Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Jacques Vallée and Kevin Knuth on Psychedelics and UFO's, June Disclosure, the Physics of Aliens

Episode Date: June 8, 2021

YouTube link: https://youtu.be/uVo51khU8AESponsors: https://brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off. http://algo.com for supply chain AI.Patreon for conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, and God: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Crypto (anonymous): https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverythingLINKS MENTIONED: Vallée's and Harris' book: Trinity: The Best Kept Secret amazon.com/TRINITY-Best-Kept-Secret-Jaques-Vallée-ebook/dp/B094YNBG8T (not affiliate) Kevin Knuth's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atntnU_baHc Jeremy Corbell's podcast with Curt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4wZbcovkXYTHANK YOU: Henry HoffmanTIMESTAMPS: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:04:38 Vallée on his Theory of Everything Else 00:05:11 Vallée summarizes the Trinity case (just revealed weeks ago) 00:07:34 Physics of UFO craft 00:12:03 This case has never been revealed to the public 00:17:09 Why are there so many crashes, if Aliens are so advanced? 00:21:23 What's the pattern of UFO sights? More after nuclear tests? More in a certain region? 00:22:08 How the aliens / creatures and craft looked at the Trinity site 00:30:24 UFO activity at Whitesand's Missile Base 00:36:26 Consciousness and alien encounters 00:37:47 Detailed description of how the creatures behaved in their craft 00:41:11 Visions being beamed into your head 00:48:49 These visions seem biblical / apocalyptical 00:58:30 Psychedelics and UFO's [Amjad Hussain / Ef is me] 01:03:28 Simulation Hypothesis, Donald Hoffman, Thomas Campbell, and Idealism 01:09:43 The motives / intent of the aliens (and are we dealing with just one type?) 01:16:28 We've been taught that studying UFO's is "non-sense" 01:21:20 UFO's in space (recorded incidents) 01:25:58 What we'll get in the June report 2021? 01:30:40 UFO research doesn't get published. Ball lightning doesn't even get published. 01:33:04 Compelling video Jacques has seen, that hasn't been declassified [xenex301] 01:33:53 Mick West, and well-informed skeptics 01:37:15 Peer-reviewed research on UFO's [Harry Austin] 01:44:16 Why these secrets can be above even the President of the USA 01:48:47 Thoughts on Chris Mellon and Luis Elizondo (are they credible?) 01:51:54 Metallurgical analysis of parts of UFO crafts 01:53:55 Why are Brazilian UFO's violent? What other cases are there of violence? 01:56:54 Physics of UFO "beams" / light rays that pin you down / are deleterious 01:57:56 Why is disclosure happening now? [Alan Whitehead] 02:01:28 How to legitimize UFO research in academia 02:03:01 What does it mean to "study" the UFO phenomenon? How? 02:09:42 What will Jacques do with all the material he's collected on aliens? [Sn00ze] 02:11:29 Recovering alien debris from the Trinity case 02:20:36 Operation highjump 02:21:55 New footage from the Navy [Ifran] 02:23:52 Bob Lazar, and why we're referred to as "containers" [Diggie's Journal] 02:28:57 More on Jacques Vallée, and Kevin Knuth 02:32:27 Will you chat with Mick West, Curt? [Tim Wilson]* * *Just wrapped (April 2021) a documentary called Better Left Unsaid http://betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to watch it.

I have to start with a little bit of a confession. This channel has been extremely or recently become extremely popular among those who are interested in the phenomenon of UFOs, but it's not a UFO channel per se. It's a channel oriented toward the foundational aspects of our universe and investigating it from the vantage point of philosophy, psychology, mathematics, and even theoretical physics. Luckily, I spoke to a few of the ufologists who recently subscribed to the channel, and they reassured me that people who are interested in UFOs tend to be open-minded and interested in the topics of theoretical physics and philosophy anyway. This quelled my initial trepidation, but I wanted to bring it up regardless

because if what you're expecting is mere UFO content, I don't want you to be disappointed. While I'm not a mathematician nor a physicist, I was trained as such and that's where I tend to be most comfortable. But unlike most of the scientific community, the topics of free will, God, UFOs, the paranormal in general, aren't topics that I eschew, but instead I revel in. If one is to make progress toward a theory of everything, my bet is that innovation will come from the fringes. What you're about to watch is a conversation between Jacques Vallée, a computer scientist, venture capitalist, and ufologist, one of the most credible. The link is below, and Professor

Kevin Knuth is a computational physicist, as well as the editor-in-chief of Entropy Journal. He's also one of the few physicists, working physicists in academia, who publish regarding the veridicality of the UFO phenomenon. To use a fun word, I'm an ABC Darien and that has its advantages as well as disadvantages. Now the disadvantage is obviously that I'll be asking questions generally that are sophomoric and unfledged, such as how does the Freedom of Information Act work and why do aliens look like us or us like them at least broadly morphologically. And there were some criticisms, rightly so, of my interview with Jeremy Korbel of me not knowing much about the topic, and that's true. However, one of the large advantages

is that a question that seems obvious is no longer one that occurs to the seasoned individual, and thus a fresh perspective can be gotten to by asking it. Another advantage, a meta-advantage, is that you get to watch someone who's classically trained as a mathematical physicist go through a constitutional change in worldview in real time. A regular theolocution on this channel is about getting two individuals with contrary viewpoints to hash it out in a manner that's not dislogistic, but instead constructive and even loving. Someone said it's not a live stream, it's a love stream, and that's true. However, in this case, both Professor Kevin Knuth and Jacques Vallée agree

on far more than they disagree. The sponsor of today's podcast is Algo. Algo is an end-to-end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps business users optimize sales and operations, planning to avoid stockouts, reduce returns and inventory write-downs while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart IOI headed by a bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussain. Amjad, in fact, contributed some of the questions to today's theolocution, and he's been a huge supporter of the podcast since nearly its inception. In fact, the reason I'm standing right now is because I was able to afford a standing desk based purely on Amjad's contribution to this channel

to help engender a work environment where I can just simply focus on work and not the extraneous aspects like my back hurting, for example. Another supporter of the podcast is Brilliant. You can subscribe to brilliant.org slash toe, T-O-E, if you'd like 20% off their annual subscription, and I'll be speaking more on that later. If you'd like to hear more conversations like this, then please do consider supporting at patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungalle i've also recently opened up a crypto account and a paypal account and if you like you can donate there i plan on having many more conversations like this at the end of august there's going to be yosha bach and donald hoffman coming up at the end of this month i'm speaking to chris langan he's the person who has reportedly the highest iq in america and has a theory of everything called the cognitive theoretic model of the universe. There's also a Discord with the link in the description if you'd like to discuss the topics in this podcast or other podcasts in real time to chat with other people who are like yourself.

Thank you so much and enjoy. Hello, how's it going? Very good. How are you? Good. Good to see you. Good to see you. We did it. I look forward to this. Say hello to the audience. Hey, good morning or good afternoon, wherever you are. Thank you for the invitation. TEDx talk a few years ago about theories of everything else.

Because theories of everything, that's not big enough. You really have to look at the boundaries. And so what I'll be talking about here is maybe not everything else, but something else that came out of the sky. So why don't you talk about your new book if you can give a synopsis of it within four minutes. Yes, the book is called Trinity, Trinity, the best kept secret. And it's about a case of the recovery of an object that was never identified by the army and the army air force. This was before the air force existed in August 1945, within days of the capitulation of Japan.

And it's hard to imagine that that particular event wasn't in some way linked to the end of World War II and to the first atomic bomb and to the emergence of our civilization into essentially the nuclear age. What happened is that simply to two boys were working in a field for their father on a large property in New Mexico, within 20 miles of ground zero. And they saw something fall. So this is an exceptional case, because the witnesses were there before the object happened. This is not like Roswell, where, you know, debris was found a few days later, they were there, they saw it happen. We have corroborating evidence from a pilot that was going in for landing at Alamogordo

and saw the whole thing. The object was essentially an egg-shaped object. It was not a flying saucer like people describe. It was egg-shaped. And the two witnesses, one of whom is still alive, very much alive and part of our investigation, were there on the spot for the next eight days while the military were recovering that object and taking it away. So it's an exceptional story that gives us an opportunity to do some, at least some good physics and to tie together all the parameters of the testimony of the evidence. What do you mean when you say gives you the opportunity to do good physics? The the object was intact when it landed it, it crash landed, but under control, which is it didn't blow up like an airplane would have it hit a communication tower, which was one of three communication towers around white the white, the whole white Sands area.

The area is still technically within the military confines of White Sands, which, as you know, is as large as two American states. It's a very, very large test area for the military. This was, again, three weeks after the explosion of the first A bomb. And the three people actually entered into the craft while it was lying there. So we have testimony not only of people who saw it, the traces, some of the data that was

recovered from inside the object, but we also have day-by-day accounts, which is in the book, of what happened, what the military had to do to recover it. So we have a good approximation of the weight, the volume, the size of the thing, and we can compare it to other cases in the literature that have been studied by, officially, by the Air Force, the French am a lapsed astrophysicist from my days at the University of Texas and at Northwestern. But most of my contribution here is as part of a team of people looking at the information structures among a number of cases like that. What is its weight and volume compared to others? And also, when you say physics, do you mean to say material engineering or physics as in theoretical physics? Well, the theoretical physics part is left to the student to develop.

We don't know where it comes from. It was not tracked, as far as we know, by any radar as it was coming in. According to Mr. Jose Padilla, who is our main witness today, he believes that it came from the south, which would have been the direction of the test site where the atomic explosion had taken place. It seems that, you know, given the traces, I mean, the thing after hitting the tower,

the thing fell, hit the ground, started a fire in the vegetation. If you know New Mexico, we're at 5,000 feet altitude and the vegetation is mostly creosote and cactus and that kind of thing. It burned. The object did not burn the object kept its its identity and actually plowed a path down down the prairie down down that field made a turn apparently under power and and stopped against a hill so that gives us an idea We reconstructed the weight only approximately, but it certainly could not be moved by men. They had to build a crane,

and we know everything that the military did because witnesses were there all the time in successive days. They had to actually bring an 18-whe, a low boy, no army truck, and build a crane to lift the object. So the weight would be in the area of about five tons, five or seven tons. talking about the outside material being extremely light? The it, some of the in the impact against the tower, there was material that was ejected, there was one panel from the object that was destroyed. And that material was recovered by the kids later on. There were actually four types of material that the witnesses described that, you know, we we hope eventually to maybe recover from

some of the people in the area, they kept some of it as a souvenir. But remember, it's 80 years ago. And the reason the book is called The Best Kept Secret is that it's not in the Air Force Files. As you may know, as part of my work on the subject, I've built various databases of the Air Force Files, both here and in France and elsewhere, it doesn't show up anywhere. So that secret was kept very, very well within the atomic files, not within the Air Force Files or the Army Files, where we would have found it. I mean, as you know, I worked with Dr. Hynek, who was for 25 years a consultant to the U.S. Air Force. We never heard of that case.

The other reason we never heard of it is that the witnesses never came forward, which is astonishing until you recall the conditions in 1945 after the war. We went from a shooting war to the Cold War. There was intense secrecy and classification on everything going on in New Mexico, you know, from Los Alamos to Alamogordo and everything else. And the young men as they grew up, decided they would never talk about it. Also, some of the things they had recovered could have been very controversial. They are controversial today. And there is some physical evidence in connection with that recovery.

Is it all right if I admit Kevin Knuth now? It's your show. The more the merrier. Hello. Sorry for being late. That's all right. Thank you so much for coming. I know that you're under a bit of stress right now.

