Will Cain Country - Is Earth Being Invaded? The Truth About 3I/ATLAS (ft. Avi Loeb)

Episode Date: December 8, 2025

Story 1: In a deal that could completely reshape the entertainment industry, Netflix has moved to purchase Warner Brothers for $72 Billion, but will this lead to the death of cinema, or a new age of media consumption? Story 2: Is 3I/Atlas an alien spacecraft or just a boring old space rock? Theoretical Physicist and Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University, Avi Loeb helps Will unpack everything we know about our solar system’s third known interstellar visitor. Plus, Doctor Loeb shares his thoughts on the Fermi Paradox, UAPs, and what first contact would mean for the human race. Story 3: The 2025 College Football Playoff bracket is here, and Notre Dame is out. Will brings in The Crew to react to the final rankings, debating whether or not the Fighting Irish deserved the snub.   Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠ Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠) Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, Netflix, Warner Brothers. Bad for business? Gavin Newsom, crushing his own testicles. Bad for business? Two, three-eye Atlas, alien mothership, or ordinary interstellar comment with Professor of Science at Harvard University

Avi Loeb 3. College Football Playoff. Notre Dame Out. It is Will Kane Country streaming live on a month. Monday at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel. Happy Monday, happy holidays, tis the season.

Get your gifts together. Plan the Christmas party. We can help you do so right here with gift ideas from Wilcane Country. More of that coming up in a moment, along with Professor of Science at Harvard University, the man that has said it could be, it might be. We should investigate whether or not it is an alien mothership. three eye atlas here at the beginning of December it is about time for the truth and we'll discuss it with professor ovi lobe but let's get into bad for business Netflix and Warner Brothers

it is story number one Netflix has launched a bid for Warner Brothers that would take over the catalog that includes HBO, CNN, and more. $72 billion. That's the money that is on the table for Netflix to buy

Warner Brothers. It's caused a lot of angst. It's caused a lot of outrage. Among the populist in the community out there in the audience and it's even drawn the attention of President Donald Trump. Should they

Are they be allowed to buy Warner Brothers? Should Netflix? Well, that's a question. They have a very big market chair. And when they have Warner Brothers, you know, that chair goes up a lot. So I don't know. That's going to be for some economists to tell. And also, and I'll be involved in that decision, too. But they have a very big market share. Did he make any guarantees to you about the merger? If they do merge, then? No, no, not at all. He came up. He was in the Oval Office last week. I have a lot of respect for him. He's a great person. But he's done one of the greatest jobs in the history of movies and other things. And he's got a lot of interesting things happening.

$72 billion after a brutal bidding war. That's the prize for Warner Brothers from Netflix. But it has launched, for example, a potential counterbid, a hostile takeover, a last-minute bid from Paramount. $108 billion. Paramount launches hostile takeover. for Warner Brothers Discovery valued at $108 billion seeking to derail Netflix's deal. Paramount's offer reads the subhead includes $24 billion from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi wealth funds, as well as Jared Kushner's affinity partners.

Let's bring in Tenfoil Pat, Two-A-D-A's Dan, to discuss what many you're talking about. It's just bad for business and bad for the consumer. I'm having trouble, fellas, making sense of why this. is so bad. Dan, you ran a little analysis on AI about why this is so bad. Let's walk through these, actually, these reasons, because I don't think any of them stand to hold up, at least not in my personal experience. And I'm sure everybody listening right now pays multiple subscriptions to multiple streaming services and is analyzing this through the prism of what it will cost them and what it means for their experience in consuming content. I'd be surprised if people have a much

different point of view than do I when it comes to Netflix. All right, here's number one, according to two of days, Dan. Too much power in one place. Netflix will control a massive library of movies and shows from Warner Brothers, HBO, DC, CNN, and it would be the biggest streaming platform. That means, according to critics, fewer choices, less competition. So Trump said. Should one of others be bought by Netflix.

Yeah, fine. Less competition. are you in the most competitive environment in business right now? I mean, do you guys feel like content creation is a, is a dominated marketplace? Just a few years ago, we had, you know, a few years ago, in my lifetime, it feels like a few years ago, 30 years ago, three broadcasters, then four with the advent of Fox, cable comes along, and you have, what, two dozen cable channels producing meaningful content, and most of it, by the way, was filler. What about it, the library?

No, it's about libraries. It's about libraries of content, not newer content. It's about... Franchises. Franchises and franchise tag, all those type of things. It's more about what they already own and control that market. And also, it's being consolidated by a handful of company. And movies are much different.

Like something where you talk, you know, like a cable news show or something like that, it's much lower cost of barrier for entry. So I think movies, you know, it's a much bigger deal. Okay, well, first of all, I guess I don't think about things in terms of movies. Look, let's talk about this. I am a lifetime moviegoer, lifetime. There for a long stretch of my life, I went to the movies every week. I was raised by a mother and father that loved the movies, and they went every week.

I no longer go to the movies. And that's one of the concerns as well on this list of conditions. concerns bad for movie theaters. Netflix doesn't provide or prioritize theatrical releases. It owns Warner Brothers, a major movie studio. That fear creates the idea there'll be fewer movies in theaters. But see, I just think in terms of content. Like, Patrick, I'm not even, I'm honestly, I'm not even thinking about talk content. I'm not thinking about my career. I'm thinking about the content that I consume. And I don't distinguish anymore between a movie and a series. Like, the quality is negligible at this point. In fact, the series is of higher quality. The series is of higher quality. Okay, that's the problem. Let's come back to that in just a moment. But my personal analysis when I sit down to watch something is how much time do I want to give to something and does it look good? And more often than not, the look good part of it is a series over a movie. Then I'm like, yeah, but do I want to go in on this for the next seven to ten hours or multiple seasons if I'm way behind?

movies actually end up being this I think the future appeal of movies is I only have two hours and I don't want to commit anything more than 90 minutes to two hours to something that's the future of movies and producing something good in there but I don't I don't it is competition but I feel like I've lost nothing with the decline of movies I just don't feel like I've lost anything because I've gained more with series but a lot of this content in these shows are stretched out and could have been consolidated into movies. It's a genius business model because if you're taking these ideas that could be movies, stretching them into eight, nine episodes, you're getting a lot more watch time, a lot more subscribers,

and you keep doing it. But it turns it into fluff. It turns it into nonsensical things that you don't need to watch. You can, it's like reading a book. That's fair. You know what I mean? You don't need eight episodes of something

when you could have one movie in it. It's creating more consumerism and more, you know, consumption of these, longer products and they're not as good. Okay. And it still costs money to make these things. It costs money to make TV shows just like

it costs money to make movies. And those costs are much higher than like, you know, a CNN or a Fox News would have to make a talk show. That's my point. It's like the barrier to entry is, is a lot more difficult to get into than you know, like you were talking about

how we had these limited networks, broadcast networks, and now we have the cable and it exploded. you need those, like it's going to be harder for people to get into those markets because the money's not going to be there the same way. But right now, let me ask you, okay, let me ask you a question, right? Do you feel like when you go to your television and you're not watching news or sports and you want to watch something, do you feel like you're suffering from a lack of choices?

