We had to do things to produce a yielding,

like what Iran is doing now. Iran is reputedly building a bomb, right? Are they using the laws of physics? Are they going back to quantum mechanics and solving the Schrodinger equation? No, it's a technology problem, right? My point is it's not enough to say that like the laws of physics have to be, you know,

manipulated. You also need a way of improving the laws of technology to extract those laws. It's often said, well, your computer screen, the internet in here, the camera sensors, those are based on semiconductors. And it's true. Semiconductors are based the laws of quantum mechanics. The very first transistor, nobody looked at the laws of Schrodinger, which is really what governs a transistor equation and more advanced statistical mechanics. But nothing like group theory or string theory was needed, right? But even they didn't use the laws of physics to invent technology, which was the previous most advanced technology maybe. Or actually it came after the nuclear bomb, right?

So all this is just to say that having new laws of physics, I don't think it's even a necessary condition for aliens to be here or have new technology. It's certainly not as sufficient, you know, if you just had new laws of physics. And like I said earlier, if I told you string theory had been invented on Proxima Centauri B, you know, would it matter to you? Let me ask you this question. Let's say aliens invent metallurgy and chemical rockets, okay, that for some reason can advance them, you know, to very high velocities or their biology allows them to live for trillions of years or whatever, right? If I said they invented that, would you say, well, they still have to invent string theory or they still have to invent, you know, warp theory or whatever Jack has or, you know, and not. other words, what was more important? The technology or the pure science? The applied science or the pure science for teleporting across the... Applied science. Exactly. So these things about the

anti-gravity conference of Edwitton's father in 1930, you know, so are these questions of, you know, relevance to the discovery of evidence for aliens being here on Earth? I don't know. I don't know that it's so important. Let's say they were doing anti-gravity research, whatever that way. We certainly not have any anti-gravity technology right now. Can you point? Yeah, Flubber. I mean... I mean, what Fravor said that he saw, right?

That sounds like anti-gravity. So I don't know anything about this. So Fraver, the pilot who witnessed with his eyes a Tick-Tac, also has knowledge about... You sure it's Favre and not Grush? I thought Favar was the one who saw the Tick-Tac. Yeah. Yeah.

So he also claims that he saw, that he has sought separate evidence, or you're saying the existence of a T-Tac moving the way it did. Moving the way it did, that would be anti-gravity, right? if it bent bending space up so if there was something in there it would turn to gelatin if it was not anti-gravity right if it could create a pocket where it just moves around and nothing is affected again so this is this is again synthesizing a whole bunch of claims that may or may not be related so

yeah that he saw it that it was witnessed by other sensors that the sensors weren't spoofed that because there are many ways to move i can make something move you know faster than the speed of light you just give me a laser pointer right i mean i can do it i can i can have a signal that you know that changes faster that doesn't transmit information. That's just a visibility, right? And who's to say that there's something inside there at all, right? And by the way, you know, again, let's say these creatures are incredibly advanced. Do you think the first things that we sent to will we know for sure?

They're definitely not their drone. They're 3D printed things. They're not human. They're not biological. And the only thing that's biological in them are the fingerprints and the exhalation. I had Craig Ventnor on, Ventnoron, who is the man who sequenced the human genome for the first time and 25 years ago. And he was saying there's already Mars is covered in human shit. Because there's just like no way in this international space station. And all that when they,

when they use the bathroom, they vented to space and they found the outside of the space station is covered with the human microbiome. And then he studies. So it's like already we've contaminated it. Now my question is, I like to do this as a thought experiment. What if I told you that there was life on another planetary system. It's a multi-planetary system like ours is, okay? So it's a star system. It has a type G2 sub-dwarf, yellow star, just like our sun, same size.

And it has two planets in the habitable zone. You're familiar with the habitable zone, right? The Goldilocks zone. Exactly. I told you there's two planets there. And good news. One is teeming with life. Life everywhere, life in underwater oceans, ice caps.

Even in the atmosphere, there's life and so forth of this planet. There's another planet. We haven't had time to slew the James Webb telescope over to take a peek. But we want to ask you, Danny, what's the odds? One of the odds that that object has life on it? The one right next door. Yeah.

Not technology, not the iPhone. I would say there's got to be a high likelihood of having life on there. Right? So I submit to you, this is another gift for you. This is a chunk of the moon. The moon. I gave Joel Rogan a piece of Mars. I gave Julian just a,

a crappy meteorite. Oh, I get a part of the moon. You get a sliver of the moon. Just because I forgot. Sorry, Julia. Thank you very much. Right. Next time I see you, brother, I'm going to do it. But Julian, you know that Danny let you have the first dibs on me. Oh, so beneficial. He got such a bump. I let Julian scoop me. That's right. He let you get the scoop. So I had to give him a little

bit better Hanukkah Christmas present. Okay. So how did that get here? Besides me bring in here, how do you think this thing is here? The moon? Yeah. How do you think that piece of the moon got here? Panseparmia? Panseparmia. Right. So most people say, oh, you went to, you went to, you went to Houston. If you do that, so if this were collected by an astronaut, I would be in jail now, and you would be an accessory to murder, and Stephen up back behind the curtain would also go to jail. So you'd be accessory to felony, right? It's a felony to have own possession of a fragment of the rocks that were collected by the Apollo astronauts. But NASA and the U.S. government

doesn't control gravity. So where was this found? This is found in Northwest Africa. I'll send you a piece, I'll send you some information. And how do you know it's part of the moon? So it's the exact chemical composition has been acquired for it. And this is what I want to do. It's been compared. Yeah. So for your audience, I like to do a giveaway for your audience too. If you've made it this far, so go to Brian Keating.com.

