Dr. Brian Keating critiques Harvard's free speech failures and President Claudine Gay's plagiarism retraction, contrasting them with his own for-profit university challenges. He dismisses UFO claims by pilots like David Fravor as misidentified Venus or radar spoofing rather than extraterrestrial visitation, arguing that invoking new physics to explain alien tech reduces credibility compared to engineering solutions. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes STEM education for survival against asteroid impacts and suggests advanced theories often threaten insider identities more than they reveal cosmic truths. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Free Speech Under Attack00:07:13
Julia, we were actually recording a little Patreon episode before you got in here.
Oh, really?
And we were watching the video of those deans at Harvard talking about they're saying the genocide of Jews is not considered hate speech at your university.
She's like, Well, not unless you conduct the genocide.
You have to actually commit it, which I pointed out in the tweet.
I was like, So it's impossible for an individual or even like a campus to have a genocide.
Right?
Genocide is a removal of all the people on earth.
Right, exactly.
But you can call for it, right?
We can call for the, you know, I would never do this, but, you know, Armenians should not be, you know, people from Tennessee should not be allowed to exist.
Those shiftless Tennesseans, right?
And if you're doing that, you know, so it's that speech.
But then they're saying that that speech is okay as long as you don't actually go out and kill everyone from Tennessee.
But imagine trying to.
It's a fire.
Would you kill everybody?
You know, no, it's really not.
It's a show of moral, complete moral cowardice.
I mean, universities have gotten so rotten.
Did you see what Dave Portnoy said about that?
David Portnoy came out and he said that he, I think he went on one of the shows on TV and he's basically like, I'm no longer going to, we're not going to hire any students from those universities until those deans step down.
Yeah.
I mean, I was going around saying it's actually a good thing.
My university is very prestigious, but it's not as prestigious as Harvard.
And that's a good thing because the more prestigious the university, the more the president wants to keep her job.
And the more she wants to keep her job, the more dangerous it is for the university.
So these universities forget about that they've lost donations and stuff like that.
Those universities have a combined $120 billion endowment.
They don't need donations.
They need donations.
You know, like if you give them $100 million, their net worth goes up by, you know, one tenth of 1%, right?
So this is not something that really affects them.
But.
So what is going on with that?
Like, why are they doing this?
I think that they are so incredibly beholden to not offending, you know, which I think is very demeaning towards Muslims, that they can't say that these certain things are off limits and you can't say certain types of speech.
Just like Jews wouldn't go around and saying, we call for the, you know, complete exclusion.
The liquidation of all Palestinians from Israel.
And that's not something we would ever condone.
So, you know, it's called making principles of your community.
Like you can have free speech.
By the way, free speech applies to the government.
The government of the United States cannot impinge upon your free speech and my free speech.
They can't compel us to say stuff.
But campuses compel us to say stuff all the time because it's not a free speech, you know, it's not truly subject to the First Amendment because they're not the government, even at a public university like mine.
And then people try to say, well, no, they get government funding, but there are a lot of professors that don't get government funding.
So, what do you do in that situation?
They can inhibit free speech very easily by basically, you basically can lose your livelihood or you can lose your job or your tenure or whatever.
It's the same thing with the internet.
People self censor because they don't want to be kicked off YouTube.
That's right.
Yeah.
So, the more prestigious you are, the less likely it is that you would be able to do any other job in life.
This woman, Claudine Gay, I mean, first of all, for her scholarship, she's the president of Harvard.
You keep saying Dean.
Oh, she's going to be like me saying, you know, this is just a little YouTube channel, right?
This is a huge YouTube channel.
You're the founder.
Although I have to say, when I was invited on this show, it was called Concrete.
Yes, it was.
Now it's not called Concrete.
Yes, and we have more than 10,000 subscribers.
Oh, really?
Yes.
I think you have a lot more than 10,000.
So, yeah.
But no, no, no.
The titles are very important for academics.
See, we don't get paid that much.
We don't get too much fame.
We don't get too much attention.
Some get more than others, but academics really rely on one type of currency for their existence, for their self gratification.
And that's how many times they get cited by other eggheaded academics like me.
To do what the president has been accused of, and it seems very credible.
In fact, she's already going back and retracting this, these papers and having them re edited.
It's very scary, right?
Because there used to be a saying in the Soviet Union, I don't know if you ever saw this picture, it's like Lenin and Stalin and this Trotsky, this other guy on a bridge, and like in the 1930s.
And then they redid this picture and they just edited out this guy.
But in the 1930s, and it looked flawless as if you did it with Photoshop.
But of course, 80 years before Photoshop existed.
So in the Soviet Union, there was a joke.
They used to say, the future is known.
That communism is the future.
The future is bright and glorious, but the past was always changing.
So they go back and erase things from history.
So, literally, what she's having these journals do, which is unprecedented, in some cases, decades later, the president of Harvard I couldn't get this done.
I'm just a lowly, you know, tenured professor, right?
The president of Harvard has convinced the journals that published her academic papers, which are now being cited for plagiarism, that there's a claim that she plagiarized, she stole work from other people, which is fine to do, not even stealing if you quote it and you say, Brian Keating wrote.
This, Danny Jones wrote that, and you put quotes around it.
But if you say, like, you know, your greatest hit, buying a Lamborghini for $4.1 million, you know, whatever, like, and I just put it, I change it, I put Brian Keating's video, buying a Lamborghini, I get all the, that's wrong.
That's objectively, intellectually dishonest.
But then to have YouTube go back and erase that you made that video, that you did this interview with CIA spy or a NASA, you know, whistleblower, if you were to do that and go back and just erase you, that you never did it, I did it.
It's very scary.
It's rewriting of history.
What else do we have if we don't have our memories and our history?
So it's a very depressing time to be an academic.
In part, that was the reason that I wanted to play around with what Jordan Peterson is doing with the Peterson Academy.
Hey, everybody.
I just want to drop in to remind you all to please hammer the subscribe button below the video.
That is the one thing that makes this channel and these podcasts grow and enables us to keep making more of them, flying in guests all over the world, et cetera, et cetera.
Thank you to everybody who has been subscribing.
It has been helping a lot.
The reach has been growing.
We're now up to like 60% of the viewers of these podcasts are subscribed.
There's still like 40, 45% who are not yet subscribed.
So if you're a regular watcher of the channel and you enjoy these podcasts and you want to help, all I ask is that you just hammer that subscribe button below these videos.
Thank you again.
I love you all.
Back to the show.
Which is a for profit university, but with a cost to the consumer of less than 10% of a traditional university degree.
And accredited eventually, although not yet.
There are all these weird chicken or egg things.
Like, you have to graduate a college class.
Like, you have people have to get their degree from Peterson Academy or this new university, Austin, Texas.
They have to get their degree before the university itself becomes an official university.
Does that make sense?
So, it won't be accredited.
I don't know if you went to college or not, but I went to college, I went to undergraduate.
That was an accredited undergraduate institution.
I got my degree, Bachelor of Science, and so on.
I went to get my PhD, also accredited for new universities.
it's a little trickier.
You have to go through certain hoops, legislation, so that just everybody can't open their own university and charge people tuition for degrees.
Right, right.
The Cost of Accreditation00:10:17
So yeah, so academia has been really under attack.
I mean, it's been bad for a long time.
This so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, or as I call it, diversity, inclusion, and equity, and that makes the acronym DIE, is an impingement upon free speech.
So, for these people to all of a sudden discover their newfound love for free speech, it's kind of surprising because some of these people were some of the most oppressive of ideas that they disagreed with and controlled the speech on campus extremely, extremely strictly until October 7th.
And when October 7th happened, and Jews were massacred in their beds and kibbutzim, and their toddlers were kidnapped for the first time in war, there's no record of babies.
There's a baby who's a couple of months old.
is in captivity in Hamas territory and Gaza.
Never happened in human warfare, modern warfare, and that this is acceptable.
And the day after this happened on my campus and other campuses, students celebrated.
They actually were concerned about the people of Gaza and Palestinians and said that the martyrs had done great good, meaning the Hamas terrorists.
People on your campus?
On my campus.
What were they doing specifically?
So they said they had rallies in support of the quote-unquote martyrs.
These are students for justice in Palestine, they're called.
They're on every campus, many, many campuses.
Some campuses have actually evicted them and removed them.
Columbia University, Brandeis, recently Rutgers University has banned them from campus.
They have different affiliations, some with groups like CARE, which is found to be extremely problematic in its support for the October 7th terror attacks.
Anyway, so these campuses have become really intolerant.
In fact, at my campus at UC San Diego, we had a rally outside of the student senate.
So the undergraduates voting on whether or not they should condemn anti-Semitism.
In other words, all your fellow students gather around and they said, We want to make a condemnation because there's been so much anti Semitism since and before October 7th.
We had a swastika written in human feces in one of our dormitories at UC San Diego.
This was almost barely mentioned during what they, you know, these Students for Justice in Palestine have a week every year and they call Israel an apartheid state and other slanders against Israel.
But anyway, they had this event and that happened, that swastika, I'm not saying it was created by them, but it happened at the time when they have these events on campus.
The student senators decided we're going to have a forum, a referendum, and just say we condemn anti Semitism.
Well, outside that meeting, there were students wearing kafiyas, the Palestinian garb, and others, and they hoisted the flag of ISIS.
They hoisted the Shahada, the flag that represents ISIS, Islamic State, in front of where these senators, to my knowledge, none of them are actually Jewish.
Some of them are Asian, some of them are Latin American, some of them are whatever.
None of them are Jewish, but they hoisted this flag in front of where they were holding this meeting.
Clearly meant to intimidate.
Nothing was done to them.
You can come to meetings now wearing full head coverings unless you wear the wrong one.
So you can wear a complete kafia that covers your head.
But I guarantee you, if somebody showed up with the KKK clanhood, they would be escorted immediately, as they should be.
You don't have to host people in your campus.
If I came into the studio and I said, my First Amendment right has me be able to say whatever I want and start talking about the KK, this is a private organization.
You don't have to do it.
You can have certain principles that protect your decorum and what you expect of people that come on here and come into your campus.
Your private place of business or even in public spaces.
So, campuses have become real kind of centers for a lot of extreme, repugnant views and not just, you know, very far away from what academia is supposed to be and why I became a professor.
It makes me wonder, too, when you look at history and you like, how much are these students being influenced by?
Where is their influence coming from?
You know, you always wonder, like, is it coming from an outside influence just trying to sow chaos?
Within the United States, people really believe this because these people are so disconnected from what's going on in that part of the world.
Like, they have no fucking clue.
We live, we live, we're surrounded by 6,000 miles of ocean in both directions.
Like, we have it so good here.
Yeah.
So good here.
And you can't begin to fathom what it must be like to live in that part of the world that's just been torn by war and religion for so fucking long.
Yeah.
