Great Pods
NASA Physicist Comes Clean on UFOs & Why We Can't Go Back to The Moon | Kevin Knuth

Key Points

NASA scientist Kevin studied neuroscience and brain signals using magnetic field detection and AI algorithms before transitioning to NASA's intelligent systems division for four years
Kevin became interested in UFOs after hearing stories about UFOs shutting down nuclear missiles at Malmstrom Air Force Base in 1988, which he later confirmed through Robert Hastings' 2010 press conference
The 1986 Japan Airlines cargo flight incident involved a UFO the size of an aircraft carrier that followed the plane for 45 minutes, with radar data showing 10,000g accelerations and speeds up to 250,000 mph
UFO sightings at nuclear facilities are statistically significantly higher than at nearby military bases or population centers, with monitoring beginning even during construction phases
A new 58-page scientific paper with 34 authors from 7 countries and 500 references was published studying UAPs, dispelling academic myths about the phenomenon being uniquely American
Physical evidence exists from UFO encounters including radiation traces, chemical signatures, tree damage, and landing marks that have been scientifically analyzed
Some UFOs emit hundreds of megawatts of light, equivalent to a small nuclear reactor's power output, as documented in cases like the 1965 Louisiana forest landing
The government knows very little about UAPs - officials admit they don't know basic information like how many craft are operating in Earth's environment at any given time
Historical UFO reports from ship logs dating back 150+ years show consistent descriptions similar to modern sightings, ruling out contemporary military technology explanations
Kevin's colleague Matthew developed a revolutionary lithium fission reactor design called the "angel core" that could power a house for a million years using coffee cup-sized fuel
Ocean worlds are likely common throughout the galaxy, and underwater environments would be ideal for interstellar travelers due to stable temperatures, pressure control, and protection from radiation
Multiple government officials and military personnel have reported radiation sickness and health problems from close UFO encounters, with some cases resulting in classified medical records
The 2024-2025 drone incidents over New Jersey were part of a global phenomenon spanning 17 countries, with some sightings showing non-human characteristics off the coasts of Oregon and Seattle
Academic physics has stagnated due to the "shut up and calculate" philosophy, focusing on mathematical applications rather than seeking new conceptual breakthroughs like quantum mechanics and relativity
Ancient artifacts like perfectly symmetrical granite vases from 2500 BC and precision-cut megalithic structures suggest lost advanced technologies that conventional archaeology cannot explain
The moon's unique properties include perfect solar eclipse alignment, spherical shape, and gradual retreat from Earth at 1.5 inches per year, making total solar eclipses a temporary cosmic coincidence
International collaboration among scientists studying UAPs is increasing, with researchers from multiple countries sharing data and working together despite funding challenges
The $21 trillion missing from the Department of Defense budget could potentially fund advanced "breakaway civilization" technologies operating outside normal government oversight
Full Transcript

Language: en
Kevin, thank you for coming, man.
Wow. Thank you for having me.
I think you're the uh first NASA
scientist I've ever talked to.
Wow. Okay.
How did you get involved with NASA?
How did I get involved with NASA? I had
my PhD was in physics and I had done
work in studying um the dynamics of the
human brain with response in response to
auditory stimulation
and I was studying magnetic fields
generated by neurons. So, magneto
andography and um
and I was interested in how to separate
brain signals. Um when you record EEG by
putting electrodes on the surface of the
head or do magneto andography, you each
detector picks up a mixture of signals.
So, what you really want to know is what
signals are coming from which different
part of the brain, but you really can
only record mixtures. So, I'd worked on
algorithms to um separate mixed signals
and um and these were AI algorithms.
This is in the late '9s before anybody
heard of AI. I've been doing the AI for
30 years. Um but but we didn't call it
AI. They were machine learning
algorithms, right? And um so I was doing
work in neuroscience, but my PhD my
original interests were originally in
physics. And I got um I was at a
neuroscience conference in DC and
um two of my friends who were married um
an astrophysicist and an astronomer and
um so I started collaborating with the
with um our astronomer friend there. He
was working at the Naval Research um uh
lab at the at the observatory, Naval
Research Observatory, and um he was
trying to develop a 4A transform
spectrometer to look for um wobbling
stars, basically be able to detect
Doppler shifts of stars that are
wobbling, so he could detect planets
around other stars. This was before this
was popular again.
And he was having trouble. He developed
his own instrument. He was having
trouble with the data analysis. and he
explained what he was doing and I had
already done a lot of work with use
machine learning and mixed signals and
um so we were just having dinner and and
I said oh no no you don't want to
analyze it that way that isn't going to
work do it this way and um explained how
to do it and he excitedly ran up to his
computer up in his room after after
dinner and came down a half hour later
and he goes I coded it and it works oh
my god and so we ended up writing a
paper together and so started re doing
research together and um I went with him
to keep Kit Peak National Observatory to
um get images of planetary nebula and
studying things like this. And then by
this time I heard of um a job opening at
NASA as in their intelligent systems
division and I knew some of the people
who worked in that area at NASA as
we did similar work and so I applied for
that job and that's how I got in to
NASA. And how long were you there for?
For four years.
Four years. And whatever. Uh so so
explain how the wobbling stars were able
to help detect planets.
Yeah. So as a planet orbits the star um
the planet pulls on the star
gravitationally. So the planet pulls the
star when it's on this side pulls it
this way. And as it comes over here, the
star wobbles to be toward the planet.
So this so they don't the the planet
doesn't exactly orbit the star. They
both orbit their center of mass and so
the center of mass isn't quite at the
center of the star because there's mass
out here where the planet is and so the
star wobbles a little bit.
Oh, interesting.
And so we we still use that the Doppler
shift technique to dis discover planets
once you got into NASA. What
specifically were you doing uh what
specifically were you studying there or
or working on? Yeah, there I was working
on studying planetary nebula um which is
what I had been doing with my my
astronomer friend
and um we were trying to develop 3D
models of what these nebula look like.
So these nebula are clouds of gas that
surround dying stars. So you know really
big stars when they they die they go
into a supernova they collapse and
Smaller ones like our sun will will
collapse and then just basic it'll be
bloat into a red giant phase and then it
when it
runs out of fuel it'll collap start
collapsing and it'll just kind of puff
off its outer atmosphere
and that'll form a nebula. And so we
were studying these nebula and trying to
make three-dimensional plots of them.
Oh wow.
It was a cool project. Yeah, it was a
lot of fun. We would get Hubble images
taken over fiveyear periods and you
could actually see the nebula getting
bigger which was pretty neat.
How far away was that star? Uh well
there were multiple stars so they're you
know they're
many light years away hundreds to
thousand lighty years away.
When you were at I mean when you're at
NASA and you're working with all kinds
of folks I'm sure um
with I'm sure there's multiple uh layers
of discipline of of people with
scientists or researchers that are
there. Um is there any like overt
interest in this UFO topic?
Not when I was there. When I was there,
not at all. Um, you know, there wasn't
any interest in it. Um, it was, if you
brought it up at all, and I I wasn't
even really interested in at that point.
Oh, really?
But if I happened if I happened to
mention something about it, you know,
everybody would scoff. No, that's just
ridiculous. That's nonsense. We're we're
NASA. We do real things
So, yeah, it wasn't wasn't a topic of
discussion. M how much did you guys uh
how much um attention did you guys pay
to the did you guys do anything with the
moon or any studies of the moon or
anything or
No, we didn't do any work with moon
missions um those cuz those had happened
in the 1960s.
But I'm wondering if there was any like
any newer research that you guys were
focusing on.
Um there were I was there when we um
when we started when George W. Bush
started um the plans for going back to
the moon and so they started talking
about missions like that and we did get
a we did write a proposal to develop um
system we decided um to propose to
develop a a digital map for um explorers
on the moon. So because you don't want
astronauts getting lost, right? you
know, they wander away from their their
and and you get lost. You're screwed,
you know, when you run out of air. So,
you're in big trouble. So, we were
working on we wanted to design a digital
map that you could use on the moon. That
would be like a
And you proposed this?
Yeah, we proposed it. We didn't we
didn't get that grant, so we didn't do
How much would that have costed? And
what what would go into the doing
something? I don't know how much it
would have made to make the map, but it
would have been one of the kind of
digital paper maps kind of like the
Kindles were made of at the time. Yeah.
Did you guys have any ideas of how it
would be done? Like did you have uh you
guys we had some plans for how it would
be done? Yeah. We would use um
geological surveys of the moon to use
that to feed the map. And
would you send uh new little like new
satellites out there or anything like
We didn't have plans for that. We plan
to use um data from the lunar cognizance
Oh, okay. From all the orbiters that I
you could use those orbiters and then
you could use the 3D topography to
create a 3D map that the astronauts
would see. So they would have a map like
an overhead view along with a map of
what you should be seeing if you're
looking straight this way.
And as you moved your position, you
would change where you were looking. So
you could actually map up to match
terrain that you see visually with what
was on the map,
It's still a nice idea for a map, but
Oh, it's an incredible idea for a map. I
would love to see something like that.
It's just I I feel like with all of this
talk about uh colonizing Mars and UFOs
and interdimensional aliens, there's no
one gives a [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] about the moon anymore.
I feel like the moon's up.
The moon could use
I can't wait till we go back to the
moon. I was I was four years old when
the first moon landing happened. So I
remember it. I remember it. I remember
and I remember it because it was so
exciting and I think you know we were at
my grandmother's house because she had a
a little box
a little box that we could watch it on.
Yeah. Um and you know and I remember
everybody telling me Kevin this is the
most important thing that's ever
happened. I remember being told that
over and over. So I was
amazed. But the thing that I it chokes
me up when I think about it because it
really is pretty amazing. I really
when we were leaving to go back to my
parents house, my dad was carrying me
and we were walking down the steps of my
grandma's house and he stopped at the
bottom of the steps and we looked up at
the moon and he pointed up at the moon
and he said, "Kevin, there are people up
there." And I remember thinking, "Wow,
that's amazing." Now when I Now when I
think about it, I think that is amazing.
That hasn't happened since. I mean,
right? How crazy. people younger than me
haven't never looked at the moon and
thought there are people up there,
Um that's an amazing thing to think.
Yeah. 300 and something thousand miles
away from here.
It's such a it's such a crazy feat.
Yeah. Sometimes I'd look up at the moon
at night and I'd just be like how like
wow like there's so there's so many
questions about the moon and it's such
an interesting just the the you know the
fact that we did that in the ' 70s and
uh and we haven't done it since and you
know it would just be so interesting to
see if we could get people back on there
and and how and what you know what we
could possibly do and what kind of you
know I'm sure I'm sure um you know if we
were to colonize other planets we would
probably want to use the moon as like a
midway way point or like a a a launch
point or something like that.
Yeah, you could certainly use it for for
a midway point or for construction or of
space vehicles, all sorts of
possibilities and for research of course
Right. Right. Exactly. So when at what
point did you start to become so
interested in this UFO topic because it
doesn't seem like a lot of academic
proper academic folks uh are interested
in these things.
It's still it's still a big handful at
this point. you know, maybe 10 10 proper
academics. Yeah. It's not that many on
that order.
so what and I know there I mean there's
a variety of reasons that that doesn't
happen, but what what got you into it
and what made you want to, you know, be
so public about it?
What got me into it was when I it was an
event that happened when I started
graduate school. I went to I got my
undergraduate degree in Wisconsin, the
University of Wisconsin in Oshkosh, the
party school, not the big school. And um
so I got my degree there, my bachelor's
degree there, and I went to Montana
State for my m master's degree in
Bosezeman, Montana. And it was the first
or second week of school there. So I
just moved out to Mont Montana. It's my
first time living alone and um and away
from home. And
there was a cattle mutilation on a ranch
near Bosezeman where two cows were
killed and surgically manipulated. And
it was very bizarre. Um,
and it was all over the news. There were
UFO reports that night. Many UFO reports
to the sheriff's office. And so this was
all over the TV news. And it was
aliens or Satanists were what they were
both worried about. Both were or alien
Satanists.
I don't think anyone I don't think
anyone thought to put those two together
at the time which
but yeah so it was either aliens or
Satanist and so the next day and at at
the university we were my office was on
the second floor so we were out in the
hallway talking about this I think the
new graduate students were you know cuz
you're looking down the barrel of
spending four to five years at this
school right of your life at the school
and we have all just moved here from
other states through other countries
even. So, we're all trying to get our
heads around what's actually happening
here. So, there was a heated discussion
in the hallway about
about what was going on. And we clearly
bothered one of the professors down the
hall cuz he came out of his office to
find out what all the commotion was
about. And we told him and he goes, "Oh
yeah, I think he tried to comfort us,
but it was not comforting." He said, "Oh
yeah, this happens from time to time and
they'll investigate it and they'll worry
about aliens and Satanists and they
won't figure anything out and then we'll
just all forget about it until it
happens again."
And um we were like, "Okay, this is
really just messed up." And then and
then he goes, "But you know what's
really weird?" He he he said, "I have
friends who are in the Air Force who
work up at the Air Force base in
Monstrom Air Force Base up in northern
Montana, and they have problems up there
with UFOs flying over the nuclear weapon
sites, over the ICBMs, and shutting down
the missiles."
And we listened politely. When he walked
away, we frankly we left our asses off
cuz that was the silliest thing I'd ever
heard. UFOs shutting down nuclear
missiles, you know, and and we talked
about that a little bit and thought,
well, that can't possibly be real
because the Air Force would be all over
this. I mean, this would be the biggest
um security problem in existence that
you could possibly imagine.
Um so we just thought it was nonsense.
And um and it kind of was a running joke
that year and whenever somebody said you
something weird happened to me, but
somebody would go, "Yeah, but what's
really weird is there's UFOs shutting
down missiles in northern Montana." And
we would all laugh.
So that just stuck with me. That was
1988, September of 88. So
So Hexclad sponsored the podcast and
sent me a brand new frying pan. And it
was so incredible, I went ahead and
bought the rest of the set. And I
brought one here to show you because
this actually solves a huge issue we've
been dealing with in the kitchen. It's a
thick stainless steel pan that they cut
grooves into and fill it with nonstick.