It's all right. Thank you. Okay, Jacques, do you mind recapitulating what you said in about a minute just for Kevin Knuth to bring him up? So this case is unique. I've gone there five times. I'm working with Paola Harris, who actually initiated the research on this, when she interviewed the two main witnesses. We actually have four different witnesses to the case that are firsthand, where we have firsthand testimony. The case is unique in the annals because it has to do with the crash of an object in New

Mexico two days after the capitulation of Japan in an area that was a military area, part of the Manhattan Project complex around White Sands. The two witnesses were there at the time when the object came down from the sky, hit a tower, was partially damaged, and then made a crash landing under power. They had the opportunity to examine the object when it was sitting there on that property, which was their father's property. And three people, including two adults, including a state officer, actually went inside the object. So we have testimony from both outside and inside. observed the entire process of recovery of the object which was taken away on an 18 wheeler back to White Sands by the army. So we have an extraordinary amount of information just on that one case.

Now, again, I have to repeat again, I am not a theoretical physicist here. I'm mainly an information scientist with a theoretical physicist here. I'm, I'm mainly an information scientist with a background in physics. And so I've tried to relate that particular case with a pattern of other cases in the literature that have been studied by government agencies, both in the US and in France, and enable us to come up with at least some parameters of what the problem is. So Kevin, the way I would like this to be would be more of a conversation between both

of you and I am just an observer or a fly on the wall. So what thoughts occur to you or questions occur to you when you hear that? Directed to Jacques. Right. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for having me join you, Jacques. It's good to see you again. And I read about this case briefly, so I'm really excited to hear about it from you.

Let's see here. Well, a question that occurs to me is, Jacques, do you have any ideas as to why they're falling from the sky? Because the skeptic would say if they're so advanced, then why are they not necessarily crashing but hitting some of these earthly objects when our planes don't necessarily do that? There are a lot of purport There are a lot of reported crashes. That's always worried me. Yes. And I must admit, in the book, I make it clear that I have not been very involved in the study of crashes, because I remember discussing Roswell with Dr. Hynek and with Professor McDonald and with other people, and with people at the Air Force when, you know, I was consulted briefly for Project Blue Book at Wright-Patterson.

They had, you know, material that witnesses had brought to the Air Force, to Project Blue Book in those days, saying, you know, this crashed on my property and so on. But we never could get to real evidence from primary witnesses. If you remember, Roswell, of course, is, you know, a very prominent case. It happened. The testimony is more and more clear as people are reconstructing the history of it. But there was nobody on site. When it happened. People, you know, came up came upon the wreckage later, they reconstructed a number of investigators, including Stanton Friedman, others have reconstructed what the Air Force did. But there wasn't a case where there was really evidence that we could touch and we could hear from live witnesses who had been there while it happened.

In this case, we do. And that's why, you know, I devoted time to that. I went to the site several times. I had a chance to interview the people there and to reconstruct the history of it. And then we can put it in the context of other cases that were not crashes, but were hard landings that are in the official government files of France and of the U.S., namely the Socorro case, which took place just eight miles north of there, and the case in Valençal

in France, in Provence, which I've investigated also, I've gone there with French government officials, and that case is still unidentified in their files. And Socorro, as you may know, is still unidentified in the Air Force files after long investigations by a number of agencies, including the Air Force, including the FBI, including Project Blue Book, and including the local police, of course, and the state police of New Mexico. the local police, of course, and the state police of New Mexico. So we have all of that. And all of that is in the book. So again, I'm, I'm, think of me as an information scientist with a servant to, you know, the physicist and the biologists who are going to look into this. And I'm trying to bring you a pattern that makes sense. You mentioned patterns. Is there a pattern or a correlation between some of the hot spots of UFO locations that you discovered? The pattern I want to mention is on this page of the book. In those three cases, namely the New Mexico case, Socorro, and Valençol in France, we know pretty much

everything about the object. There's at least a size and the weight, because there were hard traces in the ground that could be measured, could were preserved at the site in minutes after the case happened. And in all three cases, it's not a saucer. It's not a disc. It's not a flying saucer. It's an egg shaped object. The witnesses in New Mexico called it an avocado.

So there was, there was, you know, the typical shape of an avocado. So it wasn't a perfect oval. In Socorro, it was somewhat smaller. But again, we have a very precise description by Lonisa Mora, who was a patrolman who saw the object arrive. And in Valençal, we have the main witness, Mr. Maurice Mass, whom I've interviewed. The object was about 13 feet. And again, it was an egg-shaped object with some sort of dome on top. So those are three very similar cases.

In all three cases, the witnesses described occupants, witnesses described occupants, presumably the pilots of the craft as being about three to four feet tall. breathing our air. breathing, breathing our air. Yes, they they were breathing normally, they didn't have any helmet. They didn't have anything around their heads. They had apparently a suit covering their body that was close, tight to the skin. And in one case, they couldn't tell if it was the skin or if it was actually the suit. one case, I couldn't tell if it was the skin, or if it was

actually the suit. There are no anatomically very similar to humans or human. They had two eyes and a mouth and a nose. Nose was smaller. But essentially, the witnesses could relate to them as close enough to us that they thought of them as human or humanoid. Although in the New Mexico case, there was more. There was like a communication. And I know your group is interested in consciousness. There's a lot between the lines about all the feelings, all the psychological impact that these two kids. Remember, the witnesses were a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old.

But remember, this was at the end of world war ii i mean the nine-year-old was driving the truck they had binoculars to read the markings on the brands on the the cattle for their father they they were taking care of the herd on this property, which was 80,000 acres. So these were kids in very special conditions. They knew the territory very well. They had horses to go over this terrain. They knew how to hide when they were watching the soldiers recovering this object and loading it on the truck. So they are able to give us very, very good testimony. One of them has passed away a few years ago, but my co-author, Paola Harris, was involved in the case five years before me, and she had interviewed him. She actually is the first one to have recovered the whole interview from both of them, even before I got involved in the case. bomb. And which, again, we have to ask, why would and that's implicit in what Kevin was saying?

I mean, why would you come from Alpha Centauri? And why would you hit a tower, you know, and crash? I mean, that doesn't make any sense. Well, we don't know if they came from Alpha Centauri. We don't know where they came from. They didn't necessarily drop from the sky. They flew over, as far as the witnesses could tell. They flew over this landscape, apparently coming from the Project Manhattan test site. They hit the tower.

They crash landed under power and then came to rest in this landscape, setting the bushes on fire. So when the witnesses arrive, they, you know, their eyes are tearing up. They, they, they, they think, remember the, the, the expression flying saucer is not in the English language at this point. This is the end of World War II. So their first reaction is something crashed. We have to help, you know, you know, the first witnesses on the site. They knew that they had to get help for the pilots or whoever had crashed. They didn't know what it was. They assume it's some sort of airplane or some sort of prototype. And they are going to go there and help whoever may be wounded at the site. That's a motivation. The term flying saucer doesn't exist.

Roswell is two years away in the future. Kenneth Arnold has not done his report. There isn't even an Air Force. I mean, there is an Army Air Force, which is part of the Army. There is a pilot named Bravi, whose testimony we have, who was coming in for a landing at Alamogordo. He sees a smoke contact the tower. The tower tells him to look at the control tower, tells him to look at the communication tower because they've lost communication with it. to look at the communication tower because they've lost communication with it. He flies over the the

the node what they called in those days of Fermi tower. The and they they observed the damage to the tower. And then he sees the the fire. And he sees two little kids next to it. He calls Indian kids. They're not Indian. They are of Mexican and partly Spanish origin. But they are not technically Indians. But they are on their horses and they are there at the site. And the pilot describes them. But they are on their horses and they are there at the site.

And the pilot describes them. And we believe the pilot is the one who came back the next day to retrieve some of the data on the site. The next day is the only day when the two kids were not back on site because they were working for their father in town. After that, they were on site every day during the entire recovery. So that's the overall scene. That's why I became involved because, I mean, the story was complete. I mean, we had the witnesses, we had the testimony, we had the traces, and we had testimony from two adults and one child who actually went inside kevin i'm not sure if you can hear me but if you can you look like you were thinking

and i'm curious to know what's going through your head you can direct it to jacques yeah no i'm sorry i didn't know about the um the pilot being a witness and I think that's excellent that you were able to get his testimony as well and that he can confirm that the two boys were there. That's really fascinating. And. Yeah, so this is 1945. Is that correct? It's would have been August 1945. Everybody's still in uniform. The army has not been demobilized. They are about to be. Japan has just capitulated two days before. Right. So, all right. Yeah, and I'm thinking about all the, there were, there was a lot of UFO activity around White Sands Missile Base, you know, during the Manhattan Project as well, if I remember right. There were?

There were sightings there. I mean, what do you know about that? I mean, I don't know much about that. So that's a good question. If you look at the Air Force files of Project Blue Book that went back into history, this case is not mentioned anywhere. It just doesn't exist. It was never reported to Project Blue Book. And that's an interesting question about why. Why it wasn't and why nobody knew about it for essentially, you know, almost 80 years. There were, of course, around the Manhattan Project, there were a number of radars, including long range radars. And wherever you have radar, you'll have, you know, things that are reported by the radar people that as unusual things.

And usually you send an aircraft to verify what it is. So, yes, there were reports. Certainly, there were many reports around New Mexico around that time. But to me, there was nothing like this. You know, it's only after 1947. You know, Kenneth Arnold talks about what he saw, a very credible pilot that creates the term flying saucer. The press, the American newspapers get all excited about it. The Air Force starts its investigation. And then, of course, there is the Roswell crash. So around that time, people start reporting everything they've seen.

But in the Air Force files, I have a complete record of the original files. There are only four cases reported in 1945 around that time, in 1945, around that time, including one remarkably from a citizen in El Paso who actually saw the atom bomb. He saw the test of the first A-bomb. He saw the mushroom cloud and reported it as something in the sky that he couldn't understand that he had never seen before, which is remarkable. So, yes, there was a lot of scrutiny of the sky just because they had to be aware of spying or anything,

you know, going over the test site just because there could be accidents if some civilian pilot went over the military test site just because there could be accidents if some civilian pilot went over the military test site. But there was nothing like this. So again, we don't know where it came from. Mr. Padilla told me that he thought and his argument is, I i mean he didn't see it coming um he saw the crash but he didn't see it coming when it hit the tower but again you're dealing with very clever

kids who were entrusted with you know guarding the cattle and the property, fixing the fences and all the chores on the farm. And so this nine-year-old, after a few days, decided to climb the tower, you know, the Marconi Tower that had been hit. He climbed about halfway up this about 70-foot-high tower to look at where the impact had been. I mean, there was one leg of that tower and you can, I've been there. You can still see where the legs were. Well, it must've been a very large tower. And it was there because in the North,

the landscape goes up to a cliff and airplanes had been hitting that cliff. So it was there to preserve, to warn pilots. Remember you had 5,000 feet at, you know, there, and then the cliff goes up from there. And so that tower was there to protect the Northern area of the Manhattan project. And the, so this kid goes up the tower, and he watches where the leg is bent. And that tells him what

direction the object came. Again, those were clever kids. I mean, they, you know, they you learn quickly in those days, no. No, I grew up in France, in occupied France, okay. I was born 1939. So, you know, I'm in age, I'm close to those those witnesses. I, you know, I was old enough at the end of the war, to, to understand to be able to place myself in, in similar conditions. Watching, you know, the liberation of France, what people were doing around that day, and those days, and what was secret, the things you couldn't talk about the things that even as a kid, I mean, this was those clear, you know, about how you had to behave. And remember, the nine yearold was driving the family truck. I mean, everybody

else was in uniform or was too old to drive the truck. Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts, scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines,

Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible. Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business, so that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old-school shave with

the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash everything. If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to h-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-v-i-n-g.com slash everything and use the code everything. Jacques, you mentioned that there is an aspect of consciousness associated with this event. Do you mind explaining what you mean?