No, and you look at it and you see people, you know, protesting the LGBTQ, you know, organizations protesting on behalf of Hamas.
I mean, these are things that don't make sense because.
Their views are antithetical.
Like, try finding when was the last Pride Parade held in Gaza?
Like, just look up, look that up and check it.
It's never happened, right?
Whereas in Israel, Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
So they have votes, they have all different parties.
They have an Arab party, there's Arabs on their Supreme Court, meaning Palestinians.
They're people that are Israeli citizens that serve in their military.
I was just there in September.
I spent time with a man whose father is 26, he's a Bedouin, Muslim Bedouin from Tiberias, and his father's been in the IDF for 26 years.
No problem.
He's devout, practicing Muslims.
To say that there's ethnic cleansing and apartheid, it's just such a lie.
In South Africa in the 1970s, they didn't have blacks in the parliament.
They didn't have a parliament that has an LGBTQ party.
There's a party of that.
There are parties of atheists.
There are parties that are religious.
It's one of the most diverse and multicultural societies on earth, and it's in the most dangerous part of the world.
And the Jews have lived in complete, kind of abject fear for decades.
And this is not to deny the Palestinians should have landed their own.
I've never claimed that.
I've never said that, that they shouldn't.
But by the same token, you look at things on October 6th versus October 7th, how could you possibly see how you could make an agreement to live in peace side by side with these people from Palestinian territories who now support—there are more supporters, I read yesterday—of Hamas in the West Bank than in Gaza by a proportionate amount?
Yeah.
So these are the people that Israel is going to attempt to make peace with.
I think it's going to be extremely challenging.
I think Israel had huge breakdowns in their society and internally, but their democracy and these things will get worked out.
Probably Netanyahu will be gone.
But the campus culture has gotten so virulent, these ideas like you were mentioning, that they propagate in a mind virus, that things you could not get someone to believe in unless they were an intellectual.
There was a phrase that That Lenin used to use called useful idiots.
There'd be people that could do good because they were stupid and easily duped.
But I came up with a phrase that's called useless geniuses.
We have all these brilliant people on campus, like the father of string theory, maybe we'll get into it, or one of the modern fathers of string theory, Edward Witten.
Until October 7th or just this summer, he had his Twitter feed.
And if you looked at his Twitter feed, essentially every single tweet about it was about how evil Israel is and how.
Just the Palestinians are and how they, you know, Israel is basically an apartheid state.
Who is this you're talking about?
Edward Witt.
This is Ed's Twitter.
He's a Twitter?
On his Twitter.
I didn't realize.
Yeah.
And so I made jokes like, no wonder string theory hasn't made any progress in decades, you know, because there's this guy who is the foremost proponent and champion of string theory, and he's obsessed with his, he's a Jew, he's obsessed with the, you know, alleged atrocities that Israel is committing.
He's gone silent.
He's gone completely silent.
So I've hope for string theory.
Maybe string theory is about to make a revolution.
Because Edward, maybe he's gotten back his moral, you know, intellectual ability back.
But until then, he was called a lot of times the smartest man on earth.
Yeah.
And he believed things that were just completely, just absolute, just nonsense.
And it takes sometimes an intellectual to believe such things.
That's funny.
So before you got here, I told you we were doing this little Patreon episode, and I called up Jack Sarfati.
I said, Jack, he's a good friend of mine now.
After I went and visited him, I wish there were more people like him.
I said, Jack, I've watched 10 videos on string theory this morning.
Can you explain to me what string theory is better than any of these YouTube videos can?
His answer was, It's bullshit.
It's bullshit.
It's art.
It's mathematical art.
I saw his interview.
Did you confirm or deny that?
Jack's a.
Problematic person in a lot of ways.
He's extremely obstreperous.
I mean, he loves to cause trouble.
He copies me on emails.
I've asked him to remove me a hundred times.
I'm like, how do you possibly expect to revolutionize technology and physics if you don't understand how to use BCC?
I would just love that.
And one of my friends who I won't say who it is.
So every time Jack sends an email, this guy sends him a link to like donate to Kamala Harris reelection.
Oh, no.
That's hilarious.
Because this guy is so, he's asked him.
Four times, the guy won't do it.
And then there's always a new thread and he changes his email address.
So it's like every day this guy's getting a new email from him.
I actually have a block.
So I've blocked all his emails.
So, Jack, if you're out there, try harder, my friend.
I think he was at UC San Diego before he went to UC San Diego.
Yeah, he got his degree there.
And he's always scrolling.
Not his PhD, but he got his master's in physics from there.
Yeah.
So I have no record of anything that he's done the last 25 years or more, even.
I haven't gone back.
I believe that he was mentioned in this book.
By my good friend David Kaiser, called How the Hippies Save Physics.
Yes.
To what extent his contributions are really recognized.
I think you can look at who have gone these awards, who gets citations, what papers have been published, what journals, and just the way that he communicates, I think, is really obnoxious.
And the way that he criticizes my very good friend, Eric Weinstein.
He's an idiot.
He's a schmuck.
I've called him an idiot and a schmuck.
I think he calls me that almost every time I talk to him.
Yeah.
I mean, you don't have to be around him, right?
You're not in the same field as him.
Right.
But everyone's an idiot compared to him.
Falsifying Scientific Truths00:12:05
So, yes, exactly.
That is a fact, by the way.
Yeah.
Jack, they say, let me give you a tip.
They say you're the average of the five people you're around the most.
All of anybody around you is an idiot.
You're the idiot.
It's like the fool at the poker table.
But, you know, God bless him.
He can do his thing.
But look, the difference between these guys is drink theorists and Eric Weinstein and Brian Greene and Michio Kaku, who Julian, our mutual friend, has had on.
They're all theorists.
Okay.
So they're working on theories that are, by nature, Provisional.
Every single theory is provisional.
The theory of evolution is provisional.
The theory of plate tectonics is provisional.
In other words, it could change.
I always like to bring up this idea.
Like, do you believe the Earth is a sphere?
I don't know if you've had flat earthers on the show.
I have, unfortunately.
I should have, yeah.
I should have done my due diligence before.
I know it's not a perfect sphere.
It's like a flywheel.
Well, it's a sphere.
The equator's wide.
Yes, exactly.
It bulges at the equator.
It's a little narrow at the pole.
So it's kind of like a pair.
It's a little weird shape.
But if you believe that it's, It's flat, you're more wrong than someone who believes it's a sphere, even though you both are wrong technically, right?
To explain, you actually need to involve these things called spherical harmonics, and even those will have some deficiency in capturing the accurate shape of the planet itself.
But there's degrees of being less wrong, and then there are classifications of people you say that are not even wrong a famous quote from Wolfgang Pauli.
So the question is can a theorist really make progress?
The answer is no.
A theorist can't do anything, can't do crap by themselves sitting in a room.
Because for a very Important reason.
You may think it is the job of an experimental physicist like me or a theoretical physicist to prove something, but actually, proof in physics is completely impossible.
Any physical science is impossible.
There's only two subjects you can prove something in.
One is called logic or philosophy, and the other is math.
Math can actually have a theorem like one plus one equals two, and it will take 200 pages to prove it from different category theory, group theory, set theory.
And you can prove it multiple ways.
You could prove Pythagorean theorem in, I think, 300 different ways you can prove it.
But you can't prove a theory of physics, right?
If I say the evolution is true, all I have to do is find one counter, I'm not saying this exists, of Lamarckian genetic traits.
And actually, some of it was thought to be very plausible, say, Or that you find some type of creature that doesn't use DNA and only uses RNA or some triple I don't know, I'm making it up.
But the point is, one counterexample can falsify something that was previously believed to be true, like Newtonian gravity, like Einsteinian gravity.
We don't even think Einstein's the final word, right?
There's no final word because there's no proof in physical science.
It's only proof in a mathematical, abstract, abstruse sense, as it is, say, in mathematics and in philosophy.
So for physicists, it gives them great angst.
Theoretical physicists know that.
Not only is it not possible for their theory to be proven, it may not even be testable.
And this is the problem with theories like that of people like Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, or Edward Witten, String Theory, or Jack.
I can't look into Jack's theories without getting a headache.
He says, Challenge any of these schmucks to debate the Salfati.
They're all scared.
Oh, yeah, right.
No one will debate them.
That's his problem.
No, I'll quote what I was told once that Richard Dawkins said when he was asked to challenge them, and he doesn't believe in evolution.
He says, I could see.
How that would be an outstanding addition to your CV.
You can understand how it would be an absolutely horrendous one for mine, right?
So, Jack's completely, you know, no one's going to debate him.
No one's going to, because actually, because of all.
You don't want to be associated with him?
They don't want to be associated with him.
They don't take him seriously.
I actually joke.
I say, like, somebody comes up with it, because actually, Eric Weinstein's called me up a lot recently asking about, like, my thoughts on Grush.
And, you know, I actually haven't done my due diligence on it.
I've been so busy the last couple of weeks, but it's something I'm going to have time maybe even talk to Grush at some point.
But I always ask Eric or whoever I talk to, or they have some new theory, I say, what's the Sarfati number?
You know, like how far away from complete, abject, unfalsifiability, just like I cat there first.
I came up with this and just the kind of grandiosity that people like Jack want.
And there's many of them.
I get emails from them every day.
You know, Professor Keating, you're wrong.
Everybody's wrong.
I'm right.
Let me come on the podcast.
Let me write a paper with you.
I'm not good in math.
I mean, Jack's probably good in math, but they'll say, I'm not good in math, but if you help me out, we'll share the Nobel Prize.
And, you know, and for, you know, I don't blame these people for having passion about these different phenomena.
But look, if I asked you, you know, Daniel, I said to you, look, which is more important?
Let's say, let's say Grush is right.
There is something, and I don't know, I actually don't know which, because I think you're, you do an outstanding job.
You don't really kind of tip your hand at what you truly believe.
You're not dogmatic.
You're kind of curious.
You want to hear the answer.
And, you know, for me, if I asked you just point blank, I said, let's say Grush is right.
What do you think is the technology that allowed these spacecraft?
To get here, he's claiming, as far as I understand it, he hasn't seen, and you please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't follow this nearly as close as you do.
Um, but he's claiming that there are people in the government, our U.S. government, that have covered up the landing of spacecraft with bodies inside with some type of biologics, he's called them in congressional testimony.
Um, I've had on Ryan Graves on my podcast, who's a former F 18 pilot.
We've been here too, yeah, yeah, and he's great, he's a very sweet guy, and I believe, you know, he's earnest in his mission, what he's trying to accomplish.
Um, And he hasn't said, though, you know, he never said that he saw these craft, these spheres and such.
Yeah, exactly.
He said that he knows the pilots and they would not only see them, they'd see them every day, every deployment.
So, and Fravor claims he saw this tic tac.
Let's just say they're all real.
There's some kernel of truth.