And that's what creates the hex pattern
that's in there. But most importantly,
it keeps you from scraping the non-stick
off the pan. That's the key. You can
still use a metal spatula if you wanted
to, and the nonstick would be protected.
Steve tells his wife she belongs in the
kitchen, but my wife is not like that.
I'm the one who cooks in our house. I
was cooking some eggs on this new frying
pan the other day and once I got done,
scrubbed it and found out how easy it
was to clean, I instantly went online
and ordered the rest of the set. And my
wife never likes any of the stuff that I
buy for the kitchen. And with this, she
was ecstatic. So, if you're like me and
you want to make kitchen life easier,
it's time to check out Hexcloud. They
have a lifetime warranty. They're used
by Gordon Ramsay's restaurants. And my
favorite, it's toxinfree. We're not in
the dark ages anymore. If you want to
buy something non-stick, you shouldn't
have to deal with getting poisoned by
it. So toxin-free is a huge plus. For a
limited time only, our listeners are
getting 10% off with our exclusive link.
Just head on over to hexclad.com/danny.
Support the show and check them out at
hex.com/dny.
Make sure you let them know we sent you.
And let's all eat with Hexcloud's
revolutionary cookware. Fast forward
what 30 years and and we're around 2015.
I'm teaching a course in astronomy at
the University of Albany in New York and
and I was preparing for a lecture in
astrobiology, life on other planets. And
and I don't have much to talk about. We
don't know much about the possibilities
of life elsewhere. And so some of my
students wanted me to talk about the
possibility of aliens coming to Earth or
UFOs and things like this. And I was
like, I don't even know. This is a real
physics class. I don't know what I could
possibly talk about. So, I was just
poking around on the internet and I
stumbled on the
press conference that Robert Hastings
held in 2010 at the National Press Club.
he had six people who had been on air
force bases
all talking about UFOs shutting down
nuclear missiles. The first speaker was
Robert Solless from Malmstrom Air Force
Base, the same Air Force base. And I saw
that and I thought, whoa, whoa, whoa,
whoa. I heard about this when I was in
grad school. 30 years ago. And I thought
and I listened to what he said and I
thought, my god. And that happened, his
story happened in 1966.
I thought I heard about it in 1988 as
something that was happening
that they had a current problem. And I
thought this can't be made up because
this is just so ridiculous. Nobody would
make it up for 20 years. you know,
different people wouldn't just continue
a silly story like this for 20 years
unless there was something to it.
I thought and then it kind of struck me.
I thought this must be real and nobody
is doing anything about it cuz they all
think it's nonsense.
And then I thought and if that's the
case then we've got a real problem on
our hands, right? And so
so I became I thought we have to pay
attention to this. Let's so I started
paying attention. and I started
researching the topic myself and um and
the more I started reading I thought wow
this is actually really interesting
there's a lot here it's not all nonsense
and and I remembered back to some cases
that I'd heard about I was I remember
seeing on the NBC nightly news with Tom
Brocon Chong in 1986
the Japanese airline case where a large
UFO the size of
size of an aircraft carrier basically
what four 747s across followed this
airlines for 45 minutes. And I remember
seeing that on the news and I so the
more I read about this I thought this
could actually be a really big deal.
This is and we all just laugh it off
like a joke but what if it isn't a joke
and what if
this is serious. So, so I, so I kind of
to test the waters, I gave a put
together a short talk on on UFOs that I
gave to our department, just a just a
you know, Friday to afternoon talk and
and then it got widely advertised and
the whole room was filled. The room was
filled beyond,
you know, beyond capacity. There were
people sitting cross-legged on the floor
all the way up to the front screen. And
I gave this talk on UFOs saying, "Look,
these things look interesting." And um
and there were a lot of people were
like, "Yeah, that is really
interesting." So I got a lot of support
for that from the department and and
then it was only that was like 2015.
And then it was only two years later
that Leslie Kaine and um what Helen
Cooper R Blumenthal and and Leslie Kane
wrote the wrote the New York Times
article about the ATIP program. Yeah.
And when that came out, I was like,
"Yeah, see, this is actually a problem
and no one's paying attention and this
is dangerous. We're dangerously ignorant
about what's going on." And
and I thought instead of thinking
somebody's got to solve this and
somebody's got to look at I thought,
"Oh, heck, why don't I do it?"
You know, why don't I try? I keep going
back and forth on what this on on my
theory of this whole thing, but um like
the tic-tac thing, a lot of them think
feel like it's just like, you know,
military technology or like super dark
DARPA stuff or whatever. But then you
have stories like that uh the '60s
Japanese airline flight or
in 1986.
86. Is that when it was?
Yeah. And I think it was a cargo plane
flying through Alaska. And they said
that these uh first of all he said there
was these two little lights that like
came up and were darting around in front
of them like moving.
Yeah. They were little rectangular
lights and they were like standing like
this but shining the light mean into the
cockpit and it was hot and scaring the
pilots. I mean
and the pilot just said that he reached
into his briefcase to pull a camera out
to take a photo of them and they just
vanished. And then a couple minutes
later, this mother ship shows up that's
like the size
this size of a football stadium or
something.
It was it was Yeah. size shape of a
walnut. It's about 1,000 ft diameter.
He drew an amazing uh he he had drew an
amazing illustration, Steve, of how big
it was. He drew a picture of the plane
that he was flying compared to the size
of the craft,
which is you could probably find it on
this Wikipedia article or if you type in
the guy's name, the pilot's name in the
Japanese Airlines cargo flight. He
Yeah, Kenji Tarachi.
It is insanely big. Okay. It's the Yeah,
there sketch on the top, I think.
Right. Those two those are the two
rectangular things. And then Yeah,
here's another sketch.
It looks like a napkin sketch. You'll
you'll know when you see it.
Copy. Um, but yeah, that uh that that's
something especially in the 80s like
something that big is like I don't know.
I don't know if the amazing thing about
the amazing thing about this is that the
radar data exists
and you can analyze the radar data from
that incident. They have 45 minutes of
radar data
and the um a lot of it was confiscated
by President Reagan's scientific team
and the CIA and the FBI. They all came
up to confiscate it. But the um but um
I'm blanking on his name. Oh yeah,
there's the craft.
That's it, Steve.
Yeah, the big walnut.
A little bit low quality, but
I got I got an image of the guy, too.
Oh, beautiful.
Pull up the uh can you can you can you
blow it up so we so we could show it to
Look at that. So, so
yeah. So, look at that. That is insane.
That thing is like that's that's like a
hundred times the size of the airplane.
Exactly. You can fit a hundred of those
airplanes inside that thing.
And so, you know, and so when people,
you know, are skeptical of this, I'm
like, how wrong can this guy have been?
Okay, so maybe he's off by the size by
20%. You know, for that to become a
reasonable story, he would have to be
off by so much, right?
Right. I mean, and he describes it as it
moved in front of the plane. You
couldn't see out of the cockpit. The
craft was there. I mean, it was it's
terrify. And he was terrified in talking
to the traffic control and I would be
too. I mean that's terrifying.
How did the story get out? I wonder.
And um
do you imagine they
I don't remember exactly how it came got
out. It got out pretty quickly and they
weren't able to put the lid on it. Yeah.
And um and then Callahan had to turn the
m all the materials over to Reagan's
scientific team. And then um but he had
kept copies for himself
stashing a box under his desk and he
kept it under his desk for like 20 years
while he wor um John Callahan who was
the FAA chief of accidents and
investigations.
Okay. Yes. Yes.
And he kept that material for like 20
years and then released it publicly. So
Daniel K, another phys physicist, he was
a physicist at the Neilsbore Institute.
Um he has a book called Anomaly where he
actually analyzed that. Um in my paper I
analyzed the basic description of what
was going on just to get an idea of how
fast this thing was moving. But Daniel
Combe actually worked through the the
radar data
and this thing made multiple jumps from
location to location in the one 11 sec
or so second sweep of the radar. And um
he estimates the acceleration to be on
the order of 10,000 gs.
10,000 g
with a top speed. So you get a top speed
of about 250,000 miles an hour.
That thing could get to the moon at that
speed. That thing could get to the moon
in 52 minutes.
How fast does our fastest jet plane go?
Our fastest fighter jet.
Our fastest fighter jet fastest
or fastest? I don't I don't exactly
know. I'm like,
what is like what's like the fastest?
Probably not much. Probably 6,000 mph.
Probably faster.
You're not going to get much faster than
10,000. 17,000 is orbital speed.
The F-22 Raptor goes to Okay. Yeah. 1400
miles hour. Okay. Okay.
Wow. So,
and they can't they can't accelerate
more than
200 times the speed of that.
Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
That's insane. And these things also
have to like slow down. They have to
stop. They stop on a dime. That's
Yeah. Yeah. The accelerations are are
insane. Yeah. And that energy has to go
somewhere.
So, where does that energy that kinetic
energy first? Where does the energy come
from? It's coming from their engines.
Okay, fine. You can just say that. and
maybe get away with it, but when it
stops, where does the energy go?
That's a bigger question.
You know, in car you have brakes, the
brakes heat up, right? But in a
with this this sort of thing, where does
the energy go?
You've got a ton of kinetic energy to
get rid of in fractions of a second.
It's just no way to do it. There should
be a huge explosion when it happens and
it doesn't,
Yeah. We really don't understand what
these things do at all. And it's not
it's not that it's advanced technology.
It is conceptually far beyond us. It's
they're amazing really.
Do you think it's possible that any of
this stuff could be some like military
stuff that we don't know about?
No. Absolutely not. For one good reason.
And the reason sitting on your shelf
right over there, Richard Dolan's book
on Usos.
Richard Dolan has a new book on
unidentified submerged objects.
These things. Yeah. These things have
been observed by and and recorded in
ships logs for over 150 years.
You have reports from the 1800s of a
disc coming out of the water, hovering
next to the ship, and then shooting off
into the clouds. That's been going on
for 150 years,
right? Yeah.
You can't And once you know that those
cases exist,
you can't just say got to be Russian or
Chinese, that doesn't hold water
anymore. It's silly.
Mhm. Yeah. But don't you think it's
possible that we could have got our
hands on some of that stuff and like
recreated it ourselves? So some of the
modernday things could be could be
modern secret techn military technology.
That's true. But the cases from the
1800s certainly can't
that you can't explain away with
technology.
So so you can't you you don't get rid of
the extraterrestrial or non-human
hypothesis by just looking at the
military technology argument today. The
150y old cases.
You got to give that up. The 150 year
old cases are interesting though because
you have like writings that have been
copied from like you know some guy on
the on the deck of a ship in the middle
of the ocean probably you know half
smashed on a bottle of rum
explaining these things. It was like a
sun that ca emerged from the depths and
it was the size of the whatever it was
like you know
the size of three moons
right so it's like it's it's very
difficult to understand and parse and
and corroborate that stuff
but those descriptions aren't any
different than modern day descriptions
and that's what's really compelling
about it.
Yeah, that's true. Especially [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] like
this. I mean, this is like
Yeah, that that case is really pretty
fantastic. And 10 10,000 gs is amazing.
At 10,000 gs,
you at 1,000g acceleration,
you can get up to 90% the speed of light
in about 17 hours
because relativity kicks in. So at a
1,00g acceleration, which we can't
imagine doing either, most of, you know,
an airplane F-22s wings will rip off at
about 13 gs,
And most missiles can't, their frame
can't even withstand more than about 60
So, 1000 gs is well beyond us, but at
1,000 gs, you can get up to in 17 hours,
you're going 90% the speed of light
relative. That's relativistic speed. So
relativity kicks in, time goes slower,
and all that kind of stuff happens.
And so going to stars within 50 light
years literally becomes a day trip for
the traveler.
Because time time's going slower on
their ship because they're going so
Time dilation.
Because of time dilation. For us, it's
going to take 50 years for them to get
there and 50 years to come back. But
but not for the Traveler.
interesting.
And so the fact that these things have
been observed, you know, suggests that
maybe that's possible. Maybe you can
pull that off.
So I'm sure you're aware of uh some of
the stuff that Ed Whitten and or Lewis
Whitten was looking at was looking into
in town the Towns and Brown stuff.
Oh, Townsen. Yeah, I know. I know a
little bit about Towns and Brown. There
was there was a allegedly there was like
a a whole lot of quote unquote
anti-gravity research going on in like
the ' 50s and uh a lot of it seemed
seemed to go dark after that where these
guys just like stopped looking into it
and there's a speculation that there's
maybe like private companies that got a
hold of it and then I think even um
Towns and Brown tried to like throw
people off his scent at one point when
he was like studying this stuff and
tried to like change a bunch of it to
make it confusing.
So, no one would understand it,
but um
Jesse Michaels did an amazing
documentary on the on the whole Towns
and Brown thing
and uh it expl basically explains that
like there's a there were a lot of
people physicists in the ' 50s looking
into this anti-gravity stuff and um
there's another term for it. There
there's a there was something they
utilized with like the B2 bomber with
like the skin of it that somehow made it
cut through the air better. M
um there was a uh what it was was it the
Bfield Brown effect there there was some
sort of u technology I forget the term
right now but it had something to do
with it it wasn't actually anti-gravity
but it was like another uh more
primitive form
so uh first of all are you aware of that
stuff and
I'm aware of what is your take on yeah I
haven't spent a lot of time looking at
anti-gravity research um it's not
something I've been interested in and
and it seems to be something that people
don't want to study for some reason.
There are, you know, there are always
rumors about people who are trying to
study it who get harassed and and worse.
So, um,
I've heard rumors like this that make me
I'll stick with UFOs and that's still
not entirely safe. So, but that's who
Do you know people have been harassed
looking into anti-gravity stuff?
Uh, yeah. Yeah, really know of people.
like academic people
um people in I know some people in
private companies who've done that.
Really? So people that you've worked
with and studied with and and uh and
to some degree? Yeah. Yeah. Know
personally in one certainly I know
personally well in one case. Yeah.
