Kyle Kingsbury Podcast - #390 Unraveling the Upside Down Cosmos w/ Mark Gober

Episode Date: January 25, 2025

Mark Gober is back to discuss his new book, 'An End to the Upside Down Cosmos.' The conversation delves into challenging traditional understandings of cosmology, the Big Bang theory, and Earth's place in the universe. They explore geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, the anomalies in dark matter and dark energy, and the inconsistencies in observations that suggest Earth may not be a spinning ball. Further, they question the legitimacy of moon landings, the difficulty of space travel past the Van Allen belt, and the implications of consciousness on our perception of reality. The show encourages listeners to question mainstream narratives and consider alternative scientific models. Connect with Mark here: Website New Book Instagram   Show notes mention - The Principle   Our Sponsors: If there’s ONE MINERAL you should be worried about not getting enough of... it’s MAGNESIUM. Head to http://www.bioptimizers.com/kingsbu now and use code KINGSBU10 to claim your 10% discount. Let’s level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to Lucy.co/KKP and use promo code (KKP) to get 20% off your first order. Lucy offers FREE SHIPPING and has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. With Happy Hippo, you're getting a product that's been sterilized of pathogens, tested for impurities and heavy metals, and sold with a guarantee. Go to happyhippo.com/kkp and use Code KKP for 15% off the entire store Looking for Shilajit? Head over to blacklotusshilajit.com and enter code KKP to receive 15% off your order   Connect with Kyle: I'm back on Instagram, come say hey @kylekingsbu Twitter: @kingsbu Fit For Service Academy App: Fit For Service App Our Farm Initiative: @gardenersofeden.earth Odysee: odysee.com/@KyleKingsburypod Youtube: Kyle Kingbury Podcast Kyle's Website: www.kingsbu.com - Gardeners of Eden site If you enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe & leave a 5-star review with your thoughts!

All right, y'all, it's episode 390. We are approaching the big 400. I'm very excited for this. And this episode could have been the 400th episode with how glorious it is. It is the return of my brother, Mark Gober. I was first introduced to Mark right after COVID via my boy, Dr. Nathan Riley, the holistic OBGYN.

And Nathan's one of those few people who, if he tells me, you gotta get a book, I'll buy it that day and I'll start reading it that week. And he has never led me astray. I've never felt like, God, why the fuck did I buy this book? And that for one of the first books he had me read was an end to upside down liberty, my Mark Gober. And I was absolutely blown away.

First time I had seen anybody really even take a stab at a non-dual understanding of reality, in my opinion, what reality is, and mirror that to politics and how we should govern ourselves. And does so absolutely beautifully. So I highly recommend that book. I highly recommend all his books. And I told Mark, anytime you have a new book, I want you to come on this podcast. So I got to do my first face-to- face interview with Mark for this one. It was fantastic. And it's all about his new book and end to the upside down cosmos. Now I'll tell you, of all the topics Mark has covered this

for some reason, seems to be the one that fucks with people the most. This seems to be the one topic nobody wants to talk about. So Mark intelligently lays his book out, which I highly recommend you get. It is the most thought-provoking book that I've ever read. Period, period, period, period. The first four chapters lay out an expose on science itself. And then we start to question other things,

which you'll find out about in this podcast. So buckle up, share this with a friend, and don't take our word for any of this shit. Look it up for yourselves. Rabbit hole this stuff. Another great book, The Greatest Lie on Earth. If you can disregard the anti-gay rhetoric in the beginning, which is quite fundamental as Christian, and actually dive into the substance of that book, you'll be blown the fuck away, as I was. All right, y'all.

Support this podcast by supporting our sponsors. Leave us a five-star rating with one or two ways the show has helped you out in life. That helps us. And buckle up for this interview. Mark Gober, welcome. I couldn't be more pumped to have this conversation with you right now.

As I've said before, first time we've been able to get face-to-face, which is awesome. I've had the pleasure and the honor of introducing you to some of my best friends and folks in the podcast game. You have a voice, but more importantly, a mind, or equally importantly, a mind that isn't afraid to think outside the box and to look at some of the stickier subjects people have and say, fuck it, I'm going to go head first into this and be damned what people think, you know, be damned what the mainstream will say, you know? I really appreciated that in an end to upside down contact. And we talked about this, I think on our last podcast, we've done three or four of them now. The fact that you talked about dark spirits, dark energy, dark entities, dark beings,

you know, and how many people addressing life after death, NDEs, things of that nature, we'll just leave that off the table. Hey, we've got enough here. We'll just cover this shit. Everyone can smile and nod their head and say, yay, awesome. We'll leave that. And the fact that you, you know, you left no stone unturned in that awesome. We'll leave that in the fact that you, um, you know, you left no stone unturned in that book. I really appreciated that because there are topics. Some people don't want to look at, some people don't want to touch and it appears, and I haven't read this yet, but in your new book and into the upside down cosmos that you're willing to look at shit that some people won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a good assessment. And for me, my first two books in End Upside Down Thinking, End Upside Down Living, they were pre-2020 era. So the second book, The Living Book, was published right as lockdowns were starting. So we were all forced collectively to look into darkness to some degree. But I had an interesting life situation where I had just left my firm, where I had spent about 10 years, had become a partner, decided to leave so that I could focus full-time on just exploring. And that gave me a lot of time to look at the deception in the world. And what I was shocked to find was that so much of the spiritual community, let's just say broadly speaking, I really resonated with a lot of their messages in terms of consciousness, but I didn't resonate with the unwillingness or sometimes just lack of acknowledgement of deception. That's the way I would describe it.

Yeah. So that's what a lot of these newer books have been looking at is like, we've been told something, but when you look deeper at the assumptions, maybe it's not true. And then the next step is there seems to be intentional deception that keeps us in ignorance. And that last step I find some people don't want to look at, but my quest has been for whatever reason, I just want to get to the truth, however uncomfortable or comfortable it is. I just want to know. Yeah. I think there was an excellent podcast. Have you done Luke stories podcast yet? Okay. Phenomenal guy. Great buddy of mine. He had flat earth Dave on the podcast and flat earth Dave goes by the handle flat earth Dave. That's not me just calling him flat earth or he's flat earth

Dave. And he has a real name, but he's known by that handle. And I think in the intro to that podcast, he, he broke down, you know, why he would even have him on the podcast, right? Like, hey, I don't know what's true, but I'm not going to turn someone away who potentially has truth, right? I'm not going to turn, I'm not going to, you know, just outright say consensus reality is what these people believe and the masses believe. So fuck anything that's askew to that. And one of the ways Luke worded it was that there's a group, a smaller group of people who are willing to look at all options of possible potential truths, even at the discomfort of upending their, their viewpoint of what reality is, even, you know, and that's truthfully, when you think about heliocentrism

versus geocentrism, it changes the entire game. It changes the entire game. When you think of basically there's no greater lie. If that, if the, if that, if that is, you know, if we have been led astray and it is a geocentric model, there could be no greater lie. And most people that's too jarring for I've as I've taken a deeper dive into this stuff. And I don't want to name names of people who have been kind of ushering me into looking at these things. And it's not like I have a fucking firm take on either. But there's a lot of evidence, a lot more evidence than people want to look at. And I want to dive into that with you. But I just want to state that, you know, that this, there is a knee jerk reaction from people

to be like, no, no, are you kidding me? And some people are going to hear, you know, as we frame this podcast, the way that it's framed, some people are just going to turn it off. Let me just say that right now. Some people are just going to turn it off. I hope my audience is a little braver than that. And actually will listen and say, well, what do they have to say about this? I've never heard anybody got into it, you know, and that was my first inclination was, you know, I was joking with somebody about, you know, oh, you know, my mom, my mother-in-law, you know, talked about the earth potentially being 6,000 years old. And I had a good laugh and, and he's like, yeah. And there's like, and then she talked about dinosaurs and how ridiculous that is. And he's like, and he just gave me a look and I was like, don't tell me you don't

fucking believe in dinosaurs. And he just kind of turned his head and I was like, all right, you're, you're one of the most intelligent people I know. And this is me talking to my friend. And I don't even know if we're going to cover dinosaurs in today's podcast, but just the, my understanding of him as a person and the depth of his knowledge, a guy who's studied Rudolf Steiner inside and out and actually lives in the way and actually, you know, isn't spiritual airy fairy, but as a hundred percent grounded in 3d reality, highly successful as a businessman, um, has a fucking great sense of humor and a great laugh. Like when I think of a well-rounded human being, he embodies that just the fact that he had all those qualities was enough for me to say, all right, show me what

you've shown me what you've looked at. Cause you didn't just, you weren't born thinking this, show me what you looked at. And that led us to the rabbit hole of heliocentrism versus geocentrism, along with other things. So I just want to frame that because this will be a really cool podcast. I've never discussed any of this shit on a podcast before. So it's like, ooh, I can feel the juices flowing right now. Well, let me just frame my exploration so your audience is familiar. Perfect. This is book seven in the series.

When I started with book one, I didn't know it was going to be a series. And when I did book six, we last talked, I didn't know there was going to be this book. So I didn't, I wasn't like out of the womb asking questions about heliocentrism versus geocentrism. It's actually a pretty recent exploration,

kind of similar to yours, where some people I highly respect sent resources and were like, hey, take a look at this. And I had heard people talk over the years, but I always thought this seems really extreme and hard to believe. And if I wanted to explore it, I would need a lot of time because when we start talking about these cosmic issues, you're questioning elements of basic physics, like the ripple effect of the different things you have to reconsider. It's just so vast. And then I looked into it and said, oh my goodness.

And let me tell you how I start the book. I know you haven't read it yet, but I dedicate it to those who are comfortable with three important words. I don't know. So hopefully that can be a framing for this discussion because I really don't know. But what I can say is that we are told a model is true and there are some serious questions with the model we're told, including the physics that underlies it. Yeah. That's curious. I don't know if you got far enough into some of the math from NASA.

Most of the equations are a factor of 666. I don't know. I don't know. I don't write about that, but I have heard this. Right. Well, the earth spins at 666,000 miles per hour, 66,600 and so what miles per hour. And there's just, there's, there's many things that equate in that way. And it's like, that's a curious, that's a curious math to keep coming up with throughout the cosmos. You know, just, just curious, you know, nothing beyond that. But yeah, I think for me too,

I'd hear guys like Eddie Bravo and I I trained with Eddie Bravo and loved Eddie. I think he's a great guy. He's an intelligent person. When he discussed moon landing stuff, as I dove into that, I was just like, wow, no one talks about that? And I was like, well, no one talks 9-11. No one talks JFK. It's like we're comfortably cool with just moving past it. Life goes on, right? And whether you're – it's like, we're comfortably cool with just moving past it and life goes on.