It comes up again and again and again. And remember, I worked initially from the transcripts of the interviews that Paola Harris had done very, very well. She's a very good investigator and trained journalist. She recorded all those conversations with both Mr. Padilla and Mr. Baca, Remy Baca, who by then was an entrepreneur in Washington State. In the interviews, I was trying to reconstruct, going word by word, reconstructing the scene. And they say, well, they were there for maybe 15, 20 minutes. And then when you put the testimony together, they were there for like 15, 20 minutes. And then when you put the testimony together, they were there for like an hour and a half.

Well, I don't know if you have kids, but my kids, when they were seven or nine, you couldn't make them stand still for an hour and a half, let alone 20 minutes. What were they doing? So I've had the privilege of re-interviewing Mr. Padilla about this and he said, well, they were, he wanted to go and help. They are there, there is an opening in the

object. Through there they see three beings who are about their size. They think of them as little men or kids, although they also look a little bit like a large insect. They are not completely human. They have a large head, narrow shoulders, long arms, and they walk not by walking walking but by just moving around shuffling willing themselves to move around you happen to have a picture of it in your book uh no no well i have

pictures of um i have pictures of you know what you could compare it to, but they felt, Mr. Padilla told me, we felt sorry for them. He wanted to go and help. And he said, you know, if I had done that, I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. You know, going I had done that, I probably wouldn't be here talking to you. You know, going into that craft, they were always inside, sort of moving back and forth, crying, and crying. Yes, and he compared it to the cry of the rabbit when you kill it. Again, these kids are growing up on

the on the ranch. Okay. They are very familiar with animals, with preparing food and everything else. They are sort of crying. They are in distress. And they are moving around. He wants to go and help. The seven-year-old says, no way. I'm not going there. He's crying. He's really terrified.

He doesn't want to get involved. They are 200 feet away from the object at that point. Okay. This is their land. I mean, they know the territory they but they see this thing. There is no more smoke, no more fire. They the object was never on fire, by the way. The object is intact, which is kind of remarkable after what it went through. The only thing missing is that panel. A lot of material that they talk about, light material, a lot of that light silvery material that they will compare to fiber optic, they will compare to fiber optic.

They will compare it to things you'd put on the Christmas tree, silver material, very light, light aluminum, and just shiny stuff. In fact, some of the fiber, they recovered. They filled a big sack with it. And they gave it to their neighbors to put on their Christmas trees. I mean, again, this was what a kid would do. I mean, they recovered it.

They thought it was wonderful. It was mysterious. They didn't have many toys in those days you know where does consciousness enter into this so the consciousness is that they they feel that the beings are communicating with them so the beings were aware that sorry to interrupt the beings were aware that they were there 200 feet away or did they come closer? They, that, well, we asked that question. The beings were not looking directly at them,

but they felt that the beings were aware that they were there. Remember, they had binoculars, so they passed the binoculars to each other staring at these creatures and feeling sorry for them, feeling pain, feeling that they should help. And they were helpless to really help.

They knew the time was passing. Night was coming. Their father would be angry, would be concerned. They had to get home, which was half an hour away on the horse. And then images came into their heads, and they were sort of mesmerized and frozen to the spot. They saw big buildings falling apart.

Of course, they had never seen a big building. They're on a farm in New Mexico in 1945. They see things falling from the sky. And then in later years, they have recurring dreams about things falling from the sky, people dying, people falling from buildings. And that lasted, in the case of Mr. Padilla, this lasted about two or three years. He had these recurring dreams afterwards. But they are essentially mesmerized and frozen to the spot. Jose, Mr. Padilla, wants to go and help. And Remy says, no way, I'm not going there. And the older one defers to the younger one and they don't go there. They go home at night on horseback crying all the way.

Kevin, do you have any questions for Jacques about this? Or insights? Where to start? Wow, earlier I was kind of laughing because the story about the tower and how it was supposed to act as kind of a warning to pilots about the cliff. The fact that the craft hit the warning tower, I thought was kind of ridiculous.

Yes, yes, yes. It misses the cliff, but hits the warning tower. Kind of ironic, right? Well, there is no question something hit the tower. Yeah, no, I, yeah. Sometime later, the army just took down the tower. It's not there anymore. Right.

So that's why I reacted probably visibly to that. No, I definitely agree with what you say about the young boys being responsible, you know, they're responsible enough to go and collect information on cattle and drive a truck and that. And I'm not, I didn't grow up in the 1940s, but I grew up in the 1970s. And we had, I grew up in Wisconsin and we had a great deal more freedom than kids typically do today. And I think that, you know, we could, I was able to ride my bike 10 miles out into the country without any problems and to go birdwatching or butterfly collecting or whatever I was up to at the time. So that was not a real issue back then, and we were able to do that. And so that's not so surprising to me. Now,

so a few things come to mind, and well, a lot of things. So the description of the beings is, of course, very similar to what you we hear over and over again. And and there's been some question as to are these things really biological? Are they you know, are they machines? Are they you know, and what? And so the fact that, you know, the fact that they were um distressed i find interesting it makes me think that they're you know really are biological and um although you could have a distressed machine if it's sufficiently intelligent i suppose so but then it'd be like that simpsons joke with the robot coming out of the burning building why why? Why did you design me to feel pain? That's right.

That's right. Yeah, you can. That's right. And we're Rutger Hauer's character in Blade Runner who doesn't want to die, right? So he goes to his maker and wants more life. And he's clearly distressed and disturbed. So yeah, that could happen.

But so another thing really strikes me strange is the idea that they don't walk, that they kind of shuffle or will themselves to move to point to point. And that I've heard from multiple accounts as well. They either are hovering just above the ground and just kind of willing themselves from place to place and and i can't help but think what what's going on there what is what is happening

with that and if they're you know if they're truly biologic if they're just biological then how are you doing that how can you possibly do something like that? And so it makes me wonder, maybe there's a, you know, some kind of, maybe there's a technology involved and maybe there's, you know, you could, I guess you could probably, at this point, humans aren't totally biological. We have appendages which are made, right? So I have glasses. These are probably the oldest ones, but we'll have cyborgs soon where we have extra equipment attached. You have headphones on.

And so this is basically it. So there could be something technological to that, which would then make that possibly more believable, although I still wouldn't know how it would work. The, the consciousness aspect is very strange and, and surprising. The, and of course those accounts are very similar to other accounts. I remember, especially I had seen Selma Sayak, I believe her name is, who was in the Ariel School in Zimbabwe. Yes.

And she was very close to one of these small beings again, and she talked about an eye lock where where you your eyes lock onto theirs and you are mesmerized and and really can't move can't turn away you're paralyzed almost and um being mesmerized is probably the the word that i hear most and um and very often people describe you get thoughts in forms of images. You get images flashing in your mind. And very often these are images very similar to disaster, fires, buildings crashing, exactly what you're describing. Do you have any idea as to why that may be, Kevin and Jacques? First of all, are they even premonitions?

Are they examples of what may occur in the future? Or are they just images that are disconnected? And why? To be honest, it sounds very biblical. It sounds very much like the revelations from John or something. It doesn't sound that different, actually. It makes me sometimes wonder, maybe this is what John's encounter was like. And he had visions like this and wrote

them down. Could that be what happened there? Mr. Padilla told me they were putting images into my mind, so he felt there was communication there. Even though he didn't walk up to it, they didn't especially look directly at them, but there was this intense feeling of communication. The same thing happens in Valençal

with the witness there. In Valençal, the witness is a former leader of the French resistance. So he is and, you know, just so interesting that I know you have an audience here of scientists and scientists say, well, you know, the witnesses must have told what they saw because they go to the police and they write a report and they give a report. That's not true with UFO cases. It's not true with the traumatic cases. Number one, there are things that the witnesses don't remember or cannot articulate, which is why people, rightly or wrongly, try to use hypnosis, which is not a good idea. But some of the information is buried in the unconscious. No Carl Jung speaks about that. And some of the

information that you know, will you go to the local police and tell them well, you know, I saw this and then they put images in my mind, you know, I mean, the local guy will say, okay, I've got 10 robberies to investigate. Don't bother me with the, you know, the things you see in your mind. So, and also these witnesses had good reasons not to talk about what they had seen. And to some extent, they would have repressed it, except that they kept talking about it among themselves. And then after that, as they grew up, they went to different, Mr. Padilla went to the Korean War, Mr. Padilla went to the Korean War, has a couple of bullets in his body, by the way, from both his life as a, you know, with the California Highway Patrol and with Korea. So these are serious people. And Ray Mabaca went on a career as a businessman in the state of Washington.

They practically forgot the case. They let it drift away from them. And they were reconnected by one of their kids doing an internet search about the history of their kids doing an internet search about the history of their family. And they found each other through through an internet search. And then they reconstructed they said, You remember when we saw this and, you know, whatever happened to that case and so on. And then they that's when cases. And then they, that's when the case was mentioned in a local paper in New Mexico. And that's where Paula Harris found it and started investigating from Italy where she was living,

and then went to visit Remy Baca and got the whole got the whole story. So that's, that's how it happened. So I'm a little bit intimidated speaking to an audience of scientists because, you know, the people here have a right to say, well, so we've got the thing, it landed, you've got the witnesses, surely you have some answers. Where did it come from? Why did it hit the tower? What was it made of? And so on? Well, the problem is that, yes, we have some answers. But there is only so far that I can go, I can tell you that these people are telling the truth, I can tell you that we have corroborating data from two other witnesses,

I can tell you that we've actually recovered some things, that we certainly have good descriptions of the physics of some of the objects that were recovered that are very interesting in terms of the property of the materials, including memory metals. I mean, people talk about memory metals in Roswell, you know, two years later. And yes, I mean, people at Battelle and other places working for industry had thought of aerospace, of course, we're thinking of memory metals that

could be used in actuators in airplanes and rockets and all those things. And yes, they were aware of the discoveries that had been made in physics, about metal that can come back to its own shape to the original shape, and there's certain conditions of temperature or whatever. But in 1945, you know, an operational memory metal, that's, you know, you can argue about 1947 1945, it's a lot harder, you know, but of course, we don't know what was in the research labs. But essentially, what what we have opens up other questions.

Remember, at the end of on the last day, the army, again, an army officer goes to see the father of Mr. Padilla. And he says in Spanish, we're going to have to cut your fence. And we have your permission. Again, the army can just go there. It's leased from the Bureau of Land Management, you know, the official federal agency. So they have to ask permission to the owner or to the man who manages the property. He says, why do you want to cut the fence? I mean, there is a gate there for the cattle. And this officer says, yeah, but we need to bring a big truck to recover this experimental balloon. Okay, that fell on your property.

