Today on the PBD Podcast, Patrick Bet-David sits down with Abraham "Avi" Loeb, an Israeli-American theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology. In this episode, PBD and Avi discuss UFOs, the Moon landing, and the first interstellar object we've ever seen.
Protect yourself against CBDC control with - American Hartford Gold
https://offers.americanhartfordgold.com/patrick-bet-david/
Text PBD to 65532 or call 866-939-6984
Get Your Tickets for The Vault 2023 NOW ⬇️⬇️ The BIGGEST EVENT in VT History!
*TOM BRADY, MIKE TYSON & PATRICK BET-DAVID on one stage!*
https://www.thevault2023.com/vault-conference-2023?el=YTPODHTEP
Pre-order Dr. Loeb's new book "Interstellar: The Search for Extraterrestrial Life and Our Future in the Stars" https://bit.ly/3QHKJou
Subscribe to:
Adam Sosnick - @vtsoscast
Vincent Oshana - @ValuetainmentComedy
Tom Ellsworth - @bizdocpodcast
Want to get clear on your next 5 business moves? https://valuetainment.com/academy/
Join the channel to get exclusive access to perks: https://bit.ly/3Q9rSQL
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get the latest updates in real-time!
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
00:00 Intro
03:30 Do you believe in God?
13:00 Should we explore the ocean or space?
20:00 Dark Matter
29:00 Government vs Universities vs Private Sector
35:00 Amuamua
48:00 UFOs
58:00 Scientists think their Gods
1:02:00 Moon Landing
1:09:00 UFOs During Times of War
1:25:00 Do Aliens Exist?
1:28:00 Weather Manipulation
Why would you bet on Goliath while we got fat David?
Value tame and giving values contagious.
This world of entrepreneurs, we get no value to hate it.
I need running, homie, look what I become.
I'm the one.
You know, I'm not a guy that takes psychedelics or shrooms or smokesweed, but if there's ever been a podcast where you may want to consider ROP, today would be it, right?
Because today we're going to be talking about aliens.
We're going to talk about Omua Mua.
We're going to be talking about the part that I was fascinated with last night.
I want to get some of your thoughts, the underground base, Dulce, Antarctica, a little bit of Paul Schneider, Admiral Richard Byrd, stuff that is just, you know, things that interest me a little bit.
I know this is your world.
You're the expert here.
But let me properly introduce my guest today here, folks.
We have the great Avi Loeb in the house.
He's an Israeli-American theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology.
He is the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University.
He has been the longest-serving chair of Harvard's Department of Astronomy from 2011 to 2020, founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative since 2016 and the director of the Institute for Theory and Computation since 2007 within the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
In June 2020, Loeb was sworn in as a member of President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology at the White House.
In December of 2012, Time Magazine selected Loeb as one of the top 25 most influential people in space.
In 2015, he was appointed as a science theory director for breakthrough initiatives of the Breakthrough Prize Foundation.
In 2018, he suggested that alien spacecraft may be in the solar system using the anomalous behavior of Omua Mua as an example.
And in 2023, he claimed to have recovered material from an interstellar meteor that could be evidence of an alien starship.
Claims which were criticized by some experts as hasty and sensational.
He's got a big announcement to make in less than three weeks.
And he's got a book, Interstellar, The Search for Extraterrestrial Life and Our Future in the Star.
Avi, it's great to have you on the podcast.
Thanks for having me.
You could have saved a lot of time if you introduced me as a curious farm boy.
I was born on a farm and I'm curious about nature.
And I don't have any footprint on social media, by the way.
Also, I should mention, probably you know that, but your last name, Bet David, is the line of King David.
And that is a very important bloodline because the idea is that it leads to the Messiah.
And according to Christianity, it was Jesus that will come back again.
According to Judaism, the Messiah should arrive in the future, didn't arrive yet.
And you know, the philosopher Buber, Martin Buber, said, why argue about it?
Both sides believe that the Messiah will arrive in the future.
When the Messiah arrives, we can just ask whether he arrived already and figure it out.
And regarding the Messiah, I should say, you know, the idea is that humanity will have a more prosperous and exciting future when the Messiah arrives.
We tend to think that the Messiah is from this earth.
But the future of humanity could be much better if someone will visit us from another planet that is much wiser than we are.
And we can talk about it.
And you believe in God?
It depends what you mean by that.
Okay, so what's your definition of God?
A very advanced technological civilization because if they understand how to unify quantum mechanics and gravity, they could create a baby universe in their laboratory.
It's possible that the big bang started in a laboratory, with scientists in white coats deciding to create our universe, and in that sense they serve the purpose of what we call god.
You know, if we see a burning bush, like Moses saw, and we use infrared cameras to monitor what it is about and we realize that it's actually a miracle, You know, that could tell us that there is a superhuman entity out there.
In religious texts, I mean, Moses believed in God as a result.
But in the context of science, it could be a very advanced technological civilization.
We can't understand their technologies.
Just like a cave dweller coming to New York City and all the technologies out there would look like a miracle.
So what do you believe in more?
Do you believe more that aliens exist or do you believe more that Jesus is the Son of God?
Well, here is the point.
The difference between religion and science is that in science, everything is based on evidence, not on belief.
And evidence is collected by instruments, not by people.
Because if you see a car accident, there are multiple people involved.
Each of them reports something different.
You can't rely on what people say.
They have ulterior motives.
You know, even in the World Cup, the Women's World Cup recently, the U.S. team was kicked out as a result of video cameras looking at the ball during the penalty kick and deciding that based on the data from those video cameras, indeed the ball crossed the line and was a goal.
So what I'm saying is FIFA realizes that you can't rely on the players, on the audience, you have to rely on instruments that tell you what really happens.
And that's the method of science.
Rather than people saying, I believe the ball went across the line, no, you need to look at actual data to figure it out.
And in that sense, it's information that can be shared by everyone, that everyone would agree to, whereas beliefs could be subjective.
That's the difference.
But what I'm saying is, in the future, if we see a much more advanced technological civilization near us, it would look like an approximation to God because it would produce miracles that for us cannot be understood because they represent technologies of the future.
It will give us some sense of what our future might be like, but it would look like a miracle.
And it will fill us with a sense of awe, just like in religion, but based on evidence collected by instruments.
That's the distinction.
So for you, you said you're a curious kid from a farm, right?
Right.
It's kind of what you said.
But there's a lot of things to be curious about, right?
You can be curious about, you know, military history of, you know, leadership.
There's a lot of things to be curious.
You could have gone being a theologian.
You know, there's a lot of topics.
Why this topic?
How did you get all obsessed about this?
Because it's the most important question.
If there is a discovery of a neighbor in our cosmic backyard, it would change everything for humanity.
It will be the biggest discovery that humanity ever made.
The situation is similar to being in a family that is isolated and you go out to the backyard and you find a tennis ball thrown by a neighbor.
That will change everything.
If you come back to your family and say, we actually have a neighbor, because then your family members might decide to close off the curtains to maintain their privacy or might decide to go out and speak to the neighbor and they might actually learn something new.
And for us, finding More advanced technological civilization, more intelligent than we are because they spent more than one century.
We just had one century of science and technology.
Just think about it.
A century ago, we discovered quantum mechanics.
The way we are speaking right now is all based on quantum mechanics.
All these electronic gadgets are quantum.
And we just discovered it a century ago.
That's nothing in cosmic history.
So another civilization could have had thousands of years, millions of years, or even billions of years of technological advance.
And that, you know, would look like a miracle to us because now we are developing chat GPT and AI that starts to look like an alien intelligence to us.
But think about it, you know, decades from now or centuries from now, it would be unrecognizable.
So what I'm saying is we have an opportunity to get a glimpse at our future because others already went through it.
And if they sent a package to our doorstep before we sent the package to their doorstep, which is definitely the case, we didn't have any gadget leaving the solar system so far, then we could learn from them.
It's an opportunity.
It's not a threat.
Many people worry about the threat.
Even Stephen Hawking talked about it.
I see it as an opportunity to learn because for them, we would be just like a colony of ants on the pavement looking at a biker passing by.
You know, the biker doesn't really care about those ants.
For us, it's an opportunity to learn how the biker operates the bicycle, you know, and moves so fast.
And so I see that as an event, I mean, this discovery is an event that will change the future of humanity, will inspire us to change our priorities.
For example, now we spend $2 trillion every year on military budgets, which is basically, you know, either trying to kill adversaries or worry, you know, trying to protect yourself from them.
And, you know, that's a destructive activity.
It's not a sign of intelligence because it's derived from our history as animals where we had limited resources and that we were engaged in zero-sum games, where if someone gets food, another does not.
But if you think about it, there is space out there, much more real estate available to us than on the two-dimensional surface of this rock that we were born on.
And basically, you know, it's a very abundant resource, a huge amount of space.
You know, you can learn from other civilizations that preceded us by billions of years.
There is a lot to do out there, and we don't pay attention to it.
And the wake-up call may come from figuring out that there are gadgets arriving to our doorstep, and we should examine them.
And only over the past decade, I should say, the reason I got into it, you know, I was working on black holes, on how the universe started, the first stars.
I was entrenched in the standard studies of cosmology and astronomy.
But then over the past decade, the first objects from outside the solar system were discovered because we, for the first time, had instruments that can see them.
It includes US government satellites that were not available more than a decade ago, and also some survey telescopes of astronomers.
And given the fact that the first two objects that we recognize, and we can talk more about them, the first was actually a meteor from 2014, the second was Oumuamua from 2017.
The first two appeared weird.
They didn't look like rocks that we are familiar with.
And in fact, my colleagues in academia still insist, you know, like a month ago, there was a paper published in the astrophysical journal saying that the meteor should be a stone because otherwise those astronomers cannot fit the data from the US government with their model for stones.
And it should be a stone and therefore the US government, the US Space Command, got it wrong.
The speed of this object must be three times smaller than reported.
And I call that the stone age of science, where everything in the sky must be stones.