There's too much stuff. I don't. There's way too much. There's too much stuff. That's exactly right. Yeah. So that doesn't reflect the lack of competition. But it's a lesser quality.

Patrick, there's so much. Okay, here's the thing. Maybe you're right. But the only way you would know that is by watching it all. Do you know what I mean? I try to. So what I'm, well, you may, I watch a fair amount. You must watch a lot more than me.

Here's how it works for me. Okay. This is my habit. It's probably in this order. I probably turn on my TV. I go to Netflix first. and I see what's on Netflix. It probably is the first place I go.

And right now, Netflix has two or three things that I know I thought, oh, I want to go back and watch that. One of which is a movie starring that Austin Butler about stealing something from New York that you watched, Dan. Should I watch it? Yeah, I mean, it's depressing and a wild ride, but yeah, it's good.

Okay. What's the name of the movie? Stealing New York or something like that? Yeah. something like that um and then then i can go to prime i have a prime subscription i go and see what's on prime there's more unique series there there's several options i have paramount landman caught stealing all right landman i'm gonna be honest with you i watched the first two or three episodes of season two of landman i'm not sure i'm going to continue it it's i may not it's not it's much it's not top

tier for me. It's like cowboy drivel. It had a good concept in the beginning, but they didn't need to stretch it out. It's exactly what I'm saying. It's just more content to put out there. Right. To make money. Okay, so there's going to be a couple things on Apple TV.

Every single one of these services has at least three things that look pretty good to watch. I go to Apple TV. I am invested in that pluribus watching that, which is the Vince Gilligan show, the guy that did. Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.

By the way, Dan, I don't know if you're watching that. I do feel like they're stretching it out. I feel like it could move along quicker. They're stretching this out too slowly. Not enough is happening in every episode. It's weekly, too. It's a weekly releases. Not just all at once as well.

That's a difference. That's right. And then I have Peacock. I can go to. I have Paramount for all the Taylor Sheridan stuff, if I want to continue with that. So my point is, I'm paying for all these subscriptions between all of them.

There's more content that looks good than I'll ever get to. So I just feel like there's a glut of competition. Like we're not suffering from consolidation. We're suffering from if it's suffering. I mean, there's no such thing as suffering from too many choices, really. But I don't see the problem in the Netflix Warner Brothers deal. It seems like a lot, but there's less than you think. It's four or five companies.

Yeah. Yeah. It's not as much as you think. it's all vertically Paramount owns a lot Amazon owns MGM Disney owns

all Disney stuff and then now Netflix is going to own Warner Brothers who else is left Apple still Apple's a little weird but like

but they lose a billion dollars a year making these shows literally they're the outlier but like it's essentially four five maybe six companies that's really

are really making these things i'm i think the idea also on the price front like what is i i pay for hbo that's another one i do i don't go to that one very often at all um that's that's if i was dropping a subscription that's probably the one i would drop um HBO and and netflix so if they if they combine like how do my prices go up i would think that like because they control the market They can charge you whatever you want. You know, they could, they could, you're literally going to have to get it so they could charge you, you know, $50 a month and you're going to say, yes, please, thank you so much. Hey, if you want this, you can get it for $30 a month or you get it a bundled for 40.

Exactly. You get this, but not this or this and this and not, you know, it's just. I would argue consolidation. I would argue that consolidation is actually addressing a consumer demand. Like, right, what are we looking at now? 15 years ago, everybody wanted to destroy the cable bundle. That's what we wanted to do. We didn't want to pay for all this stuff that we didn't watch.

So we wanted to go a la carte. It's our fault. And then what did we do? We all got every single subscription. They built up over time. And you're spending as much now as you did with the cable bundle just through all these different subscription services. And now consumers are asking for, can we just have one? Can we just have one we pay for?

So basically the consumer is asking for a return of the cable bundle. and I think you're getting to a point, even if you're right, Patrick, that it's three or four companies. That's sort of what the consumer wants. Like, six, seven? Oh, oh, I just did that. I just did that. Eight nine.

Oh, no, I just did that. Eight, nine content providers. I don't think that's what anybody actually wants. I don't know. I don't have the concern that everybody else does. I think we should give our next guest Ivy Loeb his own show is all I'm saying. I would watch it. You do like that.

Before we get to Avi Loeb, who's waiting in the wings right now, I just want to show you this one picture, because I think it's absolutely incredible. This is from the New York Times deal. What do they call it, deal book? I'm not sure. Gavin Newsom sitting, and everybody's commenting on the way in which Gavin Newsom is sitting.

If you're listening to us on Spotify, Apple or on radio. So you've got his legs crossed. He's got the full cross going, right? You know, everybody knows what I'm talking about. It's not ankle on knee. The next is where you go back of knee on front of knee, you know, two legs, one back on the front of another. And then he's crossed it all the way over. Okay, you've seen that.

It's pretty lightified, you know, when you cross it all the way over. Then he's gone one step further where he's bent the plant leg and it's angled out. So now he's got like a reverse X going on between his legs. and so everybody is making fun of the way Gavin Newsom is sitting right here. I live a little bit in a glass house because... I was going to say, you sit that way. No, I don't sit this way, but I literally have had a producer get in my ear and go it will fix the way you're sitting.

Yeah, you can't change it. As long as you're not perched, I guess, like a bird. Did we send the... Did we have the picture? Okay, yeah, there we go. what president trump yeah with the next thing you're about to show that's man spreading the way he's sitting not supposed to do that according to that's not man spreading according to women that's not this is moderate for him i i'm a man spread i'm a man spreader and a crosser i'm both of

those things red flags this is a normal sitting position although is he giving the um isn't that isn't that like that's the illuminati hand symbol exactly He is giving the Illuminati answer. He confirmed Donald Trump in the Illuminati. Speaking of, speaking of conspiracies. Now, a very honest and interesting conversation. Three-Eye Atlas, the interstellar comet that has been monitored for the last several months, at least popularly, here in America. It has been proffered by Harvard professor Avi Loeb that this could be extraterrestrial technology.

It is early December. That is when we were told we would get a lot of the answers on. 3-Ey Atlas. So Avi Loeb joins us next on Wilcane Country. Hey, you've heard me talk about Buffalo Jacks in the last few weeks. They make vintage outdoor leather jackets. They make flannels. They make wallets. It's a Western rugged brand that actually feels like the real thing. And look, it's cold this week.

Most of the country is absolutely phrasing. So what if you get yourself a little upgrade this year? How about a new outdoor leather jacket? Maybe it's the Shearling Bomber. I pulled that out last week. I have that thing. I love it. Maybe it's the puffy leather jacket.