Right. And, and whether you're, it's not something I think about daily anyways, you know, it's not like I'm like, man, it's the 23rd anniversary of nine 11, you know, like, oh boy, have we been deceived? Like it's just not, but certain times it'll come up and like, it'll come up in conversation. And, um, we've got kids, you know, and our kids meet with other kids and we've been in a part of a homeschool co-op and um something came up along the moon landing and and she was like oh do you think 9-11 was a and i just started laughing and i was like listen there's just too much here to grab onto right now i most of my friends don't agree with what i what i think so like we can still

be friends you know it doesn't have to end the friendship and, and, you know, she parted ways. It's just, it was too much. But yeah, take us, take us through this and briefly recap your books because we'll link to all these in the show notes. They are some of my favorite books ever written. And I don't, I don't say that lightly. The Dr. Nathan Riley hooked me up with an end to upside down Liberty and going through what we went through in 2020, I thought it was one of the most profound books that I'd ever written. It was the first of which, where I got to see a grounded spiritual understanding of non-duality meet politics. And I mentioned it in every, every podcast we do just in case people are listening for the first time. It was to have a map like that,

that I could visualize was mind blowing because we always get into, well, if it's this way, then it's that way. And it can't work that way because then it ends up being this thing. And it's like, well, if you overlay an understanding of non-duality, then it actually can work. Right. So briefly break down those books and then let's talk this new one. Yeah. I appreciate that because your audience also will see my evolution, which has just sort of come to me. I didn't know when I started what the topics would be. Actually, start with your background too because I find this is important too.

I don't want to give a lot of credence to the academics and stuff like that, but you come from a world of academic acclaim. You come from an institution you were a world of, of academic acclaim. Like you come from a, from institution you were part of, um, you know, and I don't want to take it from you. I'll let you describe it, right. Getting into tech and Silicon Valley, like there's some very prestigious things that you've been able to be a part of. So this is almost like a fucking hard U-turn away from, from what those general populations agree to. Yeah. Unexpected U-turn, a total 180. I went to Princeton undergrad. I was a competitive tennis player growing up and was one of the

captains of the tennis team there. Didn't really have a sense of spiritual direction. I was more of an atheist agnostic, especially as I learned more from the scientific community. I just thought, well, we live in a random and meaningless universe. That was my compass at the time. Then went into investment banking in New York. I was with a firm called UBS. So large firm based all over the world, but I was in the New York office in 2008. So during the financial crisis, that's when I started my career. Really tough. And I thought like I would have been prepared from Princeton tennis and all that. This was a different kind of tough that I, It probably helped me in some ways,

but it was tough in the short term. I left that firm to join another firm initially in Boston, but I spent most of my time in Silicon Valley. This was a spin out of the Boston Consulting Group, which is one of the large consulting firms in the world. There were a few guys that spun out this firm that focused on intellectual property. So we were advising companies on their patented technologies, both individual inventors, small companies, and large global companies that had massive patent portfolios. So I had to get very much accustomed to looking at new technologies and things I had never heard of because we worked across industries, then being able to synthesize it and then present it to the board of directors or the senior management team. So I was learning

skills that I'm now using at the time I didn't know what was going on, but in 2016, while I was still working at the firm, and this was before I made it to partner, which eventually was two years later, I started looking at podcasts, just casually listening to like Tim Ferriss, um, alternative health shows. I heard a show called extreme health radio, which is still out there. And I heard a woman on that show talk about psychic phenomena that she was experiencing herself and working with clients to help them using energies and things that sounded super mystical. It wasn't part of my worldview. And at the time, I was in the dark night of the soul in many ways where I didn't have a compass for why I was even existing. And it was harder to deal with the ups and downs of life. I was always trying to achieve. And I'm like, why am I doing this? And then I come across this information

that's like, whoa, I need to rethink things. And it wasn't just that one podcast, but then I listened to many others, read scientific papers and books, and I've been on a journey for the last eight years. So the first 30 years of my life was one mark and now the last eight plus, questioning everything. So the first book, An End to Upside-Down Thinking,

was basically the synthesis of my explorations that started with that Extreme Health Radio podcast with Laura Powers. And it explores the idea that consciousness doesn't come from the brain, that when we die, our consciousness continues, the evidence for psychic phenomenon, near-death experiences, looking at the U.S. government's psychic spying program, all that stuff. I tried to put the best evidence in one place. And I thought, okay, that's my book. I'm still working in Silicon Valley. Did a podcast series called Where's My Mind,

which is eight episodes. I interviewed many of the people I wrote about, still available if your audience is interested in consciousness. That took me to the end of 2019. And I'm at the firm still. I'm like called by this other stuff. And I decided to leave the firm

after spending 10 years making it to partner. And I just felt like I needed to pursue something else, even though I didn't know what that would be. Decided to leave the firm after spending 10 years making it to partner. And I just felt like I needed to pursue something else, even though I didn't know what that would be. Decided to leave the firm. Idea for book two comes in, an end to upside down living. What are the implications for how we should live life if we have a new view of consciousness and what a human being is? And I'm writing this book. This is as lockdowns are starting, transitioning out of my role as partner, and then lockdowns hit. I'm out of my firm. Start seeing what's happening in the world. And everyone's talking politics. And at the time, I didn't have any opinions on politics. Believe it or not, I was very naive, uninterested. I couldn't have told you the main differences between the left and the right. Seriously, I was totally not in the world

of politics. But everyone had to become in the world of politics because not having an opinion at that time was an opinion. Yeah. And there were people I respected on different parts of the spectrum, but I was definitely drawn toward the pro-freedom community, I would say, especially as I saw deception in the media where the media would say something and then doctors would be like, I'm in the ER and I'm not seeing what they're talking about. Yeah. So I saw through that. I went down some dark rabbit holes and wrote an end to upside down liberty, which challenges the way that we think about government, traditionally known as statism,

and argue for a version of freedom, which maybe we'll get to someday, maybe we won't, but I wanted to lay out what that looks like and overlay it with the metaphysics and the consciousness as you described. I read a lot of politics and economics and I talk about the Austrian School of Economics. There's an institute called the Mises Institute in Alabama, which describes that information. But I wanted to link it with the metaphysics because I didn't see that overlap in a lot of the literature. I'd never seen it. Never heard of it. Never heard anybody even try to tie the two together. So those big, big kudos. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you guys for being on this podcast. We want to give you a quick break from one of our sponsors, Black Lotus.

Tired of the same old low-quality Shilajit? Black Lotus Shilajit is here to revolutionize your wellness routine. We're committed to purity, transparency, and affordability. Our unique processing method, using only water and sunlight, preserves the raw potency of all-time mountain Shilajit. Unlike others who source from polluted Himalayan regions, we provide pure product. We're a family-run business with 20 years of experience in holistic health. Our dedicated quality shines through in every bottle. From our fully transparent lab testing to our sustainable packaging, we're setting a new standard. Don't settle for less.

Choose Black Lotus Shilajit. It's time to experience the true power of nature. Head over to BlackLotusShilajit.com and enter code KKP to receive 15% off your entire order. That's BlackLotusShilajit.com and enter code KKP to receive 15% off your entire order. It tied in with the work I'd done in the first two books of people have life reviews when they have a near-death experience. They relive their life. They talk about this golden rule that's built into the fabric of reality. As Dr. Bruce Grayson from UVA, he's a professor there, he says it's natural law that they're describing when he studies these near-death experiences. So I'm like, how do we tie natural law to the way government works? There's a mismatch here. We

need a new form of government. And that's what the book is. Then an end to upside down contact explores contact with non-human intelligence. This one came out in 2022 and it's dark beings, light beings, everything in between historical accounts, modern accounts, UFOs, near-death experiences, interdimensional, physical, all that stuff, abductions. I went down all the rabbit holes. But I thought it was important because as I was studying politics and seeing the deception of the world, I was wondering what are the forces that might be impacting our world? Because something seems off. And that's when I got into some of the really dark stuff. But after that book, I wrote An End to the Upside-Down Reset, which is about the World Economics Forum's vision for society, which is laid out explicitly in 2020

by Klaus Schwab and then Prince Charles. So not a conspiracy theory. It's actually, there's literature. And I laid out what's the vision that's been described for society. You did, I just want to say, you did that. So, because I've, you know, I've been, I too was kind of like, you know, I grew up left-leaning liberal. My father, somewhat conservative.

My mother, definitely liberal. But being in the Bay, bay you know it's who you're surrounded by come to austin it's a blue zone you know i'm still not thinking much about it um and then it was like yeah there was this draw and the people that were for freedom were also some of the people that leaned to the right and we're definitely not down with wokeism and some of the other things but um damn where were we just you were just saying i'm gonna connect it down the world economic breaking down one economic form of all the books that i've read you know that really break down what potential threats lie ahead and things like that they definitely you know they will call it as they see it to the

point of almost pushing away some of the audience. And I thought you did such a fantastic job of just laying out the facts without picking sides for lack of a better term. You know, like you just, you gave it in the most presentable way, lowest common denominator of the truth, you know? And then I thought that was fucking great because I thought this is a book that's going to reach a lot of people as it should. It needs to. Thank you. That's what I was trying to do. And also break it down from a psychological perspective. Like political psychologists, what are they seeing in their research in terms of how people think just objectively? And how is compassion weaponized?

Because compassion is a great thing. But if compassion is exercised without discernment, people can end up doing things they think are compassionate but they're not actually compassionate. And we see that all over the place. So I wanted to break that down because this World Economic Forum vision sounds compassionate when you read the words. It's about making society better, but it's really an anti-liberty movement, just to put it mildly. We're going to help the small guy, right? We're going to make things equal. One of my favorite quotes from F.A. Hayek, a Nobel Prize winning economist, he says that if we are all by definition unique, that means we are unequal, just objectively.

So if you wanted to make everyone equal, you'd have to treat them unequally. I like that. You'd have to flip it all the way through. How true. Yeah. So that's the reset book, and then there's one more,

an end to upside-down medicine, which came out in 2023. Okay, I didn't catch that. You know, I follow you on Amazon. I'm pretty upset right now that I didn't catch that. You know, I follow you on Amazon. I'm pretty upset right now that I didn't get this because they're supposed to ping me anytime you have a book release. That's interesting. Yeah.

I haven't been pinged. Okay. So did we talk medicine? We talked a little bit about the medical system, I believe. Yes, we did. Yeah. There's two parts of the book. The second half is basically the overlap between consciousness and medicine.

