Matthew Szydagis, an astro-particle physicist, details his team's use of a 10-ton liquid xenon detector in South Dakota to hunt dark matter while debunking claims that cosmic microwave background radiation stems from early galaxies. He addresses the stigma surrounding UAP research, noting how Department of Government Efficiency froze his grants before unfreezing them under "dark matter," and warns that tenure protections are eroding in states like Florida and Ohio. Szydagis argues that advanced craft should survive nuclear blasts like Starfish Prime, yet evidence suggests otherwise, pointing to anomalous accelerations in Tic Tac footage and criticizing Bob Lazar's inaccurate physics while championing Eric Davis's admission of unknown technology. Ultimately, he asserts that physical radiation effects are harder to hoax than video, urging scientists to abandon pseudoscience and embrace new physics over ideological dismissal. [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
Searching for Dark Matter00:12:57
So, what type of physics do you do?
Well, so my mainstream effort is the search for dark matter.
Okay.
So I work on the LZ dark matter experiment, which is deployed underground in South Dakota.
It's the world's largest and best dark matter experiment.
So I'm an astro particle physicist.
Okay.
Can you explain what that dark matter experiment is and how it works?
Sure.
So I should probably start by explaining what dark matter itself is.
So it's a hypothetical form of matter that.
We are very, very sure it exists because we have indirect evidence, observational evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology, primarily through gravity.
So we know there's more matter than we can see, and we know it's not made of the same particles, constituents as ordinary matter.
And so one of the ways to look for dark matter is you actually create particle detectors, you deploy them deep underground, because the idea is dark matter would pass through the Earth unimpeded, like neutrinos and similar particles, and interact with your detector.
So, in the LZ detector, we use a gigantic bucket, basically.
It's a thermos, actually.
The formal term is cryostat of liquid xenon.
So, xenon is a very good element because it produces light when external particles interact with it.
And so, you get flashes of light whenever you have external particles, external radiation interact with the xenon.
So, we have this deployed about almost a mile underground in South Dakota.
Wow.
Are there any images of this we can see?
Like, that gives you a good idea.
How big is it?
Absolutely.
So it's a 10 ton scale liquid Xeon detector.
It's about, I'm a scientist, so I use meters.
So just multiply by three for feet or just pretend I'm saying yards.
So it's like one and a half meters high.
Is it similar to yards or meters and yards?
Yeah, yeah, extremely similar.
So it's one and a half meters tall by one and a half meters wide, roughly.
But that's inside of a water tank and several other layers of shielding because we want to be sure if we have a detection that it's dark matter, not something else.
So it has a lot of layers of shielding.
So actually, we've got some images coming up right now.
So you can see the diagram from Smithsonian there.
There's a, There's a diagram of how it works right there.
So, a particle comes in, produces a flash of light, as well as loosens some electrons off of the atom.
So, we actually get two signals first, a flash of light, primary flash of light in the liquid, and then a secondary flash of light up top from the electrons that got ripped out.
So, the time between the two signals gives us the depth of the event, and the hit pattern of the light gives us the radial position.
So, we have three dimensional position reconstruction of any incoming particles that interact with the detector.
And what does this tell you specifically about dark matter?
Well, we're looking for something extra beyond the ordinary particles that are going to constantly interact, like just gamma rays and just betas and radiation from the environment.
So we're looking for something extra that is going to be above the constant noise of the regular, you know, old school particles we know and love.
So here's a picture of the actual experiment.
It's actually made of, it's white because it's made of Teflon because Teflon actually reflects ultraviolet light.
And so that helps bounce the light into the photo sensors at the top and the bottom.
So we're hoping that a particle of dark matter comes in, bumps into an atom of xenon, and makes a flash of light that we can detect reproducibly.
How many particles of dark matter have you seen?
None.
None yet?
No.
So when I say we're the world's best dark matter experiment, it's because we've measured zero better than anybody else.
So we actually, you know, you would hear about it from the mainstream media if we had actually made a discovery.
Because we've.
This would be a front page material, huh?
Potentially, just like the gravitational waves discovery was with LIGO a few years ago.
So it would be a big deal.
So dark matter is just a theory.
That word is misused.
So, in science, theory means fact.
So, the phrase just a theory is one of those things that like raises my skin because there's no such thing.
So, a theory in science means incontrovertible fact.
Theory?
Yes.
When other people, when non scientists use the word theory, they mean hypothesis.
Ah.
So, dark matter is a very well established theory in the sense that even though we don't have direct evidence, we have so many mountains of observational evidence that very few people.
Doubt that there's something there.
Got it.
So for now, it's just a hypothesis.
Yeah, well, it's kind of in a gray area towards theory because it's got so much indirect evidence in its favor.
So it's sort of like people will refer to it as a dark matter theory.
I prefer hypothesis because we don't have conclusive observation in the lab yet.
And isn't it, don't we also have another hypothesis that dark matter has mass to it?
Oh, no, that's guaranteed.
Oh, that's guaranteed that it has mass.
That's not separate.
It has to have mass because otherwise it can't produce gravity.
And that was because when we'd observed galaxies, we noticed that the center of the galaxy has the same spin rate as the rim of the galaxy, meaning that there's like masts flattening the spin rate.
Is that?
No, not quite.
Not quite.
So at high radius, there's a flattening when there should be a dropping off.
So, for example, take Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune is going to be orbiting the sun more slowly than the Earth.
Okay.
That's just a natural consequence of the law of gravity.
It's farther away.
Yes.
However, what we see in galaxies is that the farther out you go, we didn't see that drop off.
And that's been attempted to be explained without dark matter, without additional mass.
There are theories of modified gravity, but the vast majority really don't work because they can't explain why, for example, you have galaxies apparently that we've discovered over the last several years that seem to be 100%, almost 100% dark matter and 0%.
So that really implies that dark matter is stuff and you can have more stuff and less stuff.
So the farther out you get into the galaxy, the stuff is spinning at the same speed.
As the stuff that's close to the galaxy.
Yeah, instead of dropping off, which would be natural.
Right, right.
Yeah.
So it builds up.
So there are slow speeds at the center.
Then it builds up because you've got more mass essentially underneath you, effectively.
And so the speed builds up, but there should be a peak and then a drop off.
But we don't see that expected drop off that's predicted from both Newtonian mechanics as well as relativity.
And dark matter is just like theoretically all around us.
And it's just the invisible stuff that we don't see because it's electromagnetically indetectable, right?
Like, so dark matter would be all around us right now.
That's right.
That's right.
It's in this room.
Well, it also depends on the number density.
We don't know what the number density is.
So, dark matter, individual dark matter particles might be very rare.
We think we know the average energy density, but we don't know how many dark matter particles are there per unit volume necessarily.
We can only guess that.
What are your thoughts on the John Wheeler it from bit stuff?
You mean how everything is all ones and zeros, and the dark matter is like computation, like a computational cloud of ones and zeros.
Like atom, like the idea is everything is a yes or no, right?
If you like boil everything down, atoms and protons and neutrons down to everything, it could be binary bits, right?
Is that basically what it from bit is?
Yeah, but I completely disagree because with quantum mechanics, you have something in between zero and one.
That's the whole point behind qubits and quantum computers is that you have more than just zero and one now for the first time.
And so I think that it's interesting speculation and philosophy, but also I'm an experimental physicist.
I don't like, I want to know.
What testable prediction can an idea make?
If an idea doesn't have a testable prediction, then it's not a scientific theory.
John Wheeler did a lot of excellent science, outstanding, but he also did a lot of philosophizing, kind of, you know, metaphysics, nothing wrong with that.
But if you don't have a testable prediction, I don't, I'm agnostic towards something.
I don't know what to think about it.
Yeah, I don't know how you would touch that.
Yeah.
And so you're saying quantum computing.
Would render that irrelevant or render that?
Well, he'd probably disagree because he'd say, well, it's still bits all the way down.
But the thing is, with quantum computing, you have the ability to have indeterminate states.
It is true that once you make a measurement, everything is still spin up or spin down, zero or one, but you also have the indeterminate states that exist prior to measurements, you know, Schrodinger's cat and all that stuff.
So that's why I'm not really comfortable with that oversimplistic assessment.
I would say that everything is zeros and ones because I think, um, We're ignoring what fractions, you know, we're ignoring, you know, rational, irrational numbers, you know, pi is irrational number.
It's not zero or one.
So I just think that's kind of an oversimplification and the world is a lot more nuanced.
A lot of supposed theories of everything really like grossly oversimplify the world into one sentence and miss a lot of the nuances hard to explain with some of the like simplistic ideas.
Yeah, it seems like in this realm of research, there's not many things that.
That line up well.
There's not many ideas that explain other things, right?
Like physics doesn't explain consciousness.
I don't see how you can get from protons and neutrons to consciousness.
I could see how we could get from something like binary bits.
If you say we live in some sort of computation, then I would understand consciousness perfectly.
It's a computer, right?
But there's just some things that just don't make sense to me.
It's just we try to.
In science and in physics and in cosmology and all these different lanes of research, it's like we always try to find a consensus and a good way to fit this peg into this hole.
But like oftentimes it just doesn't work.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, when it doesn't work though, that's when major new discoveries are made.
Right.
But yeah, consciousness, that's not really physics.
Maybe it will be in the end.
But I mean that, you know, we've got neurology, we've got biology.
Although I often joke, this really annoys my.
Biology friends.
And so, is biology just applied chemistry?
Chemistry is applied physics.
But then a mathematician can come and tell me, there's an XKCD comic, physics is applied math.
So it's really, so the physics is the, I would say, is the bottom of science, it's the foundation.
However, math, which is not a science, it's a tool, but math is an even deeper foundation than that.
So if that makes sense.
I'm actually a big proponent of the Lucas Penrose argument, the Lucas Penrose argument that humans are not.
Machines, and they claim to be able to prove that using Gurdell's incompleteness theorem.
And so I'm a big proponent of that.
Humans are not machines?
Yeah, that the human consciousness cannot be explained as a classical computer.
Are you familiar with the Lucas Penrose argument?
I'm not familiar with it.
So this is the idea that it's a very deep idea in philosophy that it's an argument made by Roger Penrose and Lucas.
I don't remember his first name, unfortunately, at the moment, but they made this argument using.
You're familiar with Gurdell's incompleteness theorem?
Nope.
Okay, so basically, you can.
It's possible to show that there are true statements that cannot be provable from your assumptions.
But since a human being can know that, but a machine cannot know that, therefore humans are not machines.
I'm grossly oversimplifying it.
I'm kind of summarizing it.
Can you say it again?
Yeah.
So basically a human being is capable of seeing a statement that they know to be true, but cannot be proven from a set of mathematical axioms or assumptions.
But a computer can't do that.
Therefore, the argument goes computers and therefore humans are not computers, at least classical computers, the human brain or human mind, if you will.
There's another way to look at the argument, which is that as technology improves, biology, neurology, we learn more.
About the human brain.
What if there comes a time where we know everything about the human brain?
Everything there is to know, using functional MRI, everything.
We're talking centuries from now, millennia from now.
Sure.
But now that we know that, now we can hack ourselves.
Now we can change our own programming because we know the whole program.
And because we can think that thought, because I just spoke that thought, according to the Lucas Penrose argument, that proves that I'm not a machine or that my mind is not equivalent to a classical computer.
Now, obviously, a lot of people have pushed back.
Against this and don't agree with the argument and try to poke holes in it.
Hacking Our Own Brains00:03:02
So it's been going back and forth and back and forth.
But I'm a pretty big proponent of this argument that humans cannot be reduced to just a classical computer.
Yeah, no, I don't think you have to reduce us.
I don't understand really what that even means, like reducing us to a classical computer.
Basically, what even is a class?
Like a classical computer.
What do you mean by that?
I'm saying basically, let's not think of it from a computing perspective.
Let's switch to a more biological perspective.
Another way of putting it is, you know, we're just.
There's no free will.
Everything is just chemical processes.
It's basically mushy and wet, but it's the equivalent of silicon chips in a computer.
But it's just biology.
It's just a biological equipment, just a mushy equivalent of what we do with silicon computer chips.
But there's no free will.
We just, you know, we react to our environments.
Every action a human being takes is predetermined from chemical processes, biological processes in the brain.
So that's sort of the reductionist approach of explaining what consciousness is or what sentience is.
Right, right.
Does that make more sense?
Yeah, that does make sense.
And I would agree with you there that that's not what it is.
Yeah, I vehemently disagree with that.
But of course, you know, somebody who believes that would say, of course you do.
Of course you do, because I was pre programmed to have that disagreement right now.
Right.
Biologically, I'm conditioned to have that belief.
I've got to tell you, I am totally obsessed with rag and bone infused denim.
And thankfully, they happen to sponsor this episode.
Their denim feels like it was made for me.
Slim where I want it and relaxed where I need a little extra give.
But this ain't your typical old school denim.
The first time I tried on a pair of their infused jeans, I was blown away.
They felt broken in right away.
The stretch was where it counts and the structure where you don't want limp denim.
I could actually move in them.
Honestly, I forgot I was even wearing jeans.
You can see it in the stitching, the weight, and the way they hold their shape long after you slip them on.
You know how other jeans are?
They look awesome, but they fall apart.
Or the ones that last are stiff.
Not here.
With Rag and Bone Infuse, you finally get.
Both.
The look hits hard too.
Infuse uses a proprietary eight step overdye and finishing process so every wash has that rich dimensional color that gets better over time.
I got mine in a deep indigo black wash.
I get asked about them all the time.
Rag and Bone has been obsessing over denim craftsmanship for 20 years.
Their Infuse collection is built to last season after season, soften and settle with wear and lived in feel.
If you want jeans that grow with you instead of wearing you out, Infuse is where it's at.
It's time to upgrade your denim with rag and bone.
And for a limited time, our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order with code DANNY at rag bone.com.
That's 20% off at rag bone.com with the promo code DANNY, spelled D A N N Y. When they ask you where you heard about them, please support the show and let them know we sent you.
The Physics of Denim00:15:06
It's linked down below.
Now back to the show.
Yes, yes.
It's just that when it comes to this stuff, there are so many unique experiments that have been done that just are unexplainable.
right?
Like there's like the like the the double slit experiment or the like the Schrodinger's cat and all these things that, you know, they I don't understand how to explain them like in the term in terms of physics or like, you know, where do we go from there?
You know, we don't need to understand something to use it.
Nobody knows what time is.
Can you define time for me?
There is no definition of time, and yet we manipulate it.
So, for example, we use relativistic corrections for GPS satellites in order to account for the fact that time is shifting because of speed and gravity.
We know this, yet we don't even know what time is.
We don't know what energy is, but we manipulate it.
So, just because we don't understand in a way that can be explained to everybody, we use quantum mechanics on a daily basis.
Our computers, our phones wouldn't work without it, and yet nobody can explain.
To the satisfaction of non scientists, at least, like how can something be both a wave and a particle at the same time?
But what's interesting, it doesn't matter.
With no explanation, we can still take the mathematical consequences of what we know to be true, follow through with that, and we still have physics and engineering and technology without understanding the foundation.
Very interesting.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We can flip the switch and not have to know exactly how it works.
Exactly.
We're willing to get the light by flipping the switch without, we don't have to really understand exactly how all the electrons. Works exactly, little circuits exactly.
Before the invention of calculus for thousands of years, you could cross a room in violation of Zeno's paradox.
Are you familiar with Zeno's paradoxes?
No, the ancient Greeks.
So he said, You cannot cross a room, it's impossible.
Uh huh.
I'll do it right in front of you, right?
So it's just we laugh nowadays, modern people laugh.
He said, What you cannot cross a room because let's say I'm crossing a room, if I cross half of the room, I still need to go half of the room, right?
But now, if I cross half of that distance.
I still have another half to go.
And what he shows is that it's an infinite series.
But that's because they didn't have the tools of calculus to show that a sum of an infinite number of numbers can sum to a finite number.
But the thing is, for thousands of years before we understood that, that didn't stop us from crossing rooms.
Right.
Right.
Do you see what I mean?
So even before you understand something, you can still manipulate it.
You can use it.
Yes.
Human beings were able to create fire without understanding what fire is.
Sure.
For thousands of years, for hundreds of thousands of years.
Right, exactly.
So, what would that do?
What do you think would change if we were able to use that little machine that was in there and find some dark matter?
Yeah, excellent question.
How would you be able to apply that?
Nothing.
Nothing.
It has absolutely no practical applications whatsoever, period.
It's the equivalent of the Higgs boson.
What has the Higgs boson done in your life today?
The God particle, or whatever name you might be more familiar with, just discovered in 2012, looking for decades.
What has it done in your life lately?
I mean, I've enjoyed some fun documentaries on it.
On the particle fever, maybe, or something.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Nothing.
Now, I'm going to follow that up though.
When electricity was discovered, what was it good for?
All kinds of stuff.
Light bulbs.
Nothing.
No, no, no, no.
I'm saying when it was first discovered, it was good for absolutely nothing.
When was it first discovered?
Nothing.
Well, it's not like one thing because it took decades, it took centuries of experimentation by different people.
It's Faraday, it's Maxwell.
Yeah, so basically, what I'm trying to tell you is here's a story.
I don't know if it's true.
There's a story that physicists tell.
That a man asked Faraday, one of the, you know, we've got Faraday's law of induction, one of the most important scientists working in the 19th century, figuring out what electricity and magnetism are.
Allegedly, someone asked him what electricity is good for.
And he said, I don't know, but one day you'll be taxing it.
And so, like, our electricity runs our lives, but let's go back to the 1840s.
Electricity was worthless, it was a game for scientists and engineers to just screw.
Screw around in the lab.
It had no practical applications.
So, basically, my point about dark matter is I can't answer your question what the practical applications are because nobody knows.
No one has the imagination to know what the application could be.
Three centuries from now, dark matter could be so integral part of our lives like electricity is or the internet.
There's no way to know.
I'll give you another example antimatter, another great example.
What's that?
So, antimatter is when you have, so for every single particle of matter, There's a particle of the opposite electric charge, same mass, but opposite electric charge.
So there's like proton, there's antiproton.
Sure.
Electron, antielectron.
But there's another thing that's very important.
So when matter and antimatter come together, they annihilate into gamma rays, into radiation, into energy.
So like a tiny little bit of antimatter would be, I mean, this was the, I think the plot of angels and demons would be better than a nuclear weapon.
Way better, like way more efficient.
So when antimatter was first discovered, In the 1930s.
I mean, it was hypothesized before that.
But when we first found antimatter in the lab, who would have dreamt that 40, 50, 60 years later, we were using it to diagnose cancer?
In PET scans, the P in PET scan stands for positron.
That's an anti electron.
In a PET scan, you're injected with a small, very safe, very small, safe amount of antimatter in order to diagnose where the cancerous tumors, because the cancerous tumors will gobble up more of the antimatter.
