(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 1)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking to talk about

(00:31):
some more deep shit.
Steve, how's it going?
Pretty good.
Chris, how are you doing?
Not too bad.
We're two shows in a row, we'reon a roll.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Here we are in soon to be three in a row.
That's right.
I'm pretty excited that we'regoing to be doing this with more
consistency.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
Yes, that is the goal .
So you will hear from us on amore regular basis, and that is
our goal for 2024.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
All perfection requires consistency.
That's right and that's ourgoal.
That is our goal.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
So far, we have not done a good job of it, but we
will get better.
No, that's where their goal.
So far, we have not done a goodjob of it, but we will get
better.
No, that's why they're goals.
So what is going on?
What are we talking about today?

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Well, we were talking about a few things in our
pre-production discussions and Ithink maybe today we're going
to talk about our thoughts onconspiracy theories overall, and
maybe some of our ones that aremore interesting to us.
Uh, how are you?
How are you feeling?

Speaker 1 (01:26):
yeah, we've touched on this a little bit now.
This is this is not going to bea deep dive into any of these
conspiracy theories, but one ofthe things we've started talking
about, steve and I, is just theall the conspiracy theories,
whether you're talking ufos,whether you're talking jfk,
whether you're talking moonlanding and others that we can,
you know, we can discuss.
There are certain parallels tohow how those conspiracy

(01:50):
theories just sort of develop orhow people perceive them.
It's interesting just the ideaof conspiracies.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Right, and I think we touched on this in our last
episode.
But I think that you know, ifyou look for conspiracy theories
, you'll find them, right.
If you think, if you're thetype of person that doesn't, um,
uh, prescribe to that, then youwon't find them.
But I think that, um, there aresuper interesting ones.

(02:22):
I think there are maybe not sointeresting ones, but I think
they're all around us and Ithink that even in current type
of events, what might've been aconspiracy theory at one time,
you know, decades later, itturns into fact.
So I just I've always find thistype of subject very
interesting.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
I've always had a problem with the idea of the
term conspiracy theory, becauseif you think about it,
conspiracy theory has that tone.
Oh, it makes you sound likekind of a nut job, right.
But if you dissect it, what isa conspiracy?
A conspiracy is multipleparties conspiring to some end.

(03:04):
Well, isn't that in every crimeor every there's always people
conspiring, yeah.
Right, I mean as long as there'snot just one person involved,
then it's a conspiracy becausethere's two or more people
working together.
To some, I guess theimplication is it's an illicit
end, right, a conspiracy theory.
But then that I mean generally.

(03:25):
Yeah, that second term theory,you're theorizing that there's a
conspiracy.
Okay, again, if just taking thewords at their own value, not
what we've put into those wordsa theory that there is a
conspiracy, we have that all thetime.
I mean, police operate on thatall the time.
Hey, there's a crime that'sbeen committed.

(03:46):
We have a theory on whocommitted the crime.
If it's more than one person,then it's a conspiracy because
they were conspiring together tocommit this crime.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Right, as long as it wasn't just some spontaneous
thing they did together.
If they thought about it aheadof time and talked to each other
in any way, there was somecommunication ahead of time what
they were going to do.
That's a conspiracy.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Right.
So if taken on its own, theterm conspiracy theory, there is
nothing about that term thatshould evoke any kind of
negative connotation.
It's the meaning that has beenput behind that term.
It's the meaning that has beenput behind that term.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
Oh yeah, I've enjoyed conspiracy theories long before
I thought enjoying them, sayingconspiracy theory was somehow
looked down on by some people.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
Now you could argue that being a conspiracy theorist
is someone who's just payingattention.
You could make that argument.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
I mean know, I mean what they took down, I mean it's
super kind of current.
I don't mean to cut you off,but they, you know, during 2020
I'm not going to get superpolitical, but, um, and I'm not
a super political person, so I'mjust, that's why I'm not going
to get super political, but, um,uh, you know, different, uh, uh

(05:04):
, different sources ofinformation, let's say, would
put out there, maybe that duringthe coronavirus that emanated
from a lab in Wuhan, well, those, you're racist, right, that's
misinformation, that's this,that's that.
Well, you know, fast forward afew years, years.
We think it came from a lab inchina.

Speaker 1 (05:26):
Now, if you say it, you, your comments, do not get
taken down from social media andwhat's interesting too is that
some of the people who who wereso against that idea kind of
talk now.
Oh, of course, we alreadyalways knew that and that's a
very common thing that you do toshut down.
You know, talk of these thingsas you, you deny, deny them, but
then when they're inevitablyshown to be true to some, oh, we

(05:49):
knew that that's not that's,that's not really important.
And they do that with UFOs, theydo that with you know any any
of the conspiracy.
I have always said that's oneof the reasons why the UFO
secret is held so closely byelements within our government
intelligence agency.
Because what would happen ifthey came forward and said okay,

(06:12):
we, we don't want you tobelieve in conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories are bad,don't believe in them.
Oh yeah, but this, this one,that, this, this one about ufos,
that sort of launchedconspiracy that happens to be
true, but none of the others are.
Well, the JFK one maybe, that Imean everyone kind of accepts
that the CIA offed Kennedy, butnone of the others are true.
Well, maybe the coronavirus one, but none of the others.

(06:34):
Once you get into that realmwhere you start oh, this one's
true, but don't believe inconspiracy theories.
You cannot let any of them beproven true, because there goes
your best weapon of shuttingthings down Conspiracy theory
still works.
If you call someone aconspiracy theorist, the
implication is immediately oh,they're crazy, right.

(06:56):
So it's worth examining wherethat term conspiracy theory came
from.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
I think we might have touched on it before.
Um, I'm not absolutely positivewhere it came from and, like I
said, I think maybe I'm a littlealoof when it comes to some of
this stuff because, um, foryears that I've been enjoying
this kind of stuff.
It only dawned on me maybe 10years ago or so that it was kind

(07:25):
of I don't know, would you saypeople that enjoy this type of
stuff.
I wouldn't call it fringe, Iwouldn't really call it fringe
that's what it's been called,though I has but I just feel
like, as time it's funny, astime has gone on in my life I
feel like when I talk peoplesome of the stuff I talked about

(07:46):
30 years ago and people said,steve, what's going on Now,
they'll just they'll say oh,yeah, yeah, yeah, that could be.

Speaker 1 (07:54):
You know it's Gets a different reception.
It really does.
I think people are starting tonotice that maybe not every
conspiracy theory that's outthere is true, but a lot of them
have some weight and it's veryeasy to dismiss any topic if you
don't look into it.
I mean, that's one of thethings that I always get annoyed

(08:16):
at with people who instantlyshut down a lot of these things,
who've done zero research right, and they'll oh, you did
research into that, how silly.
I've done none and I'm going totell you from up on high that
all that's crap.
And then you try to point outindividual things.
And I don't know about that.
I didn't, I didn't look intothat and it's a self-defense

(08:36):
mechanism that people sort ofhave where they they don't want
to look into something that theydon't want to be true.
So ignorance is bliss and youknow they can deny it exists if
they don't look into it.
And um, I I see this with a lotof those.
You know ufos, primarilybecause that's the.
That's the topic that I mostlook into on a regular basis.
It's amazing the amount ofpeople out there who will be

(08:58):
like there's nothing to all this.
But I've not looked into any ofit, but I'm going to tell you
there's nothing in any of it.
How can you say that?

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Well, I think some people with different, all
different conspiracy theories,their ultimate I don't want to
say defense, but I'll use thatas a term that we can understand
their ultimate pushback maybeto the conspiracy theory is well
, if there was evidence of it,we would have seen it, right.

(09:28):
Right, that's generally howit's proposed.
Well, if there was a ufo, wehaven't where how?
Come it hasn't landed on thewhite house lawn right?
Well, if there was big foot,how come he doesn't just walk
out onto the highway right?

Speaker 1 (09:40):
I mean I'm being kind of right facetious now, but
that is, that's kind of how itgoes yeah, it's funny too.
I've heard that one about thethe white house lawn.
Why don't I just land on thewhite house lawn?
Well, in the early 50ssomething buzzed the capitol, uh
a bunch of story right, and itwas in the paper.
It wasn't just a story, that'swhat I mean.

(10:00):
The story was it was right, whatI mean.
It.
The story was in the paper.
Ufos I'm talking about, youknow was taken seriously by the

(10:23):
people and it went away foryears and then it became a joke
and it's kind of come back,because now you will regularly
see serious stories, but they'realways couched in, you know,
drones Drones is the new termthat you use now to kind of you
know, if you say drone, what domost people think of?
What do you mean when you saythe word drone?

(10:44):
Oh, they're drones.
What do most people think of?
What do you mean when you saythe word drone?
Oh, they're drones.
What do most people think of?
They think of those quadcopterdrones that we see.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
Yeah, that's kind of the only thing I know.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
Right.
So they use that term.
Now with UFOs, they'll refer tothem as drones, because they
know that most people when theyhear drones they say, oh, okay,
so that's just a drone.
So somebody has a drone, not abig deal.
Um, okay, did they have thosein the in the 40s, in the 50s,
in the 60s?