I have that one as well. I wore it to Army Navy to meet President Trump. I'm telling you, this stuff is awesome. It's the real deal. Think of it also as an investment for your closet. This is something that you're going to wear for years, not trendy, not phase out, not disposable, that you're going to have for years, maybe even a decade. Their gear has been on Yellowstone. Country artists wear it.

Even folks around our network besides me wear it at Fox. Here's what I know. When you wear a good jacket, a really good jacket, you get compliments. supplements. People notice. They say, hey, nice jacket. When's the last time someone said that to you? Why not get yourself a gift for Christmas from Buffalo Jackson? Buffalo Jackson, it's not just jackets, it's leather bags, it's wallets, it's flannels, it's built to Rome. Check them out at Buffalojaxon.com and use code Will 10, and then you get 10% off. Three-Eye Atlas when we come back on Will Kane Country. This is Ainsley Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52 episode.

podcast series, The Life of Jesus. A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Interstellar comment, alien spacecraft. What is 3-Eye Atlas? It is Wilcane Country. Streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel. The Wilcane Facebook page.

the Fox News Facebook page, but always available by subscribing or following on Spotify or on Apple. Avi Loeb is the Frank B. Bear Jr., professor of science at Harvard University. He's a theoretical physicist, and he's been at the forefront of 3-E-A-Atlas. Professor, great to see you. Thanks for being with us here today on Will Kane Country. It's a great pleasure to join you, and I should mention I'm a country boy. I was born on a farm, drove a tractor throughout my childhood, collected eggs every afternoon. So I very much, it's a great pleasure and privilege to join you. You're more country than I am. I promise you that, professor. So it's good to have that down-to-earth mentality to talk about something so out of this world. Let's start with the basic question. It is now early December. That is a timeline where many thought we might know

more and might know something definitive about 3-Ey Atlas. So at this moment, what is 3-Ey Atlas? Well, it's most likely a natural object, but there are some very unusual facts about it that make us suspect that maybe it's technological. I can mention those because I regard it just like a potential black swan event. You know, these are the events where we give a very low probability to something happening, but then it has a huge impact on society. And what that means is that we should take them seriously. For example, a terrorist attack, you know, the chance is very serious.

small and indeed on September 11th, nobody paid attention and then something bad happened. So we really need to collect all the facts. And Three Eye Atlas is one of those cases because we have a visitor to our backyard. And if it's technological, you know, it might come through our front door or send some devices that get to Earth. And we just need to monitor it and make sure that it's just an icy rock. Now, what was quite surprising about it is that it came in the plane of the planets around the sun. You know, there is a plane where all the planets within a few degrees are orbiting around the sun in the same plane.

And this object came within five degrees of that plane. And that is a very small probability event because the chance is one in 500. And this is the third object from outside the solar system that we spotted. If we had hundreds of them, it would be natural for one of them to be in this plane. But for the third object to be in that plane, that's quite surprising. And so it suggests maybe the trajectory of this object was designed by some intelligence. And then the object is extremely massive. It's of order a million times more massive than the first object we found.

And why did we deserve, why were we so lucky to receive such a huge package into the inner solar system. Then it came close to Mars and Venus and it will come close to Jupiter on March 16th, 26. And it was hiding behind the sun when it came closest to the sun. We couldn't look at it then. And it has also a glow, a hello of bright light around it that is extended towards the sun, which is quite unusual for comets because usually you get a tail. So we are seeing an anti-tail. Instead of gas or dust being pushed away from the sun, we see something extending from the object towards the sun. And that was true when it arrived and was moving towards the sun back in July when it was discovered. And it's also true now.

After it passed closest to the sun on October 29th, there was a recent image from the Hubble Space telescope that indicates that indeed this halo of light around it is teardrop shaped and it's pointing towards the sun again. So that has to be explained. You know, all these anomalies have to be explained. If it's a natural object, then, you know, we should have a good reason for it having those. And I didn't even mention that it has nickel with very little iron in the gas around it. And we always find nickel and iron in similar amounts in a natural comets, and the only place where we find nickel without iron is in industrially produced alloys that we technologically produce.

So that raised the alarm for me, and that's why I'm so interested in this object. Okay. I recognize that you qualify your exploration as the potentiality for a black swan event. The probability is still that it is a natural object from outside of our solar system. But I want to walk through quickly the four markers that you talk about that make it raise your eyebrows. And so first is size. I've seen you compare to the size of Manhattan, right? So it's roughly, if I have this correct, three miles or three kilometers in diameter,

which is different than the other two interstellar comets that have come through, I believe, in the last 50 years or so. Is that right? How long we've been monitoring these interstellar comets? So in the last years, only over the past decade, we started discovering those interstellar objects. And the reason is simple. The US Congress tasked NASA to find 90% of all objects bigger than a football field that may collide with Earth.

So NASA started building these observatories. One of them is pan stars in Hawaii. Another one is the Rubin Observatory in Chile that was just inaugurated in June. And the Atlas Telescope was also one that discovered this object. So that's a result. of looking for rocks that may impact the earth, that every now and then we see an object

that moves too fast to be bound to the sun. So it came from outside the solar system. It was just the result of the past eight years that we started discovering them. Okay. Okay, just in the last decade, as you point out, and this is the biggest one that we've discovered in that time. Oh, yeah, it's big by a large margin.

That's the issue, yeah. It's as big as Manhattan Island. Yeah, sorry. That takes me to the second piece of red flag that raises your eyebrows, and that is the plane that it is traveling on. You talked about it's five degrees off of the planetary plane, which is a one in 500 probability. My only skepticism or question on that that I would ask for clarification on is, if we're only been studying this, capable of studying this for eight years, how unique actually is 3-Ey Atlas? Couldn't it have been much more common before we were capable of observing it? So, for example, I was, and I'm, you know, I'm an expert like I slept at the holiday

and express last night. You know, I did my AI and Wikipedia research in preparation for a conversation with you, but I was like, remind me the difference between Ther Atlas and Haley's Comet. I'm old enough that I remember Haley's Comet in 1986. It was a huge pop culture event. But Haley's Comet has been around, right, since the 1500s or so. when it was first observed. And it comes back every 75 years.

But these types of things that show them out now, they don't have that history of observation. So is it possible that before the last eight years, we were getting a lot of these types of comments on the planetary plane? Oh, definitely. I mean, the fact that we see these objects over the past decade means that there were almost a billion

of them over the age of the history of the Earth that passed near earth this way, because we've just been monitoring the sky over this decade, but the traffic of interstellar object through the solar system doesn't depend on whether we look. Just think of a highway when you are going to bed. I mean, the cars don't stop going there. So we were just unaware of this.

