Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Is 3I/ATLAS Alien Technolgy? Avi Loeb & MIchael Shermer DEBATE

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Get my My new book, Focus Like a Nobel Prize Winner -- https://a.co/d/hi50U9U It's just 99¢ on Kindle for launch week ONLY. It’s the perfect companion to this conversation—lessons in thinking clearly, staying curious, and pushing past conventional wisdom from my conversations with 22 Nobel Prize winners! Brian Keating sits down with Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb and renowned skeptic Michael Shermer to dissect the latest enigma sweeping through our solar system—3I/ATLAS. • What makes 3I/ATLAS extraordinary? • It’s the third confirmed interstellar object to visit our solar system—after ʻOumuamua and Borisov—racing through space at hyperbolic speeds and exhibiting an orbit intriguingly aligned with our ecliptic plane • Observations by Hubble and James Webb reveal a coma dominated by carbon dioxide, with traces of water, carbon monoxide, nickel, and cyanide—an unusual chemical signature even among comets. • Avi Loeb’s provocative hypothesis: He and collaborators propose that 3I/ATLAS might not be natural at all—but potentially a piece of alien technology, given its improbable trajectory, ecliptic alignment, and close approach to Mars and other planets—arguably orchestrated rather than accidental. • Michael Shermer pushes back: A constructive skeptic’s view on whether the evidence truly supports Loeb’s scenario, grounding the discussion with a critical evaluation of observational data versus speculative inference. Don’t miss this rare convergence of cutting-edge astrophysics and disciplined skepticism—because how we interpret 3I/ATLAS could redefine our understanding of interstellar visitors. Key Takeaways: •00:00 NASCAR Fascination with 3i Atlas •07:40 Cosmic Anomalies Suggest Tech Origins •13:02 Interstellar Comets: Ubiquitous Wanderers •17:11 Interstellar Object Frequency Dilemma •23:46 Challenging Mainstream Scientific Conformity •31:09 Balancing Exoplanet Exploration Funding •35:33 Comet Nickel Detection, No Iron •38:39 Open-Mindedness in Scientific Consensus •45:53 "Trusting Experts vs. Skepticism" •50:09 "Assessing Extraterrestrial vs. Natural Objects" •55:48 Hallucinations During Transcontinental Bike Race •01:02:13 Eyewitness Testimony's Unreliability •01:05:34 Government Secrecy and National Security •01:12:54 Seeking Direct Evidence of UFO Claims •01:16:44 Comet: A Dirty Iceberg Analogy •01:21:27 New Astrobiology Approach: Onsite Sampling •01:29:18 Analyzing Spacecraft Non-Gravitational Acceleration •01:31:52 Free Moon Rocks: Myths and Offers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 start at $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees.

GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. all the stats and see how many people are there. I'm not able to stream on Amazon. That is fine, but I'm here. Where It Matters on X, on Facebook, and on other worlds on YouTube. Let us just check and make sure we have two extremely handsome doctors that are joining us today all the way from the East Coast. We have Professor Avi Lov. Avi, how are you today, my friend?

It will take an hour to discuss it. Well, luckily, that's all we get before Michael has to jet off to some other big wig podcast. Michael Shermer, Dr. Michael Shermer, Skeptic Magazine, Skeptic or Michael Shermer show on podcast channels. Michael, how are you up there in Santa Barbara? I'm doing well. Thank you. Everything is good. This has been a really exciting time for astronomy, for astronomers, for physics.

It's not too often that you get the world captivated on objects, objects that may be suspicious. They may be malevolent. They may just be ordinary. And we may learn a lot about astrophysics along the way. And today I'm here to hopefully shed some light on this very unusual object called three-eye Atlas. And we'll get to what that is in just a moment. We'll start off with a question for Avi, kind of recap what we've learned about this object

from the very beginning, but also what we've learned since our very popular live stream, got hundreds of thousands of views over the summer. and we'll get Michael's take on it too, because he's interviewed some of the leading lights in the field as well. But before we get there, a man's got to pay his bills. I want to first notify my beloved audience that I have a new book. My fourth book, if you can believe it, guys. I've interviewed both of you guys many times. But I've interviewed 22 Nobel Prize winners on The Into the Impossible podcast.

And I've distilled their life lessons into two books so far. So my second book is called Into the Impossible Think Like a Nobel Prize winner. but Tuesday my newest book comes out into The Impossible, focused like a Nobel Prize winner, and it's basically, as it says, lessons from laureates to ignite your curiosity and your career. So this is really a self-help book for my STEM nerdly friends out there.

I hope you'll get it soon. The hardcover is pretty expensive, but the Kindle is only 99 cents for the next week. So there's a link in the description below. Please click it, get it for 99 cents. If you've gotten anything from me, I've sent that over 10,000 of these meteorites to my fans. So hopefully you've gotten a piece of interstellar action as well. That is my favor. I'll

only plug it three times today, I promise. Okay, now to my good friends, Avi Loeb, joining us from Harvard, Dr. Michael Schumer, the Michael Shermer Show, Skeptic Magazine. We're going to talk today about this interesting object. I want to start with you, Avi. Can you explain the basics of this object? What have we learned from the beginning? How did it get on your radar, so to speak? And moreover, what have we learned since our very popular live stream back in July? There's been a lot of activity. Thank you, Brian. First, I would like to say that it's quite rare that there is an event or an object

that attracts so much the public attention. And that's extremely important because science is fun. It's not about getting the Nobel Prize. It's about understanding nature. And I'll give you just two anecdotes very quickly. One, I received an email from a former U.S. force pilot who said, you know, because of you, he was referring to me. My daughter is now excited to become a scientist and she keeps speaking about aliens. And then a second anecdote, last night I get

a text message from one of the racers at the NASCAR car race. And he says, I want to put an image of three-eye Atlas, the object that we were talking about, and you on the hood of my car. And And you are now a very hot commodity among car races in NASCAR. And I'm planning to meet him, actually, within a few weeks. There will be a race in Vegas, and I hope to go there. But these are just examples of how much this object captivated the public's interest. And think about it if CERN would have discovered the lightest supersymmetric particle, which we did not discover, I should say.

And it would have been the dark matter. That would not necessarily inspire a girl to become a scientist or a NASCAR car racer to put it on the hood. So what I would like to say is that this is a rare opportunity, and that's why I wrote more than 50 essays over the past two months on Medium.com that discuss how science is work in progress. We don't know what something is. We're trying to figure it out by using data and evidence. and that is a thrilling experience, you know, in difference from politics,

where you know the answer sort of in advance and it has nothing to do with necessarily a way of vetting whether it's real or not. I mean, you just tell a story and try to become popular. So science is different. It's not about us. It's not about prizes. It's about figuring out nature. And the best approach is to be modest and say, we don't know, let's figure it out.

Now, with respect to three-eye Atlas, it was discovered on July 1st, 2025, by a small telescope, half a meter in size, because it's bright. And if you translate its brightness, you find that it has to have a diameter of somewhere between 20 and 46 kilometers if what we are seeing is a reflection of sunlight from a solid surface. It's not obvious because you might argue maybe there is a cloud of dust. However, if there was dust around a much smaller nucleus, then the dust would be pushed behind the object by solar radiation pressure. We know that from comets. We see a cometary tail behind them. And the Hubble Space Telescope looked at this object on July 21st, took a very high-resolution image. There was no tail behind it.

We saw glow ahead of the object towards the sun. And I'm actually writing a paper trying to explain that. that was not seen before. It's of an antitail. Instead of a tail behind the object, there is something preceding it ahead of it towards the sun. But the other issue is that if it's such a huge giant rock, the way that my colleagues are arguing, then it's a million times more massive than the previous two interstellar objects that were found. An interstellar object is an object moving too fast to be bound by the sun. This object actually is moving at sea. 60 kilometers per second relative to the frame of the galaxy nearby.

And also relative to the sun when it entered the solar system. So it's really fast. And there is just not enough rocky material in interstellar space to give us such a giant rock once per decade. So either it's a very small rock surrounded by a lot of dust, but then why don't we see the tail? or it's actually not a rock. And of course, in that case, it might target the inner solar system and then the statistics has nothing to do with delivery of one rock per decade of such a gigantic dimensions.

It's twice as big as Manhattan Island if we believe the results from the Spharex data. Now, Spherex is a space observatory that actually inferred that there is a huge plume of gas around it containing mostly CO2, carbon dioxide, 95% by mass, 5% is water vapor. And, you know, that implies that it may not be a water-rich comet the way it was this. And there was also some data from the web telescope that, in fact, inferred very clearly the dominance of carbon dioxide and the no tail. But after that, we had some data from the very large telescope in Chile that indicated that in the plume of gas there is also nickel without iron. And you don't get nickel without iron except through an industrial process on Earth that produces nickel alloys, partly for spacecraft. And therefore, the question arises is whether this was technological in origin. The fact that there is only nickel but no iron observed.

Now, the most interesting anomaly, I should say, besides the size of the object, is that the trajectory is a line. with the planets around the sun to within five degrees. That's a probability of one in 500 out of a random orientation. And in fact, the previous comet, Borisov, was at a very high inclination, very high angle relative to the ecliptic plane. But the good news is that on October 3rd, that's very soon within a few weeks. The three-eye atlas, this object, would come within 29 million kilometers from Mars.

