716. Matthew Szydagis

In this exclusive interview, Martin Willis speaks with Professor Matthew Szydagis, Ph.D., a physicist at the University at Albany whose groundbreaking work in dark matter detection has now expanded into one of the most promising academic UAP research initiatives in the country. Following a major new endowment to UAlbany, Prof. Szydagis and his colleagues have launched a serious scientific investigation into UAP hotspots, using advanced detector technologies, atmospheric monitoring, and the same rigorous methods applied in particle astrophysics. The discussion covers the new funding and what it enables, why the team is focusing on hotspot regions, the technologies they plan to deploy—including concepts adapted from dark matter research—how academia can help answer the UAP question, Prof. Szydagis’s personal drive to understand these phenomena, the challenges and opportunities ahead for scientific UAP study, and his collaborations with Prof. Cecilia Levy and Prof. Kevin Knuth. Whether you’re interested in astrophysics, UAP science, or the future of academic research, this conversation offers a rare inside look at a university-backed effort to bring hard data and real science to the UAP mystery.
SHOW NOTES

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:12):
Hello, and welcome to the show. What do you think
of that? Trim Uh? Those are for those of you
who are watching on YouTube and Facebook and all that.
Happy Thanksgiving for all those us people. It's one of
my very favorite holidays. And it's not just about food.
I just like the spirit of Thanksgiving and being thankful

(00:33):
for everything that we have and all that. Anyway, my
guest tonight is Professor Matthew Shadegis. I've had him on prior.
He is going to be talking about something quite fascinating
and they just received Albany You. Albany just received a
major gift to advance the scientific research on UAP and

(00:55):
we're going to be talking about that and all kinds
of things. Matthew was on a few years ago and
I'm really looking forward to have in back. Don't worry,
I won't keep the banner up. But also just let
you know. Over at PODCASTUFO dot com we have the
blog that Charles Lear wrote and that is about the
nineteen forty UFO encounter, and you don't hear about them

(01:18):
often from that far back. This one involves some type
of alien beings and all that. So anyway, check that
out over a podcast UFO without further ado, Matthew, welcome.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
So glad to be back. It's been a while, but
I've been on the show a few times already. I
think you have.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
I think it's third or fourth time, and usually with
a gang of people. I remember, I think there was
Gary Vories and you and Kevin and so you and
Kevin have been up to some great I mean I
saw your papers and everything. A little difficult to read,
but you know, for a layman, but still you've been

(01:59):
up to doing a lot of work. And because of that,
there's a gentleman named Tony Gorman that was really appreciating
what you were doing, and he decided to fund you,
to fund you Albany. So can you talk a little
bit about that and what that means?

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Yeah, absolutely so. This means we're one of the only
funded groups in the country and the world. Right, there's
of course a vi lot Bitt Harvard on Galleo project,
There's Beatrice Villarreal in Sweden, there's a there's a small
number of groups that actually have some kind of funding.
The Tedesco brothers do as well, I believe, But we

(02:40):
it used to be zero, right, you know, we're we're
slowly getting into an error where there are multiple, you know,
funded groups. I think, I know Skywatcher I think is
also funded. But now we join a small number of
field expedition teams that actually has some little bit of
financial resource that weekend that we can utilize. So we're

(03:03):
very grateful to Tony for his donation. He saw us
on ABC News talking about our work and he's a
friend of the universities. He's not a alone but he's
a friend of the university who's you know, made philanthropic
donations before. I believe in this time he decided to
support us in this important work trying to solve the

(03:26):
UAP mystery.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Excellent, excellent. So does that mean any type of equipment
or what is that?

Speaker 2 (03:33):
You know?

Speaker 1 (03:33):
I mean, what are you going to be? I mean,
you and I have talked about this before. It's not
a repeatable. It's really tough to you know, to nail
down something fleeting like a UFO unless it's a hot
spot and happening all the time, which seems to happen
in certain places. But still, what is it exactly? Is

(03:54):
it just more funding for more research or more hands
on or is there equipment involved?

Speaker 2 (04:00):
Well, here's the beauty of it. It doesn't matter, it's
whatever we want. This is no strings attached funding. We
can yeah and it's yeah. It's no strings attached funding.
And what most people missed in our press release, this

(04:20):
is an endowment. That means some of it. So this
is not going to disappear after I mean, we have
an initial five year period, but then after that we're
going we're going to rely on residuals from investment. That's
what an endowment means. So that means that if you know,
stock market stays, you know good, that means we have

(04:42):
we might have enough money to continue to work on
UAP for the rest of our lives.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
This is a big deal.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
This should be big news, but nobody cares. New York
Times hasn't called us CNN sixty minutes. Nobody cares about
the fact that we at University Albody have received a
unique type of donation. It's not a one time donation.
It's well it's but it's been turned into an endowment
specifically for UAP studies with no strings attached. We can

(05:13):
use it for equipment, we can use it for salary,
we can use it for both. We can use it
for travel to hotspots. We can use it for whatever
is needed to advance the field of UAP research.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
Isn't that great? Isn't that great? So with this, you say,
no strings attached, so you can collaborate with someone else
that has some ideas. You mentioned the Tedesco brothers, you know,
someone like that that has the equipment. I mean there
could be some collaboration as well.

Speaker 2 (05:45):
Yeah, we will work with anybody who's willing to work
with us in a collaborative, cooperative fashion.

Speaker 1 (05:52):
Excellent, excellent, Well, you know, I mean this is that's
pretty exciting. And uh, you know, I mean also, so
this is to the university, so hopefully you'll have people
coming up behind. Uh, you know, if this is you know,
kind of a permanent thing, unless, of course we solve it, right,
But if you have, you know, people coming up behind. Uh,
do you have possibly some people that are younger that

(06:16):
are also interested in this? Do you think that will
happen like a legacy?