God tells you, here, Danny, boom.
They're true.
There are tic tacs.
There's crash saucers.
There's biologics.
There's cubes with spheres and spheres with cubes.
What if I asked you, Danny, what was the technology that was more important to those aliens to get here?
Was it string theory or was it metallurgy?
What would you say it is?
What technology enabled it more?
If you just had a guess, Was it something like string theory or was it something like metallurgy?
I would say something like metallurgy.
Yeah.
I mean, it's much more practical, right?
There's nothing about string theory necessarily that involves anything that's a necessary condition for those aliens to get here.
And yet, you have people like Jack and like others that you need this warp drive and you need this theory of physics, and Eric's theory of geometric unity is wrong.
To answer this question usually presupposes the fact that these distances are enormous, which is true.
I mean, these distances are enormous.
But the age of the universe is also quite enormous, right?
So if you imagine that these craft have been traveling, if they exist, and I'm not saying I actually don't think they exist, right?
So I'd rather kind of defend that.
But I think to be an intellectual and to be honest, you have to say, look, let's give the other side Steelman your opponent's argument and see if that sharpens up your own.
So from my perspective, when people result as Dave Grush has, that these things are holograms and they travel faster than the speed of light and they can manipulate space time.
I've heard him when he was on Joe Rogan.
Speculating about this, tying in these loose notions of quantum mechanics and relativity and warp drives and all these other things.
He's a physicist too, isn't he, Grosh?
No.
No.
I thought he had a degree in physics.
He might have a bachelor's degree or something.
That doesn't mean he's a physicist.
Yeah.
He's not a pilot.
I mean, he's not.
And I don't think that those things necessarily like favor, oh, you're doubting a US Navy veteran.
I'm like, he has more bigger balls than I do, but it doesn't mean he's like a better observer and analytic when it comes to data analysis.
He did an eyewitness thing.
You know, probably most courts, you know, eyewitness reports are replete with being completely erroneous, misinterpreted.
You know, they have famous studies where there's like the Stanford says a gorilla dribbling a basketball, like between all these other people.
And you're just counting how many times somebody dribbles a basketball and a gorilla goes, nobody notices the gorilla.
I mean, the fact that human beings are not considered as reliable as other forms of evidence in many situations leads me to say that, like, yeah, I'm just as qualified.
I'm not, again, I don't have the balls that David Fravor, Ryan Graves have.
My friend Ariel Kleinerman, I've had on all these guys.
I have an on David Fravor, Alex Dietrich.
I mean, I'm like, she has big balls, whatever she has, big ovaries.
I don't have the courage.
I didn't have the physical, mental abilities to be a pilot at their level.
I fly little Cessnas around.
But okay, I stipulate that.
But does that mean that you just trust whatever they say?
I mean, are we in the stance?
Are we going to take the stance that someone in the government is to be trusted?
I mean, I always thought that the government is to be suspicious of, right?
They covered up Roswell, they covered up all these things, the Kennedy assassin.
So, you can't have it both ways.
I mean, at some point, you have to look and say, what do the data tell us right now?
And I'm always surprised on my channel how many people just assume that I'm working for big astronomy or there's some like, you know, conspiracy that I'm a part of that, like, because I am skeptical of the existence.
I'll look, I'll be honest.
I'm skeptical not only of the existence of alien technology, I'm fairly suspicious of the existence of alien life, which is a prerequisite for alien intelligence and technology, right?
So, And I've made arguments for that.
I was on Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman, but I'm not the final word either.
So, caveat mTOR.
Why don't you believe that there is alien life or any?
You say, you said, you have said before that you don't believe that there is alien life or intelligent alien life.
I'm not careful about it.
I don't say I don't believe.
Like I say, I don't believe in gravity either.
There's no evidence.
That's right.
But people like Jack Sarfati would say that there is evidence and they've seen it.
And it's not something you can measure and test in a laboratory with beakers.
It's something that you have to see.
It's intelligence.
It's police.
It's investigative work.
It's police work.
Like it's.
Something that scientists aren't going to have access to and they won't be able to measure and detect, but it's something that exists because they've seen it and they know that if you have a security clearance or whatever it might be, it's verifiable and it's there.
So I ask, are you a Christian?
I'm not really religious, though.
You don't believe in God?
I mean, I believe in God.
I haven't really explored it too much.
I believe in something.
Yeah.
I don't follow a strict faith.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's fine.
You're not a practice.
I don't practice.
Right, right, right.
Fine.
But you know people that believe the existence of Jesus Christ, not only based on the testimonies of the New Testament, but also because they've had personal revelation or they've been saved, salvation by the works of Jesus that they ascribe to Jesus, right?
Would you attribute those scientifically in any way?
Would you say that their personal revelation of Christ, in their deepest, darkest moments, they're at the bottom of a bottle or they're at the top of the world when they have a baby or whatever?
Is that a scientific claim or is that a faith claim?
It's not scientific.
Right.
So, in that sense, that's okay because faith is one thing and science is another thing.
These things that they're talking about that they've seen with their eyes or they've experienced, and there's some cover, those are also now they're not only faith, but they're also saying they're scientific.
If you're making a claim that there's objects and those objects have traveled across interstellar distances, or as Tom DeLong told me on my podcast a long time ago, that those things have come from forwards in time or backwards, I don't fully understand.
And he can't prove it.
And he has no chain of evidence that traces the alien spacecraft that he claims he has evidence of.
He's lost the kind of provenance, as they would call it in antiquing.
So, at what level do you say, well, okay, now you're just talking about faith, which is fine.
You could talk about faith all you want, but faith is almost like taste.
Like, I hate fish.
Faith vs Fish Taste00:02:27
There's no much, you could take me to the seafood restaurant down the street and tell me how great this thing tastes.
And I'm going to say, I don't give a crap.
I'm not going to eat that damn thing.
And you could say, even as people do, it doesn't taste like fish.
I'll say, you know what else doesn't taste like fish?
A freaking hamburger doesn't taste like fish.
So I'll just skip the middleman and I'll have my own hamburger, right?
So, what's up, guys?
I'm super psyched to introduce to you another product that I've been using for years now that was also recommended to me by the world renowned nutritional scientist, Dr. Dominic D'Agostino, and it is called Keto Brains.
Keto Brains Nootropic Creamer is a way to perfectly dial in your morning beverage to bring you razor sharp focus on demand.
I start out every day with Keto Brains in my cup of coffee to combat the midday slump, and I use it for pre workout.
KetoBrain's Nootropic Creamer has efficacious doses of focus inducing alpha GPC, lion's mane, alpha wave promoting L theanine, and ketone stimulating C8 MCT powder.
And all of those high functioning nootropics are packed into a delicious, creamy coconut powder.
It tastes amazing, it's a keto nootropic powerhouse, and it tickles all the right neurotransmitters to give you the flow and jitter free energy with absolutely zero crash.
There's no dosage tricks involved.
It's just one scoop is a full serving.
You can put it in your coffee, your tea.
Put it in your water, whatever you want, and you get 30 full doses per package.
There's no pills and there's absolutely no waiting for it to work.
It kicks in like that.
You can keep your brain razor sharp, primed, and ready for action with Keto Brains Nootropic Creamer.
Whether you're an entrepreneur juggling multiple projects, a student studying for exams, or you're an athlete that's trying to optimize your training, Keto Brains will not let you down.
All right, here I'm going to list all the ingredients contained in Keto Brains and what they do.
It increases ketone production via AGC8 MCT powder.
It increases acetylcholine and HGH production via 300 milligrams of alpha GPC.
It increases GABA and alpha wave production via 250 milligrams of L theanine.
It increases BDNF and NGF via 500 milligrams of lion's mane mushrooms.
And these are all carefully sourced and third party tested ingredients.
This stuff quite literally increases acute brain function, protects your brain and mitochondria long term.
And last but not least, it makes your coffee delicious.
If you're interested in Keto Brains and you want to get a big discount, just go to the link in the description below, ketobrains.com, and use the promo code DANI20 when you check out.
Again, that's ketobrains.com.
Hit the link below and use the promo code DANI20 at checkout.
Coffee Discounts and Cults00:10:02
Back to the show.
There's no amount of that that will convince a person to believe based on your faith in something else, which may be very visceral to you.
It may have saved your life or it may have made you a better man.
But that doesn't have any effect on other people.
And science is about the determination of rules and patterns throughout the universe that hold throughout the universe.
The Copernican principle states the universe doesn't care who you are, where you are, what you are, what you're made of, what day it is.
If I drop this, your gift, I'm going to wish you a happy Hanukkah.
So I brought you a gift.
Thank you.
So, I got you two gifts.
Oh, three gifts.
So, this is your gift for early Christmas present because I want you to keep your anus clean.
Your anus.
So, I got you your anus.
Oh, wow.
This is amazing.
You got to share with Steve.
Oh, Steve, we can bleach our butthole.
Your ani.
You know that NASA is considering changing the name because it's so embarrassing to say your anus, right?
They've commissioned a panel.
That's beautiful.
They've come up with the following term: urectum.
So, and I'll tell you what this is later on.
But if you look at something that is.
Portending, you know, sort of masquerading as something that could be scientific, forces, fields, life in the universe.
All these things are contingent upon the existence of life, which is a physics question, a biology question, an evolution question.
And so they're saying, here's this thing that interacts with some people, but not others.
Well, that violates the Copernican principle.
Sorry, I'm going to have a big problem with you if you say that, like, there are only certain people that could experience it.
So what good is it?
You know, so in other words, only the people that want to believe it will see it, and only the people that already do believe it will experience it.
That's not science.
It may be some cult or some new thing.
And you see a lot of the same types of behavior that people get very obsessed, almost cult like, in their fervor for this.
Jack is screaming out every no, why won't you listen to me?
Why won't you?
And I think he's suffering a crisis of meaning and that, you know, he wants to be accepted by as many people as possible.
Well, how's that going to happen if you keep, you know, solipsistically referring back to yourself that you can only be the one that could be trusted with this information and you're the only one that could see it?
And nobody, no matter how much, will ever get to experience your.
Your taste, your experience.
So I feel like it's at the highest level, it becomes pointless almost to debate these people.
So, in your view, what do you think explains all these things like Roswell and these things that these pilots are seeing on their radars and the sightings above these nuclear bases and all this stuff?
Like, what do you deduce from that?
I don't want to avoid the question, but I would say, why don't you believe in Muhammad?
Like, why aren't you a practicing Muslim, Danny?
It's not fair, right?
Like, you might, maybe you haven't seen evidence to believe.
Like, it's not up to you to explain why you're not a practicing Muslim, right?
It's up to me if I was proselytizing as a Muslim to try to convince you that actually Muhammad, the prophet, was this and that and you should accept him or Jesus or whatever, right?