Yeah. Man, I wonder what would get
somebody interested in trying to figure
out anti-gravity, especially like a a
serious physicist, you know, not just
someone who's uh who's just like a
hobbyist, UFO freak, you know, somebody
who's like really into physics, like
what would
and and it's a hard topic because
there's always a lot of claims. I get
I'll get an email every every two weeks.
I mean, every week I'm getting emails
about UFOs or something, but I'll get an
email maybe every two weeks about
somebody's anti-gravity work and um
they've got this great solution for
anti-gravity, but um
and it's always this mish mash of
buzzwords, right? Almost the same the
same buzzwords. So, you can't really
it's it's hard to take seriously,
especially when if you're going to
figure that out, especially if
somebody's doing something like
electrogravidics. you would have to have
the beginnings at least of a theory of
of the unification of electromagnetism
and gravity. So, you should have some of
that um worked out to some degree.
And that that I you know, when I don't
see that, that's pretty much a clue.
Okay, this person really probably
doesn't know what they're doing. But
yeah, I mean like like like standard
commercial airplanes. We're using the
same commercial airplanes that we've
been using since the 50s. It's amazing
that we haven't been able to
expound upon that and and and develop.
It's like this technology is just
stagnated. I mean, physics,
you know, I, you know, there's a huge
thing within, you know, within physics
and string theory and all these things.
No one can figure out physics. We're st
we're stuck. We have this large hydron
collider and we haven't been able to
figure anything out. And uh technology
in general uh doesn't seem to be
evolving in the way other technologies
are evolving like AI for example like
it's making giant leaps every single
week and month and then and then on the
physical side of it it's like nothing.
Yeah, that's been a concern. I've I've
seen certainly YouTube videos about
other physicists talking about this. Um,
and I suspect a lot of it has to do with
the fact that we went through
I mean la if you look at the last
century you had two giant breakthroughs
at about the same time. You had
relativity in 1905 with general
relativity following what seven years
later or something five years later. And
so you've got that whole conceptual
change. And at the same time, probably
around 1925, you've got quantum
mechanics coming in. So you've got these
two huge um paradigm shifts in physics
that appeared. And quantum mechanics was
such a big deal that it allowed you to
calculate things that
and allowed you to figure out things
that nobody's been able to figure out
before. I mean, you could figure out why
this coffee cup is orange.
I mean, nobody was able to tell you why
these molecules are reflecting orange
light, but you can do that with quantum
mechanics, right? So the so physics went
through this mindset change where
where to make a breakthrough to make an
advancement all you had to do was to
apply the mathematics of quantum
mechanics to a problem.
You didn't have to understand quantum
mechanics. You just had to apply it to a
problem and do the calculations to find
out what the results were. So it became
this and and Richard Fineman called this
the shut up and calculate um
paradigm, right?
You know, so stop worrying about how
what quantum mechanics is. Just shut up
and calculate. Do the calculations and,
you know, figure something out.
And that's basically what happened with
physics. And so a lot of research in
physics stopped especially theoretical
work stopped trying to find a
new paradigm a new look look for
inconsistencies and find a new paradigm
to come up with a new breakthrough like
on the order of quantum mechanics and
you know basically assumed that won't
happen and just basically resorted to
doing calculations. let's just do let's
throw all the math we can at the problem
and see what comes out.
And that's what string theory is. Let's
just throw math at the problem. Let's
not understand quantum mechanics better.
Let's just instead of their particles,
let's make them strings and then do
math. Um so I think that's been the
mistake is that we stopped valuing
we stopped valuing the the
conceptual aspects of physics. Why why
are the laws of physics the way the way
that they are?
And so and so some of the theoretical
work that I've done is trying to go back
to these conceptual ideas. Why why are
the laws of quantum mechanics
and why do you think that's happened?
Why do you think that we how did we get
there? How did we get here?
I think it was just the shut up and
calculate um
philosophy. You could do a lot by
calculating. I mean you could figure out
superc conductivity by just applying
quantum mechanics and
come up with superc conductivity which
is a breakthrough. So it's a big deal.
You can get a Nobel Prize by applying
quantum mechanics without trying to
understand it or trying to go further.
Interesting.
Yeah. So, I think that we stopped
appreciating that real breakthroughs
come from conceptual changes rather than
um just applying math.
You can't just throw math at a problem
and expect to make a conceptual change.
and uh the people that you know that
were working on this uh trying to
understand anti-gravity, what do you do
you know like uh what sort of sparked
the flame for them to to research this
stuff and if so how far they were able
to get before they got to told told to
shut up shut it down.
Yeah. I don't I don't know that Yeah, I
don't know the details actually. Yeah,
it's just so interesting this whole
thing because I know I know a gentleman
who uh Jeremy Riss who has a uh he's a
kind of a self-taught I think he's like
a bachelor's in physics but he has a
he's a lab or he has had a few labs in
um Massachusetts that he's been working
at and uh he has a whole team of people
that have been working on this stuff
forever and um you know he's constantly
talking to people in the field and
trying to understand stuff and then uh
recently he had like I think the FBI
came and like shut down his whole site,
his whole his whole lab trying to study
this this stuff cuz they're constantly
like taking making videos of their
experiments they're doing and posting
them on YouTube and doing live streams
and stuff like that.
He's doing anti-grav work.
Yeah, he's trying to. Yeah, he's trying.
He's I mean he understands this stuff
better than uh I don't know if he
understands it better than anyone, but
he's explained it to me better than
anyone I've ever talked to.
Interesting.
And and he's a historian on on all of
the people who have studied it in the
past. and uh very very interesting guy
to talk to.
Oh, that's that is interesting.
Yeah. Okay. So, when it comes to like
military stuff, right, and and you seem
to believe that this stuff could not
possibly be could just because of the
fact that it's so it's been going on for
so long and the same things are
happening now, it doesn't make sense. Um
but we would have to have something
close to it, right? like if if we have
with the amount of money that we're
putting into military stuff and and
defense department stuff and you know
essentially trillions of dollars missing
from the DoD's receipts. Uh we we would
have had we we we should have something
close to this that that you would want
to keep secret from the rest of the
world. So, it seems like there's
probably a lot of different scenarios
here that are happening at the same
It's probably I Yeah, I would I would
imagine it's possible. Um, it's possible
we have something close like this if if
you know we you we do hear rumors of
crash retrievals and I've heard these
from I mean, we've heard some of these
publicly, right? But um but I've heard
private ones as well. And um
and and yeah, it's possible we did
figure things out from crash retrievalss
if that was what's going on. Yeah,
that's possible.
Or even just or even just basic research
on their own. I mean, yeah, that's that
it is possible that things were figured
out. But
if you
It's hard to speculate about that,
If you were, you know, Yeah. I mean, a
lot of this stuff's speculation, but if
if you were to try to come up with a
theory on how these things maneuver and
how they operate, just guess wild
speculation, what what would you what
would you go to?
And that's a tough one. I think about
that a lot. And
first, an acceleration of 10,000 gs,
nothing's going to survive that inside.
So there it has to be it can't be
regular Newtonian motion like we imagine
it. They're not moving the way we think
they're moving. It's not possible at
those accelerations. So something is
else is happening. So are they um so the
first go-to is using general relativity.
So it's creating something like a
gravitational field and things falling
in a gravitational field, right? So
that's like warp drive concept.
Um so
this is like the thing Bob Lazar
explains where the the reactor inside
kind of like shoot it. It's making this
pocket of space around it,
right? where basically if it's moving
this way, it's doing the same. It's like
it's like bending the space.
You're moving the space around it.
You're just moving the space around the
essentially like doing that but that way
but that way. Yeah, exactly.
So that's one that's one solution that's
in that's the most obvious one. Um
the another idea would be that it's
using something like you know in quantum
tunneling when you go from point A to
point B without traveling in between you
know maybe this thing is using some kind
of macroscopic quantum tunneling where
it's just pop
basically teleporting in some way.
Um that's another possibility. Um
could there be other things happening?
Possibly. Yeah, it's it's really it's
hard to speculate without without hard
What other cases have you looked at that
you're really interested in?
Other other UFO cases or
like other than like the I mean we
talked about the uh the Japan one, but
like are there any
I know. Yeah. Well, there's a good
number of them and they're interesting
for other reasons. Um the
So, we just finished we just published a
paper on the um scientific study of
UAPs. It's in the progress of aerospace
Oh yes, this is the new paper that uh
it's a new paper that just came out.
It's got what 34 authors, lots of good
people on it. And um
how long are you working on this?
About for about last year.
And it's what I think 58 pages in the
journal and 500 references. So it
basically is a summary of of it's a
summary of the scientific study of UAP
to date, right? And um
and one of the so one thing we tried to
do in this paper is to stay we tried to
dispel a lot of the myths that are kind
of floating around especially in
academia on on UAPs. Oh, it's an
American problem. It's an American
phenomenon. It doesn't happen anywhere
else. Well, that's not true. And then
you get the
this is this is a myth that's floating
around in academia.
Oh, a lot of people say all sorts of
ridiculous things about UAP because they
really don't know. They haven't really
looked at it. Um, why are there no UFOs
seen in Africa? Well, there there are
UFOs seen in Africa. In fact, there's
books written about UFOs in Africa,
And um
yeah, Zimbabwe, right?
And then there's the landing in Zimbabwe
at the aerial school. That's that's well
known, right? And then you've got um why
is there no physical evidence? There's
plenty of physical evidence. These
things land and break tree branches and
leave marks in the ground and leave
radiation traces and leave chemical
traces. And we have chemical traces and
some of these are being studied. And in
fact um in the same issue that um our
paper on the new science of UAPs is
being published. We had um Jacqu Valet
is publishing a paper on the
re-examination of tree bark that was
scorched by a very luminous UFO that
landed putting out hundreds of megawatts
of light. Basically burnt the trees in
the clear forest clearing. And they
restudied the tree park. They actually
went and resampled the tree bark
recently. Um,
when did this happen?
This happened in
was it 1965,
I think.
And they still have the tree bark.
Yeah. Well, the trees are still growing.
The bark's still there.
The burnt bark is still there.
Burnt bark's still there. Yeah. It's
just under layers, right? So, you can
still get that.
And so, they so they looked at that and
were using that to estimate the amount
of light that these things put out. So,
these things put out hundreds of
megawatts of light in some cases. And
that observation was from a physicist.
Physicist was driving down the road in
northern um
it was near Hannesville, Louisiana,
which was actually Arkansas. They were
actually north of it, north enough to be
in Arkansas. The landing happened and
the physicist saw this bright light
coming from the forest and was driving
with his family on the highway and saw
this and as he was getting closer
realized that the light was brighter
than the light on from his headlights
and he did a quick calculation in his
head knowing how bright his headlights
were to figure out that this thing is
crazy bright and I don't want to be
anywhere near it. Right? So he literally
stopped on the highway, did a U-turn and
got out of there and reported it. Right?
So reported it and then investigators
came out and found the landing site and
found found the damage done.
Where was this again?
North of Hannesville, Louisiana.
Louisiana. Okay.
Yeah. Just across the border in
And um Yeah. So Jacqu Valet has written
a paper on this where they estimate the
luminance of these things. So the
luminance the amount of light coming
from some of these UFOs is is on the
order of the amount of power of a small
nuclear reactor. Mhm.
Why are they making so much light?
They're using a whole nuclear reactor's
power to create enough this light to
burn trade bark. It's not clear why
they're so luminous in some cases. Very
And is this part of their, you know,
their propulsion technology? It could
be. Um I don't know, but then it's
basically a waste product.
Do we know anything about any of this
Very little.
This is so such a frustrating topic for
me sometimes.
It's really frustrating. I think very
very little is known and I think our
government knows very little and I think
that's one reason why disclosure doesn't
happen faster is because I don't think
they know what to disclose
Yeah. I really honestly don't.
Yeah. I don't think because it's going
to raise many more questions that they
just don't have answers to.
And so, you know, one one government um
official who's worked on these things
and and I I won't name him, but we had a
chance to talk to him. we scientists did
and I asked him I said how many of these
craft are operating on in the earth
environment in any given time just order
magnitude 10 100 a thousand 10,000 he
goes we have no idea he goes I don't
know in fact wrote down the question can
I write down this question so I can ask
it he didn't know the answer they don't
even know how many craft we're dealing
with and that's the level of ignorance
we're at and it's and why is simple is
we've been treating it as nonsense for
80 years and
and it's not nonsense. And when they
don't treat it as nonsense,
the public has been treating it.
The public treats the government
treating it that way for years.
I think a lot of them I mean there's
different government agencies and
there's different groups in the
government. So So one of them might not
be treating might be treating it
seriously, but they're not taken
seriously by the others and that leads
to budget problems and which is why a
tip gets cut and
you're just going to perpetuate this
Yeah. Have you ever
something that we really ought to just
put money into and solve the problem?
Have you ever uh listened or talked to
uh a lady by the name of Katherine Fitz?
No, I'm not I'm not familiar with her.
She's very interesting. We had her on
the podcast recently. She worked for the
Department of HUD uh under she got hired
under the Clinton administration and she
continued under the Bush administration
and uh she was basically there to like
clean up all the all the fraud that was
going on and and uh with the mortgages
and all this stuff.
I have heard about her. Yes. Okay.
Yeah. and uh and she basically she was
doing the math with you know all of the
money that was going in different she
she basically she's like a math wizard
so she figures out where all the money
goes in government within all the
agencies all around the world they the
the economy the banks the dollar
everything and she basically speculates
and we were talking about uh on the
podcast we were talking about Doge and
how Doge is going in to clean up all
these uh agencies like USAD and they're
looking into the IRS and social security
and all this stuff. She goes,
there's $21 trillion
missing from the Department of Defense.
She goes, if I was hired by the
president to go find all the waste,
fraud, and abuse, I would go straight to
the $21 billion that went dark.
And she go she noticed
what's the deficit? I mean, that's like
twothirds of the deficit, right?
Right. And she noticed that as soon as
that $21 trillion went missing, offshore
accounts started ballooning.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why would that happen?
Because money is being moved somewhere
to offshore accounts is what she's what
she's basically alluding to there.