And it's basically diminishing the opportunity to learn something new.
And so I use the discovery of these two objects, the meteor and Omuamua, as a learning experience, as an opportunity for us to recalculate where we are and study them in more detail.
And I actually went to the Pacific Ocean a couple of months ago.
We can talk about it.
Yeah, I definitely want to do.
The question I want to ask you is the following.
We're going to go through Omuamua, meteor.
We're going to go through some of these things.
So what do you think is more important for us to explore?
You know how in life we're always more curious about studying presidents or studying successful leaders or athletes, but we don't study ourselves that much.
We're always about focus on other people.
And then life ends, you're like, who was I?
I don't know.
What was I doing here?
We kind of wasted our life studying other people.
Exactly.
Do you think it's more important for us to study space or where we currently live?
Meaning, you know, I did a survey yesterday.
I said, which should we explore more, the outer space or the oceans?
65%, according to 20,470 votes, said the ocean.
35% said outer space.
We don't know the, you know, investigating what's in our core, the whole Richard E. Byrd, you know, the Admiral with the hollow Earth, what's inside, is there living going on?
So why not spend more time here?
Why spend more time on space?
Well, we can do both.
In fact, what I did in the Pacific Ocean was to use microscopes to figure out what's outside the solar system.
We can talk more about it.
It's a new method in astronomy, never attempted before, because this was, this meteor was the first recognized object bigger than half a meter that came from outside the solar system, the first one.
And by finding the relics from it at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, we could study what lies outside the solar system.
So it's not a contradiction.
You can study both.
And in fact, the oceans are very good museums of things that fell on Earth because not much is happening at the bottom of the ocean more than a mile deep.
And I should say that it's about time for us to change priorities because we can have a better role model than our politicians, than our entertainers.
And that would be a more advanced extraterrestrial technological civilization, which would be a smarter kid on our block that we can learn from.
You know, both my daughters that are now older, but when they were young, they were at home and they thought the world centers on them.
Until I took them to the kindergarten on the first day, they had a psychological shock because suddenly they saw a smarter kid.
But the way I saw it is an opportunity for them to evolve, to develop, to be better.
And that's what we should do.
Of course, there is a resistance because we want to believe that we are at the center of the universe.
That's what we believe for thousands of years.
You see that in religions.
And until Copernicus and Galileo realized that actually we are not.
The Earth moves around the Sun.
And of course, Galileo was put in house arrest because, and today he would have been cancelled on social media because the church and theologians did not want him to be heard with this view for political reasons.
They wanted people to believe that they are really being looked at by God and they are at the center.
But we now know from space missions that we would never reach Mars if we believe that Mars moves around the Earth.
I mean, we would never do that.
So we know that the Earth is not at the center.
We also know that humans, the human species, started a few million years ago on Earth, which is just one part in 10,000 of the age of the universe.
So you just think about the cosmic play.
We arrived to the cosmic play at the end, near the end, and we are not at the center of stage.
That means that the play is not about us.
And we better seek other actors that were around for a longer time to figure out what the play is about.
We keep thinking that we are central, that everyone looks at us.
No.
In fact, it's our duty to search for them.
People say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All my colleagues in academia say that.
But they are not seeking the evidence.
That's the main point.
They are not engaged in the search for packages that arrive to us from other civilizations.
I say extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary funding.
You need to engage in the search.
And we haven't done that.
We've been looking for radio signals for 70 years.
It's just like waiting for a phone call.
It all started with Enrico Fermi asking, where is everybody?
Which is very pretentious.
Because if you think about it, it's like staying at home and saying, I don't have a partner.
Nobody's standing next to me.
But to find a partner, you need to go to dating sites.
You need to look through your windows.
And you need to at least go out to the backyard to see if there are any objects that arrived from someone.
And we haven't done that until the last decade.
And Elon Musk, for example, made a statement recently where he said, you know, I'm the space guy.
I know things about space.
And if we had evidence for aliens, I would know about it.
Well, guess what?
Elon Musk knows about, you know, the region around the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
Okay, that's what he's focused on, going to Mars and so forth.
This is one part in a quadrillion of the size of the universe, one part in 10 to the 15.
The situation is similar to an ant surveying the head of a pin and making a statement about the most distant planet in the solar system.
That's the range of scales.
That would be a very presumptuous ant.
That's what I say about Elon Musk.
He's a very presumptuous ant.
You think so?
Yes.
So you're saying it's arrogant to think one would know if there are aliens out there or not.
Yes, I do think without seeking.
The point is, you know, we don't know what most of them matter in the universe.
Maybe he knows, maybe...
No, he pretends that...
Maybe aliens use Twitter and they tweet stuff out and we don't know about it.
They've asked him to please not tell anybody.
And these are probably illegal aliens, but, but we're talking different kinds of aliens.
Yes, yes.
But what I'm saying is you need to engage in the search before you find something of value.
And people are just talking without doing the search.
And moreover, the search is being ridiculed.
There is a pushback.
I went to the Pacific Ocean.
And some of my colleagues say, why waste the money?
Why waste the time?
You know, you have very little chance of finding anything.
You're looking for tiny droplets from the surface of the object that melted off when it was exposed to the immense heat from the fireball that it generated.
in the atmosphere.
You know, across a region of 10 kilometers in size, a depth of two kilometers, you have no chance of finding it.
And I said, sit back and relax.
I'm not asking you to do anything.
I'm doing the heavy lifting, not taking money from your dark matter research.
And just wait.
If I don't find anything, you can say, I didn't expect you to find anything.
You know, we don't know what most of the matter in the universe is.
83% of it is called dark matter.
It's a substance that we've never witnessed in the solar system.
So we clearly know that what we find in the solar system does not represent the universe.
83% of the matter is something else.
If these astronomers that claim that the first meteor must have been stone, if they saw the data on dark matter, they would say the data must be wrong because I cannot fit it with stones.
And I would say, of course you can't fit it with stones because it's something else.
And the same is true about this meteor.
They cannot fit it with a stone because it could be a Voyager-like spacecraft that has material strength much larger than all the space rocks previously identified by NASA over the past decade, 272 of them.
We did the calculation.
Based on the data from the U.S. government, the U.S. Space Command, we found that it's tougher than all rocks, including iron meteorites.
And moreover, we calculated that its speed outside the solar system, it was not bound to the sun, and its speed was higher than 95% of all the stars in the vicinity of the solar system.
So it could have been a spacecraft.
And claiming that you cannot fit it with a stone and therefore the U.S. Space Command, which, by the way, is the organization that receives more funding than NASA and is supposed to tell the President of the United States if there are ballistic missiles aiming at us, the astronomers just a month ago claim they don't know what they are talking about.
By a factor of three, which is huge, they would report to Mexico about a ballistic missile when it's going to hit Washington, D.C., if that was correct, if they can't figure it out to within a factor of three.
And I say, now we can sleep better at night because I went to the Pacific Ocean, guided by the data from the U.S. Space Command, and I found something.
Okay?
So despite the ridicule by these astronomers, I confirmed that indeed the U.S. government knows what it's talking about, and I sleep better at night.
Otherwise, I would worry about ballistic missiles.
So, you know, you've seen the Bob Lazar documentary.
I'm sure you have.
I don't know if you have or not.
So on the Bob Lazar documentary, one of the things when you watch him, I'm watching for a sensationalism, right?
Like, you know, somebody that's very much about selling and all this stuff.
I don't get any vibe from him that he's selling anything.
That doesn't mean that he's right.
It doesn't mean he's right or wrong.
I just don't get a feeling from him that he's selling anything.
And then you see where he's like, no, I was there.
You know, he worked at, I think it's S4.
I don't know which one it was, right outside of Area 51, not in Area 51.
He thought he worked outside of Area 51.
And he said he saw stuff and he worked on things.
And he, you know, whether he built them up or took them apart and then put them back up together, he felt an obligation that the people needed to know.
And he's always been afraid to do interviews by himself.
He wants to have somebody else there.
He doesn't, at first he didn't want to be on camera.
It was just a basic interview that he did.
And he's gotten a bunch of criticism his entire life.
He doesn't want to talk about it.
They did another documentary in 2019.
Why do you think if we, as taxpayers, if we fund NASA, if we fund all of these projects that they're spending money on, right?
It's our money.
Like, if I gave money to, you know, if you gave me money for me to go build a house, it's easy for you.
You have the responsibility to ask me, Pat, where are we at with this project?
What's left before the house is built?
How many bedrooms?
Are we done with the pool?
Are we done with the, and I have to give you the report back because it's your money to me, right?
This relationship is honest, but why do you think the relationship where we fund these things with our money, yet they keep secret of the things that we funded?
Do you think it's the right thing to do for the government to keep those things away from us to say, you guys are too low-level people to know this kind of stuff?
It's not good for you.
Let us kind of know about it because if you knew, it's a danger to society.
Or do you think we are obligated to know?
We are obligated to know.
I think it's completely inappropriate.
If you go out and find evidence for a neighbor, you have to tell your family members about it.
And, you know, it's scientific knowledge that should be shared by all humans has nothing to do with national security because if this whatever material came from thousands of light years away, you know, it may have taken millions or billions of years for it to arrive here.
We were not around at that time.
There were no nations.
The way we split the land on this rock that we call Earth is completely irrelevant.
Now, you may say, okay, well, maybe the U.S. government wants to take advantage of some knowledge that adversaries do not have.
And in that case, it might delegate those materials to corporations.
And then the corporations will have an interest, just like a psychiatrist that has a patient.
The psychiatrist will never solve the problem of the patient.
Why?
Because once the problem is solved, the psychiatrist will not get paid.
So, in the same way, if a corporation gets access to some materials, they will never figure out exactly how to use it or what, as long as they get paid by the Department of Defense.
And that may be the relationship that has been around for decades.
Now, I don't know if that's the case or not.
The latest incarnation, forget about Bob Lazar, let's think about the future.