(11:11):
And really they had drones likethat commercially?
No, they didn't have themcommercially available.
And that's a trick of ofshutting down conspiracy
theories in general, but talkingabout the ufo one, it's a good
trick is you isolate what you'retalking about, disprove that
little part and then use that towipe the whole thing.

(11:33):
So yeah, I'm sure you've seenthat, you know in in court and
you know people will use try tonarrow the argument down,
disprove that little piece ofthe argument and and try to
imply that that invalidates thewhole thing, when they're not
really invalidating the wholething.
They're invalidating that smallpiece of it, but they're trying
to conflate it all with thatpiece.

(11:56):
So when you poke a hole in that, oh, it's all, it's all poked a
hole in.

Speaker 2 (12:01):
Well, that's exactly how, at least in the civil side
of law, I practice civillygenerally and well, exclusively.
Now that's exactly how it goes.
So sometimes people say thedefense has a little bit of an
easier job because of it.

(12:22):
So in terms of that, so my jobis to build a case right and
present that built case to thejury right.
Here's how everything happened,and here's this and here's that
right.
The defense just has to get upthere and poke holes in the case
, which is easy to do.
They don't have to have theirown case right.

(12:43):
So I understand that it's theplaintiff's obligation to prove
their case, which is easy to do.
They don't have to have theirown case right.
So I understand that it's theplaintiff's obligation to prove
their case.
I understand the way it works,but the dynamics of it.
It's much easier to sit backand just listen to someone's
story and say, ah, I know yousaid 10 things.
I can show one of them mightnot be exactly what you said and
so, because I showed one ofthem, maybe isn't exactly what

(13:05):
you said, maybe you shouldn'tbelieve the other nine.
That's kind of how it goes.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
Right, and I think it goes back to something we may
have talked about before thedifference between arguing facts
and arguing conclusions,Because facts, by their nature,
should be unassailable.
A fact should be a fact.
That is a thing you know, thatyou know it to be true.
Now the conclusion you takefrom those facts you can argue

(13:33):
with.
You know, just because what'sthat old saying it's connection
is not causality.
Just because two things areconnected doesn't mean that they
caused each other or thatthere's a there's a direct
correlation there.
It's just they're connected,right?
You'd have to have a lot moreto show that this thing is
connected to this thing, right.
And that's how you get to.

(13:53):
Where you're talking about is,if you build up all these pieces
and then they poke a hole ineven one of them, then use that
as an excuse to say the rest ofthem, rest of them fall down.
But it's a common tactic thatyou use.
I mean, that's what you do,right?

Speaker 2 (14:11):
So what is some of your?
I know you enjoy, as I do, thewhole UFO UAP, however you want
to describe that type ofdiscussion phenomenon.
However you want to talk aboutit, I know you really enjoy it.
Call it a conspiracy theory.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
I mean call it a conspiracy theory because it is
at its core.
Again not putting judgment intothe word conspiracy theory.
It is a theory that there is aconspiracy among some people in
government to hide somethingwhich I think is the granddaddy
of all conspiracy, which againis another reason why they don't
want that one to to be proventrue, because if the granddaddy

(14:48):
is is true, then the rest umother ones that interest me.
At the JFK one always has Ithink it has most people um,
which is funny because I don'tthink you can find many people
who will argue that the officialnarrative of JFK's
assassination is what happened,like I think we all understand

(15:08):
through the movie JFK andthrough everything that's come
out.
Maybe we're not sure whathappened, but we're pretty sure
something sketchy's gone onthere.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
Is an interesting discussion only because, well,
many reasons why.
But one reason I'm thinking ofis there's so many aspects of
that whole situation that arevery questionable, right.
There's many aspects that areprobably say okay, that's

(15:38):
exactly what happened, right.
And there's others you say hmm,how did?
that happen, right?
Or that's really weird, right?
And most people just will.
I think most people.
If you just sat down or talkedto people and said what do you
think of this and that, theother thing with this story?
Yeah, those two things.

(15:59):
I don't know if that's true,you know, but overall it's
probably true, right?
So it's something that is justso ingrained in our society that
Lee Harvey Oswald is the onethat did it, right, that it's
almost like you're, you'reoverlooking the bad qualities.
When you meet somebody for thefirst time, you know, and you're

(16:19):
like oh man, I really like her,you know.
But you know, yeah, yeah, shemight be kind of crazy, but you
know I'm overlooking the thingsI shouldn't be overlooking.

Speaker 1 (16:29):
Well, that's the bias that everyone has and that's
something you got to really becareful of when you're when
you're advocating a position isthat if you show any outright
bias, then that can be used asan excuse and possibly a
justifiable reason to then sayokay, the weight of your
argument is somewhat diminishedbecause you're biased towards

(16:49):
one of the things I'm sure onecould accuse me of that with
UFOs, that I am more inclined tobelieve that they exist than
that they don't.
Actually, that's a silly thingto say.
Of course they exist.
The government has that's partof the thing that has held us
back on that topic specificallyis not advancing the
conversation.
The conversation in the mediais still frequently do you

(17:13):
believe in UFOs?
I think my brother said that tome at one point because we were
chatting about it and he's likewell, do you believe in UFOs?
And I was like that's not aquestion you should even be
asking.
There is no belief in it.
I was like that's not aquestion you should even be
asking.
There is no belief in it.
Ufos, unidentified flyingobjects, something's flying
around.
Your government has come outand said yes, something is
flying.
Now they're downplaying it andtelling you not to worry about

(17:34):
it and calling it drones, butobviously something's going on,
it's what.
That's the question.
And with the JFK, I think weall can, you know, agree that
something went on, somethingfishy by.
You know, the main thing is howcome the documents haven't been

(17:54):
released?
You know we're talking 70 years.
They release them in dribs anddrabs, but there's a core amount
of documents that years agowere cleared for release.
But there's a core amount ofdocuments that years ago were
cleared for release.
And what's funny is that everypresident, both sides, has
pushed off the release of it.
I remember hearing that GeorgeBush Sr pushed off the release

(18:17):
of those files and then, nextthing, you know, it fell into
the Clinton administration.
They pushed off those files andthen you had the George, you
know, w Bush Same thing.
So it's not even a party thing,it's both sides have continuing
.
Biden did it, again pushed it,trump did it too.
I mean, a lot of people said,oh, trump's going to release

(18:38):
everything.
And then the JFK files came upand he agreed to push it off and
push it to the next.
You know, came up and he agreedto push it off and push it to
the next.
You know, whatever, I think.
However, number of years pushesit into the next administration
, right, right.
And then biden did the sameright.
So I think anyone with areasonable mind could say all
right, there's something theydon't want to get out?
Well, it's in it's, it's um.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
It makes me wonder.
Only because Biden, I think itwas 2023, they released-.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
Another bucket of, yeah, a bunch of them.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
But there's still 4,000 something documents still
haven't been released.

Speaker 1 (19:12):
And what argument could you use for not releasing
those documents?
I mean a lot of times.
What argument is used is well,we can't give up sources and
methods because that's what'sclassified.
I think a lot of people don'tunderstand with classification
because that's what's classified.
I think a lot of people don'tunderstand with classification.
Legally, the government is notsupposed to classify things to
prevent embarrassment to eitheritself or other entities they're

(19:33):
not supposed to cover.
You know, use classification tohide misdeeds.
The only legal use ofclassification for the
government is to hide sourcesand hide methods.
Classification for thegovernment is to hide sources
and hide methods.

Speaker 2 (19:48):
So, reasonably speaking, there probably aren't
any sources or methods from 70years ago that are still
relevant in today's world, right?
Well, even that, that mighteven be a red herring, that kind
of argument, only because Ibelieve, chris, that when that,

(20:10):
I don't want to say excuse, butI'll use the word excuse because
I can't think of another one.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
Justification maybe.

Speaker 2 (20:16):
Justification.
That's better.
It sounds so much nicer.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
More syllables is always better.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah, but justification sounds more
serious, right?
So when that justification ismade regarding UAPs, ufos,
whatever is the acronym of theday, I can say, oh, okay, I can
see the national securityargument.
Oh, definitely Right, becausewe're dealing with something

(20:44):
maybe that is being seen, thatis in the air, right, and there
was a time and it still, I think, is true that a lot of times
it's on the coasts.
So, yeah, all right, how you'redetecting them, that could be
national security, a whole bunchof things, right, right you?