There are lots of things that we were unaware of. We thought the Earth is at the center of the universe. We were unaware of what lies outside the solar system until the last century or so. So, you know, we just build the telescopes now that can monitor such objects because they cover a large portion of the sky. And then we find these objects,

but of course they were going through the solar system. We were not aware of them, and the question is whether any of them might be technological, alien technology, rather than rocks. And then, you know, when you get objects into your backyard from the street, You might assume that most of them are similar to the objects you have in your backyard, like rocks.

But every now and then, you may get a tennis ball that was thrown by a neighbor. And that's a completely new way of finding that you have a neighbor. You know, in the past we were waiting for a phone call, a radio signal. And over the past 65 years or so, we haven't detected any. But maybe nobody is calling us when we are listening. Maybe they called a long time ago. Who knows? If you check your backyard for packages that may have arrived from the neighborhood, you might find some letters in the mailbox, you know. And even if the sender is dead,

the difference is that those packages are confined by gravity to the Milky Way galaxy. They don't run away like light or radio signals. Radio signals move at the speed of light. They escape. If you don't catch them at the right time, they're gone. Whereas these, objects are accumulating over time. So imagine another civilization that just like us sent spacecraft like Voyager. Voyager, by the way, you may ask, I wrote a paper about it. Where will Voyager be in a billion years? It will be on the opposite side of the Milky Way galaxy. With technologies we developed in the 1970s, we can actually make it to the other side of the Milky Way galaxy within less than a billion years. That's amazing. And that means that

that they could have reached us any other civilization because most of the stars are older by billions of years than the sun. The sun is a relatively late star. It just formed in the last one third of cosmic history. So we know for sure that there were, you know, tens of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone where you could have had the technological civilization

because 10% of all the stars, you know, have a planet the size of the Earth, roughly at the same separation from the star. So I would simply argue that Elon Musk is not the most accomplished space entrepreneur since the Big Bang. That's very simple. And you know what happened on January 2nd? Astronomers discovered a near-Earth object.

So the Minor Planet Center, which is the organization officiated to catalog those guys, they announced a near-Earth asteroid, and within a day, they realized, oh, this one is actually moving along the path of the Tesla roads, the car that was launched by SpaceX. So it's not a rock. It's a car. It's a Tesla car moving in the sky because that was launched by SpaceX. They knew about it because they knew that SpaceX launched in 2018, this car to space. However, if there is someone else that launched a car from another star, you know. We would never know about it.

And of course, the same astronomers who are considering themselves as experts, you know, comet experts would say it's a rock of a type that we've never seen before. You know, just like a cave dweller finding a cell phone, the cave dweller would say it's a rock of a type that I've never seen before. So I'm incredibly open to these possibilities, but I like to walk through them together. So what that means to me, this object having originated from outside of our solar system to your point on the timeline

is older than our sun is what most people are saying it's billions of years old okay so let me let me explain that that is not a fact that but it's it's a matter of interpretation because the the statement about it being old is just because it has a high speed okay relative to the sun when it entered the solar system it had the speed of about 60 kilometers per second which is 600 times faster than the fastest race car that we have on earth. I know that because I visited the NASCAR car race a month ago and because one of the races put my image in 3-Ey Atlas on the hood of his car. So I calculated for this guy, I said, you know, it's not a great compliment for 3-I Atlas

because it was moving at 600 times faster than the fastest car in your race, you know. but so given that it's moving fast the you know the people who associate it with another star they said well you know the fastest moving stars in the vicinity of the sun are old stars these are stars that were kicked around for a long time and so if this object came from another star then that star must be old that's the argument but what they're missing is that if this object was ejected from the other star at some high speed. It has nothing to do. The speed has nothing to do with the velocity that it inherited from the parent star. It was just ejected at the high speed. So there is a caveat here.

We don't know the age of this object. Okay. So whether or not this is alien technology or a natural rock, it seems to me, Professor, that the the proximity of its relationship to our solar system and the size of it don't stand out as great pieces of evidence. Because of what we just said, we've only been monitoring this seriously for about eight years. So there could have been others that followed this same proximity.

Maybe they were alien. Maybe they were rock. We don't know. But proximity doesn't seem to be nor size because we don't know the size of those that might have preceded our ability to observe them. flag them as unique. Now, there are some things that you brought up that I'd love to dig in that might be unique. And that is, let's talk about the tail. Can I comment on what you just said?

Because, you know, we found only three, okay, so far over the past eight years. The other two are at a large angle relative to the clitick, the plane of the planets. This one is at a small angle. It's in the plane. And as I said, it's one in 500 chance. So, if we had a sample of hundreds of them, it wouldn't be unique. But the fact that it's the third object with a chance of one in 500 to be in the plane, that's unique.

It doesn't matter how many more objects are there. The point is that only one in 500 of them would be in the plane. So why are we, you just draw your luck and, you know, one out of 500 would be that aligned with the plane of the planets? And so why did we find the third one? be aligned when the chance is one in 500. We should have seen a hundred of them before we one of them would be likely to be in the plane. You see, that's the argument. Okay, I get that. I still don't know that that doesn't mean it's not random. You could get

the one in 500 on the third. It doesn't mean it's manipulated necessarily. Sure, sure, sure. I mean, I met my, yeah, I met my wife on a blind date. You might say the argument that you might say that the chance of that happening at random is really small that I would find the love of my love. You know, that definitely rare things sometimes happen, but it's just an anomaly. You know, if we had a hundred objects, I would say it's not true. Okay, talk to me about the tail. I'm curious about the tail. And it seems to me this is, this is tied to your other observation about the material, or at least that's what others say, that you say we would expect the tail. We get a glow, not a tail. And then it's got this comma shape. It seems that it's,

coming off of it at maybe 45 degree angles behind it. I think others are saying that's a product of its makeup, its material makeup. You've said it's not what we would expect. Right. So first of all, the plume of gas around it contains mostly carbon dioxide, not water. As comic experts expected, based on most of the comets we see in the solar system carrying water, that water reach. just ice icebergs, you know, basically dirty ice, or if you want, icy rocks. And by the way,

the model for comets was invented by a person at my home institution called Fred Whipple, who went during a snowy day, and he noticed all these icy rocks. And he said, well, maybe comets are just icy rocks or dirty ice, you know, and that ended up being the correct model. But it's water ice. It's not carbon dioxide ice. And that's what this object appears to be mostly made of. And also, there is nickel with very little iron, which is not explained. But the question about the jets that are observed coming from it is whether they are coming from pockets of ice on the surface of a natural rock or whether there are technological thrusters that are used, for navigation or you know to have some exhaust emitting gas out of the central engine

of this object and we can easily figure it out once we have more data because the speed of the gas coming as a result of warming up of pockets of ice by sunlight is only a few hundred meters per second that's the maximum speed you can get whereas technological uh thrusters they eject gas at a few kilometers per second these are chemical rockets the ones that we use or at a few tens of kilometers per second these are ion thrusters that we use for propulsion so so we can just by measuring the speed of the gas we can tell if it's natural or technological how would we react if it was proven that aliens exist let's talk about that with professor ovi lobe when we come back on wilkane country so the most compelling part to me are the most curious