Speaker 2 (06:24):
That's strange, nobody's asked me that question. I'm considering myself
very young, so I'm not thinking about that. My colleague
Cecilia and I, who are working with Kevin, we are
that legacy. We're the young ones who are going to
take over over time. So we're not thinking that that
far ahead because me and me and my colleague Cecilia,

(06:46):
we are the young ones. We are that next generation already,
you know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
Yeah, yeah, uh, well would you say, you know, it's
it's ongoing. That's that's really exciting. And yeah, of course
you don't have to worry about that for quite a well,
but still, yeah, that's that's really great. I'm really glad
to hear this. Yeah, I can't think of really, you know.
I mean, I've always thought and I've talked to I

(07:12):
may even ask this to Kevin when I first talked
to him the very first time, you know, I mean,
is it the funding is always because there's no endgame,
you know, that's kind of like there's no easy endgame
in sight, So there's people that are not really willing
to invest in that. So this is a This is

(07:35):
very different, and I'm glad this is an open minded
person with obviously has some means to help you out.
That's great.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Yeah, this is extremely different. This is not like a
research grant with goals and milestones, because honestly, up research
doesn't work well that way, because we don't know if
the hotspots are really hot spots. We don't know for
sure what equipment is going to work well. We need
to be nimble, flexible, and adaptable. So the sort of

(08:06):
traditional research grant a cycle doesn't really work for us
because we need to We can't have milestones that are
set in stone, because we need to be able to
adapt and be flexible if we just if we need
to like move to a different location or use different equipment,

(08:26):
and we have that flexibility.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
Now, excellent, excellent. So now I think of I think
of New York State, and I think of Pine Bush.
You know, that whole area of the Hudson Valley, you
know where all the I don't know what the activity
is like these days, but there certainly is has been
a lot of activity. And you know, I mean another

(08:50):
thing I was just thinking, when when it's a hotspot,
you do have some you know, not so far away.
I mean it's pretty far away from you, but still
not not like ten hours away. If you if you
ever go out, you know, someplace with equipment, and if
you use equipment, would you like model it after someone

(09:14):
like the deescos if if that's the case.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, we're start by modeling after ourselves. I think you
forget had a field na We had a scientific paper
on that. We had a whole field expedition Laguna Catalina.
We're gonna model it after our first expedition. And you said,
if we go there's there's no if, of course, we're
gonna have go to hotspots. That's the entire our entire mission.

(09:40):
You said, if we go on and there's no if,
of course, we're going to go to local hotspots. And
we're gonna model it after our first expedition, together with
lessons learned by looking at other groups, who what have
they done? What have the Tedesco's done with galle A project.
We're going to learn lessons to be better, to improve
by by not just working with people, but also reading

(10:02):
what they've published to see what can we do that,
what can we learn from from others?

Speaker 1 (10:08):
I remember that whole situation you just talked about, and
the unfortunate part was that you didn't have a lot
of time there, you know, I mean you were there
for what a week or under a week?

Speaker 2 (10:21):
A week?

Speaker 1 (10:22):
Yeah, yeah, and you know you think of any given spot,
you know, you could like you could go outside your
house right now and stare up at the sky for
a month and never see anything, you know. So I
mean it's like fishing in a way. You know, you
may catch one, you may not. But yeah, I mean
just in the time you were there, the things were happening.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
Yes, So our strategy to combat that is definitely we
want to identify potential hotspots, and we have to be
very careful because most hotspots aren't hotspots, right. You have
to think compensate for things like population density, you know,
nearby airports leading to you, or a military basis. We
have to compensate for those kinds of factors and really

(11:06):
try to identify like for example, you mentioned pine Bush,
there hasn't been activity since the eighties. I think like
we've got to be very we want to make sure
we choose locations, and we've already got ideas on nearby
things in neighboring states. We already have picked out potential
places to deploy, and definitely we want to create permanent

(11:27):
or semi permanent stations working with local eyewitnesses right of
activity who We've already started establishing relationships with eyewitnesses intelleged hotspots,
So that and we're very grateful for people who've already
given us permission to set up cameras on their property

(11:47):
and things like that. So the plan is to work
with local witnesses of UAP activity in hotspots and be
able to establish actual stations that are automated or semi automated,
because we think we also need some human factor making
sure equipment's working and pulling data you know, out every

(12:07):
day or every week at least. So we're looking at
like a compromise kind of semi automated, semi permanent kind
of stations. Like you know, we're not the only ones
who came up with that idea obviously, you know, Gallea
wants to do that, everybody, lots of people want to
do that. But now we actually have the financial resources
to not just talk about it constantly, but actually start doing.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
It right right. Wow. So I know that you, being
a science guy, a lot of science people do not
want to like to theorize in things. But I'm still
going to ask you anyway, and that is, why do
you suppose a place is a hotspot or not?

Speaker 2 (12:47):
So I suspect when it comes to hotspots, I think
my answer is going to disappoint you, is I think
that hotspots are probably indicative of some kind of natural phenomenon,
some sort of gas or piezo like trick or pyroelectric
type lights, which is still interesting to me. Like, I
think it's very unlikely that you know, non humans would

(13:07):
like pick a certain area to you know, hang out.
That seems strange to me. So if I had to guess,
you know, I'm only speculating here, is I'd say a
hot spot to me, if I had guess, is more
likely to be a natural phenomenon of some kind.

Speaker 1 (13:20):
But we have to start somewhere, right, And just to
argue with you a little bit about that, you're kind
of thinking in human terms. A lot of people tend
to do that, or I tend to do that with
trying to justify why something would or would not do something,
because whatever it is that's visiting us here is not
that's not human. I mean, we have no idea how

(13:42):
they're thinking or why they're there. But you'll see, like
the same people will see a structured craft in a place,
you know, many times and then all of a sudden
it's gone, you know, I mean, it's bizarre.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
But no I know, But that's why. But you pushed
me to give an answer. You said, speculate and speculated
You're right, I'm probably wrong, but you you said, oh.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
Yeah, asking you to speculate too. Another thing, Okay, say
something is a hot spot people see, you know, craft,
they actually see structured craft. And then you just mentioned
nothing's going on in Pine Bush since the nineteen eighties.
I think there is a couple of things going on
here and there there, but not like it.

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Was, but not on a daily basis what I'm saying,
or a nightly Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:25):
Yeah, so, I mean there are places I totally agree
with you. There's like the Brown Mountain that's yeah, you know,
that's a place where stuff happens all the time. But
it's probably natural. You know, there's probably some type of
like Pizio uh situation that you're talking about that And
Hezelden that's another one. I was just talking to class

(14:50):
fun about that and he says, there the lights are
coming up from the ground, and that's that's kind of
telltale right there that it's probably natural.