In other words, my lack of believing it is not a statement about me unless you say, like, well, in other words, how can I explain a billion Muslims worshiping Muhammad, Allah, and being like, okay, this is something that has convinced them.
So now you're asking me an analogous thing.
Like, what explains all these things?
Well, I don't believe that they're actually.
That they're representative of a reproducible scientific chain of events that can be tested using the scientific method.
If, in fact, it's true, which I don't know, but if it's true that they only reveal themselves to certain people in certain places around nuclear plants, then I have to be very suspicious as a scientist, right?
I mean, I'm a father, so I have kids, and I look at the kids, and if they say, like, well, I have an imaginary friend, oh, what's his name?
Well, you can't know, you can't experience him.
So, you know, but he's telling me to, like, steal money from your wallet, you know, like, okay, well, I would like to know more about that because you're telling me that something is happening with something that I cannot have access to because either I don't have clearance or the government's conspiring to keep me from knowing that information, et cetera, et cetera.
So, what is the information that's out there?
It's too hard for me to kind of assess the credibility of what's been claimed by various people.
As I said, they're much more courageous, they're much braver, bigger balls than I'll ever have, right?
That's Grush, whoever, Fravored.
But that doesn't give them any.
Extra ability to practice the scientific method than I have.
And when you, I don't know, I mean, it would almost be better for me because you've investigated these more.
I'll say why I think it's unlikely.
I'll never say that they don't exist.
I won't even say that what they're claiming isn't correct.
I'll just say you have to ascribe a probability.
And to me, the probability is very low.
I can't say it's zero.
That they ever saw this stuff ever happened?
That there are actually, I don't want to say that they saw it or that there are alien spacecraft from another solar system somewhere else in either our galaxy or another galaxy.
That has been collected by human beings on Earth.
Right.
I'm not saying that that's what it is.
I'm saying, like, Ryan or the people that Ryan knows or Fravor, the things that they saw, what would you imagine them being based on your scientific perspective and your back?
Like, you don't think that they're aliens from another galaxy.
I don't think they are either.
Yeah.
Okay.
What do you think the explanation for them is?
Do you think that it's just a construct?
Well, so, you know, the name of my podcast is called Into the Impossible.
And the, the, Oftentimes, people think it comes from the Sherlock Holmes quote, which is that, you know, once you've excluded anything, no matter how crazy the facts that remain, no matter how impossible they are, that is the actual truth.
And for me, the into the impossible comes from a different quote from Arthur C. Clarke that the only way to determine the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.
I have to ask what types of phenomena are possible within the laws of physics that I am very, very conversant with, and what things would go, so to speak, outside the laws of physics?
You'd have to ascribe things to that.
So, in other words, how many improbable things does one have to believe to actually accept that these things are from another galaxy?
That's a separate question, right?
Yes.
So, what are they seeing?
So, I will ask a different question.
I'll say, what are plausible other explanations for what they've seen?
So, here's a statistic.
The planet Venus is visible on Earth about nine months out of the year.
Three months out of the year, it's behind the sun, it's too close to the sun, it's emerging from behind the sun, you can't see it.
But nine months out of the year.
Not only in America, but throughout the world, The number of UFO sightings is statistically an incredibly amount more meaningful to be detected or to be claimed during the nine months of the year when Venus is visible.
It's extremely bright.
If you've ever seen it, it doesn't seem to move.
It seems to hover like the way the moon doesn't move when you're driving, the giant parallax of it.
Same thing happens with Venus.
It does change a little bit.
It doesn't twinkle.
It doesn't flash.
And so, millions of people, literally millions of people, report it when Venus is out.
The number of UFO reports goes up dramatically in a statistically significant manner.
Conversely, when it's not up, they go down.
Okay.
So, that's an explanation for some things that people are seeing, right?
So, if you said every single one of those people, unless they're all right, then we can't believe in that being a UFO.
Okay.
So, you'd be right.
You'd be right.
That's Venus.
So, it's not a UFO.
We have very good identification and it's not even flying.
It's Orbiting.
So, other things that make me curious about, suspicious about these claims.
A lot of them are by military pilots.
So, what do militaries do?
Do they only have the best interest of their people at heart?
Do the military ever use their own and tragically and horribly use their own conscripts or volunteers?
Do they only use them for beneficial purposes or for the actual missions that they signed up to do?
Do they ever do psyops on them?
Of course they do.
Right.
Do they ever abuse the power, the government ever abuse the power, abuse the people that are very bravest among us?
Of course they do, right?
Do they ever subject them to things they would never subject ordinary citizens to under the Constitution?
Yes, they're exempt from certain things.
They force them to get vaccines.
They do all sorts of things, right?
And so could it be that they are maybe testing these powers?
Absolutely.
Furthermore, what are some other types of technology?
Do you think all technology that the U.S. inventory has or adversary governments have right now is known and is published in popular science?
Hell no.
Of course not, right?
So, therefore, there could be advanced technology that could have been basically kept completely clandestine until it was interacted with by someone who thought they were a whistleblower, right?
And then, is it possible to maintain the conspiracy?
It would have to be, I mean, David and others are alleging there's a conspiracy to cover up these things.
And, you know, can the conspiracy be maintained over eight decades, not only between the thousands of Individuals.
You have to imagine, let's say Roswell, even though I know it's not that, so don't flame me on the channel comments below when you like, subscribe, and comment.
I'll drop that for you.
And don't flame me.
I don't believe this, but let's just say basically something like Roswell happened where there was a crashed spacecraft in 1947, which, by the way, occurred very close to the Trinity site, very close to military secret compounds, and as are many of these things cited.
Very few of them are cited over Manhattan in the middle of the Thanksgiving Day parade, right?
Many of them occur in warning areas, which are military traffic areas that even I, as a small pilot, am allowed to go into.
So, where the tic tac was seen was an area that's not restricted or prevented from access to.
It's something I go into at my risk.
I can get shot down.
They actually use my plane as target.
They don't actually shoot.
Thank God, I won't be here.
But there's a little Cessna, and they'll practice locking on.
Thank God they do.
I want them to train.
I want them to be the best freaking fighting force in the world.
I love this country.
I want them to be protected.
I want them to be safe.
I don't want them to be experimented on.
I don't have control over that.
But could they be being spoofed?
Could this thing have been a drone?
Defying Physics in Warning Areas00:03:25
Now they'll say, well, it moved so fast, it can't be.
Are there ways to spoof both optical sensors like the human eye, cameras in 2004?
Well, I gave this example when I was on Joe Rogan's show.
I'll give it now because I don't expect everybody listens to all my stuff, although I wish that they did.
I said 1943, there was a great physicist.
He's actually featured in the movie Oppenheimer.
His name is Louis Alvarez.
Yeah.
And Louis Alvarez was just a genius.
He and his son actually came up with the theory of how the dinosaurs were exterminated through this impact of a meteorite and collected the evidence for what's called the TK boundary, the Chicxulub event in the Yucatan.
And so he was just a polymath.
He knew everything.
But he was also a nuclear physicist.
But he, in part, in addition to the Manhattan Project, there was another secret project led out of MIT.
And it was to develop radar in partnership with the British.
And it was to develop the first radar sensing technology.
It was early 1940s.
And it was almost as important, if not, it was probably more important than the Manhattan Project.
In other words, it saved more Allied lives, perhaps, or, you know, it established protection.
It allowed London to be basically saved during the war from complete, you know, just utter annihilation.
Right.
So Alvarez was working on it.
And in that time, there were no, it was just radar would be used.
It would send up a pulse, and that pulse would bounce off an aircraft, come back down, and it would get reduced a little bit by each time it made transmitted something called the inverse square law.
So, the signal amplitude or the intensity decreases, the flux that you detect decreases as one over the distance to the object squared.
So, if I bounce our sonar or radar off of you, the intensity will decrease by one over the distance between us, say a meter away squared.
And then, if I moved you twice as far away, it'll be four times lower.
And then it will also get another factor because now you become another transmitter at the same distance.
So, it goes down as one over r to the fourth power.
So, it's a very, very steep function.
What Alvarez said, and the Germans knew that.
The planes coming towards them and the Allied planes were coming towards the Germans.
The Germans would say, Oh, the signal's getting bigger as one over the distance to the fourth power.
And then they could target it very accurately and send rocket or shoot it down or send out other planes to shoot it down.
What Alvarez said is let me do the following As my plane is flying towards you, I'm going to transmit a signal to you.
Okay, which sounds weird.
Why would I transmit a signal telling you where I am?
No, no, no.
But he transmitted it at the exact rate of decrease that I would expect as if the plane were going away.
So he started off with some signal at say one unit and then he dropped it by the fourth power and they were like, oh, the plane's going away.
It's no longer a threat.
Boom.
Then they blew up the site with an anti, what's called anti radiation bomb.
So if you were a German, you know, one of the most advanced technological, you know, civilizations on earth, you would be saying that object defied the laws of physics.
Not only did we not see it, but we also, so it had some stealth capabilities too, but actually move faster than the speed of light.
And it moved in a way that we can't understand.
It was here one minute, but actually we thought it was there, but it was actually, you know, 80 kilometers away.
And that happened in one second.
That's, you know, microseconds.
So it appeared to defy the laws of physics.
So there are all sorts of things that they could do, especially during military.
Hypothesis Testing and Elon Musk00:14:35
Military are the least reliable in a certain sense because they're probably the ones that are most confronted with both the adversary's highest technology and their own friendly militaries, you know, psyops and experiments on them and loyalty tests and all sorts of.
False flag events or colored wars, all sorts of things that they can do to sort of spoof and to train and to test the fighting forces' readiness and their loyalty.
And that's just a fact of life.
So, and you have to ask, is that more plausible, Danny?
And I'm not saying I'm right.
And again, I'm never saying this that I have a final word either.
Do your own due diligence.
This is not investment advice.
But if you look at the data, then you compare it to the alternative hypothesis called the likelihood ratio test.
This is what scientists do.
You say, like, how likely is it that this vaccine is going to improve your life?
Prevent some disease versus it's going to kill you.
And for most vaccines, it's very important to know that likelihood ratio.
But you're always comparing the null hypothesis, okay?
The null hypothesis is this is not going to do any harm or any benefit.
Or in this case, there are no aliens, is my null hypothesis.
Okay.
Then take this ratio and we could do a mathematical function that will predict what are the different levels.
In other words, should it be 99% confident?
Should it be 50% confident, which is almost useless?
Or should it be 99.99% confidence in hypothesis?
It's called hypothesis testing.
And then you have the question what if there are aliens and you assume that they're not?
So you get a false negative.
Okay.
So if Brian Keating is right, Then I'm responsible for a huge false negative.
Or if you say there's a false positive, you are claiming they're aliens when there aren't aliens.
Those are both errors, right?
In both cases, you're wrong.
You'd like it to be there are aliens.
If there are aliens, you detect that there are aliens.