David Grush testified in the House of Representatives just a couple of weeks ago and said that the U.S. government has programs for retrieval and reverse engineering of alien spacecraft that were collected over the past few decades.
And the good news is that he promised to give representatives, congress people, the names of contact people who were engaged in those programs.
He said that he spoke with 40 of them.
Now, it could be that this story is fabricated.
We don't know because he didn't have access to the evidence himself.
But now we have a way to resolve it because these congress people can go down the rabbit hole, reach those people, and we might learn more in the coming months.
If within a year we don't hear anything, that means that it was probably fabricated.
But there is a way moving forward.
With Lazar, there was no way for us to figure it out now.
But with Grash, given the information that hopefully he provided the Congress, we can move forward and within a year figure out.
I say, I don't know if we will learn about what lies outside the solar system first from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean or from politicians in Washington, D.C.
But the sky is not classified.
The oceans are not classified.
Therefore, we can just figure it out ourselves.
We don't need the government to tell us.
You know, people ask the government to disclose information.
The thing is, it's hidden behind the veil of national security.
The argument of the government is some of this data is a matter of national security, therefore we keep it classified.
I say, keep it classified.
I don't care about it.
As a scientist, I can collect the evidence.
The problem is, until recently, scientists or academia was ridiculing this subject such that nobody actually took it seriously enough to engage in a research project.
And, you know, I'm the head of the Galileo project, where we built actually a functioning observatory at Harvard University, monitoring the sky 24-7 in the infrared, optical, radio, and audio, and analyzing the data with machine learning software.
And this is the first observatory.
We plan to make multiple copies of it, put them in many locations.
Hopefully, we'll have the funding we need, which is only tens of millions of dollars to do this, to get to the bottom of these unidentified anomalous phenomena that the director of national intelligence reported to Congress about two years ago.
That's when I established the Galileo project.
And, you know, there was a second report a year ago.
And there is a new office in the Pentagon to look into that.
And the point is, the government is not a scientific organization.
So if there is something from beyond this Earth, it should be scientists that explore it, where the data is shared with the public.
We don't have to ask the government who is engaged in their day job in national security.
We don't have to ask them to release anything because the sky is not classified.
Why don't we figure it out?
Got it.
So you're putting it on.
Okay.
So who has done a better job making advancement on learning?
Is it the government?
Is it universities?
Or is it private companies?
Universities did not engage in this subject until we established the Galileo project.
And now, as part of the Galileo project, we went to the Pacific Ocean to retrieve fragments of the first interstellar object.
We are having, we are constructing these observatories that will give us data in the coming years.
Corporations were never into that unless the Department of Defense authorized them, asked them, gave them materials that they found.
And by the way, the government is the first to notice something unusual in the sky because that's their day job to look for ballistic missiles, for national security threats, for espionage.
You know, they shut down the balloon from China.
So they have to monitor the sky and they would be first to notice it.
Astronomers will not notice it because astronomers focus on very distant sources at the edge of the universe or our galaxy.
And they look at a small portion of the sky.
If a bird flies overhead, astronomers ignore it.
So we had to build a new type of observatory, never done before, within the Galileo project.
And now we can duplicate it, make more of it if we get the funding.
We really need 10 times more funding.
We have just a few million dollars.
Do the three, does private universities and the government work together?
Or is it kind of like, you know how you see in movies, you know, PD is trying to handle and an FBI comes in and says, don't worry about it, step down, we got it from here.
And they kind of don't like each other, right?
Do you guys work collectively together or no?
It's all separate.
Well, the interest from government, the public interest, this office in the Pentagon was established just a year ago.
So it's new.
And I had visits to my home.
They didn't ask me to go to Washington, D.C.
They came to my home of members of that office to see what we do in the Galileo project.
And I really see the two efforts as complementary because they are supposed to worry about whether it's China or Russia that are producing these gadgets that they cannot identify in the sky.
I mean, they identify 97%, but there are a few percent of the objects that they cannot figure out.
That's according to the director of that new office in the Pentagon.
And of course, if they belong to adversaries, that's their day job.
But if it's from outside of this earth, that's my day job.
As a scientist, I want to figure out what it means.
And so I'm looking for one in a thousand, one in a, you know, in a large number of objects.
It's probably a mixed bag.
A lot of them are balloons.
There are balloons everywhere.
When you hear about UFO reports or unidentified anomalous phenomena, most of them are probably balloons because they are correlated.
The number of reports is clearly correlated with population density.
So more people that are looking at the sky, the more reports you have.
And most of them are just mundane things.
But scientifically, we can figure out whether there is a small minority of those, which might be really unusual.
Yeah.
Were you going to say something, Tom?
Not on that point, no.
Okay.
So, you know, even John Podesta said in 2002, right, it's time to find out the truth really is that's out there.
We ought to do it really because it's right.
We ought to do it, quite frankly, because the American people can handle the truth and we ought to do it because it's the law, right?
Even he said it's the law.
And it's the civil obligation of scientists, you know, if the government is interested, as we know now, the Congress is discussing it, you know, openly.
And the public is extremely interested.
Two-thirds of Americans believe in extraterrestrial intelligence.
Two-thirds, that's more than the fraction that believes in God, the biblical God.
So clearly, there is a huge interest in the public, a huge interest in government right now.
I think, you know, there is no way that this subject should not become mainstream in science.
The only place that is hostile to such study is academia.
And you ask yourself, how is that possible?
Because academia is supposed to be about blue sky, research, you know, about evidence.
So if we hear about anomalies, about objects that we cannot explain easily, then scientists should be thrilled at the opportunity to learn something new.
Instead, I can tell you that when there was a colloquium about Omuamua, this strange object that was discovered 2017 at Harvard, when I left the room, a colleague of mine that worked on rocks for decades, he said, Omu'amua is so weird, I wish it never existed.
That's exactly the opposite of what a scientist should say.
A scientist should say, Omuamua is so weird, let's study objects like it in more detail so we can figure it out.
The childhood curiosity, we lose it when we become the adults in the room.
And that's very bad if academia is dominated by people pretending to be the adults in the room.
What's weird about it?
What's weird, that this question...
No, what's weird about Oumuamua, because...
Because I've seen a bunch of different things, how it travels, the speed, how big it is, the size of Noah's Ark, all the stuff you read.
But what's weird about it?
Right.
So, well, first of all, the reason I was intrigued is because a decade before it was discovered, I wrote the first paper that forecasted how many objects as big as a football field should be observed by this telescope in Hawaii.
And we predicted nothing.
Not only nothing, the chance is less than a percent for it to see anything.
Then it was discovered because it came close to Earth.
It was not discovered because it was interstellar.
That was not the reason.
It just came close to Earth within a sixth of the Earth-Sun separation.
And they flagged it in Hawaii as a near-Earth object that is worth their attention because the entire survey was geared around finding objects that can threaten humanity.
You know, if they collide with Earth, there would be a huge devastation.
You know, we know the dinosaurs died 66 million years ago.
We are smarter than they are.
We have telescopes.
They didn't look up and they died.
So humans have a better future because we can alert ourselves.
So there was this telescope looking and then this object was found.
That was a surprise to me.
We didn't expect rocks based on what we know about the solar system coming from other stars.
So I said, what is this?
And then the people who discovered Omumo started reporting about unusual properties of it.
Even in the first discovery paper, it was said that it's most likely flat in its shape, which is quite unusual and has a very extreme shape because the amount of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of 10 as it was tumbling.
And that's unusual.
At most you see a factor of three when you have an elongated object.
But here, just think about a piece of paper tumbling in the wind and the chance of it lining up with your view such that you see just the thin, you know, like razor thin edge of it is very small.
So most if you see a variation by a factor of 10 in the area projected on the sky, that means it's really thin.
It's very unusual.
And so that was the first thing that was unusual about it.
And then it was pushed away from the sun by some mysterious force without showing any cometary evaporation, no rocket effect to push it.
The question is, what was pushing it?
And, you know, the only thing I could think of, given that there was no gas or dust evaporated from it, and you really needed 10% of the mass of the object to get evaporated in order to push it by a strong enough force, the way we see in comets, there was clearly no such gas that we are familiar with in the case of comets.
So I said, maybe it's just the reflection of sunlight, which is pushing it.
And for that, the object had to be very thin, like a sail, or like a surface of a spaceship that was ripped apart, and you just see the surface being pushed by reflecting sunlight.
And amazingly, three years later, in September 2020, there was another object discovered by the same telescope in Hawaii called 2020 SO.
It was also pushed by reflection of sunlight.
That was verified.
And moreover, had no cometary evaporation.
And after a few weeks, the astronomers said, oh, this one is actually a rocket booster that NASA launched in 1966.
It's just the shell of a lunar mission.
And because of that, it had a very thin wall and a large surface area.
Who are you saying this?
Who's saying that that's what it is?
Oh, the same astronomers that discovered Omuamua.
And the point is, there was never a paper written about it.
But here is an example of a technological object showing the same qualitative behavior of Omuamua.
We know it's technological because we produced it.
The question is, who produced Omuamua?
So who did?
I don't know because the astronomers after you know had very limited data collected, I just said let's leave it on the table.
It looked so weird, let's leave it on the table as a possibility that it's technological in origin.
And at first, I should say the paper that I submitted for publication in the astrophysical journal was accepted within three days for publication.
The referee said, yes, this possibility makes a lot of sense because we realized the object is flat and it may be a light sail.
And everyone was supportive until a few days later, where I had a television cruise at the doorstep of my home, you know, asking me, do you think we are not alone?
And then I flew to Germany that day to a conference in Berlin, The Falling Walls.
And when I arrived there, my inbox was full of messages from good morning, America, to all kinds.
And they arranged at that conference a special room for all the reporters that wanted to speak with me, including an Italian reporter who shouted from the back of the room, do you think that you're Galileo?
And I said, I'm not thinking I'm anything.
I'm just a farm boy.
I'm just saying this object looks weird.
We should study objects like it in the future.