Speaker 2 (14:58):
Well, I'm not gonna I can't tell you where it
is because I don't want everybody to just mob the location.
But we've found a place driving distance from you all,
Beny that you know, you know, I don't want to
jinx it. I could be wrong. We think it's like
the American Hastelin. It's like, you know, really active. And

(15:18):
again I could be wrong, So I shouldn't, you know,
jinx it, you know, knock on what. It could just
be you know, airplanes or something, you know, and people
missing daanpints. I gotta be careful, but knock on wood.
We might have found a location that's really really good.
Because it's so and if that's the case, we want
to build a whole giant thing just like Project Hastalin there.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
Hmm wow wow, yeah, it's that would be something exciting. Yeah,
so eventually eventually it would be out that people could
go there possibly or is it just for your team
to research?

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Oh, we would love to have like you're mentioning, you know,
there's there. There are different teams. We'd love to collaborate,
cooperate with people to to come and observe and reproduce.
You know, our science is about reproducibility. It is a

(16:13):
it is a huge So so don't misunderstand me. I
didn't mean that. Oh, like we're gonna We're going to
not tell anybody where it is, so we can you know,
steal all the glory. Absolutely not. What I meant is
we need to preserve the privacy of people's private property
that we're deploying on. We don't want this guy, a
person who's given us, you know, the the their permission

(16:36):
to use their private property, to be mobbed by UFO tourists,
non scientists. So we would absolutely welcome other scientists researchers
to who will work with us. We're already building bridges
with different groups to try to build a huge multi
group cooperative initiative to study this area. But we want

(16:57):
to try to avoid We want to make sure it
doesn't turn into a media circus. And you know, it's
like you know, if you've read Sherlock Holmes, you know,
and then all the evidence gets trampled, you know when
everybody shows up.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah yeah, or you have another woodstock yeah yeah.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
So we want to respect the witness who's opened their
property to us and allow them to set up cameras.
We don't want them mobbed by one hundred people or
a thousand or more people showing up be like, hey,
we want to see the lights.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
You know, there's a there's a woman I haven't had
on my show for years. Her name is Chase Koletski.
Do you have ever heard of her.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
I've heard of her because I've seen her name come
up on guest lists for things like I think Banama
Khan or Contact in the Desert, like her her name
rings a bell as I've seen her come up on lists.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yeah, she has a really amazing story where in Tennessee,
sort of a celebrity type person had this big farm
area and they were seeing something else. She was with
moved at the time, and they were seeing he was
seeing something all the time. He kept contacting them, it's here,

(18:06):
it's here all the time, and uh so it's a big,
big triangle. So anyway, the bottom line is she goes there,
and she had she went there with the full intention
of just debunking the thing and figuring out it's something,
you know, normal whatever. So they're there and uh all
and the guys out there and they're in the field

(18:27):
at night. They have all the equipment there, and all
of a sudden they see these bizarre lights flying around
in the sky, all these weird zigzagging back and forth
and all that, and then all of a sudden, the
person says, here it comes and this big, huge triangle
with a light in each corner, light in the center
is just coming silently over them like that, and then

(18:50):
all the equipment went dead, all the batteries died on
the cameras and everything. And she tells that story, and
I mean, here's a situation where it was happening over
and over and over again. Which also makes me think
of the area where you were talking about Catalina. You know,
there was seems like there's a lot going on there.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
Yeah, and we are very cognizant of those kinds of issues.
That's why we're planning, you know, to have We mentioned
this in the UAPx paper. Analogue camera backups, things that
don't require batteries or use different batteries, have multiple stations
and multiple locations because what people what most people don't
realize is that electromagnetic effects they drop off as one

(19:34):
over the distance squared, and so you get something, you
capture something from far away enough where it doesn't affect
the equipment. So we know all about like, our goal
is to work around those challenges and still get good photos,
good videos despite all the challenges of a battery draining,
equipment failure. We are well aware of all those challenges

(19:55):
and we want to tackle those challenges head on.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Sounds great. So in your opinion other opinion here, what
do you think would satisfy the public? Like to say,
I mean, I don't know if you watch the aged
disclosure that just came out. Did you happen to watch that? Yet?
Very interesting? There's a couple of things in there that
I think we're really worth watching. But I'm just saying,

(20:22):
what do you think will move? Would move the needle?
So the public would agree that there's I mean, there's
more awareness of it than ever. But what do you
think would just say where Okay, we definitely need to
do something. There's definitely something going on here. What would
it be nothing?

Speaker 2 (20:41):
I think it's too late, and it's because of AI
AI slop. So like you could now have the most
damning evidence of you know, like a video of a
gray alien waving through a window of a ship and
people would say, oh, it's AI generator. And so I
fear that the time has passed to have a conclusive

(21:01):
disclosure that people would believe. I feel like that ship
has sailed unfortunately. So I really don't know anything that
would move the needle at this point. So for the
general public or for the scientific commedia at large, I
think at this point it just requires dedicated people, you know,
like me working with Kevin and ceciliat you Albany, just
keep pushing forward, because I think moving the needle is

(21:22):
going to be, I mean almost impossible at this point
because of how effective AI has come at creating fakery.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
And it's not going to get any easier.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
It's going to get worse, worse because now we laugh
that AI generates you know, six fingers on a human hand. Whatever.
Tomorrow it's going to be perfect, and the day after that,
you know. See the problem is is that AI generated
photos and videos are getting so good we're not going
to know what's real or not anymore after a while.
And so I worry that the time for a disclosure

(21:54):
that everyone believed that that ship has sailed is shaled
a couple of years ago with Chad GPT and Dolly
and mid Journey and all these things. I really think
that you're never going to convince a general public of
anything anymore. If tomorrow, for example, the President United States
that hey, everybody there are aliens, and like officially from
a podium said that, well, what happened is a new
conspiracy theory or form would would say that he's lying

(22:18):
and making that up to distract us from the economy,
from tariffs from Ukraine. There will be a new reverse
conspiracy theory that would say that aliens are made up
in order to distract us from our quote unquote real problems.
You see, you see the issue?