Or if there are no aliens, you rule out the existence of aliens.
Those are the kind of correct answers.
And then there's two different ways you can be wrong false positive, false negative.
Which is worse?
Like you go to the doctor, the doctor says to you, Danny, you got cancer.
Which would you rather have there be?
He's false positive or false negative?
Right.
Right.
So it's, it's, right.
But normally what happens is you get, you might get a false negative, right?
I mean, that's much more common because it's hard to see small amounts of cancer, for example.
It's also hard to see small amounts of UFOs, right?
These things have been able to travel across interstellar distances, right?
And the old joke Elon Musk keeps making like, why is the, you know, photo quality so bad?
Why is the, you know, video, you know, why is it so crappy?
The cell phones have gotten so much better.
I think I have some explanations for that, by the way.
Or here's my other favorite one.
And again, I'm steel manning my opponents, not my enemies, just my intellectual opponents.
I don't believe it, I don't not want to believe it.
By the way, let me put a pin in the explanation for why these things keep happening where they do.
But I and good physicists like Eric and others, even people that aren't physicists that are skeptical, Avi Loeb is a good example.
He's a skeptic, he doesn't believe it, and he's got vested interest in millions and perhaps billions of dollars in the Galileo project and all the other things he's doing.
He'd be great.
For you to talk to, I talked to him.
He's down here.
Okay, great.
So, my question is who would be more overjoyed at the existence of some?
I mean, whatever, if, again, assume they're aliens for this time being, have they led to the, you know, Independence Day like destruction of the Earth?
No, right?
We're still here.
Yes.
You know, maybe they're planning something, but like so far they've been benevolent or benign.
Right.
They haven't bothered us, right?
Who would be more overjoyed with a race, a species, a civilization of technologically advanced aliens?
Who would be more thrilled than physicists?
We would be, I mean, you see how we get with like Chat GPT, which is like nothing compared to the kind of intelligence it would take to make an alien spacecraft that can traverse the galaxy and bend space and time, right?
In other words, physicists have a vested interest in aliens existing.
In other words, I will say, I want to believe, I want there to be aliens to tell us about the physics of the 29th century.
I don't want to wait that long.
I want to know, I'm going to live for another 50 years, maybe.
I want to learn as much as possible while I'm still alive.
Aliens can help be the ultimate cliff notes to help me understand it.
And so I have a vested interest in there being aliens, okay?
But I, I, As I say, I'm skeptical about it, okay?
Now, I mentioned there's this kind of joke, again, in Elonism, gotta love Elon, but he's like, oh, these aliens are so advanced.
They navigated from the closest star system, Proxima Centauri B, traveling at a quarter of the speed of light would take 25 years and do untold damage to whatever biologics are in there.
And it would require basically the warping of space time to accelerate to these speeds, anything macroscopic like the size of a spacecraft, like a tic tac.
Almost an infinite supply of energy, propulsion, safari warp drives, whatever you want.
Okay.
Yeah.
But they crash in the island of Catalina off the coast of Los Angeles.
They crash somewhere in Roswell.
In other words, they're so skilled that they traverse the entire galaxy, but they can't.
No, no, really, because they crash all the time.
I don't think that's what a lot of people believe.
A lot of people believe that they're from here, that they're living under the oceans, and they're coming from here.
They're coming into the oceans, and they're.
I mean, that's what Sarfati believes.
That's what a lot of people I talk to on here believe.
They're not coming from other galaxies, they're actually here.
So, like Atlantis.
Yeah, maybe Atlantis.
I don't know.
But they think that these things are coming from the oceans and these things maybe live under the oceans or they're walking among us.
Or maybe there are people that are out there like me and you or Elon Musk, more likely, that are genetically also like this alien race, right?
They look and talk like me and you, but they don't look like the aliens we see in the movies, but they're technically aliens.
Or this technology that's flying around that they're seeing is not necessarily coming from another star system.
It's coming from.
Here somewhere, and it's remaining hidden.
Well, so I'm talking more about the types of alien, like Roswell.
Roswell, to my knowledge, was not from the ocean.
It was from another start, you know, Recula, Reticulum, whatever, Omega.
So, but I just want to make a statement about that.
If you do hear that, again, I'm supporting the fact pattern that should be amenable to many members of your audience and not to ingratiate myself, but because it's a legitimate, as a scientist, you should actually specify all the ways you could be wrong.
I'm telling you all the ways Brian Keating could be wrong.
So, in this case, though, those that say that it's impossible to believe that these advanced civilizations crashed after navigating their whole way across the entire galaxy, right?
No, actually, it's a very common effect.
Something like six times.
So, I don't want to say this jinx myself.
I'm getting on a plane in what, an hour or so, an hour and a half?
So, something like six times, you're six times more likely to be involved in a plane that crashes upon landing.
Than you are at any other phase in flight.
Right.
Even though the fraction of that plane being in landing is only a few minutes or a few seconds.
Landing and takeoff, right?
Yeah.
Takeoff is also dangerous, but landing in particular seems.
And it's a whole landing process, not just like touching down the runway.
And these aren't fatal crashes.
I mean, 90% of crashes people walk away from, most commercial airlines.
And please God, it should hold true at least through tonight when I get home.
Unless you're on that Malaysian flight with the UFOs that are floating around.
Oh, yeah.
You were.
You've been talking about that, right?
Yeah.
Julian got caught up in a bunch of drama.
I have not investigated.
Just don't even look at it.
Don't waste your time.
You know, when that was happening, it was right when my.
The experiment described in my first book, Losing the Nobel Prize, was we were made the announcement on the front page of the New York Times that we discovered the origin of the universe as evidenced by these waves of gravity.
And so, yeah, that was right when Putin invaded Crimea the first time and when the Malaysian airline that's tragically crashed.
So, we shared the New York Times top billing with those events.
Anyway, so it's not at all unexpected that if these spacecraft were traveling, they would crash in the final segment.
And to give the people like Elon to say, oh, well, you know, Why is a video camera so crappy?
And why is it that this, again, another thing, it's called the zoo hypothesis.
These are just ways that you could evade the Fermi paradox.
And so basically, it's a Fermi paradox is an interesting scientific.
He was a physicist, a theoretical and experimental physicist, last of a breed.
He was at Los Alamos too, wasn't he?
Yeah, he was a huge, he was one of the, he invented the first controlled chain reaction at the University of Chicago.
And Fermilab is named after him.
And people have claimed weird things in Fermilab.
But, But the Fermi paradox is, you know, the universe is so big, it should be clean with aliens.
How come we haven't seen any?
Of course, a lot of people believe we have seen them and just it's being covered up.
But the question as to why, you know, the video quality is so bad or why they would choose to come here, you know, when you think about, you know, what is interesting about Earth, is Earth interesting?
Is it worth them coming to take a look at?
A lot of people say no.
And a lot of people, though, you look at how amazing life is on Earth and how amazing human beings are, to me, it's, it's, it'll be a natural place for them to come and visit.
And so, yeah, when you, when you think about, well, what interests them and why would they allow themselves to be seen?
So there's something called the zoo hypothesis I mentioned a second ago.
The zoo hypothesis is that they're here, but just like when you go to the zoo, you don't go and knock on the window of the gorillas and keep bothering them.
Or Jane Goodall, the primatologist.
When she would go to the Serengeti, she wouldn't be like, hi, everybody, you know, taking all these flash paparazzi type camera pictures, right?
She wouldn't do that.
In this case, let's say the aliens did come, again, don't believe this personally, or I don't have evidence for this, but if it were true that they left when they first discovered that human beings were alive and could produce things, The very first technological signature we blasted out into space was like the 1936 Olympic Games, something like that.
You know, the first widely televised, not over cable TV, but over the air.
So it was free to propagate.
Now they wouldn't see anything or they would see very little because most stuff goes under the ocean.
So it was broadcasting through satellite into outer space.
So 70, 80 years ago, they could have known about it.
So what's 70, 80 years ago?
What kind of technology do they think that we have?
So let's say they start off, oh, human beings over there.
Planet three, Sol, you know, it's in the solar system.
You know, it's green, blue planet.
Let's go there.
They set off 80 years ago.
They're looking at the technology that we had then, right?
So they wouldn't say, oh, we should make sure we cloak ourselves and are stealthy because they have iPhone 15s.
They don't know about that.
In other words, they left.
They're not, you know, the technology that then maybe as they travel, they could have learned about our technology as it keeps increasing, but not only at the rate at which we were broadcasting into the, you know, they just learned about iPhone 15 when you and I did, right?
Like, Three months ago.
Right.
So, in other words, it shouldn't, it's not surprising.
So, a lot of these things are, I think, you know, basically pandering to like, oh, they're not there.
Here's, you can just dismiss it because the video quality is crappy.
They wouldn't crash land if they're such expert pilots and they wouldn't allow themselves to be seen.
Those are completely illegitimate arguments against it, supporting a position I believe in, which are faith in, or have evidence for, which is that they don't exist.
So, I think it's important as a scientist to do that.
And I think, The more you talk to experimentalists, the better.
People are actually building stuff, grappling with law.
If you brought Edward Witten in here, I don't know if he could turn on the Wi Fi and get the Wi Fi up to boot again.
Theoretical physicists are very different than experimental physicists, they have a different skill set.
It's much more like a mathematician.
I don't think anyone would say, let's get the mathematicians in here.
Although people like Stephen Wilfram have done things with deciphering alien language in the movie Arrival, he was a consultant on that.
And Kip Thorne actually did a lot of work in the movie Interstellar.
Yeah, these are things that are of interest, but I almost am betting against my own self-interest.
When you talked to Ryan, did he mention to you the thing with the cube and the sphere?
Yeah.
I mean, he had said that that's what his fellow pilots had claimed that they had seen and were seeing on almost continuous basis.
Yeah.
So from what I understood was when they saw the cube and the sphere, they were flying and then all of a sudden they just passed this thing.
And then he said it was right off of their, The left or the right hand of the plane, like off the wingspan.
They didn't necessarily see it moving.
That's not what I heard.
Oh, really?
What did you hear?
Well, I asked him that specifically as a pilot.
I was like, how close were these things?
And he said they flew between us.
And he said that multiple times.
And I said, you have to be more clear.
How close were you?
Because my best friend, one of my best friends, Ariel Kleinerman, who's a Princeton physics graduate and a commander in the Navy, he actually is higher ranked than Ryan.
They're buddies.
He went to his wedding.
And so Ryan was right there.
And I said, When you guys are flying these formations, how close are you guys?
And he said, Over a mile apart, typically a mile apart.
Really?
So two planes separated by a mile.
That means the closest, you know, that they could have been to this thing is half a mile.
And they might have perfect vision, but the cube they describe is about a meter across, something like that.
And the sphere surrounding it.
I believe that's what it was, about a meter or so.
So, the visual acuity to see something, imagine you go out half a mile with 10 football fields or more, and you're looking at the football.