It could be technological.
That's all I said.
And then, once the media got a lot of attention of this, my colleagues changed direction.
They started to push back.
And as of now, they are attacking me personally.
There was a New York Times article where you can see some comments.
One of them says, you know, we are sick of Avi Loeb's wild speculation.
And I say, why are you sick?
I just, I wish you will be healthy and prosperous.
I don't want you to be sick.
I am going after evidence.
I cannot go after evidence regarding Omuamua because it's far away now.
We can't study it.
I discovered another object, this meteor from 2014 that the US government found and it was interstellar in origin.
The US Space Command confirmed it in an official letter to NASA at the 99.999% that it came from outside the solar system.
So the US Department of Defense came to my defense and they took time out of their day job and said for the benefit of science, we confirm this.
And as a result, I organized an expedition to go there to the meteor path and collect any materials left from it.
So I'm just trying to get as much evidence as possible.
This is the scientific method.
Why would anyone be sick of checking the evidence?
The only way I can think of explaining it is that those people who pretend to be a scientist are actually opposed to the method of science as revealing new knowledge because they have a huge investment in past knowledge.
They interpret everything in the sky as rocks.
And as a result, if someone says, oh, maybe it's not a rock, they go crazy.
Is it like the risk of being wrong of what they've had, predisposition beliefs that they've collectively bought into and they kind of have a hard time stepping away from it?
Yeah, but think about it.
We are talking about science where I'm trying to collect evidence and people are opposed and call it a wild speculation.
This is not a, it's a possibility that I'm trying to figure out by collecting evidence.
That's exactly the scientific method.
I worked in cosmology where we don't know the dark matter.
And for, you know, 90 years, we haven't figured out what dark matter is.
There were billions of dollars invested in experiments.
The most recent is the Large Hadron Collider that looked for supersymmetry.
The dark matter may be some particle with a new symmetry of nature.
Everyone said, yeah, that should be it.
And $10 billion were put in the Large Hadron Collider, part of the mainstream of physics.
And we looked for it.
We didn't find it.
Nobody says that was a wild speculation.
It was a mistake to invest $10 billion in the Large Hadron Collider, because that's the way science is done.
$10 billion in that.
Exactly.
We haven't found the dark matter yet.
I say that is the way science is done.
You have an idea about what the dark matter is.
You go and search for it.
It costs money.
If you say it's an extraordinary claim, therefore, you know, I don't want to engage in it because it needs extraordinary evidence.
Nobody said that about supersymmetry, that it's an extraordinary.
Why?
Because there was a contingency of people saying, oh, that's very natural.
Let's go and see.
And people got awards.
I can tell you a story.
I went to breakfast half a year ago where I sat next to a string theorist, a very accomplished one, and that is celebrated as the frontiers of physics, even though they work on extra dimensions that we don't have any experimental evidence for.
For several decades, these people, the theoretical physics community, is working on ideas related to dimensions beyond the three that we are familiar with.
But there is no evidence for it.
Nobody says that's a wild speculation.
I'm sick of it.
Nobody says that.
People say, okay, well, that's mathematical gymnastics.
It's beautiful to see.
We might find it in a century from now.
And they celebrate it.
You know, Neil deGrasse-Tyson, Brian Green, they all say it's the frontier of physics, even though physics is supposed to be guided by experimental evidence.
But there is this whole community of mainstream physicists working on something that was never tested experimentally and doesn't have a chance of being tested in our lifetime.
And they don't have any problem with that.
That's perfectly fine.
But my point is that at the same time that this happens in the mainstream of physics, there is pushback and ridicule in studying, looking for evidence of real things that we observe in the sky, trying to figure them out, which is the tradition of physics, guided by anomalies.
Let's figure them out.
If we find that we have a simple explanation by collecting the evidence, we will move on, forget about it.
But let's collect the evidence.
If for 90 years we will invest billions of dollars and not find anything, we will be exactly at the same point as dark matter searches are right now.
But so far, no federal funding was given to the search for objects, scientific search for objects, that could be technological from outside the solar system, near Earth.
Because you have thinking by committees, committees of mainstream scientists who were engaged for decades in arguing that everything in the sky is rocks, everything is stones, the stone age of science.
You keep going back to that.
Tom, were you going to say something?
Yeah, there's two things that you're pointing out here.
And the first is, okay, what is this dark matter?
So meteor comes down here, something comes through the sky.
Let's call it it.
Meteor.
And you say, hey, people just keep saying it's rocks.
So you have the substance.
So the first thing is you want to have more research on these substances, dark matter.
You went to the Pacific Ocean, you found some of them.
And you found particulates.
Okay, so that's one side.
There are shooting stars, things landing on the planet all the time from space, and could be metals that we just don't know yet, right?
You know, a new entry to the table of elements in this dark matter, that's what you're trying to figure out.
Well, I should say most of the objects that collide with Earth are just rocks left over from the construction of the planets in the solar system.
So they are just rocks that were left behind.
Sure, but you're saying this part.
This one is dark matter is different.
It's a metal.
It's different.
No, no, no.
The dark matter, we don't know what it is, but the meteor that we saw, I mean, the dark matter is not visible.
It doesn't interact with light.
We cannot really figure it out for many decades.
What I'm talking about is a meteor that could have been a spacecraft.
Think of it as Voyager, the spacecraft that we launched.
Sure, and we put it in the middle.
Colliding with another planet.
That's right.
They're talking about 1977, Voyager 1, and we put an image of a man and we put some symbols on the side of it.
Yeah, but imagine it colliding with a planet somewhere.
In a billion years, it would look like a meteor.
Well, we're talking about the same thing, Voyager, 1977, and then we put the one up there with the two gold records, right?
Yes.
Yep.
And, you know, we got messages back from space.
They said, send more Chuck Berry.
So the interesting thing that was about, because there was Chuck Berry's song that was actually on there.
So I'm waiting for the first thing to be, we need more.
I'm not very proud of the music that was put on the website.
By the way, I always like the most recent music.
And I think we can do much better if we were to send a golden record right now.
Well, you know, we're light years away.
Anything we send now is old when it gets there, right?
So number one, you want to find out, could this have been advanced metal, advanced spaceship, whatever it is, or particles?
Because it could be anything.
The second part of this is the notion of these elements.
As you pointed out, I had read that 90% of visual of just people and space patrols and all these other people that work for the government are saying, hey, 90% of what people see think is UFO is ultimately explainable by something.
Could be a balloon, could be whatever.
And you're saying 97% of the items people think they see, there's just 3% that needs this investigation and research.
So we're on the same path there, that the majority of what people see is natural, but there's this little subset out there.
And of that subset, and so I want your opinion on, there are five observables that everybody seems to agree with that are confusing to us.
One, anti-gravity activity.
Two, sudden and instantaneous propulsion.
Three, hypersonic without heat, vapor, or sonic booms, right?
So there's no natural physics occurring with the hypersonic speed.
Low observability.
The closer we get to it, we don't get to see it because it maneuvers away or something.
Pilots are saying that.
And then finally, transmedium, that it dives into the ocean or it's even dived into Earth without any visible disruption.
It just moves mediums.
What do you think about that part of it?
Because I understand, hey, these particles, I'll call them metals, the dark matter, these metals.
You want to know what they are.
They could be a spaceship.
They could be whatever.
But please don't call them rocks because I think it's something else.
That's your first point.
What do you think about the second part?
Right.
With these observables like of what they saw in Hawaii.
Well, two things.
When you consider objects flying in between stars, there are two types of objects.
One would be space trash, just like plastics collecting in the ocean.
Sure, and that's what was there.
It was confirmed that it was part of a booster from a rocket that had launched decades ago, going around in space, and finally came back down.
Even Voyager will become space trash because it will exit the solar system in 10,000 years.
Okay, that's the time it will take it to leave the Earth cloud, which is at the periphery, the outskirts of the solar system.
So in 10,000 years, Voyager will not be functional anymore.
It will be trash.
We pollute interstellar space with trash.
And other civilizations could have done that for billions of years.
The point is these objects that are the trash, the plastics in the ocean of space, they keep collecting over time because they are bound by gravity to the Milky Way.
They cannot escape.
They move too slowly.
So they keep accumulating and you might find some of this trash in your backyard.
These will not be functional devices.
They will collide with Earth and burn up as a meteor.
Okay, so that's one type of object.
However, the anomalous...
I get that.
What I'm asking about is...
I know, I know.
So now I'm getting to your point.
There is another class of objects, which is functional, okay?
That, at least according to military personnel, they see objects that they can't figure out, which are moving in strange ways, the way you described it, going into water, coming into...
These are of a different type.
These were...
If they originated from outside of this Earth, they must have traveled the distance and arrived here.
Now, why would they go underwater?
One simple example is water could be fuel.
It could be the nutrient of a technological gadget, because if you break, for example, the water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen, both oxygen and hydrogen can be used as fuel.
Okay, so that could be one reason.
But of course, what we can imagine is based on our knowledge of science right now, these may represent things that we don't fully understand.
As I said before, it would be awe-inspiring for us to figure it out what these technologies mean.
But the first thing to do is really simple.
We don't need to guess what it is.
What we need to do is verify that what we are looking at is not familiar objects.
It's not birds.
It's not drones.
It's not balloons.
It's 33% you're talking about.
Yeah.
No, no, but the 3% is not known.
It's unidentified.
What I'm saying is let's identify.
Let's get more data.
Let's get more data on it such that we can clearly see that it's a technological object that has screws and bolts and maybe even has a label made on exoplanet Y and it has buttons on it, clearly technological, not a bird, not a balloon.
And moreover, it maneuvers in ways that our technologies cannot reproduce.
Let's verify that.
Now, the government says we have data to that effect.
That's why the Congress is discussing it.
I haven't seen that data because it's classified.
That's what we were discussing with Patrick.
And my point is it should be made available to scientists like myself so we can make sense of it.
I think there should be a partnership between scientists and government on this issue.
