October 11, 2025 • 13 mins
Guest host Richard Syrett and author RL Poole discuss the skepticism of scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who don't believe in the existence of UFOs, the dangers of scientists not being willing to investigate the evidence, and his sympathies for discredited UFO eyewitnesses.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now Here's a Highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio. R. L.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Poole is an independent researcher, author, and speaker whose work
has redefined the boundaries between science, mystery, and the unexplained.
He's a life member of American Mensa. He possesses what
experts have called an untestable IQ, a mind that operates
beyond conventional measurement. For more than fifteen years, he's been
the world's foremost authority on the enigmatic Genius Edward Lead
(00:30):
Scalmon and the Coral Castle, culminating in his groundbreaking book
The Lead Scale in Codex Breakthroughs and Understanding the Coral Castle.
His follow up works including the best selling Beneath the
Haunted Sky, The Evidence for Alien Abduction, and his latest release,
Cosmic blind Spot. While Neil de grass Tyson is wrong
about UFOs, they pushed the boundaries of human understanding, offering
(00:54):
profound evidence for alien contact, consciousness, manipulation, and the hidden
architecture of real itself. Recognized twice by Graham Hancock as
Author of the Month and featured twice on the History channels,
The Unexplained with William Shatner. Pool's discoveries have earned him
international attention. Tonight is his sixth appearance on Coast to
(01:16):
Coast AM. He's become one of the most provocative and
original thinkers in modern anomalous research. A forensic linguist, theoretical physicist,
and relentless seeker of hidden truths whose insights continue to
challenge the limits of what we believe is possible. R. L. Poole,
Welcome back for a sixth time to Coast to Coast AM.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
How are you, Richard? Thank you so much for that
very generous introduction. I was for sure you were describing
someone else with all of those qualities.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
It's all you, It's all you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Let's dive right in and talk about Neil degrast Tyson
and how he skips debates.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
He'll say, I don't debate.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
He seems to will be avoiding tough UFO questions, like
back in August that YouTube clip on government hearings where
he said I need better data.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
If he were to debate you, how.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Would you kick off by challenging his we'd all know
if aliens were here attitude.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
That's a great question. And by the way, I was
so thrilled to hear you pick up on these different
types of dismissals that I think are starting to become
obvious that this is not exactly science. This is rhetoric,
this is dogma, this is theology. And as a forensic linguist,
(02:43):
one of my big things that I pay attention to
is that language is the first filter of reality. And
so this is a person who uses language to try
to filter out thoughts that are uncomfortable for us. And
while he has at times been a brilliant communicator about science,
(03:06):
we must be careful what we communicate when we have
that kind of power, that kind of exposure, and that
kind of platform. When he says we need better data,
that's very interesting because he uses words as a way
to filter out legitimate information and also to misrepresent science.
(03:32):
And I'm going to give you a free sample of
that right now. So one of the things that he
will say besides, I don't debate, and I would like
to address that quickly as well. Science is a discipline
of challenge. I think we can all agree on that,
and that anyone who does not wish to participate in
(03:56):
being challenged is not interested in being scientific. They are
interested in being a bully pulpit. They are interested in
being a monolith. They are not interested in the scientific process. However,
one of his big arguments, and he says this like
it's like it's a mic drop moment that is unrebuttable,
(04:20):
if you will, and it is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And you see, this is very famously known as Sagan's racer.
And of course this is a classic debate tactic cult
an appeal to authority.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
I didn't say it.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Carl Sagan said it, you see, and Carl Sagan is beloved,
and I also adore and admire Carl Sagan and his legacy. However,
this statement is completely misrepresentative of science. That isn't how
science works. You see, there are no extraordinary claims and
(05:07):
science there there are only claims. You see, Extraordinary is
a subjective value placement that we put over the word claim.
But in science we.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Do not do this.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
And there is also no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
There is only evidence. And so what he is doing
when he repeats this phrase is he is misrepresenting the
way that science works. We do not have the luxury
to raise the threshold of evidence in proportion to our
(05:45):
incredulity of the potential result. You see, that's exactly what
the scientific method is meant to save us from that.
It isn't supposed to defend us from discomfort. It's supposed
to test the world.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
As it is.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Right when we do, the science is settled. That's the
other one. The science is settled. Science is never settled.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
If you think the science is settled, you cannot be
a scientist. Everything, and I mean everything is a theory.