Emitting sugar.
And who would have dreamt of that?
Antimatter was useless when it was first hypothesized.
Useless was discovered.
It didn't even have a practical application for at least, I think, four decades, maybe five.
And so it's the same thing with dark matter.
Previously, I've hypothesized maybe dark matter could be useful as a fuel for interstellar travel in some way.
Really?
Because it's everywhere.
Why would you want to take your fuel with you?
Why not use something that's everywhere?
Like, I don't know how it would work.
I have no idea.
There would have to be some kind of reaction, or you'd Suck it in, chuck it out the back.
Like, I'm not sure how it would be useful, but there's just an idea I've thrown out there in the past.
Yeah, that's interesting.
Have you seen this new discovery of this cosmic microwave background radiation where they think it's from super early galaxies?
The radiation from like suns of super early galaxies?
You must be mixing up a few things because the cosmic microwave background was discovered in the 1960s.
So that's very old news.
And then.
No, yes.
But what I'm saying is this new discovery of early.
Early massive universes.
Oh, you're talking about the reionization time, I think.
So basically they're saying that the majority, it could be anywhere between, I think, 1.4 to like 100% of the cosmic background radiation could be from stars from these super early massive universes that they found.
I have not heard of this.
With the James Webb telescope.
I have not heard of this.
Steve, see if you can find this.
Yeah.
It's pretty insane because this kind of like blows up the whole Big Bang theory.
Well, it pushes it back.
It like throws off the dates of everything.
Well, that's fine.
But here's the thing.
The Big Bang theory, remember theory means fact in science.
It has overwhelming mountains of evidence.
So, nothing can overthrow the Big Bang Theory, period.
I'm going to say it right now.
But maybe not overthrow it, but it significantly throws it.
No, we have to change it.
Squirrely as fuck.
No, so what we need to do is, for example, the date could be wrong.
So let me clarify what I mean because I'm going to get all these answers.
This would mean these galaxies that they found in this new study with the James Webb Telescope, they say that they were probably developed, they probably came into existence around 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang.
Okay, okay.
I know what you're talking about now.
So it's like the typical galaxies take way longer.
Yeah, yeah.
So I know what you're talking about.
So this I heard of before already.
This has been.
Quote unquote, discovered and rediscovered the past two, three years, actually.
So there have been hints here and there.
And James Webb is just the latest piece of evidence of it.
So basically, what it boils down to.
Steve, so you can find anything on this.
I think I sent you links.
So, what it boils down to is galaxies can come together much faster than we thought.
So, that's what it boils down to.
However, it does not disprove that the universe.
Oh, no, this is not what I'm.
This, okay, this is something else.
New paper shows the cosmic microwave background radiation can be explained entirely by energy.
Recently discovered early mature galaxies.
Yeah, this is a crackpot paper.
Yeah, this is.
Yeah, this is nonsense.
Why is it crackpot?
The cosmic microwave background was created 379,000 years after the Big Bang.
We've already established that, we've studied it for decades.
Like, this is nonsense.
Like, well, is this.
Can you zoom in a little bit, Steve?
Yeah, where's the link to the scientific paper?
Where's the link?
Now that EMG, scroll down.
Where's the link?
Let's see.
Let's see if we can find it.
Scroll down.
Keep going.
Steve, there you go.
Click on it.
Okay.
Bam.
The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background radiation by Ido Jago.
And what journal is this published in?
Oh, no.
What journal is it published in?
Does it say?
Anyway, I'm not a cosmologist.
Find out, Steve.
So this could go off the.
Okay.
Yeah, this happens every few years.
So the cosmic.
Right, right.
Someone claims to overthrow the Big Bang Theory, and then it's disproportionate.
Proven in five minutes, and then everybody goes back to work.
Like this, I've seen this for the past 20 years every couple months.
So, yeah, this is not new.
You've seen this how often?
Every few months, there'll be some guy who publishes some paper or a pair of people like here that claims they've got some new cosmological model, and it's always wrong because they always miss something obvious.
Yeah, this is, yeah, I'm not, not interested in this.
No, not really.
I see this every few months.
Yeah, this is nonsense.
I mean, the cosmic microwave background is a legitimate match.
Steve, what journal was this published in?
I'm still looking.
But even if, so I would, I'm going to lay down, I would lay down some cash right now.
This hasn't been published in any journal.
It's only on the archive because this is, this is, look, you can't wake up tomorrow and we can't undo something we already know.
So let me explain.
There's a lot we still don't know about the universe, but the little bit that we know, we know very, very well.
So, like, for example, we can't wake up tomorrow and, like, oh, Einstein is wrong.
Surefire way to tell a crackpot paper physics is it starts with, Einstein was wrong, therefore, blah, blah, blah.
No.
It's too late.
Because if Einstein was wrong, your GPS wouldn't work.
Your phone wouldn't work.
Your computer wouldn't work.
Like, we know that our theories are incomplete, but they're not wrong.
There's a difference between wrong and incomplete.
So, the Big Bang Theory is incomplete.
There's so much we still don't know about the beginning of the universe.
But these papers that claim 100% wrong, I immediately know that's true.
Well, that paper, I don't think they're claiming it's 100% wrong.
They are.
They are.
No, they're saying it's true.
It's said on Twitter.
It's true.
It's said on Twitter that they think the CMB could, that the early massive galaxies could equate for between 1% and like 100%.
So they don't know.
It could be any amount, a certain percentage of them.
But then how can they explain that the CMB matches the dark matter and dark energy ratio, that it has all these other cross checks that have been done with the supernova studies, with the baryonic studies?
Well, we don't know because we didn't read the whole thing.
Yeah.
But what does this say, Steve?
It was published in Nuclear Physics B. Nuclear Physics, that's not a cosmology journal.
Oh.
So, how are they saying anything about cosmology?
That would be the equivalent of, for example, You're gatekeeping.
I'm not gatekeeping.
You sound like you are.
No, because they can publish in a cosmology journal and they can get peer review there.
No, gatekeeping is when you don't allow something to get even peer reviewed.
This should be peer reviewed.
Well, you're discrediting it because you don't think it's in a qualitative journal.
No, no.
We haven't even read the whole thing.
No, but here's the thing I'm discrediting it because we already know.
What we know about the cosmic microwave background, it's too late for it to be that level of wrong.
It could be 1% wrong, absolutely.
100% wrong?
You said between 1% and 100%.
You said, but between 1% and 100 is not possible?
100 is not.
1%?
Absolutely, sure.
1%?
Absolutely.
So between 1% and 100 is absolutely possible.
If you go back to that tweet, that's a very bold claim.
Go back to the bottom of the tweet.
Yeah, but that's a very bold claim.
Go back to the bottom of the tweet.
But look, if you go by every single new paper and every single tweet that comes out, You would have 20 different conflicting views of the universe that can't all be right.
So that's another way of looking at it.
Well, you also have people who have dedicated their lives to studying for the microwave background.
Exactly.
And so you're going to piss a lot of people off, and there's going to be a lot of bias.
No, no, it's not about pissing people off.
Well, I mean, this is just normal human.
This is just human nature, this is going to happen.
You're going to have competition.
You're going to have egos that are hurt, and you're going to have people that disagree with this.
How can you hurt the egos of people who are dead?
There's a lot of people that are alive that are dedicated their lives to studying for the microwave background.
I know, but.
And they've spent decades.
What are you looking at, Steve?
What is this?
So the tweet, okay, so this tweet happened on June 30th, right?
Okay.
But it's referencing a paper that was published in May.
Okay, so a month later.
Oh, right.
Yes.
Yeah, but I'm not a cosmologist.
So scroll up.
Scroll up.
Let's read this.
Let's do this.
So zoom in.
It says nothing to do with what I do.
The new findings are accepted, if the findings are accepted and there's no reason not to accept them.
Exactly.
See that sentence?
That's a key crackpot red alarm sentence.
No real scientist says that.
Like, if I found evidence of aliens or of dark matter, I would never say, and there's no reason not to accept them.
That's ego and that's hubris.
This is just somebody on Twitter basically recycling it for somebody.
This is not the scientist.
This is just some Twitter guy.
Oh, I didn't know that.
You didn't say that.
This is some guy trying to summarize it for Twitter.
Oh, okay.
So here's what the implications are.
Okay.
I think I know what's happening then.
Oh, okay, okay.
The paper's probably fine.
This happens all the time.
This is some random person on Twitter exaggerating and over sensationalizing a scientific claim.
It would be the equivalent of somebody taking me and Kevin's UAPX paper, where we went out and looked for aliens, and putting out a tweet and saying that I found the proof that aliens exist.
It's an exaggeration of what's in the real scientific paper.
That's possible.
That's possible.
I mean, I see this.
Exaggerating Scientific Papers00:02:28
All the time, all the time.
So they're saying cosmic inflation loses observational justification.
That's fine.
CMB power spectrum loses predictive relevance.
Dark energy inferred from cosmic microwave background may be mischaracterized.
CMB power spectrum loses predicted relevance.
That's really, really improbable.
And it has nothing to do with egos, it has nothing to do with the fact that people spent decades on it.
It's because that's been cross checked so many different ways, so many times already.
So, like, about half of these things on the list are not news to me.
Like, yeah, of course, that's wrong and needs fixing.
We already knew that.
And half of the list are things that are.
Almost impossible to be wrong because there's too many mountains of evidence going back decades.
It's not about hubris, not about ego.
Truth is not by majority, not at all.
Numerous times, numerous times in human history, we've been very wrong about our view of the universe.
That's getting harder now.
If you're like me, you could probably benefit from a little extra peace of mind.
And that's where cornbread hemp's CBD gummies come in clutch.
Sometimes I don't want to be blitzed, and cornbread's gummies are like a backdoor to relief without the mental effects.
I take one of these 750 milligram CBD gummies whenever I'm feeling stressed or I can't sleep, and I just wait for the calmness to wash over my body.
Cornbread hemp uses the best part of the hemp plant, the flour, for the purest potent CBD.
They curate effects that specifically help with stress and discomfort, and I find the result to be remarkably effective.
They also have formulas for sleeplessness, too.
There's no fillers or junk, just full spectrum goodness.
They've made CBD their specialty.
My favorite is the berry flavor, but they have several flavors, including capsules if you don't want the sugar.
Their products are third party tested and USDA organic to ensure safety and purity.
If you encounter as much stress as I do, then you should try Cornbread's CBD and you can thank me later.
And for a limited time, they're offering you lucky listeners 30% off your first order.
Don't miss out on this.
Just go to cornbreadhemp.comslash Danny and use my code DANI at checkout.
That's cornbreadhemp.com.
And use that code DANNY to get 30% off your first order.
And thank you to Cornbread Hemp for sponsoring this episode.
Textbooks vs New Data00:08:02
Do you know why that's getting harder?
Ancient people, I mentioned Zeno, who was an ancient Greek philosopher earlier.
Ancient people could just do armchair philosophy and science.
They didn't have telescopes, they didn't have microscopes, they have anything.
So as science progresses, it's getting very harder to be wrong completely.
Like you can say, ah, this piece of that theory was wrong.
Yeah, absolutely.
But a wholesale paradigm shift, that's getting less and less probable.
It's getting harder and harder to do because you've got to explain then, why were you wrong the last 70 years?
How is that possible?
Now you have to go back and explain every single piece of data with the new paradigm.
That's getting harder and harder to do as we collect more data.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, totally.
It's getting harder and harder.
Well, also the people that people have to come up, people that have other theories or that have other data, they have to justify if there's something that that comes out that proves it wrong, or they have to look at it wholeheartedly and like fully consider does this shatter my belief or does this shatter and discredit the work that I've spent years doing?
And I think a lot of people are incapable of doing that.
But I don't understand that because I couldn't care less if dark matter didn't exist.
I wouldn't go, oh my God, oh boohoo, my ego, all my decades of my life have been wasted.
No, not at all.
Because as I've been working on dark matter, I've also been doing nuclear physics, I've been looking at neutrinos.
So basically, the way I look at it is.
In my own world of looking for dark matter, I often encounter people who are like, oh, yeah, what if dark matter doesn't exist and your whole career is wasted?
And I'm like, and I would look at that person and I say, You have no clue how science works, at least how it works to me.
I don't give a damn if dark matter is real or not.
My goal is not to go prove dark matter is real.
My goal is to prove or disprove.
And so, this whole thing about, oh, cosmologists, you're saying egos.
A good cosmologist is out there to find the truth.
They don't care if they've been wrong for decades.
A good scientist is out there to find the truth.
Now, you have bad apples.
Out there, who are people who are so full of themselves that they want their pet experiment or theory to be correct.
I'm not one of those people, though.
Kevin, who you've had on the show, my good friend Kevin, is also not one of those people.
And earlier, look, I'm not gatekeeping.
I have suffered from gatekeeping.
I have had scientific papers rejected because people didn't like my idea, mainstream ideas.
I'm not just talking about UFOs or UAPs.
And so I think every scientific paper has a right to.
Have peer review and not be, for example, rejected at the desk.
So, but there's different levels of so called gatekeeping.
If something is written by non scientists, I don't think that's the case here.
If something's written by non scientists, some dude in his basement who has a bachelor's degree in physics and they're going to redo everything without a PhD, that's not going to happen.
But a PhD scientist should not be gate kept, if that's a word, from doing their work and including if they have controversial new ideas.
Absolutely.
It should be peer reviewed so that it can be challenged and there can be back and forth about it.
Well, even peer review has been bastardized as well because I've seen plenty of cases where peer reviews have been done on credible academic research and books where people have peer reviewed something that don't even have the expertise in what they're peer reviewing.
But that's right.
And this happened specifically in one case where I actually talked to the guy and I said, Hey, can I talk to you about this peer review you wrote on this guy's book where you actually completely destroyed it and now no one takes it seriously?
He goes, Well, It's not really my expertise.
You're the only one who did the peer review on it.
It's ridiculous.
So the system is very broken.
It's an imperfect system, but it's still the best we have.
It's kind of like jury duty.
We all hate jury duty, but can you imagine what our free democratic society would be like without it?
It's the same thing with peer review.
There are problems.
You want to talk about it?
I'll give you countless examples.
I had my colleague, Professor Cecilia Levy, and I, we discovered a new type of radiation detector to look for dark matter, among other things, called the snowball chamber.
We got rejected from multiple journals.
We had one peer reviewer say to us, it doesn't smell right.
What's that supposed to mean?
Is the math right?
No, exactly.
He said, it doesn't pass the smell test.
So here's the thing.
And also, the peer review process can be abused and it can be manipulated.
And with journals, with money.
But the solution to that is you fix the process.
You don't say, oh, I don't believe in peer review, so I'm going to read every scientific crack up paper and trust them all immediately.
Now, there's a middle ground between those extremes.
And there are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are wrong.
This happens all the time in biology and psychology.
Yes, physics too, but I'm going to take the high horse and I look down on biology and psychology.
I've seen statistics like something like 30%.
I hope I'm not wrong on that because lots of people make up statistics on the spot.
I'm not trying to do that.
But I have heard it claimed, I don't know if it's accurate, that something like 30% of papers, even in Nature magazine, end up like who pass peer review, they're wrong.
Being peer reviewed doesn't mean you're automatically wrong.
But at the same time, getting peer reviewed doesn't automatically mean you're right.
Neither of those extremes are correct.
There are top, there's a top Stanford neurosurgeon who came out, who's still practicing, who said between 80 and 90% of all the medical literature in schools is wrong or outdated.
I believe it.
I believe it.
In physics, you can't say that though, because physics is so foundational, the whole edifice would collapse.
Remember earlier, I said how biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics.
There is truth to that statement.
And so, physics, so in fact, I always get angry at the textbook companies.
You're going to be like, how is this connected?
And you're just saying, the basic physics that freshmen learn has been the same for centuries.
Okay.
Why do I need the 10th edition?
Why do I need the 11th edition?
It's a money making scheme.
So, like, physics, you don't learn any cutting edge physics or new physics until your senior year or graduate school.
I'm talking about college, of course, not high school.
And so, like, why do we need a new textbook on Newtonian mechanics?
I've seen it.
It makes no sense.
I saw the statistics on school textbooks, like the amount of money that they make with no new stuff, just the printing.
Could you find the stats on that, Steve?
No, all they do is shuffle the homework problem numbers around.
Right.
But so my point is that I believe that about the medical research claim you just said.
But with physics, no.
That's like, I mean, you can do basic experiments to show that most of physics is correct.
So the basic foundation of physics has been solid for centuries.
What's new is like we've got relativity and quantum mechanics.
We're not fully there yet.
But classical mechanics is like forces, energies.
That's like that foundational structure is very, very solid.
You don't need a new textbook for that.
Every year to just get more money from the students.
Right.
What is this, Steve?
Oh, textbook revenue.
In 2022, the K 12 textbook segment in the United States has generated $5.6 billion in revenue, reflecting 16% growth compared to the previous year.
Oh, my God.
Why do I even need a textbook if I can just get a PDF?
Despite these increases, the textbook publishing industry has generally experienced a decline in revenue since 2015 when it reached $11.9 billion.
Well, it's declining because of the internet.
Right.
And because of.
You know, sneaky professors like me, I'll just use the old edition.
Why do I need a new edition?
The physics hasn't changed.
Why do I need a new edition for freshman physics?
Right, right, that's very true.
And then the other problem with academia is people are afraid to speak out of their lane, they're afraid to venture out because, and I've experienced this too on the podcast.
Tenure Under Assault00:05:47
I've experienced people in academia that are afraid to go on podcasts because how they're going to be viewed by their peers or by the people that run their department.
I couldn't care less.
I couldn't care less about what people think about me.
You know why?
I'm interested in only one thing, Danny, and that's to find the truth.
And I don't care.
Easy to say when you have people threatening to take your funding away.
Well, I do have people, I've already had funding taken away.
Have you?
Yeah.
So if that was meant to be a dig at me, like that backfired because I already had Doge freeze my grants.
They were frozen for a while.
Doge froze your grants?
Yeah, because Dark Matter is apparently woke.
Yeah.
So why?
Yes.
And I so, so you're not going to tell me that I'm sitting here saying that theoretically, oh, you know, it's um, I'm just here to do the truth and I'm an idealist and then I don't face consequences.
I face consequences all the time.
I have people making fun of me on a regular basis that I work on UFOs.
I've been passed up for jobs because I work on UFOs for better jobs than I currently have.
I've been passed up for promotion.
So, you're not going to tell me that like I haven't faced the stigma or taboo because I work on UFOs, UAP.
Yes, I have, but I'm lucky.
That I'm at a university now that cherishes what I do and that actually allows it.
That I'm very, very lucky.
Me and my colleague Kevin, you've had on the show.
Yeah, Kevin too.