Right. Right. So,
and I think part of her hypothesis is
the the government
the the top top top layer of the
government that needs to get [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] done
and doesn't want to have to worry about
laws, the constitution, the bureaucracy,
Congress, the Senate, all of that. If
they want to get [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] done, they need to
have their own pool of money that they
can they can operate outside the law and
do whatever they want to do, fund
whatever they want to fund, build
whatever they want to build, their own
secret military, whatever it is. Um,
without having to worry about laws and
without having the public know about it.
And and she speculates that that's
probably what happened. And and um
you know it gets into whole a whole
another uh realm of theories about you
know break breakaway civilizations and
all this stuff but but
it's a whole part of the swamp nobody's
trumped around in yet.
Right. Right. Right. But like the $21
trillion, I mean, you would imagine if
if you wanted to rule the world, run the
world, and and you had you have
unlimited money, you could do some [&nbsp;__&nbsp;]
that no one would know, including these
people that we're looking at in Congress
and these whistleblowers or anyone who's
in the traditional government that we
like to think of as the government, they
would have no clue
what's going on.
Yeah. Yeah, that's true.
I can see I can see that.
So, so yeah. No, it's hard to be it's
hard to be optimistic about this thing
and it's it's sometimes I don't know if
you feel the same way, but but sometimes
I feel like I'm just wasting my time and
mental energy thinking about it because
it's like no one's ever going to say
anything. Like you could have fun
speculating about it all day long, but
we're never going to have any objective
evidence or any we're never going to
know the real facts about what this
stuff is on a
on like a a verifiable level, right?
Like there's never going to be anything
that's verified that you can be like,
"Oh yeah, you're talking about facts,
right? It's all going to be subjective,
right?" Yeah. And that's that's
basically why I've wanted to get
scientics scientists and academia
involved because
when scientists get involved and
academics get involved, we'll share
information. We talk to each other. We
and we'll make this public and that's
what we do.
Well, then you and so and if you can
look at the author list on the paper, I
mean this is we got
we got scientists from what seven
countries. Um
okay. Oh, Dolan, Jacqu Valet,
Jacqu Fallet, Beatric Royale is there,
Brian Graves is involved. We've got
we've got French people, Luke Deni, and
um and and and then Iman Aspro from
Ireland. We've got, you know, people
from all over the country, Masimo, Teodo
Eduardo Russo, um all over Europe as
well. And so, you we're and we talk to
each other and we're working together
and we are all trying to figure this
out. And that's what and I and I think
scientists could figure this out. The
problem is funding, right? Right now,
all these different groups, we've got
several different international groups
trying to collect data on UAPs and we're
all struggling for funding. And you
know, the only places that
most you're either going to get it from
a very rich donor like um
like um Avi Lo did to form the Galileo
or you get it from um making um being
funded by a documentary filmmaker like
we did um from Carolyn Corey who made a
tear in the sky, right? So um so we get
money that those are ways we can get
money but
but if the government or NASA was um had
grant money available we would all be
applying and we would be getting it and
we would be working
and we'd be getting answers and maybe
that's one reason why we're not getting
money. Right. I think
right and your your friends that were
studying anti-gravity might be uh just
allowed to study anti-gravity.
I could be too. Yeah. No time to cook,
it's not a problem. My friends over at
Hule and today's sponsor have you
covered. It's spelled H U L and their
Black Edition ready to drink is a total
gamecher. It's a complete meal in a
bottle with 35 g of protein, 27 vitamins
and minerals, high fiber, and low sugar.
And you feel full, focused, and ready
for the day. No prep, no clean up, just
grab and go. Because eating is fun and
making food is not. Hule has already
sold over 500 million meals around the
world, and now it's your turn to try it.
New customers get 15% off at hule.com
when they use my code, Danny. I think
it's incredibly affordable, especially
when you compare it to other fast food
alternatives. Plus, you don't have to
wait in line. You can just grab and go
on your way to your destination. And my
favorite is this chocolate flavor. And I
love it because not only does it have so
much protein and vitamins and stuff, but
you actually do feel full after you
drink one of them. It's not a burst of
carbs or a protein break. It's just the
perfect balance for me. It was designed
by experts to provide all the
ingredients your body needs for a meal.
And Hule is insanely affordable. It's
cheaper than a chicken sandwich. So for
me, it's the perfect balanced meal for
on the- go. Get 15% off for new
customers using my exclusive code danny
dan ny at hwle.com.
Please see our description for full
terms and conditions. Skip the stress,
not the nutrition. And try Hule today
for complete nutrition in a bottle. So
yeah, the tear in the sky. What? So what
did that that documentary was about? Um
that was our our UAPX group which was um
founded by Kevin Day and um Gary Vores
and along with Jason Turner, they were
all involved with the Nimitsson
encounter.
Um Kevin Day was um the radar operator.
Senior Chief Kevin was radar operator.
Yeah. So they all wanted answers as to
what these tic tacs were. So
they formed UAPX and they got um they
got me involved as as a as a physicist
and then my colleague Matthew Shadagas
who I work with at University of Albany
and um and we formed a team and went out
to um Laguna Beach in California and
Avalon on Catalina Island and set up two
stations to basically moni monitor the
Catalina channel for 5 days watch for
What'd you find? It was interesting. And
there's spoilers here. So if you haven't
seen the movie, you might pause.
The movie doesn't have the movie is
mainly a documentary of our mission. So
it's it's a it conveys all the real
excitement that we had in doing the
working on this project for the first
time, actually going out there with real
equipment trying to really look for
these things. And you know on your first
mission you what do you learn on your
first mission? Typically you learn what
not to do, right? And which is exactly
what happened. Um we learned exactly
what not to do which is why we've gotten
better at this.
And um we you know there's early on
there's a bright light that's seen from
the guys on Catalina
um moving across the sky. Doesn't appear
to be an airplane. Uh very bright. and
we they contact us in Lagona and we try
to check it out and um we're checking on
our apps to see if it's a satellite, a
known satellite, and that's not coming
up to be a known satellite. So, we
didn't know what this was, but it turned
out it was the International Space
Station. Why didn't it show up on our
apps? Because the stupid app we were
using was off by one hour because of
daylight savings time.
Oh, no.
And so, but who figured this out? One of
the physicists did. Matthew Shanagas, my
colleague, figured this out. He goes, "I
think it was the space station, and it
just disappeared at one point." And he
said, "It disappeared because it went
behind the terminator, went into the
shadow of the Earth,
Just didn't reflect light anymore." So,
he did he did the calculations. He got
he found the real orbit and was like,
"Yeah, it was the right time
and the right direction." And then he
did he actually did the calculations
that is in. So, we've got a third paper
in this same special issue in progress
in aerospace sciences. This is the third
paper is on the UAPX mission um to
Catalina. So that paper describes you
know the results of what happened from
our study that is featured in a tear in
the sky.
And that's first authored by Matthew
Matthew Shadagis and Matthew did the
calculations where he took the iPhone
images of the object and measured how
many pixels and then did the
calculations well if this is so many
hundred miles away in orbit it should be
this big. And he comes out to like 111
ft across which is he was off by a foot
on the size of the space station.
No way. By measuring the pixel.
By measuring the pixel. Yeah. Cuz he's a
physicist. He knows what he knows what
he's doing.
That's amazing, man.
And when I love it when when it all
comes together like that and I'm talking
like what's his name from the A team? I
love it when a when a plan comes
together. But
that's exactly what happens. And it's um
and to have a good physicist on the job
is a good thing. It's, you know, I'm
reminded of John Stewart's quote. Is it
amazing what scientists can do when no
one makes them stop?
Yeah. Right.
I totally agree with that.
Yeah. Well, I mean, just like, you know,
going back to what we were how we were
talking about like the evolution of
technology and uh and and how like
physics has been snag stagnated. Like,
you know, look at the Civil War 1860s.
We were we were shooting musketss and
then within the time frame of a human
lifespan, we went from that to dropping
fusion devices out of airplanes,
I mean, that's just astonishing level of
technological innovation in such a such
a short period of time,
It's just it's just it just blows my
mind to think
and it's when and it's those fusion
devices that UFOs hang around.
And shut down and we're worried about,
It's interesting. And that's another
interesting thing that came out in this
paper. I found that the so next week um
starting later this week is the
scientific coalition for UAP studies
meeting. So after this I'm actually
flying to Alabama to go to that meeting
and the SCU team. One of the studies
that they did is they studied um
sightings at military bases, population
centers, and um and nuclear centers. And
they've been they've studied those from
the 1940s through the 1970s. And they
have a series of papers on these things.
And they found that um the UFO the
number of sightings at nuclear centers
is statistically significantly more
higher than the sightings at nearby air
base um army or air bases or population
These things are clearly hanging out
nuclear sites. And in fact that happens
early on. It starts actually when the
nuclear sites were being created when
they started construction which is
really odd because
how did they know how would anyone know
what's going to be made there right? So
it's either clever enough to either cle
you're either clever enough
before the nukes were actually
before the nukes were actually there the
UFOs were there watching and they stayed
watching through like 1952
and then dropped off and never in those
le levels never came back. So it was
clearly were watching the creation of
these nuclear sites.
Has anyone ever talked about or reported
on sightings of these things underwater?
because there's there's
hundreds of nuclear submarines circling
the oceans right now that are just
loaded with nukes.
Well, that's a good question and that's
you know the the two people currently
who are looking into that. You've got
Richard Dolan's book. Yeah. His first
book has come out. He's got two more
coming out. Um so the first book goes
antiquity back to what 1969 I think is
his first book. And the next book will
be in next 20 years or so. And then the
third book will be more recent.
Um, and you've got Admiral Timothy
Galidet who wrote his white paper for
the soul foundation on submerged
I think that's the ignored aspect of
UAPs. I mean UFOs, the UFO, the focus
has been on flying, but these things go
underwater.
Yeah. And under and and the oceans are
are less explored than the moon. We've
we the I think we've
less explored than Mars,
We know we know the surface of Mars
better than we know the whole surface of
That's crazy.
Which is crazy.
It's to think about like 10% I think of
the ocean floors that we mapped.
it's a water planet. I mean, we don't
really It's probably the most poorly
named planet in the solar system next to
Uranus perhaps.
I mean, it should just be called water
or ocean. I mean, if you just I mean,
for fun, just take a globe and hold it
up so that you're looking at the Pacific
Ocean, right?
And it is literally the whole circle.
It's a water plan.
One whole side of it is completely
whole side of it is just ocean.
It's really amazing when you can see,
you know,
and for anybody who's flown from Los
Angeles to Australia or New Zealand,
you're really aware of that cuz it's 12
hours. You look out the window, it's
still water.
Even halfway to Hawaii.
Yeah. It's It's Yeah, it's a lot of
water and we don't know what's under
We really don't. It's really pretty
remarkable.
you know, it is a w a majority a water
planet, but like us, we are the most
intelligent life form that we know of
that exists here. or this upright
bipeedal homminid that has evolved
obviously to survive on Earth
and a lot of these things that we see a
lot of these reports of like beings and
stuff they all look just like us
bipeedal upright walking hominids and if
they came from some other planet like
what are the chances that they would
evolve to look just like us right like I
think we're one of one of two million
cataloged species on the Earth and
there's 20 hominids and out of the 20
various variations of hominids we're one
of the 20. So we're like 0001% of living
beings on this earth and we've the we're
the only one that has been able to
figure out how to communicate beyond our
earth and develop technology to be able
to leave the earth. So like just just
calculating how rare we are on planet
Earth. Like we haven't even been able to
find life on other planets, let alone
life that evolved to look exactly like
the .001% of life on this Earth. So,
like what is the percentage of of I
don't know if you know the answer to
this, but like out of all of the planets
that are habitable are able to inhabit
life, h how many of them have are just
complete water worlds or have more water
than we have?
Ah, that's a good question. And we know
that about 20% of the planets 20% of the
star systems have a planet in what we
call the habitable zone where you could
have where the temperature is right to
have liquid water.
20% of the stars. So go out tonight,
count out five stars. One of those stars
has a planet in the right place to be
able to have liquid water,
right? Okay.
Um whether it's a rocky planet or a gas
planet, you know, you don't know. And
and so it might not be habitable,
right? But it's in what we call the
habitable zone.
Um, and water is very common and
very probably many of the terrestrial
worlds have have oceans or are water
worlds in some way. I mean, Venus used
to have an ocean. We know that now. My
friend Mike Weey, who's at NASA, who I
met when I went to first went to NASA,
Michael Wei studies Venus and um he's a
he's probably the ex Venus expert. And
so used to have green oceans, beautiful
green oceans. I would love to see
something like that.
How long ago?
Um, a lot before it got hot before the
the runaway global warming. So
the runaway global warming.
Does you have any ideas of like
I don't know what the time periods were,
but it's it's billions of years ago.
But yeah. So, and so Venus is
interesting that way. Mars used to have
liquid water. We know that, too. And so,
and we know many of the current, you
know, moons around Jupiter have oceans
under ice, right? So, Europa has an ice
crust with a 60-mi deep ocean
underneath. So, a lot of them are ocean
worlds. And you could easily imagine
that um with ocean worlds being so
prevalent, um anybody able to come here,
if you had life evolve on another planet
that could be interstellar stellar
capable and could come to Earth, um they
might very well be from an ocean world,
in which case our oceans aren't going to
be that different from their oceans.
Atmospheres are horrible. Um, you don't
want to We live on a surface with an
atmosphere. It's a really pretty crappy
place to live because as you know,
the environment changes every day.
Right. That yesterday it's cold and
rainy. Today it's bright and sunny.
And and warm. Um
but atmospheres the temperature can the
temperature changes dramatically um day
by day even even within a day. Um but if
you go from planet to planet it's
extremely different. So you go look at
Venus, you've got 100 times the air
pressure on Earth, which would crush
you. And you've got a carbon dioxide
atmosphere. The chemicals are different.
Carbon dioxide atmosphere. And it's
about 800° F.