part to me is the argument over the trajectory. So has it behaved in ways that you would not expect simply gravity making a comet behave as it goes around the sun, as it approaches the sun, as it emerges from behind the sun, has it picked up speed, has it changed course? Yes, it did, but also comets can do that because they evaporate. They have pockets of ice on their surface. And when the ice sublimates, when there is a jet of gas coming out of this ice, that acts as a rocket. You know, it pushes the object in the opposite direction. You get a recoil. So you can, I mean, we do see comets having non-gravitational acceleration. There is a non-gravitational force acting on them, just like in the case of rockets. And indeed, the 3i Atlas has non-gravitational

acceleration that it started showing when it came closest to the sun around the october 29th we know the magnitude of it and it's still being measured you know it's not a hundred percent measured there are still some uncertainties in it but we did see that it corrected its course and the most unusual thing about it is that on the 16th of march it will pass closest to jupiter and it turns out that the distance from jupiter that it will come to is exactly the distance where jupiter's gravity dominates over the sun's gravity to within a few significant digits this is called the hill radius it's the distance where an object a massive object dominates gravity relative to the sun

and the lagrange points are on at this radius these are points where if you place a device you don't need much fuel to keep it there so for example we put the web telescope the space telescope we put it on the the second lagrange point near earth that's where the earth's gravity balances the sun's gravity and three a atlas comes exactly at that distance from jupiter on march 16th 2026 and you know the question is whether that was designed because it arrives at that distance thanks to the course correction. If the course correction is not taken into account, it misses it. So the question is whether that's for a reason that Tri-A Atlas wants to deposit some devices near Jupiter.

And we will know because we have a spacecraft. NASA has a spacecraft, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna was very gracious. And when I spoke with her, she wrote a letter to NASA encouraging them to use the Juno spacecraft in monitoring 3i Atlas in March 26 and they will do so. I mean, I spoke with the principal investigator. They also have a radio antenna there that they can check if there is any transmission from 3i Atlas. I didn't even mention that there was a radio signal called the wow signal back in 1977 that is still not figured out. We know that it came from outside of Earth from some direction and the direction is actually very close to the arrival direction of Three-Ey Atlas within nine degrees.

And, you know, the chance of that is half a percent or so for them to be in the same part of the sky. So, you know, there are all kinds of strange things about this object. When will you have the most definitive evidence? March, I heard December might be a big month for knowing about Ther Atlas. When will you have the most definitive evidence? I think throughout this month of December, we will get the data. Now, it takes usually a month for the astronomers to digest the data and release it publicly. So I would say by the end of January, we will have a lot of data about it.

At that point, I can tell you, you know, I define the new scale called the lobe scale, where zero means a natural object, and 10 means alien technology that is of potential threat to humanity. And I will be able to tell you whether it's a zero or closer to 10, you know, at that point, because we will have so much data that we should know. Where are you right now? Where are you on the lobe scale today? Today, I'm at three to four. You know, so most likelihood, you know, is with a natural object. But I do still think that we should collect a lot of data because, you know, it might.

we might find that it released some small objects that arrive at Earth or arrive at Mars or Jupiter, and we just need to watch out for that. You know, it's just like watching out anything that passes through your backyard. I don't recommend the shooting at it or shining a laser beam on it. I'm just saying, let's monitor what it does. That's what we like to do, shoot things. We don't know what they are. When in doubt.

Okay, I want to go a little broader with you. Okay, I want to go a little broader for a moment. You said it's improbable or you don't think that Elon Musk is the most advanced space traveler since the Big Bang. Do you believe there are other living beings out there in the universe? Oh, definitely, because, you know, it's just a matter of statistics. There are 100 billion stars like the sun, only in the Milky Way galaxy, our own galaxy. They had plenty of time to travel to us, even with the technologies that we had back in the 1970s. And then, you know, out of all these stars, about 10% have a planet the size of the Earth, roughly the same separation.

So, you know, I just think that we are not special or unique. And I think we have siblings. And some of those siblings in our families, you know, in our family of intelligent civilizations might be more accomplished than we are. It's just a sense of modesty, you know. So we're very arrogant. Let me follow up there. Okay. Not only, okay, if there's other life out there in the universe, right?

Then you posit that they are most likely more advanced than us. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case, but many people presume based upon that, on that set of circumstances that they are. I'm sure you're familiar with this, and this is getting back to my holiday and express expertise. Enrique Fermi, right? Fermi, the famous nuclear physicist from the Manhattan Project in the, what, 1940s and 50s, they're sitting around the lunchroom table, all the guys working on the bomb, and they're talking about this, just like you and I are, right?

And Fermi's paradox is, he says, well, where are they? And it stumped all the other guys. Like, if there is alien life out there, shouldn't we have heard from them by now? And the fact that we haven't, doesn't it suggest there's not other advances? life out there in the universe. No, no, because if I was with Enrico Fermi back in 1950 at that lunch in Los Alamos, I would put my arm around his shoulder and say, Enrico, don't be so presumptuous. This is a question that every lonely person asks.

And what you tell a lonely person that didn't find a partner is you should be more proactive. You shouldn't assume that you are that attractive that everyone will come to you. Okay? You should look for them. You should go to dating sites, look through the window of your home to see if they're out there, you know, and RICO Fermi, frankly, didn't build a telescope. He could have discovered interstellar objects. He didn't. So just asking where is everybody is a very presumptuous question because it assumes that we are attractive. Now, if you read the news every day, you would be surprised if we were attractive because, you know, we are not that intelligent. We are wasting a lot of resources worldwide, you know, and we are spending $2.4 trillion every year on military budgets just to prevent other people from killing us or to kill other people instead of investing it in space exploration. You know, most of the real estate is out there.

It's not here on earth. And for us to fight over the limited amount of real estate on this tiny rock is very limited. You know, we should explore what's out there because that's the future of humanity. You know, the Earth will not survive in the current state condition for very long, and we need to embark on some trip out there to stay for much longer. Otherwise, the history books of the Milky Way galaxy will not remember us. Nobody would mourn over our death in the future, you know,

when we will perish as a civilization, either, because of self-inflicted wounds, and there are many scenarios for that, or through some global catastrophe that is natural. You know, nobody would care. Not only that they don't care about that, they might not be even aware that we exist. So if they come to visit the solar system,

it's not because of us. Well, okay, so the counter arguments that I've often seen may defer me is there could be a zoological effect, meaning they're just watching us, they're just monitoring us like we would animals in a zoo. We have no real interest to them, other than simply monitoring us.