And I strongly advocate for the government to share whatever information they have because it's not a matter of national security.
If you can verify that it's not Chinese or Russian, maybe they have that data.
It's not publicly available for me to look at.
I really want it.
But if the government decides to keep hiding it, I have a plan B, which is to collect the data myself.
So your questions are excellent, but we, I think at first, just need to make sure that these objects are not familiar, that they have a nature that is completely beyond what we know here on Earth.
They might be packages that arrive to our doorstep from a sender.
If we read the postal address of the sender, we will realize that it's actually from beyond the solar system.
So, okay, you're an author, you're a deep thinker, you're a professor.
What do you suspect of those observables?
Because I didn't make this list of observables up.
This is the list that everybody looks at when they talk about what pilots that are not intoxicated, and you're talking about people that are credible witnesses, pilots, commercial pilots, people like this, scientists on Earth.
Of that 3%, when you see these things, what do you suspect today?
Because if I ask you what you know, you're going to tell me, take me down the same path you just did there, which I respect because it's a path of scientific suspicions, scientific hypothesis, H1HO, and you got to get there and figure out where you are.
I get it.
What do you suspect about the things that seem to defy earthly physics?
Well, it doesn't defy because it's all based on people telling you something.
If I had the data, the raw data that substantiates all of these claims, I could tell you what it means.
But some people...
We have some data.
You have no tracking that was done by the science.
No, there is no convincing data that I'm aware of that beyond any reasonable doubt shows that it's something beyond of this earth about unidentified anomalous phenomena.
And moreover, the data that is available was collected by cameras that were in cockpits, that were jittery.
We don't have full control over the instruments that collected that data.
What I want is high-quality data.
And if the government has it, perhaps they have it from satellites.
As the former director of national intelligence hinted, Ratcliffe, he said that there is satellite data.
We haven't seen it.
It's possible that such data exists because the head of NASA, Bill Nelson, said publicly on CNN a couple of years ago, he said that the hair in the back of his neck stood up when as a senator he saw this data.
I don't know how frequently the hair in the back of Bill Nelson's neck stands up.
I don't know that because he's not a friend of mine.
But that's a very interesting statement.
It means scientists should engage.
And that's what Bill Nelson wanted.
And a day after he said that, I wrote to NASA and said that I'm happy to make their boss happy.
I'm happy to help them.
I sent a white paper.
They established a study as a result of that white paper.
They've never come back to me.
In the meantime, I established the Galileo project because I don't have the patience for government, the bureaucracy of government, to resolve this matter.
You know, as a kid, you want to figure out the answer yourself, not to rely on the, you know, the adults in the room.
That's the most devastating experience I had.
What was the question, though?
As a kid, what question, like, this whole journey started with wanting to know what?
Like, did you want to know if aliens existed?
No.
I was interested in philosophical questions.
I was interested in even simple questions.
And when I raised it at the dinner table, the adults in the room, when I was a kid, would pretend that they know much more.
Or if they didn't know, they would dismiss the question.
So I said to myself, that's very frustrating.
They are fooling me.
I want to figure it out myself.
And the best way to figure it out is through science, okay?
But what I realize now, when I'm 61 years old, after decades of scientific work, that the experience is very similar with scientists, with colleagues who have a prejudice, think they know the answer in advance, are not seeking the evidence to guide them, and resist change.
That's the worst because it basically diminishes innovation.
Science is all about innovation, new knowledge.
And you should be intrigued.
You should be curious about that.
Instead, what you see is people worrying about their stature, you know, showing off as if they are.
It seems to be a trend with scientists.
It seems to be a trend with scientists fearing being wrong and eventually feeling like they're God.
Exactly.
Is that common?
Like they think they're God or they want to be God?
They want to look like it.
So I'll give you an example.
I know a couple guys, a guy named Tony.
I don't know if you know who he is, but go ahead.
You were saying that.
Yeah, thank goodness it didn't happen during COVID.
Go ahead.
You were saying.
Yeah, so when I went to the expedition, I wrote 43 diary reports on medium.com and they received instantly millions of readers.
They were translated to Spanish.
When I came back from the expedition, my colleagues, many of them, basically pushed back and said, how dare you write about the scientific project before you published a scientific paper with your results?
And I said, well, look, the reason that the public thinks about science as an occupation of the elite is because it's a self-inflicted wound.
The scientists say we need to tell the public what the answer is in press conferences after we know it for sure.
We will never expose the uncertainties, the mistakes we make along the way.
But I say, let's show the public that doing science is like a detective story.
You know, you don't know the answer.
You make mistakes.
But once the evidence is clear enough, the public believes you because the public loves detective stories.
And by the way, I had emails from fans during the expedition saying one of them had a stroke a few weeks earlier.
I said, watching the scientific process, the way you describe it while making mistakes, trying to figure it out, gave me a meaning to my life.
And, you know, that's very moving.
I connect to the public because I don't regard myself as any different than the public.
You know, I had a plumber come to my home to fix the sewer.
We had it clogged.
And I went with the plumber to the basement and I realized, oh, I never thought about the fact that the water in my home goes to some place outside the home.
And we figured out it's basically tree roots that clog it.
And that gave me an insight about black holes.
I then thought, okay, where is the matter that goes into a black hole?
Where does it go?
If it's clogged near the center, the matter will collect there and get to very high density, but eventually make an object there.
You know, that's a possibility.
We don't know what happens to it.
It may also go to another universe.
But I came to think about it because my sewer was clogged and I spent hours with the plumber.
To me, hours with a plumber are not less valuable than hours with my colleagues.
I don't see myself as any different than any other person.
I just want to figure out the reality that we live in.
Why?
Because we need to adapt to it.
If we are not at the center of the universe and we want to send rockets to Mars, you know, we need to know that.
So I just figured you out.
So as a kid, your dream was to be a plumber.
That's what it is.
Is that the feeling you're also getting?
No, no, I had plan B. If it didn't work out, you're going to be a plumber.
No, I went to Harvard as a junior faculty, and it was not clear at all that I will get tenure because the previous person who got tenure from within, you know, that happened 15 years earlier.
I had no concerns about it Because I had plan B Of going back to the farm That was really If it didn't work out for you If it didn't I You know I don't see science or academia as superior in any way to working on the farm.
It's just that I'm curious, so I think science can help me figure out things.
Yeah, so let me go through my basic selfish questions that I have.
Okay, we got 45 minutes left.
I just want to go through some of these things.
Is the moon landing real?
Yes.
You think it is?
Yeah.
How certain are you?
Because we have moon rocks.
You know, they brought back things.
Because we have moon rocks.
Yeah, that's the evidence.
Material evidence is beyond a doubt.
When you have it.
And by the way, the moon was a piece that was ripped off Earth as a result of a collision of a bigger object.
A long time.
Did you know that the Earth had eight hours in a day when it started?
It was spinning really fast.
And once the moon was chipped off, the spin of the earth was slowed down.
So now we have 24 hours.
Imagine that we had eight hours in a day.
You know, we wouldn't get much sleep, right?
No, we'd be sleeping two, three hours a day.
So you're certain we landed on the moon.
Have you ever looked at, is it Bart?
What's his last name?
Sebru?
Is that his name?
I think it's Bart.
If you look him up, let me properly tie it.
Yeah, Bart Sebral.
You ever heard his assumptions on what happened, that the whole thing was fake, they shot it, the shoe, you know, footprint doesn't match the bottom of the foot, you know, the shoe that they had on.
You don't, you haven't.
No, because there are micrometeorites that impact the moon all the time.
It has no atmosphere.
So everything on the surface keeps changing.
And by the way, just so that you know, on Mars, suppose there was a city on Mars, like, you know, like Fort Lottodale.
Suppose it existed a few billion years ago when Mars had an atmosphere, oceans and so forth.
There was a Fort Lottodale.
There would be no high-rise standing today because every square kilometer was bombarded by the equivalent of 20 Hiroshima atomic bombs as a result of impacts by asteroids.
So over billions of years, anything on the surface is demolished.
Even high-rises would not survive on Mars for 2 billion years.
Nothing.
Everything will, think about 20 Hiroshima bombs for every square kilometer.
Then the question becomes the following.
Okay, so do you think technology has advanced or technology has gotten worse in the last 60 years?
Oh, definitely.
So how is it that if we landed on the moon in 1960, what is it, 69, I believe we landed on the moon?
How come we haven't gone back?
That's politics for you.
That's the focus on what happens on Earth instead of looking up.
Politicians, I mean, you have to realize, JFK announced the moon mission because of Russia, the competition, and it was a political act, okay?
Once we demonstrated, the U.S. demonstrated it can do better than Russia, then priorities changed, okay?
And so the space exploration...
Priorities changed from the U.S. government.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, space exploration, if you think about it, was motivated either by national pride or nowadays with the U.S. Space Force, it's also national security because there is espionage from space looking down on Earth.
I mean, the Chinese want to go to the other side of the moon for national pride, but they also have national security reasons to go to space.
The third component that Elon Musk pioneered and is now dominating is revenue, making money out of space, which, you know, he puts a lot of communication satellites out there, makes a lot of money, that funds SpaceX.
You have these three, but these are the wrong motivations.
The actual motivation to go to space is curiosity.
You want to figure out what is out there, and we are not doing it.
And, you know, that's unfortunate because I think it's a sign of intelligence to send things out to space not because you make money out of it, not because you are bragging, showing off relative to other nations, and not because of national security.
I have a hard time believing that, and I'll tell you why.
Because on the competition side, right, you say China wants to go to the other side of the moon, right?
So, okay, U.S. politics totally understand.
But it's not like we're the only ones that's interested in the moon.
If it's so, if it's something that's doable, that technology from 69 pulled it off.
You mean to tell me out of, you know, however many countries that we have that aspire to go there, how come none of them, how come they're not doing it?
Well, it was not a priority politically, but the Artemis program of NASA illustrates, and that was started more than four years ago.
That shows you that we can do better than we did in the 60s now.