Well, everybody knows. I mean, there were balloons. I mean, they were launching balloons all the time at White Sands. The balloons fell on his 80,000 acres. So he had a bunch of balloons in the back room that he gave this officer. He said, you want your balloons? Here they are. You know, they were

recovering with balloons all the time on this land. Okay. So it was a big joke. And everybody knew it wasn't a balloon. Okay. So we need to bring this big truck to recover this quote balloon, and we have to cut your fence. But we will give you a big gate that you can use, you know, and we'll build a road. So the first thing the army has to do is to go there and he agreed, go there, cut the fence, put in their own gate and bring a couple of graders to build a road to, which is, I've walked on that road, you know, it's about a mile or so, to the place where the object was resting. Then they bring this 18-wheeler with a low boy, where they can load this object on its side. So they have to build a crane, which was probably about 15 to 20 feet high. It's not a big crane, but it has to be big enough to lift

this thing and put it sideways on the remember it's sort of egg shaped. But if we put it right up, it's not going to go under the overpass on the way back to White Sands okay so this is not a weather balloon okay this is a big object it's like the size of a large you know a large truck and uh about 25 feet long about 15 feet high the kids measure it okay again those are smart kids they they measure it not with a tape but they measure it by pacing it and it's 20 to 25 feet long 15 feet high I asked Mr. Padilla how high was it inside he said about 13 feet and I say I mean you were 3 feet tall I mean you were 9 year old how do you know it was 13 he says because that's the size of

the beams when you build a house. Okay, this is a nine year old. This is a very sharp nine year old. He knows the facts of life. Okay. Again, he had a reference object in his mind. And he had a reference. Jacques, a question from the audience from two people. One is F is me. And I amjad hussein by the way amjad hussein is the ceo of algo.com which i recommend you check out because they sponsor the podcast they both have the same question which is about aliens and consciousness is there the possibility of

connecting to aliens through psychedelics have you experimented with this or know about people who have done this and why do you think this may be plausible? This is to both of you, even Kevin. Terence McKenna is a reference on this. He's done a lot of research, as you know, on psychedelics all over the world. I've spoken to his brother as well. I've spoken to his brother as well. And there are quite a few people who go off to Mexico or to Brazil to experiment with different things.

And they describe beings that they call aliens, that they think of as aliens, when they are under the effect of the psychedelic. I've never taken any drugs, so I'm not even tobacco. I mean, I tried once and I didn't like it. You don't smoke on a regular basis? Well, yeah, but maybe that's why they kicked me out. But I've never had

any curiosity for this, but I think it's certainly valid science and valid brain research. Obviously, one thing that discouraged me was working with medical people who were experimenting pharmaceuticals and so on. And what they described was, you know, drugs that our own neural system generates, you know, that can take complete control of the mind and the body. And so the drugs that people describe for entertainment are sort of mundane compared to what the normal,

you know, what today's pharmacology can do. And so, yes, I believe that people have those experiences. But when I ask them, can you, the next time you take the drug, does it take you back to the same place? Can you back to the same place? Can you talk to the same people? No, it's different things every time. That's entertainment. That's dreams. Okay?

I don't deal with that. You know, the UFO witnesses give me things that I can calibrate. I mean, the three cases that are described in the book have been researched officially by governments. in the book have been researched officially by governments. In the French case, there were five different agencies that did research on Valençal, including the French customs, including the French equivalent of the FBI, including the army, including the police, and the gendarmerie, separately.

So those were calibrated, and what they described we can compare to other cases like Socorro and like this case where we have the equivalent level of information that's calibrated. And, you know, people take ketamine or they take some drug in Mexico and they come back with these astonishing stories. And I believe them. But again, those are not things that are repeatable. I can't find a pattern that I can work with.

Kevin, what about you? to the proposition that you can ingest psychedelics and speak to alien life, or that alien life is somehow associated with deep, meditative, altered states of consciousness? I'm not, I don't know the first thing about psychedelics, so zero. I really can't speak to that. You're asking two different questions there. One question is, can we use pharmacology to approximate those conditions? The other question is, can normal consciousness have access to other forms of consciousness?

That's a different question. Right. Yeah. So, I mean, if you're if you're I guess, my statement would be that if you are doing something like this, then you are not interacting with another biological entity per se. You're interacting with another consciousness. If there isn't any interaction at all, if it's not a dream or, you know, hallucination, whatever. And so I think there's just way too much to unpack there. And that would require some careful, some very careful study, which I'm not, I don't know anything about. There's a question from Raul Ranjan, who said, this is directed to you, Jack. You said that the universe is nothing but mental reality, which perceives information structures,

You said that the universe is nothing but mental reality, which perceives information structures, which seems, first of all, is that true? And then second, it seems similar to Donald Hoffman's theories about consciousness and conscious agents. It's also similar to Thomas Campbell, if you've heard of him. Have you heard of those two individuals? And do you mind restating that theory that all that there is is mental states with an interaction between data structures? Okay, saying mental states is different from saying information structures. In physics, you and I have been taught that energy and information are two sides of the same coin. Okay. And in that TED talk, you know, I started from that to say, yes, we can talk about, you know, the theory of everything.

But when people say that, they are doing the theory of energy. You know, atoms and particles and so on. They are not talking about consciousness. So when I said I want a theory of everything else, I'd like a theory of the other side, which is information. There should be a theory of information that should be equivalent to the theory we have of energy. And we should we need to, we need both of them to make sense of the universe. Okay. Now you could,

you could do a theory of the universe without ever talking about energy. You're speaking to the right person. Kevin Knuth is the editor in chief of entropy magazine or Entropy journal. Well, certainly that's mainstream physics, saying that information and energy are two sides of the same coin. I mean, that's what I was trying to address in Brussels with that TED presentation. That gives us a chance to approach it from the other direction, from the information structure

direction. And as you may know, there are people now both at MIT and in Silicon Valley who are publishing books saying what we think we see of the universe is a video game. It's just a video game. So the first reaction is, wait, I mean, you know, things are much more what I see and I can apprehend is much more complex than anything is in a video game. But think again, you know, can you project what a video game technology is going to be five years, 10 years from now with immersion, total immersion? Yes, well, from here, I cannot see the Eiffel Tower, but I'm going to be in France in a month.

I will see the Eiffel Tower. All I can see now is the screens in front of me and you. I know there are things behind me, but I don't see them. I only see them by looking at the screen, you know, that shows the things behind me. But I can simulate that today with a PC. by looking at the screen, you know, that shows the things behind me. But I can simulate that today with a PC. I mean, that's not a problem. And I can make you think that you're really there.

Okay. Certainly with one of the game machines, you know, it's not a problem with the semiconductor technology we've got today. Okay. So, and when you talk about the simulations that they use to train pilots or to train surgeons, you know, that's a hundred times better than that. So yes, we can immerse you in, in a situation where you would not be able to tell reality from the simulation. And that's, you know, obviously, very scary. But that's the world

where we're creating right now. And so the question of approaching it from the information structure standpoint is interesting. And the question is, without going all the way there, The question is, without going all the way there, the question remains, is somebody or something in the universe, you know, with no preconception that they are spaceships? I mean, this doesn't look like a spaceship. I mean, you know, the controls were very simple. If there were controls, there was practically nothing inside. There was no kitchen. There were no toilet facilities. There was none of the things that people look for when they think of UFOs as a spacecraft.

Okay. None of that. But neither do our cars. And we would call our cars some sort of vehicle of transportation. do our cars and we would call our cars some sort of vehicle of transportation? Well, we don't know what it is. It could be a donation. Why does it have the same shape as two other objects that were used in the Manhattan Project? You the, the container for the experimental explosions, which they call jumbo was the same size and the same shape. It was built by, you know, the Manhattan project to contain

nuclear explosions. It was never used that way. But I've seen it. I've gone there and touched it. It's, you know, about eight inches thick of steel all the way around. It was brought in with a special trailer with many, many, many wheels all the way from Ohio. That the object that crashed is sort of the same shape. It has the same shape as a bomb. I have a question for both of you. Do you have any ideas or speculations as to what the intent are of these aliens or UFOs? Firstly, can they be classified as such? Are there multiple species and maybe they have contrary motives?

What do you think? Kevin, if you don't mind. And then Jacques. I think at this point it's still quite difficult because we have... It's not clear that you're dealing with a single phenomenon and we're very likely conflating multiple phenomena and so that's

very probably why we are having trouble pinning things down and saying oh it's this and not that because in some cases, it may be case A and there might also be case B. So I think that at this point, we just were very ignorant as to what's going on. And this ignorance has, perpetuated by our government who insists on studying these things secretly, which we now know that they've been doing for years. They've made that very clear with the coming out of the AATIP program and the fact that Congress has to collect information from the intelligence agencies. Where did that information come from if they hadn't been studying this? So we know that

they've been studying it secretly, and Congress doesn't even know about it. So there's a lot of ignorance here, and it's also perpetuated by scientists who are more interested in just disbelieving the whole thing altogether and washing their hands of it and not wanting to look at the problem. So I've really come to appreciate people often claim, oh, the, you know, people, the believers, you know, there's a strong desire to believe. But what I've really found is that people don't like changing their worldviews. They're very uncomfortable changing their worldview. And the desire to not believe is far stronger than the desire to believe. And of course, with science,

it shouldn't be about belief, it should be about knowing. But you see more scientists are more, there's so many scientists who are more than willing to write editorials talking about how skeptical they are where they haven't actually looked at the problem. And so they're more interested in saying, I'm skeptical, I don't believe, than they are curious. really that shouldn't that shouldn't happen in science and certainly not when you have some you know fascinating stories like this and fascinating anecdotes like this it's not there's something very wrong here and i think it's the fact that people don't want their worldviews changed they don't want to believe this and it's now i don't think that proving that something is alien is going to be proving something's extraterrestrial is going to be really incredibly difficult. You know, we already have some information about the UAP task report and, you know, and there's been some statements made that they're, yeah, they're not saying that there's proof that they are extraterrestrial, but they can't rule it out either. And that's exactly what I would have expected because

how do you prove that something is extraterrestrial? Everything in the universe is made of the same stuff. You could do studies of isotopes and that could be informative, but it doesn't, it's not conclusive because we can isolate different isotopes here and create materials with different isotopes. We don't, we don't typically do that. It would be horribly expensive. And so you'd be surprised if that were the case, but, but it doesn't rule it out. So I often joke that to prove that one of these things is extraterrestrial, you're, to prove that to everybody, you're going to have to almost drag an alien off of one of these craft on live television, kicking and screaming,

you know, for everyone to say, oh yeah, clearly this is extraterrestrial. That's pretty much what you're going to have to do before people will have to be forced to believe this, before they have to give up on this desire to not believe. So, but I think at this point, we have a lot of, there is no smoking gun, you know, Michio Kaku has talked about the smoking gun, and there's not going to be a smoking gun, it's not going to happen. You're going to get lots of little pieces of information. And some of this information is going to be more reliable, like materials research, than other types of information, which would be anecdotal types of information. And yeah, the reliability varies, but you can still make inferences from lots of little pieces of information. We're not stupid. We can use our brains and we can assess the information, assess how valid we think the different pieces are, and we can get somewhere with that. And that's what I with respect to one topic.

So it clearly isn't just that, oh, there exist, extraterrestrials exist. That isn't the only thing I'm going to have to try to believe. I'm going to have to now also deal with the fact that they can will themselves from place to place in some cases. They can communicate telepathically in some cases or transmit images and things like this. And the motivations, of course, are entirely foreign to us. So it's, it's the, the whole thing is, is in some ways it's a mess, but, but as a scientist, it's a fascinating mess. I mean, this is, this is exactly what you want to come across when, I mean, when you go into science, when I, when I first went into science, I was disappointed because as I'm learning more and more about physics, I I'm realizing there's nothing to be done.

It's all been studied and all the interesting stuff's been done and studied. And, and I really wanted to learn about space and time. And I was disappointed learning about relativity and general relativity. I thought Einstein did it all already. What am I going to do? And, and it took me a long time, years and decades to be able to figure out, well, it hasn't all been figured out. And there is stuff to still do. But to have events like this thrown at you is exactly what you wanted. I mean, what you dream of when you start out being a scientist.