And there is a camera there called high rise on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that could take a high-resolution image of it with a pixel resolution of 30 kilometers. And that would allow us perhaps to infer the size of the nucleus and settle once and for all this question of whether it's anomalous in its size, whether it's a million times. You know, why do we see an object that is a million times bigger, more massive than the previous two? And anything. Yeah, I want to, I definitely want to cover all these aspects. You've covered, you know, just the highlight real so far. But before we get, you know, down to particular explanations, I do want to get Michael's perspective on this. So, Michael, what you've heard about this for a long time?

I want to know from your perspective, what is the simplest explanation, like Akham's Razor, Wilhelm of Akham, where should we start? Where do you think, you know, a curious layperson or even someone who's, you know, more expert than a curious layperson? Where should you start? What should be our first supposition? from your perspective? Well, Bayesian, that is to say, let's put some probabilities on it. No one would ever put a one or a zero to it. So 100% it's extraterrestrial or 0% it's extraterrestrial, by which I mean technology.

So somewhere between, let's say, 1 and 99.9 or 0.01 and 99.9. Let's just put it that way. So we're always keeping an open mind. If the evidence changes, I'll change my mind. The problem with interstellar objects is we have how many total in our database? Three in the last couple years. So when someone says, well, this is a really unusual object compared to what? I mean, how deep is our database?

So this is what's often called the low information zone, like in the study of UAPs and UFOs. You know, you can't quite make it out. We're not quite sure what it is we're looking at. The object is blurry. The videos are grainy. And so there our imagination fills in the blanks and we can speculate all we want, which is fine. That's all part of science, as Avi says. So, okay, that's good.

But what do we actually know about these kinds of objects? I'm not a planetary scientist, but my podcast guest yesterday, Alan Stern, is, he's one of the world's leading planetary scientists. He was head of the New Horizons spacecraft that went to Pluto. So I had him on my podcast for other reasons. He's worried about the current Congress, shutting down new horizons, along with 54 other space missions that are currently underway for budgetary reasons. So I took the opportunity to ask him about this. He's well aware of Three-Ey Atlas.

He's been following it. He knows you, Avi. He's a big fan. He loves you. So I'm going to read his opinion. So it has nothing to do with you personally. He likes you. He thinks the Galileo Project is great.

He thinks what you're doing to promote science is super. I read him the little blurb from your email about the NASCAR guy wants to put your mug on the hood of his car. Michael, you are a member of the Galileo project, correct? I am, yes, absolutely, yeah, support it, absolutely. And, you know, all that would be good for science. Anyway, here's, I teed it up for him, but as you did, Brian, and here's what he says. I beg to differ. I know a fair amount about this.

I'm not now one of the world's leading experts, but I used to be. I've published scientific papers that were peer-reviewed about this phenomenon. And the way it works is this. He says, bear with me for a moment to give you some background. So we'll do that for your general listeners, Brian. Almost every star that we look at has we see planets have formed or they're forming now if it's a young star. So planets are ubiquitous. And when planetary systems form and you get to real big objects, the ones we call planets,

the gravitational muscle clears out the regions between the orbits of the planets. And it just starts flinging stuff out. Now, that's not a technical term, but in effect, that's what happens. And just like the Voyager spacecraft intentionally would get flung, or like my New Horizon spacecraft, that me and 2,500 of my best friends built and flew to Pluto, got flung by the planet Jupiter to get to Pluto faster. All of these inanimate objects get thrown all around the solar system, and many of them get thrown out of the solar system altogether into interstellar space. And so for a long time, ever since the 1960s and 70s, scientific papers were predicting that there was an uncountable number of these interstellar comets.

And that as our solar system moves through space, they're passing by, sort of like in the fall when you see a cottonwood tree, just seeds going by in the wind. And we've recently, in the last less than 10 years, developed a capability to find these needles in the haystack. 3-Ey Atlas is one of them. Now, 3A Atlas is the third one we found, and we're probably going to find a lot more now that we know how to do it, which is great because these are samples from other solar systems, so they're scientifically valuable. But 3i Atlas has not gotten close to any planets. It's going past the orbits of planets, but it's not even within millions of miles. It's within tens of millions or hundreds of millions of miles. So when you hear it's passing by Mars, it's passing by Mars at a great distance.

It's passing by Jupiter at a great distance. It's just flying through our solar system as an inanimate object that's close enough for us to study. And we're going to learn a lot from it, but it's not like a Voyager spacecraft that's been targeted to fly by for close reconnaissance observations. So when you're reading the press about it and the language is sometimes not as precise as the scientists would use it, but I'm telling you when you read that it's passing by all these different planets, it's very far from them. For example, the closest you will get to Mars is 29 million kilometers or roughly 20 million miles. That's 100 times as far as from Mars as the moon is from Earth. It's crazy far away.

So then I ask him about the outgassing. Does it look like a comet or is that changing now? What's your opinion? You know, as far as it goes, it looks like a comet, a big comet. Because, and by the way, the reason it's big is because the only ones we can detect are the big ones. Later, when our capabilities are better, we'll detect. smaller ones. But it has a lot of these same gases and we see come out of comets in our solar system and some of the properties look a lot like a comet. But as we study more and more of these,

hopefully we'll learn about the variety that different solar systems make in throwing these objects out into interstellar space, just like our solar system did long ago. And so it's a new area of astronomy because we didn't have this capability until 2017 or so. So I didn't say, so it's something like a probability issue? And he says, right, there's something like a hundred billion stars in the Milky Way. And if solar systems are common, as we think they are from the data, then every solar system has ejected somewhere between a billion and a trillion of these interstellar objects. So the galaxy is populated with something like a billion times a hundred billion to a trillion times a hundred billion of these things. They're everywhere. And then I say, oh, my God. I say,

oh my God. 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. for this day. He says, yeah, and of course, space is enormously big.

That's why we call it space, and they're very spread out from one another. But still, the numbers are, not to make a pun, they're astronomical. Michael, this is poetry, what you're reading. And I just wanted to explain that obviously this is what we expect. What he's describing is what we expect. What I was describing is what we see. And if we see an object that is tens of kilometers large, a million times more massive than the previous interstellar object.

It's not a selection effect. We saw 100-meter objects, you know, like Omuamua and Borisov before. Now we are talking about an object that is hundreds of times bigger. Okay. So where are the objects in between? And the point is it's not the poetry where you say, oh, there are plenty of them. No, we should have seen a million objects,

the size of Omuamua or Borisov, before we see one giant rock like that. that. And I wrote a paper as soon as it was discovered. It's all about the details. I wrote a paper showing that you really cannot, it's untenable to account for the delivery of an object that is tens of kilometers in diameter once per decade to the inner solar system by orders of magnitude, by a factor of at least 10,000. So you fall short of the mass reservoir of rocky material in interstellar space. You just can't deliver such a giant rock once. per decade. You can do it once per tens of thousands of years if you package all the rocky material

into 20 kilometer rocks. Okay. So that's one aspect. The second is whether it's passing close to planets or not. Well, I'm talking about the fact that the orbital plane, you know, the trajectory of this object is aligned with the orbital plane of the planets to within five degrees. And the chance of that is one in 500. These are what was the inclination of a muamua. I forgot. You, you Oh, it was huge. You know, we are talking about things of all the 40, 60 degrees. I don't even remember that. Just to explain for the audience.

The reason that this is sort of uniquely or suspicious in some way, Avi, is because you'd expect if they're truly random, they come from anywhere, that means that their inclination with, if you think about the solar system as a disk, just for the audience, you think about it as a disk, that disk is relatively narrow if you project it in space, right? So space is, you know, all 360 degrees in one axis of rotation or all. 180. That's a very large phase space to occupy. And the probability of an object entering in within a narrow acceptance angle is what you're saying is therefore suspiciously lowers low. Now, there's many ways that you could get numbers. You see, it's all about numbers. All I'm talking about is about specific

details on this object. And of course, if it was coming at a random angle, if it was the size, you know, of older, a kilometer or less, the way the other objects were, you know, I would never mention that this anomaly. You know, that would never... Now, of course, what the Stern is saying is entirely correct, and that's what we would expect, but we don't see it. It's not what we see. We see evidence for a giant...

Now, one may say, okay, maybe it's a cloud of dust, but then we don't see a commentary tail behind it. So, you know... Could we have missed, though, as Michael pointed out, could we have not missed many, many smaller objects because of A, the technology wasn't sophisticated? No, no, because the point is that to detect... an object by reflection of sunlight, you just need to be bigger than 100 meters.

We know the sensitivity of our telescopes, the pan stars, or in this case, the Atlas Telescope, or now we have the Rubin Observatory. So we can see objects that are of older, the size of a football field or bigger. But this one is hundreds of times bigger if it is a solid object. So that's my puzzle,

because the mass scales like size cubed. And if you increase the size by a factor of 100, you need a mass that is a million times bigger. And usually, you know, objects that are a million times more massive are a million times rarer because you just don't have the material to make them. And now, Michael, you are very, you know, closely related in my mind, kind of the living embodiment of this man, Carl Sagan, he's got a longer neck than you do in my finger puppet here.

Carl Sagan's very famous for saying such things as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Avi and I are practicing scientists. And I've never reached into a drawer that, you know, I've got my evidence over here, Michael. And then not, but I'm going to pull out the extraordinary. I mean, evidence is evidence in the Bayesian framework. So when Avi is mounting this, this very logical case, what's going through your mind? When does it reach the standard of Saganism of being extraordinary?