And the reason that even something that we take, you know,
like gravity. We know we throw something in the air
and it comes back down, but it's theoretical in its explanation,
because that means it is open to change. Anyone who
(06:34):
says that it is resolved is admitting right off the
bat that they are not educated and they are not
willing to engage in a scientific discourse. You see, the
Neil Degrass tysons who tell us we need extraordinary evidence
if they consider something an extraordinary claim has yet to
(06:56):
define what even basic common evidence would be for aliens
or UFOs, you know, they want to move the goalposts
before they've even marked the field.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
I agree.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I want to talk about your your Sherlock syndrome. You're
an incredible detective likability to spot hidden patterns and things
and helps you dig into UFO stories. How does it
let you push back on Tyson's claim? And this goes
back to I think his twenty twenty one talks that
alien visits would be quote crowd sourced on smartphones, meaning
(07:36):
everyone would snap and share clear videos online if it
were real, especially you know in old cases like the
nineteen fifty two Washington DC sidings where you know, radars
and pilots saw flying objects but no one had phones
to record them. Let me get you to push.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Back on that. You know that crowd sourced on smartphone comment.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, I think that this is wishful thinking on his part.
And also this is assumptive. This is assumptive thinking as well,
that again is not allowed in science. And what I
call my Sherlock syndrome is that I have anomalous abilities
(08:18):
in perception, deductive reasoning, pattern recognition, and communication. So I'm
untestable in these particular areas. And it is I pay
very close attention to words, and people want to play words.
And I noticed that Neil deGrasse Tyson does an extraordinary
(08:40):
amount of this when he says, well, why don't they
so and so well, when a scientist begins a sentence
with why don't they, it is immediately dismissed. It is
an emotional argument. It is not a logical argument. It
is not a scientific argument. And you know, we have
(09:03):
people and I notice things just like you do, Richard.
And I saw Mitcheocacu and Neil degras Tyson on the
same show of News Nation where they were dismissing, very
mockingly the idea of alien abductions and all of these things,
(09:24):
and Mitchiokaku says, we have studied these frame by frame,
and they move in ways that defy our laws of physics.
That we cannot manufacture materials which will withstand these forces.
Our pilots could never physically withstand the g forces generated
(09:46):
by some of these maneuvers. That these things move in
a trans medium motion which we cannot do as a species.
But we need evidence. Do you hear what just happened?
Speaker 5 (10:02):
He tells you all of these things that are evidence,
and then has the nerve to tell you that that's
not evidence, that we need evidence.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
He's arguing against himself.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
He's arguing against himself in public on TV. And I
just wonder like, do they hear themselves how they are
doing intellectual contortionism in order to get away from the
obvious facts that are staring us in the face. And
the same scientists who want to put this burden on others,
(10:40):
by the way, not on themselves. The science doesn't say
we need to get extraordinary evidence. No, no, no, They
say you need to you need to get extraordinary evidence,
and then they don't say what that evidence is or
how to collect that evidence. Then we are being trolled.
We are not being instructed. This is obviously of voidance.
(11:04):
This is sending your sixteen year old son to the
hardware store to buy a left handed wrench.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
You see, this is a fool's.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Errand we are being sent on.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Can you dedicate the book to people who've been ignored
after claiming abductions and to truth tellers like Felschneider, the
former government worker who said he fought aliens in secret
underground bases before dying mysteriously back in nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
How do stories like his show.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
The mistake in Tyson's view, that the deep emotional trauma
from these encounters is just made up or imagined.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
You know, there is this artificially generated narrative that surround
people who come out with these kinds of experiences that
they share, and it's that these people want attention, they
to be special, they want money or fame or any
(12:04):
of those things. And you know, I consider Phil Schneider too,
even though he was considered controversial, I think that he
was being one hundred percent on the level about what
he experienced. He risked, he died, He got no fame,
he got no money, He got nothing except the satisfaction
(12:28):
of being able to tell his story to an audience
that was finally ready to receive it. And as an
alien abduction experiencer of over forty years, I can tell
you that it takes an enormous amount of courage and
determination to tell these stories of my experiences, to communicate
(12:51):
what has been communicated to me, to put forth every
bit of evidence that I possibly can to help people
who mock me for it, who who say that I'm
delusional or that I'm lying, or that I'm on the take,
when nothing could be further from the truth in my
life reflects that in every way, to know that you
(13:13):
are going to be mocked, you are going to be
made fun of, you are going to get passed over,
You are going to be pathologized, that celebrities like Neil
deGrasse Tyson are going to use you as a pinata
on social media. And I do it anyway because that's
how important it is. And people like Phil Schneider gave
(13:35):
the last measure of devotion to this topic and to
people like me, and so I honor that, and I
honor the people who are still living with this phenomenon today.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
Now Here's a Highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio. R. L.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Poole is an independent researcher, author, and speaker whose work
has redefined the boundaries between science, mystery, and the unexplained.