Speaker 1 (22:34):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I see, And I've thought about that.
I've thought about that being used as its distraction.

Speaker 2 (22:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
Yeah, But you know here, here's the thing. Is there
is there any way that you're aware of to be
able to flag what is made through AI or not?
Is it just that good that? Uh? I know it'll
keep getting better, But I mean, are we able to, like,
for instance, is take a video, pop it into chat,

(23:02):
GPT or something and say, can you tell me if
this is a generated video? I mean, is there a
way to do that? Yes?

Speaker 2 (23:09):
But you see the problem. You just said it yourself.
You're asking the AI to decide if it's AI. You
trust the AI to police itself. Do you realize the
circularity of what you just said? Yeah? So the thing
is is that, yes, there are tools to detect AI generation,
are they perfect? No, just like tools to detect photoshop

(23:32):
right in the old days. Right now photoshop feels so quaint.
Of course, there are digital forensic experts like there were
analog forensic experts. But here's the thing. It's a race.
It's kind of like a race between criminals and police,
right or between if you're a fan of Star Trek,
you know the cloaking device and cloaking device detection mechanisms, right,

(23:53):
So basically it's a race. And some years the bad
guys and the hoaxers will be ahead, and some years
the good guys will be ahead. It's just it's just
a new reason. It's just reality we're gonna have to
live with. Is that some in some years a the
AI fakery will be ahead, and in other years the
digital forensics guys will get ahead of it. It's just

(24:14):
it's it's it's gonna be a never ending race, which
we see in other areas all the time. You know,
we saw it with photography, right there's always always a
race between people figuring out how to make fakery and
just analog photographs and then people getting better at at
at puzzling, puzzling it out.

Speaker 1 (24:31):
Since we're on the topic of AI, I'm really fascinated
by it and I've I've looked into it quite a bit.
I've had some people on this show or the Everything
Else show talking about, you know, the possible future. It's
a little nerve wracking to think about. Of course, you know,
we can never really predict what the future is going

(24:52):
to be. It's always something different than what we think
it will be. But but how as a professor, how
concerned are you with the future of teaching? I mean
is this? I mean, how do you know that someone
just doesn't run everything through chat GPT and like the
engine and the paper like that.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
You can't. It's impossible, right, And so I'm not the
only obviously professors have been arguing and worrying about this
past couple of years. But there are plenty of solutions.
You have to be creative. Sometimes you don't even have
to be creative. Old school solutions are fine. So like, yeah,
I've just made peace with the fact that all the
homework the students is cheat in person tests, they're not

(25:32):
getting around, they're not you know, there's no chat EPT
on a piece of paper doing an in person test.
So I've just you know, basically, what I've done is
increase the percentage that like the mid term exam and
the final exam are and that solves the problem. So
instead of whining about the problem without and like many
professors do, just just just take action and solve the problem.

(25:55):
And so my colleagues and I always just took action
and solved the problem. Which is sure, let them cheat
on homework as much as they want, get one hundred
percent every time, and then when they fail the final exam,
you can go to them and be like, look, I
know you're using AI because what did you get a stroke?
Did you get hit in the head on the day
of the exam? How did you have one hundred percent
of the homework? And so you can immediately catch anybody

(26:17):
cheating because they get one hundred percent of all the
homeworks and then they get thirty percent of the exam,
you know that they were full of shit right the
whole time. So this is I'm not downplaying that this
is a challenge, but instead of just complaining about the challenge,
what we need to do is rise to that challenge.
Now I'm only talking about in science in English because

(26:39):
you mentioned papers. That has nothing to do with me,
because i'm you know, I teach physics. But in like English,
that's a much more serious, not funny thing that's not
easy to solve. If I was an English professor, I
would have been in despair. I wouldn't know how to
solve that because anyone could just crank out a perfect
paper now and chat GPT. You're right about that. But

(26:59):
when it comes to science, we still have a solution,
which is asking them to do the math problems in person,
doing just quiz as and exams, So we still have
a solution. But you are right in English, in writing
based classes where you can't just have them sit and
write what you're gonna what are you gonna decode the
students handwriting? Right, That's that's that's not gonna be easy.

(27:22):
So you're right that there are certain disciplines where AI
is absolutely devastating to them. But I am blessed that
I am not in one of those fields of academia
that's been completely decimated by AI. I mean, we are
negatively affected. Like I said, the AI will just solve
the homework perfectly for you, show the steps and everything,

(27:44):
but we are not as decimated as other fields have been.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
You know another thing about AI, it's possible that you
can use that tool as well in your research.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yes, yes, uh, you know.

Speaker 1 (27:58):
I mean I have done things like asking if there's
alien life out there and stuff like that, and it
comes up with the you know, probables and things like that.
It says to a good question, you know.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
Well, it's always polite. It's always polite, which is not
actually a good wight to it too.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
I always say please and just.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
Oh good, so they'll kill you last when they take
over good the.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Robots to kill me last. Yeah, yeah, oh funny, funny.
So let's talk about you have a paper called the
Nest Noble Elements Simulation Technique, and this has to do
with the dark matter experiment. Can you can you for
the layman, can you go into that a little bit?

Speaker 2 (28:41):
Certainly? But I'm surprised you brought that up. That was
not one of the papers I sent you, was it? Yes?

Speaker 1 (28:48):
But that's okay. Let's talk about something else.

Speaker 2 (28:50):
Are you sure? Because I'm checking now and I sent
you only my UFO papers. I'm double checking now on
the link.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
But anyway, let's let's forget about that.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Okay, I just double checked all five links I sent
you in They're all into UFO papers, so I don't
know what's going on.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Well that's what opened when I clicked. Let's not argue. Okay,
so let's talk about one of your your papers. How
much time do we have before catastrophic disclosure? That one that's.

Speaker 2 (29:21):
Interesting, Yeah, that's what matter.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Thing was really interesting. I was breezing through it, but well.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
That's my mainstream work. We could talk about that, but
I thought this is a UFO podcast. Ye yeah, yeah, all.

Speaker 1 (29:34):
Right, So I'm time do we have before catastrophic catastrophic disclosure?