And what does that even mean? Well, again, we, we have an N of three. So it's hard to know how representative any of these objects are. So when Avi says, well, this one's 100 times larger than the object. other two. Okay, but, you know, maybe we got Kareem Abdul-Jabbar out of the, out of the random sample of humans. It's just, you know, with three. The thing is that Karim is a rare person, right, in terms of his height. Yes, that's what I'm saying. I mean, by chance, any of this? Same thing with the orbital

trajectory, by the way, I asked Alan Stern about this. All right, so let's say this is our, here, I'll just use the guest book here, the plane of the ecliptic. So, you know, objects could come in from here, from here, from this, angle from this angle. So we have three, an N of three, two of them came from just random angles. And so did the third one. But Avi's saying, oh, but it came in at this angle more along the plane of the ecliptic, which is the kind of thing a planetary scientist working for NASA would do to program the spacecraft to hit as many planets as possible. Again, with an N of three, I just, how can we really play? What about nickel without iron?

Oh, before we get there, hold on, Avi, hold on. I want to ask you, Avi, if we were having this podcast in 2013, okay, if podcast even existed. Who knows back then, if podcast even existed. No, Michael's the show certainly did. If we were having this conversation and I said, well, you've been doing this. You've been doing this a long time. If I said to you, Avi, you know, professor, please tell me what are the odds that we're going to see three objects. Let me just say even the one object that even you agree is a comment, right, Borisov is a comment. That was interstellar number two, right? So let's say, what is the odd that it's going to have to be? What is the odd that it's going to have these exact properties, you know, sort of the look elsewhere effect.

What would you have told me back then? Like, we're never going to see it. We're always going to see it. Very small probability. And, you know, I don't like science fiction. I never read the rendezvous with drama. And in retrospect, R.O.C. Clark did talk about, you know, a technological object that is roughly those dimensions of tens of kilometers.

Okay. And I would completely dismiss it back in 2013. I would think it's unreasonable. Now, let me explain. another thing. Why am I advocating for that? It's because the mainstream is not reasonable. Okay. So, for example, when sphere X realized from the flux that it could be 46 kilometers in diameter, they immediately write in the next sentence and they see it as a problem. They immediately write in the next sentence, well, it must mean that 99% of the flux that we see is being scattered

by dust around the object. But then they don't ask the next question of why don't we see a commentary retail. So there is this tendency of mainstream scientists to hide anomalies under the carpet of traditional thinking. And that is one of the main reasons I'm trying to bring it to light, just also to demonstrate that it's not as if things are done in a fair way in an open-minded way. We didn't go very far from the days of Galileo Galilei. There is still a lot of resentment to anything that doesn't agree with what we think it should be. And you might argue science is supposed to be based on evidence. Yes, but scientists know very well that when the evidence doesn't conform, they can hide it,

they can sort of smear it. They can call it a dark comet, even if you don't see a cometary tale, meaning that, you know, that the emperor has clothes, but the clothes are not visible. You know, that's what the story of Hans Christian Anderson was about. And scientists are very good at that. And that's why there are very few discoveries per decade now compared to 100 years ago. I was at the Nilsborg Institute just last week. And I was amazed because I went to the auditorium and I saw the place that I remember from a photograph that was taking 1930 with Niels Bohr, sitting next to Werner Heisenberg, sitting near Levlandau, all the pioneers of quantum mechanics.

And I, you know, I sat on the bench and they said it was a wooden bench and they said, oh, you're sitting where Wolfgang Paoli set in that conference in the middle. And I, all I can think of is, you know, that it's not very comfortable. This bench is not comfortable. And they must have had very, you know, much worse quality of life back then. But I would trade everything I have to go back 95 years and be there just because the spirit of the conversation was very open-minded. Let me, let me. Nobody was ridiculed for imagining something like quantum mechanics. I don't know about that. Let me, let me play this for you guys.

And audience has to tell me if they can hear it, because this is exactly what Avi I think is referring to. And I want to get Michael's response to it. The public square, the bench that you're talking about nowadays is played the role. The role is being played by the Joe Rogan experience. Now, all of us have been on the show. But yesterday, in fact, I believe there was this gentleman talking with Joe. And you'll kind of note a little bit of the dismiss. of attitude that Joe takes. So I don't know if you guys can hear it out there. So audience, you need to give a thumbs up if you can hear it or on a thumbs down if you can't hear it. I can't hear it. Can you guys hear it out there? Please put a thumbs up if you can hear it.

Thumbs up or thumbs down if you, okay, you can hear it or type in the comments if you can hear that, please. Did you hear the Australian accent playing? I don't hear anything. You guys won't hear it, but I think the audience. All right. So here he's going to continue talking to Joe. I don't think we can hear it out there. Okay. So the folks are saying they can't hear it. I'm,

unfortunately, I can't hear it. Let me try one of the guests. I'm looking at the list of Rogan's latest guess. Yeah, let me, let me, was it Ben Ben Kirkway? We're going to find out like this three-o-atlas thing.

Yeah, what is that? I think we can hear it. Well, Javi Love is convinced that it's a UFO. But that's what he does. Yeah. He did with that other one, Omanuma, or Amuamua.

Amuamua. So that one was a little odd. That was weird. So not, it wasn't the weirdest thing about our muamua seems to be its, it's, it's path when it took, after it turned around the sun and accelerated. Like that was the standard model of physics said it shouldn't have done that and it seems to have exhibited sort of motion that was not what we predicted it would do. That's as much as we can acceleration. It accelerated. Okay.

So you get the point here. Did you go, I don't know if you guys heard it, but Joe's expressing skepticism. Who is that? Do you know that? I'll look it up. I'm sorry. I don't want to get. The guy Ben Van Kirkwick, who was on yesterday,

who's an independent researcher exploring ancient mysteries. Anyway, I mean, I'll just comment on that. I mean, you know, Joe's exaggerating what he thinks Avi is saying. Avi is not said, I absolutely believe it's an alien spacecraft. He hasn't said that. But to the point, Brian, of how the public perceives these things, Joe is reflecting how most people, when they listen or read Avi, They don't nuance when he cautions and has qualifications about his statements.

They just hear him saying, I think it's aliens. And so if I make a slightly larger point, Avi, I mean, the reason, you know, TV crews and media are pounding at your door every day and they want to put your face on a NASCAR race car, and they're not doing that for Alan Stern is because he's just saying, I don't know what it is. It's probably just a typical commenter of some kind of. And you're saying more than that. You're saying, yeah, it probably is that, but it could be an alien spaceship. And the brains of the general public just auto corrects to, Avi says it's an alien.

Well, he didn't say that. It's not the brains of the public. It's more the reporters that won't clickbait. And what I would like to argue is that, you know, science can be exciting if you allow yourself to explore possibilities. If you know in advance what it's all about, it's a rock and there are plenty of them and you start talking as if you're a poet that, you know, distances are vast, times are long and, you know, who cares? Let's look at the

details of this object. Are there anomalous or not? That's pretty much what we are discussing here. I mean, Avi, you said, look, I think I've found a new kind of comet that doesn't exist in our solar system, but this new comet exists in this other solar system. That's what was said about Omuamua. You would not have anything close to that. You would not have anything close to that. the interest in your articles and what you have to say. Yeah, but here is my point, Michael, and I think you would agree with that. Right now, the mainstream of the astronomy community puts, you know, its highest priority,

you know, in astrobi in the search for microbes on other exoplanets, you know, the molecular fingerprints. And the situation is similar to you living in a house, okay? And you know that microbes exist in the house long before you came there and they still are there. And then you just look at other houses on the street, which are, you know, Earth, sun's analogs that we see in the Milky Way galaxy. So, you know, we know that there should be of all the billions of them. Okay. And we see those houses on the cosmic streets. But then, you know, my colleagues, the mainstream astrobiologists say, oh, imagining that these houses have residence is really, you know,

extraordinary and we should not contemplate that. Let's just imagine that they have microbes in them. Now, the problem of that is that you really need to build a huge telescope to look through the window of your home and figure out if there are microbes in the other houses on the street. That's really difficult. And that's what they want to do. They want to put more than $10 billion in the search for the molecular fingerprints in the atmospheres of 25 exoplanets within the habitable world observatory. What I'm saying is, let's hedge our bets because if there is a resident in one of those houses, The resident might knock on our door. We might find a tennis ball in our backyard,

or we will see some construction project happening at the yard far away. That would be much easier to detect. So what I'm saying, let's bring some sense, common sense, into academia and split and hedge the bets and split the funding. Put a few billion dollars towards searching for microbes. I have no issue that we should do that because they must be very common, but also put billions of dollars towards the search for, Intelligence. And what I hear back is no, zero federal funding to the search for intelligence,

more than $10 billion over two decades to the search for micro. Now, Michael, what would you do? That's the imbalance that I'm funding. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. Michael, let's say you're in charge of NASA. You get appointed through some uncanny. means, but you're head of NASA now. At what threshold of Bayesian confidence you keep mentioning, rightfully so, when do you start

to devote serious attention, which means money and people's careers in time, to guarding or investigating it as if the assumption may be low probability or not, it actually is technological and origin, and possibly level it. Yeah, well, I don't think it would be. I mean, again, I'm saying there's always a probability, right? I would say the probability of finding an extraterrestrial spacecraft of some kind or a signal from Teddy or whatever is extremely low, probably less than 1%. But if I had, if I was the economic czar and I can hand out money and I had $10 billion to hand out, I'd give Avi or whoever a billion of the $10 billion. Because I think the import of the discovery is so massive, so important, so huge, so interesting in terms of our place in the cosmos.