Here's something entirely foreign that nobody knows anything about. And go at it. See what we can learn. That's exactly what you would like to have as a scientist. And that's what you would have imagined Galileo felt like. You know, he first pulls out the telescope that he made. And now let's look at the sky and see what I can find. That's how exciting was that.

And now we're in that same situation. And there are scientists jumping on board now, now that it's clear that these things are physically real. And that's changed. But the curiosity still isn't there. And to me, it's really shocking. I don't know what's broken within the scientific community, but I very much of it is probably because we've been told since birth, you know, for most of us that this this is nonsense. We've been taught that I, you know, by other scientists, we've been taught that by our teachers told that by our parents, you know, by other scientists. We've been taught that by our teachers, told that by our parents, and by the authorities. And now we find out that the authorities know it's not nonsense, and they've not been treating it like nonsense. And we're still having trouble getting our heads

around this. Well, okay, so clearly there's something, and the most scientists have just simply conceded, which was the first thing I felt comfortable doing, was that, all right, well, certainly it's something that should be studied. But you still see most scientists saying, but I'm not going to do it. What kind of scientist are you? I mean, you're not hungry for a cool discovery. When I presented my paper on the flight characteristics of UAPs at the Max Planck Institute, the Max Enn conference there, you know, I started out by saying, you know, asking the question, why on earth would I be looking at this and getting into this? And the answer is simple, because there's discoveries to be made here. And to be this close to it and have that opportunity and then just let it pass by,

I'm going to be kicking, I would be kicking myself for years, you know, for the rest of my life. Why didn't I take the time to even look at that? You know, and that's how I, that's what I felt. And I really did some soul searching and thought, no, I'm going to study this. I that, you know, and that's how I, that's what I felt, and I really did some soul searching, and thought, no, I'm going to study this, I'm, you know, I'm now 57 years old, I have a good, easily attend another 10 years, probably, of research in me, maybe, hopefully more, but I've done some good work on, in other topics, and why not have some fun and look at something that's brand new that no one knows anything about and let's see what we can learn from that and i think that's really exciting so i'm really wavered i sped off in a totally different direction with an almost impossible

acceleration there so so let me go back to your your um your what your original question was um had to do with um the motive behind these being motives behind can you even ascribe one motive because it may be a multiplicity of phenomenon rather than just one and i don't know. I mean, the simplest explanation that seems to cover much of what's observed is that they are very possibly extraterrestrial visiting Earth, you know, in spacecraft. Why would you think that? Well, the beings that are observed appear to be biological, but they're not human. And we don't see them here on Earth other than during these events. So they are thought to be from elsewhere. The craft behave, as I said before, especially from the estimates we performed, these craft move like spaceships should move.

They move at speeds that our spacecraft move. So to think that they're not spacecraft would be kind of silly. They're very potentially very much potentially spacecraft. So but we have we observed them moving in space? Well, we don't, I don't know that yet. So that's an important question there. So. Jacques, have we, do you know of any cases where we've seen UFO in space and also about the motive question, your speculations?

There's there there's a few cosmonauts who've reported UFOs from space and there are and I think it's Afan Yasev, cosmonaut Afan Yasev actually had drawings of an object that pulled up alongside their spaceship on the way to one of the Salyut stations. So there have been some, and there have been sightings from Skylab and shuttles as well of more ambiguous objects. So potentially these things have been observed in space, but I don't think that we've observed the same, where we can confidently say these are the same objects.

You know, this is an egg-shaped object, you know, that crashed in New Mexico looks, you know, what I saw from my spacecraft window looks the same thing as what, you know, Lonnie Zamora reported. I don't think we're in that situation. Jacques, what about what your thoughts are? that, you know, had the, the privilege of working with Ed Mitchell at on the board of, you know, one of the groups that have tried to, to advance a study of, of the subject and he, of course, would be trusted by his fellow astronauts and especially the ones who went to the moon, the Apollo Cadre. And yes, he reported that they had seen things, but they would not report it officially. One astronaut was a general who had been in space several times, photographed an object

that he described as a UFO with his Hasselblad camera. When they landed, and I served on the board at the University of Michigan with him at one time. The NASA of course when you land they take everything that's on the spacecraft and it goes to different labs right away and so on. So he didn't, the camera was taken away from him and everything else. And he asked to see his photograph. And at first, they wouldn't give it to him or discuss it. And he insisted because he had the seniority to tell the technicians that he wanted the photograph. And they gave him a picture that he said on the record that that wasn't the picture he took. And this was an object that was close to the spacecraft on the way to the moon.

Tracking Apollo. Now, what was it? You know, the yes, you can argue about pictures. You can argue all day long about pictures. Was it some part that had detached itself from the spacecraft, was flying along, but it didn't fly along. I mean, it went away. So, and he had taken a picture and didn't recognize the photograph that they gave him and he was

actually very irate about that that whole thing that he was trusted to you know to pilot the spacecraft to the moon but he wasn't trusted to look at his own picture and that's that's you know there is another case like that in the book that you mentioned about a physical object that was analyzed by NASA. And then NASA was superseded by another agency. And the man who had entrusted the sample to NASA never had the right answer. And we know that he was given a lie, not by NASA, but NASA was pushed aside and somebody else took over.

So the question is, you know, where this object in New Mexico, I mean, obviously that was real and it was weighing a few tons. Where did it go? And how come Dr. Hynek didn't know about it? How come nobody in the Air Force knew about it? And when, you know, I spent two days

at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base with the Air Force Project Blue Book team with Dr. Hynek. And by the way, none of that was classified. I mean, very, very little of it was classified. And, you know, scientists could have had access to it all along. And when I read the report from the task force, you know, I have this deja vu, you know, forgive my French, but this deja vu impression of, you know, those were things that the Air Force had said in the 50s.

You know, yeah, there are things we don't understand them. People should report them. We don't know what they are. I mean, that's essentially what the, you know, this Navy report is saying. Well, come on. I mean, you know, what have we done the last 50 years? So, I mean, those are questions the scientific community should be asking. Now, my understanding is that the report was changed. I had a chance to talk to some of the people close on on on zoom, some of the people who were at the origin of that report. And the report has changed over over the last few months months from a public report to a classified report.

So those of the audience who have the right access may have a chance to look at the actual report. What the public is being given now is just a very superficial overall statement, which is, you know, which is, I think is true. I mean, it's sincere that there is something flying around that we don't understand. But that's what the Air Force, the US Air Force was saying in 1947. So come on, I mean, what happened? I mean, what happened to billions of dollars of our tax money? I mean, what are these guys doing? And you have to worry because the, I mean, this is what happens when you don't involve, you know, scientists in the scientific community and study these things openly. And here we are, you know, and here I find myself even, you know, waiting, you know,

in anticipation to see this report, as if we're going to get any kind of information that's trustworthy or meaningful. We've heard the tired old mantra of it was a weather balloon over and over and over again. You know, it was a weather balloon in Trinity. Seriously, you need a truck to carry a weather balloon equipment away? Why wouldn't you just tie another weather balloon to it, hoist it up with a few cables, and then let it float while you drive it away with a Jeep? I mean, you could easily do that if it's a weather balloon. I mean, it's silly. It's a weather balloon that needs a crane to lift. Give me a break. That's dumb. And we're not all that stupid. And give people a little more

credit than that. You know, skeptics are going to glom onto whatever they want they can glom onto because a sufficiently motivated skeptic can deny anything. There's flat earthers out there. Let's just throw that there. So now, you know, and the whole Roswell situation to those, we're supposed to know, there have been like three different stories that the Air Force told about Roswell. And now, you know, the one is now it's Project Mogul and it was weather balloon with a rate with a little, little also would aluminum foil radar reflectors that left a three quarter mile long debris field that was 200 feet wide? Really? What kind of, how many of these things did you launch and how did they all crash in the same place or how big was this radar reflector? You have to use a forest of balsa trees to build something this big. It's ridiculous. It's silly that we've somehow accepted these stories, and they really are just stories. Who's being ridiculous at this point? It's our government who's been lying to us, who feels the need to classify these things and can't possibly tell us what's going on. Yet these things do pose an air traffic hazard.

Not only military pilots see them, but commercial pilots see them. Commercial pilots see them with passengers in the plane. You've got planes full of 200 passengers, and one of these things comes screaming past the windscreen of a commercial jet, and what are the pilots going to do? Eventually, somebody is going to panic. And I can't fault them because they've not been trained to look for these things. They've not been taught what they are.

They've not been taught to not worry about them. These things don't, you know, obey our air traffic rules. They're not atmospheric phenomena. I'm sorry. You don't have atmospheric phenomena whipping along at 100 G accelerations, 60 times the speed of sound. That's dumb. The whole atmospheric phenomena is basically a retooling of the swamp gas, the old tired old swamp gas mantra. So, I mean, so we're getting, hearing that from more skeptics.

I think the NASA administrator talked yesterday or the other day about, there's a possibility these are atmospheric phenomena. Well, some of them may be atmospheric phenomena, but not the ones we should be worried about. And I think that's really a problem here. Well, even if they are, you know, they are plasma, for example, they are, that's interesting because we don't know what a plasma is. We have no model for why something like that with that much energy should

just, you know, fly around your bedroom. I mean, there is no physical theory for that. That is a great example, because when I gave my talk on UAP flight characteristics at that meeting in Germany, there was another speaker who spoke about ball lightning. He was talking about theoretical work on ball lightning. And he went into some detail complaining about the fact that he can't publish any of his work on ball lightning because ball lightning is a taboo topic in physics. So I think it's, again, ironic that a lot of scientists, basically, when encountering the UFO phenomena, because that's so taboo. Oh, we'll just say it's ball lightning.

But ball lightning is actually another taboo topic that is not well understood generally. So you're just trading one unknown for another unknown and nobody's getting anywhere. This isn't how science is supposed to work. Well, what those kids saw suddenly was not ball lightning. It's not ball lightning. You don't need a crane. It's not a weather balloon either. So now you have some big questions here. So there's a question from Xanax 301. And this can go to both of you. This person wants to know if there's any compelling data or video that you've seen that has yet to be declassified.

video that you've seen that has yet to be declassified? Well, if there was, and I would have seen it when I had security clearance, I still wouldn't be able to talk about it. I've certainly heard, you know, about cases like that. But the larger point is still true that the skeptics are making. I mean, there are well-informed skeptics that we need in this discussion. Is Mick West one of them, a well-informed skeptic? Mick West? Is Mick West one of them, a well-informed skeptic? Mick West. Well, I could certainly some of the some of the panel that Professor Sturrock gathered that under, you know, the Rockefeller Foundation support were came away interested, but still skeptical, because they said,

you haven't given me anything I can take to my lab, you know, and that's, that's a valid, okay. But they spent a week, listening to us make a number of presentations about, you know, the different aspects of the of the problem and the statistics and everything else, with people in the room from the US, from France, and elsewhere. So, and this was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. It's been published.

And that's, you know, what I would call the skeptical viewpoint. There are people who've argued with me and have taught me some things that where I had to recognize they were right and I was wrong about certain cases. I mean, that's how we learn. OK, but the the the larger point is, why don't we have a lot of pictures? And in some cases, the witnesses say, you know, I watched this for half an hour, and it went away. And then I realized I had my camera on the backseat of the car. And I never thought about, you know, taking it. Other cases, people took a picture, and it was sort of fuzzy. So you can say, well, maybe it's

an interdimensional craft, and it doesn't really exist in our reality all the time. Yeah, you can sort of rationalize it, but it's a good question. You know, there are people like Dr. Haynes, Dr. Richard Haynes from NASA, who has gathered a number of photographs. But a photograph is only a photograph. I mean, you can always argue that there was some artifact

so it's not, that's true we don't have photographic evidence that's really good good to the point of being convincing to a jury of your peers you're watching this channel because you're interested in theoretical physics, consciousness, and the ostensible connection between the two.