And my friend, our friend Cecilia, we're lucky.
You're right that many people are not that lucky.
They speak out and funding things happen.
Absolutely.
I'm not trying to downplay that at all.
That happened to friends of mine.
Friends of mine, I got lucky.
My grant was unfrozen.
They decided dark matter is not woke and I can have it back.
Oh, did they really?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
So basically, But I have friends who've lost everything, who've lost NSF funding, who've lost NIH funding.
So I know people.
I have friends and colleagues who lose funding.
And sometimes it's because they have too big of a mouth, so to speak, right?
Which is wrong, right?
I'm saying I support them.
I wasn't saying there's an insulting way.
I'm saying that's what their critics would say.
But the positive side of academia is when you get tenure, you can't get fired.
And that's what's so beautiful.
That's why I can work on UFOs with Kevin.
That's why John.
Mac was able to work with experiencers, abductees, because he had tenure.
They still tried to fire him.
They still tried to do it.
But guess what?
They ruined his life.
They tried to.
They tried to, but it backfired.
Because here's the thing for all of its flaws, academia allows you to work on whatever the hell you want after you have tenure and you're unfirable.
Tenure is under assault right now.
There are several states.
Actually, I'm not sure.
I think Florida might be one of them.
I know Ohio is one of them where tenure no longer exists.
And so now if you're a professor, you're going to stay in the closet forever on whether it's UFOs, aliens, or whatever.
You can get fired like that.
Now, like what happened with John Mack, I'm not saying tenure's perfect.
Absolutely not.
But notice what happened with him.
It backfired.
Did he get fired in the end?
No.
They couldn't do it.
They couldn't find any wrongdoing, and he had tenure.
And so there are guardrails that allow people like me to just go off and work on UFOs.
Wow.
I didn't know tenure was removed in Florida.
That's crazy.
We should check that to see if that's accurate.
In Ohio, for sure.
For sure, this just happened recently.
And is this something they're trying to do nationwide?
Yes.
And who's behind it?
Well, a lot of MAGA folks are behind it, unfortunately.
Are they?
Really?
Yeah.
Which I don't understand because I have known for years that tenure protects conservative professors.
They can come out of the Republican closet after tenure.
Jordan Peterson is a great example.
Jordan Peterson, I like Jordan.
You've got to have tenure.
You know the old expression, cutting off your nose to spite your face?
So they're just doing a self, it's suicidal.
It's very damaging because tenure protects Republican and conservative professors.
Oh, yeah, here's a list.
Florida's on the list.
See?
As of 2025, several states have either removed or significantly weakened tenure protection for educators.
Exactly.
Florida's on the list.
North Carolina, North Dakota, Kansas, Wisconsin.
Yeah, I don't know why Ohio's not listed there, but definitely Ohio has happened to as well.
So, but what this does is it means it's worse than what you said earlier, Danny.
Why are they doing this, though, Steve?
Can you find out why?
They're doing it because it's a punishment for liberal schools.
Is the idea we're going to fire all the liberal professors.
But what they don't understand is just to fire all the liberal professors.
That would be firing all of them.
There'll be no professors.
Well, that's not true.
But the thing is, tenure protects the freedom you get.
There's a term for this academic freedom.
Right.
It's a beautiful thing.
Sure.
So when you're funding, let's say your federal funding is cut.
Right.
You know what you can do?
Because I protested the war.
You can go find private donors.
You can continue your work.
I'm not saying it's easy, but you can keep going.
Right.
And so that's what Kevin and I are doing we're looking for private donors.
You know, donors to get to keep the UFO work going.
Yeah, it seems like a lot of the UFO stuff is funded by private institutions.
Well, there's no federal funding because, you know, there's still so much stigma.
There's a lot of federal funding, but it's just dark black blood.
Oh, yeah, yeah, of course.
Absolutely.
But see, I want transparency and openness on this topic, which we sort of started sliding into.
You want it all you want.
We're never going to get it.
Of course, we're not going to get it.
Of course, we're not.
That's why people like me and Kevin are doing our own thing without government funding, without their blessing, because we know it's hopeless to wait for.
Disclosure.
That's not happening.
One other thing I wanted to ask you about.
Understanding the Universe00:07:44
Did you see this new planet they discovered?
There have been so many new ones discovered.
I know which one.
This one was just a couple weeks ago called Omanite.
Oh, that must be its nickname.
Usually the name is like Kepler 75.
Yeah, it was called K14.
Okay.
So many planets are discovered.
I can't keep up with the new planets.
It's got this crazy.
So they said that it weakens the sixth planet theory or the ninth planet theory.
Oh, you mean within our system?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
They're saying.
Well, you're not talking about an exoplanet.
They think it's like a planet that was originally a part of our solar system.
Or a rogue planet that was ejected.
It was ejected.
Yeah.
And now it's got this crazy, like, oblong.
Yes, yes, yes.
2024.
Yes.
KQ 14.
Yeah.
Oh, it was a couple years ago, 2023.
Oh, okay.
I just saw it recently.
Yeah, yeah.
This is very interesting.
It's one of those, like, objects that are out past Pluto's.
I sent you a whole thing on this, Steve, on your texts.
But yeah, no, it's.
But we're constantly making new discoveries in astronomy like this.
For the most part, it's stuff outside of our solar system, but we're also making discoveries inside of our solar system.
Right, right.
Or just like on the edge of our solar system.
Yeah, it shows like how little we know just about like outside the borders of our solar system.
It's crazy.
Well, you know, to tie this back to also, we talked a lot about my mainstream scientific effort, which until a few, until, you know, until the last, until the current presidential administration was never controversial.
His mainstream scientific effort was dark matter.
Yeah.
In that effort, one thing I forgot to say earlier is that dark matter, we think, makes up 25% of the universe, dark energy, 75%.
That leaves, and so of the 25% matter, about 20% is dark matter, about 5% is ordinary matter, roughly.
What's the difference between dark matter and dark energy?
They're completely different.
We just share the word dark.
But here's what's really interesting.
We understand something like 4.6% of the universe.
This ties into everything we were talking about earlier because how do we know this pie chart that I just told you?
We know this based on the cosmic.
Microwave background radiation that we were talking about earlier.
So, and how do we know that's not wrong?
Because earlier we're talking about, oh, cosmic microwave backgrounds wrong.
This is new paper.
Here's how we know it's not wrong because we cross checked the cosmic microwave background studies with supernovas, with what's called baryon acoustic oscillations, with a whole bunch of other things.
So, but the bottom line is we understand about 4.6% of the universe.
So, what does that mean?
There's over 95% of the universe.
That we have no idea what it is.
So, my point earlier was like that this theory is correct, or that what I was trying to say is the little part we know, we know it very well because we wouldn't have our modern technology without it.
We know that 4.6% very well.
However, that doesn't mean there isn't a whole bunch more to discover.
There is dark matter, dark energy.
We don't know what those things are.
But it's even worse than that.
So, of that 4.6%, three quarters is hydrogen in stars and galaxies, one quarter is helium.
See a problem?
Any problem with what I just said?
What does that add up to?
Three quarters, one quarter.
A whole.
Exactly.
So, where's oxygen, carbon, where's everything else?
Everything that's inside of you and me, all of life is the sub, sub, sub 1% dregs of the universe.
We're not even important enough to come up on the cosmic pie chart.
And so, what I'm saying is there's still so much more to learn and so much more to discover.
But earlier, so when I get mad when I'm like, oh, somebody says we don't understand this 4.6%, we understand the 4.6% very well.
The thing is, Is we don't need to keep overturning what we already know.
We need to look to new frontiers.
We have new frontiers of things we know nothing about.
We've been studying the cosmic microwave background for decades.
We've been studying galaxies for decades.
We have no idea what dark energy is or dark matter is.
Well, some theoretical physicists say they have some ideas.
Nobody knows for sure.
We understand a tiny sliver of the universe.
Right.
Yeah.
It's crazy.
Could we see the pie chart actually?
It's also crazy how, as far as things like particle physics, how.
We've done these things.
Like, we had the Large Hadron Collider and all this stuff, and like, we've got, we've done nothing.
We've figured out nothing ever since.
You know, there's, and there's also theories out there that like, I think Eric Weinstein talks about like how string theory was like supposed to be a smokescreen to like get us off the path of moving forward in physics.
Yeah.
I, you know, it's really, no, no, no.
That's the wrong, the wrong chart.
The, there, lower left, there, there, there.
That's the chart I was talking about.
This is the pie chart of the entire universe.
Dark matter, dark energy.
See what I, and see, look at, and that.
Approximately 4%, that's the ordinary matter.
That's like you and me.
Exactly.
Except not because most of that 4% is hydrogen and helium.
So, see, most of its stars, a lot of its stars in those stars is hydrogen and helium.
Yeah.
Look at where the heavy elements are 0.03%.
That's the heavy elements.
Wow.
And by heavy elements, it doesn't mean ultra heavy.
It literally means, I think, in this chart, anything heavier than hydrogen or helium.
My point is here is that, look, I walk a balance.
I walk a balance between confidence in what science has already figured out, balanced with the humility that there's still so much more to figure out.
But I'm not at either extreme.
I'm not at the extreme that we already know everything, there's nothing left to figure out.
That is so wrong.
That is compatibly false.
And then I'm not at the other extreme that, oh, we know nothing and we're still figuring things out.
That's not true.
We know a lot.
All right.
So, but the thing is, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the truth is also there's a lot we still don't understand.
You know, when someone asks you how you're doing, and your automatic response is, I'm great.
And that got me thinking, what if I actually meant it?
And that's where today's sponsor, Headspace, comes in.
Headspace is an app that has helped me and over 100 million people actually improve their mental health and well being.
Guided meditations, breathing exercises, mindfulness practices, it's all there.
Since I've started using Headspace, I feel way less stressed.
I sleep better, my mind is clearer, and my mood is more elevated.
And it's nice to feel this way without having to use any kind of medications.
What I like is how personalized it feels.
Whether you're brand new to meditation or you've been at it for years, there's always something that fits.
Even on crazy busy days, I'll throw on one of their on the go programs.
It's just a few minutes and I feel totally reset.
And when I want to dive deeper, there's over a thousand hours of content taught by real experienced teachers.
For me, the biggest shift has been learning how to slow down and quiet my mind at night.
And that's been huge for improving my sleep and my energy the next day.
Headspace really makes mindfulness practical.
So, the next time somebody asks, How are you?
You can actually mean it.
Feel good and mean it when you say it.
For a limited time, get Headspace free for 60 days.
Just go to headspace.com slash Danny Jones.
That's H E A D S P A C E dot com slash Danny Jones to unlock all of Headspace for free for 60 days.
Headspace.com slash Danny Jones.
It's linked down below.
Now, back to the show.
Improving Sleep and Energy00:11:22
What do you make of the idea?
How much do you know about what was going on with.
Physics research in the 50s, I think it was, with like this gravity research that like went dark and supposedly like went underground.
Yeah, I've heard a lot about this.
I have a very controversial take on it.
I love controversial takes.
I think it went dark because it doesn't work.
Oh, really?
Yeah.
Interesting.
I mean, have you looked into Thomas Townsend Brown?
Yes, I have.
Yes, I have.
What do you make of him?
If there were actual revolutionary ideas that worked, they would have been reproduced already.
You can't keep science dark forever because someone else would accidentally.
Stumble upon the same idea.
So, like, let's say, for example, take an example.
Let's say you suppressed Einstein and tried to stop relativity.
Let's say you were a time traveler and for whatever reason you wanted to stop human advancement, kind of like in the three body problem, right?
You're familiar with the.
Let's say you wanted to stop Einstein.
Wouldn't have worked because Minkowski would have come up with relativity.
Or if not Minkowski, then Poincaré was very close to relativity.
And so you can't stop an entire field of research and ideas because someone else would accidentally stumble upon it.
It might take decades.
Don't get me wrong.
Well, it might take decades.
Well, it could very plausibly, what could have happened was if they could have been monitoring everybody who's been even getting remotely close to it and then pulling them in through time.
It's possible, but I'm skeptical.
And the reason is because conspiracies would fall apart eventually.
I'll give you an example.
So, for a long time, so astronomers developed something for our new telescopes, for the ground based ones.
You know, we were talking about James Webb.
There's also ground based telescopes, like a giant Magellan telescope.
So we developed.
What's the other one, the Subaru?
Is there one called Subaru?
Not that I know of.
Like he's in the South Pole or something like that.
But yeah, I'm not an astronomer, so unfortunately, I don't know the names of all the telescopes.
But so for the Giant Magellan Telescope and for other telescopes like it, we're using something called adaptive optics.
So, what adaptive optics is, is where you cancel out the twinkling of stars and astronomical objects.
The way you do that is you fire a laser into the sky and you use that laser as your calibration of the thermal convection and the atmospheric.
Aberration, that's a way to get as good or almost as good or even better images from the ground as from outer space.
Saves money, right?
You still need space based telescopes like James Webb, Vera Rubin, right?
But when astronomers invented adaptive optics, guess what happened?
The US Navy said, oh, yeah, we developed that 30 years ago.
It was secret.
So, yeah, things like this can happen, but my point is they can't last forever.
So, there's hope.
There's hope.
So, even if there was anti gravity, Also, I don't even understand what anti gravity means, and I have good friends who research this.
I have good friends in Falcon Space and Flux Space, Mark Sokol, Jared Yates, Tim Ventura, a lot of these guys in APEC, the Alternative Propulsion Engineering Conference.
I'm good friends with these guys, but the thing is, but I think they appreciate my skepticism with them, and we go back and forth.
I told them, Look, anti gravity already exists, it's called a superconductor or a magnet, a repelling magnet.
As a physicist, I don't even know what that word is supposed to mean because to me, We already have anti-gravity.
I can do it right now.
An airplane is anti-gravity.
It uses Bernoulli's principle, Newton's third law.
So like, I don't even know what that word's supposed to mean anymore.
You know what I mean?
Like, I hope that, like, there are forces.
This is physics one.
This is physics 101 textbook physics.
I can take forces and I can cancel them out.
That's physics 101.
If I have gravity pulling me down, I create an equal opposite force the other way.
Like, this is centuries old physics.
So, I'm not sure.
Like, when usually people use the term anti gravity, they mean some magical thing we haven't thought of yet.
When I think of it, I'm like, but we already have anti gravity.
We have airplanes, we have magnets.
So, I don't.
Well, I mean, I'm not the kind of person to describe this to you, but a lot of people have been on the show and described how, and been on other podcasts as well and explained theoretically how.
You know how this would work, and there's been lots of experiments to try to do it.
I know, and the experiments all fail.
Well, I'm friends with Mark Sokol and Jared Yates.
You should have one of them on the show, actually.
But their entire they've been laughed at as crackpots, they've been insulted by people.
I love these guys, they're not crackpots.
You know what they do?
They take every crazy idea and they're like, Hey, what if that anti gravity idea is true?
They test it, doesn't work.
Have you heard of Jack Sarfati?
Yes, I can't stand him.
I will do anything for him to get off his email list if it means I have to tell him now on the On this show, that he's the best physicist who ever lived.
I will do anything to get off his email list.
What do you think about his theories of like warp drive?
I cannot say.
Have you looked into it?
I have thoroughly.
I cannot say because he'll threaten to sue me for libel.
He already has.
And I just don't want to deal with that.
Because look, I have a wife who doesn't work.
I have four kids.
I already take huge risks working on UFOs.
There's a stigma.
I thought he's not going to do that.
No, I don't think he has the money to do so.
But still, I'm also going to get an angry email.
If I tell him what I actually think about him right now on the show, I'll get an angry email.
Who cares?
Okay, if he was right about this stuff that he's doing, he could go to Home Depot and do it.
He claims he can warp space-time with a nine-volt battery.
Go do it!
Do it right now!
Prove it to everybody.
So, like, I cannot stand Jack.
He just spouts theories with no experimental evidence.
Do you know what the Byfield-Brown effect is and how it works?
Yes.
Yes, I do.
So, do you know that that was?
It's a great effect and it's real.
We can do it.
Yes, we can.
But there's no new physics there.
So, for people who don't know it, can you explain what it is?
Like, can you distill it down to something that's easy to understand?
Yes, absolutely.
It's when you can't.
So there is a way, and they tested this on Mythbusters as well, and it works.
What you can do is using high voltage, you can ionize the air.
And that produces a force that counteracts the force of gravity and allows you to have an aircraft or airship that floats in the air.
There's no new physics involved.
It's just engineering.
It's just new engineering.
So people.
This is like ion wind, right?
Yeah, exactly.
People worship this effect as if it's magic.
It's not magic.
It's well-known physics that's been around for decades.
It's cool.
It's a cool trick.
And we could have ships that capitalize it.
Absolutely.
There's nothing weird about that at all.
We might have some Black Ops project that uses it.
Absolutely.
Well, the B 2 bombers are coated in like something.
They're covered, not the B 2, the stealth bombers, the B 2 stealth planes.
They have this sort of a skin on them that's supposed to have some sort of an extra ion wind up there.
It's entirely possible.
But here's the thing Steve, can you, by the way, sorry to interrupt, real quick?
Steve, can you find that video that we had Jeremy show us of the.
Yeah, there we go.
Oh!
Do you know what this is?
How is this working?
This is in a vacuum.
I'm there.
I'm off camera during this test.
Are you really?
I was visiting Falcon Space during this test.
No way.
Mark Sokol is my friend at Falcon Space.
This is what I'm trying to tell you Mark is one of those guys who tests every crazy idea.
Occasionally, the idea works.
This is an idea that actually works.
The vast majority of anti gravity ideas are garbage.
Can you explain this?
Can you zoom out so I can refresh my memory?
No, this is the frame of the video.
Oh, no, no, no.
Just the description of the video.
Oh, oh, oh.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, see, Beefle Brown effect.
So basically.
Vacuum chamber, yeah.
So basically, but what's weird here is you should need air for the effect to work, right?
And so, that what's really interesting here is it seems to be working without air, where you're getting propulsion from electricity but in a high vacuum.
And that's interesting, that's very interesting.
It could suggest something now.
And I said this to Mark, I told you, I'm good friends with Mark, but we get in fights and arguments.
I tell him, Look, it rotates, prove it better to me, show it taking off.
He can't because, well, he's cramped in his lab.
They can't just make it take off in one direction.
So, I'm not convinced it would be useful for outer space.
It feels like it's ramping up there.
Well, he's tuning the voltage.
I see.
But yeah, I was literally there during the test, one of these tests, at least.
I don't know for the YouTube video one.
But yeah, Mark is a great guy.
And what he's doing is he tests all these crazy anti gravity ideas.
So, how could you theoretically test this on, like, make this bigger and make this something that's.
What I would do is try to send it in a straight line instead of rotating.
He's got to rotate because he's got a tight space in his lap.