I mean, when when I was working at Ames
is when the Mellin probe was studying
Venus with radar. And one of the big
mysteries that came up then was that the
mountain tops in V on Venus became radar
reflective
when it got cold. So when it got to like
when the temperatures dropped to like
600 degrees or something like this when
it got cold on Venus on the mountain
they would become radar reflective and
couldn't figure this out until they
figured out it was snow.
It was lead and bismouth snow. They had
metal snowflakes.
Wow. snow. So vaporized lead and
vaporized bismouth in the atmosphere
would crystallize and form snowflakes
and fall on the mountain tops. You have
metal on the mountain tops covering
snowflakes covering mountain tops.
That's amazing. That that's what a cold
day in hell looks like.
right. That's really pretty amazing.
I would love to see that. Um but not
with 100
atmospheres of pressure. That's
horrible. So Venus is a horrible place
to live. And then you go to Mars and
you've got you're what about 100° below
zero Fahrenheit, right? And you've got
1/100th of the air pressure. So you need
a space suit.
So atmospheres vary dramatically. But if
you look at an ocean um an ocean the
pressure is only going the pressure
changes um one atmosphere every 32 feet,
Yeah. So you're going to you go down 32
feet, you're at two atmospheres. You
know, you'd have to go down
3,000 feet. Basically, our oceans are
only about 5,000 feet deep. So you go
down about 5,000 ft, you're looking at
um you know, several hundred
atmospheres, thousand atmospheres,
right? On the order of a thousand
atmospheres or already of 100
atmospheres. So it's about so the bottom
of our oceans, the air pressure, the
water pressure is about the same as the
air pressure on the surface of Venus.
similar close.
I'm talking orders of magnitude here.
And so all you need to do is to get the
pressure right, you just go down to the
right depth and you'll have the pressure
you want, right?
And water is always between zero or
between 0 and 100° centigrade or between
32 and 212 Fahrenheit. Right? So
otherwise it isn't liquid water, right?
So, so the temperatures don't vary
dramatically, but atmospheres they do.
On Venus, it's 800°. On Mars, it's 100°
So, you've got a thousand degrees in
temperature difference.
So, no matter what planet you're on,
liquid water is going to be relatively
almost the same everywhere. The the
biggest difference is really going to be
the chemical constituents or biology.
Biological um bacteria or something
which could be bad for you.
Oh, that's fascinating. That's the only
difference. So, so going from one water
world to another would be easy. And in
fact, if I was an interstellar traveler
preparing to just make a home on another
planet and another star system I've
never been to, I would bring equipment
to live underwater
because if I would build I would bring
the, you know, what's needed to set up a
home underwater and that's where I'd
make my home. It would be the best
place. You're shielded from radiation.
You're shielded from my um meteorite
impacts. You're shielded from all these
things. A lot of protective shielding.
Oceans are great places to live.
What do you make of the the time
traveler theory?
All the none of these theories seem to
work. That's really the problem. Um they
don't they don't seem they don't seem to
describe explain all well time travel is
hard because we don't have a theory of
time traveling. So, so equally it's
equally difficult or maybe more so than
the whole warp d drive problem, right?
or anti-gravity problem. So, I don't I'm
not sure what to make of that. Um
isn't the idea of time travel uh that
you can't travel back farther than when
the first time machine was created?
Yeah. according to general relativity.
So if general relativity is the theory
you're going to work from, that's
basically what you're stuck with. Right.
So if we're seeing hypothetical time
travelers right now, that means time
travel has to exist. It has to be
created at least right now.
So and that's also possible.
That could be the $20 trillion right
there. But
that could be the $20 trillion.
That could be the $20 trillion. But then
when did that go missing? 1995. But that
doesn't explain the reports 150 years
That doesn't explain that. Right. But
unless time travel was figured out in
another planet,
another unless Yeah. So something like
that could happen. So they could be
extraterrestrial time travel.
Extra you have to have both. It has to
be extraterrestrial time travel.
Yeah. That's and that's where these
explanations start to they get messy
because the
the the the data that what we know
really doesn't have a good explanation.
and I think that, you know, we haven't
come up with a with a with a simple
explanation yet that that describes
everything. And um and that's what makes
it hard.
But I think that's also why disclosure
isn't easy. I mean, because all these
questions are going to come up with
disclosure. I I bet nobody has the
You really have to study these things
for a long time with a lot of people to
get answers. And it's hard.
What do you make of um the idea that
because there there was um how long ago
was that whole New Jersey drone incident
where we had all those drones floating
started in late October I think and went
through about end of Februaryish
end of February. Yeah, just this past
year this exact year we're in right now.
It ended a few months ago.
And it wasn't just New Jersey. That was
that was actually an interesting thing.
you know, the you know, and of course
the FAA comes out with some statement
they're testing drones or something
which that and that's nonsense because
they were seen they were seen off the
coast of Oregon and Seattle too. Those
were actually
in Florida, I think.
And and yeah, they were and they were
seen in about 17 countries.
This is it was global. It was global.
It's a problem. Again, we don't have a
good explanation for what happened.
Yeah. And there was people trying to
speculate it was like nonhuman and like
but if it w it wasn't they weren't
traveling and any kind of crazy speeds.
They weren't making maneuver.
Some of some of the sightings in Seattle
off the coast of Seattle and Oregon were
sounded like non-human craft, but those
were more isolated. There was a lot more
going on in New Jersey, but partly
because it was it's more populated
and I think you've got a lot more
misidentifications happening.
Yeah. You know, I remember seeing
photographs of of an an of a craft and I
my brother is very good with airplanes.
I sent him this. I said, "What do you
think this is?" He goes, "Oh, this is
this kind of helicopter." And he sent me
pictures of this helicopter and yeah, it
matches that helicopter. So, there were
a lot of misidentifications again.
And a lot of UFO enthusiasts would say,
"Well, it wasn't really a helicopter.
It's disguising itself as a helicopter."
And I was like, "Oh, please. We at some
point we have to
it wouldn't be that hard.
Let's just calm down.
Actually collect data on these things so
we can actually figure this out instead
of just guessing all the time.
Yeah. I can't imagine it would that be
that hard to send somebody up there to
figure out what the hell they were. I
mean if we wanted to know what they
were, somebody could have figured that
out very easily.
Yeah. And actually, um, Ben Kugielski
from our UAPX team, he's a pilot and he
actually performed some flights over New
Jersey in that area to try to see if he
could, um, see these things from the air
and just weren't successful.
They weren't successful.
Yeah, we just he just didn't see any.
That's all.
Oh, really?
I saw
they weren't that common, but they were
they were common enough that people were
seeing them. I You've got several
million people in the area, right? M so
right field shut down their their
runways because of these things and
there was even one that crashed. I think
we found we found something, Steve. I
don't if you remember, but we found like
a photo of one that allegedly crashed
and it was uh it was like we we tracked
down the company and it was a company
based out of somewhere in the Northeast
that was manufacturing drones that were
powered by
[&nbsp;__&nbsp;] I can't remember the name. It was
some some sort of chemical that was
powering these drones.
I want to say hydrogen maybe
hydrogen powered drones. But like there
it showed like a police officer holding
like a couple police officers holding
this thing. It was like the size a
quadcopter that was like the size of
this table.
Wow. Wow. Maybe it had six propellers on
it or something like that. But it looked
like something uh you know standard.
Didn't look like anything crazy.
I think what was going on was more
standard things were happening in New
Jersey. There was a lot there's a lot of
activity. There's a lot of air activity
in the area.
Um I'm pointing outside as if we're
still there. I live in New York, so it
would be
for me it's just over that way, but not
from Florida.
There it is. NYPD recovers massive drone
found abandoned. Click on that.
Oh, that's cool.
Okay, so it was the New York Post that
posted on it. Um in the tri-state area.
Uh scroll down. Police recovered a Yeah,
that that was the one we found for sure.
Go up
under the 2-year-old boy's foot.
Uh massive drone apparently abandoned in
the Brooklyn in a Brooklyn Navy yard.
The photo obtained by the post shows
NYPD officer holding up the unwieldy
aircraft, the body of which appears to
be uh more than 5 ft in diameter. Cops
responded to the email tip, alerting
them to the presence of the drone, which
they found on a sidewalk on Fifth Street
between Market Street and Morris Avenue.
Wow. Wow. So, it was actually found in
Brooklyn. That's crazy.
But there was um Yeah, look at that
Um they but remember we were looking at
it, we were they were able to track down
the name of the company
that that manufactured them.
Yeah. I'm trying to find the
manufacturer.
Ammonia. Look, look, look. S uh officers
were investigating passengers uh passers
by said uh he worked in the building
that houses the headquarters of the
drone's manufacturer, which he
identified as Amagi, Inc., a sustainable
energy startup working using ammonia as
a renewable fuel source, including
aerial vehicles.
Oh, that's interesting.
You ever heard of that before? Anything
like that before?
No, I haven't.
Yeah. And that's I mean that's one thing
to be I'm I'm glad to learn this because
it's good. It's important to be aware of
what's in the air if you're going to
study what's in the air, right? You have
to learn about all these things. So
and I think especially around New Jersey
that was hard because there were
I'm sure once the once the reports of
these, you know, unknown objects were
coming out, a lot of people, you know,
with who own drones are like, "Now's a
great time to go fly my drone."
Sending up their drones. and they send
up their drones and the next thing you
know it's a miss,
right? So,
but I think we h I mean I think um the
United States military had to have known
what that was or else there would have
been some sort of like state of
emergency or they would have been
getting rid of if it was it couldn't
have been a foreign actor. They wouldn't
let it stay up for that long. Even like
Trump was talking about it cuz they were
flying over his golf course,
right? and uh they were flying like over
some sort of military base in North
Carolina and they they simply would not
allow that to be there if it was
something they didn't understand or
weren't aware of.
I would I would hope so. But yeah,
and uh I think there was also some sort
of uh speculation.
You have these things flying over from
Humpstrom Air Force Base shutting no
nuclear missiles and no one did anything
about it for decades.
Not those though.
But not those things.
Yeah. Those were those were something
that were really unexplainable,
right? Yeah, I mean that and that's part
of what makes these things complicated.
An an unidentified object could be many
things, right?
And a lot of them can be conflated and
that's it makes it hard
there. There's so like even going back
to Roswell, right? Like in in uh 1947
when when that thing crashed, like we
still don't even know what happened with
that, right? There's still like so much
speculation on on what happened. There's
like, you know, there's there's a
handful of different theories of what
happened and no one can agree on
anything except for the fact that it
probably wasn't a weather balloon,
right? There was um allegedly there was
the the guy who wrote the book on
Roswell um Day after Roswell. He he
explained,
is that Corso's book?
Yes, Corso. That's Corso's book. You
know, he explained there being Kevlar
and Velcro in this crash. like clearly
man-made technology that was that was
found that you know no one ever talks
about that like if this was some sort of
you know interstellar craft why were
they using velcro and kevlar
yeah well I thought he had mentioned he
had he was claiming that they developed
kevlar from what was found in the craft
but I didn't know about the velcro part
yeah I haven't I haven't read his book
so I don't know those details I'd seen
an interview with him but
yeah no that That's that whole thing is
a real mess because you've got um
you've got the US government coming out
with multiple statements throughout the
years changing the story every time,
right? And you know, one of my favorite
ones from the early 1990s was that was
an Air Force statement that said it was
they were testing a Mars lander and the
disc was a back shell of the lander.
Well, who's testing a Mars lander in
1947 before 10 years before Sputnik,
That's a ridiculous thing to even say.
Doesn't make any sense. And so clearly a
lie, right? And um
and then after that, you know, came out
they they came up with Project Mogul,
but Project Mogul is a weather balloon
problem. What they were trying to do
with Project Mogul is they were trying
they wanted to put um radio radio
radio wave detectors up so that they
could detect the electromagnetic
radiation from nuclear explosions from
Soviet bomb testing. Right? So, but the
problem is you wanted to hold these
balloons at something like 50,000 ft.
The problem with balloons is you let the
thing go up and the balloon goes up and
up and up and as the balloon goes up the
air pressure outside goes down. So, the
balloon gets bigger and expands and
eventually breaks and the thing falls. M
so they so project mogul was about
trying to figure out how to maintain a
certain a certain altitude for a balloon
and so they were releasing test balloons
right they're trying to be up at 50,000
ft and then the claim is that the
balloon that was launched in early June
was or
yeah the balloon that was launched in
early June was the one that crashed on
Mac Brazil's farm or ranch in Roswell
near Roswell, New Mexico. But the
problem is that when you look at the the
records of the New York University
professor who was running Project Mogul,
they didn't launch a balloon in June.
They couldn't launch. The weather was
bad. So, they didn't launch. Yeah. So,
there was no balloon up.
And had they done it, had they done it,
it would have been an illegal thing to
do because the conditions weren't right
to be able to monitor the position of
the balloon. It wouldn't have been a
good experiment anyway,
So, they didn't even have a balloon up.
We have those records. We So we know it
wasn't project mogul,
but the and but Kirk Patrick at in Arrow
comes out with his report and says again
it's project mogul which we know it's
not. So
and we know the government has been
changing the story every time and lying
every time. So what what actually
happened is a good question. I mean,
what what was so serious that when the
military found when the army found that
the sheriff of of in the area went to
the ranch to look at the debris himself,
they found that out and they detained
him and his family for 5 days. What
warrants that?
A radio balloon experiment. Really?
That's hard to believe.
Th this is the paradox of trying to rely
on the government to give us any sort of
confirmation about any of this stuff.
Yeah. Exactly.
Right. This is this is the paradox of it
because you know they have been clearly
trying to deceive and you know muddy up
the waters of this topic forever.
So trying to rely on them is uh
something that's you know it's futile.
It feels like it's just like
I think it's a waste of time.
I think so too.
Plus there's plus there are other
governments on the planet, other
governments who actually know things. So
let's work with them.
Go down to talk to the Chileans. Maybe
they'll talk.
They've collected data. They've
collected information. You know, I' I'd
rather spend time with other governments
than wasting time with this one.
But a lot of those governments are
subservient to the US government and
and that is a problem. Yeah.