Speaker 1 (21:03):
don't want to give the enemy, and the enemy being
you know, let's just say Russia,china that's considered our
enemies right, or anyone, any,any.
You don't want to let them knowthe full extent of you know
what our sensors pick up andwhat they don't.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
Right.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
You don't want to let them know.
You know, necessarilyeverywhere where we can detect
stuff Right, necessarilyeverywhere where we can detect
stuff right.
Um, you know there have beencases where we've detected stuff
but we pretended we haven't inorder to.
So you know, I know there's astory with world war ii where
the allies broke um the axis.
The nazis had a code and webroke it, but we didn't let them

(21:39):
know we broke it, so somethings were allowed to happen
that shouldn't have been allowed, because if we had intervened,
it would have given away that wecracked the code because
they're waiting for the biggerprize, kind of bigger prize,
right.
So you're right, there is ajustification to that.
But again, 70 years on the jfkone.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
There's nothing.
I here's where I have a problemwith that being used as an
excuse.
I just think there needs to besome explanation, because who
are you talking to?
Where were you gettinginformation from?
If your investigation led youto a lone gunman, right, that

(22:24):
was living in the area anddecided by himself to shoot the
president, what were you doingand where were you going to get
information and why were yougoing there?
If it's a national securitythreat Because there's not many
crimes that I can think of Iunderstand this is a high, high
crime, but at the end of the dayit's a murder, right, and if

(22:47):
it's just one person alone, it'snot a conspiracy, so you're
dealing with one person.
There's probably noinvestigation in this country
that dealt with one personkilling someone.
That is talked about asnational security.
Now, I understand it's thepresident, right.
But if we're to believe thestory as we're told, lee Harvey

(23:07):
Oswald had no national securityinterests with JFK.
He was just a nut that decidedto kill him.
They've never told us anythingthat there was some kind of that
.
Lee Harvey Oswald was somehowon the same level as JFK and
figuring things out.

Speaker 1 (23:23):
No, but they were odd .
Again, it's the facts that makethat build the case right.
There's a lot of facts and I'mnot a scholar on the JFK
assassination.
I you know this was one ofthose things I looked into years
ago.
I read some things on it.
There's been some recentdevelopments but I haven't
really followed it and I'd loveto do a show at some point, you

(23:46):
know, on jfk and really go deepinto into the newer information.
But there were some reallyinteresting connections with
with oswald and rush.
They like there were connectivetissue there that he wasn't
just a random nut who had noconnection to anything else and
just decide, hey, I'm going toshoot, like hinkley was who shot
ray.
I agree with you know, hinkley,what seems to have been an

(24:08):
individual who had a weirdobsession with jody foster and
decided to shoot reagan, uh, toget her attention, which is just
weird anyway.
Um, it doesn't seem to be aconspiracy around that right, it
didn't kill him.
First of all, he survived and inyou know, um hinkley actually
went to jail and he's out now,which blows my mind.

(24:29):
Yeah, you know, he shot apresident and he got out from
some years back, but that'sdifferent than oswald, who there
was other connections with cubaand with russia.
It was a weird mix of things.
This guy wasn't just rando.
And the fact that he was killedright after and oh yeah, and we

(24:51):
all have watched tv shows whereI mean I think we all have
where that something like thathappens, where an assassination
takes place and then theyimmediately kill the assassin
because that that that cuts thechain right, right, hey, this
guy shot.
Well, let's get some answersfrom that guy who shot him.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
Oh, he's dead now you're not getting those answers
oh, um, jeffrey epsteincommitted suicide.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
You know the number of suicides, not you know,
oswald was obviously shot, butthe number of suicides in
different conspiracy theories,just that alone.
We should look at some thingsand go, wow, do the number of
suicides match up with thenumbers of just in general, if
you're taking the generalpopulation and suicides, does it

(25:34):
match?
I don't know, I've never donethat, I've never done that
calculation, but it'd be aninteresting calculation to do
and say, okay, here's thegeneral population and how many
people commit suicide.
Now here the pool of peoplefrom these various conspiracies
and the number of people withinthat who have committed suicide.
Are those numbers higher thanthe general population?
Oh, or are they in line?

Speaker 2 (25:56):
What is the number?
Okay, you take any large groupof?

Speaker 1 (25:58):
that's a good question.
I wouldn't even know how tobegin looking at that, but
that's a direction to come atand say, okay, does this break
the mold of what we're used toseeing, as far as people killing
themselves both at the sametime fuel additional conspiracy

(26:29):
and, let's face it, people dooften do that and cause harm to
themselves and others withoutany grand reason.
It's just I don't know.
It seems to me that in the caseof a lot of whistleblowers and
things like that I don't knowthe number of them that go that
end up, you know, at their ownhand ending their life it's just

(26:50):
enough to go.
All right, that's weird, likethe second you know Boeing
whistleblower.
I don't know, it's just true.

Speaker 2 (26:57):
He didn't kill himself.

Speaker 1 (26:58):
He died of a sudden disease that came on suddenly to
a very healthy person and diedin a short period of time.
So yes it's, it's a differentdeath than the first one.
I don't know what he died of,but it's just weird because
that's another one that was likecausing them.
One could say, like we talkedabout the first one, right, if

(27:19):
that, look, if the firstwhistleblower really did do that
to himself, it was veryfortunate for Boeing, like very
fortunate, like if they hadnothing to do with it.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
It was just a fortunate thing.
Let's say it this way it'sfortunate for Boeing in terms of
the case.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
Well, in that right.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
If the whistleblower is to be believed.
I don't want to make like weknow that this happened, but I
agree with you.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
I mean his, his information he was given was not
, was not it?

Speaker 2 (27:48):
was not in question.
I want to talk about thatBoeing thing, but what I meant
on the Oswald one, Chris, wasthat the story the government
tells us has nothing to do withanything.
National security, Nothing,right?
So okay, the first question Iwould have is let's just say

(28:11):
they were investigatingsomething that could have
national security implications,right?
Why were you even doing it?
Like, what were the reasons foryou to even be investigating
those things?
I think the American publicdeserves that answer.
Why were you looking intothings that could be national

(28:31):
security?
If your official story is, hewas this nut that just wanted to
shoot the president?
That's the question.

Speaker 1 (28:39):
What were you wasting all these resources on if those
turned up to nothing, those whowere involved in the warren
commission.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
You know some have said, you know the the they
already had decided what theresult was going to be and then
fit the facts to to there's aninteresting phone call and when
we do our episode I'm going toget the uh audio of it.
We can play it, right, andbecause the Warren Commission
was some judges and somesenators right, it was all

(29:08):
Washington people and I'll getthe name.
But there was one of thesenators that was very friendly
with Lyndon Johnson, right, sothey record all the phone calls
in and out of the White House,right?
So he calls Lyndon Johnson justafter one of the meetings and
they're talking.
They're like hey, what's goingon?
He says yeah, they keep tryingto say it was just one guy that

(29:38):
killed Kennedy or the presidentor whatever.
However they said it.
And Lyndon Johnson says, well,I don't believe that.
Right, he says me either, itcouldn't have been just one
person.
This is, I'm kind ofparaphrasing.
But that's how it went.
And they said well, you know,they're just going to push this
forward and I don't really thinkthere's anything we can do
except agree with it.
This is the.
That was the conversation,right.

(30:00):
So even back then, the guy thatbecame the president is saying
yeah.
So even back then, the guy thatbecame the president is saying
yeah, I don't really believe itwas just one guy, right, and
that has a lot of weight to meand some parts of that of the
overall conspiracy theory, evenlink Lyndon.

Speaker 1 (30:17):
Johnson with yes, I don't know about that he's made
and things that he said aboutthe Kennedy boys.
It's an interesting time, toofor this one to circle back
around only because Robert FKennedy Jr Right Is out there
doing his thing.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
And I think you can go on different trails on the
Kennedy thing, because therewere a lot of people that didn't
like them.

Speaker 1 (30:37):
Right when I say them , john, and Robert, they didn't
like the family.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
But there's people I don't like.
That doesn't mean I'm involvedin a conspiracy to kill them,
right.
So I think sometimes you getoff the trail.
But and I know, yeah, there's,there is some.
There is stories that John FKennedy and Johnson didn't get
along um, famously Um, and thatJohnson was pretty much used by

(31:03):
Kennedy to carry certain partsof the country, this whole, but
that's always.
But I mean, there's one thingabout not getting along with
somebody and trying to do that?

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Yeah, I don't think it's not getting along.
I think if, if there were aconspiracy to to kill him and a
conspiracy to kill his brother,which both, both of those
gentlemen, another guy killed bya lone crazy guy.
Right, it's not because of that,it's.
It's usually boils down tomoneyed interests or, oh right,

(31:30):
ever.
And there's a lot of evidence.
A lot of evidence, includingwhat rfk jr will will frequently
say, is that you know his dadand his uncle both had said at
various times that they wereuncomfortable with the degree of
autonomy that the intelligenceagencies had.