I would send it in a straight line because the reason is in physics, there's a difference between angular momentum and linear momentum.
So, just because something can spin on its own without a propellant doesn't mean it can go straight on its own.
Those two things are not necessarily equivalent.
But you have to understand.
So, another thing I would do is pull even higher vacuum because I'm wondering if there's residual air.
There's always, you can never get, no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
I'm wondering if it's ionizing the residual air in there.
Mark says no.
Like I said, I've had back and forth with him.
But see, This is the difference between theory and experiment.
Anyone can come on a podcast with their grand anti gravity theory, but these are the guys who are trying to make it a reality.
People like Mark at Falcon Space.
They're actually trying to make something happen.
Mark will be the first person to tell you this.
The vast majority of the ideas he tests are garbage, they're nonsense.
Occasionally, though, he gets something promising.
But the vast majority of anti gravity theories are wrong.
Well, they're self contradictory, right?
You've got dozens of people who say, oh, it's this effect, it's that effect, it can't be.
Is it going to be all those effects?
And so occasionally, though, you hit upon something that looks promising like this, like in this case with the Beefill Brown effect.
I have no, I have very little doubt.
I'm sure we have black ops, you know, planes that use something like this.
Absolutely.
But to me, this is not new science.
This is new engineering.
There's a big difference.
So, this is a beautiful example of the difference between science and engineering.
I'll give you another one like this.
Take a guess what year it was when humans finally understood how to make airplanes.
Take a guess.
Like, understood how theoretically.
Theoretically.
Theoretically.
1800s.
1700s.
Earlier.
Really?
1687.
Newton's.
1687.
Newton's.
Once we had Newton's physics, we knew how to make airplanes.
So, my question to you is what the hell took humanity so long to do it?
Right.
You know what the answer is?
Engineering.
So, there's a difference between physics and a difference between engineering.
We have Einstein's.
Theory of relativity.
And then, how come we can't make better planes?
How come we use the same planes as we've been using since the 50s?
We've been using the same planes for decades.
Yeah.
Did you know that when we canceled the Concorde, that was the first time in human history that technology has gone backwards instead of forwards?
Well, also, you could argue the Apollo program as well.
Yeah, but it's around the same time.
Apollo wasn't canceled yet.
So, no, my statement still stands.
Apollo was still doing multiple missions in the 70s.
Engineering the Airplane00:02:45
Well, yeah.
It was not canceled yet.
After 72, they completely.
Yeah, so it's around the same time.
If you ask ChatGPT what happened to the Apollo technology, it will tell you that NASA's official statement was they accidentally overwrote the hard drives with all the data.
So they, oh, we accidentally erased it all.
Sorry.
Apollo is another example, but let me go back to my Concorde example because it affects our daily lives.
Yes, yes.
Sorry to derail you.
No, it's okay.
For the first time in human history, it took more time to cross the Atlantic or Pacific instead of less.
Wow.
Do you realize I get so angry with everybody who tells me technology?
Oh, it improves exponentially.
Bullshit.
If it actually improved exponentially, I could get on a plane right now and in five minutes I'd be home in New York if technology improved exponentially.
Why aren't airplanes improving exponentially?
I'll tell you why.
It's because of economics, it's because of practicality, you know, what people will pay for.
And so that's why I'm not going to completely dismiss it.
I'm skeptical, but I'm open to the possibility that there's some secret anti gravity program.
You know why?
Because it would upset the apple cart.
Of all the airlines are suddenly out of business, right?
Right?
Totally.
People on your podcast have said the same thing, I'm sure.
Exactly.
Do you know how?
Well, also, these companies, they control, they control everything.
They have a monopoly on what they do, like Boeing and these companies.
Yes, yes.
And not only that, but they.
It's worse than that.
They literally own Congress, right?
It's worse than that.
They pretend not to have a monopoly.
Do you know what the trick is?
Kill people.
No, no, no, no.
Well, I. Sometimes in extreme cases, I'm sure.
How many Boeing whistleblowers accidentally committed?
No, no, no.
Like, you're right.
That happens too, but that's not where I was going.
But you're right.
And in Russia, you have an accident, you have an unfortunate window accident.
That's how they do you in Russia.
Or you find polonium in your Borscht.
That's the other way.
But you're partially right about that.
I was going a different direction.
But the direction I was going is they have a secret game they play where all companies do this, by the way.
I forget what the exact term is of this.
It's not a monopoly, it's like an oligopoly, I think.
We're basically.
You don't shit in my turf and I stay out of your turf.
So, for example, with airlines, there are some airports where only one airline flies there.
And there's another airport, a different airline flies to that one because they've all made a deal.
You stay away, United, Delta, America, stay out of our hubs.
It's the same thing with internet.
At home, my wife and I and kids have the absolute shittiest internet service you can imagine.
What can we do about it?
Proving or Disproving Simulations00:15:03
Right.
What can we do?
Nothing.
Can we switch to another provider?
No, you know why?
It's only one provider.
And if you go to Philadelphia, there's one provider.
You go to Boston, and they go, oh, we're not a monopoly because they're in different parts of the country.
So that's the sneaky stuff they do.
So, yeah, I am, I believe there's probably secret stuff and military, industrial complex, and all that.
But the story I told earlier of adaptive optics makes me hopeful.
People like Mark and his work at Falcon Space make me hopeful that other people, Are going to rediscover the secret stuff.
And now, in the age of internet, it's impossible to stop everyone and bring everyone in.
It's not going to happen.
It's going to fall apart.
So I'm optimistic.
I'm optimistic.
What happened with the Concorde?
Safety.
It crashed once or twice, and people are like, oh my God.
And what made it so special?
Well, it was supersonic.
You could cross the Atlantic in four hours.
Okay.
So it was the fastest commercial airplane ever developed.
You could get on a plane in New York.
And what year is it?
It was canceled in the 70s.
The 70s.
It was around the same time as Apollo.
Apollo.
Apollo is another good example you gave me.
Did you know that Elon Musk's fastest rocket that he wants to use to get to the moon?
It's about equal to the Saturn V or slightly slower.
Again, where's the exponential technology improvement?
Well, Elon also said to get to the moon, they would have to have, I think it was five refueling stops.
Was that right, Steve?
That's insane.
We didn't need that in 69 or in the 70s.
We got their first try in 69.
That's the example of technology moving backwards.
I'm optimistic there will never happen.
Or never happen.
Oh, let's not go there.
See, that's an academia problem.
Academics aren't allowed to talk about the moon landing not happening.
No, because there were multiple landings.
So the moon landing thing is one of the things that really, that's one of the buttons that pushes me to really question stuff.
That's the one where you're an automatic fool if you question it.
Correct.
And I'm saying that not as an academic.
It's not as bad as Flat Earth, but it's the next one.
Yes, but I'm not saying that as an academic.
I'm saying it as a rational human being.
Right.
Because hundreds of engineers would not have been, Russia would have, look, we could spend three hours.
Debunking the moon landing because I can do it and crush every single thing any moon hoaxer has ever said, but it would take three hours.
And I think that's not where we want to spend our rest of our time today.
Correct, correct.
But that's a good example.
But here's the thing my reaction there seemed emotional, but it's like flat earth.
My rejection is as a rational human being, I know so many hundreds of things that disprove it that to me it's a waste of time to talk about.
Does that make sense?
Someone would say, Oh, you're being hypocritical with UFOs and aliens.
I'm like, No, are you kidding me?
There's mountains of evidence for UFOs, like from everywhere, from all directions.
And during, also during that period in time, during the Cold War, there was more bullshit happening in the US government than ever.
There was more lying.
There was more.
Yeah, but Russia, if we faked the moon landing, Russia would have outed us immediately.
They'd be like, Oh, you suckers, you faked it.
They would have outed us immediately.
Immediately.
So the Union would have been like, You know what that would have done to world politics?
To embarrass the United States?
On the world stage, that by itself disproves the entire moon hoax conspiracy without going to all the other reasons.
Like that by itself.
Well, it wouldn't have been as easy as it is today with the internet to discredit it.
And there was also a lot of Russian people who came out and in the US and wrote books and tried to start movements basically proving that the moon landing was fake.
I know.
So, what I would love to do.
It was a war.
It was an information war between Russia and the US.
I've gone deep on this and I think they tried and there's actually, I think there's overwhelming evidence to say the otherwise.
I'm not convinced.
But we don't have to go there.
I want to take every single person who thinks the moon landing happened, send them to the moon.
We should send you to the moon.
I would love to.
We should be right there.
Actually, no, I take that back.
I don't think I want to go to the moon.
I do.
I'd rather stay here.
I want to go.
Really?
Absolutely.
200, what's the temperature?
250 degrees in the sun and the negative 250 in the shadows.
That's fine.
I want to step on another world.
Yeah.
By the way, so there's no such thing as the moon landing.
It's plural.
We landed multiple times.
So you're going to tell me we faked every single one?
Really?
Like there was an entire Apollo program.
There are multiple photos.
Kevin Knuth, whom you have in the show.
The footage looks so stupid.
Oh, it just looks dumb.
Look, let's not go there.
The other one is simulation hypothesis.
I will, I want, I'm going to personally, I just, never mind.
You don't like simulation hypothesis?
No, I hate it.
I think it's just one of the stupidest ideas ever invented.
Really?
You know why?
Elon says one in a billion chances that we're not in a simulation.
Yeah, he made that number up.
How does he know that?
I don't know.
So, simulation hypothesis is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief.
Because there's nothing I can do to disprove it.
Right.
Tell me one thing I could do to disprove the simulation hypothesis.
To disprove the simulation.
It's impossible because any evidence I present to a believer, they'll say, that's what the simulators wanted you to do.
Yeah, you're right.
You can't.
So it's a religious belief.
It is not.
ChatGPT, is there any way to disprove the simulation hypothesis, Steve?
We need to find this out.
I need to see this.
ChatGPT isn't God, but.
Well, ask Grok.
Grok is God.
It's about to be God.
Yeah.
It'll be God soon.
But anyway, we somehow went off in different directions there, but that's how you're showing up.
Yeah.
Well, the conqueror, I mean, I was making the point of what happened in the Cold War.
Like the moon, like the moon landing was smack dab in the middle of.
Do you believe JFK with Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter?
Hell the fuck no.
Okay.
Well, it was right between JFK and the world.
It's for the same reason that I believe in the JFK conspiracy that I think the moon landing actually happened.
It's for the same reason.
Because I'm a rational human being who looks at all the facts.
Give me a break.
Come on.
Lee Harvey Oswald conveniently gets killed before going to trial.
Really?
Right, right.
Really?
Well, you know.
So, my point is, Danny, is some conspiracies are true.
Sure.
But not all of them.
Correct.
I'm very open minded.
Not as open minded as Kevin, I think, but I'm very open minded.
But I'm not so open minded that I fall.
There's no definitive way to disprove the simulation hypothesis.
I told you so.
Right.
Which means it's not science.
Don't be a party pooper.
It's still fun to talk about.
There's so much.
It's such a compelling idea.
It is, but here's the time and place for simulation hypothesis.
Time and place for simulation hypothesis is 3 a.m. over beers.
Yeah.
Well, maybe.
Or a podcast.
It's not science, it's philosophy.
Yes.
I'm not claiming it's wrong, by the way.
All I'm saying is there's nothing you or I could ever do to prove it or disprove it.
Right.
There's no way.
It's impossible.
And so it's fun to speculate, but there's nothing we'll ever be able to do to prove or disprove it.
Well, right.
Even though there's no way we'll be able to prove or disprove it, it's reasonable to suggest that in hundreds of years, with the development of technology and video games and VR, we'll be able to create virtual worlds that are indistinguishable from reality.
Like the Thronglets from Black Mirror.
Have you seen the Black Mirror?
I've seen that one.
I've seen that one.
Or the Holodeck on Star Trek The Next Generation.
Yeah.
So are you familiar with the Holodeck from Star Trek?
You just walk into a 3D world from Star Trek.
Really?
No.
All right.
So Kevin and I are huge fan of this.
Have you seen The 13th Floor?
I have not by hertz really good.
It's very good, yeah.
It's basically the matrix before the matrix.
It was earlier.
It came out the same year.
Same year, okay.
Same exact year.
I'm going to see it.
I'm going to check it out.
Yeah, absolutely.
Now, again, yeah, like I'm saying, I'm not saying simulation hypothesis is wrong.
I'm just saying it's a waste of time for scientists to talk about it because we'll never prove it or disprove it.
All we can do is do this.
All we can do is go in circles arguing.
There's no way to get an answer, ever.
We will never have an answer.
Right, right.
Impossible.
Yeah, that's a good point.
That's a good point.
But like, so.
By the way, string theory.
You could say the same thing.
And my string theory friends hate it when I say this, but I say string theory is not a theory.
They get really mad because it's not provable.
It's not disprovable, at least.
Because you'll just say, oh, it's beyond human technology forever.
We'll never prove or disprove string theory.
Yeah, I have a problem with that.
I do have a problem with that.
And so does Eric Weinstein.
Sorry, I'm probably mispronouncing.
Yeah, he makes a point about like Ed and Lewis Witten.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And Lee Smolin has also said this.
People hate him.
Oh, the hate that this guy gets in academia.
I believe that crazy ideas should be permitted.
That's the whole spirit of academia, like I was saying earlier about academic freedom.
So, yeah, I think string theory, it's had a good run.
Let's explore other possibilities.
My string theory friends get next door to me, to the left and to the right on the third floor where my office is in the physics department, are two string theorists.
They're literally my next door neighbors.
But, you know, I kid with them with love, you know, but I just mess with them.
Right.
Yeah.
So, how did you get into this whole UFO thing?
Oh, My friend Kevin, whom you had on an earlier episode.
Oh, yes.
He convinced me that there's real shit going down.
And he's the one who got me into it.
Yeah.
How did you meet him and how did he convince you?
Oh, he's in the same department.
Is me.
Oh, his department.
So I've known him since I was there in 2000.
I've been at the Department of Physics since 2014.
Okay.
So I've known him from when I first joined at the University of Albany in New York.
Yeah, Kevin's the one who's like, and I'll be honest with you, at first, again, because of the stigma, the brainwashing, right?
I was like, Kevin, he's crazy, you know, whatever, UFOs.
But then the 2017 New York Times article came out by Leslie Kane and Helen Cooper and Ralph Blumenthal.
And I was like, And then Lou Elizondo's on TV, and I'm like, holy shit, this stuff's real.
And so that really helped push me over the edge to join forces with Kevin and start researching UFOs.
You know, from childhood, I was always interested.
I mean, who isn't?
I watched Unsolved Mysteries with Robert Stack.
I saw like the Cash Landrum incident, the Rendles from Forest incident.
That stuff scared the hell out of me as a little kid.
And so the seeds were already planted there for me to be interested in UFOs, but then the seeds blossomed thanks to Leslie Kane's reporting and thanks to Kevin.
So how are you applying your understanding of physics and the work you do into this stuff?
So basically, I'm bringing some of a particle physics perspective.
So a lot of people use cameras, obviously, to look for UFOs, cameras, right?
But I'm bringing more to the table because this ties into the earlier discussion about my work on dark matter.
One of my expertises is particle detection.
I'm a particle physicist.
There are all these stories, these claims.
Of people who've been hurt physically by UAP.
Yeah, by radiation.
Ionizing radiation, exactly.
There's a, I'm sure, conspiracy guy like you know all these stories, I'm sure, right?
Falken Lake incident, Rendlesome Forest, Cash Landrum.
They sue the government.
I don't even know what that one is.
So Cash Landrum, so it was 1980, I think, or 79, December in Texas.
There was a family that saw a diamond shaped craft.
They ended up getting skin burns.
It was like a sunbird.
They got cancer.
Right.
And so they sued the government.
So there's evidence.
Yeah.
Of ionizing radiation.
Right.
And this stuff goes back, right?
Yeah.
There's like, there's like histories from antiquity of people, and they think it was like religious related stuff where people were getting burned.
I think St. Francis of Assisi was one of them.
Well, UFOs in general, they didn't just magically start in 47.
It goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Absolutely.
Some people think a lot of the ancient alien guys, oh, I'm friends with all the ancient aliens.
It's like Travis Taylor and like, yeah.
So I went backstage actually at the ancient aliens live show.
You should have seen the dirty looks my wife and I got from all the super fans when security was escorting me and my wife backstage.
Because I know Travis Taylor.
He's on also Skinwalker Ranch.
And oh, yeah, these.
Oh, man, where was I going with the ancient entities?
Oh, yes.
One hypothesis is that a lot of religious experiences were actually extraterrestrial, some other form of non human intelligence.
I don't think that one makes a lot of sense.
I really think we can't discount that.
It sounds crazy, but to me, that's something you could prove or disprove.
That's reasonable.
It's wild.
And if, when I say that, yeah, my reputation, when people watch the show now, yeah, my reputation goes down.
Especially when you look at like James Fox's version, latest documentary where he goes to Brazil and he interviewed like dozens and dozens of witnesses of this being that they explained having cloven feet and smelling like sulfur, which is exactly how demons are.
Yeah, I've only seen clips.
I have not seen the whole thing yet, unfortunately.
But yeah, do we laugh at those people and say they're making stuff up?
I'm inclined to think they're described, they might be describing a real physical.
Experience, yeah.
I think that's that Varginia one.
I've never heard of a case, whether it be a UFO or anything, but this one's a being, yeah.
More corroborating witnesses, yeah.
That's the most in any story I've ever heard in this topic.
It's amazing.
But where we were going with this is what I bring to the table with UFO.
So, UFO, UAP, whatever you call them, I think we can all agree it's an interdisciplinary problem.
You're not going to solve the mystery with just one group of scientists.
You need physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers.
You need a multidisciplinary approach.
And what I bring to the table is my knowledge of particles.
And nuclear physics.
Because if UFOs are producing radiation, do you know how hard that would be to hoax?
You can hoax a video.
How are you going to hoax ionizing radiation from controlled substances, right?
You know, like from uranium, plutonium, calcium, things like that.
So, so I. How many people have been affected by or injured by this radiation?
Oh, nobody knows.
It depends on who you ask, right?
How many people have been cataloged or how many people do you know of?
I know of a small number, but I've only been looking at UFOs.
For a while, so I know of only the three incidents I mentioned earlier, but there are more.
If you talk to Gary Nolan, for example, I'm sure he can list way more.
Remember, I'm still young.
I haven't been doing this for decades, you know, like Kevin Gary.
So I still don't know.
I wouldn't know off the top of my head how large the number is.
I'm only aware of three cases, but one of them, the Rendell Stone Forest case, John Burroughs, a US veteran, got disability for getting hurt by a UFO.
That's like Senator John McCain.
Had to help him out.
Did you know this story?
I don't think so.