So things like Anita Morjani. Yes. I remember reading the book. Yeah. She has near-death experience or tumors disappear, terminal cancer. So it's crazy stuff like that. But I also looked at the germ theory of disease and some controversial takes on like what else could be making people sick other than the traditional idea that it's germ going from one person to another, going back to old studies, a hundred plus years of foundational topics that many people just take for granted. Yeah. Even I think we talked on that podcast about Arthur Furstenberg's book, the invisible rainbow. Yeah.

Which is all linked in the show notes as well. An awesome expose of, you know, our history with electricity, right. You know, and what happens when there's a big electrical jump, whether that be through radio waves or any other technology that that because we are electrical beings, spiritual beings, but also have an electric current running through us, body electric, Robert O. Becker really details this perfectly, that there is an impact, it doesn't come at a cost of zero. And, you know, quite a few studies have been swept under the rug to allow for technological advancements without any pushback. Right. And there's so many factors that impact our body, whether it's toxicity, just from physical toxins, but then emotional toxins too. So there's a field called German New Medicine, which I talk about in the book. I think it needs a lot more research where basically these practitioners have looked at brain scans and

they can see when a person has an emotional shock, it shows up as a lesion in the brain, which corresponds to an organ. So when you look at a lot of these brain scans started by Dr. Hammer in Germany in the late seventies, early eighties, you can over time see patterns where, oh, this emotional shock, whether it's a separation conflict or something corresponds to this type of physical symptom. So if you have a physical symptom, you can go to see the history of what the brain scans say, oh, this was the emotional shock that I might be healing from. And often in German new medicine, after you've resolved the conflict, the body then flushes out all the excess stuff that was needed. And then you have the symptoms. So the symptom can be this, actually you're healing from the conflict resolution.

So the point is that within that with regard to health, especially when you bring in consciousness, there's so much more than just the materialistic view of this little germ that's jumping from person to person. And that's what I try to get into. Yeah, and the solutions, nuts and bolts, you know, do we bring in the auto mechanic to fix this one thing or is it more detailed than that?

Yeah. You know, just thinking along, you know, terrain theory has been something that I've really taken a deep dive into. And the truth is, it can be both, and you lay that out, right? But it's also beyond just this one first vision of what we've been told it is. Right. Yeah, it's a complex thing, and it requires looking back at foundational studies. What were the first studies on viruses? How are the studies conducted that claim that one particle goes from a person to another? And there are some shocking flaws in the use of the scientific method. That's the way I'll put it. So I feel like every illness that we might attribute to one thing, like let's say the mainstream says this disease is caused by this,

we've got to reevaluate it and say, yes, people are having symptoms and getting sick and sometimes dying. We're not denying that, but what's the cause of it? And is it the cause we've been told? And how was that cause they're telling us established? Did they use a scientific method? And as I looked at this more and more deeply, I couldn't believe the results. And I've had conversations with doctors. I'll say, how do you know that a virus exists as this very specific intracellular parasite and causes disease? And do you know the foundational studies? And I haven't come across doctors that actually know the early studies.

So I think it's a good example where people can propagate ideas that might not be true innocently because they haven't looked at the assumptions. And you can imagine if you're in grad school and you're just trying to get by, it's super hard to get into these schools. You might just assume certain things are true because the textbook said so. And you're not scrutinizing the studies that were done decades ago. And then you end up with people who are professionals propagating narratives. Probably not going to go very far in your career too, if you're pushing back against your professor every class. Just, you know, it's probably not going to go very well. And then you can risk

losing your license. So there's a lot of factors that can keep people away from this. Fortunately, I'm not in any of these fields per se as a professional, so I can get away with a little bit more pushing the envelope. Absolutely. And so after medicine was 2023, we've got an end upside down cosmos. I, I, I said this last time we podcasted too, but I appreciate the rate at which you can write books is fucking impressive. I mean, it is absolutely impressive. And I'm sure Aubrey Marcus thinks the same. I know Jamie will, you know, waited for his kids to leave before he wrote recapture the rapture because he knew the time it was going to take away from his kids when they were in house, right? Like it just takes so much to be able to put these together. And it seems like these flow right through you.

It's periods of high intensity where all of a sudden I'm researching a topic all day, every day. And I've had some periods of solitude when I've been in these phases that have allowed it. And then I go and then I, but basically a framework develops in my mind of, okay, this is how all this information fits together. Then I sit down and I go into investment banking mode. I'm not stopping until this is done. And usually the books are in terms of typing. The research is way longer. The typing out of the first draft is like two weeks plus or minus. So it's intense as I'm going through it, but it does come through me. It's almost like I'm being compelled. It's mystical. Now that I've done it so many times, it's like I have the outline. I'll write the first section. I'll go to bed and say, I don't know how I'm going to do this next

section. I know what it is. How's it going to happen the next day? It seems to happen. The books are lined up everywhere. Go to this source, go to this one. And then I go to bed. Oh, this chapter is on this topic. How am I going to do that? And then it, it just happens. That's so cool. Well, walk us through here. Walk us through this new book. Okay. I want to start off the way I start the book, actually, which is generally accepted principles of physics. Because if we can, I like to do this with all my books. If we can have common ground and acknowledge there are flaws

in the way we think about things, then other topics we will talk about later, which might sound crazy without that context, aren't quite as crazy. So according to mainstream physics, 96% of the universe is made of dark matter and dark energy. Only 4% of the universe is even known, and I'm going to come back to that. The second major piece is that there isn't a unifying theory of everything in physics, meaning there are two leading theories that seem to work well, in their local environments. So there's relativity

theory, which is Einstein's, and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is usually considered to describe the ultra small reality, whereas relativity is describing galactic level events. But when you put them together, metaphorically, the equations blow up. You can't reconcile these two theories that are supposed to be the leading theories. So we don't really know what's going on. I quote Michio Kaku in the book, who's a mainstream physicist. He says we have a crisis in cosmology. We are off by a factor of 10 to the 120th power, a 10 with 120 zeros after it. This is the biggest mismatch we have in science, basically.

I'm paraphrasing. So with that context, our cosmology is wrong. By definition, let me go back to the dark matter and dark energy. Only 4% of the universe is understood by scientists. 96% is dark matter and dark energy. And I even talked about this in my first book in End Upside Down Thinking. I start by describing that. But I had never looked into what's the origin of these things. Where did dark matter come from, for example? Dark matter was conceived, discovered, quote unquote, and you'll see why I say discovered, in 1933 by an astronomer, Fritz Zwicky. He was looking at a cluster of galaxies called the coma cluster. And basically, they were behaving in a way that he would not have predicted or that math wouldn't have predicted because there wasn't

enough mass there. And this has to do with relativity theory and gravity, where there needed to be a lot more mass in order to see the behavior that he was observing, but the matter wasn't there. So it was off by, it was like under 1% of the mass that should have been there based on theory of gravity wasn't there. So basically there were two options. One, we have to rethink all of gravity and Einstein's relativity. So there's Isaac Newton's gravity was the initial one. You drop an apple, it falls to the ground because he claimed there's a magical force within mass that mass is attracting other mass to it. So the mass of the earth is bigger than the mass of the apple. So the apple falls down. Mass attracts mass. Then a revised version was Einstein's general relativity

theory, which is that mass isn't attracting mass per se, but mass is bending and warping space-time. So it ends up looking like it's attracting mass to it, depending on the amount of mass. So the point is, amount of mass is critical to these sorts of observations, and it just wasn't there. Two options. We have to rethink all gravity. Two, maybe there's matter that we just don't understand and we're going to plug that in. Yeah, let's not throw gravity out with the bathwater. Let's save gravity. Let's save gravity. Let's save gravity and save Einstein and we'll call it dark matter.

So dark matter is one of these big mysteries in physics. Now, here's the kicker that really got me interested, because I had heard some of the stuff that we'll get into later, but when I heard this, I'm like, okay, we got issues. Dark matter has recently been falsified by mainstream physicists. Now, this is not a mainstream belief yet, but the physicist's name is Pavel Krupa, the University of Bonn in Germany, and he and his colleagues have been looking at this for over two decades. And and basically the predictions that you would expect based on the theory of dark matter are not there

so he says we have falsified dark matter at 5 sigma confidence which is more than 99% confidence damn so now it's like wait a second dark matter was basically plugged in to preserve gravity and think about how important

gravity is to many things like we live under mainstream cosmology on a spherical objects where there's water and oceans that stick to a ball basically that's spinning at incredibly high rates yeah spinning and the the reason that everything is moving is because of these gravitational effects the water sticks to the ball because of gravity. It doesn't fall out into space. Gravity is essential to all this stuff. So we have to rethink gravity, then we have to rethink everything else. It's like a house of cards.

That's the way I look at it. And what Pablo Krupa says, and he and his colleagues say, we need the current cosmological models wrong. So that's the starting point. Before we go anywhere, the model's wrong. I feel comfortable saying that. Other physicists are saying we've got issues here.

What the right model is, again, I'm not sure what it is, but that's okay because we don't have to know the answer. And this is an important psychological phenomenon we should discuss because some people like to say, well, if you don't know what the right answer is, then it must be the current paradigm. Right. Or it's not even worth the time in pointing out that this is wrong if you can't figure out the exact thing. It's like, no, no, no, no. It's absolutely worth pointing out the fact that our current understanding is incorrect. That is the foundation of which we build towards the truth. If we don't know that we're incorrect now, how can we ever find something that is actually pointing us in the right direction? We're allowed to say we don't know the answer,

but say this answer is wrong. So the example I give in my book to show the rationality that we see so much, imagine you're taking a multiple choice test in school and you have a group, a team, and you have to report one answer to your teacher. And the answer is either option A, B, C, or D. And Kyle, you go out, spend a week and you're like, option A is wrong. And your team members come over and they say, we've spent a week on this.

We think it's option A. And they look at your reasoning and they say, Kyle, you've got some good points here. And they say, so is the answer B, C, or D if it's not A? And you say, look, I don't know. Cause I haven't done the work on that. And they say, okay, well, then we're going to go with A if you can't tell me what it is. That's exactly how it's done. So I think we're there, not just in cosmology and so many other areas. But that's kind of the framing here. And I'll pause in case you have any questions. No, this is perfect.

And I'm right here with you. Okay. Keep going. The way I try to break it down, because there's so many elements of cosmology that people might question and what i'm saying is the general model is wrong i don't know what's right within the multiple areas we'll talk about but one is like what is our place in the universe this is independent of earth's shape or the nature of where we are because that's that's a debate But where are we? And this gets into things like geocentrism versus heliocentrism. I remember hearing about this in high school.