Yeah. I've heard stories that uh this
whole topic there's like zero stigma
when it comes to uh this stuff in like
Russia for example
like even like uh like the government
and the population they're all into like
esoteric UFOs astrology and all this
stuff and they're open
and they go through waves like we do and
we talk about that Russia a little bit
in our paper we didn't have the the
French co-authors worked um produced a
lot of the material in the Russians
as we talked about that in the paper and
they they had gone through phases where
they would start studying UFOs and then
somebody would say that's ridiculous and
they would shut it down and then they
would start up again and shut it down
kind of like what happens here goes up
and down a good bit.
And who who who were the the folks that
you got the information from in Russia?
Like were there certain
Oh, these were from documents from
Oh, actual documents.
Actual documents. Yeah. Yeah.
So, we learned a little bit about what
went on there, but a lot of it's not
known. I mean, the Soviet Union was
pretty tight-lipped about everything it
did. So,
I don't think like the US government,
you're never going to find out what the
Russians knew,
It's a problem,
Yeah. And then, um, you know, there's
lots of cases that happened in like
South America where like even stuff
that, uh, Jacqu Valet has written about
that's like really frightening stuff.
And uh I'm sure you're familiar with um
James Fox's documentary about Brazil. In
Brazil the the um
like the
what was the name of this the uh town in
Brazil again?
Uh there's there's the
it was like the Roswell of Brazil
basically. But they you know they
explained that crash and there was like
multiple witnesses and the next day the
US Air Force came down right
and landed there and supposedly took
these bodies away that
you know and they claimed it looked like
it was like two arms, two legs. It
looked like a demon. Smelled like a
demon. Smell the smell.
I love the description. Smell like
sulfur and everybody thinks it's a
demon. So they're always great
descriptions.
It's very funny.
It's Via.
Brazil. Yeah.
You know, and like then like the stories
like that are the ones that like that
just doesn't fit into any
weird. Yeah, they're weird. And then
there's the there's the explosion in Uba
Tuba in Brazil where they had they saw a
disc coming in. The fishermen, these
fishermen saw a disc coming in that then
pulls up. Looks like it's going to crash
into the ocean. It pulls up just at the
last minute and then just explodes and
then left debris and they collected
debris and that's been analyzed by
multiple people by this point
and um
Oh, has it?
Yeah, that's almost Yeah, it's
magnesium.
We have it. We can look at it.
Yeah. Yeah, it exists
and it's uh like in my position or is it
like locked away in the government?
No, there are other um other researchers
have it. I don't know.
I know that um Robert Powell from SCU
has has studied it and wrote a paper on
it with Phyllis Budinger who's a
physical chemist who's worked on a lot
of cases.
Is that kind of stuff's um material? Is
that kind of material something that
would be able to be created on Earth?
Um it was very pure magnesium which
would have been very hard to purify back
when it exploded which I don't remember
exactly what the date was but
but not impossible. But not impossible
probably. Yeah. But it would be very
expensive and very hard. So it's hard to
imagine that somebody made a craft of
this and then it blew up and
and that's one heck of a story still.
It is.
It is one heck of a story.
But some of this stuff is like, you
know, when when you have things that you
have people talking about demons
smelling like sulfur running around the
woods and getting people sick where
they're like d I think one of the cops
that handled the thing died allegedly.
I was like, "Wow, this sounds like some
sort of like biblical character."
I had a weird synchronicity involving a
UA UFO CR uh landing. Um
I knew about I had heard heard about the
this landing that happened in the
Mexican state of Chihuahua.
Mhm. where people describe it as the UFO
was just left there, doors open, keys in
the ignition is usually how people
describe it, which is just as, you know,
saying that it's just there unoccupied.
And a lot of, you know, UFO people will
say that it's was gifted to us or
something, which I don't I
was like, gifted? Are you serious? That
thing's a Trojan horse. They've got
I wouldn't trust it. But but anyway,
yeah, people have weird ideas about
what's all going on,
weird belief systems, and so and I'm
more suspicious and skeptical still. And
so, so I had heard that story and that
that and that and the story I heard was
that it landed in Mexico and the
American government went in and grabbed
it, right? Just stole it and took it.
That's the story I heard and I so I knew
this this story and I didn't know many
of the details. So, I was flying out to
um Los Angeles to film our scenes with
William Shatner for A Tear in the Sky
and I landed in LA and I was had an Uber
driver driving up us up to Castle
Studios in Burbank. And I'm chatting
with the Uber driver. He wants to know
what I'm doing. Oh, I'm very excited cuz
we're going up to film some scenes with
William Shatner for this documentary on
UFOs. And he goes, "Oh, UFOs. That is so
cool. You study them?" "Yes." and and he
goes, "Yeah, my dad he goes, I'm
originally from Mexico, and my dad was a
Mexican general."
And he handled a lot of top secret stuff
in Mexico. And he oh, he used to tell me
some crazy stories, but I was I was
really young at the time. I was like 13,
14, so I didn't believe half of them.
So, I didn't take them seriously, but
now I wish I had. and and and he said,
"Yeah, he told me once that about this
UFO that landed in Chihuahua." And I was
like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm going to
hear the story from the Mexican side,
right?" And I couldn't believe it. I was
like, "What a strange coincidence. I'm
in the car being driven by the son of a
Mexican general who had access to all
this top secret stuff." And he's telling
me this story. So he goes, "Yeah, this
this UFO landed in Chihuahua and they
sent a team in. They had a guy in the
back, you know, some distance away with
a radio and the rest of the team went in
to investigate and they all died and
they didn't know why they died and they
didn't know what to do. The guy radioed
back, panicked. You know, the whole team
is dead. I don't know what to do. And
they call they called the Americans to
come down and take this thing. So we
didn't just steal it. They Mexicans
called us to come help them with it. And
so then he goes, "So then the Americans
came in and the Americans came in and
they they got the craft and took it
And that's the story he told me. And I
was like, "Yeah, it's the same story. I
know I know the story, but from the
other side, right?" So it's like crazy,
It's like a weird confirmation, right,
that Yeah. This probably really
happened. Yeah,
man. Isn't it funny some of the stuff
that you can learn from Uber drivers?
Yeah. Yeah. He's just a guy driving my
Uber while I'm filming a UFO doc on my
way to film a UFO documentary. What a
weird coincidence.
How many people did he say died?
I don't know how big the team was. Yeah,
he didn't say.
And they all died from coming in contact
with this thing.
They all came in contact with it and
died. I don't know why. Yeah, he didn't
know why. Yeah.
Now, that's some of the stuff.
That's one hell of a gift.
That's some of the stuff that Yeah.
Yeah. Right. Good lord. Now, there's
been studies on people that have come in
contact with these things, right? And
had it problems, right? Like like
problems with their brains.
Yeah. Radi Well, radiation burns and um
are are Yeah, that happens just
burns from the luminosity alone are bad,
right? Um so that's a problem. But there
are people who have had radiation burns
and radiation sickness from being in
contact with these things. M
and do we know how many people roughly
or like how many people were were
involved in this?
No, I don't know if there's the Cash
Landram case where they actually got
cancer from radiation contact. There was
the what John's John Burroughs who was
involved when the um
in the English the case in England with
the landing at um
Randles forest between Bentwaters Air
Force Base and Yeah. Right. Right out
Yeah. So John Burroughs was he had he
had health problems from being in
contact with radiation there and he had
problem he sued the the air force if I
remember right he sued the air force be
for his medical records because his
medical records were classified
having come into contact with this so
that's so bizarre man yeah
when you really dig into this it's an
it's not at all boring it's really
interesting and it's complicated there's
a lot going on. It's not
it's not a simple blowoffable thing, you
I feel like NASA has to know more. NASA
has to have some idea what's
I would like I would think so too. Yes.
I mean, just think about like the like
I mean I know I know astro astronauts
have seen things. I talked to I got to
meet um
I met and talked to Alan Bean who was on
on the moon in Apollo 13 14 Apollo 14.
Yeah. Oh, no. No. Alan Bean was in 12.
He was in Pala. Yeah. He um he's now
since passed away, unfortunately, but he
I was very lucky. The the documentary in
the shadow of the moon, the Ron Howard
film on the moon landings.
I haven't seen that.
Oh, it's excellent. Um they spent most
of the time is interviewing the actual
astronauts
and they had um a premier showing at the
Rose Hayden Planetarium in New York City
and I being at Albany or the chair of
our department had tickets to go see the
premier showing and he couldn't go. So I
had just gotten done teaching the
astronomy class and I came into the
office and he said, "Kevin, you teach
astronomy. Would you like to go see
this?" And I was like, "Wow, when is
it?" He goes, "Tonight." And I was like,
it was it started like 7:00 or something
and it was like 2:00 in the afternoon. I
was like, "Holy cow, I've got to like
leave now if I'm going to go do this."
So, so my wife couldn't go sadly, but my
postoc um Dennis Kaga could go. And so
me and my postoc drove down to go see
the the premier showing of the mood
documentary.
And I didn't have time to even look at
the brochure. I just hopped in the car
and we went and we're driving and he
goes, "Have you read this?" I said, "No,
I haven't even looked at it." He goes,
"It says stay afterwards for a reception
where you can meet the astronauts."
And I was like, "What astronauts?" And
he goes, "I don't know. It doesn't say."
And I was like, "Well, they're not going
to be shuttle astronauts. If it's a
apollo film, they're going to have to be
Apollo astronauts." And and he goes,
"Yeah, it looks like Buzz Aldrin's going
to be there." And yeah, it was I mean it
was Buzz Aldrin and um Edgar Mitchell
was there and Alan Bean and um and
Harrison Schmidt was there and oh
Harrison Schmidt was wonderful. He was
he was the only scientist who's ever
been to the moon. He was the only
who's ever been to the moon.
Who's been to the moon?
Harrison Schmidt. He was he's yeah he is
um yeah he was in Apollo 17. the big the
picture of of the astronaut standing
next to that giant boulder, I think, is
a picture of him.
And he was a what was his he was a a
geologist.
Geologist. Yeah. And he Oh, he talked He
was so nice. He talked to us for a half
hour. Just me and Dennis talked to us
for I mean, we weren't excluding
anybody, but he was he was talking about
what it was like to be on the moon and
the can they were at Taurus Litro, which
is a big canyon. He says, "It's wider
than the Grand Canyon. You're standing
on the edge of this giant canyon bigger
than the Grand Canyon with the earth in
the sky and he's he's in tears
describing this and we're just like, "Oh
my god, I can't believe I'm hearing
hearing what the moon is like from
somebody who's been there. I was really
How old was he at the time?
I don't know how old he was. He he
looked quite young, but yeah.
But they all told amazing stories. They
all told craziest stories about things
you never hear about, which was really
spectacular. Like Alan Bean, when we
talked to him, he was describing what
happened when they launched. He said
there was Apollo 12. They all had their
NASA was getting kind of cocky and there
was a thunderstorm and they decided to
launch with the Apollo
Oh wow. He's only 37 when it when he
walked on the moon.
When he walked on the moon. Yeah.
Yeah. So they decided to launch in a
thunderstorm and he said we had just
cleared the tower and the and the module
got hit by lightning and it took out the
power. So all the electricity went out
and he said that they had the option to
abort. He goes we can abort and or do we
just ride this thing blind into orbit?
You know the thing is designed to just
rocket into orbit, right? So it would
have just they were hoping it would just
still go into orbit. So they voted to
just ride it into orbit. So they rode
that thing into orbit blind with all the
lights off. It was dark, pitch black
capsule in a rocket going into orbit.
And they got into orbit and they had to
then get their flashlights out and try
to power everything up again, get it
working, hopefully get it working so
they could get back back home if they
needed. So they're um so they were able
to get the power restored, but when they
rebooted the computers um the navigation
database, the navigation system put them
at the launch point rather than in
orbit. So they had to program their
position and orbit into the navigation
computer, right?
Manually. So they could get their
position in orbit from ground control,
but they couldn't get the orientation of
the spaceship. The ground control
couldn't tell the orientation of the
So, they had to manually get the
orientation of the craft. And they did
it by sighting stars.
They made a rectacle out of masking tape
and put it on the window and measured
where it was. And then they did that on
the other window. They got a star lined
up on that window. And then they lined
up they put another rectacle up where
another star that they could identify
was on the other window. And they
measured the positions of those
recticles and sent that information down
to Houston where they then calculated
the orientation of the spaceship.
I mean, it was these guys the the reason
they pulled it off in 1960 is because
they were or 1969 or I guess that launch
was what 70 would have been 1970 or
something. But yep,
the the way they pulled it off cuz they
were brilliant.
And and you know, I'm not sure anybody
today could pull that off, you know,
It's tough. I mean, nobody, we rely too
much on computers and calculators and
everything for everything, right?
Nobody's going to be able to to identify
a star. You'd have to get on Google to
get a star map. And, you know, people,
you know, but the astronauts could look
out the window and tell you what stars
were. You know, they knew this.
They were well educated. They knew what
they were doing. Brilliant.
You know, that's a, you know, that's an
interesting thing is that you the the
technology
during the Apollo programs is one of the
only technologies that just never
expounded upon itself and never grew,
never wasn't doubled or even able to
advance in the way other technologies
are like, you know, you know what I Like
look at look at cell phones and the way
cell phones has have evolved since the
first cell phones and you know vehicles
uh every every single type of technology
computers even um and then
the Apollo technology that was used to
launch the astronauts to the moon is the
only technology that we haven't been
able to
increase its ability or even duplicate
it, you know, 50 to 60 years later. It's
just so
I mean, some of it it was it was they
were early computers, right? So, they
were but they were robust. They weren't
they weren't they weren't powerful, but
they were robust.
Right. And that's the that's the cool
thing about them.
And that's what didn't last was the
robustness, right? Because to make them
more powerful, they have to become you
have to make everything smaller. So, it
has to become less robust. Mhm. What
what what why do you think that we
haven't been going back? Cuz I would
just imagine like in in in in the op in
in the perfect world, we would have kept
going back ever since every single year
developing new new technologies, faster
ways to get there way, you know,
building bases there.