It's just a question of politics.
Do you see that as a way of showing off relative to other nations?
And only recently, because of the race with China, I mean, Russia is now, even though Putin just launched a spacecraft, you know, as a matter of national pride, because of China, now we are trying to go back to the moon.
And there are also commercial benefits to going back to the moon.
So it's all politics.
It's not curiosity-driven.
You think it's all politics?
Yes.
I have a hard time with that one.
I have a hard time with that one being all politics.
Let me go to another one too.
By the way, science is better than politics.
You know what the challenge is with scientists sometimes?
Scientists sometimes, especially those scientists who don't believe in God, my experience is secretly they aspire to one day be God.
I don't know why.
And I'm not saying all of them.
Some of them, they have this tendency of wanting to and maybe, maybe it's because they're spending so much time into their studies and they talk to others that are not at their levels of intelligence that eventually they start thinking, I know more than you do.
Just listen to me, trust me, everything's going to be all right.
That's very bad practice.
And the breaking news is that all of them die.
That's the breaking news.
Yeah.
So UFO sightings.
Why do UFO sightings, based on what you read about, tend to increase during times of war?
Oh, that's very simple.
Because there are lots of things flying in the air.
You know, there were astronomers in Ukraine that reported about seeing dark objects at a distance of maybe 10 miles that are the size of 10 meters and are moving at 15 kilometers per second, like 10 miles per second, not per hour per second.
And that's faster than the escape speed from the Earth.
Okay?
They were reporting about it.
They got it wrong.
The distance was, I think, wrong.
And because they would not be dark, such objects moving so fast would create a fireball, like a meteor.
So if you bring the distance down by a factor of 10 or 100, you end up with perhaps artillery shells, perhaps bullets, perhaps even flies, you know, passing in front of their camera.
There are many more flying things in a battlefield, and that's why you get confused.
So that's what I think is the reason.
Can I be extremely paranoid?
I want to be extremely paranoid.
I want your feedback on this.
So like this article here says, Ukraine's astronomers say there are tons of UFOs over Kiev, right?
Okay.
So to me, you know, if let's let's paint the government to be who we think it is, right?
They think you don't have to know everything.
They think they know what's best.
They think it's better you not know all the stuff about aliens.
Okay.
So there's two positioning here.
One is when you read about Richard Byrd, Admiral Richard Byrd, when he goes to Antarctica and these two, you know, whatever you want to call it, take control of the plane and they land and they say, look, our concern is right now, you know, too many of your Americans are, humans are playing with fire, with the nuclear bomb and all this other stuff.
This is a concern of ours.
What are you guys doing on the other side, right?
Is what he's talking about.
So the concern is they want to prevent, one argument is they want to prevent from war taking place because some of them live here.
They live in the crust or they live on the hollow side of Earth.
The other part for me is which is a paranoid way of thinking about it, is when there's war going on and there's a lot of issues going on politically, the best way to distract people is, hey, look, I just saw an alien while over here I'm robbing you or I'm taking stuff away from you.
So this is also a great tactic to distract people and start focused on aliens.
Which of those two do you think is more credible?
Oh, the second, but I do think that I have a problem with helicopter parenting.
Okay.
I don't think the aliens are helicopter parenting us.
That's unlikely because we are not that important.
We're not their kids.
At most, they can just ignore us.
But they started a journey to Earth before humans existed on Earth.
They didn't have us in mind.
We are not that significant.
You keep thinking that everything is centered on us.
You know, when you go out to a date, you keep thinking, oh, you are special, that everyone...
But then you realize after a time that, you know, you are not that special.
Okay?
And that's what I think our starting point should be.
It's a sign of arrogance of us to think there is nobody out there.
And if there is someone out there, they're really trying to fix something here on Earth to help us.
You know, I don't believe in helicopter parenting.
I believe in gadgets that may have been sent in our direction, possibly with artificial intelligence, but they pursue their goals.
Okay.
And we need to figure out what their goals are rather than assuming that it's about us.
We are not that significant.
Let's be modest.
The cosmic play is not about us.
So you think the UFO sighting increase could be a distraction from the government working on other things?
Yeah.
For example, the Ukrainian astronomers were able to identify the distance to one object that was very high, you know, like tens of kilometers, and that happens to be a satellite and probably a satellite that monitors what happens in the battlefield.
So obviously there are lots of drones, there are lots of satellites looking over this battlefield that many of us are not aware of.
You know, the U.S. government operates, of course, intelligence operations around this battlefield to help the Ukrainian people.
You know, that I'm sure is the case.
So the Ukrainians are not really aware, you know, citizens or even the military probably is not aware of everything going on.
And they would see things.
And of course, some people might say it's a UFO, but it's really, it's not an unidentified object.
It's an object that some people in Washington, D.C. know exactly what it is because, you know, they operate it.
Got it.
Okay.
So it's a sign of a, maybe a distraction.
Okay.
How much have you studied Richard Byrd, Admiral Byrd?
I didn't study.
Yeah, so you don't know what his theories are, that there's a potentially underground, you know, Antarctic people living in the hollow space of the inner side of Earth.
It's possible, but let's look for the evidence.
If he were to show conclusive evidence for that, I would pay a lot of attention to it.
But I cannot just chase every possibility.
What I'm chasing is objects that we have good data on as an astronomer.
You know, Omuomu was one, the first one reported, and then the meteor was another one found by the U.S. government.
I went out to collect the materials.
And by the way, we didn't speak about that, but we have analyzed these materials.
I cannot tell you the details.
They will be summarized in a scientific paper coming out in a few weeks.
But they are very exciting.
They're very exciting.
Yeah.
Got it.
So you don't have any interest in what we hear about Antarctica.
That there's living in there.
Until someone shows me evidence.
Once again, the same with Grush's story.
It could be exciting if it's substantiated by some materials that corporations or the Department of Defense holds.
If there is evidence for that, if I speak to people that saw it and can corroborate that these reports, then I would have more faith that they are real.
Otherwise, people can say anything.
You know, a lot of people say that they are Napoleon.
And when you ask them for their ID, they cannot prove that.
They cannot prove that.
But also at the same time, if you take that side, if we haven't explored 95% of our oceans, and you hear that number being thrown around by a lot of different people, 95%, and we don't really know what's underneath us.
You know, some say, according, you know, Jesus, what did Jesus say about the devil?
What happens where hell and Satan is, we talked about this earlier about, you gave scripture, Tom, earlier about.
Yeah, yeah, in Christian scripture, you know, the Old Testament, the Jews talked about Sheol, the concept of hell and the physical location of the devil's residence and the fires of hell.
And in the New Testament, the references to hell was, you know, middle earth below earth.
And so it's there in religious texts that they talk about these presences.
Could this be what could these references are?
It could be.
There is a lot of unknown.
I should say the oceans are one.
And of course, the environment of Earth is another.
We haven't monitored them in great detail.
The fact that we found the first interstellar object just over the past decade tells you we haven't explored.
You know, we found an object as big as a football field.
We cannot see objects, you know, like a meter in size from the reflection of sunlight using existing telescopes.
We're ignorant.
That's my whole point, that we should be modest, approach this with a sense of humility.
And by the way, religion advocates for humility because there is a greater power out there.
I think scientists need this dose of humility because we are on the path.
If we were to search for things from other civilizations, we will be on the path to awe-inspiring experiences, things that will put us at awe.
And that's similar to what religious people experience, except it's based on evidence.
What do you think is easier to explore?
What's in Earth, crust underneath us, ocean or space?
We should do both.
No, what's easier, though?
Oh, easier?
The oceans, definitely.
So why are we not doing that, though?
Why are we not exploring where we're living?
Why are we so concerned about other people's lives, not our own place?
Because we are distracted by things that are commonplace, like fighting for territories, the state of the economy, the next election.
There are lots of things that can distract us.
We are having parties.
We are just not focusing on what can really change us.
I think that's okay, though.
I don't think, I think war is going to keep happening.
I think people trying to take care of the economy, we need those people.
I think military, we need military.
I think doctors, we need doctors.
But I'm talking more from you because you guys, you chose this career path.
I did not.
I chose a completely different career path.
So my job is to be a professional in my career path, whatever it was, business, insurance, finance, investments.
That's what I have to study, right?
But I'm talking more from folks who are explorers, you know, from the world of wanting to know what's in space.
Why not spend more time finding out where we're living?
I completely agree with you.
And that's why I work 24-7 on this topic to bring new knowledge.
And that's my duty.
I hope to make you proud.
But at the same time, I face a lot of pushback from my colleagues for doing that, just trying to collect the evidence.
And that shows you that something is wrong in academia, in science right now, where everything has to conform to what we already know.
And people are less engaged in studying anomalies, things that do not pretty much line up with rocks in the sky.
What's this here, Rob just pulled up?
Is that you?
That doesn't look like you.
No, this is a picture of me, but this article is not reporting anything real because we had the cooperation with the PNG government when we went there.
And we actually are collaborating with the University of Technology at Papua New Guinea.
And some people that were not in the loop said, oh, you took this material.
By the way, it's completely outside the territorial waters of Papua New Guinea.
What we found are basically dust particles at a depth of more than a mile, 100 kilometers away from Papua New Guinea, outside the territorial waters.
And some people claim, oh, you took it.
But in scientific study of meteors, this is always the case where you go places and you collect dust.
Nobody cares.
There is no commercial value to it.
There is no biological value to it.
It falls out of the rubric of international law, which deals mostly with commercial and biological.
And, you know, we didn't do anything illegal in this operation.
We just did a scientific project to study dust, you know, less than a millimeter-sized particles at the bottom of the ocean that came from, by the way, an object.
That's very extremely difficult.
And by the way, the PNG law says if you find anything, even within the territorial waters, it should be returned to the senders.
Well, the senders may be outside the solar system.
Let's find them.
But my point is, this was extremely difficult because you're talking about particles that are less than a millimeter, less than the head of a pin, like a grain of sand, sitting on the ocean floor.