Speaker 2 (29:42):
So I'm really proud of this paper, which is funny
because nobody's heard of it, and I think it's one
of the most important things I've ever written, frankly, and
yet nobody was read it. And so basically this is
a published paper in the journal Limina, which is the
Journal of upp Studies created by my good friend Mike Caphone,
who's the leader of the Society for UAP Studies or SUOPS.

(30:02):
So he's tried to he's created a new journal kind
of like, you know, in the same spirit as Jew folks.
Remember Jew folks, you know HEINIX journal, and so I
published his paper there. He wants papers in his journal.
He wants to really take off. And I had this idea.
You know, we all have these smartphones in our pockets,
and skeptics often laugh, why isn't there, you know, better
photos and videos. So I restricted myself in this paper

(30:25):
to considering crashes, not UFOs in general, but it's specifically
a crash of advanced crap. And I wanted to calculate
why hasn't it happened yet that there's been a random
crash in someone's backyard, right, and now it's on YouTube TikTok,
and it's too late to take it back. Right, the
men in black don't show up fast enough. But here's

(30:45):
the amazing thing. I did the math, and it's actually
very reasonable that this hasn't happened yet because the Earth
is mostly water, and there's all kinds of areas of
the Earth that aren't very populated. So I actually calculated
in the paper that if David Grusha right on what
he claims to be the crash the average crash rates,
then I calculate based on how many people own smartphones

(31:09):
based on population of the world. I estimate that you
wouldn't expect someone to catch like a Roswell style you know,
mythic level legendary crash until the year twenty forty or
twenty and fifty roughly, right, very roughly. And so it
makes sense that no one's seen anything yet because again
you have to treat the earth statistically right, You can't

(31:30):
just assume that population is the same everywhere.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
Yeah, that makes total sense. And I always get when
I'm flying and looking down sometimes you know, it just
it goes on and on and on, like over Canada
or something. I mean, last time we went to Italy,
we went up over and you see all the ice
forever and ever and ever. It just seems like, you know,

(31:56):
it's like there's great expanses without a single soul. You're right,
and you know, you think about the world. Population could
actually fit in the state of Texas or it used
to be able to you know, probably not now, but
at one time they could, you know. So, but I'm
just getting that there is a lot of sparsness, especially

(32:16):
you get you know, places like China and Russia they
have all these you know, I mean low population for
the mass of land. And then you're right, you're seventy
three percent of what the earth is water or whatever.
The percentage is exactly exactly. So yeah, I mean you
know that I never thought of it that way. That's

(32:37):
a really good point.

Speaker 2 (32:39):
And I take that into account. I take into account,
you know, locations like Greenland, you know, and dark I
do that all mathematically. So with the with the exception
of the equations, of course, that the paper is meant
to be you know, readable by people. And that's why
you know, I have the free version that I sent
to you that's not behind a paywall, right, and also

(33:00):
the the real versions also open access at Limina. But
this is where you know, I use archive dot org
to post you know, it's all all my all my work,
as does my colleague Kevin and colleague Cecilia, where it's
behind not behind a paywall. But so that's a good thing, right,
you don't have to pay. But also, like you said earlier,
you read my papers and under said that they're not
meant for Layman, They're meant for other scientists and scientific community.

(33:23):
They're not meant as as they're not popular science papers,
text or books. However, they're evidence of the fact that
we are taking the topic seriously as scientists and pushing
it forward and publishing papers on mm hmmm.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
And I saw the one that Kevin did with Robert
Powell and about you know, all the tik tak basically
and the g forces and all that. Very I think
I've talked to Kevin about that before.

Speaker 2 (33:50):
Oh yeah, it's a crucial paper. Kevin is very very
what's the word I'm looking for, distraught depressed that no,
that papers I think ten years old. Nobody talks about it,
even though at the end of the paper he says, yeah,
NIMTS was probably aliens. And yet Ross Caulhart doesn't talk
about it. You've got people on YouTube saying, oh, Tiktak

(34:10):
was a Lockheed Martin drone or what like. Nobody reads
Kevin's paper where he literally concludes on the last page,
you know what, it was probably aliens. Yeah, this paper.
He's very, very depressed that this wasn't mentioned in age
of disclosure, This wasn't mentioned in any of the congressional hearings.
And and you know, Kevin and I we had a

(34:31):
briefing with ERO a long time ago. This is when
it was still under Sean Kirkpatrick. We mentioned this paper
so Sean Kirkpatrick knew about it. Arrow like, why is
nobody talking about this? This is this is the revolutionary
seminal paper. Nobody cares. This paper is more important than
my paper that we were just talking about. This is incredible.
He looks at the Knimts, he looks at Bethune Japanese,

(34:55):
the JL case, you know, from the eighties. This is
great stuff, and no, bud he's talking about it. Where's
the New York Times, where's CNN? Where's sixty minutes? And
this paper I think is now ten years old, and
so now it's too late because people say, oh, it's
old news, they're not going to cover it now. So
it's it's incredibly This is such an important piece of

(35:15):
work that probably long after we're dead, it'll be rediscovered
and people are like, oh, oh, Kevin already said it
was aliens in a scientific paper. Gene, maybe we should
have read it. Maybe we should have listened to him
instead of Mick West right and Neil Degrassison.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
Yeah, yeah, something you said earlier reminded me of what
you said. Oh yes, I know exactly what it was.
You said about the cameras. Everyone has the camera in
pocket Neil Degrass Tyson loves to talk about that. And
you know, there's so many blurry.

Speaker 2 (35:47):
You know, pictures, And I explain that in my paper
that we talked about earlier, because not enough time has passed,
because UFOs are not that common, not dramatic ones, and
so so that's a very easy question to debunk now
to answer, I actually did the math. Did Mick West

(36:10):
do the math on it? No? He actually when I
talked about my paper, he said it was a colossal
waste of time. That's what he said to me. I'm like, really, really,
He goes, oh yeah, garbage and garbage out. But the
thing is, the thing about my paper is you can
take the assumptions, change my assumptions, and crunch the numbers again.
So if you don't like my assumptions, if you think
they're garbage, that doesn't mean my process is wrong. Do

(36:33):
you look at my process in the paper. So in fact,
you can someone could take the same mathematics in my
paper and calculate how many bigfoot are there in the
United States per square kilometer. They could use the same approach.
Is what I was trying to do in that paper
is create a nice neutral math is neutral, right, just
it's not. You know, mathematics is neither a skeptic nor believer.