Geocentrism is Earth at the center, often stationary and at the center, and everything revolves around us. Heliocentrism is the sun's at the center, and Earth revolves around the sun. And along these lines, was there a Big Bang that started all this stuff? 13.8 billion years ago that flooded the universe with matter? And then you end up after billions of years with an Earth revolving around the sun because of gravity and all those sorts of things. And you overlay this perfectly when it comes to consciousness in many of your books. for scientific materialism and for the happenstance universe of consciousness coming after a brain, which came after a random series of chemical bonds being made from collisions happening

at random points in space. Yeah, I'm glad you said that. That's something I did introduce in the book in the last section, because often in cosmology, we don't hear people talking about consciousness and the importance of what that means is anything even physical so that's something for your audience to keep in mind that the answers might be really mystical and reality might be more malleable than we even realize so the physicists like to think about billiard balls of one thing hits the next hits the next very linear but maybe reality is way different i just want to i've had a couple visions you know and visions whatever you know i've had a couple of visions, you know, and visions, whatever, you know, I've had a lot of people talk, discuss their visions. I've had

a couple of understandings, not visions, but understandings that, you know, if, if we're, if this is God's simulation or consciousness simulation to know itself, right. And we play this eternal game, you know, that, that, that is always shuffling the deck and playing and playing and playing, or if it's a simulation, right? And it has nothing to do with God, but it's just a simulation. What part of that needs a big bang? What part of that needs rhyme or reason to the way, the shape of things? You know, like if you're playing a sim game or whatever,

you're on a plane of existence. You're on a plane of existence. You're on a plane of existence. And whatever else is added to that plane is added into that plane on the plane or outside of the plane. But it's the plane of existence. It's the realm of existence that's on a plane. And you can, I'm motioning with my hands, a flat plane of existence. So people understand that from a simulation standpoint, it doesn't have to be everything that we are told about the big bang leads to this thing and that we're you know rotating at these speeds things like that so i just want to frame that doesn't mean one's right or one's wrong but it's just it was curious to me the connection point my mind made where i was like

oh if it is a simulation i think there was a great guy on rogan's who's actually a professor at arizona state university who talks about game theory and that we're likely is a simulation, I think there was a great guy on Rogan's who's actually a professor at Arizona State University who talks about game theory and that we're likely in a simulation, but the simulation isn't all for not. Like if you play a video game where you create your own character and you want to get a 99 in speed and a 99 in intelligence and a 99 in kindness and the different things, the different choices you make actually build that character up to have those things. And then your life is better because you built those areas up, right? You think about this from optimization

or self-help or any of these things. The small decisions I make each day actually do change my life in the long run because I'm acquiring things. I'm acquiring different traits about my character and what I've created, right? I'm creating myself every day. So there's still a point to it, even if it's just a simulation,

but there's no need to have, uh, the model that we're told from a, from a heliocentric model, if that is the case. All right, guys, another quick break here to tell you about a phenomenal company called happy hippo, go tohippo.com kkp and enter code kkp for 15 off everything in the entire store happy hippo is a phenomenal kratom company with happy hippo you're getting a product that's been sterilized to pathogens tested for impurities and heavy metals and sold with a guarantee they stand by their products so you can sleep soundly knowing exactly what is and isn't in your kratom. I've loved Kratom. I think it's an absolute phenomenal plant. It is great for physical discomfort and discomfort relief.

It reduces irritability, has calming effects, where it just allows you to be a little bit more zen and in the pocket. Life is stressful, and it's nice to unwind and feel good. There's a calm sense of self and enhances mood and promotes a positive sense of well-being. I absolutely love it. It also supports healthy sleep and promotes a deep relaxation. The other thing that's cool, which is something a lot of people notice about this, if you're doing certain strains during the day, is that you get an energy boost. It's phenomenal. It's long been

used in Southeast Asian countries where it grows for just that, busting your ass and sweltering humidity and heat. And if you've got to grind and get some shit done, or if you've got a painstaking workout ahead of you, Kratom is phenomenal. And happyhippo.com has everything you need there. They've got shots. I'm more of a powder guy. I like to mix in my own little concoctions and proteins and whatever to make it all kind

of an all glorious drink. And I think that that's a phenomenal way to go. Check out happyhippo.com slash KKP and use code KKP for 15% off everything in the store. Even mainstream physicists like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, I quote all of them in the book where they admit that if you just observe the sky, it's actually indistinguishable whether Earth is at the center or sun's at the center. The technical term is that there's a kinematic equivalence. You can't tell. So why is it then that so much of us,

so much of society believes that the sun's at the center? And there's something called the Copernican principle, and there's a documentary on this called The Principle. It came out in 2014. We'll link in the show notes. I'm going to watch this. Yeah, the Copernican principle, and there's a documentary on this called The Principle, came out in 2014. We'll link in the show notes. I'm going to watch this. Yeah. The Copernican principle posits that we do not occupy a special place in the cosmos. So that has biased the observations from scientists and astronomers for so long, because they'll observe things and you can fit observations into many different models.

And I want to make this point, it's a really important one. There's a logical fallacy that I'm seeing everywhere, whether it's in medicine or just watching the news or astronomy, affirming the consequent. Basically, it goes like this. If it rains, then the grass outside will be wet. You go outside and see wet grass and then conclude it rained. So you jump to a causal explanation for an observation without considering other possibilities.

What else could have happened? There could be dew on the grass. Sprinkler system. Sprinkler system. There could have been interdimensional aliens that popped in and poured water. The point is if you wanted to be comprehensive, you could come up with 10 million different possibilities. And what happens is people get locked into one explanation and they

fit any new observations into that model they created. It rained last night. Sun's at the center. We're going to fit in all these observations to that model that we're latching onto. And with this Copernican principle, they latched onto sun's at the center because that is one way you can describe the things happening above us, but it's not the only one. And this was really shocked me when I started researching because we're starting from the point where the mainstream physicists are acknowledging it could be one or the other, geocentric or heliocentric, just based on these observations. Everything was skewed toward heliocentrism because of the Copernican principle. And I quote in the book, physicists like Stephen

Hawking, he says, we believe this on principles of modesty because we don't want to be at the center. That would be arrogant. That's essentially what he's saying. That's not scientific. Or Edwin Hubble, who was part of the expanding universe theory, he said it would be a horror if Earth were at the center. It would be an unwelcome proposition. And I give the exact quotes in the book. So you could see that the Big Bang model basically was fitting into a heliocentric perspective where we would not occupy a special place. Could it be true? Yes. But is there evidence that it's not true? Yes. A lot more than people think. So much more. And your audience might be saying like, like I was doing in my head,

wait, wait, wait, Galileo. He looked at his telescope, Kyle, and he saw stuff. And your audience might be saying, like I was doing in my head, wait, wait, wait, Galileo, he looked at his telescope, Kyle, and he saw stuff. And that's how we got to Copernicus's model that the sun's at the center. What did Galileo actually observe? And I've said this in some of my earlier books, Galileo was a big hero because he got us into the heliocentric model, the Copernican revolution. Galileo observed, number one, phases of Venus. It's sort of like the phases of the moon, which you could explain with the sun being at the center, but you could also explain it if the planets revolve around the sun, which revolves around Earth.

Either one works. Also, Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter, and he saw smaller bodies revolving around bigger bodies. So Earth revolves around the sun. It matches up. Is that the only explanation? No. It could be that when you look at things in the sky,

that doesn't tell you about where we are. If you look at the ceiling, does that tell you what the floor is like? So you can run into a dicey issue where you observe things in the sky and you try to make conclusions about us. And you have to even ask the question, is Earth a planet?

Is it one of the bodies we see in the sky or is it unique? The Copernican principle would say, yeah, we're just like one of the others. We're a small little speck in a massive universe after a big bang. We're not special. Why not?

Why couldn't it be true that maybe Earth is special? It's not a planet. It's a plane versus a planet. A planet's a wandering star. These are theories people have put forth. Right. Luminaries. I want to dive into all this.

Exactly. These are alternatives. I'm not saying what's true. But could it be suns at the center? Yes. Could the Earth be special at the center and not moving? Okay. So first thing that comes to mind here, the Big Bang.

Apparently, if the Big Bang were true, it would give off a radiation. It's called the cosmic microwave background. And I mention this because I remember studying this at Princeton when I took an astrophysics course. It was like the coolest thing ever because some of the work was done in Princeton, New Jersey. And you see this map. Anyone can look it up.

Two guys, right? Yes. Yeah. Yes. And then there were some replications of this where you have a precise mapping, basically, of the radiation that's supposed to have come from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago in some very faraway land.

The problem is if Earth is not at the center, we would expect different things from the map. So basically, you end up with a map that has these little anomalies that lead to us. It shows a preferred direction, an axis toward Earth. One of these is called the axis of evil by scientists. I'm paraphrasing some technical stuff we're going to go through in the book, but basically why are the scientists calling it an axis of evil? Because it suggests maybe the Earth's at the center. And there are a number of other observations, like the observations of quasars,

and I go through some scientific papers which say the Copernican principles in jeopardy based on these observations we see out there. This is super important because the inclination of many people, myself included, could be like, okay, these are just small anomalies. We can sweep them under the rug. But the example I give in my book is imagine there's a law that says that all swans are white. And we go around the world and we see 20 million white swans. One day we see a single black swan. That violates the model which said that all swans are white. That means we need a new model. And that's the way I look at things. If there's an anomaly, we need a new model to be able to explain it. And there are a bunch of these anomalies where observations point toward Earth as

having a special place by physicists. And they're like, what's going on here? We have to rethink things. But of course, the heliocentric perspective is so deeply entrenched that it's not often considered as much. But that leads to a related topic of geocentrism versus heliocentrism, because the geocentric perspective would say Earth is stationary very often, which is a pretty wild prospect given what we're taught, which is that Earth is moving in many, many ways. Number one, Earth is rotating on a tilted axis at roughly 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, which is faster than the speed of sound. It's wobbling in four different ways, and then it free falls around the sun at over 66,000 miles per hour. It moves around the Milky Way galaxy at over 500,000 miles an hour.

And it is part of an expanding universe moving outward at over a million miles an hour simultaneously. Did you ever see, I remember Rogan talking about it way back in the day, but it was like right when Neil deGrasse Tyson posted on his Instagram, the artwork, maybe it was from NASA, but it just shows, you know, that where we're going, you know, we're going around the sun and the sun's going off you know around the the center of the milky way which is also moving in some you know crazy speed in some direction around the center of the centers you know that kind of thing yeah it was it was interesting to me um one of the guys that i got into is uh eric dubay and i'm familiar yeah familiar with him he talked about you know even with the speed thing that we wouldn't see we

wouldn't ever feel speed unless we were accelerating. And accelerating, you know, there's no deceleration. So speeding up or slowing down effectively. But that the Earth moves in an elliptical is one of the things that they say where we would feel it at least twice. We would feel a drop and a speed up twice. Right. We're expected to believe that Earth is moving at a perfectly constant speed, basically, where we wouldn't feel a little bump or change in speed, which starts to become hypocritical. Because usually the Big Bang model, not always, but it's associated with more of an atheistic perspective that it just happened somehow, and this is what I used to believe, and it's all random.