So, what happened was, his medical records were classified.
He couldn't see his own medical records.
Wow.
How messed up is that?
The Galileo Project00:13:15
That's crazy.
And so, to me, that inspired me that, like, you know what?
I can bring my expertise on radiation detection into the field of UFO studies.
Wow.
So that's my angle.
Obviously, I'm still using cameras with Kevin, everything else, but that's my personal angle of what I added.
That's the extra that I added to the field.
So, of the three people that you're aware of, what have you found with them?
Well, all we have is, unfortunately, you know, like a couple old grainy photographs, if that are just random accounts.
Oh, you haven't actually.
Okay, I got you.
Yeah, no, no.
So, I don't personally have any connections.
Gary does at Stanford, Dr. Nolan does.
But, you know, I'm not saying I have any personal connection, but rather I've studied their accounts.
Like on the web and TV.
Right.
And to me, I'm not claiming I believe them all immediately, but to me, the approach I take is what if they're right?
What if there's radiation we can detect?
Then we should be bringing radiation detectors, not just cameras, to our UFO parties.
And that's the angle that I've brought to UAP studies and ufology.
I'm not saying I brought it completely by myself.
People have been using Geiger counters with UFOs.
So I'm not saying I'm first or anything like that.
I'm saying, but that's the angle that I bring.
Into the teams that I work on for looking for UFO evidence to answer your original question about what did I bring?
Right, right.
Yeah.
And if you wanted to use radiation detection, how would you go about doing that?
Like, was there specific places you would do this, or like, how does that work out?
Well, it's challenging because, you know, a lot of encounters are like, man, it's over, right?
Yeah.
And so the philosophy of the team that I work on, which is a UAPX, you know, we published a paper.
Only a couple months ago, from our expedition to Catalina, which was in the movie A Tear in the Sky by Carolyn Corey.
If you haven't seen the movie, you should.
So, Kevin and I are in that.
I tried to watch it last night, but it was like trying to make me jump through all these hoops and like get some subscription to some crazy service or something.
I couldn't fucking figure it out.
Dang.
Okay.
Well, that's because the movie's several years old now.
It was easier when it first came out.
But basically, to answer your question, we need to go to alleged UFO hotspots.
That's the solution.
You go to places where people claim to see these things.
Oh, go to nuclear bases.
Well, that's hard to do.
I need to get permission.
No, but you're right.
You're absolutely right.
But we can't do that.
But we can go to, for example, Catalina area.
They wouldn't let you go there?
They wouldn't let you go there and install some like detection equipment or anything?
No way.
No way.
If I was at an important university, sure.
So I'm sure Avi's going to try that for the Galileo project with Harvard.
I'm sure he's going to try that.
But I'm at a lowly university.
It's not an Ivy League.
I don't have the clout to tell the U.S. government, hey, can I install some UFO sensors on your nuke silo?
That's not happening.
Believe me, Kevin and I would be thrilled.
Believe me.
We know all about Salas, Robert Hastings.
We know all about the story of the, yeah, absolutely.
No, I'm saying something that's a little bit more achievable, easier.
Which is go to other non nuclear, you know, hotspots.
Yeah.
And so the idea here is you go to hotspots and you set up permanent or semi permanent stations because you're not going to catch fleeting encounters, right?
And so what you need to do is identify hotspots, taking into account things like population density, obviously, and things like that.
And so, but yeah, for the radiation detection, yeah, we're looking for anything above normal background radiation because there's radiation all around us all the time now.
Right now, there's cosmic radiation coursing through our bodies right now, not just dark matter, you know, neutrinos.
It's cosmic ray protons, all kinds of stuff going through, and we're fine.
It's a small amount.
And so we're looking not for something above zero.
That's ridiculous because there's always a little bit of radiation everywhere.
It's in your sweat, it's in a banana, it's in a Brazil nut, it's everywhere.
However, what we're looking for is a statistically significant increase in radiation, either in energy or in like count rate, that is correlated with a visual sighting in the camera systems.
So that is our angle, like a multi modal study, just like the Galileo project is doing.
Yeah, I'm not familiar with Galileo Project.
What specifically are they doing?
So, Galileo Project is led by Professor Avi Loeb of Harvard, and they want to set up also equipment at UAP hotspots and look for UAP.
But it's kind of a, it's got other facets as well.
Recently, Avi tried to get, and he believes he succeeded, and he'll get pieces of an interstellar meteorite from the bottom of the Pacific that some people thought was maybe an alien ship that crash landed, not actually a meteor.
So, Galileo Project is doing a lot of stuff as well.
At Harvard, yeah.
Well, it's not just Harvard.
They also have other institutions like Wellesley College, and it's a multi university.
I think it's most likely that whatever these UFOs are, they're already here.
I don't think they necessarily came from, I mean, I think it's possible they came from like other galaxies, if you want to say that.
But I think the most likely explanation, and I think the vast majority of them have been here for a long time, and they're just like how we are to ants.
They exist here on a higher plane, and they've probably been here, whether it's under the oceans or Somewhere they managed to be undetectable unless they really want to be.
It's possible.
It's possible.
That's what Kevin says that they're already here.
It's entirely possible.
But yeah, I wouldn't say they're from other galaxies.
That's too far away.
Especially when you have accounts of these things like coming out of oceans and stuff, you know, back into antiquity.
Yeah, well, the oceans are a great place to hide.
That's what my friend Kevin says.
And also, you have to keep in mind let's speculate.
This is Kevin's idea, not mine.
Full credit to him.
He suggests that water is pretty safe.
Because no matter where you are in the universe, water can only be a liquid in a very narrow, limited range of temperature and pressure.
So if you're an extraterrestrial from somewhere else, you know what to expect with water.
Air can be different.
Atmospheric compositions can differ wildly.
Water is water everywhere in the galaxy, everywhere in the universe.
Water is water because it exists as a liquid only in a limited, most, in most of the universe, water is, you know, either a gas or a solid.
It only exists as a liquid in a very limited range.
Temperature and pressure range.
Very narrow temperature range.
And so, if you're used to water, you can go find another water planet.
Yes.
That's Kevin's idea.
Oh, wow.
Yeah.
I forgot he told me that.
Exactly.
And so, he thinks that's the connection.
That's why UFOs are often seen around water and near water, coming out of water, going into water.
I have to say, it's an absolutely fascinating idea.
And my friend Kevin has also published a paper that suggests that if we've been discovered by extraterrestrials, On average, he ran a giant computer simulation of the galaxy.
And he suggests that if Earth was discovered randomly, then the most probable time that happened was 1.1 million years ago.
Why?
There is no why.
He just ran a computer simulation.
Oh, it's just like the computer simulation.
He just put all the factors into the computer simulation.
That would be like asking ChatGPT, why did you just say that?
It didn't give any sort of reasoning behind it at all.
Yeah, the reasoning is all in his scientific paper.
There is no one liner way to explain it because it's all the facts.
How many habitable planets are there in the galaxy?
How big the galaxy is?
How fast they're going?
There's literally dozens of factors that went into the calculation.
So, this is not some cut and dry thing where there's like a.
Is there a way we can find the paper online?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
See if you can find it.
If you go to knuthlab.org, K N U T H L A B.org, I'll point you to this paper by my friend Kevin.
Steve, see if you can find it.
He didn't bring it up when he was on the show.
He probably did, but it's been a while.
Yeah, this is my friend Kevin's website.
Yeah, my good colleague Kevin.
I think it would be under UAPs and Techno Signatures.
So, in that, this is the one that says 1.1 million years ago on average, but with a huge error bar.
But basically, what's really interesting about that result is it seems to suggest that they that whoever they are, they've been here a long time, right?
Like you just said.
But here's well, maybe they maybe they came, maybe they evolved here.
That's possible too.
Have you there's Hal Putoff has a paper on this called the ultra ultra terrestrial model or hypothesis.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, it's another possibility.
Yeah, it's totally possible that they got go back to it, Steve.
Remember, we don't want to read the abstract of it.
It is generally believed that it is unlikely that our civilization is alone in the galaxy.
This belief is central to the premise of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
SETI, which has focused mainly on searching for radio signals originating from extraterrestrial communication, since it is believed that extraterrestrial craft visiting Earth would be an extremely unlikely event.
However, the fact that we ourselves are currently working on developing probes to send to the Alpha Centauri system by 2069 strongly suggests our expectations by considering.
Oh, you skipped the line.
Strongly suggests that other civilizations may make similar or more ambitious efforts.
Therefore, it is reasonable to inform civilizations to find.
To inform our expectations.
To inform our expectations by considering what characteristics.
Can you zoom in a little bit, bro?
There we go.
Considering what characteristics and capabilities would be required for an interstellar civilization to find or visit Earth.
In this paper, the physics based analytic model of expanding interstellar civilizations is developed.
A million civilizations that encounter Earth are simulated and their statistics are studied to determine their characteristics.
There you have it.
One of the characteristics that he found is that if Earth is found, it was probably found a long time ago.
And that's because the galaxy is over 13 billion years old.
That's a mind boggling amount of time.
So if you had a civilization evolve early on, a long time ago, can you imagine?
How much more advanced they'd be than we are today.
Like, we can't even guess technology 100,000 years from now.
Imagine a civilization that's been around for millions or billions of years.
We can't even fathom what that would look like, what they would look like.
Right.
You know, it might be incommensurate with our understanding.
Right.
Well, even the idea that it could have been us, like that version of us could have evolved and gotten so advanced.
Yes.
And there could have been some sort of breakaway civilization that either went under the oceans or to the moon or to another.
Planet in our solar system.
Yeah, Kevin and I call that the Wakanda hypothesis.
Yeah, and then they came back after things settled down.
Maybe there was thousands of years of instability here.
Maybe, maybe.
Or like an ice age or whatever.
Yeah.
Well, another thing that's possible is if you're familiar with the work of Professor Mike Masters, Montana State.
Oh, yeah, of course.
Time travel.
Yeah, he thinks it's not aliens, it's humans from the future.
Yeah, I think that makes a ton of sense.
Yeah, yeah.
So the fact is, we don't know.
We don't know, but it's fun to speculate.
But for me, it's even more fun.
To try to go find the issue.
Well, one of the biggest, I think one of the biggest pieces of evidence that this could have been humans or people that lived here and this was their home are things like the pyramids and things like, you know, these types of things.
These are made, this is a 3D model of a red granite vase that was measured in a Rolls Royce light scanner at Rolls Royce Aerospace.
And they found out it's perfectly symmetrical from top to bottom on each side within less than a deviation of like one one thousandth of a human hair.
This couldn't even be made on a fucking CNC machine today.
Allegedly 4,000 MC.
There's all kinds of stuff on ancient aliens, Pumapunku, and all the crazy, like straight lines and stuff.
So they were obviously on a trajectory that we can't even fathom.
Like they weren't doing the same, they weren't making things the same way we make things today because with our tools, there's no way we, and we have no reason to make stuff like this either, right?
Ancient Alien Technologies00:05:45
So we do have one reason.
So actually, the best, the most precise object ever created by humans was a ball.
That was used on Gravity Probe B to test Einstein's theory of general relativity.
That ball was so perfect that I think it was off by way better than what you just quoted.
It was like one atom off maximum in one direction.
So, if the earth was that perfect of a ball, I think the earth would have like one hill the size of this desk or something.
Like, it was a perfect ball.
It was necessary for this gravity experiment in the 90s or I think early 2000s.
So, nowadays we have this technology.
Did we have that in 4000 BC?
It's like, yeah, so it's interesting.
But remember earlier how I said technology, it doesn't just always improve, it goes forward, it goes back.
Controversial discovery a few years ago.
Did you know we found evidence that the ancient Greek Archimedes, he was recently in the Indiana, India, you know, fiction, a fictional Archimedes was in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
Turns out Archimedes may have discovered calculus several thousand years really before now.
How did they find this out?
Because they found it on a tablet.
Tablet, yeah.
When was Archimedes alive?
Oh, we should look that up, yeah.
But they found on a tablet that was erased and written over.
But using modern technology, it's called a palimpset.
Can you find the story, Steve, about what he's talking about?
Look up Archimedes' Integral Calculus and a palimpset.
P A L I M P S E T.
A palimpset is something that you, it's like etch a sketch.
Right, right.
It's like the ancient form of etch a sketch.
Right.
So somebody wrote over what he wrote.
Oh, wow.
And it turns out he may have discovered Riemann integration that we teach in, like, you know, Calculus 101 for thousands of years.
There it is.
Is it that?
Yes.
No, no.
Yeah.
I don't know if that's it, but the paragraph that was describing it is correct.
Archimedes is not considered the inventor of integral calculus, but his method of exhaustion is regarded as the precursor to integral calculus.
Exactly.
Thousands of years before Newton and Leibniz.
But what this tells you is maybe the ancient alien guys aren't so crazy, but there's another angle to this.
Is this a new thing they found?
It was a few years ago.
Okay.
It's not that new.
Yeah, it was a few years ago.
But basically, my point is that.
Humans are also pretty smart.
We might not even need help from aliens.
Your point earlier breakaway human branches and stuff like that.
Sometimes we don't give humans enough credit.
Sometimes it could be that some of the weird anomalies are really that humans came up with clever technologies.
And we're too arrogant to admit that ancient people were actually pretty damn smart.
I don't know if you've heard of the Baghdad battery.
Also, there's apparently this battery from ancient Iraq.
What?
Oh, yeah.
They tested it on Mythbusters and it worked.
The Baghdad battery.
You've never heard of the Baghdad battery?
It's one of the greatest.
Oh, my God.
Yeah.
So basically, I think ancient people were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
Find this, bro.
But what if there it is?
See, what if.
A 2,000 year old artifact found in Iraq that is hypothesized to be an ancient battery consists of a clay jar, copper cylinder, and an iron rod.
While some believe it could be used for electroplating or even electrotherapy, its exact purpose remains debated.
Can you find a better picture of this, dude?
They tested it on Mythbusters.
No way.
And it kind of works, but it works better.
They cheated on Mythbusters and they sold it on a car battery.
Whoa.
I mean, what do you do with something like that?
This was the Parthian Empire, it was supposed to come from, was allegedly illiterate.
Yeah.
But see, look how little we know about our own ancient past.
So, what is the theory?
What is like the conventional theory for this thing?
I'm not aware of a conventional one.
All I know about it is the history.
I'm not aware what the.
I'm not aware what the BS conventional explanation for it is supposed to be.
Would you believe the conventional explanation for it?
I don't believe the conventional explanation for many things.
It starts with ancient Egypt with the Egyptologists.
Yeah, but so you're asking me for the conventional explanation.
To me, the battery is the correct explanation.
Right, it's the correct one, but I would also be interested to hear how academics try to explain it.
I haven't heard a single credible alternate explanation of it.
See what you can find.
Yeah, yeah.
Even things like the Antikythera device that was found in the bottom of the ocean.
That's the basis of Indiana Jones 5 and the Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.
Wow.
I think that's the only device like that that's ever been found.
It took us a long time to finally figure out what it was for.
Okay, the conventional explanation for the Baghdad battery is that it was not a battery in modern sense, but it was rather a storage vessel used for keeping sacred scrolls or other items.
Okay.
Okay.
And it just happens to have electrical properties.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure.
Why not?
This fits our theory.
Well, it's like you said earlier, right?
It's about ramming square pegs into round holes.
Yes.
Sometimes we try to force the data to fit our models.
They hate it when there's new data that doesn't fit their theories.
I don't.
I love it.
Yeah.
You know why?
Because there's more for me to do than I'm an experimentalist, not a theorist.
So to me, that's great.
All right, let's go explore.
Right.
To me, that's when the most exciting things happen is when something doesn't fit our preconceptions.
That's when real learning happens.
Yes.
But most academics don't think that way.
Pseudoscience vs Real Science00:06:50
They're more stuffy than I am.
Most of them.
Yeah, yeah.
Right.
Of course.
Yeah.
Right.
Which explains why they're, you know, just going back to the Great Pyramids, why there hasn't been any more excavation done there.
You know, you see those things they found with the rods that go underneath them.
Oh, yeah.
There was that big thing they found with the rods that go underneath them.
Oh, yeah.
Using particles.
That's my thing.
My shtick.
I'm not saying I didn't participate in that, but it's using particle physics.
They're using like muons, using particles to basically X ray, except it's not X ray.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's amazing.
Why aren't we, why can't we just go in there?
These spirals that apparently go down for miles underneath the pyramids.
What are those things?
What are those things?
Why is nobody interested in learning more about them?
Right.
It just, that story just kind of like disappeared.
How did it just disappear?
There was an Italian, there was a group of Italians.
You know what my friend Kevin says?
I don't know if he said this on your show.
Some scientists suffer from a profound lack of.
Of curiosity.
That's a serious problem.
Yeah.
I'm a scientist because I'm curious, not because I'm incurious.
Does that make sense?
I'm curious, so I want to know the answers for everything.
Right.
Yeah, no, I would be really curious to see what would happen if we were able to dig under those things and look under that.
Some of that is politics.
I'm sure the Egyptian government's not going to want that.
I don't think it's all conspiracy or stigma against it.
Sure.
Some of it's politics.
There's a lot of bureaucracy to get through.
But I think one of the things that I'm optimistic about is there's a lot of young, upcoming Egyptian archaeologists and Egyptologists.
Who are considering the pseudoscience hypotheses and like the unconventional theories of like what these things could have been and that are coming up in academia that are actually considering them and not just brushing them off as like complete bullshit pseudoscience?
There is occasionally, occasionally something that was considered pseudoscience turns out to be correct.
I'm gonna give you six examples or maybe more.
Six.
I can give you a few more probably.
You want more or is that too few?
I can do six.
Okay, germs.
There's no such thing as germs.
Did you know that there were doctors?
I'm saying this is what people would say.
There were doctors who would literally go from delivering a baby to an autopsy without washing their hands to prove to all those idiot doctors who believe in germs and washing hands.
I'm like, okay.
Like, germs were pseudoscience at one point.
What gets better?
Relativity was pseudoscience at one point.
Einstein was insulted repeatedly as a crackpot.
As a pseudoscientist.
In Germany, you know what they said to him?
Oh, that's Jewish science.
In the UK, you know what they said?
Oh, that's German science.
Remember, there's World War I.
So, the UK, they hated Germans.
So, to the British, Einstein was German.
And to the Germans, he's.
But my point is continental drift.
Continental drift.
Oh, yeah.
Here's another one Did you know that Ludwig von Boltzmann committed suicide because he was so deeply insulted by academia and the scientific community?
They ruined his career.
Because you know why?
He dared to say that atoms are real and that.
Atoms exist, and he was driven to suicide.
So, there's atoms, germs, relativity, continental drift, meteors.
Meteors another great example.
Did you know that for a long time people laughed?