And, you know, it's one of the oldest questions of all time in all of history, science. Is there somebody else out there? Are we alone? And so I think it's worth the money. You know, I support the SETI program. You know, it's unfortunate that, you know, that their budget got cut back in the, I think it was early 90s. 1990. Yeah, 93. Yeah.

So you're repeating Pascal Swager, which basically he argued that we should consider, we should discuss God, because the implications would go? Well, I think if there are aliens, that is they are gods to us. I think that if there is a god, it's going to be an extraordinarily advanced extraterrestrial intelligence. Let's stick with evidence because Avi did mention, you know, some very unusual properties, such as the presence of nickel without iron, unlike the meteorites you get when you go to Brian Keating.com, potentially winning one of these. And you're guaranteed to win if you have a dot edu email address and live in the United States.

I've sent that, like I said, thousands of these. And you'll get a bountiful amount of knowledge when you investigate this extraterrestrial object called My Next Book, Focus Like a Nobel Prize winner. Comes out on Tuesday. You can get the Kindle edition for one week only 99 cents. Come on. Can't beat that deal in this or any other multivers. Now, Michael, if we were to see some objects that are some aspects of this object, what would be sort of the most convincing to you as a skeptic? I mean, that's literally your brand.

If you were a skeptic, what would it be? Would it be something like this? Or I actually have the original monoliths from 2001. We heard about rendezvous with Rama. Here's the monolith. Here's one of these things. What level of so-called proof? I mean, we can't prove it, right?

In any case. But what level of confidence interval would be established? Is the presence of, for example, nickel without iron as obvious as already mentioned? Is that, you know, peaking the curiosity and increasing the Bayesian? confidence. That one I forgot to ask Alan stirred about and I don't know anything about that. Well, maybe I can explain it. Avi, why is that significant? And then why should Michael be, you know, interested in this? Why should I be interested? Yeah. So the very large telescope detected the significant amount of nickel, but put only an upper limit, a quite large upper

limit on the ratio of nickel to iron. So in other words, there is no detection of iron. And that is very different from other comets where you see both of them together because these two elements, nickel and iron, are produced in supernova explosions, exploding stars. And in fact, iron in the solar abundance of elements, it has a higher fraction. And nevertheless, in this case, we see only nickel. And so one suggestion that was made by the authors of that paper

was to say, Maybe there was a preferred production of nickel through a carbonyl pathway. The carbonyl pathway is known from the industry. That's the path by which we produce nickel alloys. And nickel alloys without iron are very useful as, you know, the skin of spacecraft, for example. And so they mentioned in the paper that maybe nature follows the path that we are using industrially. We haven't seen that in other comets. I looked at the distribution and in all of them,

the iron to nickel ratio is of all the unity, you know, with some variations, but definitely not as extreme as in this particular case. So that's just another anomaly. I don't make a lot of it, but I'm just saying there are anomalies of this object. And, you know, I ask myself, will I be happy if it ends up being a rock? And of course I will be happy because there is less risk for humanity, no threat.

But on the other hand, I think humanity desperately needs a wake-up call. If you just read the news every day, you know, our priorities are really not very, do not testify that we are intelligent. You know, we invest most of our resources in conflicts. You know, that's what we tend to do. And instead of coming together and, you know, towards a more prosperous future for all of us, and perhaps just finding a threat in the sky would bring us together because we would realize we're all in the same boat. That's one reason I think that will be good news if it ends up being technological.

Well, that was Reagan's argument. So how do we guard against Michael, reading too much into maybe esoteric things like chemical line abundancies or instrumental artifacts and systematic? How do you guard against that? but also maintain, you have to be optimistic. It's too depressing to be a scientist without some of the optimism. Now, we're not all blessed to have the supernova-like optimism of our good friend Avi. But how do you guard against, you know, kind of over-exuberance or over-pessimism? You know very well.

You're always accused of being a wet blanket, right? So how do you guard against those two, you know, Sili and Kribeye? Right. And I'll try to answer the previous question that you asked as well, that what would it take for me to be convinced? well, I'm not a planetary scientist, so I would defer to what the, you know, the consensus is among the scientists that know about this, people like Alan Stern, who does not have a grudge against Avi, he's not dogmatically close-minded. And by the way, Avi, I think I would disagree with some of your history of science there. I mean, Einstein was harshly criticized at first. It was a long time

before his ideas became accepted. And then he became rather dogmatically closed-minded about quantum physics, for example, when he became the authority. I don't think there's anything different now about like the rate of discoveries and things like that. I mean, you've cited some journal editors who say, you can't mention that 3i Atlas could be technological. Well, you know, that's not good, but I don't think that's typical. I think most scientists are relatively open-minded, but they're conservative in the sense that most extraordinary claims turn out not to be true.

And, you know, most ideas that scientists are spitballing in their labs turn out not to be true. And, you know, this is just very common. And so it's very common. It's very common also in the mainstream. As I mentioned, the suggestion for dark matter, like the lightest super symmetric particle, that turned out to be wrong. And, you know, when I entered astrophysics, that was the dominant popular view. And people got awards, prizes, honors for just suggesting that. and they were sure that it must be true.

And then, you know, the large heartland collided and find it. So what I'm saying is it's, it's, we cannot necessarily trust the mainstream, those people who you call experts. Not alone, but, but without it, what have we got? I mean, we have. Oh, without it, we have our imagination, Michael. I know, but you have all the alternative physics guys that write you and me and everybody and Brian and everybody else with their, you know, theories of everything that they've worked

out in their garage over the on the weekends, you know, and there's just nothing to them. Most of them have no contributions to make. So working scientists that are busy simply don't have the time to entertain every single hypothesis. No, that's not. I would disagree with that. I would say that there are gatekeepers that are maintaining the herd in a very tight configuration along one path. Wait a second. Along one path.

And very often this path leads nowhere. And if we were to explore multiple paths, I'm not saying infinite number of paths or any, you know, a person who has an idea, we should explore it. but I'm just saying let's allow more diversity and nourish that diversity of opinions because we may not know in advance which path leads us to a discovery and I think that would improve the efficiency of science if we allow that. You see that also in corporations right because if you allow people to brainstorm and most of the ideas turn out to be wrong, you know, it turns out to be very financially viable for a,

corporations to do that because one good idea pays for everything else. You mentioned the word gatekeeper. And Michael, you know, I have a gate around my pool here. I think it's a law in California. We have a gate around the country. It's called the border. A lot of the people that support, you know, the stuff that Avi's doing or President Trump do, are extremely supportive of gates in certain circumstances.

Do you view gatekeeper as a pejorative when people accuse you of that? No, Avi's a gatekeeper. He's at Harvard. Come on. he's in the mainstream. So, Avi, you're in a position to do something about the gate being not porous enough. It's too tight. Okay, then loosen it up a little bit.

Fine. That's what I'm trying to do. Now, let's talk about, yeah. Yeah. So let's talk about what does the public have as a right, for example. I'm often, you know, hear things like it's our data. We paid for it, et cetera, et cetera. You know, to the extent that the average person could do data analysis, Avi, what can we really expect

as professional scientists, what do we have an obligation to provide to the public so they can do their own research, as it said, and not be gatekeeper accused of being a gatekeeper? So here is my take. Currently, the practice is the scientists find out the answer. They decide about the press conference, and they tell the public what the public should know. And that feels like being in a lecture room, where the lecturer tells the students what they need to know. And there is a hierarchy here. you don't allow the public to feed back into the process.

There is no oversight. And the problem with that approach is that, you know, first of all, there are lots of taxpayers' funds which are spent on things the public doesn't care about. And I include, you know, extra dimension string theory in that for decades. Okay. And just because there is no oversight, because the same scientists are sitting on committees

that are providing the funding and deciding in their echo chamber that it's worthwhile doing without any feedback from an outside world. Okay. And that's a problem. But the second thing is I think it's inappropriate to communicate to the public what they should know, but rather also listen to the public. If the public cares about a subject and the public pays taxes to support science, science should attend to that subject.

Okay. If, for example, the public wants to know if there is intelligence out there, you can't just say I zero out federal funding to this side. subject while I'm paying tens of billions of dollars towards the search for microbes. Why? Because the public wants to know the answer to the other question. And so how can you ignore it? And, you know, that alienates the public and creates this sense of hierarchy. Right. But the counter argument, you know, just to push back with love and respect, as I often do, you know, if you ask the public, that the top podcast that are above me and Michael, half of them are about UAPs, fine. The other half are

about Sasquatch. So, you know, there's an awful lot of interest in the public and things that have nothing to do with either one. If you cancel microbes, just like when they canceled the superconducting super collider, as you know, it didn't go into, you know, condensed matter physics or astrophysics. It went away. That budget went away. And so Michael, look, and I do want to compliment both of you guys, because you guys do an exceptional job of science communication and you're not paid to do it. NASA doesn't pay you, Michael. NASA doesn't pay Avi to do what he's doing. You guys are the epitome of what scientists should be because obviously right our employer at some level is the taxpayer but that doesn't mean we always have to do what the taxpayer you know demands of us to do even i is a humble state

employee of the state of california but and i do want to make a note that we will take audience questions because i often love to take questions from the audience you have to be a channel subscriber in order to ask questions but we'll do that down below in just a little bit okay own it all pay off your home travel for life drive a Ferrari in celebration of the world premiere of The Monopoly, big board buck slot machine by aristocrat gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino and at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th.

Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at Yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. Okay.

Michael, what would it take for you to falsify the null hypothesis in your case that this is not. And then I'm going to ask Avi, how could you falsify your, you know, positive hypothesis that it is alien technology? Michael, you first, what would it take to kind of convince you? What would it take? A combination of, would it be purely scientific or would be, would we bring in other types of epistemological searching? What would you, what would it take? I guess if the consensus among planetary scientists that study these things was that this is of technological origin, then yeah. I mean, how should I know? Again, but let me make a broader point. How do any of us fact-check anything we read in the public? You know, you hear RFKJ say vaccines are

extremely dangerous and they've not been tested. How would I know if he's right or not? I have to go to the experts who study this stuff now. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they exaggerate and so on as we saw during COVID. And the public trust in the CDC, for example, and Anthony Fauci. and Francis Collins, you know, plummeted because of that. So we have to be careful. But without that, then you have nothing but RFKJ-type vaccine skeptics in that particular field. So there has to be some way that the average person can check these things. I mean, 99% of knowledge that's out there.

I have no idea personally, if it's true or not. You know, was the 2020 election rig? How the hell should I know? I mean, I depend on the Justice Department and the people that run these things to tell me if it was or not. So that would be the case here. If, you know, if someone like an Alan Stern said, you know, I think this new photograph we got and data from the Mars camera, you know, shows it probably is technological. Like, okay. I don't have a dog of it if I'd be glad for it to be technological.

So Avi, let me ask you the same question. So I'm reading from our friend David Kipping who put out a respectful, but, you know, very contrary, you know, video to kind of dispute some of the claims with respect. He also was on rogue and doing the same thing. So he points out all these different factoids the interstellar asteroid abundance. He argues we don't know it fully yet. The velocity and the local standard of rest, we'll get into that later. He's talking about the different reasons why, for example, oh, mu, mu, mua. He says that that was moving slowly.

Now you're saying that this object is moving quickly. The unusual orbit is an observational selection effect, et cetera, et cetera. And then lastly, he gets into the technology of solar sail. How do you refute that? And what would it would take for you to say him and other people who are experts in this field? He's not a planetary scientist. I don't think he's any specific planetary scientist, but astrophysicist in general, he's very, you know, well-known and respected.

So what would it take for you to refute your null hypothesis? Right. So first I should say, you know, the truth is not decided by authority. I don't care about what Alan Stern says. I don't care about what David Kipping says. If the data shows something really anomalous, they can. and continue to say that it's a dark comet. You know, on January 2nd, January 2nd, 2025,

there was an object catalogued by the Minor Planet Center, the main authority designated by the International Astronomy Union. They found a near-Earth asteroid and gave it a name. And then they realized a day later, oh, that one follows the path of the Tesla Roadster car that was launched by SpaceX in 2018, removed it immediately from their catalog. And there were dozens of cases like that.

where astronomers say it's a rock. Oh, wait a minute. No, it's a spacecraft or some space debris that we launched. Now, what about spacecraft or space debris that other civilizations launched? We don't know their trajectories. And those same astronomers that Michael calls experts would say and insist that they must be rocks of a type that we've never seen before. That was done for a muamua.

there were experts that Michael would really respect that said, you know, it's a hydrogen iceberg. It's a nitrogen iceberg. It's a dust bunny. These were the mainstream suggestions. Can you believe it? Things we've never seen before. A dust bunny being a muamua, a hydrogen iceberg.

These are the experts that Michael wants us to listen to. And I'm saying science depends on the level of evidence. So obviously, eventually, if we have enough, evidence. So what I would like, you know, if I saw that 3-I Atlas was maneuvering, just to give an example, if it was maneuvering, then obviously, you know, the stock market may crash, because that kind of a maneuver that cannot be accounted for by the rocket effect of a comet, if it's like zigzagging or approaching Earth or doing some or releasing some mini-props, you know, that would be clear indication that it's technological, or if it has some, it broadcasts something or has artificial

lights. However, if it becomes, you know, clear that it has a cometary tale of the type that is expected from natural objects, I would, you know, I invented the scale last month calling it, now it's called the lobe scale, where zero means natural, 10 means artificial and likely to threaten Earth. And so far I gave it a four, three-eye Atlas, but I would bring it down to zero. If we get more data, as it comes close to the sun and it erupts just like a comet, I would say, yeah, it's natural. I bring it down to zero. Now you may ask, how is it that you are changing your mind? Is it under pressure? No, it's because we have more data. And science, you know, whoever pretends that scientists know the answer is wrong because, you know, we thought

that we detected B mode polarization from inflation. It ended up being dust from, you know, the Milky Way Galaxy, and that's just an example of how science is done in iterations. It takes, you know, more and more data eventually to figure out what's going on. And that was the subject of my first book, which reminds me to make sure people know about my fourth book, which is now out coming for 99 cents only to your Kindle on Tuesday. Focus like a Nobel Prize winner. Click the link down below. Michael, what would you do to avoid this sort of, you know, impasse that we seem to have? We have to listen to experts, but then some experts we shouldn't listen to. So how does a layperson, Again, a lot of the audience, most of the audiences are lay people.

So how do they know who to listen to? Should it be people like Kipping? Should it be Avi? What do we do? Well, Avi is one of the experts that we should listen to. He's not an outsider. He's not a fringe thinker. He's at Harvard, for God's sake.

I mean, it doesn't get more mainstream than that. So, but I mean, Avi, you know, are your children vaccinated? And if so, why did you vaccinate him? Did you do your own research? Did you rely on experts who know. something about this, like your own personal doctor, your pediatrician that takes care of your kids. I mean, this is nonsense that we shouldn't listen to the experts and do our own research. That's just bullshit.

I mean, this is the death of expertise. This is a problem that we're facing in all areas. I just say what Brian is asking you, Michael, is how do you know if the experts are not just fooling you? Because there's a community of scientific experts. Don't listen to any one of them. But, you know, there's a point. If all peer review is completely broken, then what's the point of having any standards of evidence at all?

I mean, everything you're talking about, obvious, is based on evidence. Okay. Well, you don't think we should just throw out all the evidence and just people. No, I don't think we should throw it away. But I also know for a fact that a lot of the review process is highly sensitive to subjective. You know, what's the alternative? What are you proposing? What I'm proposing is a different system where innovation takes center stage.

Right now, the practice is that risk-taking is avoided by most scientists because they're worried about what people are keeping will argue against them if they were to say something different. There is a lot of pushback. Now, the main harm that is done by people criticizing me is in discouraging young people to think differently. Because the young people see it and they worry about their job prospects. And I think the culture right now in academia and science is not sufficiently innovative.

And we can correct that. Michael, why did you join? Oh, sorry. Sorry, Michael. My way you can correct it, Avi, is through all those billionaires you've been meeting that want to courtesy your favor there, get some of them to get the checkbook out. He has. He has. He has.

He has. of science is has a long I just you know last week I hired three new postdocs in the Galileo project I'm trying to do my best but see you're the gate you're a gatekeeper and you've opened the gate that's a good thing yes now Michael why did you join the Galileo project aside from the fact that I agree with everything to I be saying here about the need for well first of all it's course the you know the greatest subject of all is there now you know somebody else out there somewhere and have cosmology come on give us Yeah, that's it. And so, you know, Avi wants to actually look with better cameras. It's the UAP thing. Again, that low information zone where, you know, why are they always grainy videos and blurry photographs when there's, you know, a couple billion high resolution phones walking around Earth. Okay, well, let's do something about it. And then, you know, of course, I'm a fan of Galileo.

Michael, you might be also the only person, you know, I don't think that the entire audience is familiar with your encounters with extraterrestrials. Do you want to explain your alien abduction? Your abduction, yeah, no, in all seriousness, let's go through it. Because I think it'll be instructive for my audience members that may not know your backstory. Oh, gosh. Okay, yeah, I've written about that quite a bit. Yeah, so this, I was abducted by aliens in, in August of 1983 on the side of the road in Nebraska, outside of Hagler, Nebraska. It was a large ship, a large craft with bright lights, and the aliens got out. And now, interestingly, they looked exactly human. In fact, they looked a lot like people I know. So the context of this is the 3,000-mile nonstop transcontinental bicycle race across America that I was

competing in in 1983. And I'd rid nonstop from the Santa Monica Pier all the way to Nebraska's about 1,280 miles, but zero sleep and almost no stops. And so I'm just hallucinating. I was just simply, and what I was hallucinating was reflecting a deep memory I had from childhood of a TV show called The Invaders, starring, on CBS, in which this was a body snatching motif in which aliens had come to Earth and were basically snatching the bodies, you know, just body snatching. It's called where the aliens look exactly like your neighbors. And so how, but for the plot line, they had to have some way, for people to tell.