And yet at the same time, Earth is moving at this perfectly constant speed. There's no intelligence behind it such that we will never feel it. I mean, if you're thinking about being on an airplane or a car or a boat or something, if there's a change in motion, you will feel that, even moving very slowly. So imagine if there's a change in motion where you're moving this fast in so many different directions. It's just a thought exercise that what we're told to believe versus our everyday observations, which is purely stationary. What we observe is that things are moving around us in the sky. We feel earthquakes where there's a jolt within earth, but everything is stationary otherwise. And the water is very still in certain lakes. So that's our experience. But due to the way basically astrophysics works and physics,

we are told to believe scientists who say that we're moving in all these other ways that we can't actually verify on our own. And even Albert Einstein, I go through some of the experimentation, Albert Einstein said, he was a heliocentrist, of course, that he does not think Earth's motion

can be detected using any optical experiment. So we end up kind of in a leap of faith domain, but I do want to mention a few studies that are really pivotal to the way we all look at the world, because just also to frame this discussion, this is a discussion about where we live. That's what I got at the end of this exercise. Okay.

I never asked that question because before I was asking, who are we? Why are we here? I didn't say what's here. I was so bought into the model of big bang and all this stuff. So our, if So if the belief that we're stationary, a lot of that is derived from studies in the 1800s. There's a study called the Mickelson-Morley experiment of 1887. And also it's known as Aries failure, but some would call

it Aries success, depending on how you interpret the results, also from the late 1800s. Basically, these experiments could have gone one of two ways. The ether, which is historically known as the fifth element, ether does not exist and earth moves, or ether does exist and earth is stationary. We know which path they took. Ether doesn't exist and earth moves. But there are people, including Robert Bennett, who's a physics PhD. He wrote his thesis on relativity theory, which path they took. Ether doesn't exist and Earth moves. But there are people, including Robert Bennett, who's a physics PhD.

He wrote his thesis on relativity theory. He comes from a lineage where someone in the lineage worked directly with Einstein. So this is someone who's pretty mainstream. He's looking at these studies saying, actually,

if you look at what was detected, we could explain the results with an ether and a stationary earth so that's one of the things i go through in the book we took it's almost like you're you're out on a hike you could take one path or the other one science has taken one path which is the moving earth and get rid of the ether versus maybe we need to go back to this notion of an ether and a stationary earth and what ein Einstein's relativity came in later,

and among those who question heliocentrism, what they say is that he basically said in the Mickelson-Morley study of 1887 that the measuring device had to shrink in order to get the results and maintain a moving earth. And this is what Einstein's relativity theory is often about, which is that time dilates, space space contracts if you're moving really fast actually space and time move around

like the movie interstellar is a good example where they're moving really fast and people age at different rates yeah this is einstein's relativity and what the skeptics will say is that einstein's relativity was basically derived in order to preserve the idea that Earth moves and gets rid of the ether. So it's a flip on Einstein. And this gets into our discussion also of dark matter, because Einstein's relativity was there to cover up for Newton's gravity. A problem with Newton's gravity is that it cannot predict everything perfectly. For example, Mercury's motion around the sun and the sky is not predicted by Newton's gravity.

So it's like all swans are white. If you find a black swan, we need a new theory. Newton's gravity is not a law in the way that we're told. Maybe it sort of predicts things in certain areas, but it's clearly incomplete. And if Einstein's relativity has problems because you need dark matter for it, and maybe it was just invented in order to preserve the idea that Earth moves and get rid of the ether, all of a sudden we have a new narrative potentially about where Earth is. And so I would just summarize this by saying

there's a lot of evidence that would make one think maybe Earth is stationary and that Earth has some kind of a central place relative to what we can observe, which is, I mean, that alone makes you rethink everything. Yeah. A hundred percent. You know, something that was curious to me because you were, you were talking to Copernicus and a lot of these guys, they're, they're, they're taught about in history, but they're, you know, the timeline is far enough back that nobody's, you know, nobody knows what's happening in those times and things like that. And they're talking, you know, a lot of the discussion around, you know, what they had to go through against the church and against, you know, tyranny and empire for, for, I think, I think empire,

people can relate to that word really well. Aubrey likes using it a lot, was substantial to bring us to where we are today. But as close back as the 1800s, there was quite a bit of debate still in the world on the shape of the earth. And one of the ways that they could disprove or at least point what we're told is a wrong direction is with the slope of eight inches per mile. And so there was a lot of people, fishermen and world

travelers on boats that would utilize lighthouses, right? And they could talk about where, you know, the height of the lighthouse and use basic math to understand that at this distance, I shouldn't be able to see it. Whereas they were calculating and seeing lighthouses, multiple people, you know, on these ships could see lighthouses from way further than they were supposed to see it. And, you know, taking fog and other things out of the equation, this was repeated by many, many, many people at sea, you know, and there's books, The Greatest Lie on Earth, I think is the name of one. It is, I will state, if you're going to read this book, Christian, no problems with Christians. You know, my wife grew

up Christian. Grandma's Christian. I don't mind her teaching about, you know, Christ consciousness, none of that shit. You can teach my kids that it's all gravy. I'll also teach them about the Buddha and teach them about some other things that I've picked up along the way, but no issues there. But this is Christian to the sense of like, I mean, the first chapter he talks about sodomites and gays and it's, it's, I, that doesn't vibe with me in the fucking least bit. Right. But if you can work past that, you can get to some pretty cool observations and drawings of where the eight inch slope per mile doesn't add up. And, and including photographs to today where they can look at mountain ranges that are the exact same height, but hundreds of miles apart from one another and taken are look identical in height, right? Another classic that I'm sure you've seen now that people can look up is the telephoto lens.

I think it was a Nikon telephoto lens that came out that's no longer available that was used to photograph, I believe, across Lake Michigan, the Chicago skyline. And just due to the math of however many miles that was, the only thing that photo should have taken was the tip of the Sears Tower and maybe the upper floor. Yet with the telephoto lens, it could see the bottom floor and the entire Chicago skyline and the entire Sears Tower. So that would prove, you know, and at least that there's no eight inch slope. And one of the things that I like is, uh, I don't know if it was flat earth Dave or somebody else that basically said, you know, there's no eight inch slope. Doesn't mean it's not round. We could, it could be round, but it would have to be at least 10,000

times larger than what we're told. And either one of those is a fucking big deal, right? If it's flat, that's a big deal. If it's 10,000 times larger than we're being told, that's a fucking big deal, right? Like that's worth looking into. It's big. It's big. It's worth looking into. It would change all of cosmology because think about the way gravity is supposed to work and gravity governs the universe, as we're told. It's based on mass. So if the radius of Earth is significantly bigger, that's central to the calculation of Earth's mass.

And if Earth's mass is different, that would affect its relationship to all the other celestial bodies because it would be pulling things based on bending and warping of space-time. So this would change everything, day-night cycles. There's so many different things. So what you're describing is not just what's Earth's position in the cosmos, but what is the nature of this realm? What is its shape? And one of the big challenges is this

ability to see things that are too far, that should be blocked by curvature. And this was really powerful to me too when I looked at it because this is basic stuff. If we have a ball with a radius value of roughly 4,000 miles at the equator, which is what we're told we're living on, then you can do the math to see based on your height what you should and should not be able to see.

So it would be like trying to see around a bend if something were below the curve. You wouldn't be able to see it. You'd be blocked by the physical mass of earth. And what's happening over and over again is that people can see things that are too far away. And that's, I mean,

it's something people can go out and do on their own. Hopefully the authorities will do it because it would be another way for them to try to prove the globe. If the authorities wanted to, to say, look, yeah, tell me it's 10,000 times bigger.

Fucking either way. I'm going to be excited. You know, that's a big deal either way, you know? Yeah. Take out your advanced telescopes, show us something super far away and, and say, we can't see it or not, or we can see it in which case we should, that's super important. But this is the way that I try to frame this discussion because it can quickly move into, okay, you're claiming flat Earth. Show me a model for a flat Earth and so forth. I like the term globe skeptic. Globe skeptic.

Oh, I like that. Because the globe is a specific thing. It's Earth has a shape. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it's pear-shaped, an oblate spheroid, basically a ball but not exactly perfectly spherical with a radius value of roughly 4,000 miles of the equator, that has all sorts of predictions that you'd expect based on that model. And you need gravity and all these other things. So if there is anything that violates that, then the globe model does not work. Now, we can end up in the place of saying, I don't know if the answer to the multiple choice test, I know it's not A, I don't know if it's B, C, or D.

That's kind of where I end up. And your audience might be wondering, Mark, didn't you just see what happened in Antarctica? There was an expedition where some globe believers and some flat earth believers, they went to Antarctica and they went to see if there's a 24-hour sun. And if there's a 24-hour sun, and this is in the Southern Hemisphere summer, which is in December, if the sun's visible in the sky for 24 hours, that proves the globe. It disproves flat Earth. They just went recently, and the 24-hour sun was clearly observed. Even the flat Earth believers, they saw it.

So there are a lot of articles coming out saying globe proven, flat Earth disproven. Why is that erroneous? It's like the example of wet grass and the rain. The sun in the sky would be explained by the globe model. But does that mean it's the only model in all of reality that could explain why we saw the sun in the sky for 24 hours? There might be something else. And the conventional way that some people look at a quote unquote flat earth model,

which I want to get into because it's actually impossible to have a model of Earth because we don't have the ability to observe certain things. So the framework, many people would say that that framework has been disproven. And there's lots of people coming up with alternative explanations for a 24-hour sun. The point is, yes, the globe can explain that observation. It doesn't mean the globe is true. And it also means that we don't fully understand the nature of this place. That's where it leaves us. So I think the headlines are a bit misleading. The key is whether it's the long distance observations of seeing things you shouldn't

be able to see or other things I want to talk about with you. These are challenges to the globe that they can't get around. And I want to see more about the aftermath of this Antarctica trip. But Austin Witsit, who's one of the big proponents of, let's say, globe skepticism, he went, he was expecting not to see a 24-hour sun. He did see it. But he tweeted the other day, he says, we have a lot of observations. You can see really far.

It's flat. So I want to see what those numbers are, but it's that math of we know what the curvature should be, and there's lots of mountains there. So I'm curious to see what he comes back with. Yeah. Yeah, I'm super curious. Keep us going here.