What's required to follow some of these arguments is facility with mathematics as well as discernment of the underlying physical laws and you may think that this is beyond you but that's false. Brilliant provides pellucid explanations of abstruse phenomenon such as quantum computing, general relativity, and even group theory. When you hear that the standard model is based on U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, that's group theory, for example. Now this isn't just for neophytes either. For example, I have a degree in math and physics and I still found some of the intuitions given in these lessons to vastly aid my penetration into these subjects, for example, electricity and magnetism. Sign up today at brilliant.org slash toe, that is T-O-E, for free. You'll also get 20%

off the annual premium subscription. Try four of the lessons at least. Don't stop before four, and I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you comprehend subjects you previously had trouble grokking. Links are in the description. One question is about peer review. When can we expect more peer-reviewed publications on this phenomenon? That's by Harry Austin. We are working on one, actually, that the research is done. It has been refereed, and we're ready to publish it, but we don't want to pre-announce the publication. So we hope it will be out this summer. Kevin, what about you? What do you think?

What will it take for more peer-reviewed studies to be done on this phenomenon? Yeah, well we're working on papers as well and working on collecting our own data at this point as well. I'm working with the UAPX group, and we have several military grade FLIR infrared cameras, long wave infrared, and we are basically at this point just watching the skies with them, recording data and then going back through it to see what we can find. And we have, especially our engineer in Washington State, has recorded multiple images of objects that we can't identify. So one of these, in fact, was following a jet airplane.

So we have it. And these things are anomalous as well. They're, we found that they're very cold compared to a jet airplane, say. Our machines are hot. They make, they run, they make heat. It's thermodynamics, but the- Are they room temperature? Sorry, are they the temperature of the air around them, or are they slightly colder or slightly warmer? They're quite cold. So the one that I'm thinking about right now was about 60 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, so negative 60 Fahrenheit. So it's quite cold. It depends what the altitude is.

So it could be similar to the ambient temperature at that altitude, but we don't know what the altitude was in that case. So we're going to be taking more careful videos in the near future and hopefully be able to do some triangulation. So Kevin, speaking of photographs, what's the picture behind you on the wall, on your wall, behind your right shoulder? I think that's just a reflection of a light. It's a light reflection. Okay. I was hoping you had the ultimate flying saucer there. It's like a castle on a mountain top.

But that's a light reflection from these lights up here. That shows how you can be fooled by ordinary objects. And you're absolutely right. I was very negative about skeptics earlier and

what I really should have clarified is that I was talking about extraordinary skepticism, extreme skepticism. I mean, we need a healthy amount of skepticism, of course. Many of the scientists now, there's 600 people watching this. Just so you know, Jacques, I thought it would only be 200. There's 600 right now. Wow.

And plenty of the audience of this channel, they're physicists and mathematicians. They're extremely bright, but also at the same time, I don't know why I say but, and also at the same time, they're extremely open. Otherwise, they wouldn't be watching this. Well, you know, I think that all that is needed is for science to be given permission to look at this. for science to be given permission to look at this. I'm not, you know, I've worked occasionally, as you know, on classified projects, and they were legitimate.

And there is, I'm not, you know, saying that everything should have been open right away in the conditions of the Cold War. For example, in 1945, Nobody knew what that thing was, it was taken away and it was classified. And remember, one of the Canadian scientists who looked at all this was told by American authorities that the subject was classified higher than the atom bomb and was legitimately classified higher than the atom bomb. And I don't really have a problem with it, given the conditions at the time. There was the expectation that we could quickly maybe master the technology before the Russians. You know, there were alerts all the time about the possibility of nuclear war with with Russia,

you know, as late as the Cuban crisis certainly we came very, very, very, very close to it. So there is legitimacy in giving it to, you know, under classification, to labs that could, and I can imagine the things that our witnesses described, coming out of this 1945 case, being separated, you know, the fiber given to, you know, a glass slab, the part of the craft description given to Battelle, especially the, you know, the pliable material, the memory metal that we know Battelle was working on and has been patented since then. So, I mean, we can look at the track. Some of it went to IBM. I know that because some IBM people have told me about some of the things they had looked at. But this is not, you know, it's difficult to do science at that high level of classification because you have to parcel out the material. And in science, I mean, the whole point is, you get people to talk

together, you did, you need an interdisciplinary, if there are, if there is biological material there, you know, the physicist should know about it. I mean, when you design a spacecraft for people, you design it differently than if you did, you know, if nobody's going if there isn't going to be a pilot. I mean, that's the whole point of the discussion about about what we should do in space, you know, today, or we should what we should do on the moon, if we send people is going to cost a lot more. If we send AI, you know, there are other things you can do. Those should be part of the discussion. And today, I mean, the Russians to to their credit, have been, I wouldn't say they've been open, but there have been times when they were a lot more open than we were.

They've had three different task forces working on this from different sides, including experts on plasma, by the way, looking at the plasma aspects that that are very, very interesting. And they were willing to open some of their facts. Maybe it's time to set the classification to review the classification and look at it. Now, why is it that the Air Force never knew about this case? Well, there are three different paths to false secrets in the US. There is only one that goes straight to the president through the normal administration levels. Okay, it certainly would involve the Pentagon and go straight to the president, it would be on the desk of the

president eventually, if it's deemed that he should be aware of that the process that everybody's knows about, including secret top secret SAP and everything else. There are two other systems. There is a system that doesn't go to the president unless there is a need to tell the president about it, which has to do with diplomatic relations, has to do with other countries, diplomacy, and that level of secrets goes to the State Department and agencies related to the State Department. There is a high level of classification, obviously, at that level, but it's not a direct path to the things that people with a top secret clearance would necessarily have access to.

And then there is another level, which is the atomic secrets. Our belief, after reviewing all this and talking to people you know, and then there is another level, which is the atomic sequence. Our belief after reviewing all this and talking to people, and reinterviewing the witnesses about what their experience was in in later years, was that this was remember this was on the territory on the piece of land that was controlled by Project Manhattan, it wouldn't have gone to the Air Force, there was no Air Force, there was an army Air Force that was attached to the army, the army was working for Project Manhattan, under the clearances of Project Manhattan, it would have gone presumably to Los Alamos, and it would have been classified under the P clearances or the Q clearances or the R clearances

that go to the Department of Energy. They don't go to the Air Force. They don't go to the Navy. They don't go to the president. And that's what people have never understood. That's why you've never heard about it. That's why we call it the best kept secret. The witnesses never spoke about it for 75 years.

And the government is not going to talk about it. Now, we know that because Remy Baca, Remy Baca had a political role in the state of Washington at one time, and he got Dixie Lee Ray elected as part of her political team at one time as governor of Washington. Dixie Lee Ray was the Secretary of Energy at one time, and she showed him the file on his sighting. She had the file and he flew with her to a convention somewhere. And she knew about his experience as a kid and, and the fact that, that he had seen this. And this is somebody telling me not to talk about this.

and this is somebody telling me not to talk about this. Quite the notification sound. So this conversation is terminated. We're live streaming though, so it doesn't matter. It's going to go out there. No, but she showed him the file about what he had seen and what had been recovered she didn't let him take notes from it but the file was classified within was classified legitimately

within the atomic secrets and again people were told that legitimately within the atomic secrets. And again, people were told that the UFO problem was classified higher than the atomic sequence. Someone here named Jacob Rume wants to know, for both of you, have you encountered Christopher Mellon or Luis Elizondo? for both of you to have have you and have you encountered christopher mellon or louis alessandro and if so do you have any strong feelings as to their legitimacy their sincerity or do you sense an agenda um i i know uh chris mellon quite well uh we've spoken a number of times here and in France. I've had dinner with him at my

place in Paris. We've talked about the sharing of information and so on. And I admire the position that he has taken. He certainly was in a position to understand how the government thinks about, at a very high level, about things like this. And he obviously has been instrumental in bringing out some of the information, including the Nimitz photographs, to us, I mean, to the public.

I've never met Mr. Elizondo. I admire the, you know, the risk that he has taken with his career. I think he's intensely, you know, involved in this and wants to see an opening and wants to see an involvement of the scientific community. I absolutely believe he's sincere. And he was in the places where he was.

Kevin? Yeah, I feel the same way. I've not had the pleasure of meeting Chris Velen, but I've met Lou Elizondo several times and spent a good bit of time talking to him about the topic. And yeah, he is sincere and passionate about this. I think he feels very strongly about this, especially with regard to the pilots. We have pilots who've been encountering these things, who've had, you know, problems encountering these things. And I think he's really looking out for them to get this resolved and figured out. This is really an air safety issue in some cases, and

it needs to be understood. And so I think he's sincere about that. He's, and he is interested in getting the scientific community involved. He gave a presentation at the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, SCU's conference two years ago. And, and I was there for that as well. So, go and um and i was there for that as well so so yes i i believe in sincere and hard to understand this jock have you done an any metallurgic analysis of any of the objects or materials that you managed to capture take and if so are they published in anywhere that people can, what are the results of that? So we are, I've, over the years, people have given me, you know, samples. Most of it is metallic. I've, I've published a couple of papers about that. In, in, in the book, I've done a summary of what we've done so far. A number of people have done analyses that were very high-level, competent analyses.

So we know what kinds of metals are involved. As you may know, Professor Sturrock has done isotope analysis of a couple of samples, especially of the Brazilian case at Ubatuba. That's still an open question. We have the samples, he's given them to me, and we're going to redo that analysis. In fact, we're doing that now. We're not quite ready to publish it. We have one paper under review right now about a case where we have material. And by the way, after we publish the paper, we're willing to share that material. We have enough of it that we could give to other teams to redo the analysis. And we're taking it to the isotope level because that's a level where people cannot cheat or cannot be fooled by, you know, some people can pick up

a strange stone, you know, in their field after they've seen something in the sky and make the connection to test the connection. If it's something ordinary and we can explain why it was in the field, then that's probably not a case that we should put a lot of investment into. On the other hand, if the isotope ratios are abnormal, then we should go back and look at it some more. So we're doing that, yes. And regarding the Brazilian case, someone had a specific question. Davy Pachico says, wow, nice man, keep fighting the good fight and asking the right questions. We

all appreciate that. If possible, please ask Jacques what he thinks about the usually violent encounters in Brazilian cases. Brazilian cases? I think an anthropologist would say, and I'm not an anthropologist, but you become sort of an amateur anthropologist after you speak to a few thousand witnesses. You have to look at the cultural conditions around and some of the conditions in some countries are more towards hostile reaction to something you don't understand. I mean, certainly in the US, you know, a number of these things have been shot at. I mean, you see something really strange on your ranch and you have a gun, you know, that's in a way, it's a natural thing to think of. And we're a culture where there are lots of guns.

Same thing is in Brazil. France, the reaction would be more one either fear or terror and running away, but not engaging it in terms of fighting with it. So I think it's more of a reaction of a reflection of the society where you are and, you know, the part of the country where you are, rather than characteristic of the object itself or the, you know, the entity itself. But there have been cases where, yeah, there were fights, and there were hostile action. And I've gone through the periphery of the Amazon, with people in Brazil were investigators in Brazil. And yes, I've interviewed people who had been not shot, but had been hit by a beam and had been injured by a beam that was not, there is any kind of laser beam that we can produce today. The beam you mentioned before in one of the interviews that it comes out rather than completely goes to the end. It comes out and it's burning. And it pins you, you know, some of these people were sleeping in a hammock at night in Brazil,

which is what you do. I mean, that's in the jungle and so on on farms. Many people sleep in hammocks, and the the beam would pin them to the to the couch or to the hammer. And the beam had a physicality to a pressure to it. We have the picture laser wouldn't we have the pictures of the marks of the beam on the skin? Because I see no, they see a doctor, doctor takes a picture, we have the pictures.