Oh, meteors, rocks don't fall from the sky.
Those are just you know crazy people telling you stories.
What does all this sound like to you?
Doesn't this sound like a lot like UFOs?
People didn't believe that at one point.
Meteors for centuries, scientists used to laugh at meteors.
That's nonsense.
It wasn't until the 19th century, the 1800s.
Until finally the French figured out, oh, wait, meteors aren't made up.
They're real.
When did we, when did we, I'd be curious to know when we came up with the explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs?
Oh, it was recent.
When I was a kid, we were still debating.
We still didn't know until we found the crater in the Yucatan.
And then it was like game over.
Then it was obvious.
We were still arguing was it disease?
Was it this?
And then we found it was in the 90s, I think.
I was a kid when we finally figured out, oh, yeah, it was a giant rock that fell from the sky.
It's crazy how recent a lot of these.
Big mainstream discoveries have happened.
People used to make fun of the idea that a media killed the dinosaurs.
People used to think that was pseudoscience.
What do they think?
How do they think they got killed?
Oh, they just argued about that was disease.
It was some random plague or something.
Yeah.
But I'll tell you this do you know what separates, in my opinion?
But, you know, it's kind of an expert opinion, but that's why we're.
What separates science and pseudoscience?
I have an answer that'll differ from any other answer that you'll hear.
Ideology.
No.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
Because people can label real science pseudoscience just to fit their.
That's misuse of the label.
Yes.
I'm saying what separates actual pseudoscience from actual science, not what's the problem.
Well, how do you define pseudoscience?
Very easy.
I'm glad you asked.
That's what I was about to say.
Okay, if you test your idea and your idea doesn't work, you abandon it, you don't double down.
That's the difference between a scientist and a pseudoscientist.
It's not about ideology, it has nothing to do with ideology.
Nothing.
That is what the gatekeepers use.
It's not about ideology.
Real pseudoscience is when you've been disproven.
And you won't shut up.
That's pseudoscience.
Real science is where, and when something that's called pseudoscience isn't pseudoscience, it's when you have the proof, but your ideology blinds you to see that.
Continental drift, atoms, these are all examples of that.
So that is the difference.
If 20 years from now, it turns out 100% of the CMB going back to other things, it's like, was the early light, it was nothing else.
I'm like, oh, you know what?
Great, I was wrong.
Because the proof came up.
Oh, I'm not going to double down because I'm like, oh, yeah, that's proven wrong.
But a pseudoscientist, when confronted with facts, will double down on the incorrect idea that's already been disproven over and over and over and over again because they're like, no, you didn't do it right.
You got to tweak the experiment a little bit.
No, it's going to work.
I've got the anti gravity.
You didn't do it right.
So that's the difference.
But it's misapplied.
The term is misapplied in the modern age.
To shut down rational discourse and silence critics.
So I'm not interested in ideology, neither is my friend Kevin.
We're interested in what the facts say?
What does the data say?
Do you have data to support your claim?
If so, let me see it.
Hoaxes and Data Claims00:08:14
Baghdad battery, great example.
There's support of that claim.
If you don't have support in your claim, go away.
Come back to me when you have proof and I will listen to you.
I won't shut you out.
But if you're going to just make stuff up without evidence, I don't want to hear it.
I don't have to hear it.
So that's the difference between science versus pseudoscience as an ideology versus how it should actually be honestly applied.
You shouldn't use insults as a way to shut your critics up.
Yeah.
That's not how rational discourse is.
100%.
But unfortunately, that's the way discourse happens online these days.
Online is a toy.
Like, never read the comments on a YouTube video.
The internet and X are the best thing for the government that has ever existed because it makes it so much easier for them to keep secrets.
Because you can't tell what's the truth anymore.
Exactly.
There's so much noise.
It's just a cauldron of bullshit.
I'm not on social media.
Oh, good for you.
I don't have X.
I have a Facebook page that I look at once a year because it's historical.
I got peer pressured into joining Facebook when it was new.
So I have Facebook.
I never had Twitter.
I don't have X because you know what?
I have better things to do.
It can be fun.
It can be fun.
It can be fun to peek in.
It's like going to Vegas.
The best parts about going to Vegas are the day you arrive and the day you leave.
Yeah.
It's like the same thing with looking in.
Sometimes you can just peek in and look around, especially UFO Twitter.
I don't know if you've ever heard of UFO Twitter, but this is a community.
Of course.
I've been insulted already by UFO Twitter repeatedly.
People tell me secondhand.
That's crazy.
Everybody's a Fed.
Everybody's working for the deep state.
I've heard it all.
And this is one of the greatest things, one of the greatest ways to dismiss people is to call them a Fed and to say that they're working for the CIA or whoever.
Jack Sarfati said I was a Russian agent.
He's friends with Russia.
Oh, now he's friends with Russia.
He brags that Putin.
I know.
Putin.
Putin invited me to Russia 16 times.
No, he didn't.
No, he didn't.
And Trump did not invite him to Mar a Lago.
Oh, yeah.
And so, yeah.
Oh, look, like I said, look, if Jack is listening to this, if you take me off your email list, Jack, I will proclaim to everyone you are the greatest scientist who ever lived.
I will do anything if you just stop fucking emailing me.
Oh, Jack.
Fuck it.
I can't.
You can't.
You know why?
Because he CCs everyone instead of BCC.
He doesn't have an email list.
So anytime anyone else replies, I'm back on the list.
There's got to be technology.
We're that low tech.
We can't figure out how to block Jack's our fatty email chains.
But anyway, let's not go off on that tangent.
Before Jack, where were we going?
I forgot.
You had asked me something important.
What did I ask him, Steve?
Y'all were talking about pseudoscience.
No, no, no.
We finished that.
Oh, we were talking about like UFO Twitter and discourse.
Yes.
Yes.
I was saying, I've been called a Russian agent.
It was said that I work with childcare.
Like, you should see the stuff.
But do you know?
A lot of prominent physicists went to Epstein Island.
I don't know if you know that.
Yeah, but not me.
Right?
But I was like a fetus.
You're a little too young.
Okay.
All right.
So, yeah.
So, anyway, my point is, but you know how I look at that?
I look at it as a positive.
You know why?
There's an old saying in the military if you're catching flack, that means you're over the target.
So, if I'm catching shit and Kevin's catching shit, I'm like, good.
That means we're pushing buttons.
That means we're asking the wrong questions.
That means we're actually getting closer to the truth.
Sure.
So I don't care what anyone says about me on X. Like I said, I don't even have an account.
So all I hear is secondhand.
Oh, hey, Matthew, you know what they said about your social media?
I'm like, I don't care.
I've got science to do.
I've got real work to do rather than know what some 13 year old in his mom's basement thinks about me and my work on UFOs.
I don't care.
Right.
It's just.
Yeah, it gets really bad when you mix boomers and older people with social media because they don't really understand how to use it.
I've already had this happen to me where I get AI slop, like AI generated videos sent to me by my mother in law thinking it's real or my father in law.
This has already started happening.
So they're already falling for the AI.
Oh, it's there.
I fell for it yesterday because I saw a video on Instagram of the Texas floods and it looked like it looked so real.
It looked like towns being flooded.
And it was supposed to be like security camera footage in the town of like sped up time lapse of the rivers flooding and literally just wiping out the town.
I thought it was real.
I'm like, this is fucking insane.
Then I was like, hold on a second.
Before I send this to 100 people, I'm going to make sure I'm going to read the comments.
And then I went through the comments and sure enough, they confirmed like, there's no way this is Texas.
This is like architecture from Eastern Europe.
This is definitely not Texas.
And it was confirmed it was AI, but it completely tricked me.
I thought it was for sure.
The only reason I knew was because I decided to read the comments.
I have two ways of finding AI out count human fingers.
It can't do fingers.
Right.
It messes up fingers.
It messes up fingers.
And the other one is it can't do letters, it can't do words.
So you remember this fake photo and video of Trump getting arrested?
It was violently arrested mid journey.
He released one yesterday of Obama getting arrested by the FBI.
No, this is old.
This is like years ago.
Okay.
You look at the police, you look at their armbands, and it's just hieroglyphs.
It's just hieroglyphs.
It's just gobbledygook.
It's like, what the hell?
It's getting better, though.
It is getting better.
It's getting a lot better.
Yeah, I know.
I'm still waiting for Star Trek level AI.
As far as I'm concerned, AI is still dumb.
Yeah, the A star.
So, what I was saying earlier was that it's shocking to me how many of the foundational discoveries of.
Our universe and our species and our planet in general are so recent.
Like, you know how Mike Masters explains that there's 20 different species of hominids.
And out of all those 20 species, we're like the only one that has developed technology to escape the earth.
Are we?
Well, five of those species have been discovered in like the last 10 years.
I know.
And there was just this video that came out that we pulled up the other day, Steve, was an Instagram video of these Peru mummies.
They found these.
These things that look like aliens and they're these mummies, they look like powdered donuts and they have three fingers.
I know they brought them before the Mexican.
This is different, this is different, this is new.
Um, this is not the Jaime guy, this is a different set of mummies.
It's a different set of mummies, and one of them had a fetus inside.
Oh, yeah, I saw this.
Watch this, this is crazy.
Yeah, and they think it's a new species of hominid.
Can you give us some volume into the rock thousands of years ago?
When I visited Maria, I saw no apparent signs of manipulation on the hands or the feet.
One of the mummies has a fetus inside, and rumors are starting to spread that the images are showing the fetus to also have three fingers.
I contacted the lawyer of the American scientists, Josh McDowell, who told me that the current imaging isn't good enough to say either way whether or not the fetus has three fingers.
Some notable oddities regarding the mummies.
Maria has 32 vertebrae, while most humans have 33.
Not an impossible anomaly, but still notable.
Maria has abnormally large eye sockets and a protruding mouth.
Dr. Zuniga told me that the metal implants had organic tissue fused to them, indicating that they were alive whenever these were placed.
This is a process called osseointegration, and it takes about half a year to fully complete.
If these are fake, then this would be one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
If they're real, this would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time.
I'm an independent journalist.
Super interesting.
Not necessarily alien, like you said, could be different.
Not necessarily alien.
Like the most reasonable explanation is this a new species of hominid, you know, just to jump straight to alien.
You know, but people are going to dismiss it immediately because there have been a lot of these mummies and unfortunately some are hoaxes.
Some are hoaxes, unfortunately.
And, you know, that really damages a lot of the, then it increases the stigma and taboo against the so called fringe topics that you specialize, right?
On your show, like increases the stigma.
when you've got people doing hoaxes.
It's just, but that would be really hard to hoax what we just saw.
Operation Starfish Prime00:15:33
Yeah.
So totally would be.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, the, the, the idea that, you know, that there's only 20 hominids and like we were the ones that were able to develop the technology to get off the earth means that we are human beings are like 0.0001% of all cataloged species on earth.
Right.
So we're super rare on earth as it is.
So if you extrapolate that out into the universe.
Like that is just exponentially more rare than we even thought, right?
Like, just to say there's life, I think it's pretty, I completely believe that there has to be tons of life out in the universe.
But just judging by the fact that we are 0.0001% of living species on Earth, what are the chances that there are other beings, life forms that have evolved to be as intelligent as us and to be upright, bipedal hominids like us with a brain that sits directly on top of the head?
The chances are very high.
To be evolved that way?
Not that shape, but intelligent life, yes.
Because that tiny number you just quoted, I can cancel that out very easily.
There are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone.
So that tiny number has to face the gigantic number of all the exoplanets out there, of all the potentially habitable planets.
That's Kevin's field of research, actually, exoplanets.
So is there intelligent life out there?
Almost certainly.
Is it going to look like us?
No.
That's highly improbable.
Right, because the atmospheric conditions, the gravity is going to be different.
They're likely going to be like like, if we evolved in water, what about like all the water worlds that we've got?
That's exactly why Mike Masters says, probably not aliens.
The Greys are probably humans from the future.
He's got a good point.
That's the, I think that's the strongest point.
That's a damn good point.
But Gary Nolan has a counter argument.
There's a couple of counter arguments.
Yeah, he says the Greys aren't aliens.
He says they're like.
They're CIA.
The aliens?
No, no.
That's what Stephen Greer says.
Oh, like in a zipper?
No, no, no, no.
He thinks that they're CIA constructed robots, basically.
That's similar to what Gary Nolan says.
Gary Nolan says they're alien constructed robots that are meant to be similar to humans.
Yeah.
That's what Gary Nolan believes?
I've heard him suggest that on numerous shows.
He says that the Greys are sort of like, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he says they're avatars.
That's the word he used.
But not CIA avatars, but actual alien avatars.
And the aliens look nothing like us.
To me, that is a lot more plausible than saying that somewhere light years away, a bipedal creature evolved again.
Really?
Right.
Really?
So, though, Mike Masters has a good point, a very good point on it.
Well, another point that's been made to me is that are you familiar with Morphic Resonance, Sheldrake, Rupert Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance?
Yes, I've actually met Rupert Sheldrake at a conference a few years ago.
So, like, the idea is basically if a problem gets solved in one side of the world or one side of the universe, it could be easily, it quickly gets solved on another side because it's like, and this reconciles with, like, the Simulation hypothesis that we're in a computer program, like it's conserving processing power.
So, if a problem gets solved in one place, some people break a world record in one part of the world, it gets broken soon after in another part of the world, right?
So, like if evolution got solved here on Earth, maybe it could get solved somewhere else using morphic resonance on another planet, another part of the Earth.
That's reasonable.
Yeah.
I've heard that case made that, oh, yeah, there will be bipedal.
It's an efficient structure.
It just convergently evolved in another place.
Yeah.
I've heard smart people tell me that that's a super likely scenario.
I don't know what to think until we get some more facts.
Right, some more data on what's going on, right?
Yeah, totally.
I've actually got so one of the papers I recently published.
Actually, if you want to pull it up, could you go back to archive.org that I brought up earlier before the show started?
Yeah, can you look for the search for the word?
Not there, like search on the page, do control F and search for catastrophic.
There you go, click that, click that one.
Number eight, yep.
So, this is a paper I recently published in Limina.
The Journal of UAP Studies, by the way, I say that to anybody in academia, Journal of UAP Studies, they roll their eyes because of the stigma.
I think this is one of the most important things I've ever written.
It's only eight pages.
I basically calculate the probability of somebody accidentally capturing evidence of a Roswell style crash on their smartphone.
Because I got sick and tired of people saying, oh, if crashes were real, somebody would have gotten it on their iPhone already.
You know, we hear this all the time.
Oh, Bigfoot's real.
You mean a video of a crash?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And you know what I concluded?
You know what I discovered?
Actually, because the earth is mostly water and because we don't have the population of New York City everywhere, right?
Most of the world is rural.
I actually calculate and determine you know what?
It's actually reasonable that there hasn't been any iPhone or smartphone evidence yet.
According to my paper, I conclude that if David Grush, Is right, and it's an average of uh 10 crashes per century of NHI craft if they're real or not necessarily NHI, you know, breakaway civilization doesn't matter who it is, according to my calculations.
And again, a huge error bar.
I say it's going to be until about like 2040, 2050.
Again, that's a random number, so it could be tomorrow, could be in 20 years.
I'm basically calculating it based on the David Grush's claim of a crash rate.
What is the most probable year, just doing a simulation like Kevin did, just running all the stats?
What's the most probable year of the first video of like an actual someone captures a video crash?
And I estimate about 2040.
Well, you know, there is one that has been on video, which was during Operation Starfish Prime.
Are you familiar with this?
I am not.
During Operation Starfish Prime in the 60s, when they were detonating nukes in the atmosphere and in outer space.
Oh, yes.
Is this with the ship that came in and zapped the nuke?
No, that was Vandenberg.
Vandenberg, you're right.
I mixed them two.
Okay, go ahead.
So, Operation Starfish Prime, there was another name for it too.
I forget what the other name was.
But there was a nuclear detonation in the atmosphere and it was on video.
And Harold Malmgren was part of this.
And when they were observing it, they saw, they were filming the blast.
And out of the blast, an object just fell, fell straight into the ocean.
And these people were just calling it a tag along.
Like nobody thought it was anything, but he was like, This is definitely something, fell out an object, fell out of this nuclear blast.
No, but you see, you said ocean, but that's not what I'm focusing on in the paper.
So that's what I'm saying hasn't happened yet.
I'm saying on land.
I'm saying like Roswell style.
I'm saying there's a saucer and someone's got an iPhone 16 video of like a gray alien calling it.
That's what I'm talking about.
So, what you're talking about, that's old school video technology.
I'm talking about on a smartphone, someone whips out their phone and gets the evidence.
People check it.
They know it's not AI, they know it's not fake video.
And what I estimate is that the reason why it hasn't happened yet, it's not necessarily because it's not real, hasn't happened yet because the earth is mostly.
Water.
Right.
And population is spread thin.
There are, I've driven across the country multiple times.
I hate flying.
Driving is so much easier.
I can stop my car and I can go pee.
Nobody runs over, goes, Sir, sir, you got to get done.
I love driving.
I've driven across the United States multiple times.
Yeah.
It's amazing how much of it's unpopular.
Freaking empty.
Yeah.
Cow.
Even flying.
You can look out the window and just see.
Yeah, of course.
Here, there's a cow.
There's a horse.
It's just empty land.
So, like, what people don't realize.
Is just because there's no smoking gun evidence yet, right?
That doesn't mean something's not real, right?
Totally, that doesn't mean it's not real.
See if you can find a video, though.
I want to see a video of Starfish Prime, Starfish Prime video.
I haven't heard of this before.
The UFO, I did study the um, the other case, the Vandenberg with the like that one's crazy.
Yeah, I know that one's crazy.
I think they interviewed one of the officers they did on Investigation Alien.
George Knapp interviewed one of the guy, the lieutenant.
Yeah, this was a long time ago, but allegedly, yeah, there's a and we allegedly the video exists and was confiscated.
Yeah, but I've seen there was video online at one point, and I think we found it.
And then it was just really hard to find after that.
Like they buried it.
And that's another problem with this whole thing if somebody did capture this on their iPhone, with the way that the internet is just regulated by the government these days, I don't think it would ever survive.
No, it would survive.
I don't know.
I disagree, respectfully disagree, because I'm optimistic.
Let me explain why.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle because it gets copied on TikTok, YouTube, Vimeo.
There's no way.
It's easy for them to scrub all that.
No, it's not.
It's not.
Because you can't scrub all the private copies also on hard drives and everything.
So, if I ever captured incontrovertible evidence of something truly anomalous, I would make multiple copies.
I would bury some of them in the ground on hard drives.
There's no way a government could do that.
What was it called, Steve?
Operation What?
Oh, so I think you're.
Dominic 1 and 2.
Okay.
I think you're giving the government too much credit.
They're incompetent.