(31:52):
And it was the Bay of Pigs andthere was a whole bunch of stuff
with Cuba that basically ourgovernment, an arm of our
government, was doing dirtythings in other parts of the
world that the president foundout about and said I shut some
of them down and said no, no, no, no, we don't operate like this
and I need to do, I need toclean up the whole intelligence

(32:12):
agency.
They have way too much autonomyto do things that aren't in,
that are in their interest, thenational interest in their mind,
but are not really things theyshould be doing.
Oh, and then they get killed,you know.
And so that's the theory, theoverall theory, and I think it's
supported by most people wholook into this, say the CIA or

(32:33):
elements thereof, when you talkabout an organization as big as
the government.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
The largest employer in the world.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
Exactly.
Most of us are familiar withlarger organizations,
organizations maybe we work for,a big company or whatever or
even a small organization.
Any amount of people together,there always ends up being
subgroups, right, I mean, I'veanyone listening to this if
they're involved in anyorganization that has a lot of
people, whether it be you knowscouts, whether it be, uh, you

(33:07):
know scouts, whether it be youknow a trade organization,
there's always going to be theselittle pockets.
There's going to be you knowthis group over here who and you
know sometimes, most times thatthey are able to gel and
everything's good, but that'sjust what happens.
So, obviously, with anorganization as big as the
United States government, thereare going to be pockets.
There are going to be thisgroup over here who tries to get

(33:28):
their agenda through, but theyhave to do it in a way.
They can't just ham-fisted doit because they have to operate
in the parameters of theorganization.
But that's how it works.
And, believing that a subset ofthe intelligence agency, we
know our intelligence agencieshave done dirty things Like

(33:48):
historical they're not eventhey're not conspiracies,
they're historical facts.
Oh, we threw over thisgovernment.

Speaker 2 (33:53):
Well, they were at one time.

Speaker 1 (33:59):
Well, of course, right, the number of times like
the United States has overthrowndemocratic governments and
supported non-democratic for ourown purposes, like, should make
us pause and go wait a second.
We always hear, oh, we're thechampions of liberty and

(34:20):
democracy around the world, andit's like, well, all right, you
say that, but our actions don'tseem to support that.
But if you never looked intothose things, like, I could even
hear people out there hearingthis right now Well, you're
crazy.
That stuff doesn't happen.
Yeah, it does, it's, it's, it'sin the history, like, it's not
a thing that's, uh, argued aboutat this point.

(34:42):
Right, it's ignored, ignore thefacts that don't line up with
your view of things, andignorance is a weapon.
Oh, I don't know about that.
You always hear that when, ifyou ever watch any government
spokespeople talk, I haven'tseen that.
I haven't seen that report.
Oh, there was a report thatcame out that said A, b, c and D

(35:02):
.
These are damning things.
Can you answer them?
Well, I haven't seen the actualreport, so I can't speak to it.

Speaker 2 (35:12):
Ignorance is a weapon you, you, you know and and um,
just for uh informationalpurposes.
In the last um the most recentyear I could find, uh 2018.
Out of all the deaths in theUnited States in 2018, 1.7% were
suicides.
1.7%, so not a not a highnumber.
Now it could be still be a lot,but in comparison to how many

(35:36):
deaths there?

Speaker 1 (35:37):
are.
So the question would be in thenumbers.
I think to, to, to look at, andI don't again, I don't even
know how one would do this, butif you took all the conspiracies
where people have ended theirexistence and it looks shady,

(35:57):
does that number like?
Is it higher than one point?
Like, is it oh God, that'sweird.
You know, 5% of thoseinvestigating this particular
conspiracy let's just say UFOsright, 5% of people involved in
that have ended up dead.
Okay, that's way over the 1.7%of the general population.

(36:17):
Is it proof of anything?
No, it's a data point, rightand back.
You know we're talking aboutfacts and conclusions, right?
one of the things that dr garynolan he's a uh, immune
immunologist at stanford and heuh he is involved in in the ufo
topic and one of the things thathe preaches frequently is don't

(36:39):
argue conclusions, becauseconclusions are way too easy to
poke a hole in.
Establish the facts.
The facts that cannot be, youknow, cannot be countermanaged,
right, these are the facts.
Like I get you to say this istrue.
Right, this fact is true.
Yes, okay, at that point it'sno longer on me to give you a

(37:04):
conclusion.
It's once I've proved to youthat the data is real, it's on
all of us, or both of us, topostulate what could account for
those facts.
And when you build a certaincase, like the UFO case, if you
take the established facts andagain, you know, if you haven't

(37:27):
looked into them, you're goingto say well, who says those are
facts?
I don't know, man, I can't tellyou that, like these are, there
are certain things that areevents that actually happen,
things that are actually onrecord.
Well, I mean these are thingsthat actually happen.
Now you can try to ascribe areason to them or like a source.
Like objects flew over theCapitol in 1952.

(37:49):
That is like it happened.
It was reported, it wasdetected.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
What those objects were.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
And what their intent was.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
It's not.
Nobody can say for sure, but Ithink what you're trying to say
maybe you are, but kind of anice way of doing it is, when
you build those facts right,there is no other conclusion to
come to, and if there is, let'stalk about it and how does it

(38:18):
work with this set of facts?
So sometimes that's a good wayof discussing it too, because
somebody that says, well, youknow, I don't believe it could
be that, Okay then what do youthink it could be and how does
that work with these facts?
Yes, and the only way that says, well, I don't believe it could
be that, Okay then what do youthink it could be and how?

Speaker 1 (38:30):
does that work with these facts?
Yes, and the only way thatworks.
The only way that works is whenyou can agree to the fact.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
Oh yeah, Other than that, it's just.

Speaker 1 (38:40):
I frequently will notice that people are arguing
past each other because oneperson is arguing facts, the
other person is arguingconclusions, and they're just
talking past each other becauseone person is arguing facts, the
other person is arguingconclusions and they're just
talking past each other becausethey're not talking about the
same thing.
You have to set the parameter.
What are we discussing?
What are the ground rules?
What you know?

(39:01):
Where do we agree?
Do we agree on this part?
Okay, we agree on this.
Let's move up a level.
Do we agree on this?
Find the the exact place whereyou disagree and then between
those disagreements.
Ufos is usually the thing andthey don't have any of the basic

(39:36):
history, like they don't knowabout it.
But yet they'll argue with thisfervor about how it's all
nonsense or all this or all that, and it's like, well, all right
, that's your take, but don'ttell me your gut feeling with
established facts that we canboth agree on.
Can you offer up an explanationthat fits the facts?

(40:00):
And a lot of times they'll saywell, yeah, us tech, right.
Secret us tech, that obviouslyfits the facts.
Secret US tech, that obviouslyfits the facts.
Okay, it fits the facts, Iguess, if you start at 2004.
That's what will frequently bedone.
To cap the subject, I noticedwith the UFO subject in

(40:20):
particular, what the governmenthas cleverly done is they've
cleverly made it seem like we'regoing to start talking about
this as of 2004,.
The Nimitz let's talk about theNimitz and everything that
happened after the Nimitz,because if you talk about that,

(40:42):
then you can build a case thatit's secret.
Us tech Doesn't really hold upwhen you really start to look at
the details.
But you could at least make thecase.
You could say, oh well, 2004,.
I mean, it's believable that weor Russia or China could have
technology like this?
Okay, if you go from 2004.
Now let's go back to the 60s orthe 50s or the 40s.

(41:07):
Now your pool of possibleanswers is going to get smaller.
If you're talking about the 40sand 50s, you really can't argue
that it's Chinese technology,china did not have any
technology in the 40s and 50s.

Speaker 2 (41:22):
Well, you know, that whole argument too I have a hard
time with.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
Only because, if that kind of technology exists,
right generally technology hardto believe it would come out in
some way yeah, it would besomewhere.

Speaker 2 (41:41):
And um, let's just say russia right now fighting
ukraine.
Why would they not usesomething like that?

Speaker 1 (41:46):
right, that's that's the question, right, I mean
something like that.
Right, that's the questionright.
I mean Something at least.
There's the thing about if it'sour technology, us secret
technology why, why would weever fly that around our own
active service people and nottell them?
Like that's a recipe fordisaster.

(42:07):
You're flying some top secrettech that you haven't told
anyone about around wherethey're doing active air drills,
so that doesn't make sense.
And then you say, well, itcould be Russia or China or some
other agency.
Okay, so that's an issue, right.
I mean, if a foreign nation isflying stuff in our protected

(42:29):
airspace, it's kind of important.
Have you ever heard aresolution to any of those
things?
Like, we found out it wasRussia, we found out it was no,
just drop it.
But if you circle back aroundyou say, well, what happened
with that?
Like it's important.
If you take the whole of allthe UFO data, all of it, you

(42:50):
could certainly make an argumentthat it's not aliens, that it's
not this or not that, but man,it's very hard to find something
that fits all the facts.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
Well, I'll tell you, with that Nimitz thing, the part
that boggles my mind is if it'swell, first of all, we don't
know what that is, so it'sperfectly, I think, okay for
anyone to call that a ufo andanyone that even doesn't believe
in ufos, right?
I mean, I'm kind of doing myair quotes here, right?

(43:24):
even if you don't really believein that I guess that's what
you'd call it, because you don'tknow what it is Like.
What else do you call it Right?
So my thing always was okay,this is off the coast of
California, right?
Okay, where did it come from?
Because if that thing could flyfrom China, oh my God, how did

(43:47):
it make it all the way over here?
Right, there was no.
Is there a carrier aroundsomewhere From China?
Oh my God, how did it make itall the way over here?
There was no.
Is there a carrier aroundsomewhere?
How did this thing get to whereit is?