Could you tell the football was one foot big, or could you tell it was three feet big?
If it wasn't glowing or doing something, it's very difficult to do.
And again, no aspersions on Ryan.
I think what he's doing is very important.
And I also think that he is not claiming he saw it.
And it's just like Grush.
Grush is not claiming he saw these things.
He's saying he has knowledge of people that have seen it.
And in the case of Grush, I don't know what his motivations might be.
I'd love to talk to him.
He seems like a great, you know, again, courageous, valorous, patriotic, whatever.
But he's not claiming these things.
Ryan has a motive.
He actually has a motive.
And it happens to be a beneficent one, a good one, in that he's concerned about the safety of his fellow pilots, which actually made me a little bit suspicious.
Not of him.
I mean, I love him.
He's been to my house for dinner.
I really enjoy Ryan.
But he described, and we talked about.
Did you find it?
Yeah.
You want it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Throw it up.
Yeah.
Continue.
Sorry.
Okay.
So, Ryan didn't have this particular fact happen to him, but Fravor did.
I don't know if you remember the interview when he did with Lex Friedman and others, but he said, you know, he saw this tic tac.
Pilots Hazing the Witness00:02:25
And then, almost by the time he landed back on the aircraft carrier, his fellow pilots were just hazing him mercilessly.
And he was like outranking them.
So, I could understand like a little bit of teasing or whatever, but they basically didn't believe him.
And now, Ryan's saying this is happening all the time off the coast of Virginia.
By the way, they're both in warning areas, both in the same type of aircraft.
Ryan's aircraft and the ones that had been seeing this had just been upgraded to a new type of camera.
Again, they use these cameras to lock on to see.
They'll do everything from my friend Ariel, I don't think it's classified.
I think he talked about it.
He shot down an Iranian drone over the Persian Gulf during the Iraq War.
They see these things all the time.
And it was right after they upgraded the systems.
Why do they upgrade them?
They have to calibrate them and they have to get better and better systems.
Fravor's one was 20 years old now, by now about 20 years old, and 10 years older than the one that Ryan Graves had been using or his squadron.
So, the question is, why would they be, you know, kind of hazing somebody if, if indeed it was causing this grave threat and something's happening all the time?
You know, why is it happening in these warning areas?
You know, why is it happening in places where they do training?
It's not happening.
Why aren't there, by ratio of, you know, proportion, you know, tens of thousands of commercial pilots, private pilots like me, you know, seeing it, reporting it?
I could see if you're a commercial pilot and you report this.
If you get hazed in the Navy, they're not going to kick you out.
They're just going to put like a, Fuzzy alien on your bunk.
If you're flying for American Airlines and you keep reporting this, you probably would get either put on psychiatric leave or something like that.
So there's a big imperative to keep quiet, probably for those people.
But people like me, just private pilots flying, sometimes I fly cancer patients to get treatments, and it's called Angel Flight, which is a great charity people should be aware of.
There's no incentive for me not to report this.
There's no reporting platform that is as good as the one that Ryan's going to make.
With the Safe Americans for Safe Aerospace.
So there's a motive.
It's a good one for him to do it.
I think there's, you have to ask, well, why aren't there more sightings by people that have no skin in the game?
That's a question I have.
This episode of the podcast is brought to you by Seed.
Have you ever been in a situation where you had a gut feeling and it paid off?
There's a reason you trust your gut.
And that's why our enteric nervous system, which regulates the gut, is often called the body's second brain.
Motives Behind UFO Sightings00:14:55
Seed's DS01 daily symbiotic is a new standard in probiotic, which supports digestive, skin, heart, and gut health.
Its non fermenting formula is supported by Clinical trials and scientific studies and delivers what you need where you need it.
I personally use seed because it helps support my body's ability to break down fats and lipids and it maintains my blood cholesterol levels already in the healthy range.
And with seeds DS01 Symbiotic, it's two capsules in one.
The outer layer dissolves in your stomach with fiber that feeds your gut bacteria, and the inner capsule is designed to travel all the way to the colon for the precision delivered payload.
Additionally, seed is rigorously tested for 14 classes of allergens defined by the European Food Safety Authority.
Listen to your gut with seeds DS01 Daily Symbiotic.
Go to seed.com forward slash Danny and use the code 25DANNY to get 25% off your first month.
That's 25% off your first month of Seed's Daily DS01 Symbiotic at seed.com forward slash Danny, code 25DANNY.
Back to the show.
So, this is an interesting article.
My friend Jeremy Reese pointed this out to me.
Scroll down.
Yeah, I've talked to Jeremy before.
Okay, so this is a patent, and this is a radar deflector that was used.
During the, I think it was developed during like the Bay of Pigs to spoof radar.
Yeah, it's like the US patent 2 million.
Yeah, so can you zoom in on the text?
It's 9 million, so this is probably 60 or 50.
Can you zoom in, punch in a little bit on it so we can read it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Scroll up.
Yeah, everyone car with the factory.
Car with the factory is on your bicycle.
Yeah, high altitude balloons, doesn't have, if any of the radar cross section metallic, yeah, yeah.
So it tells you the exact patent number.
Yeah.
And that thing looks exactly like what they described.
Yeah.
No, the cube inside the sphere.
And here's another thing I can say with great accuracy.
I guarantee that these exist.
You know, in other words, if you knew, if you lived in a world where these didn't exist, say you get a letter from God, these things don't exist, these balloons don't exist for benign purposes, for calibration and sensor testing.
If you said that they're forbidden by every treaty on every country on earth, like anthrax is, okay, then you say, well, there's less probability, but there's probably still some left over.
But now you tell me, which I thank you for, these are common.
These are probably in use by every military on earth to train their stuff.
I saw this video of like Ukrainian drone pilots.
That are dropping like tank shells, and they have they're so poor, their military is saying, you know, I'm not going to take sides or whatever.
But they still have radar jamming and they have anti drone channel jamming technology that spoofs, makes a fake drone appear on the run.
Right, exactly.
They have this with like no money.
And so I guarantee, so we are both in agreement.
It makes it look like a fleet is coming at you when there's nothing coming at you.
Nothing comes, you waste all your attention, right?
These warheads have multiple targets in them.
Right.
And if you were to test this in front of a US military training site, you want, and they just upgraded their radar, why wouldn't you want to be trying to test it?
I'm glad you have this.
That's a very good point.
Yep.
Appreciate that.
So that's, I mean, that's sort of my belief as to what this thing is.
I think it's some tech.
I mean, you know, I've read this book by Annie Jacobson called The Pentagon's Brain.
It's all about the history of DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research.
Oh, wow.
And I mean, they have been testing things like Neuralink since the early 90s.
Oh, wow.
On like soldiers.
That I mean.
Putting shit in their heads that makes them immune to pain and all kinds of crazy stuff.
They want to make a super soldier.
Yeah, making a new super soldier.
And they're pushing the limits like they're going into the impossible, literally, like.
30 years before the public hears about this kind of stuff.
Think about what these other countries that have zero, like, you think Vladimir Putin really isn't going to try, like, much more advanced shit that we would never do, even with as despicably as we treated.
My stepfather was in the Vietnam War and he told me incredible stories in combat and outside of combat.
They did horrible things to our soldiers.
And our soldiers are like, you know, some of our bravest people.
Two of my best friends are Afghan.
They're both like permanently disabled, Marines, Army, infantry.
And they were done for like bullshit reasons.
They shouldn't have been in these wars.
And so they took the best of America.
And they do fucking experiments on them.
They do this to this day.
But again, does that prove that there aren't aliens?
No, of course not.
You just have to be skeptical.
And again, always look at the story.
There are people that, you know, people say, oh, Michael Shermer, he doesn't want to believe in aliens.
You know, he's got like, what is the incentive for him not to believe in it?
He is, you know, for people that dislike him.
And he's a friend of mine.
I've written articles with him, I've debated him, you know, and we have friendly debates.
So the point is, you have to ask, like, qui bono, who benefits?
Why would you take this position?
What is he covering up?
Or Avi Loeb, I've seen, oh, he's covering up for the Avi Loeb has an incentive for aliens, not only for his book deals and becoming number one bestseller again, but also just for his scientific curiosity.
This is a guy who's dedicated his life now and his career and his reputation towards not only seeing the existence of other aliens as a plausible proposition, but that maybe, as he claimed on my podcast this week, that alien, something from another alien civilization.
Potentially, with materials that indicate it's come from outside of our solar system, crashed in Papua New Guinea, and we can go and retrieve it and see if it's actually from metallurgical processes, not natural cosmic ray spallation processes.
Right.
Now, like getting back to this whole thing, when I start to see the New York Times and the Pentagon start to corroborate these stories in lockstep, that's when I really start to question it.
And when it comes to these videos that they released, right?
The Go Fast, the Gimbal, and I forget what the other one was.
Who the I was talking to Ryan, who named those videos?
Who came up with that name, Go Fast?
Who came up with that name, Gimbal?
Because those are those piles.
I know the pilots did not.
Yeah.
So, one of the so there's a set, and again, talk to Ryan, talk to my friend Ariel, but there's a set of military.
So, after a flight, every plane that flies for one hour has a scrutiny around it of about 10 hours just for the debrief.
So, when they come back, they land on the carrier or they land at the Air Force, you know, and they debrief the flight every single minute because every minute costs about $8,000 in total investment for every single plane.
Imagine how much money we have.
And then there's 10 hours of maintenance for every single plane that goes.
So that's separate from that.
They review all the gun cameras, they view all the sensor data, they review everything.
People pour over.
And there's some analysts who, in the past, before we had drone operators, there were people that were officers that would be intelligence officers and they would review stuff.
And then when they would review it, they'd listen to something and they'd just name it.
So a gimbal is just a camera on a platform like a GoPro, or not a GoPro, but one of those stabilized things.
And the other one, GoFast, I think one of the pilots says, Well, look at that thing.
Fast or whatever, and then they just call it that.
Then there are other ones that have been, you know, fairly like the Boca and those ones.
I mean, this guy Mick West.
The triangles.
Yeah, the triangles.
A lot of those things are artifacts of cameras.
So the question is, you know, can you explain all of these things?
And my colleague and actually mentor and president of the Simons Foundation, David Spergel, was the chairman of the NASA committee on UAP research that announced its findings this past summer.
And I think that they said some very large fraction was explainable by natural events, but there's always going to be that, you know, 12 to 30 percent.
That's not explainable.
And the question is, at what level do you start to ascribe conspiracy, cover ups, versus the honest admission of a scientist, the three most important words that any scientist must be able to say?
And if they can't, they're not a scientist.
And that's, I don't know.
And that's again, getting back to our friend Jack, he'll never say that.
Never say, I was wrong.
I don't know.
Right.
It's always, I know, and you idiots aren't listening to me, and you're strong.