He's a life member of American Mensa. He possesses what
experts have called an untestable IQ, a mind that operates
beyond conventional measurement. For more than fifteen years, he's been
the world's foremost authority on the enigmatic Genius Edward Lead
(00:30):
Scalmon and the Coral Castle, culminating in his groundbreaking book
The Lead Scale in Codex Breakthroughs and Understanding the Coral Castle.
His follow up works including the best selling Beneath the
Haunted Sky, The Evidence for Alien Abduction, and his latest release,
Cosmic blind Spot. While Neil de grass Tyson is wrong
about UFOs, they pushed the boundaries of human understanding, offering
(00:54):
profound evidence for alien contact, consciousness, manipulation, and the hidden
architecture of real itself. Recognized twice by Graham Hancock as
Author of the Month and featured twice on the History channels,
The Unexplained with William Shatner. Pool's discoveries have earned him
international attention. Tonight is his sixth appearance on Coast to
(01:16):
Coast AM. He's become one of the most provocative and
original thinkers in modern anomalous research. A forensic linguist, theoretical physicist,
and relentless seeker of hidden truths whose insights continue to
challenge the limits of what we believe is possible. R. L. Poole,
Welcome back for a sixth time to Coast to Coast AM.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
How are you, Richard? Thank you so much for that
very generous introduction. I was for sure you were describing
someone else with all of those qualities.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
It's all you, It's all you.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Let's dive right in and talk about Neil degrast Tyson
and how he skips debates.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
He'll say, I don't debate.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
He seems to will be avoiding tough UFO questions, like
back in August that YouTube clip on government hearings where
he said I need better data.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
If he were to debate you, how.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Would you kick off by challenging his we'd all know
if aliens were here attitude.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
That's a great question. And by the way, I was
so thrilled to hear you pick up on these different
types of dismissals that I think are starting to become
obvious that this is not exactly science. This is rhetoric,
this is dogma, this is theology. And as a forensic linguist,
(02:43):
one of my big things that I pay attention to
is that language is the first filter of reality. And
so this is a person who uses language to try
to filter out thoughts that are uncomfortable for us. And
while he has at times been a brilliant communicator about science,
(03:06):
we must be careful what we communicate when we have
that kind of power, that kind of exposure, and that
kind of platform. When he says we need better data,
that's very interesting because he uses words as a way
to filter out legitimate information and also to misrepresent science.
(03:32):
And I'm going to give you a free sample of
that right now. So one of the things that he
will say besides, I don't debate, and I would like
to address that quickly as well. Science is a discipline
of challenge. I think we can all agree on that,
and that anyone who does not wish to participate in
(03:56):
being challenged is not interested in being scientific. They are
interested in being a bully pulpit. They are interested in
being a monolith. They are not interested in the scientific process. However,
one of his big arguments, and he says this like
it's like it's a mic drop moment that is unrebuttable,
(04:20):
if you will, and it is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And you see, this is very famously known as Sagan's racer.
And of course this is a classic debate tactic cult
an appeal to authority.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
I didn't say it.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Carl Sagan said it, you see, and Carl Sagan is beloved,
and I also adore and admire Carl Sagan and his legacy. However,
this statement is completely misrepresentative of science. That isn't how
science works. You see, there are no extraordinary claims and
(05:07):
science there there are only claims. You see, Extraordinary is
a subjective value placement that we put over the word claim.
But in science we.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
Do not do this.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
And there is also no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
There is only evidence. And so what he is doing
when he repeats this phrase is he is misrepresenting the
way that science works. We do not have the luxury
to raise the threshold of evidence in proportion to our
(05:45):
incredulity of the potential result. You see, that's exactly what
the scientific method is meant to save us from that.
It isn't supposed to defend us from discomfort. It's supposed
to test the world.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
As it is.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
Right when we do, the science is settled. That's the
other one. The science is settled. Science is never settled.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
If you think the science is settled, you cannot be
a scientist. Everything, and I mean everything is a theory.