Speaker 1 (43:55):
That would be, to me, the national security thing and
those are those bits of factsthat when you have them it makes
the difference, but when youdon't have them, it's easy to
believe an alternative, likeI'll hear people very seriously
say well, that's probably, youknow, foreign tech spying on us.
First of all, why aren't youmore freaked out by that?
Right, you think that we'd getpretty freaked out by that.

(44:16):
But OK, it's foreign techspying.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Well, we don't get freaked out by TikTok spying on
us From where, though?

Speaker 1 (44:22):
From where, like you said?
Where is this coming from?
Our best fighter jets can onlygo up for so long they need to
refuel, like they cannot flyendlessly for hours upon hours,
upon hours.
They have to be fueled.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
As far as we know, we don't have anything like like
was being seen by our fightersright right, as far as we know,
not even close, though.

Speaker 1 (44:46):
no, you know, one of the interesting thing is
military technology, they say,is generally I've heard it
everywhere from 30 years to 50years ahead of commercial Right.
The military has it 30 to 50years before everybody else has
it.

Speaker 2 (45:03):
And they have it in a way that's not a marketable way
of doing it.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
Well, remember when we first heard about drones
Right, when did we first reallystart hearing about drones?
Kind of during the iraq war,right.
That was kind of when dronesyeah, I was gonna say the 90s,
yeah, right, but they were likemilitary, like there was no
individuals who could afford anykind of small drone technology
no, like you see all the timenow, like literally, I see it on
the beach constantly.
I'll see people just setting upand having their little thing

(45:28):
and I mean you can, drones are acouple hundred bucks, well, you
know, the one thing that I'vealways really enjoyed was the
Bob Lazar thing, and I likedthat when I was younger.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
But the part that always blew my mind was when he
put it.
He said he had this technology,put his hand on something,
right.
And so how many years later?
Right.
And so eventually it was said,yeah, okay, we did have that
technology.
They came out and said it right, and it was a long time.
The.
The first type of thing I couldthink of like that was when you
, you could use your, yourthumbprint on your iphone, right

(46:05):
, and that was within the last10 years, right.
So you're talking again 30, 40years later.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
The biometrics stuff I remember in the 90s I was at.
I don't even remember what theshows I was at.
I want to say they were sci-fishows when I used to work that
circuit and selling swords backin the day.
That's a whole story in itself.
But there was a booth there ofsome technology company that was

(46:31):
setting up early biometricslike voice-activated stuff.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
Do you ever hold the sword up and just yell out loud
that there can be only one?
Oh yeah, I'm frequently goingto tell people that they look
like Highlander if they get asword.

Speaker 1 (46:44):
Yeah, this was back when you could do that.
But what I'm saying is in the90s there was this company there
that was marketing very basicbiometric voice-activated stuff.
That was cutting edge.
It didn't work very well.
I think I played around with it.
I think I may have gotten ademo or something, I don't know.
I have vague memories of thisand it didn't work.
It didn't work great, but yearslater it's become a very

(47:06):
standard thing.
So you can believe now thatthere are drones out and you can
say, ok, you go back 20, 30, 40years, all right, I could see
the military having like theearly versions of this, and now,
some years later, we all haveit.
But some of this technologythat has seemed to been
demonstrated, we've never hadanything even close like not

(47:30):
even close.
And the interesting thing aboutthe Tic Tac is Dave Fravor said
I have not then or now seen anytechnology that measures up to
this.
And the reason why thatstatement is important is
because his current job althoughthey haven't disclosed what it
is, they've said that hiscurrent job has him interacting

(47:53):
with the most cutting edge oftechnology, flying technology
that we have, so he's aware ofwhat's in the realm of
possibility.
He's in, he's aware of what'seven militarily possible and he
says outright the technologythat I saw demonstrated in 2004

(48:14):
in front of two of our aircrafts, with four individuals watching
it.
He said this under oath in thecongressional hearings.
You can go watch those.
I still cannot believe peopledon't pay more attention to that
.
It's crazy.
That technology.
I have not seen anything thenor now that even comes close.
So think about that.
That was 2004, 20 years ago,and he's working in what is the

(48:39):
cutting edge of technology.
I've seen nothing like that.
That should cause us to pauseand go oh, that's something
Right.
In the very least, we shouldsay, okay, let's accept that
it's our technology.
Well, damn it.
Why aren't we seeing thebenefits of any of that?
I get you want to use it formilitary first, but if there's

(49:00):
vehicles that can exert thatkind of energy, don't you think
that would have a big effect onour energy crisis?
You know, maybe burning oil, Imean.
However those vehicles operate,they certainly don't burn gas.

Speaker 2 (49:14):
Well, you know, if we had technology like that,
wouldn't it be easier thanspending all this money on
Ukraine?
Just send one of these over andwe could take care of
everything.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
You know, there was a story I heard once.
Care of everything.
You know, there was a story Iheard once.
It might be apocryphal, but I Iremember hearing it and it and
it, um, I thought it wasinteresting.
There was somebody and again Idon't know the full details on
this, so I I'm paraphrasing, butit's along the idea that it was
possible that the roman empirecould have invented the
combustible motor, becauseduring the Roman Empire there

(49:49):
was an inventor of some sortthat he proposed something to
water the fields.
That was akin to a motor.
It wasn't quite there, but itwas on the path that if that had
been developed, you couldeasily see that evolving into
what we later became combustibleengines.

(50:10):
Okay, right, but the idea wasscrapped because they, the roman
empire, had lots of slaves andone of the things they used
slaves for was to water thefields.
And they said, well, if wereplace, then we're we're
freeing them up, that That'llcause more chance of rebellion

(50:32):
because we're taking away theirproductive activity.
And now idleness is that idea.
So it was shelved and it wasforgotten and moved on right.
And I think about how would ourworld been different if the
Romans, or soon after, hadinvented the combustible motor.
Like what?

(50:52):
What would have spun out fromthat?
That would have changedeverything about the way our
world works right.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
Well, it's interesting.
You said go ahead, I'll let yougo.

Speaker 1 (51:02):
But what I'm just going to say is they shelved it
not because it wasn't't viable,but because it was a disruption
to the current day system.
It was too disruptive and thatis a very much a you know, a
corollary of of the ufo issue inmy mind is that if, if

(51:24):
technology exists, yeah, thatcan generate that much energy
and take a note, calculationshave been done by the data of
that Tic Tac how much energy itwould have had need to expel to
do the things that it did, andthe calculations are the amount
of energy it would have taken ismore than all of the nuclear

(51:49):
power plants on earth generate.
Really, it's so massive amountof power that that's the
mind-boggling part like no, wewouldn't have enough energy to
do that.
It just wouldn't work.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
So obviously it's not burning gas right now, does it
have to be energy in terms of umusing, like when we send a
rocket to space, it's energythat is being used as a
countermeasure to the forces ofgravity and the atmosphere.
I mean, is there a calculationthat can be used to make?

Speaker 1 (52:28):
those maneuvers, that's the calculation that
they're using, is if it's usingthe same physics that we are, we
couldn't do it Now taking thatoff things.
Maybe it's using somethingdifferent.
I happen to think in a lot ofthe talk is gravity.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
You know it's a simple fact and that's again
something bob lazar talked aboutand I know I know he's a he's a
very divisive and I know he islooked at because there are
things in his life where you say, oh my god, this guy's wacky
right, but there's certainthings that he said back then
that have come true.

(53:06):
So he right, and we talkedabout it a little bit.
That cone of blue thing, thisguy in 1980, whatever was saying
I'm reverse engineering ufos.
Basically that's his whole.

Speaker 1 (53:16):
That's his whole story the way he talked about
how they operated, the way hetalked about how now he's saying
now?

Speaker 2 (53:21):
now cone of blue says well, we had a program, but you
know nothing.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
Well, the cone of blue.
Those are documents thatrecently were released.
It was a program that was neveractually.
It was a proposal.
It never actually became aprogram.
It was supposed to be what osap, and that was the program that
um became atip.
That was.
That was the program thatevolved into where lou elzondo
came from.
But the next iteration of thatwhen that kind of got the plug

(53:46):
got pulled on that in 2012, Ibelieve the next iteration of
that program was this cone ofblue thing in which they were
going to take, uh, capturednon-earth vehicles or something,
the aerial vehicles that theyknew to be out there.
One of the things I actuallyhave the some of the documents

(54:07):
here oh, you do.
And what I think is interestingis that one of the things it
says in the opening is it's likethe intent is to locate oh, I'm
trying to find where that saysit.
It was such a good quote fromit that was really kind of like
we know to exist in the halls ofsomewhere in our government.

(54:28):
We know to exist in the hallsof in in somewhere in our
government.
We know to exist this materialand this is going to do it and
everybody signed up on it.
It's like oh, yeah, yeah, let's, let's do it.
And then they couldn't get thematerial, and so that the excuse
they'll use is well, theprogram was scrubbed because
they, they there was no materialto be found.
And the implication is oh, itdidn't exist.