We fight too many wars.
You think that's it?
Yeah. We stopped because of Vietnam.
Vietnam was too expensive. And then we
had the recession in the 80s and then
Yeah. And then for what? For the last 20
years, we've been fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And
I mean, we're always fighting wars.
That's what humans do. It's awful. Yeah.
I mean, but like even
we're always so excited about the next
one, but
We never think about the amount of
damage it does and the toll it takes and
the, you know, it's
it's a big problem. It's just it's
mind-blowing to me, you know, cuz the
first the first mission to the moon is
like the greatest achievement of
you know, and just the idea that we
would be so
naive or whatever whatever you want to
call it to to not want to invest more
money into that and to just scrap it. is
just like if you were if I was watching
this movie a hundred years from now, I'd
be like, "What the [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] are you people
Yeah, that's true. I I feel the same
way. And yes, having watched, you know,
the moon launches when I was a kid, I
always wanted to go to the moon and you
know, and what I turned 60 last month,
so like I'm probably not going to go to
the moon.
Sucks. Yeah. I would like to.
Well, um I think wasn't it isn't there a
planned a man mission a manned mission
that's planned to go happen soon? Yeah,
they were supposed to go next year,
isn't it? Artemis.
Artemis. Yeah, which I think was kind of
done wrong. I mean, it's Artemis is
what? The sister of Apollo, right? So,
it's it's the idea. And they were going
to have the first woman on the moon. And
when I saw that, they had one woman,
the first woman. Okay.
They were going to have the first woman
on the on the in the mission. And I was
like, Jesus, just make them all women. I
mean, it's Artemis. I mean, they should
all be women going to the moon. Why not?
Right. Plenty of good women. Om.
Was Artemis a girl? Yeah, she's the
sister of Apollo.
Oh. Oh, okay.
Yeah. The idea was I mean the Greek in
Greek mythology it was it was Artis
Artemis and Apollo and Apollo was sent
into the heavens. Right. So they're
separated or Artemis is sent in the
heavens. Right. She's the she's the
Right. Right.
And she's represented by the moon. And
the whole point of Apollo mission was to
reunite Apollo with Artemis. It was
quite a beautiful idea.
Oh wow.
I love how all these NASA people are so
obsessed with the ancient Greeks. They
want to rename everything. Wasn't Wasn't
there there I was uh recently learning
about um
some of some like NSA rockets or NRO
rockets that were launched out of
Vandenberg and it was uh a god I can't
remember what it was now, but they named
them all a after like uh ancient Greek
goddesses or something like this.
That's great. Yeah. Well, there are
rules for naming um astronomers have
rules for naming features on planets. So
all of the features on Venus are all
goddesses.
Why do they do this?
They they they Well, they to have some
kind of consistency and Yeah.
and naming and all of that. Like all of
Uranus's moons are all named after
Shakespeare characters.
Miranda and and Uriel and Ariel. Yeah.
also are
and I think and I think the the
volcanoes I think volcanoes on Io
are all on Jupiter Jupiter's moon Io are
named after um blacksmiths or something
like that famous blacksmiths from
there's volcanoes on Jupiter's moons
oh yeah Jupiter's moon Io is the most
volcanic world in our solar system
tons of volcanoes always going off
really blowing into space even it's
amazing yeah the pictures They're
amazing. Yeah.
Are there any other moons that you're
aware of that are have the unique
features that our moon has with like the
distance to the sun that perfectly
oludes the sun the way our moon does?
No. No, I don't. We don't.
What do you astronomers make of the moon
of the moon?
That is a weird coincidence, right? It's
a pretty amazing coincidence. And um
it seems almost
it's probably pretty it's probably
pretty unique in this in the galaxy
even. I would imagine for that to
I mean, you can you could be anywhere
around a planet and arrange yourself so
that it would block almost perfectly,
right? But not from the surface. That's
a that's a and the moon moves away from
the Earth, so that's not going to be
like that forever either. And it wasn't
always like that. The moon used to be a
lot closer.
How far do we know how uh what the speed
is the moon is moving away from?
I should know this was this was a
trivial pursuit question, right? We had
we were playing trivial pursuit at home
once and it was a question and I got it
wrong cuz I thought it was a centimeter.
I think it's an inch. I think it's an
inch. A inch.
An inch.
I should know this. It's an inch. Um,
yeah. Thank you.
The moon is currently moving away from
the earth by approximately one and a
half inches per year.
It's one and a half inches per year.
There it is. Thank you, Google. The
retreat is due to tidal forces and
gravitation uh gravitational interaction
between earths and the moon.
Yep. Energy energy getting taken up by
our oceans.
So, oh energy from the oceans.
Well, the moon pulls on the oceans. So,
it loses gravitational energy by pulling
on the oceans. So, it's going to
and angular momentum exchange actually.
Whoa. So, uh
inch and a half per year. That's what it
was. Yeah. So do this math, Steve. Find
out how close the moon would have been a
billion years ago if it's doing one and
a half inches a year.
Would it be
a billion?
Yeah, do the math. Do a billion times
1.5 and see how much closer it be. So
it's it's 300 and what 50 million?
It's about 200 about 200 It's around 200
60,000 miles away.
260,000 miles away right now.
So yeah, you would have to do uh you
would have to do uh
you can figure out how many if you
figure out how far it moves in a million
years. So it's going to be a million
inches, right?
A million
so about 1.5
1.5 million inches, right?
1.5 million inches per year.
And how many um
how many uh
how many feet is that going to be? Let's
say it's let's say 1.2 in. And then we
basically have um so 1.2 2 million in
per year is gives you about
0.1 million. So about 100,000 feet per
year. A little more than 100,000 ft per
100,000 ft per year. How many miles is
5,000 5,000 miles per 5,000 ft per mile.
So you're probably looking about
So what is that going to be? About 2,000
or 20,000? I'm trying to do the 20,000.
So about 20,000 miles difference every
million years.
20,000 miles.
And that's going to change as it moves
away because the gravitational force
falls off as one over a square. So it
won't be constant. So it's not a simple
you got to use some calculus to get the
right answer. Wow.
But you're looking at something like
20,000 miles per year per million years.
So as it gets farther, is it going to
start moving faster
or is it going to start slowing down?
I think it should slow down. It should
slow down cuz the interaction gets
weaker. So
Mhm. And also our moon is the only,
correct me if I'm wrong, but ours is the
only ones that perfect sphere.
Like a lot of them are are potatoes,
Uh oh. A lot of the small ones are
potatoes shaped weird shapes. Yeah. But
the larger ones are pretty pretty
spherical.
They're all pretty The large pretty
spherical. Yeah.
Gravity makes things pretty round.
Yeah. Um All right. I take a quick pe
break. I'm going to tell this guy to
turn off his uh blower. We'll be right
back. We're back. We were Yeah, we're
talking about the moon. One quick uh one
more thing that just popped into my
head. You ever heard of a guy I asked
this to like almost everybody. Have you
heard of a guy named Hal Pavmeer?
I think I would have remembered that
That's all I have or remembered having
remembered having heard that name.
Uh yeah, I heard a crazy story about
this guy who allegedly worked at NASA
who was in charge of mapping the moon
and his name was Hal Pavin Meyer. Um, so
I've asked probably uh 50 different
people that have come on the show if
they've ever heard of him and they never
heard of him.
No. Okay.
I had this guy um on the podcast. I'm
sure you're familiar with him. This guy
Bart Cyrell who wrote the whole he had
he his whole identity is revolved around
uh proving that the moon landings were
for were fake.
Oh wow.
Yeah. and he uh one of his biggest um
one of his biggest pieces of evidence
that he shows or tries to prove that
they were fake is because we can't get
through this this radiation belt called
the Van you know the Van Allen radiation
belt right so he he says that uh it's
impossible to send a life form through
there and get back and we can't do it
and it's so thick or whatever that no
one will be able to survive and on top
of that he's like oh the moon's too it's
like 250° Fahrenheit or something maybe
it was more than that in like the
well the surface temperature changes
dramatically from sunlight to non
in the shadow it goes like below 200° F
or whatever and he's like how could the
lunar lander stay there for that long
blah blah blah and like you know he he's
done a bunch of crazy documentaries
trying to show all this evidence of how
it was forged and like when he came in
the Japanese probes now have photos of
the landing sites
the Japanese probes have photos of the
landing sites now really
see the landing sites
and you can see the like the prints from
the reallyies after all this time
well they there's no weather it's not
going anywhere
right there's no
million years from now, they'll still be
there exactly the same. Well, they'll be
covered with more dust. Yeah. It won't
change. It'll change as more meteorites
hit the moon and create dust, but that's
Right. Right.
Will eventually be buried in dust, but
that's but the meteorite rate the the
cratering rates so low now. So,
So, that's not going to happen very
much, right?
Take a long time.
Yeah. Yeah. The the um
our society will be gone and erased from
the earth and that'll still be on the
moon. that long.
Yeah. It'll Yeah. There was a study out
of it's another NASA study that
estimated how long it would take for
evidence of our civilization to
disappear. And it's something like 20
million years
for all evidence that long.
I would imagine it would be shorter.
Mo I mean most that's all almost all the
evidence would be gone. You'd still have
some evidence the Washington Monument
would probably
still have chemical evidence, but that's
it. But that's it. Yeah,
you I would I would imagine that like
you know New York City all the
skyscrapers I think somebody was on here
one time and and told me I mean like
that's as far as my evidence goes.
Somebody told me it once that the
skyscrapers would basically be
disintegrated in something like uh
50,000 years or something like that. And
uh all that would be left as far as like
buildings from us would be like the
great pyramids which weren't from us and
like the Washington Monument, the Hoover
Dam, big kind of like
you've got to go to geological time
scales to get rid of those. So
yeah. Right.
Yeah. So that so that paper the question
was has there been another civilization
before us that we didn't know about?
and that's possible if it's if it's
older than 20 million years ago. Yeah.
old than 20 million years ago.
Why would it have to be that old?
Because it because you would still have
evidence of it.
So it takes about it'll take it would
take about 20 million years to get rid
of the evidence. Geological time.
Oh, okay.
But you could have something that was
older than that that you would never
know about.
But we do I mean we do have evidence of
[&nbsp;__&nbsp;] that we don't know how it was
constructed, right? Like the Stonehenge
things like this. Like we don't have any
I don't know if you saw but that guy
Zahi Has just went on Joe Rogan's
podcast. He's like the head of
antiquities for uh Egypt. And uh it was
an eye opening conversation. It was like
very dogmatic like didn't wasn't open to
any of like expl any explainable
theories of how some of these stones
were moved or
stones are huge level. Have you been to
I've never been to Giza. No,
they're ginormous. I mean you to climb
up I mean one of those stones is like
this is 5t high. I mean this is these
are giant stones,
you know. You want to climb up the
pyramid. It takes some effort cuz
they're not small. Yeah. And inside of
those pyramids too, like in some of like
the chambers from what I understand is
there's there's uh massive pieces of
granite like like blocks of granite that
weigh you know hundreds of tons that
were supposed to be and the conventional
explanation by the Egyptologists is that
they came from the Oswan quarry which is
like 500 miles away. So these Egyptians
would have had to move, you know, first
of all, cut these giant stones, these
granite, the hardest, one of the hardest
stones on earth, right? And move them
500 miles, then raise them hundreds of
feet in the air inside these pyramids.
And and
yeah, I would love to see this done
because it would have been spectacular.
And the conventional explanation as to
how they cut this granite was with
pounding stones and copper chisels.
That's the archaeological evidence of
tools that they had during that uh I
think it was the early dynastic uh
pyramids or when the the early dynastic
Egyptians that built those.
And um there's just so many so many
unanswered questions and um you know
this kind of goes to you know this
conversation that we've been having a
little bit because it's it really
exposes the dichotomy between academic
institutions and sort of like you know
self-taught people who who are just
looking at this stuff questioning it
from from you know a self-educated
standpoint right because there's there's
There's just this clash of people who
spend their lives studying stuff in in
an academic sense who um they they don't
just study the fascinating mysteries.
They have to study they have to start
from like the ground level to figuring
out you know doing a lot of the boring
work along the along the way to
understand the the foundations of these
societies or these technologies or the
history of the stuff and not just
necessarily being like, "Oh wow, crazy,
you know, pyramid. it must have been
aliens. Would you have you have people
coming from that from that perspective
and kind of like reverse engineering
from there figuring out okay you know
let's just say academ the academic
consensus is this was built with copper
chisels and pounding stones and moving
it with ropes and pulleys. Uh well how
do you explain these perfectly cut saw
blade marks in this granite or these
scoop marks out of this granite looks
like it was melted with some sort of
chemical. Um or or these have you seen
these? These are uh these are granite
vases that were found in the bottom of
the bent pyramid that were um
Is that a real one or is that
this is a 3D print? It's a perfect they
were scanned. Um a gentleman who lives
close to here um Matt Bell, he bought a
bunch of these off the antiquities
market and they were supposed to be made
around I think the carbon dating for
them is like around 2500 BC.
So like 4500 years ago, something like
that. And that is the that's when the
cons the the academic Egyptologists say
they were using copper chisels and
pounding stones. But this thing is
perfectly symmetrical. They measured it
with a light scanner and they brought it
to a huge aerospace corporation in the
US, one of the top aerospace companies,
and they measured it with one of their
scanners. And the diameter of this thing
from bottom from the top of the lip to
the very bottom of it is perfectly
symmetrical within the dev the the
biggest deviation in symmetry there is
is like this less than the size of a
human hair.
So so how did they do that with that
technology? This is a mystery. This is
something you won't get a reasonable
answer from from somebody in in academic
Egyptology.
So wow. Yeah. You know, this kind of
goes to our whole like astronomy versus
aliens and you know, how you know,
academics are kind of they kind of stray
away from this stuff.