And the reason that even something that we take, you know,
like gravity. We know we throw something in the air
and it comes back down, but it's theoretical in its explanation,
because that means it is open to change. Anyone who
(06:34):
says that it is resolved is admitting right off the
bat that they are not educated and they are not
willing to engage in a scientific discourse. You see, the
Neil Degrass tysons who tell us we need extraordinary evidence
if they consider something an extraordinary claim has yet to
(06:56):
define what even basic common evidence would be for aliens
or UFOs, you know, they want to move the goalposts
before they've even marked the field.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
I agree.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
I want to talk about your your Sherlock syndrome. You're
an incredible detective likability to spot hidden patterns and things
and helps you dig into UFO stories. How does it
let you push back on Tyson's claim? And this goes
back to I think his twenty twenty one talks that
alien visits would be quote crowd sourced on smartphones, meaning
(07:36):
everyone would snap and share clear videos online if it
were real, especially you know in old cases like the
nineteen fifty two Washington DC sidings where you know, radars
and pilots saw flying objects but no one had phones
to record them. Let me get you to push.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
Back on that. You know that crowd sourced on smartphone comment.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, I think that this is wishful thinking on his part.
And also this is assumptive. This is assumptive thinking as well,
that again is not allowed in science. And what I
call my Sherlock syndrome is that I have anomalous abilities
(08:18):
in perception, deductive reasoning, pattern recognition, and communication. So I'm
untestable in these particular areas. And it is I pay
very close attention to words, and people want to play words.
And I noticed that Neil deGrasse Tyson does an extraordinary
(08:40):
amount of this when he says, well, why don't they
so and so well, when a scientist begins a sentence
with why don't they, it is immediately dismissed. It is
an emotional argument. It is not a logical argument. It
is not a scientific argument. And you know, we have
(09:03):
people and I notice things just like you do, Richard.
And I saw Mitcheocacu and Neil degras Tyson on the
same show of News Nation where they were dismissing, very
mockingly the idea of alien abductions and all of these things,
(09:24):
and Mitchiokaku says, we have studied these frame by frame,
and they move in ways that defy our laws of physics.
That we cannot manufacture materials which will withstand these forces.
Our pilots could never physically withstand the g forces generated
(09:46):
by some of these maneuvers. That these things move in
a trans medium motion which we cannot do as a species.
But we need evidence. Do you hear what just happened?
Speaker 5 (10:02):
He tells you all of these things that are evidence,
and then has the nerve to tell you that that's
not evidence, that we need evidence.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
He's arguing against himself.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
He's arguing against himself in public on TV. And I
just wonder like, do they hear themselves how they are
doing intellectual contortionism in order to get away from the
obvious facts that are staring us in the face. And
the same scientists who want to put this burden on others,
(10:40):
by the way, not on themselves. The science doesn't say
we need to get extraordinary evidence. No, no, no, They
say you need to you need to get extraordinary evidence,
and then they don't say what that evidence is or
how to collect that evidence. Then we are being trolled.
We are not being instructed. This is obviously of voidance.
(11:04):
This is sending your sixteen year old son to the
hardware store to buy a left handed wrench.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
You see, this is a fool's.
Speaker 3 (11:14):
Errand we are being sent on.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
Can you dedicate the book to people who've been ignored
after claiming abductions and to truth tellers like Felschneider, the
former government worker who said he fought aliens in secret
underground bases before dying mysteriously back in nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 4 (11:31):
How do stories like his show.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
The mistake in Tyson's view, that the deep emotional trauma
from these encounters is just made up or imagined.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
You know, there is this artificially generated narrative that surround
people who come out with these kinds of experiences that
they share, and it's that these people want attention, they
to be special, they want money or fame or any
(12:04):
of those things. And you know, I consider Phil Schneider too,
even though he was considered controversial, I think that he
was being one hundred percent on the level about what
he experienced. He risked, he died, He got no fame,
he got no money, He got nothing except the satisfaction
(12:28):
of being able to tell his story to an audience
that was finally ready to receive it. And as an
alien abduction experiencer of over forty years, I can tell
you that it takes an enormous amount of courage and
determination to tell these stories of my experiences, to communicate
(12:51):
what has been communicated to me, to put forth every
bit of evidence that I possibly can to help people
who mock me for it, who who say that I'm
delusional or that I'm lying, or that I'm on the take,
when nothing could be further from the truth in my
life reflects that in every way, to know that you
(13:13):
are going to be mocked, you are going to be
made fun of, you are going to get passed over,
You are going to be pathologized, that celebrities like Neil
deGrasse Tyson are going to use you as a pinata
on social media. And I do it anyway because that's
how important it is. And people like Phil Schneider gave
(13:35):
the last measure of devotion to this topic and to
people like me, and so I honor that, and I
honor the people who are still living with this phenomenon today.
Speaker 1 (13:45):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!