You're right that they could scrub everything, but you know why it wouldn't happen?
Because some bureaucrat would forget to fill out the correct form.
Sure, I agree with you.
They're incompetent, but this stuff is.
Classified according to Harold Malngram, two levels above the Manhattan Project.
Yeah, yeah.
So this is like super, super secret.
And that's one of the reasons why we're not making progress, by the way.
It's too highly classified, and so you don't have enough people looking at it.
You don't have enough eyes on the problem.
Yep.
All right, so here's the blast.
So this is a nuclear bomb test?
This is a nuclear bomb test in the upper atmosphere.
I don't know if you can see it from this angle.
Fishbowl.
I don't know if we can.
Oh, there.
Was that it?
No, that wasn't it.
You can see this thing falling directly.
Oh, so, okay, stop.
Pause it.
So they altered this and they added that white triangle.
This is the blast right here.
Okay.
But it was in, see that white triangle on the bottom?
Yes, I do.
They added this onto it after it happened.
It fell right down through that where that triangle is.
Ah, I see.
I see.
Go to, yes, go to Jesse Michaels.
Jesse Michaels, type in Jesse Michaels Harold Malmgren.
And if you go to, oh God, if my memory serves me correctly, about an hour in.
Something doesn't make sense here, though.
Are you saying an advanced ship was somehow damaged by the blast?
Yes.
But that shouldn't be possible.
I'll explain why.
Actually, Travis Taylor did the math on this.
You know, Travis, right?
Of course, Ancient Aliens, Skinwalker Ranch.
Yeah, yeah.
So he did the math on this, and I can check his math because I'm a physicist.
It's easy.
If you have an interstellar craft that can get through, this is an assumption, right?
Because they could be here.
I'm just saying, let's use the assumption of an interstellar craft.
If you can travel the stars, that means that there's a serious problem, which is if you're traveling between the stars at relativistic speeds, a speck of dust has more energy than that, has more energy than its Sarbamba, the largest nuke ever created, Soviet Union.
So basically, If they can travel interstellar space, our nukes would be like nothing, mosquito to them.
And so it really bugs me if there's some supposedly advanced tech.
A nuke should be nothing to them.
They should be able to fly right through a nuke and it would be nothing to them.
Yeah, well, then, I mean, how would you explain all the other UFO crashes, right?
I don't know.
Like, how would you explain a lightning bolt taking out the one that happened?
Well, Kevin has an explanation.
Kevin says they're not used to traveling in atmospheres.
There it is, Steve.
There it is.
Go back.
Right a little bit forward.
Right around here, yeah.
Go ahead.
Play it.
Well, these are nukes in the end.
Give us some audio.
This is it.
You know, somewhere, did you know somewhere there's a memorial somewhere on a distant planet or in another dimension that says, for all the lives lost on Earth or on Soul 3.
Oh, yeah.
Like an alien memorial.
There's an alien memorial somewhere for all the crashes on Earth.
That's funny.
Operation Dominic.
Here we go.
Operation Dominic.
You were just on it, dude.
Running from April to October of 1962, Operation Dominic was a classified American program conducting 31 nuclear test explosions in the Marshall Islands.
These tests were designed to study the effects of nuclear detonations in high altitudes, in space and near space.
One of these tests, Starfish Prime, created an electromagnetic pulse that extended over 1,400 kilometers.
Knocked out streetlights, triggered burglar alarms, and caused electrical surges in nearby Hawaii.
It also produced an artificial aurora visible from Hawaii to New Zealand, and it even created a man made radiation belt similar to the Van Allen belt that destroyed multiple satellites.
The last few tests of this series were the Bluegill tests, which involved a unique X ray based missile defense system.
And Harold was put in charge of doing all of the cost assessments for this test.
Tell us about the bluegill triple prime.
So just hold on, click on the video, make it go double speed.
Oh, roam.
Better roll right here, yeah.
You can see clearly from the Kettle One footage of the nuclear blast.
An unidentified fly off there tumbled out of the nuclear fireball.
Yeah.
Give us some volume on it.
The official report written about this test at the time was written by the Flight Dynamics Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
The report tries to explain the presence of this second thermal source in the footage.
Quote unquote, there is no evidence to indicate that even the closest pod was ever immersed in the fireball.
So it definitely wasn't one of the instrumentation pods on the missile.
In the film, yeah.
If that's not weird enough, these videos were declassified to the public in 1998.
At the declassification review, the Defense Special Weapons Agency, led by Dr. Byron L. Wristvet, applied a large white triangle to the footage, sanitizing it right where you can see the object tumbling out of the plume in the Kettle One footage.
This well known animosity between Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore Labs.
Lawrence Livermore ran one aircraft, Los Alamos ran the other.
The reason why the Kettle One footage was declassified and Kettle Two wasn't was simply a personal difference in what should remain classified and what shouldn't.
Crazy.
And we know that those things have, you know, throughout history just been all around nuclear bases.
And there's also, you know, Navy pilots from submarines talking about, you know, weird things happening around nuclear submarines.
USOs, yeah.
And they can turn missiles on, they can turn them off.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, the story of World War III almost started because the UFO started up.
Right.
Declassified UFO Footage00:08:37
A countdown on Russian missile.
And of course, Wall Street Journal had some bogus article how that's fake.
And oh my God, I'm just.
Oh, it was some elaborate hazing experiment.
Oh, give me a break.
You don't haze people on something that can cause the end of the world.
Give me a break.
So you asked me earlier what got me into UFOs.
I forgot to tell you my snarky answer to that is at some point, the debunker explanations got dumber.
Than just admitting, okay, right, could be, it's probably alien.
Totally.
You know, like at some point, I've had enough of Mick West's seagulls and, you know, and Chinese lanterns and like, give me a break, okay?
Like at some point, I was like, sometimes, okay, there are so many encounters, so many stories and events now where the simplest explanation is like, there was some advanced non human craft.
They're like, that's the simplest explanation.
Yeah.
I think some of those videos, though, that came out.
Around 2014, I think it was, 2017 when the New York Times went here.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like the Go Fast video.
I think those things can be explained away pretty easily.
Like the one with the, it looks like somebody, it looks like this thing flying above the water.
Yeah, yeah.
What people don't realize is like the plane is flying in one direction.
Yeah, yeah.
There's a water in the background, and then there's something that's flying the opposite direction above the water.
So it's like this parallax effect.
Yes, but that could very easily be a bird flying the opposite direction.
That's right, but that can't explain the tic tac.
No, that can't, that cannot explain it.
But we haven't, we don't have, the problem is we don't have video of the tic tac.
We only have flavors that, No, we do have video, but we only have a little bit.
We have the little bit of the gun cam or the app.
Is it public?
Yeah.
The tic tac?
Yeah, it's one of the three videos.
You can even see the little legs under the tic tac.
You're talking about the gimbal one?
No, no, no.
I'm talking about the third video.
There's three.
There's gimbal, there's go fast, and then there's an actual tic tac video.
It's a tic tac with two little legs.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, no.
And so, like, we have that.
And there's no explanation.
Right.
But there's got to be so much more.
There's got to be so much more.
Oh, of course.
We're not going to see that.
They're just not going to release ever.
Of course not.
There's a whole flea of people.
Yeah, that one's crazy.
Like, what the fuck is that?
And then it starts rotating.
That's the gimbal.
Yeah, the gimbal is also hard to explain.
And then there's a third video.
There were three videos that came out in 17.
They often get mixed up.
Some of them are West Coast, some of them are East Coast, some of them are Roosevelt and Emmits.
They get mixed up all the time.
But yeah, the Tic Tac video was analyzed by my friend Kevin.
He published a paper.
This is the one where, yeah, I'll give McWest this one.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, I'll give him this one.
Yeah.
But the Tic Tac cannot be explained that easily.
Recently, actually, there was a YouTube video by a professor Simon who was like, Oh, Tic Tac, that was a Lockheed Martin device.
I'm like, Really?
Well, what's his name?
Came out and said it's undeniably 100% Lockheed Martin technology.
Yeah, Ross Coulthard said that.
Ross Coulthard said that, yeah.
Yeah, and that's interesting.
So they didn't read Kevin's paper that shows it had accelerations beyond human capability.
I mean, like, there are published papers by me, by my friend Kevin, showing that's not possible.
And everyone conveniently pretends they don't exist.
Why couldn't it be possible that there couldn't have been some, if there's some sort of physics that was.
Went dark in the 50s, and they've been working on it ever since.
And they've been developing it and what they wanted to test it against, like our Navy fighters.
Wouldn't that, even if there weren't humans in there that wouldn't be like liquefied moving around, couldn't they?
Wouldn't it?
Great question.
Great question.
You got to read Kevin's paper.
It's because even if it was unmanned at the accelerations that Kevin has calculated, there doesn't exist a material that could withstand that.
It was just crushed.
And I know what you're going to say oh, some breakaway civilization.
No, you don't understand.
There's literally against the laws of.
All physics is the material isn't actually going against air like that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I know what it's like creating a cavity, a cavitational type doesn't matter, doesn't matter.
These are simple, basic laws of physics we've known for centuries.
Is one of the points of Kevin's paper the accelerations are not possible, they would destroy any material.
I don't care if it's in air, I don't care if it's in vacuum.
And conveniently, everyone who spouts off, they think they have figured out the tic tac, they all pretend.
That Kevin's work and my work doesn't exist.
They don't read it.
They don't.
In fact, did you know I have proof that Sean Kirkpatrick lied under oath and nobody's listening to me?
Every no news media outlet would carry this story for me.
I said I can prove it.
Nobody listened to me.
How do you prove it?
So here's what happened What happened was, this might be the first time I'm saying on a podcast, but I don't care.
I'll get in trouble, but whatever.
I'm just sick and tired of all the lies and the obfuscation.
I, so, During one of the hearings, former head of Arrow, Sean Kirkpatrick, said to Senator Gillibrand, to her face, under oath, it was one of those mini hearings.
There was like almost nobody there.
It wasn't the full Congress, I think.
It was like, it was just Sean Kirkpatrick, Senator Gillibrand, and a few people.
Okay.
It was like a subcommittee meeting of some kind.
He said, I'm going to paraphrase, but I wrote down the exact quote, of course.
He said something like, there is no, there are no, Published scientific papers claiming that the tic tac encounter might have been aliens, and then he sneers, he laughs, like, and if you think otherwise, you're welcome to publish.
We already published a paper, Kevin did.
So, can we go back to canuthlab.org and I'll show you the paper?
This is many years old already now.
Okay, it's a paper published estimating the flight characteristics of anomalous.
Maybe he just wasn't aware of it.
I know you're going to say that, but guess so.
Then he was so, then he's ignorant and he's not good at his job, sure, he's the head of arrow.
But what if I could tell you?
What if I told you that's not the case?
Because I told him about it.
So, Kevin and I, UAPX, we had, we actually had, we were told not to talk about it, but you know what?
Screw them.
I'm so sick of these people.
We actually talked to Arrow.
We had a like Google meet or Microsoft Teams or whatever, Zoom or whatever the hell software.
We met with them.
We actually talked to them and we actually brought up Kevin's paper and was like, look, it turns out in the Nimitz encounter, these accelerations, if you apply them to interstellar craft, these would be good interstellar craft.
You could cross the galaxy in a few months.
And like, We told Sean Kirkpatrick.
I heard his voice.
He asked me a question.
I know Sean Kirkpatrick was on the call.
And so you're not going to tell me he didn't know.
So either he didn't know, in which case he's ignorant of facts that he needs for his job.
Fortunately, he's not head anymore of Arrow.
Number two, okay.
Then, or he's lying or he forgot conveniently, okay.
So you're right.
I can't prove he's lying, but he's either lying, ignorant, or forgetful.
Which of those is the better option?
All of those options are bad.
But anyway, he's aware of this paper.
Could you go back to, could you please click on a UAP library again like last time?
So Sean Kirkpatrick knew about this paper because we told him about it.
We're like, oh, and Kevin has written this great paper.
In this paper, which Ross Callhart has conveniently forgotten exists, because he knows about it too, because I've talked to Ross, I've talked to Kevin, he's talked to him.
In it, Kevin and his friends Robert and Peter from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, SCU, they show that the Nimitz encounter.
Demonstrates velocities, accelerations beyond human capabilities.
And Mick West poo poos this.
He says it's BS, it's a jet or a seagull or whatever the usual.
This is a scientific paper.
Wow.
It passed peer review.
But then you know what the critics say?
Oh, it doesn't count.
You know why it doesn't count?
Oh, Kevin's the editor of the journal.
He's not the only editor.
He recused himself.
And that's what they always say.
My crash paper, that doesn't count.
That's in Limina.
It's a UFO journal.
You know, it's the one paper they can't say doesn't count?
Kevin's history of UFO studies is in.
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, that's a major journal.
And my paper on the UAPX results is also Progress in Aerospace Sciences.
But yeah, basically, people, skeptics always find a way to pretend that this doesn't count, that these facts, these numbers, these results are wrong or they don't count.
But what's really incredible to me is like the past week, I hear all this nonsense that the tic tac was Lockheed Martin.
Super Advanced Tech Weapons00:03:16
People, why are they not reading the facts?
Like Kevin did a study, SCU did a study of this, and it shows that this is incredible.
Let's now take the perspective of, like, I'm very skeptical, but let's take your perspective.
Let's say, ah, it's not alien, some super advanced tech.
Then I got some questions.
Okay.
Number one, why isn't David Fravor, Top Gun Academy pilot, why isn't he flying it?
Why are we still wasting time with F 16s if we have this?
Because it has to be kept secret, super classified.
But why don't we then, okay, I have another answer for that.
I've had this same conversation multiple times.
Why did we lose Afghanistan?
Why has America lost every single war it's been in since World War II?
If we had this, we should be flying this shit around.
We should be going to Ukraine, bailing out Ukraine.
It's not worth deploying in those types of things.
We don't give a fuck about the people in Ukraine or Afghanistan.
All those wars are just about money and extracting oil.
That's a fair point.
That's a fair point.
So I don't think that they would plan on using it.
But that makes me angry.
That makes me angry.
Because if we have this technology, I want America to use it to win every war.
We're like, what the hell?
So it makes me mad.
As a taxpayer, if I paid for that shit, it needs to be used, not just hidden away.
Yeah, no, I think possibly one of the reasons for the information coming out about this stuff and this becoming more public in the media could be some sort of a deterrence, some sort of a subliminal message to other countries who probably are working on very similar things to let them know that we have it in the case that there ever is some sort of an existential crisis that would bring a war to American soil.
I have an answer to that.
We don't need it.
Why would we need a tic tac?
We have nukes already.
We already have the best thing that could annihilate cities in seconds.
I don't understand what the point is.
Yeah, nukes.
The problem with nukes is that everybody has nukes.
And as soon as a nuke gets launched, it's likely just going to be Armageddon.
I know.
I think everybody knows that.
I know.
But then it's the same thing with the tic tac technology.
Because you can use that to drop a nuke.
Yeah, but if you have the tic tac technology, you know, who knows what that could be used for?
I don't know how it can be used for weapons, but.
I think that, again, you know, this is all conjecture.
I don't know what possible weapon systems could be deployed using these things.
But the fact is, it's super advanced tech and it's scary.
And to let people, you know, people can use their imaginations.
If you have these things that can travel from one point to another in an instant, what type of weapons do you actually have?
And, you know, we have deterrence with nukes.
I mean, we not only do we have, not only is every, there's nine nations that are armed with nukes.
And we have, you know, systems like the Star Wars things and like these laser things and on satellites that could potentially take out nuclear warheads when they entered the atmosphere.
Bob Lazar's Legacy00:15:10
You know, I'm terrified at the idea of nuclear war, but I think that there's other things that we're developing that we don't know about that we'll probably maybe learn about in the next 20 years.
And DARPA's been historically working on things that never come out into the public for at least 20 to 30 years.
For example, like Neuralink, they've been working on it.
On brain chips for soldiers since the early 90s.
All that's going to collapse now because Doge has cut everything basically.
So, no, I'm dead serious.
Doge is taking funding out of things like IRS, HHS.
Well, and my Dark Matter originally.
They're going to restore it.
Elon was behind Doge, but Elon gets all his money from the Pentagon where there is a $21 trillion black hole that's been going to things.
So, I don't think he's attacking the Pentagon.
The Pentagon just got his budget increased to a trillion dollars.
Oh, I know, I know.
I was kidding.
I was just kidding.
But my point.
Earlier, was that the thing is you can't keep secrets forever because scientists are clever, curious people.
Things get accidentally rediscovered.
It happens all the time.
So, do you think the Bob Lazar story is bullshit?
Complete.
Really?
Complete bullshit.
And I hate to say it because I want it to be true.
But everything that comes out of his mouth is so wrong.
It's against science.
Like, we discovered element 115 already.
It has none of the properties he claims.
And I feel like, so I've talked to people I know, like Eric Davis, Hal Putoff, that I trust.
And I've talked to people like that who said they've got a hypothesis.
They think that Bob Lazar's Purpose is disinformation to say stuff that's so wrong that any scientist with half a brain cell knows immediately it's nonsense.
Any physicist can listen to Bob Lazar and be like, Yeah, he's not a real physicist, he's talking nonsense.
And so, everything he says is so wrong on so many levels.
I could spend three hours on just Bob Lazar and debunking everything he said.
Like, don't get me wrong, I wish he was real, I wish it was true, but he doesn't even get basic nuclear physics right.
And come on, he never went to MIT.
They erase the memories of all the professors.
It makes no sense.
There's a very reasonable explanation for that, for his records being erased.
Oh, his records could be erased, but you can't erase the memory.
The professor would be like, oh, yeah, I had Bob in my class.
No, he wouldn't be in a public class.
That's the point.
If he was, there's lots of evidence of people going to MIT to work on military shit and weapons systems that were under the sanction of the Pentagon that were kept secret and had all the stuff expunged.
But if they open their mouth, they talk correct physics.
So, for example, Eric Davis, he opens his mouth and correct physics comes out.
Hal Putoff opens his mouth.
Correct things come out of his mouth.
Bob Lazar opens his mouth for a while.
How specifically did he say, even if it was nonsense, he doesn't have to be like a PhD physicist to be useful to some of his programs.
Oh, yeah.
So I think, I think there's a grain of truth in what Bob Lazar says, but I think he misheard some things and he's saying some things wrong.
Maybe.
That's what I think is happening.
But you can't take everything he says as scientifically accurate because it doesn't work.
I don't think the idea is saying that he says a lot of bullshit or says a lot of wrong things about physics.
Yes.
I don't think that's a strong argument to him saying that his story is full of shit, you know?
I think it's totally possible.
I'm saying there's a grain of truth in there.
Right.
Is what I'm saying.
What I was saying was the physics is full of shit that he says.