They melted off the surface of the object when the fireball exploded around it as a result of its friction with air.
And they rained down and set on the ocean floor across a region which is more than seven miles in size.
And we were more than a mile deep, the ocean, and we had to find them.
And what we did is build a sled with magnets on both sides.
And we basically skimmed the surface of the ocean with these magnets and collected all magnetic particles.
Fortunately, these materials had a lot of iron, so they were attracted to the magnets.
After six days of crisscrossing that region, seven miles across that the US government identified and that we localized a little better with seismometer data, we found mostly black powder, that is volcanic activity, black particles.
And then I wrote an essay on Medium.com saying, where are these molten droplets, the spherols from the object?
And by the way, that shows you again, I was completely sincere that we are not finding what we were looking for.
The criticism from my colleagues is, why are you talking about science before you have a paper?
Well, to show the public that sometimes you don't find what you're looking for.
We didn't find it.
Then a day later, we filtered out the ash, the volcanic black powder, using a mesh with a size of a quarter of a millimeter, started finding those bigger particles, put them under a microscope, and then saw these metallic marbles, beautiful spherical things that are very distinct from sand.
And I remember that the geologist on the team went down the stairs from where we did the analysis and called me.
I was the chief scientist of this expedition and said, Avi, we found a sphero.
And I went up rushing and I hugged the person who found it through the microscope.
And I said, that's amazing.
You know, that's what we were looking for.
And I knew from my experience in the kitchen that if I find an ant, there are many more ants out there.
And surely enough, within hours, we found more marbles like that.
They were tiny.
My daughter said, could I get one for a necklace?
And I said, it's impossible to thread those things.
They are less than a millimeter in size.
We brought the sample back to Harvard.
And I had an intern during the summer, Sophie Bertram, who went through the materials, found 650 additional spherols.
And now we're analyzing them in the laboratory with mass spectrometers, electron microscopes.
So do you have any opinions on Project Bluebeam?
What is it?
Do you know anything about it or no?
No.
You've never heard of it?
No.
Project Bluebeam?
No.
Okay.
All right, sounds good.
Have you studied at all, the Dulce underground base?
No.
New Mexico and Colorado, what happened with the cows, and it was documented and the blood beans.
Oh, I heard about it.
You know, the fundamental question is, could it be the result of human-made things, you know, actions?
Could it be the result of human-made things actions?
Okay, so maybe a better question to ask you is, do you actually believe we have proof that aliens exist?
No, we have intriguing evidence that leads us to the possibility that we might have found or that objects produced by other technological civilizations arrived near Earth.
There is some intriguing evidence.
But wait for our analysis of what we found in the Pacific Ocean.
Wait for more data to be collected before we all say we have the proof.
It's possible the U.S. government has materials or information that is relevant, but it's classified.
I don't have access to it.
So what you see is what you get.
When you speak with me, I'm not hiding anything.
I'm telling you exactly the situation.
With the U.S. government, we don't know.
Can you at all speculate to say you think, if I was to speculate, I would say aliens do exist or not.
Oh, yeah, definitely.
I think it's arrogant of us to believe that we are the most intelligent species that ever lived since the Big Bang, that Albert Einstein was the smartest scientist who lived for the past 13.8 billion years.
That's completely ridiculous, actually, because you have tens of billions of stars like the Sun.
Most of them formed billions of years before the Sun.
So, you know, if you just roll the dice of technological civilization, it's very likely that you had many more in our past.
Many of those died.
Those civilizations are not around anymore.
There were tragedies.
You know, the Sun in a billion years.
Forget about global warming.
You know, the situation here in Florida is getting warmer and warmer.
Forget about what we do to our planet.
In a billion years, the Sun will boil off all the oceans on Earth.
And other stars that formed more than a billion years ago before the Sun already went through that.
So just think about an Earth-like planet near one of these stars that, you know, a billion years ago went through that.
And there must have been a mass exodus of, you know, people out there or things like creatures out there trying to leave the planet.
You know, people like Elon Musk would make much more money because everyone would want to go on a space ship and leave the planet.
It was the biggest item in the news that the star is about to extinct life on their planet.
You know, the situation is like Mars.
Mars became a desert once it lost its liquid water and the atmosphere.
So the same may happen to Earth in a billion years.
And what I'm saying is there were tragedies in cosmic histories.
A lot of civilizations perished.
We are not aware of that because we just came a few million years ago.
We started looking at the sky just over the past few centuries in a methodical way.
So, you know, we are like an infant not aware of the bigger perspective.
And we behave irresponsibly because we don't really try to seek that data.
Let me ask you a couple other questions here and then we'll wrap up.
So you know how Apple computer, like, you know, every year in a month of August or September, my Apple phone slows down.
Yeah.
Every year.
Okay.
Now, some people say it's just your phone's getting older.
You know, you have a lot of space.
You know, whatever the biggest phone you can terabyte, whatever it is, I have that, right?
Because I got a lot of stuff in there, content in there.
But then there's theories that Apple intentionally does that for you to feel like you have to upgrade your phone, right?
And I don't know if you believe that or not, but Apple has the ability to do that.
There's a possibility that they do that.
So let's just put Apple as the U.S. government.
If they wanted to do something like that, they could because they have that kind of power.
Do you think we have the technology right now to create earthquakes and to change the climate or create storms?
Definitely.
Now, the next worry is, of course, AI.
So AI can be developed, artificial intelligence can be developed in the private sector, open AI, chat GPT and so forth, or it can be developed within government.
The question is, I mean, you can put restrictions on what corporations do.
So far, the regulations are not severe.
You know, from Washington, D.C., there is not enough attention to the risks from AI.
But you can't put such restrictions on governments.
So my worry is once regulations are enforced on the private sector with respect to AI, that will not prevent governments manipulating the public through devices that are hidden from view, okay?
Which may already, you know, it's taking place.
You know, we just, I mean, there are lots of ways by which on social media or otherwise, AI can assist governments in manipulating the public in a much more effective way than propaganda, pamphlets in previous decades.
I think that is the biggest thing to watch for in politics, where AI will be used for the benefit of factions of government that want to, you know, produce a narrative.
So let's stay on this.
So you believe the government has technology to create earthquakes if they wanted to.
Oh, definitely.
You're saying definitely.
Yeah, because you can explode a nuclear weapon and create an earthquake, no problem.
But to do it without us knowing it was due to nuclear, to do it and say, oh, it was a real-life earthquake that happened and deflect.
Yeah, you can do that, but then other governments will notice it.
I mean, a lot of governments are worried.
You know what I'm asking, right?
I'm asking, like, if I wanted to hurt a community or city or a state, like let's just say long-term, a state in America, a government or political side is not a fan of.
Can they create a massive catastrophe in that area?
Could be wind, fire, earthquake.
Could they do that?
Definitely.
But I mean, you watched Oppenheimer, probably.
Of course, yeah.
Yeah, a very good movie.
it was a turning point because for the first time politicians realized that physics is not just academic.
You know, people studying the atomic nucleus.
Initially it was curiosity driven.
But Einstein said, oh, mass is equivalent to energy.
And guess what?
When you break a very heavy nucleus like uranium, it releases a lot of energy.
Einstein realized that.
E equal MC squad.
What he didn't realize is that Oppenheimer, who actually was a colleague of Einstein later on at Princeton, would develop the Manhattan Project, lead it such that this energy is being tapped for political reasons.
And then Truman, of course, used it.
And at the point in the movie where they show the nuclear bombs being delivered on a truck outside of Los Alamos, the general tells Oppenheimer, thank you very much.
From now on, we take care of that.
Meaning, whatever the physicists developed, this devastating ability was now harnessed by politics.
And obviously, that was the case.
Now, it was used to end the war with Japan, okay, as a tool.
It killed huge number of people.
And from now on, it shaped, after that, shaped international relations everywhere.
So at that point, politicians said, oh, physics could actually affect human history, politics.
And more money was allocated to science.
In fact, the National Science Foundation was established by Vanover Bush as a result.
He was portrayed in the film.
And much more funding came to science because politicians realized, oh, we can use it.
And indeed, you can use it.
And nowadays you can use AI.
And so the point is, you know, that indeed governments are interested in having more power.
And science gives them more power.
So to answer your question, they definitely will use it.
For me, that's a very, very powerful weapon if you can fabricate environmental crisis and blame it on Mother Nature.
It wasn't us.
It's an earthquake.
It wasn't us.
It's a bad storm.
It wasn't us.
That's the part.
That to me is as dark as bio-warfare or a cyber warfare, which we haven't yet experienced.
These are things as military you ought to be concerned about because if one can fabricate an environmental catastrophe, no one gets to blame.
You can play angel and say, let me come help you out.
What do you guys need help with?
You know, I live close to the Walden Pond where Henry Thoreau went and said, let's leave behind the Industrial Revolution.
Let's just live with nature.
And I connect to that when I see the devastating consequences of us modifying nature, allowing governments to do things that will never leave nature the way it used to be.
I really miss that.
And to me, going to space is the only way to escape from the way we ruin this earth and meet nature unspoiled by humans.
So I was jogging on the ship for the expedition to the Pacific Ocean and I had a filming crew, one out of 50, that approached me and wanted to be on the ship.
And I selected one.
And the director of that filming crew came to me and said, Avi, you're jogging, because I'm jogging every morning at sunrise, including today.
And he asked me, it looks like you're running.
Are you running away from something or towards something?
And I said, both.
I'm running away from some of my colleagues who have strong opinions without seeking evidence to support them.
And I'm running towards a higher intelligence in interstellar space.
Interesting.
At least you're running, though, which is good.
The fact that you're running is a good thing.
And I also live on a diet of mostly dark chocolate and low carbs, yes.
Half of my calories are from Dr. Half.
Are you joking?
Are you serious?
Serious.
Dark chocolate?
Yeah, when I get a wound, often you see James.
I got you.
Now it's starting to make sense.
So you are an alien.