And so it was a stiff little finger. For some reason, they could traverse the vast distances of interstellar space, and replicate a human and DNA and all that, but they couldn't bend the tendons in their little finger. Anyway, it was just a plot device. But all that happened to me on the side of the road, it was just my support group. I'd been hallucinating.

And I slept for 90 minutes and got back up. And you can actually watch this. If you go to YouTube and type in Michael Shermer comma alien abduction, you'll see me explaining to Eric Hayden in the ABC Wild World of Sports camera crew exactly what happened because he goes, how's it going? I said, not so good. I was abducted by aliens. He's like, what? So I told him the whole story. So it actually happened all in my head, of course. By the way, I should comment, Brian, that when I agreed to bring Michael to the Galileo project, I told Michael that, you know, if we do find evidence, you know, my hope is that Michael

will change the name of his magazine from a skeptic to believe. Believer. Yes. Actually, you know, since that time, there is a magazine called Believers. So how about just believe? Okay. So I do want to take some questions from the audience in just a few minutes. You'll have to be a subscriber to ask questions.

I got to pander in some way or another. But before we go there, you mentioned a little bit ago, and there is some rumbling in the chat, you know, whether or not Michael is coming at this from a religious perspective. And I wonder, Michael, if you could talk about what you mentioned before, that if they are real, then they would sort of be like our gods. And obviously, there's a lot of a scatological and other kind of overlays, always with the alien topic. Why do you think that is? I mean, we don't have that in like cosmology necessary. I mean, we have, you know, Genesis 1-1. But I mean, besides that, we don't, we don't really talk about God. And, you know, if I'm doing condensed matter,

you know, nomadic phase transitions and superconductors, I'm not, I'm not, hmm, let me think about like, if God, you know, oriented. Why is it so prevalent in, in topics like, you know, aliens, UAPs, UFOs? Yeah, one of my early scientific American columns was called Shermer's Last Law, because you shouldn't name laws after yourself. Okay, Avi, you heard that, right? What about scales? What about scales? Like the lobe scales. Anyway, it's, I was just a riff off of Arthur C. Clark's third law. Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God. That is to say, if we do encounter aliens, they're not going to be just five years ahead of us or behind us.

Well, they won't be behind us because we've just got achieved space travel. But they'd be, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years more advanced than us. And if you just take Moore's Law, you know, doubling of technological capabilities every one or two years and you extrapolate that out, 5,000, 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 million years, they'll be able to do things that, to us, would look like, you know, omniscience and omnipotence. So anyway, that was my point of that little tongue and cheek. Sagan made this point that, you know, it's not original to me, that the impulse, the religious impulse to know that we're not alone, that there's somebody, some agent, something out there that knows we're here and, you know, cares about us or in some way is more moral than us is deeply embedded in the human psyche. And it's probably the basis of most religious impulses related to those big questions, where we came from, why we're here and so on. And so I think the search for extraterrestrial intelligence in a way is, I'm not saying it's a religious thing. It's driven by the same questions of like we all want to know.

It's like roots writ large. You know, where did I come from? And I have to say, I mean, it is one of the greatest questions. I would love to know the answer. I would love to know that we're not alone. You know, we just don't know. And so the point of point. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work,

Use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job posts the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero?

This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. There is another aspect to it that, you know, one reason I'm seeking. a higher intelligence in interstellar spaces because I don't often find it in academia. And then, you know, and so it's just like... You are in academia. Come on. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's why you can criticize. Think about attending a party and you just don't like the way the party goers are behaving and you're looking through the window for an incoming guest that will improve the situation.

So there is an opportunity for us to learn, of course. And you know, one question is whether it will affect in any way the belief in God that religious people have. And I was asked this question by a group of scholars from Christianity today. And I said that, you know, I have two daughters. And when the second one was born, it didn't take away from the love I have to the first one. So, so, you know, if you think of God as being able to attend only to one child, you know, that is very demeaning. And, you know, if we have siblings, of course, we will be jealous if they are more accomplished and we are just, you know, like having a sibling that is more successful. But there is no conflict with the notion of the religious God, you know. Now, Avi and Michael, we're going to lose Michael in a few

minutes, but Avi and I will continue in a little bit more technical level, talk about some of the technical details after Michael has to be abducted for his next appointment. Michael, we have a question or a statement, really, but I'm going to pose it to you, and that's that eyewitness testimony is nearly useless. What do you make about that? There's so many accounts from eminent pilot. I've had on Ryan Graves on my podcast. I've tried to talk to people like Lou Alizando. He won't come on, but he keeps sending me stuff. But hopefully I'll get him on. But all these eyewitnesses, Michael, they can't surely all be making stuff up, can they? Eye witness testimony is not reliable. We know that from tons of studies. Let me read to you

a quote from the astronaut and pilot Scott Kelly at a NASA press conference, with the latest flap of UAP sightings in which the believers were saying, look, you know, just this pilot saw it. And, you know, they have, you know, great credentials and great vision, and they know what they're seeing in space and in the atmosphere. Here's what Scott Kelly says. In my experience of flying over 15,000 hours in 30-something years in airplanes and in space, the environment that we fly in is very conducive to optical illusions.

So I get why these pilots would look at that Go Fast video. and think it's going really, really fast. Remember one time I was flying off Virginia Beach military operating area and my RIO radar intercept officer, who sits in the back of the Tomcat, was convinced we flew by a UFO. I didn't see it, so we turned around to go look at it. Turns out it was a Bart Simpson balloon.

My brother, Scott Kelly, a former NASA astronaut and now also a U.S. Senator, shared a story with me about an experience he had years ago when he was the commander of the STS. 124, the space show. They were getting ready to close the payload bay doors of the space shuttle, and they see something in the payload bay. And they thought it was a tool, maybe a bolt.

They couldn't quite figure it out, and they were potentially going to have to go do a spacewalk to retrieve it. But before they did that, my brother grabbed his camera, and they took a picture of it. And when they blew up the picture, they realized, this is not a bolt or a tool in the payload bay. It's the International Space Station 80 miles away. He says there are cases where pilots have rendezvoused on a buoy because they thought that was their wingman.

It's just a very, very challenging environment to work, especially at night. Yeah. And I can support that by mentioning an anecdote where I had someone send me an email, you know, a camera, a photographer of weddings. And he said, I just have the best photo ever of a UFO that I captured during a wedding. and I want you to sign an NDA, non-disclosure agreement. He asked me, I said, I'm not signing any NDA. You want me to look at it? Just send it over.

And so he agreed and sent it over, and I showed it to the Galileo project research team. And we realized that it was actually a napkin that was flying in the wind behind the groom. And I told it to him, and I assumed that he was disappointed. And Michael, what about the fact that the U.S. government recently admitted that it was, basically what's called a psychological operation on members of the military. How does that affect your credulity or not? First of all, why would they do that? And would they possibly do that because of the existence of the real objects that they want to keep covered up?

What do you make about this? Yeah, the latter, right. I mean, you know, did anybody know about the U2 spy plane or the SR-71 Blackbird, you know, when they were under development? I mean, you know, the U-2 spy plane was developed in Burbank. you know, right there in the middle of Los Angeles, and nobody knew about it, right? So governments can't keep secrets. Some secrets leak.

Sometimes they cover up things that they're doing. We know that governments lie to their citizens. All governments, including democracies, do this. Our own government does us. We know that's from the history of the CIA and the FBI. You know, they're not always forthcoming, to say the least. And so my interpretation of that is, sort of like with the Roswell incident. You know, they initially said, you know, it was a, well, initially they said,

here's some debris. Oh, it's a weather balloon. Well, it turns out it wasn't a weather balloon. It was Project Mogul, which was high-altitude balloons with acoustic equipment to listen for nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere that we were afraid the Soviets might be testing. And so, of course, they lied about that because they're not going to say, hey, by the way, that debris you saw was from this secret project mogul that we're using so we can know what the Soviets are doing because now the Soviets know we're doing it. So they lie for national security reasons and so on. It could be something along those lines, and maybe there's some slight sense of humor about the whole thing. Look at what all these UFO nuts are talking about. Let's go ahead and float some of those ideas out there into the public and let them run with it so that we can keep doing what we're doing. That's entirely possible. You know, it's not a very open, transparent approach to a democratic civil society, but that's the world we live. And speaking of that, Avi, you've, first of all, I want to give you credit because all these people and some call them haters, and you've got like a whole bunch of people that troll you,

both in our professional academy as well as, I mean, Michael, maybe you're not aware of this because you don't play the petty games that we professors play. But there's a lot of hatred that goes towards Avi. And I found it very interesting sociologically, because a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago, you got this on the radar of Congresswoman Luna of Florida. And she's since taken this mantle up.

And at that time, it was to look at using the spacecraft, Juno, Juno, what I know. It's the Jupiter observation, which is still in orbit and could do observations of this. First of all, I want to congratulate you for that. Second of all, I want to congratulate you for making your haters say, well, obviously, you know, wrong about this being an object from interstellar, you know, technology, but he's got a good idea.