Yeah. But
although I although I I people are
clever. We really are very clever
and and unfortunately we don't know all
of the technology that was always used,
right? And I think that's part of the
problem. We don't have records of all of
the technology that was developed. And
if they were using some sort of like
ancient chemical slurries or something
to make stones stone soft, we probably
wouldn't have evidence of that. Or if
they had metal tools,
power and technology gets lost. I mean,
if they had toasters, we wouldn't see
it. We wouldn't have we wouldn't have
any evidence of toasters.
Yeah, that's right. I mean, and
technology gets lost. I mean, the Romans
learned how to make cement, right? So,
you've got the what is it? The the
Pantheon, right? Has is a cement dome,
It's Roman cement. It's solid. It's
still there, right? And um
and when Brunolesi wanted to make a dome
for the um
the cathedral in Florence, they didn't
know how to make cement, so they made
theirs out of brick, right? And they had
to go make it out of brick. But
um because the technology for making
cement was lost, but
you know, so we don't know a lot about
And then you've got what is the the
antithera mechanism. I don't know if I'm
pronouncing that right.
The antither that actually was found in
a shipwreck, right? found in a shipwreck
that actually has gears, you know,
several hundred years before um Da
Vinci's gears and it's um so we didn't
know they had gear technology back then.
We have one example of it, right? And so
was that one artisan learned how to make
gears and used them or is it a
widespread technology? And so those are
those cuz you can very often have a
gifted artisan come up with their own
technology and maybe make that a vase
like that, right? But um but then that
gets lost when the person dies.
And they don't have I mean
so some of these I think a lot of this
technology is a complicated thing and
complicated stories and I
and not all technology that gets
developed is widely used. It's not all
and not just because it's a secret in a
government. It could be just a few
people just know how to do it.
Right. Right. And the and you know all
the records that we use to learn about
the [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] that was happening thousands of
years ago in antiquity is you know
is written down the I mean think of the
stuff that before we had the written
word what was going on and and how were
they able to keep records of it and how
can we study that because even the
written stuff now is all copies. Yeah.
It's all been copied and copied and
translated and you know it's been
thousands of years. So it's just like
we're playing this game of telephone
trying to get the most
the most accurate possible picture
that we can. But some of these things
don't some stuff just doesn't add up.
And there's people that are in these,
you know, some of these ivory tower
institutions that just aren't going to
let go of it.
Yeah. You get these these simplistic pet
theories that just won't go away. Yeah,
that's true. M
and you really that's really why you
have to look at all the data. Um you've
got to explain everything.
And if you can't explain why that vase
is so symmetric, you've got a problem.
And yeah, those are the anomalies,
Yeah. But it's like it's so it's such
it's so disheartening when you just it's
it's like human beings they just like we
prefer to argue about who's right versus
like trying to maybe
have an open mind and maybe look at this
from a different angle and try but it's
like we don't want to rewrite history
though you know that's the thing we
don't we don't we don't want to undo all
of that work
that's part of our worldview and we
don't like changing world views right
that's a problem Yes. And you know, this
is this is one of the things that um
I've been thinking about a lot is the
the way humans have evolved forever with
the development of technology and how
it's changed us. like
before we had the written word or our
ability to store our memory off outside
of our brains.
I'm sure that we had I I mean I imagine
we must have had a far greater degree of
sensory abilities to to sense other
things in nature that we may not be able
to sense now or things that have
atrophied, right? because it's it's
obvious. I mean, I would imagine that
our memory, wouldn't our memory had to
have been far greater
back before we were able to store our
memory and store things on on phones or
on on in writing and stuff like this
with technology like you were alluding
to before how now, you know, when the
Apollo astronauts were able to figure
out the stars to figure out exactly
where they were before they had the
ability to just like figure it out on
with AI and a computer, you know, they
or they they had their minds were Whoa.
What the [&nbsp;__&nbsp;] What was that? This thing
just fell off.
Uh, I'm going to say that leaf blower
hero is
Is that thing really loud right now?
It's getting loud. Yeah.
All right. Let me go talk to this.
Be sure to remember your thoughts cuz
you you stopped in the middle.
Give him 20 bucks.
Yeah. No, I imagine that with like
technology, the evolution of technology
uh in relativity the to uh the evolution
of human beings, I would imagine that
technology is eventually going to
compensate for a lot of our abilities
and a lot of like the function of the
brain, right? Because like how I was
explaining like I think ancient humans
probably had far more sensory abilities
than we do now. Like how now we become
more lazy. you rely on AI and technology
to do all these things including
compensate for our memory. So I like
wonder how that is going to affect us.
Yeah, I suppose you could still look at
that with some some existing cultures
that still pass things down verbally,
That would be interesting. People who
study that probably would have a lot to
say about our memory and
and how that works and how they were
able to
encode cultural information that way.
That's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. I would
be it would be it would be interesting
to see a study on like you know I know
there's a lot of there's a lot of people
right now that are you know there's a
lot of uncontacted tribes that are just
completely disconnected from the rest of
the technological world
you know just like imagine the
civilization that we have now like in
the most advanced metropolitan cities on
earth you know you have Dubai and
simultaneously on the other side of the
world you have people running around
you know so like couldn't it have And if
you go back 50 to 100, 200,000 years, it
wouldn't it be possible that there could
have been two types of civilizations
there? Maybe a really advanced one and
maybe a not so advanced one that saw
some sort of
some sort of catastrophe coming or could
have foreseen some sort of cataclysmic
events coming and they were able to like
escape or go underwater or whatever.
It's one of the theories for what the
UAP are, right? And being underwater,
too. We don't we don't know who
creates these things and who these
people are.
Are they humans from the future? Are
they humans from the past? Are they
are they both?
Both. Are they humans that broke off of
the rest of us for at some point in
time? A lot of
or are they extraterrestrials, you know,
through all those possibilities, too.
Yeah. Um, so what were you you were
explaining briefly on our break? Uh, you
have a friend who who was your friend
that had that nuclear
Oh, yes. and my friend Matthew.
Are you kidding me?
Fooled that Danny Jones.
Take this.
You got to be kidding me.
Before we took another break, uh I was
asking you about your friend who uh came
up with that nuclear
Oh, Matthew. Yes, Matthew. Yeah, we were
so we were especially after um our
Catalina mission.
Matthew and I were brainstorming about
how we might be able to get the
attention of UFOs. How could you how
could you get some of their attention
and have them come and check you out,
right? What could you do?
You know, and so we started with simple
ideas. What if we went out on a boat and
just let off a bunch of fireworks and
then wait and see what happens, right?
Or something. But
yeah, that's not that interesting and
that happens a bit and they're probably
not interested in that. But
scoot this way just a little bit.
yeah, there you go.
So So the question is what what are they
interested in? Well, they're interested
in our nuclear weapon sites, right? So
how do they how do you think they detect
them? Well, there's really only, you
know, two main ways you could do it. you
can detect gamma rays coming off of
them, you know, unless there's lots of
shielding, in which case the only thing
you can't shield are nutrinos, right? So
maybe they can detect nutrinos, but
that's hard to imagine because nutrinos
don't interact with very much, which is
why we use giant tanks of water to try
to catch a nutrino, right? So,
so we were thinking, yeah, it'd be cool
if you could get um
then what if we had if we had a small
small nuclear reactor? We could have a
small nuclear reactor start it up and
whatever it put pumps out, you know, the
radiation it pumps out, they'll see it
and they'll come check it out and then
we can study them. I mean, we're just
brainstorming and and you know, kind of
like you would if you were 10 years old,
right? Just coming up with crazy ideas.
And what can you do?
Um, and neither one of us would dream of
taking a nuclear reactor out into the
public somewhere to try to highly
illegal, highly dangerous, and highly
dangerous for us and everybody. you
know, you don't do you just don't do
things like that. So, um, so we were
just brainstorming and, um,
a few weeks later, he comes, Matthew
comes to me, he goes,
I have this great idea on how we can
make a nuclear reactor. I'm like, but we
can't really use the thing. He goes, no,
but the idea for a nuclear reactor is
kind of cool. You got to listen to this.
So he explains to me, he's got this idea
for a a lithium fision reaction.
And of course, my first thought is, you
know, like what most physicists would
think, well, you use fision for heavy
nuclei, which and iron's the most
stable. So fision is when you break
apart a nucleus, right? So um uranium,
you you give it a neutron, it becomes
unstable and breaks apart and you get
energy from that, but it makes two
smaller nuclei. So you break apart big
ones and plutonium is the same way.
Um so I was like well lithium that's
lithium comes you know right after
helium right? So um it's a very light
And I said well lithium you mean fusion
right? And he goes no no no fision. Like
whoa whoa wait a minute. How how how
does this work? You can you could
actually you know can actually get that
if you add neutrons you can um have
nuclear fishing. You can have them the
nuclei break apart into tridium which is
heavy hydrogen. And then this tridium is
a is a radioactive gas which two good
things about it. One is it only has a
halflife of 25 years, not like 25,000
years like something like uranium or
plutonium that you have to bury and hope
that nobody goes there for the next
25,000 years. Um but this only has a
half life of 25 years and it's hydrogen
so it escapes to space basically
and um
so that's very nice and you could
actually use the tridium in other
nuclear reactors as well. So you could
actually collect the tridium and use it.
So, this is a cool reactor and um so he
actually set up set out to actually
build build this thing and he and he did
it. He I mean he has a he has a a
lithium crystal that he got and he's um
a what?
It's a it's a it's a lithium fluoride
crystal that he got and um
and he is you it's a subcritical
reaction. So, you have to add it only
works while you're adding neutrons.
It'll keep itself running for a little
while, but it dies down. It doesn't It
isn't going to blow. It's not possible
for it to blow up, which is the other
good thing about it.
So, he likes to call it instead of the
demon core, which is what they had with
plutonium, right? That was actually
dangerous, he calls this the angel core.
Which is a kind of a nice name. I like
that name actually.
Yeah. So, it's uh So, he calls it the
angel core cuz it's not dangerous. And
um and he has done already done
experiments activating it with neutrons
and yeah you can get the thing running
and producing energy.
Pretty amazing. Yeah.
And how much and you were explaining so
like the side the as much of that stuff
you could fit in like a little mug like
that would last.
Yeah. something like the piece he has.
It's about the size of this coffee cup.
And he and if I remember right, um I
hope I'm not misquoting him, but it was
something this big could produce enough
power to power your house for a million
which was amazing. I mean, it's a game
changer. It's a huge deal.
And what what is standing in his way
from implementing something like this or
like uh doing
You need money to do the tests. You need
money to do tests. We need to figure out
how to get the energy out of it because
the energy is coming in coming out in um
in the form of you know um
high energy particles. So you've got to
convert those higher energy particles to
electricity to be able to use it
and so on. And that's that's the classic
problem from nuclear power because
nuclear power you get um you have to
couple this 21st century technology with
um 18th century technology. steam
engines, right? You use the high energy
powers particles to heat up water, boil
water, make steam, and you power a steam
engine. So, nuclear power has been
pretty crummy because you can't couple
this nuclear technology with, you know,
mechanical technology easily.
And so, he's been working on that as
Yeah, something like that. I mean it's
it's amazing that uh more funding and
research and and uh focus isn't going to
things like that that could literally
change the trajectory of humanity.
Yeah, there's been I mean main the the
little focus that's been has been
infusion research which is reasonable
but um
but you should be funding other things
too. I mean you have to you and
typically you've got two types of fusion
research that's been done. You've got
laser and you know laser confinement
fusion where you shine laser beams on
hydrogen pellets and get them to
Or you've got magnetic confusion or
magnetic confinement fusion where you um
hold a plasma and a mag hydrogen plasma
and a magnetic field and you pinch it
with the magnetic field and make it um
compress it and make it fuse. So you've
got those two different types and they
compete for funding, right? So almost
all the funding goes to those things. Um
there had been some funding some some
work done actually at at RPI had been
done in um sonofusion which is um with
air bubbles in air bubbles in purified
water. You can actually use sound waves
to compress them and you can get fusion
that way.
And so that can be done on tabletop and
and there had been some research done on
that and um that got nixed
by competitors and a lot of drama. So um
that was done at RPI for a while.
Oh wow. But but a lot of these are ideas
that really haven't been explored
because there's no money to explore them
because the money goes to the money the
little money there is goes to the big
ones, you know, laser fusion or or
magnetic confinement fusion. So
yeah, it's just shocking that like
there's like not people out there with
exorbitant amounts of money like Elon
Musk type people who would be willing to
throw money at something like this that
could change the paradigm
that would be worthwhile. Yeah, you
would imagine
frustrating.
It is hard. I mean, when you're making
new discoveries, you really have to
explore lots of possibilities. And this
is what nature does when you know, you
can see it in evolution, the
pre-cambrian explosion, right? This is
the explosion of the evolution of many
types of life forms in the pre-cambrian
era. You know, when you fried the first,
you know, the first animals, right?
There were many different kinds. And
then most of them die out because they
don't work. And then the ones that
survive are good ones and they keep
going, right? And they evolve. And
that's that's how you should do it.
And that's what you saw with the
bicycle. The bicycle gets invented. And
what happens? You get an explosion with
many different kinds of bicycles. You
got bicycles with giant wheels in the
front, giant wheels in the back, which
didn't work well. So they you only saw a
few of those. And um you try everything
and see what works. M
and the same thing should be happening
with other technological advances like
you know like nuclear power.
You should try try some of these other
ideas. Put some money into it. See what
Fascinating stuff. Kevin, thanks again
for coming and doing this man. I really
learned a lot today.
Oh yeah. Thank you for having me. This
has been great fun.
Uh where can people that are listening
or watching find out more your research?
Do you have a website or any social
media stuff?
Yeah, I have a website at the University
of Albany. So you can search for me
there and um and my colleague Matthew
Shidagos does too. So you can search for
both of us there.
Um we have our UAPX website which is um
right now we're we're working more
closely with um SCU the Scientific
Coalition for UAP Studies and um
All right.
So you can Google and find us. Yep.
Fantastic. Oh, look at that.
There's our UAPX website. Yep.
Amazing. We'll we'll link it all below
and uh hopefully we can get to the
bottom of this.
All right. Thank you so much.
Do it again soon. All right.
That'd be great.
← All Summaries
Watch on YouTube