This is fantastic. Okay. So in terms of this notion of globe skepticism, I want to stay there rather than trying to point to an alternative model. What are some of the reasons? Okay. I actually want to start with why is it impossible right now to have a comprehensive model of Earth? We would need to dig really far below us to know what's below us. That's point number one. Point number two is we'd have to have a lot of independent observations from really high

above us. And we need to be able to freely and privately explore all of Earth. So I'll go through each of those. Because without that, you can't have a map. I love the last one. That's a big one. That is a huge one. Well, I'll start there. Because even this Antarctica trip,

they went to one location in what's supposed to be a massive place. So honestly, we would need to have these sorts of observations in all the locations. But there's an Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which has restricted certain travel. And certainly's an Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which has restricted certain travel. And certainly people can go to parts of Antarctica. But also it's very harsh conditions. And that's what the people who went on this expedition are saying. It's not that easy to travel everywhere. But also there are some restrictions because of this 1959 treaty,

which strangely was signed by the US and the Soviets, who were supposed to be arch nemeses. Well, there's no other place on earth, there's no other place on earth. There's no other thing on earth that has connected us all in one way. When you think about an alien invasion, you know, potential and the idea that this would bring us all together. Finally, humanity could come under one curtain and love one another and fight for each other and, you know, fight the bad guys. Right. Absent that we've never come together on one thing and said, we all agree on this, other than Antarctica, right?

Everyone, everyone's in the treaty. It's fucking crazy. It's bizarro. We could do that for this continent for science, but we're not going to do this for other things. It doesn't, that, that, that, that doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it's very curious to me. It's a, it's a, it's a red flag. It's something to pay attention to. Yeah. Red, red, red flag for me too, but also it actually makes it impossible for us to map out earth because we can't map out this entire landmass, which is supposed to be so big. You can't fly there. You can't take boats there. You're, you're, yeah, there is a, the, I think the U. Navy patrols the oceans there and make you get sent to either back the way you came or to the one place you're allowed to go. So that's, that's significant. The other area that is not as well as explored, at least as some people wish we could explore more is the North Pole. There are some

restrictions in the Arctic area as well, but also very harsh conditions. And then who knows what else might be on Earth that we haven't explored that's within the continental areas. Right. Yeah. I mean, some of this shit gets a little far out there, but even, you know, Gaia you know the potential shape of of our plane of existence as being a toroid you could say that these poles potentially at their center are not mass potentially you know and i'm not i haven't explored that a ton but just thinking of shapes and thinking of of of uh you know where we are that i think there's more options available than what we've been told right and then we might have to be creative about it. It might get metaphysical. There's a new book out called A Fool's Wisdom by Stephen A. Young. He's a theoretical physics PhD.

He comes out in the book saying, I don't know what Earth is with 100% certainty, but I know with 100% certainty what it's not. It's not a spinning ball. And he talks about what's known as ether cosmology, which is becoming a more popular topic, which makes earth a topographical plane. So there are peaks and valleys, but it's a plane. And there's a toroidal field that goes through the center. And that center would be the magnetic North pole under a certain framework. So it's just something to keep in mind. Pretty interesting because the Taurus is something we see throughout nature. And this might be an elegant way to try to combine what Earth is and the torus. To use the technical terminology, it's like Earth would be a block domain wall as a plane within this toroidal field.

So that's something interesting. But the general point here is we need more exploration of what Earth is within Earth in order to map it out precisely. And we don't have that yet. But then in terms of digging down below us, if Earth is a ball with a radius value of 4,000 miles, that means it's 4,000 miles to the core, which has never been established because people have only been able to go down under eight miles. So we don't really know what's below us. That's a big deal. Because in theory, if we lived in a ball floating in space in a vacuum, you'd be able to dig down, if we had the technology, to dig all the way down and then end up on the other side. That hasn't happened. And in the expedition that went almost eight miles, there were many unexpected things that came up, which indicates that perhaps our models

are not very good of what's below us. So who really knows what's going on down there? And then in terms of observing what's above us, we have to rely largely on space agencies. And there are many issues with that. I have a whole chapter in the book of anomalies. If we wanted to prove a spinning ball or whatever it is, ideally we would have footage from space. I'm sorry if I'm asking for too much, but like show me a video of the ball spinning doing a full rotation where you see everything. It's continuous. It's raw footage.

And to your point, a picture that can be taken over time that holds up to the same shape, right? And a lot of people will say well, what about the photos? And it's like a great fucking question. Let's look at those photos. And by now, there's plenty of memes where you can see 1970s earth, 74, 70, right. All from NASA. And they're all held next to each other. And it's like either fucking North America is a breathing

thing that can expand hundreds, if not thousands of miles and then exhale and shrink back down. Right. But none of these look identical to one another, not even close. Even if you took it with an old black and white camera versus today's camera, the shapes of the continents are never the same. Never. Like that's a big, that's also a head scratcher. And we don't see a sphere.

We see a circle. If you really think about it, you're seeing a disc. If you wanted to prove a globe, we need to see the full sphere. And you'd want to see buildings standing up straight on top, upside down on the bottom, hanging sideways on the side. You'd want to be able to zoom in to have that footage. We don't have it.

And it's interesting. I play around with AI a bunch with ChatGPT and Gemini and Claude by Anthropic. And we'll ask it questions about some of these topics. And automatically it spits out the mainstream. Of course. But then if you feed it information, it will actually shift its shift its views so i got to shift its views on this stuff to become a globe skeptic to become a skeptic of certain things in medicine but it's interesting

if you ask it like tell me about the amazing feats of the space agencies to send men to the moon and to send these probes out into deep space and we'll go on and on about how technologically advanced the space agencies are and then i'll say then why couldn't we just have video footage from space of Earth doing a full rotation and showing the full sphere? And it gets caught up because it tries to make excuses, but basically it doesn't line up. That if we are alleged to have done these other things, which I think we have reason to question, and we don't have that basic footage. I mean, the last picture we have from space of Earth, according to the agencies, is 1972 from the moon. And everything since then is CGI, computer generated imagery, or composite, meaning you take a few pictures, put them together.

The blue marble picture that is on all the iPhones, there's an interview with the NASA artist who put that together. And he said it's Photoshopped, and it has to be. It's his rendition of what he thinks Earth should look like based on a lot of different data and what the phytoplankton quantities should be in different bodies of water.

This is what he's saying, and I quote him in the book. So it's like, whoa, we actually don't have great footage, and maybe there are people up there showing us part of Earth and then we're asked to extrapolate based on that image but do we have the full thing we don't have that so that's objectively an issue so again we don't have enough

data from below from above or within Earth to know a full pure model and some people have tried to come up with examples so flat earth Dave Dave Weiss has an app that goes through one version of it. That is now much more in question because of the Antarctica observation. But there are some people already coming and, and the shape of the earth is different, obviously, but North, you know, you have your only magnetic North, um, and everything in the Northern hemisphere is wrapped around that. And then you've got your equator still as a mini circle in between. And then beyond that, the Southern hemisphere and, uh, some of the computer models that I've seen is like an oscillating sun that actually moves in and out, which creates seasons rotating over, over top of this, that that potentially could be, you know, if it's Northern hemisphere is winter, that it could be moving out, you know, further,

further away from that. Yeah. That's the basic framework that's often put forth. So that, but I just wanted to clarify that this is what you're discussing from Flatter Thieves app that is under question right now yes okay so just to make it clear for your audience it's easier to just look at this and you can go online and look at the gleason map from the late 1800s which shows earth as a circle basically so circle is two-dimensional but it's a topographical plane i mean there are peaks and valleys but it's basically a circle and the outside of the circle is an ice wall which is antarctica so antarctica is not a continent at the bottom of a ball, like an Island. It's a wall, a circular wall. And then within that wall is everything you would see on a globe. So the oceans, the continents, and at the center of the circle is the North pole.

That's magnetic North. There's no South pole. If you go directly away from the center, you're going South and you'll get to Antarctica no matter what. That would be the theory under this framework. But also you'd be able to circumnavigate because if you go due east or west, you end up going in a circle around the center. And the equator is one of the circles. The Tropic of Cancer is one of the circles.

The Tropic of Capricorn is a bigger circle. And the sun and the moon under this framework are much smaller and closer. And they're moving around Earth. And then circle and the sun and the moon under this framework are much smaller and much closer and they were moving around earth and then there are questions about whether we are enclosed in a firmament and whether there are reflections based on if if there's a light source coming outside that could create strange things like 24-hour sun i'm not going to make claims but yeah a lot of the a lot of the that's i think where he goes into old testament you know a lot

of people that subscribe to a geocentric model come from a Christian background or you know, a more biblical understanding of things and they talk about the waters of above being separated from the waters from below. The luminaries, the floating bodies

of light that move and the luminaries and what are the planets called? The wandering stars. The wandering stars. Yeah, exactly. So like, and that these aren't in fact bodies of substance

to land on and colonize. Right. But they do have an impact. They're not for nothing. Which makes astrology potentially all the more powerful. Yes. If you think about the sun

and the moon, what we're told, the sun's supposed to be 93 million miles away. The moon's supposed to be 238,000 miles away. And yet during the eclipses, they just are the perfect same size so that one's covering the other just because the math happens to work out that way. There are a number of strange things like that, which again, I don't know what's true, but is it really 93 million miles away, the sun? I mean, the other day I was

just driving around here and you could see the sun like backlighting just a few clouds as if it were almost a flashlight. Now there could be optical effects that can make that happen, but it's a little bit strange when you get into it. So the point is, we don't know exactly what Earth is, but many have put forth this framework of something that's generally flat and a lot more work is needed to explain certain phenomena. So that's where we are. The real question, though, is, is the globe model correct? And he talked about one of the most important ones, which is people being able to see things that are too far, that should be blocked by curvature. But there are a bunch of others.