Oh, you know what?
My wife, 10 years ago, said, you know, it looks like you came from somewhere else.
If they come and pick you, I want two things.
One, that you leave the car keys with me.
I know that you would like to go with them.
And second, make sure that they don't ruin the loan when they lift off.
Now, I spoke with her again just a couple of months ago, and that's a sign of good marriage.
She said, I asked her, would you join me?
And she said yes.
That's good.
After how many years?
Oh, that's 20 years.
20 years.
Congratulations, 20 years.
I'm six years behind you.
I think you just celebrated 20 or 21 years, Tom.
Something like that.
21.
Yeah, 21 years.
Good.
Amazing.
Climate change.
Okay, so your thoughts on climate change.
You're a guy that's working at Harvard.
When I went to Harvard for a business program that they had, not MBA, it was like a three-week program.
I had owner, president, management program.
Harvard is an incredibly super left organization, super, super left organization.
I'll never forget.
Like, God forbid you said something that was on the conservative side or capitalism side and you didn't mention social or any of that stuff.
You are a bad person, right?
I should tell you, when I jog in the morning, I look at the yards of my neighbors.
They have signs.
You can imagine what they say.
But clearly the signs always say what you expect your neighbors to agree with.
And I say that is just virtue signaling.
And the same is true for Harvard.
Virtue signaling.
You are showing off that you are actually believing like everyone else around you in the same things.
I say a sign of courage is to take your sign, bring it to a neighborhood that doesn't agree with you.
Because then you are engaged in a dialogue.
None of these people, my neighbors, would be courageous.
And colleagues at Harvard would be courageous enough to put those signs in a neighborhood that disagrees with them.
Well, you know, that's a great project for someone to do.
One, take a Biden flag on a boat and go to Palm Beach go boating.
That's one.
Or take a Trump flag and put it outside of a house in San Francisco.
That would be actually a very interesting house, a project to see what happens.
But no, climate change.
What are your thoughts on climate change?
How much of it is, you know, it's the end of the world.
It's what we have to worry about.
You know, the next 12 years, Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore.
Where do you stand with climate change?
Well, you just look at history.
I mean, the Earth went through a lot of episodes.
It's possible, as the evidence shows, that indeed our actions modify the climate.
The question is, you know, we should be practical and see how to moderate our impact and reverse the current trends.
And rather than argue who is to blame and why this happens, which is pretty much the political conversation, the question is, let's be practical.
Both sides can agree that we need to do something to mitigate any risks, you know?
And what should we do?
Because we don't want a lot of floods.
We don't want the temperature to go too high.
We should do things that moderate that, mitigate that.
Forget about who is responsible and why.
Let's just find a way to have a better future.
That's what the conversation should be.
That's it.
That's your opinion on it.
Yeah.
I think because right now there is tribalism in politics where each side is closed in a bubble that believes the same things.
And what we need to do is work together towards a better future.
It's about time for us to, you know, when I was on the ship, I saw that all team members said, we are part of the same boat.
We are all in the same boat.
Let's work together for the success of our mission.
You can think of Earth as our boat, the boat of humanity sailing through the ocean of space.
And, you know, we should work with each other for a more prosperous future rather than fight each other and make statements about the other tribe.
You know, in Papua New Guinea, where I visited, there are 850 languages.
And I asked someone, how is that possible?
It's the highest concentration of different languages in a geographical site.
And I said, why is that?
And I was told that, you know, a group of people decided that the tribe next to them must be their enemy.
And as a result, they need to develop a completely different language.
So you ended up with 850 languages, just like the Tower of Babel.
And there is this tendency of belonging to a tribe and hating anyone else as your enemy.
I say, forget about that.
It's not zero-sum games that we need to be engaged in.
Let's work together so we can bring in a better future for all of us.
Have you studied Wernher von Braun?
I know him, yes.
What do you think about him?
Well, in a way, he founded the U.S. space program.
Of course, he had a role also in Germany that is not something to be proud of.
It was a difficult political decision to provide him with the authority, but I think the calculation was that he has the expertise.
And it proved itself.
It ended up in a very successful space program that the U.S. had.
Whether you should engage with people who have the knowledge but served a foreign country that did atrocities, you know, that's a moral judgment question.
I should say before the Second World War, before the Holocaust, Germany had the best scientists in the world.
One thing mentioned in Oppenheimer is Eisenberg.
He was in charge, Werner Eisenberg, in charge.
He was a physicist in charge of the nuclear program of the Nazi regime.
There is a possibility that they were not successful because he didn't want to provide Hitler with nuclear bombs.
We don't know that.
For sure.
We know that it was not successful, like the Manhattan Project.
Fundamental question is, what did Werner think, you know, privately?
We don't know that.
And with respect to the space program, you know, we all benefit from it now.
Whether von Braun should have been given that authority in the U.S. after the war or not is a moral judgment that is personal.
Some call him the father of space travel.
I think he was part of the Nazi party himself.
He was a member of it.
But have you seen what he left on his tombstone?
No.
Can you pull up his tombstone, Werner von Braun?
So father of space travel on his tombstone, just go to images.
He put Psalm 19.1.
Okay, so this is a guy that studies space travel and Psalm 19.1 is the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament show it his handiwork.
What do you think about a guy like that, the life he lived, space, Nazi, to put scripture on his tombstone?
I have a problem actually appreciating someone who belonged to the Nazi regime because most of my father's family was killed in the Holocaust.
Actually, my grandfather fought for Germany.
That's my last name.
I'm called after him.
His name was Albert Loeb.
Albert is equivalent to Abraham, which is shortened to Avi.
And he fought in the First World War on the German part against the French and was honored with a medal by Hitler when Hitler came to power.
And he had friends in the Nazi party who warned him about what's about to happen.
And then there was a gathering in the village.
And in the gathering, someone stood up and said, you know, the Jews are using up all resources in our society.
And my grandfather stood up and said, how dare you say that?
I fought on the German front.
We were in the mud for two years.
You know, there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died in that battle, the Battle of Verdun.
And you, he said to the speaker, you were a communist at that time.
And now you are preaching about Jews.
And that speaker said, oh, Mr. Loeb, I'm not talking about you.
We all know that you are a patriot.
I'm talking about the other Jews.
At which point, my grandfather left everything he had in Germany and came to Israel, which was Palestine at the time.
And the rest of the family that had 65 members of my father said, oh, we will live in the last train.
You know, we will leave Nazi Germany when there is no hope anymore.
We believe in Germany as a nation.
We are patriots.
The last train led to Auschwitz.
And they all died there.
I have a difficulty, given that history, in praising anyone that belonged to that regime.
Totally makes sense.
Totally makes sense to say that.
Dr. Avi Loeb, this has been amazing.
It's been very interesting having you on here.
If you don't mind taking a moment with the audience, Interstellar, what will the reader find in Interstellar, the book?
First, I should say the title of the book, Interstellar, relates to the content of the paper about the findings of the expedition to the Pacific Ocean that we had two months ago.
So watch out for both.
They will come out at the same time.
It's already for sale.
The book talks about the implications of realizing that we have a smarter kid on our cosmic block.
Even if we don't have the evidence yet, it will change us.
And, you know, just knowing that you have a neighbor that you can learn from is life-changing because it's just like finding a partner.
You know, the universe appears lonely to us.
If we find a partner, it will not be as lonely.
We could converse with that partner.
We could seek that partner.
We could benefit from what the partner learned before we came to exist.
It would be a transformative event in cosmic history, for our human history.
So let's be open-minded.
Let's seek that partner.
Let's seek a higher intelligence out there.
And that's the message of my book.
It will change humanity.
It will change our future.
Let's find it.
I love it.
I respect it.
Rob, let's put the link below to the book for people to be able to order, both in chat as well as in description.
Rob, do we have podcasts this Thursday?
We do.
It'll be a home team podcast on Thursday.
We will do a home team podcast on Thursday.
And the interview I did with Khabib will be coming out here soon.
So stay out.
We're going to put that on PBD podcast.
That one was mind-blowing.
It'll come out soon.
Take care, everybody.
Bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
Patrick Bet David here from Valute Mining and PBD Podcast.
Look, once a year, we host a conference called the Vault Conference.
It's our Super Bowl where 3,000 entrepreneurs, CEOs, executives, salespeople from around the world come together to spend three and a half days together from August 30th to September 2nd at the Diplomat Resort in Miami to learn how to scale their business, how to identify their next 5, 10, 15 moves, who to recruit next, who to go raise their money from, how to raise capital, how to properly scale, culture, retention, hire, fire, all of those things and much more.
And we do that over a span of three and a half days.
And the reason why it's a very important season to attend a conference like this, the following reason.
Today, there's three different types of people.
There's scared, there are those that are content, and the obsessed.
The scared, they don't want to do anything because they're worried about what's going to happen in the economy.
They're going to take a big hit.
The content, they're walking around saying, life is pretty okay.
I don't need to do anything else.
And then there's the obsessed because they see a massive opportunity today.
So imagine spending three and a half days with 3,000 obsessed people that want to grow in a season like this.
Imagine how much you can learn from just those relationships and networks.
So on top of the people that are going to be attending at this event, there's probably the best lineup we'll ever have at a vault conference.
Tom Brady, seven-time champion.
I'll be interviewing him.
He'll be at the Vault Conference.
Mike Tyson, Will Guidera, the gentleman who ran the restaurant 11 Madison, New York, that went from a regular restaurant to a one Michelin star, two Michelin star, three Michelin star, and eventually the number one restaurant in the world.
He's going to talk about how they treat their customers.
So look, if you've not registered yet, this is my recommendation to you.
I never went to conferences when I was coming out by myself.
I always went with a spouse, with a business partner, or running mate because I only have a lens on what I see.
Every night afterwards, we would sit there and say, what was your biggest takeaway?
So get yourself, your spouse, your partner, your running mate registered to come spend three and a half days with us at the Diplomat Resort in Miami from August 30th to September 2nd.