But my idea is better. I'm going to use it to look for a plume from Vega, you know, whatever. So that was an epic troll. I don't know if that was your intention. But why should that, you know, what level does this government thing go up? Does it go all the way up to the president? I mean, what are they doing in Congress with our taxpayer money? And what could they be doing to maybe shed some light on this interesting object and other objects that are in doubt on that only coming our way, right? Yeah. So Congresswoman

Luna did call me by phone and asked me for an update about three eye atlas. I met her before at the briefing that I gave on May 1st, 2025 in the U.S. Congress. And, you know, I advocated for the scientific approach where she doesn't need to listen to storytelling the way that Michael describes, you know, because stories, you know, can be fabricated and science is really our best hope. The method of science is collecting evidence. You don't need to listen to people. Just collect as much data as possible. And you can tell the difference between, you know, a genuine scientist and a conspiracy theorist. The way to tell the difference is give both of them a lot of data. The conspiracy the theorist will be very worried about it because it may go against the narrative.

The scientist, a genuine scientist, would be delighted because even if it changes the view that that scientists had, you know, we learn something new. So that is the process of scientific learning. Now, I'm not saying that practitioners of science, scientists are all genuine scientists. Many of them are anti-science. They have a view. They have an echo chamber and they want everything to confirm to that. And so that's my problem with some of the scientists. But I should say, actually, that just last week there was a paper out saying, we should look for technological signatures of interstellar objects.

And I look at the author list. And in the author list, there are people who are attacking me personally on YouTube and, you know, on blogs. And I asked myself, how come? And then I remembered what Oscar Wilde said, that imitation is the same. sincerest form of flattery. Okay. So I don't mind as long as they say what I'm saying, that's fine. But what they're trying to do

is basically say, if we happen to find technological signatures of an interstellar object, we want credit for that. This was discussed long ago. It's not about Avi. So they give me a hard time, but at the same time was to diminish. They want to diminish my prospects of getting recognized

for saying that if it happens to be true. Now, Michael. Sorry, Michael, just because you have to go in a couple of minutes. I want to ask you this. You stated very eloquently the challenges of eyewitness testimony. But let's talk about the title of this hearing, as I understand it, is the Whistleblower Protection Act. Now, why would we need whistleblower protection if these objects are not real or if they are representative of psychological operation? What do you make of this whistleblower? Well, the idea there is you have insiders working in the government.

These aren't just, you know, the farmer Bob out in the field says he saw a light. These are people that presumably, you know, working in government, know something. So when you see like the Grush hearings and some of those congressional hearings where, you know, they know somebody who knows somebody who worked in government that actually touched the spaceship, saw the aliens, studied them and so on, and then you ask, well, who was that? Well, we can't tell you. Well, where was this? Can't tell you. Okay. So, and when you ask, well, why not? Well, it's classified or, you know, they're afraid of being punished. So, well, we have whistleblower laws, and that's what those are for so that we can have transparency in government, these government agencies. So let's get it out there. Just release all the

files. Release the UFO files, the JFK files, the Epstein files. Put them all out there. All right, gentlemen, I got to go. I'm going to disclose with this final statement. Avi, you started off by saying scientists don't care about the Nobel Prize. They just want evidence. So three-eye Atlas turns out to be extraterrestrial intelligent technology. And the Nobel Committee calls you at five in the morning and you're not already out on your early morning run. Would you turn it down? I will do the Bob Dylan act, because if we know that it's an intelligence, alien intelligence,

it's much more worthwhile of my attention than a bunch of old people giving an award to another person. I would do the Bob Dylan thing. Oh, you just wouldn't show. Okay. All right. Michael, thank you so much. Keep up the skepticism. Tune into Michael Sharmer show every week.

We'll see you. tomorrow, Avi. All right. So Avi and I are going to continue for I have another 10 minutes if Avi does as well. So Avi still there. Good. Michael's still there, but that's weird. He's not supposed to be there.

All right. Let me put in Avi. There we go. And I'm going to replace there with me. There we go. I'm going to take that off there. Okay, Avi, we're back on. Avi, if you were at the, are you going to the testimony next Tuesday?

No, but I was asked to comment on that. So I will watch it probably from a distance. All right. There's 4,000 people watching us right now. If you could ask a question, you know, be promoted or demoted to Congressman Lowe from the state of Massachusetts. What would you ask these witnesses? Well, I want to know if they have firsthand evidence. I want to understand what it is.

And that's my main concern that people who talked about the subject were either hearing the story from other people or sort of indirectly hinting from documents that something might be out there, that the government is in possession of things. And, you know, I was sitting next to Eric Davis, the congressional briefing in May. And he was saying that the U.S. government has 12, about a dozen spacecraft and also biological pilots that were recovered. And, you know, I have no idea of whether this bears any, you know, truth or not. The only way to find out is to get either clear photographs or see the actual physical evidence.

And before I have that, I would just be just like Michael, skeptical about it. Would you take them up on an offer if they did ask you? I mean, you're very heavily astrophysical theory focus, but also sensor focus. Your multi-domain, multimodal technology that the Galileo project employs is on parallel in this. I mean, you even use sound sensors. It's incredible. What would you trade? Would you like to have hands on in biologics?

You're not a biologist, but, you know, they talk about non-human biologics. They talk about objects that clearly, I mean, you're one of the world's experts in relativity in black holes. You're not a one, I mean, you're going to publish 800 papers or more maybe. Maybe that's your H index, I forget. But Avi, when you hear about things such as what David Grush has testified that this object is bigger inside than it is outside, it has all sorts of things that always are claimed. to defy the laws of physics.

You're an astrophysicist, I'm a physicist. What do you make of those claims? What would you do, aside from the Galileo Project, you have access to people, testimony, evidence, physical evidence, and eyewitness evidence. What would you do? Well, if I have access to the evidence, if the U.S. government, for example,

signs me on a non-disclosure agreement, which they didn't, and they show me the actual evidence, I would help them figure it out. Now, you will not know about it because I won't be able to speak about it publicly, but you will see that I'm not talking anymore about this subject. I would just like to know, you can think of me like a kid, okay? I just want to figure it out.

I want to know whether we are alone. I think it's the most romantic question in science, whether we have a partner out there. And, you know, it's a blind date, of course. Our imagination is limited to our experiences on Earth, and nature is more imaginative. So I don't want us to assume that we know the answer, in advance. I want to see the evidence. And if the government has it, I'm happy to help them

figure it out. But I haven't seen the evidence as of yet. And the Galileo project has three observatories in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Nevada. And one thing I told them that in the coming months, as three-eye Atlas comes close with the sun, we should monitor for any anomalous activity in the airs atmosphere just in case it released any mini-probes, you know, if it's a mothership. But if we don't see anything, so be it. You know, if it's a rock, then fine with me. I mean, you know, imagine being on a blind date. You know, obviously it would be disappointing if on the other side there is a rock.

Your summer starts now with Memorial Day deals at the Home Depot. It's time to fire up summer cookouts with the next grill, four-burner gas grill, on special buy for only $199. And entertain all season with the Hampton Bay West Grove seven-piece outdoor dining. set for only $499. This Memorial Day, get low prices guaranteed at the Home Depot. While supplies last, price-in-valued May 14th or May 27th. U.S. only exclusions apply.

See homedepo.com slash price match for details. We have some questions from the audience about the actual composition of it. So what is the strongest evidence, you know, of all the, you know, four or five or six different attributes that you've talked about, we've talked about. Explain, you know, what a comment is, a basics of a comment. and then how this thing differs from it for people that might not be familiar. And then which are the pieces of anomaly, which of the anomalies are most clear cut of interest to you?

Right. So a comet is basically a dirty iceberg iceball. And actually, Fred Whipple, came up with that idea. Before him, it was not, he was at Harvard. And he went to Harvard Yard one winter and saw all these, you know, people throwing iceballs at, each other and realize, ah, actually, comets might be just like that, dirty iceballs. And we now know there are a mix of rock and water ice. Most of them in the solar system are like that.

And they come from different distances and we can see them erupting when they come close enough to the sun because when they are far away, the ice remains in the ice phase, but when the ice is warm close enough to the sun, and that's within a distance of a few times the earth's separation, at that point, the ice turns into water vapor. It sublimates. There is no liquid in between because liquid water can exist only under external pressure. So that's why, you know, there is life on earth because there is the atmosphere that provides pressure that allows liquid water to exist when ice is being melted by sun. However, if there is no atmosphere on a piece of rock that has some ice on it, then the ice goes straight into vapor, into gas form, and that is called sublimation, and that's what you see in comets.

Now, the ice is dirty. It has dust particles in it. So when you get this vapor, it's also, it contains also some dust particles, some of which have size comparable to the wavelength of sunlight. And in that case, it scatters. sunlight and you see this glow behind the comet that is just scattering of sunlight by either the dust or the gas that comes off the of the comet. And we see a lot of comets in the solar system because these are the building blocks that were left over in the outskirts of the solar system where the water ice formed in the inner part of the solar system. You know, there is not much water ice. Of course, on earth we find the liquid water because of the atmosphere. that keeps it in place. But if there was no atmosphere, like in the context of Mars,

all you find on Mars without a significant atmosphere is either some reservoir of water ice on the cold part of parts of Mars or nothing at all. It's a desert. And that's what you find on an object without an atmosphere. Land the spaceship here. tell me what to expect on October 3rd, besides the Nobel Prize ceremonies, which are coming up, and you might be up early that day. But, Avi, what prediction might you make for the public to judge and maybe help, you know, settle the issue or contribute more information to the debate? For me, the biggest anomaly, you know, putting the trajectory aside, let's imagine it's an object on some rare trajectory by chance, okay?