On my website, there's a giveaway. I give away one chunk, sometimes of these moon rocks, but always every month I give away an actual meteorite. And of the meteorite, we had a chemically analyzed with x-ray fluorescent spectroscopy. It's blasted with x-rays. And you'll get a print out of the chemical fingerprint of these meteorites. Oh, wow. And if you have a dot edu email address,

if you're in college or grad school or a professor or whatever, go to Brian Keating.com slash edu and you're guaranteed to it. So ordinary people that aren't in university. I'm trying to kind of give back to the university system. So Briankeen.com. Other ones go there. And I'll send you the information about that. And I can send you information about the moon rock that I sent gave to Danny.

I can't give you any information about Uranus though. That's a private man. So that got here by gravity, right? So impacts hit the moon all the time. they impacted Mars. I gave Joe Rogan. I gave him a piece of Mars. I have a chance.

Oh, he gets Mars. Right, yeah. I think he probably smoked it or something by now. But the Mars meteor, Mars, the Earth, the moon, they all exchanged material for billions of years now. So the fact that Mars is a cold dead place, as far as we can tell, doesn't mean it was always cold and dead and lifeless, but it is in the habitable zone. Water can be in liquid form there. There's ice underneath.

They actually think there's ice underneath the surface of Mars. Avi Loeb thinks there are caves with lava tubes that could have, you know, he's like there could be aliens in there. So all these things point to a very important conclusion, which is that the exchange of material throughout the solar system is ubiquitous. The lack of life should be used as some piece of evidence, not proof, but accounting for in the likelihood ratio test that I told you about earlier, you should be able to ascribe some probability to the lack of existence of life and its facundity throughout the universe

based on the non-an observation and the only planet that we know could have had life in our solar system for sure. Wow. Yeah. So anyway, these things are great. They're fun to talk about. I think it's always, you know,

people get almost emotional and a religious capacity. They definitely do. People believe it, you know, and the core fiber of who they are is their identity. It's very hard to change someone's identity. If you've ever had a Jehovah's Witness

come to your house, right? Or I pass an LDS church. on the way over here, right? Like, okay, I'm pretty thankful, you know, isn't where I'm at right now, I don't need it. But if you say to them, you know, like, tell me about aliens, I guess some, you know, Scientologists, maybe we shouldn't talk too much about it's around here, right?

Isn't Clearwater not too far from here? We are literally 10 minutes away from the headquarters of Scientology where Elron Hubbard parked his pirate ship. This is spaceship, right? Yeah. Chitulu or whatever they call them, right? Yeah, no, it is very religious. And even, like, I was talking,

me and Steve, we're talking about it earlier. like even people that are in like positions of authority in government or even in NASA or or NRO or some of these agencies a lot of them because of their position or their where they are in the hierarchy and their the what they know like the information that they have that's classified that no one else has right they sort of that is meaning in itself and if you are one of these people that I mean a lot of these really smart people are anti-social yeah and introvert, anti-j, very high IQ, antisocial introverts, and they know things that many people don't know. You know, you wake up, no matter what, even if you're a plumber, you got to prescribe some sort of a meaning to what you do to get up out of bed every day. And some of these people at a very high level,

they think, I've said it many times, quoting my friend Paul Rosalie, is they think their lives are the Da Vinci Code. That's right, yeah. And when you start to talk about aliens, and NASA and the moon being built by aliens and we only know what these things are but you guys don't,

it doesn't progress science or it doesn't progress humanity any sort of real sense. Yeah, right? It's threatening to them. When you try to take away or even question about their identity, it's very threatening to it.

It's natural, right? I mean, you know, by the way, if you want to know how to tell when you do meet a scientist who's extroverted, do you know how to do that? How? He'll talk to you and he'll look at your shoes when he talks to you.

Oh. Then you know, 100% it is extra rude. That's amazing. Or she. Right. Discriminate. Right.

Well, I think your Uber's here. Brian, thank you so much for a quick hour and a half podcast all the way from San Diego. I'll come back. I'll come back in town and see my friend Jordan. I got these stickers for you. Oh, we got stickers. Yeah.

QRCO's you're watching out there. Get that. Yeah. This picture. You go right to the website. Tell everyone where to subscribe. I'll link your YouTube channel and everything below. Go to my YouTube channel.

I got a couple books out and got a chat bottom. I'm having a lot of fun with AI and trying to figure out how to improve education. I want to bring the cost of education down 10X and spread it to the masses. Because I do think, you know, the one way we're going to save the world is to have more science, technology, and engineering and math. I don't think we're going to do it, you know, as great as, you know, gender studies is. Yeah. As necessary as it is, I don't think we're going to get, you know, to a place of protection. And it may be, who knows, these aliens underneath the ocean.

right and maybe that musk is wrong that we well it may be that he's right we have to get off the surface of the planet but maybe we have to do something to protect the planet that we're already on i mean it's a lot cheaper to save the planet you're on now than to try to find another planet somewhere else that you might be able to get to and die on the way perhaps right i mean it's just to save ourselves from another chick chichilube chichsillub yeah that's right chixelub yeah another or a younger dryest impact like we want to make our our species survive so we got to get ourselves off the planet and figure out how to terraform Mars, we can that's right.

Live past all this. And then when the next... Clean Uranus. When the next round of civilization rises on Earth, we'll come back in our spaceships and we'll confuse the shit out of them. Awesome. Thank you, brother. Thanks, bro. I appreciate it. Goodbye, everybody. All. Pay off your home. Travel for life. Drive a Ferrari.

In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Bucks slot machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.