(54:48):
And my thought is nobodydevelops a full plan for
something that doesn't exist.
Show me the governmentdocuments where they plan to
breed unicorns and they did thiswhole plan where they where
they came up with a study abouthow they were going to breed
unicorns.
And and then they.
You know what?
Unicorns don't exist, damn itwe spent all this we spent all

(55:09):
this time making this, thisprogram we were hoping they did
exist, right, we, we you don'tdo that yeah uh, somebody told
me that right that unicornsmight exist, right?

Speaker 2 (55:22):
so we decided to um put together this entire
government program to disprovethat.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
It's just idiotic, exactly and so.
But it's a very easy thing tosay.
It's like oh well, we dumped itbecause it the stuff didn't
exist.
No, the reason why it seems tohave been dumped is because they
couldn't get their hands on it.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
Well, here's the thing, right, hey, there's a guy
, or there's more than one guyor woman.
They say they worked in thisplace that does reverse
engineering of UFOs.
That's baloney.
You know what is this?
This is just crackpot stuff,just crackpot.
Years go by, hey, what aboutnow?
Come on now, right?

(56:03):
Then, well, hey, look, we justrealized we had a program, or
else we are.
There's some, there are aspectsof the government that say
there was a program, and then Ithink it's the dod that said
there was a program, that it,but it never went anywhere.
And then the, the, the um, whois it?
The other group you just saidsaid it was just a thought of a

(56:26):
program.
All right, why are you eventelling us this?
Right, like what is this?

Speaker 1 (56:30):
I think.
I think it was released.
Uh, actually, my understandingis it released early that this,
this document, this was notsupposed to come out.
Now, this was a mistake thatthis was released.
2036 mistakes and there's a lotof.
But they're using it, as youknow.
What's a very typical trick, umarrow, which is the all-domain
anomaly resolution office rightset up by the Pentagon.

(56:51):
They just came out with theirhistorical UFO report where that
headline of the report isbasically there's nothing to all
this.
It's Blue Book again.
It's basically saying don'tworry about it.
Saying don't worry about ityeah, some small percentage of

(57:13):
events cannot be explained, butwe're confident that if we had
more data we could solve them.
So the unsolved ones are justbecause we don't have enough
data.
But that was in the heading ofthe summary of the report.
If you actually read the report, it was like two to 5%,
something like that.
There was still a decentpercentage of ones that you know
no new amount of data was goingto get you.

(57:34):
The Tic Tac one made no attemptto explain it.
Really, what the the umcriticisms of that arrow report
were was that they made a lot ofclaims but they didn't show
their work.
Well, we disproved this one andwe disproved this one and we
disproved this one.
Okay, can you show us how you?
Oh, we disproved this one andwe disproved this one and we
disproved this one.
Ok, can you show us how?
Oh, we can't show you how wedid that, but we did, don't
worry about it, we disproved it.
There's still a smallpercentage that's not disproven,

(57:55):
but they're not important.
Move on, and that's the thing is, is that most people, most
media, most they don't read thereport.
They reported on what theheadline said.
They read the summary and theysaid and that's where all the
headlines is.
You know, government reportsays there's no evidence of
that's what they always say.
No evidence of alien, which isanother red herring, right, is

(58:16):
if you use a specific word andthen say, oh, it's not that,
then you invalidate the wholething.
So, is there evidence of aliensvisiting?
No, there's no evidence ofaliens from space visiting.
What if they're not from space?
You could conceivably say no,there's no evidence of it.

(58:37):
You said evidence of aliensfrom space, there's no evidence
of that.
There's evidence of somethingelse.
But you know something likethat.
Even though the legislation theUAP Disclosure Act of 2023 used
the term non-human intelligence.
They never use that term whenthey're debunking it.

(59:10):
They'll just say aliens, spacealiens, because again you can be
, you know, you know that trick.
Right, that's probably a commonWell, because there, use the
right word you can say there'sno evidence that you know that I
did this particular thing andit's like, yeah, but you did
this other thing and there'sevidence of that, and they both
get to the same point.
But you're trying to get usnarrow on that, to say there's

(59:31):
no evidence of this particularthing.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
Therefore, we can take it all Well, because there
is evidence, if you look at itin a certain light, right?
So the Nimitz issue with theway that that tic-tac could
maneuver itself it's either thatyou know that technology exists
for that or that if you do haveno reason to believe that that

(59:58):
technology exists amongst humans, then it has to be a non-human
technology.
So that's the dance around.

Speaker 1 (01:00:05):
Yeah, I mean non-human is the best way to say
it, because we don't know.
When you say space alien,you're automatically denoting
origin, you're saying it's fromspace we don't know that I mean,
and that's the thing is a fromspace.
We don't know that I mean, andthat's the thing is, a lot of
people don't realize that thereare other options, like when
they mention ufos, they'll say,oh, space aliens, there are

(01:00:27):
other options, like what?
And most people don't realizethat there are other discussions
.
And I'm just telling you what'sdiscussed and this is like
discussed among governmentpeople, which is bizarre.
They'll discuss things likeultra-terrestrials, meaning like
somebody who's been here longerthan us.
They talk interdimensional, butthat's kind of like a red

(01:00:51):
herring, because most people whosay interdimensional, people
who know physics, kind of rolltheir eyes and say that's a
meaningless term.
People who say interdimensional,people who know physics, kind
of roll their eyes and saythat's a meaningless term.
You know, um, alternatedimensions could be some aspect
of travel, but the idea of itbeing like from another
dimension, most people say that,but they don't really
understand what it means.
So it's kind of a meaninglessterm.
But you know there's.

(01:01:11):
There's other options timetravel, that's another one
that's been thrown out there.
That this is not.
Some of these things are usfrom the distant future coming
back for some purpose.
Maybe they'll warn us, you'dthink.
If they well, I don't know, andif you go through all the
history, of UFOs.

Speaker 2 (01:01:30):
Well, listen, let's say it's us.
I love this theory called theSilurian if I'm saying it
correctly theory.
If you've ever heard this, youprobably thought of it or heard
about it in a different way.
Maybe I'm not saying itcorrectly Silurian
S-I-L-U-R-I-A-N.
What's the basis of it?
The whole thing is that theplanet of Earth has regenerated

(01:01:54):
itself over and over again.
So it's kind of interesting interms of you talked about the
Romans if they built an engineor this.
There are countless.
Under the theory is there arecountless civilizations that
have been on this planet.
We don't know about thembecause there have been
cataclysmic events that havehappened and pretty much wiped

(01:02:16):
everything out, and then so manyyears later, the humans pretty
much just start over again,right, right.
And so that theory has alwaysbeen kind of fun to me, because
it's almost like this alternatehistory kind of theory that you
know, like if you, if the Romans, did look into the engine, how
would our civilization have beenRight?
So if you think of it that way,you say, oh man, what if

(01:02:38):
100,000 years ago that's whathappened and there was all this
technology that they had by acertain time of their
civilization that another onedidn't, because they went a
different way on the same branch.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
It's a fascinating topic and it's a conspiracy
theory.
Of course, Not really aconspiracy theory, but they lump
it in.

Speaker 2 (01:02:56):
It's an alternate.

Speaker 1 (01:02:56):
Yeah, they lumped that in with conspiracy theories
, even though there's noconspiracy theory.

Speaker 2 (01:02:59):
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's like no, there's
no conspiracy, it's just atheory of history.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
Right.
But it's funny how there'll be,like you know, academics who
will tell you in no uncertainterms that's impossible, because
we know 100%, we know this, weknow that didn't happen, right.
I just saw an article about andI don't even quite understand
this they discovered some oceanunder the crust of our current

(01:03:25):
ocean that has more water.
It's like in the earth, it'sanother layer of ocean, but they
say it has more liquid than ourocean.
Is that true?
Than our ocean?
Like it's that true?
The articles I've been readinghave been saying like this sub
ocean that they just discoveredunder the crust, like we're

(01:03:45):
still discovering things aboutour own planet that we don't
know.
Like it's.
It's very.
It's arrogant for people toalways kind of indicate oh, we
have it all figured out.
Like now, we know that.
We know.
Like, when they make these boldassertions like the earth is

(01:04:09):
this many billions of years old,and they say that with such
certainty, I don't know enoughabout those particular topics to
to, you know, refute them, butsomething about it smells weird.
Like really, how do you knowthat?
But you didn't know about thesub-ocean.
Like, how can you say that,like you are, like you are sure

(01:04:32):
that the, the universe is thisold or you know.
And they'll say, well know, wedetect these rays and they move
at certain speeds and likethey'll give you this calm,
convoluted explanation and wetrust the experts and we say,
okay, sounds, sounds right.
The one thing they don't wantyou to do is question the
experts, cause when you questionpeople they get upset.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
Yeah, but you know that's the only way you get to
anything is by questioning.
That's the basis of democracy,that's the basis of human nature
.