(36:58):
Math is neutral, and it just take the math and
see what can we derive mathematically? And that's Kevin was
also using math, and he used math to show Look,
this could not possibly have been human made craft. And
nobody noticed that. Nobody read Kevin's paper. I'm shocked that
no one's brought it up at a congressional hearing, Like,

(37:20):
how has nobody read Kevin's paper? I just don't get
it or mine. You know that you just showed on crashes,
which also looks a different perspective. He talks about crashes
versus you know, accelerations and velocities. It's a different aspect
of the topic.

Speaker 1 (37:36):
So you, being a professor of physics, I said this
quote and just we talked about Seth Shostak earlier from
SETI so I had a debate with him years ago,
way back in like twenty twelve or thirteen something like that.
But anyway, you know, the question came up with how

(37:58):
would they get here from there? Oh, don't get vast,
vast fast distances?

Speaker 2 (38:03):
And I understand no vast distances a lie. It's a myth.

Speaker 1 (38:07):
Okay, well anyway, let me just finish.

Speaker 2 (38:09):
Okay, all, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
But I said to him, well, perhaps we haven't figured
something out in physics that someone else has. That was
the thing I remember throwing in. I mean, that has
been my belief. If it is distances, then there's something
in physics that is yet to be discovered. But a
lot of times people in the sciences, we always think
we're on the pinnacle of knowing everything. Do you think

(38:34):
there's still a lot to know about physics?

Speaker 2 (38:38):
There is, Martin, but we don't even need that. The
answer to set shataks question is one hundred and twenty
years old. It's old physics. It's Albert Einstein, it's relativity.
There's something called length contraction. There's something called time dilation.
We've known about this from nineteen oh five. The distances
are not vast, the times are not long, not if

(38:59):
you have a real to visit craft. And so people
like Seth Shostak, people like Anili grest tits and repeat
this nonsense, and it bothers me because it's like, did
they have a stroke? Do they forget fundamental physics? So Martin,
you're right, there's plenty more physics to discover. But I'm
on your side. I'm strengthening your point. But you don't
even need news physics because the old physics tells this

(39:21):
as possible. And that pisses me off so much about
these skepticity bunkers. They're so full of shit that you
can smell their stink for miles away. And when they say,
here's if I confront them on this, here's the next kapap.
Oh it's too hard, it's too hard to travel relative
physics speeds. We'll never have the fuel. And then I'm

(39:42):
reminded about the New York Times writing in nineteen in
nineteen o three, I think it goes, Oh, air travel
is too hard, will never build airplanes. Oh, space travel
is too hard. Sputnik will never work. It's this same nonsense,
over and over again. Before the Manhattan there was a
general there's a quote, this is a real quote, who

(40:04):
said the atomic bomb will never work. And he said,
I speak as an expert in explosives. What happened, see
and see. The thing is about these people is they
are ignoring fundamental physics, and they get away with it.
The reason they can get away with it is because
if they're talking to non scientists who don't know Einstein's

(40:27):
theory of special relativity, they know they will not be
challenged on this, and I call that being unethical. If
you are using is the fact that you know you're
talking to someone who's a non expert and you are
going to use your status as an expert to trick them.
That is not ethical. And that's what debunkers do. That

(40:48):
is not ethical. Wow, you were trick. So you were
tricked because Seth knew you don't know relativity, which is
not your fault, because you're not a student of physics,
have a degree in physics or astronomy. That's not your fault.
Not everybody can know everything about every topic. I don't
know anything about medicine, for example, right, I'm not an

(41:08):
expert in everything. And so he was abusing the fact
that you didn't know the correct answer to brobby you hmmmmm.

Speaker 1 (41:17):
Now this is this is fascinating to me about what
you're saying, first of all, but also it makes me
wonder about some of the people that I've talked to
who have talked about being an encounter like Craft over them.
And I remember one gentleman just saying to me, he said,
everything was moving slow. You hear about that, everything like
led matrix. He said, everything was like going slow, if

(41:39):
you can imagine that. And you know a number of
people have said that. And I asked him, I said,
did it feel like something was going on with time?
And he said yes. And you know, he was a
great witness and and so that's another thing that you hear.
And sometimes you get complete absence of sound. I think

(42:00):
fascinating too. You know these things you hear, so just
skipping around a little bit. Have you ever had any
grief for looking into this topic from colleagues or anything.

Speaker 2 (42:13):
Absolutely, of course I get made fun of. But you
know what, they're not laughing so hard anymore with the
giant donation we just got, because you know how hard
it is to get funding, especially under the Trump administration.
Good lord, and so like, it's not so funny anymore
now that we've got you know, money, So but but
but but even before that, I would say, the stigma

(42:34):
is not as bad as it used to be. Definitely,
So we've we only get a few insults and giggles.
Most of the time, people like Kevin had the full
attention of the Physics department. At one of our internal
workshop you know conferences a few weeks ago, nobody was laughing.
People were asking serious questions. So definitely times are changing.
The times are definitely changing. But that being said, I'm

(42:58):
not going to sit here and tell you I've gotten
zero insults from the stigma. Of course not. There's always
some still, always some still, and so in fact, you know,
this is still damaging to people's careers. Absolutely. So people
think the stigma has disappeared, it's not. So I'm really

(43:20):
glad you asked that question, because it's really important to
remind ourselves and remind your audience the stigma still exists.
And there are still scientists who sneer, you know, and
turn their nose up at this. And I've definitely seen it.
I've seen it happen to my friends Kevin and Cecilia,
my colleagues at the university. I've seen it. I've been

(43:41):
in the room or in the email chain when it's happened.
So I've definitely seen them insulted. And myself and my
friends working on this. And and you know, Avio Lobe
catches NonStop crap on the internet. You know, Beatriz the
Tabesco brothers, you know, Gary Nolan, everybody catches flat for
working on this.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
Yeah, I don't know if I should bring this up
or not, but I thought that av Lobe kind of
went out there a little bit too much on the
three I Atlas myself, you know, I mean that was
quite a step to take. And yeah, I don't know
how he's fairing about that.