Sorry, Kevin, as a physicist, what do you think of that? Well, I guess I have another question because it sounds a lot like the particle light beams that have been observed by people who have been lifted up into craft or claimed to have been lifted up. They say that it's like a particular light, particles of light rather than a light beam. It makes me wonder if that's the situation. I don't know how a laser isn't going to pin you to a hammock,

so something else is clearly going on in that case. There may be different frequencies and different types of radiation involved. I don't know how you retract a light beam, but... Yeah, that's right. That's right. It doesn't sound like any particles I'm aware of. So, you know, from a particle physics perspective,

there's probably something interesting here. If the government has known about these phenomenons since the 40s, what's the reason that they're disclosing this information right now? That comes from Alan Whitehead. That's a question for someone like Mr. Mellon, you know, Assistant Secretary Mellon, who had those discussions at government level. I think that in cases, I know the situation in France. Every time we ask that question, people came back, especially from the military,

saying, you know, it's not our job to create panic or to interfere with people's religious beliefs and so on. We respect that. And there are too many things going on where we don't have the answer. And if we came out with that, people would be afraid, people might react in terror, there might be political movements that couldn't be controlled. And and we don't, we couldn't provide the government with any guidance about what to do, because we don't understand the phenomena. Which is a fair answer.

Is it majorly to prevent panic? Is that the primary reason? That's a reason that's given. I think by now, it may have been true at one time. You know, you've seen all these movies where the aliens land and we shoot at them, it doesn't do any good. We bring the tanks and it doesn't do any good. We bring the atomic them. It doesn't do any good. We bring the tanks and it doesn't do any good. We bring the atomic bomb and it doesn't do any good. And then we've got Zilla coming out of the ocean. It destroys New York City. So yes, that imagery is there.

I mean, it's certainly there in the cinema. And to some extent, it's there in people. I mean, people have nightmares. People have, now we've outgrown a lot of that. I mean, we, today we might laugh at this, you know, say, come on. I mean, we've seen worse things than Godzilla, you know. So, and even if it was Godzilla, well Godzilla well you know we could probably do something about it so it becomes I wouldn't say it becomes a joke but people are mature enough today that it wouldn't

have the same effect as it would in the 50s you know when kids were taught to hide under the table when the bomb went off and things like that where there was a climate of terror all the time. Kevin, what do you think? No, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I agree with Jacques in that this really is a question that's best for somebody like Chris Mellon. My impression is that the Navy has been having sincere difficulties with this, and the Navy pilots, it was reported that in 215, they had near daily encounters, and that's a problem. And I think they have a real problem on their hands that they didn't have the ability to easily talk about

this to people higher up like the Secretary of Defense so so or people in Congress so how do you go for how do you get assistance unless you can talk more freely about this so I think that that probably would have to have something to do with it, that getting Congress involved because you have a real problem on your hands. And so that's, to me, what looks like what's going on. And I would hope that, you know, as part of the answer, you know, from recommendation from the UAP Task Force, that they recommend answer, you know, from recommendation from the UAP task force that they recommend that, you know, we study these things scientifically and openly.

And one of the ways they could support this is provide a funding mechanism. That would be interesting. And it doesn't, you know, it doesn't have to be a lot probably, but it has, but by providing a funding mechanism, you would do a few things. One, you would legitimize it, which would make it far easier for scientists to work on this and feel that they can work on this, and so there are going to be more people. Because there are scientists who are studying this,

and many of them are doing it quietly because they worry about ridicule or whatever. So, because it still is a taboo topic. So by having some kind of funding stream, you would legitimize it. It would then, you know, some scientists who wanted to study this would see more support from their administrators. Funding always helps administrators make decisions and someone. And it would also give them the ability to actually do the work. Kevin and Jacques, what does it mean for the amateur scientist or even the professional scientist? What does it mean to study this? How would they go about doing that? Do they just look

at the Nimitz video or the Tic Tac video and they analyze it based on speed? What do they do? Do they speak to people? Do they read your books? Yeah, I think what has to happen is scientists have to be collecting their own data at this point. We can't be relying on... How do you collect data on what's not repeatable? That's right. Well, you do what you do with supernovas. You watch. If you can't, how do you collect data on a supernova? You have to wait till there's a supernova

and somebody happens to see it, right? So there's two possibilities, really. You could, you know, you watch yourself. So you just stare at the sky and collect data and review that data and watch for something interesting. That's one way to do it. That's the chance of success is, of course, small. And you would then first hope that you would be able to do this in a location

where you have a higher chance of success. So knowing where these things are more frequently cited is helpful. That's one possibility. The other possibility is to do what does happen with supernovas is you have amateur astronomers spot them and then the professionals turn all their telescopes to look at it right so so in that case it doesn't quite work for ufos because you have an amateur spot it and then the thing zips off and the whole event is over. But what is becoming more and more possible is the fact that we have more and more satellite coverage and more and more continuous satellite coverage.

So it is becoming more possible to take a prominent sighting, especially one that lasts for some period of time, and to then have people go back and obtain satellite images of that area to try to get some imagery from the sky. That would be, you know, I call that, you know, a third party eye in the sky, which would be a great asset to, you know, a witness anecdotes. a great asset to witness anecdotes. Also, there are organizations like MUFARM, the Mutual UFO Network, that are not exactly professional organizations, but they do a good job of collecting data locally, and scientists could get access to that on the local level

and just in areas they know, they could go into the field with those teams and get some. Now, 80% of that data, of the reports, can be explained, which is why the skeptics legitimately say, if you can explain 80% of something, that means that the other 20% probably isn't worth looking at. That's not a good way of proceeding in science, because usually you can explain 80% of something. What's interesting is what remains. So it's like in chemistry, refining something until you get the important substance. And so, yes, but it's always interesting.

It's interesting on a human level. Yes, but it's always interesting. It's interesting on a human level. And there are cases that are very hard to explain. And if you can put them into a pattern, then you're beginning to get valuable information. And the problem with the military data is, you know, the military is driven by what they call CQ die, you know, computing control

communication, and intelligence. So you have to, and they keep talking about data fusion. Well, even in a case like the Nimitz, what what we have is outstanding observation by the pilots. I mean, the pilots had several minutes of visual observation of something that was under the plane, between the plane and the ocean, that they circled, that they observed. And I worked at one time with one of the pilots, not the first ones, but the ones that came after them. There is no question this happened. There is no question they saw something.

They had data. Then there was data from the cameras that were thermal cameras. People talk about it as if those were photographs. Those are not photographs. And somewhere there is a 10-page memo from Raytheon to the US Navy, saying, you know, you do what you want with what we've given you. But remember, those are not images. I mean, those are thermal images, because what we've sold you is an infrared camera that was not designed for UFO, it was designed for something else, namely watching the exhaust of, you know, of an enemy

plane. So yes, it's useful. Yes, it's physical data. But by the way, we're not giving you a distance and we're giving you a temperature and we're not giving you a picture. Now, people are going off on that that extrapolating to all kinds of things. Again, we don't have the C cube die, we don't have the other, you know, the control, the communication and the intelligence. We have images that are very interesting, that are captivating.

We have instances of motion that we don't understand. But, you know, there are ways of making things appear that are not there on an electronic screen that have been developed as countermeasures or they're active measures for 40 years, 50 years. So that needs to be analyzed separately by experts. So you cannot just jump to the first picture that somebody shows you and say, you know, I got it. I'm going to convince the academy. You know, you have to get the other things. But again, there are good amateur groups that are doing that in the field with intelligence and with care. And I think, you know, you can join them and go into the field with them and bring a shovel.

Snooze, this person named Snooze wants to know from Jacques, what do you plan on doing with all the files that you've documented over the course of your lifetime in investigation? So most of it I have turned over to a university with a 10-year embargo. So I've documented it and it covers something like 60 boxes of stuff after filtering the junk. And it covers a lot of the work I've done with Dr. Hynek, a lot of the network that will be available, I think, for a long time. And even during the embargo, if someone with qualifications in science wants to have access to it, there is a catalog and people can, will have access to those files. I have kept two kinds of files.

I've kept about 200 files that I want to continue to study because I've been there and I know those cases, files like this case in New Mexico. I certainly keep right now for myself. And then the files of material studies that I'm still gathering and investigating with, with other people in Silicon Valley, who are interested and we're going to need help, by the way. And the intent is to publish and to

share the samples themselves. We're not going to put them in a, you know, in a safe deposit box forever. I mean, those those should be shared. Again, Dr. Stork has entrusted to me the cases from Ubatuba. And some of that, you know, I could share as well. I have a quick question for Jacques, though. He mentioned scientists getting involved in grabbing a shovel. So let me take that a bit further. If I remember what I read about the story of the Trinity case, that not all of the craft was recovered and taken away. That there was one point that they were basically bulldozing debris into an

arroyo and then filled it up is that is that the case and if that's the case that's the possibility between archaeology you know the the recovery scene is completely the opposite of what you see in Mr. Spielberg's movies you know people with special. So there's a bunch of 18 year olds who are close to being released from the war. They were still in uniform. They were at ground zero completely bored and they are sent there. So the scene is they get there with a Jeep. The Jeep is playing the radio. So it's playing, you know, cowboy songs and these kids essentially are going under orders to gather all this information

and all that metal that's littering the landscape so they are a little bit lazy and they're you know some of it that's left at the end of the day they are going to throw into a hole and cover it with dirt so presumably it's still. The problem is that particular area is unstable. There are creeks going through there. Those arroyos are not always seco, you know, arroyo seco, sometimes it's filled with water and it washes out the dirt. So by now, you know, 70 years later, dirt. So by now, 70 years later, whatever was there has been washed away and people have been bulldozing that area, rebuilding it. So by now, anything that would be at ground level would be now 25 feet under dirt of the earth dam that has been rebuilt. So there is, we thought of that and we went there with shovels. There is very little chance of getting something back.

And furthermore, I think the pieces that would be interesting, that would have structure, you know, other than, there are other places in new mexico where i've gone where we have dug up things you know we you go with a metal detector most of the time you're going to find old you know metal rusty metal cans and i can tell you what the army was was what kind of uh uh beer they, you know, in 1945 or 47. But you do find pieces of metal that seem like they've come out of some sort of crash. And we have those.

And we're going to look at it. Most of the time, it's aluminum. And, you know, so there. You don't learn a lot by doing that. But you could be you could be lucky. And someday you could find, you know, a printed circuit or, you know, a device of some sort. That doesn't mean we would understand it. But you know, it would be nice thing to analyze

it. But, you know, it would be nice thing to analyze it. Kevin, do you have any other questions for Jacques? Yeah, did you so so was it Padilla or the other guy had saved some of the pulled something out of the craft and kept in his attic or something for some time? Yes, there is a bracket that we have that was attached to the wall of the craft. That was the only thing there.

There was a panel that he couldn't get loose. The panel was attached to, was pinned to the wall. It was about the size of your screen, you know, three by two feet. It had a ring that looked like a copper ring and in the center there was a bracket that turned Mr. Padilla who is still alive

got what they called a cheater bar which is used by truckers to tighten up the links and he got it from the truck from the army truck and he branched the thing out and we have they preserved it for you know all this time hiding it which is also one reason they didn't come forward with the story they thought they would be put in

jail for stealing government property except that the the craft didn't belong to the government. Anyway, we have it. And we don't really care where it came from. It's interesting. It's not alien the way you'd like an alien bracket to be. I mean, in fact, it has been analyzed by three times by different labs. We know the composition. It's basically aluminum. It's called silumin, S-I-L-U-M-I-N. So well known ally of aluminum to give some strength to the aluminum.