And I have a whole chapter on this, on globe skepticism, of maybe not every point, but just some of the big ones that people talk about. And the Chicago skyline is an example that showed up in a 2009 court case. There's a man named Zen Garcia who put out a challenge about whether people could prove the mainstream cosmology, basically. And someone claims that he did prove it and he was owed money and Zen Garcia said, no, you didn't prove it. So went to court and the judge ruled with Zen Garcia, who's the Globe skeptic. And some of the information he put forth, which is in the publicly available court document, is the Chicago skyline example and a bunch of others

where people can see things that are too far. The judge didn't write a ruling, but it's interesting. That is fucking, that is awesome. I had no idea. So what I did was I quoted stuff from that court document. Very cool. In addition to other things of basically professionals so what I did was I quoted stuff from that court document very cool in addition to other things

of basically professionals who were not incorporating earth's curvature in their profession engineers they didn't need to

and there are a bunch of documents that I quote in the book from like the army and from NASA where they assume a flat stationary plane in their calculations

flying as well as one that gets brought up a lot you know and I think on the podcast with Luke Flatter, Dave calls one of his homies and, you know, take it for what it is, right? He calls a friend who supposedly worked in the airline industry as a pilot for 20 plus years, doesn't want to be named, you know, and talks about his observations and the fact that

if he brings it up to other pilots, immediately they shut down. That knee-jerk reaction exists right there too, but yet they're not taught to account for curvature when flying. And if you think about you know, you look at a graph and you point a certain direction to get lift off. If you continue at that, you know, yeah, if you level out, but as this thing spinning underneath you keep going straight, and you're going to go away from it. Right? So you know, maybe gravity is pulling the nose down at the

exact angle to float exactly above, you know, but it is, it is super curious. I'm sure you dive into the stars, too. That was another one, you know, when you think about Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the visual you get of all the moving pieces that are happening in the heliocentric model. And then you look at our stars and you understand like ancient cultures have mapped the same skies that we have. Right. And, and, and really well, especially you understand like the way Egypt was built, right. For those to stay the same is very curious,

but it's just very curious. It's one of the things where I don't under, you know, that, that to me is a huge, huge red flag. Talk about what you discovered in that. Yeah. I mean, it's hard to know anything about history, so I'm not, not sure what's even true about what the ancients described, but the idea under, let's say the globe skeptic framework is that Polaris is the North star and everything's rotating around that. And something that people have pointed to is that the Georgia Guidestones had a little peephole that pointed directly

at the North Star, and that was then destroyed. And people wonder, because that might, if there were movement of Polaris in a significant direction, then you wouldn't be able to see it through that peephole. But if the peephole is suggesting

that it's actually there all the time, it's a speculation. They're weird things like that. But certainly from our vantage point, it looks like the stars are moving around us. And there are lots of questions about depending on where you are on Earth, the stars will move different ways. And globe skeptics have explained this using a phenomenon known as perspective, which is important to keep in mind because basically the way that we see is skewed. So imagine that you are looking at railroad tracks from the ground level. They're parallel lines, but to the eye, it looks like they're converging in the end. It reaches a vanishing point. It's called perspective. Artists and architects know this. Cosmologists don't talk

about it as much. Or if you're standing on a straight road, there are lots of streetlights, all the same height. It looks like they're going down. Telephone wire poles, yeah, they just shrink, shrink, shrink, shrink, shrink until you can't see them anymore. Right. So you think about celestial events. We have to keep that in mind when we're looking at things in the sky, that things that are far away will look different. It might look like they're going down when they're not actually going down, just from our perspective. So that's just not part of the mainstream conversation quite enough. Yeah, I like that. What else did you get into? I mean, there's so much in the topic.

I want to go back to this firmament idea. So the biblical notion of waters above and waters below, the idea would be that the waters below are the oceans and that the the medium of what you'd call in the mainstream the vacuum of space this vast area is actually a fluid-like medium made of what who knows but uh in reading steve young's book he's the theoretical physics phd a full system all pro quarterback from the 49ers. Steven A. Young is his name. Okay. But he talks about this notion of gas pressure and it being a problem with the mainstream model. So the mainstream model says the vacuum of space, which is just a very low pressure system, sits next to Earth.

And Earth is not enclosed under the mainstream model. But Earth is contained. It has an atmosphere that stays in. Why is that weird? Sitting next to a vacuum of extremely low pressure? It's weird because if you open up a can of soda, which has a bunch of gas inside of it, which is higher pressure than the air around it, it makes a noise because the high pressure gas from the inside has to diffuse out. It equalizes to the lower pressure outside of it. But that doesn't happen with Earth

because we're higher pressure here and we're not enclosed like a soda can and yet the atmosphere is not going out into the vacuum which is much lower pressure. And this is nearly an infinite vacuum expanding further and further, less and less pressure. Why is that not happening? The answer, according to mainstream science, is gravity. We already talked about gravity's got problems, but it also raises questions.

Can gravity really withstand the differential of the vacuum of space and Earth and Earth's atmosphere, especially really high levels, which is farther away from Earth's center of gravity? There are questions there. So what people like Stephen A. Young say is that this is not actually possible. There has to be an enclosure. Young say is that this is not actually possible. There has to be an enclosure. And if there's an enclosure, that's pretty weird. So does that mean space travel is not what we're told? That they can't go to a certain point?

There was something known as Operation Fishbowl where the government was shooting up rockets. And some speculate maybe they were trying to see if there's an enclosure, whether it's energetic or physical. But then if there is an enclosure, we'd have to wonder how does that affect whatever's up in the sky and the way that we perceive it? Is it being distorted by that thing? And that's why when we talk about sunlight and 24 hour sun and those sorts of things, like those are variables I just don't know enough about

that people would need to explore. But there's also a documentary by the host of Crow 777 radio, where he took his telescope out and was looking at the moon and other celestial bodies. And you see something that looks like a wave, like a wave of water when he's looking at the moon, as if it's in a fluid medium going out into space. Wow. And he also sees in this documentary what looks like, so he's looking at the sun and he takes the telescope over and it looks like a second sun-like body. It's not exactly the same color.

Yeah, I haven't taken a deep dive into that, but I like a second sun-like body it's not exactly i haven't i haven't taken a deep dive into that but i have seen second son of i've been i have become aware of the potential of that and i haven't i just haven't taken it explored in it in it yet so is it this is this this is this is in a documentary it's in a documentary he claims he's tried to control for optical effects who knows but there are ancient cultures that have talked about very strange things of multiple suns or a black sun or times when there wasn't a moon.

Yeah, times when there wasn't a moon. Our sun replacing the original sun, the original sun. And that's even gotten into the electric universe. Right. Right. So like Walt Thornhill,

I think was his name and he partnered with another guy. They have a show on Gaia and a website, but they talked about the potential of Saturn being the original sun and then our sun coming in and displacing it. But that's still, of course, a heliocentric model. Right. But the point is, I'm glad we're discussing this, is hopefully to open everyone's minds, say that we don't know what was before. We don't know how that stuff got up in the sky. We don't know how it's moving exactly, especially if gravity is not real.

There might be other forces. What many people speculate is that there's an electrostatic force that might explain why things fall downward, why denser objects fall down. Richard Feynman, who's a famous Caltech physicist, I quote him in the book, talking about a downward electric current.

You got one of his books right here. Anyhow, don't need to pull it up. Yeah, yeah. He's talking downward electric current. So there are questions about motion. We have to go back to the basics here. Anyhow, don't need to pull it up. Yeah. Yeah. Talking downward electric current. So there are questions about motion. We have to go back to the basics here. And now when I look up in the sky, I'm like, what is that stuff? Where is it? Are the stars as far away? Are they millions and millions of light years away or whatever? Or are they much closer and smaller? Maybe they're not physical places that you actually go to. Maybe they're multidimensional

places. So in the book, I quote Emanuel Swedenborg, a famous mystic. He wrote a book called Other Planets, and he said he was taken with his consciousness to these other places. So are these realms? I really don't know what they are, but now I'm thinking maybe they're not these balls that you could land on that we hear about in the news so much. Maybe they're much smaller and more local, or maybe they actually have an impact on our world like astrology would talk about. Point is, we've got to be super creative. And when these other possibilities enter,

it's like, yeah, clearly the mainstream model has issues. So we have to be open to other things. Hey guys, are you ready? I want to give you the world's shortest biohacking biometric test. This is going to blow your mind and you're going to love this. Are you ready?

Okay, on the count of three, raise your hand. Three, two, one, go. Is your hand raised? If yes, score yourself a one. If you didn't raise your hand, also score yourself a one. If you got a one or higher, you're low in magnesium. Get it? Okay, all kidding aside, it all goes back to when we started using artificial fertilizer. See, before artificial fertilizer, the farmers were smart enough to farm in harmony with the land. We didn't have nutrient deficiencies back then. Now, it's no secret that magnesium is the most common deficiency. Heck, even your pets are deficient. But what most don't know is that you need to get all seven forms of magnesium to be okay. Six won't even cut it. You got to get all seven. I couldn't get into the complexities of how we used to get all seven before industrial farming, yada, yada, yada. But I think we all

know this, right? Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's only one company doing this right. And it's Magnesium Breakthrough by Bioptimizers. I use it. Every expert I trust uses it. All of my clients that get results use it. When people ask me if there were just one supplement you could recommend, this would be it, hands down. And I tell you what, you'll feel it right away. Don't mess around experimenting. For an exclusive offer, go to bioptimizers.com slash Kingsboo and use promo code Kingsboo10. That's K-I-N-G-S-B-U, all caps, one zero, during checkout to save 10%. And if you subscribe, not only will you get amazing discounts and free gifts, you will make sure your monthly supply is guaranteed.

Buyoptimizers.com slash Kingsboo. Kingsboo 1-0 at checkout. I'd love everything you're bringing up here. Talk about when I first started to dive into the firmament or the potential of a dome, whatever that is, invisible dome, dome, glass, whatever the fuck it could be. Something that separates us from the waters of above and the waters below. It started to make sense, you know, as I dove into the NASA stuff and the potential that we never went to the moon, you know, and again, like on the camera footage, you're like, where's the footage of the earth? When they asked that, when they were asked about that, NASA scientists were asked, where's the, how can we come and go back to the moon and they said well we lost the math

to it they say well where's the original footage of that we recorded over it think of how fucking ridiculous that is we're grown-ups we're adults here right even if you're a kid and you're you know your parent you let your kids listen to my podcast. I'll try to curse less. Awesome. Let them listen to hear someone say something as priceless. Had we had done this and accomplished it, that they recorded over it. What do you take us for? That is insane in and of itself. Right. But then, uh, beyond that, we can't recreate it the math was too complicated you mean uh when we had the computers the size of my 5 000 square foot house and made it up there and now my iphone 16 pro is more powerful than that entire complex you guys used to to do the math that you can't recreate this also utterly insane right but i think about the the i've gotten more into you know as you look into that they talk

a lot about the van allen belt and this radiation belt and on nasa's website it says nothing has ever made it past the van allen belt that's super curious because the van allen belt is between us and the moon by how they have it purported right but nothing's ever made it past the van allen belt like what are we talking about now, right? Are you low-key admitting nobody's been to the moon? Like, that doesn't make sense either. Yeah, so chapter six of my book goes into all this stuff. What did Van Allen say back in the early 60s about how dangerous this radiation was,

and then all of a sudden they're able to pass through it, allegedly. Or an astronaut saying, we lost the technology, we can't get back. Or if we want to make it there, another astronaut saying, we're going to have to figure out how to get through the Van Allen radiation belt. There are a lot of anomalies. There's also a documentary by Bart Sabrell, who is not a globe skeptic, as far as I understand. He's more of just a moon landing skeptic. So it's important to keep these things separate. Was this the guy that was just on Rogan's? Not too far. Yeah, exactly. He quotes the quote you just said about the current NASA scientist saying we have to get through the Van Allen Belt. Yes.