Speaker 2 (44:20):
Well, he'll be fairing just fine because he's a tenured
professor at Harvard, so everything just bounces off of him,
so he'll be fine.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
It almost did with John Mack, though.

Speaker 2 (44:29):
I mean that's because the times have changed, you're right,
And there's another difference. John Mack didn't bring in Moulah
cash money right again, is the thing is is you
would be surprised how fast the stigma evaporates when there
are dollar signs involved. Then it's suddenly like, oh okay,
right this, you know, right this way there like dollar

(44:50):
dollar signs talk right, and and so like John Mack
didn't bring in money. He was working, you know, he
was a pioneer, right, volunteer, free time effort on this,
and but he caught a lot of flak, a lot
of flak. But the thing is times have also changed
where the stigma is reduced. It's not gone, but it's reduced.

(45:10):
And so that's why AVI does not catch the same
amount of flack that that John did at HARP.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
Now, what about your school has has have you ever
thought about the curriculum involving UAP.

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Curriculum? Yeah, well, I have taught a course on exotic
propulsion and uh and that was wildly successful. But the
thing is, I can't. I can't do it anymore. And
the reason is is a faculty is shrinking. We don't
have time to teach fun extra elective courses. I can't

(45:46):
even teach my class on dark matter. I haven't taught
my class in dark matter I think in six years.
I think the pandemic happened in the middle of that
class where everything is shut down. I think it's been
five or six years maybe since I've had I've been
able to teach my class in dark matter. So the
problem is the faculty is getting smaller, shrinking. You know,
we've had retirements and you know, people leaving, and so

(46:09):
unfortunately we don't you know, we don't have the time
to cover to like just teach fun elective classes. We've
got to teach the basics as well. So maybe someday
we'll circle back, you know, to classes like that. So
I'm not saying it's hopeless. I'm just saying that we
need we need to step back from from that for
the moment. I know Kevin wants to teach a class

(46:30):
specifically on UFOs, not about propulsion, but like in general
history of UFOs and famous cases. But the problem is
then who's going to teach the required physics classes? You
see what I mean? M hm.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
So now getting back to this funding and the availability
of you running around and doing all these things, yep,
does this have to be when basically when school is
out of session?

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Ideally ideally yes? So so right now we're planning on
a huge like expedition next summer at the earliest. You're
absolutely right, that's a very good question. But this is
both This is not necessarily a bad thing because remember
we're in the northeast. Do we really want to freeze

(47:14):
our butts off with cameras and binocular and look in
for your pose in the winter? Right So, and remember
that we're we're focusing on hotspots, alleged hotspots and driving distance.
The reason is is because even though we have this
wonderful donation, this funding, we also don't want to squander it.

(47:34):
It is an endowment, but it can still run out,
so we're not gonna scal out for some giant you know.
Can you imagine how expensive I mean, we did this
for a tear in the sky and you know director
producer Carolyn Corey, you know, God bless her, right she
paid for this. Right. The shipping, how we're gonna ship
all of our equipment to other locations on a plane?

(47:55):
Can you imagine going through TSA. We're all it's like
you're a forward detecting your equipment. So basically we're not
We're trying not to waste money on expensive expeditions in
order to make this new resource last. So that's where
we're trying to identify hotspots and driving distins.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
All right, now, I want to talk about let's see,
I'm trying to figure out the name of another one
that another paper that you were involved in. And let's see,
is it the science Let's see the New Science is at.

Speaker 2 (48:29):
Yes, that's yeah, yeah, Kevin and I wrote that. Well, really, Kevin,
Kevin really did the vast majority of the work. Although
there's like thirty some authors on there. Kevin really busted
his butt on this paper. This is a history of
the whole field basically which you know already exists, but
in book form, which doesn't count. Right, that's not scientific

(48:49):
because anyone can write a book, right. This is a
peer reviewed scientific paper, and so it's it's it's meant
to condense shorter than in a book form the history
of UFOs and more importantly, also bring the bibliography of
other people's papers into the scientific literature. So this was
this was a team effort, but Kevin was the lead

(49:11):
author and really, you know, push hard on moving this forward.
It was published in the same journal as the UAPx
paper on the Catalina Laguna expedition, in the same journal
Progress in Aerospace Sciences. So this was another incredible achievement,
this one led by Kevin. You know, I did the
crash paper and then you mentioned the ENTRYPY paper was

(49:33):
led by Kevin and Robert and Peter, a couple of
guys from SCU. And this was a huge effort as
you see from all the co authors, huge effort where
Kevin was able to bring in a lot of the
people from the UFO field to be co authors.

Speaker 1 (49:46):
I see, wow, that's great. I saw some other names
in there that I recognized, So yeah, I brought other
people in. That's fascinating. So everyone just adds a little
bit to the information. Is that basically what?

Speaker 2 (49:59):
Yeah? So Evian relied on all those co authors, people
like you know, Mike Swartz for example. I'm picking a
random of one name, but so many people helped who
was able to talk about the history right so effectively
using his personal archives. Even so, Kevin relied on these
people who have been doing this for decades to help

(50:19):
make this paper a reality and make it useful for people.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
Excellent, excellent. So let's just say a scenario here that
say you find something really really fascinating. What would be
your method to get it out there? You know, I
know the papers are one method, but I mean, say
you want to make a splash. I mean, would you
have someone work in the publicity part of the things

(50:46):
trying to get like you mentioned earlier New York Times, CNN,
someone like that involved.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
We've tried, and it's helpless. It's frankly hopeless. So we're
just going to do our scientific papers and then we'll
see what happens. We've tried. It's hopeless because we're not
at Harvard, we're not at Yale, we're not at Princeton.
I've tried everything. I've called people who know people who
know the editor at this paper. It all goes nowhere.
And frankly, we've already had giant splashes that should have

(51:13):
been covered. Kevin's paper. You just show UAPx paper getting published.
That was a big deal, a really big deal in
lowering the stigma. Where was the news coverage of that?
We tried, We had press releases, we tried everything. You know,
my university wrote about the gift. For example, no one's
talking about, well, you're talking about you know, the gift
that we got from from from from Tony Gorman. Like