It's the size of the object, okay? And the high-rise camera on board the Mars reconnaissance orbiter will be able to resolve 30 kilometers. And that is roughly the scale of the nucleus if it's big. And I would like to see the images coming from there. I know that the European Space Agency will also employ all of its, you know, probes. It has the Mars Explorer and some other probes. And I look forward to seeing the data from all of these props. And if we see that most of the reflection of sunlight indeed comes from some compact cloud of dust,

which we can tell, you know, if the size is of order 46 kilometers comparable to the size of a pixel, then, you know, I will say if it's a cloud of dust, then it's probably just a regular comet with a small nucleus. But if it turns out to be a solid surface of an object that reflects the sunlight, then I think we have a problem because how can you get such a giant rock every decade to the inner solar system? That's untenable by the reservoir of rocks in interstellar space. Now, what if it does turn out, you know, in the fullness?

of time to be just a comet. What makes it scientifically exciting still? Oh, here is an interesting point. If we had the foresight to have some interceptor waiting for it so that we can land on such an object, collect some material like 100 grams the way we collected from the asteroid Benu and bring it back to Earth, that's a completely new approach to astrobiology. You know, right now, astrobiology is about looking at the atmospheres of exoplanets. I'm saying, let's retrieve some material and check what are the building blocks of life there. If we find the same building blocks, the amino acids that we found on the venue, that are the building blocks of life as we know it, we know at least that around other stars,

you have the same building blocks, amino acids, that perhaps give rise life as we know it. I would like to know that. That is a completely new way of doing astrobiology. Very good. Okay. So in the five minutes we have left or so, I want to do some wrap. rapid fire questions from the audience. So Edward asks, why would aliens disguise themselves as a comet?

Why would they care? Yeah, that's a good question. It depends on their intent. So when you go on a blind date, you never know what the other side is hoping to accomplish. It could be exploration. It could be that they go through planetary systems, the habitable zone of planetary systems for a reason. Or for example, it could be that it represents a dark forest hypothesis which is a solution to Fermi's paradox when he asked where is

everybody one solution is the aliens are not very far from us but they are quiet because they are worried about predators and when they see us evolving technologically you know they would like to visit and either figure out exactly what's going on or maybe even pose a threat to humanity because we danger them you know so you never know your neighbors until you you see them? That's right. Well, my wife knew what my intentions were on the first date. But Avi, tell me about the glow Tom Colby is asking that came from in front of the object. Right. So that is very puzzling because what happens usually is you get the glow from dust

particles that have size comparable to the wavelength of sunlight. So they scatter sunlight very effectively. But for the same reason, sunlight pushes them very quickly. I calculated within a day they should have ended up behind the object. And so that's why you see a cometary tail usually. So it's either, you know, the cloud of the plume of gas being pushed by the solar wind or the dust being pushed by the solar radiation. In both cases, you end up with a plume of gas stretching behind it like a trail. And that's the origin of cometary tails being pushed away from the sun.

Now, we don't see that here. So what could be the reason? It could be that there is not much dust. What we are seeing is reflection of sunlight from ice, water ice primarily, because CO2 ice can get evaporated very quickly. So the only remaining ice that can go at distance is water ice. And then this water ice is evaporated from the front, the sun-facing side of the object. So you see it when it scatters sun. light, but then it gets evaporated at some distance, and it doesn't go behind the object anymore. So then you get a preference ahead of the object towards the sun.

Carl Rolo asks, how did it get past the heat bubble of our ord clouds? This is a general comment. Forget about if it's a comet or a, I don't know, a Freudian slip. I said comet, not comet. But just ignore that it's possibly technological. How could a comet get through the org cloud is what it being is? That's a great question. space is mostly empty.

And I actually did the calculation because this object is going through the asteroid belt, which is actually a collection of fragments left over from either planets that were destroyed or the building blocks of planets that were left in the solar system. We find them in the main asteroid belt. And the density of rocks there is much greater than anywhere else in the solar system. And I calculated and it turns out that the chance of this an object, Even that is 40 kilometers in diameter, the chance of it colliding with anything significant is negligible. I mean, most of the time it collides with dust particles, but they don't do much damage.

And if you ask how much material does it scoop along its path, it's really completely negligible. It's much less than a millimeter. Even if you integrate over billions of years when it goes through interstellar space, you know, it doesn't collect much material because space is mostly empty. Every now and then, there are dust particles colliding with it, molecules, atoms, but that doesn't add up to a lot. We are talking about of order a millimeter over billions of years. Right. Okay. Native 95 is asking, how do you explain the high levels of pure nickel without the presence of iron? We touched on that earlier, but just a brief...

Well, one way to explain it is if there is a process similar to the industrial production of nickel alloys, and that's called carbonyl. You can find it online. And this is a process that can make that releases nickel without iron because it's nickel related. And that's how we make those alloys industrially. Now, if nature doesn't do that often because we haven't seen it before, then maybe it's a signature of industrial production of whatever surface 3i Atlas has, in which case it might be technological. And why would they use that versus steel or something like that?

Why would they focus on the next? I mean, it will still, I mean, because that's what we use for spacecraft, by the way, that what you call steel or material used on spacecraft is nickel enriched relative to iron. Right, but there are other alloys, other composition. Yeah, of course. So we, yeah, I'm just saying this is unusual. This is an anomaly relative to what you find in comets within the solar system. That's all.

Exactly. Galactic hurricane is asking, why is it red like Omoa, is that true? Right. So that may well be, if it's not a cloud of dust, as I mentioned, around it that is reddening it, then it most likely is just the surface that appears red because it's bombarded for billions of years by cosmic rays. And we see that in the Kuiper Belt, we see objects that are red. And what happens is that organic compounds are being made as a result of the bombardment by cosmic rays, and you end up with a red color. So, Kuiper Belt objects like Arokoth, that was an object that was studied quite a lot in the Kuiper Belt. They appear red.

And the same was true for Omoa, Muamua. It was relatively red. So apparently, objects that are exposed to conditions in interstellar space are becoming red. It has nothing to do with political views of whoever are the passengers on these. Congresswoman Luna's, you know, favorite color. All right, last question. Our friend Stephen VaiskoSil asks, Professor Lowe, 3-I Atlas shows non-gravitational acceleration or anomalous spin.

Would you consider evaluating it not only as a natural object but a test of coherence, which I think means intelligence? Is there some punitively natural thing like spin, but then acceleration plus spin. Is there some combination of forces? You see the golden ratio in these things, he's asking. Would you then say it's technological in origin? Well, that's interesting.

So I'm now looking into the data on the trajectory of this object. I want to find how significant is the limit on non-gravitation acceleration. But of course, at any point along the orbit, we might see a maneuver. And that usually happens for spacecraft closest to the sun. When we want to give a spacecraft the most boost thrust, we activate the rocket effect when it's closest to the sun because that's when gravitational assist from the sun is most effective. And so I would like to wait until October 29th

and see if there is any maneuver. Of course, if there is, that would be a clean signature that we're seeing something technologically. as long as the non-gravitational acceleration is at a level that is far greater than you expect from the rocket effect of cometary evaporation. I calculated that the level of cometary evaporation of this object is very weak, and the non-gravitational acceleration is almost negligible. It will be really difficult to detect it.

And so if we see something significant, that change in the trajectory that is significant, I would argue that's very intriguing. Yeah, very much indeed. Okay, well, this has been an intriguing conversation, and I want folks to know how rare Avi is, both in terms of his courage, his bravery, but also his productivity. And that reminds me to remind you that my new book is a productivity book, so you too can take on the mantle of leadership, courage, and productivity that Avi Love is exhibited.

These are lessons from nine of the 22 Nobel Prize winners I've interviewed on this very show, including eminent luminaries from Harvard, from all walks of the academic. lifestyle. This book is on sale on Kindle right now for the low, low price of just 99 cents. So, Avi, this is, you can't beat this low price. There it is there. Get your own copy. Avi, I want to thank you for inspiring me and a generation of astronomers. We'll have many discussions on this. Maybe on October 4th if we're still here to tell the tale about it, right? Thank you. I look forward to that. This has been great. So everybody, thank you so much. Thank you to Avi. Thank you to Michael Shermer. And stay tuned. We have been interviewed with Thomas Hurtog, who Avi knows very well as well.

He's the Stephen Hawking's final collaborator. That comes out tomorrow or tonight, if you're a member of the channel. Don't forget to go to my website listed down below where you can get some high nickel, but mostly high iron from a meteorite that fell to Earth older than the is older than the Earth itself. It's four and a half billion years old. And once in a while, I give out a moon rock, Avi. This guy, Bart Sibro, claims we didn't land on the moon. And he claims I'm committing a felony by having this piece of Moonrock. But I'll tell that tale to the Federals. No, my lawyers tell me I'm totally safe and secure. I give Moonrock out. I give out meteorites. Guaranteed if you have a .edu email address if you live in the United States. So click on the link right there.

Avi Loeb. Thank you so much. We'll talk again soon. Thank you. Bye. Enjoy more ways to save at Ralph's like low prices in every aisle. And when you download the Ralph's app, you can clip and save more with digital coupons every week. Plus, you can earn fuel points to save up to $1 per gallon at the pump. At Ralph's, you can enjoy more ways to save and more rewards every time you shop. So it's always easy to save big every day with savings and rewards. Ralph's SoCal for over 150 years. Savings may vary by state. Fuel restrictions apply. Seasite for details.