Which is also, it just doubles, it triples down on the point we just made. Yeah, it's wild. But Bart Sabrell, he was doing a documentary on the moon landings and received footage from NASA. And one of the tapes basically said not for public distribution. So either someone put it there or it was a mistake, but it shows some of the Apollo astronauts faking an image of Earth on their way to the moon, allegedly, of putting a transparency against the window, and that's the image that people have of the moon landing.

So there are a number of these examples, or like on the ISS where objects are falling while other ones are floating footage repeatedly of that, of these anomalies where it's hard to trust what the authorities tell us. Doesn't mean everything's fraudulent. I really don't know. Yeah. But it's worth asking more questions. Yeah. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and NASA. And, but also, you know you know and talking my original friend who turned me on to some of this stuff i was like all right you know so moon landing's fake but you know you had to fake it to to win you know what could have been the biggest you know battle arms race against the soviets that kind of thing no big deal um and you know there's some shadow form of government

nasa that that is taking tax dollars you know and just teasing us along with the carrot in front of the horse's mouth of being able to go back and explore that's not like you know some mafia guy taking 10 from the local business to keep them safe 60 million a fucking day right now 2024 that's that's bananas to understand that like fathom that for a second when we think about where we'd like to see our tax dollars go. When we think politically about different movements and the roads or fucking education, food, name it. Name the problem that we see in the world right now and understand what $60 million a day could do for it. Yeah, it's insane. I believe it's a 20 plus billion dollar budget for 2025.

I hope I'm getting that correct. But these are huge, huge numbers. And then it reminded me of some of the work I did back with my podcast series in 2019, Where's My Mind? I interviewed Russell Targ, who was one of the leaders of the remote viewing program for the US government, psychic spying. He was a laser physicist. And he said, there was over $20 million spent on our program. And he listed the agencies involved. One of them was NASA. And I just remembered that when I was researching this book. Why is NASA interested in remote viewing?

Is it related to mind control in some way? Because they're sort of related topics. So you just wonder what exactly is going on. And then related to what I said before, if the budget is so big, you'd think it would be relatively easy to get us some footage of a spinning ball. Or to have been back on the moon. You know? Especially with all the shit they're sending through space through the Van Allen Belt, supposedly.

Right? Like, just send an unmanned aircraft there and get some footage. You know? Show us the terrain. Update the camera. Like, we've got far better cameras now, far better computers now.

Let's see that. So what if it takes 10 years to get back to us? Give us a date on when we're going to see all this stuff. Maybe a few more examples. A few more examples. Yeah. So there's something called a selenelian eclipse. It's a type of lunar eclipse. The eclipsed moon and the sun are visible in the sky at the same time, which should not in theory be possible on a globe because the earth is supposed to be causing the eclipse, getting in between the sun and the moon, but you can see both.

So the globe's explanation is it's light refraction. It's the same explanation they give for seeing things that are too far away, that somehow the light must be bending. You're seeing an illusion. It's just a mirage. Or maybe the globe model's got problems. Another one is horizontal wave

propagation so if you're sending radio waves out they go in a straight line yes this is a great example keep going and this was done in the early 1900s where they were sending radio waves out the guy's name was marconi and they were like what did he he invented something right famous guy invented something he was involved in this radio wave experiment, which was basically sending radio waves really far, but apparently people at the time were like, you're not going to be able to get them to other people on the globe because they're going to be below the curve.

The waves should fly out into space. Think about it. If you're going straight and you're trying to reach someone who's below the curve, it would have to bend around the curve, but these waves are propagated horizontally. But then they were able to reach people at greater distances. So the radio waves got to these people and they're below the curve. How'd that happen? The answer was that the wave hits the ionosphere and then goes down to the person. In the exact location.

In the exact location. So that's the answer. It's sort of like dark matter in a way. Well, either gravity doesn't work or dark matter exists. Maybe this is similar. The term is a post hoc rationalization. You basically, you make, you rationalize something. One last quick break to tell you about one of our longest running show sponsors, Lucy.co. Let's level up your nicotine routine with lucy go to lucy.co slash kkp and use promo code kkp to get 20 off your first order lucy offers free shipping and has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind that's lucy.co

and use code kkp to get 20 off and always free shipping. And here comes the fine print. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age and every order is age verified. Warning, this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. All right, end of the verbatim. Nicotine is awesome. It is a fucking incredible, incredible compound that nature made that fits into so many receptors in our body. I was watching a doctor talk about how many organs actually have nicotine receptors on the body and how much it benefits. A lot of it. Now, can't get into that here. So search for nicotine benefits online and you'll be surprised what you see. The thing that I notice and feel the most when I work with nicotine is that there's a

cognitive boost. Point blank, I feel good, I think incredibly well, I retain information. There's an energy boost, but the energy boost is only about 30, 40 minutes. So if I gotta study late before I go to bed, I can throw in a Lucy pouch at 12 migs, I can get a nice little bump, I feel good, I got energy to read, and when I'm ready, I pull it out and I fall asleep.

Check out Lucy.co and use code KKP to get 20% off and always free shipping. Imagine if billiards worked that way, you know, where you're like, all right, I'm just going to hit this ball right here and it's going to go exactly where I want it to in the corner pocket every single time. I'm going to bank shot. You'd be the master of bank shots. So apparently that's happening all the time. But there are researchers like Austin Witsit who have basically aggregated papers where they send out these waves

that are higher frequency than the radio waves in the early 1900s experiment and that's significant because the higher frequency waves should go through the ionosphere they shouldn't reflect off of their higher frequency and yet they still reach people from very long distances. A related example is whales who use sonar communication. So they're propagating these horizontal waves,

and they can reach other whales up to 10,000 miles away. The radius of Earth is supposed to be 4,000 miles. So there's no ionosphere. There's no refraction of light. And what scientists say is there's a channel in the water that allows the wave, instead of flying out into space, it goes around the curve through this channel. Is that real or is that a post hoc rationalization?

We're thinking about, this one really got me. It's called magnetic declination, which basically refers to the difference between Earth's geographic poles on the globe, which are physical locations, a North Pole and a South Pole. Geographically, you can go there, versus the magnetic North and South Poles,

which move around. So where does this all come from? The theory is that the magnetic field of Earth comes from the core, which no one's ever been to. Right, spinning ball of molten iron. Yes, and the center of the core is supposed to be so hot that it exceeds what's called the Curie point,

so it can't generate a magnetic field. But the outer core is spinning, and Earth has its tilt, such that a magnetic field is generated. It's a geodynamo theory. That's what it's called. The problem is no one's ever replicated a geodynamo effect. So it's totally theoretical. We end up with some big problems, real world,

where people's navigation is actually affected negatively. You have to adjust compasses to get to the right place. It's called magnetic declination. Anyone can do this. You can go to magnetic-declination.com. Anywhere on earth, you can see what the adjustment needed is. And what's interesting is that when you go to Antarctica, some of the adjustments are massive. And I quote one that's over 170 degrees difference. So basically, if your compass is telling you something, turn around and you get

to the right place. Wow. This is interesting because if you were to take a plane and compress it around a globe, what's Antarctica on the plane Earth would be on the outskirts, and you'd have to compress that into this little island. So you're compressing all these geographies that are in very different places

into one little area. So it might make sense that the declination readings would be so far off in the southern hemisphere. Just something that people have raised. But interestingly, at the equator, which is where the globe

and the plane, quote unquote, maps would line up most, that's where there's the least amount of adjustment needed. And the same thing goes with time zones. So you'd expect it would be really easy to just have 24 time zones, 24 hours in a day. But in the Northern Hemisphere, there are 19 time zones, the equator 24, and the Southern Hemisphere 32. And a lot of these time zones are like hidden in

the water. They're very bizarre placements of these time zones, is that because of just political reasons, like most people say, or is there some hiding of where we actually live by trying to compress and expand time zones depending on where you are? And in the book, I quote a world-renowned sailor who sailed in the Southern Hemisphere who is now a globe skeptic, and he feels that the time zones are one way to prove that we live on some kind of a plane. Just a few examples. And when you pile these up and then think about the physics where we started, 96% of the universe, dark matter and dark energy, no unifying theory that explains relativity and quantum together. The equations blow up. Something big is wrong. And then the last part, which is the last section of the book is consciousness. What if nothing's even physical or what if the world is malleable in some way and it's all highly mystical and spiritual, maybe reality changes. Maybe earth is one thing one day,

but it actually shifts. Maybe your perception affects what you actually see or your own consciousness affects the world in some way that we don't understand. In the book, I quote a man from the secret space program, which I studied a little bit in my book on contact. These are people who claim they're all mind controlled, by the way, they went through MKUltras, they were often tortured. And so it's hard to know exactly what's real. But many of them, if not most of them, say they went to other planets and they were doing missions in this mind-controlled state and that there's a secret space program. But I found one secret space program survivor who said that whether Earth is round or flat, it's way more complex than that because of the nature of reality. I'm paraphrasing.

And that's just an interesting framework to keep in mind that often the debates are very simplistic. It's one or the other. But what if there's other stuff? game, knowing it was going to last forever, you know, like we'd want to, like Jamie Will says, you know, consciousness is a novelty generator, right? Checker, it had been checked saying that, but this novelty generator that's creating things anew and as indigenous cultures would call it the great mystery, like maybe it will always remain the great mystery. Maybe it is the unknowable by design of the game itself for the purity of an eternal game. That's where I'm leaning with it. That the answer might be beyond what we can comprehend and forever so. That we're never going to get to the full answer. And that seems to be the spiritual quest in general, even in our own evolution. We evolve in one way, we let go of some false belief, We overcome a trauma. And then the next thing, the next layer of the onion shows up.

And maybe that's part of this quest to understand where we live too. Yeah. Ever unfolding, ever becoming. So I fucking love you, brother. I love the, I love the stuff that you're getting into. I can't wait to read this. I'm going to start it today. Awesome. It's on Audible too. You know, I love to listen. So absolutely. And I appreciate your time, brother. You got my number. Shoot me a text when you're into stuff. Cause I want to know since I can't count on Amazon to tell me, just hit me up direct. Tell me when your date is. You got a launch date in six months. We'll book it ahead of time. It's excellent getting to have you here in person. And

thanks again, brother. Yeah. Awesome meeting you, Colin. Thank you for all your support and for all that you do in the world. You're helping a lot of people, man. Thanks. Diolch. Thank you.