(51:35):
so basically, the way I look at it is it's
completely hopeless. We could have the most damning evidence of
like here's an NHI this or that, and nobody will
care because Kevin and I and Cecilia we are not
at an Ivy League school. And so instead of trying
hopelessly and wasting our time trying to make a big

(51:55):
splash and failing at it, we're basically I've made peace
with the fact that we will never be famous. We
will never be well known for what we've done, no
matter how much money we get, no matter how hard
we work on UFOs. My goal is is to be
remembered posthumously. You know, maybe after I'm dead, people realize,

(52:17):
oh crap. You know, these guys at You Albanie, they
really figured you know, they had to figure it out.
And maybe we'll be rediscovered someday, maybe the future will
be more fair, more egalitarian, and it won't just be
a focus on big names and big schools. And maybe
we'll be noticed one day. But I'll give you proof
that it's hopeless. By the way, I'll give you proof. Okay,

(52:39):
did you notice that in our press release we mention
that Eric Davis is adjunct faculty at You, Albanie. Now
why is the UFO Twitter losing its mind over this? Like?
How is that not a big deal? This is Eric W. Davis? Yeah,

(53:00):
Like how do people not care about that? That's like,
that's a massive deal. And this proves my college. Cecilia,
she warned me, she said nobody will care, and I
said no, but it's Eric Davis, and she'll be like,
nobody will care. And she was right. She was right,
and she warned me. She said, no one will care,

(53:20):
and I thought, oh my god, it'll be like, you know,
Twitter at least will go crazy. They didn't like it's
Eric Davis, Like, what the hell does it take for
us to get noticed? At you Allbany, we got a
giant grant, we published multiple papers. We've got Eric Davis,
Eric W. Davis. You know, it's funny our media people

(53:42):
at university all be you know what they said, they said,
nobody will know who that is. I'm like, what, everybody
will know who that is in the up community? What
you mean nobody will know who that is?

Speaker 1 (53:53):
Like, come on, well, you need to get yourself on.
Joe Rogan, what.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
Do you think I've been waiting for years. I've asked
my agent. I'm like, yet, man, Joe Rogan, he said,
it's impossible. It says too hard, not gonna happen, Not
gonna happen.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
I'm going to buy your way in there.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
No, I know, people should pay pay me for the
time that we take to explain our work to other people.

Speaker 1 (54:19):
Yeah yeah, but yeah, I mean it's a different world,
you know, and how we get things out there unfortunately,
and you know, I mean you think about white papers.
How many are there in the UAP topic. I don't know.
There are some, but I mean not a not a ton.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
No, it's actually pretty huge now, right, that's a common myth.
So actually it's pretty huge. Now look at the bibliography
of Kevin's paper. It's over five hundred entries in the bibliography.
I mean, this is what you just said was true
maybe in nineteen eighty, right, it's not nineteen eighty anymore.
I mean, there are plenty now. There are plenty of
peer reviewed scientific papers on UAP if you know where

(54:57):
to look, because thanks to the stigma, they weren't always published,
you know, maybe in the top journals or open access.
But if you know where to look, there are plenty now, plenty.
I can just off the top of my head. I
could probably name ten or fifteen from the last few years,
just from Galileo Project and UAPx alone, and people I

(55:18):
know well excellently.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
So where would someone try to reach you that wanted
to help in some way?

Speaker 2 (55:26):
Well, my last name is unique, and so I'm very
easy to find. If you stick my last name into Google,
you can find my email just I mean, my last
name is so unique that you just type in Shidaga's
uap I'm so easily findable, and it would be Yeah,
we would love to get the biggest help we could
have now is we do need. We'd love to get
even more donations because we just have like a foundation

(55:49):
to begin the work. But if we can, if we
got even more, we could buy better equipment, hire more students,
and make things go faster. And also we would love
to attract more donations into an endowment so that it's
not just a one time one and done. But we
are looking for taking people's gifts to the university and
making them flower and making them you know, investing them.

(56:12):
These are not just standard research grants. And I forgot
to mention here on the episode, right that one of
the biggest pieces of news in that press release. It's
not just that you know, we got this donation at
university and that Eric Davis is adjunct, you know, volunteer
faculty department Physics. Now we and there's this endowment aspect.
I mean, there's more to it than that, which is

(56:33):
as as it says in the U Albany press release,
the original UAPx is closing, Gary Vorice is closing, and
it's being replaced by this university led effort now University Albany.
So now UAPx is no longer just going to stand
for a uap X. It's now been renamed. This was
Kevin's idea U Albany project.

Speaker 1 (56:55):
X Ah, wow, yes, I did read that when I
was reading through.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
It's like it was meant to be though, Right you
all have any project acts means what a natural acronym? Right?

Speaker 1 (57:06):
Yeah, it works well, excellent. So you didn't disappoint as
usual so much. I mean, it's so much fun as
usual is what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying
you disappoint as usual. You did not disappoint. So I
really appreciate your energy and your optimism and how you
can really move the needle forward. I really appreciate Matthew.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Oh, and I'm sorry that Kevin couldn't be here with
me tonight, that he couldn't make it. But you said
I'm optimistic. I was also pessimistic. Come something. I said
that it would be imp no proof that comes out
whatever move the needle forward anymore in the issue because
of AI, I was also pessimistic. I was I'm trying
to be realistic though, because I want to make sure
that people set their expectations correctly, right and basically, if

(57:53):
you said your expectations low, you won't be disappointed. That
worked for me with the Star Wars prequel trilogy and
then the sequel trilogy, Like it worked for me. If
you set your expectations low and then your expectations are exceeded,
you won't be disappointed. So I'm setting my expectations low
for disclosure, you know, and all that set my expectations low,

(58:14):
and I'm just going to try to force it from
my end as a scientist, do a grassroots of getting
the data myself and not wait for the government to
tell me. Why don't we just do it ourselves. That's
what Heaven and I alge Celi are doing. We're doing
it ourselves. We're not waiting for the government to disclose stuff.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
Excellent. Well, thank you so much. It's been a real pleasure.
And let's say this is up Thanksgiving Day, So happy
Thanksgiving everyone in the US. I hope you're having a
great one, and so thanks so much. I really appreciate Matthew.
Take care all right, everyone, remember to keep your eyes
to the sky and we'll see you next two