Speaker 1 (01:05:04):
Questions should not be feared.
If there's an answer, right.
Only the questions that don'thave an answer are the ones you
want to avoid.
Like if someone asks you a veryuncomfortable question and you
don't want to answer it.
But if someone asks you, youknow, hey, what'd you watch on
TV last night?
You're like, oh, I'll tell youbecause it's not that serious,

(01:05:27):
but it's funny how certainquestions we frown on, like
there's certain things if youquestion it, even if you make
good nature, just like, hey, I'mcurious about how this
particular thing oh, don'tquestion that, you're a nut- I
actually that's.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
I love that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
What if so?

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
here's that story.
You were talking about Massiveocean discovered beneath the
Earth's crust containing morewater than on the surface.
Yeah, Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
What's the source of that?
What's the?
Oh?
It's all over the place.

Speaker 2 (01:05:50):
I'm just clicking on one of them, and this one is
called Indy 100.
This one is called Indy 100.
I don't know, it's a new, it'sIndian, out of Indianapolis.
It's in a rock calledRingwoodite.
It's like a sponge soaking upwater, so it's a mixture of the

(01:06:11):
rock with water together, butit's crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
And the fact that it has more liquid.
What does it say?

Speaker 2 (01:06:18):
More liquid than all the oceans combined on the
planet.
Think about that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:21):
And it's under the surface.
Yeah, it's like a subsurface,right.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
I wonder how big it is.
Well, the question, I guess youknow, and that leads itself to
this whole thing that we're justwe're talking about right now.
You know what if, what, if,whatever life um has something
to do with this Nimitz thing.
Let's say, right, what if,right, what if that is just um,
somehow um related to thattheory.

(01:06:50):
I'm talking to the hypothesisof the Silurian hypothesis, that
there was a civilization, butthat civilization flourished
differently than us and maybeit's a different, even different
, kind of life form.
I mean, we know that ondifferent planets, we know that

(01:07:11):
on different planets and on thisplanet there's just all
different phases of life.
So what if one phase just kindof kind of just grew faster than
another phase?
Right?
So we're seeing now.
I don't know if you saw thisstory recently, maybe between
five and ten years ago I'd haveto look it up, I don't have it

(01:07:32):
in front of me but they startednoticing certain apes, like
orangutans, were fishing withspears, using tools yeah, using
tools and they just found anorangutan that was treating a
wound With medicine, with aplant medicine yeah yeah, right.
And you know, some people saywell, yeah, okay, well, no,

(01:07:53):
they've never seen this before,never seen that before, okay, so
Like that's it, that's it'seither they've always missed it,
or there is evolution happeningright in front of us, right?

Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
it's interesting stuff, it's and and you know the
, the conventional wisdom isthat we evolved from primates,
right, like you said, maybethere was a time when something,
I mean the thought process, iswhat if life evolved from a
different source to a certainpoint and then the slate was

(01:08:26):
wiped clean?
I mean, we talked about this inour ancient civilization
discussion, but basically peopleunderestimate how much trauma
this planet has been in throughits existence.
You know just like things havehappened that theoretically
could have wiped the planetclean.
One of the one of the littlefacts that I always find

(01:08:47):
interesting and it's just Idon't one is I don't know how
they know this, but I've heardavi lobe kind of throw this off
today.
He's the um harvard um, hisastrophysicist or astronomer.
But he basically said that Marsseems to have had an atmosphere
and lost its atmosphere aroundthe same time that Earth gained

(01:09:13):
its atmosphere.
Now, my first question is whatdo you mean around the same time
?
Because, like you don't know,oh, this was on February 25th
and this was on February 26thits atmosphere.
Now, my first question is whatdo you mean around the same time
?
Because, like you don't knowright, this was on february 25th
and this was on february 26thwhen they say real time.
I think it's within the realm of, like you're talking like
thousands, possibly tens ofthousands of years, and when
you're looking at time, that biga small, you know it.
So I'd love to know that and Ialso love to know how they know

(01:09:35):
that, because he said it as ifit were like an established
scientific, like whoa scienceknows that this happened and I
always question that, like, howdo you know?
Like you say you know, or areyou just?
Is that the conclusion thatyou've come from, from the facts
that you've gathered thus far,gathered thus far?

(01:10:00):
And if there are facts missing,does that change the equation?
For instance, does theexistence of this sub uh, what
do they call it?
Sub um ground what?
There's a word for it?
uh subterranean ocean thatexists below our ocean that we
did not know about until justnow.
Right, this is a new story.
Nobody had an inkling this.
Does this change any of theother calculations?
Do you know, like when theywere calculating the age of the

(01:10:22):
earth, or the age of this or the?

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
age of that they say well, some people are writing
that it can upend things.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
Supposedly the Webb telescope right.
The data that's coming in fromthe Webb telescope is upending
some long-held beliefs Like whatAbout the age of the question?
And it's not completelyupending but it's adding
complications to things like theBig Bang Theory and the age of
the universe and things likethat, because have you always

(01:10:49):
had a problem with the Big BangTheory.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
I have.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
You mean the show or the-?

Speaker 2 (01:10:54):
No, the show was all right although I don't know if I
watched all the seasons or not.
The theory in general the no,the show was all right, although
I don't know if I watched allthe seasons or not.
The theory in general thetheory in general yeah, Only
because no one can say, well,okay, it started in this little
whatever right, I just don'tunderstand.

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
Where did?

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
that little, whatever come from.

Speaker 1 (01:11:13):
I don't understand how they can say that, right,
they'll say everything.

Speaker 2 (01:11:19):
you know, the theory is that we all develop from one
single cell organism, right,right, well, where did that
single cell organism come from?
Yeah, like, where did it start?
Like, I'd love to know.
If you have a theory, it should.
It should at least contain howit originated.
In telling me that it allstarted and I know it's the

(01:11:42):
conventional way of looking atit, but you know, our
discussions are supposed to beabout things that are not
conventional.
But so, if you look at it thatway and say, okay, we all
started in this little speck ofwhatever, and then there was an
explosion that created somehowthis, this thing that is still
expanding, right, okay, I have alittle bit of a difficulty with

(01:12:03):
that myself, but I'm not, I'mnot one of, I'm not a big brain,
um, physicist.
So, um, and I, I can still say,okay, this thing, what, what
was going on right before itblew up?
What was happening?
What was going on right beforeit blew up?
What was happening?
What was going on?
Why was it in existence?
Why was there anything existing?

Speaker 1 (01:12:23):
The problem is is that with a lot of this stuff,
you got to have a certaingrounding in certain sciences to
really be able to discuss itintelligently.
Right, and I'm not claimingwe're doing that- here I mean
you and I, we have a surfaceknowledge of a lot of things.
And that surface knowledge wetalk, and I'm sure there are
some statements we make that anexpert in the matter would roll
their eyes at and go.

(01:12:43):
You know, that's kind of makeme go.
Well, there's other thingswe've spoken about with
certainty that have proven false.
So doesn't that ruin your trackrecord and I'm talking like the

(01:13:09):
human species, right, likethere was a point where people
would have argued and put you todeath if you argued otherwise
that everything revolved aroundthe earth, that the sun revolved
around the earth, because theyhad evidence and later that was
proven to be false and they saidwell, we're so much far
technologically now than we werethen, and that is true, but we

(01:13:35):
just discovered an ocean, a subocean under on our planet that
we've been on the whole time,that we claim to know everything
about and we claim that thereare no secrets to the planet.
And they talk about things inthe molten core, like we know
everything that's going on inthe core of the earth and how it
all works.
Oh wait, there's this oceanthat's underneath that has more

(01:13:55):
water what liquid that all ofthe earth oceans combined.
We didn't know about it.
Does that not change thecalculus of things?
Like a lot has to right.
Doesn't it change the mass ofthe planet, like if they
calculate what the mass of earthwould be and use that in some
other way to say, well, if themass is this, then this, that
and the other thing, and it allconnects together, and now it's

(01:14:17):
well, you got that wrong becausethere's an ocean that you
didn't know about and all thisis liquid in here changes
everything, I think do we justthrow out everything, like, oh
well, we gotta start over Ithink that we, um scientifically
, as a human race, have a prettygood understanding about why
things are the way they areright now decent.
Why?

Speaker 2 (01:14:37):
we.
We interact with the world theway we do.
I think they have a goodunderstanding of that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:43):
Certainly more than they did.
Yeah Well, they don't haveanything about gravity.

Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
No, no, no, gravity's not one of them what I'm saying
is they know why it works.

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
They don't know what it is.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
They don't know what it is, but they know why it
works, they.
So we have an understanding, aworking understanding of the
universe, of the universe, yeah,and especially of our planet,
right.
But I think that, and I thinkif you look it up at all, you'll
see for yourself that we don'treally have anything except

(01:15:13):
working theories as to why itworks.
We don't.
We don't know why there was abig.
Nobody knows why they havetheories.
This is why it happened,supposedly, and they'll even
tell you it's a hypothesis orit's an educated guess.