There are some unusual things with it. There is no marking on it. Usually there's a brand. I mean, usually those are made by industry for an industrial purpose, like activating. It's essentially what you use in an actuator. You would find something like that in a windmill. In fact, I went out and bought something like it. It looks like this, okay? And, you know, it turns like this. And when it turns, it has, you know, it has these holes here that can activate something.

So there are things like that that you use in windmill to feather the blades of the windmill in high wind and so on. So it's a well-known industrial thing. It's human. I have, I mean, a little argument with some of my friends who say, yes, well, it looks human. But by the way, it's in the metric system when you measure the holes, which we've done with good precision. And nobody was using the metric system in New Mexico in 1945. So where did it come from?

Well, it could have been made for a particular purpose. And you could say, well, the army made it on the spot or they got it from somewhere, maybe from the tower, you know, it had been wrecked and they used it to wind an electrical wire. I mean, they didn't have any power except any power they could get from the Jeep. I used to drive a Jeep. I know you can generate useful power from the Jeep. And maybe they needed a wire inside the thing for lighting or for cleaning or whatever. That's my hypothesis. My friends are saying, wait, you know, we need to look inside.

There may be some structures inside that would tell us some more. So that's where we are. I mean, we have this ongoing argument. I think it's human, but I can't explain the way it looks. We've gone to windmill experts. Paola went to a company that makes things like what I've shown you.

And they say, no, we don't use, we have actuators in windmills, but they're not like what you're telling us. So we have to look somewhere else. If some of the people watching this have an idea, I've published the dimensions and so on in the book. And if people have an idea of where it would be used, maybe in aerospace, maybe as actuators in a big aircraft from 1945.

Maybe that's what it is. So we're certainly not saying it's alien just because it was inside that craft. Kevin, please think of any other questions or comments you have to Jacques and you've been very generous with your time. It's been over two hours. What is meant when you say that it's the metric system? made exactly with millimeters?

Yeah, the millimeters and times of millimeters, when when you measure the different holes and attachments and thes of millimeters when you measure the different holes and attachments and the size of it and so on. So it's very well documented in our system of measurement, and we know the composition very well. The question is, what was it doing there? I'll take some audience questions, and then I know both of you have to get going.

I'll take some audience questions and then I know both of you have to get going. Have any of you heard of Operation High Jump? Yes. I don't know much about it. Is it the operation that had to do with dummies dropped from parachutes for testing in the early days of the space program, testing of high atmospheric parachutes? That was, I've looked into that. I have documents about that.

And that was two years later. And yes, it could explain maybe some of the material at Roswell. Certainly, the Air Force has alluded to it to explain Roswell. It doesn't explain Roswell. But yes, there were things dropping from the sky in New Mexico in later years. They were not doing that in 1945 anywhere. years. They were not doing that in 1945 anywhere. Have you heard of Bruno Latour on the sociology of sciences and the relation between human and non-human agencies?

That one comes from Matthew Nehemi. I know the name Bruno Latour. I have not studied his his work. No. Ifran Nassirik, if Nassirik says, What do you think of the new radar footage from the Navy? I haven't seen. I'm not an expert. I mean, the Navy has experts who are testifying about all of this and so on. I'm not an expert. I mean, the Navy has experts who are testifying about all of this and so on. I'm certainly not a radar expert. The radar tapes on board the Nimitz were confiscated within hours of the incident, of the picture being taken.

But they were backups. And I understand people have access to the backup, the in in the Nimitz incident, all the radars were advanced radars on the Princeton, the Princeton was the electronic ship, the the name of the Nimitz was the aircraft carrier. So the the interesting radar data would come from the Princeton, and I don't know where it went. Again, some of those in some of the cases, where I was told the Air Force had classified project Blue Book data, it was because of the radar, it wasn't because of the UFO. If somebody reports a light in the sky, and there is a radar reading of it from a classified radar,

the case will be classified. That doesn't mean that the light is interesting. So again, you learn to work with the military, they have their own way of thinking about things. And if you if you have a classified radar, and it it paints something strange, you're not going to have access to something strange, even though it may or may not be interesting, because a radar is classified. David Erickson Diggies Journal wants to know if you have any thoughts as to why the aliens supposedly refer to us as containers or vessels.

I don't know. Have you heard that before? No, no. I'm trying to go from the data we've got that we can find and they can take to the lab again. I mean, to convince the scientific community, we have to be able to document where it was and then to share it with other labs. I mean, that's what you do. with this Trinity case, the actual craft, when it was being described,

did it look like if it was all one piece? The reason I ask this is that Bob Lazar said when he was working on craft that it looked like as if it was made with wax and then slightly melted down, so there were no hard edges, it was only curvy, but all as if it's one Lego block. I will not comment on any statement by Mr. Lazar. Because there are too many things we just don't know about the conditions where this may have happened and even who is he really is. So

even who he really is. So again, this case is exceptional because we have the witnesses, we have actually we have a fourth witness that we haven't talked about who came later and could describe sort of nail all of the preceding things together. And she's still alive. Very, you know, very smart woman who has given us a lot of descriptions of the samples that we can relate back. Of course, we've asked Mr. Padilla and, you know, about the conditions of the craft itself. It didn't seem to be one piece. It seemed to have panels, but there was no nail there were no rivets there were no we don't know how those panels were held together obviously it was extraordinarily strong because it dug a road when it fell after hitting the tower. One of, presumably, one of those panels was ejected. And then this thing grounded itself

and then dug a path all the way down the hill under power. I mean, an airplane would have blown into pieces at that point. Okay. And this was described as you would need a bulldozer with a hundred foot blade, you know, and probably a couple of hours to dig that road down. In fact, that's a road that the army used in part to drive their truck. And, you know, I've been there. I mean, this is a gouge in the earth, you know, that this way.

So this thing was heavy. It was in a neighborhood of anywhere from five to 10 tons. It wasn't 100 times that it wasn't 500 kilograms. I mean, it was it was heavy, it was under power, and it was able to keep its, And it was able to keep its integrity as it was plowing that path down the hill and the bushes were catching fire and everything else. I mean, that's, you know, we know it was a very violent scene. And at the end of it, it was it kept its integrity to the point where the Air Force could or the Army could take it with a crane and put it sideways. When they put it sideways, the kids had a chance to see the underside. And remember, the people who were inside said it was 12 to 13 feet inside from a flat floor.

Well, the thing was 15 feet approximately high. So there was two or three feet under flat floor. Well, the thing was 15 feet approximately high. So there was two or three feet under the floor. So if there was an engine, if there is a concept of an engine, that's the only place where it could have been. The rest of it was empty. There were no openings on the underside. There were sort of bumps or structures

that were not damaged, by the underside. There were sort of bumps or structures that were not damaged by the way. I mean the thing that didn't have a landing gear or anything else. I mean so it was strong enough that it could plow its path through the landscape without breaking up inside. It was sort of buffed and, you know, but it was, it had its integrity as a piece of metal. So, if you want to think about propulsion, you know, anti-gravity, anything you want, this was certainly not, you know, propelled by any kind of rocket or any kind of thing that would have had an exhaust. It had no exhaust ability. So that's, again, that's an important point. Again, we know approximately the volume where there would have been space for a propulsion system.

Okay, where can people find your book? It's on amazon you know my name trinity the it's called trinity the best kept secret it's available in paperback

and as an ibook or as an ebook on kindle great great and kevin what's next for you as an iBook, or as an eBook on Kindle. Great, great. And Kevin, what's next for you? And where can people find out more about you as well? I'm still working with UAPX, and we're hoping to continue working

to try to get imagery of UAPs and to understand better what they are. Where can people find out about me? My website's probably the best place, knuthlab.org. So my last name, lab.org. That's it. Thank you very much for inviting me. Thank you so much, man. Thank you. It's been a blast. Thank you so much, man. Thank you. It's been a blast. I always learn a lot from the questions.

And again, this is not something that one person is going to solve. It's going to take a team of people with different ideas and different skills. Okay. Thank you so much, both of you. I appreciate how generous you've been with your time. And Jacques and Kevin, I'm sure I'll be speaking to you again at some point, perhaps when you have something else to promote or there's the disclosure. I have to define it first. Thank you so much for having me. It's been a great pleasure to spend this time with you. Thank you. Thanks, Kevin.

Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. For those people who are still watching, there is a video with Kevin Knuth and I on the channel, which is one of the most popular videos on the channel, please check that out. If you want to see more conversations like this, please do consider going to patreon.com slash kurtjaimungo. I am not... this is not a UFO channel, and so I was a bit concerned with the huge influx of UFO subscribed people who are interested in the UFO phenomenon, people who are interested in the UFO phenomenon who subscribed recently.

But as I was talking to a few, I mentioned that what my primary interest is in is theoretical physics and consciousness, as well as free will and God. And to me, this idea of UFOs and aliens and so on seem to be related somehow. So I'm trying to fit it into the puzzle and investigate it as rigorously as I can. My background's in physics and math. And unlike my... Either way, as I was talking to some of the people who recently subscribed, and I was telling them about my disconcerting thoughts,

feeling like they're going to be disappointed by the channel's emphasis on psychology, philosophy, physics, math, and consciousness, I was told that those who are interested in UFOs tend to be open-minded or open people in general, and I'm hoping that is the case because this channel doesn't focus on UFOs, though I talk about it frequently. Just wanted to clear that up. I'm going to be going through some of the comments now.

Thank you all for watching. I appreciate it so much. Tim Wilson wants to know if anyone will chat with Mick West. I don't mind chatting with Mick West, but I'm a neophyte when it comes to this UFO topic, which means that I don't know much. I'm pretty much an amateur getting into this. I was criticized of that when I was speaking to Jeremy Korbel because I was asking somewhat jejune questions. But to me, the point

is one that I'm interested in this topic and who better to talk to than someone who or people who are experts in it. I get the critique that I'm wasting some of these extremely intelligent and informed people's time with my depthless questions, at least with the Jeremy Korbel video in that case, not with the Kevin Knuth video. And that's a valid critique. The other way to view it is that there's an advantage into being new and seeing from a fresh perspective and asking questions. Here's an example. There's this mathematician, his name is Terry Tao,

one of the best in the world, and yet he gives talks to elementary schools. Okay, what question can an elementary school child ask Terry Tao that's going to inform Terry Tao? Well, let's not talk about elementary school. Let's talk about a first-year concept called compactness. That seems extremely elementary. There's something called a compact set in mathematics. But Terry Tao, you ask him, what's a compact set? He actually has a three-page PDF which gives insight into compactification.

And that's an elementary question. So I don't particularly mind asking cosmetic or vacuous questions, although I try not to. I don't particularly mind with regard to this UFO topic, just because while I'm cosmetic and vacuous, and I'm dipping my toes into it, please consider talking to Travis Walton.

I will consider it. A special thank you to Kevin Knuth because he, about 15 minutes before recording or 30 minutes before he came on, he said, Kurt, there's a huge problem. I'm presenting tomorrow and there's some issue with the slides and I have to work on this now.

And I said, I basically unfairly forced him. I said, come on, man, please come to this. Just join. Don't worry if you're thinking about some other topic while you're here. Just be here anyway. Because this was announced that it's Jacques Vallée and Kevin Knuth. So he came. And if he seemed or appeared distracted, it's because it's my fault.

Have a great day, everyone.