But then the counter argument a lot is, you know, and I know this is wide open because we're dealing with something that we don't understand, if in fact they do exist, is resource competition that they would look at us at some point, having presumably exhausted their own resources, looking at our resources, and come, come here to take them. I'm curious what you think about that. Yeah, it really depends on their ambitions. You know, if we want to survive long term, and by long term, I mean billions of years, not just over the next millennium or a century, you know, we really need to think big. And it's not about going to Mars, because Mars is another rock, you know, just like the Earth,

and it's not much better than the Earth. In fact, it doesn't have a significant atmosphere. You know, you will be dead within a few years. if you just live on the surface of Mars because of the energetic particles there. It's not a great tourism spot, you know, and we should build some kind of a habitat in space, a space platform that can accommodate humans. The way we built high rises in cities, you know, they are not similar at all to the trees in the jungle where we came from. But we use technology to construct conditions that are much better.

You can order your food instead of chasing it. chasing it in the jungle. So that's a great advance. And the next step forward for our civilization is to build a space platform that accommodates humans, not go to another rock which has worse conditions than Earth. That's not a good solution. And so we haven't done that.

Why? Because we spent $2.4 trillion on military budgets. Imagine that we will spend $1 trillion a year on space exploration. Within this century, I can guarantee that if you put the best architects, the best scientists, the based business people on this challenge. We would get something, a space platform that can carry humans out there. We just didn't put it as a priority as of now. My hope is if we discover alien technology, someone else that did it, you know, we might get jealous and want to replicate what they did. And that is my hope.

Well, okay, one more on this front. Do you give any credence to the argument? that actually, they are here. Aliens are here. You know, obviously, if they're advanced, are capable of disguising themselves amongst us. I don't know what you make of the Roswell arguments and the Area 51 arguments. But I will say this,

in the large scope of human advancement, we have taken a massive leap in the past century, century and a half. From the Industrial Revolution to the technological revolution to the information revolution, we're looking at humanity's growth over the past 150 years, far outpaces what we did in the previous thousand, right? Like, it's vast. We took a massive leap forward.

How? Did we just get way smarter all of a sudden? How? Or were we the beneficiaries of something that landed here and helped us? Yeah. And I would also bring another possibility that there was an advanced civilization before us. We are just not aware of that here on earth. because documented human history is only 6,000 years old. That's nothing. That's one part in a thousand of the age of the Earth. Just think about it for 99.9% of the Earth's history, we have no clear record of what really happened here.

And it's possible that 100,000 years ago or a million years ago, someone else was here or someone else visited, and maybe the emergence of intelligence on Earth was ceded seeded by some interstellar gardener or maybe a previous civilization you know left behind all these objects that are hovering around the earth right now and we call them unidentified anomalous phenomena who knows now the best way for us to learn about these things is to study them and you know i'm leading the galileo project and we built three observatories one in massachusetts another one in pennsylvania and a third one in las vegas nevada where we are monitoring the sky

and we use infrared, visible light, radio and audio to figure out if all the objects flying in the sky are human-made technologies. And then, you know, I found anything that is human-made boring and we should see if we find anything other than that. But the US intelligence agencies submitted a few reports to the US Congress saying that they don't, they're not doing their job. They cannot figure out some of the objects. out there in the sky.

You know, if there is any information the government has, let's say from 50 years ago, it's completely irrelevant for national security because the technologies used by adversarial nations back then are not used anymore. And so if there are any unusual facts, materials or documents from 50 years ago, I would very much hope that these would be declassified

and shared with scientists like myself, and I'm completely open-minded to figure out what these things are. What about all the UAPs? Do you give credence to those, you know, including the underwater UAPs, which are currently in the cycle, new cycle? Yeah, so on May 1st this year, I visited the U.S. Congress and gave a briefing about the Galileo project that I'm leading. And a day before that, I went to the Pentagon and visited the all-domain anomaly resolution office. which is supposed to figure out what these UAPs are. And I asked them, you know, they looked at it for a couple of years. I said, did you find anything? And they said, no, we have access to all the information

within government, and these UAPs are just objects that we can figure out. And that's at least true for 99% of all the objects they looked at. But in addition, they haven't seen anything that looks really strange, except for some reports by FBI agents. That's all they said. And then a day later, I sit in Congress, and to my side, there is Eric Davis,

and he claims that he worked for the government, and the government has possession of about a dozen spacecraft from crash sites that include even biologics, and that was his claim. And we heard similar claims in the documentary, Age of Disclosure. And the only question is whether these stories, you know, are related to facts or maybe they are just stories because, you know, if the U.S. government, for example, has possession of some technological objects from other countries, they would potentially call them alien technology just in order to confuse those governments so that they won't know if we have it or not. And so I can imagine a situation where these people just heard stories, but in fact, these are human-made objects and the biologics are human pilots, you know.

And so I just want to see the evidence myself. I haven't seen it. I never had an experience of actually witnessing an unidentified anomalous phenomena that looks crazy. But scientifically speaking, I'm completely open-minded and willing to investigate that if it exists. all right two last questions for you professor um if if let's say in january it comes back 10 out of 10 on the lobe scale three eye atlas is alien technology um or or for that matter if the united states government declassified documents that said that in the 50s there was these these contact we made with extraterrestrials or any evidence that was incontrovertible how about that Okay? I'm not sure anything short of a spacecraft hovering over Manhattan would convince the public for anything longer than about a 48-hour news cycle. I'm in the business, so I happen to know. But it's almost like this entire conversation. We're living in the world of deep fakes. We're living in the world a short attention span. We're also living in the world where we've been inundated with content, both fiction and nonfiction, about this stuff so much. I'm not sure what effect it would have on the public. Oh, I think it would be huge. And by the way, it would make my life worth living because

one reason I'm seeking intelligence out there is because I don't often find it here on earth. But I'm trying out to be offended. No, no, not at all. I'm not talking about you. In fact, I enjoy this conversation a lot. But what I'm saying is that it would be a great opportunity for humanity to grow. You know, one thing I noticed, I have two daughters and whether they were small. They thought the world centers on them and they thought that anyone that comes into our home comes to visit them because we gave them a lot of attention. And of course, it was a shock for them to realize that on the first day at the kindergarten, that there are many kids just like them. Okay. And some of them are smarter than them. And, you know, that was a shock.

They matured, and I think our civilization eventually will mature. You know, whether we have a neighbor or not, does not depend on whether we know it for the same reason that the Earth orbited the sun, 4.6 billion times before the Vatican approved it. So it doesn't really matter what we think, whether we have a neighbor or not, is a fact, and we just need to figure it out. you know, it's better for us to know the reality, the way it is. And I just hope it will happen in my lifetime. So if it happens next month, that would be amazing. And I think there would be a slow process, but eventually the entire society will appreciate that. And it will change our priorities and bring us to a better place.