(01:15:35):
Nobody knows why.
And I think that if we actuallystarted thinking, hey, wait a
minute, if they don't know anyof this stuff, if you're going
to build a house, you got tohave your foundation done first,
right.
So if your foundation is donefaulty, the rest of it's going
to be faulty, right.
So if you say, well, allscientific arguments are based

(01:16:07):
on this theory.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
Well, if you don't know that theory is correct,
everything else that we'reproposing off of it is off an
incorrect assumption.
Right, all facts have to beincluded and if you omit some
facts, that changes theconclusion.
Whether you omit the facts bydeception or ignorance doesn't
matter.
Whether you omit the facts bydeception or ignorance doesn't
matter.
If you know and this happensfrequently, like I also think
there's an issue that peoplelike simplicity, right,

(01:16:29):
simplicity is generally I do,you know, everybody does it
prefers simplicity to complexity, because simplicity is
obviously easier to understand,right?
So we tend to want to attributesingle causes to things like
what caused b well, that wouldbe a, a cause b.
Well, it caused c, b cause c.

(01:16:50):
When in reality it's like thingsare caused by multiple things,
like it's not one.
An example I heard used in acourt setting or the idea of
this is a car accident.
Three cars come to anintersection and crash into each
other.
Right Now, you're trying tofind the reason those cars

(01:17:14):
crashed.
So you're trying to find theone.
What caused the crash?
What is the one thing thatcaused the crash?
Because that's our immediatethought.
Something caused this crash.
Could have been multiple things.
One car could have beensomebody who was not paying
attention.
They were chatting on the phoneand they were speeding.
Could have been someone else inthe other car was trying to
beat that yellow light.
They thought they could beatthat yellow light and this

(01:17:40):
person over here was, you know,was texting.
So the accident wasn't causedby a single thing, it was caused
by multiple things.
That's important, because ifyou try to attribute the cause
to one thing and you run out ofgas and you go okay, you know,
run, I guess.
But like yeah, okay, it's this,this car caused it.
Oh wait, but you know, thensomething breaks down that
argument and then you go, go,well, can't figure it out, you
know it's, it's we.
We like to simplify it so.

(01:18:01):
So, that's to say, you know.
My general theory in a lot ofthis stuff is is that I think we
are convinced that the world ismore figured out than it really
is, and I think that's done tokind of.
You know, unknown is scary, theknown is, you know, comforting,
and I think that's done to kindof.
You know, unknown is scary, theknown is, you know, comforting,

(01:18:22):
and I think I don't know.
I just have this theory.
I'm not saying in all things,I'm not saying to some, you know
, crazy degree.
I just think there are certainareas where there's this
assurance that we have it allfigured out, don't you worry, we
got it.
But they don't.
They have a theory, they havefacts that they've built into a
case.
But again, if they're missingfacts, it changes the whole

(01:18:46):
complexion.
Like, I'm interested, thissub-ocean, what does it change?
What established facts does itput into question?
Now?
And is anyone interested inupsetting the apple cart?
And the answer is like no.
Can you imagine if some factcame out that would would
necessitate them throwing outall of our accumulated

(01:19:06):
assumptions because some keypiece of data came out which
called it all into question?
Do you think that's readilywhat they would do?
Do you think it?
Do you think they'd go?
Oh, you know what?
Um, the theory of this just gotblown out of the water.
Guess we'll have to start.
Or would they find everypossible way to shoot holes in

(01:19:26):
that new fact, to remove it fromthe board?
And the human answer is that'swhat they would do what do you
mean exactly?
well, if there's a fact that,like, like you, have the theory
of let's just take an exampleright, we know this planet
enough to know how long earthhas been around, we'll say with

(01:19:47):
confidence that, because of allthe work we've done and this,
that and the other thing, we cansay with confidence that the
earth is this many billions ofyears old.
We say that with confidence,right.
And then some new piece ofinformation comes out, like the
Webb telescope, and brings somenew data to it which calls that
into question.
Do you think the scientificcommunity will readily embrace

(01:20:07):
that new data and say, well, wegot to throw our whole thing out
and start from scratch?
Or do you think people who areinvested in their theory of how
things are are like?
You know, I don't want mytheory to get thrown out, so I'm
going to poke holes in thosenew facts, so we throw those out

(01:20:27):
.
It's easy to throw out the newfact that disrupts the theory
than it is to draw out the wholetheory, and I think that's just
human nature.
I mean, I think you can seethat on other levels.
It's just human nature.
I mean, I think you can seethat on other levels If somebody
has a firm idea of the waythings are and you introduce a
key fact that will disrupt that.
The first instinct of everyoneis well, how do we remove that

(01:20:50):
fact?
How do we get that?
Oh, it's fake, it's made up,it's crazy, they'll dismiss it.
It's made up, it's crazy,they'll dismiss it.

(01:21:19):
I think people underestimateour human nature to want to deny
reality when it doesn't suitthe reality and we don't like
that to be disrupted.
And I think peoplemisunderstand the degree to
which people will protect theirreality.
And I think it's the problemwith a lot of these conspiracy
theories.
It's quite frankly.
I think a lot of theseconspiracy theories disrupt
people's view of the way thingsare.
Let's take the most obvious oneback to the Kennedy.

(01:21:39):
If the government or a sectionof the government, a section of
the intelligence agency, asection of the CIA, conspired to
some degree to murder a dulyelected president of the United
States, what would that do toeveryone's psyche?

(01:22:02):
As far as the degree to whichour government is like solid
right, I mean it's like well,they could remove a president
and get away with it.
That's crazy.
We don't want to believe thatthere's no world, that we want
to believe that a part of ourgovernment could destroy another
part of our government, thehead of our government, publicly

(01:22:22):
and get away with it, so sayingit's a lone person who had
their own agenda and did it andwe caught them and oh, they got
shot.
Oh, let's put that to bed andjust move on.
It makes everybody feel good,because how many people would
feel good if they found out that, that, that that were true,
that that our government, thatyou know, the cia killed them.

(01:22:43):
You know, let's say that that'sthe, that's the thing, or
another government killed them.
Oh, my god, russia conspiredwith this to kill our president.
Are you kidding me?
Like that's?
That's cannot be denied, youknow, and you can take any
conspiracy, like any of thoseconspiracies.
If they are true, they disruptit's, disrupt everything about

(01:23:08):
what we know.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
Like I said, that's why I keep saying to not tell
people what at least is theaspect that could can be
construed as national security,and the fact that everybody just
says, man, what are you gonnado?

Speaker 1 (01:23:23):
I mean, that people are far too accepting of the
wrong that we see going on andwe see it all the time like we
see things that make us, youknow, I can ask people and go,
you know.
Hey, do you think this aboutwhat goes on in the world?
You know it's right andeverybody goes.
No, it's not.
So do you think this about whatgoes on in the world?
You know it's right andeverybody goes no it's not.

Speaker 2 (01:23:39):
Well, I mean, this isn't a conspiracy, but it kind
of is okay.
But it's current events, right,I'm not going to get into the
wrongs and rights of what'shappening in the
Palestine-Israel thing, right,but the demonstrations that are
happening the protests, whateveryou want to call them at

(01:23:59):
different colleges around thecountry right, I actually think
protests are good.
I think that people should havea right to do that right,
inevitably, and yeah, they'renot breaking any rules.
It's part of the fabric of ourcountry, right?
So I have no problem with it atall.
Right, it's part of the fabricof our country, right?
So I have no problem with it atall.
But I'm noticing interviewslately of some of these students

(01:24:20):
.
They're being interviewed andat least half of them they're
saying now are not students thatare involved.
Right?
So who are these people and whyare they there, right?
I'd like to know.

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
Who are they?
Be careful of what they aresaying, because that is the
problem is that if you watchcable news or conventional news
let's just call it thecommercial media right, You're
getting a picture, but you'renot getting the same picture
that other people are getting.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
I think, because you know what I like looking at when
I'm trying to get a clearerview.
It's not easy, right?
I know?
I know what you're saying.
Everybody has a bias, right?
I'll try looking at a newssource from outside of this
country.
Yeah, it's very instructive,right?
And even like BBC is sayingthat a lot of those kids are not
students but supposedly out ofthe ones?

Speaker 1 (01:25:16):
are they the ones that were arrested in new york,
though?
Yeah, I think they said onlytwo two of them were not
students okay, most of them arestudents, okay, and I think
that's an inconvenient fact thatthey do.

Speaker 2 (01:25:27):
That's one of those inconvenient facts like you
don't want to think that, butbut that's the thing is.

Speaker 1 (01:25:31):
If it's outsiders, I think people can understand that
when you say well, I can saystudents it's like well it's.

Speaker 2 (01:25:40):
I can understand anything, Uh um but?

Speaker 1 (01:25:43):
but what was your point as far as as that is?

Speaker 2 (01:25:45):
for just the fact that that the truth, that you're
not really getting the truth,um, I think my point was that,
um, what exactly you think isthe narrative could have a
different reason to be.
We'll be you next time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 1)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 1)

On Purpose with Jay Shetty