Yeah.
And so good luck.
You're not going to really get too many takers there.
Yeah.
And, you know, If the government's been lying to us about this or covering it up for 80 years, what makes you think that they're going to all of a sudden come out and want to tell the truth?
Yeah, or that the cover up that lasted for 80 years of durability, once it does crack, there's not a flood?
Like that everything doesn't come out.
I mean, the question of that.
Like they're not controlling it.
Yeah, that they have such power to control for generations, like multiple generations.
And by the way, it's not just like the guy who saw the spacecraft crash in Roswell.
Okay, what do they do?
Realistically, what would you have to do?
Just again, Roswell's my paradigm.
I'm not saying I believe anything is legitimate about it being bodies and spacecraft and whatever.
You know, it could have some, it could not, right?
But some guy, some general knew about it, okay?
Someone discovers it, some farmer discovers it.
Then they call the military base nearby.
Then they send out a truck.
Then there's four guys on the truck.
Then they drop the truck, it has a crane operator on the back.
Then they drop that, they pick it up, they drive it to the warehouse, then they store it in the warehouse, and somebody has to guard the warehouse.
The warehouse to be climate controlled, then it has to be the.
And then you have to do all this paperwork.
And then take all those people that I've already named 10 of them.
Take all those people.
They have 10 people in their lives kids, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, whatever.
100 people.
Just in generation zero, the first time that these people discover, right?
1947, correct?
And then they have kids.
And then those 10 people have kids.
100 people have kids.
It becomes enormous.
And to say that all those people have not.
You know, spilled the beans, if you like, on the biggest story in human cons history, right?
Yeah.
This is so much bigger than even the tragic assassination of JFK.
Yeah, it affected one person.
Obviously, tragically, a huge country was affected by it, but it was one person, and that's so relatively easier to cover that.
Even that hasn't been effectively covered up for very long, right?
With government mandating that you can't open up the official records for 50 years, right?
So, yeah, it stretches the mind.
Doesn't mean it's not true.
What is it that Eric was harping on so hard?
I don't know if it was on Rogan's podcast or if it was with that guy, Jesse Michaels, but he was talking to Hal Putoff, the ex Scientologist guy, also a remote viewer guy from SRI.
And they were talking to him.
He was basically explaining how in the 50s, I think it was Ed Witten's dad.
Yeah.
They were like making a lot of progress on anti gravity.
And then all of a sudden, the research went dark, like it stopped out of nowhere.
So was he alluding to like the government took it over or like it went dark?
Meaning, like, I went dark under a special access program or something?
Well, yeah.
So it's not really clear.
Eric has, you know, an incredible ability to kind of explain things, to be curious, to illustrate things with amazing analogies and with a commanding knowledge of history and a commanding knowledge of mathematics and physics.
So, Jackson, oh, he's just a mathematician.
That's bullshit.
He's much, much more than that.
He's creative, he's generative.
But what he's not good at doing is like writing stuff up in a freaking book, you know?
Eric, you've got seven books in you.
You know, help me help you write a book.
You know, put these ideas into place because you can't just like every time you go on my podcast or on Jesse's or whatever, you know, have these statements or Rogan's.
There's no durability to that.
I actually told this to Rogan about motivating him to write a book because no one's going to go back and listen.
I was episode 2023.
It was a cool number, easy to remember.
I don't know what the hell episode, you know, the first time Eric was on, no one's going to go back and watch Eric the first time he was on episode 1432, you know.
So, but if he wrote a book about it and wrote, you know, summarized the coolest topics in aliens and like psychedelics, Joe, no matter what, you're going to talk about psychedelics when you talk with Joe.
But just like distill each one into a chapter.
He doesn't even have to write it.
Billions of people would write it for him for free.
Anyway, Eric has to do the same thing.
I'm trying to get him to do it.
We'll see if that will actually work.
But what he was saying about this gravity program, there was a, in North Carolina, UNC, I believe it was, and research triangle area.
Ed Witten's father, who wasn't really a physicist of some renown, but not as great a renown as his son, who's a mathematical physicist, Edward.
But they had working on what's called the Gravity Prize, and they had money and incentives, and there were some papers apparently written about anti gravity.
And I was joking, I tried to find those papers.
They're so good, I couldn't put those anti gravity papers down.
Because they're anti gravity, Danny.
Come on.
I can't put that on.
I got it.
Come on.
I'm going to bring the dad jokes, brother.
You don't let me one dad joke on this beloved podcast.
I'm dead.
The best thing I've ever heard is the term Jew nursery.
I really appreciate you saying that on Julian's podcast.
That's right.
I won't let that go.
Got to give him some toothache.
So, yeah, allegedly, according to Eric, yeah, they had this.
And now Eric has found some material that he claims is like an Australian patent.
And this is stuff that Grush had mentioned on Joe Rogan's podcast.
And it does relate.
And I think they did bring this up.
But again, as I asked you earlier, and I think you answered properly in a certain sense, like, is the technology that's needed to do these things, you're really prejudiced if you say that it's necessary to have new laws of physics that we don't understand.
This is Eric's claim, actually.
He actually believes that the only way to get off of the Earth's surface and make it to instantiate a second cosmic home is not with a chemical rocket of SpaceX, it's to change the laws of physics.
Is that changing the laws of physics, though, with some of the ideas of having some sort of Like Bob Lazar explained with his basketball reactor that was powered with element 115, I think it was.
And he says basically, like, he tried to touch it and it, like, propelled his hand off like a magnet.
And if you had something like that, and he showed, like, the diagrams of it, of how basically it creates this field around the aircraft to where it's when it's moving like this, it's falling through space.
Like, it's almost like if you drop something, it's moving that way.
Right.
And these are his ideas or something he claims he's seen made, or it could be in person.
Because, I mean, he's not.
Great physicist.
He's not, I mean, he's not a physicist.
I don't even think he is a physicist.
No, he claims he was like a pilot, but then there are all these questions.
Was he really a tech?
Did he have all the credentials that he claims that he had?
Did he see the things or have access to the things that he had?
But even people like Jeremy, Jeremy's an amateur physicist too.
I mean, he has a bachelor's degree in physics and he's like studying all this stuff.
And he says that it's not, doesn't define the laws of physics.
It's just creating, you need the amount, you need a high, high, high amount of energy to do it.
And it's that it's impossible to.
Right.
Either a high amount, large amount of energy or Miniscule amount of energy and infinite amount of space.
So, we do know about anti gravity.
It's called dark energy or cosmological constant.
It seems to be the force that's causing galaxies to accelerate at greater and greater velocities with every passing day, something that won the Nobel Prize for three of my friends in the year 2011.
New Laws of Physics00:14:25
I've had them all on my podcast.
And it's as well known a phenomenon as exists.
But the problem is that energy level differs from the so called zero point energy level by something like 120 orders of magnitude.
And the kind of characteristic energy scale. that we know about that pushes galaxies apart, perhaps inflated the universe at early times.
Those things related to so called zero point fluctuations, Casimir effects, cubriary warp drives, and they're infinite, almost like you say, infinite, almost near infinite amount of energy.
So it's not only manipulate, we have no way to, like, say, use the energy of the acceleration of space time.
We can't do that.
There's no way to couple into it.
And we actually know extremely little about it.
So the question I always have is okay, so now you've got this theory of this antigravity, which no one has demonstrated except for the cosmos at large, which is, again, resulted in at least three Nobel Prizes so far.
That nobody else knows about this?
That, like, what would be the incentive to not expose this, to get credit, to win a Nobel Prize, to make millions and billions of dollars?
Why would this not be more?
Why is Bob Lazar, who is like not a scientist, not military trained?
You know, I mean, what is the incentive to believe that such a person, other than you want to believe it?
It sounds really plausible, it sounds cool, it could explain things that you have no access to.
And so tying together like a whole bunch of things that are each incredibly improbable.
The U.S. government has a conspiracy.
These craft have traveled great distances.
There are new laws of physics that they operate by.
Doesn't make it more credible.
It makes it much, much less credible.
If you multiply probabilities, which is how they add together, if you like, you multiply it.
Like you have a 10% chance of it raining.
My flight's 10% chance of leaving on time if the rain is here.
And then there's a 1% chance that the Uber driver will be on time to get me here, which hopefully will be coming soon.
And not that I don't enjoy talking to you, it's just I enjoy putting my kids to bed.
Jesus Christ, it's already 2 30.
Well, time flies, you're having fun.
But putting these things together makes it less likely, not more likely.
And that's the thing that kind of just goes, you know, gnaws at me when these things like, okay, to explain that, now you need a really impossible thing, which is the laws of physics have to be unknown to us, new laws that these things can manipulate, which again would be fascinating to me.
But let me just double click on that for one second.
It's often said that, like, the laws of physics lead to these new types of technology.
At least that's kind of the syllogism that people are using, right?
These aliens, if they invented, if they had the laws of physics that permitted anti gravity, right?
That you could extract some technology from it.
That technology, in turn, would be used to get to the Earth from Proxima Centauri.
That's sort of an argument that would be used, right?
It's a way to explain how they're here, right?
Because our current laws with chemical rockets and biological aging processes of DNA, right, do not permit us to get to any solar system, right?
And that's the only life form we know exists.
And that's the only physics we know exists, right?
The known laws of physics, by definition.
So, in order to get.
But I ask you, did we use to get, let's say, the most advanced thing that humans have ever built in terms of laws of physics?
Let's just say it was the Trinity bomb, you know, it was the atomic bombs that were used, right?
Did the scientists that were working, you saw Oppenheimer, right?
Yeah.
So I did an explainer video just as a small advertisement because people were interested in the physics.
There's almost no physics in that movie, right?
Right.
But so I did a video called The Physics of Oppenheimer Professor Explains the Bomb.
So if people are interested in the hardcore physics and the history of it, they can find that.
It's on your YouTube channel.
It's on my YouTube channel.
Okay.
So, but did they look at the laws of physics?
Like, was Oppenheimer a physicist in the sense that he looked at the new laws of physics and then from those laws of physics came up with technology?
Or was he mostly an engineer?
Like, remember the big process of putting the marbles and plutonium versus uranium?
It was a technology problem.
It was a technology problem.
We had to create the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Hanford nuclear sites.
We had to do things to produce a yielding, like what Iran is doing now.
Iran is reputedly building a bomb.
Right?
Are they using the laws of physics?
Are they going back to quantum mechanics and solving the Schrdinger equation?
No, it's a technology problem, right?
My point is, it's not enough to say that the laws of physics have to be manipulated.
You also need a way of improving the laws of technology to extract those laws.
It's often said, well, your computer screen, the internet in here, the camera sensors, those are based on semiconductors.
And it's true.
Semiconductors are based on the laws of quantum mechanics.
The very first transistor, nobody looked at the laws of Schrdinger, which is really what governs a transistor equation, and more advanced statistical mechanics, but nothing like.