Because, you know, I was asked. You know, can I challenge one assumption, can I challenge one assumption that you made And not to make this too philosophical, but your presumption is that us understanding reality is a better place to be than wherever we are today. And that appeals to me because I think the truth, you have to live a life grounded in the truth. You know, Musk, speaking of Musk, he often ponderes the idea of whether or not we're living in a simulation, right? Which essentially is in a way, not unlike the movie The Matrix. That's where an entire population of people live in a state of existence that is not reality. And we all know the term, you all know the term red pill.

You red pill to live in reality. The question is, is blissful ignorance better than harsh, brutal reality? Well, you know, if you are the wealthiest person on earth, obviously you can have the luxury of imagining that you live in a simulation. But for any of us that has to struggle throughout life, life looks real. And I don't think this is a good idea to imagine that we live in a simulation because it takes out responsibility from your actions throughout life. You know, people who believe that we are in a simulation would just say, who cares if I get, you know, an overdraft in my bank account, if I get a low grade in an exam, if I do something really bad to my neighbor. It's all a game and that is a really bad place to be in. We don't want society made of people that do not take responsibility for their actions.

And maybe that's a society that Elon Musk enjoys being in and thinking that, you know, it's all part of a game. I don't think so. It's not a game because what I do affects other people, I want to take responsibility for that. And I don't want to belong to a group of people who just does what they want. And so I don't think it's a good place for us to be in. And, you know, one of course, impact of, I was visited by a group of scholars, theologians from an organization called Christianity Today.

And they asked me whether if we find extraterrestrials, whether it will change their religious beliefs. And I told them when, you know, I had two daughters. and when the second one was born, it didn't take away the love that I had to the first one. So imagining that God can attend only to one child is very limiting. And they were very happy with this answer, and I don't think it will impact religion.

In fact, it would enhance religious beliefs because you would realize that it's not only us. We have siblings. Now, we might get jealous that some siblings are more accomplished than we are, but I think all together will bring us to a better place. The universe will not feel cold and lonely anymore. We would feel emotionally connected to whoever is out there and maybe visit them as well.

Okay, last question, Professor. I appreciate all the time that you've given me. In our lifetime, what do you think will be the biggest mystery, we'll call it mystery of the cosmos, the conversations that we're talking about here, In our lifetime, what will be the biggest mystery solved? I think we will find evidence for life beyond Earth in the coming decades. And, you know, the only reason we might not find it is if we don't define it as an important priority,

if people assume they know the answer in advance, if they keep ridiculing the notion that there is a smarter kid on the block, If they keep making that, you know, something that should not be discussed within scientific research projects, then, of course, you know, out of ignorance, we will assume that there is nothing out there. But if we allocate, you know, right now the mainstream of astronomy is allocating more than $10 billion to search for microbes. And I'm just saying, you know, that doesn't make sense to give zero funding in the direction of, intelligence out there and allocate more than $10 billion in the next two decades to the search for microbes. I'm saying let's hedge our bets because it would be much easier to find the technological signature than to find microbes at great distances from us. So if we are wise enough to put billions of dollars in the search for technological signatures, I think we will find it.

That's my guess. And you know, in life, it's important to be an optimist because sometimes life a self-fulfilling prophecy and only if you are an optimist your life will get better if you say oh we will not find anything let's save the money and not do anything then you might remain ignorant so i'm hopeful under one caveat that we will invest billions of dollars in the search all right he is the frank b b bair junior professor of science at harvard university yes Professor. Just one thing. I had a bet last week with a skeptic, Michael Shermer, that in five years, 2030, by the end

of 2030, we'll find evidence for alien technology, and let's see if it happens. And I have one advantage relative to Michael, and that is that I can promote this future. I can actually work hard to discover evidence. And if it's not out there, there is not much I can do. What's the bet? Yeah. How much did you bet? Oh, $500 each.

I want a little more stake in the game, Professor. I need something that's really laying it on the line between both of you. Well, you know, my salary is not very high. But if I had more, you know, I would invest more. So, yeah, I'm willing to allocate a fraction of whatever research funds I get. Yeah. Five years. That's a hell of a timeline.

Okay, Professor Avi Loeb, I've really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you so much for the time. Me too, and thanks for having me. It's a great pleasure. Okay. There he goes. Harvard professor Avi Loeb. Over in the Walliscia, here's what the folks have to say.

Eric D. Reg says, we haven't developed a piece of technology worthy of them even talking. Suzanne Niko says, not sure what's scarier, that we are not alone out there or that we are alone, and we are it. Fanton-O-O-1 says nobody can handle the truth. And then Carmela Canale says, I don't think we have much to offer. They're probably so advanced. They have nothing that we have. to survive. And others, like Fanton saying, we are relics to them.

It's absolutely a fascinating conversation. And it is literally existential. Very different than the next conversation. As in our boy, Two of Days Dan, Notre Dame, got left out of the college football playoff. That's next on Will Kane Country. At Desjardin Insurance, we put the care in taking care of business. Your business, to be exact.

Our agents take the time to understand your company, so you get the right coverage at the right price. Whether you rent out your building, represent a condo corporation, or own a cleaning company, we make insurance easy to understand so you can focus on the big stuff, like your small business. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Dejardin.com slash business coverage. Maybe it's just a phase you're going through. You'll get over it. I can't help you with that.

The next appointment is in six months. You're not alone. Finding mental health support shouldn't leave you feeling more lost. At CAMH, we know how frustrating it can be trying to access care. We're working to build a future where the path to support is clear, and every step forward feels like progress. Not another wrong turn. Visit camh.ca to help us forge a better path for mental health care.

Two conspiracy theorists, two misanthropes, two victims, right here on Wilcane Country. Streaming live with the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page, always available by following on Spotify or on Apple. Tinfoil Pat is a known misanthrope and conspiracy theorist here in the country. He is, what, misanthrope? Yeah. Great word. It's exactly what it is. Great word.

It doesn't all stem from Florida State, but, you know, it is. Florida State being left out of the playoffs a few years ago was really the apex of what really sent him into a comet-light tailspin. By the way, Dan, we have a poll up asking people whether or not they think 3-Ey Atlas is a natural rock or alien spacecraft technology. What are the results of that poll? It's been going back and forth. So right now, 48% say normal comment and 52% say it's an alien probe or craft. So it's pretty down the middle. Okay.

All right. People are split. Well, Dan has now joined Patrick in his grievance industry because Notre Dame has been left out of the college football playoff at 10 and 2, having lost their head-to-head matchup with Miami. Notre Dame is out. Here is your college football playoff. One Indiana, two Ohio State, three Georgia, and four Texas Tech, all with a buy. Then your matchups. Five and 12.

that is Oregon versus James Madison 6 and 11 that is Ole Miss versus Tulane 710 Texas A&M Miami and 8 9

Oklahoma Alabama No Notre Dame First team I think first team We assume first team Because we didn't get the rankings below that right

It could be Texas 13 14 We don't know bottom Oh, BYU, you got 14th? Yeah. No, Notre Dame 13, BYU, 14. I'm assuming Texas got 15th.