There could be a grain of truth.
No, not maybe.
For sure, his physics is wrong.
Even if it is, if what you're saying is correct, I think it's still totally plausible that some secret black program would want to get a guy like him in there to throw shit at the wall to see if maybe he can tinker around and figure something out that they haven't been able to figure out in 50 years.
That's true.
That's possible.
But this is the problem.
This is why we're not making progress.
Sure, because it's all secret.
It's all carmentalized.
It's stovepipe.
Exactly.
Stovepipe carment.
If we really want to make progress.
We would hire people like my friend Kevin.
We'd hire smart, good scientists.
We'd have Eric Davis.
We'd have Hal Putoff, who were not really part of the legacy program.
They're on the outside.
We would have smart people.
We would have hundreds of people, like the Manhattan Project.
We're not making progress.
If there is a crash retrieval versus engineering program, we're not going to make progress because there's too much stovepiping.
There's too much compartmentalization.
But honestly, look, one part of me thinks that if Bob Lazar was totally on the up and up, he'd already be dead in the desert, like by quote unquote suicide.
He doxed himself.
He came out and stuff with George Knapp in the early 90s, late 80s.
I think that's what he was doing, probably trying to protect himself and get his stuff out there.
And that's also, you know, his background is a very discreditable background, like the stuff that he was doing running the brothels and all the crazy stuff he was doing.
Well, some of that could be made up to suppress him.
Some conspiracy people think that.
It doesn't have to.
I think a lot of it's very well.
You can look up the court documents from his divorce to sell that he was actually running the brothels.
But 115 exists already.
We found it has none of the properties he claims, there's no stable isotopes of it.
And he claims he has a little bit of it left that he's keeping at home.
Good.
Send some to me.
I can prove it's 115 in 20 seconds.
That's not exaggeration, by the way.
So, the problem with this stuff is you have people around him and around people like him that are just incentivized to use him as a mascot to make money and to make documentaries about him.
That's right.
Exactly.
And to just further their own careers.
And that's my thing about this whole topic is that it's just fucked from the beginning because you have the internet and you have people trying to make careers off of it.
Yes.
Yes, exactly.
That money's the waters, even more.
I don't want to make any money.
You know, the only money I want to make off UFOs is the only money I want to make is to turn into equipment for research and a little bit of salary to survive.
I don't want to become rich and famous.
I just want enough to do my work with my friends, like Kevin at UAlbany.
But your point is very, very well taken.
And remember what I said earlier.
It's like the Fox Mulder poster, right?
What does Fox Mulder's poster say?
The X Files.
I want to believe, right?
Yeah.
I want to believe Bob Lazar's story, but the holes on it.
The holes in it are so gigantic to me.
Actually, this is why I'm never going to be invited back to Phenomenacon.
Phenomenacon?
You know about Phenomenacon, right?
No?
It's in Utah.
It's the UFO Bigfoot.
It's right next to Skinwalker Ranch.
It's the UFO Bigfoot convention?
And it's all about Skinwalker Ranch.
Oh, that's amazing.
Kevin and I pissed off the entire crowd because someone during QA asked about Bob Lazar in 115.
And then we went on and on how Bob Lazar was wrong.
He's full of shit and it's impossible and blah, blah, blah.
Oh, we ticked off everybody.
But here's the thing.
I just want to know the truth.
I'm not going to believe some person who claims to be a whistleblower.
That's why, for example, when Grush came out, I tested his claims.
I wrote that paper earlier.
Remember, I said, if Grush's claim of the crash rate is correct, I was going to see, okay, why don't we have evidence yet?
I crunched the statistics and I discovered, oh, Grush's claims are plausible.
Doesn't prove they're right, but they're plausible.
But right out of the gate, all of Lazar's claims are not plausible within physics and engineering.
And I know people.
I've talked to people who are allegedly connected with the legacy.
I have several people tell me, oh yeah, Bob Lazar is just a disinformation agent to just say things that are so wrong so that physicists like me and Kevin, but other than us, you know, other physicists, they watch Bob Lazar and they're not interested in jumping into UFO studies because they're like, that's so dumb and wrong that I'm not interested in participating.
It's kind of like if you take something.
If you take anything that's fringe, considered pseudoscience, and you crank something up to 11, you're going to scare off well-meaning people who want to come in.
As CIA is master at this, by the way.
And like you want to scare off.
So I often worry that Lazar might be some sort, you know, people worry about the same thing about Lou Elizondo.
It might be some sort of misinformation, disinformation campaign.
The thing is, you can't believe anyone or anything.
And that's what's so scary and makes it so hard.
But look, I hope I'm wrong.
I really hope Bob Lazar is telling the truth because to me, that means humanity has a future.
Because if somebody else can figure out interstellar travel, we can figure it out.
That means there's a hopeful future.
And so I want to be wrong about Bob.
And I'd be happy to sit down with him privately and be like, hey, I'm sorry I said you were foolish.
Please prove to me I'm wrong.
Show me the facts.
Prove to me.
Talk to me as a scientist.
He says he has a degree in science.
Prove to me.
That I was wrong about you, and I'm open about it, I'm open minded.
But the thing is, I'm gonna call a spade a spade, and when I see massive amounts of evidence, problematic evidence stacking up that somebody is not telling the truth, I'm deeply concerned, especially when it comes to this UFO UAP sphere of things.
Right?
But there was some podcast I was watching where I think Commander Fravor said, if I'm not mistaken, it was like Friends with Bob Lazar, they have like barbecues again.
I'm like I was starting to then like, I'm like, Fred was saying that he was doing this.
Yeah.
I think he was on Lex Friedman's podcast or another one.
And I was like, he said it seems like an interesting guy to be around.
Yeah.
So I'm like, so I was starting to feel bad.
And I'm like, oh, maybe he's not full of shit.
So, like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
But the problem is I know too much physics and what he says is just so wrong.
I've gone back and forth on him.
I believed him in the beginning and then I stopped believing him for a while.
And then I'm back on the Balbazar train now.
I think I'm on the Eric Davis train.
Okay.
Actually, recently Eric Davis joined.
The physics faculty as an adjunct faculty at UAlbany.
That was a big deal.
That's a big deal.
So nobody knows that because I'm not on Twitter.
So, as soon as somebody hears that, if they hear this on this podcast, UFO Twitter is going to lose its shit over this news.
No one's heard this.
There was no press release.
We didn't trumpet it.
But yeah, Eric Davis is working with me and Kevin now at UAlbany remotely.
He's just a volunteer.
He's not paid.
He's a volunteer adjunct professor.
And we're honored to have him.
Him, I believe, because I sit down with him.
I talk physics, unlike, you know, I listen to Bob Lazar's physics.
I ask Eric questions, and guess what?
His answers are reasonable.
I have a PhD in physics, so I know he's not talking BS to me.
Yeah, he's one of the guys that seems to be one of the few guys that's not detested by anybody in this space.
Everyone seems to take his time.
He's the real deal.
Wilson memo, that's a real deal.
He's never going to admit that publicly, but that's the real.
What was the Wilson memo again?
Oh, that's the alleged recording of Eric talking with Admiral Wilson.
About the legacy program, right?
Yeah, yeah, I've heard this before.
It's just like in and out.
Yeah, people consider it an earth shattering revelation, and but then some people say it was debunked, it's real.
But Eric's not gonna admit that, he just wants to have a you know, he just wants to be left alone, right?
He's got a wife and families, as do I.
He just wants to be left the hell alone.
So you don't see him on every podcast or promoting himself.
He hasn't gotten a single dollar off of anything.
And so that's, again, why I think he's more likely to be legitimate than people like Bob Lazar, who are just going documentaries and this and that.
He's just a real physicist.
I asked him, so, okay, you talk to people in the Legacy Program, you've talked to people who claim reverse engineering.
He gave me the most honest answer, better than Bob Lazar's answer, Bros.
Any answer, everything, most plausible to be correct answer.
I go, okay, Eric, how do the ships work?
Bob thinks he knows.
Tell me how they work.
Eric, sitting on my Kajima office, Eric says to me, Matthew, we don't have a fucking clue.
That's the most honest answer.
Think about it this way.
Think about it this way.
Let's do a thought experiment.
Take my phone or take your phone.
Let's give it to the greatest scientist of the 1890s.
What do you think they would do with it?
What percent of it do you think they'd figure it out?
None.
Not much.
Zero.
After the battery died, they would make even less progress.
Where's the lightning port or the USB C to plug it in in 1890?
That's the problem here.
If you dropped a Tesla off somewhere in Rome, how long ago was 1890?
A long time ago.
Let's do the math.
How long ago was 1890?
1890, 200 years ago.
So, less than that.
Less than 150 years ago?
Yeah.
Okay.
So, to 1900, that's 125 years ago, right?
Okay.
So, we're talking 135 years ago.
Okay.
That's only 135 years, okay?
This iPhone, you agree, would never be reverse engineered.
Even if you took the 100 smartest human beings on earth, they would all die of old age having figured out nothing.
Right.
And you're going to tell me now, and this is what Bob Lazar claims, you're going to tell me that human beings can figure something out that's millions, potentially millions, billions of years more advanced than us?
No.
And that's why Eric's answer always stuck with me.
And by the way, Hal Putoff gives the same answer.
I asked him separately.
He gives the same answer.
We don't have a fucking clue.
So, you know what Hal said to Kevin once?
He said, Kevin, we wouldn't know the difference between their navigational computer and a sandwich.
Well, Bob says that inside that craft, there was no instruments, there was nothing.
So, how do we make progress?
Exactly.
The problem is that there are not enough people working on it.
Number one, it's too classified and stovepiped.
And number two, the other problem is it's too far ahead.
And so, we don't know.
We don't know where to start.
Right.
Exactly.
I've actually, I'm going to claim something very bold.
I'm one of the only people who's actually figured out what at least one alleged UFO crash part is for.
So recently, I've actually, with my help of my friends Mark, who came up earlier, remember we played the YouTube video from him with the spinning.
Thanks to my friends Mark and Jarrett, they're aerospace guys who are doing anti gravity research.
They're the real guys who are actually trying to make anti gravity reality.
Nobody's, you know, no men in black have killed them yet.
You ask them, they're like, oh, you know, it's a good day today, right?
Because men in black haven't killed me yet today.
But basically, thanks to them, I got a piece.
It's known as the art part.
You know, Art Bell, Coast to Coast AM.
Linda Moulton Howell also had this.
So I got a fragment that's allegedly from New Mexico from 1947.
And I've been doing material analysis on it.
And I'm going to publish a paper on it, hopefully by the end of this year or next year.
Then I'm going to print out that paper.
And I want to shove it up the ass or down the throat of every single skeptic and debunker because we found that that material is anomalous and discovered that the arrow report on this material was a lie.
It was a whitewash.
Analyzing 1947 Fragments00:09:21
They didn't list half of the elements in it.
They didn't list any of the interesting isotopic configurations.
Nothing.
Gary Nolan knows this.
A few people know this who have pieces of the mother sample.
There was a big sample.
I only got a fragment of it.
And I developed a whole new technique.
I developed a new way of testing what something is made of faster and cheaper.
You did?
Yes, I did, than existing techniques.
Yes.
And so I'm hoping that people start sending me actual parts.
I can determine whether something is terrestrial or extraterrestrial.
How?
By the isotopic ratio.
So everything is made of elements, and each of those elements has isotopes, but the isotopic ratios are unique to different planets, different parts of the galaxy.
Still doesn't conclusively prove something's extraterrestrial because a skeptic could always say, oh, it was part of a nuclear test and it changed the isotopic composition.
Sure.
But what I can demonstrate is whether something is weird.
I know that's very vague, but I can demonstrate whether something's weird, whether it's anomalous, or whether it's boring.
Like, oh, this is just a hunk of aluminum.
That reminds me are you familiar with the, there was some sort of material with a certain configuration of isotopes that was found in the middle of like nuclear blasts that they found that matched the exact type of material they found on Mars?
Have you ever heard of this?
I have not heard of this.
Oh, so maybe we created it by accident.
George Gianni was, remember this, Steve, when George Gianni was talking about this?
He was, oh, are you talking about the possibility there was like a nuclear war back in the day of Mars?
This was his theory, but the hard evidence that he explained to back this up was that there was some sort of material with isotopes that were found in nuclear bombs.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, yes, yes.
I definitely heard of this.
That matched specifically specific isotopes they configure it like all over the place.
I know who you're talking about because he's one of the co stars.
On a show I'm on, actually, the proof is out there on the History Channel.
Okay, and he's the Mars guy I know you're talking about the guy who thinks that there was a civilization on Mars.
John Brandenburg theory suggests that the red color of Mars could be evidence of catastrophic uh, but what's the what's the Xenon 129?
Xenon 129, that's what it is.
Funny coincidence, remember I use Xenon to look for dark matter, right?
Right, that's just a coincidence, right?
So, what does it say?
So, Jordan Samsung, ah, yes, yes, yes.
So, it's I don't think it's Brandenburg, but what if his associates, so there's a guy who's head of the Cydonia Society.
Who's a co star on the proof is out there with me?
Oh, so this is what the theory is.
So, Xenon 129 is consistent across the entire solar system except for on Mars.
Yes, so we're talking about isotopic ratios.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Yeah.
Is that there are unique signatures in different locations.
Yeah, Mars is a problem, but exactly.
But my point is that I want to look at the isotopic ratios.
I'm using a non destructive technique to determine the composition of a material.
I'll tell you though, so far, I've only gotten one potentially anomalous thing.
Most of the things is UFO, you know, crazy people send me.
It's a meteorite.
Sure.
Or it's a piece of an airplane.
So most of the time, unfortunately, it's boring.
But finally, thanks to knowing the right people and being patient, I finally got a piece of something that's really interesting.
And I have, and let's see how silent the mainstream media is going to be on this.
I'm going to publish.
Later this year, definitive evidence that the government lied about this material and published a whitewash report claiming it was not anomalous when they knew better.
And I have definitive proof that it's anomalous.
It's strange.
I don't have proof it's extraterrestrial, to be clear.
Not yet, but it's weird.
And they claim it's not weird.
Oh, it's a boring piece of whatever slag.
It's like, no, it's not.
When is this coming out?
I'm hoping by the end of the year.
End of the year.
Because here's the thing I don't want to get gate.
Kept past test.
I don't want to get all my ducks in a row.
I want to double check it.
I want to triple check it.
I want to quadruple check it before I submit it for scientific peer review.
Because what I don't want to happen is I want it to be perfect.
I want it to be an airtight case.
So, like I said, I can publish the paper in a major scientific journal and then shove it in the face of people who have been poo pooing UFOs for years.
I'm sick and tired of them.
I'm sick and tired of Neil deGrasse Tyson going out there saying, oh, it's all nonsense.
Oh, aliens, blah, blah, blah.
What if the invite?
You know what I'm tempted to do?
I could totally pull this off to get his attention.
It's very hard to get his attention because I'm not important.
I'm at an unimportant university.
I'm not trying to be rich and famous.
I'm not at Harvard.
I'm not at Stanford.
Just to get under his skin, what I'm hoping to be able to do, so I've actually been working with Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school.
Where he graduated, because I've been reviewing their physics courses.
Because I'm part of the university in the high school program, the university in high school program, where they're doing college courses at university level.
One of them is Neil deGrasse Tyson's alma mater, the high school he graduated from.
So here's what I'm thinking I was going to go to the principal.
I'm still thinking of doing this.
I might seriously do this.
Be like, hey, can I give a talk on UFOs?
And do this at Neil deGrasse Tyson's high school that he went to school at, get it in the newspaper, get it all over mainstream media to the point where he's like, Who's this Matthew guy where he's finally forced to pay attention?
That's amazing.
Yeah, that's my goal just to get under his skin because I'm sick and tired of him claiming there's no physical evidence.
Well, then what the fuck am I testing in my lab?
That's not an eyewitness account, it's not a video.
I have a piece of material that is not easy to explain.
That's physical evidence, okay?
So I'm sick and tired of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson saying there's no physical evidence.
Yes, there is.
There's Delphos, Kansas.
There's all these alleged UFO crashes and landings where there is physical evidence that's been subjected to chemical testing.
And there are evidence of anomalies.
Just talk to Gary Nolan, talk to Jacques Valet.
There is physical evidence from some cases.
But if you close your eyes and you stuff your fingers in your ears, like all the dogmatic people do, and play la la la la, I'm not listening, then you're not going to see any of the evidence.
You're not going to see Kevin's paper.
That we talked about earlier shows the Tic Tac could have crossed the galaxy in six months and nobody cares.
Nobody reads the paper, nobody understands.
It's insane.
Well, listen, man, I hope you continue to do this and bring this energy to this topic and do all these things to get this stuff out because I think we could use more people like you out there trying to put this shit out in the public and point out all the craziness.
I'm open source, no NDAs, no classification.
I'm going to be discovering stuff, and what am I going to do?
I'm going to publish it.
So you can read it.
Fuck yeah.
Yeah.
I love it, dude.
Matthew, thank you so much for your time.
We said three hours.
Tell people where they can find you online, find your website, your papers, all this stuff.
Well, it's funny because I'm not on social media, like I said earlier.
We're like on your Facebook.
But there's a very easy way to find everything I've ever published.
And the reason is almost nobody on this planet has the same last name as me.
Less than 100 people, I would estimate.
And so the easiest way to find everything I've written without a paywall is to go to archive.org, A R X I V.org, and you just type in my last name.
Shidagis, S Z Y D A G I S. You'll find everything I've ever written.
Like my mainstream stuff, of course, too.
Dark matter.
Yeah, there we go.
Yeah, there it is.
Now, Archive is a beautiful thing.
It was created by Cornell University.
It's a way of trying to get around the gatekeeping at a lot of journals.
You basically throw up your paper here before it's gone through peer review.
Right.
Unfortunately, Archive does have a dark side as well.
They, in recent years, have started to do some of their own gatekeeping.
And so I know people who have gotten their papers rejected from Archive when it's like, How can it be rejected?
It's not supposed to be peer reviewed yet.
So, yeah, so Archive has positive and negative sides.
Doing like a Wikipedia type deal, huh?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, exactly.
Yes.
You know what recently happened to the debrief?
They kicked them off of Wikipedia.
No, they said they're a tabloid.
I'm friends with the debrief guy, you know, Micah Hanks.
You know Micah?
No, I don't.
So, yes.
You know, Bill Clinton got all his stuff about Epstein removed from his Wikipedia recently.
Convenient, right?
Yeah.
So, but so Archive is doing some gatekeeping, but I have been blessed that they haven't rejected any of my stuff, including my crazy UFO stuff.
Everything I've ever written, you can find right there.
Fantastic.
Well, hopefully, we keep it that way.
Yeah.
And thanks again for your time, man.
I really appreciate coming down here and talking to us.