Group theory or string theory was needed, right?
Right.
But even they didn't use the laws of physics to invent technology, which was the previous most advanced technology, maybe, or actually it came after the nuclear bomb, right?
So all this is just to say that having new laws of physics, I don't think it's even a necessary condition for aliens to be here or have new technology.
It may not, it's certainly not a sufficient, you know, if you just had new laws of physics.
And so, like I said earlier, if I told you string theory had been invented on Proxima Centauri B, would it matter to you?
Let me ask you this question.
Let's say aliens invent metallurgy and chemical rockets, okay, that for some reason can advance them to very high velocities, or their biology allows them to live for trillions of years, or whatever, right?
If I said they invented that, would you say, well, they still have to invent string theory, or they still have to invent warp theory, or whatever Jack has?
What was more important, the technology or the pure science?
The applied science or the pure science for teleporting across the planet?
The applied science.
Exactly.
So, these things about the anti gravity conference of Ed Witten's father in 1913, you know, so are these questions of, you know, relevance to the discovery of evidence for aliens being here on Earth?
I don't know.
I don't know that it's so important.
Let's say they were doing anti gravity research, whatever that was.
Right.
We certainly don't have any anti gravity technology right now.
That would be a good point.
Yeah, flubber.
I mean, what Fravor said that he saw, right?
That sounds like anti gravity.
So I don't know anything about this.
So, Fravor, the pilot who witnessed with his eyes the tic tac, also has knowledge about.
You sure it's Fravor and not Grush?
I thought Fravor was the one who saw the tic tac.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So he also claims that he has seen separate evidence, or you're saying the existence of the tic tac moving the way it did?
Moving the way it did, that would be anti gravity, right?
If it had been bending space-time.
So, if there was something in there, it would turn to gelatin if it was not anti gravity, right?
If it could create a pocket where it just moves around and nothing is affected.
Again, so this is, again, synthesizing a whole bunch of claims that may or may not be related.
So that he saw it, that it was witnessed by other sensors, that the sensors weren't spoofed, because there are many ways to move.
I can make something move faster than the speed of light.
You just give me a laser pointer, right?
I mean, I can do it.
I can have a signal that changes faster, that doesn't transmit information, that's just visibility, right?
And who's to say that there's something inside there at all, right?
And by the way, again, Let's say these creatures are incredibly advanced.
Do you think the first things that we sent to, well, we know for sure.
They're definitely not, they're drones.
They're 3D printed things.
They're not human, they're not biological.
And the only thing that's biological in them are the fingerprints and the exhalation.
I had Craig Ventner on, who is the man who sequenced the human genome for the first time 25 years ago.
And he was saying, there's already Mars is covered in human shit.
Because there's just like no way in this International Space Station and all that when they get.
Use the bathroom, they vent it to space, and they found the outside of the space station is covered with the human microbiome.
And then he studies.
So it's like already we've contaminated it.
Now, my question is I like to do this as a thought experiment.
What if I told you that there was life on another planetary system?
It's a multi planetary system like ours is.
Okay.
So it's a star system.
It has a type G2 sub dwarf, yellow star, just like our sun, same size.
And it has two planets in the habitable zone.
You're familiar with the habitable zone, right?
The Goldilocks zone.
Goldilocks zone.
Exactly.
I told you there's two planets there.
And good news one is teeming with life.
Life everywhere, life in underwater oceans, ice caps, even in the atmosphere, there's life and so forth of this planet.
There's another planet we haven't had time to slew the James Webb telescope over to take a peek.
But we want to ask you, Danny, what's the odds?
What are the odds that that object has life on it?
The one right next to it?
Just life.
Yeah.
Not technology, not the.
I would say there's got to be a high likelihood of having life on there.
Very high likelihood, right?
So I submit to you this is another gift for you.
This is a chunk of the moon.
The moon?
I gave Joe Rogan a piece of Mars.
I gave Julian just a crappy meteorite.
Oh, I get a part of the moon.
You get a sliver of the moon.
Just because I forgot.
Sorry, Julius.
Thank you very much.
Next time I see you, brother, I'm going to do it.
But, Julian, you know that Danny let you have the first dibs on me.
It was so beneficial.
That's right.
He got such a bump.
I let Julian scoop me.
That's right.
He let you get the scoop.
So, I had to give him a little bit better Hanukkah Christmas present.
Okay.
So, how did that get here?
Besides me bringing it here, how do you think this thing is here?
The moon?
Yeah.
How do you think that piece of the moon got here?
Panspermia.
Panspermia, right.
So, most people say, oh, you went to Houston.
Okay.
If you do that, so if this were collected by an astronaut, I would be in jail now, and you would be an accessory to murder.
And Stephen back behind the curtain would also go to jail.
So you'd be an accessory to felony, right?
It's a felony to have own possession of a fragment of the rocks that were collected by the Apollo astronauts.
But NASA and the U.S. government doesn't control gravity.
So where was this found?
This is found in Northwest Africa.
I'll send you a piece, I'll send you some information.
And how do you know it's part of the moon?
So the exact chemical composition has been acquired for it.
And this is what I want to do.
It's been compared.
Yeah.
And so for your audience, I like to do a giveaway for your audience too.
If you've made it this far, so go to briankeating.com.
On my website, there's a giveaway.
I give away one chunk sometimes of these moon rocks, but always every month I give away an actual meteorite.
And of the meteorite, we had it chemically analyzed with X ray fluorescent spectroscopy, just blast it with X rays, and you'll get a printout of the chemical fingerprint of these meteorites.
Oh, wow.
And if you have a.edu email address, so if you're in college or grad school or a professor or whatever, go to briankeating.comslash edu and you're guaranteed to win.
So ordinary people that Aren't in university.
I'm trying to, you know, kind of give back to the university system.
So, briankeen.com, other one, go there, and I'll send you the information about that.
And I can send you information about the moon rock that I sent, I gave to Danny.
I can't give you any information about Uranus, though.
That's a private matter.
So, that got here by gravity, right?
So, impacts hit the moon all the time.
They impacted Mars.
So, I gave Joe Rogan a piece of Mars.
I have a chance.
Oh, he's a meteor.
Right.
Yeah.
I think he probably smoked it or something by now.
Yeah.
But the Mars meteor, Mars, the Earth, the moon, they all exchange material.
For billions of years now.
So, the fact that Mars is a cold, dead place, as far as we can tell, doesn't mean it was always cold and dead and lifeless, but it is in the habitable zone.
Water can be in liquid form there.
There's ice underneath.
They actually think there's ice underneath the surface of Mars.
Avi Loeb thinks there are caves with lava tubes that could have, you know, he's like, there could be aliens in there.
So, all these things point to a very important conclusion, which is that the exchange of material throughout the solar system is ubiquitous.
The lack of life should be used as some piece of evidence, not proof, but accounting for in the likelihood ratio test that I told you about earlier.
You should be able to ascribe some probability to the lack of existence of life and its facundity throughout the universe based on the non observation.
And the only planet that we know could have had life in our solar system for sure.
So, wow.
Yeah.
So, anyway, these things are great.
They're fun to talk about.
I think it's always, you know, people get almost.
Emotional and a religious capacity, they definitely do.
People believe it, you know, and the core fiber of who they are is their identity.
It's very hard to change someone's identity, you know.
If you've ever had a Jehovah's Witness come to your house, right, or I passed an LDS church on the way over, yeah, right, like okay, I'm pretty thankful, you know, where I'm at right now, I don't need it.
But if you say to them, you know, like tell me about aliens, I guess some Scientologist, maybe we shouldn't talk too much about it's around here, right?
Isn't Clearwater not too far from here?
We are literally 10 minutes away from the headquarters of Scientology where L. Ron Hubbard parked his.
Pirate ship.
His spaceship, right?
Yeah.
It's a Tulu or whatever you call them, right?
Yeah, no, it is very religious.
And even like I was talking, me and Steve were talking about earlier, like even people that are in like positions of authority in government or even in NASA or NRO or some of these agencies, a lot of them, because of their position or where they are in the hierarchy and what they know, like the information that they have that's classified that no one else has, right?
They sort of, That is meaning in itself.
And if you are one of these people that, I mean, a lot of these really smart people are antisocial.
Yeah.
And introvert, anti J. Very high IQ, antisocial introverts.
And they know things that many people don't know.
You know, you wake up, no matter what, even if you're a plumber, you got to prescribe some sort of a meaning to what you do to get up out of bed every day.
And some of these people at a very high level, they think, I've said it many times, quoting my friend Paul Rosalie, is they think their lives are the Da Vinci Code.
That's right.
Yeah.
And when you start to talk about aliens and NASA and the moon being built by aliens, and we only know what these things are, but you guys don't, it doesn't progress science or it doesn't progress humanity in any sort of real sense.
Saving the World with STEM00:01:59
Yeah.
Right.
It's threatening to them.
When you try to take away or even question about their identity, it's very threatening to them.
And it's natural, right?
I mean, you know, by the way, if you want to know how to tell when you do meet a scientist who's extroverted, you know how to do that?
How?
He'll talk to you and he'll look at your shoes when he talks to you.
Oh, then you know 100% he is extroverted.
That's amazing.
Or she.
Right.
Discriminate.
Right.
Well, I think your Uber's here.
Brian, thank you for joining us on the podcast.
All the way from San Diego.
I'll come back.
I'll come back in town and see my friend Jordan.
I got these stickers for you, Brian.
Oh, we got stickers.
Cool.
QR code stickers.
We got QR codes.
You're watching out there.
Get that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Tell this picture.
You go right to the website.
Tell everyone where to subscribe.
I'll link your YouTube channel and everything below.
Go to my YouTube channel.
I got a couple books out and, um, Got a chat bot.
I'm having a lot of fun with AI and trying to figure out how to improve education.
I want to bring the cost of education down 10x and spread it to the masses.
Because I do think the one way we're going to save the world is to have more science, technology, and engineering and math.
I don't think we're going to do it as great as gender studies is, as necessary as it is.
I don't think we're going to get to a place of protection.
And it may be, who knows, these aliens underneath the ocean, right?
It may be that Musk is wrong.
That we, well, it may be that he's right.
We have to get off the surface of the planet, but maybe we have to do something to protect the planet that we're already on.
I mean, it's a lot cheaper to save the planet you're on now than to try to find another planet somewhere else that you might be able to get to and die on the way, perhaps.
Right.
I mean, it's just to save.
ourselves from another chickalub or whatever.
Yeah, that's right.
Chickalub.
Yeah.
Another or a younger dryus impact.
Like we want to make our species survive.
So we got to get ourselves off the planet and figure out how to terraform Mars so we can live past all this.
And then when the next.
And clean Uranus.
When the next round of civilization rises on Earth, we'll come back in our spaceships and we'll confuse the shit out of them.