Yeah. Something like that. Actually, it's comparable with the B.S. I was texting with a mutual friend of ours that went to Notre Dame, and I was like, Will still thinks Texas should be in. I do over Notre Dame I don't feel super bad for you Okay

You guys agree I don't know about Patrick Miami over Notre Dame Makes all the sense in the world Sure You admit that Dan Yeah head to head Patrick you're all over the place

It doesn't make sense what you want Head to head is a I'll concede it I don't agree but I'll concede it It's a piece of the puzzle that matters when you're debating two teams should they get in. Miami or Notre Dame. Well, Miami beat Notre Dame. Pretty easy. They can't do

hypothetical. Pretty easy. They beat them at home. You get three points at home. It's a three-point win. It's essentially a wash. Like, we don't know that they're a better team. No, it's not. Oh, we're doing a better team now? We're back to my Texas metric. Alabama beat Georgia

earlier in the season. You do this. If I make the argument that Texas is better, then I'd say two or three. of these teams right here in the playoff. Well, I mean, more than that, when you count James Madison, Tulane, I think they're better than Oklahoma. I think they're better than Miami.

You don't like it because the games matter. Records matter. And now that I'm sitting and telling you Miami over Notre Dame, you're like, well, the games don't matter. It's just who's better. You're all over the matter. Records matter. The overall body of work matters.

And that's why I don't think Texas should be in. And that's why what I'm saying is when we compare Miami and Notre Dame, head-to-head is a piece of that puzzle. it's not the entire thing so like just because one team beat the other doesn't mean that they deserve to be in the playoff yeah yes it does

when the debate comes down there the exact same records I'll give you something if the records were different but the exact same records then you have to take Miami over Notre Dame bad October losses don't count by a lot and Notre Dame winning 10 in a row

to finish out the season against decent teams head to head day one, debate over. Now, I'm willing to indulge a debate about Notre Dame versus Alabama, three lost Alabama, because Alabama was not impressive down the stretch. Alabama did get beat handily by Georgia. And so I think that Alabama has an argument for being out and Notre Dame being in. Again, I don't think it's the most egregious injustice.

And by the way, we've already seen Oklahoma Alabama. Oklahoma beat Alabama. So I don't need to see that game again. I mean, it's not necessary. I'd rather see Oklahoma and Notre Dame, quite honestly, right now. I'd rather see Texas in there. But this is, by the way, Notre Dame, total losers' limp pulling out of the bowl season.

What are you doing? That's a bad, bad look. You screw us, we screw you. It's exactly what should have happened. Who wins in this? ESPN. We have radically changed what college football was over the last 10 or 15 years. And so who wins if Notre Dame goes bowling?

Ding, ding. Notre Dame's fans? I'm excited for Texas, Michigan. You want Jeremiah left to get hurt his chances for the NFL. I'll watch the Citrus Bowl. I'll watch Texas Michigan in the Citrus Bowl. And it's not just Notre Dame. It's a New and Big Cat and people who have.

It's not just Notre Dame. Other teams pulled out too, by the way. Let's just put that out there. There are quite a few teams that pulled out. Who else is pulled out? Let's see. Yeah, there was another one. I think Kansas State, that was one of them.

But like, yeah, there are football diehards that, I mean, like Big Cat will literally sit there and watch women's volleyball just because it's on. So, like, there are people who are going to watch the games. But for most people, the Bulls don't matter anymore. It just doesn't matter. Florida State. That's changed. I mean like you look at Gibral Peppers and all these other players

who have sat out over the years it's like you're not going to go see the best players anymore people are saving their which for good reason because like Jake Butt ended up tearing his ACL or destroying his knee and never played well again so like you're not going to see the best players it's like both seasons dead

you might just won't even do it and I'd like to point out what Danny Cannell said I sent you that video from him yesterday basically saying that this is a vendetta job against YSP, against Notre Dame because they won't join a conference. And so they're just not...

I don't agree with... So we're not talking about football. We're talking about vendettas? Okay. No. Unfortunately, he fed into exactly what you want to hear, because you want to believe that it's a conspiracy in some way. Notre Dame was left out because they lost Miami.

It's really, really simple. That's it. By the way, you, Notre Dame, are the beneficiary. You've got such a sweetheart. Oh, I know. this whole thing. There is no conspiracy against you. You get all of your money.

You don't have to split it up with a conference. You get $4 million going straight to the university. All these other teams have to split it up with their conferences. And next year, starting next year, this whole system that's rigged against Notre Dame, oh, yeah. Because next year, if you're in the top 12, you get guaranteed to be in. That's the future. I mean, you're such a victim. Why doesn't Texas do it?

Texas could do it? Also, our schedule is insanely easy next year. It's crazy. I mean, you are the worst victim out there. I mean, it's the rich, entitled kid who finally didn't get what he wanted, and now the whole system is rigged against him. So it's a guy who's a fan of a three-loss team trying to get him in the playoff, backdoor. That's true.

Because they're better, because they're better, and they beat three top-10 teams. We beat Texas right now. It's pretty easy on my behalf. We would know that if you'd play in a bowl, a bunch of wusses. Come play us in the Citrus Bowl. Get out of here. I'm happy. I'm happy to take you on. Happy.

Please. I'm just glad. I mean, this got exposed just like COVID. This could have been. But no. I'm going home. Taking my ball and going home. I don't know.

I think the whole system just got exposed just like COVID. You think about George Floyd and it's like when George Floyd had, you know, all those funerals, everybody else is like, you can't have funerals. And you start going. Hey, what's up with this? Why can we have these funerals, but not these funerals? He just brought COVID and George Floyd into Notre Dame being left out of the playoffs. I didn't know you could make that interesting.

The system's broken. Working through I atlas. He's like that meme with all the red strings going everywhere. He's like, this is tied to this and this and this. I have a prediction. Avi Loeb says we will discover alien technology in the next five years. In the next five years, Patrick will be a full-on lefty. Watch it.

He may not call it that. He won't call it that. He may call it something else, but he is going to be a full-on lefty. I've already played this game before. I don't know. I can literally, I used to play this game at my old job. Because of the horseshoe theory,

I can be more liberal and more conservative than anyone else at the same time. I can make those arguments easily. Because you believe in nothing. I know. I believe in nothing. Yeah, I don't believe in anything. They're nihist, Donnie. You're nihilist.

Subjective. Yeah. must be exhausting, just like they said in the Big Lobowski. He believes in nothing, must be exhausting. That's all right. Spinner carrots. All right, that's going to do it for us today. We'll be back again tomorrow for Wilcane Country.

Same time, same place, same platforms. We'll see you next time. Listen to ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast. And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show. show ad free on the Amazon music app.